Mustang Evolution Forum banner

1 - 20 of 23 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
908 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited by Moderator)
I got excited when my parents picked this up for me when they went out the other day. On the bottom of the front magazine there's a V-6 Power Parts Tested in bold. I went to the page and it talked about all the bolt ons you could start putting on your V6 Stock car. What's even better is how they dyno'd every part and decribed the added horse power and torque each piece will do for your car. So here we go, read on! BTW - They tested a 2002 3.8 Mustang for this.

The first bolt-on component to be tested was a Diablosport Chip from PDQ Performance. The chip altered the fuel adn timing tables to improve the performance on their stock V-6. The Diablo chip improved the power output from 162 to 170 hp, with a 9 lb-ft gain in the torque. The chip was easy to install, but they noticed a trace detonation with their pathetic 91-octane fuel.

Next was the BBK Cold Air Intake system, it upped the power from 170 hp to over 176 hp.

And after that they added a Direct-Fit cat-back exhaust system from MAC Products. After they tested it, they got around maybe 5-6 hp over the stock exhaust.

Next up was an underdrive crack pulley which included a new harmonic damper, as the factory damper and crank were one piece. The new underdrive crank pulley required a shorter belt, but they were rewarded by their efforts with an extra 7 peak HP. Upping the power now to 183 hp.

Next they added new headers (shorty) from Mac Products. When tested, the peak power gains were not significant (at 2 hp), but the revised tubing did increse the low speed torque production by 5-6 lb-ft.

So instead they added another set of headers. Yup you guessed it, Mac long-tube headers. This time the long-tube headers were worth 7-8 hp over the shorties.

After installing the MAC long-tube headers, they reinstalled the cold air intake with a MAC cold air intake. The cold air kit raised the power from 183 to 190 hp.

And that's how they did it, the ending where they replaced the CAI was a little odd in the power jump but oh well. Hope you all enjoyed it!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
908 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
Honestly, I went through the entire article, read everything and it doesn't say.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,715 Posts
must have been RWHP, cuz there baseline was 162(might have had a 5speed) i know that the 99/00 motors are rated at like 190 BHP, and the 01+ 193......
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,187 Posts
Once again I am highly suspect that HP grew to those amounts when in the real world nobody gets from 162 to 190 with bolt on mods unless it is a supercharger. Guys think about it. I personally only gained about 16 RWHP with DenseCharger, Dual exhaust, F-2 Fordchip and UDP. I am sorry I continue to believe what I have seen at real dyno's before believing magazine dynos simple because they need advertisment dollars from the suppliers they are dynoing.
 

·
You want to **** me?
Joined
·
4,043 Posts
Danger Dude said:
I am sorry I continue to believe what I have seen at real dyno's before believing magazine dynos simple because they need advertisment dollars from the suppliers they are dynoing.
Thats a good point, but why would they want to lie to the consumers? That wouldn't help their magazine sales much at the same time. :confused:
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,187 Posts
Not lie but not tell the real truth. it is the grey area I bet they were not put on one after another but put on and taken off each time. I have never seen an accumulative test on a dyno get nowhere that amount on a V6. Think about it that is what people get with a cam and P&P head swap.

Read this sentence it is even saying they did not test accumulatively

After installing the MAC long-tube headers, they reinstalled the cold air intake with a MAC cold air intake. The cold air kit raised the power from 183 to 190 hp.
Humm!!!! fishy Why would you need to put the CAI back on and test it again if you already had it on. I call MM&FF test Bogus !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Are you telling me a A MAC makes 7 more HP over a BBK BULLSHIT. They are saying BBK made 6HP and add MAC's 7 more that makes 13 hp with a CAI double bullshit!!

This test stinks and you know what they are doing this and kids will by into it and buy these products and wonder why they did not get the same increases

TO hell with MM&FF
 

·
You want to **** me?
Joined
·
4,043 Posts
i see what youre saying, they probably tested one at a time, then added up each gain to see that 190 hp, but its not all on the car at the same time... FUGGERS!!! :evil:
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,187 Posts
Exactly!!!!! This type of article does not help anyone trying to get real world numbers to decised what they want. Really if they want to do a service they would do an article with all the engine mod players. RPM, EE, Super 6, Morana, RGR. Now that would be informative!!!! BY GOD
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,187 Posts
Oh in reading this I have another problem they first tested shorties with a MAC cat-Back muffer system then they decided to attach MAC long tube header???? How did they do that I wonder????? WTF!!! How did they accomplish this??? You would think they would tell!!!! This article sux and I believe there might not have even been an actual dyno but they just used accumulation of articles or Manufactures claims.

I think I will take back my earlier statement and just call them liars BY GOD!!!!!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
908 Posts
Discussion Starter #11

·
Registered
Joined
·
800 Posts
No sense emailling them, they wont reply, I have tried getting the Mach1 featured in there mag not long ago and I didnt get 1 reply back from them at all.

BASTURDS
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,715 Posts
KrazyPony said:
No sense emailling them, they wont reply, I have tried getting the Mach1 featured in there mag not long ago and I didnt get 1 reply back from them at all.

