Stock Horse Power Numbers

[DieselDan]

Hey guys, I have looked around and couldnt find any information on this... I know these engines are rated at 280hp at the crank? Anyone have numbers from baseline runs at the wheels? I am planning on a re-tune after I install the exhaust.

Any insights? Thanks guys!

 

[87TTOPGT420]

230 I think is the average rwhp for a stock mark

 

[KStromberg]

If that.

 

[Stangman]

I think the average drivetrain loss for automatics are somewhere between 15 and 20 percent.

 

[Markviiiedrea]

I got 212rwhp with a stall from my 94

 

[Right on the Mark]

I thought I read alot where 220 @ wheels?

 

[chris2523]

yeah i hear 220 thrown around a lot.

 

[kracker]

Hey guys, I have looked around and couldnt find any information on this... I know these engines are rated at 280hp at the crank? Anyone have numbers from baseline runs at the wheels? I am planning on a re-tune after I install the exhaust.
Any insights? Thanks guys!

Stock 94

 

[KStromberg]

Let's just say this, 280hp at the crank was a little bit overrated.

 

[Markviiiedrea]

94 w/10" Edge stall

 

[KStromberg]

Holy crap Eric. That tune is way too rich.

 

[Markviiiedrea]

What tune! HAHA! That was from my old 94, all stock except the transmission. I'm going to get a base line run here this summer before the Shortys and exhaust on the 95.

 

[slowmkviii]

Let's just say this, 280hp at the crank was a little bit overrated.

I disagreed
280 x .8=224hp now factor in they are at least 14 years old and different dynos/operators get different results
Seems right on to me

 

[KStromberg]

What tune! HAHA! That was from my old 94, all stock except the transmission. I'm going to get a base line run here this summer before the Shortys and exhaust on the 95.

Damn. I didn't realize the factory tune dumps that much fuel. Lol

 

[kracker]

98 lsc

 

[chris2523]

Damn. I didn't realize the factory tune dumps that much fuel. Lol

rumor has it, mine has thrown a little black smoke on take off. so yeah, a little rich. :lol:

 

[chris2523]

I disagreed
280 x .8=224hp now factor in they are at least 14 years old and different dynos/operators get different results
Seems right on to me

the 4R70W is a power hungry SOB.

 

[Markviiiedrea]

the 4R70W is a power hungry SOB.

Yhea even with my smaller stall I didn’t gain any efficiency.

 

[SleeperMark]

Mine ran 216/229 with only exhaust and 187k miles.

 

[97 Octane]

Here's one by a longtime LVC member.....98cobrastarlsc.

seems his last visit here was Feb 20, 2011


http://www.svtperformance.com/forum...860-1998-lincoln-mark-viii-lsc-dyno-tune.html

 

[racecougar]

Back in '05-'06 when I was running a stock N.O.S. '94 Mark 8 engine with a stock '94 4R70W & TC, 4.10's, Kooks 1-3/4" / 3" headers, and a corrected tune file, my car was putting down ~240/245 on a Dynojet. When I removed the intake in December '06 to install the supercharger on that engine (which didn't last long, by the way), I found that one bank of the IMRC's was stuck shut, though I don't know when that occurred.

Just correcting the stock tune file's WOT AFR makes a decent difference.

EDIT: I dug up one of the old dyno sheets. 242.5 rwhp/ 245.93 rwtq with a very safe AFR. Looking at the curve, at least one bank of the IMRC's opened at ~3K rpm, the TC locked just after 5K rpm (tuner error), and the hp curve is flat up top (one bank of the IMRC's may indeed have been closed).