Mustang Bullitt Forum banner

1 - 13 of 13 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,360 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
WOW, nice ray!!!!!!
that sound like the kind of gearhead i'd like working on my Bullitt
now i'm wondering what little tiny things could be "holding back" my Bullitt
very interesting that yours was running a little rich from the Factory. wonder how "typical" our engines/computers are? how much margin for error/difference is there between each vehicle????????
 
Joined
·
1,169 Posts
<TABLE BORDER=0 ALIGN=CENTER WIDTH=85%><TR><TD><font size=-1>Quote:</font><HR></TD></TR><TR><TD><FONT SIZE=-1><BLOCKQUOTE>
On 2001-07-10 22:31, mystang99 wrote:
WOW, nice ray!!!!!!
that sound like the kind of gearhead i'd like working on my Bullitt
now i'm wondering what little tiny things could be "holding back" my Bullitt
very interesting that yours was running a little rich from the Factory. wonder how "typical" our engines/computers are? how much margin for error/difference is there between each vehicle????????

</BLOCKQUOTE></FONT></TD></TR><TR><TD><HR></TD></TR></TABLE>
Larry at the shop said it looks like the car was set rich for the emission. I'm not really up on the ford engines and fuel injection and computes.
buick nailhead and carberators is a different story.

I read a post I think it was on BON about a BULLITT owner taking to someone at Team Ford about the BULLITT the man at Team Ford said if you break your engine in aggressive you will have a aggressive engine! I'm very aggressive with BULLITT maybe that has something to do with the Great Dyno numbers?

( I'm aggressive NOT ABUSIVE!)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
393 Posts
ray, I hate to play devils advocate, but I have a hard time believing those results. There's not even an "SAE Corrected" label anywhere on the dyno sheet.

Where's the tourque? find another dynojet at a reputable stang/camaro shop
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
586 Posts
Ray, thanks for your efforts at getting us these figures. You know how eager we all are to hear what's up. You've provided very valuable data to your fellow Bullitt owners! Keep it comin'!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
762 Posts
Fantastic Ray!!! Angel at Brothers Performance also told me that my car was running rich especially at it's peak output. I don't have a hard time at all believing your numbers, in fact for those who might be interested in another opinion call Crazy Horse Racing in Clark, NJ (732) 499-8260. I can't quote the exact figures but I know they dyno'd a stock Bullitt that also had high numbers. Remember too that my car dyno'd very high (258.5 RWHP and 294.9 RWTQ SAE) albeit after adding the headers and h-pipe. Though the initial numbers were average (232 RWHP and 266 RWTQ SAE)I must admit that I babied it for the first 800 miles and the additional 700 miles were all highway miles added from Monterey to Huntington Beach. Guys I really think the jury is still out on the true performance, current or future, of the Bullitt. I don't believe that we we're short changed in any way; we have an excellent all around performance sports car that looks really cool. IMHO of course :smile:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
144 Posts
Ditto: WOW!! I still believe that Ford was very conservative with the HP numbers. They have done it in the past, remember the late 60's?.

No matter what, the car is still provides me with impressive performance (aka: best bang for the buck)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
100 Posts
Hey Bullitt 289, I sure do remember the late 60's! The Boss 302 only put out 290 hp according to Ford. It's probably the most sought after collector Mustang today. I don't qualify as a gearhead, but as a former '99 Camaro SS 6 Speed owner, my seat of the pants says my #226 pulls harder than did my 320 hp LS1. I do suspect that the LS1 holds an advantage over 120 mph, but who cares about that? I'm perfectly happy living in the realm of 0-60 mph. And in 3 years, I never once got a 2nd or 3rd gear bark out of my SS. Man, I love my Bullitt!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
835 Posts
Lt,

The 290 HP from the Boss 302 was gross HP as tested on a engine brake. That's where the b in BHP came from. The companies started reporting net HP in the mid-70's.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
100 Posts
I appreciate the info! I've often seen hp. referred to as bhp but have no idea what an engine brake is. I don't know, maybe it's the tires, the weight to power ratio, whatever, but I just love the way my Bullitt pulls compared to my Camaro SS; maybe the Chev was just too heavy.
 
Joined
·
1,169 Posts
OK everyone i had a 3rd dyno done today on a dyno jet. I will scan a pic of the graph an post it. It very interestion!!! :-B
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
835 Posts
Guys,

An engine brake is a special test stand. Think about the Castrol Syntec commercial with all those engines being run in a lab. The engine bolts to the stand in place of the transmission. It provided resistance for the engine to work against, hence the name brake.

Up until the mid-70s, the functions of the alternator, water pump, etc. (power parasites)were provided by off engine equipment; therefore, BHP was a gross output measure. With the advent of independent dynos, the factories changed their test procedures to measure NET HP, at the flywheel with all the engine parasites accounted for.
 
1 - 13 of 13 Posts
Top