Dyno'd
3/26/10, 10:01 PM
#182
FR500 Member
Join Date: July 1, 2008
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
3/26/10, 11:14 PM
#183
Team Mustang Source
3/26/10, 11:49 PM
#184
Cobra R Member
Join Date: September 11, 2009
Posts: 1,774
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not saying this is wrong... but all this did was prove how off the numbers can be.
"factoring in anywhere from 10-25 percent of output lost to friction" Yea, nice margin to play with...
MT "estimates" a 15% power loss. So real hp is 435.
You can't just throw out a percentage tho... 15% at that. The whole percentage thing plays off of the 248 Dyno which typically (95% of the time) uses a 15% rule... which they don't show it in the article but they mention the use of a 'K&N's Dynojet' which has the same specs as the 248...
I mean, ok... I estimate power loss is 9.2%... so real hp is 412!? woahhh! Crazy!
Then there's this:
"Fifth gear for both the Mustang 5.0 and V-6 is 1.00:1, which is typically ideal for dyno pulls because less torque multiplication (or overdrive reduction) lowers the load on the gear teeth and reduces losses. These gears proved too tall, so we dropped down to fourth and third gear..." -MT
They may have made the numbers what they want them to be?
I'd love to see what the outcome was in the 5th gear!!!!
Be it higher or lower...
Edumnds HP was 395.
MT's HP was 378
Difference of 17
I believe 378 over 395, as I had thought a 375 pull was more likely... but I'm just saying... I would wait for more comparisons... Also as to what a mustang dyno will read out. Then a posted 5th gear number spread (and graph) would be nice.
"factoring in anywhere from 10-25 percent of output lost to friction" Yea, nice margin to play with...
MT "estimates" a 15% power loss. So real hp is 435.
You can't just throw out a percentage tho... 15% at that. The whole percentage thing plays off of the 248 Dyno which typically (95% of the time) uses a 15% rule... which they don't show it in the article but they mention the use of a 'K&N's Dynojet' which has the same specs as the 248...
I mean, ok... I estimate power loss is 9.2%... so real hp is 412!? woahhh! Crazy!
Then there's this:
"Fifth gear for both the Mustang 5.0 and V-6 is 1.00:1, which is typically ideal for dyno pulls because less torque multiplication (or overdrive reduction) lowers the load on the gear teeth and reduces losses. These gears proved too tall, so we dropped down to fourth and third gear..." -MT
They may have made the numbers what they want them to be?
I'd love to see what the outcome was in the 5th gear!!!!
Be it higher or lower...
Edumnds HP was 395.
MT's HP was 378
Difference of 17
I believe 378 over 395, as I had thought a 375 pull was more likely... but I'm just saying... I would wait for more comparisons... Also as to what a mustang dyno will read out. Then a posted 5th gear number spread (and graph) would be nice.
Last edited by 2010MustangGT; 3/26/10 at 11:54 PM.
3/27/10, 12:02 AM
#185
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: October 3, 2004
Location: South Jersey
Posts: 741
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The best part about the MT Dyno article is the fact they state that the track numbers are more impressive than the dyno. Can't wait till Sunday night. No sleep! 
3/27/10, 01:57 AM
#186
Mach 1 Member
Join Date: May 2, 2005
Posts: 607
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think we owe the guy at Edmunds an apology after Motortrend proved his point with pulls in 3rd and 4th gear. Obviously lower gears are not helping and might be hurting the dyno numbers. I thought the redline in 5th could be a problem and it was the case. I don't agree with 15% Motortrend mentioned. 12% is a better number for a manual transmission Mustang. Either way, the new Stang is going to beatdown the competition.
OK wise guy... 
but with all the talk before, was this 87, 91 or 93?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post