Calculating the HP from known 12psi Of Boost

[VoodooPower]

There is all this speculation on HP. I figure we can get a close estimate with some math/tuner knowledge that is on the forum. We know 5.2 liters and 12 psi of boost. This information was provided by the chief mustang engineer. The Roush 2.65L supercharger on the 2018 5.0 produces 700 HP and 610 lb ft of torque. How much extra HP does the 0.2 liters get us? My math says 28HP. 700Hp/5 liters = 140 HP/ Liter. 5.2 Liters x 140 hp/liter = 728 HP. I think I’m pretty close due to the leak spec a while back indicating 720HP. This would give ford a little wiggle room to ensure all cars made 720HP. The OEM supercharger may be more efficient than the Roush which would result in more HP. What do you think?

Sponsored

 

[VoodooPower]

Just to clarify, the Roush supercharger is operating on 12 psi of Boost to get 700HP.

 

[9secondko]

I’m thinking the boost will be turned up if needed. But there are a couple of other matters to address first. More boost may be unnessecary.

The ‘13-14 used 15 PSI.

I can see 750-760 horsepower from the base car. 720 leaves it too close to the competition. 750-760 “ends the argument” and even removes potential for any one-upsmanship should Chevy drop in the upcoming 750 hp vette engine.

 

[Tomster]

Use a HP calculator and make a few safe assumptions based upon the numbers for provided and I think you are in the high 700 HP range. My guess is 760 to 780.

 

[markmurfie]

I like speculation, and I am very optimistic. I knew the reveal wasn't going to give us any real numbers or much information, so I was not disappointed or let down. I wont be until the true final numbers come out and people take these cars to tracks.

Put 12psi to a 5.2L with 10:1 compression and another with 12:1, they will make very different power. You can know how well a 2650 rotor pack flows air, but with out knowing the airflow efficiency of the engine it is on top of you can't really make an educated guess about power output.

Does that Eaton 2650 need to only flow 75lb/min or 100lb/min to make 12psi? That would be two very different final numbers.

Remember you are using 700Whp, so you are saying it will have ~730 WHp, which is higher than most any other OEM car. OEMs talk about horsepower at the flywheel. 155hp/liter would be easily achievable, Whipple does it on their stage one emissions legal kits. Anything over 165/liter would also be possible and anything less will not impress me. They did get 175+ out of the GT super car V6, all be it a turbo engine.

It will have that DCT, which is a love it or hate it thing. I love it, faster shifts than any other auto transmission options, better for road course use than other auto options, and I wont have to watch as many foolish people who think they can drive a stick car make the car look very slow. Just look at the reputation manual hellcats have. That transmission does have a 900nm maximum torque input, compared to the 6r80s and 10r80s 800nm. That's 664FtLbs instead of 590ftlbs. ~650Ftlb of torque would mean 800+ hp to me. A misunderstood but awesome trait of Ford modular engines, is they do not make crazy torque numbers down low, but breath up top giving them nice and flat torque curves.

The things Ford engineers could do with this car are endless.
-Keep the compression high 11-12:1, leave the old school thought process behind of lowering it with boost.
-Cylinder pressure sensors instead of knock sensors. No DI leaves the perfect place to put them.
-Dry sump oil system with stand alone crank ventilation system to keep negative crank case pressure and properly deal with crank case emissions. Catch cans are just silly.
-Flex fuel calibration, with a sensor not inferred logic, for that cheap race gas like boost in HP. Don't push a button and pray the cars happy, just pump the fuel in and the car will be happy all the time. E85 was meant to be a low emissions/ cleaner fuel.
-A mind blowing traction control system, one you don't want to turn off.
Just to name some big ones that could leave any of the competition in the dust. They could do it, but will they do it? A 120K$ price tag would be worth it.

 

[9secondko]

The 2003-2004 DOHC FI 4.6 made great torque. Generally, the more you mode that engine, you get high horsepower and a bit less torque. But certain mods change that. i.e. A crank pulley change over a supercharger pulley would increase torque over horsepower, thought both would increase quite a bit.

It's not that the modular engines cannot make big torque. It's that the high strung power tradeoff is worth it - especially when all that torque is doing nothing but melting your expensive drag radials.

