Roush Intake Dyno Numbers

baglock1

The Bartender
Founding Member
Aug 25, 2001
6,612
1
78
Space Coast, FL
For those of you who remember me installing the all coveted Roush 3-piece intake (http://forums.stangnet.com/showthread.php?t=483948), you may recall that I planned on getting a dyno done afterwards to see exactly how much I was gaining. Well, life got in the way and I didn't get around to it until today. Now before I get into the results, let me go over some of the background to give you a better idea of exactly what you're looking at here.

Prior to installing the intake, the car dyno'd to 232 hp, 304 tq.
dyno_chart_13_june.jpg

airfuel_13_june.jpg


These are SAE corrected numbers, read on a Dynojet on 13 June, 2004. Mods included a Bassani offroad X-pipe and catback, ASP pullies, the accessories bypassed, and that's about it. I was extremely happy with the numbers and many people (here and elsewhere) were impressed with the numbers considering the relatively few modifications.

Well, one of the beauties of using the same dynometer is that they can look over your previous runs. This happened today. This is when we found out that my last runs didn’t have the pressure calibrated properly. Well screw me running. So the last SAE corrected numbers are erroneous. False. Complete and utter BS. DANG it! So taking out the SAE correction for the last runs, it turns out that I made 205 hp and 269 tq.

This wouldn’t be too big a deal if the runs were a week or so apart. Unfortunately, they were 6 months apart. So now the entire plan of getting dyno numbers to document the intake swap is screwed up. The weather coupled with lack of accurate SAE correction means these numbers are all subjective.

So anyways, after the last dyno, I installed the Roush intake. The intake actually came as a kit and includes 24# injectors, 65mm TB, and a whole slew of other items required to make it all work properly. See the thread referenced above for the complete list. My goal was to get dyno numbers before and after, while changing nothing but what was included in the kit. However, I did install an adjustable fuel pressure regulator and gauge in addition to everything. I left the pressure set at a stock setting however and installed them more for tuning after the fact than anything else. I also left the timing set to where it was before (6* initial) even though I feel I can safely dial more in at this time. This car has had a history of detonation with higher timing, even with the 93 octane I routinely run. Aside from what I just mentioned, I also had to replace the harmonic balancer and distributor since the last dyno, but I don't see any appreciable change from that. The distributor is a stock replacement and the balancer is an FMS SFI unit. While a rebuilt dist. might make the timing more accurate, I don't see an appreciable gain from this change, certainly no more than 1-2 hp.

The only difference that I feel will affect performance is time. I'm still running the same plugs, wires, cap, and rotor as I was before. Obviously, the 6 months that they've been wearing down will affect the performance, but if anything, it will degrade, not improve the numbers.

So enough of the blah blah blah, right? You want the numbers? Alright, fine. Blue is the baseline and red is with the Roush intake.
dynos_1_and_5.jpg

airfuel_1_and_5.jpg


I have mixed emotions about the results. On one hand, power stayed pretty much the same until about 4k. That’s when it continued to climb until 5k, where we stopped the run. Peak torque numbers are down a couple points but the curve is still very flat and is much higher than before after 4k. Had I continued the run out to 5500 rpm, I’m sure the power would have climbed a bit high. The charts tell me that the intake is performing better than stock and now the stock heads and cam are the bottle neck.

However, Roush advertised 47 hp to the crank with this setup. Figuring in 16% drivetrain loss, that’s only 36 hp. Now I know that the car needs a tune up. The plugs and wires are older than snot (2.75 years) and the dyno operator said that the clutch felt like it was slipping a little. This might make up for the loss but I can’t say for sure. I do know that I will be doing a full tune-up on it and taking it back because I’m not satisfied with it right now.

Unfortunately though, there will be one more change to the setup during the next run. While strapping the car down, the operator noticed that my U-joints are getting pretty bad. I haven’t noticed because 99% of all my suspension is solid links. Vibration is a everyday thing. So before going back, I’ll be installing the T56 with the new driveshaft. This does nothing to affect the power of the motor, but due to current dyno designs, it might read a difference due to the change in the moment of inertia. It’s true that I have extra mass in the tranny, but an aluminum flywheel and driveshaft are being installed to counteract this. I believe I’ll see a net loss of MOI, and the dyno will read this as a power output increase.

So now I’m sitting at home, drinking a beer. It isn’t a victory beer, but I’m not crying in it either. Like I said, mixed emotions. Considering the dyno numbers up high, I know the intake will perform given a good combo. I just can’t say that it’s good for a stockish motor yet. After the next dyno, I’ll feel better about giving some opinions on the matter.
 
  • Sponsors (?)


Timing is a possibility and will be addressed. The problem has been with the EEC. It has been adding enough timing to get me concerned with detonation. It's on the list of things to take care of.

And the local dyno I went to was White's. Good people there. I have no reason not to go back and I recomend them to anyone. The calibration issue was a simple mistake and was done fairly soon after they installed it. I chock it up to a rookie mistake and not to happen again. The fact that they told me about the screw up from the first time goes a long way towards their business ethic and honesty. At least in my opinion. :shrug:
 
I doubt Roush would advertise 47HP on a 10+ year old vehicle right now. I know they say on an otherwise stock motor but personally I doubt that's the case. With the usual head and cam swap your gonna be right there with the rest of the crowd. Only difference is yours will visually look a whole lot cooler than most.
 
