• Mustang Forums
  • 1996 - 2004 SN95 Mustang -General/Talk-

Tork Tech Performance Results!

  • Thread starter Thread starter Flghtmstr1
  • Start date Start date Apr 19, 2009
  • 1
  • 2
Next
1 of 2 Next Last

Flghtmstr1

Member
Mar 31, 2005
572
4
19
Springfield, PA
Apr 19, 2009
#1
  • Apr 19, 2009
  • #1
Hey everyone,

I know there were a decent number of people interested in what my new Tork Tech kit would do, and I have the results after hitting the track and the dyno this weekend.

I would like to say something before I give the numbers. At the dyno, there were a couple of strange things going on with either the tune or the dyno that I was unable to figure out a likely cause for. When Tork Tech's tuner and I were communicating before he wrote my tune, I asked him for an especially conservative base tune with extra timing taken out, and I therefore need to ask for more information as to what the timing curve (and the rest of the tune) actually looks like.

As a result, I will not be posting the hp/torque curves YET. I will post them once I have found a potential cause for the issues OR if I am unsatisfied with Tork Tech's help.

With all that out of the way, here's the bottom line:

The dyno was a "DYNOmite" brand load-holding chassis dynomometer, which is similar to a Mustang dyno. The altitude was approximately 1300 feet. The run was corrected to SAE standards.

The car put down 387 rwhp @ 5800 rpm and 351 ft-lbs of torque from 3500 rpm (where I started the pull) to 6000 rpm (where I ended the pull). The AFR curve was the smoothest I have ever seen; it hovered right at 12.1/1, and fluctuated less than .13 throughout the relevant range. We hooked up a mechanical fuel pressure gauge to make sure it was getting enough fuel from the SVT Focus pump that comes with the kit (I have heard horror stories and wanted to be safe) and everything seemed to be okay with it. We also datalogged manifold air pressure, and the kit made 8 psi from the start and maxed out at 10 psi.

I think the torque is lower than it should be, especially down in the lower rpm range, and I think it's because of the extra timing I asked Tork Tech to pull out. There was also a strange issue up top where there was a significant hp and torque "dip" at around 5250 rpm. This is especially strange considering that it only did this in 3rd gear; when I made 2nd gear pulls it was clean all the way up to redline. Other cars exhibited similar behavior today on the same dyno, and the issue only showed up in a 1/1 ratio gear for them as well. I theorize that there might have been an issue with the dyno's water pump causing an incorrect / unexpected load change at that roller speed. The AFR does not fluctuate at ALL throughout the run except in the beginning of the pull when the ECU is transitioning from closed-loop to open-loop, so I can't figure out what kind of tuning issue would cause this dip without an associated change in AFR.

As for the dragstrip, I ran a 12.2 @ 113 mph with a 1.885 60' time. This was done on the same 275/35R18 Sumitomo HTRZ-IIs that I use all the time. I think the trap speed sounds awfully low for that ET. I'd also like to point out that this was at Beaver Springs Dragway, which is a high-altitude, notoriously slow, slightly uphill track. A stock New Edge 5-speed GT couldn't run faster than a 14.95, a Ram SRT-10 ran a couple of 14.0Xs, a Z06 ran a 12.5, an STi ran a 14.0, etc. I think I might be able to hit 11s if I take it to a faster track.

Anyway, sorry for the wall o' text. Overall, I'm happy with the horsepower, disappointed with the torque, yet ecstatic with the real-world performance. Please share any thoughts, comments, compliments, insults, etc, and I'd be more than happy to answer any questions or clarify anything.

EDIT: I forgot to mention that videos were taken of both the dragstrip runs and dyno pulls. I will post them as soon as they are made available to me.
 

CobraRed_96_GT

Active Member
May 20, 2006
1,421
4
39
UCSD/La Jolla
Apr 19, 2009
#2
  • Apr 19, 2009
  • #2
The dyno and/or tune are certainly the culprit for any demoralizing aspects you're seeing as 12.2 at that altitude is hallin ballz. Also, dyno is certain at least one issue, as 5250 is where hp=tq in the dyno equation, and if they are dipping down significantly to meet there the dyno's not (my guess) operating quite right as real power isn't dipping, the load forumla is just off. Pretty cool for 10psi, 12.1 a/f seems high to me since i'm at 12.5/12.6 - but 10 psi peak i guess is pretty conservative.

Get the vids up!!!
 

MyBloodRunsBlue

New Member
Feb 1, 2007
127
0
0
Apr 19, 2009
#3
  • Apr 19, 2009
  • #3
great numbers if you ask me....also good 1/4 mile run...i also ran a 12.2 but my mph was 116...that's booking it dude....awesome job!!!!
 

crazystang25

Member
Jan 25, 2009
492
0
16
Apr 19, 2009
#4
  • Apr 19, 2009
  • #4
ya it aint a bad trap speed for that time. nice. think if you were at around 7,500 ft like me.
 