The 5.0 and 5.2 are very different from the 4.6 though. Down to the firing order. So the dynamics are a bit different. That said, the supercharger may see the 5.2 making greater torque than expected.

 

[V00D00]

660 TO THE WHEELS, SAE Dynojet is my guess, one of you can reverse that for engine hp

 

[Darkane]

I like speculation, and I am very optimistic. I knew the reveal wasn't going to give us any real numbers or much information, so I was not disappointed or let down. I wont be until the true final numbers come out and people take these cars to tracks.

Put 12psi to a 5.2L with 10:1 compression and another with 12:1, they will make very different power. You can know how well a 2650 rotor pack flows air, but with out knowing the airflow efficiency of the engine it is on top of you can't really make an educated guess about power output.

Does that Eaton 2650 need to only flow 75lb/min or 100lb/min to make 12psi? That would be two very different final numbers.

Remember you are using 700Whp, so you are saying it will have ~730 WHp, which is higher than most any other OEM car. OEMs talk about horsepower at the flywheel. 155hp/liter would be easily achievable, Whipple does it on their stage one emissions legal kits. Anything over 165/liter would also be possible and anything less will not impress me. They did get 175+ out of the GT super car V6, all be it a turbo engine.

It will have that DCT, which is a love it or hate it thing. I love it, faster shifts than any other auto transmission options, better for road course use than other auto options, and I wont have to watch as many foolish people who think they can drive a stick car make the car look very slow. Just look at the reputation manual hellcats have. That transmission does have a 900nm maximum torque input, compared to the 6r80s and 10r80s 800nm. That's 664FtLbs instead of 590ftlbs. ~650Ftlb of torque would mean 800+ hp to me. A misunderstood but awesome trait of Ford modular engines, is they do not make crazy torque numbers down low, but breath up top giving them nice and flat torque curves.

The things Ford engineers could do with this car are endless.
-Keep the compression high 11-12:1, leave the old school thought process behind of lowering it with boost.
-Cylinder pressure sensors instead of knock sensors. No DI leaves the perfect place to put them.
-Dry sump oil system with stand alone crank ventilation system to keep negative crank case pressure and properly deal with crank case emissions. Catch cans are just silly.
-Flex fuel calibration, with a sensor not inferred logic, for that cheap race gas like boost in HP. Don't push a button and pray the cars happy, just pump the fuel in and the car will be happy all the time. E85 was meant to be a low emissions/ cleaner fuel.
-A mind blowing traction control system, one you don't want to turn off.
Just to name some big ones that could leave any of the competition in the dust. They could do it, but will they do it? A 120K$ price tag would be worth it.

Your compression numbers are too high.

Ford won’t go 11-12:1 CR on a boosted application, especially building it to meet 91octance at 100deg ambient etc. 9.5 or 10:1 MAX. This is still a PI engine unfortunately.

Supercharging is hot work, hot work causes detonation.

 

[93_SVT_3503]

 

[Epiphany]

While 15% was used by many in the past, Ford has been claiming less than that as of late. Hopefully in this case it is 12% or less.

 

[Tomster]

Rumors are that the car dyno'd at 808 and 812. That doesn't mean @#$%. The motor has to undergo certification and EPA testing. Again, I am guessing that it will come in in the high 700's.

I hate rumors, and this info cannot be verified. Take it for what its worth.

 

[ttime500]

Rumors are that the car dyno'd at 808 and 812. That doesn't mean @#$%. The motor has to undergo certification and EPA testing. Again, I am guessing that it will come in in the high 700's.

I hate rumors, and this info cannot be verified. Take it for what its worth.

IF the 10.8@133 were true it would need HP in the upper 700’s I would think.

 

[93_SVT_3503]

i just used 15% as a ballpark number after a quick search of what DCT's average for percentage loss to the wheels. They're all just guesstimates until Ford unleashes the numbers on this bastard.

 

[jvandy50]

While 15% was used by many in the past, Ford has been claiming less than that as of late. Hopefully in this case it is 12% or less.

i had noticed the coyote and voodoo, with manual tranny, both seemed to have closer to only 12% loss and was curious on how that changes with a DCT

 

[V00D00]

IF the 10.8@133 were true it would need HP in the upper 700’s I would think.

Engine yes, not to the tire. 660 puts it on track to trap 133 with a dct and 4400 with driver

Sponsored