Underrated dyno evidence
#21
RE: Underrated dyno evidence
ORIGINAL: Mach1man
No, I'm not confused. What I was saying was that my car is rated by Ford at 305hp and 320 tq, but according to my dyno it's 337.66 crankshaft horsepower and 370.18 crankshaft torque, assuming a 15% drivetrain parasitic loss for my 5 speed car.
No, I'm not confused. What I was saying was that my car is rated by Ford at 305hp and 320 tq, but according to my dyno it's 337.66 crankshaft horsepower and 370.18 crankshaft torque, assuming a 15% drivetrain parasitic loss for my 5 speed car.
#22
RE: Underrated dyno evidence
285 * .15 (to get to FWHP) = 330.05
This is what he is saying
Once again using this months issue of MM&FF (on newstands if you want proof) they did a mach one and dynoed 281 RWHP.
This is what he is saying
Once again using this months issue of MM&FF (on newstands if you want proof) they did a mach one and dynoed 281 RWHP.
#23
RE: Underrated dyno evidence
ORIGINAL: 95LT1
Those are far off from what I've seen dyno'd from stock Mach 1's. The one's I've seen, the most was 274hp 291.7tq which is still underrated.
Those are far off from what I've seen dyno'd from stock Mach 1's. The one's I've seen, the most was 274hp 291.7tq which is still underrated.
#24
RE: Underrated dyno evidence
ORIGINAL: Dan02GT
Unless I'm not reading what you wrote right, you said the 287 RWHP is underated from the 305hp claim by Ford. The 305hp claim from Ford is CRANK hp, not RWHP.
Unless I'm not reading what you wrote right, you said the 287 RWHP is underated from the 305hp claim by Ford. The 305hp claim from Ford is CRANK hp, not RWHP.
#26
RE: Underrated dyno evidence
ORIGINAL: Mach1man
Now you can say you've seen higher ones! I could show three more cars that all in this range, so it's not that unusual.
ORIGINAL: 95LT1
Those are far off from what I've seen dyno'd from stock Mach 1's. The one's I've seen, the most was 274hp 291.7tq which is still underrated.
Those are far off from what I've seen dyno'd from stock Mach 1's. The one's I've seen, the most was 274hp 291.7tq which is still underrated.
#27
RE: Underrated dyno evidence
mach1man nice #`s but the graph looks funny your torque and hp cross below 5000rpm. not that that cant happen but the graph doesn`t cross at 5252rpm where hp and torque become the same on every engine. i`m not saying it`s wrong by any means but it should cross at 5252rpm
#28
RE: Underrated dyno evidence
ORIGINAL: cobra232
mach1man nice #`s but the graph looks funny your torque and hp cross below 5000rpm. not that that cant happen but the graph doesn`t cross at 5252rpm where hp and torque become the same on every engine. i`m not saying it`s wrong by any means but it should cross at 5252rpm
mach1man nice #`s but the graph looks funny your torque and hp cross below 5000rpm. not that that cant happen but the graph doesn`t cross at 5252rpm where hp and torque become the same on every engine. i`m not saying it`s wrong by any means but it should cross at 5252rpm
#30
RE: Underrated dyno evidence
Was wondering that too. Need to up the minimum size picture the forums allow you to upload
It IS NOT possible for a dyno to cross anywhere but 5250 (or 5252, cant remeber). It has something to do with math. That being said, math sucks ***, so dont ask me to prove it. Had a teacher at school go into a long description about why/how 5250 is the mark, but I zoned out after a few seconds. Math makes me feel sick to my stomach.
It IS NOT possible for a dyno to cross anywhere but 5250 (or 5252, cant remeber). It has something to do with math. That being said, math sucks ***, so dont ask me to prove it. Had a teacher at school go into a long description about why/how 5250 is the mark, but I zoned out after a few seconds. Math makes me feel sick to my stomach.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Galactic
Archive - Mustangs For Sale
10
04-29-2019 02:56 PM
MustangForums Editor
4.6L (1996-2004 Modular) Mustang
3
10-09-2015 03:27 PM
MustangForums Editor
Mustang News, Concepts, Rumors & Discussion
1
09-09-2015 10:30 AM