• Mustang Forums
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-

92 Fox Notch Build: Stock, Light And Sticky..what Next..

  • Thread starter Thread starter EZE183
  • Start date Start date Mar 19, 2014
Prev
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
First Prev 3 of 3

Grabbin' Asphalt

10 Year Member
Jun 10, 2013
2,029
310
124
Atlanta, Ga
Mar 21, 2014
#41
  • Mar 21, 2014
  • #41
tannerc91gt said:
So your "20rwhp" literally IS a complete SOTP guess?

I just had to scroll back up to make sure this wasn't a honda forum
Click to expand...


IMO the seat of the pants meter doesn't register till about 20hp, it is in fact a a guestimation. But my Oh sh!t factor is pretty accurate And if my little ecam, that doesn't even have a .500 lift, .498 to be exact, is putting out 280rwhp_320rwtq on racer Brad Brands dyno at Atlanta Chassis Dyno, it's the addition of my personal Oh Sh!t factors that make my gt40p, ecam, cobra intake put down the numbers they do. Just from those dyno numbers with an ecam should tell ya "Hey, some truth to this is VERY possible". Cause I'm showing numbers on a Dyno from a racer where his sh!t has to be perfect with his turbos and set ups. It's not a run of the mill shop, it's what they do, they race. And my little ecam numbers should make ones LQQK at the Oh sh!t factors. So that's what this forum is all about, providing experiences with trouble shooting and ideas. There's my idea, my experence and my numbers to back it up from a true racer's dyno. If anyone doesn't like it, believe it or whatever my dyno sheet is on the sticky with the name, number and address of Atlanta Chassis Dyno.

http://www.stangnet.com/mustang-forums/threads/guess-my-h-p-the-dyno-1-4-mile-time-thread.677534/

Also there are TONS of videos from Brad racing at events on youtube. So I've laid down my little ecam numbers with actual hp numbers and actual torque numbers and have proven my case for actual Truth, what YOU got to present your case?
....Other than "Nawww, just can't be."
Maybe it's more torque, i dont truly know, but my Oh sh!t factor is dyno proven, take it or leave, Free Country ...whaut WHAUT!!!
 
Last edited: Mar 21, 2014

Mustang5L5

That is…until I whipped out my Bissell
Mod Dude
Feb 18, 2001
43,264
17,952
224
Massachusetts
Mar 21, 2014
#42
  • Mar 21, 2014
  • #42
I tend to take "fuel economy" threads with a grain of salt. There are way too many variables to take a mileage as scientific fact as well as a fact that the testing is not done under controlled circumstances, nor does everyone perform the test the same way.

For me to begin the believe stated claims, one would need to show me a certification that the odometer is calibrated and displays accurate info when used for mileage, and to actually fill with a measured amount of fuel rather than depend on the nozzle to click off at exactly the same point each time a tank is topped off. Also, the same environmental (temp, humidity) conditions would need to exist as well, and the same route driven (engine load up hills, tailwind, etc).

In other words, the data needs to be more controlled than typically done with the usual "top off the tank and hit trip reset" method. That's why I tend to not be so positive when i hear someone gaining 1/2 MPG off a mod, when one can probably achieve the same effect by filling up their car at a different pump with a nozzle that turns off slightly earlier than the first one.

I just see this sort of testing as optimistic at times and sometimes exaggerated just like HP numbers are
 

Grabbin' Asphalt

10 Year Member
Jun 10, 2013
2,029
310
124
Atlanta, Ga
Mar 21, 2014
#43
  • Mar 21, 2014
  • #43
Mustang5L5 said:
I tend to take "fuel economy" threads with a grain of salt. There are way too many variables to take a mileage as scientific fact as well as a fact that the testing is not done under controlled circumstances, nor does everyone perform the test the same way.

For me to begin the believe stated claims, one would need to show me a certification that the odometer is calibrated and displays accurate info when used for mileage, and to actually fill with a measured amount of fuel rather than depend on the nozzle to click off at exactly the same point each time a tank is topped off. Also, the same environmental (temp, humidity) conditions would need to exist as well, and the same route driven (engine load up hills, tailwind, etc).

