Notices
2010-2014 Mustang Information on The S197 {GenII}
Sponsored By:
Sponsored By:

Dyno'd

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 3/24/10, 07:12 PM
  #21  
Needs to be more Astony
 
Knight's Avatar
 
Join Date: October 4, 2004
Location: Volo, IL
Posts: 8,609
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes on 5 Posts
different dyno but 6-speed manual camaro 364rwhp.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PN2GGzlX0QE
Old 3/24/10, 07:16 PM
  #22  
Mach 1 Member
 
1trickpony's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2, 2005
Posts: 607
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I just thought about what octane was used? We talked before about what 94 octane might add. 375 rwhp is probably 430 fly wheel on a stick. Maybe on 94 octane the 5.0 is making 425-430 HP? I just read it had 91 octane. I'm guessing its under rated by 20 HP/TQ

Last edited by 1trickpony; 3/24/10 at 07:26 PM. Reason: updated info
Old 3/24/10, 07:25 PM
  #23  
Needs to be more Astony
 
Knight's Avatar
 
Join Date: October 4, 2004
Location: Volo, IL
Posts: 8,609
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes on 5 Posts
Originally Posted by 1trickpony
I just thought about what octane was used? We talked before about what 94 octane might add. 375 rwhp is probably 430 fly wheel on a stick. Maybe on 94 octane the 5.0 is making 425-430 HP?
Do we know if the ecu is even designed to read that high of octane, it might have a base timing that is good for 91 or somthing and will retard for less but might not advance for 93 or 94...
Old 3/24/10, 07:40 PM
  #24  
Mach 1 Member
 
1trickpony's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2, 2005
Posts: 607
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Still nothing on Camaro 5. I thought this would be front page news.
Old 3/24/10, 07:44 PM
  #25  
V6 Member
 
MattN03's Avatar
 
Join Date: February 13, 2005
Location: Harrodsburg, KY
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Awesome numbers if they are correct. We need some 1/4 passes to see if it's really putting down that kind of power IMO...
Old 3/24/10, 07:48 PM
  #26  
eci
Banned
 
eci's Avatar
 
Join Date: August 16, 2006
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by MattN03
Awesome numbers if they are correct. We need some 1/4 passes to see if it's really putting down that kind of power IMO...
They are correct. For that dyno. On that day.

Based on Edmunds other cars they've dyno'ed on that very dyno, you could extrapolate 418 crank HP from their reading on this car.

Last edited by eci; 3/24/10 at 07:51 PM.
Old 3/24/10, 07:59 PM
  #27  
Bullitt Member
 
YSUsteven's Avatar
 
Join Date: September 9, 2009
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 489
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
To me, thats a perfect exhaust note. Now I am gona have to get a GT just for the sound...
Old 3/24/10, 08:09 PM
  #28  
Team Mustang Source
 
montreal ponies's Avatar
 
Join Date: January 30, 2004
Location: Montreal
Posts: 3,738
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Great find THX. Nice to see some new stuff starting to come out.
Old 3/24/10, 08:17 PM
  #29  
Cobra R Member
 
Fazm's Avatar
 
Join Date: September 21, 2004
Posts: 1,664
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
dynoed in the wrong gear huh?
Old 3/24/10, 08:20 PM
  #30  
Team Mustang Source
 
bpmurr's Avatar
 
Join Date: October 13, 2004
Location: MD
Posts: 2,842
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I don't trust these numbers. Their GT500 numbers were way out of wack.
Old 3/24/10, 08:20 PM
  #31  
Team Mustang Source
Thread Starter
 
Topnotch's Avatar
 
Join Date: January 31, 2004
Location: NYC
Posts: 3,045
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
http://blogs.insideline.com/straight...ang-gt-50.html

Old 3/24/10, 08:32 PM
  #32  
eci
Banned
 
eci's Avatar
 
Join Date: August 16, 2006
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Fail.

All of these at-the-wheels figures were obtained in 4th gear
Numbers are useless. Someone email them.

