how much rwhp & torque does the V6 have again??

Discussion in '2005 - 2014 Specific V6 Tech' started by pwhite05, Apr 28, 2005.


  1. CANTONRACER

    CANTONRACER Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2000
    Messages:
    885
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Cuyahoga Falls, Akron & Canton, OH
    I talked to my bud and he said it made either 208 or 210 rwhp, but right around 220 rwtq. Some cars do that.

    The major thing the guy liked about the tune was getting rid of this "drive by wire" garbage...I guess it was no longer mushy and ran a lot better.

    My wife's 99 V6 M5 put down 167 rwhp/196 rwtq in 3rd gear, so it might have hit 170 rwhp/200 rwtq back when it was new 1:1...but it was in 3rd gear in th 1/4 so that is the power I was curious it was making. It had a K&N and syn oil.
    #21
  2. NJstangpilot

    NJstangpilot New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2005
    Messages:
    101
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Bloomfield, NJ
    Cantonracer,

    If I'm reading this thread and the indicated values correctly, your friends (stock) V6 with just a SCT tune, is making at least 245 HP at the crank.

    I arrived at this value by taking the worst case scenario, 208 rwhp and only 15% driveline power loss. 208rwhp/0.85 = 244.7 HP at the crank. If the drivetrain losses were greater (18%, 20%) then the crank value would be higher, as would the result if 210rwhp were used. 210rwhp @ 18% loss would be 256 crank HP!

    This seems like a ton of power from just a tune (+35-46 HP...)! I knew there was a lot of untapped/corked-up power and potential in this engine but didn't realize the stock tune was so far from optimal.

    I guess just plugging up the V6 exhaust wasn't enough to make the GT numbers stand out so much, Ford had to screw up the tune as well. Seems like Ford could have gotten 260 HP out of this motor with a decent exhaust and tune job. But, how many people will pay an extra $5000 for 40 HP (not to mention the insurance costs).

    Cantonracer, please find out more specifics about your friend's tune job (for example: what fuel is required? 93 octane I assume). Is the car truly stock otherwise? (no CAI, K&N, muffler, etc) Auto or manual trans? Has the torque curve shifted much? (less low-rpm tq, more high-rpm tq). Did he do a Pre-tune dyno for baseline reference? Is this the most "radical" tune supplied by SCT?

    Thanks for sharing this information with us Stangnet members. Much appreciated!!!!
    #22
  3. 300bhp/ton

    300bhp/ton New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2005
    Messages:
    530
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    England
    There is no standard for this as it is FAR FAR FAR to inaccurate.

    Loss through drivetrain will vary from make to model even down to individual cars. The same car infact can produce different rwhp numbers without any tuning or mods due entirly to inaccurate measurements.

    Drivetrain loss is not a static figure, but nor is it a fixed %. The theory would follow the more power produced the more loss but the % would probably drop, e.g.

    15% of 200bhp = 30bhp loss
    10% of 500bhp = 50bhp loss

    Higher bhp engines loss is a lower % but more bhp.

    If follows the other way too, the drive line must require X amount of power to rotate it, but if you hooked it upto a 5hp lawn mower engine the 15% rule would be riduculas as it might not have enough power to actually turn the drivetrain in the first place.

    Many people use the 15% for ease of use (automatics lose more so say 20% and 4wd with an auto maybe 25%+). So to give an estimate:

    This calculation is an easy way of doing it.
    210bhp x .85 = 178.5rwhp

    However rolling road dyno's will never give accurate results, if you dyno the same car 5 times in a row you may get upto 15rwhp variance, and not in any particular order, some say heat soak causes a loss of power but other people then get better numbers after each pull even though the car has got hotter.

    Use rwhp only ever as a GUIDE which could easiily be 10-15% wrong in either direction. The tyres and tyre pressures will affect the reults and they have nothing to do with the power the engien is producing.
    #23
  4. fazm83

    fazm83 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2005
    Messages:
    758
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    phoenix, arizona
    Dont forget that these cars are UNDER rated. Stock they are probably pushin between 225-235 at the crank. How else do you think an automatic v6 car that weighs almost 2 tons (3550?) can run a 15 flat quarter mile? (yes its the torque, which is underrated too).

