2021 3.0 Diesel on a Dyno @ 396 Wheel & 495 FT-LB CRANK TQ - Video attached

[40”JLURD]

Over 50ft lbs on motors that are built identically? Eh maybe if you also factor in air density, altitude and fuel variations? Of course with a turbo altitude should be less of a factor?

I dunno, I'm not jealous and I understand your eagerness to believe numbers that make your JL look good on paper, but I'd still be a bit skeptical.

I’m not “eager” for any numbers, just sharing what it did with everyone.

Believe what you want. Some people believe in Jesus, Aliens, all sorts of other weird shit.

That’s life

Sponsored

 

[D60]

Merely asking questions. You could definitely add those who dare question you to your Ignore List, though -- that would effectively remove me from your world.

Sorry to offend.

 

[Nickp01]

Not sure why people are even humoring this post. Just briefly checking youtube Casey 250 dyno’d one and it was at around 220 hp/390 torque. That seems 1000x more realistic.

 

[40”JLURD]

Not sure why people are even humoring this post. Just briefly checking youtube Casey 250 dyno’d one and it was at around 220 hp/390 torque. That seems 1000x more realistic.

Correct he did Dyno one - So you think 390 Torque is “1000x more realistic” than 396 torque?

I pulled up the video ; here it is for anyone interested.

@Casey250 Dyno’d at 387 Torque in this Video (at the rear wheels)
Mine came in at 396 Torque at the rear wheels.

It would seem as though this video supports my Dyno results being authentic if anything. Using the same formula I did on mine he would be at 387.3 Torque at the wheels and 484 CRANK Torque.

Once again this is a hand calculated number.(I AM NOT SAYING THIS RIGHT OR 10,000% ACCURATE - I am simply saying by applying the same formula to Casey250’s results...)

Or is Casey250, and his Dyno guy full of shit too and they are also on a broken Dyno??? Sure a lot of broken Dyno’s putting out almost exactly the same numbers around here

 

[Nickp01]

Correct he did Dyno one - So you think 390 Torque is “1000x more realistic” than 396 torque?

I pulled up the video ; here it is for anyone interested.

@Casey250 Dyno’d at 387 Torque in this Video (at the rear wheels)
Mine came in at 396 Torque at the rear wheels.

It would seem as though this video supports my Dyno results being authentic if anything. Using the same formula I did on mine he would be at 387.3 Torque at the wheels and 484 CRANK Torque.

Once again this is a hand calculated number.(I AM NOT SAYING THIS RIGHT OR 10,000% ACCURATE - I am simply saying by applying the same formula to Casey250’s results...)

Or is Casey250, and his Dyno guy full of shit too and they are also on a broken Dyno??? Sure a lot of broken Dyno’s putting out almost exactly the same numbers around here

I’m more referring to the title of the thread which is that crank power is almost 500 ft-lbs. There is not 25% drivetrain losses in a wrangler that’s insane. 10% is a lot closer to reality, and that puts it at 435 torque.

Essentially the title of this thread should be “eco diesel makes almost exactly the power it’s rated for”

 

[rickinAZ]

I’m more referring to the title of the thread which is that crank power is almost 500 ft-lbs. There is not 25% drivetrain losses in a wrangler that’s insane. 10% is a lot closer to reality, and that puts it at 435 torque.

Over the years the drivetrain loss that I've heard consistently is 15%. That said, I've dynoed a vehicle once and that was enough to tell me that it is far from a perfect science. You guys are debating a number that will change as you move from dyno to dyno. Now if you do before/after pulls on the same dyno (and similar ambient conditions), to evaluate the impact of a mod - that's much more credible.

All of that said, 40" JLURD's results were questionably high, but I applaud him for posting (and taking the flack that it caused) his results. Bottom line: to some extent we shot the messenger.

My bigger concern with the Ecodiesel is not peak power, but that annoying hesitation from a dead stop. Feels like FCA has purposely restrained the engine to protect the driveline. The power doesn't hit with quite the authority that 442lbft of low rpm torque should provide. And, even that is not as much a concern as an observation.

 

[Nickp01]

Over the years the drivetrain loss that I've heard consistently is 15%. That said, I've dynoed a vehicle once and that was enough to tell me that it is far from a perfect science. You guys are debating a number that will change as you move from dyno to dyno. Now if you do before/after pulls on the same dyno (and similar ambient conditions), to evaluate the impact of a mod - that's much more credible.

All of that said, 40" JLURD's results were questionably high, but I applaud him for posting (and taking the flack that it caused) his results. Bottom line: to some extent we shot the messenger.

My bigger concern with the Ecodiesel is not peak power, but that annoying hesitation from a dead stop. Feels like FCA has purposely restrained the engine to protect the driveline. The power does hit with quite the authority that 442lbft of lower rpm torque should provide. And, even that is not as much a concern as an observation.

