• Mustang Forums
  • 1996 - 2004 SN95 Mustang -General/Talk-
  • SN95 4.6L Mustang Tech

MustangDyno vs. DynoJet

  • Thread starter Thread starter MartyMoose
  • Start date Start date Dec 17, 2005

MartyMoose

Member
Aug 12, 2003
33
0
6
Dec 17, 2005
#1
  • Dec 17, 2005
  • #1
My 'base' pull was on a DynoJet back in 2002, which resulted the following #'s with the following mods:

205HP

3.73's
K&N filter

My next pull was on a MustangDyno back in 2003, which resulted the following #'s with the following mods:

183HP @ 4250RPM
234Ft/Lbs @ 3750RPM

3.73's
Mac CAI & K&N
Steeda UDP's
MagnaFlow X w/ cats and cat-back
FordChip performance chip from fordchip.com

Yesterday the car went back on the MustangDyno, which resulted the following #'s with the following mods:

(Pre- 'fine-tuning' with the Predator)
207.5HP @ 5000RPM
224.9 Ft/Lbs @ 4750 RPM

(Post- 'fine-tuning' with the Predator)
208.6HP @ 5000RPM
237.6 Ft/Lbs @ 4250RPM

3.73's
TransGo shift kit
FIPK II
AccuFab 75mm TB
C&L Plenum
Steeda UDP's
MagnaFlow X w/ cats and cat-back
(Before/After with Predator using 92 Octane pump gas)

When tuning A/F with the Predator he pulled timing out of the bottom and added a little to the top. The A/F ratio is the 'stock' Predator settings. The A/F graph is pretty linear at about 13.0:1. He couldn't do much more with the timing because the car just didn't respond very well to it (lost HP and a puff or two of smoke out of the exhaust).

How does the DynoJet correlate to the MustangDyno regarding HP#'s (I thought I read in these forums that the DynoJet is about +15% compared to the MustangDyno. i.e, higher HP#'s).

Do these #'s look like they're where they should be with these mods (Post- 'fine-tuning).

Your thoughts/opinions appreciated.
 

helty

some Ukrainian's enjoying a handjob via my credit
Mar 30, 2005
1,461
1
39
Baltimore, MD
Dec 17, 2005
#2
  • Dec 17, 2005
  • #2
Mustang Dyno's generally give lower readings than DynoJet's.

what year is your car? i'm guessing pre 99. if so those #'s look acccurate to me.
 

MartyMoose

Member
Aug 12, 2003
33
0
6
Dec 17, 2005
#3
  • Dec 17, 2005
  • #3
The car is a 2001 AODE.
 

helty

some Ukrainian's enjoying a handjob via my credit
Mar 30, 2005
1,461
1
39
Baltimore, MD
Dec 17, 2005
#4
  • Dec 17, 2005
  • #4
wow, that seems kinda low for a PI GT, even for an Auto. maybe im wrong then. wait till someone with a bit more dyno experience come along, im sure they'll correct me.
 

ponysarepretty

New Member
Jul 25, 2005
578
0
0
Dec 17, 2005
#5
  • Dec 17, 2005
  • #5
generally autos pull 215-225 on dynojets stock
 

MartyMoose

Member
Aug 12, 2003
33
0
6
Dec 17, 2005
#6
  • Dec 17, 2005
  • #6
Then, it sounds like is was a 'slow' car, right off the lot.

I own 2 mid-2001 GT AODE's, and I often complain (to myself) that both of these cars 'feel' slow; thus, my reason for the mods.

Did the mid-2001's have any HP/Tq issues, or was I just lucky enough to get two 'slower' cars?
 

ponysarepretty

New Member
Jul 25, 2005
578
0
0
Dec 17, 2005
#7
  • Dec 17, 2005
  • #7
Not that I am aware of.
 