    Im hopin to get around 250rwhp with doing headers,high flow cats, intake, exhaust and a tune.
    #24
  5. 300bhp/ton

    300bhp/ton New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2005
    Messages:
    530
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    England
    A couple of points?

    1. What ton? your car weighs 1600kg which is 1.6 tons?

    2. I'm not saying they arn't underated, but this is the 1st time since the launch of the car that I have seen it claimed.

    3. As for a 15's ET, well using a performance calculator, 3550lbs and 210bhp it gives an ET of 14.9 @ 91mph. I know these are not alway accurate, but allowing for a slight error 15's with 210bhp is very feasable.

    So underated, well I think this is WISHFUL thinking. Is there more power available, yes. 250rwhp? Well thats about 300bhp crank, so 90 HP from those mods will be tuff, not impossible but unlikly.
    #25
  6. fazm83

    fazm83 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2005
    Messages:
    758
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    phoenix, arizona
    Those track calculators are never accurate. They dont account for tire size, tire type, one legged or posi traction, # of gears, gear ratios, etc etc.

    And i said almost 2 tons (3550 weight, plus driver, im 195, plus anything else you might have in your car, like a passanger). That brings it just under 2 tons (4000 lbs).

    If these cars are putting down 191 at the wheels stock, even with only a 15% drivetrain loss (which is most likely has a 20%) you are lookin at about 10-15hp that it is underrated.

    As for getting an extra 60rwhp, thats not that hard. Tunes and intakes alone are getting in the 20's. JBA headers claim 20-25rwhp with just their headers. Combine that with a full exhaust and high flow cats, i think you can get another 15.
    #26
  7. CANTONRACER

    CANTONRACER Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2000
    Messages:
    885
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Cuyahoga Falls, Akron & Canton, OH
    Track calculators work pretty well for most vehicles...including Mustangs. Now wher online track calcs fail is vehicles that make alot of torque and shift low.

    Take my Lightning...weighs 4800 lbs...dynoed 404 SAE rwhp...but 497 SAE rwtq...shift @ 5000 rpm...horrible aerodynamics, huge rearend, massive rotation resistance(62 lb rims/tires)...

    Should my truck run 12.5's@111 mph? Under 5252 rpm, your torque pushes you down the track.

    Your car does not weigh almost 4000 lbs. If I had to guess, I bet in full street trim your in the 3200-3300 lb range..if that.

    Drivetrain loss is a somewhat constant...as proven over and over again by guys the engine dyno their combos and then chasis dyno the identical combos. Rule of thumb, 10%-12% manual, 15%-20% automatic. While you might say how so, the guys making 800 rwhp are running a drivetrain that is substantially beefier(heavier) than the guys making 300 rwhp.

    Also, dyno #'s really should not be used like if so and so makes more power, he must be faster. That is so far from the truth. I have seen cars that make less power beat cars making more with the better combination winning.

    My younger brother has a 71 Nova, big block Chevy, made 442 rwhp, 530 rwtq on a dyno. Cars weighs 3300 lbs...but it runs 10.6's@131 mph in street trim. Good combination is the key because there are an army of guys making a lot more weighing the same running a lot slower.
    #27
  8. fazm83

    fazm83 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2005
    Messages:
    758
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    phoenix, arizona
    The mustang weight without a driver is about 3400 lbs. With a driver (me) weighs around 3600 lbs. a Corvette weighs 3200 lbs and it is considerably lighter than the mustang. Thats fact.
    And now you are arguing a different point, i know torque is what gives you power down the track, which is why i said that a 210 hp car runnin 15 flat is good, because it has so much torque. Unlike an RSX which has similiar horsepower, has much less torque, less weight, and 6 speed manual, is a MUCH slower car.
    #28
  9. CANTONRACER

    CANTONRACER Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2000
    Messages:
    885
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Cuyahoga Falls, Akron & Canton, OH
    I would really get your car weighed at a scale before you tell anyone.."That's fact". Not a flame, but that only makes sense eh?

    A car that is rated at 210/240 that weighs 3200-3300 lbs should run 15.0's-15.1's@92-93 mph in the 1/4.