I am sure they retard the timing a bit especially in first gear, I’m pretty sure they do that even with the lesser engines.

 

[40”JLURD]

I’m more referring to the title of the thread which is that crank power is almost 500 ft-lbs. There is not 25% drivetrain losses in a wrangler that’s insane. 10% is a lot closer to reality, and that puts it at 435 torque.

Essentially the title of this thread should be “eco diesel makes almost exactly the power it’s rated for”

If you watch that video from @Casey250 the guy performing the Dyno says on vehicles with transfer cases the power train losses can be up to 40%

But hey @Nickp01 I am sure you know more than the guy who OWNS AND RUNS A DYNO SHOP. Jeez everyone is a freaking expert... So tell me are you more qualified at Dyno’s than the guy performing the test in @Casey250’s video? Freaking keyboard warriors ...

 

[40”JLURD]

Over the years the drivetrain loss that I've heard consistently is 15%. That said, I've dynoed a vehicle once and that was enough to tell me that it is far from a perfect science. You guys are debating a number that will change as you move from dyno to dyno. Now if you do before/after pulls on the same dyno (and similar ambient conditions), to evaluate the impact of a mod - that's much more credible.

All of that said, 40" JLURD's results were questionably high, but I applaud him for posting (and taking the flack that it caused) his results. Bottom line: to some extent we shot the messenger.

My bigger concern with the Ecodiesel is not peak power, but that annoying hesitation from a dead stop. Feels like FCA has purposely restrained the engine to protect the driveline. The power doesn't hit with quite the authority that 442lbft of lower rpm torque should provide. And, even that is not as much a concern as an observation.

Thank you for proving people with a brain do still exist.

Good comments, the peak power doesn’t kick in until about 2,000 RPM (I know the factory claims much lower like 1,400 RPM but it seriously dogs it there) so maybe that’s why it’s slow off the line?

 

[Rodeoflyer]

Read through this entire post looking for what tune is available for the diesel that could generate 540 wheel tq :-(.

 

[40”JLURD]

I’m more referring to the title of the thread which is that crank power is almost 500 ft-lbs. There is not 25% drivetrain losses in a wrangler that’s insane. 10% is a lot closer to reality, and that puts it at 435 torque.

Essentially the title of this thread should be “eco diesel makes almost exactly the power it’s rated for”

You know more than the people who wrote this article too huh @Nickp01 ???

http://www.superstreetonline.com/how-to/engine/modp-1005-drivetrain-power-loss

Where’d My Horsepower Go? Drivetrain Power Loss & The 15% "Rule"
Can you apply a universal power loss percentage to all drivetrains?
David Pratte – Mar 9, 2020
Photographer: Super Street Archives
SHARE

Updated March 2020 - Drivetrain power loss is a common topic of conversation in the tuner world because any time you strap your car to a chassis dyno, the output being measured is at the wheel, not at the crankshaft or flywheel like the published SAE net horsepower figures used by the auto industry. Strap your 298hp Rev-Up G35 Coupe to the dyno and you may be disappointed to see little more than 220 to 230 horses measured at the rear wheels. Where did that 60-plus horsepower go? It was used up in a variety of ways before it could reach the drive wheels, the primary source being what's broadly described as drivetrain loss.
What's interesting about this example is that when you do the math, you'll see the percent loss is much higher than the 15 percent "rule" you'll find in any number of online threads on the subject. For whatever reason, drivetrain loss seems to be one of the most poorly understood subjects discussed online, so despite my love of the Internet and the limitless pornography it makes available to me, when it comes to a fairly technical subject like this it's hard to find good information.

SAE: Setting the Standard

Years ago, I needed to educate myself on drivetrain losses while heading a rulebook committee for a local racing series that wanted to use dyno tests to measure engine output and then convert the results to net horsepower. After fruitlessly Googling and sifting through endless threads polluted with half-truths and misinformation, I turned to the same source that developed the current manufacturer horsepower standard, SAE International (formerly known as the Society of Automotive Engineers). On its website you can access brief summaries of technical papers published by some of the world's leading automotive engineers.

Photo 20/20 | Where’d My Horsepower Go? Drivetrain Power Loss & The 15% "Rule"
View Photo Gallery (20) Photos
One of the first things I learned from reading these papers was to completely disregard the 15 percent drivetrain loss "rule" (or any other percent value) that so often comes up during online discussions of rated versus net horsepower. The fact of the matter is every vehicle experiences different levels of drivetrain loss as determined by the design of its transmission and driveline components. Simply put, the amount of horsepower lost to the forces of inertia, drag, windage, pumping and friction are different for every engine, transmission and driveline design.

