• Mustang Forums
  • 2005 - 2014 S-197 Mustang -General/Talk-

Finally got my stang dyno tested

  • Thread starter Thread starter red05bullitgt
  • Start date Start date Sep 19, 2006

red05bullitgt

Member
Aug 15, 2005
861
0
16
Pittsburgh, PA.
Sep 19, 2006
#1
  • Sep 19, 2006
  • #1
Here's the results after 3 pulls that were conducted on the dynojet..All I know is the tuner had to add 6% more fuel due to the A/F mixture running a lean 13.5 @ WOT and although my max torque numbers seem to be pretty decent at 292.1 But on the other hand, it seems as though my max HP numbers are on the low side at 277.2 So my question is, did I lose any power after the corrections were made ? and if so.. would it be by a significant amount ?? Anyway, I'd be really grateful for any input and advice that you may have to offer...Thanks View attachment 439316
View attachment 439318

View attachment 439322
 

Jenns01TA

Active Member
Mar 31, 2005
37
0
36
Sep 20, 2006
#2
  • Sep 20, 2006
  • #2
red05bullitgt said:
Here's the results after 3 pulls that were conducted on the dynojet..All I know is the tuner had to add 6% more fuel due to the A/F mixture running a lean 13.5 @ WOT and although my max torque numbers seem to be pretty decent at 292.1 But on the other hand, it seems as though my max HP numbers are on the low side at 277.2 So my question is, did I lose any power after the corrections were made ? and if so.. would it be by a significant amount ?? Anyway, I'd be really grateful for any input and advice that you may have to offer...Thanks View attachment 439264
View attachment 439266

View attachment 439270
Click to expand...

Not sure on the HP Rocky. Do you have a corresponding column print out to show the max HPs?

Your TQ looks pretty good.

How do they get 292.1 max TQ being with a 291.7 + 1.02 ASE correction. Looks like the graph shows max TQ at 6.58, but on the column print out 291.7 is at 6.54. You know. I am blind after a hard day and brain dead.
Why do they perform the ASE correction? I have always wondered this?

Looks good to me! I need sleep/Night Rocky - Jenn/Out
 

Attachments

  • Picture019.webp
    19.7 KB · Views: 154
  • Picture022.webp
    16.9 KB · Views: 153

radtexas

New Member
Jul 25, 2006
79
0
0
Tyler, Texas
Sep 20, 2006
#3
  • Sep 20, 2006
  • #3
I would have thought that with the claims of Steeda CAI/high flow elbow your HP numbers would have been a lot higher. Did you ever get it dyno'd before adding all the other? If it does not gain like they claim and from what your numbers show they are at about half mark. Hopefully something is just not set right but I am curious about it now.
 

steedastang06

European Forum Founding Member
Feb 25, 2002
1,844
0
0
Ewa Beach, Hawaii
Sep 20, 2006
#4
  • Sep 20, 2006
  • #4
it may just be me but maybe i would have done a before and after run so you could SEE the difference...
 

ttown

Founding Member
May 30, 2002
815
0
0
Oklahoma
Sep 20, 2006
#5
  • Sep 20, 2006
  • #5
Here's my 03 Mach's Dyno that has a K&N and 1500 miles on here using 93 octane for comparsion.

http://forums.stangnet.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=17226&d=1074292692
 
D

don mergi

New Member
Jul 12, 2005
0
0
0
Va Beach
Sep 20, 2006
#6
  • Sep 20, 2006
  • #6
Good

I had my 2006 Gt done also Have a SCT tuner and is running 93 Octang pulled
about 283 rw
 

ttown

Founding Member
May 30, 2002
815
0
0
Oklahoma
Sep 20, 2006
#7
  • Sep 20, 2006
  • #7
Look at my A/F, I don't know about the new GT's but it should be as flat as possiable to make max power and around A/F 12 is a good tune. An A/F of 13.5 on WOT is running very rich IMO. I'm sure your tailpipe is black.
 

