AstroDan Posted July 5, 2008 Report Share Posted July 5, 2008 I took my car down to a local shop that hosts these runs about every couple months. Mostly Corvettes and GTO's there. This is the 1st time for me and I was a little nervous. I predicted @ 275hp and 290 ft/lbs. I was VERY pleasantly suprised to turn 281hp and 302tq at rear wheels! :happy feet: How does this stack up against others? I was a little rich and the man thought I could get to 290... A little loud (but not as loud as a few of the Vettes!) The video doesn't do it justice A lot of fun! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShelbyKindaGuy Posted July 5, 2008 Report Share Posted July 5, 2008 I took my car down to a local shop that hosts these runs about every couple months. Mostly Corvettes and GTO's there. This is the 1st time for me and I was a little nervous. I predicted @ 275hp and 290 ft/lbs.I was VERY pleasantly suprised to turn 281hp and 302tq at rear wheels! :happy feet: How does this stack up against others? I was a little rich and the man thought I could get to 290... A little loud (but not as loud as a few of the Vettes!) The video doesn't do it justice A lot of fun! You will probably make 287 RWHP but are going to be hard pressed to get any further as the STOCK rubber AIR intake hose is causing a restriction to air flow. After that you would be better off switching to a better air intake kit like C & L...then you might make 290 to 292 RWHP. After that then do the UD pulley. That will get you to about 301 HP to the wheels. Then put on shorties and expect a 1 to 2 HP gain to the wheels so you would get to about 302.5. Then I would go with 4.10 gears which will wake the car up. After that its time to really spend the cash and start replacing engine internals. The reason I said shorties instead of LT headers is because of possible clearance issues. And just so that no one reading my post challenges the validity of my quoted figures above, these are the exact mods that I had to do to a 2006 Mustang GT I previously owned to make the above stated HP and TQ as measured on the dyno. My final figures were 302.5 RWHP and 317 RWTQ SAE with everything as described. If I would have chosen LT headers instead of shorties and got them to have sufficient clearance I would expect to be up around 320 RWHP and about 330 in RWTQ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AstroDan Posted July 5, 2008 Author Report Share Posted July 5, 2008 Hmmmm. I'm suprised you would only get about 2hp with the headers. I just wanted to know what my stock is so that next year, after SC, I have the before-after. Interesting about the air intake though... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilmor Posted July 5, 2008 Report Share Posted July 5, 2008 Someone else on the forum stated that he got 10 to 12 hp w/ the shorties and a tune; also I've read that, depending on the dyno ("Mustang" dyno vs. something-or-other dyno) used, HP and torque figures can vary. Still, I like seeing these numbers you've posted! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShelbyKindaGuy Posted July 5, 2008 Report Share Posted July 5, 2008 Hmmmm. I'm suprised you would only get about 2hp with the headers.I just wanted to know what my stock is so that next year, after SC, I have the before-after. Interesting about the air intake though... I wouldn't be too surprised as shorty headers have always been known for NOT giving any extra HP and are considered a waste of money at least for Mustangs. The only reason I did them was because I believed shorties WOULD DELIVER up some HP. Wow was I surprised when the car came off the dyno and the most that could be mustered up was 2 HP tops. :eek5: That dyno session and $600 sold me that shorties do indeed suck for making HP. :fool: I do have to say however that the car sounded much, much better with the shorties on. To be honest I really doubt the person who claims they got 10 extra horsepower with shorties. There has never been a reported gain with shorties on new model Mustangs. I can only surmise that this person who alledged the 10 HP gain must had had some other mods done at the time his shorty headers were put on his Mustang....like a CAT delete or something in his exhaust switched or changed out. I would like to see this guy post his actual dyno-pull sheet that is his baseline before his headers were put on and then after his shorties were put on with no other mods in between. Otherwise I would take any claim like that with a huge grain of salt. :do what: That is why Long Tube headers are so popular as they deliver around 20 HP. Midlengths are usually avoided as well but I cannot remember the reason why. If you are going to do headers then Long Tubes are the way to go. Unfortunately they can have a clearance problem when put onto a lowered Mustang that you will have to contend with when going over uneven surfaces and road debris. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1218shelby Posted July 6, 2008 Report Share Posted July 6, 2008 i tuned my car and i got 302 hp to the wheel with just a tune. I added UD pulleys and 3.90 gears. I haven't dynoed since the pulleys, so im guessing im hitting about 310 with just the tune and pulleys. Not bad huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShelbyKindaGuy Posted July 6, 2008 Report Share Posted July 6, 2008 i tuned my car and i got 302 hp to the wheel with just a tune. I added UD pulleys and 3.90 gears. I haven't dynoed since the pulleys, so im guessing im hitting about 310 with just the tune and pulleys. Not bad huh? Definitely not the norm.....Consider that these engines tested at SAI and officially recertified to be 319 at the crank. Given a 12% or 15% powerloss going to the wheels the best these cars would do is: at 12% loss = 280.72 RWHP (what most Mustang GT's with a CAI and 90mm MAF are making which is in essence a "stock" Shelby GT in regards to the intake setup.) at 15% loss = 271.15 RWHP Even the most aggressive tune on a stock Shelby GT will only about 287 RWHP. Something is going on with either the dyno your pull was done on OR the tuner is doing something wrong. Your figures are just way to high for just a tune of a stock motor. Even if your engine was what is known as a "freak" those figures are still way too high. Sorry to say man but something just isn't right with your figures and to me they are definitely unreliable. I would go to a completely different dyno and see if you make 310 RWHP now that you have UD pullies. If you do that would at least verify the reliability of your first dyno as being valid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ilmor Posted July 6, 2008 Report Share Posted July 6, 2008 i tuned my car and i got 302 hp to the wheel with just a tune. I added UD pulleys and 3.90 gears. I haven't dynoed since the pulleys, so im guessing im hitting about 310 with just the tune and pulleys. Not bad huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AstroDan Posted July 6, 2008 Author Report Share Posted July 6, 2008 So... A tune and elbow to get to @ 290? I should also improve economy due to leaning out? Then an aluminum drive-shaft! Another dyno and... That should really make it ready for the SC! :burnout: I would think that might be better "bang-for-the-buck". Dan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShelbyKindaGuy Posted July 7, 2008 Report Share Posted July 7, 2008 So...A tune and elbow to get to @ 290? I should also improve economy due to leaning out? Then an aluminum drive-shaft! Another dyno and... That should really make it ready for the SC! :burnout: I would think that might be better "bang-for-the-buck". Dan The tune + elbow will certainly get you to mid to 3/4 280's in wheel HP and just near 303 to 305 in torque. The aluminum drive shaft being lighter and MAYBE designed to be shaved thinner could add additional HP since there would be less mass the power to drive train connections would have to overcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.