No Meth required 403WHP/527WTQ

[TopherSho]

VMSCANNER has a free trial .. I installed it and am looking at the logs now.  *IF* the logs are accurate it capped at 14.5-15 on the
spark.

EDIT :: I wish it logged the Ethanol content number and the octane correction numbers.  i am now suspect of that tank of gas given the spark cap in that log.   But then I do not know if HP tuners runs a different way of reading it ..   

I am on a new tank of gas now.. so i cannot replicate with a 3rd gear pull.

[TopherSho]

well doing internet napkin math makes things line up..  running with the old idea that 1 degree of timing means 1% power for certain displacements and boost makes everything click.



taking in to account 18.5% avg spark,  were less than 1% away from the expected target numbers.   Since the test was oddish with the HP tuner hook up, and less than ideal airflow VS datalogging or drag racing I'm calling it good..

I think AJP Turbo did a #$%^ing amazing job,  and this car for 13000$+600$ in tuning parts is RIDICULOUS.. it is a comfy Daily Driver  that is a hell of a machine. 

Next week is drag times at PIR,  i will update than but I am confident to be high-12's ...

AJP  thank you your work is amazing!!!

[lamrith]

I think AJP Turbo did a #$%^ing amazing job,  and this car for 13000$+600$ in tuning parts is RIDICULOUS.. it is a comfy Daily Driver  that is a hell of a machine. 

Next week is drag times at PIR,  i will update than but I am confident to be high-12's ...

AJP  thank you your work is amazing!!!

Wow, $13k, pre '13 I take it?  Affordability of mods is great on these cars, I think we lucked out with Ford leaving so much power on the table.

Nice that PIR is opening so early, not seeing any T&T dates for SIR (Sorry Pacific Raceways) until May 3rd.  I need to get the DP installed this weekend, then a bit more tuning/logging cycles to do though before I am ready for a Dyno or T&T day.

[TopherSho]

Yup, 2010 non-pp  .. but with 40k miles...

It was a decent deal, I jumped on it knowing what could be unlocked.

[TopherSho]

I think AJP Turbo did a #$%^ing amazing job,  and this car for 13000$+600$ in tuning parts is RIDICULOUS.. it is a comfy Daily Driver  that is a hell of a machine. 

Next week is drag times at PIR,  i will update than but I am confident to be high-12's ...

AJP  thank you your work is amazing!!!

Wow, $13k, pre '13 I take it?  Affordability of mods is great on these cars, I think we lucked out with Ford leaving so much power on the table.

Nice that PIR is opening so early, not seeing any T&T dates for SIR (Sorry Pacific Raceways) until May 3rd.  I need to get the DP installed this weekend, then a bit more tuning/logging cycles to do though before I am ready for a Dyno or T&T day.

Man if it was not for the full warranty I'd be knee deep in pipes cat-deletes and converted to HPFP, new injectors and run full e85 24x7...

[f8tlSHO]

I just had my ajp e20 tuned sho on the mustang dyno also. Made 332hp 386tq


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TopherSho]

I just had my ajp e20 tuned sho on the mustang dyno also. Made 332hp 386tq


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Heading to bed, but had to ask. Why does it seem that e20 e30 builds don't seem to push TQ as much as HP ?

[f8tlSHO]

I just had my ajp e20 tuned sho on the mustang dyno also. Made 332hp 386tq


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Heading to bed, but had to ask. Why does it seem that e20 e30 builds don't seem to push TQ as much as HP ?

Not sure. But I imagine if I had downpipes the numbers would be a little different. Car is completely stock other than tune and drop in filter. I am on e30 now, would like to go back to the same dyno to see power differences from the e20. My car actually was more efficient on 14psi than 15psi. Once again though it has stock crinkled up downpipes on it. Airflow is more restricted I would think. You can look at my thread in the dyno results , but a basically stock tune other than e20 fueling got 290hp and 290tq on stock boost and timing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[f8tlSHO]

I would've guessed 360/460 since your spark was around 20 degrees in your logs...wonder what it was when you did your pulls

Hopefully you can run it at the track

I know they call mustang dynos heart breakers but why do they read so low?..stock numbers must be embarrassing

So if a stock sho put down 250 that would be like a 33% loss through the drivetrain...that is far from what people use as acceptable loss of 20% for automatic cars

The mustang dynos use the vehicles full weight to calculate load. Dyno jets are at a fixed number of 1400lbs I believe. This is what my dyno guy said. So the mustang dyno is prob more accurate. So 4400lbs compared to 1400lbs..takes a lot less power to move 1400lbs, prob skews the numbers a bit


