Dynojet Results are in.....
#31
01-27-2005 | 03:02 PM
1/4 mile junkie
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 86
From: Tucson, AZ
Originally Posted by Tunez
First off, I am not getting a bit mad at you. I do find it odd that the "best" engine builders are only getting 240-250 out of normally aspirated GT's. Not sure what they are doing wrong but if a factory GT dyno's 225-230 at the wheels and they can do all of the bolt ons and not produce but 15-20 HP increases, they may need to look into new jobs. I have seen numbers much closer to 260-270 time and time again with U/D pullies, timing advance, intake, T/B, plenum, headers, mid pipe, and cat back alone. Add in a custom tune and they get a bit better than that. Needless to say that the T/A is worthless with a tune though because you can do it electronically through the tune. All those are pretty easy to acheive with a non factory freak GT. Take a factory freak and the numbers have been there easily all the while, but not too often. My base line dyno before all parts was 230 hp and that is by far NOT an uncommon number. Also keeping in mind that depending on where you live and the conditions at the time can make a big difference as well. I am still going to run it on a Dynojet to get a comparison set of numbers on it as well though just to see.
Like I said before, no anger from me. I love to "debate" about this stuff......
Like I said before, no anger from me. I love to "debate" about this stuff......
. "260-270 time and time again with U/D pullies, timing advance, intake, T/B, plenum, headers, mid pipe, and cat back alone." So lets see, 220-225 stock, lets say 225 to give you the benefit of your "freak" sorry, but gaining 45 rwhp from exhaust and intake is NOT going to happen, maybe your thinking power to the crank.... but thats it. If you honestly believe that you can get 45 to the wheels from those mods listed there then I am done arguing with you cuz it would be pointless..
#32
01-27-2005 | 03:35 PM
SILVER 01 GT CONVERT AUTO
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 205
From: coon rapids mn. u.s.a.
01 mustang gt auto dyno results
I went to hypertechs dyno page and looked at 01 mustang gt with automatic trans and found stock car to bearly brake 200 horsepower at the wheels. I know that the manual transmission cars put more hp to the wheels,but it aint no 30+ more.http://www.hypertech-inc.com/dynocharts.html
#34
01-27-2005 | 07:02 PM
Ex Mini Smack King
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 868
From: St. Louis
I have seen stock 5 speeds dyno 235 +, if I read his mod's right he has a o/r X pipe and catback, tune, pullies and the air filter.
K & N 5 hp
pullies 5 hp
complete exhause (no cats) 20 hp
tune 10 hp
total 40 hp gain rwhp
So if he had 225 stock that would be 265. 310 crank HP not so hard to belive.
I made 242/283 with K&N filter, Plenum & TB, X pipe with cats, timing adjuster and catback. This was through an automatic, that's 305 flywheel ponies. I dropped the timing adjuster and got a tune and hit 250 rwhp.
Those two cats are worth more than the plenum and TB so I say his numbers are legit.
The reason Mod motor racer did not make more power is his automatic tranny has 128,000 miles on it and I know he is losing some power because of it.
Also stock auto's make 210-215.
K & N 5 hp
pullies 5 hp
complete exhause (no cats) 20 hp
tune 10 hp
total 40 hp gain rwhp
So if he had 225 stock that would be 265. 310 crank HP not so hard to belive.
I made 242/283 with K&N filter, Plenum & TB, X pipe with cats, timing adjuster and catback. This was through an automatic, that's 305 flywheel ponies. I dropped the timing adjuster and got a tune and hit 250 rwhp.
Those two cats are worth more than the plenum and TB so I say his numbers are legit.
The reason Mod motor racer did not make more power is his automatic tranny has 128,000 miles on it and I know he is losing some power because of it.
Also stock auto's make 210-215.
#38
01-27-2005 | 11:27 PM
Modular Misfit
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 329
From: Iowa
Originally Posted by WhiteDevil
247hp after the cams?? wow, your cams alone should have put you there, what was your a/f? Do you have a graph, i would love to see it. Also, what were your 60's that run and MPH at the end. Also kinda tires you run? Thats cool man, I have a set of the stage II's on the way, just need to get the springs next check and they are gonna be ready to go
Adam
#39
01-28-2005 | 08:06 AM
1/4 mile junkie
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 86
From: Tucson, AZ
Originally Posted by ModMotorRacer
I'm not quite sure what you think certain mods are worth but camshafts are 15-20rwhp. My car made 225 CRANK hp stock. It dynoed at 175rwhp stock because its an AUTOMATIC. It still has 128,000 on the shortblock and tranny(no shift kit or valve body) My A/F was bewteen 12.3-12.6 thruout. My 60' was 1.77 and my mph is in my signature. This run was in +1500DA also....so corrected its in the 12.70's..but corrected means nothing to me. Stage 2's are way too much for a relatively stock motor....you'll never get to the rpm they like. I run 26x8.5 MT ET Drags at the track.
