Oxford White GT

[Cati]

four exhaust pipes - allow me to travel at 4 x the speed of awesome

Sponsored

 

[Gibbo205]

So I've been doing this today:



Which resulted in this:



The difference in the max HP figures is with the stock intake fitted and then the PMAS intake.

As you can see, that's a 9BHP difference, at the wheels, which I'm pretty damn pleased with TBH.

Working on a figure of 17% transmission losses (which splits the difference between the figures of 15% & 20% that are usually bandied about), that gives a peak figure of 443.6BHP at the crank. So even allowing for the dyno over-reading by 5%, that's still a cracking figure.

PMAS JUSTIFIED!

FYI, there was a 2 degree air temp difference between the 2 runs.

The mics you can see by the exhausts belong to an audio specialist that recorded my car for a video game. They paid for the dyno time & recorded all the runs, with mics by the exhausts, IN the PMAS airbox, next to the engine and inside the cabin, including the doors being opened and closed & even the horn.

I can't mention the game by name yet but it is a multi-million selling title.

Just some technical jargon for guys reading this considering I've ran cars on Dyno dynamics, maha and Mustang dyno's including FWD, AWD, RWD and 4WD along with manual and autos.

First of all there is no set formula for transmission losses, but as nearly all dyno's focus on wheel horsepower you have to have one. Typically in short FWD is 12%, RWD is 15%, AWD is 18% and 4WD is 20%. Then if its an auto transmission (torque converter) you can typically add a further 5% as the torque converter robs you of some power. This is why running in the gear closest 1:1 is very important to get accurate figures, on the Mustang this is 5th gear on a manual. Running in other gears will give different results both power and torque wise, particular on a wheel dyno. A Maha dyno is more intelligent and designed to calculate flywheel horsepower so the crank horsepower will always be pretty spot on, torque however will be out and maha dyno's don't give as accurate wheel figures because most of them use dual rollers and 4 contact patches.

We know the stock car in healthy condition is 410BHP, as the stock run was 359WHP with stock intake, in order to get to our 410BHP would be 14-15% losses through transmission. So we can either do 359*1.15 or 359/0.87 to get to 410BHP and this is why wheel dyno's make complete guess work at crank power as its no set formula.

So then we take the 368WHP and use the same 15% transmission loss and we come to 423BHP, so its a solid 13-15BHP flywheel peak gain. Of course the real gains are lower down in the rev range and are more important as you spend far more time in the lower rev range than you do higher up. But of course everyone loves peak numbers and the largest figures.

Tony has done this spot on, using a dyno to compare modifications, that is how they should be used as they will all give different figures based on brand of dyno, operator, ambient conditions etc.

If you want to compare different cars then it can only be done on the same day, same dyno, same operator in same conditions to be a fair comparison.

A tune will add a further 20-25BHP to these cars, so with this CAI in theory your gonna see around 40BHP. I shall test this theory soon to see how much of a gain a tuned car gets with this intake over the stock intake with a panel filter.

 

[Centurion07]

Yeah, somebody gave me the wrong formula.

They said to divide the whp by (100 minus the transmission loss) then multiply by 100.

So 368 divided by 83, multiplied by 100 equals 443.

Having looked around I found a calculator that gave a figure of 430 which is far more realistic.

As for the formula that gave me 443, I can't get my head around how if you use it with a larger transmission loss figure, it gives you a higher crank figure e.g.

368/83 x 100 = 443

368/90 x 100 = 409

The 83 and 90 figures above being the remainder of the power after the 17% or 10% transmission loss for example.

Bear in mind this was a girl I asked and was posed as a general maths question rather than in relation to calculating HP. :lol:

 

[Gibbo205]

Yeah, somebody gave me the wrong formula.

They said to divide the whp by (100 minus the transmission loss) then multiply by 100.

So 368 divided by 83, multiplied by 100 equals 443.

Having looked around I found a calculator that gave a figure of 430 which is far more realistic.

As for the formula that gave me 443, I can't get my head around how if you use it with a larger transmission loss figure, it gives you a higher crank figure e.g.

368/83 x 100 = 443

368/90 x 100 = 409

The 83 and 90 figures above being the remainder of the power after the 17% or 10% transmission loss for example.

Bear in mind this was a girl I asked and was posed as a general maths question rather than in relation to calculating HP. :lol:

Just amended my post lol!

In short it is why wheel dyno's are best left to just wheel figures haha.

There is not set formula, you change your tyre pressures on a wheel dyno and you will get different results. Likewise for different gears etc.

This is why Maha dyno's are cool as they are very accurate for flywheel figures as they calculate it from coast down so tyre pressure, wheel size, chosen gear have very little impact if none on the flywheel figure.

359 = 410 so that is 1.15 or 0.87
369*1.15 = 424BHP
369/0.87 = 424BHP

 

[Centurion07]

Like you say, it's only to compare the before and after.

 

[Gibbo205]

Like you say, it's only to compare the before and after.

Yup it looks like a great intake, cannot wait to try it on my car. My Steeda RHD strut brace turned up today.

Itching to get my car back now, miss it and with MPSS, strut brace and PMAS gonna be like new car to drive again, haha.

 

[SteveS]

Got to be honest, the first set of figures you came up with made more sense to me from a maths perspective. From an engine/power perspective however nothing makes that much sense.

Anyhow, just wanted to say great work with the car. Clearly it goes as good as it looks

 

[MrWolf]

Hey [MENTION=14447]Centurion07[/MENTION], if its not too big a problem, can you post any pictures of how/where you got the MAF positioned on the PMAS please (in/out of box, facing up or rotated down etc). thanks

 

[Gibbo205]

Hey [MENTION=14447]Centurion07[/MENTION], if its not too big a problem, can you post any pictures of how/where you got the MAF positioned on the PMAS please (in/out of box, facing up or rotated down etc). thanks

It does not matter on where you locate it, as long as it is fitted in direction of air in the tube all is well.

