300HP 360 Mag crate NET (or) 240HP 5.9L Mag GROSS HP? - Moparts Forums

Register Log In Moparts Forums Moparts Question and Answer 300HP 360 Mag crate NET (or) 240HP 5.9L Mag GROSS HP?

Print Thread

Page 1 of 2

1

2

300HP 360 Mag crate NET (or) 240HP 5.9L Mag GROSS HP? #1591828 03/12/14 10:03 AM 03/12/14 10:03 AM
Joined: Jan 2005 Posts: 4,862 the frozen wastes... Pale_Roader OP Swears too much
Pale_Roader OP Swears too much Joined: Jan 2005 Posts: 4,862 the frozen wastes...	I'm trying to figure out my options here. I'm told a 5.9L Magnum is basically a 300HP Magnum crate engine, as far as internals and specs go. Basically take a 5.9L Magnum from a truck, swap on an RPM and proper carb, and headers, and i'll have a 300HP (gross) HP engine. But what would the NET be? Guess i'm asking, what do an RPM intake, proper carb and headers ADD to the 5.9L's net 240-245HP? Talking just stock, pull-out engines here, BEFORE i start messing with heads, cams, compression, etc.

Re: 300HP 360 Mag crate NET (or) 240HP 5.9L Mag GROSS HP? [Re: Pale_Roader] #1591829 03/12/14 11:43 AM 03/12/14 11:43 AM
Joined: Jan 2007 Posts: 1,668 Mi,U.S.A. M mike s top fuel
mike s top fuel M Joined: Jan 2007 Posts: 1,668 Mi,U.S.A.	Google the 2008 Hot Rod mag build.It's all there. Leave the gun.......take the Cannoli's....Mike

Re: 300HP 360 Mag crate NET (or) 240HP 5.9L Mag GROSS HP? [Re: Pale_Roader] #1591830 03/13/14 01:46 AM 03/13/14 01:46 AM
Joined: Mar 2007 Posts: 3,277 West Coast, USA jbc426 master
jbc426 master Joined: Mar 2007 Posts: 3,277 West Coast, USA	a bit, but not much without changing the cam. 1970 Plymouth 'Cuda #'s 440-6(block in storage)currently 493" 6 pack, Shaker, 5 speed Passon, 4.10's 1968 Plymouth Barracuda Convertible 408 Magnum EFI with 4 speed automatic overdrive, 3800 stall lock-up converter and 4.30's (closest thing to an automatic 5 speed going)

Re: 300HP 360 Mag crate NET (or) 240HP 5.9L Mag GROSS HP? [Re: mike s] #1591831 03/13/14 06:44 AM 03/13/14 06:44 AM
Joined: Jan 2005 Posts: 4,862 the frozen wastes... Pale_Roader OP Swears too much
Pale_Roader OP Swears too much Joined: Jan 2005 Posts: 4,862 the frozen wastes...	Quote: Google the 2008 Hot Rod mag build.It's all there. Not really... i've seen it many times before and it just tells me what i already know. I'm curious what kind ov NET HP figures that stock engine (w RPM, carb and headers) would make behind a manual transmission. I'm guessing that the as installed NET HP would be considerably lower than the rated 300 engine dyno HP. Or how about REAR WHEEL HP figures for the 5.9L Magnum? Dont suppose anyone here has chassis-dyno'd a truck? or a car with a swapped 5.9L?

Re: 300HP 360 Mag crate NET (or) 240HP 5.9L Mag GROSS HP? [Re: jbc426] #1591832 03/13/14 06:45 AM 03/13/14 06:45 AM
Joined: Jan 2005 Posts: 4,862 the frozen wastes... Pale_Roader OP Swears too much
Pale_Roader OP Swears too much Joined: Jan 2005 Posts: 4,862 the frozen wastes...	Quote: a bit, but not much without changing the cam. I could do the math myself, but being smallblock-impaired, i have NOOO idea what headers and an RPM intake add over the stock manifolds and beer barrel.

