128 N51 Dyno

[AlexR6]

Originally Posted by asbrr

I took your initial post as that, but looking back at the graph it doesn't explicitly state WHP....it says Engine Power and Engine Torque, does the "WC" imply wheel horsepower? It may be that the read-out is adjusted for estimated drivetrain loss?

Sorry if I'm missing something obvious....but the numbers are quite high hence all the head scratching....

Eng Power T WC means Engine power weather corrected... so without knowing the parameters used (temp., press. and humidity) we cannot know how good the measurement is

So if this is whp on a stock auto N51, someone has played with the correction parameters!

[bNks334]

Originally Posted by The Wind Breezes

No, it's completely irrelevant, because you didn't do a before / after on the same dyno same day same conditions. Do you even science?

I don't need to do any science to tell me that all the things I have listed could have had a potential impact on the dyno reuslts. Someone already did that science for me and it's readily available to us all lol. You are right though, it is pure speculation that the things listed actually did benefit my car because I don't have an absolutely stock comparison performed on the same dyno with the same conditions.

This dyno was meant to be my before. When I get a tune and if/when I get headers I will either be back here or I will do a new before/after elsewhere.

[bNks334]

Originally Posted by Bimmer-Bob

I was wondering if it might be corrected, too. What does "T WC" mean, I wonder? The thing is, the numbers are too low to be corrected, but they definitely seem too high for the mods listed.

Incidentally, I find it hard to believe anyone could "feel" a difference between 91 and 93 octane fuel, except for placebo effect. And lighter wheels wouldn't lead to increased WHP, it just makes less weight for that HP to push around (and will slightly affect gearing, if the tires size/sidewall height is different than stock).

Lighter rims most definitely affect the whp readout for exactly the reasons you stated. I understand that the engine itself isn't putting out any more power but more of it is certainly getting to the road, which is what the numbers are supposed to reflect on a mustang dyno.

As for the numbers, it is very well a possibility that this shop applies a greater correction factor to better match their results to a dynojet.

From what I understand Mustang Dyno's are SAE corrected. You'll see "engine power" and "T WC" on the mustang dyno's posted on E90 post as well... Again, could be that they fudge the correction factor up a bit.

[The Wind Breezes]

The reason lighter wheels give you more WHP is because the motor does the same amount of work rolling the dyno rollers at WOT during a full pull but will accomplish it in a slightly shorter time since the wheels are less of an obstacle to spinning up. Power is work over time.

The whole problem with you not having a baseline, let alone with same conditions, is because dynos readouts are all over the place even for identical cars, so you have no way of knowing if this one just reads high for your car or what. The absolute numbers on pretty much any dyno you'll find in a tuning shop are guaranteed not to be that accurate. That's why the proper thing to do is look at relative results from the same dyno, and hopefully similar conditions.

[chris82]

Originally Posted by bNks334

Not sure why you're laughing. A lot of the dyno sheets from the west coast are all 89/91 octane. You think it doesn't make a difference? 8lbs per corner of rotational weight savings vs many other peoples dynos with stock "wheels" is also pretty significant imo, but hey maybe the dyno is just optimistic and those differences aren't what helped me pull those numbers. The euro intake with a conical filter has shown to be a better mod than a charcoal filter delete too (comparing my mods/numbers to Chris82), but again maybe it was just the dyno.

All this dyno shows is that with a tune I will probably be right on par with Chris82. Which I am happy about considering it's an automatic.

I interpret my 220whp numbers as being at least on par with a 330i's 260hp (220*1.18) so that is 30hp over the stock rated 230hp at crank; mine is manual as well which helps. If you add 18% to your whp you're still really high for a stock car; then again, so am I for a 'tune only' car

[chris82]

Originally Posted by asbrr

I took your initial post as that, but looking back at the graph it doesn't explicitly state WHP....it says Engine Power and Engine Torque, does the "WC" imply wheel horsepower? It may be that the read-out is adjusted for estimated drivetrain loss?

Sorry if I'm missing something obvious....but the numbers are quite high hence all the head scratching....

My dyno graph says engine power/torque as well, so we can cross this theory off the list

[The Wind Breezes]

Mustang dynos always say T Engine Pwr / T Engine Trq. The WC at the end means the OP's dyno has a weather correction factor applied to it. You can read the manual for the dyno yourself by google mustang dyno user manual.

[bNks334]

Thanks for verifying what WC means. I think it's a given that dyno results are corrected to present an apples to apples comparison though. If anything correction would've actually brought my numbers downward since the weather conditions were greater than ideal at a cool 55-60 degrees. Unless, again, the correction factor was fudged a bit (it's a moot point since this is my baseline). Tell that to the N54/N55 guys though and they will be even more upset about their numbers lol.

Can you also verify that WC means SAE? I was reading that a mustang dyno is always SAE corrected?

