Mustang Dyno numbers on bridgeported motor
05-28-2013, 09:21 PM
#26
The Prototype
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,793
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hate to be a spoiler for you but my mildly ported engine with high-mileage rotor housings presented the same torque improvement above 8,500 as yours. Might not be the bridgeporting as much as whatever you may have done with the secondary port tunnels. If you did not touch the secondary ports, maybe you should have.
05-28-2013, 09:27 PM
#28
The Prototype
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,793
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Everytime I get to a dyno thread that starts with a laundry list of excuses...
...ran on bad plugs,
...95 degree weather
...with 85 perecent humidity.
...operator did not turn off the DSC
...my breasts were tender and I was cramping
I know the thread is gonna be a good one. Seriously, just don't. Run your car and take the results. It is what it is. If something needs fixed to make power, fix it first.
Sorry just a pet peeve of mine. Post up and shut up. If there's an excuse, errr, reason you have to justify what you put down. Don't post it.
Oh, and I have to agree with 9k on the "every mustang is 20% less than a dyno jet". Just like the "every automatic is 18% drivetrain loss... Or insert whatever % makes the number they want". That's all just a guess. If you want to guess, feel free. But if you (and by "you" I'm speaking in general terms) want to guess and try to pass it off to people who know better, expect to be called on it.
My two cents worth...YMMV.
...ran on bad plugs,
...95 degree weather
...with 85 perecent humidity.
...operator did not turn off the DSC
...my breasts were tender and I was cramping
I know the thread is gonna be a good one. Seriously, just don't. Run your car and take the results. It is what it is. If something needs fixed to make power, fix it first.
Sorry just a pet peeve of mine. Post up and shut up. If there's an excuse, errr, reason you have to justify what you put down. Don't post it.
Oh, and I have to agree with 9k on the "every mustang is 20% less than a dyno jet". Just like the "every automatic is 18% drivetrain loss... Or insert whatever % makes the number they want". That's all just a guess. If you want to guess, feel free. But if you (and by "you" I'm speaking in general terms) want to guess and try to pass it off to people who know better, expect to be called on it.
My two cents worth...YMMV.
Guessing? Who's guessing , read up further up the post about dynos being calibrated. You obviously never been around one so please don't chime in. If you knew anything about mustang dyno vs dyno jets you would know mustang dyno less.
Stop riding on 9k jock, you look desperate.
05-28-2013, 09:30 PM
#29
The Prototype
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,793
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh and please show me this report that FI motors last longer than bridgeported ones.
Last edited by DailyDriver2k5; 05-28-2013 at 09:32 PM.
05-28-2013, 09:34 PM
#30
For once I may dare say it would be cheaper and more reliable to just FI the engine and call it a day. Personal preference and as long as your satisfied thats all that matters, I personally would have expected more.
Bridge ported motors put to much stress on the side seals and cut reliability drastically. Its common knowledge, don't see why facts are needed to back up a statement everyone knows to be true.
05-28-2013, 09:45 PM
#31
The Prototype
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,793
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Real world application the benefits doesn't out way the cost, unless you are ok with replacing an N/A engine every 20K miles.
For once I may dare say it would be cheaper and more reliable to just FI the engine and call it a day. Personal preference and as long as your satisfied thats all that matters, I personally would have expected more.
Bridge ported motors put to much stress on the side seals and cut reliability drastically. Its common knowledge, don't see why facts are needed to back up a statement everyone knows to be true.
For once I may dare say it would be cheaper and more reliable to just FI the engine and call it a day. Personal preference and as long as your satisfied thats all that matters, I personally would have expected more.
Bridge ported motors put to much stress on the side seals and cut reliability drastically. Its common knowledge, don't see why facts are needed to back up a statement everyone knows to be true.
Cheaper? Depends on what you do? I rebuilt my motor at 174k, spent total of 3k on parts and built the motor and had my buddy port the motor. I could of spent 3k on parts and 5k on a turbo set up from Esmiril- spelling.
And it depends on your goal too. I have no desire to turbo this motor. I wanted a ballsy ultra high revving n/a setup that I could drive on the daily and have fun at the track. I got what I wanted.
Last edited by DailyDriver2k5; 05-28-2013 at 09:50 PM.
05-28-2013, 09:51 PM
#32
Carbon buddy.... I am running on a year on my setup, just clocked over 26k miles. No hard starts hot or cold. Motors pulls like a bat out of hell all the way to redline every time my right foot hits the floor.
I wanted a ballsy n/a setup that I could drive on the daily and have fun at the track. I got what I wanted.
I wanted a ballsy n/a setup that I could drive on the daily and have fun at the track. I got what I wanted.
