New MM on the Dyno

[DEFYANT]

I took the new MM to Amazon Racing (edgewood Md) today for the Mid Atlantic Cobra Assc. dyno day. The car, bone stock, ran 255.4 HP and 280.1 TQ. With the car still on the dyno, I performed the first mod. I installed a K&N air filter for the second run. I always wanted to see if the HP claims were true. Here are the results of the second run: 269.1 HP and 293.1 TQ for a total of 14 HP and 13 TQ increase.
:banana2:

Let the modding begin :coolman:

[MarauderMark]

I took the new MM to Amazon Racing (edgewood Md) today for the Mid Atlantic Cobra Assc. dyno day. The car, bone stock, ran 255.4 HP and 280.1 TQ. With the car still on the dyno, I performed the first mod. I installed a K&N air filter for the second run. I always wanted to see if the HP claims were true. Here are the results of the second run: 269.1 HP and 293.1 TQ for a total of 14 HP and 13 TQ increase.
:banana2:

Let the modding begin :coolman:


Tried to deal with them twice .they just shruged me off and they're not a very helpful place :bs: .Rick talks ok but has and had no interest in helping me.so as fas as i'm concerned i'd take my bussiness elsewhere..

[Zim Hosein]

Here are the results of the second run: 269.1 HP and 293.1 TQ for a total of 14 HP and 13 TQ increase.:awe:

I didn't think that you'd see such an improvement on a dyno MarauderMark :o

[MM2004]

Defyant - Was it just the filter, or the kit? This would be a great start for my stock MM.

[stevengerard]

[Wow, with stock numbers like that you should be a 14 sec car. congrats

[Patrick]

The joy never ends!!!!! :high5:

[Bradley G]

Hey Steven, Is someone running 14 sec1320 stock with or without a air kit:confused:
[Wow, with stock numbers like that you should be a 14 sec car. congrats

[maraudernkc]

Was that just afilter or there cold air intake?




I took the new MM to Amazon Racing (edgewood Md) today for the Mid Atlantic Cobra Assc. dyno day. The car, bone stock, ran 255.4 HP and 280.1 TQ. With the car still on the dyno, I performed the first mod. I installed a K&N air filter for the second run. I always wanted to see if the HP claims were true. Here are the results of the second run: 269.1 HP and 293.1 TQ for a total of 14 HP and 13 TQ increase.
:banana2:

Let the modding begin :coolman:

[DEFYANT]

It was totally stock with just the replacement K&N filter. Matter of fact, the snorkle is still intact!!! The guys at the shop wanted to remove it but I wanted to know the numbers on just the filter. No cold air intake.
K&N Filter# 33-2272
:beer:

[Zack]

Please look on your dyno sheet and tell us if it says STD Horsepower or SAE Horsepower.

[FordNut]

When I did the comparison of the OEM filter and the K&N replacement panel filter, there was only 1-2 hp difference. That was on a '03, test done in spring of '03, test repeated by several other members at various dynos around the country with very similar results. I don't understand why this car has different results.

[DEFYANT]

Please look on your dyno sheet and tell us if it says STD Horsepower or SAE Horsepower.
My test results do not say. However, I believe the weight entered on the test is a little light... it shows 3750 lbs. Yahoo ( http://autos.yahoo.com/newcars/mercury_marauder_sedan_2004/13076/style_specs.html?p=ext ) says the cars weight is 4199lbs. I'm not sure if that matters how fast the rollers spin but that is the only discrepency I can find here. I will call Amazon to find out.
:confused:

[martyo]

Please look on your dyno sheet and tell us if it says STD Horsepower or SAE Horsepower.

Not to start a flame war, but my guess is these are uncorrected numbers on a dyno looser than Todd is after he eats a whole box of prunes. :P

[stevengerard]

Hey Steven, Is someone running 14 sec1320 stock with or without a air kit:confused: Looks like there are a bunch of guys in the mid to upper 14 second range basically stock

[Patrick]

Not to start a flame war, but my guess is these are uncorrected numbers on a dyno looser than Todd is after he eats a whole box of prunes. :P


:wflag: Too easy.

[DEFYANT]

Not to start a flame war, but my guess is these are uncorrected numbers on a dyno looser than Todd is after he eats a whole box of prunes. :P
:flamer:
Thanks, if my results are *****te, I will post that here I asure you. I have already sent a P/M to Amazon. When they reply, I shall post. I am not a HP junky nor do I need to have the most powerfull car(s) on the net. Frankly, I was impressed with the difference between the K&N and stock. Corrected or not, there is a decent increase in HP & TQ. If I was trully concerned with conquering the 1/4 mile I'd do it in my Cobra.

With that said, I do not want to start a flame war. This site, in the short time I've been here, has been an imence resourse for good info on this awsome car and I thank you all. :cool4:

[Donny Carlson]

Not to start a flame war, but my guess is these are uncorrected numbers on a dyno looser than Todd is after he eats a whole box of prunes. :P
That explains why the leather in his car looks so new.

