• Mustang Forums
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
  • 1994 - 1995 Specific Tech

Dyno results of AFR's and Diablo Chip

  • Thread starter Thread starter Green Machine
  • Start date Start date Aug 15, 2003
  • 1
  • 2
Next
1 of 2 Next Last

Green Machine

Founding Member
Sep 22, 2001
481
9
28
Lakeland Florida
Aug 15, 2003
#1
  • Aug 15, 2003
  • #1
Here's what my 94 GT put down with AFR 165's and a Diablo chip.

I've got the std bolts on's Eldelbrock Performer,65mm TB, Shorty headers, Full Bassani exhaust with cat'd x-pipe.

I need to return, and let them retune the chip. It's make about 7 hp, but
it stumbles at 2200 rpms in 1st,2nd, and 3rd gear with light throttle applied. However, if you mash it good, it pulls really hard. You can tell
the hp is there.

On a regular dyno jet I was making 233 rwhp. With the in ground dyno it applys more real world weight to the vechicle. The tuner sez I would be making 308 rwhp if you take the 233 X 23% on hp and torque. Don't know how true that is, but I can tell there's a bunch more ponies under the hood.

Sorry guys - can't seem to attach the file. However, the 1st run was
243.4 rwhp @ 5350rpm 265.9 rwtorque
2nd run was 251.0 @ 5350rmps and torque was 273.2
 

Joes95GT

New Member
Jan 23, 2003
3,132
1
0
Delaware
Aug 15, 2003
#2
  • Aug 15, 2003
  • #2
What kind of cam are you running? If you have some kind of aftermarket cam, you should be in the 275-285 horsepower range. You have a lot left in that motor. Do you question anything when you were putting everything back together? Double check the rocker geometry and vacuum leaks. What kind of injectors are you running? If they are the stock 19's they could be clogged (my car studdered when I had a clogged injector) or it could be running really rich in the lower RPM's making it a boggin type feel. Can you smell gasoline at all? Just trying to start you off.....

Joe
 

blackmagic94

Founding Member
Jan 5, 2002
1,215
0
0
Tucson, Arizona
Aug 15, 2003
#3
  • Aug 15, 2003
  • #3
Yeah do you have the stock grind in there, it seems low numbers to me, i dynoed 268/311 to the wheels with stock heads. I think that i would have made 300-310 rwhp with the AFRs
 

WhiteDevil

New Member
Feb 4, 2003
2,717
0
0
San Diego
Aug 15, 2003
#4
  • Aug 15, 2003
  • #4
Are those numbers SAE or at some kind of high elevation?? Cause i made more than that with stock heads and cam and computer!! Maybe i read it wrong
 

Rootus

Officially Addicted
Feb 8, 2003
6,659
1
0
Portland, Oregon
Aug 15, 2003
#5
  • Aug 15, 2003
  • #5
That doesn't seem right -- I can't imagine the stock HO cam giving up that much power. With a similar setup, but with a better cam, I put down 273 rwhp and 325 rwtq. (that was with a messed up exhaust, after I put on my long tubes I got 3.5 mph in the 1/4, so I'm probably right at 300 rwhp now).

Dave
 

Green Machine

Founding Member
Sep 22, 2001
481
9
28
Lakeland Florida
Aug 16, 2003
#6
  • Aug 16, 2003
  • #6
Afr

Sorry, I forgot to include that I left the stock cam in, and kept the
19lb injectors.

We're in central fla with 78 degree humidity.

The tuner reminded me that the same run on a Dyno Jet dyno would have made 308 rwhp and 300 + in rw torque.

With the Diablo chip, it stumbles at 2200 rpms in 1st, 2nd and 3rd. He explained that I need hotter plugs and an ignition to get rid of the extra fuel left because I didn't upgrade to a larger cam.

So which msd ignition do I need with my 5.0 ?

Thanks Dewman
 

9250stang

Founding Member
Jul 15, 2002
927
1
18
Kentucky
Aug 19, 2003
#7
  • Aug 19, 2003
  • #7
So it was a mustang dyno??
 
J

jjd975

Founding Member
Jul 17, 2000
4,236
0
0
louisville,kentucky
Aug 19, 2003
#8
  • Aug 19, 2003
  • #8
Sounds like a mustang dyno. I numbers will go up for sure but I dont think they will top 300.

