Is This Right
07-12-2005, 08:35 PM
#11
6th Gear Member
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 12,575
RE: Is This Right
ORIGINAL: jdl01gt
i just took my car to get tuned on the dyno ( Mustang Dynometer) and i started with a base line of 218HP and 262ft-lbs of torque on my 2001 Auto GT with the mods in my signature with 11 to 1 air to fuel ratio. At the end of the tuning with the predator i ended up with 223HP and 256ft-lbs of torque with a 14 to 1 air to fuel ratio. i dont think this is right but mabe i am just wanting to much. He did say on a dyno Jet that I would have probably had more like 243-245 HP.look below and tell me if this seems right or if i should have someone else tune it. the first one the red one was after he was done tuning. The second on in the Green was the baseline before anything was done.
[IMG]local://upfiles/15117/0A18958B64294B088715A13DCB1953A3.jpg[/IMG]
i just took my car to get tuned on the dyno ( Mustang Dynometer) and i started with a base line of 218HP and 262ft-lbs of torque on my 2001 Auto GT with the mods in my signature with 11 to 1 air to fuel ratio. At the end of the tuning with the predator i ended up with 223HP and 256ft-lbs of torque with a 14 to 1 air to fuel ratio. i dont think this is right but mabe i am just wanting to much. He did say on a dyno Jet that I would have probably had more like 243-245 HP.look below and tell me if this seems right or if i should have someone else tune it. the first one the red one was after he was done tuning. The second on in the Green was the baseline before anything was done.
[IMG]local://upfiles/15117/0A18958B64294B088715A13DCB1953A3.jpg[/IMG]
Wow that sucks. There is no way you should be seeing the power drop off at any point in the RPM band AFTER the tune. You are losing ****tons of power down low. That simply isn't right. Hell, they cost you power till 4K??? Down low it looks like you lost over 20 FT/LB!
I cannot see your A/F ratio on this dyno, unless it is the grease mark looking line?? However, 14:1 is way to LEAN. You should be looking for a nice flat 13:1 ratio at WOT. I wouldn't want to drive around on this tune without 93 octane in the tank, thats for sure.
Get another tune!! Good luck finding a decent shop anywhere around Missouri that can do it though
07-12-2005, 11:03 PM
#14
I ♥ Acer
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location:
Posts: 9,172
RE: Is This Right
ORIGINAL: 2000GT4.6
I think the dyno that you were/are using is screwed up. I was quoting from your numbers (on the GT) when I talked to MPH about my cams not making the power I wanted. He litereally laughed at me when I told him you were making 276. MPH is one of the premier modular shops in the country.
Also, I find it extremly hard to belive you lost 25 FT/Lb going from 3.27s to 4.10s, that just doesn't make since. Sure you lose a little power, but that is a crapton.
Something is screwed up or was with the dyno you used. And in any case 325 FT/Lb is just unreal in a bolt on only GT. 370 FT/LB at the crank????
ORIGINAL: jdaniel
Thats a decent number for a Mustang dyno. Your AFR is a little rich. You need to try and get it between 13.0 and 13.5 on a NA application.
EDIT: Just noticed that you now have a 14.0 AFR with the pred. tune. Thats okay but 13.0 to 13.5 is a little safer. I had all the mods you had + a densecharger CAI and timing adjusted through a chip and I dyno'd on a dyno jet at 276 and 325 and after the 4.10's I dyno'd at 260 and 300 even.
Thats a decent number for a Mustang dyno. Your AFR is a little rich. You need to try and get it between 13.0 and 13.5 on a NA application.
EDIT: Just noticed that you now have a 14.0 AFR with the pred. tune. Thats okay but 13.0 to 13.5 is a little safer. I had all the mods you had + a densecharger CAI and timing adjusted through a chip and I dyno'd on a dyno jet at 276 and 325 and after the 4.10's I dyno'd at 260 and 300 even.
Also, I find it extremly hard to belive you lost 25 FT/Lb going from 3.27s to 4.10s, that just doesn't make since. Sure you lose a little power, but that is a crapton.
Something is screwed up or was with the dyno you used. And in any case 325 FT/Lb is just unreal in a bolt on only GT. 370 FT/LB at the crank????