[martyo]

That explains why the leather in his car looks so new.

Yep, but you can't breath in there!!!

[DEFYANT]

When I did the comparison of the OEM filter and the K&N replacement panel filter, there was only 1-2 hp difference. That was on a '03, test done in spring of '03, test repeated by several other members at various dynos around the country with very similar results. I don't understand why this car has different results.
Was your car totally stock also? Also, are all cars created equal? I suggest perhaps one car on the assembly line may have more HP than another simply due to the build process. All cars dont roll off the line with identical HP & TQ.

[Glenn]

Just my two cents, I did a dyno on my MM this past summer and opening the air box 1 1/2" with no other changes was good for 4 hp. I believe the K&N is good for maybe 1 to 2 HP. I have one and will continue to use it until I install my new JLT CAI.

255 HP for a stock MM is the highest I can recall on this site. Most stock engines are 238 to 244 HP. Mine was 240 hp stock.

Glenn

[DEFYANT]

Just my two cents, I did a dyno on my MM this past summer and opening the air box 1 1/2" with no other changes was good for 4 hp. I believe the K&N is good for maybe 1 to 2 HP. I have one and will continue to use it until I install my new JLT CAI.

255 HP for a stock MM is the highest I can recall on this site. Most stock engines are 238 to 244 HP. Mine was 240 hp stock.

Glenn
Then the weight input on the test may indeed be to blame....:confused:

The rating on our engines is 302 HP. With drivetrain loss of about 10-20% comes out to about 30 - 60 HP loss just to turn the wheels. I think my numbers (255.4 & 269.1) may be correct. If not, I dout they are off by much.

[Smokie]

The rating on our engines is 302 HP. With drivetrain loss of about 10-20% comes out to about 30 - 60 HP loss just to turn the wheels. I think my numbers (255.4 & 269.1) may be correct. If not, I dout they are off by much.
The best way for you to know how accurate your numbers are, is to take your car to the track and get some timeslips and make comparisons to the posted times, horsepower, and track conditions. Based on your dyno numbers your car should run high 14's at this time of the year, maybe even mid 14's. If you run above 15 seconds in cool air then your numbers may not be what they seem.:)

[CRUZTAKER]

It was totally stock with just the replacement K&N filter. ....... No cold air intake.

OK....Now you elaborate. Here I thought all along you installed the K&N KIT, which apparently HAS recently shown some nice gains on an S/C'd car.

You gained 14 on just a filter? No friggin way! I may be the only one....but I am hard pressed to believe this even if someone beat the shat out of me with that very filter.


I think my numbers (255.4 & 269.1) may be correct. If not, I dout they are off by much.
I don't want to rub you the wrong way any further, but a stock Marauder won't pull these numbers. We've been looking at dyno sheets around here for nearly 30 months. Baseline ranges on a stock Marauder are anywhere from 238 to 248 depending on the weather and altitude during the pulls. The numbers you post are more realistic of a car that has had a chip installed.

[FordNut]

OK....Now you elaborate. Here I thought all along you installed the K&N KIT, which apparently HAS recently shown some nice gains on an S/C'd car.

You gained 14 on just a filter? No friggin way! I may be the only one....but I am hard pressed to believe this even if someone beat the shat out of me with that very filter.


I don't want to rub you the wrong way any further, but a stock Marauder won't pull these numbers. We've been looking at dyno sheets around here for nearly 30 months. Baseline ranges on a stock Marauder are anywhere from 238 to 248 depending on the weather and altitude during the pulls. The numbers you post are more realistic of a car that has had a chip installed.
What he said...

[DEFYANT]

Again, the weight input may be the discrepency here. I have not heard back from Amazon yet.

I have been around Mach 1s on the dyno and seen them show HP numbers around the high 270s - 280s. If we are running esentially the same drivetrain (w/automatic trans), why are MM showing such losses?

I'll put some pics up of the dyno results so you can see I'm not *****teing you.

[Smokie]

Is not your word, I don't need a picture to believe your word. It is the wealth of information that we have accumulated in the last 2 years that suggest's that your numbers may not be accurate. The power train loss for our cars is about 18 to 20 %. By the way we have had members in the past that had dyno results that were unusually high and in most cases the reason was that the numbers were not SAE corrected.

Also gaining 10-15 HP by merely swapping filters, does not match up with the experience of any of our owners....we believe those are the numbers given to you...there is a lot of previous experience that suggest the numbers...not you... are incorrect.:)

[BlackHole]

Just to clerify Amazon Racing????