So the total power lost between combustion and forward motion is specific to each vehicle and therefore no single rule, percentage, or fixed number could possibly apply to all vehicles. Even on the most superficial level, this is easy enough to understand because an all-wheel-drive Subaruobviously has a lot more driveline components to spin (front, middle and rear differentials along with front and rear driveshafts and two prop shafts) and a beefier transmission to hold all that turbocharged torque, so it's naturally going to suffer from greater drivetrain losses than a Honda Fit with its much smaller and less robust transmission, smaller and lighter driveshafts (and no prop shaft) and single differential.




Types of Power Loss

Breaking down the different types of losses that occur within a vehicle's drivetrain, steady-state losses occur while the vehicle is cruising at a steady or constant speed, where average angular acceleration is zero because no additional torque is being called upon to accelerate the drivetrain's rotational mass. Within the drivetrain, steady-state power losses occur from the following components: the transmission torque converter (in the case of automatic transmissions), the transmission oil pump, clutch pack drag, one-way clutch drag, seal and bearing drag, gear windage and friction, and final drive losses.

Photo 20/20 | Where’d My Horsepower Go? Drivetrain Power Loss & The 15% "Rule"
View Photo Gallery (20) Photos
Dynamic drivetrain losses, on the other hand, include the rotational inertial losses from angular acceleration occurring within the drivetrain while accelerating. In fact, during acceleration there are losses from the rotational inertia of spinning transmission and differential internals as well as driveline components like driveshafts and prop shafts, but also from the increased load and friction being generated between the gears within the transmission and differential(s). With increased friction comes increased heat (more on that later)
It's important to understand the difference between steady-state and dynamic losses because SAE net horsepower, as reported by the auto industry, is measured in a steady-state condition. What this means is that the horsepower rating for your vehicle doesn't take into account dynamic losses that occur during acceleration. However, when you strap your car to a chassis dyno to measure its engine's output, the test is conducted at wide-open throttle and power is measured by the speed at which the dyno's rollers are accelerated. This means that drivetrain losses from rotational inertia and increasing friction, drag and windage are at work and will reduce the peak horsepower reading at the wheels.

What's Robbing Horsepower

Within the drivetrain itself, the primary loss sources are the differential and final drive, with further losses stemming from within the transmission, and in the case of AWD vehicles, from the transfer case. Within the transmission, as much as 30 to 40 percent of power loss can be attributed to the pump, with the clutch contributing another 20 to 25 percent. The rest of the loss within the transmission comes from seal drag, gear meshing, bearings, bushings and windage (drag on the gears caused by the gear oil). However, when dyno testing in the direct drive (1:1) gear, power is delivered directly through the main shaft of the transmission, so the only loss sources are windage, friction and drag, resulting in total at-the-wheel losses as low as 1.5 to 2 percent, according to published SAE data.

 

[JLURD]

I wonder if some of the mpg difference between the ‘20 and ‘21 relates to slightly different fuel mapping on the ‘21 yielding the bump between casey250 and the OP. Either way, even EPA compliant tunes will address the throttle lag mentioned above because that nonsense is purposely coded in for the fraction of an mpg they gain with smoothing over the throttle inputs...has much less to do with protecting drivetrain components.

 

[40”JLURD]

I wonder if some of the mpg difference between the ‘20 and ‘21 relates to slightly different fuel mapping on the ‘21 yielding the bump between casey250 and the OP. Either way, even EPA compliant tunes will address the throttle lag mentioned above because that nonsense is purposely coded in for the fraction of an mpg they gain with smoothing over the throttle inputs...has much less to do with protecting drivetrain components.

Thank you for your comments!

I was wondering the same exact thing if the factory had changed the tune from 2020 to 2021 (entirely possible) This could explain the lower MPG estimates on the sticker.

Also side note the exact same 3.0 EcoDiesel in the RAM 1500 is rated at 480 LB FT of Torque. The only thing they changed for the Jeep is they moved the alternator and a couple other doodads up so the Wrangler could retain the 30” water fording capability.

 

[JLURD]

Thank you for your comments!

I was wondering the same exact thing if the factory had changed the tune from 2020 to 2021 (entirely possible) This could explain the lower MPG estimates on the sticker.

Also side note the exact same 3.0 EcoDiesel in the RAM 1500 is rated at 480 LB FT of Torque. The only thing they changed for the Jeep is they moved the alternator and a couple other doodads up so the Wrangler could retain the 30” water fording capability.

Yea it doesn’t take anything more than 1s and 0s to make that motor reliably move toward 500lb-ft at the crank.

 

[DaltonGang]

If you close your eyes, then concentrate on believing your engine is a special high HP factory diesel that slipped by Quality Control, and tap your heels together three times, at the dyno shop, high HP numbers will come true. Truly they will!!!



..

Sponsored