Long Tubes a waste on N/A cars.

Discussion in 'SN95 4.6L Mustang Tech' started by MustangLife, Feb 25, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. I believe thats tune included on a mustang dyno.
  2. :jaw: Really?!? :jaw: Where is this place at and can you check on that for me? $1000 for springs, cams, installation and a dyno tune may be worth the time for me to drive there. I will be in Virginia and Boston this summer and might stop off with my car.

    Please check into this for me.

  3. Yes, by dyno tune I mean tweaking the a/f ratio and engine timing while doing pulls on a dyno with wideband O2 strapped to my exhaust pipes. My dyno tune was group tune. We basically rented out the shop for the day. It was long day if you car was last. Luckily, my car was tuned second. I agree $250 is a great price including the chip. Perhaps my shop doesn't like to rip people off as much as other shops do. Again, $500 is nuts.

    You say Matt's car is producing 264/297 with his mods. I say I can bolt-on an Accufab TB/plenum and gain maybe a conservative 6-7 rwhp at my peak and hopefully the same or more throughout the powercurve. That would put me at 256-7 hp. or only 7-8 rwhp less than Matt's car with LT's. Would agree with my car gaining at least 6-7 from the Accufab set-up? With that logic, to add LT's on my car for 6-7 more rwhp would never be worth it my mind.
  4. On 10/28/2000 my car ran [email protected] with drop-in K&N filter, pullies, and Borla cat-back. My car might have been making 235 rwhp at that time, but I never dynoed it back then. I can assure you don't need 250 rwhp. to trap at 101 mph. My car trap speed that day was between 100.3-101.9 mph. The 101.9 mph was freak. Couldn't do better than 101 mph on all other runs that day.

    As of 3/23/2002 (the day of my dyno tune) my SAE corrected numbers were 250/292. I have not been to the track since 10/28/2000. I plan on going when it gets warmer.
  5. I'll assume your numbers at not SAE corrected. If your produced 236 SAE rwhp with just pullies and CAI, then you have a factory freak. Most GT's dyno SAE around 223-225 in stock form. That means your car gained anywhere from 11-13 rwhp SAE from just pullies and a CAI. Amazing.
  6. The fact is, if you want to get everything out of your car then LTs are a necessity! I have bought every bolt on available and can tell you they make a considerable difference. How can you get serious if you don't get long tubes for an NA application? Your car needs to breathe.
  7. Here's my graph.

    stock vs BBK LT/BBK Catted X/Magnapack cb


    And here's 03trublugt's graph

    stock vs BBK LT/BBK O/R X/Magnaflow cb

  8. To end this, we have learned that 2000gt will never be anything special to worry about at the track or on the street because he thinks that longtubes are worthless NA. Joe347r6 and me were in the same boat, we ran out of bolt ons to put on our car without breaking in the motor. Peak hp once again as stated doesnt mean crap. I cant wait to put your theory to rest when I dyno my car. Oh and mines an auto vs. your manual. Of course then you will say some crap that I have more mods than you but what it all boils down to is that you dont have a clue about mod motors and what makes power.
  9. Yo Stark its Atco time again :) PM me when you are going, I'm going on Sunday w/o UCA's and LCA's then tuesday with LCA's and UCA's to see what all the hype is about lol.
  10. Dynos don't lie. Headers = teh win.
  11. This is about the dumbest thread ever. Headers have been around since hot-rods began. There is a reason they are on every type of race car. They are a PITA to install, but they work...
  12. Ive never ran it at the track :bang: I have been trying to get out there, but I just bought a house and Im still in the process of moving.
    As for my #'s, you are correct, they are STD not SAE. Given that it was a pretty hot and muggy day, I might have a few extra ponies laying around if it was corrected, or I may very well drop a few, who knows, its just #'s :D.
    I think they would have been pretty much identical though. When we were looking at the comp screen he was showing us how all the different settings affected #'s. There was only around a .5hp difference between the SAE and STD on mine even with the muggy weather :shrug:
    Again, its only #'s :D. I would love to hit around 300hp in mine NA, and Im going to do what I can to reach it. If it doesnt happen oh well, Ill have one mean combination waiting for a S/C to be strapped to it after I forge the bottom end :nice:

