I definitely want to see how much work making up here, but I think I'd rather do that with times and speeds than a dyno. I have heard that even the mustang is not good for awd cars and I really do not feel like going through the trouble of disconnecting the front.


But first I am going to need a clutch

Will definitely keep everyone posted on this kit.

 

That's why I "assume" my car is now making more power... I did the 1/4 and posted the times... I suppose I could take my traqmate out and do some 60/130 times, but I really don't want to go to jail this year, or next... Last time I "tested" the car with the traqmate, it recorded 0-60 times at 2.7 seconds... But now I have a first gear issue, so I won't be doing that again!

If I could get traction at the drags, with the tires air'ed down low enough, and get someone who is a better driver to launch the car, I bet it would hit 11.0Xs and possibly a high 10.9X. Not sure if the speed would improve over the 127MPH range though.

Mike

 

Mike, wow, 127 on a stage 2 kit, that is awesome. I doubt my speeds will be as good at 6000ft.

EVO650 with his Evoms800 GT2 showed a difference of 8 mph between phoenix and Denver. My car has way less power than his so the difference will be lower, but I would expect around 120-122 up here if you got a 127. I think I calculated about a 7% hp loss for turbo cars at this elevation which coincides with Evo650's difference. NA cars loose about 16-17% up here.

 

As you said, 10 posts up:

yes, you are wrong.

 

well then where were you in this thread, huh silence is just as wrong

https://www.6speedonline.com/forums/...on-please.html

 

Where in that thread did it say that a mustang is no good for AWD? The issue is that only mechanically linked drums are safe for AWD. Mechanically linked drums eliminate the possibility that the front wheels rotate at a different rate then the rear. Mustangs have them so you have no problem.
I didn't feel the need to chime in because no one got it wrong... until now.
Also, disconnecting the driveshaft is VERY easy to do. You just have to remember that when dynowing RWD vs. AWD, your numbers will be about 10% higher (and then there's the variation between different dynos).

 

it did not appear very clear in that thread to me, but I did get out of it that as long as the front and rear rollers are connected your good. So if EVERY mustang dyno has this without exception, then the assumption is that it can be used, right? RWD vs AWD differnce because of more loss?

 

I've been looking to upgrade. I keep going back to Kevin and realizing that I don't have the money. His stuff is good, but its expensive. I did a 60-130 @ 9.22 in AWD and a 8.40 in RWD with Kevin's software and exhaust, no intake DV's or FPR . I have been very happy with the product. Kevin knows his stuff! I'd love to go to the 2c package, but the cost is in the way .

 

AFAIK, all Mustangs have linked drums (the one I dyno on certainly does). Just be sure to ask the dyno operator.

And yes, when dynoing AWD, the engine has the additional drag of the driveshaft, the front diff, front axels, wheel rotating assemblies, etc. When RWD, there's much less drag and so a smaller loss factor.

In my humble opinion, the only real benefit of a dyno is comparing your car before and after (or possibly several cars dyno'd in succession like on a dyno day). Before every power adding mod I do, I take a baseline and then do a before and after. I have figures on my car for bone stock, with flash, with K16/16g, and with exhaust. That's where I saw the value of the dyno... measuring the incremental gain each time.

Comparing charts from different cars, on different dynos on different days is generally fruitless because different dynos vary drastically. The same car can see a 100+hp spread between two different dynos (say, dynojet to a mustang) back to back (and even the power curves would look different). Not to mention all the other variables (AWD/RWD, fuel, temp, barometric pressure, fan setup, tire, tire pressure, etc.). Let alone trying to compare to the callibration of someone's butt dyno.

In the end, as Mikelly pointed out, if you're happy with your performance, that's all that matters.

 

TXGold, it is expensive, but worth it IMO. I will probably do the 2b/2c kit upgrade next year sometime, depending on finances. But honestly the current level is so good that I am not sure the extra 60 or so whp is worth it right now.

Seal Grey, thanks for the info and I agree that because of the differences from dyno to dyno that it is not as important. I think real world acceleration numbers probably tell a better story and that is the direction I will go.
Dennis

 

UPDATE: The other day myself and D33PBLUE did some testing. Several 3rd and 4th gear runs the car was spinning tires all the way through redline in 2nd 3rd and 4th gear !!!!!

what is even more amazing is that it was with PSM on, 91 octane pump gas, and 6000ft altitude. That car is a beast.

 

That is insane....but if you're spinning the tires all the way through 4th, are you going to be any faster than a stock turbo modded Turbo? =)

Ive been reading this thread with much interest and wishing I had an extra $6k, but then I just read the last post and thought, how useless on the road course! Are there suspension mods, etc that would help this traction problem?

 

if you stay with my kit your fine. it isn't until you up the fueling that the thing becomes a monster. On 91 octane mine will not spin the tires in 4th gear. Also remember that being at 6000 ft, we loose power so your performance will be different than ours up here with the same kit. I am sure you also have better fuel than 91 pump

 

I live in the Springs. There used to be one gas station where I could get 93 octane, but they stopped providing that a few years ago.

Even spinning tires in 1st and 2nd with PSM on would be bad. My '500 crank hp car' doesn't do that.
At least not in a straight line....

Now getting out of shape coming out of a corner is another story.

 

Imola is a few minutes from me- we went up to Woodland Park last weekend and escorted me back after my tires and ignition key/lights issues (thanks again btw). Imolafem is pretty quick but could use some UMW attention- perhaps will join us next "Mexico Springs" run for some comparisons.

My tires were at least 50% when I put them back on a month ago, the many tuning runs really did a number on them, I had no idea how worn they really were, IM guessing the more they wore, the easier to spin them at speed, Im positive I can still spin them, just not as easily. Something to add to the mental checklist before going out for drives.

This also gave me an idea I'll share on RME.