What does it take to get 300whp?

[Big Swede]

How will you know what you have unless you put it on a dyno? Better yet what does it do for you? More hp = equals more fuel consumption. So why buy a truck built for fuel economy then try to make it uneconomical? Maybe as a retired person who just needs to use a vehicle for transporting me and stuff I don't get it. Not a criticism just don't quite understand the engine modifications on a 4 cyl. Maybe it is a generation difference.

It doesn’t mean it will be less economical when driven the same way.

Sponsored

 

[Big Swede]

Then it's wasting money. Don't need 300hp to drive the same WAY as 250hp.

No it’s not. If you drive it like it was when stock you get the same mileage and when you want to romp on it to have a bunch of fun you have that too.

 

[FischAutoTechGarten]

A set of Thrush Muffler stickers might be good for an extra +25hp, but I don't think they will get you to 300hp.

 

[fthistruck]

My average mpg is 26.5 on 93 with full exhaust and tune. It was in the low 24s when it was stock. On e50 the mpg is the same as when it was stock, but it's much more enjoyable to drive, and the gas is way cheaper. I don't care if the trans blows but hopefully somebody eventually figures out an upgrade.

 

[Big Swede]

You said and I quote " It doesn’t mean it will be less economical when driven the same way. " I extrapolate that to mean you will drive it the same as having 250 HP therefor a waist of money. Now you are saying you want to PUSH the transmission to handle more than it was designed for and then BITCH when it fails!

I don’t know WTF you’re talking about. A lot of people modify their cars and 90% of the time they are driven the same as stock. Then sometimes they want to have some fun so they have more power = more fun. Who said anything about bitching because something breaks.

Let’s be real anyhow. We aren’t talking about adding double the hp anyhow. Manufacturers build in dome headroom to all parts so just because you add some hp doesn’t mean it’s magically going to break because it’s putting out a little more. If it does break no one is going to complain everyone who mods understands the game.

 

[dochawk]

Just like the title says.

in that case, it takes about 330 at the transmission . . .

My 63 Failane with a 260 V8 had 164 HP and that is not whp.

that 164 gross would be called 110 or so net hp on today's scale.

It could time it going from 0 to 60 with a weekly calendar .

The 1970 Eldorado shipped with a 400 hp (net) from the factory. It's 500cid engine (a stroked version of the 472 on the rest of the line) was the largest displacement production eight in a post-war passenger vehicle (and remains so, I believe).

0 to 60 in a blistering 8.8 seconds, and a 16.4 quarter mile.



oh, but the torque when you open those babies up . . .

Similar power to the V-8’s of the 60’s and 70’s

71 and earlier were rated in gross, not not net hp as today. So that 250 is equivalent to roughly 375 then. Only a small handful reached that, a few muscle cars and the rest of the 472 Cadillacs (before the 1971 compression drop to handle the upcoming unleaded, which dropped hp by about 10%)

I'd like to put that 2.0 in my old Spitfire.

bye-bye engine mounts, bye-bye tranny . . .



I was awed by the 300hp Northstar of the 90s Cadillacs, at not much more than half the displacement of my 72. It was several years before I looked at the power curves, though.

At the same RPM, the 72 produces way more hp and torque. It's just that it's done before 3,000, while the Northstar is just hitting its stride . . .

 

[Buggy Man]

Wife & I bought a 2022 Transit Connect with a normally aspirated 2.0 4-banger. It boasted 165 hp at something like 5500 rpm, I don't remember what the peak torque was but it didn't come in until 3000 or higher.
To get the van to move you had to get it into that peak torque zone and above 3500 - 4500. Best we ever did with it was 22 mpg city/urban and 26 on the open highway. When you came to a hill (like in Pa or W. Va you were close to 5 grand to try to keep up with traffic. The van weighed about the same as the Mav.
In contrast the '22 GTI I had would develop good torque at 1500 - 1800 rpm. 2.0 L I4, 240 hp & 7 speed trans similar to my LOBO. Average mpg was 33 - 37 and on several occasions 40 mpg. Granted the Mav weighs about 5-600 pounds more but what I discovered is by keeping rpm low and in the torque zone you could get good mileage. Around town driving I was shifting at 1800 to 2200 rpm.
So far the LOBO is delivering 25 - 28 mpg but I only have 600+ miles on it.

SO, one component of the mileage equation is to keep the rpm as low as possible with adequate torque. The 2.0 EB does this.
TORQUE WINS RACES, NOT HORSEPOWER - TORQUE = ACCELERATION, HORSEPOWER = TOP SPEED
This is especially true of the old large displacement engines from the 60's & 70's.

One thing I noticed is that the LOBO doesn't want to shift into 7th gear until around 50 mph. So a lot of my driving is in 6th gear at about 2-2500 rpm.

 

[OWP]

I don’t know WTF you’re talking about. A lot of people modify their cars and 90% of the time they are driven the same as stock. Then sometimes they want to have some fun so they have more power = more fun. Who said anything about bitching because something breaks.

Let’s be real anyhow. We aren’t talking about adding double the hp anyhow. Manufacturers build in dome headroom to all parts so just because you add some hp doesn’t mean it’s magically going to break because it’s putting out a little more. If it does break no one is going to complain everyone who mods understands the game.

I've modified a car and still drove it the same way to work most of the time, but had the extra fun power when I wanted it on tap. I think you have been pretty clear, some just don't get it.

Whether its being obtuse (purposely or unintentionally) or just so damned bored they cannot resist turning someone's question on how to do something into why they themselves would not do it and why no one else would.

 

[Phimosis]

It doesn’t mean it will be less economical when driven the same way.