    An RSX is a poor example becasue that is an entirely different type of setup...high winding, close gearing, etc....a fairer example would be a 3.8 V6 F-body were 200/225 from the factory.
    #29
  10. fazm83

    fazm83 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2005
    Messages:
    758
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    phoenix, arizona
    That would be a good example, and i believe they are 15.8 cars with a manual, and low to mid 16's with an automatic.

    I wasnt comparing the cars, i was just agreeing with you about the torque of a car.

    I looked it up and they said the mustang curb weight (believe that means fluids filled?) is 3300. So with me and all my junk in the trunk, is probably around 3550 (i weigh 195). The automatic version weighs about 50 lbs more.
    #30
  11. j0nkatz

    j0nkatz New Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2005
    Messages:
    39
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I dynoed my bone stock V6 at 199rwhp.
    #31
  12. fazm83

    fazm83 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2005
    Messages:
    758
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    phoenix, arizona
    thats pretty good, 5% more than the other one i saw. Like i said, my matco tooler said they vary up to 10%
    #32
  13. CANTONRACER

    CANTONRACER Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2000
    Messages:
    885
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Cuyahoga Falls, Akron & Canton, OH
    199 rwhp is not to shabby...got a dyno graph?

    As for the car and mods...I dug up some more information. It had a MMR? cai and a Mac muffler.

    fazm83 - It is not uncommon for 3.8 f-bods to run very low 15's and f-body's are generally heavier.
    #33
  14. fazm83

    fazm83 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2005
    Messages:
    758
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    phoenix, arizona
    Not uncommon? I would say its happened, but i wouldnt call it not uncommon. Low 15's would be the exception to the rule. Just like 03 04 cobras run mid to high 12's stock, ive seen a guy at a local track run 12.39 bone stock.
    #34
  15. fazm83

    fazm83 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2005
    Messages:
    758
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    phoenix, arizona
    Im Going to try to work a deal with a local shop here (we dont have a dyno at my shop) to see what kind of deal i can get on getting a custom tune for my car. They have a brand new $40,000 electromagnetic dyno. Suppose to be extremely accurate.
    #35
  16. CANTONRACER

    CANTONRACER Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2000
    Messages:
    885
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Cuyahoga Falls, Akron & Canton, OH
    Go to any V6 f-body board...people doing it for years.

    The dyno your referring to is a load-bearing dyno, probably a Mustang dyno. They will plug in your weight to figure out your power...if they are good, they will have a scale.

    But heh, maybe the new Mustang are heavier than the older ones. I figure my wife's 99 V6 to weigh in around 3200 lbs fully loaded with a 200 lb guy in it.
    #36
  17. fazm83

    fazm83 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2005
    Messages:
    758
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    phoenix, arizona
    I believe the new mustangs they said are 150-200 lbs heavier than last year. The main reason for this is they were originally designed to be a vert. So the added weight for the vert is already there, hence why the verts performance numbers are about the same as the coupes.
    #37
  18. fazm83

    fazm83 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2005
    Messages:
    758
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    phoenix, arizona
    The 3800 series camaro v6 does 0-60 in 7.4 and the quarter mile in 15.7 according to most boards and tech articles i have checked on.

    EDIT: The only board i could find where someone ran with a bone stock v6 5 speed was a 15.7 and a 15.8 run.

    http://www.theautochannel.com/vehicles/new/reviews/gap9609.html

    This site shows even worse numbers (so bad i actually dont believe them myself lol)
    #38
  19. CANTONRACER

    CANTONRACER Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2000
    Messages:
    885
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Cuyahoga Falls, Akron & Canton, OH
    #39
  20. fazm83

    fazm83 New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2005
    Messages:
    758
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    phoenix, arizona
    www.camarov6.com is the one where i saw the 15.7 stock run.

    The other one i tried too, but the timeslips page is down.

    EDIT: I made sure i was lookin at the 3.8's and yes the 3.4s are stupid slow. AT my shop i get 3.4 autos in all the time, and when im on the test drive, its like you have to full throttle it just to move, i hate drivin those things around.
    #40

Share This Page