Dyno And Tuning This Friday...
08-03-2008, 04:18 PM
#61
TECH Fanatic
So much for "good."
Before the maggie, I dyno'd about 350 rwhp on a DynoJet. What does that equate to on a Mustang, maybe 325-330 or thereabouts? For whatever reason, my boost during the tune read about 5-5.5 psi and only maxed out at 5.8 psi at around 6k RPM. So, assuming a "325" baseline, I managed about 142-147 RWHP with the maggie ... on the high side, for sure, but within reason. (Magnuson claims "+135" with their conservative tune, I believe.)
Back to my Mustang-equivalent "baseline" of 325-330 with headers and a mail order tune, I figure the headers/tune combination yielded me about +25 Mustang-dyno RWHP. Your CAI might be good for, say, 3-5 RWHP. That would put my LS6 with your mods at about 310 RWHP plus another 10-ish for a tune for a total of about 320 Mustang-dyno RWHP compared to your LS2 at 374 Mustang-dyno RWHP. A friend of mine dyno'd his stock '07 V with an LS2 on the same DynoJet dyno I did for my 350 header only, pre-maggie and got about 345 RWHP (if my memory serves me) which tells me that the LS2 puts out about 20-25 more RWHP than an LS6, stock vs stock. (<-- THAT ought to raise a ruckus!)
With all that so-called rationale layed out, I could see you at maybe 345 RWHP or maybe even 350 under the best of circumstances, but 374 is just a bit high in my mind. Not denying it, just trying to reconcile. BTW, the weight setting comes to mind as a variable that has gone unmentioned up till now ... could this have been "manipulated" or set incorrectly some how? My tuner had some look-up table, and I had no say if it; he just set it, and that was it. I don't know what he set it at, but I've always heard that our cars weight is 3,850 lbs minus driver which more or less agrees with what you had.
(BTW, my motor was built in St. Catherines, Ontario, as were all LS6s ... not sure where the LS2is built ... Tonawanda maybe? Anyway, probably different set of blokes.)
hey rand just a random here but it is conducive to the issue of hp.
your numbers stretch as deep as mine on the hp tq side...so how
can you question such numbers? you don't have meth injection,
so basically your "tuner" was able to extract those numbers given
your car has only bolt on upgrades as well ie:headers and hi flows
( - the maggie ) which at 8 lbs. of boost is only netting you @ 12 rwhp
per lbs of boost = 96rwhp. take away your blower and u sit in the hot seat too.
no?
for your total mods you should only be around 450 tops on the hp side, and ur tq is acctually alittle low...maybe the same bunch built our motors.
your numbers stretch as deep as mine on the hp tq side...so how
can you question such numbers? you don't have meth injection,
so basically your "tuner" was able to extract those numbers given
your car has only bolt on upgrades as well ie:headers and hi flows
( - the maggie ) which at 8 lbs. of boost is only netting you @ 12 rwhp
per lbs of boost = 96rwhp. take away your blower and u sit in the hot seat too.
no?
for your total mods you should only be around 450 tops on the hp side, and ur tq is acctually alittle low...maybe the same bunch built our motors.
Back to my Mustang-equivalent "baseline" of 325-330 with headers and a mail order tune, I figure the headers/tune combination yielded me about +25 Mustang-dyno RWHP. Your CAI might be good for, say, 3-5 RWHP. That would put my LS6 with your mods at about 310 RWHP plus another 10-ish for a tune for a total of about 320 Mustang-dyno RWHP compared to your LS2 at 374 Mustang-dyno RWHP. A friend of mine dyno'd his stock '07 V with an LS2 on the same DynoJet dyno I did for my 350 header only, pre-maggie and got about 345 RWHP (if my memory serves me) which tells me that the LS2 puts out about 20-25 more RWHP than an LS6, stock vs stock. (<-- THAT ought to raise a ruckus!)