Re: 300HP 360 Mag crate NET (or) 240HP 5.9L Mag GROSS HP? [Re: Pale_Roader] #1591833 03/13/14 02:17 PM 03/13/14 02:17 PM
Joined: Jan 2005 Posts: 4,404 Michigan MarkZ Worthy
MarkZ Worthy Joined: Jan 2005 Posts: 4,404 Michigan	http://www.moparmusclemagazine.com/techa...p_crate_engine/ This is a very good read and should give you some good numbers on building a stockish 360 Mag. 1987 Fifth Avenue - 512/518/D60

Re: 300HP 360 Mag crate NET (or) 240HP 5.9L Mag GROSS HP? [Re: MarkZ] #1591834 03/13/14 02:49 PM 03/13/14 02:49 PM
Joined: Oct 2005 Posts: 6,048 Back home in PA B BulletBob master
BulletBob master B Joined: Oct 2005 Posts: 6,048 Back home in PA	That 300 motor falls off where my stocker does with a carb & 92 model manifolds between 4800-5200 rpm

Re: 300HP 360 Mag crate NET (or) 240HP 5.9L Mag GROSS HP? [Re: BulletBob] #1591835 03/13/14 02:58 PM 03/13/14 02:58 PM
Joined: Oct 2005 Posts: 6,048 Back home in PA B BulletBob master
BulletBob master B Joined: Oct 2005 Posts: 6,048 Back home in PA	Myron (LocoMotion)is the man to talk to about a stocker style Magnum too

Re: 300HP 360 Mag crate NET (or) 240HP 5.9L Mag GROSS HP? [Re: BulletBob] #1591836 03/13/14 07:32 PM 03/13/14 07:32 PM
Joined: Jan 2005 Posts: 4,862 the frozen wastes... Pale_Roader OP Swears too much
Pale_Roader OP Swears too much Joined: Jan 2005 Posts: 4,862 the frozen wastes...	All these articles are in gross/crank engine dyno horsepower. That means nothing to me. Maybe i've been playing with Mustangs too long, but i want to know what its doing in NET HP or RWHP.

Re: 300HP 360 Mag crate NET (or) 240HP 5.9L Mag GROSS HP? [Re: Pale_Roader] #1591837 03/13/14 11:45 PM 03/13/14 11:45 PM
Joined: Jan 2008 Posts: 4,254 Canada WO23Coronet master
WO23Coronet master Joined: Jan 2008 Posts: 4,254 Canada	IIRC, the 300 HP crate engine dyno'ed around 320HP, so I would guess around 280-290 ish net? Also, I'd be suprise if the 5.9 had an actual 240-245 HP in stock form as they all received the death flash that cut a bunch of timing and killed power (to compensate for the plenum leak they all had).

Re: 300HP 360 Mag crate NET (or) 240HP 5.9L Mag GROSS HP? [Re: Pale_Roader] #1591838 03/14/14 12:47 AM 03/14/14 12:47 AM
Joined: Jan 2005 Posts: 4,404 Michigan MarkZ Worthy
MarkZ Worthy Joined: Jan 2005 Posts: 4,404 Michigan	Quote: All these articles are in gross/crank engine dyno horsepower. That means nothing to me. Maybe i've been playing with Mustangs too long, but i want to know what its doing in NET HP or RWHP. Got it, so why does it have to be in the context of this particular motor and build? Parasitic loss is going to be the same percentage regardless of what motor is in front of it. Get the percentage based loss of the accessories you're looking to run and apply it to your gross number. I don't know what accessories eat up, but for drive line loss I see 15 and 18 percent tossed around a lot for manual and automatic respectively. Last edited by MarkM; 03/14/14 12:57 AM.

Re: 300HP 360 Mag crate NET (or) 240HP 5.9L Mag GROSS HP? [Re: MarkZ] #1591839 03/14/14 07:03 AM 03/14/14 07:03 AM
Joined: Jun 2008 Posts: 10,847 Oakdale CT gdonovan I Live Here
gdonovan I Live Here Joined: Jun 2008 Posts: 10,847 Oakdale CT	[quote I don't know what accessories eat up, but for drive line loss I see 15 and 18 percent tossed around a lot for manual and automatic respectively. And that is being generous, I'd use a higher number. Chrysler engineer I know took an engine he setup on a dyno and then transferred it over to a vehicle and it lost 18% with a manual trans. Of course with this being said, dynos differ on what they register for output. "I think its got a hemi"

