Horse Power

[NEPatsFan]

How much horsepower are you looking to get out of the vehicle with the mods? How much horsepower would you get if you put a supercharger on? How much horsepower does it have stock?
Thanks for any help in advance. I am trying to make a decision on to go with the listed mods or wait and put on a supercharger.

[RF Overlord]

NEPatsFan:

Read your PMs...

[NEPatsFan]

What is a PM?

[RF Overlord]

Private Messages...I've sent you two already...you should get a pop-up window when you log on or change forums, telling you when someone has sent you a PM...

[MM03MOK]

In the right column on the home page, find "Private Messages," right above "Surveys." Click on "Go Read" and you'll find your PMs.

[RF Overlord]

Bunny-lady is right...I forgot you have to enable the pop-up...it's under "Preferences" > "Edit Options"

[NEPatsFan]

OK, got it.

[SergntMac]

Originally posted by NEPatsFan
How much horsepower would you get if you put a supercharger on? How much horsepower does it have stock?

Performance reports differ widely because of dyno design, but the DynoJet machine seems to be the most consistent.

Bone stock power ratings came in at approximately 240 HP and 255 TQ, at the rear wheels.

As you add mods, the numbers go up, but you're probably not going to see more than 275 HP and 300 TQ at the rear wheels from just bolt-on mods. (yes, gear and torque converter are consider bolt-on). I've done all the bolt-ons available at the present time, and I am very happy with the results.

Exactly which mod adds what power is hard to nail down. Just as an example, you may gain 10 HP from underdrive pulleys, I may get 7, or, 12 HP. Things like mileage and weather affect the dyno report. Nonetheless, you will max out at a very pleasing limit.

Supercharging develops well over 400 HP and 450TQ at the rear wheels, but there are different styles of superchargers. Which ever you pick, expect this kind of kick. There are not that many supercharged MMs on the street yet to be more specific and the owners are playing their power cards very close to the chest right now, however, it's all very promising. Hope this helps...

[Menace]

Go for the supercharger if you want real performance for your $$. Compared to the supercharger the other mods are really not worth it, jmo. :burnout:

[drkknight196]

Where does Lincoln-Mercury get off advertising the MM at 302 HP? Where did the other 62 horses run off to?

[Blue Marauder]

Originally posted by drkknight196
Where does Lincoln-Mercury get off advertising the MM at 302 HP? Where did the other 62 horses run off to?

302 HP at the flywheel.

240 HP at the rear wheels.

20% loss in the drivetrain seems rather high.

[SergntMac]

Originally posted by drkknight196
Where does Lincoln-Mercury get off advertising the MM at 302 HP? Where did the other 62 horses run off to?

The horses haven't run off at all, drkknight. Those horses are the power numbers taken at the flywheel in the bench test of the InTech 4V. Our InTech 4V is shared with the Mach I and Aviator, and I think the Mach I advertises 305/320. Where this extra advertised power comes from for the Mach I, is what I'd like to know...

Nonetheless, the important numbers to watch are taken at the rear wheels, and is usually what we express and exchange here.

RW means real wheel, or, real world, take your pick.

The 20% drive line loss is the accepted industry standard, and the MM is right on the money with the 4R70W OEM programming, go figure.

[Bigdogjim]

Remember they are only numbers. the real fun is the fact that you are driving a car other wish they bought.:D :) :P

Nothing in the world like it:)

[MMpridenjoy]

I think the Bigdog nailed it on the nose!

[TripleTransAm]

Originally posted by Blue Marauder

20% loss in the drivetrain seems rather high.


Yes it does. I was always under the impression modern drivetrains (automatics) were able to deliver 85% or better to the rear wheels. So, either 20% is the actual amount of losses, or the MM's 4.6l isn't really developing 302 hp at the crank. Sacrilege, you may cry, but let's not forget Ford hasn't terribly good with crank horsepower estimates in previous years (can anyone say 1999+ Cobra? Not counting the 2003, of course, where they are UNDERrated).

Here's a theory: the 18inch wheels (combined with HIGH profile tires) and a 3.55 rear. Just like taller (lower numerically) gears put greater strain on a drivetrain's acceleration, so does a tall tire. At 18 inches, I was surprised (shocked!) that Mercury didn't go with low profile tires to arrive at the same overall diameter as that of the 16-inch Marquis combo. I think it looks kickass, and probably contributes to overall road comfort. However, they probably make it just a tad harder to accelerate. Add the greater frictional losses of a short (3.55) gear and 20% *may* be realistic.

Don't discount the tire explanation too quickly... when the LS1 was introduced in the F-body for 1998, dyno results showed the regular F-body LS1 (non-Ram Air) outperforming the Vette LS1 on a dyno, even with the Vette's 345hp versus the base LS1's 305hp ratings. One suggestion was the difference in wheel/tire sizes between the two cars.

Of course, this is all guesswork... I know some dyno operators used to be able to tell you exactly how much you lost in your drivetrain (some sort of coastdown run). I'm surprised they don't provide this info by default... if I get my MM dyno'ed some day, I'll be asking for the coast-down losses for sure. That way, you know EXACTLY what your losses are for your car (and you can then obtain your percentage, if you prefer it that way).

[drkknight196]

Thanks for the engineering lesson, Sarge! I knew there were several different ways to measure HP, but wasn't aware that the differences were that drastic! But like they said /\, I enjoy every second of my driving experience! Never had so many people gawking and stopping me to talk about the ride ....... especially when I activate the lights :-)

[SergntMac]

Originally posted by TripleTransAm
I was always under the impression modern drivetrains (automatics) were able to deliver 85% or better to the rear wheels. So, either 20% is the actual amount of losses, or the MM's 4.6l isn't really developing 302 hp at the crank.

I'm remembering the many threads posted here last year about transmission slippage being excessive on a bone stock MM. Many of us, myself included, complained that the tranny was loose and unpredictable until you hammered the throttle. Once we all started chipping our cars, the discussions died away because we resolved it. But, if you can recall this too, or, peek back at the complaints, you'll see that the 20% power train loss we consider normal on this car now, was once expressed at being as high as 25%. After chip dynos produced numbers we could calculate backwards to the factory brag, and that figure is 20% loss.