I think this car is underrated by at least 12 HP

[TCOC rel1]

There is no way a stock car lays down 141 RWHP with 160 at the FW.

your thoughts?

[Sponsor]

[TboneZX3]

It's hard to say without knowing drivetrain losses. I don't think 12% loss is way off the mark for a manual trans in a FWD car.

[mikebontoft]

sorry but what car are we talking about? the focus has 0 rwhp unless were talking a v8 swapped one.

[TCOC rel1]

Originally Posted by mikebontoft

sorry but what car are we talking about? the focus has 0 rwhp unless were talking a v8 swapped one.

My bad on the rwhp, been into V-8's to long, this is my first 4. I ment fwhp...

Thank you for correcting me XD

[mikebontoft]

its all good I'm just making funnies.

that seems like a legitimate number though.

[TCOC rel1]

Originally Posted by TboneZX3

It's hard to say without knowing drivetrain losses. I don't think 12% loss is way off the mark for a manual trans in a FWD car.

DCT's are recording 141 fwhp

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQQ-K...ure=watch-vrec

[mikebontoft]

located in Florida... sea level at least. I hate where I live. 5950 feet above sea level. so much power loss.

[dyn085]

You don't necessarily have to believe it, that's your choice. My car put 144hp in OEM configuration. Most all OEM graphs have been showing high 130's/low 140's,

If worse comes to worst, then you can always go and put your car on the dyno

[mac.mogul]

Seems pretty standard fair. FWD typically has lower drivetrain loss than RWD and with the new DCT transmission, the drivetrain loss is less than a traditional automatic.

The engines are rated 160hp, dynos show 140+
My engine is rated 143hp and dynos show about 120 so.. yeah seems about right on the mark to me.

[blank102]

And overrated by 12 ft lbs of torque.