David Buschur

iTrader: (53)

Hi all,

We've got Nick's car back here at the shop. Needed a trans and clutch repair.

The car is a full BR build, 2.3 stroker that's been in the car for a few years now. BR header kit with T67/Ptrim turbo. BR Stage 3 head, BF272 cams, BR double pumper, AEM EMS, 41.3 psi of boost, BR Race FMIC etc.

This car in the past was one of very few that have made over 700 whp on our Mustang Dyno that reads correctly. I say "correctly" because I use to refer to it as "low reading". It appears based on input from CBRD, Reese, Doug's Dynopower, GST and STM that it doesn't read "low" it reads the same as theirs based on baseline numbers from stock EVO's. This means it reads as Mustang Dyno has intended for them to read.

Anyway, the 700 whp numbers this car has made in the past I attributed to the 3.73 final drive the car had in it.

Well after the clutch and trans repair Nick asked me to just check the tune for him quick and be sure the gearing didn't effect it. I made two pulls, first was at 38 psi, 2nd was at 41.3 psi, tune was on the money and the numbers with the new 4.11 final drive stayed the same, which blew my mind.

Here's the pull from this beast. I'm hoping the 4.11's help to drop the ET's from the 10.0's at 147.6 mph to something deeper in the 9's.



Enjoy your car Nick, if the weather's nice this weekend let's run it here!!

tscompusa2

iTrader: (22)

very impressive numbers

EvoFlash

iTrader: (7)

Bump for true awesome power.

norcalSRTrida

iTrader: (1)

congrats to the owner of the vehicle.


but on a side note i bolded some important parts. i know your lil paragraph was a gesture towards TTP so i have to ask since this is a perfect comparison...

TTP's #s were 763hp, and 713 uncorrected and ran 10.1@143.


that is eerily similar to your customer's 702hp car that ran 10.1@147


w/ correction factors removed from the equation, is TTP's dyno actually that far off when comparing both cars in the above example?

SloRice

iTrader: (8)

If you run corrected numbers on Buschur's dyno, which way do you think the numbers are going to go?? They will go down.

So now you have a 763 corrected whp car going 143mph and a sub-700 corrected whp car going 147. The final drive change in Nick's car also doesn't help his 147 MPH either.

scheides

iTrader: (10)

5mph is a lot! That's not really a good comparo :P

Nice power! Is this thing a DD or a side project/fun car?

SloRice

iTrader: (8)

This is Evolunchbox's car. So it's his fun car.

TTP Engineering

iTrader: (465)

Your comparison makes no sense. "Uncorrected to uncorrected" as previously stated makes the most sense.

Considering that both cars did not RUN AT THE TRACK at 77*F and 0% humidity which is what weather correction is based off of.

SloRice

iTrader: (8)

Good God Scott....pick one and stick with it. Do you want to talk about corrected or uncorrected numbers??? Quit flip flopping to which ever one you think suits your best interests.

Also please feel free to let me know what going from the stock 4.529 final drive gear to the 3.73 final drive gear that Nick's car had in it will do to the MPH. I'll give you a hint, it's not going up.

batty200

iTrader: (3)

Actually a taller final drive will help a car with a stroker motor to acheive the higher trap speeds at lower rpm therefore not having to shift into 5th or running out of the powerband of the car in 4th. So a taller final drive could very well help his mph go up.

TTP Engineering

iTrader: (465)

If you spent as much time working at MD as you stated, you are well are that you just used the WCF correction to your advantage in your original statement because you know that cold air lowers numbers and hot air raises numbers..

EVOlunchbox

iTrader: (12)

My 4th gear, with the 3.73, topped out at 166 MPH. The 3.73 was the best gear, for a stroker, and this set-up...for the street. However, it was really holding me back in the 1/4. I would contend that my 10.06 @143 this year, on a 98 deg day, with a da in the 2000's, is a tuff number to beat with that gear and set-up. I'm hoping the 4.11 will bring me into the 9's. I'm really looking forward to getting back to the track.

Many thanks again to Dan, Dave, JRod, Nick and crew!

SloRice

iTrader: (8)

Completely different scenario. I agree with what you're talking about though.

Two identical cars, with pretty much unlimited power bands. Which is going to get to the finish quicker, the shorter or taller final driven car??

batty200

iTrader: (3)

I cant wait to see what it does. BR definately builds some beastly cars. I just wish that the MD, which is better for tuning, was comparable to a DJ for #'s. The ability to load up the dyno, use roller speed sync instead of an rpm pickup and all the other factors allowing MD runs to vary #'s make thier numbers basically useless. I also have the same argument with CF. Even the SAE says their CF should NOT be used if it exceeds 3% yet people in higher elevations use it religiously to quote crazy high DJ hp #'s. According to some a stock set of injectors could make 600whp! Uncorrected is the way and DJ #'s are the standard. MD is the best for a tuner. VDR is also able to be manipulated by using non flat roads or entering incorrect vehicle weights.

I still want an answer about the 730whp Mirage at the shootout and how that doesnt show a MD can be fudged to read whatever, whether accidentally as I assume BR did at the shootout or on purpose. I am also sure you can make a MD read lower at will to downplay someone elses work.

red03evo

iTrader: (20)

Congrats on the Nick. Enjoy it. I remember seeing it when I picked up my car from BR recently.