Livernois Dynoes '05 Mustang
10/1/04, 10:32 PM
#22
FR500 Member
Join Date: June 12, 2004
Posts: 3,071
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by CUON24@October 1, 2004, 6:57 PM
i guess we have to realize that this is a brand new mustang as well....things obviously havent set in and it will pick up some hp once they do
i guess we have to realize that this is a brand new mustang as well....things obviously havent set in and it will pick up some hp once they do
10/1/04, 10:45 PM
#23
Bullitt Member
Join Date: May 25, 2004
Posts: 478
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by bob@October 1, 2004, 7:44 PM
so its making about 290 hp, give it a few weeks and an oil change and see what it makes, the engine needs to loosen up a bit.
so its making about 290 hp, give it a few weeks and an oil change and see what it makes, the engine needs to loosen up a bit.
10/1/04, 11:42 PM
#24
Legacy TMS Member
typical mustang drivetrain absorbs about 35 hp (254+35 = 289) basing crankshaft HP on a percentage loss can prove misleading sometimes as the math would indicate that higher HP engines create inherently less efficient drivetrains which is not always the case.
300 x .15 = 45
350 x .15 = 53
400 x .15 = 60
450 x .15 = 68
500 x .15 = 75
-----------------
As an example going from 300 to 500 hp would indicate using a % loss of absorbtion through the drivetrain that it would soak up an additional 30 HP or about 27 additional ft/lbs. to drive the trans, driveshaft and rear end, thats a heck of alot of distortion, binding and stress which I know isn't the case.
to illustrate; the new 05 8.8 comes with 31 spline axles vs. the 28 spline axles on 04 and down 8.8 rear ends. Ever seen a 28 spline axle compared to a 31 spline axle?
There is a world of difference in axle diameters, more than enough I think to counter any deflection an additional 40 hp would provide.
So thats why I add 35 hp to the rwhp figures rather than using a percentage loss due to drivetrain absorbtion.
I don't know what sort of break in Ford does on the 4.6 3v or drivetrain, but its been shown repeatedly that when a car gets a few miles under its belt, things will loosen up a bit and absorb less power. So the same mustang might dyno higher a few miles down the road. Besides 290 is close enough to 300 not to matter anyway.
300 x .15 = 45
350 x .15 = 53
400 x .15 = 60
450 x .15 = 68
500 x .15 = 75
-----------------
As an example going from 300 to 500 hp would indicate using a % loss of absorbtion through the drivetrain that it would soak up an additional 30 HP or about 27 additional ft/lbs. to drive the trans, driveshaft and rear end, thats a heck of alot of distortion, binding and stress which I know isn't the case.
to illustrate; the new 05 8.8 comes with 31 spline axles vs. the 28 spline axles on 04 and down 8.8 rear ends. Ever seen a 28 spline axle compared to a 31 spline axle?
There is a world of difference in axle diameters, more than enough I think to counter any deflection an additional 40 hp would provide.
So thats why I add 35 hp to the rwhp figures rather than using a percentage loss due to drivetrain absorbtion.
I don't know what sort of break in Ford does on the 4.6 3v or drivetrain, but its been shown repeatedly that when a car gets a few miles under its belt, things will loosen up a bit and absorb less power. So the same mustang might dyno higher a few miles down the road. Besides 290 is close enough to 300 not to matter anyway.
10/2/04, 04:15 PM
#26
Dethroned Nascar Guru
I also have used a mustang dynamometer. Got my sheet right in front of me now.
Mustang dynos do indeed run lower than dynojets. Typically about 91%
According to my sheet: "To compare these HP/TQ results to factory net ratings, multiply by 1.26 for a manual trans. or 1.31 for an automatic trans."
So: 254.1 x 1.26 = 320.166 flywheel HP, and 274.8 x 1.26 346.248. Holy Crap! (I just figured this as I am typing) That is freakin awesome.
For those of you used to a dynojet, this equals about 278rwhp and 301 rwhp.
This car rules!
Mustang dynos do indeed run lower than dynojets. Typically about 91%
According to my sheet: "To compare these HP/TQ results to factory net ratings, multiply by 1.26 for a manual trans. or 1.31 for an automatic trans."
