Sponsored
montreal ponies
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2014
- Threads
- 44
- Messages
- 2,758
- Reaction score
- 1,005
- Location
- Montreal, Canada
- First Name
- Dan
- Vehicle(s)
- ‘17 Ruby red GT350
What kind of dyno, that seems pretty high.
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2015
- Threads
- 239
- Messages
- 5,010
- Reaction score
- 7,516
- Location
- Sacramento, CA
- Website
- www.signaturewheel.com
- Vehicle(s)
- 2017 GT350R
very high.
were those numbers corrected? if you are at 526 hp at the crank that means you only lost 28hp through all of the drivetrain. if you ran 93 octane, which is what the factory suggests you need to get all 526 hp, you would be over 500 whp on a stock motor.
were those numbers corrected? if you are at 526 hp at the crank that means you only lost 28hp through all of the drivetrain. if you ran 93 octane, which is what the factory suggests you need to get all 526 hp, you would be over 500 whp on a stock motor.
DrumReaper
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 17, 2015
- Threads
- 114
- Messages
- 4,978
- Reaction score
- 3,700
- Location
- South East
- Vehicle(s)
- 1971 429CJ Mach 1, 2012 Boss 302
I would assume that wasn't a Mustang dyno.
Sponsored
nastang87xx
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2015
- Threads
- 94
- Messages
- 6,550
- Reaction score
- 4,170
- Location
- San Diego, CA
- Vehicle(s)
- 2016 GT350 Track Pack
Yeah that seems like a calibration issue.
machsmith
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2016
- Threads
- 11
- Messages
- 3,610
- Reaction score
- 2,043
- Location
- somewhere along the river
- First Name
- Jim
- Vehicle(s)
- Honda Minis
I think that he rattled off BHP and not RWP. Could be wrong on that but with 91octane it sounds about right.
J_Maher_AMG
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 29, 2016
- Threads
- 9
- Messages
- 1,474
- Reaction score
- 1,198
- Location
- Newfoundland, Canada
- First Name
- Justin
- Vehicle(s)
- 2017 GT350R (HR057)
498 bhp, even on 91 octane, would be fairly low. Ford has said in the past that on 91 octane their motors only lose 1-3% power tops. Probably a calibration error or non-corrected reading; should be in the 460-470 range on a Dynojet.
machsmith
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2016
- Threads
- 11
- Messages
- 3,610
- Reaction score
- 2,043
- Location
- somewhere along the river
- First Name
- Jim
- Vehicle(s)
- Honda Minis
I agree, Calibration is the most logical for the large error.
My '14 gt500 lost lots of power off 91. In fact I hated running it, detonation like crazy and that's multiple stations. Thought I was getting bad gas. Stuck 93 ethanol in it and it was a rocket. I'd error on the high side of 3%. On an NA, maybe a bit better 2%
Sponsored
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2015
- Threads
- 107
- Messages
- 5,821
- Reaction score
- 2,399
- Location
- SE Michigan
- First Name
- Scott
- Vehicle(s)
- Carroll Shelbys Soul Lives Under My GT350 Hood
- Banned
- #11
I agree. Especially on 91.
I'm gonna be pissed if ford secretly upped the HP lol.
OP
OP
rahtid
Well-Known Member
- Thread starter
- #12
It was higher than I expected too. Motortrend dyno run was 481whp with 91 octane at 105 degree weather. It was low 50's when I dyno'd mine, still not sure if that would make it almost 20whp faster but I would have been happy with at least 480whp.
What was funny was the car took out a lot of the audience in the first run. The tires still had pebbles from the track from last weekend lol.
What was funny was the car took out a lot of the audience in the first run. The tires still had pebbles from the track from last weekend lol.
J_Maher_AMG
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 29, 2016
- Threads
- 9
- Messages
- 1,474
- Reaction score
- 1,198
- Location
- Newfoundland, Canada
- First Name
- Justin
- Vehicle(s)
- 2017 GT350R (HR057)
MT dyno'd at 471whp, but yes, 30 whp can't be made up with the weather haha
IMO on 91 octane the car is making the full 526hp. They've said before that any of their special products would never again have less than the quoted power ratings; I think the car is making 535-550 on 93.
