dyno numbers

hotmustang331 · Dec 19, 2006

If they are nearly pointless, lets see a non camd, stock headed GT with my other mods make even 280RWHP. Not going to happen. The cams were actually good for around 18RWHP. One of the highest HP full bolton GTs I have seen is C sledds car....hers makes 270RWHP.

I made 248RWHP with a 14-15 A/F and almost full boltons...added cams, TB, JLT RAI, retune whichj got the A/F back to 13-1, BUT removed my electric water pump and I made 274RWHP on Tims dyno.

Then I added LTs, U/D pulleys, reinstalled the electirc WP and a windage trey and it jumped to 292RWHP.

Saying that cams are useless...especially from someone who doesnt even have them is just rediculous. Just ask ANY of us with cams if they were useless...you would get flamed to a crisp if they all chimed in.

Stan Weiss · Dec 19, 2006

Those #'s aren't too far fetched......his A/F's must be dead on! Besides the cold weather makes a huge diffenence! I found this out on the dyno before! How about 18 rwhp difference and 15 rwtq! just from outside air changes! It would be better if you show corrected Numbers but STD numbers if the air is great tells you what your car made at that temp, humidity, barrometer, ect..... Why do you think altitude makes such a huge difference! When I was in El Paso...with the elevation at 4000+ feet I couldn't get the car into the 13's.......just moving to SC the car dropped 6-7 thenths just from better air and low altitude! I did 2 back to back dynos in a weekend before and one day it was 62 and decent humidity and made great power and ran 2 days later and the air temp ws 78 and really dry air and the car ran alot slower! But the correction factor was identical!

The only time people post uncorrected numbers is when they want them to look better than they are. If the correction factor was 1.05 instead of 0.97 do you think he would post uncorrected numbers? SAE has had a few correction factors over the year to get the results as close to real as possible. As far as track times, yes they will change that is why people want to know what the density altitude was.

01KBGT · Dec 19, 2006

san~man said:
I don't think his request was "out of line" enough to warrant you calling him an idiot. Be careful what you type, as that was a personal attack. This is your warning.

You don't want people raising the BS flag, then post the sheet. Your numbers are out of line compared to what others have gained, so until then you'll get flamed.

I'm just messing with him, he's a friend of mine.

No here on the numbers guys. Before I went S/C I had the same set up, minus the midpipe, and got the same tune at the same shop, put down 248/296. Add in the gains from the midpipe and its right there.

steveb24 · Dec 19, 2006

RoadconeTuning said:
stg1 cams did probably only give you 12hp... they are nearly pointless to install. you can fart into the intake for that much power.

whatever you say boss

san~man · Dec 19, 2006

The skeptics here won't believe him until he posts the sheet.

And put a next time to denote you're joking, so I don't get excited

01KBGT · Dec 19, 2006

My Bad

maxima · Dec 19, 2006

01KBGT said:
My Bad

my bad... haha

hotmustang331 · Dec 19, 2006

san~man said:
The skeptics here won't believe him until he posts the sheet.

And put a next time to denote you're joking, so I don't get excited

Why wouldnt anyone believe he made that much power? I 100% believe he made what he said....hes a fairly respectable member. I just think the dyno may have been off....completely out of his control.

san~man · Dec 19, 2006

hotmustang331 said:
Why wouldnt anyone believe he made that much power? I 100% believe he made what he said....hes a fairly respectable member. I just think the dyno may have been off....completely out of his control.

It's human nature to be a disbeliever until proven otherwise. All I said was that his numbers look high, and asked if they were corrected or not. He didn't answer that question yet.

Whether or not it was off or out of his control, the numbers are "high" which resulted in members asking for a dyno sheet.

Besides, I wasn't referring to myself in that statement, but as you've read, many people don't believe him.

maxima · Dec 20, 2006

san~man said:
It's human nature to be a disbeliever until proven otherwise. All I said was that his numbers look high, and asked if they were corrected or not. He didn't answer that question yet.

Whether or not it was off or out of his control, the numbers are "high" which resulted in members asking for a dyno sheet.

Besides, I wasn't referring to myself in that statement, but as you've read, many people don't believe him.

dont worry ill figure out a way to post the dyno sheet.. before the tune i made 253 and 289.. not really high numbers. tune helps it didnt help that much lol.. low 260s and 301 rwt isnt hard to believe.. and i dont have a freak

maxima · Dec 20, 2006

hotmustang331 said:
Why wouldnt anyone believe he made that much power? I 100% believe he made what he said....hes a fairly respectable member. I just think the dyno may have been off....completely out of his control.

thanks for saying im a fairly respectable member. but why would the dyno be off.. my buddy had the same mods i do except for a prochamber no cats, and he made 248 and 296.. the prochamber helps alot especialy no cats.. im 29 im not a kid lieing lol i dont get the big bs stuff on here though

Skidzz · Dec 20, 2006

hotmustang331 said:
If they are nearly pointless, lets see a non camd, stock headed GT with my other mods make even 280RWHP. Not going to happen. The cams were actually good for around 18RWHP. One of the highest HP full bolton GTs I have seen is C sledds car....hers makes 270RWHP.

I made 248RWHP with a 14-15 A/F and almost full boltons...added cams, TB, JLT RAI, retune whichj got the A/F back to 13-1, BUT removed my electric water pump and I made 274RWHP on Tims dyno.

Then I added LTs, U/D pulleys, reinstalled the electirc WP and a windage trey and it jumped to 292RWHP.

