Dyno Results (Final)

Ray@VSK

New Member
Aug 27, 2004
355
0
0
I pulled 272/303 a few weeks ago with no air box & the car was running real lean (See Graph), I since put my air box back on "as needed for my Ram air hood" & put on me much needed Pro-M Optimizer for adjusting my air/fuel ratio issues & pulled a 279/317 consistantly. I'm going to be pulling about 10 horses more than dynoed though because they had to leave my air/fuel ratio a bit rich with the Ram Air once I get going, so basicaly one could comfortably say I will be pulling 290/325 or so, Enjoy.
dyno2.jpg
 
  • Sponsors (?)


GroverDill said:
Not bad, you do know STD numbers are usally 3-4% higher than SAE numbers.

Nope did not know there was a difference, either way since no ram air on dyno I'd still be about the same as picture SAE, What does STD & SAE meen anyways ?
 
SAE corrects to a standard temperature - 77*F for J1349 or J1985. There are many factors that go into these calculations. Among them are temperature, humidity, pressure, and altitude. The J607 specification uses a temperature of 60 F as “normal” compared to J1349 (or J1985) which used 77 F. This means that if you use both systems with the same set of data you will get higher results for HP/TRQ with the J607. That means you cannot compare corrected data from the two different systems. I think STD just uses the atmoshperic conditions that existed that day at that time.
 
Was this on an inertial-type dyno like a Dynojet, or was it a load-bearing dyno like a Mustang? It will make a difference in your dyno readings and how you're going to tune.

Was the AFR readings done at the tailpipe or before the catalytic convertors?
 
Great info, I think I might invest in one of those. Was that the only thing you did was use the optimizer between the dynos? If so, im buying one right now! My a/f ratios are similiar to where you started if not worse. 7hp / 14ftlbs increase on MAX and your torque curve moved up VERY much at lower rpms. Is it too good to be true, tell me its not! :flag:
Why did you go with the stock cam? :shrug:
 
It was a DynoJet & it was @ the tail pipe.

Yes that's all I did, I tried everything & was pulling my hair out wondering why I had to have some 100#'s fuel pressure just to be driveable & still running lean so I took the recommendation of my Dyno shop to get a optimizer & as soon as I put it inline it was night & day, I would highly suggest this thing as it works excellent & does just the exact same thing as a programmable computer system but around $500.00 cheaper, I seen somewhere I think a Pro-M affiliate site that was offering em for like $149.00 "$20 cheaper than Pro-M's site" I got mine new on ebay for $100 :nice:

btw I actually would be pulling more horse & torque than what you see on my sheet because last time I had no air box, it was straight air filter on meter & the new #'s are in a box & that's running allittle rich on my runs as I had him leave allittle bit extra fuel in there for my Ram Air.

The reason I went with a stock cam is because I did not want to loose any lowend to midrange torque, I am a city driver & rarely ever see 5k rpms.
 
Ray@VSK said:
The reason I went with a stock cam is because I did not want to loose any lowend to midrange torque, I am a city driver & rarely ever see 5k rpms.
I have an f cam, look at my torque curve (with the crappy air fuel) I think it has great low end torque, i pass people like they are standing still at 2500rpms.. :shrug: I would have went aftermarket and you would of seen nice gains in both hp and torque, not to mention mid range.
jason_dyno_graph2.jpg