  13. Both of those cars run off the stock computer program?

    Anyway, to be accurate, so me 250 rwhp without a cat-back exhaust. I guarantee the Magnaflow CB added power after the headers and mid pipe changes. I am just going by what 5111 posted:

    Longtube 250 rwhp:
    X or H pipe (needed for both applications)
    Longtubes ($450)
    Gaskets ($50)
    Installation ($400...What I paid at S.E.Racing)
    Total ($900)

    You won't make 250 on a stock GT with just headers + LT's using the stock CB. That's exactly what I said. Go back and read my posts. Your graphs include CB's. Don't even try to tell me the CB adds zero power after adding LT's and a mid-pipe.

    Anyway, your graphs are impressive and LT's, mid-pipe, AND a cat-back does make 250 rwhp. However, so do a lot of GT's WITHOUT headers. That's my point for 5111. The graphs above are no different than my dyno graph. If someone wants to post my graph, I'll e-mail it to you. My car is making 250/292 SAE with an K&N filter, x-pipe, CB, pullies, and dyno tune. My C&L MAF is worthless with the tune in place (it's basically a $250 K&N filter!) Pullies are nearly worthless too IMO.

    Now here's a good test - through a plenum/TB combo on your LT cars and let me know how much you gain. I'll do the same thing to my GT with stock manifolds. I'll bet the gains are very similar.

    The stock manifolds are not restrictive on N/A applications.
  14. STD vs. SAE made a big difference on my car.

    My car: SAE 250/292 vs. STD 257/300

    Now it's only about 2 or 3% difference, but it pretty signifcant against a big number (3% of 250 is 7 rwhp)

    Anyway, nice numbers and thanks for sharing.

    By the way, if the shop e-mails you your Dynojet files, you can download the Dynojet software from their website and convert your graphs to SAE. It's actually really cool if you have multiple dyno pulls. You can graph them all at once and see the differences. My shop e-mailed my dyno pulls.
  15. Yes, LT's flow very well, but so do the stock manifolds in naturally aspirated engine conditions.

    Sorry, but I'd hardly consider a GT with 250-260 rwhp a "race" car. We are not talking about GT's with blowers and 350+ rwhp. I am sure LT's would see good gains over the stock manifolds on those cars.
  16. Not saying 260 HP GT's are race cars, but headers put it one step closer.
  17. I thought this was tech. Is this the best you can do? Because I don't agree LT's gain much over the stock manifolds N/A, that means my car will be slow on the street and the track?

    You really got me on that one. Yeah, my 250 rwhp GT is probably slower than a 250 rwhp GT with LT's.
  18. Well, let's break this down a little. The first graph shows peak gains of 26 rwhp and 31 rwtq from three modifications:

    LT headers (vs. stock manifolds)
    o/r X pipe (vs. stock h-pipe)
    catback (vs. stock catback)

    How would you allocate the gains? :shrug:

    LTs - 10 / 13
    X pipe - 10/10
    cb - 6 / 8


    To be fair, you added more than just LTs. I think the point 2000GT was trying to make was that you really are adding more than just LTs when you do this mod. First of all, you obviously have to use a new X or H pipe with LTs. CB is optional. However, this points out the large sum of money that this all requires. Do you really think you'd be over 250 rwhp with JUST LTs and an o/r X-pipe? You might be close, but I don't think you'd quite be there unless you tacked on a CB.

    Just to clarify - did your car have pullies/intake/anything else besides the LTs, X-pipe, and CB? I guess if that's the case, then 2000GT is just saying that there's another much cheaper way to get to around 250 rwhp. I guess if you really want to take it to the next/ultimate bolt-on level, then, yes; you need to get LTs. No doubt those gains after peak would help you in the 1/4 mi.

  19. Boy did you come to the wrong place!! :rlaugh:
  20. Yea you are going to be slower than a 250 rwhp gt with lt's because it has a better power curve than you. I will have 15+ more hp and tq than you in certain areas of my power band. Why dont you look at the curves on the dyno sheets, their is 15+ hp and tq increase all the way through the powerband. So how in the hell is your car as fast as a 250 rwhp gt with lt's when is has less 15+ hp and tq throughout the powerband. You need to learn how to read a dyno sheet and then learn how to mod mustangs.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.