Explorer horsepower
Question:
I took my ‘97 XLT V6 SOHC and put it on the Dynometer last week. I wanted to get a comparison of rear-wheel horsepower before and after I did some modifications. I believe Ford says I have a 200 hp engine. I had exactly 123 hp to the rear wheels. The mechanic says this is very good for a V6. He has a stock V8 (289 cu. in.) ‘67 Mustang and it put out 125 hp. NOTE–You HAVE to remove the proper fuse to disable the 4WD system so the vehicle won’t pull itself forward off of the Dynometer. In my case, it was fuse #27 (10 amp.) in the interior fuse box by the driver door. Then I installed the following: Cat-back Borla exhaust system. Power Tech computer chip. K&N air injector kit. All three were bought at Performance Products. I took it back to the Dynometer and got 140 hp to the rear wheels! Not bad!! Using algebra (I can hear myself telling my high school math teacher that I’d never use this stuff!) I now have 228 hp. The difference is quite substantial, especially after 30 mph or so…even more when passing on the highway. The Borla is a little noisy, but I listen to my stereo pretty loud anyway. Hope this interests some of you out there. Tony
Response:
Ok, What’s wrong here? Your first pass was 123 hp and your second pass was 140 hp. How do you "cyfer" 228 hp? Perhaps your math teacher was "righter" than you thought!
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I took my ‘97 XLT V6 SOHC and put it on the Dynometer last week. I wanted > to get a comparison of rear-wheel horsepower before and after I did some > modifications. > I believe Ford says I have a 200 hp engine. I had exactly 123 hp to the > rear wheels. The mechanic says this is very good for a V6. He has a stock > V8 (289 cu. in.) ‘67 Mustang and it put out 125 hp. NOTE–You HAVE to > remove the proper fuse to disable the 4WD system so the vehicle won’t pull > itself forward off of the Dynometer. In my case, it was fuse #27 (10 amp.) > in the interior fuse box by the driver door. > Then I installed the following: > Cat-back Borla exhaust system. > Power Tech computer chip. > K&N air injector kit. > All three were bought at Performance Products. > I took it back to the Dynometer and got 140 hp to the rear wheels! Not > bad!! Using algebra (I can hear myself telling my high school math teacher > that I’d never use this stuff!) I now have 228 hp. > The difference is quite substantial, especially after 30 mph or so…even > more when passing on the highway. The Borla is a little noisy, but I listen > to my stereo pretty loud anyway. > Hope this interests some of you out there. > Tony
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I took my ‘97 XLT V6 SOHC and put it on the Dynometer last week. I wanted > to get a comparison of rear-wheel horsepower before and after I did some > modifications. > I believe Ford says I have a 200 hp engine. I had exactly 123 hp to the > rear wheels. The mechanic says this is very good for a V6. He has a stock > V8 (289 cu. in.) ‘67 Mustang and it put out 125 hp. NOTE–You HAVE to > remove the proper fuse to disable the 4WD system so the vehicle won’t pull > itself forward off of the Dynometer. In my case, it was fuse #27 (10 amp.) > in the interior fuse box by the driver door. > Then I installed the following: > Cat-back Borla exhaust system. > Power Tech computer chip. > K&N air injector kit. > All three were bought at Performance Products. > I took it back to the Dynometer and got 140 hp to the rear wheels! Not > bad!! Using algebra (I can hear myself telling my high school math teacher > that I’d never use this stuff!) I now have 228 hp. > The difference is quite substantial, especially after 30 mph or so…even > more when passing on the highway. The Borla is a little noisy, but I listen > to my stereo pretty loud anyway. > Hope this interests some of you out there. > Tony
Actually when I was at Ford’s Allen Park Test lab, I asked them how they run the Control Trac Explorers on their dynos. They pull the connector from the electronic shift solenoid. I tried it last week on my ‘97 SOHC 4×4 during one of our rare rainstorms here in Phoenix, and it did disable my 4×4. It made me realize how much the Control Trac helps even in the rain. The flashing 4×4 lights though every few minutes was annoying. Also, in ‘97 the SOHC was rated at 205 HP so your 123 stock HP means a drivetrane loss of 40%. Using 40%, your engine HP is now 233.3. You got a 13.8% improvement with your bolt-ons. — Robert Before you buy.
Response:
> Ok, What’s wrong here? Your first pass was 123 hp and your second pass was > 140 hp. How do you "cyfer" 228 hp? Perhaps your math teacher was "righter" > than you thought!
