Dyno Results

ponygirl74 · Jun 20, 2005

Okay, here are my dyno results. I'm a little troubled by the low numbers, but some tell me this is because it is a Mustang dyno. I don't know

229 hp/272 tq means I have gained roughly 40 hp w/ my few mods. I was hoping this to be more. Any comments/suggestions?

My future plans include headers and possibly cams.

csledd · Jun 20, 2005

They say Mustang dynos usually have lower numbers because it puts more load on the car. No A/F ratio? Also don't gears make the reading slightly smaller too? Not for sure on that one. Did they do the pull in 3rd or 4th gear?

Where are you getting you gained 40 hp?

ponygirl74 · Jun 20, 2005

christiesledd said:
They say Mustang dynos usually have lower numbers because it puts more load on the car. No A/F ratio? Also don't gears make the reading slightly smaller too? Not for sure on that one. Did they do the pull in 3rd or 4th gear?

Where are you getting you gained 40 hp?

I'll have to scan my other dyno sheets if you want to see the a/f ratio and other stuff. I only scanned the hp/tq results page. I'm not sure if gears make a difference. The pull was in 4th gear -- we ran it up past 100. And we made prolly 5 or 6 different pulls. He attempted to tune, but really the 93 octane Predator tune was about as good as it was going to get.

I believe I've gained close to 40 rwhp if you consider that stock my car had 260bwhp at the crank which converts to maybe 182 - 195 rwhp stock. Anyone dyno a stock 4.6 at a Mustang dyno? I would be curious to see if this is accurate.

csledd · Jun 20, 2005

people usually say stock GTs of 99-04 put down 215rwhp - 230rwhp

but of course some have dynoed lower and some have dynoed higher

BlackenedSVT · Jun 20, 2005

christiesledd said:
They say Mustang dynos usually have lower numbers because it puts more load on the car. No A/F ratio? Also don't gears make the reading slightly smaller too? Not for sure on that one. Did they do the pull in 3rd or 4th gear?

Where are you getting you gained 40 hp?

Mustang dynos = great to tune the car

Dynojet Dyno = ideal for seeing what your best #s are.

BlackenedSVT · Jun 20, 2005

ponygirl74 said:
Okay, here are my dyno results. I'm a little troubled by the low numbers, but some tell me this is because it is a Mustang dyno. I don't know

229 hp/272 tq means I have gained roughly 40 hp w/ my few mods. I was hoping this to be more. Any comments/suggestions?

My future plans include headers and possibly cams.

229hp with those mods? Damn that mustang dyno really does show some low numbers...thats stock numbers!!

BlackenedSVT · Jun 20, 2005

christiesledd said:
people usually say stock GTs of 99-04 put down 215rwhp - 230rwhp

but of course some have dynoed lower and some have dynoed higher

I think the autos are at like 215rwhp and the 5spds at about 225-230rwhp

Chili · Jun 20, 2005

UDTBadkarma said:
I think the autos are at like 215rwhp and the 5spds at about 225-230rwhp

Right.. On a dynojet they usually estimate about 15% loss for the 5 speed (which is a bit conservative). Most I've seen are right around 225. I would guess that the Mustang Dyno must be a bit lower based on the numbers above..

BlackenedSVT · Jun 20, 2005

Chili said:
Right.. On a dynojet they usually estimate about 15% loss for the 5 speed (which is a bit conservative). Most I've seen are right around 225. I would guess that the Mustang Dyno must be a bit lower based on the numbers above..

Well a 15% loss of 260hp would put the 5spds at about 221rwhp

02LaserRed2V · Jun 20, 2005

215, I wish....My auto put down 205hp/238tq when stock.

Chili · Jun 20, 2005

UDTBadkarma said:
Well a 15% loss of 260hp would put the 5spds at about 221rwhp

Good job on the math there!

I didn't say that there's a 15% drivetrain loss which equals 225.. I said that it is estimated at around 15% but most of the stock GT's that I have seen are right about 225.

I was agreeing with you BTW..

Chili · Jun 20, 2005

02LaserRed2V said:
215, I wish....My auto put down 205hp/238tq when stock.

Auto's lose a little more.. Usually around 18%..

(For UDT, that's 213.5)

Oof.. I just realized you said 205.. Don't feel too bad, I am getting a little less than I "should" too..

trinity_gt · Jun 20, 2005

Still don't understand why the MD cannot turn off this "tune mode" or whatever it is that's causing the error and simply measure and display the actual power being delivered to the wheels. The elegant simplicity and determinism of the Dynojet makes it the benchmark - at least compared to the MD - for showing what power is there at the wheels.

As if that car, with those mods, is actually making just 229. For deltas during tuning or measuring A/F at steady state load, I can see the MD being useful. But why would anyone want to use something that's clearly not reporting the correct numbers for determining absolute power at the wheels?

lewbud · Jun 20, 2005

What was the weather like? Was it hot and/or humid? If it was, that would affect engine output. I didn't see it on your scan, but there usually is a correction factor that allows for temp & humidity. Look for something like SAE 1.03 (that's what mine was, air temp was 93 deg w/18% humidity--hp was 229 corrected was 236) then do the math and you should get a better idea of your true rwhp. There's a good article on dynos and how to use a dyno in the current issue of Grassroots Motorsports. Hope this helps.

Red35th · Jun 20, 2005

Those numbers are really quite good being on mustang dyno. That equates to 250ish on a dynojet.

alsyr44 · Jun 20, 2005

My car was completly stock on a mustang dyno. 5 speed. Numbers below.

fudleyd · Jun 20, 2005

Red35th said:
Those numbers are really quite good being on mustang dyno. That equates to 250ish on a dynojet.

I agree with this. Your numbers do seem pretty good considering what you have done to your car. Powerwise you have a Predator,x-pipe, and catback. That really is not that much...but you got good solid gains. Too bad you don't have a stock dyno sheet.

lgndracer · Jun 20, 2005

When I bought my car new, I took it to a local shop that does a lot of Mustangs, to get a basline set of numbers. My stock N/A Saleen has about the same mods, plus U/D pullies, but had cats. My numbers were really close to yours, and they were pretty impressed. I didn't ask them what a stock GT normally gets on their dyno though.

hotmustang331 · Jun 20, 2005

Those are good #s for a mustang dyno. I actally raced a guy that put down 237 and 274RWTQ on a mustang dyno. He had O/R X, flowmaster CB, custom dyno tuned W/ sct-4 bank, mac straight shot, accufab pleunum & TB, and UD pullys. Needless to say we were even. BUT thats just an example, mustangdynos are the best for tuning and should not be used to compare HP #s. If you notic, he entered your weight of 3450, and thats what the dyno loads the car to. If you changed that weight any, the #s would vary...so you never know what weight people enter with these. But IMO the #s are pretty good, as 4.10s USUALLY loose about 10ish RWHP. And would you mind scanning the other sheet that contains your A/F and the other various #s that the mustang dyno includes. thanks

Mychael101 · Jun 20, 2005

Those look like nice numbers to me. I would say ditch the predator and go with the SCT X2 tuner. I have an 2003 5-speed GT
1st graph is with a Prochamber and Mac cat-back
2nd graph is with the addition of the Predator performance tune

Dyno Results

Member

Attachments

Official Ovary Punching Member

Member

Official Ovary Punching Member

Active Member

Active Member

Active Member

New Member

Active Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

Active Member

New Member

Attachments

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency