Dyno'd car today....

sldghmr

sldghmr

Member
Jun 30, 2003
291
0
16
Sil Sprg, MD
#1
Feel like a may be missing something, anyway here are the numbers....
RPM POWER TORQUE AIR/FUEL
=================================
2000 100.3 250.9 14.8
2500 127.7 268.2 13.0
3000 164.8 288.5 13.2
3500 200.8 301.3 13.0
4000 225.1 295.5 12.9
4500 241.9 282.3 13.1
5000 248.9 261.4 13.0
5500 242.2 231.3 13.0
6000 227.4 202.5 12.9
=================================
Max's HP=249.6 (5000+), TQ=302.3(3600+)

These runs were all made w/stock intake track(upper, TB, mass, air tube +housing) + K&N filter. 15 deg of timing....stock ECU (TM40).

Can it get better and still look completely stock?
 
#3
Great numbers with the stock upper and tmoss ported lower. I'd imagin if you put a different intake and air inlet on the car it would pull maby 10-15 more horsepower at peak. And at 5000 prob. more than that. I would like to see the numbers after you put a new intake system! Good job
 
#5
That is a very typical curve for that type combo. Right about where RIO dynoed. The torque curve is very strong in the low-mid range - too bad it didn't start at 1,500 rpm. As far as power goes - don't look at peaks, look at the average numbers over the usable 2,000-5,500 rpm power band. If you do switch intakes, you won't get 15HP average more over that band and may be close to equal. Edit: Any way we could get you post the dyno curve?
 
#7
Strokers look stock, a short rod 347 with your intake would make massive torque. You might be able to add a little more compression and your cam probably isn't ideal.

You might find some power with electronics. I'm going to try an A9L with a PIH and a tweecer or EEC tuner. Currently my budget has me leaning towards a used EEC tuner because it's cheap and it can datalog on an A9L.

You can gut out your smog pump and your power steering to look 100% stock.

You are going to fool a lot of people with that thing. I can only hope to fool the incredibly stupid with my Roush.
 
#8
TMoss and RC if by the whole dyno curve you mean the individual graduations (every 100 increment) that will take me a minute. I'm a one finger (maybe two sometimes) typist.....sorry. I'll get to working on it. This took me about three min to type.....
 
#10
tmoss said:
don't look at peaks, look at the average numbers over the usable 2,000-5,500 rpm power band.
Click to expand...
this is the key....you want the area UNDER THE CURVE to be big...look at Paul(killercanary) he is running faster than lots of cars with higher peak numbers(293rwhp i think) but its the usuable average that makers his car so fast!


Anthony
 
#11
VIPERn94Five-0 said:
this is the key....you want the area UNDER THE CURVE to be big...look at Paul(killercanary) he is running faster than lots of cars with higher peak numbers(293rwhp i think) but its the usuable average that makers his car so fast!


Anthony
Click to expand...
Ahhhhhhh got you....I understand a little better now...here is my revised dyno sheet....

RPM---POWER--TORQUE-AIR/FUEL
============================
2100--100.3--250.9--14.8
2200--107.3--256.2--14.0
2300--114.6--261.7--12.9
2400--121.0--264.8--12.9
2500--127.7--268.2--13.0
2600--135.4--273.5--13.1
2700--143.4--279.0--13.1
2800--152.0--285.1--13.2
2900--158.7--287.5--13.3
3000--164.8--288.5--13.2
3100--171.2--290.1--13.1
3200--178.0--292.2--13.1
3300--186.4--296.7--13.1
3400--194.1--299.9--13.0
3500--200.8--301.3--13.0
3600--207.2--302.2--13.0
3700--211.4--300.1--13.0
3800--216.2--298.9--13.0
3900--220.8--297.4--12.9
4000--225.1--295.5--12.9
4100--229.2--293.6--12.9
4200--234.1--292.7--12.9
4300--237.9--290.5--13.0
4400--239.3--285.6--13.0
4500--241.9--282.3--13.1
4600--245.0--279.7--13.0
4700--246.3--275.2--13.1
4800--248.0--271.4--13.1
4900--248.8--266.7--13.1
5000--248.9--261.4--13.0
5100--248.3--255.7--13.1
5200--248.4--250.8--13.1
5300--246.5--244.2--13.0
5400--244.6--237.9--13.0
5500--242.2--231.3--13.0
5600--238.4--223.6--12.8
5700--235.4--216.9--12.8
5800--232.2--210.4--12.9
5900--227.4--202.5--12.9