If so they have a Mustang Dyno on average they seem around 10/15 HP down on what Dynojet Dynos do. But there can be to many variables in any pull to get a very true reading. But hey I seen 1 operator show that a 2000 Camaro SS got 50 HP with just a new intake lid. :bs: :bs: So the operator can fudge the numbers just as easily as any weather

[Tucker]

I for one, BELIEVE it. WHY, because I've seen it happen time and time again.
Why is it you guys don't think, that getting these cars to breath better will NOT increase HP on the dyno? It's just crazy.

Increased air to a DOHC 4.6 results in gained HP. THIS IS FACT!!

Over and over again people are proving this fact and some of you insist on beating them down.

I show a graph with 20+ HP/TQ gains from a CAI
One guy just lifted his lid = 4 HP gain
Now a K&N replacement gains 14 HP

What does he have to gain posting results from a K&N airfilter??? Nothing!

It all makes since.
Someone please show a graph with a before and after done at the same time with no increase in HP.
People are proving that air flow is good, someone, please prove it's not!

I had a customer gain major HP/TQ this week from a JLT. I'm not going to say the results untill he posts them him self. He did a TB and a MAF with no gains, then he installed the JLT RAI and WOW.
I hope he comes in here.

Also, as far as what dyno it was. If the before and after were done on the same dyno at the same time, it dosen't matter. Gains are gains. If the base line was 650 RWHP and the after was 664 RWHP, he still gained 14 RWHP.
A dyno is for checking power gains and loses. All are not the same and the same dyno and car will not put down the same exact #'s everyday or other day.
Let's all open our minds.:D

[FordNut]

I for one, BELIEVE it. WHY, because I've seen it happen time and time again.
Why is it you guys don't think, that getting these cars to breath better will NOT increase HP on the dyno? It's just crazy.

Increased air to a DOHC 4.6 results in gained HP. THIS IS FACT!!

Over and over again people are proving this fact and some of you insist on beating them down.

I show a graph with 20+ HP/TQ gains from a CAI
One guy just lifted his lid = 4 HP gain
Now a K&N replacement gains 14 HP

What does he have to gain posting results from a K&N airfilter??? Nothing!

It all makes since.
Someone please show a graph with a before and after done at the same time with no increase in HP.
People are proving that air flow is good, someone, please prove it's not!

I had a customer gain major HP/TQ this week from a JLT. I'm not going to say the results untill he posts them him self. He did a TB and a MAF with no gains, then he installed the JLT RAI and WOW.
I hope he comes in here.

Let's all open our minds.:D

Believe what you want. Many of us have done this EXACT SAME TEST and got 1-2 hp increase. It's OLD NEWS.

[Tucker]

Believe what you want. Many of us have done this EXACT SAME TEST and got 1-2 hp increase. It's OLD NEWS.Prove it
Show us the results.
You obviously did something different.
Was the car the same temp?
Coolent? and IAT?
Was it in closed loop or open loop?
Pushing the "believe it or not" doesnt work with me.
I have showed the graphs and so have others.
Show me a test done with no gains. That's that!

It's not OLD news, it old thinking.

[DEFYANT]

Speaking of the operator, I didnt tell Rick I was going to change the filter out between runs. Besides, I figured the best place to do the first real mod to the car was while it was strapped to the dyno. As someone said before, this car needs to go to the track. Then there could be no question............I think.

Also, there was about 30+ other MACA members there. No one mentioned any question about these gains. Granted they are Mustang guys but they are familure with this car and the air filter.

Thanks for everyones input here, all I want is the truth about this car.

[Dennis Reinhart]

I took the new MM to Amazon Racing (edgewood Md) today for the Mid Atlantic Cobra Assc. dyno day. The car, bone stock, ran 255.4 HP and 280.1 TQ. With the car still on the dyno, I performed the first mod. I installed a K&N air filter for the second run. I always wanted to see if the HP claims were true. Here are the results of the second run: 269.1 HP and 293.1 TQ for a total of 14 HP and 13 TQ increase.
:banana2:

Let the modding begin :coolman:

Pauls HP kit has similar gains has any one posted pictures of the K&N kit

[Tucker]

PHP's $200 kit better beat a $35 K&N replacment filter. That's what Defyant's talking about.

[FordNut]

Pauls HP kit has similar gains has any one posted pictures of the K&N kit
Dennis, he's talking about the drop-in replacement panel filter.

[Dennis Reinhart]

Dennis, he's talking about the drop-in replacement panel filter.


Well I am not wanting to start a war I really cannot believe a air cleaner alone can give this gain, but I am open minded when I did Pauls kit I did before and after Dyno pulls so when I see that data I would say wow

[DEFYANT]

Here is the link to a pic of the dyno result. Right or wrong, here it is.
http://www.allfordmustangs.com/photopost/showmembers.php?si=defyant&perpage=12&sort=4&cat=500&ppuser=&x=15&y=14

[FordNut]

Prove it
Show us the results.
You obviously did something different.
Was the car the same temp?
Coolent? and IAT?
Was it in closed loop or open loop?
Pushing the "believe it or not" doesnt work with me.
I have showed the graphs and so have others.
Show me a test done with no gains. That's that!

