• The site migration is complete! Hopefully everything transferred properly from the multiple decades old software we were using before. If you notice any issues please let me know, thanks! Also, I'm still working on things like chatbox, etc so hopefully those will be working in the next week or two.

Dyno Results

You are assuming everybody ran race gas. I personally was running 94 octane pump gas with a bottle of NOS brand octane boost. I doubt if I was even 100 octane, more likely about 97-98. Also if I ran on a dynojet, as your runs are, power would have been 10-13% higher, plus mustang dyno correction is SAE, so add a bit more for STD. I am impressed with the ingenuity behind your swap, and the results are impressive, but some of your assumptions are a little off. People stopped using XP cams for the really high power builds 6-7 years ago when the XPZ came out. I think it's ****ty how some people are dumping on you but have to agree that some of it you bring on yourself. If you presented the results when you had them, instead of creating a thread 2 weeks ahead of time and asking for the drama, you would come across as more credible. Hopefully you take it to the track in the spring and actually prove what the setup can do.
 


SlowFiero said:
You are assuming everybody ran race gas. I personally was running 94 octane pump gas with a bottle of NOS brand octane boost. I doubt if I was even 100 octane, more likely about 97-98. Also if I ran on a dynojet, as your runs are, power would have been 10-13% higher, plus mustang dyno correction is SAE, so add a bit more for STD. I am impressed with the ingenuity behind your swap, and the results are impressive, but some of your assumptions are a little off. People stopped using XP cams for the really high power builds 6-7 years ago when the XPZ came out. I think it's ****ty how some people are dumping on you but have to agree that some of it you bring on yourself. If you presented the results when you had them, instead of creating a thread 2 weeks ahead of time and asking for the drama, you would come across as more credible. Hopefully you take it to the track in the spring and actually prove what the setup can do.
Click to expand...

There's more than enough info out there to make a correlation in numbers to say that the TVS is about equal to heads/FullSizeIC/GenV.
There isn't enough setups making 350whp on 93 without heads to say differently. Most IC/XP setups without heads on 93 octane are going to put down numbers that are significantly less than what the TVS made on 93.
 
There's more than enough info out there to make a correlation in numbers to say that the TVS is about equal to heads/FullSizeIC/GenV.
Click to expand...

Sure... but you are comparing these things and expecting us to get excited over a maximum of an 8% gain. mod for mod, dollar for dollar, gains from a turbo are in the 100% range, lol.
 
darkhorizon said:
Sure... but you are comparing these things and expecting us to get excited over a maximum of an 8% gain. mod for mod, dollar for dollar, gains from a turbo are in the 100% range, lol.
Click to expand...

8% gain? I'm lost as to where you're getting this figure. The gain from GenV to TVS (299 to 350) was 17%... Add in some half ass ethanol and a setup that wasn't optimized yet and the gain was 25%.
The gain from stock is about 100% (190 to 374)
 
Dont start...

its not hard to find a VS cam gen5 no intercooler running E85 that makes 340whp(We will leave out the 93 octane xp/xpz/NIC cars that made 330+)... Just because you didnt doesnt mean you were not just stacking the deck in your favor. Your only "not mod" is heads and an intercooler... So there are plenty of people that have gotten well within 8% of your power level.
 


The NOS brand actually does something. Other ones are bs, add may be 0.5 octane. The NOS one typically allows me to run 4-5 degrees more timing on the same boost.
 
darkhorizon said:
Dont start...

its not hard to find a VS cam gen5 no intercooler running E85 that makes 340whp(We will leave out the 93 octane xp/xpz/NIC cars that made 330+)... Just because you didnt doesnt mean you were not just stacking the deck in your favor. Your only "not mod" is heads and an intercooler... So there are plenty of people that have gotten well within 8% of your power level.
Click to expand...

Where are they? Running on dynapacks and dynocoms? lol
 
SnowFlake said:
There's more than enough info out there to make a correlation in numbers to say that the TVS is about equal to heads/FullSizeIC/GenV.
There isn't enough setups making 350whp on 93 without heads to say differently. Most IC/XP setups without heads on 93 octane are going to put down numbers that are significantly less than what the TVS made on 93.
Click to expand...

So give us examples. I went off the information I had available. Until you show otherwise, its all just speculation. But with the information I had readily available, the costs are so similar for very similar power.
 


SnowFlake said:
My example is the top 5 XP hp list. Take CKP out though because his and htownse's numbers are clearly bogus.
Click to expand...

Again....Proof of this?

As I stated, I did my homework and showed how the builds are similar in power as well as cost. I felt I did a fair representation. Unless you show proof otherwise, I feel I was completely upfront and honest with the numbers.
 
Did you do any porting of the supercharger. I've never seen a TVS 1320 so I don't know what the inlet or outlet look like stock. Wonder what gains you would obtain if you didn't. I assume the Gen V's you've been comparing are ported.
 


You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top