Project Lil Red

[biminiLX]

Yep, he said I should pick up 70 hp and tq to the wheels. Going off of the dynojet numbers last year he was about dead on. What about when I made 417wtq last year on a dynojet with an inferior combo. Do you believe that?

You picked up 106rwhp and 81rwtq from port work and a better exhaust, also going from a dynojet to a Mustang dyno. That is what it looks like to me and that just seems like a lot, thats all. Also, a Mustang dyno should be calibrated to each car to calculate the correct load, at least thats what I thought I understood. The standard instead of SAE results could also make a difference here.

I don't want to argue about dyno numbers, but it will be interesting when you compare it on the Dynojet. The track is all that matter in the end, that we agree on.
-J

[wick]

Likewise, the track will be the tell tell. I honestly cant see that car making anywhere near those numbers on a properly set up mustang dyno. Something is seriously wrong there. But, hey, its a nice car and its going to put down some great times this summer. Cane wait to see it out Mike.

[Balaska347]

full slick? what kind of gear you thinking 3.73, 3.90?

Yes a full slick, probably 3.90's

[Balaska347]

That sucks. What damage was done?

Something fell from the ceiling of his garage and scratched the hatch and wing done to a abre surface along with several scratches. Almost every suspension part was finger tight. The brake line were pieced together like a fifth grader did them ( had to redo all of them). Paid extra for him the paint the rollbar because he said it was a must. It looked like it was finger painted. I used aircraft stripper to strip it and repaint it myself. Part of the wiring harness smashed in the motor mount. Holes in the floor from welding and didn't fix them. Burnt the headliner welding which he did repair. You get the picture.

You picked up 106rwhp and 81rwtq from port work and a better exhaust, also going from a dynojet to a Mustang dyno. That is what it looks like to me and that just seems like a lot, thats all. Also, a Mustang dyno should be calibrated to each car to calculate the correct load, at least thats what I thought I understood. The standard instead of SAE results could also make a difference here.

I don't want to argue about dyno numbers, but it will be interesting when you compare it on the Dynojet. The track is all that matter in the end, that we agree on.
-J

The dyno was calibrated for my car. It was calibrate for the weight of the car and model. Like you said who really cares. Dyno numbers dont mean anything when it comes down to it. How fast you can get down the 1/4 is what matters.

Likewise, the track will be the tell tell. I honestly cant see that car making anywhere near those numbers on a properly set up mustang dyno. Something is seriously wrong there. But, hey, its a nice car and its going to put down some great times this summer. Cane wait to see it out Mike.

You got it Wick, the track is the tell all. I always said guys bragging about dyno numbers are the guys that cant get it done in the quarter LOL Calm down everyone JK

[Wolfpack Speed]

Does a mustang dyno have to be calibrated for each car or do you just calibrate it once when you get it? I would say that this mustang dyno is pretty close if not dead on. They dyno'd a bone stock 90 mustang right before mine was dyno'd which the numbers seemed to be where they should be. I would like to put mine on a dynojet just for shits and giggles and to clarify.

Thanks for the compliment :)

Basically the answer to your question is Yes. 1 example of why is the vehicle weight with the operator needs to be accurately inputed. The software has value files if you will, but how accurate can they really be considering every vehicle has a different weight value? Just altering the value of the vehicle weight will raise or lower your dyno numbers. That right there throws the accuracy and concistency right out the window as most operators don't scale the cars or only scale some and not others. Another thing that needs to be accurate within the software is the drum weight, thats where most operators manipulate the test results by altering this value.

I am in no way implying that your operator is yanking your chain, I'm just giving examples of why the Mustang Dyno isn't very consistent. Like I mentioned before, they are a good dyno when used properly. Problem is many operators lack integrity or are just plain ignorant! While the accuracy of the number is important to a certain extent, concistency and repeatability is what you are looking for if you want to compare apples to apples. You just don't get that from a Mustang Dyno like you do a Dynojet, thats why threads like this are a dime a dozen!

You are more then welcome to use my dyno anytime and that goes for anyone, I could care less who worked on the car...just needs to be mechanically sound

http://steelcitystangs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6630

[somethingclever]

I am in no way implying that your operator is yanking your chain, I'm just giving examples of why the Mustang Dyno isn't very consistent. Like I mentioned before, they are a good dyno when used properly. Problem is many operators lack integrity or are just plain ignorant! While the accuracy of the number is important to a certain extent, concistency and repeatability is what you are looking for if you want to compare apples to apples. You just don't get that from a Mustang Dyno like you do a Dynojet, thats why threads like this are a dime a dozen!

You're confusing accuracy and consistency.

Just because the numbers may be wrong (inaccurate) does not mean the unit is inconsistent.

I have never heard of anyone complain that mustang dyno's do not provide repeatable (consistent) results.

However, there is no doubt that changing dyno settings can provide false results.

[Silverhatch]

You're confusing accuracy and consistency.

Just because the numbers may be wrong (inaccurate) does not mean the unit is inconsistent.