[The Wind Breezes]

Originally Posted by bNks334

Thanks for verifying what WC means. I think it's a given that dyno results are corrected to present an apples to apples comparison though. If anything correction would've actually brought my numbers downward since the weather conditions were greater than ideal at a cool 55-60 degrees. Unless, again, the correction factor was fudged a bit (it's a moot point since this is my baseline). Tell that to the N54/N55 guys though and they will be even more upset about their numbers lol.

They're not, and that's the whole point. You need to do a baseline on the same dyno, preferably same day same conditions, same fuel, etc, or you won't have a basis for apples to apples comparison. There are a lot of other factors, including dyno settings and calibration, and individual car irregularities that are not affected by the weather correction. Besides that, just because a particular correction factor is applied for temperature / atmospheric density / pressure doesn't mean your car would behave exactly the same way as their model.

[Bimmer-Bob]

Originally Posted by bNks334

Lighter rims most definitely affect the whp readout for exactly the reasons you stated. I understand that the engine itself isn't putting out any more power but more of it is certainly getting to the road, which is what the numbers are supposed to reflect on a mustang dyno.

Originally Posted by The Wind Breezes

The reason lighter wheels give you more WHP is because the motor does the same amount of work rolling the dyno rollers at WOT during a full pull but will accomplish it in a slightly shorter time since the wheels are less of an obstacle to spinning up. Power is work over time.

That makes sense. I understand the performance advantage of lighter wheels, but didn't really see how it was measurable on a dyno.

[bNks334]

Originally Posted by The Wind Breezes

They're not, and that's the whole point. You need to do a baseline on the same dyno, preferably same day same conditions, same fuel, etc, or you won't have a basis for apples to apples comparison. There are a lot of other factors, including dyno settings and calibration, and individual car irregularities that are not affected by the weather correction. Besides that, just because a particular correction factor is applied for temperature / atmospheric density / pressure doesn't mean your car would behave exactly the same way as their model.

No one is contesting this in any way shape or form. I am not even sure why you keep bringing this point up as I myself have said this dyno could be setup to be more optimistic. Personally, I believe people overplay the variance between dynos of the same type (mustang vs mustang).

People are speculating on why my numbers came back so high on a mustang dyno, and I am just merely trying help by pointing out that a lot of the numbers people are comparing to have different setups such as intake, wheels, fuel, and condition. All these things are definitely factors despite you trying to minimize them.

So, lets to try to keep things factual. This chart reflects WHP, and weather correction is pretty much standard for every graph posted on these forums with the exception of a few "real world" graphs, so that is a moot point. What I still want to know for my own personal knowledge is whether or not WC = SAE as I have read that a Mustang dyno only uses SAE correction. SAE correction is standard and the machine measures out the temperature and barometric pressure to calculate the correction factor.

[bNks334]

Originally Posted by asbrr

OP: Have you had it from new? Maybe it already has a tune on it to take advantage of your built in 3-stage manifold!

That is something I had not thought of until you mentioned it! I did get the car with 8 months/8k miles on it. My SA had my ecu updated to the latest software 2 times since I've had the car. Any tune present would've been overwritten.

[Taskmaster]

ITT, people who have never used a dyno trying to shit on OPs results.

I've seen Mustangs read on par with Dynojets and below it, and I've seen a few automatic E90s (my Stock n52) make over 200whp.

Why are people who have no experience, no real basis of comparison so vocal?

[The Wind Breezes]

The Mustang can use any correction factor it's programmed for. By default WC should be SAE.

All the bitching about no baseline is because if the OP had a baseline then we'd be a lot closer to knowing the full story. Without one it's anybody's guess how much power he gained.

[Suprgnat]

Originally Posted by The Wind Breezes

All the bitching about no baseline is because if the OP had a baseline then we'd be a lot closer to knowing the full story. Without one it's anybody's guess how much power he gained.

IMHO, with just a Euro intake, the BMWPE and no claim of a tune, this IS the baseline.

[asbrr]

Originally Posted by Suprgnat

IMHO, with just a Euro intake, the BMWPE and no claim of a tune, this IS the baseline.

Agreed, I think this is what the OP has been trying to say but it's been somewhat lost in all the discussion.

The only other comment was that the car looked quite strong for what it is, so there was some discussion on WHP vs crank, but either way this is a baseline and it will be interesting to see the results of the planned mods.

[The Wind Breezes]

Consider me informed. I was thinking the OP was gonna stick with just these mods and in that case a baseline would be a totally stock car.

[chris82]

Originally Posted by Suprgnat

IMHO, with just a Euro intake, the BMWPE and no claim of a tune, this IS the baseline.

My thoughts exactly. those mods produce minimal gains, nothing worth discussing

[MBan]

Originally Posted by Bimmer-Bob

That makes sense. I understand the performance advantage of lighter wheels, but didn't really see how it was measurable on a dyno.

Has anyone seen before and after dynos where the only change was lighter wheels? I'd be interested to see what the gains actually are. My baseline dyno was with 6-7kg per corner lighter wheels than the stock 18 inch 261s and I have wondered what the true stock reading would have been.