Bolt-ons. Advertised HP compared to real world numbers on the dyno here!
Forums at Modded Mustangs
Home Register FAQ Members List Calendar Timeslips Blogs Garage Gallery Auto Loans Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Auto Escrow


Go Back   Forums at Modded Mustangs > Mustang Forums > 5.0 Mustangs > 94-95

ModdedMustangs.com is the premier Ford Mustang Forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see the above ads.
Reply
 
LinkBack (2) Thread Tools
Old November 7th, 2011, 12:37 AM   2 links from elsewhere to this Post. Click to view. #1
Regular
 
1SICK5.0VERT's Avatar
 
modded 95 gt vert
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: cleveland ohio
Posts: 176
1SICK5.0VERT is on a distinguished road
iTrader: 0 reviews
Post

Bolt-ons. Advertised HP compared to real world numbers on the dyno here!


Bolt-On Power!
Super Ford, May 1996



Dynojetting the popular 5.0 Mustang performance mods to
see how much power they really make
text by Donald Farr

"How much power does it make?" must be one of the all-time most asked questions when the talk turns to 5.0
Mustangs and the plethora of high-performance parts that help them make more power. Over the past 10 years,
the performance aftermarket has exploded with 5.0 Mustang goodies, from simple bolt-ons like underdrive
pulleys to several varieties of aluminum heads. We know the parts work, at least most of them, because we feel
the results in the seat of our pants and we see the improved numbers on the drag strip scoreboard.

To find out just how much improvement 5.0 owners can expect from certain components, or a combination of
components, we strapped a stock '89 5.0 LX Mustang onto a Dynojet chassis dynamometer, took a baseline
reading, then begin bolting on many of the popular high-performance parts and noting their horsepower and
torque improvements. During our buildup, some parts were surprisingly effective, others performed as expected
and a few fell short of our expectations. In all, we learned nearly all of the 5.0 high-performance parts work, some
better than others, and it's the combination of parts that really wake things up under the hood.

As a quick, easy and reliable method of measuring power at the driven wheels, Dynojets have been installed at
shops around the country at a dizzying rate in the last year. Dynojet owners include K&N Engineering,
Hypertech and Kenne Bell, Mustang-specific shops like Kenny Brown and Steeda Autosports have Dynojets on
order, and several Winston Cup teams, including those of Rusty Wallace and Ricky Rudd, recently used
Dynojet's portable unit to test their Thunderbirds prior to the Daytona 500.

While Super Ford will continue to test on engine dynos and drag strips, the Dynojet has joined our
parts-evaluating toolbox. Unlike engine dynos, the Dynojet simulates road or track conditions, with the engine in
the car and running through its drivetrain and full exhaust. And unlike drag strips, the Dynojet is not affected, or
at least not as affected, by driving, weather, or track conditions.

To obtain its data, the Dynojet mounts a vehicle's drive tires on a pair of 48-inch-diameter drums. By calculating
how fast the drums accelerate, the Dynojet delivers precise measurements to a personal computer programmed
with Dynojet's software, which calculates horsepower and torque among other data. The design of the drums
prevents tire slippage or deformation, which results in precise, repeatable information, although like any testing
tool, it must be used carefully to assure repeatable information. Think of the Dynojet as an improved and vastly
more intelligent version of the old two-roller chassis dyno, with a 1200 hp capability.

For our test, Dynojet delivered it portable unit, along with Eastern U.S. Director of Operations Marc Hayes, to
Steeda Autosports in Pompano Beach, Florida. For the four days of testing in late January, Steeda's Dario
Orlando was kind enough to devote two of his technicians, Steve Chichisola and Chad Boy, to the project. Since
Steeda Autosports is primarily a late-model Mustang business complete with installation shop, Steve and Chad
are intimately familiar with the 5.0 Mustang. They constantly amazed us with their speed, removing and installing
short-tube headers in 15 minutes and swapping heads in just over three hours.

We started with a 1989 5.0 LX Mustang, "an old Steeda workhorse," Steve said. With 126,000 miles, the
five-speed LX hatchback was typical of many 5.0 Mustangs on the road today and a good place to start. The
Steeda crew made sure everything was stock, including the exhaust system and air intake silencer inside the right
front fender.

With a manual transmission, Marc says you can expect a 10-percent power loss, typically 20-25 horsepower for a
5.0 Mustang, on the Dynojet due to frictional losses through the drivetrain. (With an automatic, Marc says you
can expect to lose 40 or more horsepower). The Dynojet is capable of determining the frictional loss, with our test
Mustang showing only an 18 horsepower drop. The frictional horsepower loss remains constant as long as the
drivetrain is not changed, so it is not accrued as modifications increase horsepower. In other words, to get a
flywheel, or "advertised," rating for our modifications, just add 18 horsepower to the rear-wheel numbers.

Every run on the Dynojet was identical -- make the modification, warm up the engine and drivetrain on the dyno,
then accelerate the engine, in fouth gear, from 1500 to 5500 rpm at wide-open throttle. In most cases, three runs
were made for each change: one to get the engine up to operating temperature, a second for the real number and
a third for backup purposes. For consistency, Steve operated the car for every run, while Marc orchestrated the
computer.

