Got my 5.0 dynoed and tuned today.

ShortThrow50

Member

Oct 22, 2006

923

2

16

Pa

Jan 28, 2008

#1

• Jan 28, 2008

• #1

It was done on a mustang dyno. im assuming thats why the hp numbers are low. please give me your input. mods are in my sig
278hp
325 torque

 

Attachments

• dynodv6.webp

  2.8 KB · Views: 143

88mouse

New Member

Apr 18, 2007

630

0

0

Mooresville nc

Jan 28, 2008

#2

• Jan 28, 2008

• #2

Do you have any wideband reading to go with it?

What was the fuel pressure at?

 

JH96GT

Founding Member

Aug 20, 2000

1,526

13

124

Twilight Zone, TN.

Jan 28, 2008

#3

• Jan 28, 2008

• #3

ShortThrow50 said:

It was done on a mustang dyno. im assuming thats why the hp numbers are low. please give me your input. mods are in my sig
278hp
325 torque

Click to expand...

I have similar mods and put down 289 rwhp.

 

Attachments

• dynodv6.webp

  2.8 KB · Views: 136

G

GTOreturns

Well-Known Member

Oct 1, 2003

51

17

59

West Coast Best Coast

Jan 28, 2008

#4

• Jan 28, 2008

• #4

Did they tune before or after dyno run?

 

5.0Droptop

...all those nights we shared, and you're a dude??

Special Agent Mukity-Muck Whats in Charge Round Here

May 15, 2002

1,785

1,130

233

Indiana

Jan 28, 2008

#5

• Jan 28, 2008

• #5

Mustang dyno #'s are genrally 15%-20% less than a dynojet. They are very real world accuret.

On dyno jet it would show around 300-320 hp
and 370-375 tq

 

ryan218

In just 10 years, I'll be old enough to drive!!!!

Dec 28, 2005

0

1

38

columbus ohio

Jan 28, 2008

#6

• Jan 28, 2008

• #6

god your hatch is everything ive ever wanted!

 

Strippt88

New Member

Nov 24, 2006

81

0

0

Cedar Lake, Indiana

Jan 28, 2008

#7

• Jan 28, 2008

• #7

Dyno numbers look nice, how is it to drive? Kick in the ass, capable of defending itself? Sounds like it to me! Nice car!

 

ShortThrow50

Member

Oct 22, 2006

923

2

16

Pa

Jan 29, 2008

#8

• Jan 29, 2008

• #8

thanks guys. yeah it is very strong for what it is. the guy did do a before and after. i got 10 more hp and 15 more torque. the car was really rich before hand and he fixed all that crap. he uses "sniper" for programming i never heard of it before but i guess it does the job

 

blackened88lx

Active Member

Aug 9, 2006

0

4

28

Connecticut

Jan 29, 2008

#9

• Jan 29, 2008

• #9

I definitely wouldn't worry about it. Like stated, Mustang dynos are lower than others, and you generally only see 10-15 hp more than what you made out of a trick flow kit on a dynojet.

 

ninety15.0

New Member

Mar 10, 2004

1,336

0

0

Jan 29, 2008

#10

• Jan 29, 2008

• #10

Personally i still think the numbers are a tad low. Even on a dynojet you would still be just under 300rwhp. I think a better MAF and some better tuning you would easily see 300rwhp. good luck man...sounds like a fun car anyways.

 

ninety15.0

New Member

Mar 10, 2004

1,336

0

0

Jan 29, 2008

#11

• Jan 29, 2008

• #11

Haha nevermind i just saw the fact that you are running a TKO600 too. That eats up the whole amount of power that i thought you were missing. Bigger/beefier parts in a trans are harder to spin...and that TKO sucks up about 4-6% more power than a t-5.

 

2000xp8

SN Certified Technician

Aug 8, 2003

8,027

1,618

194

NJ

Jan 29, 2008

#12

• Jan 29, 2008

• #12

Numbers are good on a mustang dyno.
Although i agree a better maf would help.

Sniper stuff is good, it's just not as widely used. Sounds like you had the computer programmed, which was probably a waste of money. A h/c/i mustang benefits very little from a computer tweak.

 

ShortThrow50

Member

Oct 22, 2006

923

2

16

Pa

Feb 2, 2008

#13

• Feb 2, 2008

• #13

i did pull this off of afr's website so i feel much better
http://www.airflowresearch.com/95mustang_dyno.php

 

2000xp8

SN Certified Technician

Aug 8, 2003

8,027

1,618

194

NJ

Feb 3, 2008

#14

• Feb 3, 2008

• #14

Shortthrow,
That afr info has absolutely nothing in common with your situation.

 

ShortThrow50

Member

Oct 22, 2006

923

2

16

Pa

Feb 4, 2008

#15

• Feb 4, 2008

• #15

2000xp8 said:

Shortthrow,
That afr info has absolutely nothing in common with your situation.

Click to expand...

i was looking at the stock numbers. not the run with the afr's

 

2000xp8

SN Certified Technician

Aug 8, 2003

8,027

1,618

194

NJ

Feb 4, 2008

#16

• Feb 4, 2008

• #16

That car has an automatic transmission according to the data.
You have a 5 speed, it's hard to compare.
Your car is probably right around where it should be, i wouldn't worry.