Jump to content
TEAM SHELBY FORUM

New dyno results from MD-1100 Mustang Dyno


ChrisSD
 Share

Recommended Posts

441RWHP / 427RWTQ. The Dynojet 248c that I took the car to the other day is on crack, since a Mustang Dyno read higher. One interesting thing is the stock tune starts going lean at the upper end, not the greatest thing. Car was driven 30 miles to the dyno and had a 5 minute cooldown. Dyno was recently calibrated so these should be reliable numbers. A Dynojet 224xLC which is what most here use would have most likely read 30HP/TQ higher. Operator was surprised at the amount of the timing the car was commanding, it got as high as 22. He datalogged it as well as did the dyno. These are SAE numbers. The stock tune seems to start going lean at the top , correlating directly with the increasing boost.

 

md1.jpg

 

md2.jpg

Edited by ChrisSD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Dynojet 248c that I took the car to the other day is on crack, since a Mustang Dyno read higher. One interesting thing is the stock tune starts going lean at the upper end, not the greatest thing. Car was driven 30 miles to the dyno and had a 5 minute cooldown. Dyno was recently calibrated so these should be reliable numbers. A Dynojet 224xLC which is what most here use would have most likely read 30HP/TQ higher. Operator was surprised at the amount of the timing the car was commanding, it got as high as 22. He datalogged it as well as did the dyno. These are SAE numbers.

 

md1.jpg

 

md2.jpg

 

Your not too far off from what Evo got on their Mustang dyno.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep thats almost exactly what ours looked like.

 

what would you think i could get with just a Lund EVO tune,and not change anything else--just range would be fine,no committed numbers.I use 93 octane.If you dont want to post send me a PM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

what would you think i could get with just a Lund EVO tune,and not change anything else--just range would be fine,no committed numbers.I use 93 octane.If you dont want to post send me a PM.

 

Evo previously posted 510 HP, 480 TQ, up 55 & 40, respectively, with just a tune. Not bad!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

what would you think i could get with just a Lund EVO tune,and not change anything else--just range would be fine,no committed numbers.I use 93 octane.If you dont want to post send me a PM.

 

Your mailbox is full. I tried to reply to your PM.

Edited by bpmurr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So am I missing something? 441RWHP assuming a 15% drivetrain loss would mean roughly 520 flywheel HP which is 20 HP short of Ford's quote of 540. I have to be missing something.

 

There are many brands of dynos. All of them read differently. This "15% drivetrain loss" myth comes from Dynojets, which are inertia based dynos. Mustang Dynos are load based eddy current dynos and provide more realistic numbers. They are the lowest reading dyno but provide a real load on the car based on many factors. 441RW is a very strong number on a Mustang Dyno!

Edited by ChrisSD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The link is dated 8/25/09, titled "Anyone tuned their baby, yet?", post 91 from mixxer, 8/25.

 

thanks heres the link--http://www.teamshelby.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=46328&st=80

it says after tune,which could mean alot of tweaking,including using the Lund tune.My question to mixxer (whos never answered any of my 3 posts on the subject) is if I only use the Lund tune,what should i expct from hp gain

Link to comment
Share on other sites

thanks heres the link--http://www.teamshelby.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=46328&st=80

it says after tune,which could mean alot of tweaking,including using the Lund tune.My question to mixxer (whos never answered any of my 3 posts on the subject) is if I only use the Lund tune,what should i expct from hp gain

 

Call him.....

 

No trying to sound like an ass but that's what he told me. :)

 

I believe the tune we receive is not exactly the same and slightly dumbed down on the side of safety.

Edited by bpmurr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are many brands of dynos. All of them read differently. This "15% drivetrain loss" myth comes from Dynojets, which are inertia based dynos. Mustang Dynos are load based eddy current dynos and provide more realistic numbers. They are the lowest reading dyno but provide a real load on the car based on many factors. 441RW is a very strong number on a Mustang Dyno!

 

I'm curious about going from a Mustang dyno reading to cooresponding crankshaft hp, as advertised by all mfg. Would you multiply the Mustang dyno reading by +13% to get to Dynojet equiv. and then add 15% to get to crankshaft hp? Or am I missing something?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm curious about going from a Mustang dyno reading to cooresponding crankshaft hp, as advertised by all mfg. Would you multiply the Mustang dyno reading by +13% to get to Dynojet equiv. and then add 15% to get to crankshaft hp? Or am I missing something?

Can't really do that. It's all BS math based on guessing. All I can say is 441RW SAE on a Mustang Dyno is inline with a 540HP SAE crank #.

Edited by ChrisSD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...
...