For our baseline number, Steve made three runs on the Dynojet, reaching a peak rear-wheel horsepower of 201.7
at 4300 rpm. Adding in the 18 horsepower for drivetrain loss, the number comes to 219.7 at the flywheel, very
close to the factory 225 horsepower rating and impressive for an engine with 126,000 miles.

PHASE 1 -- BOLT-ONS

Remove intake silencer. Ford used a plastic air intake silencer, mounted inside the right front fender, to reduce
the noise caused by air rushing into the induction system. The design of the box restricts airflow, so removing it
has become one of the first modifications performed by 5.0 owners. Removing the silencer from our Mustang
supported this modification, showing a peak horsepower of 206.2 at a higher 4700 rpm for a 4.5 horsepower gain.
Not bad for free.

K&N filter. Continuing to free up induction, we yanked the stock air filter and replaced it with a K&N
Filtercharger, a reusable high-performance filter. We expected another large gain, but the K&N netted just over a
horsepower for a peak of 207.3. The only explanation was that the K&N may not work as good with a stock
engine, and that it may prove more beneficial as we make further modifications.

Underdrive pulleys. With many reports of quarter-mile improvements, we had to try underdrive pulleys on our
dyno Mustang. March Performance supplied their lightweight aluminum three-pulley "street" set, part number
2010, powder coated in a brilliant red to match our test 5.0, to reduce the horsepower-robbing drag from the front
engine accessories, including the water pump and alternator.

Steve bolted on the pulleys in less than 10 minutes, and the test run showed a peak horsepower number of 217.4,
an impressive increase of 10.1 horsepower, even more impressive was the fact that the underdrives helped across
the rpm band -- 5.2 horsepower at 2500 rpm, 9.4 at 3000 and 12.5 at 5000. The pulleys also improved torque all the
way across, with a peak improvement of 13.6 lb ft.

One side effect of the pulleys during the remainder of our test was the additional heat in the engine. Since the
underdrive pulleys slow down the water pump, the engine ran about one notch hotter on the temperature gauge
after a series of dyno runs.

SplitFire spark plugs. These plugs, with their unique "split" electrode, have benefitted tremendously from their
marketing and advertising campaign. We wanted to see if our test would back up their claims. After swapping a
set of brand-new SplitFires, part number SF2E, im place of the 5.0's somewhat used Motorcraft ASF32C plugs, we
saw a peak horsepower number of 218.9, a 1.5 horsepower increase that could be attributed to fresher plugs and
not necessarily to the design of the SplitFires.

At this point, we tried two Pro-M mass air meters, a 75mm and a 77mm. Neither showed an improvement with our
minor modifications, so we replaced th4e stock meter and decided to try the Pro-Ms again after amking exhaust
changes.

Crane 1.7 rocker arms. Originally designed and manufactured by Crane Cams for the 5.0 Cobra engines, these
bolt-on, roller-tipped rocker arms increase the ratio from the stock 1.6 to 1.7 for more valve lift with the stock
camshaft, not to mention a tad less friction with the roller tips. After bolting on a set of these rockers, we saw a
peak horsepower of 223.2, a significant 4.3 horsepower increase over our previous number. The gain also agrees
with engine dyno work we've done.

PHASE 1

Peak Hp

Peak Torque

Baseline
201.7@4300

261.2@3700

Remove silencer
206.2@4700
4.5
265.2@3700
4
K&N filter
207.3@4700
1.1
265.2@3700

Underdrive pulleys
217.4@4900
10.1
278.8@3800
13.6
SplitFire plugs
218.9@4800
1.5
278.5@3700
-0.3
1.7 rockers
223.2@4700
4.3
281.6@3700
3.1


PHASE 2 -- EXHAUST

Exhaust modifications rate second in terms of popularity among 5.0 owners after the simple bolt-ons. Regardless
of their performance improvement, mufflers provide a powerful sound, and there's always something sexy about
headers. Going with the popular items -- short-tube headers and Flowmaster mufflers -- seemed like the logical
route for our test.

Before proceeding with our exhaust modifications, we wanted to try a set of off-raod pipes with the stock
headers and mufflers. Off-road pipes, which bolt in place of the factory catalytic converters, are not street legal,
but many 5.0 Mustang owners bolt them on for the drag strip or road course. So after our Phase 1 bolt-ons and
before discarding the stock headers and mufflers for Phase 2, we slipped in a set of off-road pipes from
Pacesetter. We immediately noticed a more high-performance growl from the stock mufflers. On the Dynojet, the
off-road pipes picked up 5.5 horsepower.

To keep our subsequent modifications street legal, the stock cats were replaced before proceeding.

Flowmaster mufflers. Realizing that mufflers are one of the most popular bolt-ons among 5.0 Mustang owners,
we ditched the factory mufflers and tailpipes in favor of Flowmaster's American Thunder kit with two-chamber
mufflers and 2 1/2-inch tailpipes. The free-flowing mufflers, which also gave our Mustang that power rumble
we're so familiar with, netted 227.9 horsepower, and increase of 4.7 horsepower.

Motorsport short-tube headers. We had expected more from the Flowmaster mufflers, so we felt that perhaps the
stock headers wre restricting exhaust up front. Figuring that the larger short-tube headers may open up the
restriction, the Steeda crew bolted on a set of Motorsport's unequal-length, short-tube headers, part number
M-9430-SSC. Surprisingly, we got nothing; in fact, with the 227.6 peak horsepower number, we actually lost a
fraction of a horsepower.

Pro-M 75mm mass air meter. With the exhaust opened up, we felt the time was right to open the induction with
a larger mass air meter. Pro-M's 75mm meter did the trick, raising peak horsepower to 230.8 for a total increase of
3.2 horsepower.

Hooker equal-length short-tube headers. After seeing such a small increase from the Motorsport short-tubes,
we really weren't expecting much more from the equal-lengths. We were right. The Dynojet showed a 1.1
horsepower improvement, for a total peak power of 231.9. the Steeda technicians, who swapped the
unequal-length short-tubes in about 15 minutes but labored for more than an hour installing the bulkier equal
lengths, wondered if the extra effort was worth it.

Needless to say, we were somewhat dismayed by the "only" 8.7 horsepower, 5.8 lb ft torque increase from the
performance exhaust -- which included the 75mm mass air meter in our test. Had we changed the sequence of
modification, adding the exhaust after induction and heads, it's possible we would have seen a larger increase.
As part of a complete performance system, however, exhaust modifications are a must. Our exhaust experience is
another way of illustrating how important the combination is, and how tests can be skewed to show gains or
losses.

PHASE 2

Peak Hp

Peak Torque

Mufflers
227.9@4900
4.7
285.1@3600
3.5
Short-tube headers
227.6@4900
-0.3
282.9@3600
-2.2
75mm air meter
230.8@5000
3.2
288.1@3700
5.2
Equal-length headers
231.9@4900
1.1
287.4@3800
-0.7


PHASE 3 -- INDUCTION

GT-40 intake. Tour any car show or drag strip and you'll see Motorsport GT-40 intake everywhere. In addition
to looking great, the GT-40 induction system, which includes upper and lower sections, provides larger diameter
intake runners in conjunction with a larger 65mm throttle body, which should easily compute to better airflow
and more power.

Without making any other changes, the Steeda crew bolted on a GT-40 intake with the adjustable fuel pressure
set at the stock 32 lb. On the first dyno run, Steve said he could feel the additional horsepower in the car, but the
numbers came up shorter than anticipated, a peak of 238.6 for a gain of 6.7 horsepower over our best Phase 2
number. Raising the fuel pressure to 35 and 38 lbs hurt horsepower, so we went back to the stock 32 lb setting.

Computer module. For his own information, Dario Orlando brought out a computer module that Steeda has been
developing. When the module gave us a remarkable increase, up 10.2 horsepower for a 248.8 peak, we decided to
leave it in as part of our test. In fact, subsequent testing of the module in Phase 3 and 4 showed that it worked
better as other modifications were added. Stteda now offers the module under part number STB89.

We also tried a variety of mass air meter and chip combinations. Switching to the Pro-M 77mm meter lost a
couple of horsepower, but adding the Steeda chip with the 77mm meter brought it back up 6.3 horsepower. In the
end, we were not able to better the 75mm mass air and Steeda module combination.

PHASE 3

Peak Hp

Peak Torque

GT-40 intake
238.6@5200
6.7
285.3@3900
-2.1
Steeda module
248.8@5100
10.2
291.6@4000
6.3


PHASE 4 -- HEADS

GT-40 aluminum heads. With more air coming in and more exhaust going out, we finally got to the plugged up
funnel in the middle, the stock heads. By replacing them with a pair of Ford Motorsport's GT-40 aluminum heads,
with their better flowing intake and exhaust ports, we expected to open up a large horsepower increase.

Swapping heads is no small feat, but Steve and Chad bolted on the preassembled GT-40 heads in just over three
hours, fitting them with the 1.7 Cobra rocker arms and SplitFire plugs (SF10Ds for the GT-40 heads). Without
changing anything else from Phase 3's 248.8 horsepower peak, the Mustang made 272.4 horsepower, a 23.6
horsepower increase for our best improvement yet. The heads also provided a 17.3 lb ft increase in torque,
putting us over the 300 lb ft mark for the first time with a 308.9 reading. It's been said many times before, but it's
worth saying again; the biggest stumbling block to small-block Ford performance is he exhaust port in the stock
cylinder head. Port it or, preferably, replace it for a solid performance foundation.

We also tried a combination of mass air meters, modules and increased fuel pressure, but nothing performed
better than out 75mm MAF/Steeda module/stock fuel pressure combo. We also tried the Pro-M mass air again,
thinking the increased airflow potential would allow it to work. It didn't, losing horsepower across the rpm band.
Perhaps the 77mm piece should be reserved for blowers.

