Something is up here...
10-23-2015, 02:11 PM
#1
Teching In
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Rochester NY
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Something is up here... Took the LS swapped Fox body to the dyno recently and came back with some controversial results.
2002 5.3 Block/rotating Assembly
799 Heads (untouched)
LS6 intake w/LS1 TB
LS2 Cam
Hedman Headers
2.5" Exhaust, X pipe, Flowmaster CB
T56 w/4.10 Gears
295 HP/ 294 TQ
I was told these numbers are uncorrected and was done on a Mustang Dyno.
What throws me off a bit is that the car runs 12.8 @112 with a 2.02 60ft. The math doesn't add up to me or the fact that the numbers are uncorrected is the problem.
What do you guys think??
2002 5.3 Block/rotating Assembly
799 Heads (untouched)
LS6 intake w/LS1 TB
LS2 Cam
Hedman Headers
2.5" Exhaust, X pipe, Flowmaster CB
T56 w/4.10 Gears
295 HP/ 294 TQ
I was told these numbers are uncorrected and was done on a Mustang Dyno.
What throws me off a bit is that the car runs 12.8 @112 with a 2.02 60ft. The math doesn't add up to me or the fact that the numbers are uncorrected is the problem.
What do you guys think??
Last edited by Keller428; 10-23-2015 at 02:18 PM.
10-23-2015, 02:21 PM
#2
Took the LS swapped Fox body to the dyno recently and came back with some controversial results.
2002 5.3 Block/rotating Assembly
799 Heads (untouched)
LS6 intake w/LS1 TB
LS2 Cam
Hedman Headers
2.5" Exhaust, X pipe, Flowmaster CB
T56 w/4.10 Gears
295 HP/ 294 TQ
I was told these numbers are uncorrected and was done on a Mustang Dyno.
What throws me off a bit is that the car runs 12.8 @112 with a 2.02 60ft. The math doesn't add up to me or the fact that the numbers are uncorrected is the problem.
What do you guys think??
2002 5.3 Block/rotating Assembly
799 Heads (untouched)
LS6 intake w/LS1 TB
LS2 Cam
Hedman Headers
2.5" Exhaust, X pipe, Flowmaster CB
T56 w/4.10 Gears
295 HP/ 294 TQ
I was told these numbers are uncorrected and was done on a Mustang Dyno.
What throws me off a bit is that the car runs 12.8 @112 with a 2.02 60ft. The math doesn't add up to me or the fact that the numbers are uncorrected is the problem.
What do you guys think??
10-23-2015, 02:44 PM
#4
Teching In
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Rochester NY
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's a 100% Complete (minus the LS obviously) 89 Fox Body. Without me it weighed in at 3160 on a fairly accurate scale. 3400 with my fat *** in it lol
10-23-2015, 04:33 PM
#6
Is this a factory 5.3 HO motor that came with the 799 heads or does this have dished pistons? If dished, and you added the 799 heads, you lost compression, and lost hp by adding the better flowing heads because of the loss in compression. Couple that with that garbage cam, and that is what you have.
IF, this has the flat top pistons, you tune is off, or something is wrong. I would swap that cam out, no question. Even if you bang in a LQ9 cam. My 5.3 puts down ~330 and it has stock heads, and is a low compression motor. It is a cam/LS6 intake and shorty headers.
As far as the #'s go, I don't see them being that far off, depending on where you are and the da?
IF, this has the flat top pistons, you tune is off, or something is wrong. I would swap that cam out, no question. Even if you bang in a LQ9 cam. My 5.3 puts down ~330 and it has stock heads, and is a low compression motor. It is a cam/LS6 intake and shorty headers.
As far as the #'s go, I don't see them being that far off, depending on where you are and the da?
10-23-2015, 05:57 PM
#7
Teching In
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Rochester NY
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't understand where your coming from on this. Your telling me the the LQ9 cam is better than the ls2 cam? And I lost that much compression the motor took a dive in power?
Is your 330 to the wheels SAE corrected? Your also running it through an auto as I am through a t56 where drive train loss is less. Just a little confused is all.
Is your 330 to the wheels SAE corrected? Your also running it through an auto as I am through a t56 where drive train loss is less. Just a little confused is all.
Trending Topics
10-26-2015, 08:48 AM
#9
So it's basically a near stock 5.3 with unknown compression and headers going through some steep gears.
Doesn't sound that far off in terms of numbers, what were you expecting from a very mild setup?
An LS2 is very similar to that setup (except for the displacement and headers) and that puts down 335-340rwhp. So you with less compression and displacement putting around 300 is not out of the norm even with headers and especially seeing as how the 4.10s will take away some numbers.
Doesn't sound that far off in terms of numbers, what were you expecting from a very mild setup?
An LS2 is very similar to that setup (except for the displacement and headers) and that puts down 335-340rwhp. So you with less compression and displacement putting around 300 is not out of the norm even with headers and especially seeing as how the 4.10s will take away some numbers.
10-26-2015, 03:12 PM
#10
Teching In
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Rochester NY
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From what I remember we figured the compression to be in the low 9s
10-26-2015, 04:09 PM
#11
My stock LS1 in my 99 Z28 made 297...sounds like a healthy 5.3 to me.
Its been said over and over, but if AFR is good, no knock, and it seems to take an acceptable amount of timing, and it runs right down the track, the numbers don't matter!
Be happy it goes 112, and if you need a better number, find a different dyno, as thats all it is, a different number
Its been said over and over, but if AFR is good, no knock, and it seems to take an acceptable amount of timing, and it runs right down the track, the numbers don't matter!
Be happy it goes 112, and if you need a better number, find a different dyno, as thats all it is, a different number
10-26-2015, 10:10 PM
#12
Don't go by those online calculators, the only lead to big time disappointment. lol Those calculators assume perfect conditions based on limited values so they are hardly ever accurate. Sometimes you can get them to match up but usually another number will still be wrong. I suspect your numbers are probably a little higher then what the dyno is showing, but that cam and probably your compression is killing you.
10-26-2015, 10:16 PM
#13
Teching In
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Rochester NY
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks everyone for the input. It is what it is I guess. Not like the car is a slouch at all. Was just disapointed not seeing that flashy number. Hopefully none of this will matter much after this winter. The plan is to rebuild the lq4 block I have with lq9 pistols and a Texas Speed cam. That should liven things up a bit (crossing fingers)
10-26-2015, 11:02 PM
#14
I have to agree with the above posters. I see nothing wrong with those numbers. One it is a Mustang dyno and they tend to read lower than the average Dyno Jet. Remember you are running 323 cubic inches. When you go to the 6.0L you will be at 366 cubic inches.