BuLLdAwG

So I didn't want to hijack the cali guys thread with their pre-tune runs.

I am not very knowledgeable about dyno's but did a LITTLE research before the mustang dyno (MD500). I don't believe everything I read on the internet, but here is what I came up with. I read that mustang dyno's hp/tq readings are around 12% lower than dyno jet. The dynapack's run around 8% higher than the dynojet. That being said, based off everyone else who has run on dyno jet, I expected to come in around 330rwhp on the mustang dyno.

I have an HPS Intake w/AFE dry filter and a borla catback. All runs were run with the hood down and latched, but cracked open. All runs were in 6th gear based off what I read here.

Runs 1-2 were done in normal mode. For sure the first run was started at 2500rpm before WOT. I believe the second run was as well. Runs 3-5 all started at 2000rpm. Runs 3-4 were done in sport mode and run 5 was done in snow mode as I thought I remembered reading something about that. I requested nothing be changed throughout the testing except what we could document and nothing be done to skew my numbers for internet bragging rights. I never saw him do anything I did this to figure out my gain from the RR Racing tune. The time on the print outs show about 2 hrs later than it was. I started at 6pm (1800hrs). It was approximately 55 degrees outside.

All runs had a correction factor of approximately 1.051. I was told that was due to air density and ?altitude?....sorry I forgot. We are right around 2400' above sea level. Runs 1-2 when put up against each other were very close on the graph. Runs 3-5 were superimposed on each other they were so close. I'm shocked at the consistency of runs 3-5, but curious why the jump over runs 1-2. He let me run the car so maybe I inadvertently did something different??? I don't know what else to add.

Here are the number in easy to read form w/WCF:
Run 1 - normal - 370.0rwhp/348.7ftlbs
Run 2 - normal - 375.9rwhp/352.1ftlbs
Run 3 - sport - 396.1rwhp/365.8ftlbs
Run 4 - sport - 396.5rwhp/362.2ftlbs
Run 5 - snow - 396.6rwhp/364.3ftlbs

I find it a little hard to believe that these numbers are lower than a dyno jet, especially by 12%.

BuLLdAwG

RUN1





RUN1





RUN2





RUN2





RUN3





RUN3





RUN4





RUN4 (solid line) vs RUN2





RUN5





RUN5

BuLLdAwG

saved for after tune

RSXiMUS

iTrader: (7)

Wow solid numbers.

From what I gather so far, when you dyno the ISF the first two runs are usually low and then pull number 3 and beyond gives you the highest numbers for some reason.

MileHIFcar

^^^^^Unless it had something to do with the fact that he dynoed in normal mode for the first 2 runs then the next couple runs were done in sport mode???

BuLLdAwG

I've also seen at least 1 dyno on here where the 3rd run jumps up, but didn't "see" it until RSXiMUS said it.

Also, why would snow mode in the 5th run, match almost perfectly with the two sport mode runs (3/4)? He put runs 3/4/5 on top of them and I couldn't have traced them much better. They lined up amazingly close.

The corrected numbers seem high. I've heard that cars can have differ power numbers, but I wouldn't expect a 20hp increase over others with same/similar mods.

MileHIFcar

^^^^Yea I agree that doesn't make any sense? I don't think I've ever heard of anybody here on CL anyway dynoing their car in snow mode, so the fact that it lines up almost directly with the sport mode pulls makes no sense to me? I thought snow mode cuts the throttle back a certain percentage or something??

ISF4life

iTrader: (30)

its useless

BuLLdAwG

What is....snow mode?

2URGSE

Makes the throttle very laggy and power delivery very late from what I could tell.

I don't drive this car in the snow.

flowrider

iTrader: (9)

I use show mode only when driving up my set of ramps. Remember folks, the OPs tests were run on a Mustang Dyno. The results are not directly relatable to the Dunojet Dyno.

Lou

Bigjon3475

iTrader: (2)

Not sure what numbers they're using but for SAE J1349 you use 77°F at 0% RH. At those conditions at 2400 ft the density is .0739363 lb/ft3 or 13.525147 ft3/lb. Using 1.051 as a correction factor doesn't equal what it should (14.761590 ft3/lb).

I'm sure someone will be along shortly to correct me if I'm wrong.

BuLLdAwG

I'm not quite sure what you are doing. Not saying you are wrong, I just have never done this stuff and am trying to learn. I found an online calculator and got a 1.044 correction factor using the weather conditions from NOAA.gov for KLAS airport...maybe 10mins away. If I use same numbers but 2400' altitude the correction factor changes to 1.054.

Sylvan

iTrader: (6)

I drive in the snow as much as the dry it starts you in 2nd gear from a stand still and makes the throttle a little less sensitive. It works well for snow but wouldn't actually reduce power numbers on a dyno.

BuLLdAwG

I've been playing with the modes since then. I think it does little except how quickly the throttle delivers the power.

I'm going to assume power numbers jumped on 3rd run like a few others.....just because they do, not because of sport/snow mode.