H

Hornetsnest

New Member
Jul 9, 2005
150
0
0
San Diego, CA
Dec 17, 2005
#8
  • Dec 17, 2005
  • #8
ponysarepretty said:
generally autos pull 215-225 on dynojets stock
Click to expand...
I wouldn't give them that much credit...I've seen them usually more like 205-215rwhp bone stock...18-20% drivetrain loss averages them around 208-213...Have you ever seen a STOCK 99-04 GT AT put down 225 to the wheels???
 

jstreet0204

Active Member
Jun 26, 2003
939
0
36
Winston Salem, NC
Dec 17, 2005
#9
  • Dec 17, 2005
  • #9
Don't get too wrapped up in the numbers. They don't seem too far off, just try to keep using the same dyno to guage your progress. Trying to compare numbers from different dynos in different conditions doesn't really tell you much.
 

dollarbill

Member
May 5, 2005
140
0
16
Decatur, IL
Dec 17, 2005
#10
  • Dec 17, 2005
  • #10
They do seem a little low, but how does it feel? Will it roast the tires if you nail it from a dead stop? Do you have any track times? When in doubt, throw more money at it.
 

MartyMoose

Member
Aug 12, 2003
33
0
6
Dec 18, 2005
#11
  • Dec 18, 2005
  • #11
Yeah, I hear ya dollarbill.

Actually, the car feels pretty good in the lower RPM. Seems like torque comes on early (max is at 4250RPM), but falls flat on it's a$s at 4500RPM.

Yeah, I wish I had did the initial 'base' pull on the MustangDyno.

But to be honest, I think I'm just coming to realize that the car just needs a little boost
 

trinity_gt

10 Year Member
Jan 31, 2003
3,125
81
99
Canada
Dec 18, 2005
#12
  • Dec 18, 2005
  • #12
jstreet0204 said:
Don't get too wrapped up in the numbers. They don't seem too far off, just try to keep using the same dyno to guage your progress. Trying to compare numbers from different dynos in different conditions doesn't really tell you much.
Click to expand...

I agree. The delta from mod to mod, on the same dyno, are worth more than the absolutes. To my thinking the MD shouldn't really be used to guage absolute, at-the-wheels power. It's a tuning tool, able to put the engine under a calibrated, consistent load for fixing A/F ratios and timing.

If you want actual at the wheels HP numbers, use a Dynojet. Or go to the track...
 
M

MatthewP

Founding Member
Dec 7, 2001
355
0
0
Calgary, Alberta
Dec 18, 2005
#13
  • Dec 18, 2005
  • #13
My MD-600 reads 13-14% lower than Dynojet 248's in the same area. Your numbers don't seem too far out to me. My 2002 GT made 209/242 stock on the MD-600, but that was with about 30000 miles and after I took it apart it was clear that the pistons were pretty carboned up. If it was clean, it would have had a little less compression and probably a little less power. This car is a standard transmission car though.

-Matthew
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

A
SOLD For Sale: 1993 Ford Mustang Cobra Modified
  • anjteal93
  • Sep 5, 2025
  • Fox Body Mustangs For Sale (1979-93)
Replies
13
Views
2K
Fox Body Mustangs For Sale (1979-93) Oct 26, 2025
Mindseye007
MODS to avoid
  • MarineDeuce
  • Jan 18, 2020
  • 2005 - 2014 S-197 Mustang -General/Talk-
Replies
8
Views
2K
2005 - 2014 S-197 Mustang -General/Talk- Jan 31, 2020
cbxer55
  • Locked
“Doing stuff the wrong way for the right reasons”: A related stupid story.
  • CarMichael Angelo
  • Apr 26, 2020
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Replies
7
Views
4K
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Apr 27, 2020
a91what
N
Supercharged Roush Mustang Stutters, Stalls Right After Shifting Gears And Giving It Gas
  • nuacr0s
  • Feb 21, 2017
  • 2010 - 2014 Specific Tech
Replies
0
Views
1K
2010 - 2014 Specific Tech Feb 21, 2017
nuacr0s
N
T
Fox No Boost And Stumped
  • TWEECD
  • Aug 12, 2017
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
  • 2 3 4
Replies
63
Views
13K
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Oct 31, 2017
TWEECD
T
Share:
Bluesky Email Share Link
  • Mustang Forums
  • 1996 - 2004 SN95 Mustang -General/Talk-
  • SN95 4.6L Mustang Tech
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?