• Mustang Forums
  • 1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk-
  • Classic Mustang Specific Tech

new dyno #'s for the turbo 67 mustang

  • Thread starter Thread starter 10secgoal
  • Start date Start date Sep 23, 2007
1

10secgoal

Active Member
Dec 1, 2003
2,801
3
49
San Diego
Sep 23, 2007
#1
  • Sep 23, 2007
  • #1
And found out you really don't need an intercooler, right Paul ?

sorry Mario/ Iskwezm we couldn't wait for you

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.
 
C

C0V3R

Member
Feb 14, 2003
524
0
16
Australia
Sep 23, 2007
#2
  • Sep 23, 2007
  • #2
Any dyno graphs?

Feel free to add it to my hp database as well
 

wicked93gs

15 Year Member
Sep 30, 2006
1,198
228
93
Nashville TN
Sep 23, 2007
#3
  • Sep 23, 2007
  • #3
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
 

iskwezm

10 Year Member
May 24, 2005
4,159
20
79
Rowland Heights,California
Sep 23, 2007
#4
  • Sep 23, 2007
  • #4
10secgoal said:
. Can't have a rolling business card with a busted motor
Click to expand...
Whats that supposed to mean????








































I probably wont make the races, need to work on the car, but the g/f is sick and telling me to leave
 
1

10secgoal

Active Member
Dec 1, 2003
2,801
3
49
San Diego
Sep 23, 2007
#5
  • Sep 23, 2007
  • #5
wicked93gs said:
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
Click to expand...
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????
Click to expand...
Not you. Rich is the only one done here with a good looking car. We need his alive.

No dyno graphs yet. We rush outta there at like 11:30 at night and didn't grab one. try to get one though.
 

wicked93gs

15 Year Member
Sep 30, 2006
1,198
228
93
Nashville TN
Sep 23, 2007
#6
  • Sep 23, 2007
  • #6
actually Megasquirt is the most expensive thing you need...all you need is upper and lower 5.0 manifolds, TB and injectors...the manifolds and TB can be pulled from any junkyard 5.0 for under $150
 

mrmustangman357

Member
Feb 11, 2007
763
3
18
Sep 24, 2007
#7
  • Sep 24, 2007
  • #7
you can't support ~800 crank hp with a stock manifold. sheetmetal is prolly a better choice
 

mrmustangman357

Member
Feb 11, 2007
763
3
18
Sep 24, 2007
#8
  • Sep 24, 2007
  • #8
now you need spray. hope the bottom end is forged! HA HA
 

brianj5600

Active Member
Sep 19, 2003
1,964
2
39
Middle TN
Sep 24, 2007
#9
  • Sep 24, 2007
  • #9
The block is the worry I believe or is it aftermarket now?
 

iskwezm

10 Year Member
May 24, 2005
4,159
20
79
Rowland Heights,California
Sep 24, 2007
#10
  • Sep 24, 2007
  • #10
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.
 

mrmustangman357

Member
Feb 11, 2007
763
3
18
Sep 24, 2007
#11
  • Sep 24, 2007
  • #11
is it an aftermarket block? What are the specs? is it a forced induction cam or one with overlap, etc?
 
R

R100RT

Founding Member
Nov 27, 2000
362
0
16
Sonora, CA
Sep 24, 2007
#12
  • Sep 24, 2007
  • #12
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
 
1

10secgoal

Active Member
Dec 1, 2003
2,801
3
49
San Diego
Sep 24, 2007
#13
  • Sep 24, 2007
  • #13
brianj5600 said:
The block is the worry I believe or is it aftermarket now?
Click to expand...

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.
 

iskwezm

10 Year Member
May 24, 2005
4,159
20
79
Rowland Heights,California
Sep 24, 2007
#14
  • Sep 24, 2007
  • #14
10secgoal said:
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.
Click to expand...
WOW, im wondering what kind of gains if any my cam will give, if any after its all sorted out.
 
R

R100RT

Founding Member
Nov 27, 2000
362
0
16
Sonora, CA
Sep 24, 2007
#15
  • Sep 24, 2007
  • #15
"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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

A New Easy Way To Really Dial In A Tune?
  • FastDriver
  • Sep 11, 2013
  • Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech
  • 2
Replies
25
Views
7K
Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech Sep 23, 2013
FastDriver
  • Locked
SOLD 1989 Turbo Mustang Gt, 700+rwhp Dynoed, 1000+rwhp Ready, Street/strip
  • RyanSG
  • Oct 5, 2013
  • Fox Body Mustangs For Sale (1979-93)
Replies
0
Views
8K
Fox Body Mustangs For Sale (1979-93) Oct 5, 2013
RyanSG
1
The turboed 67 has been dynoed
  • 10secgoal
  • Apr 28, 2007
  • Classic Mustang Specific Tech
  • 2
Replies
27
Views
3K
Classic Mustang Specific Tech May 9, 2007
12sec67
A new direction with the car...Turbo!
  • 2L8ULUZ2
  • Jan 6, 2008
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Replies
6
Views
859
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Jan 9, 2008
sage2k
S
New Dyno #'s
  • Venom351R
  • Jun 10, 2005
  • 1994 - 1995 Specific Tech
  • 2
Replies
20
Views
1K
1994 - 1995 Specific Tech Jun 13, 2005
94GTLaserRC
Share:
Bluesky Email Share Link
  • Mustang Forums
  • 1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk-
  • Classic Mustang Specific 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?