05-28-2013, 10:03 PM
#33
The Prototype
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,793
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It does when a stock Rx-8 is making 150 Whp on a mustang dyno. What is it that you can't differ? Please go and do research on mustang dyno vs dyno jets. Look up other people experiences with dyno jets not just Rx-8 owners.
Then I want you to go back to the mustang dyno you went to and re run your dyno . 1 with no load. 2. With the proper calibration 3. Tell the operator to add 25% more load. Then I want you to go to a dyno jet and do the same procedures. Only then you might understand. It really is not rocket science.
Then I want you to go back to the mustang dyno you went to and re run your dyno . 1 with no load. 2. With the proper calibration 3. Tell the operator to add 25% more load. Then I want you to go to a dyno jet and do the same procedures. Only then you might understand. It really is not rocket science.
05-28-2013, 10:08 PM
#34
SARX Legend
iTrader: (46)
Your bridgeport didn't work in my book. You are still putting down much less power than other tuned Renesis with bolt-ons, I have seen plenty eclipse the 200WHP mark, on dynapack, Mustang, Dynojet, etc. And for every good result on a Dynojet I can show a bad one. Heck we had a year old R3 pull a 150WHP on a dynojet and then go a week later because he was freaking out to a totally different dynojet and pull a more realistic 185ish. My dyno results were disappointing as
well man on a dynojet and on a Mustang. Guess which one I put more down on? The Mustang. I had a ton of issues both times and none of them had anything to do with the dyno. But I will go to yet another Dynojet soon and we shall see now that my tune is squared away.
But to say you are happy with 178WHP and the bridgeport was successful is not really believable to me.
well man on a dynojet and on a Mustang. Guess which one I put more down on? The Mustang. I had a ton of issues both times and none of them had anything to do with the dyno. But I will go to yet another Dynojet soon and we shall see now that my tune is squared away.
But to say you are happy with 178WHP and the bridgeport was successful is not really believable to me.
05-28-2013, 10:13 PM
#35
SARX Legend
iTrader: (46)
So if I show you results of basically stock RX-8's on a Mustang dyno making 170ish+ then does that shoot down your 150WHP theory? I mean I already showed you one with mods similar to yours (minus the MM tune and bridgeport) making 10 more HP on a Mustang dyno. First you say it depends on dyno settings, now its RX-8's on make 150WHP on a Mustang. So which is it?
Last edited by 9krpmrx8; 05-28-2013 at 10:15 PM.
05-28-2013, 10:15 PM
#36
The Prototype
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,793
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Your bridgeport didn't work in my book. You are still putting down much less power than other tuned Renesis with bolt-ons, I have seen plenty eclipse the 200WHP mark, on dynapack, Mustang, Dynojet, etc. And for every good result on a Dynojet I can show a bad one. Heck we had a year old R3 pull a 150WHP on a dynojet and then go a week later because he was freaking out to a totally different dynojet and pull a more realistic 185ish. My dyno results were disappointing as
well man on a dynojet and on a Mustang. Guess which one I put more down on? The Mustang. I had a ton of issues both times and none of them had anything to do with the dyno. But I will go to yet another Dynojet soon and we shall see now that my tune is squared away.
But to say you are happy with 178WHP and the bridgeport was successful is not really believable to me.
well man on a dynojet and on a Mustang. Guess which one I put more down on? The Mustang. I had a ton of issues both times and none of them had anything to do with the dyno. But I will go to yet another Dynojet soon and we shall see now that my tune is squared away.
But to say you are happy with 178WHP and the bridgeport was successful is not really believable to me.
So basically what you said about the dyno being calibrated was BS then earlier today. According to you I have to take that my numbers are no good.roflmbo! It sounds like you want me to go get my car dyno'd on a dyno jet. Which will happen. You do know that a stock Rx-8 on a mustang dyno gets 150 , I put 178 , so 28 more HP is not good enough?
05-28-2013, 10:20 PM
#37
The Prototype
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,793
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So if I show you results of basically stock RX-8's on a Mustang dyno making 170ish+ then does that shoot down your 150WHP theory? I mean I already showed you one with mods similar to yours (minus the MM tune and bridgeport) making 10 more HP on a Mustang dyno. First you say it depends on dyno settings, now its RX-8's on make 150WHP on a Mustang. So which is it?
Dude I could care less if you don't buy my numbers who are you again? I didn't know all the rotary standards had to be approved through you! Lol
05-28-2013, 10:21 PM
#38
SARX Legend
iTrader: (46)
So basically what you said about the dyno being calibrated was BS then earlier today. According to you I have to take that my numbers are no good.roflmbo! It sounds like you want me to go get my car dyno'd on a dyno jet. Which will happen. You do know that a stock Rx-8 on a mustang dyno gets 150 , I put 178 , so 28 more HP is not good enough?