24 lb. injectors. Steeda's experience with injectors has shown 24 pounders work well with the GT-40 aluminum
heads. Dario explained this is primarily because the larger nozzle spreads out the fuel charge for better
atomization. On our test Mustang, the 24 lb injectors pumped up the horsepower to 275.6, a 3.2 horsepower
increase. With so many miles on the original injectors, this increase could have come from the new injectors
cleaner, more even spray pattern, but we really don't know for sure.

PHASE 4

Peak Hp

Peak Torque

GT-40 heads
272.4@5000
23.6
308.9@4000
17.3
24 lb. injectors
275.6@5100
3.2
310.6@4000
1.7


PHASE 5 -- FINAL TWEAKS

With 275.6 rear-wheel horsepower in street-legal trim (adding in the 18 horsepower frictional loss gave us 293.6
"advertised" horsepower), we wanted to try some final tweaks to see if we could eke out more horsepower,
hoping to attain that magic 300 mark atthe flywheel.

Off-road pipes. Surprisingly, replacing the factory cats with the Pacesetter off-road pipes netted an increase on
only 2.8 horsepower over our previous best. We expected better results from opening up the exhaust even more,
but I guess we learned exhaust modifications, while making our Mustangs sound great, don't always provide
huge horsepower increases. This would likely change if nitrous or a blower was added.

At this point, we wanted to check the benefit of the K&N Filtercharger atthis level of modifications, so we
replaced the K&N with the stock filter. This resulted in a loss of 4.1 horsepower, demonstrating that the K&N,
which didn't add much when the engine was basically stock, really does it's job with other modifications.

Cool down. When Dario suggested letting the Mustang cool down, which included icing the intake, Marc
commented, "We've been doing this for four days; let's don't get stupid all of a sudden." Marc ate his words
when the Mustang responded with a 6.7 horsepower, 12 lb ft torque increase, which supports the actions of all
those 5.0 owners who drag coolers filled with ice to the strip. With a total peak rear-wheel horsepower of 285.1,
adding in the 14 horsepower frictional drivetrain loss brought us to 303.1 flywheel horsepower.

PHASE 5

Peak Hp

Peak Torque

Off-road exhaust
278.4@5000
2.8
313.2@4000
2.6
Cool, ice intake
285.1@5000
6.7
325.2@3900
12


What did we learn from our 5.0 Dynojet test? For starters, we discovered "huge" horsepower increases are not
part of most individual bolt-ons. Heads generated the biggest gain, which suggests they should be one of the
first modifications made, and the underdrive pulleys and Steeda's new computer module made good impressions
as well. The main point: Putting everything together as a complete system really tallies up the horsepower. We
added over 83 horsepower with just bolt-on parts.

Best of all, we learned you can buy a used 5.0 Mustang for around $5000, then duplicate our modifications for
around $3200 (according to quick calculations based on advertised prices, not including installation). So for
under $8500 and a little grease under the fingernails, anyone can build a 300-horsepower 5.0 Mustang that'll
outrun brand-new $25,000 Camaros.
__________________
BLACK ON BLACK 95 GT VERT FULLY CONVERTED TO A 95 COBRA AND MODIFIED WITH ALOT OF GOODIES AND A BB SINGLE T67 TURBO KIT. 526.14RWHP 496.00RWTQ @6PSI. RAN OUT OF FUEL @5500RPM PROJECT CAR AKA MONEY-PIT LOL!... TUNED BY GEORGE @ AKRON HP.
  Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old November 8th, 2011, 07:23 AM   #2
Hardcore Enthusiast
 
Bullitt95's Avatar
 
2006 Mustang GT
12.8 @ 108
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Al Ain, UAE
Posts: 1,873
Bullitt95 will become famous soon enoughBullitt95 will become famous soon enough
iTrader: 0 reviews
Send a message via ICQ to Bullitt95
Default

That's a 15-year-old article. While much of the content is still applicable today, there are plenty of other bolt-on parts out there and the baseline of 201.7 is pretty optimistic for a stock 302.
__________________

2006 GT - 5MT - 305rwhp 317rwtq
Stage 1 Performance: JLT 3 CAI, DIY CMDPs, Steeda UDPs, 91 tune, 6500rpm limiter
Suspension: BMR rear LCAs & relo. brackets
  Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old November 8th, 2011, 08:01 AM   #3
Powered by LSx tears
 
69fastback's Avatar
 
1969 Mustang Mach 1
6.12@112
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Where the rays of light shine through my Shiner Bock bottle
Posts: 16,833
69fastback has much to be proud of69fastback has much to be proud of69fastback has much to be proud of69fastback has much to be proud of69fastback has much to be proud of69fastback has much to be proud of69fastback has much to be proud of69fastback has much to be proud of69fastback has much to be proud of69fastback has much to be proud of
iTrader: 0 reviews
Default

There is really nothing that means less in the performance world than dyno numbers, and magazine articles. Here we have both...lol
__________________
  Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old November 10th, 2011, 10:57 PM   #4
Regular
 
1SICK5.0VERT's Avatar
 
modded 95 gt vert
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: cleveland ohio
Posts: 176
1SICK5.0VERT is on a distinguished road
iTrader: 0 reviews
Default

