You can ask the Shop to print you Dynojet numbers, if you are a number freak. If you leave as is then the numbers are lower.

On the Evo-NY Dyno Day with Al, EVERYONE who had Dynojet numbers got lower numbers on the DD, including me. Back to back Dynos that i did gave me 329whp on a Dynojet and 299 on the DD within 6 days difference WITHOUT changing Anything on the car and actually the Dynojet dyno day was a little bit hotter...

Now after my cam install i got 337whp od the DD with less boost than before and now on the SAME Dynojet i will go and dyno to see the difference!
...and after the "base" dyno i will install the o2 housing and Forge wastegate to see if they work...

...soon...

 

I know typo..its ok im human

 

The stock turbo is only so efficient!!

 

But Kouzman, people are not admitting to the 1.1 correction, so there's no way for us to know when it's the base numbers or the corrected numbers. The numbers and graphs that have been posted MOST PROMINENTLY were obviously corrected, because they were way too high for a DD. Al himself said "WE" are using a 1.1 correction, so maybe YOU aren't using it, but AL and The Shop are using it whenever possible. When you're in the 300whp area, 1.1=10%=30whp difference, which is huge. There's no way for "us" to know if that CF is being applied or not, because no one ever admits to it.

So, all this time you've been trying to defend against me on this matter, and you also failed to mention this 1.1 CF, which is OBVIOUSLY the reason why me and others think it reads differently. Did you not mention it because it helped your argument not to mention it, or because you didn't know? Yes, when no 1.1 CF is applied, then it reads like a normal DD, which is fine, but there's no way for the EvoM populace to know which is which...

 

i dont think so... definatly with meth or cams though

 

your right, that was a cheap shot & I apologize. I removed my comment from my post.

However, your comment is made without personal experience with regard to the power gain.

My experience is, if your trying to maximize the full potential of the stock turbo, minimizing any pressure drop before the engine will net in a power gain.

A 65mm throttle body does that, which results in a measurable power gain.

I personally performed a dyno compare of the 2, being only 15 minutes apart, car never coming off the dyno.

 

Yeah guys he thinks he can hit that desired power on pump gas, highest we have here is 93 octane

 

little did you guys know. Soon all the states will be converting to California smog laws and yes 93 octane will be gone, so all of you will need a retune for 91 octane soon.

don't believe me?? who here want to bet ?

 

Depends on the dyno, take your car to Top Speed (I know it's a drive) but hey you'll hit 375whp on their high reading dyno for sure, LOL.

 

Once again Warrtalon is being Mr. Critical with everything even down to spelling. What the F***! Get a life and quit living on the forums!!!! Why dont I knitpick everything you say to death? Well because you will become so blue in the face with the things that I would say to you that you will start to look like a dam SMURF.

 

 

 

a stock ix does about 215-225 on our mustang dyno (varies)

we did 340whp/340wtq on a stock turbo evo ix with the following
injen uicp/intake, dc sports downpipe, 3" cbe, fuel pump, megan mani, megan o2... at 25psi

mostly we make 325ishwhp/310ishwtq on them at 23psi...

that is about what ur asking on a dynojet...

cb

 

cams do shiet on ix, not worth the money

 

+2 i laughed at other posts "not without cams" you get 10 to 15whp with the cosworths and are nearly $1K. I think with methanol +24-26psi you should get close but I wouldn't bet on it