It's not OLD news, it old thinking.
I'd say March of '03 is old news...

http://www.mercurymarauder.net/forums/showthread.php?t=1525

An excerpt of my test results (no dyno charts were scanned in, back then it wasn't necessary):

Finally got to the dyno. Here's some data:

Stock HP/Tq = 242/264
K&N Filter HP/Tq = 241/266
DR 91 octane pgm = 255/286
DR 93 octane pgm = 253/289

So the K&N filter doesn't do much for power, just longer maintenance intervals. The AFR was better but still way too rich compared to the chip.


Do a search, SergntMac tested it, Lidio tested it, it was done way before you came around here.

[DEFYANT]

Do a search, SergntMac tested it, Lidio tested it, it was done way before you came around here.
And now Defyant tested it!

So because some have gotten one result, then that is it, the subject is over for new comers? I think not sir. And just because long timers with lots of respect on the board have done similar test and got one result, does not end the subject.
Keep an open mind, I am.

Additional facts:
Air temps were in the upper 50s - low 60s.
The car was cold when first brought in.
The car cooled with fans for about 10 minutes between runs
There are no other mods (except synthetic oil)

[FordNut]

And now Defyant tested it!

So because some have gotten one result, then that is it, the subject is over for new comers? I think not sir. And just because long timers with lots of respect on the board have done similar test and got one result, does not end the subject.
Keep an open mind, I am.

Additional facts:
Air temps were in the upper 50s - low 60s.
The car was cold when first brought in.
The car cooled with fans for about 10 minutes between runs
There are no other mods (except synthetic oil)
If you really believe you picked up that much power from a replacement panel filter, you ought to get yourself one of them tornado thingies. Surely you'll be over 300 rwhp then.

[DEFYANT]

I think I got one already :D

:cool4:

[Haggis]

Just to clerify Amazon Racing????

If so they have a Mustang Dyno on average they seem around 10/15 HP down on what Dynojet Dynos do. But there can be to many variables in any pull to get a very true reading. But hey I seen 1 operator show that a 2000 Camaro SS got 50 HP with just a new intake lid. :bs: :bs: So the operator can fudge the numbers just as easily as any weather

Yes, Amazon Racing uses a Mustang Dyno. I was there in May when Jerry W. was there and had him tune my car. The dyno results were 398 rwhp, Rick and Jerry both told me to add 10% to equal what I would have gotten if it had been a DynoJet, that would have put me close to 440rwhp. :bs: I don't know, but I dynoed once before that in Apr. 04 on a DynoJet and had 411 rwhp and twice after on a different DynoJet and had 410 rwhp and 412 rwhp. One run was in Oct. 04 and the other was in Nov. 04, pretty consistant numbers and what I have learned from other members on this site is that you will receive different numbers from the same Mustang Dyno from day to day or even pull to pull. They are not consistant, but it is earier to tune on one, I was also getting different A/F and Fuel pressure readings on the Mustang dyno compared to the DynoJet.

Dyfant in Spring I will try to organize another Dyno Day at Kauffman's or if you would like to do it sooner PM me and I will ride up with you.

[DEFYANT]

Yes, Amazon Racing uses a Mustang Dyno. I was there in May when Jerry W. was there and had him tune my car. The dyno results were 398 rwhp, Rick and Jerry both told me to add 10% to equal what I would have gotten if it had been a DynoJet, that would have put me close to 440rwhp. :bs: I don't know, but I dynoed once before that in Apr. 04 on a DynoJet and had 411 rwhp and twice after on a different DynoJet and had 410 rwhp and 412 rwhp. One run was in Oct. 04 and the other was in Nov. 04, pretty consistant numbers and what I have learned from other members on this site is that you will receive different numbers from the same Mustang Dyno from day to day or even pull to pull. They are not consistant, but it is earier to tune on one, I was also getting different A/F and Fuel pressure readings on the Mustang dyno compared to the DynoJet.

Dyfant in Spring I will try to organize another Dyno Day at Kauffman's or if you would like to do it sooner PM me and I will ride up with you.
Ok, sounds good. But where is Kauffman's?

[Haggis]

Ok, sounds good. But where is Kauffman's?

It is about 15 minutes north of Gettysburg on Route 15 a good haul for you. MarauderMark made it for our Dyno Day in Oct. and he lives in Northeast, MD. Check with him to see how long the drive took him. But, I will be glad to help you out if I can. Mad-3R was the one who hook us up with Kauffman's, it seems the No.Va. Mustang Club goes there for their dyno days.

One problem I had with Amazon was not getting return calls when I left a message for Rick to call me back. He was to do some research on fuel pumps and get back with me , but never did.

[Tucker]

If you really believe you picked up that much power from a replacement panel filter, you ought to get yourself one of them tornado thingies. Surely you'll be over 300 rwhp then.Now your just getting child like.:bigcry:

Like I said before, were the conditions the same? When I did my test the first "hot" run after the JLT wasn't anything to be proud of. It gained, but only very little. Then we let it cool for about 15 min. Checked IAT and coolant temp and ran it again.
There was the power. Same conditions- more power.
I don't dought you didn't see gains like these, but I bet it was because of back to back runs with no cool down.

These threads can go on for ever with back and forth jabs, but it's just fact. More air in and out = HP!

[martyo]

Like I said before, were the conditions the same? When I did my test the first "hot" run after the JLT wasn't anything to be proud of. It gained, but only very little. Then we let it cool for about 15 min. Checked IAT and coolant temp and ran it again.
There was the power. Same conditions- more power.
I don't dought you didn't see gains like these, but I bet it was because of back to back runs with no cool down.


Tucker: When was the last time that you were in a street race and said to the guy in the other lane "Give me 20 minutes or so, I need to let my car cool down so that the air intake I was sold functions better?" C'mon now. If the products don't help when the car is at operating temperature, then what's the point for a car that won't see the track where it might be given the opportunity to cool down?

And, before everyone starts flaming me, remember that my car was specifically set up to run at the track which is why I carry an ice tank. Thus, I can force my car t cool down.

[Smokie]

I think is perfectly ok for anyone to believe that a drop-in panel filter increases hp & tq by 15. Instead of the back and forward: less filling....taste great. Here is a suggestion: Go to the track and take both filters with you (I have done this) Run your car and alternate between stock and K&N filter, do about 3 runs with each filter.

An extra 15 hp & Tq will produce better 60' times and E/T's without question. All questions will be answered.


PS: the k&n made my intake sound nicer, I did not see track times changes that pointed to superior performance by k&n.....I wish it had been the case.:D

[MM03MOK]

Tucker: When was the last time that you were in a street race and said to the guy in the other lane "Give me 20 minutes or so, I need to let my car cool down so that the air intake I was sold functions better?" C'mon now. If the products don't help when the car is at operating temperature, then what's the point for a car that won't see the track where it might be given the opportunity to cool down?I was thinking on a similar track, Marty. Thanks.

As a daily driver, having that extra HP only before the car warms up does me no good. If I were ever to lean on it, I would never do it until the car warms up - like waiting for the caffeine to kick in after rubbing the sleepies out of your eyes.:burn: Besides, I'd get yelled at!! :director::run: :rolleyes:

[MarauderMark]

MarauderMark made it for our Dyno Day in Oct. and he lives in Northeast, MD. Check with him to see how long the drive took him.

One problem I had with Amazon was not getting return calls when I left a message for Rick to call me back. He was to do some research on fuel pumps and get back with me , but never did.



It took me 2hrs from here to there but i was with hbarrett and we stopped for breakfast which was maybe 20 mins.it was a fun day being with everyone..just do a yahoo and see how long it takes.even thought riding up with haggis decrease the time ..

[DEFYANT]

Comments with no response:


Was your car totally stock also? Also, are all cars created equal? I suggest perhaps one car on the assembly line may have more HP than another simply due to the build process. All cars dont roll off the line with identical HP & TQ Are all cars created equal?




The best way for you to know how accurate your numbers are, is to take your car to the track and get some timeslips and make comparisons to the posted times, horsepower, and track conditions. Based on your dyno numbers your car should run high 14's at this time of the year, maybe even mid 14's. If you run above 15 seconds in cool air then your numbers may not be what they seem.:)<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->
Probably the best idea here!


Again, the weight input may be the discrepency here. I have not heard back from Amazon yet.

I have been around Mach 1s on the dyno and seen them show HP numbers around the high 270s - 280s. If we are running esentially the same drivetrain (w/automatic trans), why are MM showing such losses?
This point received no responses :confused:


Also, there was about 30+ other MACA members there. No one mentioned any question about these gains. Granted they are Mustang guys but they are familure with this car and the air filter.
This point received no responses :confused:


Here is the link to a pic of the dyno result. Right or wrong, here it is.
http://www.allfordmustangs.com/phot...user=&x=15&y=14<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->
Anyone?


Additional facts:
Air temps were in the upper 50s - low 60s.
The car was cold when first brought in.
The car cooled with fans for about 10 minutes between runs
There are no other mods (except synthetic oil)<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->
Could this be a factor?



What I dont understand is there have been some good points brought up, but no good explanations. I think when the weight issue is corrected, the numbers may fall... we'll see.<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

[Badger]

My results from our last CAM dyno day.
I was there with MarauderMark and Haggis.
http://www.crownvic.net/ubbthreads/user_uploads/724801-bruno.GIF<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->

[DEFYANT]

My results from our last CAM dyno day.
I was there with MarauderMark and Haggis.
http://www.crownvic.net/ubbthreads/user_uploads/724801-bruno.GIF<!-- / message --><!-- sig --> (http://www.crownvic.net/ubbthreads/user_uploads/724801-bruno.GIF)
K&N?