In other words, the data needs to be more controlled than typically done with the usual "top off the tank and hit trip reset" method. That's why I tend to not be so positive when i hear someone gaining 1/2 MPG off a mod, when one can probably achieve the same effect by filling up their car at a different pump with a nozzle that turns off slightly earlier than the first one.

I just see this sort of testing as optimistic at times and sometimes exaggerated just like HP numbers are
Click to expand...

I agree, long road trips on the interstate in OD is the best way for someone to get a ballpark. Straight driving till you're about as close to E as possible before the fuel pump runs dry, which I don't recommend, but get it close
 

MFE92

10 Year Member
Aug 25, 2010
1,094
373
124
Phoenix
Mar 21, 2014
#44
  • Mar 21, 2014
  • #44
tannerc91gt said:
So your "20rwhp" literally IS a complete SOTP guess?

I just had to scroll back up to make sure this wasn't a honda forum
Click to expand...

Now scroll down, and see that it is.
 
Reactions: tannerc91gt

Grabbin' Asphalt

10 Year Member
Jun 10, 2013
2,029
310
124
Atlanta, Ga
Mar 21, 2014
#45
  • Mar 21, 2014
  • #45
Here is a cool vid of Brad Brand throwing it down....

View: http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IW8jlFgfTok
 

Grabbin' Asphalt

10 Year Member
Jun 10, 2013
2,029
310
124
Atlanta, Ga
Mar 21, 2014
#46
  • Mar 21, 2014
  • #46
MFE92 said:
Now scroll down, and see that it is.
Click to expand...

"Naw, Naw can't be Naw......"
Show me your dyno numbers to disprove it Guy
 

tannerc91gt

This last 25% is foreign territory at this point
Founding Member
Nov 29, 1999
4,392
2,967
234
Indiana
Mar 21, 2014
#47
  • Mar 21, 2014
  • #47
Grabbin' Asphalt said:
IMO the seat of the pants meter doesn't register till about 20hp, it is in fact a a guestimation. But my Oh sh!t factor is pretty accurate And if my little ecam, that doesn't even have a .500 lift, .498 to be exact, is putting out 280rwhp_320rwtq on racer Brad Brands dyno at Atlanta Chassis Dyno, it's the addition of my personal Oh Sh!t factors that make my gt40p, ecam, cobra intake put down the numbers they do. Just from those dyno numbers with an ecam should tell ya "Hey, some truth to this is VERY possible". Cause I'm showing numbers on a Dyno from a racer where his sh!t has to be perfect with his turbos and set ups. It's not a run of the mill shop, it's what they do, they race. And my little ecam numbers should make ones LQQK at the Oh sh!t factors. So that's what this forum is all about, providing experiences with trouble shooting and ideas. There's my idea, my experence and my numbers to back it up from a true racer's dyno. If anyone doesn't like it, believe it or whatever my dyno sheet is on the sticky with the name, number and address of Atlanta Chassis Dyno.

http://www.stangnet.com/mustang-forums/threads/guess-my-h-p-the-dyno-1-4-mile-time-thread.677534/

Also there are TONS of videos from Brad racing at events on youtube. So I've laid down my little ecam numbers with actual hp numbers and actual torque numbers and have proven my case for actual Truth, what YOU got to present your case?
....Other than "Nawww, just can't be."
Maybe it's more torque, i dont truly know, but my Oh sh!t factor is dyno proven, take it or leave, Free Country ...whaut WHAUT!!!
Click to expand...
You just "backed it up" by saying that you have a pretty accurate SOTP dyno... Then provided numbers for an entirely different combo.
And then added a video of someone going far faster than either combo would ever be capable of as certification that you know someone with a fast car so I should believe you.

