• Mustang Forums
  • 1996 - 2004 SN95 Mustang -General/Talk-
  • SN95 4.6L Mustang Tech

Dyno Numbers: 4R70W vs C4

  • Thread starter Thread starter Kurt2002
  • Start date Start date Jan 11, 2008

Kurt2002

New Member
Jul 6, 2002
346
0
0
North Royalton, Ohio
Jan 11, 2008
#1
  • Jan 11, 2008
  • #1
I did the C4 swap and nothing else beside a retune. Everything else was the same.

Old 4R70W combo:
DirtyDog Performance 4000rpm stall Converter (reworked PI converter)
282rwhp and 304TQ (locked converter)

New PA C4:
DirtyDog Performance 5000rpm stall 8" converter
280rwhp and 367tq (no lockup)

The only thing I did different was the trans swap, no other mods. Both combos have 29 degrees of timing and a/f 12.7-12.9. Of course these TQ numbers are skewed by the TQ multi. and stall but I was really curious how efficient the converter would be being unlocked. It looks like it is very efficient which is what I was wanting.

The one weird thing was my rwhp peak increase from 6100rpm to 6500rpm. Not sure how the trans/converter swap would effect the peak rpm. Anyone know why?

Again dyno numbers means nothing on high stall converters, it is just a tuning tool but still wanted to share.
 

DBMSTNG

I fantasize about it being BIG!
Founding Member
Apr 23, 2002
2,120
0
56
not quite here
Jan 11, 2008
#2
  • Jan 11, 2008
  • #2
it's tough to compare a locked to non-locked converter numbers. my guess on the peak numbers with the C4 is that the trans and converter may have less rotating mass, thus more efficient.
 

CobraRed_96_GT

Active Member
May 20, 2006
1,421
4
39
UCSD/La Jolla
Jan 11, 2008
#3
  • Jan 11, 2008
  • #3
it cant be a 64rwtq difference - the TC isn't locking up (spinning at the same speed as the flywheel) so hence it's still multiplying torque. With just a difference in tranny your peak tq should more or less be at the same rpm as before, i bet you it's not because of this multiplication - after all that's what they are supposed to do
 

Kurt2002

New Member
Jul 6, 2002
346
0
0
North Royalton, Ohio
Jan 12, 2008
#4
  • Jan 12, 2008
  • #4
yeah according to PA they said the less rotating is what increased the peak rpm. Now it is time for the real test, a ET slip
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
My numbers sound right?
  • MiltP
  • Feb 25, 2026
  • 1996 - 2004 SN95 Mustang -General/Talk-
  • 2
Replies
28
Views
722
1996 - 2004 SN95 Mustang -General/Talk- Apr 2, 2026
MiltP
M
Supercharger/Dyno Number Question
  • Fox5-0
  • Dec 20, 2018
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Replies
13
Views
3K
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Jan 14, 2019
TOOLOW91
Finally! A valid TFS-R and TFS Box R intake dyno comparison on a street stroker.
  • FastDriver
  • Oct 19, 2011
  • Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech
  • 2 3
Replies
58
Views
38K
Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech Sep 6, 2025
FastDriver
New dyno numbers.
  • 281pony
  • Jul 11, 2010
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Replies
3
Views
740
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Jul 11, 2010
281pony
S
  • Locked
FS: HBH's 2003 Sonic Blue Cobra, 10K miles, 700+ HP, FULLY BUILT FRONT TO BACK!
  • sjstang
  • Dec 13, 2009
  • SN95 Mustangs For Sale (1994-04)
Replies
4
Views
13K
SN95 Mustangs For Sale (1994-04) Dec 29, 2009
sjstang
S
Share:
Bluesky Email Share Link
  • Mustang Forums
  • 1996 - 2004 SN95 Mustang -General/Talk-
  • SN95 4.6L Mustang Tech
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?