|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 310
CEG\'er
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 310 |
Originally posted by MapOfTaziFoSho:
I know dale kortes did like 218 or 208 at the wheels with his NA 3L. He is anti computers tho...so the odds of me getting his dyno is slim. He just ordered an Xcalibrator and a wideband...so I expect even better #'s. I'd like to get into that region with mine.
Sorry for the late posting. Here's my final tune before the 3L came out of the 95. I'll be adding headers to it and tuning with an XCal2 and wideband. We'll see what happens. This is with no secondaries. Doesn't look like I'm losing too much down low.  And I hope to be pulling a bit more torque since I finally cleaned some of the tap shavings out of the knock sensor hole  . Hopefully I can get a bit more timing in there too but I'll have to keep an eye on the knock sensor and see what happens.
Dale
I'll put holes in him!!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,810
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,810 |
Look at that. It totally lacks the low end torque bump, the curve is flat until the manifold gets too its' higher rpm efficiency.
What would be good is to put them in and see if it drops from the peak torque.
I doubt it though. 175 on SE cams, I'd have thought they'd pull more peak torque than an SVT cam engine.
Very good information though.
Former owner of '99 CSVT - Silver #222/2760
356/334 wHP/TQ at 10psi on pump gas!
See My Mods
'05 Volvo S40 Turbo 5 AWD with 6spd, Passion Red
'06 Mazda5 Touring, 5spd,MTX, Black
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 310
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 310 |
Yeah, that would be ok for SE cams. The problem is though, Those are SVT cams   . We'll see how she does in the new car though and go from there. Maybe I was better off with my SE flywheel for a bit more weight. Oh well.
Oh yeah, this was also using a 3L alum UIM.
Last edited by SETour95-3; 09/20/05 02:21 AM.
I'll put holes in him!!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,810
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,810 |
Wow, ok that is more like what I would expect. Honestly if you don't have a way to tweak the timing then no secondaries is definitely NOT better.
This graph shows that it is making average torque at the top end with about -10 ft-lbs in the low area. THe SVT cams were designed to have the benefit of the dual runner intake.
Former owner of '99 CSVT - Silver #222/2760
356/334 wHP/TQ at 10psi on pump gas!
See My Mods
'05 Volvo S40 Turbo 5 AWD with 6spd, Passion Red
'06 Mazda5 Touring, 5spd,MTX, Black
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,423
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,423 |
Originally posted by SVT PETE:
Originally posted by Y2KSVT:
Originally posted by SVT PETE:
That's it, I know it's not realistic to compare dyno #s, but I need to get my 3L on a DynoJet.
 Was my post the straw that broke the camel's back? If so, then GOOD! Cause I've been wanting to see what kind of power your car makes on a Dynojet! 
IIRC, you've got the SHM headers correct? What kind of headwork?
It's the fact that 9+/10 dyno on DynoJets. I would loosely like to see where I stand.
3.0 hybrid by DanG
Ported & polished heads by kinger
SHM long tube headers, Jet Hot coated
Extrude Honed Power Flow UIM, Jet Hot coated
CTA intake pipe, Jet Hot coated
65mm throttle body, optimized
AFE 8" filter
Bassani cat-back exhaust
Edelbrock muffler (resonator)
Torsen LSD
SPEC Stage 1 clutch
SPEC flywheel
If I have money after paying for the wedding, hopefully a chip/tune.
As a comparison on a Mustang dyno:
scottd60 w/ intake Bassani
159.0hp, 127.6tq
Myself: 202.4hp, 177tq
You guys (not you Pete) aren't paying attention to Pete's post...he dynoed on a Mustang Dyno not Dynojet. Mustang Dyno is a controlled variable resistance dyno (argued to be more realistic) while the Dynojet is an inertia dyno (get the drum rolling...then little effort to keep it rolling...argued to generate inflated numbers). Funny how Dynojet is now going to a load testing feature on their latest and greatest model 224xLC more info here...web page.
From http://www.mustangdyne.com/performancetuning.htm "The Mustang Dynamometers are unique. All Mustang Dynamometers are loading dynamometers designed to duplicate real world operating conditions. Our patented control system uses eddy current power absorbers to load a vehicle exactly the way it would be loaded on the street -- including wind resistance, which is a significant factor in high-speed testing. Mustang dynos also feature a load cell to measure the power being applied to the rolls. Without going into a lot of theory, a Mustang dyno gives you a real world tune, every time".
Pete's numbers are quite good without really being tuned yet and if compared to the rest with Dynojet numbers he will more then likely have as good as the top or higher numbers then most N/A's cars on this site. There has been as much as 20% difference in Dynojet and Mustang dyno numbers with Dynojet producing the highest numbers. Pete and I both had planned to dyno again together on a Dynojet just for the sole reason of comparing the difference of our Mustang dyno's vs. Dynojet dyno's. I will do it before I do any more mods to my car.
Bottom line...don't compare the results from both dyno's it is not a realistic comparison. The only way to compare is to do both dyno's with the same car with the same mods and try and have similar weather conditions to even get a realistic comparison.
Oh yeah, Pete those were my base numbers, my new numbers are...
Mustang Dyno: 172hp/145tq
My Mods:
Stock 2.5L 2000 SVT
MSDS Headers & Y-Pipe (Jet-Hot coated),Bassani Cat-Back
Extrude Hone Max-Flow UIM (Jet-Hot coated)
BAT Intake Pipe, MAF adapter, K&N RU3530
Scott
2000 Contour SVT #1464
Mustang Dyno: 171.6hp/145.3lb
Dynojet Dyno: 171.1hp/148.9lb
1989 20th Anniversary Turbo T/A "Indy 500 Pace Car"
#1376 of 1550 All Original, 46k with a few mods
2002 F150 SuperCrew
|
|
|
|
|
