new dyno #'s for the turbo 67 mustang

10secgoal

Active Member
Dec 1, 2003
2,801
3
49
San Diego
And found out you really don't need an intercooler, right Paul ?:p

sorry Mario/ Iskwezm we couldn't wait for you:banana:

So we take it up there to get it tuned since the rebuild. With the new bathtubs and airbleeds we set the wastegate on kill. 12psi and never finished getting the tune down after 4 hrs including a "lunch break." We ended up with 476rwhp and 464 rwtrq on California's finest (91), a carb, no IC and a conservative 18 deg total. We slowly leaned it out, but never got it to flatten completely. Better than lean I guess. So the HP dropped at 5600 when the A/F stopped reading at 10.0. We'll take the boost down for now. If I lean it out to where it should be, it should easily be over 500. Can't have a rolling business card with a busted motor so we'll just turn it down and lean it out some more.
Sorry no vid Mario, Rich left the camera it at his house. :rolleyes:
 
you know...it would be infinitely easier to tune EFI...I cant even imagine trying to tune my 2.4T on a carb...it wouldnt even be all that expensive to convert...I use megasquirt, get that,injectors, an EFI manifold, a TB with a TPS a couple sensors and you're set(most of which would be included with a 5.0L upper and lower manifold set)...that being said, I understand you like carbs better and are trying to do it with one, but impressive numbers for 12psi, even as rich as it is
 
you know...it would be infinitely easier to tune EFI...I cant even imagine trying to tune my 2.4T on a carb...it wouldnt even be all that expensive to convert...I use megasquirt, get that,injectors, an EFI manifold, a TB with a TPS a couple sensors and you're set(most of which would be included with a 5.0L upper and lower manifold set)...that being said, I understand you like carbs better and are trying to do it with one, but impressive numbers for 12psi, even as rich as it is
It's not hard at all really at these power levels. To me at least, EFI just isn't work the cost. Mega squirt is cheap, but the rest of that stuff adds up 42-60 lbs injector aren't cheap. Kinda like being different I guess,too.


iskwezm said:
Originally Posted by 10secgoal View Post
. Can't have a rolling business card with a busted motor

Whats that supposed to mean????
Not you. Rich is the only one done here with a good looking car. We need his alive.:lol:

No dyno graphs yet. We rush outta there at like 11:30 at night and didn't grab one. try to get one though.
 
Let me just say, my headers couldnt be any tighter. Thes things have the right bends at the right places.They werent the easiest to get out, but after looking at them i can see why.I dont think i have seen anything else like it on the market that still fits in a "stock" engine bay.Even with the 45 minutes of scratching our heads and few m-***** french words, we were still able to pull the engine in a little under 3 hours.I need to make few changes to drop compression,maybe coat the pipes and then back to 10 secgoal for some tuning and dyno time.:nice:
 
Good Job 10sec! Dynojet or Mustang dyno?
I have been waiting for some more data to compare with my results. If you remember, I used ported out stock 289 CI manifolds. My numbers seemed high on torque, low on HP compared to typical. I was 454RWHP/510Ft-lbs at 8.5 PSI on a Mustang dyno. I have up the boost to 10 PSIG but haven't been back to the dyno yet. Feels much stronger though.

I had alot of concern over running stock manifolds.

Eric
 
The block is the worry I believe or is it aftermarket now?

Nope, This is Rich's car. Stock block, so we need to go down a little bit so we can move the HP curve up to where it should be when it gets leaned out. Right now it tops at 5600 because it just goes SO rich. From 6k up it wouldn't read. Just don't wanna loose this block just yet. We just talked to the dyno shop because we forgot to get a print out and he said it was 11psi. The torwue on the dyno pulls with the motor before were over 500 rwtrq. I don't know what the other dyno was though. Mine has the aftermarket block. Last time was 460 and 440 or something like that with the 302 and 11psi. Gonna get stupid with it once I find some time to work on my own stuff.

Where ya been Eric ? This on was a dynojet. The car made huge inprovements everytime it was leaned out. It will go way over 500 if let. The timiing is just a hint on the safe side, but we may spray it to add timing. More torque would be fun.

MrMustang this is no forced induction cam by any shot. It's a Ford Motorsport X-303 cam. I know it's .542 224 @ .050 single pattern. I THINK lobe center was 107. But that's all I remember. A good 'ol F cam would pick us up a bit. BUt with being able to split the block with this one this easy, we didn't see the sense in spending more money. I'm sure he'll get mine if I go custom. But other than that a 349 with 14cc dished pistons,hurricane intake and ported canfields.

PS Mario. We did a baby pull on the car first time, like it was when you test drove with me. It makes 100 more HP to the tires than when you drove in it. :)
 
"Where ya been Eric ? This on was a dynojet. The car made huge inprovements everytime it was leaned out. It will go way over 500 if let. The timiing is just a hint on the safe side, but we may spray it to add timing. More torque would be fun."

Sorry if the question had been asked already. The reason, for the question, is to sort out differences caused by the different calcs used by the two dynos. Mustang dynos show less HP than the Dynojet. Seems the difference is somewhere between 5-10% lower for the Mustang dyno.

Yea, I have been lurking and silently cheering you on.

Eric