going today to get some dyno number..

12sec67

Active Member

Oct 6, 2003

1,301

1

36

San Diego, Ca

Apr 29, 2006

#1

• Apr 29, 2006

• #1

well i got my 347 set up to the point where i want to see some numbers on it. before with my old 306 combo i had 313rwhp /331 rwtq and i ran a best of an 8.0 and consistant 8.2's. with this recent combo i been to the track twice and run a consistant 7.6's so i can't wait to go to the dyno this morning

here is my current set up:
CHP forged crank, piston 11.0 comp 347
RPM heads milled to 58cc
RPM intake
X-cam (ford motorsport)
1.6 roller rockers
summit long tubes
AOD trans, 2500 stall, 9" 4.11 gears
aluminum driveshaft

well i'll be sure to post up the numbers and take a few pics while i'm there, so until then

 

1

10secgoal

Active Member

Dec 1, 2003

2,801

3

49

San Diego

Apr 29, 2006

#2

• Apr 29, 2006

• #2

bleh...Waste of money.

 

12sec67

Active Member

Oct 6, 2003

1,301

1

36

San Diego, Ca

Apr 29, 2006

#3

• Apr 29, 2006

• #3

so i found out...

the guys at the dyno shop had trouble with the a/f reader so we had to use a hand held device to look at our a/f curve which i din't have the chance to see since i was video taping it.

i don't know what the F the guy was doing but none the less my rwhp/rwtq numbers are...

not correct- unless by going faster in the 1/8 mile means
that you would have to loose power to do it.



i don't know what the F the guy was doing but here is my graph....remember the a/f is not correct on this either.

 

Attachments

• dynorun2pg.webp

  2.8 KB · Views: 140
• dynofsheet8ac.webp

  2.8 KB · Views: 151

P

PJx5x

Member

Mar 30, 2005

197

0

16

Chicago

Apr 29, 2006

#4

• Apr 29, 2006

• #4

did you use the same type of dyno for each time? are both SAE format? did you have the same setup before the 347 (trans, tires, stall, etc)? maybe this means theres some more power left in your engine, and the .5 increase in 1/8 is just from other upgrades?

 

brianj5600

Active Member

Sep 19, 2003

1,964

2

39

Middle TN

Apr 29, 2006

#5

• Apr 29, 2006

• #5

It looks like they did not even start until 5K? Which appears to be after peak torque as tq seems to go straight up to a peak and then taper off. HP looks like a table. I think the whole thing is wrong. I would want a do over.

 

C

C0V3R

Member

Feb 14, 2003

524

0

16

Australia

Apr 30, 2006

#6

• Apr 30, 2006

• #6

Looks like they stuffed it up to me too.

 

BIG-MAC

New Member

Jan 22, 2006

82

0

0

Dallas

Apr 30, 2006

#7

• Apr 30, 2006

• #7

The curve on that graph is a little strange...although I am no expert on dyno graphs. I wonder if there was a big difference in air temp between the two? Regardless I am real interested in the outcome.

 

BIG-MAC

New Member

Jan 22, 2006

82

0

0

Dallas

Apr 30, 2006

#8

• Apr 30, 2006

• #8

That graph does look a little strange...although I am no expert. I wonder of there was a big temp difference between the two runs? Regardless I am real interested in the outcome. Are you going to post the vid? Please do!

 

12sec67

Active Member

Oct 6, 2003

1,301

1

36

San Diego, Ca

Apr 30, 2006

#9

• Apr 30, 2006

• #9

its my brothers vid camera and i don't think he has the hook ups to put it on the computer.

 

12sec67

Active Member

Oct 6, 2003

1,301

1

36

San Diego, Ca

Apr 30, 2006

#10

• Apr 30, 2006

• #10

i haven't done anything to my set up since the engine swap, because i wanted to know exactly what the difference of the 347 vs 306 at the track.
the guy was telling me that something was wrong with my trans because it wanted to go into overdrive which it will never do under full throttle and there is a load on the engine- maybe i spun the tires?. since when have you ever seen a hp and tq number so close?
10secgoal ran after i did, his first pull said he had 207rwhp. then after they did something to the machine and pulled again he ran 370/390 rwhp... it was all D1cked up.

dyno day at JBA is coming up so i'll try that place but i'll never go there again.

 

2nd Mustang

Founding Member

Feb 24, 2002

2,488

0

46

Southern California

Apr 30, 2006

#11

• Apr 30, 2006

• #11

Maybe that dyno was meant for front wheel drive?

 

iskwezm

10 Year Member

May 24, 2005

4,159

20

79

Rowland Heights,California

Apr 30, 2006

#12

• Apr 30, 2006

• #12

yeah, i would try another dyno, it sounded pretty good at Knotts.I hate dynos, its a dissapointment sometimes

 

F

fastback brian

Founding Member

Jul 15, 2002

540

0

0

So Cal , I.E.

Apr 30, 2006

#13

• Apr 30, 2006

• #13

Was the pull made in third or overdrive????? You have an Aod???. If anything the torque should be in the mid 300's. you may or may not gain much power but you should gain alot of torque and low rpm power over a 302.

 

1

10secgoal

Active Member

Dec 1, 2003

2,801

3

49

San Diego

May 1, 2006

#14

• May 1, 2006

• #14

Yeah, just seems funny he lost 14 rwhp with a bigger motor that went .5 or .6 faster in the 1/8. Our buddy with a lightning dynoed and only picked up 20 rwhp with a huge jump from stock heads and cam to big ported heads and cams at .580 lift. He feels a HUGE difference, but you can't really feel 20 rwhp with a 5500lb truck. And mine, haha.I don't really think it spooled much. Can't hear the turbo, and at the track, that's all you hear when in goes by. It made a whopping 200 to the ground at 4500...bleh. Waste of money. All that matters is the time slip baby.

 

3

351carlo

New Member

Mar 9, 2004

267

0

0

Philadelphia

May 1, 2006

#15

• May 1, 2006

• #15

No offense, but I can't believe you guys paid them.

Either their inertia system was off, or they were not using their program correctly.

The slope of that HP/Torque curve is WAY off. That curve is not the power getting to your rear wheels, so don't even pay attention to that. The torque doesn't rise like the HP, as HP is a function of torque. Aside from the fact that the graph has the golden point where the torque/hp cross, that graph is garbage.

Also, 10secgoal.... you know your car puts out more than that.... thats just lunacy.