Bolt On Turbo Line Up
Jul 12, 2008, 08:00 PM
#34
The FP Green pump numbers above should be revised. The numbers you posted (388/358) and the thread you linked to are for Shameless Tuning's DLL numbers. When Shameless put that car on a real life Mustang dyno it put down 350whp/330wtq. The link to the dyno thread is here:
https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/sh...d.php?t=342336
https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/sh...d.php?t=342336
Jul 12, 2008, 08:04 PM
#35
Originally Posted by blitz118
If you add a column for trap speeds you should also include the cars weigh as that plays a big part on the trap speed. Not all of these a cars running high traps speeds with small frame turbos all weigh the same.
Originally Posted by EVO8LTW
Anyhow, that's why I suggested adding a column for the very dyno used.
Jul 12, 2008, 09:25 PM
#38
hm ... after some more thinking about this ... how about I average all the reported numbers for a given turbo and put that in the table? It should even out the variations between different dynos, ECUs, etc. and if people want details they can go after the links. Better?
Jul 13, 2008, 05:58 AM
#39
hm ... after some more thinking about this ... how about I average all the reported numbers for a given turbo and put that in the table? It should even out the variations between different dynos, ECUs, etc. and if people want details they can go after the links. Better?
Thanks for doing this.
Jul 13, 2008, 08:06 AM
#40
Evolved Member
iTrader: (21)
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 1,449
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My car did 381hp/382tq on a superflow in Denver (no idea how these compare to other dynos). Stock IX turbo peaking at 26psi with normal bolt-ons (but stock cams) & AEM, running E85. I'll be heading back on Monday for a FP white tune. Only other change will be a PPI ported exhaust manifold.
Dave
Dave
Jul 13, 2008, 08:12 AM
#41
If it didnt then it wouldnt read within 5 percent of Switzers dynojet, not to start a dyno comparison just stating facts.
Some cars that have traveled away from Buschurs MD to dyno on other MD's have reported lower numbers....
Scorke
Jul 13, 2008, 08:15 AM
#42
DaveK, that's with a large correction factor (~1.25), so it really doesn't apply. We can't use our inflated numbers from altitude due to the correction factor being made for N/As. For reference, you see my dyno numbers below from here in the Springs, but I don't apply a correction factor, and you know how fast mine is. 
Last edited by Warrtalon; Jul 13, 2008 at 08:19 AM.
Jul 13, 2008, 08:16 AM
#43
David's dyno reads high compared to most MD's.
If it didnt then it wouldnt read within 5 percent of Switzers dynojet, not to start a dyno comparison just stating facts.
Some cars that have traveled away from Buschurs MD to dyno on other MD's have reported lower numbers....
Scorke
If it didnt then it wouldnt read within 5 percent of Switzers dynojet, not to start a dyno comparison just stating facts.
Some cars that have traveled away from Buschurs MD to dyno on other MD's have reported lower numbers....
Scorke
Jul 13, 2008, 08:19 AM
#44
.Also, if a car goes from buschurs MD to switzers dynojet and there is a 5 percent or less difference its safe to assume buschurs MD doesnt read "low".
Scorke
Jul 13, 2008, 08:21 AM
#45
No I just think it has been questions as of late with record breaking numbers coming off of so many cars that have come off of that dyno not making the same numbers on other dynos .
Also, if a car goes from buschurs MD to switzers dynojet and there is a 5 percent or less difference its safe to assume buschurs MD doesnt read "low".
Scorke
.Also, if a car goes from buschurs MD to switzers dynojet and there is a 5 percent or less difference its safe to assume buschurs MD doesnt read "low".
Scorke