They took a stock V6 automatic putting out 154.5RWHP and 166.7RWTQ on a Mustang dyno and installed a Vortech V2 SQ and got 228.4RWHP and 238.3RWTQ? Ok, I know it's a Mustang dyno which shows lower numbers than a Dynojet...but seriously, wtf? That can't be right. I can't believe they even published that article. It's making the 4.0 and Vortech look bad.

Oh yeah, that's at 10PSI!

 

first off, 150 is pretty weak, and as i hear, i dont think any of us actually have that

plus, we can practically get to 230 with bolt ons! (doesnt somebody have 210 right now?)

all in all, i dont think that they were doing something right. all the guys here with f/i systems are getting better numbers than those. maybe they had an issue with the tune or something

 

I agree, even for a Mustang dyno those numbers are pretty darn low for the Vortech system.

 

The baseline numbers seem very low.... perhaps the Mustang Dyno was poorly calibrated.

If you just look at the gains, regardless of the numbers, it's a 73.9 rwhp / 71.6 tq gain over stock, which isn't too shabby.

Jimp... I actually haven't seen the article yet, but heard it discussed. Didn't they say the Vortech blown 4.0L kept up with the GT just dandy?

 

That's the other V6 Vortech article (from 5.0 magazine this month).

 

I remember seeing that article in 5.0, and the dyno numbers were way different than the ones in the Muscle Mustangs. I bought the MM&FF but not 5.0.

 

I've got the answer!!! They dyno'ed it in the wrong gear!!!!! ding! ding! ding!

Some one a while back posed really low numbers like that... turns out they were doing the pulls in the wrong gear!

 

if the car's an automatic, how could they be in the wrong gear? the only thing I can think of is whomever was driving it, tried manually shifting and screwed up on the shift points.

 

It sound like they were pulling from 2nd gear because when I had my car dyno'ed it showed 154 as well and after the CIA it was 164. So add about 20% to that number and I bet it should be close to what it is should be.

 

Sorry I don't remember exactly who it was... but was it you who asked why their numbers were so low?