It's Official! 2020 GT500 Makes 760HP

DEARBORN, Mich., June 19, 2019 – Venomous strike: The all-new 2020 Mustang Shelby GT500 will produce 760 horsepower and 625 lb.-ft. of torque, making it the most powerful street-legal Ford ever – with the most power- and torque-dense supercharged production V8 engine in the world.

Enough said.

 

Show me same engine on engine and chassis dyno that doesn’t lose power.

That’s all I’m waiting for.

come on man, thats not what hes saying nor what is happening

your car makes 370hp factory. dynos 325 because 15%. you strap twin turbos on it, now it makes 1000hp dyno, you really think its 1200 CHP?

somehow it took 180hp to run the same drivetrain/ancillary components

 

... I am 100% confident that the speed to which you spin a drivetrain will eat more and more torque because inherently the opposite force of moving a system weighin let’s say 150lbs of components to 8000rpm is those components desire to be at rest. ...

Okay, this convinced me. Not the speed to which you spin it, but rather the rate that you get it up to speed. Don't know why I never considered that before. But yes, the faster you attempt to get those components up to speed, the more energy they will consume. The ol' "a body at rest remains at rest, yada yada yada" is what made it click for me.

 

Ya'll are way overthinking this.

Drivetrain losses are always a percentage. The more work you put in, the more you lose, because science. It isn't the same % every time, and definitely not the same across different setups, but will always be a %.

 

Yes but also indeterminable.

You are getting to but never fully got to thermal loss being because as temperature rises, the metals and alloys become slightly tacky, much like a tire at 100° is slightly bendable just by hand. No, the metal is not sheering or breaking away, but yes, the metals and alloys are sticking to one another and starting to ever ever slightly melt together on surface contact. This is thermal loss. At 300°, it is so minimal that it doesn’t even equate to a 1% tranfer theft or thermal loss. The oils on the other hand have expanded their heat tolerances so general efficiency may be down more than 1%.

What you are describing is what I brought up in greater detail earlier. Keep in mind, cars are NOT dyno’d super duper hot and on the brink of sheering an axle or diff.

I’ve been to many dyno days, and temps don’t exceed 200° water, 240° trans etc, unless a car isn’t put together well. Factory cars easily handle dyno pulls and stay well below even the specified operating temp range.

All of this is based on time spent with big machinery, that said, I’m also speculating.

I don’t get what noise transfer would cause loss, vibration I get, but modern drive trains don’t vibrate if at all a thousandths.

I understand what you are saying, and can see the point of view, but I think youre getting hung up on the ultimate temperature being the power sap when it's the energy losses that build to the higher temperatures. It doesn't matter if the axle is running 150 degrees or 300 degrees at that point, you're right about it probably being a 1% difference in power, but it's when you force a lot more power through the system is when you have greater losses.

Again, think about running your car on the dyno at 4,000 rpm with as little throttle input as possible to maintain, it might not even take 20 hp to spin the drivetrain, but at full load and 500+ hp running through it, we are losing a lot more than 20hp.

I don't think the losses are perfectly linear, but I feel it's probably close. That's why we always have a range when talking about dyno losses.

These waters get horribly muddy when we look at engines that are under rated by manufacturers and dyno sheets from different dynos. This all seems so pointless.

The trinity makes what? 580 wheel? So 80hp to "spin" that drivetrain, that seems fair. If we put a 1.6 from an old UK mondeo in it, is it really going to require 100 throttle just to spin the drive train while it has no load on a dyno? No, not at all, it will probably push the car along just fine on the street, it won't be fast but it would probably run doors with a 2CV, with an engine that supposedly makes as much power as it takes just to spin the tires.

For what it's worth, the BSFC (brake specific fuel consumption) for unleaded is .45-.50 gallons per hour per horsepower. So if we need 80 horsepower to spin that drive train with no load or wind resistance, it will consume 5.8 gallons per hour on the low end (6.4gph on the high end). That's 10 mpg at 60. It could probably do better than that with wind resistance at whatever RPM and just maintaining throttle.

I think I've got my point across, more power=more losses, less power=less losses. And again, this seems so pointless.

 

I don't want to throw gas on a fire that may be almost out, but are we through with the 850 HP gross debate?

 

I don't want to throw gas on a fire that may be almost out, but are we through with the 850 HP gross debate?

FFS I hope so lol.

 

Sooo.....900hp then?

 

Sooo.....900hp then?

Absolutely. When you factor in the ratio of air to foot pressure and then divide that by the amount of hp felt on the butt dyno, you just have to extrapolate the correct density of the shart that came out and you will land right around 900 hp.

 

He’s saying whp does not lose power from crank horsepower. I’ve never seen that or heard that. Manufacturers test both, customers test whp. Whp is always a lot lower than crank.