CBus 06 GT

Active Member
Aug 29, 2006
0
9
29
Columbus, Ohio
Sep 20, 2006
#8
  • Sep 20, 2006
  • #8
ttown said:
Look at my A/F, I don't know about the new GT's but it should be as flat as possiable to make max power and around A/F 12 is a good tune. An A/F of 13.5 on WOT is running very rich IMO. I'm sure your tailpipe is black.
Click to expand...
You've got it backwards on the A/F ratio, a bigger number is leaner.
 

ttown

Founding Member
May 30, 2002
815
0
0
Oklahoma
Sep 20, 2006
#9
  • Sep 20, 2006
  • #9
Best power is around 12.5 to 1 but fuel ecomony is around 14.7 to 1.

http://www.racetep.com/halmeter.html


Everyone is trying to get a flat curve around the 12's to 1. for the 4.6L's
 

JTGrant

New Member
Aug 2, 2005
775
0
0
GA
Sep 20, 2006
#10
  • Sep 20, 2006
  • #10
ttown said:
Best power is around 12.5 to 1 but fuel ecomony is around 14.7 to 1.

http://www.racetep.com/halmeter.html


Everyone is trying to get a flat curve around the 12's to 1. for the 4.6L's
Click to expand...


correct
 

red05bullitgt

Member
Aug 15, 2005
861
0
16
Pittsburgh, PA.
Sep 21, 2006
#11
  • Sep 21, 2006
  • #11
radtexas said:
I would have thought that with the claims of Steeda CAI/high flow elbow your HP numbers would have been a lot higher. Did you ever get it dyno'd before adding all the other? If it does not gain like they claim and from what your numbers show they are at about half mark. Hopefully something is just not set right but I am curious about it now.
Click to expand...
Rad ?? the problem is not with the Steeda CAI ok ?? It's my fault for not getting a baseline tune w/the stock tune and airbox first before dyno testing with the SCT and Steeda because you cannot know how much power was gained until knowing what your factory tune HP numbers and settings were..and the reason why I didn't get a baseline was because stupid lil me assumed the stock HP numbers were between 260 and 270 HP. However I also failed to realize that every car responds to tuning differently, in other words just because your GT/CS may get 260 HP stock ?? doesn't mean that I'll have the same HP numbers as yours ? and I also didn't realize that even though our mustangs are identical and have the very same engine ?? the PCM calibration for each car is different, in which I also didn't know until the person who did my dyno testing pointed that out to me..Therefore don't put the blame on the Steeda, blame me for my ignorance...Anyway, I'm in the process of setting up another appointment and will make certain to do both a stock baseline tune and then do a comparison with the Steeda and SCT performance tune..I will post the new dyno numbers showing results for both tunes A.S.A.P
 

radtexas

New Member
Jul 25, 2006
79
0
0
Tyler, Texas
Sep 22, 2006
#12
  • Sep 22, 2006
  • #12
red05bullitgt said:
Rad ?? the problem is not with the Steeda CAI ok ?? It's my fault for not getting a baseline tune w/the stock tune and airbox first before dyno testing with the SCT and Steeda because you cannot know how much power was gained until knowing what your factory tune HP numbers and settings were..and the reason why I didn't get a baseline was because stupid lil me assumed the stock HP numbers were between 260 and 270 HP. However I also failed to realize that every car responds to tuning differently, in other words just because your GT/CS may get 260 HP stock ?? doesn't mean that I'll have the same HP numbers as yours ? and I also didn't realize that even though our mustangs are identical and have the very same engine ?? the PCM calibration for each car is different, in which I also didn't know until the person who did my dyno testing pointed that out to me..Therefore don't put the blame on the Steeda, blame me for my ignorance...Anyway, I'm in the process of setting up another appointment and will make certain to do both a stock baseline tune and then do a comparison with the Steeda and SCT performance tune..I will post the new dyno numbers showing results for both tunes A.S.A.P
Click to expand...


I learned something today as well. Maybe mine is over tuned and has 285 HP stock I did not realize that there is that much deviation from the same cars and motors. I would think of a +/- a few HP but not as dramatic as yours has shown. But I guess anything is possible.
 

bigcat

start with the upper hole, and if more traction is
May 1, 2005
3,015
1
79
7200 feet
Sep 22, 2006
#13
  • Sep 22, 2006
  • #13
there are also differences between dynos. dynos are made to tune your car and track performance increases. while most cars have similar #s, you can NOT compare #s from differnt dynos to each other. if you wamted a better comparision, dyno the cars on the same dyno for best results.
 

