5.0 mustang drivetrain loss percentage %

Using a % for drive train loss is a very rough way to do it.

Say we have 2 cars, one is 200 horse, one is 400.
They both have the same drive train and 20% drive train loss.
So the 200 horse car losses 40hp while the 400 losses 80hp??

It will always take the same amount of force to over come the friction caused by the drive train. The more power you make the less % of it that's getting used in the drive train....

Personally I think it's like comparing apples to oranges....

new8514 said:

Using a % for drive train loss is a very rough way to do it.

Say we have 2 cars, one is 200 horse, one is 400.
They both have the same drive train and 20% drive train loss.
So the 200 horse car losses 40hp while the 400 losses 80hp??

It will always take the same amount of force to over come the friction caused by the drive train. The more power you make the less % of it that's getting used in the drive train....

Personally I think it's like comparing apples to oranges....

Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more, 100% correct!

Actually the drivetrain loss IS a % of the flywheel HP/TQ and is pretty uniform across the rpm range on vehicles with manual transmissions. If you look at the chassis dyno curves on these vehicles, the shape of the HP/TQ curves very closely matches the shape of the flywheel HP/TQ curves produced by the manufacturers.
On automatics, the % loss may vary at various points across the rpm range depending on how much slippage there is in the torque converter.

It will always take the same amount of force to over come the friction caused by the drive train. The more power you make the less % of it that's getting used in the drive train....

Click to expand...

Unfortunately that's not true. Here's an example to prove it. The 2005-9 Mustang GT is rated at 300hp flywheel but puts down an average of 265rwhp stock. The Shelby GT500 is rated at 500hp flywheel but puts down an average of 430rwhp stock. The drivetrains are almost the same except for the 5-speed tranny in the GT and the 6-speed in the GT500. The heavier 6-speed absorbs more power hence the drivetrain loss on the GT500 is ~14% whereas it's ~12% on the GT.

Bullitt95 said:

Actually the drivetrain loss IS a % of the flywheel HP/TQ and is pretty uniform across the rpm range on vehicles with manual transmissions. If you look at the chassis dyno curves on these vehicles, the shape of the HP/TQ curves very closely matches the shape of the flywheel HP/TQ curves produced by the manufacturers.
On automatics, the % loss may vary at various points across the rpm range depending on how much slippage there is in the torque converter.



Unfortunately that's not true. Here's an example to prove it. The 2005-9 Mustang GT is rated at 300hp flywheel but puts down an average of 265rwhp stock. The Shelby GT500 is rated at 500hp flywheel but puts down an average of 430rwhp stock. The drivetrains are almost the same except for the 5-speed tranny in the GT and the 6-speed in the GT500. The heavier 6-speed absorbs more power hence the drivetrain loss on the GT500 is ~14% whereas it's ~12% on the GT.

Click to expand...

I kinda think you just proved yourself wrong. If the GT 500 had the same drivetrain as the GT then the loss would be the same but the losses are different because of the different drivetrains.

redwalsh87 said:

I kinda think you just proved yourself wrong. If the GT 500 had the same drivetrain as the GT then the loss would be the same but the losses are different because of the different drivetrains.

Click to expand...

But not so different that one drivetrain would have a fixed loss of 35hp while the other would have a fixed loss of 70hp. Do you really think that if the Shelby GT500 had the same drivetrain as the GT that it would put down 465rwhp instead of 430? Or for that matter, do you really think that if the GT had the GT500's drivetrain that it would put down only 230rwhp instead of 265?
Like I said, the only real difference in drivetrains is the extra ratio on the GT500's tranny, and that isn't going to suck up an extra 35hp. Therefore I stand by my argument that the drivetrain HP/TQ loss is more or less a fixed % over the rpm range (at least for a manual tranny).