[adrock]

Not super happy with the numbers. But I guess Mustang + Altitude = Lower Numbers??

Details:
Mustang Dyno
PROcede V2.02 2-26-08
-Preset TQ Settings (90% I beleive)
Ultimate Racing Catback (Secondary Cat Delete)
91 Octane
Elevation: 4,226 FT
Results are Temp Adjusted but it was about 45 deg.
Pulls were done in 4th gear

309 HP
343 TQ

[ArmyBimmerDude]

Wow, very impressive. Congrats!

Its a Mustang, not Dynojet. Dynojet numbers would be 355rwhp/395wtq. Great for just an exhaust and piggyback on 91 octane.

[2007_E93]

Originally Posted by adrock

Not super happy with the numbers.

Details:
Mustang Dyno
PROcede V2.02 2-26-08
-Preset TQ Settings (90% I beleive)
Ultimate Racing Catback
91 Octane
Elevation: 4,226 FT
Results are Temp Adjusted but it was about 45 deg.
Pulls were done in 4th gear

309 HP
343 TQ

WTF? Is anyone else really surprised by this? I was expecting AT LEAST 50 more horses and 30-40 more torque.

[KanosWRX]

Mustang Dyno's usually read lower from what I remember.

[SteelTorque]

Originally Posted by 2007_E93

WTF? Is anyone else really surprised by this? I was expecting AT LEAST 50 more horses and 30-40 more torque.

Please read the thread. This is a Mustang dyno. They read I believe 15% lower than DynoJets.

[Tortfeasor 335xi]

Originally Posted by 2007_E93

WTF? Is anyone else really surprised by this? I was expecting AT LEAST 50 more horses and 30-40 more torque.

Without a pre mod run on the same dyno the same day, its hard to evaluate what those numbers mean. Different dynos on different days will spit out vastly different numbers for the same car.

[adrock]

Originally Posted by SteelTorque

Please read the thread. This is a Mustang dyno. They read I believe 15% lower than DynoJets.

If that is true then I would be super happy with those numbers! I did not think it was 15% lower!

[cn555ic]

Adrock..Do you have a intake?? I think without the OEM airbox, you will see much better numbers for sure...ITs far too restricting...Plus its a Mustang Dyno...

[ArmyBimmerDude]

Originally Posted by adrock

If that is true then I would be super happy with those numbers! I did not think it was 15% lower!

Its true, which is why I posted your numbers plus the 15% in the second post of this thread.

[adrock]

Originally Posted by cn555ic

Adrock..Do you have a intake?? I think without the OEM airbox, you will see much better numbers for sure...ITs far too restricting...Plus its a Mustang Dyno...

Next on the list! Still waiting on a good design to come out..

Originally Posted by ArmyBimmerDude

Its true, which is why I posted your numbers plus the 15% in the second post of this thread.

I had realized that a Mustang would produce lower "more accurate" numbers, but I did not realize that it made that big a difference. Thanks!

[E82tt6]

Add 12% and that's about what you'd read on a Dynojet. Pretty good for 91 octane.

[Ruff Rider]

Adrock also remember your at 4226 feet. I could not believe the difference when I went to Vegas, a drop of 2500 feet. The car had so much more power.

[Park2670]

Great Adam! Thanks for inviting me

[Mr. 5]

I know it's a mustang dyno and I know it's at altitude, but the numers still seem kind of low.
I don't know man.

[adrock]

Originally Posted by Park2670

Great Adam! Thanks for inviting me

Haha sorry dude, I didn't know you wanted in! I am going back when I get my CAI, we will have to plan a trip down.

Originally Posted by Mr. 5

I know it's a mustang dyno and I know it's at altitude, but the numers still seem kind of low.
I don't know man.

I tried to search and didn't come up with much, but what are other people getting on Mustang dynos?

[Dustin Bramell]

Originally Posted by Mr. 5

I know it's a mustang dyno and I know it's at altitude, but the numers still seem kind of low.
I don't know man.

If it is commonly accepted that the correction is 15%, and you know it is at altitude, and you know that cobb is a direct competitor of ours, why is it so easy to say that the numbers are still low?

But I guess, in keeping with the trend, I should quote something that Karl from Active Autowerke told a customer regarding correcting a mustang dyno to BHP conversion.

