Tune on a stock 5.0

[FiveLiterDreamer]

Got ya..I remember reading that the cars HP stats were derived off of using either 91 or 93.

They are derived from 93 octane. The manufactures now recommend you use 91+ on these vehicles however you can use 87 octane the ECU will adjust. using 87 will not net advertised hp tq or gas mileage.

Sponsored

 

[JimmyTwoTimes]

Unless you are an engine shop everyone uses a chassis dyno.

That's apples and oranges to compare horsepower at the wheels and horsepower at the flywheel, though. Seems kind of pointless. Especially since you've got to take the engine out of the bay to do even relatively simple mods like boring or stroking, let alone something complicated like swapping out the block or moving back the firewall.

 

[JimmyTwoTimes]

Hmmm...I thought this gen of 5.0 required 93 to make full advertised power as the car stands (Ie 435 on 93 pump)..I didnt think you could even run it at 87...

Minimum rated is 87, but recommended is 93.

 

[scottpe]

That's apples and oranges to compare horsepower at the wheels and horsepower at the flywheel, though. Seems kind of pointless. Especially since you've got to take the engine out of the bay to do even relatively simple mods like boring or stroking, let alone something complicated like swapping out the block or moving back the firewall.

I don't think you are both on the same page here...

 

[DivineStrike]

Minimum rated is 87, but recommended is 93.

this

and scottpe i think he's referring to Grimace's post about not getting a reliable crank horsepower number by adjusting for drivetrain loss on a chassis dyno. I believe he is saying it would be pointless to get a real engine dyno done as it's a lot of work to do. Although I don't understand why he's saying compare the two...as umm there's nothing to compare, they have a relation to one another but nothing really to compare unless you want real drivetrain loss.

 

[Grimace427]

Yeah I was a little confused. There is no real good use for an engine dyno except for bragging rights, unless as I mentioned in my first post you own a race shop and you tune the engine before installing into a race car.

You don't strap your car on a dyno to feel good about how much power your car is making. The dyno is only there to show you if your mods are working and if your tune is setup properly(as well as graph plots, area under the curve, rpm shift points, so on). It's a tool to maximize the car's performance potential.

 

[JimmyTwoTimes]

Yeah I was a little confused. There is no real good use for an engine dyno except for bragging rights, unless as I mentioned in my first post you own a race shop and you tune the engine before installing into a race car.

You don't strap your car on a dyno to feel good about how much power your car is making. The dyno is only there to show you if your mods are working and if your tune is setup properly(as well as graph plots, area under the curve, rpm shift points, so on). It's a tool to maximize the car's performance potential.

Here was the conversation I was referring to:

Somebody said: "What has me especially intrigued is the dyno tune from 2011 when Ford claimed the 5.0 had 411 hp and it dynoed up near 435 back then stock"

Then you responded: "Never has a stock Coyote been dyno'd at 435rwhp."

Which, clearly, the guy was talking about 435 crank hp, since it was a reference to Ford's claims, and they wouldn't make a claim about wheel horsepower on their "412 hp" engine, since that would be comparing apples and oranges. As in, Ford rated the engine at 412 hp, but in Ford's dyno testing it was coming out closer to 435 hp. So you talking about wheel horsepower wasn't really germane to the dude's comment.

Aside from which... you said "There is no real good use for an engine dyno except for bragging rights." Well, in reality, all auto modifications are only good for bragging rights. Those extra hp you get from your mods aren't going to keep you safer in the streets or get you to work faster; you're just doing them for trap times, which is solely an issue of bragging rights.

 

[GrabberBlue5.0]

Minimum rated is 87, but recommended is 93.

I'm pretty sure the recommended won't be 93 octane especially since there are at least a handful of states that don't sell anything higher than 91. Did you read somewhere that it was?

 

[DivineStrike]

91 is normally the mftr recommendation but 93 has always been the number to get max performance and claimed hp

 

[foghat]

Here was the conversation I was referring to:

Somebody said: "What has me especially intrigued is the dyno tune from 2011 when Ford claimed the 5.0 had 411 hp and it dynoed up near 435 back then stock"

Then you responded: "Never has a stock Coyote been dyno'd at 435rwhp."

Which, clearly, the guy was talking about 435 crank hp, since it was a reference to Ford's claims, and they wouldn't make a claim about wheel horsepower on their "412 hp" engine, since that would be comparing apples and oranges. As in, Ford rated the engine at 412 hp, but in Ford's dyno testing it was coming out closer to 435 hp. So you talking about wheel horsepower wasn't really germane to the dude's comment.

Aside from which... you said "There is no real good use for an engine dyno except for bragging rights." Well, in reality, all auto modifications are only good for bragging rights. Those extra hp you get from your mods aren't going to keep you safer in the streets or get you to work faster; you're just doing them for trap times, which is solely an issue of bragging rights.