The 123 HP he quoted was rear wheel horsepower. He thought that Ford rated the ‘97 SOHC V6 at 200 HP at the flywheel. By using his 123 RWHP and 200 flywheel HP you can determine that his drivetrane loss is 38.5% (123/200=.615, .615*100%=61.5% less HP at his rear wheels = loss of 38.5%). Now that his RWHP is 140, his drivetrane loss won’t change so 140/.615 = 227.6 HP (he rounded to 228 HP). Actually, the SOHC V6 was rated at 205 HP at the flywheel, not 200 HP so using the correct flywheel HP: 123/205=.6, .6*100%=60% less HP at his rear wheels = loss of 40%. 140 HP/.6 = 233.3 HP at his flywheel. — Robert Before you buy.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I took my ‘97 XLT V6 SOHC and put it on the Dynometer last week. I > wanted > to get a comparison of rear-wheel horsepower before and after I did > some > modifications. > I believe Ford says I have a 200 hp engine. I had exactly 123 hp to > the > rear wheels. The mechanic says this is very good for a V6. He has a > stock > V8 (289 cu. in.) ‘67 Mustang and it put out 125 hp. NOTE–You HAVE to > remove the proper fuse to disable the 4WD system so the vehicle won’t > pull > itself forward off of the Dynometer. In my case, it was fuse #27 (10 > amp.) > in the interior fuse box by the driver door. > Then I installed the following: > Cat-back Borla exhaust system. > Power Tech computer chip. > K&N air injector kit. > All three were bought at Performance Products. > I took it back to the Dynometer and got 140 hp to the rear wheels! > Not > bad!! Using algebra (I can hear myself telling my high school math > teacher > that I’d never use this stuff!) I now have 228 hp. > The difference is quite substantial, especially after 30 mph or > so…even > more when passing on the highway. The Borla is a little noisy, but I > listen > to my stereo pretty loud anyway. > Hope this interests some of you out there. > Tony > Actually when I was at Ford’s Allen Park Test lab, I asked them how > they run the Control Trac Explorers on their dynos. They pull the > connector from the electronic shift solenoid. I tried it last week on > my ‘97 SOHC 4×4 during one of our rare rainstorms here in Phoenix, and > it did disable my 4×4. It made me realize how much the Control Trac > helps even in the rain. The flashing 4×4 lights though every few > minutes was annoying. Also, in ‘97 the SOHC was rated at 205 HP so your > 123 stock HP means a drivetrane loss of 40%. Using 40%, your engine HP > is now 233.3. You got a 13.8% improvement with your bolt-ons. > — > Robert
Now that I have thought about it some more, I think we were way off. Logic to me says that since your engine is supposed to make 205 HP at the flywheel, and you measured 123 HP at the rear wheels that your drivetrane and accessories are absorbing 82 HP. Adding more horsepower to your engine won’t change the amount of horsepower your drivetrane and accessories require. Therefore, the 17 HP gain you’ve seen at the rear wheels is probably the same as you would see at the flywheel. Using that approach your engine should be making 222 HP at the flywheel. — Robert Before you buy.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >I took my ‘97 XLT V6 SOHC and put it on the Dynometer last week. I wanted >to get a comparison of rear-wheel horsepower before and after I did some >modifications. >I believe Ford says I have a 200 hp engine. I had exactly 123 hp to the >rear wheels. The mechanic says this is very good for a V6. He has a stock >V8 (289 cu. in.) ‘67 Mustang and it put out 125 hp. NOTE–You HAVE to >remove the proper fuse to disable the 4WD system so the vehicle won’t pull >itself forward off of the Dynometer. In my case, it was fuse #27 (10 amp.) >in the interior fuse box by the driver door. >Then I installed the following: >Cat-back Borla exhaust system. >Power Tech computer chip. >K&N air injector kit. >All three were bought at Performance Products. >I took it back to the Dynometer and got 140 hp to the rear wheels! Not >bad!! Using algebra (I can hear myself telling my high school math teacher >that I’d never use this stuff!) I now have 228 hp. >The difference is quite substantial, especially after 30 mph or so…even >more when passing on the highway. The Borla is a little noisy, but I listen >to my stereo pretty loud anyway. >Hope this interests some of you out there. >Tony