Re: 300HP 360 Mag crate NET (or) 240HP 5.9L Mag GROSS HP? [Re: MarkZ] #1591840 03/14/14 08:08 AM 03/14/14 08:08 AM
Joined: Jan 2005 Posts: 4,862 the frozen wastes... Pale_Roader OP Swears too much
Pale_Roader OP Swears too much Joined: Jan 2005 Posts: 4,862 the frozen wastes...	Quote: Quote: All these articles are in gross/crank engine dyno horsepower. That means nothing to me. Maybe i've been playing with Mustangs too long, but i want to know what its doing in NET HP or RWHP. Got it, so why does it have to be in the context of this particular motor and build? Parasitic loss is going to be the same percentage regardless of what motor is in front of it. Get the percentage based loss of the accessories you're looking to run and apply it to your gross number. I don't know what accessories eat up, but for drive line loss I see 15 and 18 percent tossed around a lot for manual and automatic respectively. Now we're getting somewhere. I'd always used 17% loss from gross to net, which was based off no small amount ov math i did on the subject waaaaaaay back. Problem is, for the life ov me i cant remember how i came about those numbers, so i'm hesitant to use that here. I DO remember that in 1971, the Hemi made 425 gross HP and 350 net (about 17%). Thats not where my math came from though, but an interesting tidbit nonetheless. In fact, playing with the gross to net calcs in 1971 (the only year they rated with both methods) it typically comes out around 17%. To keep things simple here too, i'm always talking about a stick car, with no accessories like power steering, AC, etc. Just the necessary stuff like alt, one pulley, etc. What i'm doing here, is not so much building a bench engine, more just trying to figure out how these engines rate next to other modern engines. Still trying to figure out which way to go with the powerplant. Hard to compare a 300HP gross engine to a different 300HP net engine, and so on. I understand the 245 rating was a product ov crappy timing and tune, and equally bogus manifolds and exhaust... so for my intentions it just wont do. None ov the engines i'm comparing it to use gross ratings.

Re: 300HP 360 Mag crate NET (or) 240HP 5.9L Mag GROSS HP? [Re: Pale_Roader] #1591841 03/14/14 09:57 AM 03/14/14 09:57 AM
Joined: Jan 2006 Posts: 8,162 USA 3 360view Moparts resident spammer
360view Moparts resident spammer 3 Joined: Jan 2006 Posts: 8,162 USA	I have a OBD-I 1995 5.9 Magnum v8 rated 230 SAE net HP at 4000 rpm 330 ft lbs at 3200 I know by measuring myself that the factory stock exhaust system had about 8 psi of back pressure at 4000 rpm, and that the full throttle air to fuel ratio was a very rich 10.5 to 1 at 4000 rpm I have entered all the stock specifications into a Performance Trends Engine Analyzer version 3.2 computer program and can get it to nearly match factory rated output: 230 SAE net peak HP at 4000 rpm 333 ft lbs peak torque at 3200 rpm at an air fuel ratio of 12.5 to 1 The true richer 10.5 to 1 a/f probably reduces peak HP two to four percent If i change the "Gross HP" specs to Typical Dyno condions no accessories no fan no water pump tubular 4 into 1 headers 38 inches long 1.625 internal diameter 800 cfm exhaust rating Output increases to 285 HP at 4300 rpm 383 ft lbs at 3400 rpm exhaust pressure is 0.7 psi at 4300 rpm So Gross conditions adds about 55 HP or roughly 24% note i am still using the factory design "Beer Barrel" intake manifold with its long 15.5 inch runners which is optimized for about 3600 rpm Substituting a single plane MPI style intake manifold with shorter, larger passage runners would add 20 to 30 Additional Gross HP roughly 230 SAE net can be turned into 305 Gross HP 1998 Magnums with their 245 SAE net rating on OBD-II had less restrictive exhaust systems, slightly less flow fuel injectors, no EGR, almost no internal plenum center divider and a longer intake duration camshaft compared to my 1995 model The 1998 camshaft might be good for another 10 Gross HP so 245 SAE net might become 315 Gross Performance Trends estimates that their computer model output guesses are within 6% of actual HP and Torque 95% of the time

Re: 300HP 360 Mag crate NET (or) 240HP 5.9L Mag GROSS HP? [Re: Pale_Roader] #1591842 03/14/14 10:04 AM 03/14/14 10:04 AM
Joined: Feb 2005 Posts: 4,311 Prospect, PA BSB67 master
BSB67 master Joined: Feb 2005 Posts: 4,311 Prospect, PA	Quote: Quote: Quote: All these articles are in gross/crank engine dyno horsepower. That means nothing to me. Maybe i've been playing with Mustangs too long, but i want to know what its doing in NET HP or RWHP. Got it, so why does it have to be in the context of this particular motor and build? Parasitic loss is going to be the same percentage regardless of what motor is in front of it. Get the percentage based loss of the accessories you're looking to run and apply it to your gross number. I don't know what accessories eat up, but for drive line loss I see 15 and 18 percent tossed around a lot for manual and automatic respectively. Now we're getting somewhere. I'd always used 17% loss from gross to net, which was based off no small amount ov math i did on the subject waaaaaaay back. Problem is, for the life ov me i cant remember how i came about those numbers, so i'm hesitant to use that here. I DO remember that in 1971, the Hemi made 425 gross HP and 350 net (about 17%). Thats not where my math came from though, but an interesting tidbit nonetheless. In fact, playing with the gross to net calcs in 1971 (the only year they rated with both methods) it typically comes out around 17%. To keep things simple here too, i'm always talking about a stick car, with no accessories like power steering, AC, etc. Just the necessary stuff like alt, one pulley, etc. What i'm doing here, is not so much building a bench engine, more just trying to figure out how these engines rate next to other modern engines. Still trying to figure out which way to go with the powerplant. Hard to compare a 300HP gross engine to a different 300HP net engine, and so on. I understand the 245 rating was a product ov crappy timing and tune, and equally bogus manifolds and exhaust... so for my intentions it just wont do. None ov the engines i'm comparing it to use gross ratings. Gross, net and RWHP are all different from each other, and add in the ever changing standards that are used in the industry to make such measurements and you will understand that these types of comparisons become completely meaningless. Knowing the quality/performance potential of the current exhaust and induction system will have the largest influence on the hp change from one set-up to the other. Then call it what ever hp gain that makes you happy Last edited by BSB67; 03/14/14 10:05 AM.

