|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 6,910
Hard-core CEG'er
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 6,910 |
Originally posted by JCSVT:
Originally posted by RandyCSVT:
does anybody have any ideas what kind of torque a car like mine should be producing? and what could be keeping it low if it is low?
It's probably within the errors of the dyno. I just said that because my car made the same thing without the headers nd y-pipe. Anywhere from 150 to 160 seems normal for modded SVTs.
I don't think that I can agree with that. at a dyno meet I set up most of the svts were stock and they pulled about 155, the one really modded one for the group pulled around 182 hp and 155 torque, think he had a optimized y-pipe and tb, K&N and a magnaflow res.
now my SE put down about 151 for torque or 156 with standard correction on a dynojet, and I have the SVT airbox,main cat and exhaust with a optimized y-pipe and a drop in K&N
- 95 Mystique LS - Zetec/5spd
- 99 Contour SeVT Sport - Duratec/5spd
Official NE-CEG Contour/Mustang Family
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,423
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,423 |
Originally posted by RandyCSVT:
This is not a representation of your typical loaded mustang dyno numbers. I chose to have them converted to dynojet numbers, because that is what most people use. So dont think of this as mustang dyno numbers, because They would be lower.
Please explane how they converted them to Dynojet numbers  There is no direct comparision or conversion as all dynos will produce different numbers from one to another. Mustang and Dynojet dynos are two totally different types of dynos. The only way to convert them would be to have both dynos side by side and dyno the same car on each back to back on the same day. Not likeley to ever really happen since shops don't typically have both because of the cost and also shops use one or the other and tend to discredit the results of the other type dyno.
Not bashing or anything but when people talk about converting numbers from one dyno to the other as I and many others have found out is not worth poop 
Your numbers look great for a "Mustang Dyno"...your mods are a little less then mine but you have a chip where I don't. Obviously I need a chip also suggested by the tuner doing my dyno...said I needed at least another 500 or more RPM to get the results fom my mods. My pulls were limited by the stock rev limitter so they did not produce maximum HP.
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
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,810
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,810 |
They can determine the "average difference" in percent over multiple dyno runs from both mustang and dynojet and come up with a generic number like 5% difference. Then you just multiply or divide by the percentage.
It isn't meant to be exact but only to standardize for comparison purposes.
If we didn't allow standardization of temperature and pressure then NO dyno graph would be worth the paper it was printed on.
I'd take it for what it is worth.
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 |
I'm still not convinced that the shop would have a direct comparison to do the conversion or why they would even want to. As I said most shops believe in the dyno they have and don't care about the others. Plus I don't even know if they can alter the numbers of the printout to raise or lower the results Doing this would be pointless and a complete waste of time and money IMO. I'll check with the local Mustang dyno shop and see if this is even possible and if so is it something they ever do. So if it's say 5% then my numbers are just about the same with my mods and no chip. So with a 5% adjustment  I would be ~180.23hp/152.56lb on a Dynojet from my 172hp/145lb Mustang dyno results. I'll have to get a Dynojet pull in November when the temp is around the same as when I did my Mustang pulls last fall to see if this is even remotly close  This is so silly 
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
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,130
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
OP
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,130 |
I went to Coastal Dyno in Tampa. Everybody says great things about this shop, and I trust that he really knows what he is doing. He said his mustang dyno could give you the usual mustang numbers(lower than dyno jet) or he could adjust it to dynojet numbers. He mentioned something about mustang dyno's giving loaded numbers that were more accurate but lower. He recommended I go with the adjusted numbers, because that is what most dyno's give and would make for a better comparison.
Originally posted by Who the F are You?:
does your family tree not have any branches on it?
99SVT
235hp @ 6550rpm
212tq @ 5350rpm
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,810
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,810 |
It is really only a quest for standardization. Like saying I can lift 100 and you can lift 100 on the bench, but I'm talking kilograms and you're talking pounds, but after you'd done 50 pushups.
The tests will never be the same so for true comparison you have to adjust them. If you don't trust the adjustment then you will have to dyno on both machines. Don't worry, they already correct for temperature.
It really isn't that big of a deal. Just quote the actual numbers you were given without corrections.
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: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,130
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
OP
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 1,130 |
Originally posted by warmonger:
It is really only a quest for standardization. Like saying I can lift 100 and you can lift 100 on the bench, but I'm talking kilograms and you're talking pounds, but after you'd done 50 pushups.
The tests will never be the same so for true comparison you have to adjust them. If you don't trust the adjustment then you will have to dyno on both machines. Don't worry, they already correct for temperature.
It really isn't that big of a deal. Just quote the actual numbers you were given without corrections.
Just to make sure everyone is clear. I didnt do any converting, these are the numbers that were given to me. 182hp and 152tq.
Originally posted by Who the F are You?:
does your family tree not have any branches on it?
99SVT
235hp @ 6550rpm
212tq @ 5350rpm
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,810
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 5,810 |
Those are great numbers and they are not in debate. Evidently the wisdom of trying to directly compare the dynojet to the mustang IS though.
Well, when dynoject is everywhere and most of the standards are done on dynojet then this is what you get.
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 RandyCSVT:
I went to Coastal Dyno in Tampa. Everybody says great things about this shop, and I trust that he really knows what he is doing. He said his mustang dyno could give you the usual mustang numbers(lower than dyno jet) or he could adjust it to dynojet numbers. He mentioned something about mustang dyno's giving loaded numbers that were more accurate but lower. He recommended I go with the adjusted numbers, because that is what most dyno's give and would make for a better comparison.
Randy, can you ask them what the % of correction they use? Just curious since in the example warmonger said 5% and my Mustang Dyno numbers convert over almost exactly to your numbers Not much difference in our mods except your Chip and my Max-Flow Extrude Hone UIM for the most part. While just a speculation/guess on warmonger's part 5% seems to be pretty darn close 
Originally posted by warmonger:
Those are great numbers and they are not in debate. Evidently the wisdom of trying to directly compare the dynojet to the mustang IS though.
Well, when dynoject is everywhere and most of the standards are done on dynojet then this is what you get.
I agree...Dynojet's are everywhere mainly do to cost and portability for the most part. Plus show's need to produce big numbers to draw the crowd into dynoing their cars. Still funny how the majority brags the Dynojet numbers and rags on the Mustang numbers and now Dynojet is getting on the Mustang load dynos bandwagon with their new latest and greatest model 224xLC http://www.dynojet.com/automotive_dyno/224xLC_dyno/index.php Eddy Current Load Absorption Unit, Torque Cell, and dynamic load control software. Perform loaded tests, including step, sweep, and wind drag simulation...go figure. Hummm...pretty much the same thing Mustang Dyno's have always done. Kind of makes you wonder why Dynojet would go to a system that will produce lower numbers then their current system... unless they now know something that Mustang has known all along
All good and interesting stuff
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
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 6,760
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 6,760 |
Ryan
Trollin!
|
|
|
|
|