Honda forum
 

Bullitt347

I have been doing it wrong this whole time
15 Year Member
Mar 23, 2007
3,975
2,958
194
Middle of Maine
Mar 21, 2014
#48
  • Mar 21, 2014
  • #48
Well at least we are not talking about putting magnets on the fuel line..............
 

MFE92

10 Year Member
Aug 25, 2010
1,094
373
124
Phoenix
Mar 21, 2014
#49
  • Mar 21, 2014
  • #49
"Prove magnets don't work"

People forget that some of us have been in this game for 25+ years, have been there and seen that, and the proof isn't even findable anymore. Meanwhile yeah, it's a free country, anyone can have an opinion, to spout total bull as fact does us all a disservice and does nothing but discredit its purveyor. 20 RWHP from pulleys and an electric fan is the heartiest, most hay-filled bull I've seen in a long time.
 
Reactions: tannerc91gt

hoopty5.0

mechanicus terribilis
15 Year Member
Dec 14, 2010
7,788
6,940
214
SW Houston
Mar 21, 2014
#50
  • Mar 21, 2014
  • #50
Wow. Just wow.

The only thing I'd like to add here is that efficiency and HP are conversely related, not inversely related as mentioned earlier. Someone said removing the smog equipment makes the engine less efficient but frees up HP. Where is the logic in that statement? That's like saying I'm a man, but I have lady parts. The whole point of modding engines is to make the air flow, fuel delivery, and timing events more efficient to make more power.

Out.
 

madspeed

Colonel Mustard
Founding Member
Nov 29, 1999
8,914
1,332
204
a van down by the river
Mar 21, 2014
#51
  • Mar 21, 2014
  • #51
Does this count

View attachment 88578
 

hoopty5.0

mechanicus terribilis
15 Year Member
Dec 14, 2010
7,788
6,940
214
SW Houston
Mar 21, 2014
#52
  • Mar 21, 2014
  • #52
madspeed said:
Does this count

View attachment 88578
Click to expand...
Hah.




not quite. I kept waiting for it to start moving as a GIF.
 
R

reldla1996

Member
May 4, 2011
356
22
19
Dayton, Ohio
Mar 21, 2014
#53
  • Mar 21, 2014
  • #53
EZE183 said:
That's interesting, I've seen that mentioned on other forums. What size MAF and TB where you using? Did you have a tune? I like that the heads drop a good bit of weight also.
Click to expand...
The MAF was a C&L 73mm and the Tb was 65mm. Both predated the head and intake installation. I had installed some 1.7 roller rockers, and lost about 1.5 mpg, and later installed the TFTW heads, and got the 1.5 mpg back. In the end, with the 306, I got the same 20 mpg around town I always got, even factory stock.
 

tamadrummer88

Active Member
Aug 19, 2005
599
79
39
Aloha State
Mar 22, 2014
#54
  • Mar 22, 2014
  • #54
If i could work to get 26-28 MPG out of my fox, id drive it more than my Taurus. I get a COMBINED 21 MPG in our absolutely horrible Honolulu traffic.
 

Grabbin' Asphalt

10 Year Member
Jun 10, 2013
2,029
310
124
Atlanta, Ga
Mar 23, 2014
#55
  • Mar 23, 2014
  • #55
tannerc91gt said:
You just "backed it up" by saying that you have a pretty accurate SOTP dyno... Then provided numbers for an entirely different combo.
And then added a video of someone going far faster than either combo would ever be capable of as certification that you know someone with a fast car so I should believe you.

Honda forum
Click to expand...

1. Yes pretty good SOTP dyno to the parts I just added -True
2. The numbers for my combo is the addition after the pulleys and fanregarding just the addition of an ecam, gt40p heads and cobra intake which we all know those numbers are well beyond numbers for an normal #'s for an ecam, gt40p, cobra intake. If I didn't have those pulleys and electric fan I would be in the area of 255-260rwhp.
3. The video is showing the dyno is from a VERY good shop that doen't fudge numbers, they race.
4. I thought you could piece that thought process together so I numbered it here to help you stay focused.