With all that so-called rationale layed out, I could see you at maybe 345 RWHP or maybe even 350 under the best of circumstances, but 374 is just a bit high in my mind. Not denying it, just trying to reconcile. BTW, the weight setting comes to mind as a variable that has gone unmentioned up till now ... could this have been "manipulated" or set incorrectly some how? My tuner had some look-up table, and I had no say if it; he just set it, and that was it. I don't know what he set it at, but I've always heard that our cars weight is 3,850 lbs minus driver which more or less agrees with what you had.
(BTW, my motor was built in St. Catherines, Ontario, as were all LS6s ... not sure where the LS2is built ... Tonawanda maybe? Anyway, probably different set of blokes.)
08-03-2008, 04:55 PM
#62
10 Second Club
iTrader: (11)
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Murrieta Ca.
Posts: 1,676
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A friend of mine dyno'd his stock '07 V with an LS2 on the same DynoJet dyno I did for my 350 header only, pre-maggie and got about 345 RWHP (if my memory serves me) which tells me that the LS2 puts out about 20-25 more RWHP than an LS6, stock vs stock. (<-- THAT ought to raise a ruckus!)
LS2 vs. LS6. It's not a ruckus because a 20-25 rwhp difference.... it's just not true. If you look at the differences between both motors, they are very equal. This has been discussed and proven over and over.
08-03-2008, 05:27 PM
#64
How long after you dynoed on the DJ until your friend did? It's a very flawed assumption.
LS2 vs. LS6. It's not a ruckus because a 20-25 rwhp difference.... it's just not true. If you look at the differences between both motors, they are very equal. This has been discussed and proven over and over.
LS2 vs. LS6. It's not a ruckus because a 20-25 rwhp difference.... it's just not true. If you look at the differences between both motors, they are very equal. This has been discussed and proven over and over.
How to explain the difference you experience, I don't know.
Jon
08-03-2008, 08:46 PM
#65
Banned
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 849
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
u cant read the screen in the dyno run?the numbers dont lie, ur useless, like a tit on a bull.
if i just posed that run (361.1rwhp & 324rwtq )
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1F50vWFKcQc
you all would dispute that claim as well?
if the power wasnt there to be had it couldnt have
been extracted by a tune, i guess i cant do
anything about ur weenis envy over hp and
my tuner. talk yourself into whatever you want,
my claims are proven true untill you prove me wrong,
and that's never gonna happen. so feel free to
be the a-holes ur parents raised u to be and
continue ur mike nice fan club cult following.
Last edited by OHSIXCTSV; 08-03-2008 at 09:15 PM.
08-03-2008, 09:28 PM
#66
Banned
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 849
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So much for "good."
Before the maggie, I dyno'd about 350 rwhp on a DynoJet. What does that equate to on a Mustang, maybe 325-330 or thereabouts? For whatever reason, my boost during the tune read about 5-5.5 psi and only maxed out at 5.8 psi at around 6k RPM. So, assuming a "325" baseline, I managed about 142-147 RWHP with the maggie ... on the high side, for sure, but within reason. (Magnuson claims "+135" with their conservative tune, I believe.)
Back to my Mustang-equivalent "baseline" of 325-330 with headers and a mail order tune, I figure the headers/tune combination yielded me about +25 Mustang-dyno RWHP. Your CAI might be good for, say, 3-5 RWHP. That would put my LS6 with your mods at about 310 RWHP plus another 10-ish for a tune for a total of about 320 Mustang-dyno RWHP compared to your LS2 at 374 Mustang-dyno RWHP. A friend of mine dyno'd his stock '07 V with an LS2 on the same DynoJet dyno I did for my 350 header only, pre-maggie and got about 345 RWHP (if my memory serves me) which tells me that the LS2 puts out about 20-25 more RWHP than an LS6, stock vs stock. (<-- THAT ought to raise a ruckus!)