Flghtmstr1

Member
Mar 31, 2005
572
4
19
Springfield, PA
Apr 19, 2009
#5
  • Apr 19, 2009
  • #5
Ouch. 7500 feet would kill my times. Where are you located, Colorado? What do you run?
 

bhuff30

Founding Member
Dec 11, 2001
6,037
35
129
Olathe KS
Apr 19, 2009
#6
  • Apr 19, 2009
  • #6
Yeah, 12.2 is definately moving, especially at altitude. That is awsome. At my local track, there is a S197 with a KB that runs low 12s on drag radials, and we are at just 900' elevation. Your times are very impressive!

I think your 114 trap speed is about on target. I ran a 12.2 111mph and that was with a 1.797 60', but I think my C4 and gearing hurts my trap speed.
 

Gearbanger 101

Straight Outta Locash
20+ Year Stangneter
Aug 10, 2002
9,457
1,377
234
Ontario, Canada
Apr 19, 2009
#7
  • Apr 19, 2009
  • #7
Good show man....

380-390RWHP is about what I expected it to put down with the base intercooled set up. You might have tacked on another 10hp or so with a more agressive tune, but why chance it with the stock short block. I would almost certainly say your loss of torque is due to them pulling some timing out of it. What was it tuned with....tuner....chip? If you've got control over the timing, you might want to look into it. You should be able to run about 17-19 degrees total on 93-octane without much fuss. A little more in the lower end might be all you need to bring that bottom end up. Talk to the guy tuning the car and see what he thinks. Your A/F ratio looks nice and safe as well. You could probably go a little leaner, but I don't see you picking up more than a couple of horsepower that way. Safter is better....especially with the stock engine.

Glad you finally got it together. I was afraid it was never going to happen.
 

CobraRed_96_GT

Active Member
May 20, 2006
1,421
4
39
UCSD/La Jolla
Apr 19, 2009
#8
  • Apr 19, 2009
  • #8
He's had it together for awhile now, just no stats
 

Gearbanger 101

Straight Outta Locash
20+ Year Stangneter
Aug 10, 2002
9,457
1,377
234
Ontario, Canada
Apr 19, 2009
#9
  • Apr 19, 2009
  • #9
CobraRed_96_GT said:
He's had it together for awhile now, just no stats
Click to expand...

Yeah, I know....I've been on him about getting it to the dyno and posting up his results.
 
B

bakos24

I find there is nothing better than a tasty wiener
Nov 29, 1999
4,461
87
134
NE, OH
Apr 20, 2009
#10
  • Apr 20, 2009
  • #10
Awesome numbers. I am hoping I get around 380RWHP when I get my kit. That's what I was shooting for anyway.( My kit been on order exactly 4 weeks tonday ) I will post mine numbers up when it is done to compare I am hoping to have it on and tuned by June.
 

Flghtmstr1

Member
Mar 31, 2005
572
4
19
Springfield, PA
Apr 20, 2009
#11
  • Apr 20, 2009
  • #11
bakos24 said:
Awesome numbers. I am hoping I get around 380RWHP when I get my kit. That's what I was shooting for anyway.( My kit been on order exactly 4 weeks tonday ) I will post mine numbers up when it is done to compare I am hoping to have it on and tuned by June.
Click to expand...

You will get more than 380 rwhp if your car is anything like mine. Remember, I got basically 390 rwhp through an automatic AND with extra timing pulled. I look forward to hearing how it goes.
 

Flghtmstr1

Member
Mar 31, 2005
572
4
19
Springfield, PA
Apr 20, 2009
#12
  • Apr 20, 2009
  • #12
Gearbanger 101 said:
Good show man....

380-390RWHP is about what I expected it to put down with the base intercooled set up. You might have tacked on another 10hp or so with a more agressive tune, but why chance it with the stock short block. I would almost certainly say your loss of torque is due to them pulling some timing out of it. What was it tuned with....tuner....chip? If you've got control over the timing, you might want to look into it. You should be able to run about 17-19 degrees total on 93-octane without much fuss. A little more in the lower end might be all you need to bring that bottom end up. Talk to the guy tuning the car and see what he thinks. Your A/F ratio looks nice and safe as well. You could probably go a little leaner, but I don't see you picking up more than a couple of horsepower that way. Safter is better....especially with the stock engine.

Glad you finally got it together. I was afraid it was never going to happen.
Click to expand...

Tork Tech normally sends an SCT chip with their kits, but I asked them to just email me the tune because I already had an XCal 2 and didn't want to pay for something I don't need. The numbers above were made with the tune they sent me PLUS a couple of tweaks on the handheld. The tune they sent me was a tad too lean (~12.4 throughout) so I richened it up some. Somewhat surprisingly, making the tune richer didn't change the numbers significantly: hp decreased by 1 and torque increased by 1. It's also important to note that I only have control over global air/fuel ratio at WOT; I cannot add or subtract fuel from different rpm ranges. I don't seem to need that level of control, however, as the AFR was impressively smooth and consistent throughout the pull.
 

