Assman

iTrader: (2)

Finally got my car dyno'd but the local dynojet is down, so this is on a DYNOmite dyno which they said reads like a mustang dyno. I'm pretty happy with the results, expecially through a 9" and 4.11 gears.

I got 395whp and roughly 370wtq(didn't give me a peak tq #). I'll post up a pic of the graph in a few minutes.

Assman

iTrader: (2)

blu1

looks pretty lean if 13.42 is where its reading at redline at the lowest point.

Assman

iTrader: (2)

I should mention this is at 4400'. It still needs some more tuning, it surges a bit below 1700rpms and wants to die sometimes, i'm heading back to get it tuned in Febuary so maybe I can get even more.

fly pantera

iTrader: (9)

you and i have the same setup,only difference is i have stock throttle body,and slp longtubes.same intake,cam,heads,rearend,gears.

mind did 419 on dynojet

Assman

iTrader: (2)

Nice! Where I have a bit from the TB, you have the better headers. I figured that's about where I would be on a dynojet.

snatch

iTrader: (4)

I put out 415rwhp with the Torquer 2 112+4 and TSP stage 2.5 5.3 heads. Supporting mods were 80mm TB, LS6 Intake, pacesetter LT's, 3" B&B Tri-Flow, 25% underdrive pulley, Vig 3200 and 10 bolt w/ 3.42's.

Assman

iTrader: (2)

HAHA, love the name!

Here's a question for someone, I know altitude affects track times quite a bit, but it seems like dyno #'s arn't too far off. Why would it affect track times so much more than dyno #'s? Or does it affect dyno #'s more than I think...

PewterScreaminMach

iTrader: (7)

Nice numbers. They look pretty spot on with those mods if your dyno reads similar to most mustang dynos.

As far as the altitude goes, was there a correction factor on the dyno (SAE, STD)? That would take into consideration the altitude, I believe, but there's no way to figure in for altitude at the track without just estimating.

Assman

iTrader: (2)

In the corner of the dyno sheet, it says correction method: Standard. So that means no correction right?

PewterScreaminMach

iTrader: (7)

An STD reading will be about 4% higher than SAE numbers. It is a different correction method.

Assman

iTrader: (2)

Lol, i'm still lost there. SAE means there's no correction then?

12secSS

iTrader: (30)

SAE is the current correction factor for dynos, STD is the old SAE method of dyno correction. They use different weather conditions for corrections. Actual or no correction would have no correction. Track numbers will never fall in line with dyno numbers because dyno numbers are always corrected to a sea level and estimated from flywheel numbers (gear ratio multiplies the torque output), where as track number are not corrected to sea level. This is how the internet has standardized the power output numbers from cars, corrected dyno numbers and non-corrected track numbers, it is very odd to me. I would prefer non-corrected dyno and track numbers, but listed with weather conditions and/or density altitude.

Either way, those are excellent numbers from your setup.

Assman

iTrader: (2)

Ah okay, that makes sense now. Thanks for the info!

I've been thinking about ditching the mids for LT's and maybe true duals for my next step. I'm debating between that and a fast 90 setup. I love these tough decisions.

myfast70

iTrader: (38)

Sure there is. You can buy a weather tracker to get your density altitude and you use that number to get a correction factor number from auto calculator. Once you have both numbers you just multiply them to get your corrected numbers.

PBMFIsMe

iTrader: (5)

Rev that thing on out to 7K. You spent the money for the heads and springs to handle the higher RPMS, you might as well use them. Despite the Torquer designation, that cam is more of a high RPM cam than anything.

I had a T2 on my setup until recently. I had a custom cam spec'd out and made more power across the board with it. The specs are in my sig. Apparently bigger isn't always better. At least with camshafts LOL.

Assman

iTrader: (2)

I don't want to rev her that high on the stock bottom end, my rev limiter is set at 6600. How much power did you make with the T2?

PBMFIsMe

iTrader: (5)

I made 410/349 with it.

The new one actually carries a little farther, but it was the low and midrange gains where it really shined over the T2 in my car. It was as much as 20HP/TQ higher than the T2 in some places, but peak HP was identical.

Camaro01SS4life

iTrader: (4)

Wow...Thank you...You are one of the first people to correctly explain this...I have said it times before and people still seem to have no idea how weather and corrections work...Density altitude is what you have to look at, and not neccasarily the field elevation...Density altitude is altitude corrected for non standard temp which is 59 degrees F(15C)...You can have a 0 feet track altitude but have a 2000+ density alt...In turn, the car is going to run like it was in 2000 feet air...
The correction factor is not 4% from STD to SAE...SAE readings are corrected to standard atmospheric conditions which are 59F and 29.92 of pressure...Thats why dynos have weather stations equipped on them...There will be times when STD and SAE numbers can be the same...
Another point to add, dynoing your car in hot weather is going to make no difference in numbers if you are using SAE correction unless the car is experiencing more knock due to hotter air...The correction factor in this case will be a higher % than that of cold conditions...I hope this clears some things up...Seems as though a lot of false/misleading info has been floating around...

Kev

Camaro01SS4life

iTrader: (4)

BTW...Nice lookin numbers...To bad the torque wasn't peaking a little sooner or had more of a table top to it...350ft/lb dosent come into play till 4200 RPM...But if thats what you like then thats all that matters...Congrats on the new power!..

Kev