give me all you guys input....thanks
 
#13
WhiteDevil said:
Wait so u went 13.3 with 248rwhp? i have stock heads and cam and RR's i put down 249rwhp and went 13.6 @101.90 u must have had a hard launch on that 13.3
Click to expand...

I've been looking at your set-up for a while. I figured you are the closest person to my setup, and you seem to drive very simular to me. I do launch a little aggresively (4000+rpm) on the Drag Radials. I think them being 275/60's help a lot....MIR is very close to sea level so I'm pretty sure that helps my times also. You've got a larger throttle body or mass air right? Maybe both?

EDIT: Also weighed car on Sunday at 3360lbs. + My portly 200 = 3560lbs. ouch!
 
#14
sldghmr said:
I've been looking at your set-up for a while. I figured you are the closest person to my setup, and you seem to drive very simular to me. I do launch a little aggresively (4000+rpm) on the Drag Radials. I think them being 275/60's help a lot....MIR is very close to sea level so I'm pretty sure that helps my times also. You've got a larger throttle body or mass air right? Maybe both?

EDIT: Also weighed car on Sunday at 3360lbs. + My portly 200 = 3560lbs. ouch!
Click to expand...
Yeah the 60 profile probably does help alot im running 275/40R17 Nitto drags. My track is pretty close to sea level i think Carlsbad is like 150ft above sea level. But the launch pad sucks. i think i leave at like 3500 spinning slightly. my best 60ft was a 1.96 or so the 13.6 was on a 2.06 60ft. I do have a bigger 65mm throttle body and at the time i had a pro m 75mm MAF.
 
#16
WhiteDevil said:
Yeah the 60 profile probably does help alot im running 275/40R17 Nitto drags. My track is pretty close to sea level i think Carlsbad is like 150ft above sea level. But the launch pad sucks. i think i leave at like 3500 spinning slightly. my best 60ft was a 1.96 or so the 13.6 was on a 2.06 60ft. I do have a bigger 65mm throttle body and at the time i had a pro m 75mm MAF.
Click to expand...

I've got to find out what the sea level height of MIR is so that I can talk intellegently. I've been leaning pretty hard on the Radials. When I ran the 13.37 it bogged a little (I think they VHT'd the track about 10 runs before me), but I still cut my best 60 ft (1.904). I'm pretty sure I can do better. I found out that I'm only pulling with one wheel (need to get trac-loc rebuilt), due to my pinion seal is leaking. With that fix and a little higher launch I should be there.
 
#18
WhiteDevil said:
Wait so u went 13.3 with 248rwhp? i have stock heads and cam and RR's i put down 249rwhp and went 13.6 @101.90 u must have had a hard launch on that 13.3
Click to expand...

I crunched sldghmr's dyno data and your dyno data Whitedevil, with the following results averaged over a 2,200-5,800 rpm band:

WhiteDevil - 193RWHP and 249RWTQ with peaks of 240HP & 290TQ

sldghmr - 205RWHP and 272RWTQ with peaks of 249HP & 302TQ

notice the larger difference in average torque rather than HP, hence his slightly better times all else being equal.
 
#20
for a 5 spd car maybe - for a automatic, definately not unless you have a good stall converter - my general comment coverd a band that would cover both. I ran the numbers again for 3,000-5,800 (don't have WhieDevil's dyno at work to see if it went higher) and the average numbers are:

WhiteDevil - 214RWHP & 257RWTQ
sldghmr- 224HP & 273RWTQ

The differences didn't change that much - better for WhiteDevil as would be expected with a larger runner intake and the B cam helped prop up sldhmr's numbers up top.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back
Forums
Menu