350 RWHP, Is it possible with bolt ons alone?

TGJ said:

You are making this easy if I have to use a Mustang Dyno. All I would have to do is bolt my Mustang back together and take it to a Mustang Dyno which is about 2.5 hours away. Mustang Dyno's are VERY EASY to manipulate. All I would have to do is change a few settings and I could show a stock 2005 Mustang GT making 350 RWHP SAE corrected. Using a Dyno-Jet, I wouldn't be able to do that. Dyno-Jet's are the industry standard BTW.

Click to expand...

Ok but fiddling the dyno to read what you want isn’t the point of this topic and is not relevant, although a possible interest to some…. lol

As for Dynojets, yes I agree they are popular in the US but are by no means a global standard as they are much rarer on this side of the Atlantic.

Also the issue I have with Dynojets is that as they are predominantly inertia style dyno’s (uses a static drag brake) and the HP they derive does not tally up very well with the ratings used by motor manufacturers.

Take any car like a 120bhp Honda Civic, make the assumption the 120bhp SAE Net is 100% accurate (or as near as). Most load bearing dyno’s would confirm this, yet due to how a Dynojet works it would appear to be making more HP. A bit like $10 USD and $10 Aus, they are both dollars and both carry the same numeric value, however one is more valuable than the other.

Using a Dynojet when your initial numbers are based off of factory numbers is IMO only similar to fiddling a Mustang Dyno as the numbers have been inflated.

TGJ said:

Read this thread. http://forums.stangnet.com/showthread.php?t=725532

All he has is a JLT CAI, Steeda UDP's, Pypes Off-Road H-Pipe, Steeda Axleback exhaust and a custom dyno tune. That car is making 316 RWHP N/A SAE corrected.

I wonder what would happen if he was to add a Meziere electric water pump, CMCV deletes, and long tube headers to his car and have it retuned? How much power do you think he would have? My guess would have him at around 340 RWHP and the car wouldn't be any harder to drive than a stock GT.

Click to expand...

I have no problem with this. And yes 340rwhp is probably possible. But 340rwhp still isn’t 350rwhp and if that 340rwhp is from a Dynojet then it would be equivalent to about 318rwhp on a Mustang Dyno.

So without wanting to piss you off, can you see my point of view and why I don’t believe a bolt on 4.6 can make 350rwhp or even close?

And please don’t think this is some stupid brand loyalty because I don’t believe the crap banded about on Fbody forums about the LS1 either. None of them make 317rwhp stock although it has been claimed by a magazine. Once you correct for dyno type, SAE and graph smoothing the figures always equalize around the 290rwhp+- mark for stock Fbodys.

TGJ said:

http://www.fordracingparts.com/parts/part_details.asp?PartKeyField=9630
Add a set of Comp Stg 3 cams to that and he would be around 360 RWHP.

Here is another car that made 347 RWHP N/A SAE corrected with Cats. http://www.brenspeed.com/tech/compcams.html

A quick recap of the mods for 347 RWHP:

C&L Racer CAI, BBK TB, Pulleys, Delete plates, Comp Stg 3 cams, Kooks Long tube headers, Catted X-pipe, Mac Axleback, Brenspeed tune on a 5 speed maual car. Again another car that is very streetable. Add an electric water pump or remove the cats and it's there. Still doubting that 350 RWHP claim as being tough to get and not being streetable?

If a person was to do the following mods, they would get 350 RWHP at a minimum. It wouldn't matter where they are or what conditions, but in most cases, they would have the HP and could drive the car every day as every accessory is still there and working and on 91 - 94 Octane fuel. The only place where they might not have 350 RWHP is in higher altitude locations like Colorado. They would have to do every mod listed.

