5.0 Dyno Chart Compilation

[kris5597]

I am no dyno expert or anything, but I do wonder why mine made more tq than yours, but less HP? Is it just calibration difference or ? I was always under the impression the HP figure was calculated off the TQ reading. Again, not a dyno expert by any means at all.

You can't compare dynos. The number one person gets compared to another from a different dyno, location, etc. is completely non comparable. You can only compare on the EXACT same dyno. A dyno is a tool used to display horsepower and to see changes from a calibration adjustment, only for before and after.

Kris

Sponsored

 

[Nuked]

You can't compare dynos. The number one person gets compared to another from a different dyno, location, etc. is completely non comparable. You can only compare on the EXACT same dyno. A dyno is a tool used to display horsepower and to see changes from a calibration adjustment, only for before and after.

Kris

I get that part, I was referencing this delta of hp to tq on my dyno vs his

 

[aleccesarenriquez]

I get that part, I was referencing this delta of hp to tq on my dyno vs his

If we have the same mods and they pulled to the same rpm, it is strange. We would have to overlay our torque graphs but I would guess that you made more peak torque at 4500 rpm (I think that’s where most of us peak with similar mods) but somehow I made more torque at a higher rpm. Either that or they didn’t pull to 7200 for you.

Dynos are just too unpredictable. Our number differences are pretty irrelevant

Edit: do you have your graph?

 

[Nuked]

If we have the same mods and they pulled to the same rpm, it is strange. We would have to overlay our torque graphs but I would guess that you made more peak torque at 4500 rpm (I think that’s where most of us peak with similar mods) but somehow I made more torque at a higher rpm. Either that or they didn’t pull to 7200 for you.

Dynos are just too unpredictable. Our number differences are pretty irrelevant

Edit: do you have your graph?

It is a page back.

My peak TQ was indeed at or around 4500rpm.

 

[aleccesarenriquez]

It is a page back.

My peak TQ was indeed at or around 4500rpm.

The shape of our torque graphs are identical. What doesn't make sense to me is you making peak power at 6800 instead of 7200. Also, they pulled to 8k rpm on mine.

 

[stevnoof1]

On 93 a few weeks ago. Blue was 5th gear red 4th.

 

[LETHAL]

Corsa LTH and cats removed today.

JLT box 93 Lund tune and Corsa CB,

420/372 Dynojet SAE corrected

Terrible humid air today but ....

Kinda pissed..

 

[DavidinDurango]

Anyone compared active exhaust modes?????

 

[Dragster]

Not sure how to upload the pdf directly from my computer, so I'll just attach the file. My car is a 2015 GT PP with the following power mods: Comp stage 1 cams, GT350 manifold, GT350 throttle body, Roush CAI, Kooks 1 3/4" green catted headers, Borla S-type catback, and remote tuned by Alex at Lund. Car made 436 hp/366 tq SAE corrected on a Dynojet. Car honestly felt stronger and drove better before the manifold, throttle body, and cams... My "baseline" was on a Mustang dyno (the shop doing the Lund remote tune uses one), and consisted of everything except the manifold, TB, and cams, and the car put down 400 hp/363 tq. The combo of the cams and manifold made the car lose a LOT of power down low, and gained only slightly up top. I'm trying to figure out where I want to go from here as I'm not too pleased with the car in its current form. The thing that sucks is that it's hard to find good info on cams and cam tunes as very few people actually do them. Perhaps this is why... Hard to know who is even good at tuning cammed cars. I went with Lund because I know they've done some in the past, plus they had done my original tune and I already had the Gauge. I previously had stage 3 cams on, and the torque loss was ridiculous. Compared to my baseline run, the car only gained 11 rwhp and lost significant torque all the way to 6,000 RPM. Figured the stage 1 cams would be better for my setup, which they were, but still not what I had hoped for. I created a thread about the results of the cams here, in case anyone is interested in more info:
https://www.mustang6g.com/forums/th...esults-and-comparison-to-stage-3-cams.108268/
Any feedback is always appreciated.

 

[fMErunnin]

Added JLT Cold Air (which is sort of a pain to fit) and a bama rev-x tuner with a 91 oct performance tune. Went from 419 to 445. Not bad?

On to the next mod...

 

[LETHAL]

SAE correction?

M6?

 

[fMErunnin]

SAE correction?

M6?

Yep. SAE.

Dyno jet.

 

[fMErunnin]

Corsa LTH and cats removed today.

JLT box 93 Lund tune and Corsa CB,

420/372 Dynojet SAE corrected

Terrible humid air today but ....

Kinda pissed..

Whoa. Man my baseline was 419 SAE on the same Dynojet. The other vid I put up of my baseline shows STD numbers (425 HP), but I have pics showing SAE corrected, which is the 419 (ish) with 390tq.

Now I know why you asked! Eeks.

 

[LETHAL]

Whoa. Man my baseline was 419 SAE on the same Dynojet. The other vid I put up of my baseline shows STD numbers (425 HP), but I have pics showing SAE corrected, which is the 419 (ish) with 390tq.

Now I know why you asked! Eeks.

But Lund and the shop say no worries? Said my graph looked typical of Coyotes. (shy 40whp in my estimation)

Not talking badly whats so ever about either but I am pretty damn disappointed

Maybe a different dyno?.

 

[fMErunnin]

But Lund and the shop say no worries? Said my graph looked typical of Coyotes. (shy 40whp in my estimation)

Not talking badly whats so ever about either but I am pretty damn disappointed

Maybe a different dyno?.

Worth a shot. FWIW, my baseline dyno was a hot humid day and topped out at 6800 RPMs.

I'm far from expert, but just because the graph is typical, doesn't mean something isn't right? How do you add mods and get less than what most are posting for stock dyno numbers? Too much money.. I'd seek advice or 2nd opinion.

Sponsored