Dyno Results

Back off, no way... its obvious we have to attack him, we have nothing else to do! Is it right or wrong...who cares, i feel bigger and better about thinking i know more about your car than you. SoOOO what if we havent met, thats irrelevant. So what if the dyno told you so, i have a 1000 post that say i know more about you , your car and your dyno, Bow down.

Why did this have to become a pissing match? From what I am reading I see where you made consistantly 272RWHP (I guessed 270 in your first thread, gimmi the cookie beeyotch ) and I also see where your ran lean and made the most HP you made 29XRWTQ (can't read the last digit), are you positive he didn't say Torque?

Neither the less, good pulls on the dyno, more than most predicted. Now are you ready to take those wheels off the roller and plant them on some ashpalt?

Damn im good. I guess 270hp/310tq

::any popcorn left?? Can I sit here?

Good #'s congrats... now take it to the track.

houstonstangguy - you said "...I called you on it, so did Michael Yount..". You seem to do a pretty good job of screwing things up by speaking for yourself; how 'bout not putting words in my mouth too. I wanted to reply to your nonsense post early on but figured discretion was the better part of valor, and that Ray would take care of it himself, which he did. You were completely out of line calling Ray a liar - no two ways about it, no way around it.

I was being completely literal in my earlier post -I don't doubt Ray's numbers anymore than I doubt my own. What I do doubt, and continue to be amazed by, is what I believe is the complete incomparability of numbers run at different times on different dynos.

I just got back from the dyno this morning. It took until the 3rd run for the dyno operator to realize they were having a problem with their dyno brake that was throwing the runs off. 3 cars walked away with HP numbers WAY lower than they thought they should be. A 6.5L stroker Porsche 928 put down around 300rwhp on the first run - peak at 5000. Seemed WAY off. Second run - same thing. They fiddled with the dyno brake and the next run had him putting down 390rwhp - ultimately he peaked at 417 rwhp at 6000 rpm - more in line with what they were expecting. Not only did the first two guys get to run again, it threw the whole schedule off and everyone waiting is wondering whether or not the dyno is accurate at all.

The difference between 270 and 290 is -- well, I've seen 20HP difference between runs just from tire pressure differences and tightening up the tie down straps. The units aren't that accurate - or precise.

Ray - looks like a pretty potent combo ESPECIALLY for the parts. Keep up the good work.

Wow, this thread seems to have caused some drama and wrinkled a few panties in the process.

First, let me apologize to Michael Yount. If I took your post out of context and misunderstood it, then I am sorry for that. Unlike some people around here I can apologize when I am wrong....

Second I didn't and still don't see that he is/was making 295. I seriously doubt that anyone here truly believes he is making close to 350 at the fly. with that combo.....pro-m or no pro-m.

Whether or not the shop told him that, or like was mentioned above maybe the torque numbers were mistconstrued as the hp numbers. Who knows. My point was that there is no way that combo is making that power.

It is true that I called him a liar but he did say, and I quote: "but I did manage to get a few test runs in, one of wich (Not Pictured) I pulled 295." Reading that as it was stated, it says not that I got a dozen runs in and got my pro-m to fix the running lean, but rather that I only got a few runs and one of them, which isn't pictured in the dyno graph was a 295 run. That is not left to interpretation. That is just the way he said it. That in itself leaves room for question marks to pop into anyones head that is reading that post.

Those of you who want to sit here and talk **** about how people making these statements are somehow jealous of the numbers he is making and wishing that our car made that much or what would believe it should should shut the hell up. Others of you who want to sit here and talk **** about how they are tired of this site and other stangers who continue to criticize what others say should either accept the site for what it is, which is a public forum where you come for not only advice, but also critique, or get off the site. It is that simple. You can't site here and act like you don't get annoyed by people you meet on the streets or online that overstate what they have when you know it to not be true. Get over it. We all know that it annoys you as much as it annoys those of use who actually spoke up. I don't know this guy from Adam, but the fact is that I was in on his "talk" post about being on his way to the dyno, and I know what he was "hoping" for, so it makes me a little quicker to call BS when I see BS.

Whether or not the shop said it, or he misunderstood it, or he flat out lied is irrelevent. The fact is that most of us realize that it isn't so. It amazes me that even most of you who sit here and talk smack to those of us who spoke out against something that we believed to not be true, also go on to say in your post that you have a problem with this that he said, or you have a problem with that. All that you are doing is contradicting yourselves. Don't come on here venting and talking **** when you know that you may not agree with straight out calling something BS, but you know that something in that first post doesn't sound right.

To those guys with the popcorn............is there any left?

Here's the deal - we have a choice over what comes out of our mouths. It's one thing to say you don't believe a number's accurate or correct. It's ENTIRELY another thing to accuse someone of intentionally misrepresenting the truth - to accuse someone of lying.

Try to backpedal all you want and point the fingers at others. The person you should be apologizing to is the person you called a liar. There's no excuse for it. Credibility is all we really have. With nothing more than reading some written words you've concluded Ray's credibility is worthless. And by what you've written, you've damaged your own credibility.

If you say you can admit when you've made a mistake - then correct the big one. Ray's the one owed an apology.

