Focus Fanatics Forum banner

Focus ST Dyno Numbers

122K views 64 replies 36 participants last post by  hrphilipson 
#1 · (Edited)
2013 Focus ST Dyno Graphs. Numbers are at the wheel unless otherwise noted.

Advertised (@crank):


252 hp / 270 ft-lb tq

Buschur Racing (93 Octane)


211 hp / 235 ft-lb tq


COBB (93 Octane):


Updated


226 hp / 284 ft-lb tq
222 hp / 279 ft-lb tq
226 hp / 286 ft-lb tq



229 hp / 281 ft-lb tq
234 hp / 281 ft-lb tq
221 hp / 281 ft-lb tq


FocusST.org (93 Octane):


234.9 hp / 263.38 ft-lb tq


FSWerks (91 Octane):


226.3 hp / 269.2 ft-lb tq




220.7 hp / 280.7 ft-lb tq


Macky21 (93 Octane):


247.39 hp / 271.72 ft-lb tq
247.22 hp / 263.64 ft-lb tq
247.62 hp / 267.86 ft-lb tq


SCT (93 Octane):


230.27 hp / 278.78 ft-lb tq


Unleashed Tuning LLC (87 Octane)


232.67 hp / 278.77 ft-lb tq
227.38 hp / 274.35 ft-lb tq
223.19 hp / 271.56 ft-lb tq



240.20 hp / 294.11 ft-lb tq
242.57 hp / 291.39 ft-lb tq
236.49 hp / 287.51 ft-lb tq


---------------------------------------

Averages

Mean:
231.30 hp / 91.78%
276.00 ft-lb tq / 102.22%

Median:
229.64 hp / 91.13%
278.89 ft-lb tq / 103.29%

Mode:
226.00 hp / 89.68%
281.00 ft-lb tq / 104.07%

Min:
211.00 hp / 83.73%
235.00 ft-lb tq / 87.04%

Max:
247.62 hp / 98.26%
294.11 ft-lb tq / 108.93%


Averages taken of the 20 runs. This will be updated as more dynos are released. Fuel types are to the best of my knowledge, but may not be correct
 
See less See more
12
#13 ·
Comparing engine Dyno to chassis Dyno is impossible without knowing the actual drivetrain losses. Maybe the loss is less than 15-18%?. The 2013 GT500 is a good example of reduced losses. Lets not leave out dyno accuracy. If believing the ST makes 267 horsepower or what ever makes you happy, then so be it.
 
#14 ·
Right, we can't know exactly how these real world numbers compare to the crank numbers, because of the uncertainty in drivetrain losses. Dyno accuracy and peculiarities are mitigated by the sampling of many different dyno's and averaging the results out. Of course we only have a small sample to deal with, but it's a start. So, even if we assume a 10% loss, the numbers still look good:

Average HP: 227.04 x 1.11 = 252.27 HP
Average TQ: 276.316 x 1.11 = 307.02 ft/lbs

It certainly seems as though the torque number is being underrated. By quite a bit.

(Aside: hopefully we all realize why I'm multiplying the whp/wtq by 1.11 instead of 1.10 for a 10% loss, and 1.18 instead of 1.15 for a 15% loss. Can explain if necessary.)
 
#20 ·
In response to those saying they would rather have more horsepower, and less torque, here is a decent article I found explaining the difference between the two. The peak horsepower really means very little if you don't have enough torque to take advantage of the power.

Notice that although Engine B has more peak horsepower, Engine A has more power at speeds up to 5500 rpm. What's more, it has significantly more power in the 1500-4000 rpm range (highlighted area), the range of engine speeds in which you'd typically operate a car.

Now let's look at the torque curves of the two engines:

We see that Engine A puts out much greater torque, especially over the typical engine speed range, indicating that under normal conditions Engine A will give you much more “oomph” than Engine B. Peak numbers are nice to brag about but often don't mean much, since few people operate their engines at peak conditions (which would generally be full throttle) in a typical day.​

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2215/whats-the-difference-between-horsepower-and-torque
 
#22 ·
That spool time is just insane to produce peak torque around 2K RPM. I've never even seen a dyno off idle! [scratch]
I'd like to know Ford's secret to this.. I guess just a crazy-small turbo.
 
#25 ·
"HP sells cars, Tq wins races"

I definitely like that its putting out as much tq as it is. I'd like to see what the roush version puts down, if i were to get one thats probably what i'd get since i've always liked the whine of a supercharger. And what better way to own two boosted foci than to hav one thats turbo'd and one supercharged [thumb]
 
#34 ·
Considering the Ecoboost motors are made to last, pull, sit in traffic, and generally stand up to the abuse of the average Obama voter who has not idea what "cool down" time for a turbo is, or what oil "coking" is, then I would say it is a roller.

Damn, that was a long sentence...
 
#36 ·
F..... Man it looks great but I just want to know how is gonna put the power down cause it has like 25lb/ft more than a nsrt4 and everyone knows that the nsrt4 had problems with that
 
#37 ·
zx3matt;4372[B said:
651]Considering the Ecoboost motors are made to last, pull, sit in traffic, and generally stand up to the abuse of the average Obama voter who has not idea what "cool down" time for a turbo is, or what oil "coking" is, then I would say it is a roller.

Damn, that was a long sentence...
[:(] Really?
 
#38 · (Edited)
I don't know what dyno Cobb is using, but the numbers seem kind of high. I've heard that Dynojet originally based their algorithims off of a Yamaha bikes advertised HP. I think Dynojet numbers are probably stilll overstated because nobody dislikes a dyno that consistently gives higher numbers, and that probably gives dynojet a market share adavantage.
 
#44 ·
Updated the dynos. There are now 16 run averages. The numbers are holding pretty steady around 228 hp and 280 ft-lb tq at the wheels. If there are other dynos I'm missing, please send me a link so I can include them. Thanks!
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top