Its a known Fact. Our cars like a little back pressure.2000GT said:It's interesting how much his tq. drops off compared to mine. I wasn't expecting that.
In the end, LT's make more avg. rwhp and less avg. rwtq. from 5500 rpms to redline.
2000GT said:Well, since I still have received Cottonburnerz or 03trublueGT's dynojet files I did the best I could.
I printed off 03trubluGT's dyno graph because it had the higher numbers of the two and was the easiest to read.
I used a ruler to pull my data from his graph and compared it to my graph. My numbers are exact numbers and his numbers are within 1-3 hp/tq.
03trubluGT 2000GT
rwhp/rwtq. rwhp.rwtq.
3500 rpms 185/280 186.47/279.96
4000 rpms 220/290 221.18/290.46
4500 rpms 245/282 242.61/283.13
5000 rpms 254/265 250.48/263.02
5250 rpms 248/248 248.33/248.80
5500 rpms 243/235 233.92/244.19
5750 rpms 243/220 221.7/241.61
So as you can see, everything is pretty much a wash until 5500 rpms. At 5500 rpms, my hp. fades and his tq. fades. His hp. stayed flat for the most part from 5000 - 5750 rpms. My tq. stay flat for the most part from 5000 -5750.
This could be done more accurately if I had their dynojet files, but this is pretty close. I don't see any noticeable differences until after 5500 rpms. Perhaps if our 2V's rev. limiters where set higher and it didn't hurt our motors to shift at say 6500 rpms, LT's would produce more avg. hp. for a longer duration.
It's interesting how much his tq. drops off compared to mine. I wasn't expecting that.
In the end, LT's make more avg. rwhp and less avg. rwtq. from 5500 rpms to redline.
well, this isnt a good comparison. Different cars were used. Now if Bill(mustang92) shares his before and after numbers that would be more helpful to the less enlightened. A guy like Bill that is very meticulous in his record keeping and comparisons would be able to show you the true gains, but I don't think this thread will get his attn anymore with theBMan5150 said:I think this is very interesting . . . thanks for posting. It almost does seem like you'd practically have to shift well after the redline (6000? 6300?) in order to really get the most out of a car with LTs. Is this what people with LTs do when drag racing (at the 1/4 mi track)? Also, do most people with LTs build up their motors with new cams and an upgraded valvetrain to allow for this?
You know, there is actually some good tech in here despite all the borderline name calling. It's just cars, guys - it's not worth getting all in a huff about. I have never seen a proper comparison of a stang with LTs and a stang without LTs - especially not a dyno comparison between SAE-corrected pulls. I'm not saying this comparison is perfect, but this is the best comparison data I've seen so far on LTs. And it allowed me to form a better, more informed opinion on LTs and determine whether I'd ever even have one hint of desire to put them on my car.
Thanks to those who contributed their dynos and allowing the comparisons. I'd still love to see all of this on one dyno graph!
Jackie Chan said:well, this isnt a good comparison. Different cars were used. Now if Bill(mustang92) shares his before and after numbers that would be more helpful to the less enlightened. A guy like Bill that is very meticulous in his record keeping and comparisons would be able to show you the true gains, but I don't think this thread will get his attn anymore with thespewed by idiots
Like I said its not a good comparison. PERIOD.BMan5150 said:Like I said, it's not a perfect comparison, but there are many variables that have been neutralized by correcting the numbers to SAE and using a Dynojet dyno. What we really don't quite know is what other modifications were on each car when they were dynoed.
And yes; I'd love to see Bill's SAE-corrected before/after "LTs and o/r midpipe" dyno pull comparison because that would neutralize even more variables (same car, same dyno.) I'd also like to see how similar/dis-similar the curves compared to the two compared in 2000GTs post.
Jackie Chan said:Like I said its not a good comparison. PERIOD.
Jackie Chan said:Like I said its not a good comparison. PERIOD.
I dont think i need the graph to simplify it. I mean I read your posts and figured out that you are ignorant2000GT said:Why isn't it a good comparison? Perhaps you just don't like the comparison results.
It's pretty simple to compare:
Dynojet vs. Dynojet
SAE vs. SAE
99+GT 2V vs. 99+GT 2V
LT's + midpipe + CB vs. x-pipe + pullies + CB + MAF + dynotune
250 ish peak rwhp vs. 250 ish peak rwhp
RESULT - avg. rwhp is the about the same until about 5500 rpms.
Why is that so hard to grasp?
Would it be a bad comparison if I graph both dynos against each other? Maybe you are visual learner?
Silverpony00 said:Yea you are going to be slower than a 250 rwhp gt with lt's because it has a better power curve than you. I will have 15+ more hp and tq than you in certain areas of my power band. Why dont you look at the curves on the dyno sheets, their is 15+ hp and tq increase all the way through the powerband. So how in the hell is your car as fast as a 250 rwhp gt with lt's when is has less 15+ hp and tq throughout the powerband. You need to learn how to read a dyno sheet and then learn how to mod mustangs.