As to position, well you have to remember on our cars (5.0 GT ONLY) the IAT (Intake Air Temp sensor) is located within the maf sensor. So you need to try and prevent the maf sensor from heat soaking because if that happens it artificially reads higher, reducing timing and killing horsepower. This was a big issue on the M3 CSL which had a seperate IAT but it was placed right next to the engine on the carbon air box, later revisions move the IAT to the intake path where it could not heat soak.

So in short position the maf best you can, ideally within the box and down low where some *fresh* air can pass over it, this why the air temp it reports will be the actual air temp and not higher than air due to heat soak.

When I fit mine shall take plenty of pictures, got some intake gold reflective tape on the way for the aluminium maf housing and lava matting for the air box to help reflect heat away from the intake.

 

[Centurion07]

Hey [MENTION=14447]Centurion07[/MENTION], if its not too big a problem, can you post any pictures of how/where you got the MAF positioned on the PMAS please (in/out of box, facing up or rotated down etc). thanks

Haven't taken a pic yet but it's inside the airbox.

It was pointing up to start with but [MENTION=13598]Gibbo205[/MENTION] was bitching about heatsoak so I turned the tube round and now it points down although it's still touching the airbox itself so not really any difference.

I'm going to invest in some heatproofing ala Gibbo as the IAT temp in stationary traffic was frightening (some 60 degrees above ambient) and when you switch it off & touch the PMAS it's almost too hot to put your hand on (it had been sat a little while so some serious heatsoak going on, but still).

Anyways...

after a loooong 2,633 miles through Belgium, Germany, Austria and the Czech Republic, I can confirm that the Mustang is every bit the GT I had hoped for and that it claims to be.

Important stat: average MPG over those ENTIRE 2,633, which was mostly done between 70 and 75mph where possible was a calculated 28.5MPG. :amen:

As much as I wanted the Recaros before purchase, the standard seats are just so comfortable it's ridiculous. When you first sit in them they seem comfortable enough but nothing particularly special. Where their talent lies is in their ability to make 500 miles feel like a quick trip to the shops and back. No matter the mileage, I always got out the other end feeling like I could get straight back in and do it again. That, to me, is the mark of a great seat (at least for a GT anyway).

In the wide carriage on the Tunnel. Doesn't cost any extra but you get an extra 10 inches or so of space either side of the car. Most important on a car this wide but especially if you're running wider wheels.



Out of those 2600 miles we saw precisely...






























3 other S550s. THREE.

So the attention mine got the second we got off the Chunnel in Calais made sense by the end. The missus was a bit freaked out by it at first but soon got used to it. Had to. :lol:

Seriously, you think they get attention over here, over on the continent it's ridiculous. Maybe we're just a bit more restrained over here and I'm not noticing it so much, but the number of people that would flash headlights, pull alongside on the motorway & film/take pics/smile/wave/thumbs-up was insane. And then when you parked anywhere remotely touristy it got even worse.







More random pics:

On the Grossglockner Pass (original trip was going to include a few other well-known mountain passes but the timing of certain things etc etc meant it just wouldn't work out, so this is the only one we got to do. Will definitely be going back to do the others)









Nice to see a proper Mustang-sized parking space for once. Nabbed a corner spot to just to make extra-sure!





Here's my wonky Pony in another car park:



Just 10 miles short of 11K now.

My original target of sub-7K for insurance purposes well and truly out the window, I still love the car and am very thankful, having read some of the issues others have had, that the only problems I've had with mine have been the puddle light and very little else. In fact, i can't even think of anything else off the top of my head right now. :shrug:

Emptied out the catch can before we left and then again upon the return, caught a bit of oil, about as much as I'd expect, a tablespoon or so.

Autoglym Rapid Detailer is an insanely good product. Left on the wednesday, was in southern Austria saturday where it had it's first wipedown and then got another 5 days or so later in the Czech Republic and no word of a lie, it looked like it had just been detailed. Spray the stuff on, leave it for a few seconds then wipe it off with a cloth and keep turning it over. Well worth the £9 or so!

 

[Enoch]

Great post Mr C..... looks like a fab trip...

Funnily enough I'm in a similar position to you.....I guessed on 8k for my mileage, I'm already up to 6k, and am booked to go to Assen for the BSB, and then onto Beaune, in France for a week of just mosying around....

 

[Lone Survivor]

Nice one Tony, 4 weeks or so until my Lake Garda trip, so looking forward to this

I love Euro trips ;)

 

[Centurion07]

To be fair, almost half the mileage is down to just 3 trips:

Luxembourg was 800ish

NC500 was 1700

Eurotrip was 2600

Yep, can't beat a euro roadtrip.

Our original plan was to do a bunch of mountain passes including all the locations from the original Italian Job http://mitteleuropa.x10.mx/filmlocations_the_italian_job.html, but it just couldn't be worked out. :(

Still, an excuse to go back.

 

[CJ01]

Great write up and that mountain scenery sure does look good on your car. Made up for you that you're both having a great trip - and a little jealous of course.

 

[Gibbo205]

Awesome photos mate.

Installed the PMAS tonight with maf outside the air box even going against my own advice lol, but was running out of daylight so it will make do until tomorrow, plus means I can compare IAT from maf outside heatshield and inside it.

Car started and drove fine. Did you notice a sound difference on your car I am finding at full throttle things are a lot louder inside car (sound tube is deleted) and car seems a little louder on outside, deeper exhaust note.

Sponsored