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TopherSho]

I would've guessed 360/460 since your spark was around 20 degrees in your logs...wonder what it was when you did your pulls

Hopefully you can run it at the track

I know they call mustang dynos heart breakers but why do they read so low?..stock numbers must be embarrassing

So if a stock sho put down 250 that would be like a 33% loss through the drivetrain...that is far from what people use as acceptable loss of 20% for automatic cars

The mustang dynos use the vehicles full weight to calculate load. Dyno jets are at a fixed number of 1400lbs I believe. This is what my dyno guy said. So the mustang dyno is prob more accurate. So 4400lbs compared to 1400lbs..takes a lot less power to move 1400lbs, prob skews the numbers a bit


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

plot thickens .. i know for a fact i saw my weight set to 4650 pounds..  Good feedback! TY!

[StealBlueSho]

I would've guessed 360/460 since your spark was around 20 degrees in your logs...wonder what it was when you did your pulls

Hopefully you can run it at the track

I know they call mustang dynos heart breakers but why do they read so low?..stock numbers must be embarrassing

So if a stock sho put down 250 that would be like a 33% loss through the drivetrain...that is far from what people use as acceptable loss of 20% for automatic cars

The mustang dynos use the vehicles full weight to calculate load. Dyno jets are at a fixed number of 1400lbs I believe. This is what my dyno guy said. So the mustang dyno is prob more accurate. So 4400lbs compared to 1400lbs..takes a lot less power to move 1400lbs, prob skews the numbers a bit


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

plot thickens .. i know for a fact i saw my weight set to 4650 pounds..  Good feedback! TY!

Maybe gross weight vs curb weight....

[f8tlSHO]

They used the flex specs with my dyno run and changed weight from 5k to 4400lbs. Not sure why they have flex specs and not sho specs


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[f8tlSHO]

Here is some info I found on the interwebz

Mustang dyno is a much better tuning tool. they set the resistance to your cars weight. that allows the engine to perform under the same load that it would see on the road. A dyno jet provides a set amount of resistance that has no relationship to what the actual engine load on the street would be. I believe (and could be wrong) that the resistance on the Dyno Jet is equal to a car weighing 2100#
Use a Dyno Jet for Dyno Queens The mustang is the real tuners tool.

Mustang measures torque and computes horsepower as HP = torque * RPM / 5252 while the Dynojet measures the acceleration (difference in RPM) of the drum and computes horsepower from that with a much more complex formula.

The Dynojet will have an increasing error as the horsepower goes up. For instance, you dyno stock and get 310 HP, then do heads, cam, boltons, etc, and dyno 450 HP. That number should be higher because the greater amout of power accelerates the drum more rapidly, throwing off their power calcualtion. Even as a tuning tool, the numbers should be taken with a grain of salt. The Mustang does not suffer from this phenomenon.

In theory, the Mustang should be closer to "true" horsepower.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TopherSho]

I would've guessed 360/460 since your spark was around 20 degrees in your logs...wonder what it was when you did your pulls

Hopefully you can run it at the track

I know they call mustang dynos heart breakers but why do they read so low?..stock numbers must be embarrassing

So if a stock sho put down 250 that would be like a 33% loss through the drivetrain...that is far from what people use as acceptable loss of 20% for automatic cars

The mustang dynos use the vehicles full weight to calculate load. Dyno jets are at a fixed number of 1400lbs I believe. This is what my dyno guy said. So the mustang dyno is prob more accurate. So 4400lbs compared to 1400lbs..takes a lot less power to move 1400lbs, prob skews the numbers a bit


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

plot thickens .. i know for a fact i saw my weight set to 4650 pounds..  Good feedback! TY!

Maybe gross weight vs curb weight....

//shrug//  dunno,  since I weighed the car on a set of scales with me in it @ 4650 pounds.. I opted to say nothing.    But as I now recall the Dyno he had DID look like a set of scales ..

hmm.. Oh well I still feel 100% confident in stating I absolutely make 500+ftlbs at the crank with 14.5 spark. I am WAY good with the results.   Now if my current experiment works i think i can knock a few tenths off the 1/4 mile and really surprise the crap out of some folks at PIR.

[StealBlueSho]

Tuning to load is ideal.... it will more accurately show where the stress points are in your tune... more load more stress right?? It maybe and probably is a better way to dial in a tune...

However, DynoJet is still the defacto standard for showing HP and TQ... so it's an issue of apples to apples comparison...

If the industry has standardized on DynoJet numbers, then using a dynojet will provide a more direct comparison...

Hope that helps...