38 captured repliesDiscussion pagination complete · Source accounts, not a confirmed diagnosis
THIS DISCUSSION / SOURCE-DERIVED OVERVIEW
Discussion summary
YOUR RESEARCHThe Dyno Thread
Reported or suspected cause
other mustang plot
Reported cause
No successful repair reported for this finding.
1
Identified cause
0
Suspected cause
0
Reported fixes
Read evidence and context
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that report identifying a cause
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Reported cause
This plot is not the one that had me most confused, it was the other Mustang plot, from the 3.4 engine which were off the hook on the high side.
Leading evidence: 'other mustang plot' (1 discussions report identifying this cause; no attributable repair resolution). Across 1 matching discussions, the most frequently mentioned possible cause is 'other mustang plot' (1 discussions; 1 report identifying it and 0 suggest it). The most frequently discussed action is 'Replace by the dealer in '06' (1 discussions). For that action, 0 discussions report a resolution and 0 report an unsuccessful attempt. No action has an explicit, attributable resolution report under the current rules. These are forum reports and suggestions, not a confirmed diagnosis.
Source reports, not a diagnosis or a success probability. Counts refer to discussions and can overlap.
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that performed work without a confirmed outcome
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Performed · outcome unconfirmed · Original poster
And this is the one for my other '99 C2 Coupe, muffler bypass, cold air intake, 8k track miles on an engine replaced by the dealer in '06.
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that contain suggestions
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Suggestion
Its easy to change cams, heads, and etc on the engine dyno, and attain back to back figures with no drivetrain losses.
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that contain suggestions
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Suggestion
Its also easier to make the changes of components.
Explicit resolution reports before identified causes, performed actions and suggestions. Within each level, matching component labels precede direct query mentions and inherited thread context; successful versus unsuccessful discussion counts, owner confirmations and independent discussion support determine order. This is not a probability of success.
Discussions that contain suggestions
1
0 original-poster resolution reports. Counts can overlap; they are not unique people or a success rate.
0 discussions have direct query context; 0 report a fix in that context. Other evidence may inherit the discussion’s subject.
Suggestion
This will change soon because my car is back at Jake's having some enhancements done.
Counts describe captured discussions, not unique people or a diagnosis. Author identities are not reliably stored. Exact duplicate evidence is counted once across matching discussions; one discussion counts at most once per action/state. Multiple repairs reported together remain a combination. Suggestions and failed attempts do not establish a fix. Matches cover whole discussions and can include related faults, model variants and incomplete threads.
38 eligible posts · 0 unverified posts · 1 discussions match the subject in their title or opening post.
Rennlist: 1 discussions
0 evidence records excluded for query context · 0 excluded by outcome qualification · 0 adjusted by outcome qualification.
0 acknowledgements have no verified action link; they do not establish a repair result.
Generation: 20261027T150039Z · outcome-qualification-6. Deterministic extraction; no AI model inference. How we use sources
I thought it would be cool to have a thread for everyone to post their dyno's. I know they can very greatly depending on machine and operator but I still think they can provide interesting, if not useful data. Ideally it would be for Wheel Horsepower with no correction for the flywheel. So to kick it off, here are my two dynos for the day. Unfortunately, they were done at an LS shop that couldn't figure out how to get RPMs so no torque values (which kinda sucks.)
Here is the one for my '99 C2 Coupe, bone stock engine, intake and exhaust, with 82k miles.
And this is the one for my other '99 C2 Coupe, muffler bypass, cold air intake, 8k track miles on an engine replaced by the dealer in '06. By the way, this one was SOOO loud that I was standing outside and around corner from the dyno and still had to plug my ears with my fingers. Everyone else that was at the shop with their cars came over with high fives and "hell ya's" for the roar.
This is one of mine, but has weather correction, but it IS to the wheels. This is on a Mustang AWD dyno that notoriously reads 8-10% lower than other Mustangs.
My car is an '03 C4 cab with about 90k on the motor. I have a Fabspeed intake with the BMC drop in filter. I'm also running a Softronic tune.
Nice! I recommend just a drop in BMC filter in the stock air box. Most of the the open element intakes in my eyes would suck in a lot more hot air from the engine bay.
I think you'll like the BMC. I paired mine with the Fabspeed CAI kit. Basically a silicone hose that goes from the intake housing to the TB and the cap that eliminates the sound reducer inside the intake housing.
Here is the readout from the original engine in my MY04 996. About 30K miles on stock engine, cats removed and custom ECU tune.
291 peak RWHP @ 6400 rpm
261 peak torque @ 4600 rpm
The torque dip at 3200 is often removed with "smoothing" settings in the software. The 5,252 RPM dip is the same. This basically comes from the actuation of the variable valve lift, and then again by the variable valve timing.
If you guys really want comparisons, get the raw data broken down every 250 RPM across the board, then average the TQ and HP. This is the main thing that I look at when grading my engines. I pay zero attention to the peak numbers, other than to average the data from 500 RPM before, and 500 RPM peak. I am concerned about increasing power across the entire rev range, not just at peak.
Lots of people think that just because they have a higher peak power value that the engine is more powerful. Thats not the case, especially with stock displacement engines, which generally lose power down low, as a compromise to make more power up top.
3.8 rebuild after break in miles, front drive decoupled for dyno runs. I've driven 30,000 miles since then. Maybe one day I'll do a custom tune. Fabspeed 200 cell cats and bmc air filter only.
