Bronco Forum - Full Size Ford Bronco Forum banner

1 - 20 of 58 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
102 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
What kind of horsepower are you guys getting? Anybody ever dyno'd your Bronco? If so, what mods do you have engine wise.

I have a 95 351W, K&N custom FIPK, performance chip, and a custom exhaust setup. I am wondering what kind of hp I can expect.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
812 Posts
Book shows about 150HP.

NO4NJNK
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
102 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
NO4NJNK said:
Book shows about 150HP.

NO4NJNK

Hahaha, online when I checked Ford rated the 351W in the 95 Bronco to have 240 flywheel hp. I realize this is not at the wheels, but the general rule of thumb is to take 15% off the flywheel horsepower and that is a rough way of figuring out about how much hp you have to the wheels. 150 hp is rediculous.

The question is, did Ford under or overate the 351W? I want to see dyno proof.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
893 Posts
well i guarantee you that a high mileage 351W would dyno under 200
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
102 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
90bronconate said:
well i guarantee you that a high mileage 351W would dyno under 200
That's kinda depressing if it is true. This seems like all speculation though. Look up the word Ad Hominem.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
56 Posts
Not to be critical but seeing these HP numbers of 150 HP for a 351 V8 or 150 HP for 5.8 L I wonder what Ford was not doing back in the day?
Two cases in point I own a 1984 Alfa Romeo GTV-6 with 154 HP out of a 2.5 L (165 CI)
V-6 (the aluminum block weighs 60lbs!) and a Jag XJ-S with 300 HP out of a 5.3L V-12.

My truck is a '94 Bronco 5.8L. Am I missing something here?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
185 Posts
Well regardless of the numbers, if your happy with the power of your bronco then it shouldnt matter...it could be 70 hp or 700....but as long as it gets the job done then it's not that important. Ya it would be cool if the 351 put out huge power....but then think about how your drivetrain would hold up in the narly stuff...i mean guys break the ttb as it is.....I think ford matched the power to weak links of the front end....
 

·
OUT OF BUSINESS / M.I.A.
Joined
·
10,858 Posts
millpondmonster said:
actually who cares about a few H.P., torque is what gets a 4x4 down the trail. :thumbup
:stupid

If you really cared search, it's been done, talked about, trucks on the rollers.
There are no fancy ricer numbers coming from Broncos.
Just be happy with how it drives
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
893 Posts
IBlairI said:
That's kinda depressing if it is true. This seems like all speculation though. Look up the word Ad Hominem.
well it's basic reasoning. the 351W never got more than 210 according to http://www3.telus.net/cbradley/Engine_Specifications.html
well that's engine horsepower, and the best ratings that the factory ever squeezed out of it. ur talking about rear wheel every day horsepower, and there's at least a 15% loss through the drivetrain. so i guarantee that if you took a stock 87-96 351W, it would dyno under 200 hp.

edit -
IBlairI said:
Look up the word Ad Hominem.
umm. i've been to english class i know what it means. but i don't get why ur saying it. :shrug just cuz i'm a kid that doesn't know much about cars?
 

·
negative creep
Joined
·
8,651 Posts
BibBlu94 said:
Not to be critical but seeing these HP numbers of 150 HP for a 351 V8 or 150 HP for 5.8 L I wonder what Ford was not doing back in the day?
Two cases in point I own a 1984 Alfa Romeo GTV-6 with 154 HP out of a 2.5 L (165 CI)
V-6 (the aluminum block weighs 60lbs!) and a Jag XJ-S with 300 HP out of a 5.3L V-12.

My truck is a '94 Bronco 5.8L. Am I missing something here?
yes. the other motors probably don't have near the torque of the 351. also, without knowing much about those other engines, i will say that they rev quite a bit higher then a 351 which also contributes. there are really so many factors here you can't compare. the euro engines are lighter and have a lower rotating mass which gives more power, somewhat at the cost of ultimate durability which is more desirable in a truck engine. cams, intakes, compression ratio, exhaust, blah blah blah, i don't even know where to begin.

case in point being the honda s2000 engine (a personal favorite) makes 240hp from 2L at roughly 10000 rpms. a lightning 351 makes that same horsepower at 4200rpm. the s2000 engine makes like 150 lb/ft of torque at like 8k while the lightning makes [email protected] its all in the tuning of the engine.
 

·
Pissin' into the wind
Joined
·
2,523 Posts
I'm rebuilding my engine right now and I don't expect to really see anything special, right in the 220-250hp range. And I hope to have upwards of around 330ft lbs of torque...and I've been told thats a good target to aim for with my 351W.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
102 Posts
Discussion Starter #19
I get the whole tuning point. I guess the 351 was geared more towards torque than horsepower. Here is the Lightning 95 5.8L engine specifications.

1995 5.8W (351 ci) 240 hp @ 4200 rpm 340 ft/lb @ 3200 rpm Lightning Motor

What is the difference in the lightning motor?

Over 300 lbs/ft of torque is pretty good for a 95 considering the dodge ram hemi has like385. I guess FSB people don't dyno their broncos...
 

·
OUT OF BUSINESS / M.I.A.
Joined
·
10,858 Posts
we do, just not exciting news.
Dyno'd my bronco 2 years ago, will do agian this summer.
I don't do it to brag, its for personal judging of how performance parts work.

Why don't you go dyno :shrug
then you'd know what your personal truck does with the parts you've added.

Lightnings are a different animal than Broncos.
the entire engine is different, from the crank / pistons to the intake.
 
1 - 20 of 58 Posts
Top