What eva.
07-12-2005, 11:41 PM
#15
6th Gear Member
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 12,575
RE: Is This Right
ORIGINAL: jdaniel
What eva.
ORIGINAL: 2000GT4.6
I think the dyno that you were/are using is screwed up. I was quoting from your numbers (on the GT) when I talked to MPH about my cams not making the power I wanted. He litereally laughed at me when I told him you were making 276. MPH is one of the premier modular shops in the country.
Also, I find it extremly hard to belive you lost 25 FT/Lb going from 3.27s to 4.10s, that just doesn't make since. Sure you lose a little power, but that is a crapton.
Something is screwed up or was with the dyno you used. And in any case 325 FT/Lb is just unreal in a bolt on only GT. 370 FT/LB at the crank????
ORIGINAL: jdaniel
Thats a decent number for a Mustang dyno. Your AFR is a little rich. You need to try and get it between 13.0 and 13.5 on a NA application.
EDIT: Just noticed that you now have a 14.0 AFR with the pred. tune. Thats okay but 13.0 to 13.5 is a little safer. I had all the mods you had + a densecharger CAI and timing adjusted through a chip and I dyno'd on a dyno jet at 276 and 325 and after the 4.10's I dyno'd at 260 and 300 even.
Thats a decent number for a Mustang dyno. Your AFR is a little rich. You need to try and get it between 13.0 and 13.5 on a NA application.
EDIT: Just noticed that you now have a 14.0 AFR with the pred. tune. Thats okay but 13.0 to 13.5 is a little safer. I had all the mods you had + a densecharger CAI and timing adjusted through a chip and I dyno'd on a dyno jet at 276 and 325 and after the 4.10's I dyno'd at 260 and 300 even.
Also, I find it extremly hard to belive you lost 25 FT/Lb going from 3.27s to 4.10s, that just doesn't make since. Sure you lose a little power, but that is a crapton.
Something is screwed up or was with the dyno you used. And in any case 325 FT/Lb is just unreal in a bolt on only GT. 370 FT/LB at the crank????
What eva.
All I am saying is that every single credible dyno shop that I have mentioned this to (MPH, Mustang Muscle, and some shop in K.C.) and VT engines, all say it is totally impossible. MPH and VT in particular are extremely well versed in Modular engines. And judging by my own experence (280 RWHP with cams and an admittily off tune) I cannot see how it is possible. I know that cars dyno slightly different, but 25 Ft/Lb is not a slight difference. If you are still taking your cobra to the same shop try a different one with a dynojet and see what happens.
07-12-2005, 11:45 PM
#16
I ♥ Acer
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location:
Posts: 9,172
RE: Is This Right
I didnt take it to the same shop. That one is closed now. The Cobra dyno'd 591 to the wheels after being heat soaked on the dyno by three straight runs at Strictly Performance. I was told by them that the car would do better if it was cooled off. So thats when I decided to throw a 20 lb bag of ice on the blower and let it cool for an hour and a half while my other buddies dyno'd. We put my car on and got it to operating temp and hit it and thats when I pulled 642 hp and 600 ft lbs of tq. ... and that was on a dynojet.
... and that was on a dynojet.
07-12-2005, 11:56 PM
#17
6th Gear Member
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 12,575
RE: Is This Right
ORIGINAL: jdaniel
I didnt take it to the same shop. That one is closed now. The Cobra dyno'd 591 to the wheels after being heat soaked on the dyno by three straight runs at Strictly Performance. I was told by them that the car would do better if it was cooled off. So thats when I decided to throw a 20 lb bag of ice on the blower and let it cool for an hour and a half while my other buddies dyno'd. We put my car on and got it to operating temp and hit it and thats when I pulled 642 hp and 600 ft lbs of tq.... and that was on a dynojet.
I didnt take it to the same shop. That one is closed now. The Cobra dyno'd 591 to the wheels after being heat soaked on the dyno by three straight runs at Strictly Performance. I was told by them that the car would do better if it was cooled off. So thats when I decided to throw a 20 lb bag of ice on the blower and let it cool for an hour and a half while my other buddies dyno'd. We put my car on and got it to operating temp and hit it and thats when I pulled 642 hp and 600 ft lbs of tq.