So on a Dynojet you could make 150WHP. Or you could just keep going to different dynos until you get results you are happy with,
Or, you could just do a 1/4 run and post a vid and that would tell me all I wish to know.
And since youtube vids are your source, here is a basically stock RX-8 making 168WHP on a Mustang.
Last edited by 9krpmrx8; 05-28-2013 at 10:23 PM.
05-28-2013, 10:26 PM
#39
The Prototype
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,793
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You don't read very well. I do not know that a stock RX-8 on a Mustang dyno gets 150, I have no clue where you are getting that ideas from. YES, DYNO TYPE, DYNO SETTINGS, OPERATOR, ALTITUDE, TEMP, ETC. ALL EFFECT DYNO RESULTS. THAT IS MY GOD DAMN POINT,
So on a Dynojet you could make 150WHP. Or you could just keep going to different dynos until you get results you are happy with,
Or, you could just do a 1/4 run and post a vid and that would tell me all I wish to know.
And since youtube vids are your source, here is a basically stock RX-8 making 168WHP on a Mustang.
05 rx8 on dyno - YouTube
So on a Dynojet you could make 150WHP. Or you could just keep going to different dynos until you get results you are happy with,
Or, you could just do a 1/4 run and post a vid and that would tell me all I wish to know.
And since youtube vids are your source, here is a basically stock RX-8 making 168WHP on a Mustang.
05 rx8 on dyno - YouTube
05-28-2013, 10:34 PM
#41
SARX Legend
iTrader: (46)
From watching dyno days, not from youtube videos. And I never said the majority of people are pulling 185WHP stock a dynojet but I have seen plenty do it, and more. The average for a well running stock healthy RX-8 would probably be around 170-175WHP IMO.
05-28-2013, 10:35 PM
#42
SARX Legend
iTrader: (46)
Sounds like a plan. But it's also okay to admit when something didn't work out to be beneficial. Been there, done that, got the T-Shirt.
Last edited by 9krpmrx8; 05-28-2013 at 11:20 PM.
05-28-2013, 11:10 PM
#43
You can pull out all the excuses you want it doesn't remedy the fact that the numbers represented are great for a 4 port engine.
I don't know anyone on here who would be happy with a bridged 6 port running those numbers.
05-28-2013, 11:50 PM
#44
I have seen a lot of RX8's on different Mustang Dyno's and the results were anywhere from low 150s to high 160s. My turbo 8 pulled 270 WHP and 225 ft lb on a Mustang in Oregon. And in SOCAL I think it pulled 265 WHP on a Dyno Jet. Different gas, different state and different dynos but similar numbers. It is what it is and I do not care about the mythical 20% extra HP.
Best NA on a Mustang Dyno was 190ish WHP. Could be higher and will need to look it up. It was a ported motor built by one of the best in the industry. A R3 RX8 pulled low 160s the same day on the same dyno.
Best NA on a Mustang Dyno was 190ish WHP. Could be higher and will need to look it up. It was a ported motor built by one of the best in the industry. A R3 RX8 pulled low 160s the same day on the same dyno.
Last edited by pdxhak; 05-28-2013 at 11:53 PM.
05-29-2013, 06:24 AM
#47
The Prototype
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,793
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You pulled in 4th gear. which is also the wrong gear to dyno in.
You can pull out all the excuses you want it doesn't remedy the fact that the numbers represented are great for a 4 port engine.
I don't know anyone on here who would be happy with a bridged 6 port running those numbers.
You can pull out all the excuses you want it doesn't remedy the fact that the numbers represented are great for a 4 port engine.
I don't know anyone on here who would be happy with a bridged 6 port running those numbers.
Re dyno and then will talk.
Last edited by DailyDriver2k5; 05-29-2013 at 06:28 AM.
05-29-2013, 09:02 AM
#50
Car Dude
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Portland, Texas
Posts: 298
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Uhhh, you were AT the drag strip. Pull up to the line, wait for the light to turn green and go... then post your time slip. That elimates mustang vs. dynojet, correction factors and all the other BS that's getting thrown around in this thread to muddy the water. lolThe drag strip, really? You could argue about dyno sheets on your computer at home.
Anyway, as for your dyno numbers... if you're happy, I'm happy for ya. Although it's obvious you took my remarks as some sort of "attack" on you, they weren't. I tried to make that clear with my "I'm' using "you" as a general term" so all the "riding the jock" and desperate comments weren't called for. Just FYI, personal attacks will get you "penalty points" or 3 day bans... ask me how I know.
lolI'll be happy to submit my resume' if you'd prefer, but I've built more 600+ whp cars than I can count on one hand, so I've spent plenty of time around dynos. Anyway, have fun with it, but remember, you don't race dynos.
