Results 1 to 22 of 22
  1. #1

  2. #2
    What were the #s? Cameraman sucks balls.

  3. #3
    415rwhp. I didn't have access to the screen showing results. The car was picking up more power every pull. You can hear the operator say the numbers

  4. #4
    Any mods or bone stock?

  5. #5
    Just exhaust and a tune that was installed the day before. The car was making more power every pull as the computer adjusted itself

  6. #6
    What exhaust was that? Sounds kind of like the borla but I couldn't tell based off the pipes. If so, is that the 2 or 4 resonator kit?

  7. #7
    Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    556
    Good numbers for what's done.

  8. #8
    ^^ Really? I was gonna say for exhaust AND a tune id expect 430ish

  9. #9
    Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    New Braunfels, TX
    Posts
    1,836
    Quote Originally Posted by TheStig View Post
    415rwhp.
    Creampuff.

  10. #10
    Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    556
    Quote Originally Posted by Venomess View Post
    ^^ Really? I was gonna say for exhaust AND a tune id expect 430ish
    I've heard it's normal for g2's to be around low 400's stock. This was also on a mustang dyno which have been argued in the past as reading "conservatively". I don't even know that there's much to be gained via tune with exhaust as the only supporting mod, I'm no expert there. And what Dean said above^ I think there's 3 different cams across the 96-02s
    Last edited by mackzilla; 11-27-2017 at 04:44 PM.

  11. #11
    Mustang dyno would definitely rob roughly 15/20rwhp then. I missed the mustang dyno part.

  12. #12
    Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    1,039
    Quote Originally Posted by Venomess View Post
    Mustang dyno would definitely rob roughly 15/20rwhp then. I missed the mustang dyno part.
    That would make sense then why I dyno'd at 400/403 with headers, no cats, and a tune. I guess a 2200' elevation doesn't help either....

  13. #13
    Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    OK Falls, British Columbia Canada
    Posts
    80
    Quote Originally Posted by BrianACR View Post
    That would make sense then why I dyno'd at 400/403 with headers, no cats, and a tune. I guess a 2200' elevation doesn't help either....
    I'll have my car on the dyno early spring. Catless now, stock tune with 4.10 gear. We're ca 1000' here in Penticton, we'll see what difference an extra 1200' makes.

    http://www.simpsonracingsolutions.com/dyno-testing.html
    Last edited by OK Falls GTS; 11-28-2017 at 05:12 PM.

  14. #14
    Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    1,039
    It'll be interesting to see the results! Although the 4.10 gears will throw the results off a bit.

  15. #15
    Damn 4.10s?? I don't know if that would be more fun to drive or less. But yea your numbers will be jacked up. HP will be way down.

  16. #16
    Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    OK Falls, British Columbia Canada
    Posts
    80
    [QUOTE=Venomess;328423]Damn 4.10s?? I don't know if that would be more fun to drive or less. But yea your numbers will be jacked up. HP will be way down.[/QUOTE

    4.10 didn't hurt fuel economy one bit for starters, compared to my buddy's 2001 ACR with totally stock trim. It makes rowing through all gears fun. Quite useful on the track especially on the almost half mile straight at Area27. The increase of theoretical figures for torque and HP is roughly 26% but real numbers put down by the rear wheels, either - or + what counts. We'll see, proof is in the pudding, I'll report back.All I know, friend's Lambo Superleggera can't pull on me,lol
    The Aston Martin in the video clip I posted, shown some weak numbers if a read that right. 300 lbs of torque with twin turbo doesn't seem much. Wonder if that dyno shows even lower # than the Mustang dyno?
    Last edited by OK Falls GTS; 11-28-2017 at 08:15 PM.

  17. #17
    I forgot to mention that this car also has 3.55 gears. That robs some power too

  18. #18
    Well now that explains it haha! Exhaust, tune, gears and mustang dyno = only 415rwhp when reality is probably closer to 440

  19. #19
    Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    New Braunfels, TX
    Posts
    1,836

  20. #20
    Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    OK Falls, British Columbia Canada
    Posts
    80
    Generally speaking dyno numbers are dependent who is doing the test and what method used.
    "However, there’s another, often overlooked, factor in the brew: rpm and torque are inversely related to calculating horsepower, so changing the rear axle ratio or testing in other than a 1:1 transmission gear seemingly shouldn’t change the horsepower numbers. Whether this actually changes a given chassis dyno’s reported results depends on how the specific dyno manufacturer does its math. For the most consistent results, always test in the same trans gear (generally 1:1) and rebaseline the vehicle after a rear-axle ratio change."
    Last edited by OK Falls GTS; 11-29-2017 at 10:53 AM.

  21. #21
    Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    So Cal
    Posts
    1,117
    I’ve had two 2000 ACR’s both had Corsa cat back exhaust when I first dyno’d them and both dyno’d on two different dyno’s. 424 rwhp on both one year apart. 100% stock otherwise. Ah, I love the old cream puff comments of yesterday, back in the good old days. I guess there’s a few of us old timers still floating around.

  22. #22
    Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Sherwood Park, AB
    Posts
    1,039
    Quote Originally Posted by GTS Dean View Post
    Interesting read.


 

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •