![]() |
|
|||||||
| Register | Mustang Pictures | FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
| Dyno Results Post your actual dyono results here for all to view. |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
#1 (permalink) |
|
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Sumter, SC
Posts: 900
|
Pro dyno ran the dyno tune on it tonight and the results are
289.79 HP 366.55 TQ To the wheels and no corrections made I'll have to find a scanner so i can post it on here. it had 350TQ and more from 3K rpms and up till 5K rpms it still had 300TQ. The HP peaked the 289.79 at 4400 rpms but still had about 285HP to 5K rpms and at 5500 rpms I had 275 HP. I'm really happy with the results, especially being N/A and having TQ like a supercharged GT. I can't wait to see how it does with some cams and a better intake. And the TQ curve is soooo sweet!! now i see why i was spinning them in 3rd at the track on street tires. ![]() |
|
|
|
|
|
#2 (permalink) |
|
DSG!!!
|
waittttt a second.. scan your dyno sheet? lol. this is pretty sweet. a guy i know has been thinking about doing a 5.4 in his stang. your numbers are NOT SAE corrected??? hmmm.
congrats on the ######s
__________________
![]() CAP DSG Registry 2003 Mustang GT - daily driven check out my cardomain for more info 296 rwhp / 310 rwtq Money spent @ AM: $3393.68 1984 Mustang Hatch - low budget project |
|
|
|
|
|
#3 (permalink) | |
|
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Sumter, SC
Posts: 900
|
Quote:
You can also ask Twin Tubo 330, he was there and another friend also. I didn't look at it at first, i was afraid it wouldn't be to good, but when he told me, i was like...damn thats sweet. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#4 (permalink) |
|
DSG!!!
|
that's kinda cool.. after my last dyno im kinda weird about SAE numbers. but when i tuned for cams it was under about perfect weather conditions and it didnt add much at all to the actual numbers if anything.
![]()
__________________
![]() CAP DSG Registry 2003 Mustang GT - daily driven check out my cardomain for more info 296 rwhp / 310 rwtq Money spent @ AM: $3393.68 1984 Mustang Hatch - low budget project |
|
|
|
|
|
#6 (permalink) |
|
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Sumter, SC
Posts: 900
|
http://media.putfile.com/saleens330-dyno-run-night-time
It's dark and you can barley see my car. i would have taken my camcorder but i thought my camera would do fine, guess not. it's a short clip too. Also you can hear my crappy spintechs(not recommened) mufflers, man they suck. i'll still see about posting the dyno sheet, probably monday though. My printer/scanner is crapping out or something. |
|
|
|
|
|
#10 (permalink) |
|
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Sumter, SC
Posts: 900
|
[quote=csledd]waittttt a second.. scan your dyno sheet? lol. this is pretty sweet. a guy i know has been thinking about doing a 5.4 in his stang. your numbers are NOT SAE corrected??? hmmm.
congrats on the ######s[/QUOTE If you look at your dyno sheet that you posted were it says CP:SAE.. Mine says CP:STD |
|
|
|
|
|
#14 (permalink) |
|
Wowbagger hates me too!
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Magrathea/California
Posts: 6,513
|
that's easy enough to figure out. See if you can find the weather for the time that you did the dyno run (time and date). If the ambient air temp was higher than about 85deg, or barometric pressure was way way low and humidity very high, then you could actually be making a very differnt number.
SAE corrections are there to bring all the atmospheric factors to an even playing field. SAE allows hippies in a park in Boulder, CO on a 50deg day to turn in results that are actually relevant to the results that I might put down at 45 feet above sea level on a 100deg day. With std ratings you are usually pretty close to SAE if the temperature, pressure, humidity and altitude are all reasonable. Since you did your run at night, I'd call it about even unless it was really hot. Some people don't like SAE corrections because it makes them feel bad when they dyno on a cold day during high barometric pressure & low humidity. |
|
|
|
|
|
#15 (permalink) | |
|
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Sumter, SC
Posts: 900
|
Quote:
all i know is, i'm impressed with the numbers and can't wait to see what i will have with a 5.4 intake and some cams. Also when i go to the track and everyone is like, oh a 97 non pi, heavy a$$ convertible...it's probably slow. After i run a kick ass time on my mickey thompsons, i'll tell them it's all tire. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#16 (permalink) |
|
Wowbagger hates me too!
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Magrathea/California
Posts: 6,513
|
ok... with the standard correction you should be within 4% of your SAE numbers. At worst case you're making about 280/355 SAE. The humidity would have substantially impacted your output which both std and sae correct for. I would like to have seen the uncorrected numbers for comparison but I'd say you have a wickedly stout motor as it sits and ain't nobody gunna argue with 366lbs of axle snapping grunt. As soon as I see the chart I'll be able to give more insight.
I'll bet you made more than 300tq from 2000rpm onward which would make low rpm launches a lot easier. |
|
|
|
|
|
#18 (permalink) | |
|
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Sumter, SC
Posts: 900
|
Quote:
Damn, from 2K to 5K rpms, it's 300TQ or better.... ![]() |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#23 (permalink) |
|
jjtgiants
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Dublin, CA
Posts: 3,599
|
Dang, that thing makes some crazy torque!
__________________
Jack the Ripper: "STAY AWAY FROM THE METH ADDICTS for the LOVE OF GOD do NOT **** girls that are into crystal, they will suck you on that shit and you will be sittin there like a bad dave chapelle sketch in no time." |
|
|
|