Author Topic: Ford Dyno testing FEs  (Read 3295 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Royce

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 812
    • View Profile
Ford Dyno testing FEs
« on: April 06, 2025, 09:28:44 AM »
Found this article about dyno testing standards that Ford used

Ford-men legends
odstSrnope1f4hM htftrl 04ifm:6101a00h26a553M1uaAgm ig m7hfcl  ·
CORRECTED HORSEPOWER (A, B or C curve)
While digging through the ASE Papers for the 1966 Fairlane GT 390-4v engine, we noticed an asterisk that said "Max. bhp (brake horsepower) and max torque corrected to 60°F and 29.92 in. Hg atmospheric pressure." This method is called the STD Correction Factor and it presents an inflated perception of horsepower and torque increases without any actual increase in power.
The SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers) correction factor is now the generally accepted "Standard for Comparison" as used by virtually every professional race team and engine builder/manufacture (SAE J1349 and J1995 are the standards and SAE J2723 is the procedure). This is the most accurate and widely accepted form of measurement when it comes to the world of dynoing.
Uncorrected horsepower is NEVER accepted in the world of dynoing and tuning. The correction standards were developed to discount the observed horsepower readings taken at different locations and weather conditions. It is obvious that an engine builder in Colorado could not produce as much horsepower as a shop at sea level. There is just less oxygen for the engine to burn at the higher altitude. What are less obvious are the other weather condition effects on the engine. So in order to compensate for this all advertised horsepower is “corrected” to several different industry standards, here are the main two:
SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers) power is corrected to reference conditions of 29.23 InHg (645' above Sea Level) of dry air and 77°F. This standard requires a correction for friction torque.
STD is corrected to reference conditions of 29.92 InHg (Sea Level) of dry air and 60°F. Because the reference conditions include higher pressure and cooler air than the SAE standard, these corrected power numbers will always be about 4 % higher than the SAE power numbers.
A, B or C
Ford also choose what state of tune or readiness to list the advertised horsepower numbers, known as the A, B and C curve. Prior to 1968, Ford would advertise "Engineering A-Curve" power. That was the maximum output you could get out of an engine, an older engine with looser clearances than a new one and with dynamometer headers. Then there was the B-Curve, which was the engine with no accessories, and the C-Curve was "as installed" in the vehicle, which included back pressure. Uniquely with the Cobra Jet, Ford started advertising the B-Curve power rather the Engineering A-Curve. The 428CJ was capable of approximately 405 hp (A-Curve), 325-335hp (B-Curve) and 310-320 hp (C-Curve). NHRA and others immediately refactored the Cobra Jet to 360hp for class racing.
In 1966 Bud Moore dyno tested three 390 GT engines with stock exhaust manifolds with results in the 290hp range. This was done with three brand new engine with tight clearances and higher-horsepower-robbing friction. Adversely, Ford's A-curve was for a well-used, high mileage engine with looser clearances, and dyno headers, which is not what Bud Moore had. Furthermore, Bud Moore didn't correct to STD like Ford did. These two factors may explain the difference in what Ford advertised and what Bud Moore tested.
It wouldn't matter to Canadian Barrie Poole of the Border Bandits with his 1966 Cyclone convertible 390GT called "The Collector" he won 34 trophies and one Eliminator title.
1955 Thunderbird Competition Coupe Altered Chassis "War Bird" 383 Lincoln Y block 520 hp
1955 Thunderbird 292 275 hp Y Block
1956 Ford Victoria 292 Y block

1957 Mercury 2dr Wagon "Battle Wagon" drag car 
1957 Thunderbird Glass body Tube Chassis drag car 333 cu in 500 hp Ford Y block
1961 Starliner 390/375 clone
1965 GT40 tribute w/FE
1966 Falcon Pro Touring project
Kaase Boss 547. 840 HP 698 Torque  pump gas
1992 BMW V-12 5.0
2001 Lincoln 5.4 4 cam
2000 Jaguar XK8 (Ford V8)

WerbyFord

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 338
    • View Profile
Re: Ford Dyno testing FEs
« Reply #1 on: September 18, 2026, 10:46:55 AM »
Such an important topic I cant believe nobody replied.
There's a better definition of A B C curve somewhere, I need to find it, dealing with all the 70-74 Cleveland combo ratings right now.

IIRC Bill Barr's writeup says 410hp for 428CJ A Curve, and his video said 360hp or so B Curve, which jives vs the 429/370cj an 429/375scj if those were B Curve too. That 335hp is about right for a 428Cj C Curve which is near a 72-up NET rating, but Bill Barr said he threw that number back to marketing because they wanted a low number so he gave them (325+345)/2, the average of the 390gt and 428-7L ratings. Thats a little sloppy tho cuz the 325 is the 68-390gt rating, but the 68-7L rating was 340hp. Theres no year when one was 325 and the other 345.

Ok more hunting to do.

EDIT, ok I found one, its Bill Barr's 428CJ History writeup on 428cobrajet.org, he goes into A & B curve in detail.
« Last Edit: September 18, 2026, 01:13:38 PM by WerbyFord »

frnkeore

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1336
    • View Profile
Re: Ford Dyno testing FEs
« Reply #2 on: September 18, 2026, 11:51:20 AM »
Because Ford's hp ratings before the smog era always seemed optimistic, I had always assumed (you know what that means  :) ) that Ford built "blue printed" engines for their dyno testing or, at least selected over preforming engines off their run in stands, to use as advertised hp.

In retrospect, the 360 hp, 352 and the 401 hp 390 wasn't realistic for a assembly line engine. I'd like to know how Ford came up with those numbers. There have been a few people try to build a 360 hp, 352, using Ford stuff and haven't been able to come very close.
Frank

'60 Ford Starliner
'61 Fairlane 500
Austin Healey Replica with 427 & 8.5 Cert

WerbyFord

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 338
    • View Profile
Re: Ford Dyno testing FEs
« Reply #3 on: September 18, 2026, 02:46:56 PM »
Because Ford's hp ratings before the smog era always seemed optimistic, I had always assumed (you know what that means  :) ) that Ford built "blue printed" engines for their dyno testing or, at least selected over preforming engines off their run in stands, to use as advertised hp.

In retrospect, the 360 hp, 352 and the 401 hp 390 wasn't realistic for a assembly line engine. I'd like to know how Ford came up with those numbers. There have been a few people try to build a 360 hp, 352, using Ford stuff and haven't been able to come very close.

I'd tend to agree. I Gonkulate about 350hp from the 352/360, to get 360hp takes open headers on a nominal engine.
I think Ford wanted to out-rate the 348/350hp W motor, so they did.
Ditto the 390/401, how does the 6v add 26hp to a 390 but only 20hp to a 406? Hmmm.
I Gonkulate more like 392hp so the 390/401-6v Gonkulates as a 390/392-6v.
But they wanted over 400hp it seems so the 401hp likely came as an A Curve with headers.

For the 427s, as Jay showed on the dyno, the long iron is as good as steel headers at that level, so Gonkulator Gross ie iron manifolds and A Curve would be very close. I suspect the 427/410 and 427/425 ratings were pretty accurate, with the small intake valves and small 306-306 cam. Then the ratings just conveniently never got updated for the HR and MR. Of course NHRA saw it differently.