(oboy, here it comes:flamer: )

[SergntMac]

Both the Mustang dyno, and the DynoJet dyno are tuning tools. But, neither are perfect machines, or, perfect tools. Both have serious flaws. However the DynoJet tool has fewer shortcomings, and greater consumer acceptance in the motorsport world, so, it's the test tool of choice, for those serious about hot rodding, including NASCAR. BTW, back in 2002, I got one of my first dyno tests. This test "proved" that my N/A MM produced 385 RWHP and 1400 RWTQ. It was a Mustang tool, one that was not SAE corrected, or, could provide any AFR data. You get what you pay for...

To any mod developer/vendor, my advice would be to use a DynoJet with SAE correction for your research, it sits better with consumers. I would also suggest that you keep your brags conservative when reporting the performance gains of your praticular product.

If you know for a fact that your mod will produce a solid 20 RWHP across the board, just call it 15 and let the customers shout and scream about the added 5 they found, because the numbers could go the other way, and that's hard to explain.

If nothing more, this thread reminds us that there is a mountain of results from dyno testing by consumers in the field, and every mountain is different.

When tuning for performance, either a Mustang or a DynoJet tool will work. Once again, the DynoJet tool has a better track record. It's important to remember that neither tool can duplicate identical back to back pulls, even when no mods are involved, so, remember that you should consider a margin of error of + or - 5 RWHP/RWTQ, and discount that from any gain or loss shown by the tool.

Any serious mod research should be constructed of 3 or more pulls before the mod, and 3 or more pulls after. Sum and average the numbers in both instances. Testing should be done on a drivetrain that has reached normal operating temperatures before any sample pull, and then allowed to cool for a predetermined time/temperature. Tighter controls with more loyalty to the process than the mod will provide more realistic numbers. Starting with a cold drive train is stacking the "gain" deck and unfair to us. Moreover, check rear tire pressure for accuracy and side to side balance, and remember that over inflated tires can punch up another 10 RWHP on a dyno that will not show in the street/track face off.

When comparing '03 and '04 MMs, remember that they have different EEC calibrations, torque convertors and transmission gearing. This alone could boost bone stock dyno numbers by 15 or more over '03 models

IMHO, the numbers I've seen posted here are high. Unusual, and they contradict my own personal experience. This does not say they are wrong numbers, however, if this a "new dawn" in performance and performance gains, only long term consistency will prove them true. A "one time lucky shot" on a dyno, is not long term performance. therefore, our "new dawn" in numbers, IMHO, is only a few sunrises right now, and time will tell us more. Those "panel" numbers...I simply do not believe, and never will. Never.

I'm repeating myself here, but the dyno is a test tool, not a video game of who's got what. The graphs are seductive, but they tell you squat...Zero.

Print out the row and column report? Remember that many mods do not perform very well on a dyno, but kickazz on the street, or, at the race track? Remember too, that often, it's likewise the other way around? What is kickazz on a dyno could be just bling in a race? Just my .02C...Carry on.

[SergntMac]

This is how dedicated MM.Net members test new mods on behalf of us all, and this is how professional wrenches approach the question of real world dyno testing, and real world mod performance. I tip my hat to both, read on?

http://www.mercurymarauder.net/forums/showthread.php?t=14133

[Tucker]

Tucker: When was the last time that you were in a street race and said to the guy in the other lane "Give me 20 minutes or so, I need to let my car cool down so that the air intake I was sold functions better?" C'mon now. If the products don't help when the car is at operating temperature, then what's the point for a car that won't see the track where it might be given the opportunity to cool down?

And, before everyone starts flaming me, remember that my car was specifically set up to run at the track which is why I carry an ice tank. Thus, I can force my car t cool down.Your not understanding.
The cool down is to have conditions the same as the first run. NOT to cool the car for better #'s.
The gains will be the same from hot to hot and cool to cool.
Now your just trying to debate this.
Think about it please. Don't just type as soon as you see I replied.

And yes dynos are a test tool. I said this before, if your #'s are higher or lower then others means nothing. It's what you gain or lose while testing on the same dyno!
This is funny 4 pages over a K&N panel filter.:confused:

[RF Overlord]

Since we have 1 (one) K&N panel filter that seems to produce extraordinary numbers in 1 (one) car, maybe a better test would be to take that "golden" filter and put in it another car and see if the results can be duplicated? I'm not trying to be funny here, I just think that instead of arguing about whether Defyant did or did not actually see those gains, let's see if the filter he has can produce those same gains in another car...