Originally Posted by 69fastback View Post
There is really nothing that means less in the performance world than dyno numbers, and magazine articles. Here we have both...lol
what do you mean? dyno numbers and mag articles mean nothing? im confused on that 1
__________________
BLACK ON BLACK 95 GT VERT FULLY CONVERTED TO A 95 COBRA AND MODIFIED WITH ALOT OF GOODIES AND A BB SINGLE T67 TURBO KIT. 526.14RWHP 496.00RWTQ @6PSI. RAN OUT OF FUEL @5500RPM PROJECT CAR AKA MONEY-PIT LOL!... TUNED BY GEORGE @ AKRON HP.
  Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old November 10th, 2011, 11:44 PM   #5
Regular
 
MANZO MUSTANG's Avatar
 
1994 MUSTANG GT
15.15 @ 94.12
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Coachella
Posts: 317
MANZO MUSTANG is on a distinguished road
iTrader: 1 reviews
Default

Originally Posted by 69fastback View Post
There is really nothing that means less in the performance world than dyno numbers, and magazine articles. Here we have both...lol
So is the answer "time slips"?
__________________

1994 Ford Mustang GT, 306CHP(260rwhp)
Auto,MM Full Length SFC, otherwise stock suspension.
  Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old November 11th, 2011, 12:05 AM   #6
Powered by LSx tears
 
69fastback's Avatar
 
1969 Mustang Mach 1
6.12@112
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Where the rays of light shine through my Shiner Bock bottle
Posts: 16,833
69fastback has much to be proud of69fastback has much to be proud of69fastback has much to be proud of69fastback has much to be proud of69fastback has much to be proud of69fastback has much to be proud of69fastback has much to be proud of69fastback has much to be proud of69fastback has much to be proud of69fastback has much to be proud of
iTrader: 0 reviews
Default

What's there to be confuse about? Magazine articles should strictly be used for entertainment. Magazines are funded by ads. Who pays for the ads? Who do you think gets the advertisement. Magazines are completely unreliable as a source of valid information.

Dynos have their place, but chassis dyno numbers mean very little. Engine dynos are a little more reliable. All dyno numbers can be greatly skewed with one press of a button. Literally. Take a magazine that's doing dyno testing, and throw it out the window.




And yes. Timeslips are the best way to gain information. Timeslips don't lie.
__________________
  Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old November 11th, 2011, 12:09 AM   #7
1 Wheel Peel
 
GreenMustang00's Avatar
 
2000 Mustang 393w
2001 Mustang GT Vert
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 3,747
GreenMustang00 is a jewel in the roughGreenMustang00 is a jewel in the roughGreenMustang00 is a jewel in the roughGreenMustang00 is a jewel in the rough
iTrader: 5 reviews
Default

This article is good but it doesnt show the power curve. Just the peak numbers.
__________________


1989 Notch 393w Drag Car
2000 Vert
2001 GT Vert
2002 Six Banger
  Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old November 11th, 2011, 12:14 AM   #8
Powered by LSx tears
 
69fastback's Avatar
 
1969 Mustang Mach 1
6.12@112
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Where the rays of light shine through my Shiner Bock bottle
Posts: 16,833
69fastback has much to be proud of69fastback has much to be proud of69fastback has much to be proud of69fastback has much to be proud of69fastback has much to be proud of69fastback has much to be proud of69fastback has much to be proud of69fastback has much to be proud of69fastback has much to be proud of69fastback has much to be proud of
iTrader: 0 reviews
Default

Ding ding


Peak numbers mean about as much as......well.....nothing. Throw peak numbers in the trash. If you punch my peak number in an ET calculator (which is actually more reliable than a chassis dyno in some cases), it says my car should run an 11.70....LOL! I think I've got that covered.
__________________
  Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old November 11th, 2011, 12:16 AM   #9
Regular
 
1SICK5.0VERT's Avatar
 
modded 95 gt vert
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: cleveland ohio
Posts: 176
1SICK5.0VERT is on a distinguished road
iTrader: 0 reviews
Default

Originally Posted by 69fastback View Post
What's there to be confuse about? Magazine articles should strictly be used for entertainment. Magazines are funded by ads. Who pays for the ads? Who do you think gets the advertisement. Magazines are completely unreliable as a source of valid information.

Dynos have their place, but chassis dyno numbers mean very little. Engine dynos are a little more reliable. All dyno numbers can be greatly skewed with one press of a button. Literally. Take a magazine that's doing dyno testing, and throw it out the window.




And yes. Timeslips are the best way to gain information. Timeslips don't lie.
magazine articles may be a little "off" but IMO i would much rather know what my car is putting down to the ground. chassis dynos are just as reliable as engine dynos. the only difference being the engine dyno tells you what the engine is putting out alone, and the chassis dyno is telling you what the engine is putting out after parasitic drag loss. those are the real numbers if you ask me. i agree with you with timeslips to a point. drag times depend on the driver, tires, suspension, weight, weight distribution and so on. there are far too many variables involved at the track to get reliable information.
__________________
BLACK ON BLACK 95 GT VERT FULLY CONVERTED TO A 95 COBRA AND MODIFIED WITH ALOT OF GOODIES AND A BB SINGLE T67 TURBO KIT. 526.14RWHP 496.00RWTQ @6PSI. RAN OUT OF FUEL @5500RPM PROJECT CAR AKA MONEY-PIT LOL!... TUNED BY GEORGE @ AKRON HP.
  Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old November 11th, 2011, 12:28 AM   #10
Powered by LSx tears
 