I have never heard of anyone complain that mustang dyno's do not provide repeatable (consistent) results.

However, there is no doubt that changing dyno settings can provide false results.

From what i've learned about the md, as long as you go back to the same one that unit has that cars setup info (model, weight, etc.) in its database. So you just punch that car back in and its ready. Even if the initial setup info is inaccurate the test will remain consistent. I too want to take mine down to Wolfpack for a comparo before the next round of mods!

[Wolfpack Speed]

You're confusing accuracy and consistency.

Just because the numbers may be wrong (inaccurate) does not mean the unit is inconsistent.

I have never heard of anyone complain that mustang dyno's do not provide repeatable (consistent) results.

However, there is no doubt that changing dyno settings can provide false results.

No, I'm not, but I can see how I confused you as I did't quite word that properly...my bad! The problems with consistency for the most part are a direct result of the operators actions, not necessarily the actual dyno itself. Toss the accuracy out the window, if the operator isn't consistent with how all vehicles are tested, how data is collected and inputed, you have nothing to base a comparison off of. The Dynojet does not rely on input from the end user to calculate hp and tq, a Mustang Dyno does. The human interaction is the inconsistency!

[somethingclever]

: I too want to take mine down to Wolfpack for a comparo before the next round of mods!

I plan to do the same.

The human interaction is the inconsistency!

It would only be inconsistent if the operator changed parameters between back-to-back runs. The unit itself should provide repeatable results.

I've never talked to anyone who said a Mustang Dyno is inconsistent. Any tool is only as accurate and consistent as the person operating it....whether we're talking torque wrenches or dyno's.


I look forward to the track results!

[juice_man_86]

Sooo...my question is why is everyone so awestruck by his torque numbers? He never mentioned which anderson cam, how it was installed, plus a KILLER(way toooo expensive, lol) port job. I mean damn. It's a well put together combo. Some people make amazing numbers on a twisted wedge stage 2 cam. Never mentioned his compression ratio. Plus, strokers tend to be big on torque naturally.

[juice_man_86]

Also, why is THAT dyno inacurate. Take my fathers car for example. Makes about 620hp at the wheels on my brother's MD. We ran a full quarter mile pass on it. On the dyno, it ran a 9.50 something with him behind the wheel. That is about what the car should run, it weighs somewhere between 2800 and 3000 pounds with my father in it, can't remember. Now, at the track, it ran a 9.76 with me driving. I weigh about 70 lbs more than him. Plus, I don't do automatics, not even a manual valve body one. I prefer a stick. I went a second slower in my old car when I changed it to a competition c4 and 4000 stall from a T5(from 12.10 to 13.20). My dad drove it to an 11.50 spinning.

[gmkillr]

Sooo...my question is why is everyone so awestruck by his torque numbers? He never mentioned which anderson cam, how it was installed, plus a KILLER(way toooo expensive, lol) port job. I mean damn. It's a well put together combo. Some people make amazing numbers on a twisted wedge stage 2 cam. Never mentioned his compression ratio. Plus, strokers tend to be big on torque naturally.

Well if his combo as listed makes 498 rwtq on a dynojet then I would have to say it is the ONLY 347 EVER built that made that much torque.

There are 347's out there with better parts by top notch engine guys in the country that dont make this much for torque.

As has been stated, it doesnt really matter, only what it does at the track matters ultimately! I will say that this combo will be in the low 400's for rwtq.
Probably around 410-430 rwtq MAX.

[crazylou]

never mind.

[Pure Stock]

it made 429whp and 498wtq NA on a mustang dyno.

15% loss through the drivetrain= 585.88 FWTQ
20% loss through the drivetrain= 622.50 FWTQ

[biminiLX]

15% loss through the drivetrain= 585.88 FWTQ
20% loss through the drivetrain= 622.50 FWTQ

Exactly, know any 347s that make that?
-J

[Pure Stock]

Exactly, know any 347s that make that?
-J

622.5 fwtq/346.95 c.i.= 1.79 fwtq per c.i.

585.88 fwtq/346.95 c.i. = 1.688 fwtq per c.i.

No. Engine Masters periodical claims that if a pump gas naturally aspirated engine can produce 1.4 fwtq per c.i. it is nothing short of stellar.

[yeahloh95]

but remember guys he has a "torque converter" not a clutch

[wick]

but remember guys he has a "torque converter" not a clutch

Sure it isn't a "torque multiplier"? Hahahahahahaha

[somethingclever]

n/m..

[gmkillr]

IMO the dyno is a tuning tool and if chosing to use something as inaccurate as a Mustang Dyno then I would just keep the #'s to myself as I would only be using it to tune on to begin with.

If I were going to make the #'s public for comparisons sake against others #'s and want to be accurate and fair I would go to a dynojet.

Balaska, this is in no way meant as a knock to you or your ride as I think you got a pretty sick combo there.

All information needs to be presented so that someone looking back at this that isnt in "the know" would not misread it and think that they could build a similar combo and make similar power and then go to a dynojet and be dissapointed when they make nowhere even close to 498rwtq.