... and that was on a dynojet.
BTW, was the 2nd dyno # (after the 4.10s) on the same dyno? I just do not see losing that kind of power with only a gear swap. Hell, they don't even bother to tell ya to change the correction factor for flywheel horse when you change gears.
07-13-2005, 12:00 AM
#18
I ♥ Acer
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location:
Posts: 9,172
RE: Is This Right
ORIGINAL: 2000GT4.6
I'm not doubting any of the numbers on your cobra, all I am saying is that something is up when you are supposed to be making that kind of power on a 2v GT.
BTW, was the 2nd dyno # (after the 4.10s) on the same dyno? I just do not see losing that kind of power with only a gear swap. Hell, they don't even bother to tell ya to change the correction factor for flywheel horse when you change gears.
ORIGINAL: jdaniel
I didnt take it to the same shop. That one is closed now. The Cobra dyno'd 591 to the wheels after being heat soaked on the dyno by three straight runs at Strictly Performance. I was told by them that the car would do better if it was cooled off. So thats when I decided to throw a 20 lb bag of ice on the blower and let it cool for an hour and a half while my other buddies dyno'd. We put my car on and got it to operating temp and hit it and thats when I pulled 642 hp and 600 ft lbs of tq.... and that was on a dynojet.
I didnt take it to the same shop. That one is closed now. The Cobra dyno'd 591 to the wheels after being heat soaked on the dyno by three straight runs at Strictly Performance. I was told by them that the car would do better if it was cooled off. So thats when I decided to throw a 20 lb bag of ice on the blower and let it cool for an hour and a half while my other buddies dyno'd. We put my car on and got it to operating temp and hit it and thats when I pulled 642 hp and 600 ft lbs of tq.
... and that was on a dynojet.
BTW, was the 2nd dyno # (after the 4.10s) on the same dyno? I just do not see losing that kind of power with only a gear swap. Hell, they don't even bother to tell ya to change the correction factor for flywheel horse when you change gears.
Yeap... smae dyno about a week later. Although it was hotter outside and the car didnt have as much time to cool down as the first time.
07-13-2005, 12:33 AM
#19
2nd Gear Member
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location:
Posts: 433
RE: Is This Right
ORIGINAL: jdaniel
Yeah. The power is still there but when you add steeper gears you dyno a little less. I cant remember the exact explanation.
Yeah. The power is still there but when you add steeper gears you dyno a little less. I cant remember the exact explanation.
07-13-2005, 12:35 AM
#20
2nd Gear Member
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location:
Posts: 433
RE: Is This Right
ORIGINAL: jdl01gt
i just took my car to get tuned on the dyno ( Mustang Dynometer) and i started with a base line of 218HP and 262ft-lbs of torque on my 2001 Auto GT with the mods in my signature with 11 to 1 air to fuel ratio. At the end of the tuning with the predator i ended up with 223HP and 256ft-lbs of torque with a 14 to 1 air to fuel ratio. i dont think this is right but mabe i am just wanting to much. He did say on a dyno Jet that I would have probably had more like 243-245 HP.look below and tell me if this seems right or if i should have someone else tune it. the first one the red one was after he was done tuning. The second on in the Green was the baseline before anything was done.
[IMG]local://upfiles/15117/0A18958B64294B088715A13DCB1953A3.jpg[/IMG]
i just took my car to get tuned on the dyno ( Mustang Dynometer) and i started with a base line of 218HP and 262ft-lbs of torque on my 2001 Auto GT with the mods in my signature with 11 to 1 air to fuel ratio. At the end of the tuning with the predator i ended up with 223HP and 256ft-lbs of torque with a 14 to 1 air to fuel ratio. i dont think this is right but mabe i am just wanting to much. He did say on a dyno Jet that I would have probably had more like 243-245 HP.look below and tell me if this seems right or if i should have someone else tune it. the first one the red one was after he was done tuning. The second on in the Green was the baseline before anything was done.
[IMG]local://upfiles/15117/0A18958B64294B088715A13DCB1953A3.jpg[/IMG]