Mustang Bullitt Forum banner

1 - 6 of 6 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
269 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Well, I had another disappointing dyno session today. Here are the results from last weeks session and this weeks along with the changes:

Car specs: 2001 Mustang Bullitt - 2300miles on odometer
Fluids: Mobil 1 5W30 oil and Mobil 93 octane fuel

Last week mods: JBA Shorty headers, Magnaflow X-pipe w/cats, Magnaflow cat-back, 100mm Densecharger, Steeda Underdrive Pullies, FRPP aluminum driveshaft, Steeda Triax

1. Last weeks numbers (SAE CF=0.98):

- Run1 (20min cooldown): 246.1rwhp & 279.0rwtq
- Run2 (2min cooldown): 247.3rwhp & 280.8rwtq
- Run3 (40sec cooldown): 248.4rwhp & 280.8rwtq *best #'s*
(A/F ratio: 12.5:1 from 2500-4000rpm drops to 11.6:1 @ 5800)

This weeks mods (intention was to lean out A/F ratio and increase timing): Remove 100mm Densecharger, Add Steeda Timing Adjuster, Add C&L80mm MAF sensor body

2. This weeks numbers (SAE CF=0.98):

- Run1 (TA=13deg, hot): 245.4rwhp & 280.4rwtq (RESET ECU)
- Run2 (TA=10deg, 24min cooldown): 244.9rwhp & 278.7rwtq
- Run3 (TA=12deg, 45min cooldown): 248.5rwhp & 285.9rwtq
- Run4 (TA=14deg, 6min cooldown): 250.6rwhp & 288.4rwtq
(A/F ratio: 13:1 from 2500-4000rpm drops to 12:1 * 6000rpm)

Well, that's it. If you compare my best run of last week with run 2 of this week (both with base timing), then you will see that by removing the 100mm Densecharger and installing the C&L80mm MAF body, I *lost* 3.5rwhp & *lost* 2.1 lb-ft of rwtq. Gee, and it only cost me $269. WTF!? One interesting thing to note is that my A/F ratio did get a little leaner with the C&L80mm MAF kit so my theory of correcting the A/F ratio was correct but the overall results are confusing. Any ideas?

On the positive side, it has been shown time and time again that the Steeda T/A is a good mod. By adding in 4 more degrees of timing advance, I *gained* 5.7rwhp & *gained* 9.6 lb-ft of rwtq.

To be fair, this second dyno session was at a different location so there could be dyno-to-dyno variation. I still think that something is fishy here but I'm at a loss now AND I'm just freakin' disappointed. The HP numbers are OK but the torque numbers I expected to see higher considering I've seen other GT's and Bullitts dynoing 280rwtq with little to NO mods.

Any and ALL input is much appreciated. Thanks guys and gals!

Mark
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
147 Posts
mjchip,

By my calculations your best run was around 295 HP and 340 ft-lbs of torque after you account for drivetrain losses. That's awesome. Besides, shorty headers are not known for torque production. How did your HP and Torque curves look compared to last time? I think you are doing pretty well. I will be getting to the dyno in the next two weeks and will let you know how my setup works. I don't expect to see much more than you. Hang in there.

Brad

P.S. Are you using a fan to provide you car with air on the dyno? If not, then that might explain why it goes rich at high RPM's. The intake is a draw through type and there is more air pressure at higher roadway speeds than available on a dyno. It would be interesting to see what your A/F ratio does on the road. Just a thought?

_________________
Dark Highland Green #1790
Mods:Baer Racing EradiSpeed Rotors, Eibach springs, Tri-Ax, Densecharger 100mm, 87mm Pro-M MAF, Steeda Undrdrv/P's & T/A, FRPP Alum D/S, 3.73's, Mac Long Tube Headers & Cat'd H-Pipe, 255/45-17's & 275-40-18's BFG KDW's

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Brad1790 on 2001-12-01 21:11 ]</font>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
102 Posts
The "motion active variable" will come into play with consistently lower intake temps which are only partially elicited on the dyno. Send the meter back as most reputable manufacturers should stand behind their 15-20 hp advertised claims.
Also consider that in the dead heat of summer with an underhood setup the CAI will gain more.
What about seeing if C&L would agree to calibrate a meter for the 100mm system? If enough guys ask and they're interested I'd be more than happy to send them a system.
I just got a dream deal with a local engineer who's going to CNC the systems to micrometer specs with the flanged pipes and match up a full face gasket. This is the new gasket everybody will receive who has the 100mm system.
He's a recent customer who is happy enough with his system to take an interest in what I'm doing.
He told me Friday...."oh yea, I could make you a custom MAF meter matched to the 100mm system".
It felt like that first time you got the cute neighbor girl to go skinny dipping!!

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: JP DEMOLET on 2001-12-01 22:16 ]</font>
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
269 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
Thanks John and Brad for your timely responses! I plan contact C&L performance on Monday to discuss this problem. Beyond that, I'm kind of at a loss when it comes to torque production. Many people with similar mods on standard GT's are seeing 295rwtq plus. This leads me to believe that something is amiss.

Mark
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
102 Posts
I know it goes against engineering norms but test out on the road with the K&N in the down position for possible torque gains.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
420 Posts
My understanding is Ford recomends 5w-20 and that thinner motor oils would give a "small" increase in H.P. , did you change your oil since the second to last dyno? Why does everyone run 5w-30? My Bullitts were 7 H.P. apart and now my wife wants a C&L setup and underdrive pulleys, (my dyno'd higher) so if your interested in selling the C&L let me know.
 
1 - 6 of 6 Posts
Top