stock gen 5 on dyno Hoonigan

[Aevus]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJKoX1wOuxc


so a little over 14% loss on the powertrain?

or actually even more since there's a tune?

[GTS Dean]

Sean Roe did a dyno test on his Gen 2 SCCA T-1 racecar engine. He installed the engine and then did a RWHP test. As best as I can recall, he came up with right around 13%.

[nwa_viper]

Mine was roughly 15% loss stock; 550 rwhp.

[Steve M]

"Yeah, it's all stock. The only thing I have done to it is exhaust and a tune."

So not stock.

I also can't figure out why they made the 3rd pull in 5th gear unless they were trying to manipulate the numbers.

[Aevus]

"Yeah, it's all stock. The only thing I have done to it is exhaust and a tune."

So not stock.

I also can't figure out why they made the 3rd pull in 5th gear unless they were trying to manipulate the numbers.

yeah so either crank horses are overestimated or the powertrain loss is quite massive

[Steve M]

yeah so either crank horses are overestimated or the powertrain loss is quite massive

I didn't see anything unexpected, but maybe I'm missing something.

I'm sure Gen 5s make their rated power under the conditions they were certified. All bets are off out in the real world though...not that I'd consider much of anything on that particular YouTube channel to reflect the real world. They are in the business of peddling content, facts and data be damned.

[Lawineer]

That doesn't look like it's SAE corrected.

14.7% isn't anything out of line, either.

[Steve M]

That doesn't look like it's SAE corrected.

14.7% isn't anything out of line, either.

Upper right hand corner of each says "CF: SAE...", so it does appear that they used SAE as the correction factor (vs. STD). Based on the line, I'd guess they used 5 for smoothing even though they cut that part of the pic off in each screen cap.

[Aevus]

I didn't see anything unexpected, but maybe I'm missing something.

640 bhp stock-stock, right?
then you add a tune and exhaust, so roughly 670 bhp?

it should pull something north of 570, minimum

[Aevus]

it's all very confusing... with all these Porsches and Mclarens that shows dyno numbers almost equal to advertised HP... and then the traction variable.

Bottomline: trap speeds is the only way to know the truth

[StrokerAce]

These web folks are just, well, terrible.

[Old School]

made the 3rd pull in 5th gear

I'd be checking tire date codes before trying this.....

[Lawineer]

I didn't see that it had an exhaust. Is it high flow cats or an actual catback? Because factory mufflers are basically straight pipes.

[ViperGeorge]

When my 9L Extreme was built Prefix put it on an engine dyno and it made exactly 800HP (torque was 759). Mark Jorgensen put the car on a Mustang Dyno after engine installation and it did 650HP to the wheels (torque was 593). This was with the Nth Moto clutch. If my math is right that is an 18.75% drivetrain loss, seems like a lot but Mark believed it was consistent with the engine dyno give the high power ratings. There could have been some tire slip. I don't know off hand what the correction value was on the Mustang Dyno.

[Sniper]

Wow, heads/cam from prefix makes 650 rwhp. That would concern me.

[Pappy]

What was the IAT and how was it controlled?

Edit: I have never had a car pull so much timing with a big horsepower decrease when the IATs start to go up. In a dyno room with limited air flow, it wouldn't surprise me to see IATs well over 100* which will absolutely kill the hp. Heat soak of the IAT sensors is a big problem, regardless of the incoming air temp.

[Docmartin]

Don't forget that it was on 91 too

[Mikey]

When my 9L Extreme was built Prefix put it on an engine dyno and it made exactly 800HP (torque was 759). Mark Jorgensen put the car on a Mustang Dyno after engine installation and it did 650HP to the wheels (torque was 593). This was with the Nth Moto clutch. If my math is right that is an 18.75% drivetrain loss, seems like a lot but Mark believed it was consistent with the engine dyno give the high power ratings. There could have been some tire slip. I don't know off hand what the correction value was on the Mustang Dyno.

I thought mustang dynos tend to read low

[Sniper]

Correct. I just seen mustang dyno for a heads cam car was 630 so dynojet should be at least 650.