69fastback's Avatar
 
1969 Mustang Mach 1
6.12@112
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Where the rays of light shine through my Shiner Bock bottle
Posts: 16,833
69fastback has much to be proud of69fastback has much to be proud of69fastback has much to be proud of69fastback has much to be proud of69fastback has much to be proud of69fastback has much to be proud of69fastback has much to be proud of69fastback has much to be proud of69fastback has much to be proud of69fastback has much to be proud of
iTrader: 0 reviews
Default

Originally Posted by 1SICK5.0VERT View Post
magazine articles may be a little "off" but IMO i would much rather know what my car is putting down to the ground. chassis dynos are just as reliable as engine dynos. the only difference being the engine dyno tells you what the engine is putting out alone, and the chassis dyno is telling you what the engine is putting out after parasitic drag loss. those are the real numbers if you ask me. i agree with you with timeslips to a point. drag times depend on the driver, tires, suspension, weight, weight distribution and so on. there are far too many variables involved at the track to get reliable information.
Chassis dynos are not reliable. It is impossible for the dyno to load the car like it's loaded on the street. Chassis dyno numbers are used for bench racing bragging rights only. My buddies foxbody made 382rwhp, and went 9.73. Figure that one out. They have a place with some light tuning, but are totally unreliable on actual numbers. Have you ever looked at the smoothing numbers? They can completely manipulate every pull just by changing one setting. And that's reliable? No way




The track is always reliable. There aren't too many factors involved, because when you talking about making horsepower, you're talking about trap speed. ET doesn't matter. Keep the weight, and horsepower the same, and the car will MPH the same, regardless of 60' times, ect.... My car is a perfect example. On DRs, it went 12.32@120. On slicks, it went 11.43@120.

It shave .8, but the MPH didn't change, because weight and HP were the same. Track tuning is by far the most accurate way to tune an engine.



Chassis dynos and engine dynos are nothing alike. And magazine articles are not off a little. They can be waaaayyyyyy off.


When I said magazine articles, and chassis dyno numbers are the two most unreliable things in the performance world, I didn't say it to be a dick. It's true.
__________________
  Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old November 11th, 2011, 12:31 AM   #11
Regular
 
1SICK5.0VERT's Avatar
 
modded 95 gt vert
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: cleveland ohio
Posts: 176
1SICK5.0VERT is on a distinguished road
iTrader: 0 reviews
Default

Originally Posted by 69fastback View Post
Ding ding


Peak numbers mean about as much as......well.....nothing. Throw peak numbers in the trash. If you punch my peak number in an ET calculator (which is actually more reliable than a chassis dyno in some cases), it says my car should run an 11.70....LOL! I think I've got that covered.
et calculator....haha! in order to get an accurate number out of an et calculator you have to be able to provide EVERY VARIABLE such as vehicle weight, shift points, engine and tranny information, tire and wheel diameter, rear end gears, suspension and so so so so on. an et calculator is about as accurate as a blind sharp shooter.
__________________
BLACK ON BLACK 95 GT VERT FULLY CONVERTED TO A 95 COBRA AND MODIFIED WITH ALOT OF GOODIES AND A BB SINGLE T67 TURBO KIT. 526.14RWHP 496.00RWTQ @6PSI. RAN OUT OF FUEL @5500RPM PROJECT CAR AKA MONEY-PIT LOL!... TUNED BY GEORGE @ AKRON HP.
  Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old November 11th, 2011, 12:35 AM   #12
Powered by LSx tears
 
69fastback's Avatar
 
1969 Mustang Mach 1
6.12@112
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Where the rays of light shine through my Shiner Bock bottle
Posts: 16,833
69fastback has much to be proud of69fastback has much to be proud of69fastback has much to be proud of69fastback has much to be proud of69fastback has much to be proud of69fastback has much to be proud of69fastback has much to be proud of69fastback has much to be proud of69fastback has much to be proud of69fastback has much to be proud of
iTrader: 0 reviews
Default

Originally Posted by 1SICK5.0VERT View Post
et calculator....haha! in order to get an accurate number out of an et calculator you have to be able to provide EVERY VARIABLE such as vehicle weight, shift points, engine and tranny information, tire and wheel diameter, rear end gears, suspension and so so so so on. an et calculator is about as accurate as a blind sharp shooter.
That is absolutely incorrect. ET calculators are widely accepted as an more accurate indicator of power over a chassis dynos, by the guys that race professionally. And I did say in some cases. It's all about weight and MPH.