I agree with Vib. Gaining 47hp is not going to happen in most cases just by swapping the intake on a stock engine . Now if you added heads, full exhaust, and a cam then installing the intake would make you gain 35rwhp or more. The stock intake on a stock engine doesn't restrict as much as people think. I have seen many dyno tests from stock 5 liters adding edelbrock and cobra intakes and yet they only gain around 10-15rwhp.
 
Its all good to me...hey you made more power....and it is one Horny intake.... :nice:

I added my 93 Cobra and only netted 12 ponies and lost TQ to boot over a Tmoss ported lower...go figure when it comes to intakes??? Dyno's can de depressing sometimes.... :nonono:
 
baglock1 said:
Timing is a possibility and will be addressed. The problem has been with the EEC. It has been adding enough timing to get me concerned with detonation. It's on the list of things to take care of.

And the local dyno I went to was White's. Good people there. I have no reason not to go back and I recomend them to anyone. The calibration issue was a simple mistake and was done fairly soon after they installed it. I chock it up to a rookie mistake and not to happen again. The fact that they told me about the screw up from the first time goes a long way towards their business ethic and honesty. At least in my opinion. :shrug:


Sounds good. I totally agree, not many places would go back and admit they messed up. You shuld tell the guys on Brevard Mustangs your results, I bet some of them would be interested to see...unless you beat me to it. :nice:
 
Yep, you added more power where it counts, in the top end. The amount that you lost in the lower rpm's isn't bad for performance. Once you are out of 1st gear, you won't see parts where you lost torque.

I would have made the run until 5500 or 5750. I bet your shift point would be around 5300 now, maybe more. I can't tell because you cut it off at 5k.
Scott
 
VibrantRedGT said:
I doubt Roush would advertise 47HP on a 10+ year old vehicle right now. I know they say on an otherwise stock motor but personally I doubt that's the case. With the usual head and cam swap your gonna be right there with the rest of the crowd. Only difference is yours will visually look a whole lot cooler than most.
That's true Vib and the fact that the motor has 115K on it is a very valid point. However, with this intake, I feel that "with the usual cam and head swap" I should be well ahead of the crowd. After this dyno, I was not left with a good feeling about that.

S/CBlack95GT said:
I agree with Vib. Gaining 47hp is not going to happen in most cases just by swapping the intake on a stock engine . Now if you added heads, full exhaust, and a cam then installing the intake would make you gain 35rwhp or more. The stock intake on a stock engine doesn't restrict as much as people think. I have seen many dyno tests from stock 5 liters adding edelbrock and cobra intakes and yet they only gain around 10-15rwhp.

I really wasn't expecting an honest 47 hp or even 30 to the wheels. But I was expecting slightly more than I got. I think the main thing that has me down is the lack of numbers that I can accurately compare to each other. Regardless, I'm still confident that this intake performed better than any of the other usual intake swaps would have.

What I'm trying to say is that I'm not disappointed with the intake at all. Far from it. Rather, I'm disappointed that my combo didn't perform to the level I was (perhaps unrealistically) expecting. Keep in mind that I was expecting 255 or so based off of the old, erroneous dyno numbers. Regardless of the mitigating circumstances, it's still a let down.

But the car pulls much harder than it did before and revs much quicker. As you can see from the A/F chart, my ratio flattened out quite a bit due to the tables in the Cobra computer. Once I get around to fixing the drivetrain problems, I'll head back and do some tuning with fuel pressure and timing. I know there's a few hp locked up there.

FlyBy763 said:
Sounds good. I totally agree, not many places would go back and admit they messed up. You shuld tell the guys on Brevard Mustangs your results, I bet some of them would be interested to see...unless you beat me to it. :nice:

I plan to make this same post over there but want to talk to a couple of 3rd parties first. Once I speak to them about some issues, I'll post it.

mo_dingo said:
I would have made the run until 5500 or 5750. I bet your shift point would be around 5300 now, maybe more. I can't tell because you cut it off at 5k.

Scott,

The problem I faced with that was the 115k miles on the clock. As mentioned, my u-joints are pretty bad and coupled with no driveshaft loop (speaking of which, I need to order one), both the operator and myself felt uncomfortable taking it much higher. Further, the stock valve springs suck ass to begin with. I still have awhile before I plan to build the new motor, and don't particular want to have to get into any major repairs (like rebuilding the valvetrain) right now. I agree that the car would have made more power out to at least 5500, but knowing the numbers isn't real important right now. I don't drag race the car as the suspension is all setup for opentracking so it's not a big deal.

However, that's not to say that I won't be tempted to have it spun up to 5500 anyways after the driveshaft is replaced. ;)
 
baglock1 said:
However, that's not to say that I won't be tempted to have it spun up to 5500 anyways after the driveshaft is replaced. ;)

Gotcha. I was too anxious to see the dyno numbers that I think I completely skipped most of your post. :lol:

At any rate, it's good to see someone taking care of their car. Too bad the d/s is bad; Poor timing I guess. Can't wait to see it when everything is done.
Scott