Lee Willis
11-28-2005, 02:08 PM
This is the first of two rather lengthy posts I prepared about measuring and comparing aftermarket HP additions in a no-BS manner. this talks just about ratings and what "Rear wheel HP" means, etc. My second one talks about the success or failure of various mods and what it takes to get 500 RWHP (at least in my experience).
----------------------------
Three types of HP ratings are often discussed and compared: engine dyno, flywheel/factory rating, and rear wheel dyno results. Here is my take and some data comparing them from what I’ve actually witnessed.
Engine dyno HP is measured when the engine is out of the car on an engine dyno. You rarely see this quoted outside of magazines like Hot Rod that actually build and test engines on engine stands. Such engine dyno #s are often 5-10% higher than the factory rating: the engine is out of the car, has no exhaust, and often is not running accessories such as the radiator fan or even its water pump.
Flywheel rating is with the engine in the car as driven (exhaust, accessories). This is almost impossible to actually measure unless you are a manufacturer. Most manufacturers quote/advertise this #. There are exceptions where they understate it (1998-2003 Camaro V8s and Ford GT being extreme examples) and somewhere they overstate it (some current Japanese cars have turned out to be overstated by 5%).
RWHP is measured at the rear wheels with a Dynojet, Mustang or other brand chassis dyno (the Mustang usually gives slightly lower numbers by about 1-3%).
Here are ten “stock” cars I have seen tested on the same Dynojet, and the corrected (for temp, altitude, pressure using SAE method) RWHP they recorded:
#s are, Engine dyno HP where available, factory rating, dynojet RW test, losses from rated HP to RW measured HP in %
1998 Camaro Z28 M6: --- , 305, 294, 3.6%
2001 Corvette M6: ---, 350, 309, 11.7%
2002 ZO6 M6: 425, 405, 357, 11.9%
2006 Z06 M6: ---, 505, 447, 11.5%
2004 Carrera (Auto): ---, 320, 265, 17.2%
2005 Mustang GT M5: ---, 300, 262, 12.7%
1996 Lamborghini Countach S M6: 476, 452, 390, 14%
2003 Lingenfelter SC Corvette M6: ---, 510, 455, 10.8%
2004 Glamour-Tuner Mustang M5: ---, 450, 365, 18.9%
I’m not going to identify the tuner for the Mustang (people are too litigious and owners take it too seriously), but it is a well-known company selling new modified and supercharged Mustangs through select Ford dealers. That car is typical in my experience with many tuner cars: some tuners exaggerate the HP they’ve added. The only tuner I completely trust in this regard is Lingenfelter, which typically rates its products conservatively.
RWHP is really all that matters, but one often wants to convert RW to compareable factory rating for comparison purposes. I use an 11.7% losses factor when doing so: the average for the three stock ‘vettes listed above. Thus, if mods add 89.5 RWHP, I say they added (89.5*111.7%) =100 at the flywheel . Many people use 15%, but as you can see from the tests above, this would tend to overstate the HP.
----------------------------
Three types of HP ratings are often discussed and compared: engine dyno, flywheel/factory rating, and rear wheel dyno results. Here is my take and some data comparing them from what I’ve actually witnessed.
Engine dyno HP is measured when the engine is out of the car on an engine dyno. You rarely see this quoted outside of magazines like Hot Rod that actually build and test engines on engine stands. Such engine dyno #s are often 5-10% higher than the factory rating: the engine is out of the car, has no exhaust, and often is not running accessories such as the radiator fan or even its water pump.
Flywheel rating is with the engine in the car as driven (exhaust, accessories). This is almost impossible to actually measure unless you are a manufacturer. Most manufacturers quote/advertise this #. There are exceptions where they understate it (1998-2003 Camaro V8s and Ford GT being extreme examples) and somewhere they overstate it (some current Japanese cars have turned out to be overstated by 5%).
RWHP is measured at the rear wheels with a Dynojet, Mustang or other brand chassis dyno (the Mustang usually gives slightly lower numbers by about 1-3%).
Here are ten “stock” cars I have seen tested on the same Dynojet, and the corrected (for temp, altitude, pressure using SAE method) RWHP they recorded:
#s are, Engine dyno HP where available, factory rating, dynojet RW test, losses from rated HP to RW measured HP in %
1998 Camaro Z28 M6: --- , 305, 294, 3.6%
2001 Corvette M6: ---, 350, 309, 11.7%
2002 ZO6 M6: 425, 405, 357, 11.9%
2006 Z06 M6: ---, 505, 447, 11.5%
2004 Carrera (Auto): ---, 320, 265, 17.2%
2005 Mustang GT M5: ---, 300, 262, 12.7%
1996 Lamborghini Countach S M6: 476, 452, 390, 14%
2003 Lingenfelter SC Corvette M6: ---, 510, 455, 10.8%
2004 Glamour-Tuner Mustang M5: ---, 450, 365, 18.9%
I’m not going to identify the tuner for the Mustang (people are too litigious and owners take it too seriously), but it is a well-known company selling new modified and supercharged Mustangs through select Ford dealers. That car is typical in my experience with many tuner cars: some tuners exaggerate the HP they’ve added. The only tuner I completely trust in this regard is Lingenfelter, which typically rates its products conservatively.
RWHP is really all that matters, but one often wants to convert RW to compareable factory rating for comparison purposes. I use an 11.7% losses factor when doing so: the average for the three stock ‘vettes listed above. Thus, if mods add 89.5 RWHP, I say they added (89.5*111.7%) =100 at the flywheel . Many people use 15%, but as you can see from the tests above, this would tend to overstate the HP.