just dropped my car off at tune time. and also.....
11-19-2007, 04:08 PM
#101
Member
Join Date: 03-10-06
Location: central nj
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dan's (DTM) car was tuned and dyno'd at like 276 or something, but that was on a dynojet that Matt borrowed before he bought his Mustang dyno. At one point, we had my car w/ 60's in it, and it ran and idled better than stock. They were just too freakin' big for my car only making 280whp. BTW, I'm pretty sure mine is the car he's talking about making the 245 on his dyno...
Dyno Jet DTM's car made 274 whp on my Mustang dyno it made 242 with no changes . Numbers are for tuning I have had a Balt on my dyno that made 237whp and ran 13.5 @105 mph !
11-19-2007, 04:09 PM
#102
Senior Member
Join Date: 05-03-06
Location: new jersey
Posts: 4,638
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dan's (DTM) car was tuned and dyno'd at like 276 or something, but that was on a dynojet that Matt borrowed before he bought his Mustang dyno. At one point, we had my car w/ 60's in it, and it ran and idled better than stock. They were just too freakin' big for my car only making 280whp. BTW, I'm pretty sure mine is the car he's talking about making the 245 on his dyno...
11-19-2007, 04:10 PM
#103
Senior Member
Not too mention it was in the 80's and temp and humidity and I still had the stock exhaust. I was hoping for mid 250's or even better in low temp/humidity w/ the 3" exhaust on...
11-19-2007, 04:11 PM
#104
Senior Member
Join Date: 05-03-06
Location: new jersey
Posts: 4,638
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
not hotter than edubs 80* hotter than it was last week when the o.p. was there.
11-19-2007, 04:11 PM
#105
Senior Member
237whp on a Mustang dyno bro. That's 270+ on a dynojet.
11-19-2007, 04:20 PM
#108
Senior Member
Mustang dynos put load on the rollers base on vehicle weight so it simulates the load an engine would undergo on the street. Dynojets just spin...
Most people tend to say you'll see a difference of 12-15% between a mustang and a dynojet. Matt's Mustang tends to lean on the stingy side.
Most people tend to say you'll see a difference of 12-15% between a mustang and a dynojet. Matt's Mustang tends to lean on the stingy side.
Last edited by Edubs; 11-19-2007 at 04:37 PM.
11-19-2007, 04:47 PM
#111
Senior Member
Join Date: 02-20-06
Location: Ridgefield, NJ
Posts: 8,913
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looking foward to heading down to tune time for some head work and a sweet tuen. (I think I'll be using some 60#'s) but Ive heard only great things from them!
11-19-2007, 04:50 PM
#112
Member
Join Date: 03-10-06
Location: central nj
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You nut have you ever seen the valve springs from an LSJ ? I can compress them with my hand. 7103 rpm your nuts . Brian is that 4th gear ? LOOK at the MS on the injector ? looks like 17 to me
If I can tune them 60's I might need some help .
WHo tuned your car ? what was the A/F how much power did it make ?
from what i understand they can't tune the 60s right. i spoke with a guy at a car show i went to in md who was running a portable dyno and he has done some work with matt and just from listening to what he was saying to me it sounds like they just can't tune the 60s right.
Last edited by ludicristSS; 11-19-2007 at 05:25 PM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
11-19-2007, 04:51 PM
#113
Senior Member
Join Date: 05-03-06
Location: new jersey
Posts: 4,638
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
is that why it seems low? you did the dyno in 4th?
11-19-2007, 04:58 PM
#115
Member
Join Date: 03-10-06
Location: central nj
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No Area47 . But I make pulls in 3 and fourth when I tune them. 4th to put the most load on the fuel system to see proper A/F and third for the extra hp and to keep heat down when making pulls esp if it's lean.
11-19-2007, 05:01 PM
#116
Banned
Join Date: 03-14-06
Location: soon to banned as I am from MANITOBA?
