4.6L (1996-2004 Modular) Mustang Technical discussions on 1996-2004 4.6 Liter Modular Motors (2V and 4V) within.

DYNOJET results!!!!!!

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Jan 23, 2005 | 02:41 AM
  #11  
BCisme's Avatar
BCisme
5th Gear Member
 
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,129
From: Norfolk, VA
Default RE: DYNOJET results!!!!!!


ORIGINAL: 4.6MikeMustang

i just got back from the dyno and i have to say im pretty happy with my power output out of 3 runs this was my best on a 5spd with mods listed in my sig. Now im in Miami Fl so im right at sea level... enjoy btw for those of you who can't make it out it2 258 hp and 297 torque..

-Mike [sm=vader1.gif]

[IMG]local://upfiles/11106/FEF22F6047B94E4EABC2368F5C45DF35.jpg[/IMG]


i'll run ya.
Old Jan 23, 2005 | 03:49 AM
  #12  
4.6MikeMustang's Avatar
4.6MikeMustang
Thread Starter
2nd Gear Member
 
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 292
From:
Default RE: DYNOJET results!!!!!!

i already have my o/r X to be installed maybe sometime next week, its a VRS x pipe it actually is the pipe that makes the most power out of all the brands...(Mustang & Fords did a shootout on a fairly stock 03 Gt, VRS and Magnaflow got the best results) Plus their warehouse is down here so i can get the pipe without having to pay for shipping and crap...and gears are being delivered got some 3.73's because i love top end and i dont want to lose it and i plan on a super or turbo...

-Mike
Old Jan 23, 2005 | 04:05 AM
  #13  
ZW99GT's Avatar
ZW99GT
6th Gear Member
 
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 7,797
From: Tennessee
Default RE: DYNOJET results!!!!!!

Red 5 posted his dyno results the other day and he only had 248hp he has everything u got plus TB, plenum and MAM, thats weird. Maybe you did get a freak
Old Jan 23, 2005 | 04:11 AM
  #14  
neogenic83's Avatar
neogenic83
3rd Gear Member
 
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 648
From:
Default RE: DYNOJET results!!!!!!

hey 2000n take it to another guy. I made 256/299 at 98 deg in shop (AUG in TX) U are right in ur number should be much higher. U should be around 300 or 310 with 320 torque. The guy U are going to is f*&king U. get the power out of the money U put in.
Old Jan 23, 2005 | 03:50 PM
  #15  
4.6MikeMustang's Avatar
4.6MikeMustang
Thread Starter
2nd Gear Member
 
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 292
From:
Default RE: DYNOJET results!!!!!!

hey this could be something. what gear did you do your dyno in...i did mine in 4th and got the most power when i did it in 3rd i only got 250hp and 280 torque..

-Mike
Old Jan 23, 2005 | 07:54 PM
  #16  
Colorado Fatboy's Avatar
Colorado Fatboy
 
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 29
Default RE: DYNOJET results!!!!!!


ORIGINAL: 2000GT4.6


ORIGINAL: 4.6MikeMustang

i was actually hearing that from some of the guys at the shop...that my car is somehow a factory freak. No skin of my back..i can't wait to see whati'll do with a full exhaust..and like i said im in Miami so im basicly in the ocean so i was thinking my number were high because of the density of the air here..

-Mike
Supposedly the dyno takes into account the air etc.
The dyno will not take that into account if it's not set to do so. Notice his dyno sheet says "CF STD" That means the correction factor is standard.


Most people are using the SAE correction factor, that will compensate for the differences in air, altitude etc. When you are comparing dyno sheets that are SAE vs STD it's not apples to apples!

Not to burst anybodys bubble but with your location and conditions that dyno with a SAE correction factor would be lower.


Old Jan 23, 2005 | 08:44 PM
  #17  
4.6MikeMustang's Avatar
4.6MikeMustang
Thread Starter
2nd Gear Member
 
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 292
From:
Default RE: DYNOJET results!!!!!!

i saw my Dyno on the computer with the SAE corrected numbers and they were nearly identical...257 and 293 torque...so its not THAT much lower..

-Mike
Old Jan 23, 2005 | 08:58 PM
  #18  
DUB 6's Avatar
DUB 6
I ♥ Acer
 
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 990
From: United States
Default RE: DYNOJET results!!!!!!


ORIGINAL: 4.6MikeMustang

i was actually hearing that from some of the guys at the shop...that my car is somehow a factory freak. No skin of my back..i can't wait to see whati'll do with a full exhaust..and like i said im in Miami so im basicly in the ocean so i was thinking my number were high because of the density of the air here..

-Mike
Good numbers mike....I've heard of some GT's dynoing 230+rwhp completely stock...
Old Jan 23, 2005 | 10:51 PM
  #19  
Colorado Fatboy's Avatar
Colorado Fatboy
 
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 29
Default RE: DYNOJET results!!!!!!


ORIGINAL: 4.6MikeMustang

i saw my Dyno on the computer with the SAE corrected numbers and they were nearly identical...257 and 293 torque...so its not THAT much lower..

-Mike

That's cool, those are nice numbers for what you have!

The reason you should use the SAE is this. Let's say you do an uncorrected run and the conditions are awesome. Then you do some mods go back and the conditions are less than favorable. You could actually lose HP (on the uncorrected dynos) when you actually gained. The SAE correction compensates for any differences in air, temp, pressure etc. It makes it so every dyno run is virtually the "same conditions" no matter if it was yesterday or 6 months ago.

Then you have people like me who live at 6000ft above sea level. If I was to show you guys an uncorrected dyno you would laugh me right out of here! And start saying things like your car is fugged up! Actually I do put out alot less hp at this altitude but the SAE correction compensates for the lack in atmospheric pressure.

99% of the dynos you'll ever see use the SAE correction for those reasons.

If everybody uses the SAE numbers then we know we are all on the same page when comparing dyno numbers.

[sm=icon_cheers.gif]
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Stone629
The Racers Bench
66
Jun 2, 2016 09:52 PM
Gene K
S197 Handling Section
1
Oct 21, 2015 11:37 PM
TCStangerv6
Street/Strip
12
Oct 11, 2015 05:57 PM
tj@steeda
Steeda Autosports
0
Sep 24, 2015 09:18 PM
tj@steeda
Steeda Autosports
0
Sep 8, 2015 11:50 AM




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:40 AM.