I would get some 24lbs injectors and a cam personally. At the very least try some 1.7 rockers to help take advantage of all that airflow. If you keep the stock cam you can always degree it in to help the top end.
 
F

Fast94Cobra

New Member
Jan 1, 2003
385
0
0
Atlanta, GA
Aug 19, 2003
#9
  • Aug 19, 2003
  • #9
I'm confused as to what kind of dyno this was... I dynoed at 233/298 SAE on a dyno jet and was pretty disappointed.
 
J

jjd975

Founding Member
Jul 17, 2000
4,236
0
0
louisville,kentucky
Aug 19, 2003
#10
  • Aug 19, 2003
  • #10
LOL. Your numbers are more than likely hurting from that elevation you have.

Between that and the 3400lbs your trying to push down the track I can see why the ETs are high.
 
F

Fast94Cobra

New Member
Jan 1, 2003
385
0
0
Atlanta, GA
Aug 19, 2003
#11
  • Aug 19, 2003
  • #11
I dynoed the car in north carolina and got those numbers. Thats where i go to college, actually leaving really early tomorrow morning to drive back! I can't wait to get some track times in nc (300 ft) as opposed to denver (5800 ft). I'll definitely post the results, see what kind of difference a mile of altitude makes! I'm hoping for at least a full second, otherwise i'm just a horrific driver.
 

GTPhreak

Founding Member
Mar 16, 2000
5,505
0
77
Rowlett, TEXAS
Aug 20, 2003
#12
  • Aug 20, 2003
  • #12
what do you mean by saying it will be higher with a "mustang dyno" (what is this?) vs. a dynojet dyno? my tq is the same as yours, and my motor is bone stock, on a 90* day, with very high humidity. it was on an above ground dyno. http://www.kwikkarauto.com/News/TXShoot2000/txshoot_fset.html
 

SN95LEEN

Founding Member
Nov 4, 2002
80
0
0
San Marcos, TX
Aug 20, 2003
#13
  • Aug 20, 2003
  • #13
Green Machine said:
With the Diablo chip, it stumbles at 2200 rpms in 1st, 2nd and 3rd. He explained that I need hotter plugs and an ignition to get rid of the extra fuel left because I didn't upgrade to a larger cam.
Click to expand...
Was this a burnt chip? Even if it wasn't custom, he should've known your entire setup b4 doing any burning, why is there an excuse that you need to change for the chip b/c of lack of ignition or cam?? He should've known you didn't have a cam in the first place, so why did he burn the chip's fuel tables w/a cam in mind????
 

Green Machine

Founding Member
Sep 22, 2001
481
9
28
Lakeland Florida
Dec 9, 2003
#14
  • Dec 9, 2003
  • #14
Chip update

Here's a quick update. The dyno was a Mustang Chassis Dyno. I now understand that they normally lower numbers than the dyno jets.

The original runs I made I later found out was screwed up by the tuner. He had the MAF settings all out of wack. He adjusted it with a new downloaded file.

2 weeks ago I added a Bassani O/R x-pipe and took it to another Diablo chip dealer near my house. He poped the chip, and then asked how is this thing even running ?? The original tuner had it connected to the wrong port, and had basicly turned off most of the mods. It wasn't a custom tune as the tuner originaly stated.

He downloaded a new file, and woke it up, my torque was back big time, and the car ran a lot smoother . Since then I've discovered it stumbles at 2K, and the dealer is getting a new file in for me Friday.

Dave - I should have similar numbers i.e 280-290 rwhp (dyno-jet) as you mentioned. I 'm not sure how much the chip will do in combo with the all the mods. But, I'm planning to get a dyno run in soon to verify the numbers. Central Fla with 75 degree temp and 40% humidity is so much better than 90 degree temp and humidity.
 

SmokinGT50

Founding Member
Jun 17, 2002
733
0
0
Atlanta, GA
Dec 9, 2003
#15
  • Dec 9, 2003
  • #15
A mustang dyno would only be a few, like 1-3% lower then a dynojet, not 23%
 

94GTLaserRC

Squint as you approach, lest you be blinded by my
15 Year Member
May 7, 2002
11,178
13
89
Ernan Says "here it comes... dushbag"
Dec 9, 2003
#16
  • Dec 9, 2003
  • #16
Hey Steve!!