That is not the way I read it. Said ford claimed 411, but dyno'd at 435 - is how I read it. Simply implying that the engine was putting down more power at the wheels than ford stated at the crank (whether true or not is another story).

Not sure if you are serious when you say, "Well, in reality, all auto modifications are only good for bragging rights".

Dynos are good for tuning, determining how much power incremental upgrades are making you, and bragging. That is pretty much it.

Auto modifications usually make you more power or handle better or what have you. You may brag about your trap time, but the mods that got you there are real.

What about the guy who mods and doesn't run 1/4 mile (and there for is not modding to improve his trap times) and doesn't brag about anything? By your logic his mods are not doing anything for him.

While you may brag about your dyno numbers, mods make the car more enjoyable to drive - whether you track or not.

 

[Grimace427]

Here was the conversation I was referring to:

Somebody said: "What has me especially intrigued is the dyno tune from 2011 when Ford claimed the 5.0 had 411 hp and it dynoed up near 435 back then stock"

Then you responded: "Never has a stock Coyote been dyno'd at 435rwhp."

Which, clearly, the guy was talking about 435 crank hp, since it was a reference to Ford's claims, and they wouldn't make a claim about wheel horsepower on their "412 hp" engine, since that would be comparing apples and oranges. As in, Ford rated the engine at 412 hp, but in Ford's dyno testing it was coming out closer to 435 hp. So you talking about wheel horsepower wasn't really germane to the dude's comment.

The original mistake was assuming someone MEASURED 435 horsepower out of a stock 2011 Coyote, which is false. Somebody ESTIMATED the crank horsepower based off of a chassis dyno that measured horsepower at the wheels.

I was clarifying his misunderstanding, and attempting to prevent it's spread which I clearly failed.

 

[Grimace427]

Original misunderstanding:

What has me especially intrigued is the dyno tune from 2011 when Ford claimed the 5.0 had 411 hp and it dynoed up near 435 back then stock

My attempt at clarifying the misunderstanding.

Never has a stock Coyote been dyno'd at 435rwhp. What you saw was someone adding a hypothetical 'drivetrain loss' % on top of what the car put to the tires.

That only matters if you're using a chassis dyno instead of an engine dyno.

Nobody uses an engine dyno for their street car, hence my quote below:

Unless you are an engine shop everyone uses a chassis dyno.

That's apples and oranges to compare horsepower at the wheels and horsepower at the flywheel, though. Seems kind of pointless. Especially since you've got to take the engine out of the bay to do even relatively simple mods like boring or stroking, let alone something complicated like swapping out the block or moving back the firewall.

And your misunderstanding. I never attempted to compare crank horsepower to wheel horsepower. As far as I'm concerned, crank horsepower can be completely eliminated as it's a useless number. All cars should be measured at the wheels and it would be awesome if SAE used a standardized method for this, say a certain dynojet with specific software for repeatable results.

 

[foghat]

And your misunderstanding. I never attempted to compare crank horsepower to wheel horsepower. As far as I'm concerned, crank horsepower can be completely eliminated as it's a useless number. All cars should be measured at the wheels and it would be awesome if SAE used a standardized method for this, say a certain dynojet with specific software for repeatable results.

That would be nice from an enthusiast perspective. But the thing with crank hp is that manufacturer can use the same number for all vehicles the engine is in.

Not only would it be a lot more work on their end (getting numbers for every vehicle), can you imagine the confusion from the general population as to why the same engine has different numbers in different vehicles.

 

[Grimace427]

That would be nice from an enthusiast perspective. But the thing with crank hp is that manufacturer can use the same number for all vehicles the engine is in.

Not only would it be a lot more work on their end (getting numbers for every vehicle), can you imagine the confusion from the general population as to why the same engine has different numbers in different vehicles.

This is already a reality. The 5.0 in the Mustang puts out very different power numbers than the one in the F150. Same with the 3.7 V6 and 3.5 Ecoboost between the F150 and Taurus.

Mercedes has two main engines for over a dozen different models and every last one of them has different power ratings.

 

[foghat]

This is already a reality. The 5.0 in the Mustang puts out very different power numbers than the one in the F150. Same with the 3.7 V6 and 3.5 Ecoboost between the F150 and Taurus.

Mercedes has two main engines for over a dozen different models and every last one of them has different power ratings.

True, i should have said identical instead of same. At any rate, in those cases there is something done to the engine that makes the power output different. And that something can be identified. Plus car to truck comparisons are not what I was thinking.

I am thinking more in cases where the identical engine is shared across product lines. the SRT8 line, the n54/n55 that exists in multiple different bmws.

Seems to me giving whp numbers would be a marketing nightmare - even if you could come up with a way to measure consistently.

Sponsored