[flash]

i don't suppose you saved those charts?

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[RPM]

What sort of baseline hp figures do people have for the 968?

213 hp at the rear wheels seems pretty strong from the standard 20% drivetrain loss calculation.



236

- 47

189



213 hp would then represent approximately a 24 hp bump.



Of course these are just vague generalizations, which is why I wondered what we have as a baseline.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[flash]

actually, 20% is high for a manual trans, but is on the lower end for an automatic



the "standard" i have always known for a peg-leg rear drive manual trans of this approximate mass and gear design was about 17% - our cars in that form are about 15% (no u-joints)



things like lsd could also increase that loss a touch



so, from 236, you get to 200.6 - 213.23 then shows a nice 12.63 bump, which while a bit low, is still in line, and well within tolerance of what we have seen elsewhere with the chip he is running - he may actually be 2hp or so low, but this could easily be attributed to tire pressure, compression, dyno tolerance, fuel, or any number of other factors, as easily as the exhaust, so i am not inclined to make any determinations on what the B&B did based on this peak number



i would love to see the charts though to see how the curve did compared to other curves i've seen

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[ds968]

[quote name='flash' post='36987' date='Jun 14 2007, 07:46 AM']i don't suppose you saved those charts?[/quote]



I know for sure that I did not throw the graph away, but as far as where it could be ...that's entirely another story. I don't keep car stuff or any other papers, except tax records and critical things like that very well organized, so it could be buried with all sorts of old crap, but I'll look around and if I find it I'll send you a copy. I'm also going to call Mustang Ranch ( no, not the Nevada brothel <img src="/forum/images/smilies/968/dry.gif" class="smilie" alt="" /> , but the the name of the auto shop which dynoed the car <img src="/forum/images/smilies/968/biggrin.gif" class="smilie" alt="" /> ) and see if they might be able to retreive anything.



Anyway, what I factored in was a 15% variance so 213 RWHP would be about 245 engine HP, then add another 7or 8 hp for the subsequent air box mod, and I should be running in the 252 or 253 range.

Of course, I have no idea what I started with - for all I know the car may have produced materially less than the brand new vehicle 236 stock figure ( after 75k miles , IIRC, when it was dynoed ) and therefore the gain from the chip, airbox, and possibly the BB catback might be quite a bit more .

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[Cloud9...68]

[quote name='ds968' post='36986' date='Jun 14 2007, 09:33 AM']FYI - at the rear wheels max hp was 213.23 and max torque was 202. BTW, this was before the air box modification.[/quote]



That's amazing - my car also has a Racer-X chip, and the previous owner claimed its dyno numbers were 213 hp, 204 lb-ft, also before the air box mod. I have no idea what type of dyno he ran his test on, but the numbers are remarkably consistent with yours.

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.

[ds968]

[quote name='Cloud9...68' post='37014' date='Jun 14 2007, 04:04 PM']That's amazing - my car also has a Racer-X chip, and the previous owner claimed its dyno numbers were 213 hp, 204 lb-ft, also before the air box mod. I have no idea what type of dyno he ran his test on, but the numbers are remarkably consistent with yours.[/quote]



that is amazing !



IIRC, my test was done on a mustang dyno ( hey, mustang ranch name , they dyno tune and do performance work mostly on ford mustangs, so I'll presume they would not be caught dead using a dynojet <img src="/forum/images/smilies/968/unsure.gif" class="smilie" alt="" /> but I don't know that for a fact )



I hear mustang dynos results are more conservative whereas on a dynojet the numbers are a bit higher, although that makes absolutely no sense to me. A dyno is a dyno, right ? - the only factors influencing the results of one vs. another should be just the external conditions and the set up of the dyno at the time of the test, but all else being equal why would a mustang generate lower figures than a dynojet ?



sorry, deviated from the topic too much - back to exhausts

Partial Post: Please Login or Register to read the full post.