The PIC WHORE CLUB!!! Knock before you Enter!!!

[Gabe]

Not knocking your car, it's sick. But, how does 652 rwhp equal 812 hp at the crank? That loss ratio is too high...more like mid 700's at most IMO...

Just use the 20% loss for an Auto Tranny and actually that number is like 818 at crank.
It was just rounded off by Brenspeed to the 812 number for the side graphics on it.

Terry

This whole percentage thing is getting crazy ... I don't understand why a car with say 420 crank hp loses 55 hp turning the trans/driveline so it's only 365 hp at the tires (just using average dyno numbers for a stock 5.0 for my example), but somehow that same driveline needs a much higher hp to be driven when the engine gets boosted in power?
How can that transmission/driveshaft/rear-diff require 100 hp to be driven when the car delivers 590 rwhp and only 55hp to be driven the car delivers 365 rwhp?
What changes in the driveline?

I think the loss should be a number not a percentage ... so my stock 420-crank-hp 5.0 puts down about 365 rwhp, that 55 hp loss now added to my boosted 590 rwhp should mean my engine is making roughly 645 crank hp.

Why, no?

 

[FIVE-OH]

This whole percentage thing is getting crazy ... I don't understand why a car with say 420 crank hp loses 55 hp turning the trans/driveline so it's only 365 hp at the tires (just using average dyno numbers for a stock 5.0 for my example), but somehow that same driveline needs a much higher hp to be driven when the engine gets boosted in power?
How can that transmission/driveshaft/rear-diff require 100 hp to be driven when the car delivers 590 rwhp and only 55hp to be driven the car delivers 365 rwhp?
What changes in the driveline?

I think the loss should be a number not a percentage ... so my stock 420-crank-hp 5.0 puts down about 365 rwhp, that 55 hp loss now added to my boosted 590 rwhp should mean my engine is making roughly 645 crank hp.

Why, no?

I see your point, but parasitic loss doesn't work that way...

 

[tigerhonaker]

This whole percentage thing is getting crazy ... I don't understand why a car with say 420 crank hp loses 55 hp turning the trans/driveline so it's only 365 hp at the tires (just using average dyno numbers for a stock 5.0 for my example), but somehow that same driveline needs a much higher hp to be driven when the engine gets boosted in power?
How can that transmission/driveshaft/rear-diff require 100 hp to be driven when the car delivers 590 rwhp and only 55hp to be driven the car delivers 365 rwhp?
What changes in the driveline?

I think the loss should be a number not a percentage ... so my stock 420-crank-hp 5.0 puts down about 365 rwhp, that 55 hp loss now added to my boosted 590 rwhp should mean my engine is making roughly 645 crank hp.

Why, no?

Gabe,

I have no idea about how it actually all works but I do know for a fact the industry in (General) does use,

15% loss for a Manual & 20% loss for the Auto Tranny.

Do I think as an opinion that those percentages are exact ???

No I really doubt that as there are so may variables to take into account with each car.

This is just one of those things people will debate and argue over until probably the end of time.

I just except it and move on as my opinion on this matter like others is not going to change what the industry in general uses.


Terry

 

[FIVE-OH]

Gabe,

I have no idea about how it actually all works but I do know for a fact the industry in (General) does use,

15% loss for a Manual & 20% loss for the Auto Tranny.

Do I think as an opinion that those percentages are exact ???

No I really doubt that as there are so may variables to take into account with each car.

This is just one of those things people will debate and argue over until probably the end of time.

I just except it and move on as my opinion on this matter like others is not going to change what the industry in general uses.


Terry

15 and 20 percent is not the industry standard anymore. The SAE considers 12-13 and 16-17 percent a more accurate number nowadays...varies by car of course.

 

[tigerhonaker]

15 and 20 percent is not the industry standard anymore. The SAE considers 12-13 and 16-17 percent a more accurate number nowadays...varies by car of course.

Things do change over time ...........


Terry

 

[stang281]

 

[cbass]

 

[TenSpeed]

Yes. Yes. Yes.

 

[AlbertD]

Almost done with exterior mods, just need some SHR louvers to finish the look off...

 

[Dark_horse]

 

[stang281]

 

[mustangboss]

nice

 

[sidvicious]

So I met a pretty cool guy today

Congrats! Mr. Saleen is the MAN

 

[Farrell5.0]

nice shot!

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[Renesis07]

 

[TRC51]

Wrong thread... oh well.

 

[neema]

 

[Renesis07]

It took me a moment to figure out your car is not a 13-14.... How did you get those taillights to fit so good? Looks great man!

 

[stang281]

It took me a moment to figure out your car is not a 13-14.... How did you get those taillights to fit so good? Looks great man!

I think he changed the bumper for 13-14.

 

[Boaisy]

Yeah, looks like just a 13-14 bumper swap. If it was still a 10-12 bumper, it would have a gap under the taillights.