[menace07]

Originally Posted by 07stanggt Maybe it doesnt like to rev.

Why build an N/A stroker if you're not going to rev the shit out of it? 7k rpms ftw!!!

[menace07]

wonder what the compression on that motor was...maybe it was originally built for boosted applications

[unlicensed to drive]

Originally Posted by menace07 wonder what the compression on that motor was...maybe it was originally built for boosted applications

The compression is either 10.7:1 or 10.8:1 IIRC, so you can rule that out.

Originally Posted by menace07 Why build an N/A stroker if you're not going to rev the shit out of it? 7k rpms ftw!!!

+1, I really don't see why they would build it up that much, yet make the power drop off so low. My only guess is the cam, so I'm thinking maybe the guy wanted a lot of power, but not terrible driving manners.

[Mickey]

Originally Posted by 07stanggt What are you rolling your eyes at? So you think it wont make power on my 4.6?

I wasnt insinuating that at all. i was rolling my eyes at the eating crow comment lol

[forensicsteve]

still don't see a problem with the stock intake. plenty of people are making great power with it.

We took the stock intake to 28 lbs of boost (dyno only) and it did OK, but it's designed for gas flow and we encountered major problems while using methanol. There was an uneven distribution of the mixture between cylinders, some running rich and others lean, while still showing a very safe a/f ratio.

We purchased a custom intake manifold because its design/testing includes addressing the distribution to cylinders. We did not get it for any hp increase. Now we are looking at minimizing the methanol use...all depends on the IATs when the car is all back together and dynoed (fuel cell build in progress).

[usafimj]

whats the price on this intake

[Q's07RFGT]

799 at bamachips and rad mustangs

[Anthony05GT]

Originally Posted by mustangfan123 No problem. It is a 2009 Bullitt, which indicates that it's a manual. I would assume that it still has the OEM TR3650 transmission in it. I have no idea what gearing or wheels/tires it had on it though because Rick@Livernois never mentioned it in the thread, but I might be able to find out by PMing him. I just noticed something about the dynograph which disappoints me. They used STD correction. I wish that car made those numbers SAE.

STD correction is SAE

[06VistaGT]

I'm waiting for 07stanggt to get it for his car. He has one of the best N/A cars I've seen so far. Post some pics and numbers if you get the manifold installed.

[Anthony05GT]

To clarify the dynojet dyno sheet labels...SAE corrected is labeled STD smoothing. Uncorrected is labeled Uncorrected smoothing. If Livernois bragged about a dyno reading it would be inflated numbers via uncorrected numbers not SAE corrected.

[unlicensed to drive]

Originally Posted by Anthony05GT To clarify the dynojet dyno sheet labels...SAE corrected is labeled STD smoothing. Uncorrected is labeled Uncorrected smoothing. If Livernois bragged about a dyno reading it would be inflated numbers via uncorrected numbers not SAE corrected.

Thanks for letting me know Anthony.

Originally Posted by 06VistaGT I'm waiting for 07stanggt to get it for his car. He has one of the best N/A cars I've seen so far. Post some pics and numbers if you get the manifold installed.

He sold his cylinder heads, so I don't think we'll be seeing results from him very soon.

[07stanggt]

Originally Posted by Anthony05GT To clarify the dynojet dyno sheet labels...SAE corrected is labeled STD smoothing. Uncorrected is labeled Uncorrected smoothing. If Livernois bragged about a dyno reading it would be inflated numbers via uncorrected numbers not SAE corrected.

Wrong. STD is not SAE.

[NastyFX4]

Originally Posted by Anthony05GT To clarify the dynojet dyno sheet labels...SAE corrected is labeled STD smoothing. Uncorrected is labeled Uncorrected smoothing. If Livernois bragged about a dyno reading it would be inflated numbers via uncorrected numbers not SAE corrected.