red05bullitgt

Member
Aug 15, 2005
861
0
16
Pittsburgh, PA.
Sep 22, 2006
#14
  • Sep 22, 2006
  • #14
radtexas said:
I learned something today as well. Maybe mine is over tuned and has 285 HP stock I did not realize that there is that much deviation from the same cars and motors. I would think of a +/- a few HP but not as dramatic as yours has shown. But I guess anything is possible.
Click to expand...
Yep, I sure learned something alright ?? and as usual it always ends up the hard way lol. but I'll make damn sure to get stock baseline numbers first before mods and then do another run with mods, then will be able to see the exact gains for both HP and Torque..As I mentioned in the last post, I wasn't thinking with a clear head and assumed that all 05 GT's and up had the same stock HP and Torque numbers at between 260 and 270 and that just isn't true, each car has a different calibration and responds to tuning differently..
 

red05bullitgt

Member
Aug 15, 2005
861
0
16
Pittsburgh, PA.
Sep 22, 2006
#15
  • Sep 22, 2006
  • #15
bigcat said:
there are also differences between dynos. dynos are made to tune your car and track performance increases. while most cars have similar #s, you can NOT compare #s from differnt dynos to each other. if you wamted a better comparision, dyno the cars on the same dyno for best results.
Click to expand...
That's also another factor I failed to realize as well. and you're right, not all dynojets are calibrated to measure HP and Torque curves in the same way, especially between a Dynojet and a Mustang Eddy Chassis Dyno.. If only I'd been thinking with a clear head instead of getting all caught up in trying to compare my car with everybody else's ? I would have realized these factors to begin with...
 

APowers

New Member
May 12, 2006
68
0
0
Louellen's Crossins, MS.
Sep 23, 2006
#16
  • Sep 23, 2006
  • #16
I complained to the dealer that I purchaced my GT from about trottle lag. They are an SVT dealer and at 1k miles did a dyno tune on my car. The results were amazing to say the least. I didnt get a slip like you have, just a hugh performance difference. And a very slight gas mileage reduction.
 

bigcat

start with the upper hole, and if more traction is
May 1, 2005
3,015
1
79
7200 feet
Sep 23, 2006
#17
  • Sep 23, 2006
  • #17
APowers said:
I complained to the dealer that I purchaced my GT from about trottle lag. They are an SVT dealer and at 1k miles did a dyno tune on my car. The results were amazing to say the least. I didnt get a slip like you have, just a hugh performance difference. And a very slight gas mileage reduction.
Click to expand...
and a huge


 

red05bullitgt

Member
Aug 15, 2005
861
0
16
Pittsburgh, PA.
Sep 23, 2006
#18
  • Sep 23, 2006
  • #18
APowers said:
I complained to the dealer that I purchaced my GT from about trottle lag. They are an SVT dealer and at 1k miles did a dyno tune on my car. The results were amazing to say the least. I didnt get a slip like you have, just a hugh performance difference. And a very slight gas mileage reduction.
Click to expand...
Being that the throttle lag is part of the Ford factory tune ? what did your dealer do about it ? did they do any computer retuning, in order to get rid of it ???
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

L
95 gt engine vibration
  • lenzgt
  • May 11, 2026
  • 1994 - 1995 Specific Tech
Replies
6
Views
177
1994 - 1995 Specific Tech May 26, 2026
lenzgt
L
J
Fuel Pump Wire Mystery
  • JF82
  • Sep 15, 2024
  • 2005 - 2014 S-197 Mustang -General/Talk-
Replies
4
Views
632
2005 - 2014 S-197 Mustang -General/Talk- Sep 23, 2024
horse sence
J
New 98 Mustang Cobra Owner
  • jtoates72
  • Apr 14, 2023
  • SVT Tech Forum
Replies
1
Views
1K
SVT Tech Forum Apr 19, 2023
Shuttleman83
S
J
Finally bought a 5.0
  • Jonsie
  • Jul 8, 2021
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Replies
2
Views
719
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Jul 8, 2021
Ryuk
Stiffer front springs writeup from the old .net site
  • LILCBRA
  • Oct 24, 2022
  • 1974 - 1978 Mustang II Talk & Tech
Replies
1
Views
1K
1974 - 1978 Mustang II Talk & Tech Oct 29, 2022
Enzio
Share:
Bluesky Email Share Link
  • Mustang Forums
  • 2005 - 2014 S-197 Mustang -General/Talk-
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?