[CRUZTAKER]

Choose a different dyno as well.....:shake:

[Directedby]

15 HP on a drop in filter???

this is not logical.

i looked at the dyno numbers - they seem sketchy.

1) car was calibrated at a weight of 3,750 lbs
2) was dyno set for peak RPM or peak HP - 250 rpm difference.
3) i am sure i saw some fly sheet on the printout. maybe a drunk fly got into the filter box and combusted, giving the car 15 more HP.

[martyo]

Your not understanding.
The cool down is to have conditions the same as the first run. NOT to cool the car for better #'s.
The gains will be the same from hot to hot and cool to cool.
Now your just trying to debate this.
Think about it please. Don't just type as soon as you see I replied.

And yes dynos are a test tool. I said this before, if your #'s are higher or lower then others means nothing. It's what you gain or lose while testing on the same dyno!

Tucker if I am not understanding than it is your explanation that is not clear.

This is from your post above:


Like I said before, were the conditions the same? When I did my test the first "hot" run after the JLT wasn't anything to be proud of. It gained, but only very little. Then we let it cool for about 15 min. Checked IAT and coolant temp and ran it again.
There was the power. Same conditions- more power.
I don't dought you didn't see gains like these, but I bet it was because of back to back runs with no cool down.

Your explanation makes it sound as though the gains come in only after a cool down. I certainly interpreted it that way and so did others.

Bottom line is if whatever the product is is going to make a difference that means anything on the street (unless it is for a track application where you will definitely have time for cool downs), unless you can show gains on back to back pulls both of which have the car (IAT, coolant, etc.) at the same operating temperature then the product isn't really doing anything for the street driven cars.

Now, do you get it?

[QWK SVT]

15 HP on a drop in filter???

this is not logical.

i looked at the dyno numbers - they seem sketchy.

1) car was calibrated at a weight of 3,750 lbs
2) was dyno set for peak RPM or peak HP - 250 rpm difference.
3) i am sure i saw some fly sheet on the printout. maybe a drunk fly got into the filter box and combusted, giving the car 15 more HP.I don't think the weight is used for anything meaningful. Think about it. If the car weighed less, the same power would turn the wheels quicker, on the road. If this really was a part of the equation, it would likely UNDERESTIMATE the power.

As there is no correction factor listed anywhere on the sheet, they are probably STD.

When I tried out a K&N drop-in, with my otherwise stock Lightning, here's what I found:
It netted me 5HP/5TQ at peak, and an average gains of 4.8HP/5.7TQ, throughout the band. Most impressive was 10HP/10TQ at 5400rpm (numbers had already dropped a fair bit, at that point). Give that's a supercharged application, I would doubt that a Marauder would gain more.

Having said that, stranger things have happened...

[Tucker]

unless you can show gains on back to back pulls both of which have the car (IAT, coolant, etc.) at the same operating temperature then the product isn't really doing anything for the street driven cars.

Now, do you get it?THIS IS WHAT I'M SAYING!!

Forget it dude, your not getting it.

In order to do a comparision test condtions must be the same. THAT is why the car showed a BIGGER gain when conditions were the same. It did gain some when it was hotter then the stock run.

I'm done in this 4 page air filter thread.
I find myself repeating myself over and over again about a $35 part and 14 HP.
Later fellas.
:beer:

[FordNut]

Forget it dude, your not getting it.

I find myself repeating myself over and over again about a $35 part and 14 HP.


How true... not getting it. Some of these young 'uns are so stubborn. If 192 people do the exact same test and get the exact same results, but they're different from yours, everybody else is wrong!

[Bradley G]

Hey MM'ers,

Great info!! I'm not sure Why the big debate.Looks like to me You will see small gains from More air.The stock box breaths well! the air kits and panel filter will allow more.If you require more air due to a power adder,one will recieve larger gains using a custom intake than a N/A .Even by the Best on Board"slight differences in dyno ##'s(+ or - 10 hp) are an acceptable margin for error"

.So nothing I have read here is a right or wrong deal except the "Mines Better" syndrome (lately)can we have a group hug??:hug2:
Bradley G

[DEFYANT]

I think the imported air in the tires from Canada may explain why the car did well.:rolleyes:

In all, the only way to tell whats what is at the track. I agree so, until I have further info either from the track or from Amazon, I think we beat this to death. BTW, I dont think I'll run my car 6 times on the track just to evaluate an air filter, I'll leave that to the magazines (MM&FF, etc).

Mustang dyno vs Dyno jet :confused: . The MM is a luxo 4dr mustang. The drive train is comparable to the Mach 1, so big deal in the difference IMHO.

In closing (I hope) I'd like to thank you all for your input. We may not all agree but this thread shows why I will be around for awhile. You guys are alright in my book.

