3% loss is much better then any manual shift vehicle. I want one

 

Keep us informed ........... hope it doesn't burn your shop down !!!!

 

Highly impressed with the stock torque #... I agree that they are underrating the engine a bit to come out with larger #s in a year with the same engine...

 

I think we need to have a discussion about wheel versus engine dynos. The problem here isn't that Ford is under or over-rating anything, the problem is the variables in dynomometers and how they're operated.


I will post up SAE wheel HP and torque numbers tomorrow, and I can tell you they're going to be a lot lower than what was shown on that Dynapac dyno, which was evidently configured for flywheel torque and HP...

 

I agree - even though we've discussed it before, the subject should be revisited since it's such a major part of bench-racing!

 

This is very interesting... we dyno'd the new Ford today, no it didn't set the shop on fire - on our Mustang dyno it put down 517 lb-ft consistently at the wheel... 320whp.

That is pretty crazy on a mustang, I stand corrected about my above post. When these things run, they run pretty good stock. I am hoping to dyno a new Cummins when we can get one in here...

-scott

 

now THAT torque seems more realistic. HP is pretty good, torque is...eh...

 

That definately seems more reasonable.

When I drove it I was thinking the HP at the very top of the rev range was pretty good, but short lived. Torque throughout the rev range was not put-you-in-the-seat strong like the 6.7 and LMM Dmax.

I've seen a 2006 5.9L Cummins put like 540rwtq down, this Ford is 20rwtq less than that ( I know all dynos are different, but still...)

Dieselgeek, what kind of numbers do stock LBZ's or 610 5.9Ls put down on your Mustang dyno? And be sure to get a 6.7L on there soon!

 

I haven't had any other diesels on this dyno - but, the DIesel Power guys were *super* cool, I offered them use of my dyno for any testing like this in the future. Told them I wanted to get a new duramax and newest Cummins on there ASAP.


My dyno is *very* difficult, and almost always reads 15% lower than a Dynojet. Sometimes Dynojets seem to give wild, crazy numbers I can't ever explain...

but 520ish torque is nothing to sneeze at on our dyno. I just had a 65 Pontiac GTO in here that made 520hp and 460 wtq, and it runs mid tens in the quarter mile, at 3800 pounds...

-scott

 

274 hp - 630 tq ... This means it's putting at 630tq at 2285 rpms.
320whp - 517 lb/ft tq .. This means it's putting out 517tq at 3251 rpms

How can they be so different? Regardless of which dyno was used or if it was set for flywheel or pavement, you would think both would show peak torque/hp would be at similar rpms, and not a 1000 rpms different.

Is it just that hp and torque might be measured at different rpms?? Even then it still doesn't make sense to me because hp = (tq * rpms)/5252.

 

Those numbers were peaks at different RPMs. I've never seen an engine on our dyno have peak HP and torque at the same RPM.

 

Tonight I'm putting together the raw data, I'll post it up here when I have it ready probably tomorrow,

-scott

 

The 2006-2007 LBZ dmax generally dynos ~310-315hp and ~560-570ft lbs. Some more, some less, thats about average I beleive. Crew cab/short bed LBZ's run low 15's bone stock as an accelleration test...

 

Scott,

Where be the raw data???

Thanks!