20% on our trannys 40% on Chrysler trannys.

That'* quite sad really.

Come on give them credit, its really only like 30-35%. However, it would be nice if we could have the engine mounted like a RWD setup in a FWD car...thats the only nice thing about the tranny in the 300M. How about the noises that Chrysler trannies make too...

shawn

The 4T80e tranny in Aurora'* and Caddies and now the GXP is rated at 24% loss.

That'* gotta be the most anoying car noise.

Thats not suprising due to how beefy that thing is.

I have always thought that...but they don't do it. Mostly because no manufacturer is going to start because it will make their cars sound like they have less power than the others, and they aren't all going to change at the same time, so that probably won't happen for a while, if ever.

Shawn

Well, the problem that also comes to mind is that every different form (fwd, rwd, awd / manual, 3sp auto, 4sp auto, 5sp auto) would all have different horsepower ratings even if they had the exact same motor.

About Chrysler trannies. They are absolute crap! I used to own a '94 Intrepid with the 3.5L (which was an awesome motor btw) and that tranny just sucked the life out of it. I also have witnessed a brand new 300M special on the dyno. It only pulled 170whp which translates into a 33% driveline loss (Chrysler claims 255 bhp stock on the 3.5L HO). That much loss is rediculus, not to mention the fact that the trannies grenade themselves on a regular basis (I went through 2 before I finally got rid of the car). Don't get me wrong, I liked the Intrepid, but my new bonnie is in a completely different class.

Thats the whole point. I could care less what kind of power the engine is making, I want to know how much power is turning the tires. This would give people a clue that the Intrepid/300M/Eagle Vision/LHS/Concorde, etc... that have the 3.5L rated at 255hp are putting less power to the ground than an SSEi with only 240hp. Thats just my opinion. Although, educated buyers, such as ourselves, would already know this so it isn't much of a problem. My car for instance, a while ago (its making much more power now) put out 182.2whp on a dyno. Actually this was only ~225hp at the engine, so my engine was making 30hp less than one of the 3.5l Chryslers, which would put out 12 LESS horsepower to the wheels.

Shawn

My point is that no one will ever go to publishing the whp of their cars simply because it is much more difficult and complicated than publishing the bhp of the engine.

For car lines that only have 1 transmission/drivetrain option (less engine), it would be fine, but with all of the new cars coming out that have 3 or more different engines, 2 different transmissions, and then the option of awd or fwd. Instead of having 3 different hp numbers for the 3 different engines, they would need 12 different numbers for all the different combinations of drivetrain.

Heck, this mentality has pushed on down into the world of tractors. My father owns and operates a 2500 acre farm in central NY. He started looking at purchasing 2 new tractors recently and had to do some conversions to find out the horsepower of his current tractors because all newer tractors are rated as bhp. Older ratings were based of of PTO horsepower. Because of the multitude of different transmissions (3 different ones in the 9300 series tractors) and the lack of PTO'* on the newer tractors (it'* a $7-$10,000 option) they simply started taking the bhp.

In the end it'* all about making less work and more money.

FWD is the most efficient setup isnt it? (Since the power doesnt have to change directions?)