Re: Rear Wheel Horsepower

From: James Harmon (jdharmon@earthlink.net)
Date: Sat Jun 26 1999 - 01:17:27 EDT


What other mods did you do? My wheels are 18x8, but low profile tires. made a
difference!

Todd Flummer wrote:

> Well if that is true, I must have gotten a 360 with a cam from the factory.
> Because my 318 dynoed at 201 hp at the rear wheels with only a Quick D.
> Guess I found a good one.
>
> Todd
> www.netunlimited.net/~mustang/
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: James Harmon <jdharmon@earthlink.net>
> To: dakota-truck@buffnet.net <dakota-truck@buffnet.net>
> Date: Friday, June 25, 1999 1:09 AM
> Subject: Re: DML: Rear Wheel Horsepower
>
> >To answer a query about rear wheel hp and flywheel hp, you loose about 40%
> due to
> >the drive train. factor that out from the 245 hp for the 360 engine and
> that
> >gives you around 166 hp (with 68% efficiency). The stock 318 runs only
> around 153
> >hp at the rear wheels. This is the reality and not the DC hype. That is
> why some
> >people are not too impressed with a 225 +17 hp at the rear wheels for my
> truck.
> >That is until they realize what it really means - 355 hp at the flywheel.
> And
> >that is without a supercharger. Our eventual goal is to get around 270 hp
> at the
> >rear wheels or almost 400 hp at the flywheel.
> >Jim
> >
> >Bernd D. Ratsch wrote:
> >
> >> I was mainly giving a average example. I personally don't know what the
> >> rearwheel HP is of an R/T...but it should be above 200 IMHO.
> >>
> >> At 03:15 PM 06/24/1999 -0400, you wrote:
> >> > Bernd wrote "Doesn't that sound a little bit low for the HP
> gains??
> >> >The average gains from the Paxton's are 40%. Now take a (low powered)
> engine
> >> >at 200HP and
> >> >that gives you an 80HP boost. (The R/T's should be well above 200HP.) "
> >> >
> >> > Bernd, are you talking, at the rear wheels ? 200 hp..
> >> > Ted O.
> >
> >
> >



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 12:14:30 EDT