attn FriendlySS

[MercuryLs]

Hey, what's going on. Anyway I read you post about the fastest MM. and I don't know what the fastest one is.
The reason I'm writing is because, I personaly like the Impala SS and tomorrow I have to go test drive one.- Someday I hope to own one. But I do know that Impala SS are rated at 260hp and do not run a 14sec 1/4mile (stock) I have raced against them and driven them before, and I run a 14.7sec 1/4mile.
And my car is a 1994 Mercury Grand Marquis LS w/ a 1998 Mustang Gt 4.6liter v8. And I believe I have 280hp?!!? and also my car weighs 3,661lbs

Impala SS (stock)
260-hp @ 5000RPM
330 lb.-ft. @ 2400RPM
weight- 4,357 lbs


Mercury Marauder (stock)
302-hp @ 5,750 rpm
318 lbs.-ft. @ 4,250 rpm
weight- 4,165 lbs


So unless you are not stock,(which 250hp is below stock) then you do not run a 14s

[LincMercLover]

I'm going to let this one go on the baisis that it is kept factual (like MercuryLs is) and not flammable (lol, is that even right?).

[01 Interceptor]

There was a similar thread like this over on CVN. problem is...not all stock Impala SS's are created equal. There have been fluctuations between cars of the same year, and of close build dates. The problem is that GM's quality control was flawed and therefore caused these discrepancies. I have seen with my own eyes a stock SS run mid-high 14's consistantly. I have also seen one push mid 15's. Mind you both are stock...so it is possible. I don't know what mine runs yet, and the only mod I have done is the intake. Also keep in mind that it has been proven the factory HP ratings were underrated. Where as the MM's HP, as we've all seen is overrated. I like both cars, and I am going to get an MM hopefully in the next 60-90 days. Wish me luck!

[RF Overlord]

Originally posted by 01 Interceptor
Where as the MM's HP, as we've all seen is overrated.

:confused: What do you base this statement on?

[TAF]

Considering a 20% loss from crank...my bone stock Dyno at 2400 clicks would prove that the claimed 302HP 318TQ were not overrated...

Bone Stock – 241.9 RWHP 261.2 RWTQ

[BlackHole]

Originally posted by TAF
Considering a 20% loss from crank...my bone stock Dyno at 2400 clicks would prove that the claimed 302HP 318TQ were not overrated...

Bone Stock – 241.9 RWHP 261.2 RWTQ

Not flaming but Ford Motor Co. uses a 15% loss on most products
in the Aston Martin,Jaguar,Volvo, Land Rover, Ford, Lincoln,Mercury, and Mazda all use this 15% power loss on both FWD and RWD Do not know about AWD and 4 wheel drive.
:confused:

[RCSignals]

Originally posted by BlackHole
Not flaming but Ford Motor Co. uses a 15% loss on most products
in the Aston Martin,Jaguar,Volvo, Land Rover, Ford, Lincoln,Mercury, and Mazda all use this 15% power loss on both FWD and RWD Do not know about AWD and 4 wheel drive.
:confused:

Ford's stated HP is at the crank. How does this 15% loss come into play for RWHP in this discussion?
If you apply a 15% loss to TAFs measured RW figures, wouldn't it give higher HP at the flywheel than calculating a 20% loss?

I think it has been proven that Ford has not overrated the HP of the engine in the Marauder, as posted by TAF.


There have been threads on CVN that used some very questionable, and "out of the hat" figures for calculating the HP loss of the driveline in the Marauder.

[RF Overlord]

Originally posted by RCSignals
If you apply a 15% loss to TAFs measured RW figures, wouldn't it give higher HP at the flywheel than calculating a 20% loss?

No, actually it's the other way 'round...assuming a 15% driveline loss, 302 crank HP would be 257 RWHP...

[looking97233]

Really, who cares this much. Anyway how about a real test? Both cars are production street legal cars intended to be driven on roads, not drag strips. How about a match on a road course? Guess who wins there?

[RF Overlord]

Originally posted by looking97233
Both cars are production street legal cars intended to be driven on roads, not drag strips.

Good point, looking... :D

That's why the only time my car will see a dyno is on May 16th at the FordChip tune-a-thon...all I want is to know that it's tuned the best it can be, I don't care what the actual numbers are...and I don't care whether it runs 14.7 or 15.1 or low 12s...well, it would be NICE to run low 12s... :D

[prchrman]

01 intercept quote: The problem is that GM's quality control was flawed and therefore caused these discrepancies. I have seen with my own eyes a stock SS run mid-high 14's consistantly. I have also seen one push mid 15's. Mind you both are stock...so it is possible.