CAI( I can't believe I am saying this ) - JLT, C&L Racer or Steeda
Steeda Economy CMCV Deletes
FRPP 3V P&P heads
Comp Stg 3 Cams
Kooks or American Racing Headers Long Tube headers with or without cats
X or H pipe
Meziere Electric Water pump
Steeda UDP's
1 piece driveshaft
Good tune for 91 - 94 octane fuel

Optional items:

BBK 62mm Twin TB
Axleback exhaust of personal choice
Aluminum Flywheel

You would likely get 350 RWHP N/A without adding the heads, I listed them to ensure that the car would make the goal of 350 RWHP N/A in most locations and conditions. Pricing these parts out won't be cheap, a fair low estimate is $6000.00. If you were to not do the heads, you would be looking at around $3500.00 as a fair low estimate. Doing a good chunk of those mods would help later if adding F/I.

Adding every bolt on I mentioned as required or optional will bring you very close to 380 RWHP on 91 - 94 Octane fuel. Race fuel and tuned for it, could push the 400 RWHP mark. The 4.6 3V responds very well to mods.

Click to expand...

I agree with this 100% YES really I do. But I thought the topic was about making 350rwhp BOLT ON only. All of these setups are running cams and/or heads.



I’m not wanting to be at odds with you and I guess if we can’t agree then we’ll have to agree to disagree.

The only closing comment I’d add is that if you took a 350rwhp SAE Dynojet car and ripped the motor out and slapped it on an engine dyno and tested it to FULL SAE Net standards you might expect 410-412bhp SAE Net from it according to the 15% rule.

However due to my belief that Dynojets don’t represent HP as accurately I firmly believe you’d see a number more like 385bhp SAE Net.

But its all numbers at the end of the day.

Laters

300bhp/ton said:

As for Dynojets, yes I agree they are popular in the US but are by no means a global standard as they are much rarer on this side of the Atlantic.

Also the issue I have with Dynojets is that as they are predominantly inertia style dyno’s (uses a static drag brake) and the HP they derive does not tally up very well with the ratings used by motor manufacturers.

Take any car like a 120bhp Honda Civic, make the assumption the 120bhp SAE Net is 100% accurate (or as near as). Most load bearing dyno’s would confirm this, yet due to how a Dynojet works it would appear to be making more HP. A bit like $10 USD and $10 Aus, they are both dollars and both carry the same numeric value, however one is more valuable than the other.

Using a Dynojet when your initial numbers are based off of factory numbers is IMO only similar to fiddling a Mustang Dyno as the numbers have been inflated.


I have no problem with this. And yes 340rwhp is probably possible. But 340rwhp still isn’t 350rwhp and if that 340rwhp is from a Dynojet then it would be equivalent to about 318rwhp on a Mustang Dyno.

So without wanting to piss you off, can you see my point of view and why I don’t believe a bolt on 4.6 can make 350rwhp or even close?

Click to expand...

This arguement about the Mustang Dyno being load-based compared to the Dynojet that is inertia-based is old and no longer valid. This has not been the case in years. Dyno-Jet's have an Eddy current option and many of the reputable tuners have this on their Dyno-Jet. Mustang Dyno's have an option of a Dyno-Jet simulation.

Like I said earlier, it would not be very hard for me to produce SAE corrected 350 RWHP from a 2005+ N/A mustang on a Mustang Dyno. They would be manipulated number but none the less. You cannot manipulate the Dyno-Jet as easily.

I have talked to a very reputable person who has a load-based Dyno-Jet. The load based number is approx. 3% lower than the inertia based number. There is a lot less trick play involved with the Dyno-Jet. That said 340 RWHP in inertia mode is about 330 RWHP load-based mode. The inertia mode, there is no trick play involved, only a correction factor( Uncorrected, STD or SAE ). Now you know part of the reasoning of the Dyno-Jet being the industry standard in North America...

300bhp/ton said:

The only closing comment I’d add is that if you took a 350rwhp SAE Dynojet car and ripped the motor out and slapped it on an engine dyno and tested it to FULL SAE Net standards you might expect 410-412bhp SAE Net from it according to the 15% rule.

However due to my belief that Dynojets don’t represent HP as accurately I firmly believe you’d see a number more like 385bhp SAE Net.

But its all numbers at the end of the day.

Laters

Click to expand...