Mustang92 said:You know the sad thing about this statement is that you are trying to be sarcastic but in reality it's a true statement. Two cars racing and making the same peak power with different parts will come down to the car with the better power curve. Now if you are looking to run around to the local car show and polish your wheels and frame your dyno sheet then your right LTs aren't going to do much for you. But if you talking about a bolt on car racing at the track give me a car with a stock intake and longtubes versus a car with a plenum and stock manifolds and I'll beat it every pass.
At the current rate posts like this are going to set back 2V performance.
Bill
Dude forgive me but you are a troll. I read some of your posts about a couple months ago and you are the reason why my post count is so low. Keep living your pipe dream and believe me Anyone who spends 1K for maybe ten HP is an idiot. You can buy a whole drag suspension and almost include the tires for 1K if you know how to shop. I am no beginner but neither are the three different tuners that told me that it doesn't make sense for me to spend that kind of money now, if I know my block is coming out eventually. One of them runs a winning 5.4 in SSO. I talk with these people face to face almost once a week. If you plan on staying stock bottomed and N/A with only bolt ons, its not worth it unless you absolutely have to have that last 100th. You know you should be conserned less with dyno numbers and learn how to drive better and you won't be worried about power under the curve becuase you will never be under it or you won't need it. For me the LT's will be a good investment becuase my exhaust is not flowing enough now but I'm right under 400 RWHP. In my case I can justify the 1K because it'll give me about 30+ hp and more importantly I NEED IT. But you started calling people stupid right off the back thats pretty foul of you. And you know if you weren't listening to a tuner that sells LTs you would know these facts as well.Jackie Chan said:well, this isnt a good comparison. Different cars were used. Now if Bill(mustang92) shares his before and after numbers that would be more helpful to the less enlightened. A guy like Bill that is very meticulous in his record keeping and comparisons would be able to show you the true gains, but I don't think this thread will get his attn anymore with thespewed by idiots
2000GT said:Proved this wrong too. There wasn't a "better power curve" on the car with LT's as you put it in your words.
Still searching for that "better power curve".
A whole 2 tenths? Now imagine what a set of rear wheels and ET DRAGS will do for you and leave you with about 300 left over for you to bet on yourself or to take some fine honey out to dinner with.Ben99GT said:Geez, your own numbers show the LT equipped car made a better (read: BROADER) power curve. You were down by 10 horsepower at 5,500 rpm and 21 horsepower at 5,750 rpm and the LT car didn't give up any low end to you. Did I misread the numbers? For two cars with the same peak that is pretty dramatic IMO. All of these dyno results are really useless though, Bill Putnam gained 2 tenths and 2 mph from long tubes as have numerous other people. Who cares if they only make a few peak horsepower on a dyno, the fact is they make your car quicker/faster. It's not that difficult a concept to grasp...
These are the same people who believe having advanced timing REALLY HELPS. I've watched about 10 2v dyno pulls and you know when my tuner added timing he never saw a gain2000GT said:I am comparing what I was being called out on - my 250 rwhp car WITHOUT LONGTUBES compared to another 250 rwhp car WITH LONGTUBES. I was told there would be a better power curve and more avg. rwhp. for the car with LT's.
Well, guess what? There wasn't. For the last time, the stock manifolds are not a restriction in N/A applications. Nobody can admit they spent money and lots of time installing LT's for a little power gain. Plus, nobody just adds LT's by themselves. I have yet to see one car add LT's and not change anything else on the car. With bolt-ons only, the '99+ 2V motor is tapped out between 250-260 rwhp SAE. If you believe otherwise, you are in denial. Cams, superchargers - i.e. "mods. other than bolt-on and drive away" are a whole different story.
I think its funny how I am labeled as knowing nothing about LT's just because I don't have them installed on my car. It happens all the time on this web site and many other Mustang web sites. How many of us don't have blowers but still believe they produce more power? How can you possibly know blowers make more power if you don't own one? How many of us know that intake spacers do nothing on our cars?
It called understand the 2V motor, dyno graphs, and having the ability to understand basic logic.
i could really give a 'Kiss Me''Kiss Me''Kiss Me''Kiss Me' about what your buddies say.Sleeper 362 said:Dude forgive me but you are a troll. I read some of your posts about a couple months ago and you are the reason why my post count is so low. Keep living your pipe dream and believe me Anyone who spends 1K for maybe ten HP is an idiot. You can buy a whole drag suspension and almost include the tires for 1K if you know how to shop. I am no beginner but neither are the three different tuners that told me that it doesn't make sense for me to spend that kind of money now, if I know my block is coming out eventually. One of them runs a winning 5.4 in SSO. I talk with these people face to face almost once a week. If you plan on staying stock bottomed and N/A with only bolt ons, its not worth it unless you absolutely have to have that last 100th. You know you should be conserned less with dyno numbers and learn how to drive better and you won't be worried about power under the curve becuase you will never be under it or you won't need it. For me the LT's will be a good investment becuase my exhaust is not flowing enough now but I'm right under 400 RWHP. In my case I can justify the 1K because it'll give me about 30+ hp and more importantly I NEED IT. But you started calling people stupid right off the back thats pretty foul of you. And you know if you weren't listening to a tuner that sells LTs you would know these facts as well.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?