TCCoA Forums banner

1 - 20 of 30 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
529 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Look at peaks, look at area under the curves, compare point to point. Which one do you think is a better curve? Keep in mind the differences in dyno-types.

JBA's/Cats/PI Intake


Kooks/No Cats/Bullitt Intake


Looking at these I see no reason why I should keep the bullitt intake. Everything about the PI graph seems better, higher peaks, quicker torque, almost every spot in my opinion is bested by the PI intake. I mean at 3500 RPM i'm down 40HP/90TQ!

Can't post it where'd like to at the moment so I thought i'd get some feedback from anyone here who has a opinion that isn't horsecrap.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,040 Posts
Hey Chad,

Forgive me as I do have a knack for stating the obvious. I am sure you have thought of this and there is probably a reason but can't you run the new combo on the same dyno as the old one? At least then it is a more accurate comparison.

Flame suit on if I missed something!:ztoohot:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
529 Posts
Discussion Starter #4
Cam94 said:
Forgive me as I do have a knack for stating the obvious. I am sure you have thought of this and there is probably a reason but can't you run the new combo on the same dyno as the old one? At least then it is a more accurate comparison.
I'm not going to go on a flaming tangent, no worries. I have a plan to do that but unfortunately I won't be able to until I get my pile of crap running again. Since I need to tear it down I figured I might as well put the cheaper/older/better intake on as in my eyes it seems to make more power than the overpriced hunk of aluminum on there now.
 

·
Geek w/Gearhead Complex
Joined
·
2,299 Posts
is the 1st one corrected -- if so, same type? What were the weather conditions? Was the motor hot/cold on both instances? Are the tunes the same or has both been tuned per the intake used? Are their other things added between the two that could've changed the outcome (other than the obvious)?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,205 Posts
I'd more look at the difference in the STD correction and the STP correction, that could be a big difference, but by reading this, I would assume it should be the other way around. Your power should have read higher at STP, assuming you are making the same HP as before.

SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers), USA. Power is corrected to reference conditions of 29.23 InHg (99 kPa) of dry air and 77 F (25°C). This SAE standard requires a correction for friction torque. Friction torque can be determined by measurements on special motoring dynamometers (which is only practical in research environments) or can be estimated. When estimates must be used, the SAE standard uses a default Mechanical Efficiency (ME) value of 85%. This is approximately correct at peak torque but not at other engine operating speeds. Some dynamometer systems use the SAE correction factor for atmospheric conditions but do not take mechanical efficiency into consideration at all (i.e. they assume a ME of 100%).

STD or STP. Another power correction standard determined by the SAE. This standard has been stable for a long time and is widely used in the performance industry. Power is corrected to reference conditions of 29.92 InHg (103.3 kPa) of dry air and 60 F (15.5°C). Because the reference conditions include higher pressure and cooler air than the SAE standard, these corrected power numbers will always be about 5 % higher than the SAE power numbers. Friction torque is handled in the same way as in the SAE standard.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
793 Posts
Rich95XR7 said:
I'd more look at the difference in the STD correction and the STP correction, that could be a big difference, but by reading this, I would assume it should be the other way around. Your power should have read higher at STP, assuming you are making the same HP as before.

SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers), USA. Power is corrected to reference conditions of 29.23 InHg (99 kPa) of dry air and 77 F (25°C). This SAE standard requires a correction for friction torque. Friction torque can be determined by measurements on special motoring dynamometers (which is only practical in research environments) or can be estimated. When estimates must be used, the SAE standard uses a default Mechanical Efficiency (ME) value of 85%. This is approximately correct at peak torque but not at other engine operating speeds. Some dynamometer systems use the SAE correction factor for atmospheric conditions but do not take mechanical efficiency into consideration at all (i.e. they assume a ME of 100%).

