2013 Mustang GT HP ????
9/7/13, 05:33 AM
#2
Cobra Member
Join Date: September 16, 2012
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 1,164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
9/8/13, 03:40 AM
#8
While I’m not a big believer in any fixed percentage formula for drive train loss, I have to admit with my dyno runs below it pretty much goes in line with the formula.
I had a CAI and a 93R tune on my 2013 Mustang with the advertised 420 @ crank, it dyno’ed right around 380rwhp on a Dyno Jet dyno. If you take the 18% theory that’s 344.4 RWHP now add the tune factor (30HP) and a little for the CAI (5.6HP) that equals the dyno results of 380 RWHP. So in my case the 18% rule applies “fairly” well.
When I put the supercharger on the car that advertised 625crank HP with the Roush calibration it dyno’ed (on the same dyno that did the run prior to the SC install) at 529 RWHP so that’s a loss of 16.4%
There’s a lot of reading material on the web about this.
I had a CAI and a 93R tune on my 2013 Mustang with the advertised 420 @ crank, it dyno’ed right around 380rwhp on a Dyno Jet dyno. If you take the 18% theory that’s 344.4 RWHP now add the tune factor (30HP) and a little for the CAI (5.6HP) that equals the dyno results of 380 RWHP. So in my case the 18% rule applies “fairly” well.
When I put the supercharger on the car that advertised 625crank HP with the Roush calibration it dyno’ed (on the same dyno that did the run prior to the SC install) at 529 RWHP so that’s a loss of 16.4%
There’s a lot of reading material on the web about this.
Last edited by GT50GO; 9/8/13 at 03:41 AM.
9/8/13, 09:02 PM
#10
Bullitt Member
Join Date: January 24, 2013
Posts: 291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, unless you have access to an engine dyno to measure engine HP, then you have to use a chassis dyno to measure RWHP and convert backwards. I don't know any shop that has an engine dyno.
9/8/13, 09:56 PM
#11
Cobra Member
Join Date: September 16, 2012
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 1,164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Last edited by steven46746; 9/8/13 at 09:58 PM.
9/9/13, 01:39 PM
#13
Cobra Member
Join Date: September 16, 2012
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 1,164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
9/9/13, 04:59 PM
#14
Legacy TMS Member
I was of the understanding that 'bhp' was used interchangeably with the term ''crank horsepower' and that FWHP or RWHP were the terms used to indicate the power at the drive wheels.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horsepo...ake_horsepower
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horsepo...ake_horsepower
9/9/13, 05:15 PM
#15
Cobra Member
Join Date: September 16, 2012
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 1,164
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was of the understanding that 'bhp' was used interchangeably with the term ''crank horsepower' and that FWHP or RWHP were the terms used to indicate the power at the drive wheels.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horsepo...ake_horsepower
9/9/13, 05:35 PM
#16
Bullitt Member
Join Date: January 24, 2013
Posts: 291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brake horsepower (bhp) was basically the same as SAE gross, neither used since about 1972 since nobody runs an automobile engine that way. They measured engine power with no accessories or parts (alternator, transmission, water pump, power steering, etc.) attached to the engine that could rob power. This changed when SAE net came to the table, adding the parts that most engines would normally have attached in real world use. Most people agree that to get comparable values, reduce SAE gross by 20% to get close to SAE net.
Last edited by rriddle3; 9/9/13 at 05:37 PM.
9/9/13, 06:47 PM
#17
Legacy TMS Member
Thanks for.the additional clarification. I still contend that the term is used, perhaps somewhat imprecisely, to refer to hp at the crank. Twin Turbo, I often hear and read your countrymen often use bhp. Any comments?
9/10/13, 07:05 AM
#18
Shelby GT500 Member
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post