SGT/SC2873 Posted November 10, 2008 Report Share Posted November 10, 2008 Yesterday our local club had a dyno day and we dyno'd about 12-13 cars. I actually was not going to dyno mine as it is stock. We were having a good time making bets on what each car would produce and of course hammering on some who were just a bit high on their estimates of power. Finally, they talked me into my SGT so they buckled here down and hooked up the computer and let her go......first run had my mouth dropping at 263 rwhp. Second run was 267 rwhp. After doing the math that should be about right with at least 15% loss to the rear wheels. I know one thing.......just a matter of time before the s/c gets lined up. My wife says no and I say I am going to miss you! I want 400-440 at the rear wheels. I really got shot down when the dyno'd a regular GT that pulled 268 at the rear wheels! Also, had 1 more SGT stock that pulled 268.5. For those who want to know, bone stock torque 283.61 and 286.96 respectively. Craig Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stump_breaker Posted November 10, 2008 Report Share Posted November 10, 2008 Others have reported higher numbers but the guys at Quantum Performance said they dyno'd some bone stock SGT's and got about what you're advertising. Do a custom tune. It will help bunches.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1218shelby Posted November 10, 2008 Report Share Posted November 10, 2008 yes, I believe my first Dyno i got about 275 after a Tune, pulleys and 3.90 gears i got 295 to the wheel and 314 TQ. Now i have a JLT intake and soon some long tubes. Hoping to hit at least 310 with the long tubes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1218shelby Posted November 10, 2008 Report Share Posted November 10, 2008 hey stump, those are some nice #'s. I dynoed at 295 before the JLT.. how much more HP you think i gained with just the JLT? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stump_breaker Posted November 10, 2008 Report Share Posted November 10, 2008 hey stump, those are some nice #'s. I dynoed at 295 before the JLT.. how much more HP you think i gained with just the JLT? QP said maybe 5HP from the JLT. I honestly don't know but I'm real happy with it. Here is the link to the Dyno - http://www.teamshelby.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=36069 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MMcGuirk Posted November 10, 2008 Report Share Posted November 10, 2008 Yesterday our local club had a dyno day and we dyno'd about 12-13 cars. I actually was not going to dyno mine as it is stock. We were having a good time making bets on what each car would produce and of course hammering on some who were just a bit high on their estimates of power. Finally, they talked me into my SGT so they buckled here down and hooked up the computer and let her go......first run had my mouth dropping at 263 rwhp. Second run was 267 rwhp. After doing the math that should be about right with at least 15% loss to the rear wheels. I know one thing.......just a matter of time before the s/c gets lined up. My wife says no and I say I am going to miss you! I want 400-440 at the rear wheels. I really got shot down when the dyno'd a regular GT that pulled 268 at the rear wheels! Also, had 1 more SGT stock that pulled 268.5. For those who want to know, bone stock torque 283.61 and 286.96 respectively. Craig Get a Whipple! These 4.6 3v motors are crying for boost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moabman Posted November 10, 2008 Report Share Posted November 10, 2008 That's about what my GT got and I had the FRPP CAI, & Drag Pak installed so it was comprable to the SGT. The numbers are much better after boost :happy feet: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kahmann Posted November 10, 2008 Report Share Posted November 10, 2008 My dyno shows around 310 rwhp with my mods and it still feels weak. That Paxton needs to get installed asap. As for the stock GT running the same numbers, what did you expect? We have a dressed up stock GT with a shiny FRPP CAI. I'd be shocked if they weren't the same or close to the same numbers. Ken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LuLu Posted November 11, 2008 Report Share Posted November 11, 2008 "Dyno daze" are just that...A mental daze. You can't run an assembly line process and expect accuracy. Oh, they are fun as social gatherings, but the dyno operator(s) is/are not focused on accuracy, the "head count vs. time clock" is the premier concern. Moreover, there are many other factors which contribute to an accurate dyno test, and just strapping down can cost you accuracy. Powertrain temps, strap tension, tire pressure, barometric conditions, fresh air supply, style of dyno, ect...They all affect accuracy. Who gives a sh!t when you're just another nick-name on the log? My dyno numbers are in my sig. Each test was conducted "professionally" seeking out the best possible