STD or STP. Another power correction standard determined by the SAE. This standard has been stable for a long time and is widely used in the performance industry. Power is corrected to reference conditions of 29.92 InHg (103.3 kPa) of dry air and 60 F (15.5°C). Because the reference conditions include higher pressure and cooler air than the SAE standard, these corrected power numbers will always be about 5 % higher than the SAE power numbers. Friction torque is handled in the same way as in the SAE standard.
YeGads! I just love it when you talk dirty to us like this. I'm so excited!
:ztoohot: :ztoohot: :ztoohot: :ztoohot: :ztoohot:
Sideoiler
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
529 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
Fubarian said:
is the 1st one corrected -- if so, same type? What were the weather conditions? Was the motor hot/cold on both instances? Are the tunes the same or has both been tuned per the intake used? Are their other things added between the two that could've changed the outcome (other than the obvious)?
1) It's the numbers a Dynojet spits out, whatever type that is. (Different from STD/SAE as I understand)

2) Similar weather conditions, similar motor temps. Who knows about humidity.

3) Graph one was Last year from Jerry/Fordchip, graph two is this year Chris/SCT

4) Nothing else should have changed at all.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
529 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
Rich95XR7 said:
I'd more look at the difference in the STD correction and the STP correction, that could be a big difference, but by reading this, I would assume it should be the other way around. Your power should have read higher at STP, assuming you are making the same HP as before.
Hell, I'd think with all the mods I did I'd end up with decently higher HP and at least a better looking curve w/ the bullitt intake.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,902 Posts
What does your car run in the 1/4 and what kinda mods do you have? I thought you had some kinda blower on your car and it was hella fast. Sorry, just saw your sig.
-Rob
 

·
Baddest N/A NPI in Canada
Joined
·
2,118 Posts
Chad, you can send your bullitt intake to me if you are not going to keep it!:D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,598 Posts
The bullits only had a 3-5 hp advantage, stock, but with your kinda boost,RPM, the configuration probably works to a disadvantage.You might try fabbing up a spacer between the two halves of the lower plenum to adjust the volume, and that might help ....try picking off the HP/TQ on one sheet with a pair of dividers and transposing the readings to the other so you have both on the same scale graph, so a visual comparison is a bit easier...I dont know , but maybe the cats helped?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,430 Posts
chadg, how much have you spent on your car?! almost 450 rwhp, you should be running 11s easy. Slowest car for most money spent lol. You probably have one of the fastest 4.6 mn12s or most powerful.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
529 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
12.5 old setup, 13.2 with the currently broken-car setup. i've put over 15k into the engine. the key is getting the right combination of components.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,702 Posts
Leland Jacobson said:
The bullits only had a 3-5 hp advantage, stock, but with your kinda boost,RPM, the configuration probably works to a disadvantage.
He had the intake ported by Jim @ Renegade. Fom what I saw this past weekend there is no reason why that intake should be hindering his performance. Please explain where your going with that statement, I dont follow.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,040 Posts
AEDM8 said:


He had the intake ported by Jim @ Renegade. Fom what I saw this past weekend there is no reason why that intake should be hindering his performance. Please explain where your going with that statement, I dont follow.
I believe what he is referring to is that the Bullit intake on a N/A car was only worth 3-5 HP. The Bullitt Mustangs were only rated at 265 vs. 260 for your standard GT. On a SC engine it is on average worth 30-40 HP from what I have read.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,746 Posts
The graphs are misleading...

I guarantee if you were to stretch the other one out like the top one is than you would come out with a little bit more power with the better intake.

The only way to really compare the two is to make your own graph and plot the points your self or do the tests on the same Dyno with the same type of sheets.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,314 Posts
I got my car tuned in Chicago on a dyno jet. Then a local shop bought a Mustang and wanted to compare numbers with some cars that had recently been run on a dyno jet. They were trying to create a 'dyno jet correction factor' My curves looked a lot different on the Mustang. The torque curve was especially funny. It went from having a peak 23 higher than the HP to being about the same like would be expected based on the stock ratings. It also lost its flatness. You really can't compare numbers from the two at all. Just my thoughts on it, hope you get it straightened out.

Based on factory ratings and such and knowing how each loads the cars, I will definitely try to avoid using a dynojunk to tune my car in the future.
 
1 - 20 of 30 Posts
Top