Current Winter Projects... couple changes in store for the GTS - dyno results
- Thread starter thorco3
- Start date
Re: Current Winter Projects... couple changes in store for the GTS - dyno result
great read man, I noticed you have BBS RK's as well, damn those wheels are sexy, are you running spacers on the rear?
As the previous posters said, those numbers seem a little low, but it may just be the stock heads and conservative tune.
great read man, I noticed you have BBS RK's as well, damn those wheels are sexy, are you running spacers on the rear?
As the previous posters said, those numbers seem a little low, but it may just be the stock heads and conservative tune.
I was a little surprised myself guys. The car only has 51k miles and ran very strong prior to the install (and def pulls harder now). I wanted 300+ but at least the tq is up there :hammer:, there is one other thing... I kept blowing out the pcv and/or the dipstick each run. I need some kind of breather on the car, or a couple of them. This shouldn't really have that much impact on the numbers though.
not sure what you mean craig, actual vs corrected? The car put down 266 on a mustang dyno... dynojet dyno numbers were calculated at 281 rwhp.
yeah, I'm running a 1" spacer with the RK's (they're only 8.5" all the way around)
I was running around one night last week and blew the dipstick tube out... sorta scarry seeing that much smoke/steam blowing out the rear when running the car that hard. Last wed I was going to drive the car to work to show some coworkers but got a mile from the house and the freakin low coolant light came on, so I turned around and drove the jeep. Pretty sure I don't have a coolant leak but I think we let too much boil over when the car was on the dyno. (the tuner popped off the cap to let it vent... I hadn't done this prior to the blower install because I never got the car running)
not sure what you mean craig, actual vs corrected? The car put down 266 on a mustang dyno... dynojet dyno numbers were calculated at 281 rwhp.
yeah, I'm running a 1" spacer with the RK's (they're only 8.5" all the way around)
I was running around one night last week and blew the dipstick tube out... sorta scarry seeing that much smoke/steam blowing out the rear when running the car that hard. Last wed I was going to drive the car to work to show some coworkers but got a mile from the house and the freakin low coolant light came on, so I turned around and drove the jeep. Pretty sure I don't have a coolant leak but I think we let too much boil over when the car was on the dyno. (the tuner popped off the cap to let it vent... I hadn't done this prior to the blower install because I never got the car running)
Re: Current Winter Projects... couple changes in store for the GTS - dyno result
I was just asking about the altitude correction factor. I doubt that you are very high above sea level, so it probably wouldn't make a huge difference, but the "actual" number is the number that the dyno showed that you made without factoring a correction formula. "Corrected" would then be the number that was displayed after the correction formula for altitude was calculated.
It's pretty standard for people to only tell their corrected numbers, because those numbers are usually much higher.
For instance, my '89 LX, when it had a stock longblock and the ProCharger on it, made 385 to the wheels here uncorrected, but 450 to the tires with the correction factor in place. Now, that's a pretty big gap because we are over a mile high here in Albuquerque, but with a supercharger, the correction factor is usually pretty close. It's just designed to try and calculate what the power would be at sea level air conditions, and it was created for N/A engines.
just fyi, at a DA of about 6000ft. the car ran 10.97, but at a DA of about 1800-2000 ft, the car ran 10.47 with no changes. Every 10hp or so is supposed to be worth about a tenth, so that means that just moving down 4000-4200ft. garnered us about 50 hp (which would make the RWHP number about 435), so assuming that same amount increase would continue on until we got to sea level, the correction factor is pretty spot-on.
thorco3 said:
I was just asking about the altitude correction factor. I doubt that you are very high above sea level, so it probably wouldn't make a huge difference, but the "actual" number is the number that the dyno showed that you made without factoring a correction formula. "Corrected" would then be the number that was displayed after the correction formula for altitude was calculated.
It's pretty standard for people to only tell their corrected numbers, because those numbers are usually much higher.
For instance, my '89 LX, when it had a stock longblock and the ProCharger on it, made 385 to the wheels here uncorrected, but 450 to the tires with the correction factor in place. Now, that's a pretty big gap because we are over a mile high here in Albuquerque, but with a supercharger, the correction factor is usually pretty close. It's just designed to try and calculate what the power would be at sea level air conditions, and it was created for N/A engines.
just fyi, at a DA of about 6000ft. the car ran 10.97, but at a DA of about 1800-2000 ft, the car ran 10.47 with no changes. Every 10hp or so is supposed to be worth about a tenth, so that means that just moving down 4000-4200ft. garnered us about 50 hp (which would make the RWHP number about 435), so assuming that same amount increase would continue on until we got to sea level, the correction factor is pretty spot-on.
Re: Current Winter Projects... couple changes in store for the GTS - dyno result
Yeah I highly doubt that the correction facor would do a whole bunch for your combo. However the 281 from a Dynojet sounds better, that's where I would have suspected the power the be. Mustang dynos tend to read a little low (or more realistic some people say, but I'm not sure about that). Either way your car is still gorgeous.
Has it gone to paint yet? Pics?
thorco3 said:
Yeah I highly doubt that the correction facor would do a whole bunch for your combo. However the 281 from a Dynojet sounds better, that's where I would have suspected the power the be. Mustang dynos tend to read a little low (or more realistic some people say, but I'm not sure about that). Either way your car is still gorgeous.
Has it gone to paint yet? Pics?
Re: Current Winter Projects... couple changes in store for the GTS - dyno result
mustang/superflow dyno's supposedly put more load on the car... 'better for tuning purposes, more like running on the street'. that's what I've been told by my tuner. The dyno sheet he printed out for me has the DJ numbers so it says 281.5 rwhp and 355.2 rwtq.
gone to paint??
Hellion94 said:
mustang/superflow dyno's supposedly put more load on the car... 'better for tuning purposes, more like running on the street'. that's what I've been told by my tuner. The dyno sheet he printed out for me has the DJ numbers so it says 281.5 rwhp and 355.2 rwtq.
gone to paint??
Re: Current Winter Projects... couple changes in store for the GTS - dyno result
haha, I thought you were asking about the whole car. we haven't gotten anything else done with the hood. My pops does the painting so it will get done whenever he gets time... or when I start harrasing him about it.
Hellion94 said:
haha, I thought you were asking about the whole car. we haven't gotten anything else done with the hood. My pops does the painting so it will get done whenever he gets time... or when I start harrasing him about it.
