Hm, I wonder

[Glue Maker]

Using bad math and dyno results I have come up with
At crank
261.8 HP
272 TQ

At wheels
219 HP
239 TQ

Mods:
K&N Cone
American MotorSport chip
2nd Cat removed (nope I didn't mean 3rd)
What I won and soon to be installed: Rip-off Flowmasters (Forza-flows)

So, how wrong do you think I am? I was just going off of the stock dyno

 

[stephen newberg]

Using bad math and dyno results I have come up with
At crank
261.8 HP
272 TQ

At wheels
219 HP
239 TQ

Mods:
K&N Cone
American MotorSport chip
2nd Cat removed (nope I didn't mean 3rd)
What I won and soon to be installed: Rip-off Flowmasters (Forza-flows)

So, how wrong do you think I am? I was just going off of the stock dyno

Hey, that is pretty good. But to mess things up a bit in our thinking here, when I had mine dyno checked forever ago with only my version of Porterization (including sax removed) and a K&N panel done, I came up with 261 hp at the crank and 271 fptq, rounding down to the nearest whole number, IIRC. I do not remember what that converted to at the wheels, but since it is almost identical to what you have for crank numbers, I would guess if your math is right, mine would have been to about the same figures.

So, your cone, AMS chip, and pulled cat equals my porterization and panel, I guess.

pax, smn

 

[99V8SHO]

Wait, those are your numbers? Or that is what you think you will run?

 

[stephen newberg]

Those were my actual numbers of the dyno, back in late '99 sometime, I think it was with, as I said, only my version of Porterization (including sax removed) and a K&N panel.

I suspect individual variances in these cars from the factory to be pretty wide. My one time to the track got a bit over 15.1. This is, from what others tell me, near the fast end of the normal range. I think there were at least 2 other cars that I have read about that cracked closer to 15 flat with pretty much no mods, about a second faster than mine, which is a lot, if you think about it.

pax, smn

 

[Glue Maker]

I was bored with my TI-86, so I used it to find the calculations.

I based everything on what SHO Shop and AMS says for their gains plus my stock dyno of 195hp, and stole the torque reading from someone else, though I dont remember who..(The asshats didnt give me one!)

 

[stephen newberg]

I am pretty sure that with the dyno machine, they figured out the torque at the wheels and then use some set of formula to work everything backwards from there. I might still have the sheet around somewhere. We are slowly going through everything in the house now, with an eye toward our move to the opposite coast in the coming fall. If it shows up, I will post the exact values they got.

pax, smn

 

[BodylessSHO]

Torque=HP*RPM/3252, if that helps with your dyno reading....

 

[Glue Maker]

Funny how that works out.

If your equation is right my SHO has 295.49 stock wtq

(Max wheel HP at 4928 RPM)

 

[jelloslug]

Torque=HP*RPM/3252, if that helps with your dyno reading....

It's Torque=HP*RPM/5252

 

[Glue Maker]

183 in that case. A little low, but more in the ballpark Probably off because I was guessing that RPM (Dyno chart only has HP and MPH)

 

[99V8SHO]

Wait. Stephen - Holy ****!! With poterization and a K&N you got 219 HP and 239 TQ?!?!
When I ran the only mods I had were removed saxacone (stock pipe still going into fenderwell, minus saxacone though) and Borla mufflers and I got 180whp and 195wtq. I don't even know what to say. That is one **** of a factory freak if I ever saw one.

 

[stephen newberg]

Is that what it figures back to? I only bothered to memorize the 261/271 numbers since they were the ones comparative to what is used in pretty much all manufacturer copy (because they are bigger, of course )

I do not think mine is all that strange. Over the years I have read posts of a huge range, and though mine is toward the high side of what I have read, it is not at the domain limit.

Other considerations come into play also, that we tend to ignore a lot. First, I have strong doubts that all dyno machines are created equal, and I am sure that all test running personnel are not. Additionally, there is the question of calibration, which even if done for the test device in question, is also subject to the two equality questions just noted. If we were doing this as if it were science, I think the range would end up looking somewhat more narrow, because we would have to impose standards on both the test gear, the procedures and personnel, and the subject equipment, all of which are totally lacking in any rigorious way for the existing data sets.

But it is sort of fun to compare numbers anyway, isn't it?

pax, smn

 

[DavidT]

wow... those are some GAINS

I wanna hear more about the 2nd cat removal.
Why? What was the reasoning? Curious... also because I have heard that removing the 3rd cat can REDUCE performance

 

[SHOgirl89]

This is a test

 

[Glue Maker]

wow... those are some GAINS

I wanna hear more about the 2nd cat removal.
Why? What was the reasoning? Curious... also because I have heard that removing the 3rd cat can REDUCE performance

The previous owner experienced major cam malfunction. He broke down in some hick own and the dumba$s mechanic thought that the 2nd cat was clogged, and that’s why it wouldn't run. Chopped it out and guess what? It didn't work.... After getting the car towed to a reputable Ford shop most all of the engine was replaced. About 1k later, the car was mine My homemade MIL took care of the pesky inspections and SES light