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

Finally! Numbers from Dyno Tune are IN!

  • Thread starter Thread starter WhiteDevil
  • Start date Start date Jul 31, 2007
  • 1
  • 2
Next
1 of 2 Next Last

WhiteDevil

New Member
Feb 4, 2003
2,717
0
0
San Diego
Jul 31, 2007
#1
  • Jul 31, 2007
  • #1
Alright well i had a great time with the guys at San Diegos local mustang shop DPR. Spent about 2.5 hours playing with it on the dyno. My old numers were with 1,000 miles on the motor and just raw guesses in the TwEECer.
OLD NUMBERS: 327rwhp and 356rwtq

My first baseline pull was with the same tune as before but with the addition of 1 3/4 Long tubes and a new DR. Gas X.
Baseline: 336rwhp 348rwtq
I was pretty happy with that gain just from the long tubes but i did lose a little tq probably to the bigger primaries

That baseline was also with the Anderson Power Pipe on and the A/F was right on. Next i swapped that out for C&L inlet tube i kept my pro-m MAF.
Numbers:330rwhp and 355rwtq
So i lost some hp but gained the same tq. BUT mainly the C&L pipe made me much richer. So i took some fuel out of it and got
Numbers: 337rwhp and 356rwtq

Now that i decided to keep the C&L pipe on i started to mess with timing i had it at 33 degrees in the base line and pushed it up to 34 degrees. I lost 6rwhp and 9rwtq. So next i went down to 32 degrees and my A/f went way rich but i only lose 4rwhp from the high of 337rwhp. And TQ went up to 359rwtq! So now i just had to lean it back out and would be in the money!

I got the A/F back into the 12.8-13.0 range and got these numbers!
Numbers: 342rwhp and 368rwtq

I liked that and called it quits for tuning but we let it cool for about 20 mins and did another pull. I was rewarded with
Numbers: 347.18rwhp and 374.73rwtq!
 

badstang123

New Member
Jan 17, 2006
397
0
0
Santa Clarita, CA
Jul 31, 2007
#2
  • Jul 31, 2007
  • #2
Good work Those seem like pretty good numbers to me. And it's cool to see what you did and how it affected numbers.
- Justin
 

94-302-vert

Active Member
Aug 16, 2004
1,947
2
36
NE CT
Jul 31, 2007
#3
  • Jul 31, 2007
  • #3
That is a nice torque number... WOW...
 

slvrbullit302

New Member
Jan 6, 2004
986
1
0
Alabama
Jul 31, 2007
#4
  • Jul 31, 2007
  • #4
Congrats man, nice numbers, I just wish my 10.5:1 331 would have made better power than it did (317rwhp 360 rwtq untuned). Maybe it will when I get it back together.
 

Killercanary

The car that set the bar.
Founding Member
Nov 29, 1999
5,676
1
76
Altoona, PA
Jul 31, 2007
#5
  • Jul 31, 2007
  • #5
Congrats on the new numbers! At what RPM did the peaks occur at now and before the long tubes?
 

WhiteDevil

New Member
Feb 4, 2003
2,717
0
0
San Diego
Jul 31, 2007
#6
  • Jul 31, 2007
  • #6
Killercanary said:
Congrats on the new numbers! At what RPM did the peaks occur at now and before the long tubes?
Click to expand...

Good question i have the old numbers at home i can check later on this dyno run i peaked at 5,500rpm. I went straight from the shop to work so i dont have it on me. Also when i get home ill put up the dyno sheet, and some pics, and i have a video of the last run.
 

rj95svt

Member
Jan 11, 2007
422
0
16
Hayden, AL
Jul 31, 2007
#7
  • Jul 31, 2007
  • #7
I am surprised the C&L inlet pipe gained over the AFM power pipe. I know the main difference was in torque but I thought it would be down on upper rpm power but it actually done better.I am surprised! Nice numbers man!
 

Pops Fun

10 Year Member
Feb 15, 2003
961
14
59
Cincinnati, Ohio
Jul 31, 2007
#8
  • Jul 31, 2007
  • #8
Congrats... some good numbers
 

gcomfx.com

Founding Member
Oct 22, 2002
3,690
0
56
Republic, MO
Jul 31, 2007
#9
  • Jul 31, 2007
  • #9
Sweet... there we go. One Cubic Inch for One Horsepower.
 

urban96

bubb rubb says:"woo woooooo"
Founding Member
Sep 24, 2002
3,464
1
69
Syracuse, NY
Jul 31, 2007
#10
  • Jul 31, 2007
  • #10
gcomfx.com said:
Sweet... there we go. One Cubic Inch for One Rear Wheel Horsepower.
Click to expand...
fixt
 

69clark

Founding Member
Sep 25, 2002
731
7
18
Ravena, NY
Jul 31, 2007
#11
  • Jul 31, 2007
  • #11
Great numbers. Congrats
 

BlackVert

15 Year Member
Oct 3, 2003
5,589
9
98
Bethesda, MD
Jul 31, 2007
#12
  • Jul 31, 2007
  • #12
now that's more like it. well done. post that graph if you can ...
 

final5-0

Mustang Master
Apr 6, 2003
6,817
12
79
DFW Texas
Jul 31, 2007
#13
  • Jul 31, 2007
  • #13
John

