Focus Fanatics Forum banner

1 - 20 of 64 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
205 Posts
Discussion Starter #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
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,548 Posts
Are the aftermarket dyno numbers at the wheels? HP numbers seem awfully suspicious, although torque looks right on. [scratch]
 

·
The Professor
Joined
·
2,664 Posts
Ford underrates all it's engines nowadays. Sometimes by a wide margin. They especially underrate the torque on their forced induction engines. Look at the dynos for the 2013 GT500...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
205 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
Are the aftermarket dyno numbers at the wheels? HP numbers seem awfully suspicious, although torque looks right on. [scratch]
Yes, they are wheel hp and torque numbers. I will update the OP to indicate that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
205 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
Just as a comparison (bench-seat racing), here's a dyno for a 2012 mazdaspeed3:

2012 MazdaSpeed3:




Average Horsepower: 233.25
Average Torque: 269
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,548 Posts
If we assume a 15% drivetrain loss, here are estimated crank numbers:

Average HP: 227.04 x 1.18 = 267.1 HP
Average TQ: 276.316 x 1.18 = 325.1 ft/lbs

Why do some believe Ford has under rated the Focus ST advertised power numbers?.
If you're asking why Ford underrates the numbers, I'm guessing because the advertised numbers are minimums guaranteed, while manufacturing tolerances and tune variances allow certain (most) cars to be above that.

It goes like this,
If you buy an ST, and it dyno's above the numbers, you think "Thanks Ford, you made my ST awesome!"
If you buy an ST, and it dyno's below the numbers, you think "Screw you Ford, you lied to me!"
So when Ford underrates the numbers, you get more happy customers.
 

·
Boob Whisperer
Joined
·
6,104 Posts
If we assume a 15% drivetrain loss, here are estimated crank numbers:

Average HP: 227.04 x 1.18 = 267.1 HP
Average TQ: 276.316 x 1.18 = 325.1 ft/lbs



If you're asking why Ford underrates the numbers, I'm guessing because the advertised numbers are minimums guaranteed, while manufacturing tolerances and tune variances allow certain (most) cars to be above that.

It goes like this,
If you buy an ST, and it dyno's above the numbers, you think "Thanks Ford, you made my ST awesome!"
If you buy an ST, and it dyno's below the numbers, you think "Screw you Ford, you lied to me!"
So when Ford underrates the numbers, you get more happy customers
.
Kinda the opposite of the 2008 STi fiasco. Subaru is still feeling the shame of that one, plus the owners took a huge hit on resale.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
205 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
It goes like this,
If you buy an ST, and it dyno's above the numbers, you think "Thanks Ford, you made my ST awesome!"
If you buy an ST, and it dyno's below the numbers, you think "Screw you Ford, you lied to me!"
So when Ford underrates the numbers, you get more happy customers.
Exactly [woot]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
431 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,548 Posts
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.
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.)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
968 Posts
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.)
The non-ST's are making almost as much torque to the wheels as Ford rates them at the crank. IIRC the stock torque rating is 146, and people (with the 5 speed) are dyno'ing at 140+ to the wheels.

Posted via FF Mobile
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
205 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
Added another Cobb chart and updated the averages. Cobb did a run after 1000 miles to see if there was any change from a "break-in" tune.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
814 Posts
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.
That's more believable than Hyundai's claim of 274 for their 2.0 turbo.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,795 Posts
That's more believable than Hyundai's claim of 274 for their 2.0 turbo.
so hyundai "claims" (according to you) 274hp at the crank... yet a stock 2013 2.0T dynos ~240-242whp thats a give or take 12% hp to whp difference...

i believe that...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
205 Posts
Discussion Starter #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
 
1 - 20 of 64 Posts
Top