Proto 650 kit dynoed: 549 hp/ 606 tq
#18
12-09-2007 | 10:28 PM
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 744
From: CA
Rep Power: 71
Airjordan, Those AFR's are lean, much safer on 100+ octane fuel, but still a bit high, you should be in the 11's on pump fuel and low 12's on race fuel, Markski is right turn down the boost a bit.
#19
12-09-2007 | 10:29 PM
Thread Starter
|
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 624
From: New York
Rep Power: 44
lol.. well im happy since they sold me the kit as a 600ish kit. i think on 1.2 bar with 93 fuel it should be right at that if not a tad over.
with 1.3 bar and race fuel its around the 650ish at crank so yes i am happy. i expected very similar numbers so im happy its all consistant.
marksi yes i agree with you. ill pm you and maybe you can instruct me on what to do. to date i have not touched that controller.
with 1.3 bar and race fuel its around the 650ish at crank so yes i am happy. i expected very similar numbers so im happy its all consistant.
marksi yes i agree with you. ill pm you and maybe you can instruct me on what to do. to date i have not touched that controller.
#20
12-09-2007 | 10:32 PM
Thread Starter
|
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 624
From: New York
Rep Power: 44
according to my calculation 549 / .82 (18% drivetrain loss) = 669 to flywheel.
i think its safe to say at more normal climates it can be safely considered a 650hp car.
zuma i have no idea if that weight was accurate. i doubt it was since at the track i was 3575 with maybe 30lbs removed. so i should be at 3600ish with me in it now.
dlsj25: yup... just like marski said ill turn it down just a tad since its colder now.
i think its safe to say at more normal climates it can be safely considered a 650hp car.
zuma i have no idea if that weight was accurate. i doubt it was since at the track i was 3575 with maybe 30lbs removed. so i should be at 3600ish with me in it now.
dlsj25: yup... just like marski said ill turn it down just a tad since its colder now.
Last edited by AIRjordan23; 12-09-2007 at 10:46 PM.
#21
12-09-2007 | 10:43 PM
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 224
From: CT
Rep Power: 27
First is the vehicles weight as defined by Mustang and/or DOT.
Second it the amount of power that it takes the give car to travel down a flat road at 50 mph. This is referred to as the hp@50.
In this case mustang states to use 3750 as the cars weight for testing.
#22
12-09-2007 | 11:04 PM
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 224
From: CT
Rep Power: 27
according to my calculation 549 / .82 (18% drivetrain loss) = 669 to flywheel.
i think its safe to say at more normal climates it can be safely considered a 650hp car.
zuma i have no idea if that weight was accurate. i doubt it was since at the track i was 3575 with maybe 30lbs removed. so i should be at 3600ish with me in it now.
dlsj25: yup... just like marski said ill turn it down just a tad since its colder now.
i think its safe to say at more normal climates it can be safely considered a 650hp car.
zuma i have no idea if that weight was accurate. i doubt it was since at the track i was 3575 with maybe 30lbs removed. so i should be at 3600ish with me in it now.
dlsj25: yup... just like marski said ill turn it down just a tad since its colder now.
526/.82 = 640
So somewhere around 640 @ the flywheel. Sounds good to me either way..
#24
12-09-2007 | 11:09 PM
Registered User
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 744
From: CA
Rep Power: 71
Mustang dyno's require that 2 values be entered before any test can be completed.
First is the vehicles weight as defined by Mustang and/or DOT.
Second it the amount of power that it takes the give car to travel down a flat road at 50 mph. This is referred to as the hp@50.
In this case mustang states to use 3750 as the cars weight for testing.
First is the vehicles weight as defined by Mustang and/or DOT.
Second it the amount of power that it takes the give car to travel down a flat road at 50 mph. This is referred to as the hp@50.
In this case mustang states to use 3750 as the cars weight for testing.
Last edited by DLSJ5; 12-09-2007 at 11:13 PM.
#25
12-09-2007 | 11:11 PM
Banned
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 717
From: North Jersey
Rep Power: 45
according to my calculation 549 / .82 (18% drivetrain loss) = 669 to flywheel.
i think its safe to say at more normal climates it can be safely considered a 650hp car.
zuma i have no idea if that weight was accurate. i doubt it was since at the track i was 3575 with maybe 30lbs removed. so i should be at 3600ish with me in it now.
dlsj25: yup... just like marski said ill turn it down just a tad since its colder now.
i think its safe to say at more normal climates it can be safely considered a 650hp car.
zuma i have no idea if that weight was accurate. i doubt it was since at the track i was 3575 with maybe 30lbs removed. so i should be at 3600ish with me in it now.
dlsj25: yup... just like marski said ill turn it down just a tad since its colder now.