* by passing the smog pump pulley (not just deleting smog pump) was a complete smaller belt way I used. I bypassed the smog, A/C when I tested my Oh sh!t factor. I since then use my A/C, but if I ever go to thetrack I will put on the shorter belt and by pass it all

* all of this has nothing to do with fuel economy. Figured i would type that to keep you and others focused
 

Grabbin' Asphalt

10 Year Member
Jun 10, 2013
2,029
310
124
Atlanta, Ga
Mar 23, 2014
#56
  • Mar 23, 2014
  • #56
MFE92 said:
People forget that some of us have been in this game for 25+ years...
Click to expand...


Good site right here....
MFE92 said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias




.
Click to expand...
 

tannerc91gt

This last 25% is foreign territory at this point
Founding Member
Nov 29, 1999
4,392
2,967
234
Indiana
Mar 23, 2014
#57
  • Mar 23, 2014
  • #57
Grabbin' Asphalt said:
1. Yes pretty good SOTP dyno to the parts I just added -True
2. The numbers for my combo is the addition after the pulleys and fanregarding just the addition of an ecam, gt40p heads and cobra intake which we all know those numbers are well beyond numbers for an normal #'s for an ecam, gt40p, cobra intake. If I didn't have those pulleys and electric fan I would be in the area of 255-260rwhp.
3. The video is showing the dyno is from a VERY good shop that doen't fudge numbers, they race.
4. I thought you could piece that thought process together so I numbered it here to help you stay focused.

* by passing the smog pump pulley (not just deleting smog pump) was a complete smaller belt way I used. I bypassed the smog, A/C when I tested my Oh sh!t factor. I since then use my A/C, but if I ever go to thetrack I will put on the shorter belt and by pass it all

* all of this has nothing to do with fuel economy. Figured i would type that to keep you and others focused
Click to expand...
Just going to have to agree to disagree.
Through all your snide comments you're bragging up a car that only makes 280 with an H/C/I swap. Hardly Guinness worthy
 

Grabbin' Asphalt

10 Year Member
Jun 10, 2013
2,029
310
124
Atlanta, Ga
Mar 23, 2014
#58
  • Mar 23, 2014
  • #58
tannerc91gt said:
Just going to have to agree to disagree.
Through all your snide comments you're bragging up a car that only makes 280 with an H/C/I swap. Hardly Guinness worthy
Click to expand...


You know its quite easy to Re-read my previous posts and see where the snide comments stsrted inconjuction with yours and mr. NAW NAW, because I was was pretty plain jane expressing MY experiences that seem to be under valued to OTHERS experiences. Simply showing what CAN be achieved with a little ecam is is not bragging, its an ecam cam petes sake.
 
Prev
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
First Prev 3 of 3
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
Where to go from here on my build…
  • B0udreaux
  • Jul 14, 2026
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Replies
8
Views
211
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Jul 18, 2026
AeroCoupe
9
Forced Induction Prepping for supercharger on non-stock build
  • 91fox427
  • Nov 25, 2025
  • Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech
Replies
7
Views
428
Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech Jan 5, 2026
Qtrhrse23
Q
A
SOLD For Sale: 1993 Ford Mustang Cobra Modified
  • anjteal93
  • Sep 5, 2025
  • Fox Body Mustangs For Sale (1979-93)
Replies
13
Views
2K
Fox Body Mustangs For Sale (1979-93) Oct 26, 2025
Mindseye007
Engine HELP - 351W Based Build Under Stock Hood
  • thinkfaster
  • Oct 17, 2024
  • Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech
Replies
13
Views
2K
Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech Dec 31, 2025
Qtrhrse23
Q
Progress Thread 88 Notched Fox
  • NotchedGarage
  • Jul 15, 2023
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Replies
12
Views
2K
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Jun 21, 2024
Flyboy60
F
Share:
Bluesky Email Share Link
  • Mustang Forums
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Menu
Log in

Register

  • Forums
  • What's new
  • Media
  • Resources
  • Contact
  • Sponsor
X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?

X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?