With all that so-called rationale layed out, I could see you at maybe 345 RWHP or maybe even 350 under the best of circumstances, but 374 is just a bit high in my mind. Not denying it, just trying to reconcile. BTW, the weight setting comes to mind as a variable that has gone unmentioned up till now ... could this have been "manipulated" or set incorrectly some how? My tuner had some look-up table, and I had no say if it; he just set it, and that was it. I don't know what he set it at, but I've always heard that our cars weight is 3,850 lbs minus driver which more or less agrees with what you had.
(BTW, my motor was built in St. Catherines, Ontario, as were all LS6s ... not sure where the LS2is built ... Tonawanda maybe? Anyway, probably different set of blokes.)
Before the maggie, I dyno'd about 350 rwhp on a DynoJet. What does that equate to on a Mustang, maybe 325-330 or thereabouts? For whatever reason, my boost during the tune read about 5-5.5 psi and only maxed out at 5.8 psi at around 6k RPM. So, assuming a "325" baseline, I managed about 142-147 RWHP with the maggie ... on the high side, for sure, but within reason. (Magnuson claims "+135" with their conservative tune, I believe.)
Back to my Mustang-equivalent "baseline" of 325-330 with headers and a mail order tune, I figure the headers/tune combination yielded me about +25 Mustang-dyno RWHP. Your CAI might be good for, say, 3-5 RWHP. That would put my LS6 with your mods at about 310 RWHP plus another 10-ish for a tune for a total of about 320 Mustang-dyno RWHP compared to your LS2 at 374 Mustang-dyno RWHP. A friend of mine dyno'd his stock '07 V with an LS2 on the same DynoJet dyno I did for my 350 header only, pre-maggie and got about 345 RWHP (if my memory serves me) which tells me that the LS2 puts out about 20-25 more RWHP than an LS6, stock vs stock. (<-- THAT ought to raise a ruckus!)
With all that so-called rationale layed out, I could see you at maybe 345 RWHP or maybe even 350 under the best of circumstances, but 374 is just a bit high in my mind. Not denying it, just trying to reconcile. BTW, the weight setting comes to mind as a variable that has gone unmentioned up till now ... could this have been "manipulated" or set incorrectly some how? My tuner had some look-up table, and I had no say if it; he just set it, and that was it. I don't know what he set it at, but I've always heard that our cars weight is 3,850 lbs minus driver which more or less agrees with what you had.
(BTW, my motor was built in St. Catherines, Ontario, as were all LS6s ... not sure where the LS2is built ... Tonawanda maybe? Anyway, probably different set of blokes.)
(bottom left).
08-03-2008, 10:33 PM
#69
Dynos aren't the most comparable things in the world, but its not easy to take a CTSV to the drag strip and pull the best numbers (especially without breaking the rear). Oh, well.
Jon
08-03-2008, 10:50 PM
#71
10 Second Club
iTrader: (11)
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Murrieta Ca.
Posts: 1,676
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmm, he will be disappointed on a different dyno. Also I looked at the mongillo motors website, very unimpressed, to say the least. I thought 04ctsvfl was crazy to call that Mike out, but now I have seen the light.
Dynos aren't the most comparable things in the world, but its not easy to take a CTSV to the drag strip and pull the best numbers (especially without breaking the rear). Oh, well.
Jon
Dynos aren't the most comparable things in the world, but its not easy to take a CTSV to the drag strip and pull the best numbers (especially without breaking the rear). Oh, well.
Jon
All he has to do is drive it out of the hole to mph the car. Hell ,he's got East coast good air on his side.
08-04-2008, 04:23 AM
#73
Banned
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 849
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
if they doubt it, they frear it, and 3rd party assumptions only prove ur ignorance. now if that's a fact, tell me, am i lying?
Last edited by OHSIXCTSV; 08-04-2008 at 04:39 AM.
08-04-2008, 03:20 PM
#80
Banned
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 849
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJ2WQnAoYZ0
did you run it to 6400 "like this"!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ju7OECKzS2I
did you run it to 6400 "like this"!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ju7OECKzS2I