I got so much to say about your experience
I just don't know where to start

First of all ... the session was controlled by ... Y O U

:Teh-Win: Great Job :Teh-Win:

Your O N L Y requirement of the shop was the use of it's equipment

John ... Over the years I've tried to help so many self tuners to see .......
The way you did it ..... Thats the best way to do it

IMHO ...The dyno is for fine tuning & confirming subtle changes :Word:

Before going to the dyno for fine tuning ... do two things

1) Get familiar with your equipment
2) Be capable enough with your tuning abilities to be efficient
cause
Roller time is $$$ ... Don't Ya Know

You can so easily do 1 & 2 on the street
thus
Your tune can be 95% in place before going on the rollers
thus
Your session will yield the kind of experience ... John has obtained

Gotta go for now ... might have more to say later

again John ... A tuning guru ... are you

Grady
 

blksn955.o

Founding Member
Mar 15, 2002
3,263
0
66
st.louis mo 314
Jul 31, 2007
#14
  • Jul 31, 2007
  • #14
Nice numbers

great read too, with good details of changes made and the outcome.

I would not mind seeing something like this on the wiki tuning page...real world tuning and examples of what to do with said output results. Kinda like a quick trouble shooting guide....

Nice tech article
 

WhiteDevil

New Member
Feb 4, 2003
2,717
0
0
San Diego
Jul 31, 2007
#15
  • Jul 31, 2007
  • #15
Pics and Vids





 

Attachments

  • 100_0520.webp
    39.8 KB · Views: 130
  • 100_0519.webp
    49.3 KB · Views: 158
  • 100_0518.webp
    72 KB · Views: 136
  • th_a6be372c.webp
    5.7 KB · Views: 144
  • 347stroker.webp
    32.6 KB · Views: 155
  • 347stroker2.webp
    49.4 KB · Views: 137

blksn955.o

Founding Member
Mar 15, 2002
3,263
0
66
st.louis mo 314
Jul 31, 2007
#16
  • Jul 31, 2007
  • #16
DAMN nice trq.
 

final5-0

Mustang Master
Apr 6, 2003
6,817
12
79
DFW Texas
Jul 31, 2007
#17
  • Jul 31, 2007
  • #17
A bigger pic of Before & After

Grady

 

Black95GTS

Active Member
Jan 8, 2004
1,644
3
38
Marlborough, MA
Aug 1, 2007
#18
  • Aug 1, 2007
  • #18
Thats has got to be fun on the street. Love seeing this self tuned tweecer cars put down great numbers!

Adam
 

final5-0

Mustang Master
Apr 6, 2003
6,817
12
79
DFW Texas
Aug 1, 2007
#19
  • Aug 1, 2007
  • #19
I have spent most of my time researching 302-306 cubic inch combos.
When it comes to 347's ... I don't have much data so they always are
fun to look at

I'd not have thought you could reach the 1rwhp per 1ci benchmark
with the smaller size heads you are using.

With nothing more than small changes (fine tuning) in spark & fuel
you picked up 5rwhp & 12rwtq

Lets talk about the cool down situation

The cool down gave you an additional 5rwhp & 7rwtq which is nice
but
Its benefit is not always gonna be present.

Most take advantage of that for a nice little bump in the final values
and ... As I see it ......
Thats not that much of an unreal expectation for a street car

Some ... on the other hand
Do things like
short belt
no belt
enhanced gas for enhanced spark abilities
non corrected or standard calibration values
and
other little tricks that don't really show ........
every day reality driving conditions

A gain of 20rwhp/20rwtq is nothing to be unhappy about
and I know you gotta be pleased John

Makes me wonder what you could do with heads that were
more suitable for the extra 50 cubes

Grady
 

Grn92LX

Fidanza Man!
Founding Member
Jan 14, 2001
6,819
64
129
New York
Aug 1, 2007
#20
  • Aug 1, 2007
  • #20
Nice improvements. You're using the 3"x2.5" dr gas X right? My 347 NEEDS that 3" pipe! How did it end up fitting and going together?

I wonder what my combo will make since I spin it 1,000 rpm's higher than you and have much more aggressive parts/more compression. I'm thinking at or near 400rwhp once I get the right sized 3" mid pipe i need.
 
  • 1
  • 2
Next
1 of 2 Next Last
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

1995 GT dyno numbers
  • ctrout71
  • Jun 23, 2011
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Replies
6
Views
7K
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Jun 26, 2011
knightmare90
sexiest 4 eye ive ever seen
  • srtthis
  • Jan 3, 2013
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Replies
12
Views
5K
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Jan 5, 2013
Vaz88GT
Hello from Calgary Canada
  • 96 S281
  • Mar 20, 2012
  • The Welcome Wagon
Replies
4
Views
620
The Welcome Wagon Mar 20, 2012
stevesf
S
Engine Need Some Serious Help Guys!! Dyno Results Are Pathetic!
  • N8sGT
  • May 6, 2012
  • 1994 - 1995 Specific Tech
  • 2 3
Replies
40
Views
4K
1994 - 1995 Specific Tech Jun 3, 2012
N8sGT
J
Dyno session this Saturday
  • jeraldjcook
  • Apr 29, 2010
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Replies
5
Views
776
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- May 2, 2010
Dino Dino Bambino
Share:
Bluesky Email Share Link
  • Mustang Forums
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -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?