BASTURDS
Thats Crazy!!! I would think that she could land the cover for sure.....
I agree with the mods thing too Corey. I was skeptical to belive that they added 28 RWHP with just those bolt ons......I think they could benefit from a little one on one time with Brother Coreys rubber hose;) .. That'll fix 'em:)
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
26,052 Posts
they really need to do a motor build with a 4.2 crank... put out some really good numbers :) then put on a single turbo and see what it will do.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
34 Posts
Thats a significant difference between the mac intake and the bbk, and everyone always badmouths mac... Another common myth was proven wrong that LT's dont do ****... I would be curious to see how the torque was though.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
11,872 Posts
Danger Dude said:
Oh in reading this I have another problem they first tested shorties with a MAC cat-Back muffer system then they decided to attach MAC long tube header???? How did they do that I wonder????? WTF!!! How did they accomplish this??? You would think they would tell!!!! This article sux and I believe there might not have even been an actual dyno but they just used accumulation of articles or Manufactures claims.

I think I will take back my earlier statement and just call them liars BY GOD!!!!!
Write up a nice letter to them and we will send it in on behalf of Mustang-Forums.com :) Cant hurt to try it
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,187 Posts
BrooksPS said:
Thats a significant difference between the mac intake and the bbk, and everyone always badmouths mac... Another common myth was proven wrong that LT's dont do ****... I would be curious to see how the torque was though.
Dont believe a word of that article. How do they swap shorties for long tubes and still have a Cat back system on. Come on this was a crappy article with absolute ridiculous claims. I have wittnessed to many dyno's and seen the real world numbers to ever believe that article. The claims seem to be right out of the advertisements form the manufactures. This articles stinks with deceit!!!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
908 Posts
Discussion Starter #18
Brent said:
Write up a nice letter to them and we will send it in on behalf of Mustang-Forums.com :) Cant hurt to try it
I like that idea. They need to send us videos of all this to make it authentic, the pictures in the mag did NOTHING to show how it all looked, other than just showing the bolt on (not attatched to the engine) and the stats from the dyno
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4 Posts
Hi, I was browsing through the forums and saw this and had to make a few points. I think the numbers they got are pretty solid.:confused: A lot less than what the manufacturers claim. The diablosport chip alone claims (or claimed when I got mine) 19 HP and 28 LB-FT which is a lot more than the 8 hp and 9 lb-ft they actually picked up at the wheels. I pulled 178.5 hp and 205 torque to the wheels when I only had a densecharger (which had to go to make way for the MAF) a chip and a MAC bolt-on cat-back exhaust (which rusted apart). According to the manufacturer's claims I should have pulled 196 to the wheels or so. As far as the short to long tube header swap, in a caption under a picture on page 212 they say "The long-tube headers were installed along with an off-road H-pipe and new cat-back exhaust. With four stock cats, you'd sure think the off-road pipe would be worth some extra power."
You shoud check out the February 2004 issue of 5.0 Mustangs and Super Fords. They have an article on a 2000 3.8 bolt-on dyno test. They ended up with 258 hp and 309 torque to the wheels on the juice. :burnout:
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,187 Posts
Cajunsix said:
Hi, I was browsing through the forums and saw this and had to make a few points. I think the numbers they got are pretty solid.:confused: A lot less than what the manufacturers claim. The diablosport chip alone claims (or claimed when I got mine) 19 HP and 28 LB-FT which is a lot more than the 8 hp and 9 lb-ft they actually picked up at the wheels. I pulled 178.5 hp and 205 torque to the wheels when I only had a densecharger (which had to go to make way for the MAF) a chip and a MAC bolt-on cat-back exhaust (which rusted apart). According to the manufacturer's claims I should have pulled 196 to the wheels or so. As far as the short to long tube header swap, in a caption under a picture on page 212 they say "The long-tube headers were installed along with an off-road H-pipe and new cat-back exhaust. With four stock cats, you'd sure think the off-road pipe would be worth some extra power."
You shoud check out the February 2004 issue of 5.0 Mustangs and Super Fords. They have an article on a 2000 3.8 bolt-on dyno test. They ended up with 258 hp and 309 torque to the wheels on the juice. :burnout:
Well the fact is Diablo and there generic programming will never make 19 hp or 28 ft lbs of torque period. The best programing on a stock motor will see 10 Rwhp and about 10 Ft lbs of torque. See most gains on V8 cars see gains on the exhaust mods do to the fact they move much more exhaust and are rather restricted compare that to a stock V6 exhaust which is not restrictive at all unless you have engine mods. Remember Manufactures claims are almost always bogus and inflated. I have seen to many real world dynos to see first hand the manufactures claims go down in flames. I read Feb 5.0 Mustangs and Super Fords and with nitrous you can see those numbers. I have no issues with that article. It is not that I dont believe any magazine articles but if you go around on all the V6 mustang websites and look at the dyno sheets nobody got the gains MM&FF claimed and anyone into V6 performance has the same basic mods MM&FF supposed to have put on that V6.

It is all about real world and my experiences over the last 23 years in auto modding says the article was bogus.
 
1 - 20 of 23 Posts
Top