Project Source Horse The Mustang Source's Supercharged 2006 Mustang GT Convertible Project
Visit ProjectSourceHorse.com

Dyno: Stock vs. Cat-Back vs. Headers + Tune

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Dec 4, 2005 | 08:58 PM
  #1  
TMSBrad's Avatar
Thread Starter
The Mustang Source FOUNDER
 
Joined: January 29, 2004
Posts: 9,890
Likes: 11
From: Vestavia Hills, Ala.
The red line is the stock run; the green line is with the Magnaflow cat-back; the blue line is with the JBA titanium ceramic-coated headers and the BamaChips tune, although the tune wasn't what we'd expected since the tank was full of 87 instead of 93. We'll give it another shot with the right fuel.

The peak numbers with the headers and tune aren't much better than the run with just the cat-back, but the gains across the RPM range are awesome.
  • Stock: 265.89 hp/280.05 ft.-lbs.
  • Cat-Back: 269.72 hp/286.28 ft.-lbs.
  • Headers + Tune: 271.43 hp/293.09 ft.-lbs.
[attachmentid=40168]
Reply
Old Dec 5, 2005 | 05:56 AM
  #2  
Galaxie's Avatar
I Have Admin Envy
 
Joined: January 30, 2004
Posts: 6,740
Likes: 1
I will take a shot in the dark and say the car will respond much better with the correct fuel

How has the driveability changed with the new modifications? has the throttle response improved?
Reply
Old Dec 5, 2005 | 08:13 PM
  #3  
Route 66's Avatar
Cobra Member
 
Joined: January 26, 2005
Posts: 1,194
Likes: 0
Just doesn't seem like much of an increase. Hopefully you'll see a better gain with the correct fuel.
Reply
Old Dec 5, 2005 | 10:41 PM
  #4  
pjdami's Avatar
V6 Member
 
Joined: June 14, 2005
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Not a bad improvement with just a cat-back. +4 HP & +6 ft-lbs. I've got my Magnaflows in the garage. Running with the JBAs for now.

Which tune did you have installed? 87 performance or torque? No CAI yet? I've got my SCT X2 coming from Doug. Looking forward to it.

I'll be looking for an update with the 93 fuel as I'm getting one of those tunes too.
Reply
Old Dec 6, 2005 | 04:36 PM
  #5  
Scothew's Avatar
Stubborn Bear
TMS Staff Retired
 
Joined: January 30, 2004
Posts: 22,692
Likes: 48
I acctually think he has a 93 tune in the car. The intent was to burn the tank of 87 and refil with 93, but Brad would have to verify as I was not there.
Reply
Old Dec 9, 2005 | 10:34 AM
  #6  
pjdami's Avatar
V6 Member
 
Joined: June 14, 2005
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Originally posted by Scothew@December 6, 2005, 6:39 PM
I acctually think he has a 93 tune in the car. The intent was to burn the tank of 87 and refil with 93, but Brad would have to verify as I was not there.
Yeah, that was what I was thinking but I've read to not run the car with a 93 tune with 87 octane. OK to run 93 octane with 87 tune though.
Reply
Old Dec 10, 2005 | 01:31 PM
  #7  
joesmustang's Avatar
GT Member
 
Joined: February 1, 2005
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
I'm pretty sure Doug wouldn't put in a 93 octane tune while brad had a full tank of 87 octane.
Reply
Old Dec 12, 2005 | 07:02 AM
  #8  
Scothew's Avatar
Stubborn Bear
TMS Staff Retired
 
Joined: January 30, 2004
Posts: 22,692
Likes: 48
Originally posted by joesmustang@December 10, 2005, 2:34 PM
I'm pretty sure Doug wouldn't put in a 93 octane tune while brad had a full tank of 87 octane.
Like I said, I was not there and I havent really had a chance to discuss with Brad. I do know that he's switched to 93 now. The car was at the shop immediately after the dyno tune so I know it didnt get ran much with the 87 in.

Maybe Brad or Doug will chime in
Reply
Old Feb 6, 2006 | 10:25 PM
  #9  
kampendmk's Avatar
GT Member
 
Joined: February 28, 2005
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
From: west covina
Igot 286 hp 312rwgt 91 oct at racersedge and sctx2
Reply
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
drmag
5.0L GT Modifications
4
Sep 1, 2015 03:47 PM
DarrenGT
5.0L GT Modifications
2
Aug 19, 2015 08:22 AM
SilverBullet13
2010-2014 Mustang
7
Aug 13, 2015 09:11 AM
Bullitt 3309
5.0L GT Modifications
5
Aug 2, 2015 10:20 PM




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:35 AM.