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

Dyno #'s after $750 in exhaust

  • Thread starter Thread starter zenboy99
  • Start date Start date Sep 15, 2005
  • 1
  • 2
Next
1 of 2 Next Last

zenboy99

Founding Member
May 12, 2002
2,212
0
47
Madison, WI
Sep 15, 2005
#1
  • Sep 15, 2005
  • #1
First let me say that my dyno #'s from over a year ago where 304.6 rwhp and 338 rwtq. That was with FMS shorty headers, MAC h-pipe and a Flowmaster catback. That was probably at ~160,000 miles.

Now I've added a Magnaflow catback, Pypes X-pipe and BBK long tube headers. I currently have 176,500 miles on a stock short block.

New numbers from the same dyno. 301 rwhp and 323 rwtq. Got the same numbers adjusting the A/F ratio from 12.5 to 13.1 The car blew out a ton of smoke after the run, and smelled really rich.

The parameters on the new dyno say 84 degrees F, but it was around 68. And it also says 8% humidity? This is an import dyno shop, there were 7 VTEC engines laying on the ground (seriously!). The manager was convinced that my AFM power pipe was a turbo. So I'm not sure if the lower numbers are from the high mileage and abuse or the dyno operators. Most of my friends in town have gained alot of hp and trq switching to long tubes. Unfortunately the next closest dyno is 2 hours away.

I'm hoping to get out to the track on Sunday to get some numbers. The guys at the dyno had difficulty printing out a graph and could only give me a speed vs hp/tq variable. I'm hoping to get a rpm chart tomorrow. The pull started at ~3500rpm and stopped at ~6200rpm

I'll try to post some graphs later tonight.
 

Grn92LX

Fidanza Man!
Founding Member
Jan 14, 2001
6,819
64
129
New York
Sep 15, 2005
#2
  • Sep 15, 2005
  • #2
Hmm.

Sucks when dyno sessions never go as planned. You have a mail order jms chip right? How did you adjust the a/f then? They should have started the pull lower at 2500, not 3500. Lets see what the track says.
 

VibrantRedGT

"STANGNET'S PENGUIN SMACKER"
15 Year Member
Nov 29, 1999
14,679
424
154
Boca Raton, Florida
Sep 15, 2005
#3
  • Sep 15, 2005
  • #3
Mike's right, the track should tell you more.
 

zenboy99

Founding Member
May 12, 2002
2,212
0
47
Madison, WI
Sep 15, 2005
#4
  • Sep 15, 2005
  • #4
can't upload the graph for some reason.
 

zenboy99

Founding Member
May 12, 2002
2,212
0
47
Madison, WI
Sep 15, 2005
#5
  • Sep 15, 2005
  • #5
Grn92LX said:
Hmm.

Sucks when dyno sessions never go as planned. You have a mail order jms chip right? How did you adjust the a/f then? They should have started the pull lower at 2500, not 3500. Lets see what the track says.
Click to expand...

I adjusted the A/F ratio with the regulator. The JMS chip suggests a fuel pressure of 40psi, then you can adjust if from there to richen/lean the mixture

They started the pull at 3500 because they're an import place. They didn't realize that I make more hp at idle then their cars do at redline.

I have a video, don't know how to post it though, anyone want to host it for me?
 

urban96

bubb rubb says:"woo woooooo"
Founding Member
Sep 24, 2002
3,464
1
69
Syracuse, NY
Sep 15, 2005
#6
  • Sep 15, 2005
  • #6
http://videos.streetfire.net/Upload/Upload.uplx
 

Grn92LX

Fidanza Man!
Founding Member
Jan 14, 2001
6,819
64
129
New York
Sep 15, 2005
#7
  • Sep 15, 2005
  • #7
Playing with the regulator isn't the ideal way. But lets see what the track says.