So: 254.1 x 1.26 = 320.166 flywheel HP, and 274.8 x 1.26 346.248. Holy Crap! (I just figured this as I am typing) That is freakin awesome.
For those of you used to a dynojet, this equals about 278rwhp and 301 rwhp.
This car rules!
10/2/04, 04:33 PM
#27
Originally posted by Dan@October 1, 2004, 11:11 PM
Those hp and tq curves look AMAZING!!!! The torque curve is practically a horizontal line. All of the torque is almost available at 1000rpm.
The hp curve even looks better than most cars torque curves. Very nice. Lots of power everywhere..... 
Those hp and tq curves look AMAZING!!!! The torque curve is practically a horizontal line. All of the torque is almost available at 1000rpm.
The hp curve even looks better than most cars torque curves. Very nice. Lots of power everywhere.....
isn't that torque curve nice
These are impressive power numbers, I wonder how they will change as the motor breaks-in more.
10/2/04, 04:57 PM
#28
Do You Remember Me?
Join Date: January 29, 2004
Posts: 5,999
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Galaxie+October 2, 2004, 6:36 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Galaxie @ October 2, 2004, 6:36 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Dan@October 1, 2004, 11:11 PM
Those hp and tq curves look AMAZING!!!! The torque curve is practically a horizontal line. All of the torque is almost available at 1000rpm. The hp curve even looks better than most cars torque curves. Very nice. Lots of power everywhere.....
Those hp and tq curves look AMAZING!!!! The torque curve is practically a horizontal line. All of the torque is almost available at 1000rpm.
The hp curve even looks better than most cars torque curves. Very nice. Lots of power everywhere.....
isn't that torque curve nice
These are impressive power numbers, I wonder how they will change as the motor breaks-in more. [/b][/quote]
Very sweet. Even though the graph starts at 3000rpm, it is very flat and I'm sure you're still getting quite a bit even under there. Can't wait to drive it.
10/2/04, 05:13 PM
#29
Dethroned Nascar Guru
Found this at http://forums.modulardepot.com/showthread/t-18509.html
Totally stock 03 Mach 1 with less than 1000 miles, dynoed on mustang and dynojet on the same day (didn't say if it was auto or manual but I would guess auto based on the low #s)
Mustang dyno= 237rwhp;
Dynojet=267 rwhp.
About difference 12%
3 months later: same '03 Mach 1, with a JMS/SCT Chip, all else stock down to filter, 6950 miles; same day same car:
Mustang dyno=289 rwhp ,
Dynojet= 313 rwhp.
About 8% difference.
Don't ask me to explain why mustang and dynojet had 8% difference one day and 12% another. Maybe as the hp increases the differences narrow?
Totally stock 03 Mach 1 with less than 1000 miles, dynoed on mustang and dynojet on the same day (didn't say if it was auto or manual but I would guess auto based on the low #s)
Mustang dyno= 237rwhp;
Dynojet=267 rwhp.
About difference 12%
3 months later: same '03 Mach 1, with a JMS/SCT Chip, all else stock down to filter, 6950 miles; same day same car:
Mustang dyno=289 rwhp ,
Dynojet= 313 rwhp.
About 8% difference.
Don't ask me to explain why mustang and dynojet had 8% difference one day and 12% another. Maybe as the hp increases the differences narrow?
awesome 
10/2/04, 08:41 PM
#32
Dethroned Nascar Guru
The Mustang Dynamometer shop I went to was very consistent over time.
E.J.'s Dyno Shop in Omaha:
6/21/ 2001: 206.6rwhp @4400
7/6/2001: 207.3rwhp@4500
5/21/2002: 207.3rwhp@4500
No personal experience with dynojet consistency
E.J.'s Dyno Shop in Omaha:
6/21/ 2001: 206.6rwhp @4400
7/6/2001: 207.3rwhp@4500
5/21/2002: 207.3rwhp@4500
No personal experience with dynojet consistency
10/2/04, 08:51 PM
#33
Team Mustang Source
Join Date: July 4, 2004
Posts: 1,077
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its not so much dyno consistency as operator consistency. Did they strap it down the same did they enter the same info in the computer are all the wires hooked up tight. Mustang Enthusiast mag is doing a three dyno comparison. Should be coming out with the new issue soon.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
carid
Vendor Showcase
0
7/20/15 06:26 AM