What's the best way to get RPM on a Dynonet? I would like to use the same shop again since they did my HP baseline but they are clueless when it comes to p-cars.
Joe, that seems pretty strong, especially on Mustang and for a 3.4L. Was this done in the winter by chance? Great numbers for a 3.4.
Willing to bet you can extract another 5-8hp with a tuned ecu.
Here is mine. This all taken at the wheels. This will change soon because my car is back at Jake's having some enhancements done. There is no longer a slippery slope...its called a cliff!
Couple comments:
Joe looks like yours has been corrected at the flywheel. I'm thinking you might be 18 to 20% less at the wheels compared to the other plots posted. Tdream1 I'm thinking its the same for you too. Not calling you guys out but just thinking what is feasible with a 3.4.
Yes it is corrected to Engine Power as Pete explains. It says so right on the plots. The Mustang software has a curve that can be applied to add the drive train losses that are expected, back into the plots. It says "Eng" at the top of those plots, because that curve has been applied. If it was wheel power, it would say "whp" on those plots.
This is a setting that the Dyno operator can choose which gives the engine the flywheel power rating projection, even though the power is gathered at the wheels.
I have spent thousands of hours of my life using dynamometers. I have 3 under my roof.
Sneaky Pete caught it first.
People look at dyno graphs for the wrong reasons, 99.9% of the time. Their eyes only wander to the peak output power plot, and they don;t pay attention to anything else. These people are looking at the graph in a totally *** backwards manner, because all they want is bragging rights.
This is why the Mustang dyno has the curve for converting the figures from WHP to ENG numbers.
When I send owners their dyno plots, I hear over and over "My engine made xxx from the factory, why is it only 15-20HP stronger than that now?". They do not realize they are comparing the Porsche stated flywheel power figures, to our figures that are not converted (and never will be) to flywheel figures. When we are only 15-20HP higher, that figure is really 20%+ the 15-20HP higher.
Wheel power, is wheel power, and should never use a generic curve to correct it to flywheel (Eng) power, as every car is different, and the numbers will lose accuracy, and comparability. Each car is different due to rear wheel alignment, tires, brake condition, CV point condition, transaxle wear, gear oil temperature, and type, etc, etc, on, and on.
Too often, people just want one big number, they don't look at whats really important, and what truly explains how the engine is performing. I judge engines less by peak numbers, and more by average outputs, and power figures at less than 5,251 RPM, the point where TQ and HP must always cross. To me, I am shooting for efficiency, so my BSFC, AFR, and ignition maps are most important, I want to overlay these..
If I want flywheel power figures, the engine goes on my engine dyno. Since it takes two days to set an engine up in the test cell, we reserve the engine dyno only for product and engine combination development. Its easy to change cams, heads, and etc on the engine dyno, and attain back to back figures with no drivetrain losses. Its also easier to make the changes of components.
You're preaching to the choir and I agree. I used to tune motors awhile back on both dynojet and mustang dyno's. Most guys wanted to sacrifice the low end(or area under the curve) so they can bump up the high end. The scary thing is some of these guys were really greedy and wanted me to tune their motors to the ragged edge where there is very little to no room for any cushion. Some of the new cars were a bit more forgiving with their knock sensors and sophisticaed ecu's but regardless, I would tell them to go to another tuner. For forced induction motors, I requested an EGT bung be available or welded to their system if they wanted to stretch it, in addition to my own homemade knock sensing system.
Absolutely, EGT is another thing that I watch, nothing aids in dialing in the proper ignition timing more than EGT.
I've had guys get pissed off and throw a dyno graph on the ground when they didn't make the power that they were promised by suppliers of components, and bolt ons. They think that XX part gives 15 HP, and YY part gives 30 HP, and that you can add all those up and make some big number. In my experience, a lot of that JUNK makes the engine lose power, when the two items don't work together, or when the part is some over- advertised piece of crap.
Thats why I don't rent my dyno time anymore, and the only engines that we test, are our own. We don't have time to deal with it anyway :-)
When I see those eyes wander straight to peak HP, I instantly get pissed off.
The numbers tdream1 has posted are our dyno numbers at the wheels and not calculated at the flywheel. They are the same numbers we have been using here since 2005 when the dyno was installed. The eng has no correlation to engine power. All drivetrain losses are different and one equation for calculating this would not work.
Our dyno has notoriously been called the "heartbreaker" for years. We read exactly 10% lower than multiple dynojets in our area, and 3% to 10% lower than other local mustang dynos. 440 hp crate engines put down 300 hp on our dyno.
Not sure why tdream1's numbers are higher than what you would expect, but i will guarantee you its NOT a high reading dyno at the source.
You may actually be the first person in about 11 years to say the numbers here are higher than other dynos
So, you are stating that even though the plots are clearly stated as engine power, that these are the wheel power figures, that are not curved with flywheel projections? If this was flywheel HP, it would be very low for that engine.
This plot is not the one that had me most confused, it was the other Mustang plot, from the 3.4 engine which were off the hook on the high side.
Yes, these are values taken at the wheel and NOT corrected for the flywheel.
I have no idea why Mustang designated the term "eng power" and "eng torque" for these measurements, but if you own a couple dynos then you know they all do some really weird things
Mustang also likes to designate the lock for the front rollers as "rear lift" and the back rollers as "front lift" just to confuse the hell out of anyone trying to learn the machine...
This is a source reference. Confirm exact model applicability in the original material.