If you don't recall, We( You and I ) argued this 15% BS before. First your math is wrong. 350 RWHP SAE corrected according the 15% rule would be 402 SAE Corrected BHP at the flywheel. If the drivetrain of the new mustang was 15%, the manual cars would put down 255 RWHP SAE corrected stock, most are putting down 265 RWHP SAE corrected stock.

The drivetrain in the new mustang does not lose 15%. From the calculator I have 350 RWHP SAE corrected would equate 396 SAE BHP at the flywheel on a engine dyno. Most 2005+ Mustang GT 5 Speed manuals put down 265 RWHP SAE corrected on a Dyno-Jet. The calculator I have for the drivetrain loss of a 2005+ 5 spd manual Mustang GT is 264.96 RWHP so the Dyno-Jet is a lot more accurate than you think...

The Calculator I have is from a Ford Engineer and not based on that 15% BS...

TGJ said:

If you don't recall, We( You and I ) argued this 15% BS before.

Click to expand...

If you check my other recent posts I've mentioned more than once that I don't agree with the 15% rule and never have done. I simply used it as a quick guesstimate and nothing more - sorry if it hurt your feelings.

TGJ said:

First your math is wrong. 350 RWHP SAE corrected according the 15% rule would be 402 SAE Corrected BHP at the flywheel.

Click to expand...

Eh? depends how you work it out, but I believe both are correct.

As per the Whipple and Kenne Bell websites (who both incidently use the 15% rule )

Use this equation:

rwhp X 0.85 = engine HP

Of course when times by less than 1 you need to enter it as a / (division).

So 350 / 0.85 = 411.76470588235294117647058823529

I made a generalisatoin to remove the unwanted decimal places.

TGJ said:

If the drivetrain of the new mustang was 15%, the manual cars would put down 255 RWHP SAE corrected stock, most are putting down 265 RWHP SAE corrected stock.

Click to expand...

I guess, but then I've seen dyno sheets ranging from 245-265rwhp depending again on the dyno type and the correction factors being used. So 10bhp over or under depending on how YOU wish to look at it.

Neither are right and neither are wrong.

TGJ said:

The drivetrain in the new mustang does not lose 15%. From the calculator I have 350 RWHP SAE corrected would equate 396 SAE BHP at the flywheel on a engine dyno. Most 2005+ Mustang GT 5 Speed manuals put down 265 RWHP SAE corrected on a Dyno-Jet. The calculator I have for the drivetrain loss of a 2005+ 5 spd manual Mustang GT is 264.96 RWHP so the Dyno-Jet is a lot more accurate than you think...

The Calculator I have is from a Ford Engineer and not based on that 15% BS...

Click to expand...

FWIW, My '07 dyno'd stock at 241RWHP on a Dynomite Dyno. I've seen anywhere from 235 - 270 stock, depending on the dyno.

TGJ & 300bhp/ton @ this point I would prefer you two in separate corners of this conversation with a ball gag on. You are welcome to start a whole new thread on the real world application of SAE J1349 and J1995, but at this point the original question and information request has been so derailed I am looking for bodies.

Let's get back to the question at hand as gt06 tried to ask through the fodder of the knowledge war:

gt06 said:

Wow! Allot of great info here!
In terms of what I would like out of my car: 350ish RWHP. I've only had my Mustang for a few months and am trying to wisely choose the best mods for my driving style. Pulling out AC and the like is not for me, I just want something that has decent power and is a good time to drive. In all honesty, I have had a few LS1 cars in my past, so acclimating to the Ford motor is a new thing for me.

Click to expand...

My bad kool +1 to you though

Going back to my original post(#10)

I believe with what gt06 asked and he stated without paying serious $$$ he might not get close to the 350RWHP. The typical bolt ons(minus engine/head work)will put him just above 300 for sure. I have no doubt that it will be both fun to drive and very streetable. I can attest the streetability factor as I have over 33K miles on my car in 14 months and over half of which has come after all the mods listed in my sig. I don't see how/why adding delete plates, UDPs, aluminum DS and headers would detract from that at all.

And THAT is a good thesis statement to the original poster's question.

Thanks Dawg!

Kooldawg, you own.

Just doing my little share of info sharing on here...that what I know or think I know