I know what its like to spend a bunch of money in mods and see little difference. I did an fti cam, valve springs, longtubes and milled the headed .020" and gained a bit of low end power, gained nothing up top and also gained a horrible lean condition. Gained 2 mph at the track. I should have left my 302 combo the way it was and never tried changing it. Should have kept the nitrous too. I wasted a ton of money "upgrading" my combo and trying to fix it. If only I knew then what i know now. Oh well, I got a 347 now
 

final5-0

Mustang Master
Apr 6, 2003
6,817
12
79
DFW Texas
Sep 15, 2005
#8
  • Sep 15, 2005
  • #8
Hey Chad

Here is some info which is a general kind of thing but not in every case does this info apply.

I have seen things in the past that show lt's have more efficiency over shortys in the low to mid rpm range.

Some of those tests have shown that shortys and lt's can be quite close in the upper rpm range.

Grady
 

BlueOvalStangGT

Active Member
Oct 27, 2003
2,849
0
46
Tampa Florida....USF!!!
Sep 15, 2005
#9
  • Sep 15, 2005
  • #9
All you really changed that MAY give you a noticeable difference is the longtubes since you already had a pretty good setup before. I wouldnt be hopeing for more then like a 10 hp gain with the new setup. I bet it sounds alot cooler tho. Do you have your old graph? Can you see if you made more/less down low where it actually counts?
 

Pokageek

Active Member
Jun 10, 2005
2,767
0
46
MA, USA
Sep 16, 2005
#10
  • Sep 16, 2005
  • #10
If I recall catbacks differ only by like 2 horsepower..like literally from one muffler to the next. I have seen conflicting info between longtubes vs shorties and the x-pipe vs h-pipe and have wondered if its just marketing hype when it comes to these mods and HP.

What's the butt dyno tell you?
 

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"
Sep 16, 2005
#11
  • Sep 16, 2005
  • #11
I hate Dyno sessions. How does the car sound?

RC
 

zenboy99

Founding Member
May 12, 2002
2,212
0
47
Madison, WI
Sep 16, 2005
#12
  • Sep 16, 2005
  • #12
I'm going to try and upload the graphs tonight, I think it was my computer at work that wasn't letting me.

Search for my other thread on the sound comparison. I think I like my old set up better. But now my co-workers can't hear me leave work, and my wife can't hear me leave the house so thats a bonus.

The NMRA race pages published a dyno comparison between the Magnaflows and Flowmasters on a bolt-on 5.0, the Magnaflows gained 9rwhp. But hey, what do dyno numbers mean?

Anyone have the SAE correction factor equation? I'm a little worried that my graph says 8% humidity. There's more then 8% humidity on Mars.
 

Killercanary

The car that set the bar.
Founding Member
Nov 29, 1999
5,676
1
76
Altoona, PA
Sep 16, 2005
#13
  • Sep 16, 2005
  • #13
Interesting... This is one of the reasons I never did this to my car. The very few people I have found that did what you have just done didn't gain much if anything at all. BUT, like the others are saying I'd be VERY interested in seeing what the track says as the dyno sometimes lies! LOL! Good luck, and keep us posted.
 

94-302-vert

Active Member
Aug 16, 2004
1,947
2
36
NE CT
Sep 16, 2005
#14
  • Sep 16, 2005
  • #14
The LT combo probably produces more overall power (area under the curve). Peak numbers don't mean much.

THe track will show this...

=-)
 

Grn92LX

Fidanza Man!
Founding Member
Jan 14, 2001
6,819
64
129
New York
Sep 16, 2005
#15
  • Sep 16, 2005
  • #15
The bbk headers aren't the best in terms of power making. They aren't equal lengths and the collector necks down from 3" to LESS than 2.5". Sh itty design IMO. I had the 1 5/8" on my 302 and now the 1 3/4" on my 347. I should have went with 1 3/4" hookers as their equal length and have a real 3" collector.

