Does anyone know the aproximate horsepower and torque ratings for a 97 ford f-250 heavy duty with a fi 460 and e40d trans?.......Newer style 460....just curious....thanks

 

thanks utfbal68........hmmm is that good or bad? Sounds ok too me...thanks again

 

I hear ya.....I hear ya.....I have a drag car that has 804 hp.....Its a disease

 

I'm beginning to think that all these horses they're rating nowdays are somehow much smaller and punier(sp?) than the horses of many years ago.

I moved OUTRAGEOUS loads with those 70's & 80's "limited horsepower" trucks, my 1967 vintage 14 hp garden tractor mows as well with a 48" deck as the newer ones that have to have 25-26 of their "puny" horses to do the same job. My daughter-in-law drives a 265 hp "economy" car!!!

We may need to get some serious conspiracy theorists involved here!!!

 

i got a 92 f250 HD, e4od, 3.55's. The factory specs for that is about 230-240 HP and around 400 ft/lb's of torque. I assume yours should be around there

 

Just my thought on the debate of newer HP ratings compaired to past HP ratings. I think you really have to look at the era they were done in and how they factored into more a selling arena than just figures.

In the 70's emmissions really nailed the truck and Muscle cars bad. So I think Detriot while emmisions crippled some of the HP figure, I think the auto industry comprimized by having more aggressive gearing, I could be wrong. BUt when HP/Tq #'s were strangled by emmisions, I would think if you lessen the power the only way to gain it back is gearing.

And now in the last decade it seems it has been reverting back to the old HP wars, untill gas shot up. But now emmisions have come along way and new methods around emissions so with HP increases the gearing may be more for MPG rather than As much hauling. Granted I mean they still boast hauling capacity for selling trucks, but it seems that is more a game in the arena for diesels now a days.

Maybe my train of thought is totally FUBR on this one.

 

I agree with you for that but i read somewhere that if the gearing is to low you may be out of the power band and lose mileage. I don't know if it is true or not.

 

I actually had my 97' HD w/460 dyno'd in mostly stock form, only change was a fancy air intake and it put down 231 hp and 380 torque.

 

actually a vast majority of the change or drop in hp ratings didn't have a lot to do with emission but rather WHERE they were checked, the early engines were GROSS crank hp rating, (just putting the basic motor on a dyno) the later ratings where NET.
Difference was up until 72 SAE gross hp was measured using a blueprinted test engine running on a stand with no belt-driven accessories, air cleaner, mufflers, or emission control devices and sometimes fitted with long tube "test headers" in lieu of the OEM exhaust manifolds. The atmospheric correction standards for barometric pressure, humidity and temperature were relatively idealistic. The resulting gross power and torque figures therefore reflected a maximum, theoretical value and not the power of an installed engine in a street car.
SAE net hp testing protocol calls for standard production-type belt-driven accessories, air cleaner, emission controls, exhaust system, and other power-consuming accessories. This produces ratings in closer alignment with the power produced by the engine as it is actually configured and sold. The change to net hp effectively deflated power ratings to assuage the auto insurance industry and environmental and safety lobbies.
so you can see that the pipe dream HP ratings of the early "muscle car" engines where not what they really truly where and most were way above reality, I can't find the artcle but the pre 72 460 was rated at 360hp, the 74 engines where 210 as IIRC, but when someone took those engines and back to back tested them on a dyno the difference was under 50hp instead of the 150 that the ratings show (from memory it seems like it was actually only 25hp difference when you didn't have smog control, and the 74 engine when tested using the same guidelines as early engines was 330hp but that could be wrong, been a long time since I saw that article)

Also ClydeSDale your tractor is rated with yet a totally different hp rating all together, they use drawbar hp figures for that instead of engine hp, and believe it or not that is actually closer to the original definition of HP then a dyno is.

 

And now to confuse us further .... manufacturers of small engines no longer assign a horsepower rating ... they give us cc displacement numbers which in my opinion is like trying to figure out how many dollars are in an envelope by looking at the size of the envelope.

It's all part of a master plan to drive us nuts!

 

Not exactly an answer to the original question, but I made a find at an antique store on Sunday. A 1988 version Chilton Truck & Van Repair Manual. In the Ford section they started out with Hp & Tq ratings for all the engines.

On the L code 460's, all 4V, all 8.0:1 compression ratio:

yr(s) Net Horsepower @ rpm, Net Torque @ rpm

1982 212 @ 4000, 339 @ 2400

1983 202 @ 4000, 331 @ 2200

1984-85 220 @ 4000, 360 @ 2600

1986 226 @ 4400, 365 @ 2800

1987-88 245 @ 4200, 380 @ 2600

It would be interesting to run mine across a dyno, but is the information for the sake of curiosity worth the $$$ to learn it?

 

If you had a dyno and some spare time it might be fun, but I wouldn't pay the $500/day to rent dyno time personally.

 

THAT is a fabulous offer Ben ....

but I'm afraid that by the time I take the vacation days, pay for the fuel, the lodging (unless of course I tow the 5'er which increases my fuel costs by ~40%), buy the obligatory souvenirs (thinkin' real Tennessee whiskey), etc. etc. to do the trip down and back from Minnesota .... the $500 is starting to look pretty cheap.

Gonna have to pass, Bro ... but .... it WOULD BE FUN !!!