Originally Posted by MMZ_TimeLord
tom2112,
Wow... base on your math (which I can find no fault with)...
That means that my car was making the following... STOCK!!!
NOTE: I DID get to redline... Didn't matter that I had both fuses 17 & 18 pulled or not, both runs came out almost identical. This one was without. I can only guess that it was because of the
front and back rollers being linked.
Mustang HP: 249
Adjusted WHP = 249 / 88 * 100 = 282.95
Adjusted Crank HP = 282.95 / 80 * 100 = 353.69
Mustang torque: 252
Adjusted Wheel torque = 252 / 88 * 100 = 286.36
Adjusted Crank torque = 286.36 / 80 * 100 = 357.5
Holy horsies Batman! I guess we are about the same stock as the SLK 32 AMG/C32 AMG!!!
... AND I have a slight factory freak!
I wouldn't get too excited yet. I'm not really comfortable saying the a Mustang dyno reads out 12% lower than actual whp. I think it's safe to say that it reads out 12% lower than a dynojet. But who is to say which one is reading out the correct number? I'd put money on it that neither one is actually correct, and that both are off by some margin. I'd also bet that we could get experts from both dynojet and mustang to tell you why theirs is correct. I wish there was a way to tell.
I've tried running the numbers with ET's weights and speeds when compared to dyno numbers, but I can't get the math right to figure it out. I'll keep crunching numbers until I get somewhere. I _know_ there is a mathematical formula for determining the amount of power required to displace a vehicle 1/4 of a mile in a specified period of time. That would give us a good imperical whp number to work with. Maybe I'll stop by my old physics professor's and ask him!
