Last post seems to indicate that it was some sort of a "G-tech" type meter, not a track run

 

Unfortunate, I'm interested in real track runs, not the G-Tech stuff. Bah, more cars will be in the hands of drivers so we'll get some more times soon enough.

 

I think he just used that to get the data. He did an actual run, he said he'll get his friend to upload the slip...

 

check out the blog entry for dyno results from Evolution Performance: http://www.mustang50magazine.com/index.html

 

If he used a hardware solution that plugged into the OBD2 port and utilized EEC data, then it would be fairly accurate. Given the correct ratios, tire size, and VSS inputs from the EEC, it would be fairly simple math to calculate times to different speeds and quarter mile times. This is different than a G-tech, which simply uses an accelerometer (or three) to judge acceleration via inferred G-forces (thus, G-tech). The G-tech uses inputted vehicle weight to derive (while you derive, dawg) HP and TQ figures. With... varying accuracy.

 

OBDII port based ones like the dashhawk are unreliable due to tirespin. They measure that as distance traveled.

 

2011 Ford Mustang GT Dyno Test - The Real World
Evolution Performance scooped up an '11 Mustang GT and hit the track and dyno
From the April, 2010 issue of 5.0 Mustang & Super Fords
Obviously we are all excited about the '11 Mustang GT finally hitting dealer lots. We'll be following the developments closely, including watching over the shoulder of a few shop project cars. The first shop out of the gate is the crew at Evolution Performance. Check out their new ride after the jump...

After picking up the car, they drove it 70 miles straight to the drag strip, and made some heat-soaked passes resulting in a best run of 13.2 at 110 mph. That was on the stock tires with a 2.10 60-foot.

Obviously there's better performance to be had with a cool down, sticky tires, and the like. However, the Evo boys have their sights set on beyond-stock performance, and were ready to tinker right away with the exhaust and such.

Before doing so, however, Fred Cook, Nelson Whitlock, and the boys strapped the GT down to the company's in-house Mustang Dynamometer. This is a six-speed car with the optional 3.73s, and the test was run in fifth-gear, which is 1:1. The result was 368.60 horsepower and 352.48 lb-ft of torque at the rear wheels.

So, the TiVCT 5.0 modification revolution has begun. Stay tuned here for updates and to the pages of 5.0&SF magazine for more in-depth coverage as the aftermarket starts making Coyotes howl!

 

not bad..369RWHP with only 100 miles ...thats over 420 crank...and even 430plus if you use the normal 15% drivetrain loss.

 

I agree. ^
Especially the last 8 months. Hopefully it will be more like the year previous to that.

 

368.6 rwhp on a Mustang? I can live with that....

 

Ricer math. You cannot extrapolate crank HP from a dyno period.

 

not worth the time....

 

lol!

Very intelligent, well thought out reply citing evidence and facts.

 

yep it is...just like your stupid replies. Wish you would be banned again.

 

You are the one posting with bannable offenses =) keep it up.

OMHY GoD lEtS TAKe A dyNO # And FIguRE oUT THe CRNAK HPS!!!!


LOL

We don't even know if we are looking at STD or SAE #'s and the math wizzes are talking engine HP. It's also important to know how the dyno was set. Mustang Dynos can influence #s greatly.

 

LMAO

 

yep so be it....however you are used to these types of replies so what difference does it make?

 

Good power on a Mustang Dyno.

 

Well 368.6/412 means that the drivetrain is either 89.5% efficient (not likely!) or underrated once again (good thing!)

Either way... RWHP and RWTQ are the important numbers... my 2003 Mach 1 laid down 279 RWHP and 282 RWTQ with around 250 miles on the ODO. 368 is a great number!

 

only if I had your intelligent levels, my life would be complete....I can only hope to achieve them....please pray for me.