There have always been some cars that will be stronger than others with the "same" setup...but I have to agree with the statement that there are some big discrepancies with GM...I have personnally seen stock 327-2 barrels out run 327-4 barrels and such...but also seen a stock 71 2 door galaxie (no light car) w/351 C 2 barrel smoke the tires and about anything stock around where I live...there are cars faster than our MMs...no doubt...the SS are probably going to be fun to race because it looks like we are about equal...from what I have heard on this site (including me) alot of us would drive the SS any day of the week...so lets be the adults on the MM site and let people be happy being small minded in their own little ways...you will never convince some people of anything...so us grown ups have fun and some good hearted ribbing with our SSs and MMs...thanks from me to the friendly SS guys...raud on dudes...:up:

[martyo]

Originally posted by RF Overlord
I don't care whether it runs 14.7 or 15.1 or low 12s...well, it would be NICE to run low 12s... :D

RF: Strange that when I spoke to Mary she said that she insisted that "the car MUST be able to get into the 12's." That was her quote not mine! She must be one of the quickest bunnyrunners out there!!

[RCSignals]

Originally posted by RF Overlord
No, actually it's the other way 'round...assuming a 15% driveline loss, 302 crank HP would be 257 RWHP...

Sure, but not in the context of the TAF quote, which seemed to be calculating what the HP at the flywheel was by adding 20% to his measured RWHP.

This is the first time I've seen anywhere that Ford uses 15% loss to calculate RWHP. Since when does ford even state HP at the RW? they do as I understand, dynomometer engines for their HP and TQ at the flywheel.

[Sean]

15% for a manual T-5, 18% is the effective measurement for the 4r70w, 22% for the 4r100, although it is not a strict % reduction. It is actually a formula but i dont remember it.

[BlackHole]

Originally posted by RCSignals


This is the first time I've seen anywhere that Ford uses 15% loss to calculate RWHP. Since when does ford even state HP at the RW? they do as I understand, dynomometer engines for their HP and TQ at the flywheel.

Your right about the Flywheel but most SVT,SVOStangs, Volvo, and Jags. on dynos at least on Dynojets Dynos show a 15% average loss My dads lightning showed a 328 HP 381 Ft lbs yes the HP was above but the Torque was down seen 2 stock 03 Cobras pull a 372 HP 388 Ft Lbs. and the other 377 HP and 363 Ft lbs and thats well above the 390/390 HP/Ft lbs. claims
seen a new 03 S type R Jag roll a 355 HP and Jag claims a 400 HP rating And this was in Huron Ohio with a relitivly new Dyno with I think the owner said less than 125 pulls on it so it was not a worked to death Dynojet. Sorry about the 5 Chapter Essay but just sharing what I've seen with my own eyes.

[Sean]

lol that was hard to read!

[merc406]

Blackhole, the wife is from Huron Ohio, (29 years ago), hows the rebuilding of it coming?
It would be nice if the auto companies when stating their HP#'s told where they are from.

[BlackHole]

Hurons nice the place Big Shot Dynos off Chittenden Rd.

[MercuryLs]

mercury wins!

[the fat bastid]

i cant belive no one mentioned this yet,
ford got into trouble when they overrated the 2001(?) cobra so i dont think they would do that again.

oh, and if someone did mention it then i tuned out and didnt bother reading it

[TripleTransAm]

Originally posted by Sean
15% for a manual T-5, 18% is the effective measurement for the 4r70w, 22% for the 4r100, although it is not a strict % reduction. It is actually a formula but i dont remember it.

Yes, you're right, it's not a blanket percentage value but it does approximate rather nicely.

One thing that many people forget about when considering losses on a driveline is that it's not only the tranny that sucks up power. There's the U-joints, the diff gears, every single friction surface (axle bearings, bushings, etc.). As we discussed earlier, even the tranny gear ratio has an impact on losses.

And here's a surprising one: I've been told the tire/wheel sizes have an impact as well! This was brought to my attention after the media went ape-$#!t over the 1998 LS1 F-bodies and how they dyno'ed BETTER than the LS1 Vettes of the day, even though the Vettes were supposed to put out more power (better exhaust, camshaft, etc.). The claimed reason? The Vette has overall larger wheels and tires. More total diameter means more mass distributed over a larger area, so the moment of inertia is greater as well, resulting in a resistance to spinning up quickly. The MM, with its huge 18 inch wheel and proportionally tall sidewall may also experience this loss.

Personally, I'm starting to use the 20% value when analyzing a MM power curve. However, I've been told some dyno operators can actually provide the actual loss numbers (in hp) by running a secondary test of some sort... perhaps a freewheeling deceleration run?

[MercuryLs]

to correct what I said at my first post- I mean to say 13's like in FriendlySS sig.

[JAL]

My SS is basically stock, runs 14.61.

[RCSignals]

Originally posted by Sean
15% for a manual T-5, 18% is the effective measurement for the 4r70w, 22% for the 4r100, although it is not a strict % reduction. It is actually a formula but i dont remember it.

Sean, I'm curious where those come from.

As TTA said there are many variables in drivetrain loss, and it's very difficult to apply blanket %s.

Even engines of the same type will vary to some degree, especially when new or freshly rebuilt.
Some of the results posted by DR from the tuning sessions show that, although it seems the MM isn't too bad between different cars.

From reading the threads here, I have to agree with the general 20% figure for the MM

[BlackHole]

SVT anyhow after the 99-01 Cobra HP fiasco of less than the 320 HP claim uses a 15% drivetrain loss so Ford in general probably uses the same claims afterall SVT is part of Ford plus the other divisions probably fall in line for this also.