Dyno disappointment!!

Discussion in '1994 - 1995 Specific Tech' started by '94ChickStang, May 15, 2007.

  1. :mad:

    I finally got my car tuned today.....unfortunately I haven't picked it up yet so I only know what the guy told me on the phone. Working while your car's getting tuned SUCKS!!!

    He says 275 rwhp, 312 tq (see signature)....I dont know the a/f yet because I got off the phone fast. I was hoping to get @ least 20 more hp!!

    This place works almost exclusively on Mustangs so do you think it's a case of a different Dyno? It's a DynoJet Dynamometer, Ive heard "Mustang Dyno's" show lower #'s, anyone know if they have different names or something? I'll confirm when I get there, but maybe they forgot to put something in the car?? I dont know, but I'm dissatisfied.
  2. wow, i would also have expected more like 300hp and 340tq. there must be something not quite right ... from your sig, it looks like you have the right parts :shrug:

    hopefully the graph will tell us something

    lol ... i have been working while my motor was being installed, for the last 5 months!
  3. Why 340 TQ? Is this a 331 block or something?
  4. I really hope it's some sort of misunderstanding or they just forgot to put something in....either way it's wasting my time b/c the place is 60 mins away because I wanted it to go to a good shop. :bang:
  5. Stock bottom end...
  6. Where did you get your car tuned at?
    He might not of done an aggresive tune because that is more risky on your engine.
  7. -FMS 65mm TB/ProM 95mm MAF

    That's a big MAF you have there....:rlaugh:
    I would think you would be higher as well
  8. I don't want to say anything bad yet as I dont have every piece of the puzzle....

  9. true! I was told by ProM (or whatever they're called now) that they no longer make the 80mm and now it's a 95mm....but the old 80mm used to open to 95mm anyhow, it was just 80 @ the connection?? I took their word for it
  10. Ask Grady or Jt what they think of that.......if the Maf is reading a certain amount of air in.....and the 65mm is only letting it's full capacity in.......I don't know.....may be an issue....but let someone with a better understanding fill in....:shrug: ....I don't know how much is being compensated for......

  11. We can eliminate that as an issue. I had the 90mm lightening one on mine and the 65mm FR TBand I got 290+ rwhp and 310rwtq WITH CATS on the car with the engine in my sig.
  12. good enough Keith......wasn't sure
  13. I also have a 90mm MAF with a 65mm T/B. I have yet to get the engine broke in and on the dyno to see how bad it's hurting the combo, but I'm sure it's a little on the small side.
  14. what were the temp like? A hot humid day will kill a car at the track and the dyno
  15. Post the graph!

    Remember this: average horse power moves cars, peak horsepower moves dynos.

    What were the goals that you told Ed when he did the cam? Your trq number looks solid but you are correct in that I would have expected more HP. I'd also get a bigger throttle body, at least a 70 to match the intake. How's your FP looking?

  16. It's been in the 60's and dry all week
  17. I told Ed I was looking for 300rwhp but drivability was key...I've seen these combos get 290+ with a 65mm tb too. I'll post the graph tonight, I'm going to pick the car up in a bit so I'll get the a/f & ask about the fp too.

    It's gotta be a missed part or a super conservative tune imo
  18. Just a thought or two on the maf size

    For the typical stock block na h/c/i combo ...............
    70-75mm is most likely ... physically ... large enough to pass its generated airflow

    Of course there is the electrical side of the meter to consider
    Two things go along with that

    airflow capability (calibration) ... not being pegged by too much airflow

    While that meter is big ... as long as all the above is in place ..........
    I would not think the size is an issue here

    Now ... About the lower than expected values

    Lately ... I've seen a trend to move away from SAE calibration values,
    which were more common in the past, to the STANDARD calibration.

    Standard cal values are almost always higher and I suspect that is
    why we see them more often these days.

    Your pull may have been done with SAE :)

    Lots of reasons you may be a bit lower but until you talk to the tech ...
    We are just spitting into the wind here.

    Tell us more when you find out :D

  19. thanks Grady,

    I would have got a 77mm or 80mm MAF if they were easier to get, but I didn't want to settle with the 75mm due to quality issues (or so Ive heard).

    Im leaving right now to go, he did call me back and tell me the a/f was 12:1...is that a bit rich? I'll ask about the SAE value too...
  20. Also look at your timing. Mine is ..was set to 15* with no pinging whatsoever.