[Nth Moto]

Our running average for stock Gen V's is sitting at 533 WHP, and that's including the outliers like some low units registering 499, and one "freak" that made 557. These are 100% stock as baselines on the cars before we build them. Be sure to hone in on me saying there that STOCK Gen V's have varied as much as fifty-eight rear wheel HP, or nearly 10% in other words. This isn't that uncommon in the realm of OEM cars when you look at tolerance stacking of internal parts which can change static compression ratio for instance, then build tolerances for leakdown, then sealing tolerances for used engines over time.

We've tested a LOT of different combinations, including Prefix Head/Cam cars, 9.0L standards, 9.0L X's, other aftermarket companies head/cam cars, etc. To date we've never seen a stock displacement Gen V make over 700 WHP NA on our dyno even though there are plenty of claims out there that it's "normal". The Prefix stuff is very consistent, with the standard displacement head/cam cars usually making right around 635 - 655 WHP, which is a respectable 120 WHP gain on an already rather powerful (OEM) NA engine.

This is all SAE corrected above, but note that chassis dyno's are not held to a singular method for measuring/deriving power across manufacturers. That means that each MFG has their own way of deriving the power figure based on the input information available, and even the MFG's that use the same style of load sensing can choose to calculate those values differently.

Take all the above for whatever it's worth to you, but I assure you that you'll just confuse and mislead yourself trying to draw comparisons from one dyno to another, with different cars, in different climates, etc. There just isn't an accurate enough way to do it, unfortunately. Even basing things off of 1/4 trap speed, something we as a company are very familiar with and usually basing judgment from - is so highly impacted by Density Altitude that it can surely skew your comparison if you're not aware of it.

For us, the true measuring stick is an A to B delta on your car, your engine, same dyno, similar testing method and weather if possible. That's as close as you can get to factual information on the change provided by a set of modifications.

[Arizona Vipers]

These cars never make their rated power. It's impossible as timing etc is pulled so soon
My stock ACR was always 520-550 depending on the wheels I had on it. Also the loss is much lower than 15%, on my race car it's 9%, but has a lightweight Nth motor clutch.

[Lawineer]

Yeah, you'd have to run a car before the coolant and such got up to temp.

And dynos aren't really "power meters" as they are "acceleration meters." Obviously, accelerating the dyno is easier when you have a lighter flywheel and lighter wheels and etc, but that doesn't mean the engine makes any less power. It just takes more power to accelerate a dyno AND another Xlbs of wheel/flywheel/whatever than just a dyno.

[Jack B]

When my 9L Extreme was built Prefix put it on an engine dyno and it made exactly 800HP (torque was 759). Mark Jorgensen put the car on a Mustang Dyno after engine installation and it did 650HP to the wheels (torque was 593). This was with the Nth Moto clutch. If my math is right that is an 18.75% drivetrain loss, seems like a lot but Mark believed it was consistent with the engine dyno give the high power ratings. There could have been some tire slip. I don't know off hand what the correction value was on the Mustang Dyno.

Another huge issue on any chasis dyno is the IAT, on a G5, once it goes north of 90F the pcm is pulling timing.

The Mustang typa dyno will always show lower. Tire slip on the dyno is a real problem on the G5. It is easy to see, redo the plot with mph as the base axis. I have both engine and chasis dyno plots for my car, 12-13% is a good number.

[StrokerAce]

I still am not sold on how it's always a % loss of X. It only takes souch power to move everything. Say it's 15% loss. You would not think that the 75 hp to turn everything at 500 hp would then be 150 HP to turn the same if your engine is 1k HP. Wouldn't imagine to be perfectly linear, of course.

I've had a car of mine on two different dynos and during various weather conditions. In cool winter air with a blown LS3 I made 600 HP. Mid summer in FL with heat soak and dead air pulling all sorts of timing a Mustang Dyno dropped to 525hp.

[Old School]

Our running average for stock Gen V's is sitting at 533 WHP

This sure removes a bunch of speculation.