Green..Agree with the MINIMUM being rockers with those heads...obviously + cam = more power. On another note, you may want to consider changing out you Performer upper for the RPM or RPM II.

RC
 

OinkAodeOink

Founding Member
Jun 5, 2002
3,026
1
0
Daytona bch, Florida
Dec 10, 2003
#17
  • Dec 10, 2003
  • #17
The car should run like stock, as far as the tune goes. Sounds like you have some tuning issues. Throw a decent cam on there, and get a good tune, some injectors and a maf, and you should be right up there.
Did Lugo do the tuning, head install, dyno time?
 

Killercanary

The car that set the bar.
Founding Member
Nov 29, 1999
5,676
1
76
Altoona, PA
Dec 10, 2003
#18
  • Dec 10, 2003
  • #18
SmokinGT50 said:
A mustang dyno would only be a few, like 1-3% lower then a dynojet, not 23%
Click to expand...


That's not true. Case in point... my car with an edelbrock intake, shorty headers, offroad x pipe, pulleys, flowmasters, homemade CAI, bumper timing, FPR, etc went from running 15.2 at 90mph to 13.83 at 98.55mph with those mods. 99% of the cars here with VERY similar mods dyno in the neighborhood of 230-240RWHP. My car, on a mustang chassis dyno put down a WHOPPING 188rwhp Now, its obvious from the track times and what 99% of the people dyno with similar mods that I was no where near 188rwhp... that's what our cars will dyno stock. Now, the dyno pull was made in 3rd gear which probably didn't help much as its not a 1:1 relationship, but still ~230-240 compared to 188 is more than 1-2%. I questioned why they were dynoing in 3rd and they said that was the way it was supposed to be done and would NOT dyno my car in 4th gear, needless to say I never went back there again.
 

zenboy99

Founding Member
May 12, 2002
2,212
0
47
Madison, WI
Dec 10, 2003
#19
  • Dec 10, 2003
  • #19
I did alot of research on aftermarket heads with stock cam and similar bolt-ons to your package. I talked to 5 guys that had either AFR-165's or Trick Flow heads who all made 270-280rwhp with the stock cam on a Dynojet. I have an old 5.0 Mustangs magazine that showed similar results with a stock cam and Edelbrock Performer package +280rwhp. Hope this helps you, PM me with any questions.
 

Trick95

Founding Member
Jan 20, 2000
2,298
0
47
Detroit, MI
Dec 10, 2003
#20
  • Dec 10, 2003
  • #20
My car put down 250 rwhp on a Mustang dyno and later went 110 in the 1/4.
 
  • 1
  • 2
Next
1 of 2 Next Last
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

  • Locked
Expired Supercharged 2001 Mustang Gt, <74k Miles, $12,500 Obo
  • jmc01gt
  • Nov 21, 2013
  • SN95 Mustangs For Sale (1994-04)
Replies
9
Views
19K
SN95 Mustangs For Sale (1994-04) Jul 24, 2015
imjdoggie
I
Tork Tech Performance Results!
  • Flghtmstr1
  • Apr 19, 2009
  • 1996 - 2004 SN95 Mustang -General/Talk-
  • 2
Replies
32
Views
4K
1996 - 2004 SN95 Mustang -General/Talk- Apr 23, 2009
Flghtmstr1
F
Roush Disappointed in 04 SC 281 dyno results
  • finisher241
  • Jun 27, 2008
  • Special Production
Replies
11
Views
3K
Special Production Aug 1, 2008
blksq10psi
B
S
Friend's AFR 185, Cam Motion, Victor 5.0 setup is on the dyno right now!
  • Speeds8erM-1
  • Oct 29, 2007
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
  • 2
Replies
23
Views
8K
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Oct 31, 2007
25thmustang
Dyno Time - Care to guestimate ?
  • Green Machine
  • Dec 18, 2005
  • 1994 - 1995 Specific Tech
Replies
14
Views
984
1994 - 1995 Specific Tech Dec 28, 2005
Green Machine
Share:
Bluesky Email Share Link
  • Mustang Forums
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
  • 1994 - 1995 Specific 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?