I wonder how many magazines and reviews are going to fail by dynoing it in 4th, assuming that gear is 1:1. It would be safe to subtract 30 - 40 HP from the numbers they obtained in 4th if you ran it 5th as you should.

Last edited by eci; 3/24/10 at 08:38 PM.
Old 3/24/10, 08:46 PM
  #33  
 
06GT's Avatar
 
Join Date: June 29, 2005
Posts: 4,618
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes on 6 Posts
Originally Posted by eci
Fail.



Numbers are useless. Someone email them.

I wonder how many magazines and reviews are going to fail by dynoing it in 4th, assuming that gear is 1:1. It would be safe to subtract 30 - 40 HP from the numbers they obtained in 4th if you ran it 5th as you should.
Yeah I just came here to post this...you'd think Edmunds would know better.
Old 3/24/10, 08:46 PM
  #34  
Bullitt Member
 
whysoserious's Avatar
 
Join Date: September 8, 2009
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 350
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Somehow I'm not suprised that a auto "journal" like insidetheline managed to publish a review with such an oversight. We need Brenspeed or Doug from Bamachips to get a hold of one of these things and check it out.
Old 3/24/10, 08:59 PM
  #35  
Mach 1 Member
 
Skotty's Avatar
 
Join Date: January 18, 2010
Location: KC, MO
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Are corrections made for the final drive ratio? I don't know anything about dyno testing procedures. Seems you should be able to dyno in pretty much any gear and adjust for the transmission ratios, using higher gears for a more manageable test, but I don't know. I'm hoping they didn't screw up, but I'm guessing they probably did.
Old 3/24/10, 09:24 PM
  #36  
FR500 Member
 
PTRocks's Avatar
 
Join Date: July 1, 2008
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
nevermind

Last edited by PTRocks; 3/24/10 at 09:30 PM.
Old 3/24/10, 09:25 PM
  #37  
FR500 Member
 
PTRocks's Avatar
 
Join Date: July 1, 2008
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Knight
Do we know if the ecu is even designed to read that high of octane, it might have a base timing that is good for 91 or somthing and will retard for less but might not advance for 93 or 94...
They tested with 91.
Old 3/24/10, 09:26 PM
  #38  
Mach 1 Member
 
1trickpony's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2, 2005
Posts: 607
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I wasn't expecting all of negative comments here, maybe on Camaro 5, but not here. Regarding some of the reactions, the Edmunds dyno seems to read a little high. I think they had 501 for the 2010 GT500 and 480 is closer to most other dynos. I think 375 rwhp is a good bet and that's closer to 430 HP. About doing the pull in 4th, that's about the same as doing a pull in 3rd for a 2010. MM & FF did this and said there's little effect on HP but TQ reads a little higher (5 percent?). Reading the blog, the numbers sounds legit. Edmunds has run the car in the quarter so they know what it can do. They just cannot release the numbers yet. I'm guessing they got a 12.6 at 112 and that's why they're saying its under rated. We'll see next week!
Old 3/24/10, 09:40 PM
  #39  
eci
Banned
 
eci's Avatar
 
Join Date: August 16, 2006
Posts: 1,633
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
How is discussing differing dynos and incorrect dyno testing procedures negative?

Geez.

The difference between here and Camaro 5 is they are all fanboys. I like to think that here, we talk about reality. The engine isn't making 450HP. What does Ford have to gain by under rating? NOTHING. If the engine made 450, you bet they'd advertise it!

I had a dyno operator run my G8 in 3rd instead of 4th on the first pull by mistake. It measured 335 in 3rd and 301 in 4th.

Last edited by eci; 3/24/10 at 09:46 PM.
Old 3/24/10, 09:46 PM
  #40  
Cobra R Member
 
Fazm's Avatar
 
Join Date: September 21, 2004
Posts: 1,664
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
except if they have a boss 302 thats rated at 450 or so, why would you buy it.


Quick Reply: Dyno'd



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:09 PM.