Thanks for the integrity sermon, but I have more integrity than 90% of the people on here. I apologized to you for taking your words out of context, which I should not have done. It was however a just a misunderstanding on my part. Also someone else stated that he had a dyno sheet that showed the 30 extra hp, so it seems to me that I wasn't the only one who misunderstood your sincerity for sarcasm.

Having said that, I do not believe that I "damaged my own credibility" one bit. I have been on here for as long as you and I can count the times I have talked **** on one hand most likely.

You said with nothing more than reading someones written words.... well on a public forum that is all we have. If you don't want your words to be taken literally then you should think out what you write a little more. On here all we have is our written words, and that is what essentially describes who we are to the rest of the forum.

I see no backpedeling here what so ever. You made your initial point of me putting words in your mouth and I apologized for that. Don't sit here and preach to me. The fact is that I disagreed with what he said and I stated it. Could I have been a little less vocal and chosen other "tactful" words? sure I could have. Do I feel that I owe him an apology for saying what I said? I am comfortable with what I wrote and at the time it was how I felt. Was it a little harsh? possibly, but I don't think that I "owe" him an apology. I feel like what he said was an inaccurate misleading statement and he stands by his statement, so I stand by my posts.

Lets not bicker about opinions. You have yours and I have mine.

As for stating previously that I seem to do a pretty good job of screwing things up by speaking for myself.......I am offended and I think you owe me an apology. My words above as to the handful of times I have talked **** tell what kind of person I am and I am apphauled that you would suggest otherwise. (some sarcasm I admit, but now I think it is you that owe me an apology!)

Pops up a fresh batch of pop corn for the audience

show's over people........nothing to see here.........nothing to see here.

I don't think your lieing, but, 20 HP from taking a A/F ratio from 16-14:1 to 13-13.5:1 doesn't seem to produce 20HP in my car. Sure the amount spoken about was not torque as mentioned? Best of luck regardless, I like running Ford stuff to the limits.

272 rwhp? Pretty nice numbers for only "Y" heads.

Grn92LX said:

Damn im good. I guess 270hp/310tq

Click to expand...

me too. me too

anyway, just becase the guy told him "295" doesnt mean it is. It ALSO doesnt mean its NOT. He was the only one there...none of us.

Just for the record.... at what post count can you start to bash people? i must have missed that when i signed up a few years ago....

Hey, i think i guessed 270 also.

Which IMO is good for a stock fuel pump, no cam, and no pro m.

I know you have aluminum heads but they are still just P heads cast in aluminum. And I still dont see where your seeing 16/1 A/F ratio. Its more in the 13.5 range at rpms and it stays that way to max rpms. I DO see a lean condition at low rpms which isnt the pump. I still agree that you should move up to a larger pump because you are maxing it, but I think your A/F is close to fine at rpm.
As for the popcorn jokes I see all the time. Grow up, your probably the types who stand there and watch 2 people beat each other up instead of helping to end or resolve the issue. And then when the cops come, you walk away. Good job, pat each other on the back.

Just Curious

Will a stock fuel pump handle 295rwhp I never thought so, but ya'never know

One thing missing is on the DynoJet sheet numbers is whether they are corrected or non-corrected numbers.

I think DynoJet graphs usually state "Corrected" or "SAE" hp and tq. BUT, since both of these are missing, and the FACT that the graph states "STD" for standard, then these numbers are the non-corrected numbers. Do you have a sheet showing the corrected numbers? This will most likely be lowering them some based on environmental and altitude conditions, if the shop even bothered to put them into the computer correctly.

Additionally, lets not forget about spikes that show up on the dyno. A shop person may have seen 295hp on the screen, but once the software "smoothed" the graph output, the spike was removed thereby normalizing the graph numbers. So it is 100% entirely possible the someone saw 295hp, although with the combination you have, we all know that is not possible.

I think the 272hp is a little high, but the tq numbers seem spot on for the stock cam and combination. The power is probably closer to 255hp-260hp SAE corrected numbers. To hit 300hp with the stock cam to the rear wheels, the compression will have to be increased to around 11.0:1 to 12:1, plus perfectly matched intake and exhaust ports, plus balanced flowing on the heads and intake, which is almost impossible with the Cobra intake.

SmockDoiley said:

I know you have aluminum heads but they are still just P heads cast in aluminum.

Click to expand...

I believe that statement is inaccurate. From the 3 flow charts i referenced (one coming from this site, but when i look through my posts the link is gone)

One read quite a while back in 5.0,
and another i'm looking at in MM and FF. Issue sept 03, page 184.
I know the whole "don't believe everything you read in magazines" theory, but this seemed to be more of a controlled experiment on a motor dyno.
The y's made 14 more hp than the p's.

Included was all the numbers for a good handful of other heads and the order they finished seem to be the order of what's best in most people's opinion. The combo was done with 100% the same cam for each set of heads, with the afr's easily winning.

The y heads easily outflow the p's especially on the exhaust side. On the intake side the p's lead in flow up until .400 then the y's took over.
on the exhaust side pretty much the y's were ahead from the get go.

When you compare the y's to the gt40x's the heads are very similar, if you port the exhaust on the y's (x's are a bit better there) and have the y's milled, you have almost the same head.

Besides the p heads have a different spark plug angle, so i wouldn't exactly call that cast the same.

I've seen 289, with an e cam, y heads with a valve job, bowl cleanup and milling. Don't think you'll see that with minor work on p's.