Mach 1 1st Dyno Pull
- Thread starter larrendeuce
- Start date
-
Sponsors (?)
93 teal terror
Founding Member
Crzyhrse
Active Member
Next time you should just dyno it on a conventional dyno. Those numbers that dyno spits out are gonna be hard to dissect because the numbers are so far out of whack, and your peak horsepower RPM is also off by about 900 RPM for peak power. Use a dynojet or Mustang Dyno next time. Even on a Mustang Dyno your numbers for a stock 5 speed would be about 250RWHP.
I was told this dyno reads about 40hp less then a dynojet. I am concerned about the power curves, especially torque. I haven't found any others running on this type of dyno so I can't compare to others. The owner has a supercharged roush and puts down 280 on it.
Crzyhrse
Active Member
Well, if you add 40HP to that dyno pull, it would put you at 276RWHP @ 298RWTQ. So that would put you in the average area that a 5 speed Mach puts out. The torque RPM that dyno showed is where peak TQ RPM should be, but the peak HP RPM is low.
TR03Mach1
Member
That is one odd looking dyno chart you got there! I don't think I've ever seen one that plots the rpms as another line on the chart, as opposed to being either an x or y axis. I think I'd try to find a dyno shop that uses more mainstream equipment, such as a DynoJet or Mustang Dyno, and do some more pulls.
VG30DE
Founding Member
Crzyhrse
Active Member
I don't understand the above post.
VG30DE
Founding Member
explanation:
if it were a GT that was turned into a mach 1 clone (like tons of people do) than maybe those are more appropriate dyno numbers <--- sarcastic remark
But just for comparison, the horsepower curve and numbers are very similair to my 5.0 when it was NA and thats really strange from a 4 valve......
if it were a GT that was turned into a mach 1 clone (like tons of people do) than maybe those are more appropriate dyno numbers <--- sarcastic remark
But just for comparison, the horsepower curve and numbers are very similair to my 5.0 when it was NA and thats really strange from a 4 valve......
Crzyhrse
Active Member
VG30DE said:
What kind of dyno were you on? A dynojet? Their is no way you got 230RWHP from a bone stock '93 GT. The dyno he was on is really strange. Way to confusing.
VG30DE
Founding Member
CAI, roller rockers, and exhaust. Thats IT.
Stock heads, cam, intake, TB, PCM, everything. Its an 89 motor from the junkyard with about 100k on it. I got a good one.
And yes, dynojet. Its on the printout.
Heres an overlay of CAI, no intake, and a pull to 6,000. when you see the power fall off the cliff and deploy the parachute at 5000, you know its a stock 5.0 lol
Stock heads, cam, intake, TB, PCM, everything. Its an 89 motor from the junkyard with about 100k on it. I got a good one.
And yes, dynojet. Its on the printout.
Heres an overlay of CAI, no intake, and a pull to 6,000. when you see the power fall off the cliff and deploy the parachute at 5000, you know its a stock 5.0 lol
VG30DE
Founding Member
sorry to threat hijack...... you definately need to get to a mustang dyno or a dynojet.
Unfortunately unless you're not driving it all hard, with DR's only running high 13's... those dyno numbers do sorta correspond with your ET and trap.
Unfortunately unless you're not driving it all hard, with DR's only running high 13's... those dyno numbers do sorta correspond with your ET and trap.
Crzyhrse
Active Member
VG30DE said:
I must say, that's incredible. My '93 GT had catback, midpipe, headers, pulleys, 73mm MAF, 70mm TB, Edelbrock Intake, Edelbrock Heads, Roller Rockers, 18 degree timing, and I only pulled 245RWHP and 288RWTQ on a dynojet. Granted, the '93 engine was rated 20HP lower than the other years, but geez.
VG30DE said:
Traction with drag radials was slightly better but I still couldn't hook up. I still spun 1st and 2nd and a little after the 3rd shift. This was made worse because I put 30 psi in them to drive to the track and forgot my compressor so I couldn't air them down to race.
djlethalwang
New Member
I agree... you should put that thing on a DynoJet for better comparison. 
Your ET is pretty similar to mine... I ran 13.61 @ 103 in mine, but i'm also at 3500ft. altitude and ran that time on a night where the DA was about 5500ft. Also on street radials at a crappy track.
Believe me, I know firsthand about the whole traction issue, heh.... On your next trip to the track, borrow some slicks and bring that ET down to at least some low 13s.
I'm assuming that living in Southern NJ, the altitude is basically 'sea level' or close to it, right? In that case, you certainly won't have much trouble snappin' off some low 13s with good traction.
Your ET is pretty similar to mine... I ran 13.61 @ 103 in mine, but i'm also at 3500ft. altitude and ran that time on a night where the DA was about 5500ft. Also on street radials at a crappy track.
Believe me, I know firsthand about the whole traction issue, heh.... On your next trip to the track, borrow some slicks and bring that ET down to at least some low 13s.
I'm assuming that living in Southern NJ, the altitude is basically 'sea level' or close to it, right? In that case, you certainly won't have much trouble snappin' off some low 13s with good traction.
Similar threads