accuracy. The numbers posted are actually 3 pulls, summed and averaged. This is the purpose of any dyno test, yes? Buying one, maybe two pulls, tells you nothing. I would not be dissappointed with your results, there is just too much "wiggle room" in the process your describe. Besides...I've seen a lot of cars with "low number" dynos wax the azz of the "high number" cars on the street and track. It's just a test, a tuning gauge meaningless when confronting a respectable opponent on any blacktop. Drive on, my friend, with no worries. Attend every dyno day that comes your way, there's only one way to learn this crap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SGT/SC#0471 Posted November 11, 2008 Report Share Posted November 11, 2008 "Dyno daze" are just that...A mental daze. You can't run an assembly line process and expect accuracy. Oh, they are fun as social gatherings, but the dyno operator(s) is/are not focused on accuracy, the "head count vs. time clock" is the premier concern. Moreover, there are many other factors which contribute to an accurate dyno test, and just strapping down can cost you accuracy. Powertrain temps, strap tension, tire pressure, barometric conditions, fresh air supply, style of dyno, ect...They all affect accuracy. Who gives a sh!t when you're just another nick-name on the log? My dyno numbers are in my sig. Each test was conducted "professionally" seeking out the best possible accuracy. The numbers posted are actually 3 pulls, summed and averaged. This is the purpose of any dyno test, yes? Buying one, maybe two pulls, tells you nothing. I would not be dissappointed with your results, there is just too much "wiggle room" in the process your describe. Besides...I've seen a lot of cars with "low number" dynos wax the azz of the "high number" cars on the street and track. It's just a test, a tuning gauge meaningless when confronting a respectable opponent on any blacktop. Drive on, my friend, with no worries. Attend every dyno day that comes your way, there's only one way to learn this crap. +1. Driven! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueone Posted November 11, 2008 Report Share Posted November 11, 2008 Yesterday our local club had a dyno day and we dyno'd about 12-13 cars. I actually was not going to dyno mine as it is stock. We were having a good time making bets on what each car would produce and of course hammering on some who were just a bit high on their estimates of power. Finally, they talked me into my SGT so they buckled here down and hooked up the computer and let her go......first run had my mouth dropping at 263 rwhp. Second run was 267 rwhp. After doing the math that should be about right with at least 15% loss to the rear wheels. I know one thing.......just a matter of time before the s/c gets lined up. My wife says no and I say I am going to miss you! I want 400-440 at the rear wheels. I really got shot down when the dyno'd a regular GT that pulled 268 at the rear wheels! Also, had 1 more SGT stock that pulled 268.5. For those who want to know, bone stock torque 283.61 and 286.96 respectively. Craig Got bad news, I'm getting 450 to the wheels at a cost of about $7,500 for the sc and install and if your like me it will take about a month to get used to it and you will want more. Once you get the sc you will start thinking about your bottom end and while your there why not jack the hp a little more, uh ohh what about control arms , clutch, driveshaft,gears etc.. $$$ more $. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SGT/SC2873 Posted November 11, 2008 Author Report Share Posted November 11, 2008 You're right that more equates to more want, but IMHO, these cars should of come with at least 400 at the crank. Drive on I will, but rest assured 267 at the rear wheels won't cut it for me. Time to do mapquest for Rhode Island and Tasca! Craig Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWEDEMAN Posted November 11, 2008 Report Share Posted November 11, 2008 You're right that more equates to more want, but IMHO, these cars should of come with at least 400 at the crank. Drive on I will, but rest assured 267 at the rear wheels won't cut it for me. Time to do mapquest for Rhode Island and Tasca! Craig DON'T GET ME STARTED!!!!!!!! These cars are the best looking Mustangs I have ever seen. I can never park anywhere without someone coming up to me and ranting and raving about the car. BUT they should have never ever let this pony out of the corral without higher HP!! It should have been at least 380HP at the crank. Lets face it they are awesome looking cars that are a bit quick, but they are not representative of what they had "apples to apples" in the past. A 1966 Mustang GT had 225 HP, the Shelby GT350 had 306 HP. This car was a money maker for Shelby pure and simple. Now you know why they call it a track car! The SC has to be done~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mastersmech1 Posted November 11, 2008 Report Share Posted November 11, 2008 Mine dynoed at 287.51 RWHP and 309.57 Torque Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shel-b001 Posted November 11, 2008 Report Share Posted November 11, 2008 DON'T GET ME STARTED!!!!!!!! These cars are the best looking Mustangs I have ever seen. I can never park anywhere without someone coming up to me and ranting and raving about the car. BUT they should have never ever let this pony out of the corral without higher HP!! It should have been at least 380HP at the crank. Lets face it they are awesome looking cars that are a bit quick, but they are not representative of what they had "apples to apples" in the past. A 1966 Mustang GT had 225 HP, the Shelby GT350 had 306 HP. This car was a money maker for Shelby pure and simple. Now you know why they call it a track car!The SC has to be done~ Don`t forget that the 1966 G.T had 271 hp which was the K code. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HORSBYT Posted November 11, 2008 Report Share Posted November 11, 2008 I was going to S/C, but after realizing all the $$$$ I've spent on S/C'ing other Mustangs, I'm just tired of spending the $$$ AGAIN! Once you S/C, then like someone here said, you're gonna realize your tires suck, your brakes suck, your bottom end sucks, your suspension sucks, etc. You're going to realize that you have to "think" constantly about laying into the gas because you WILL wrap your pretty little gem around SOMETHING if you're not ALWAYS careful. Trust me, i've gone back and forth over the S/C. It's an immediate fix to an obvious problem. But, I really do love the car and prefer for it to remains as is. I'm staying N/A for as long as I can stand it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
69dejavue Posted November 11, 2008 Report Share Posted November 11, 2008 DON'T GET ME STARTED!!!!!!!! These cars are the best looking Mustangs I have ever seen. I can never park anywhere without someone coming up to me and ranting and raving about the car. BUT they should have never ever let this pony out of the corral without higher HP!! It should have been at least 380HP at the crank. Lets face it they are awesome looking cars that are a bit quick, but they are not representative of what they had "apples to apples" in the past. A 1966 Mustang GT had 225 HP, the Shelby GT350 had 306 HP. This car was a money maker for Shelby pure and simple. Now you know why they call it a track car!The SC has to be done~ Swede, I concur with you re there should have been more factory HP, and even forged internals. Correct me if I am wrong but I believe the 66 Mustang GT with the Hi-Po had 271, not 225. I believe it was the K code. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stormeaston Posted November 11, 2008 Report Share Posted November 11, 2008 Just don't drag race them.................................auto cross'em. Our little local club has that mentality about HP the more the better. Not true. HP is only good if you get it to the wheels and it sticks. We have a guy in our club that has a 800HP notch back Mustang, he's gotten smoked in every race he's run because he's too busy try to keep it from burning the tires off and keeping it straight. I raced oval track for years in a division which was kinda "run what ya brung" everybody was running 455, 460, 440's. they all thought bigger is better. We ran a small block 351 Winsor we were outclassed by 100 HP but the last few years we dominated because our car handled better because of less weight. Our car wasn't nose heavy which made it handle like it was on rails. So you see my friend your car has plenty of power, and has the handling package, which should give you an edge................auto cross'em and smoke'm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LuLu Posted November 11, 2008 Report Share Posted November 11, 2008 I was going to S/C, but after realizing all the $$$$ I've spent on S/C'ing other Mustangs, I'm just tired of spending the $$$ AGAIN! Once you S/C, then like someone here said, you're gonna realize your tires suck, your brakes suck, your bottom end sucks, your suspension sucks, etc. You're going to realize that you have to "think" constantly about laying into the gas because you WILL wrap your pretty little gem around SOMETHING if you're not ALWAYS careful. Trust me, i've gone back and forth over the S/C. It's an immediate fix to an obvious problem. But, I really do love the car and prefer for it to remains as is. I'm staying N/A for as long as I can stand it. Bravo! So true! My feelings exactly! I took the S/C path with 3 Marauders, and it was constant repair and upgrade, not to mention the pain of sudden failure away from home. Even small stuff, like serpentine belts and other crap, it just never stops. LuLu is very pleasing to my seat of the pants as she sits today. She's no Z-06 killer, but they are always surprised by how long she can hang with them. Even at Terlingua, she got passed by every GT 500 on the list, until we got into the twisties and she passed them back. Tremendous entertainment, and without the worry. I don't mind replacing stuff I wear out, like tires, brakes and clutch, this goes with my "drive it like you stole it" program. However, once you start messing around with power adders and pushing the stock limitations, stuff breaks and that hole in the ground ahead isn't a pot hole, it's a money pit. Mild supercharging may be okay, keep it under 10 PSI and keep an eye on your fuel supply. But, pushing past that invites a world of hurt and endless spending. You would be better off buying another car with more CID, and start from scratch with a specific goal in mind. Just my .02C, gents, happy motoring! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kahmann Posted November 11, 2008 Report Share Posted November 11, 2008 Swede, I concur with you re there should have been more factory HP, and even forged internals. Correct me if I am wrong but I believe the 66 Mustang GT with the Hi-Po had 271, not 225. I believe it was the K code. The classic GT was not necessarily a K-code. The GT package was available in all codes and was simply an appearance and suspension package. The K-code was dubbed the 'Hi-Po'. It produced 271 HP and was the only model fastback that Shelby used as a foundation for his GT350's. The A-code Mustang was the only other to come equipped with a 4 bbl carb. It made about 235 HP. All other 289 V8 Mustangs, that weren't a K-code or A-code (GT or otherwise), produced about 220 HP. Ken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kahmann Posted November 11, 2008 Report Share Posted November 11, 2008 Bravo! So true! My feelings exactly! I took the S/C path with 3 Marauders, and it was constant repair and upgrade, not to mention the pain of sudden failure away from home. Even small stuff, like serpentine belts and other crap, it just never stops. LuLu is very pleasing to my seat of the pants as she sits today. She's no Z-06 killer, but they are always surprised by how long she can hang with them. Even at Terlingua, she got passed by every GT 500 on the list, until we got into the twisties and she passed them back. Tremendous entertainment, and without the worry. I don't mind replacing stuff I wear out, like tires, brakes and clutch, this goes with my "drive it like you stole it" program. However, once you start messing around with power adders and pushing the stock limitations, stuff breaks and that hole in the ground ahead isn't a pot hole, it's a money pit. Mild supercharging may be okay, keep it under 10 PSI and keep an eye on your fuel supply. But, pushing past that invites a world of hurt and endless spending. You would be better off buying another car with more CID, and start from scratch with a specific goal in mind. Just my .02C, gents, happy motoring! +1 I'll definitely be upgrading to the 400HP s/c. I'd never toss one of those 500+HP behemoth's on top of my block, without first tearing the engine down and rebuilding the internals with a rotating assembly that can handle that kind of abuse. Since my car is literally brand new, I don't foresee that happening anytime soon. Maybe at 100K+ miles? So for now, the smaller s/c will have to do. The rest of my dough will go to suspension and brakes. Ken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radical08 Posted November 11, 2008 Report Share Posted November 11, 2008 Add a Whipple and :D :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clark17357 Posted November 11, 2008 Report Share Posted November 11, 2008 Bravo! So true! My feelings exactly! I took the S/C path with 3 Marauders, and it was constant repair and upgrade, not to mention the pain of sudden failure away from home. Even small stuff, like serpentine belts and other crap, it just never stops. LuLu is very pleasing to my seat of the pants as she sits today. She's no Z-06 killer, but they are always surprised by how long she can hang with them. Even at Terlingua, she got passed by every GT 500 on the list, until we got into the twisties and she passed them back. Tremendous entertainment, and without the worry. I don't mind replacing stuff I wear out, like tires, brakes and clutch, this goes with my "drive it like you stole it" program. However, once you start messing around with power adders and pushing the stock limitations, stuff breaks and that hole in the ground ahead isn't a pot hole, it's a money pit. Mild supercharging may be okay, keep it under 10 PSI and keep an eye on your fuel supply. But, pushing past that invites a world of hurt and endless spending. You would be better off buying another car with more CID, and start from scratch with a specific goal in mind. Just my .02C, gents, happy motoring! Yeah, Mac, say what you want but who are three of us giving our cars to in Las Vegas in January in order to eval the various superchargers? That would be you! You know you love driving them. I think most of us have "safe" superchargers by your standards, but you will tell us in January. Looking forward to it. (Just giving you a hard time, by the way). See you soon. Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kahmann Posted November 11, 2008 Report Share Posted November 11, 2008 Yeah, Mac, say what you want but who are three of us giving our cars to in Las Vegas in January in order to eval the various superchargers? That would be you! You know you love driving them. I think most of us have "safe" superchargers by your standards, but you will tell us in January. Looking forward to it. (Just giving you a hard time, by the way). See you soon.Jim LOL now THAT'S funny! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LuLu Posted November 11, 2008 Report Share Posted November 11, 2008 Yeah, Mac, say what you want but who are three of us giving our cars to in Las Vegas in January in order to eval the various superchargers? That would be you! You know you love driving them. I think most of us have "safe" superchargers by your standards, but you will tell us in January. Looking forward to it. (Just giving you a hard time, by the way). See you soon.Jim Hehehe...You're a hoot, Jim, glad I know you and Chip a little better than usual. Yes, most setups I have read about here are indeed "safe", but there is always one owner out here who will want to push things. My message to any of them, is that the limits of a stock 4.6L-3V have indeed been examined. Why re-invent this wheel? Sorry if I sound like I'm badmouthing supercharging, I am not. But, at 5000 RPM and 130 MPH, there's not a finer driver out here than the SGT. Doesn't matter to me if it took a few seconds longer to get there. Later, y'all be safe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SGT/SC2873 Posted November 12, 2008 Author Report Share Posted November 12, 2008 thanks for the advice...think s/c is the way for me to go but will do it on the conservative side. Probably summer before I can pull it off so I can use that time to research and decide what I want to go with. Right now leaning more towards the whipple...time will tell. Thanks again. Craig Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al ellison Posted November 12, 2008 Report Share Posted November 12, 2008 Just to se the record straight on the early mustangs: The GT package, unless a dealer installed aftermarket package, was only available with the A code (225 horse) or the K code (271 horse) motors. The other V-8 (other than 64.5 D code - 210 horse) was the C code (200 horse). If you have ever driven one of the early K-codes or Shelby's - those are some extremely fun and torquey kars, much like our shelby GTs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWEDEMAN Posted November 12, 2008 Report Share Posted November 12, 2008 Swede, I concur with you re there should have been more factory HP, and even forged internals. Correct me if I am wrong but I believe the 66 Mustang GT with the Hi-Po had 271, not 225. I believe it was the K code. 69- The 1966 GT had a factory HP rating of 225 hp. The GT K Model had a fatcory HP rating of 271 HP. It also had solid lifters and cam, etc...etc... I owned this car and loved every minuite of it. It was an extremely strong car to drive and flat out screamed. The 306 HP was strictly for the Shelby GT350, and this was a nicely modded K Model engine. I am just saying this Shelby GT car was a must sell for CS. This was by far the best "business decision" he ever made as it put him on the map again. I will always think this SGT made it out of the corral with not enough HP. That is why I am SCing this car this next year if all goes well AND they'll make it so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HORSBYT Posted November 12, 2008 Report Share Posted November 12, 2008 Anyone up to see who puts out the highest HP N/A then? :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn&Steph Posted November 12, 2008 Report Share Posted November 12, 2008 I was going to S/C, but after realizing all the $$$$ I've spent on S/C'ing other Mustangs, I'm just tired of spending the $$$ AGAIN! Once you S/C, then like someone here said, you're gonna realize your tires suck, your brakes suck, your bottom end sucks, your suspension sucks, etc. You're going to realize that you have to "think" constantly about laying into the gas because you WILL wrap your pretty little gem around SOMETHING if you're not ALWAYS careful. Trust me, i've gone back and forth over the S/C. It's an immediate fix to an obvious problem. But, I really do love the car and prefer for it to remains as is. I'm staying N/A for as long as I can stand it. I tossed the idea around to mod. My cars will remain as they are. Period. Hoping someday that my cars will be the only ones to be like they came from Shelby. Yeah I know I'm dreamin! I have enough to get me in some trouble........ Now the 2005 GT is another beast ready for more mods when the time is right. Money ...Right! Glenn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.