Saying that cams are useless...especially from someone who doesnt even have them is just rediculous. Just ask ANY of us with cams if they were useless...you would get flamed to a crisp if they all chimed in.

Yep, I'll chime in. To say that mild cams are pointless...that is about like saying LT's are pointless. I'd say my 262's got me just a little more power than LT's would. After the half-ass dyno run MD did for me (they cut it off at 5200 RPM's), I had it re-dynoed at a local shop's dynojet and it put down 265rwhp in 90* weather. No way my car would have put that much down without the cams, and mine even gets a little extra hp over the 99-04's because of the bump in compression. Cams are not useless.

Oh and as for the original post, those numbers seem high, but maybe not impossible. Mine has most of the basic bolt-ons AND cams and I'm only making a few more HP than you. But like I said the 90* temperature and WV's horrible humidity probably held my #'s back a little.

ADRENLN · Dec 20, 2006

a prochamber is good for about 8 rwhp.

ADRENLN · Dec 20, 2006

i think his numbers were high too for no having a mid pipe and almost having 250rwhp. thats a bit high. not a lot, about 10rwhp off.

RoadconeTuning · Dec 20, 2006

Skidzz said:
Yep, I'll chime in. To say that mild cams are pointless...that is about like saying LT's are pointless. I'd say my 262's got me just a little more power than LT's would. After the half-ass dyno run MD did for me (they cut it off at 5200 RPM's), I had it re-dynoed at a local shop's dynojet and it put down 265rwhp in 90* weather. No way my car would have put that much down without the cams, and mine even gets a little extra hp over the 99-04's because of the bump in compression. Cams are not useless.

spending close to 1100 for cams, cam gears and a tune for what little gains you get with stage 1 cams IS pointless... sure youll make more power but my wallet will still have 1100 dollars...

i had planned on getting a set of Crower Stage 2 cams or VT Stage 2 cams and ended up looking at the pros and cons.... honestly its not worth it. by the time you've got the motor spinning enough to start to use the cams your on the bleeding edge of blowing the stock bottom end apart...

whoever said that 270 is the most a full bolton gt has made is an idiot... there are MANY GT's running around in the 290 range with long tubes and a set of VT Stage II cams that arent using an electric water pump... who gives a crap what the dyno said he made.... you have to take those numbers with a grain of salt considering its a TOOL used to TUNE... the numbers that come out of dyno A are not comparable to dyno B... only with Dyno A!!!!

with that said... i am still matching a set of cams to my setup... and i can garuntee that it will have almost a stock lift.

Skidzz · Dec 20, 2006

RoadconeTuning said:
spending close to 1100 for cams, cam gears and a tune for what little gains you get with stage 1 cams IS pointless... sure youll make more power but my wallet will still have 1100 dollars...

No high-hp mod is cheap. You gotta pay to play.

RoadconeTuning said:
whoever said that 270 is the most a full bolton gt has made is an idiot... there are MANY GT's running around in the 290 range with long tubes and a set of VT Stage II cams that arent using an electric water pump... who gives a crap what the dyno said he made.... you have to take those numbers with a grain of salt considering its a TOOL used to TUNE... the numbers that come out of dyno A are not comparable to dyno B... only with Dyno A!!!!

Yes. WITH CAMS. Cams aren't a bolt-on. It won't make 290 hp with JUST bolt-ons.

Redfire03GT · Dec 21, 2006

I wouldn't say his numbers are far fetched. I faced the same flame war sometime back until I had posted my sheet. Which still didn't prove anything. I was later just hit with the repeated requests to take it to the track and see what it runs.

In the end, just use the dyno as a tool. Just as it was meant to be. Gauge your power curves and your a/f ratio. Then react to them accordingly.

myponyrocks · Dec 21, 2006

IF you had that much HP with your setup the TQ should be higher.... somethings wrong... I think you didn't get SAE numbers and they used the wrong conversion scale....

OR it wasn't on a Dyno Jet or (obviosuly) Mustang dyno which are the two most commonly used on this site.

*EDIT* I didn't notice the Tune part, BUT! Not changin my above statement, 4 things I have you don't
- Headers
- FULL intake (filter and cermaic coated inlet)
- Alum. Drive Shaft
- Pullies

AND one thing you have that would make your numbers read lower than mine (Meaning you have slightly more HP at the wheels than the Dyno shows) 4.10s

That being said your car IS a freak IF the numbers are SAE. I believe my mods when similar to yours with a tune netter 252/315 but I don't have that sheet lying around any more

hotmustang331 · Dec 21, 2006

maxima said:
thanks for saying im a fairly respectable member. but why would the dyno be off.. my buddy had the same mods i do except for a prochamber no cats, and he made 248 and 296.. the prochamber helps alot especialy no cats.. im 29 im not a kid lieing lol i dont get the big bs stuff on here though

Sure . I hated to have to say "fairly" but you only have 65 posts...lol

Its just that the posts you do make, are good.
Now dont get me wrong, post counts do not reflect trustability per say.....take streetstang03 for example, many more posts than you but you could never take him seriously.

Hes one of our semi accepted trolls...LOL J/K (dont worry he lives like 100 miles from me...I dont think he'd drive that far to give me a beating )

billfisher · Dec 22, 2006

i posted my dyno sheet which included the shop phone nember. it makes it hard to get flamed.

dyno numbers

Active Member

Member

New Member

New Member

O-G

New Member

New Member

Active Member

O-G

New Member

New Member

Tinkerbell

Active Member

Active Member

New Member

Tinkerbell

New Member

I have more billet on the Stang than most women ha

Active Member

Active Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency