The Motor Pull Thread

[usaf_branham]

It wouldn't be the first time a dyno tuner "enhanced" the numbers. In fact, I can confidently say that 4.6 Mustangs seem to have the most over-rated dyno numbers of any car in history. I've seen my fair share of bolt-on 99-04 cars claiming to have 300RWHP with bolt-ons (including cams), yet I've also seen many full bolt-on 99-04 cars with 260-280 RWHP. IMO the 260-280 is much more realistic.

I don't doubt his dyno sheets show 407 RWHP, but it would be interesting to see what he'd put down on a dyno-dynamics unit (probably one of the more accurate dynos).

I would venture to say, somewhere around 370.

I have a full exhaust (i do have high flow cats on my midpipe), cai, etc... and i made 390 rwhp on 15* of spark, with a high point of 10 psi.

 

[N8Dogg98]

I would venture to say, somewhere around 370.

I have a full exhaust (i do have high flow cats on my midpipe), cai, etc... and i made 390 rwhp on 15* of spark, with a high point of 10 psi.

Keep in mind Handz car was on a dyno-jet which tends to read higher than the MD's and the dyno-dynamics. I should go do a dyno pull at a dyno-jet to compare it to my dyno-dynamics numbers. I got 237 RWHP on a dyno-dynamics unit and would probably be around 270 RWHP on a dyno-jet, for example, because dyno-dynamics tend to run >10% lower than dyno-jets.

MD's are about 5% lower than dyno-jets as well.

EDIT: What type of dyno did your tuner have?

 

[sneaky98gt]

My tuner is REALLY good.

It doesn't matter how good your tuner is. There's 2 things that come into play at tuning WOT (i.e. power): timing and air/fuel ratio. On a stock motor car making <400 rwhp, that is not at all difficult to get right. You simply set the max timing and adjust the fuel tables throughout the RPM range to get the AFR you want. Give me the software to do it, and I'll do that just as good as any tuner anywhere.

The 'good tuning' comes into play when tuning automatic transmission shifts, or low RPM driveability on a cammed car, or making sure the spark tables pull timing when the IATs go to high (....).

Let me put it this way. Maybe your car did make 407 rwhp. Maybe the tuner doctored up the dyno sheet a little, maybe he didn't. But I'll almost put money on it that you can't lay down a better 1/4 mile time with 407 rwhp than I did with 325.

It wouldn't be the first time a dyno tuner "enhanced" the numbers. In fact, I can confidently say that 4.6 Mustangs seem to have the most over-rated dyno numbers of any car in history. I've seen my fair share of bolt-on 99-04 cars claiming to have 300RWHP with bolt-ons (including cams), yet I've also seen many full bolt-on 99-04 cars with 260-280 RWHP. IMO the 260-280 is much more realistic.

I don't doubt his dyno sheets show 407 RWHP, but it would be interesting to see what he'd put down on a dyno-dynamics unit (probably one of the more accurate dynos).

Completely agree with all of this. A lot of folks act like it's easy to make 400 rwhp on these cars, and it is if you go really aggressive on the tune and/or boost. But for the most part, it takes some pretty serious mods to actually make 400 rwhp (i.e., have a 1/4 trap speed at the track that indicates you are actually making 400 rwhp). People like to look at Kenne Bells website and treat them like they are the gods of supercharging 4.6s. I can tell you from first hand observations, that a completely stock 4.6 makes NOWHERE NEAR 405 rwhp at 9 psi like they claim.

And while I'm at it. Kenne Bell's website has some of the most ridiculous claims I've ever seen. If it isn't obvious that they are trying to sell their product, I don't know what is.

 

[N8Dogg98]

Completely agree with all of this. A lot of folks act like it's easy to make 400 rwhp on these cars, and it is if you go really aggressive on the tune and/or boost. But for the most part, it takes some pretty serious mods to actually make 400 rwhp (i.e., have a 1/4 trap speed at the track that indicates you are actually making 400 rwhp). People like to look at Kenne Bells website and treat them like they are the gods of supercharging 4.6s. I can tell you from first hand observations, that a completely stock 4.6 makes NOWHERE NEAR 405 rwhp at 9 psi like they claim.

And while I'm at it. Kenne Bell's website has some of the most ridiculous claims I've ever seen. If it isn't obvious that they are trying to sell their product, I don't know what is.

I never understood why people place so much emphasis on dyno numbers anyways. I realize that 300 RWHP N/A and 400 RWHP FI on a 4.6 is generally the desired outcome, but there are plenty of 260-280 RWHP N/A 4.6 Mustangs and 330-360 RWHP boosted Mustangs tearing up the quarter mile with some damn impressive times. The fact remains that the suspension setup, relative light weight, and reasonable midrange torque of the 4.6 all work together to provide a car that is fast down the quarter mile w/o needing impressive dyno numbers.

 

[sneaky98gt]

Thats the numbers Uncorrected. 407 at 12 degrees of timing.

I just found something interesting on KBs website.

http://kennebell.net/KBWebsite/Common/pdfs/46gtTechTips.pdf

"Ideal spark timing is around 23 degrees. For consistency, all our dyno testing was performed at 23 degrees with an AF ratio of 11:1."

A couple of paragraphs later:

"After attaining ideal AF ratio and ignition timing, figure 1 degree = 4 hp and 1 AF ratio = 8 hp."

Ok, so that seems relatively accurate based on the experiences with my car, other than the 23 degrees part (LOL at running 23 degrees on less than 94 octane).

At the top of that same article, they claim 431 rwhp with their stock kit, plus their cold air kit, 75 mm throttle body, bigger MAF, and inlet kit. I know this is bogus because they are claiming 250 rwhp on a stock GT with a CAI. Plus they claim a 10 rwhp gain from a bigger MAF.

But, let's assume it's true. You are running 11 degrees less timing than they claim their numbers at. 11 X 4 = 44 rwhp. 431-44 = 387 rwhp by their generous claims.

....

 

[98COBRA281]

F%^K what dyno's say!! take it to the track and RUN IT!!!

id bet handz would run low 13's

 

[N8Dogg98]

F%^K what dyno's say!! take it to the track and RUN IT!!!

id bet handz would run low 13's

That's a better way of stating what I said in my last post. Dyno numbers don't mean much. Your NPI headed car is a perfect example of just how impressive these cars can be. Hell there are 96-04 Mustangs with well over 400 RWHP that can't get into the 11's.

 

[usaf_branham]

I just found something interesting on KBs website.

http://kennebell.net/KBWebsite/Common/pdfs/46gtTechTips.pdf

"Ideal spark timing is around 23 degrees. For consistency, all our dyno testing was performed at 23 degrees with an AF ratio of 11:1."

A couple of paragraphs later:

"After attaining ideal AF ratio and ignition timing, figure 1 degree = 4 hp and 1 AF ratio = 8 hp."

Ok, so that seems relatively accurate based on the experiences with my car, other than the 23 degrees part (LOL at running 23 degrees on less than 94 octane).

At the top of that same article, they claim 431 rwhp with their stock kit, plus their cold air kit, 75 mm throttle body, bigger MAF, and inlet kit. I know this is bogus because they are claiming 250 rwhp on a stock GT with a CAI. Plus they claim a 10 rwhp gain from a bigger MAF.

But, let's assume it's true. You are running 11 degrees less timing than they claim their numbers at. 11 X 4 = 44 rwhp. 431-44 = 387 rwhp by their generous claims.

....

Yeah, KB definitely tends to market their product on the high side. Dont get me wrong, it is an awesome kit. Install was a breeze, and it definitely performs, just not up to what KB says it is. Im at 390, and im probably going to be investing in some mhs stage 1 pi blower cams in the very near future, along with an o/r h pipe. Lets see what it makes then.

Dyno numbers are subject to change, mine was tuned on a dynojet. What matters is track time. Sneaky, you have me beat... the best time I have ever gotten out of my ride is a 12.6, I think it was at 112 mph.

 

[nickmckinney]

To top it off there are quite a few that have found what is fastest at the track is down on HP on the dyno 9 times out of 10. Usually the car wants slightly more fuel and spark at the track than what the dyno says is the best power (and I am not the only one to comment on this)

 

[sneaky98gt]

To top it off there are quite a few that have found what is fastest at the track is down on HP on the dyno 9 times out of 10. Usually the car wants slightly more fuel and spark at the track than what the dyno says is the best power (and I am not the only one to comment on this)

That is exactly what Mr. RobertP told me concerning the methanol on the dyno. I showed no gains on the dyno with 5 degrees more timing, but he said he guaranteed it would have run faster at the strip. Considering his experience with SVO blowers/methanol, I'm gonna take his word on it.

I'll be finding out when I get re-tuned and get it back to the track.

 

[Mr. Rustypwnz]

tuning on the street/track is where it is.

 

[sneaky98gt]

tuning on the street/track is where it is.

The new tuner I'm thinking of taking my car to only spends about 50% of the time on the dyno. The rest is done on the street.

 

[Stumbaugh]

It doesn't matter how good your tuner is. There's 2 things that come into play at tuning WOT (i.e. power): timing and air/fuel ratio. On a stock motor car making <400 rwhp, that is not at all difficult to get right. You simply set the max timing and adjust the fuel tables throughout the RPM range to get the AFR you want. Give me the software to do it, and I'll do that just as good as any tuner anywhere.

The 'good tuning' comes into play when tuning automatic transmission shifts, or low RPM driveability on a cammed car, or making sure the spark tables pull timing when the IATs go to high (....).

Let me put it this way. Maybe your car did make 407 rwhp. Maybe the tuner doctored up the dyno sheet a little, maybe he didn't. But I'll almost put money on it that you can't lay down a better 1/4 mile time with 407 rwhp than I did with 325.



Completely agree with all of this. A lot of folks act like it's easy to make 400 rwhp on these cars, and it is if you go really aggressive on the tune and/or boost. But for the most part, it takes some pretty serious mods to actually make 400 rwhp (i.e., have a 1/4 trap speed at the track that indicates you are actually making 400 rwhp). People like to look at Kenne Bells website and treat them like they are the gods of supercharging 4.6s. I can tell you from first hand observations, that a completely stock 4.6 makes NOWHERE NEAR 405 rwhp at 9 psi like they claim.

And while I'm at it. Kenne Bell's website has some of the most ridiculous claims I've ever seen. If it isn't obvious that they are trying to sell their product, I don't know what is.

I thought it was pretty easy to make 400+rwhp.

Bolt on's + Nitrous kit.

 

[nickmckinney]

That is exactly what Mr. RobertP told me concerning the methanol on the dyno. I showed no gains on the dyno with 5 degrees more timing, but he said he guaranteed it would have run faster at the strip. Considering his experience with SVO blowers/methanol, I'm gonna take his word on it.

I'll be finding out when I get re-tuned and get it back to the track.

I am on an engine builders forum and many commented on the richer with more timing for even NA motors. As for meth I think every serious street strip 2V should get it, I love seeing meth heads when they come back to my shop, they are always in better shape than gas only.

 

[Modular2v]

It doesn't matter how good your tuner is. There's 2 things that come into play at tuning WOT (i.e. power): timing and air/fuel ratio. On a stock motor car making <400 rwhp, that is not at all difficult to get right. You simply set the max timing and adjust the fuel tables throughout the RPM range to get the AFR you want. Give me the software to do it, and I'll do that just as good as any tuner anywhere.

The 'good tuning' comes into play when tuning automatic transmission shifts, or low RPM driveability on a cammed car, or making sure the spark tables pull timing when the IATs go to high (....).

Let me put it this way. Maybe your car did make 407 rwhp. Maybe the tuner doctored up the dyno sheet a little, maybe he didn't. But I'll almost put money on it that you can't lay down a better 1/4 mile time with 407 rwhp than I did with 325.



Completely agree with all of this. A lot of folks act like it's easy to make 400 rwhp on these cars, and it is if you go really aggressive on the tune and/or boost. But for the most part, it takes some pretty serious mods to actually make 400 rwhp (i.e., have a 1/4 trap speed at the track that indicates you are actually making 400 rwhp). People like to look at Kenne Bells website and treat them like they are the gods of supercharging 4.6s. I can tell you from first hand observations, that a completely stock 4.6 makes NOWHERE NEAR 405 rwhp at 9 psi like they claim.

And while I'm at it. Kenne Bell's website has some of the most ridiculous claims I've ever seen. If it isn't obvious that they are trying to sell their product, I don't know what is.

I agree...to get the numbers in my sig i was running 101 octane! It wouldnt make over 373 horse on a mustang dyno without the 101 and advanced timing without detonating! My car went naturally aspirated at the track running 13.18 @ 104mph...on the same mustang dyno it laid down 255rwhp. I have yet to get to the the track but if it doesnt go 11s ill be pissed!