Chassis dyno numbers on the other hand can be skewed and changed. Especially when the dyno numbers come from am unreliable source like a magazine. You know what can't me changed? Weight and MPH.
__________________
  Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old November 11th, 2011, 12:45 AM   #13
Regular
 
1SICK5.0VERT's Avatar
 
modded 95 gt vert
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: cleveland ohio
Posts: 176
1SICK5.0VERT is on a distinguished road
iTrader: 0 reviews
Default

Originally Posted by 69fastback View Post
Chassis dynos are not reliable. It is impossible for the dyno to load the car like it's loaded on the street. Chassis dyno numbers are used for bench racing bragging rights only. My buddies foxbody made 382rwhp, and went 9.73. Figure that one out. They have a place with some light tuning, but are totally unreliable on actual numbers. Have you ever looked at the smoothing numbers? They can completely manipulate every pull just by changing one setting. And that's reliable? No way




The track is always reliable. There aren't too many factors involved, because when you talking about making horsepower, you're talking about trap speed. ET doesn't matter. Keep the weight, and horsepower the same, and the car will MPH the same, regardless of 60' times, ect.... My car is a perfect example. On DRs, it went 12.32@120. On slicks, it went 11.43@120.

It shave .8, but the MPH didn't change, because weight and HP were the same. Track tuning is by far the most accurate way to tune an engine.



Chassis dynos and engine dynos are nothing alike. And magazine articles are not off a little. They can be waaaayyyyyy off.


When I said magazine articles, and chassis dyno numbers are the two most unreliable things in the performance world, I didn't say it to be a dick. It's true.
when it comes to racing on a 1/4 or 1/8th mile track i know nothing about it. never been. my car is set up for the road course. im not too much into driving in a straight line for some seconds, i like to get to know my car in the twisties and get a feel for how it handles at high speeds. so if i come off as a "dick" i apologize but when you put numbers and "variables" down on paper the slightest change will effect the outcome. im a mathematic wiz BTW. thats why i get so bent outta shape by numbers.
__________________
BLACK ON BLACK 95 GT VERT FULLY CONVERTED TO A 95 COBRA AND MODIFIED WITH ALOT OF GOODIES AND A BB SINGLE T67 TURBO KIT. 526.14RWHP 496.00RWTQ @6PSI. RAN OUT OF FUEL @5500RPM PROJECT CAR AKA MONEY-PIT LOL!... TUNED BY GEORGE @ AKRON HP.
  Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old November 11th, 2011, 12:51 AM   #14
Powered by LSx tears
 
69fastback's Avatar
 
1969 Mustang Mach 1
6.12@112
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Where the rays of light shine through my Shiner Bock bottle
Posts: 16,833
69fastback has much to be proud of69fastback has much to be proud of69fastback has much to be proud of69fastback has much to be proud of69fastback has much to be proud of69fastback has much to be proud of69fastback has much to be proud of69fastback has much to be proud of69fastback has much to be proud of69fastback has much to be proud of
iTrader: 0 reviews
Default

It's cool. You just have to know what you're getting into with dynos, and magazines. It's fun. We all like to brag about how much power our car made, blah blah blah. I even have my dyno numbers in my sig, not that mine are huge bragging rights or anything. It's just fun.



Chris's foxbody made 382 rwhp on a dyno because the dyno just doesn't load the car properly, and it caused it to blow through the converter. It happens all the time, and obviously running a 9.7, it's making a little more power than that....lol. To me, that's not reliable, but his weight and MPH are.
__________________
  Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old November 11th, 2011, 12:54 AM   #15
Regular
 
1SICK5.0VERT's Avatar
 
modded 95 gt vert
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: cleveland ohio
Posts: 176
1SICK5.0VERT is on a distinguished road
iTrader: 0 reviews
Default

Originally Posted by 69fastback View Post
It's cool. You just have to know what you're getting into with dynos, and magazines. It's fun. We all like to brag about how much power our car made, blah blah blah. I even have my dyno numbers in my sig, not that mine are huge bragging rights or anything. It's just fun.



Chris's foxbody made 382 rwhp on a dyno because the dyno just doesn't load the car properly, and it caused it to blow through the converter. It happens all the time, and obviously running a 9.7, it's making a little more power than that....lol. To me, that's not reliable, but his weight and MPH are.
is that fox n/a? whats he got under the hood? i take it the car is totally stripped.
__________________
BLACK ON BLACK 95 GT VERT FULLY CONVERTED TO A 95 COBRA AND MODIFIED WITH ALOT OF GOODIES AND A BB SINGLE T67 TURBO KIT. 526.14RWHP 496.00RWTQ @6PSI. RAN OUT OF FUEL @5500RPM PROJECT CAR AKA MONEY-PIT LOL!... TUNED BY GEORGE @ AKRON HP.
  Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old November 11th, 2011, 12:58 AM   #16
Powered by LSx tears
 
69fastback's Avatar
 
1969 Mustang Mach 1
6.12@112
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Where the rays of light shine through my Shiner Bock bottle
Posts: 16,833
69fastback has much to be proud of69fastback has much to be proud of69fastback has much to be proud of69fastback has much to be proud of69fastback has much to be proud of69fastback has much to be proud of69fastback has much to be proud of69fastback has much to be proud of69fastback has much to be proud of69fastback has much to be proud of
iTrader: 0 reviews
Default