Posts: 3,660
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
The theory is absolutely correct but has anyone confirmed our #'s with other tuning software? I mean GM is willing to go with 42's NOS and a 3.0 pulley. My thoughts are that if you cool the air charge enough for a 50Shot dry then you have to be able to supply fuel for it. they are not going to 60's. maybe there is something he we have missed or been misguided by the HPT software.
is he seeing the full amount of cfm the 2.7 is capable of, or did you bleed boost up top via the bypass valve?
also, why do the numbers seem so low? i would hope my cobalt would've made 260+ had i put on a 2.7.
are you saying there is no room for more power (with his current mods) with 60lb/hr injectors?
also, why do the numbers seem so low? i would hope my cobalt would've made 260+ had i put on a 2.7.
are you saying there is no room for more power (with his current mods) with 60lb/hr injectors?
I bet there will be lots lining up to shoot me down. my points are there as to explain a reason why this may work. not to say it does. (big difference) If tune time does not have failures and produce power than they must be doing something right.
11-19-2007, 05:04 PM
#117
Senior Member
My car has been running on a 2.79" and Lucas 42's for over 10K w/ no issues at all. Matt definately knows what he's doing...
11-19-2007, 05:15 PM
#119
Member
Join Date: 03-10-06
Location: central nj
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wow, now hang on here with the strong language. it is not him but TUNE TIME that is saying this. and perhaps the data we get for IDC% on the HPT's is wrong. that is why the other tuners are getting the job done with out 60's.
The theory is absolutely correct but has anyone confirmed our #'s with other tuning software? I mean GM is willing to go with 42's NOS and a 3.0 pulley. My thoughts are that if you cool the air charge enough for a 50Shot dry then you have to be able to supply fuel for it. they are not going to 60's. maybe there is something he we have missed or been misguided by the HPT software.
Numbers low. well it is mustang dyno #'s but a number is a number. I would rather see what the car did before and after. proper way to use a dyno. shows improvement rather than staying the same or moving backwards.....LOL
I bet there will be lots lining up to shoot me down. my points are there as to explain a reason why this may work. not to say it does. (big difference) If tune time does not have failures and produce power than they must be doing something right.
The theory is absolutely correct but has anyone confirmed our #'s with other tuning software? I mean GM is willing to go with 42's NOS and a 3.0 pulley. My thoughts are that if you cool the air charge enough for a 50Shot dry then you have to be able to supply fuel for it. they are not going to 60's. maybe there is something he we have missed or been misguided by the HPT software.
Numbers low. well it is mustang dyno #'s but a number is a number. I would rather see what the car did before and after. proper way to use a dyno. shows improvement rather than staying the same or moving backwards.....LOL
I bet there will be lots lining up to shoot me down. my points are there as to explain a reason why this may work. not to say it does. (big difference) If tune time does not have failures and produce power than they must be doing something right.
I just looked through my tune files I have tuned 30 CBSS with 42's and 2.8-2.7's and 0 failures . Point is if IMO there is no reason to spin the blower faster then the 3.0-2.9 but 2.7 and 2.8 are boarder line . So why spend the cash on the 60's if you don't have to esp if you already have 42's . BTW the car in question made 190whp and 183wtq on our dyno as a base.
Bottom line is we know that 42's will in fact support up to 336 crank hp if not more .
11-19-2007, 05:19 PM
#121
Senior Member
Join Date: 05-03-06
Location: new jersey
Posts: 4,638
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i guess its a dud..?
Last edited by chevysalesman614; 11-19-2007 at 05:19 PM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
11-19-2007, 05:20 PM
#123
Senior Member
Join Date: 05-03-06
Location: new jersey
Posts: 4,638
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
before, 4-11-07
Last edited by chevysalesman614; 11-19-2007 at 05:20 PM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
11-19-2007, 05:26 PM
#125
Rent me! per hour
Join Date: 03-22-07
Location: Still fixing others mistakes.
Posts: 24,185
Likes: 0
Received 20 Likes
on
14 Posts
i have spun mine to 7404. actually once a weekend i do this. simple fact is, where my af gauge is, i can't see the 7k mark. so when the needle goes away, i shift. thats the only reason why i shift that high. i have had zero problems to date by goin that high. it doesn't make any more power past 6800 anyways. so for me to spin it that high is moot really. that run was done in third. thats all i do them in because of the heat really. if heat wasn't an issue, id do 4th.
matt, you know that im out there on my way of tuning anyways. we have discussed that actually.
how else do you think i pulled 273 out a 2.8?
matt, you know that im out there on my way of tuning anyways. we have discussed that actually.
how else do you think i pulled 273 out a 2.8?