Adam
Adam
#40
01-28-2005 | 09:25 AM
SILVER 01 GT CONVERT AUTO
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 205
From: coon rapids mn. u.s.a.
If that car see's any street use I would stick to the stage 1 cams,to much torque given up at lower rpms with stage 2. I would dump the 3.73 gears and go to the 4.10's if you plan to use the stage 2 cams. I have heard that Comp Cams had some issues with lobe diameters (I believe there ok now) but I have heard that the 262AH grind has no torque or horsepower loss at low rpms and has a greater peak horsepower gain and performance than the stage 1 cams,perhaps they fall in between the stage 1 and 2 sets? The stage 1 cams can be installed with stock springs (although some may want new depending on use and mileage of eng.) The Comp Cams and the stage 2 will require new springs.
#41
01-28-2005 | 10:46 AM
1/4 mile junkie
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 86
From: Tucson, AZ
Yah, no biggy with the springs, I would probably do them either way so I dont ahve to worry about reving to 6200-6300. Stage II's do NOT lose hardly any torque down low at all. In fact they lose maybe 1-3rwtq more than the stage I's do. 4.10's would be a better Idea with these cams, that is true, but 3.73's are just fine and since I will be spraying soon too, i do not want 4.10's anyways.. Stage II's with a good tune are COMPLETELY STREETABLE, I can't believe how many people think that the VT stage II's are so radical... look at their specs, they aren't that crazy of a cam guys, just make good numbers..
#43
01-28-2005 | 02:23 PM
Ex Mini Smack King
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 868
From: St. Louis
From what I remember he is right, the stage 2's give up very little down low to the stage 1's. I'm leaning towards the stage 2's with stage 2 ported heads by Jason Steen and a P-51 intake. I'll shift at 6,200 - 6,300 on the stock block and be okay.
#44
01-29-2005 | 03:36 PM
Modular Misfit
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 329
From: Iowa
Originally Posted by WhiteDevil
Right, 98, thought it was a 99 for some reason.. stage II's are definitely not too much for a relatively stock motor, you can shift at like 6200 with these on a otherwise stock GT... Why wouldn't that be awesome? Peak shift point is around 5500-5600 on a stock GT, would you agree? If you can make power to 6500 rpms and simply shift early you may be wasting a little hp, but it is still a HUGE gain over stock and a decent gain still over stage I's. Don't get me wrong, the stage I's are very nice, but with just 3.73's even, the stage II's are definitly better for the track. BTW, thats awesome that its still running so strong after 128k miles, job well done takin care of that car :icon_thum
)And as for Stage 2's....to each there own. :toothy9:
Adam
#45
01-29-2005 | 06:01 PM
Ex Mini Smack King
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 868
From: St. Louis
Before I had my tune my car was faster with me shifting manually. I short shifted a couple of times at the track and it killed my time. Mine shifts at 6,200 1-2 and 6,000 2-3.
I ran as fast as 13.05 @ 103 shifting manually, after the tune I ran 12.89 and trapped at 106 with the tune. The 13.05 was actually in better weather than the 12.89.
Adam is dead on, if you shift too early you drop out of your power band and will add a couple of tenths to your e.t.
The concencus is shift about 400 rpm's above peak hp.
I shift about 600 -800 above.
I ran as fast as 13.05 @ 103 shifting manually, after the tune I ran 12.89 and trapped at 106 with the tune. The 13.05 was actually in better weather than the 12.89.
Adam is dead on, if you shift too early you drop out of your power band and will add a couple of tenths to your e.t.
The concencus is shift about 400 rpm's above peak hp.
I shift about 600 -800 above.
#46
01-30-2005 | 02:45 AM
SILVER 01 GT CONVERT AUTO
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 205
From: coon rapids mn. u.s.a.
I talked with some people at Mod.Depot and was also told to shift my stock motor at 6000 rpm's even though I will be past my peak horsepower.This will help it be near the peak power in the next gear and will result in a quicker E.T. I can drop on my car one to two tenths vs shifting at 5700-5800 rpms.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Lightning247
Modular 4.6L Tech
11
06-25-2005 09:02 AM