Oh yeah. It's a race car. I just went and looked at our boards ET list, and it went 9.53@143. It's a 408 on the sauce. It's been down for 2 years because he won't finish it. All it needs is wired. The car should go 160 MPH+ now.
__________________
  Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old November 11th, 2011, 01:06 AM   #17
Regular
 
MANZO MUSTANG's Avatar
 
1994 MUSTANG GT
15.15 @ 94.12
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Coachella
Posts: 317
MANZO MUSTANG is on a distinguished road
iTrader: 1 reviews
Default

All n all, I need to get my ass to the track. Get me some timeslips.
__________________

1994 Ford Mustang GT, 306CHP(260rwhp)
Auto,MM Full Length SFC, otherwise stock suspension.
  Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old November 11th, 2011, 01:09 AM   #18
Regular
 
1SICK5.0VERT's Avatar
 
modded 95 gt vert
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: cleveland ohio
Posts: 176
1SICK5.0VERT is on a distinguished road
iTrader: 0 reviews
Default

Originally Posted by 69fastback View Post
Oh yeah. It's a race car. I just went and looked at our boards ET list, and it went 9.53@143. It's a 408 on the sauce. It's been down for 2 years because he won't finish it. All it needs is wired. The car should go 160 MPH+ now.
thats sick!
__________________
BLACK ON BLACK 95 GT VERT FULLY CONVERTED TO A 95 COBRA AND MODIFIED WITH ALOT OF GOODIES AND A BB SINGLE T67 TURBO KIT. 526.14RWHP 496.00RWTQ @6PSI. RAN OUT OF FUEL @5500RPM PROJECT CAR AKA MONEY-PIT LOL!... TUNED BY GEORGE @ AKRON HP.

Last edited by 1SICK5.0VERT; November 11th, 2011 at 02:07 AM.
  Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old November 12th, 2011, 03:23 AM   #19
Regular
 
1SICK5.0VERT's Avatar
 
modded 95 gt vert
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: cleveland ohio
Posts: 176
1SICK5.0VERT is on a distinguished road
iTrader: 0 reviews
Default

just a thought but im wondering why this thread wouldnt be eligible as a sticky? i see time and time again people asking what this or that will give them as far as hp goes, and i think this article has a bunch of valuable info in it with the dyno numbers to match. thanks
__________________
BLACK ON BLACK 95 GT VERT FULLY CONVERTED TO A 95 COBRA AND MODIFIED WITH ALOT OF GOODIES AND A BB SINGLE T67 TURBO KIT. 526.14RWHP 496.00RWTQ @6PSI. RAN OUT OF FUEL @5500RPM PROJECT CAR AKA MONEY-PIT LOL!... TUNED BY GEORGE @ AKRON HP.
  Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old November 12th, 2011, 10:50 AM   #20
I Post Entirely Way Too Much
 
ryanw's Avatar
 
1991 Ford Mustang GT
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 11,183
ryanw is a glorious beacon of lightryanw is a glorious beacon of lightryanw is a glorious beacon of lightryanw is a glorious beacon of lightryanw is a glorious beacon of lightryanw is a glorious beacon of light
iTrader: 1 reviews
Default

there is a sticky, its caled dyno myths, or some thing like that.it doesnt go into the same detail as your thread though.


Id like to see this same thread again but have the gt40 aluminum heads swaped out for a few different size trick flow and AFR heads and see the power increase. from what ive heard the gt40 aluminums are OKAY heads but are vary far from being the best
__________________

DART 331ci stroker, AFR 185 heads,
Trick Flow R intake,
Accufab 70mm tb, 75mm pro m Maf, 30lb injectors,
jba headers, 2 1/2" x pipe
flowmaster super 10 mufflers,
255 fuel pump,
3:27 gears
  Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Forums at Modded Mustangs forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools


LinkBacks (?)
LinkBack to this Thread: http://www.moddedmustangs.com/forums/94-95/238761-bolt-ons-advertised-hp-compared-real-world-numbers-dyno-here.html
Posted By For Type Date
My 88 GT Hatch Project | Page 4 | FoxBodyMustangs.org This thread Refback October 11th, 2014 10:09 PM
Thread Bolt-ons. Advertised HP compared to real world numbers on the dyno here! | Forums at Modded Mustangs | BoardReader This thread Refback August 1st, 2012 06:15 PM

Threads Similar to: Bolt-ons. Advertised HP compared to real world numbers on the dyno here!
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The reality of bolt ons. How much power do they really make? Dyno numbers here! 1SICK5.0VERT 5.0 Mustangs 10 November 14th, 2011 06:11 AM
real trickflow heads dyno numbers? sj408 99 - 04 22 July 29th, 2011 10:54 AM
advertised hp vs rwhp. post your dyno runs/sheets 1SICK5.0VERT 94-95 11 May 26th, 2011 05:07 PM
Some real numbers please. Mustang2005 General Tech 1 June 19th, 2010 08:21 AM



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:38 AM.
Modded Mustangs is ©2005-2008, All Rights Reserved, And is Not Affiliated with Ford Motor Company.
Forum is powered by vBulletin ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Ent. Ltd. & SEO by vBSEO 3.3.2 ©2009, Crawlability, Inc.

powered by vBulletin ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Ent. Ltd.