"I was put in my place this past weekend by the man, himself, Karl Hugh(@ Active Autowerke), about this same subject. I always thought the equation BHP(flywheel HP)was RWHP x 1.25, but Karl told me that it is RWHP x 1.31, which still brought up good numbers for me slightly above average (bone stock).

http://forums.bimmerforums.com/forum...45&postcount=2

So, with Active's equation, the OP's car makes over 400BHP at almost 5,000 feet above sea level. Seems pretty darn good to me.

[Ryan(e92)]

Niether a dynojet nor a mustang dyno is immune to poor calibration which is why a before and after dyno is necessary to determine power increase.

[Mr. 5]

When you are saying correction is 15%, I'm assuming that you mean a 15% drivetrain loss.
Well, if the correction is 15% then how could he be getting 400 hp if it's 309 at the wheels?

309 whp with 15% drivetrain loss is 363 hp at the crank--not 400.
Also, a lot of people like to think that elevation works the same with turbo cars as NA cars when in fact the loss isn't as big.

I have no clue with where AA got their equation.
If the drivetrain loss is 15% then:

rwhp = chp(1-.15)

so

chp = rwhp/.85


I didn't mean to start anything huge; I just thought that the numbers seem kind of low.

Originally Posted by Dustin@Vishnu

If it is commonly accepted that the correction is 15%, and you know it is at altitude, and you know that cobb is a direct competitor of ours, why is it so easy to say that the numbers are still low?

But I guess, in keeping with the trend, I should quote something that Karl from Active Autowerke told a customer regarding correcting a mustang dyno to BHP conversion.

"I was put in my place this past weekend by the man, himself, Karl Hugh(@ Active Autowerke), about this same subject. I always thought the equation BHP(flywheel HP)was RWHP x 1.25, but Karl told me that it is RWHP x 1.31, which still brought up good numbers for me slightly above average (bone stock).

http://forums.bimmerforums.com/forum...45&postcount=2

So, with Active's equation, the OP's car makes over 400BHP at almost 5,000 feet above sea level. Seems pretty darn good to me.

[Dustin Bramell]

Originally Posted by Mr. 5

When you are saying correction is 15%, I'm assuming that you mean a 15% drivetrain loss.
Well, if the correction is 15% then how could he be getting 400 hp if it's 309 at the wheels?

309 whp with 15% drivetrain loss is 363 hp at the crank--not 400.
Also, a lot of people like to think that elevation works the same with turbo cars as NA cars when in fact the loss isn't as big.

I didn't mean to start anything huge; I jus tthought that the numbers seem kind of low.

Re-read what I said. I was saying that 1.15 is the correction from mustang to dynojet. But then I pointed out a correction that Karl at active uses to convert mustang RWHP to BHP, which is 1.31. So with Active's correction we end up with 309*1.31= 404.79BHP.

Maybe I wasn't clear.

[jpsimon]

I think it reads 15% lower than a dynojet... in which case it would be about....

355.35whp if done on a dynojet @ this altitude on 91octane... Seems really good to me. But again we need to know what the car dynoed stock to get a real idea.

how do mustang dynos compare to dyno dynamic dynos (which also read very low — 15-20% — compared to dynojets)?

Originally Posted by Mr. 5

When you are saying correction is 15%, I'm assuming that you mean a 15% drivetrain loss.
Well, if the correction is 15% then how could he be getting 400 hp if it's 309 at the wheels?

309 whp with 15% drivetrain loss is 363 hp at the crank--not 400.
Also, a lot of people like to think that elevation works the same with turbo cars as NA cars when in fact the loss isn't as big.

I have no clue with where AA got their equation.
If the drivetrain loss is 15% then:

rwhp = chp(1-.15)

so

chp = rwhp/.85


I didn't mean to start anything huge; I just thought that the numbers seem kind of low.

[Mr. 5]

hmm,
Well if the the powertrain loss is that bad with a mustang dyno then I guess those are good numbers.

Originally Posted by Dustin@Vishnu

Re-read what I said. I was saying that 1.15 is the correction from mustang to dynojet. But then I pointed out a correction that Karl at active uses to convert mustang RWHP to BHP, which is 1.31. So with Active's correction we end up with 309*1.31= 404.79BHP.

Maybe I wasn't clear.

[Ruff Rider]

Mr. 5 have you ever driven at 5000 ft elevation for an extended period of time? Not just passing through. I do it every day and I can say it makes a big difference. Just going down 2500 ft to Vegas for 3 days made me realize what elevation can do to these cars.