I was wanting to compile a .xls document of dyno results, but the current dyno thread is full of supercharged, mustang dyno, STD, undocumented, and unorganized dyno data. AFBlue used to update an excel spreadsheet, but alas that has stopped. I was hoping to get a good sampling of dyno numbers with a list of modifications, with certain parameters.

What I think is a good standard is....
1. Naturally aspirated engine. FI makes me jealous and I don't have the money.
2. 05+ 4.6L engines. 5.4L engines make me cry.
3. Dynojet numbers. Mustang numbers are a different standard.
4. SAE, this is important. I have been guilty in the past of STD numbers.
5. Sheets, we need to see sheets. Sheet provide proof.
6. A list of modications that could effect the dyno readings. ALL of them.
7. Manual transmission please. I can't think in automatics.

In return, I will attempt to provide an bi-monthy updated .xls file of the results.

 

Stock dyno, 3.55 gears, 235/55-17 tires.
266.63 HP
289.77 TQ

 

Steeda CAI with Elbow, Bamachip 93 Race tune, 3.55, 235/55-17.
292.09 HP
312.00 TQ

 

Steeda Billet CMCV, Steeda UDP, Steeda CAI with Elbow, Bamachip CMCV 93 Race tune, 3.55, 235/55-17.
303.77 HP
325.65 TQ

 

Subscribing.

 

I had Tillman Speed run this one back in Aug. on a 95+ degree day.

287.18rwhp and 302.88 rwtq - Tillman Speed Dyno tune, C&L 'Street' intake, Borla Stinger Axleback, and (if it makes any difference at all) I had on the heavya$$ GT500 Rims/Tires.



I never had a stock run done and am planning on getting another one done to see what I gained with the Prochamber.

 

Shawn (shwaco) 2007 Mustang GT - 3.55:1 Gears - Manual - C&L Racer Intake - Axle Backs - 93 Octane

294.66 Rear Wheel Horsepower (SAE)
313.63 Rear Wheel Torque (SAE)

 

Ken 2006 Mustang GT - 3.55:1 Gears - Manual - Airaid Intake (w/insert) - Loudmouth Axlebacks - 93 Octane

289.58 Rear Wheel Horsepower (SAE)
305.56 Rear Wheel Torque (SAE)

 

Good gains across the measured rev range with the CMDP--don't see any loss of low end torque like some others have mentioned! (although the dyno doesn't really start until 2500rpm).

 

Its all in my sig. The mods and a link to the SAE corrected dynojet sheet. I dunno why my numbers are so high but, my gtech did say I ran a 12.69 1/4 with a 1.7 60', 0-60 4.5 seconds, and that's at 3500 above sea level.

 

364rwhp? Wow

 

Wait, wait... you are putting down 364 RWHP & 385 RWTQ with a WMS intake, an X-pipe, Flowmasters, UDP's, and shorty headers? ..all with 4:10's at 3500'... That's what, 425hp+ at the flywheel without FI or cracking a valve cover...

 

1.12 CF, those numbers seem out of bounds, I am not going to allow that result, sorry.

 

yea like I said I have no idea. It read 325/343 non corrected rwhp. But like I said ran a 12.69 at 3500 feet. That'd be what a 12.3 at sea level? How many can do that with only 300- 320 rwhp sae and a crappy 1.7 60'? I never did get a stock baseline but I'm pretty sure I started with a factory freak to begin with. I test drove another 5 spd gt from the same lot and the one I bought definently had more go. Also my wms cai is with the bigger 95mm maf, and is made fully ram air functional with my hood. I got an aluminum d/s as well. Other than that I have no idea lol.

 

You're probably putting down around 290 SAE correction.... 4.10's may bring you down a little lower. Maybe 310RWTQ?

 

You know of one single person that's ran a 12.3 1/4 with a 1.7 60', no weight reduction other than aluminium ds, 18's, and only making 290 rwhp? I'm not saying 364 is right but I'm making way more than 290. I thought maybe the dyno I ran on possible auto corrected so my 325/343 was actually SAE. I think that makes more sense with my mods and 1/4 times no? I could be way off but if I had a factory freak that would be about 275 rwhp sae, then ceramic headers, xpipe, udps for about 25 hp. *nd intake, maf, and brenspeed/dyno tune for the other 25ish.

 

Oh don't get me wrong... I'm just saying this:

The only CF even close to near what SAE would be at it's HIGHEST level depending on altitude, climate, temp, etc... is run#1. The rest are nearly 10-15% too high (1.12/1.13) as opposed to (.95-1.03ish). And 4.10's are going to bring you down another % or two. This is kind of inconclusive. I'll bet with 3.55's you may put down 310 actual SAE correction. If your car was a "freak", maybe you're right 320 or so SAE. The highest I can see you putting down based on your mods, SAE corrected, with 4:10's included would be like 305ish SAE.

What kind of a dyno were those results from?

The thread starter was just trying to put together legitimate SAE corrected numbers. That's the only reason I even chimed in.

 

You're probably closer to 300-310rwhp. Shorties aren't worth much on these cars, UDPs maybe 5hp, Xpipe (if off-road) maybe 10hp, and the intake/tune maybe another 20hp.. If you had a 275RWHP freak, that puts you around 310 RWHP...

Though with 310 RWHP you could be in the mid 12's with a good driver and some traction.

 

2007 Mustang GT with manual transmission.
Western Motor Sports (WMS) Cold Air Intake (CAI) with 80mm maf.
SCT Livewire Tuner with 87 octane gas.
Tuned in the summer time
295 RWHP
320 FT/LB RWTQ

 

Ok that makes sense. I always figured the corrections on the dyno were out. I'm at 3500 feet. Yea I always assumed based on others results that my actual #'s were more likely my SAE ones. It was done on a dynojet. The dyno guy figured it would be about a 40 rwhp difference from where we are to sea level. I drove to the coast this spring and it sure felt like that much of a difference I could break loose grabbing 2nd like nothing lol. And a fyi the first run on my sheet was the very first time on the dyno with no tune, no intake. All the ones after that are with all the mods I have and tweeqing the brenspeed tune on the dyno.