#26
12-09-2007 | 11:34 PM
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 224
From: CT
Rep Power: 27
Interesting, the weight we entered on our dyno day for the TT's was 3500 I believe, same for the S4 which is actually 150 lbs. more than a TT, that could be why the S4 got unusually low #'s for how well it does in side by side comparo's on the highway. How much difference will 200-300 lbs. off the actual weight of the car, make on the HP and TQ #'s?
The 996tt is 15.4 while the s4 is 12.9. If they were using the wrong one for either car it would lead to slightly high or low numbers.
#27
12-10-2007 | 06:35 AM
Former Vendor
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,023
From: Orlando, FL
Rep Power: 0
Peter
Thanks for your input but the first run was to warm of the clutch and to check a/f. Second run was at full tilt but cut short, needed some changes mainly do to the altitude and other factors. During his last pull, with these fine changes, he busted out those huge numbers.. or atleast this is what Henry told me during those pulls. Like I said, I am not a tuner but this is the usual series of events that I have witness. Concerning A/F, I am usually around 11.5 as well.
Thanks for your input but the first run was to warm of the clutch and to check a/f. Second run was at full tilt but cut short, needed some changes mainly do to the altitude and other factors. During his last pull, with these fine changes, he busted out those huge numbers.. or atleast this is what Henry told me during those pulls. Like I said, I am not a tuner but this is the usual series of events that I have witness. Concerning A/F, I am usually around 11.5 as well.
#28
12-10-2007 | 08:31 AM
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 2,621
From: Houston, TX
Rep Power: 236
Rob, that is all fine and great... But your previous post made it sound like Henry picked up 576 rwhp by "tuning" the car. That sounds VERY misleading and is VERYYYYYYYYY far from true. I was making sure no one read your post and actually thought that Henry picked up that much power by "tuning". 99% of that pick-up was from running more boost and using NOS, period.
Peter
Peter
Peter
Thanks for your input but the first run was to warm of the clutch and to check a/f. Second run was at full tilt but cut short, needed some changes mainly do to the altitude and other factors. During his last pull, with these fine changes, he busted out those huge numbers.. or atleast this is what Henry told me during those pulls. Like I said, I am not a tuner but this is the usual series of events that I have witness. Concerning A/F, I am usually around 11.5 as well.
Thanks for your input but the first run was to warm of the clutch and to check a/f. Second run was at full tilt but cut short, needed some changes mainly do to the altitude and other factors. During his last pull, with these fine changes, he busted out those huge numbers.. or atleast this is what Henry told me during those pulls. Like I said, I am not a tuner but this is the usual series of events that I have witness. Concerning A/F, I am usually around 11.5 as well.
#29
12-10-2007 | 09:13 AM
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 5,710
From: MPLS, MN USA
Rep Power: 464
Air Jordan,
Those are amazing numbers for such simple mods, Congrats.
Tony, very cool you hosted an event where everyone could compare stuff on the
same day.
How about a list from highest to lowest and have the car owner/car with mods listed?
Was the RPM (Red Car) the highest (it obviously should be), and by how much?
Marty K.
Those are amazing numbers for such simple mods, Congrats.
Tony, very cool you hosted an event where everyone could compare stuff on the
same day.
How about a list from highest to lowest and have the car owner/car with mods listed?
Was the RPM (Red Car) the highest (it obviously should be), and by how much?
Marty K.
#30
12-10-2007 | 10:21 AM
Registered User
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 1,261
From: Greenwich, CT
Rep Power: 75
RPM car was runnign rwhp there is a huge difference no matter what any one says between the two. My gt700 kit put down 686rwhp on gt28 hybeids not even gt30's and 581awhp. So his car was no faster then a strong awhp k24 car. Tim on the phone said to me that he makes over 670RWHP a couple weeks ago. Doesnt make sense with a 139 trap speed at englishtown.
Airjordan def had the most powerful car at the dyno day.
S
Last edited by Highhats; 12-10-2007 at 10:31 AM.