New Best Times

stangin99 · 04-20-2005, 05:57 PM

then please advertise the SAE numbers.

no one really cares what STD numbers are, not any car enthusiast anywhere.

Kyle · 04-20-2005, 06:01 PM


Quote: Originally Posted by stangin99 then please advertise the SAE numbers. no one really cares what STD numbers are, not any car enthusiast anywhere.

there, got 'er fixed.

slvr2000stang · 04-20-2005, 06:23 PM

Sorry but I can't even read the last ones you posted.

The only way to keep an auto from downshifting is to cange some parameters in the EEC.

Kyle · 04-20-2005, 06:41 PM


Quote: Originally Posted by slvr2000stang Sorry but I can't even read the last ones you posted. The only way to keep an auto from downshifting is to cange some parameters in the EEC.

i honestly cant tell you what he did then, i can only tell you what it looked like he did. but i do know that all the pulls were in third gear and that is where the numbers came from

i'll post the graphs a different way so hopefully they are bigger. i have them stored as zip files and as bmp files. the ones i posted were the ones i saved on photobucket. com

but here is a link to another forum where i posted the graphs and these are bigger and easier to read
http://www.3.8mustang.com/forum/showthread.php?t=109253

my graphs are on posts: 16 (zip files), 18, 19, and 23 (other zip files)

*post 26 is NOT, i repeat NOT my dynograph. if it were, i would bring the car back to the dealership*

slvr2000stang · 04-20-2005, 06:50 PM


Quote: sae correction the best run was 176.54 rwhp and 216.17 rwtq.

Now that makes sense.

Kyle · 04-20-2005, 06:53 PM


Quote: Originally Posted by slvr2000stang Now that makes sense.

what do you mean? its only 6hp/8tq off from what i ran. but i DID put down 183/224 on one pull.

believe me now?

slvr2000stang · 04-20-2005, 06:59 PM

Hope you all can see it.

Kyle · 04-20-2005, 07:07 PM


Quote: Originally Posted by slvr2000stang Hope you all can see it.

thanks for posting that b/c i didnt know how to post it that big. the earlier ones were off photobucket

slvr2000stang · 04-20-2005, 08:21 PM

Ok My 175rwhp 195 rwtq SAE translates to
183 rwhp 205 rwtq STD.

So relax. The only way to somewhat compare Dyno numbers is as SAE corrected. Now with that said there are more factors like type of dyno when & how it was last calibrated etc etc etc.

As said in another discussion, Dyno numbers dont mean squat if there is no timeslip to back it up. You can have a dyno queen but it can't make a good showing in real surroundings at the track.

Kyle · 04-20-2005, 08:37 PM


Quote: Originally Posted by slvr2000stang Ok My 175rwhp 195 rwtq SAE translates to 183 rwhp 205 rwtq STD. So relax. The only way to somewhat compare Dyno numbers is as SAE corrected. Now with that said there are more factors like type of dyno when & how it was last calibrated etc etc etc. As said in another discussion, Dyno numbers dont mean squat if there is no timeslip to back it up. You can have a dyno queen but it can't make a good showing in real surroundings at the track.

they did it on a dynojet if that helps. a local shop (thunder racing) that dynoes alot of v8's dynoed my car. the guy actually said he cant remember the last time a v6 stang was in there. i hope it was calibrated properly though which i would assume it would be as they dyno cars quite often.

i have timeslips, but unfortunately, they are not impressive (well at least to me) i will go back to the track soon b/c i know i can cut better times. my revenge will be exacted on this bastard track and it will be very very sweet.

slvr2000stang · 04-20-2005, 09:00 PM

Now that's the spirit.

What's your best so far?

Kelly · 04-20-2005, 09:04 PM

well then i guess the 3.9 makes a lot more torque than the 3.8s. A full bolt on 5 speed MIGHT come close to 216rwtq if it's a ringer. I bet im not even at 216 torque with my cam. Your 1/4 isnt showing your power at all. Im not saying you are lying, but maybe the 3.9 is a lot more powerful than we think, or maybe the dyno was "off"

Kyle · 04-20-2005, 09:28 PM


Quote: Originally Posted by slvr2000stang Now that's the spirit. What's your best so far?

my best 1/4 mile time?

its like a 15.9xx @ 85.xx

like i said, my revenge will be exacted and it will be sweet

Kyle · 04-20-2005, 09:40 PM


Quote: Originally Posted by Kelly well then i guess the 3.9 makes a lot more torque than the 3.8s. A full bolt on 5 speed MIGHT come close to 216rwtq if it's a ringer. I bet im not even at 216 torque with my cam. Your 1/4 isnt showing your power at all. Im not saying you are lying, but maybe the 3.9 is a lot more powerful than we think, or maybe the dyno was "off"

the 1/4 mile times are not showing it b/c i couldnt launch like i wanted to, and the track wasnt prepped well at all. cars that night were not running well at all.
heres a few that i remember:
6-speed rx8= 15.5-16.0 (showed me a timeslip of a 15.1 from another dragstrip)
87 vette auto w/ nitrous= 14.0-14.3
and a built late 80's camaro that claimed mid 12's couldnt even crack 12's that night (i think he ran a best of 13.2)

when i am seriously racing, i launch like this:
put car in d and lock out o/d
stall car up right before wheels break loose
let off brake and jump on gas

i do this on the street and get minimal wheel spin most of the time but i couldnt do this technique at the track b/c i would not be able to hook up for some reason (cause of first run of 20.2)

i will go back, it is something that i realize that i MUST do now. maybe next time, better e/t's will result.

stangin99 · 04-21-2005, 12:01 AM

I agree that the tq is very very high for an auto. I think I might barely hit 215rwtq...if that.