I’ve never seen it different. He says no, all I am asking is to show my whp is not lower than crank.

“Before we ran the car we decided to run a few calculations, keeping in mind that horsepower and torque ratings from the factory are measured at the flywheel and not at the wheels. Rear wheel numbers should result in a 10-15-percent power loss through the driveline, which meant the dyno numbers were looking for should be in the following neighborhood.”

 

Look at dodge cars. Almost same driveline in the 375hp cars, 485hp scatpack cars, and hellcats and demon.

They all roughly lose 40-50hp at 6200rpm fuel cuts.

It takes less torque to spin 6k rpm than 9k rpm. This is precisely why high rpm vehicles lose a lot more to the ground.

Exhibit a: Yamaha R1’s and virtually all liter bikes lose a ton of power to the wheel. Harly’s Don’t.

15% of 200hp r1’s is 170whp which is very common ‘17+ R1’s.. In theory, look, you are right! 15%!

Buuuuut, Harly 107ci’s 2018+ dyno 101-107 wtq and are rated at 111tq... so what gives?

Rpm matters. Component weight and torque required to spin them matters.

I have always thought this to some degree. My thinking was back when I had my DSM but it applies to everything. If you calculate "x" percentage loss from a stock car on a certain dyno, and then say you triple the whp..do you really think you triple the loss? I do not. Sure, the increased power sure creates increased heat through the drivetrain hence the increase in coolers and wasted energy, which is increased loss....I just dont think it is a fixed value. Granted, I am an accounting and finance guy and work with chemical engineers in the oil industry, not mechanical ones.

 

its gonna be 670-680WHP stock. But really, who gives a ****? won't matter if you can't hook, or if you can't shift. Also doesn't matter when racing a c8 hahaha

 

I have always thought this to some degree. My thinking was back when I had my DSM but it applies to everything. If you calculate "x" percentage loss from a stock car on a certain dyno, and then say you triple the whp..do you really think you triple the loss? I do not. Sure, the increased power sure creates increased heat through the drivetrain hence the increase in coolers and wasted energy, which is increased loss....I just dont think it is a fixed value. Granted, I am an accounting and finance guy and work with chemical engineers in the oil industry, not mechanical ones.

You're exactly right, it's not a fixed value. It is always a percentage.

 

its gonna be 670-680WHP stock. But really, who gives a ****? won't matter if you can't hook, or if you can't shift. Also doesn't matter when racing a c8 hahaha

Yes....and what shift cause dct.


Sent from my POFS iPhone in a rage cause this is the third try.

 

You're exactly right, it's not a fixed value. It is always a percentage.

I will preface this with my education. or lack there of in this area...I would presume it takes "x" amount of force to spin a driveshaft that weighs "y" at a certain rpm. It seems to me that that value will be fixed, regardless of output. Now, the hydraulic heat lossed it makes some sense would increase, but for some parts, it just does not. It is surely a percentage, but I would wager it is not a fixed percentage through identical drivetrains with different outputs.

 

its gonna be 670-680WHP stock. But really, who gives a ****? won't matter if you can't hook, or if you can't shift. Also doesn't matter when racing a c8 hahaha

You do realise it is a two pedal dct? I think shifting is covered. Traction is always an issue, but it will certainly be faster than a c8. It will be 8-10 mpH ahead in a quarter, and if you knew your colon from your elbow, that means it will be a much faster car in the real world.

 

He’s saying whp does not lose power from crank horsepower. I’ve never seen that or heard that. Manufacturers test both, customers test whp. Whp is always a lot lower than crank.

I’ve never seen it different. He says no, all I am asking is to show my whp is not lower than crank.

“Before we ran the car we decided to run a few calculations, keeping in mind that horsepower and torque ratings from the factory are measured at the flywheel and not at the wheels. Rear wheel numbers should result in a 10-15-percent power loss through the driveline, which meant the dyno numbers were looking for should be in the following neighborhood.”
View attachment 1592818

Show me where I said that. I never once said an engines hp is what will show up at the wheels.

You’re trolling. Stop it.

 

its gonna be 670-680WHP stock. But really, who gives a ****? won't matter if you can't hook, or if you can't shift. Also doesn't matter when racing a c8 hahaha

Not worried because DCT and R888Rs
Release the damn car for testing already!
-J

 

You do realise it is a two pedal dct? I think shifting is covered. Traction is always an issue, but it will certainly be faster than a c8. It will be 8-10 mpH ahead in a quarter, and if you knew your colon from your elbow, that means it will be a much faster car in the real world.

you're sure about the quarter huh? I don't think so. It will be a heavy pig.

 

Not worried because DCT and R888Rs
Release the damn car for testing already!
-J

forgot it was DCT, my bad.

 

you're sure about the quarter huh? I don't think so. It will be a heavy pig.

Yes on the quarter because DCT and more torque and rpm.
-J