Gearbanger 101

Straight Outta Locash
20+ Year Stangneter
Aug 10, 2002
9,457
1,377
234
Ontario, Canada
Apr 20, 2009
#13
  • Apr 20, 2009
  • #13
Argghh...I don't now how I misread your A/F ratio. 12.1 :1 is actually a tad on the lean side, not the rich. Not sure what I was thinking. Most shoot for 11.5-11.8. If adding fuel isn't hurting your power, I would go ahead and richen it up just a little. WOT is where its going to do the damage anyway. Better to be safe, than sorry.
 

Flghtmstr1

Member
Mar 31, 2005
572
4
19
Springfield, PA
Apr 20, 2009
#14
  • Apr 20, 2009
  • #14
I agree. The dyno operator is used to tuning turbo and centrifugal cars more so than positive displacement superchargers.
 

CobraRed_96_GT

Active Member
May 20, 2006
1,421
4
39
UCSD/La Jolla
Apr 20, 2009
#15
  • Apr 20, 2009
  • #15
bakos24 said:
Awesome numbers. I am hoping I get around 380RWHP when I get my kit. That's what I was shooting for anyway.( My kit been on order exactly 4 weeks tonday ) I will post mine numbers up when it is done to compare I am hoping to have it on and tuned by June.
Click to expand...
You're going to be waiting longer than 4 weeks...

Gearbanger 101 said:
12.1 :1 is actually a tad on the lean side, not the rich.
Click to expand...
Yup, that's what i was sayin'
 
B

bakos24

I find there is nothing better than a tasty wiener
Nov 29, 1999
4,461
87
134
NE, OH
Apr 20, 2009
#16
  • Apr 20, 2009
  • #16
Flghtmstr1 said:
You will get more than 380 rwhp if your car is anything like mine. Remember, I got basically 390 rwhp through an automatic AND with extra timing pulled. I look forward to hearing how it goes.
Click to expand...

If I get more than 380, I won't complain.


CobraRed_96_GT said:
you're going to be waiting longer than 4 weeks..
Click to expand...

Yeah, the guy I talked to said 4-6 weeks. They were waiting on the lower manifolds to get made he said. Hopefully it comes soon
 

Screamin'04

New Member
Feb 28, 2008
0
0
0
Hope Mills, NC
Apr 20, 2009
#17
  • Apr 20, 2009
  • #17
Thanks for this thread... Now I know what I should roughly expect out of mine with 402/461 (although it's not the Magnuson)...
 

CobraRed_96_GT

Active Member
May 20, 2006
1,421
4
39
UCSD/La Jolla
Apr 20, 2009
#18
  • Apr 20, 2009
  • #18
bakos24 said:
Yeah, the guy I talked to said 4-6 weeks. They were waiting on the lower manifolds to get made he said. Hopefully it comes soon
Click to expand...
Is that the first 4-6 weeks Bill told you? If so, you have a couple more phone calls like that ahead of you.
 

crazystang25

Member
Jan 25, 2009
492
0
16
Apr 20, 2009
#19
  • Apr 20, 2009
  • #19
Flghtmstr1 said:
Ouch. 7500 feet would kill my times. Where are you located, Colorado? What do you run?
Click to expand...


Ya laramie wyoming. Haven't got any runs yet gonna try this weekend though as long as it don't snow.
Posted via Mobile Device
 

BlownStangGT

REPEAT
Founding Member
Jan 22, 2002
3,860
6
58
Lancaster, PA
Apr 20, 2009
#20
  • Apr 20, 2009
  • #20
Nice numbers and times. Beaver usually is a slower track. I wouldnt say its a SLOW track, but not like cecil for sure. Depeneds on track prep. My buddies formula cam/exhaust and nitto's ran 12.0's at 120 which is right on par. I have seen plenty of fast cars run what they should there. But nice times
 
  • 1
  • 2
Next
1 of 2 Next Last
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

X
Free VE Table Corrections — Drop Your MSQ and a Datalog, I'll Do the Rest
  • X-cam34
  • Apr 12, 2026
  • Digital Self-tuning Forum
Replies
8
Views
271
Digital Self-tuning Forum May 21, 2026
X-cam34
X
X
VE Table Not Dialed? Send Me Your Datalog.
  • X-cam34
  • Feb 8, 2026
  • Digital Self-tuning Forum
  • 2 3
Replies
49
Views
1K
Digital Self-tuning Forum May 1, 2026
X-cam34
X
R
1974 Datsun 620 pickup / 5.0L HO
  • RJH46
  • Aug 24, 2025
  • Other Auto Tech
Replies
1
Views
200
Other Auto Tech Aug 24, 2025
Noobz347
SURGING IDLE / NO IDLE CHECKLIST FOR 1996–1998 MUSTANG GT (4.6L 2V) - Work In Progress
  • Noobz347
  • Aug 30, 2025
  • 1996 - 2004 SN95 Mustang -General/Talk-
Replies
0
Views
656
1996 - 2004 SN95 Mustang -General/Talk- Aug 30, 2025
Noobz347
Engine Popping noise in the intake. Frustrated still.
  • esteban31065
  • Apr 6, 2025
  • Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech
Replies
15
Views
1K
Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech May 23, 2025
gkomo
Share:
Bluesky Email Share Link
  • Mustang Forums
  • 1996 - 2004 SN95 Mustang -General/Talk-
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?