ChrisSD Posted September 30, 2009 Report Share Posted September 30, 2009 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpmurr Posted September 30, 2009 Report Share Posted September 30, 2009 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. Your not too far off from what Evo got on their Mustang dyno. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mixxer Posted October 1, 2009 Report Share Posted October 1, 2009 Yep thats almost exactly what ours looked like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Torched10 Posted October 1, 2009 Report Share Posted October 1, 2009 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 More sharing options...
bring500 Posted October 1, 2009 Report Share Posted October 1, 2009 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 More sharing options...
F150 Duke Posted October 1, 2009 Report Share Posted October 1, 2009 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpmurr Posted October 1, 2009 Report Share Posted October 1, 2009 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. Mustang Dyno add another 10 to 13 percent Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Torched10 Posted October 1, 2009 Report Share Posted October 1, 2009 Evo previously posted 510 HP, 480 TQ, up 55 & 40, respectively, with just a tune. Not bad! i searched and couldnt find that--do you have a link thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpmurr Posted October 1, 2009 Report Share Posted October 1, 2009 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisSD Posted October 1, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 1, 2009 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! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mixxer Posted October 1, 2009 Report Share Posted October 1, 2009 with a stage zero kit and H/E we have seen from 540 to 555 to the tire Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bring500 Posted October 2, 2009 Report Share Posted October 2, 2009 i searched and couldnt find that--do you have a link thanks The link is dated 8/25/09, titled "Anyone tuned their baby, yet?", post 91 from mixxer, 8/25. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mixxer Posted October 2, 2009 Report Share Posted October 2, 2009 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Torched10 Posted October 2, 2009 Report Share Posted October 2, 2009 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 More sharing options...
bpmurr Posted October 2, 2009 Report Share Posted October 2, 2009 thanks heres the link--http://www.teamshelby.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=46328&st=80it 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bring500 Posted October 7, 2009 Report Share Posted October 7, 2009 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 More sharing options...
ChrisSD Posted October 7, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 7, 2009 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 #. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1268 Posted October 7, 2009 Report Share Posted October 7, 2009 Can these badboys reach 600 rwhp without adding a blower or lower pulley? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bring500 Posted October 7, 2009 Report Share Posted October 7, 2009 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 SE crank #. Thanks for that info. Will give me something to compare with when I get to the local Mustang dyno place Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisSD Posted October 7, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 7, 2009 Thanks for that info. Will give me something to compare with when I get to the local Mustang dyno place Ask them to print it using SAE correction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mixxer Posted October 8, 2009 Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 45-60 depending on gas torched Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironpeddler Posted October 8, 2009 Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 Evo previously posted 510 HP, 480 TQ, up 55 & 40, respectively, with just a tune. Not bad! I do not know about this, might be what they claim but 55hp from a tune is quite a bit. I have a tune from Jon Lund and it's about 40 h.p. short of 510. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.