Dyno'd My 2012 Gt

Clair Smith

Active Member

Apr 4, 2012

186

13

29

Norfolk Va

Jul 20, 2012

#1

• Jul 20, 2012

• #1

First off, the engine is stock, manual, 19" wheels, and factory tune. I did two pulls with 87 octane and two with 93 the next night. the correction factor was 1.02 on the first night and 1.03 on the second night. So no real diffence there.
87 : HP= 371.16, Torque= 352.98
93: HP=374.54, Torque= 358.94

I'm going to go ahead and say that Ford left a lot on the table in the stock tune, my engine is tuned for 87 me thinks

 

Ronin38

Blow all the things!

15 Year Member

Dec 18, 2010

7,137

4,333

224

Dayton, OH

Jul 20, 2012

#2

• Jul 20, 2012

• #2

Are you sure the second run was on all-93 octane? I'm not sure how you did that, overnight.

I would want to allow for several days to a week between runs, to make sure the engine is fully "set" for 93 oct.

FWIW, those numbers are almost exactly what I got with a dyno. on my car, too.

 

Clair Smith

Active Member

Apr 4, 2012

186

13

29

Norfolk Va

Jul 20, 2012

#3

• Jul 20, 2012

• #3

Did you use 93? I can't imagine that it would take long to adjust to 93. But, I will run 93 over the weekend and run it next week


Sent from my MB525 using Tapatalk 2

 

Ronin38

Blow all the things!

15 Year Member

Dec 18, 2010

7,137

4,333

224

Dayton, OH

Jul 20, 2012

#4

• Jul 20, 2012

• #4

The main thing is: was your fuel tank almost empty when you put the 93 in? Otherwise you had a mix of 87+93.

 

Clair Smith

Active Member

Apr 4, 2012

186

13

29

Norfolk Va

Jul 20, 2012

#5

• Jul 20, 2012

• #5

Burned her down till I saw 9 miles till empty. Put 1.5 gallons of 93 in. burned it down to 9 miles left, then filled her up with 93. Drive her hard for 30 miles. Should have been very close to 93.

To be honest, driving the two octane levels back to back. The 93 just felt a tiny bit smoother. But, that could have easily been all in my mind.

Sent from my MB525 using Tapatalk 2

 

CCS86

New Member

May 22, 2012

14

2

3

Jul 20, 2012

#6

• Jul 20, 2012

• #6

I don't imagine that the octane based changes are part of a long-term strategy. It's likely that it simply allows more spark advance (less knock retard), which would happen instantaneously.

 

mbuckcoyote

Member

Feb 5, 2011

86

4

19

Portand, Or.

Jul 20, 2012

#7

• Jul 20, 2012

• #7

What Dyno was used for those numbers?

 

Clair Smith

Active Member

Apr 4, 2012

186

13

29

Norfolk Va

Jul 21, 2012

#8

• Jul 21, 2012

• #8

Ronin38 said:

The main thing is: was your fuel tank almost empty when you put the 93 in? Otherwise you had a mix of 87+93.

Click to expand...

I burned the 87 down until I had 10 miles until empty. Put in 1.5 gallons of 93, then drove around until I had 9 miles until empty. Filled her up with 93 and drove around for 30 or so miles and then ran her on the dyno. And it was on a Dynojet.

 

Clair Smith

Active Member

Apr 4, 2012

186

13

29

Norfolk Va

Jul 21, 2012

#9

• Jul 21, 2012

• #9

CCS86 said:

I don't imagine that the octane based changes are part of a long-term strategy. It's likely that it simply allows more spark advance (less knock retard), which would happen instantaneously.

Click to expand...

Agree, but I don't want any arguments. I seen a few posters who talk about only putting 93 in their cars, I wanted to know for sure if there was any real gain to be had in using 93 in a stock car. I'm going to say that it is minimal and not worth using with out a tune. Another thing that was interesting, at about 6500ish, the A/F was getting rich. Ford left some on the table with the stock tune, and it makes the large gains from a CAI and a tune from some of the reputable companies like Steeda, AM, ect. much more believable.

