Stupid HP question

Reply Subscribe

Thread Tools

Search this Thread

Feb 10, 2009 | 02:59 PM

#11

Mock01

2nd Gear Member

Joined: May 2008

Posts: 224

From: NINtopia.

Quote:

Originally Posted by OzzDOA

What kind of dyno was it? Are those numbers SAE, STD or uncorrected? Not trying to seem like an *** but the numbers don't look right. In my experience when N/A the 96-98 and 99/01 4v's are tuned to the max their HP numbers will be higher than the torque or they'll be the same because of the intake cams. Those look more like Aluminator or Mach 1 numbers, but still high for the mods.

No "you being an ***" taken. I ask questions or call bs if I think I see it and I thought those numbers were a bit high myself. I don't recall what kind of dyno it was or the specifics of the numbers, but I'll grab the sheet when I go home this weekend and find out. I know that they do a lot more than mustangs on the dyno and I want to say I saw "Dynojet" and "SAE" on there, not that I know what either of those mean in relation to the numbers

Feb 13, 2009 | 12:26 PM

#12

Mock01

2nd Gear Member

Joined: May 2008

Posts: 224

From: NINtopia.

I just grabbed the dyno sheet (Not that anyone cares

), although no scanner at home so I'd have to scan it Sunday night when I'm back at school.

Stock: Max hp = 283.38, max torque = 293.23; 33% humidity STD: 1.07
After mods: Max hp = 307.49 max torque = 309.33; 34% humidity STD: 1.06

Feb 13, 2009 | 12:48 PM

#13

OzzDOA

3rd Gear Member

Joined: Mar 2007

Posts: 821

From: Philly

Standard correction then, explains why the numbers seem a tad high. Still would like to know what kind of dyno it was.

FWIW, the SAE numbers would have been something like 293 Hp/294 tq. Still better than why my car put down with those mods. You have a strong runner on your hands.