Re: 300HP 360 Mag crate NET (or) 240HP 5.9L Mag GROSS HP? [Re: BSB67] #1591843 03/14/14 02:35 PM 03/14/14 02:35 PM
Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 16,376 D dogdays I Live Here
dogdays I Live Here D Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 16,376	Pale Roader, go back to the store and buy either apples OR oranges. You are confusing the ways horsepower is rated. "Gross" horsepower is how the 1970 engines were rated. No accessories, and corrected to standard conditions, something like that. Net horsepower is how later engines are rated, still on a dyno but with all accessories and I believe exhaust systems, also the standard correction factor may be a little less generous. They are both way different than rear wheel horsepower. Rear wheel horsepower should be something like the Net number, minus the 15 - 25% drivetrain losses. R.

Re: 300HP 360 Mag crate NET (or) 240HP 5.9L Mag GROSS HP? [Re: dogdays] #1591844 03/14/14 03:31 PM 03/14/14 03:31 PM
Joined: Jan 2007 Posts: 1,668 Mi,U.S.A. M mike s top fuel
mike s top fuel M Joined: Jan 2007 Posts: 1,668 Mi,U.S.A.	All Magnum engines were tested and rated w/accessories,water pump and alt working.Losses are not the same as the 60's.Bracketry, pumps belts,alt itself are all less drag.Engines were off the line everyday engines once production was started.Yes they may have had a different part or 3 but that was only to test new parts.BTW tested with the exact exh back pressure as the vehicle. Where do you guys get this misinformation you are posting? Leave the gun.......take the Cannoli's....Mike

Re: 300HP 360 Mag crate NET (or) 240HP 5.9L Mag GROSS HP? [Re: mike s] #1591845 03/14/14 03:39 PM 03/14/14 03:39 PM
Joined: Nov 2006 Posts: 189 Wisconsin,USA Bzzzz member
Bzzzz member Joined: Nov 2006 Posts: 189 Wisconsin,USA	Maybe HotrodDave will chime in too! he messes with magnums quite a bit.. here is a good source too www.magnumswap.com Last edited by Bzzzz; 03/14/14 03:40 PM. 2005 Dodge 1500 Slt Hemi 2008 Chrysler PT cruiser 1984 Dodge D250 1978 Dodge D100 Adventurer 1964 Meyers Manx Dunebuggy

Re: 300HP 360 Mag crate NET (or) 240HP 5.9L Mag GROSS HP? [Re: mike s] #1591846 03/14/14 06:44 PM 03/14/14 06:44 PM
Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 16,376 D dogdays I Live Here
dogdays I Live Here D Joined: Jan 2003 Posts: 16,376	So I said "with all accessories and I believe exhaust systems" how is that different than what you said? There were, however, a lot of misconceptions starting with the OP. R. Last edited by dogdays; 03/14/14 06:46 PM.

Re: 300HP 360 Mag crate NET (or) 240HP 5.9L Mag GROSS HP? [Re: dogdays] #1591847 03/15/14 03:46 AM 03/15/14 03:46 AM
Joined: Jan 2007 Posts: 1,668 Mi,U.S.A. M mike s top fuel
mike s top fuel M Joined: Jan 2007 Posts: 1,668 Mi,U.S.A.	Quote: So I said "with all accessories and I believe exhaust systems" how is that different than what you said? There were, however, a lot of misconceptions starting with the OP. R. I should have noted I agreed with you.I was pointing out the absolute nonsense stated by others. Leave the gun.......take the Cannoli's....Mike

Page 1 of 2

1

2

Moderated by Al_Alguire, Hotwheelsjr, moparts, not_a_charger, RangerDan440, tboomer

Hop To

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.1