Tobz built BR 2.3 FP black e85= Awesome trq!!!!

Reply Subscribe

Thread Tools

Search this Thread

Jul 7, 2010, 06:05 PM

#46

batty200

Evolved Member

iTrader: (3)

Join Date: Jan 2005

Posts: 2,203

Likes: 0

Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts

Quote:

Originally Posted by tobz

CF was 1.20. We are in Denver.

So it is ~507 uncorrected. Add to that the dyno being in 4th gear and thats why the dyno looks less impressive because of the higher gear ratio.

I would say that would equal about 558whp at sea level if everything holds up like it should. The problem is since the car is making less actual power you never know if all the components are up to the task once the actual amount of fuel and air that "should" go into the motor at sea level would actually work the same way. The SAE even states that their correction factor is to be disregarded if the equation equals greater than 1.03. Bring it down to sea level and see what it does.

Congrats as it is still a bad *** car.

Reply Like

Jul 7, 2010, 06:50 PM

#47

Acree

Evolved Member

iTrader: (8)

Join Date: Nov 2006

Location: Dallas

Posts: 787

Likes: 0

Received 1 Like on 1 Post

Very impressive numbers. The one thing that alarms me is the amount of boost. At almost 40 psi, do you expect the engine to run all day long, or is there a low boost map?

-Acree

Reply Like

Jul 7, 2010, 07:05 PM

#48

tobz

Former Sponsor

iTrader: (15)

Join Date: Aug 2004

Location: Denver, Colorado

Posts: 379

Likes: 0

Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acree

Very impressive numbers. The one thing that alarms me is the amount of boost. At almost 40 psi, do you expect the engine to run all day long, or is there a low boost map?

-Acree

That is the low boost map! Theres more in this car.....LOL.

Reply Like

Jul 8, 2010, 05:28 AM

#49

Sicboy

Newbie

Thread Starter

Join Date: Mar 2009

Location: Boulder colorado

Posts: 19

Likes: 0

Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

At one point we had it at 42.7 psi and made 675 tq, but backed it down to 39psi at my request... this car is a daily driver

Reply Like

Jul 9, 2010, 02:19 PM

#50

burtomr

Newbie

iTrader: (17)

Join Date: Mar 2005

Location: SoCal

Posts: 65

Likes: 0

Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

Crazy numbers! What turbo are you using? Didn't see it in your build list.

Reply Like

Jul 9, 2010, 02:38 PM

#51

Timmay81

Evolving Member

iTrader: (17)

Join Date: Nov 2008

Location: Utah

Posts: 457

Likes: 0

Received 1 Like on 1 Post

Quote:

Originally Posted by burtomr

Crazy numbers! What turbo are you using? Didn't see it in your build list.

lol you not read the post?

Reply Like

Jul 9, 2010, 02:45 PM

#52

meltdown

Evolving Member

iTrader: (16)

Join Date: Nov 2006

Location: KC

Posts: 355

Likes: 0

Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

Ya, its in the title

Reply Like

Jul 9, 2010, 05:28 PM

#53

Sicboy

Newbie

Thread Starter

Join Date: Mar 2009

Location: Boulder colorado

Posts: 19

Likes: 0

Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

Quote:

Originally Posted by burtomr

Crazy numbers! What turbo are you using? Didn't see it in your build list.

FP black

Reply Like

Oct 2, 2010, 08:22 PM

#54

EVOlutionary

Evolved Member

iTrader: (38)

Join Date: Sep 2004

Location: Michigan

Posts: 3,673

Likes: 1

Received 10 Likes on 8 Posts

Quote:

Originally Posted by EVODreams

Not to complain but that video seemed like a 300-400 hp pull. Sure was lack luster for something that had some serious power. I am confused?

Exactly what I was thinking as soon as I saw the video. It seems the dyno is reading what the power "could be" at sea level on a nice day, not what the car is actually making on the dyno. Based on the time it took to run through 4th gear, and the sound and attitude of the car, I would have to say that is the highest reading Mustang Dyno that I've ever seen. Maybe the loading on the dyno is turned up too high? Maybe the dyno vid is very misleading? Would love to see it on a non-5000' elevation dyno in 3rd gear! I bet it would be a whole different animal!