Here is a h/c/i 302 shorty vs longtube dyno sheet from a guy on corral (96cammin2v) Notice the big gains in the 2500-4200 range.
 

final5-0

Mustang Master
Apr 6, 2003
6,817
12
79
DFW Texas
Sep 16, 2005
#16
  • Sep 16, 2005
  • #16
Grn92LX said:
The bbk headers aren't the best in terms of power making. They aren't equal lengths and the collector necks down from 3" to LESS than 2.5". Sh itty design IMO. I had the 1 5/8" on my 302 and now the 1 3/4" on my 347. I should have went with 1 3/4" hookers as their equal length and have a real 3" collector.

Here is a h/c/i 302 shorty vs longtube dyno sheet from a guy on corral (96cammin2v) Notice the big gains in the 2500-4200 range.
Click to expand...

Just what I was trying to get across in my post above.

When I saw Chad's original post I had a feeling something like this might be going on with his combo and that is the reson the peak numbers did not change much when he compared the results of the two pulls.

Grady
 

zenboy99

Founding Member
May 12, 2002
2,212
0
47
Madison, WI
Sep 16, 2005
#17
  • Sep 16, 2005
  • #17
Here's the video. Thanks for the link urban 96, lots of good videos on there. How can I download videos from that site?

http://videos.streetfire.net/player.aspx?fileid=781BB154-6345-484A-BCDD-E6D47D9C3DA4
 

5spd GT

"the 5.0 owns all"
Founding Member
Aug 7, 2002
9,516
6
99
Arkansas
Sep 16, 2005
#18
  • Sep 16, 2005
  • #18
Interesting...I'm thinking in terms of killercanary's thoughts.
 

Grn92LX

Fidanza Man!
Founding Member
Jan 14, 2001
6,819
64
129
New York
Sep 16, 2005
#19
  • Sep 16, 2005
  • #19
zenboy99 said:
Here's the video. Thanks for the link urban 96, lots of good videos on there. How can I download videos from that site?

http://videos.streetfire.net/player.aspx?fileid=781BB154-6345-484A-BCDD-E6D47D9C3DA4
Click to expand...

Sounds good, but it would sound better with the 2 chamber flows

Looks like you spit out a little blue cloud of smoke at the end after he got off the throttle.
 

SWYZ721

Member
Aug 24, 2004
208
0
16
Ann Arbor, MI
Sep 16, 2005
#20
  • Sep 16, 2005
  • #20
Grn92LX said:
Looks like you spit out a little blue cloud of smoke at the end after he got off the throttle.
Click to expand...

yea, why is that?
 
  • 1
  • 2
Next
1 of 2 Next Last
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

A
SOLD For Sale: 1993 Ford Mustang Cobra Modified
  • anjteal93
  • Sep 5, 2025
  • Fox Body Mustangs For Sale (1979-93)
Replies
13
Views
2K
Fox Body Mustangs For Sale (1979-93) Oct 26, 2025
Mindseye007
Progress Thread Progress Thread- From6to8's 1994 Cobra Supercharger install
  • from6to8
  • Sep 25, 2025
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
  • 20 21 22
Replies
420
Views
9K
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- May 6, 2026
from6to8
Which one of these 3 intakes make the most sense for my 331 combo
  • from6to8
  • Jul 25, 2024
  • 1994 - 1995 Specific Tech
Replies
7
Views
2K
1994 - 1995 Specific Tech Jul 26, 2024
AeroCoupe
SOLD 1993 Mustang Cobra / 114K miles / Modified / Fort Lauderdale, Florida.
  • Naja
  • Oct 4, 2023
  • Fox Body Mustangs For Sale (1979-93)
Replies
5
Views
12K
Fox Body Mustangs For Sale (1979-93) Feb 26, 2025
Naja
New to me Fox body. Looking for Rough HP and compression ratio
  • Halford4491
  • Oct 30, 2021
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Replies
5
Views
3K
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Nov 3, 2021
General karthief
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?