331/314 Mustang Dyno

[768MPH]

Final numbers on Mustang Dyno correct with WCF:

332/314

Not bad for just JLT RAI, Roy's spacer, Mac Prochamber and catback.

http://youtu.be/XPX7hwF31Ic

[suicidekings]

Nice numbers!

[Toby]

Sweet numbers man! How much power is freed up by that prochamber?

[Mach828]

Your numbers seem backwards. Like it should be 314hp/331tq.

331hp/314tq would be more of a shortrunner and/or different cam'd combo. Not a mild bolt on combo.

[Thunderbolt]

Even if the numbers are swapped, I've got the same mods and their's a 40RWHP difference? My Mach must have been built during shutdown.

[NeverEnuff]

Seems a bit high, I agree. For a stock motor, I think thats a record for no porting, cams or any headers.

[768MPH]

Im unsure on the additional power of the prochamber.

I dynoed it before on a Dynojet when I just had a SLP Catback and it turned 279/299.

Then added the JLT RAI, Roy's Spacer, Prochamber, Mac CB, 4.10s and the SCT Tune and it put down 303/296.

After 5 hours on the dyno, final numbers are posted.

Keep in mind at my elevation the true numbers are 321/304. with a AFR of 12.5@ WOT. We tried 12.8 but she didnt like it, she likes 12.5 and a nice timing advance.

The 331/314 are corrected for sealevel.

[LXS]

Interesting!

[SHAKEN 661]

If those numbers are correct, my car should be around 350whp

[768MPH]

Originally Posted by SHAKEN 661

If those numbers are correct, my car should be around 350whp

Well, there is several pictures as well as video. Why wouldnt they be correct?

Find a mustang dyno and do some pulls. They will tell you your #'s corrected for sealevel. (Noticed you're in PA)

[Thunderbolt]

Mustang Dyno's are stingy for power numbers. They are rated lower than a dynojet. Your numbers for a Mustang Dyno are through the roof. When timing was advanced on my Mach, power fell off. My AFR was averaged out to 13.1. They've got yours running pretty rich for an NA application. Pretty much all opposite of mine. Sea level where I live is no factor. Jesus, 5 hours on a dyno for basic bolt-ons?

[na svt]

Originally Posted by Thunderbolt

Mustang Dyno's are stingy for power numbers. They are rated lower than a dynojet.

This is somewhat true. A customers car dynod 330/346 on a dyno jet and 328/351 on a Mustang Dyno. You can't convert MD numbers to Dynojets as all are different.

Originally Posted by Mach828

Your numbers seem backwards. Like it should be 314hp/331tq.

331hp/314tq would be more of a shortrunner and/or different cam'd combo. Not a mild bolt on combo.

I was thinking the same thing. The shape of the curve is unlike one with stock cams; looks more like a cobra cammed combo.

[Thunderbolt]

Originally Posted by na svt

This is somewhat true. A customers car dynod 330/346 on a dyno jet and 328/351 on a Mustang Dyno. You can't convert MD numbers to Dynojets as all are different.

I can't even believe both dyno's are that close. If I put my Mach on a dynojet I'd be shocked if it said 275RWHP when my Mustang Dyno run was 273RWHP.

[ShakeMe]

My car with SLP catback, Pro-chamber, stock headers, C&L intake, electric water pump, 3/8" spacer, and 4.30s.....

Stock w/2175 miles on it: dynojet #s 275.4 HP/301.8 TQ


Mustang Dyno 261.8 HP/276.8 it ran 12.40s @ 108.xx
added LTs and on a different dynojet 313.79 HP/320.77 TQ

[na svt]

Originally Posted by Thunderbolt

I can't even believe both dyno's are that close. If I put my Mach on a dynojet I'd be shocked if it said 275RWHP when my Mustang Dyno run was 273RWHP.

I was shocked by this one, but he ran it on both dynos many times and also another dynojet.

[Supra]

Congrats on the awesome numbers. I am a firm believer that the Mac prochamber makes good power! I swapped my o/r mac prochamber midpipe to an o/r X pipe on my previous 04 GT and ever since the car could not pull the usual times/mph in the 1/4 mile, with over 100 passes on the car the overall the E.T and MPH was slower with the x pipe. Im not sure why, but thats just my experience..

[rich1]

Originally Posted by 768MPH

Well, there is several pictures as well as video. Why wouldnt they be correct?

Find a mustang dyno and do some pulls. They will tell you your #'s corrected for sealevel. (Noticed you're in PA)

I think the tuner was tunning the Dyno rather than the car. Stock internals it just does not add up .

[768MPH]

Originally Posted by rich1

I think the tuner was tunning the Dyno rather than the car. Stock internals it just does not add up .

Well, i dont know what to tell you.

Im going to go to the previous dynojet before and run it to see what numbers I get to reference. It does seem weird that my torque and HP numbers are switched, that hasnt escaped my mind.

[AzureMach03]

All it takes to inflate mustang dyno numbers is to change the weight of the car in the computer. That small adjustment can make big power changes. As for a mustang dyno, there is a general agreement that they read 10-15% lower than a non loaded dyno like dynojet. They have a load on them which should make them show less horsepower its simple math. These numbers cannot be right on a mustang dyno, if this were true the car would make over 350whp on a dynojet.

[AzureMach03]

Also my first mach made 281whp on rick at Amazons mustang dyno with usual bolt ons. The car trapped 111 all day long. This car made 318 with the same mods on a dynojet.

My second mach made 300whp on ricks mustang dyno the only difference was this one had long tubes. This car made 335whp on a dynojet.

Rick told me that stock mach 1s made around 250whp on his mustang dyno and he said if you change the weight of the car in the computer then it makes the numbers change a lot. He entered 3700 for weight when he dynoed my cars because he wanted true tuning conditions.

[311-420]

Back in the day when my turd had a jlt rai, 1/2" spacer, offroad x, chambered catback, diablow canned tune it made 289/302 STD on a dyno jet. Quite low.

With the heavy azz IRS, it wheel-hopped its way to a 2.33 60' and a 82mph 1/8th mile.


Fast forward 3 years to a few months ago.

I went back to the same dyno to get a custom tune. This time with the addition of an aluminum drive shaft. After the tune it put down 281/300 STD. LMAO.

The car most certainly gained power after the tune, not the other way around. This is why I don't get wrapped up in numbers anymore.

[311-420]

For more reference, I ran off on an auto '10 SS from 50mph by two cars. His car also had a bbk intake and muffler deletes. That is not going to happen with a 280rwhp STD mach 1 with IRS.

[006]

Originally Posted by AzureMach03

All it takes to inflate mustang dyno numbers is to change the weight of the car in the computer. That small adjustment can make big power changes. As for a mustang dyno, there is a general agreement that they read 10-15% lower than a non loaded dyno like dynojet. They have a load on them which should make them show less horsepower its simple math. These numbers cannot be right on a mustang dyno, if this were true the car would make over 350whp on a dynojet.

Correct.

OP's numbers are definitely inflated due to some incorrect config on the MD such as vehicle weight. Unless his car was weighed at a scale in order to input the correct weight for his car at the MD, they are not correct numbers regardless of any correction factors.

On a dynojet, this would put him at 350rwhp+ with those few mods and that is definitely not possible.

Sorry dude (OP).

[768MPH]

Will be going to the original dynojet on Saturday to get new numbers. I'm sure it won't be as high as the mustang dyno it was dyno tuned on.
I'll keep you all posted.

[lxh89]

Take it to the track, that's the real performance test...

Those numbers should be good for at least 113mph-115mph trap speed.