What? No, STD is STD. SAE is SAE. SAE is for people who are realists. STD is for people who like to think they have a big dick because they have ~10% more power than the next guy with the same set-up with SAE. Smoothing has nothing to do with the correction factor. Smoothing factor is either set at zero which will show every small or large dip in the graph. If the smoothing factor is set at 5 than it'll just look pretty and even.

[07stanggt]

Lets clear this up further. The main difference in STD is that it corrects the numbers to 62 degrees. SAE corrects the numbers to 78 degrees. STD is not uncorrected and it is also not inflated IN ANY WAY. It is what your car would make under those circumstances. On a 62 degree day my car is making 389. I dont live in mexico and my stang isnt a summer stang. Just like any car that says 400 with a SAE correction isnt making 400 on a 90 degree day. SAE may be more average for conditions depending on where you live but STD numbers are not INFLATED.

[Anthony05GT]

Yes, you are right Rich. My buddy with the Dynojet just cleared things up for me. He's saying that standard is the correction factor mainly used on boosted applications. He also said that N/A cars will quite often not show much of a difference at all whether using std, sae, or uncorrected.

[Anthony05GT]

To explain why I thought that...when he dynoed my car and handed me a sheet that stated ''uncorrected'' I asked for an SAE corrected sheet too and he gave me the wrong printout which left me with the wrong impression.

[07stanggt]

Also to disagree with you nasty I have been told its std is usually 3% higher not 10%. So SAE corrected my 389 dyno would be about 377. There are articles on this for any that wants to research it.

Either way they are both arbitrary numbers that come back to what temp, humidity and elavation it corrects the numbers to. Then it also comes back to is the dyno accurate. I have had my car make 399 on a sae corrected pull and i know damn well that wasnt right. I didnt even have my UDs on the car.

That could be wrong on the percentage but im pretty sure its close to 3%. You figure it is a 2% power increase for every 20 degrees of cooler IAT. Add on to that I think that STD corrects it to less humidity or a little lower elevation or something.

[07stanggt]

Originally Posted by Anthony05GT Yes, you are right Rich. My buddy with the Dynojet just cleared things up for me. He's saying that standard is the correction factor mainly used on boosted applications. He also said that N/A cars will quite often not show much of a difference at all whether using std, sae, or uncorrected.

Interesting you point that out about n/a cars becuase mine for the most part seems to stay consistent regardless of what CF is used. Other then that screwed up 399 dyno

[NastyFX4]

Originally Posted by 07stanggt Also to disagree with you nasty I have been told its std is usually 3% higher not 10%. So SAE corrected my 389 dyno would be about 377. There are articles on this for any that wants to research it. Either way they are both arbitrary numbers that come back to what temp, humidity and elavation it corrects the numbers to. Then it also comes back to is the dyno accurate. I have had my car make 399 on a sae corrected pull and i know damn well that wasnt right. I didnt even have my UDs on the car. That could be wrong on the percentage but im pretty sure its close to 3%. You figure it is a 2% power increase for every 20 degrees of cooler IAT. Add on to that I think that STD corrects it to less humidity or a little lower elevation or something.

Yes there are a ton of factors involved that are different between the two including elevation, temperature, humidity, etc. However, like you just said the difference isn't much between N/A cars. I saw a ~3% difference between the two on my car when it was making a little more than 300 rwhp with bolt ons. Obviously it's going to increase when you add forced induction and more power. My car makes about ~6-7% difference between the two with ~530 rwhp. I guess it's closer to ~5%. Like you said though, it's obviously going to be different depending on all of the conditions. I'll stick with SAE since that's what most tuners use and it can be used more properly to compare set-ups (if everyone used the same).

[Anthony05GT]

Rich, I don't doubt it because he was saying that the most he's ever seen in variation on N/A cars is at best 5 hp and this guy has had all kinds of shit on this dyno. On my boosted car (before the cams) I had 485 hp uncorrected, 467 HP STD, and he said it's probably around 462 if we checked his computer for a SAE reading.