When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
You get the first guess.
Then everyone else gets one guess.
We will throw out the highest and lowest and then average.
Probably as good as trying to figure out what a random RWHP dyno result is.....
I don’t want to make a guess because I didn’t build the engine and I don’t own the car in which it is. How would I know?
The average of the engine builder’s estimate and the car owner’s estimate of the crank hp will suffice for me if we can get those. People take pride in engines they build and cars that they spend serous money on, and pride in one’s craft is the best guarantee of honesty. Certainly better than my guess based on generic knowledge.
A point estimate with a +/- range will be even better, if one doesn’t want to convey unwarranted certainty.
I don’t want to make a guess because I didn’t build the engine and I don’t own the car in which it is. How would I know?
The average of the engine builder’s estimate and the car owner’s estimate of the crank hp will suffice for me if we can get those. People take pride in engines they build and cars that they spend serous money on, and pride in one’s craft is the best guarantee of honesty. Certainly better than my guess based on generic knowledge.
A point estimate with a +/- range will be even better, if one doesn’t want to convey unwarranted certainty.
Mr. Corenman has it figured out. He's got a bunch of the same internal pieces, with a bit more massaging of various pieces.
425 +/- 5 in decent weather. Maybe a bit less in hotlanta, during the hot/sticky time (which is all summer, I believe.)
It's a very "mild" engine that functions with a stock GTS clutch (which is a clue, in itself.)
I would love to have 425 +/- 5. Can't I just put in bigger injectors and recurve the distributor, add some glass-packs to get those numbers? Oh, and a K&N with a cold-air funnel?
I would love to have 425 +/- 5. Can't I just put in bigger injectors and recurve the distributor, add some glass-packs to get those numbers? Oh, and a K&N with a cold-air funnel?
Only if you rip out the EFI and put in a dominator 1100 with massive jets and a single plane hi rise sheet metal manifold with cheater NOS and a bottle hidden under the trunk.
Don't forget to get the tornado ? air filter to increase the mpg to 45mpg....
Can I put one Tornado flow straightener in each hose from the cold-air funnels? I really want a reverse-cyclone in the tubes to keep the main flow clear of the walls. Friction and heat are our enemies! I should be able to get to 90 MPG with two, right?
Right now I have a gas tank hidden under the trunk. Could I put the stealth NOS bottle inside the tank?
Can I put one Tornado flow straightener in each hose from the cold-air funnels? I really want a reverse-cyclone in the tubes to keep the main flow clear of the walls. Friction and heat are our enemies! I should be able to get to 90 MPG with two, right?
Right now I have a gas tank hidden under the trunk. Could I put the stealth NOS bottle inside the tank?
Between the hidden NOS bottle and the twin pipe tornado reverse flow airflow accelerator, you'll get 100 mpg and make 950 hp worth of power. It will be amazing
Only if you rip out the EFI and put in a dominator 1100 with massive jets and a single plane hi rise sheet metal manifold with cheater NOS and a bottle hidden under the trunk.
Don't forget to get the tornado ? air filter to increase the mpg to 45mpg....
Mr. Corenman has it figured out. He's got a bunch of the same internal pieces, with a bit more massaging of various pieces.
425 +/- 5 in decent weather. Maybe a bit less in hotlanta, during the hot/sticky time (which is all summer, I believe.)
It's a very "mild" engine that functions with a stock GTS clutch (which is a clue, in itself.)
To clarify: 425 crank hp for this engine, for Jim Corenman’s engine, or both?
Here's an idea. I'll personally put up $100 towards Kevin taking his car to a shop with a DynoJet. Anyone else want to toss some money into the kitty for this?
I only ask that I get a copy of the dyno file for my collection. I'm a geek with this stuff, have a huge database of dyno files from various cars over the years.
Personally I don't have a preference, two local shops one is a DynoJet, the other a Mustang. I only favor the DynoJet shop since it's owned by the guy who tunes our cars.
Originally Posted by GregBBRD
I consider Mustang Dynos to be way more accurate than Dynojet dynos
Originally Posted by GregBBRD
There's no question that a Dynojet Dyno is more consistent than a Mustang Dyno, for the average user. Since the load is not applied by the user, but is simply the acceleration of the drum, the Dynojet is virtually idiot proof, from test to test....all one needs to do is control tire spin by how hard the car is strapped down. This is why racing bodies use this dyno.
Consistency is accuracy, interesting you acknowledge DynoJets are more consistent but not more accurate? That doesn't make any sense. Accuracy comes from consistency from pull to pull.
Accuracy as far as absolute numbers to brag about? That's a fools errand to make an absolute claim on that one, which is why the only way to really do such things, is get a before and after on the exact same dyno.
Originally Posted by GregBBRD
With an Eddy Current dyno, where you have to add the load, the power number is very dependent on the amount of load applied. It takes way longer to establish a steady state rpm and load, in order to get a repeatable power reading. (If additional load is applied, the rpms will be decreasing and the power reading will be substantially higher.) A Mustang Dyno (in eddy current mode) requires some skill to operate. (And is hell on tires, because of the time required to get the rpms and load stable.)
DynoJet has been making eddy current dyno's for at least two decades. The one I use is so equipped:
This one, in Atlanta. And nothing more scientific than taking the 370 and adding 15%.
So the rule of thumb is to take the Mustang dyno reported rwhp and multiply it by approximately 1.33x to get the crank hp? That's what going from 320 to 425 would mean.
More powerful engines are one thing. Putting the rubber to the ground and getting the car to haul a$$ is a different beast. The later cars with PSD and upgraded clutches seem to be best suited for such tweaking. There is more to the game than just making the 928 more powerful, but also how to make the increased performance translate to real wold use including daily driveability. Cars are after all a system of parts and they all need to work together.
My humble opinion...
P.S. IIRC the 928 was originally designed for 6.0L before the oil crisis of the 70s and Porsche decided to de tune and shrink the engine at launch...
08-25-2020, 11:16 PM