Reading some of the responses is amusing. A "typical" correction for a manual trans car is for 15% driveline loss, while automatics correct with maybe 20%. If the beam or brake reading is low, why would you blame the instrument? Much more likely is that the car puts out less than the factory rated torque. One horsepower is worth about 650 watts, so the theoretical losses with the new mods would be about 57kW. The only way that loss would appear is heat dissipated from your driveline components like the trans, differential, wheel bearings, alternator, PS pump, etc. Were any of those components glowing? So, what kind of dyno were you riding on? I think the DynoJet models are considered most consistent, at least as far as dyno-to-dyno consistency. They don’t depend on any brake elements or the water flow calcs used on water-brake dynos. Some dyno operators will "correct" the readings to SAE standard conditions of sea level and 59F, but only a few are actually operating at that condition in the real world. My house is a good thirty five feet above the beach, so I always correct for that when estimating power. The point here is that the actual reading is not nearly as important as the measurement of the difference after the changes. I’m impressed with those who take the trouble to dyno the cars before and after, proving that the time, money and effort are spent on real performance rather than the perceived seat-of-the-pants "improvements" that are often merely the result of a thinner wallet. :-) The G-Analyst is an interesting do-it-yourself performance tool, one that is valuable for quantifying performance changes. Now out of production, the common and simple replacement is the G-Tech meter sold commonly for about $125. It offers similar performance, but only measures acceleration and doesn’t do any data logging as the G-Analyst did. Tools like this take the error out of 0-60 and 60-100 measurements, and are a godd investment for the casual tuner. Anybody done their own before-and-after dyno readings, changing only the air cleaner element? Dirty vs. new. vs K&N? I have a myth I need to debunk… dr bob
Response:
Great, but how about the torque?
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I took my ‘97 XLT V6 SOHC and put it on the Dynometer last week. I wanted > to get a comparison of rear-wheel horsepower before and after I did some > modifications. > I believe Ford says I have a 200 hp engine. I had exactly 123 hp to the > rear wheels. The mechanic says this is very good for a V6. He has a stock > V8 (289 cu. in.) ‘67 Mustang and it put out 125 hp. NOTE–You HAVE to > remove the proper fuse to disable the 4WD system so the vehicle won’t pull > itself forward off of the Dynometer. In my case, it was fuse #27 (10 amp.) > in the interior fuse box by the driver door. > Then I installed the following: > Cat-back Borla exhaust system. > Power Tech computer chip. > K&N air injector kit. > All three were bought at Performance Products. > I took it back to the Dynometer and got 140 hp to the rear wheels! Not > bad!! Using algebra (I can hear myself telling my high school math teacher > that I’d never use this stuff!) I now have 228 hp. > The difference is quite substantial, especially after 30 mph or so…even > more when passing on the highway. The Borla is a little noisy, but I listen > to my stereo pretty loud anyway. > Hope this interests some of you out there. > Tony
Response:
> The G-Analyst is an interesting do-it-yourself performance tool, one > that is valuable for quantifying performance changes. Now out of > production, the common and simple replacement is the G-Tech meter sold > commonly for about $125. It offers similar performance, but only > measures acceleration and doesn’t do any data logging as the G-Analyst > did. Tools like this take the error out of 0-60 and 60-100 > measurements, and are a godd investment for the casual tuner.
The G-Tech isn’t nearly as repeatable as taking it to the track or dyno. I have a G-Tech and can get differences of .5 seconds from one run to the next on the G-Tech. It also tends to run a few tenths quicker than 1/4 mile times at the track. The worst thing about it is trying to find a place to use it without risking a ticket. > Anybody done their own before-and-after dyno readings, changing only > the air cleaner element? Dirty vs. new. vs K&N? I have a myth I need > to debunk…
Several people around here are trying to get enough people to go in and rent out a dyno shop here locally. If we can get enough people, we will have a dyno shop at our disposal for an entire Saturday. If it happens, I’ll bring my stock air-filter (with about 5k on it) and stock air-box and swap out my K&N Fuel Injection Performance Kit. I doubt if I’ll see much change though since I will be getting a lot more hot air into my engine via the FIPK than I do once I get moving. — Robert Before you buy.
Response:
I know a 96 Mustang GT that only has a cat back and a k&n with a stock 215hp 4.6 and 5spd tranny, that dynoed 201 RWHP, thats only a 14 HP lose, you probably have more HP then that.
Response:
Related Posts