I'm not mistaking the two dyno's at all. Almost every week, we see a new set of bogus numbers from people going to CFT, and somehow, they ALL believe the numbers. Why would everyone in Orlando be making tons more power than anyone else in the country when you have the hottest and most humid weather?

I gave the list of mods and the dyno results. YOu did not answer if you really thought those mods were good enough for over 360 on a Dynojet with straight 93 (no meth/no race gas). It's possible that the Jestr tuning you all are receiving is so much better than anything in the country, but without track numbers to back it up, we'll never know.

 

My numbers were not even that high. Its the point of the GAIN that I was making. I did not mention "I would be this high on a dynojet".

To answer your question, I dont know what that car would put on a dynojet. There is no dynojet around here. I dont spend my time studying this stuff. And I dont spend time finding ways to call BS on a web forum.

The problem here is that I simply display a baseline and reflashed dynograph, then everyone else starts bickering about other cars and other dynos.


As previously stated, I will continue to dyno at CFT, so I have a gauge for gains in fixed circumstances.

 

No, dru, you and I are in agreement. That's the inherent problem. You are doing exactly what should be done, which is to disregard absolute numbers for now and just worry about differences in power on the SAME dyno. That's all you should care about when tuning, because it's ridiculous to compare with other dynos all over the country. The problem is when others make the comment, "Oh, this was a Mustang Dyno, though, so it would be over 400 on a Dynojet."

That wasn't your comment obviously, but it demonstrates my point. In other threads regarding CFT dyno results, the originators have made mention of how much higher it would be on a Dynojet, too. That's when I get upset, because these numbers aren't just high for a Mustang...they are on the higher end of what a Dynojet would show.

We have 3 separate Dynojets in our area, and they read within 3whp of each other. I only dyno'd 294whp on 93oct and ran 12.0 @ 113.7 on race gas. Another MR dyno'd 299/299/302 at the 3 dynos with the same setup each time then trapped 113.9 on pump gas in 20 degree colder weather. If you take 357 on a Mustang Dyno from CFT, you'd expect to see some pretty lofty numbers at the track...

 

Warrtalon, look at any post that David Buschur has written about his MD vs. his Dynojet. The numbers are lower on his MD. I admit that when I said 420-430 I was basing this off David stating that there was an 18% difference from what his DJ said to what his MD says. I forgot that his DJ was a 2wd model. So the numbers would not be that high on a DJ. That being said David Buschur's RS with the 20g upgrade and race gas "only" made 338 on his MD. Read about it here. https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/sh...uschur+mustang
This was with all of there goodies on the car as well. Buschur also talks about messing with the weight and hp @50 did little to affect the power and when he still wasn't satified with the numbers, the MD tech had to call someone at MD to unlock the dyno to calibrate it differently. So this is not something that you can just easily move a couple of number to get big numbers on.
You were questioning the reasoning of the owner of this car why he chose this turbo. I think that putting down similar numbers on pump gas with fewer mods, on a turbo kit that many question the effectiveness on a MD dyno answers that question.

 

No, no, no, drifto, that's the problem. There is ABSOLUTELY NO CORRELATION between power figures on the CFT dyno and Buschur's Dyno. That's the whole problem!!! Buschur's RS would most likely make 400whp on the CFT dyno. You can't possibly think that Marks03Evo who dyno'd 335 on the CFT dyno with pump gas (no meth) and bolt-ons with the stock turbo made as much power as Buschur's RS on race gas, can you? There is a massive difference in numbers between these 2 dynos, so there is no way you can convert the CFT numbers to Dynojet numbers like the Buschur results, and it has nothing to do with the fact that they had a 2wd dyno before. It has to do with the fact that the CFT dyno is not reading low like most Mustang Dynos for whatever unknown reason.

 

From what ive read an mr is going to pull a slower 1/4 due to the 6speed... IF you want dynojet readings take your car to aerocomp theres is calibrated to dynoject specs.

 

Warrtalon,
check out this link http://www.teamwir.com/Car%20Math.htm
Enter your info and it will show you what it takes to run the times you do. I know that math is not a perfect, but based on this site, you and your buddy are making WAY more than 300whp.

 

Not true; the MR gets you through the traps sooner than a 5spd, but if you run out of gear in 4th, then it will make you slower. This is depending on the rev limiter and how much power you're making, since 4th gear in the 6spd runs out at 111 with the stock rev limiter.

 

That's for RWD and is just an estimator anyway. I was 30-40whp over my 294whp dyno, because I was on race gas in cooler weather. My buddy dyno'd 10 more peak, but also has 272s with cam gears set so that it's all top end. While my power dies off in the top of 4th, his keeps on climbing. I'd say he was around 330-340whp in that cool weather (55-60 degrees). I'm referring to Dynojet figures here, btw. As I said, though, the other MR that trapped 113.9 dyno'd 3 times on 3 separate Dynojets in this area, but all in summer heat. We got a lucky cold front at the track that night, which pumped us up in the mph department.

Earlier, in that Buschur thread you referenced, you probably didn't see this comment from Dave concerning the CFT dyno:

See what I'm saying? Unless cars dyno'ing 335 at CFT are trapping 120mph, I would say it's incredibly inflated. In fact, I'd be surprised if a car dyno'ing 335 at CFT could get over 114mph.

 

Please keep us updated.

 

Warrtalon,
The site is for RWD, but at the same time power to the ground is power to the ground. I know it is just an estimator, That is why I stated that the math was not perfect. If I plug in my Evo weight with me and 1/2 tank of gas (3361) and my 1/4mi time of 12.3 (****ty 60' of 1.9) is gives me 356whp. I dynoed at Top Speed at 343whp and 345wtq on 93 on a DJ. So the numbers do not agree. That being said, I have a buddy with a 355whp Mustang, and from a roll (low or high) I dissapear on his ***. So maybe I do make 350ish whp or more. The point is the numbers mean s**t. You and I both know that, so why can't we just agree on that, and just let people believe what they want to believe.
I will stop arguing with you since I do not have personal experience with any of the dynos named except for the one at Top Speed. I was wrong to assume anything so I will stop. You are an exhausting person to argue with. I hope this talent suites you in real life.

 

I think your both idiots to argue over numbers.

1. The power falls off, it shouldn't on a turbo like that ESPECIALLY after 7000RPMS and at those power levels.

2. Run the 1/4 mile and post your trap. If you trap at 120 your golden, but me thinks you are at 113-114 at best.

 

John richened the car up top in case I had spiking. I had not had a chance to really get on the car hard before the dyno. The turbo does not drop off at all.

 

Kewl, run it man and end the haters arguments

 

I think this car WILL get run by a very good driver, so it will be a good test. I only hope they leave it at this exact tune, because there's obviously a lot more to be gained even by just taking out that richness at the top that he was talking about (due to spiking? not sure what that was).