dynoed my cobra.

[Fuerza]

bone stock down to the filter. only thing i've done is change the oil.
It was a tailpipe sniffer. I too thought they were rich and I'm sure it is if you get a reading from a wideband o2 up front.
The first run was 392hp 376tq
the second was 389hp 378tq
the last run was 400.

I went to a dyno day at Mac and seen a bone stock 04 hit 390HP. The A/F has me puzzled. I was lean when I dynoed there too. BTW I had a Steeda CAI and a Magnaflow CB. My car was bone cold when I put it on the dyno. When my car got up to operating temp my A/f corrected itself. I hit 434hp and 401tq
http://www.mustangmods.com/data/10487/dyno_run_1_edit.jpg

 

[sambandit]

Well the only thing I can tell you is that you're completely wrong. Forced induction is forced induction is forced induction when it comes to manifold pressure.

The reason I state that 1.21 is used for NA cars is that is what dyno shops use for NA cars in high elevation (normally its anything from 1.22 to 1.28, way too high and results in inflated numbers and :bs: from newbies). They adjust for ambient temperature but not manifold pressure.

A good rule of thumb floating around the 'net is 1.087 times the raw numbers for forced induction (if boost pressure is around 1 bar) and 1.175 for NA. It's still all synthetic though and the raw numbers are the real numbers you should be using as a baseline.

If you're concerned about what kinda power your vehicle would make at sea level, go to a track at sea level and find out.

OK then, given these correction factors you are talking about. My best time at 8500ft DA, 5800 ft actual elevation is 11.94@ 116. Given that's the case, what do you think my car would run at or near sea level. And, what do you think a NA car would run at or near sea level with that same ET here?

 

[mlambert]

OK then, given these correction factors you are talking about. My best time at 8500ft DA, 5800 ft actual elevation is 11.94@ 116. Given that's the case, what do you think my car would run at or near sea level. And, what do you think a NA car would run at or near sea level with that same ET here?

I know for Denver that using a 3% correction value for TRAP and ET is considered fair. Meaning that in the exact same scenario (track prep, temperature, launch, octane, etc) that run you did would be 3% faster at sea level.

Also just for the sake of the other readers here, SAE correction is figured off a reference altitude of 640FT.

 

[NHRACobra]

He must have bought it used, and they left a chip or programmer in it. :lol:

 

[sambandit]

I know for Denver that using a 3% correction value for TRAP and ET is considered fair. Meaning that in the exact same scenario (track prep, temperature, launch, octane, etc) that run you did would be 3% faster at sea level.

Also just for the sake of the other readers here, SAE correction is figured off a reference altitude of 640FT.

OK, cool, just wondering. So, 3 percent is for a NA car or a FI car? If it's for mine, that means, at sea level, my car would run a 11.58 @ 119. Pretty respectable. What would you then say if I told you I actually ran a 11.18 @ 125? Would that be BS as well? This isn't at sea level either, still 1000ft DA.

 

[mlambert]

OK, cool, just wondering. So, 3 percent is for a NA car or a FI car? If it's for mine, that means, at sea level, my car would run a 11.58 @ 119. Pretty respectable. What would you then say if I told you I actually ran a 11.18 @ 125? Would that be BS as well? This isn't at sea level either, still 1000ft DA.

I'm not calling bs at you for your runs, who am I to dispute someone who says they ran X@Y? What I would say is you could take 3% off your 11.18@125 :burnout:

My only gripe is with people talking out of their ass and not knowing facts as they are presented to them.

 

[sambandit]

I hear what you are saying man, but all I know is, our elevation kills things pretty bad. IMHO, dyno numbers are pretty close because they adjust for everything. Back to the thread at hand though, what's up with that A/F on a stock tune?!

 

[ZOSO]

I drove this thing off the showroom floor. NOTHING DONE!!! It does seem odd that it puts that much power down but oh-well. IF its so far off then what are my #'s?


Hey orangesvtcobra,
My a/f ratio looks just like yours. all three runs the a/f was the same. The car was hot from a 35mile drive. It did get rich above 6200rpm.

Once I get the vid I will post it so you all can see for yourself. And when the mods start I will get more dyno time.


And for the 3% correction time. I have a buddy that runs 10.90's all day up here. He went to kansas and ran high 9's. That seems a little off for a 3% correction. And not even at sea level?

 

[WDW MKR]

Congrats on the numbers! :thumbsup: However, I wouldn't put too much faith in them. If you go to the track and run bottom 12s@115+, it would be a little more believable.

 

[I-CAN-STANG]

way too lean for a stock tune!