But it will be less economical.

OEM’s tune for the most HP under the curve with the lowest fuel consumption. This leads to mediocre high rpm power output, poor throttle response and ultra lean mixtures that burn very hot and need thousands of hours of dyno testing to make sure that the lean tuning doesn’t lead to nuclear meltdown.

When a tuner gets their hands on a vehicle, the fist thing they do is richen up the mixture in the fuel tables, which allows them to run more ignition advance with the same octane rating and it makes the engine run cooler, which means running safer and it simultaneously improves throttle response and improves the peak hp number. The downside is that the rich mixture means it is not going to meet emission regulations and it will have a higher specific fuel consumption per horsepower-hour generated.

The only way a tuner will be able to generate more power with lower specific fuel consumption is to run more timing advance and leaner mixtures than stock, which is a recipe for catastrophic engine failure.

If you want a reliable performance tune, it will burn more fuel, all of the time.

 

[Big Swede]

But it will be less economical.

OEM’s tune for the most HP under the curve with the lowest fuel consumption. This leads to mediocre high rpm power output, poor throttle response and ultra lean mixtures that burn very hot and need thousands of hours of dyno testing to make sure that the lean tuning doesn’t lead to nuclear meltdown.

When a tuner gets their hands on a vehicle, the fist thing they do is richen up the mixture in the fuel tables, which allows them to run more ignition advance with the same octane rating and it makes the engine run cooler, which means running safer and it simultaneously improves throttle response and improves the peak hp number. The downside is that the rich mixture means it is not going to meet emission regulations and it will have a higher specific fuel consumption per horsepower-hour generated.

The only way a tuner will be able to generate more power with lower specific fuel consumption is to run more timing advance and leaner mixtures than stock, which is a recipe for catastrophic engine failure.

If you want a reliable performance tune, it will burn more fuel, all of the time.

Just not always true with a boosted engines. I’ve seen plenty of tunes that were the same as stock until the upper rpm’s but added 4lbs of boost up top for more horsepower. If you stay out of full throttle the vehicle runs the exact same as stock.


The factory also has to make the tune idiot proof for a wide range of circumstances. Some people burn lower octane gas, live at different altitudes, etc. so it’s not like the factory tune is on the ragged edge. If a specific customer wants a little more power you can bump up timing since that customer knows he will have to burn 93 octane.

 

[Big Swede]

I spent 47 years in the industrial machinery manufacturing business. Every machine had minimum and maximum speed settings. The parts were designed to operate in those parameters with a small fudge factor. No manufacturer designs their product to operate at 20 to 50% over stated parameters if they did you would pay more for the product. I will repeat AGAIN you do what you want with yours and I will do what I want with mine but don;t complain when yours fails because you modified it.

No one said 20-50% over factory but there are tons of engines down through history that have way more headroom than you’re thinking. Typically factory supercharged or turbocharged cars have a ton of headroom built in such as the B58 or the 2JZ. The Coyote, despite being designed for NA holds up very well when way more power is added.

 

[Phimosis]

Just not always true with a boosted engines. I’ve seen plenty of tunes that were the same as stock until the upper rpm’s but added 4lbs of boost up top for more horsepower. If you stay out of full throttle the vehicle runs the exact same as stock.


The factory also has to make the tune idiot proof for a wide range of circumstances. Some people burn lower octane gas, live at different altitudes, etc. so it’s not like the factory tune is on the ragged edge. If a specific customer wants a little more power you can bump up timing since that customer knows he will have to burn 93 octane.

I was waiting for the part about having to run higher octane…. And there you go. Now It’s not as economical as the stock tune. You’re now forced to run expensive gas in it, even if you’re going to baby it 90% of the time.

The bottom line is that every single person with an aftermarket tune burns more fuel than people with stock tunes.

There’s literally no one that goes to a tuner, ponies up $500 for a tune and asks for a hyper-mile tune to improve their mpg and make less power.

 

[Buggy Man]

I was waiting for the part about having to run higher octane…. And there you go. Now It’s not as economical as the stock tune. You’re now forced to run expensive gas in it, even if you’re going to baby it 90% of the time.

The bottom line is that every single person with an aftermarket tune burns more fuel than people with stock tunes.

There’s literally no one that goes to a tuner, ponies up $500 for a tune and asks for a hyper-mile tune to improve their mpg and make less power.

Some people just don't care about MPG.
To a degree, I do watch the MPG but if the need arises - I let the horses out.

 

[Buggy Man]

Then you NEED a Coyote equipped engine. tell me WHY you bought a vehicle with less HP than you need "when the need arises"?

At my age I don't need 400 hp + anymore. Been there done that.

.

 

[OWP]

I'm in the group that doesn't care about MPG. Here is a mix of questions and points since I feel blanket statements are being made that leave out a lot of use cases.

1) My manual says to preferably run 91 Octane (I'm in Cali), I put in a tune for 91 Octane via Cobb. So still buying the same gas. Yes not a "tuner's" tune and just a canned one but I think many of use use those.
2) Has anyone monitored the AFR at cruise stock vs tuned? I think that would be a good indicator of economy during normal off boost driving. No reason I can think of to have it run richer in those conditions, the beauty of computers.
3) I once added forced induction to a Miata and it was way more fun, it was a commuter that lived on the freeway tho, and if I stayed out of boost as much as possible it ended up using less gas. It was a stock ECU with piggybacks for timing and fuel pressure tho, not a proper tune. I have theories as to why it improved but no concrete evidence.

I no longer commute and mainly just drive around my little town which is really bad for MPG so I can't test any of this out right now.

Sponsored