 

Clair Smith

Active Member

Apr 4, 2012

186

13

29

Norfolk Va

Jul 21, 2012

#10

• Jul 21, 2012

• #10

Side note, are the 2013 recommending running 91 octane? Wayne, the guy with the dyno, has a new crate Coyote motor and it recommends 91 octane. My owners manual recommends 87. I am wondering if the 2013 5.0 are tuned for 91 and that is where the 420 HP comes from?

 

chris28912

Active Member

Apr 15, 2012

133

7

28

Jul 21, 2012

#11

• Jul 21, 2012

• #11

They recommend at least 89. Not 91. Never e 85

 

Clair Smith

Active Member

Apr 4, 2012

186

13

29

Norfolk Va

Jul 22, 2012

#12

• Jul 22, 2012

• #12

From 87 to 89, that would be the tuning change they mention in the literature? The crate engine instructions state to use 91, another tune maybe?

Interesting, but not to important. What I have learned from this is to stick to 87 until I upgrade my tune

 

9

94DreamGT

Founding Member

Jul 19, 2000

593

0

16

Indiana

Aug 29, 2012

#13

• Aug 29, 2012

• #13

Wow...impressive RWHP #'s from a stock motor. These new 5.0's are making me think about getting back in the game after several years away.

Can anyone tell me what its taking to get these cars to 400rwhp. Simple bolt-ons? Tune?
Without touching the internals of the engine at all, what about to get to 500rwhp. How many lbs of boost?

Lastly...the poster's car with 370+ rwhp, what would something like that run in the 1/4 given decent traction with drag radials? ET and Trap please.

Thanks

 

Clair Smith

Active Member

Apr 4, 2012

186

13

29

Norfolk Va

Aug 29, 2012

#14

• Aug 29, 2012

• #14

400 rwhp is very attainable with bolt-on's and tune. As for 600 rwhp, here are my favorite options as of right now.
http://www.mustang50magazine.com/techarticles/m5lp_1107_edelbrock_eforce_coyote_blower/viewall.html
and
http://www.hellionpowersystems.com/
What is truly amazing is what they are getting with 6lbs of boost, Ford really mailed it with this engine
Sent from my MB886 using Tapatalk 2

 

vfast

Member

Aug 14, 2012

113

1

19

Va

Sep 5, 2012

#15

• Sep 5, 2012

• #15

the car can run or 87 and i believe something like a 10-12 hp loss over using 91

 

Three50won

10 Year Member

Jul 11, 2010

1,135

64

69

Oct 13, 2012

#16

• Oct 13, 2012

• #16

Clair Smith said:

First off, the engine is stock, manual, 19" wheels, and factory tune. I did two pulls with 87 octane and two with 93 the next night. the correction factor was 1.02 on the first night and 1.03 on the second night. So no real diffence there.
87 : HP= 371.16, Torque= 352.98
93: HP=374.54, Torque= 358.94

I'm going to go ahead and say that Ford left a lot on the table in the stock tune, my engine is tuned for 87 me thinks

Click to expand...

So that would mean that with a 15% drive train loss your engine is actually at 440 hp!! That is impressive. I drove a Coyote back in March and I couldn't believe how fast it was!!

 

Clair Smith

Active Member

Apr 4, 2012

186

13

29

Norfolk Va

Oct 13, 2012

#17

• Oct 13, 2012

• #17

Yeah, I am in love with this car. I love driving it. I live for my next track outing. Can't wait to get it out on a road course or autocross course

Sent from my MB886 using Tapatalk 2

 

chris28912

Active Member

Apr 15, 2012

133

7

28

Oct 13, 2012

#18

• Oct 13, 2012

• #18

No that is wrong lol

 

MoBlackGT12

Member

Jun 18, 2011

31

1

9

Oct 19, 2012

#19

• Oct 19, 2012

• #19

chris28912 said:

No that is wrong lol

Click to expand...

Elaborate, please.

 

I

Ibnzmonkey

New Member

Dec 31, 2012

13

0

1

Dec 31, 2012

#20

• Dec 31, 2012

• #20

Wow, impressive numbers. I cant wait to get mine strapped to the dyno before I start buying mods.