Now lets have a beer and come up with a new thread..... I hear U/D pulleys will give 30+ HP w/ 27 TQ.....:D

:beer:

[SergntMac]

I think the imported air in the tires from Canada may explain why the car did well.:rolleyes:

In all, the only way to tell whats what is at the track. I agree so, until I have further info either from the track or from Amazon, I think we beat this to death. BTW, I dont think I'll run my car 6 times on the track just to evaluate an air filter, I'll leave that to the magazines (MM&FF, etc).

Mustang dyno vs Dyno jet :confused: . The MM is a luxo 4dr mustang. The drive train is comparable to the Mach 1, so big deal in the difference IMHO.

In closing (I hope) I'd like to thank you all for your input. We may not all agree but this thread shows why I will be around for awhile. You guys are alright in my book.

Now lets have a beer and come up with a new thread..... I hear U/D pulleys will give 30+ HP w/ 27 TQ.....:D

:beer:
I appreciate your humor, it's good to chuckle about some things. Other times, it's not.

While we debate what's right, true or correct, we're also debating with a board vendor who's trying to make a living from a product he developed for the MM. I'm sure we would like to throw our support towards that effort, but the vendor needs to work with us too.

We are spread out over the country, yet we're sitting right next to each other here. When you take a seat at the table, have some respect for the talent and experience that sat down before your did. If you want to sell us something, take advantage of our collective experience, both with this particular automobile, and life in general. Dog us as country bumpkins, and no one will save your seat when you step away.

BTW, a Mustang dyno is a brand name. It's not related to any particular automobile.

[martyo]

THIS IS WHAT I'M SAYING!!

Forget it dude, your not getting it.

Tucker:

Go back and read your post #44 and tell me that it is worded correctly. If you think it is, we will agree to disagree and move on. But, I will tell you this, I read that post a number of times and I think that what you meant to say and what you actually said are not the same thing. And, its not just me, others read it the same way I did. So, you are the vendor (whose product I like by the way) and I am not, but if you want to sell your product in my opinion you need to be sure that the consumer understands what it is you are saying or you will lose sales.

[Tucker]

[QUOTE=SergntMac]While we debate what's right, true or correct, we're also debating with a board vendor who's trying to make a living from a product he developed for the MM. I'm sure we would like to throw our support towards that effort, but the vendor needs to work with us too.

We are spread out over the country, yet we're sitting right next to each other here. When you take a seat at the table, have some respect for the talent and experience that sat down before your did. If you want to sell us something, take advantage of our collective experience, both with this particular automobile, and life in general. Dog us as country bumpkins, and no one will save your seat when you step away.
QUOTE]
I never said anything about "country bumpkins". If that's how you took it then I don't know what to say.

I feel I am working with the MM members here. Many have bought the kit and all are very happy. How am I supposed to work with the few who insist that air filters and CAI's don't work. I prove my product and so do my customers.

Every time someone posts a thread about what they think on the subject the same 2-3 members jump in and call foul. Sarg, (if I remember correctly)you seem to be one of them. Continuing to say "it can't happen" "not from a air filter" "I for one don't believe it".

I've been trying to get one guy to understand my typing. I'm still not sure he gets it.
I'm not a young'n as he called me, I've been doing this type of thing for many years. I also started this business because it works and works better then anything I've ever used. I made it look good, work good and very well priced!

If any of you took my words out of context then for that I'm sorry. But, when your continuesly beaten down by members you tend to want to bark back.

[Tucker]

Like I said before, were the conditions the same? When I did my test the first "hot" run after the JLT wasn't anything to be proud of. It gained, but only very little. Then we let it cool for about 15 min. Checked IAT and coolant temp and ran it again.
There was the power. Same conditions- more power.
I don't dought you didn't see gains like these, but I bet it was because of back to back runs with no cool down.

These threads can go on for ever with back and forth jabs, but it's just fact. More air in and out = HP!"Like I said before, were the conditions the same?"
This is me asking about your test.

"When I did my test the first "hot" run after the JLT wasn't anything to be proud of. It gained, but only very little."
Meaning 3rd run right after the 2nd stock run and temps much higher then the stock run. Install only takes about 5-10 min. when your paying for dyno time.

"Then we let it cool for about 15 min. Checked IAT and coolant temp and ran it again.
There was the power. Same conditions- more power."
Meaning what it says. Same conditions more power then stock.

Sorry for the confusion, I hope this helps.

[martyo]

Sorry for the confusion, I hope this helps.

That's a better explanation and it does help. You need to make sure that the masses get your point and now I do.

So Tucker, what are you doing for Thanksgiving?

[SergntMac]

I don't think the weight is used for anything meaningful. Think about it. If the car weighed less, the same power would turn the wheels quicker, on the road. If this really was a part of the equation, it would likely UNDERESTIMATE the power.
The weight of the vehicle is critical to the Mustang's eddy-current design, where the rolling resistance of the drum is adjustable, in an effort to simulate the resistance of moving the car down the road. It does not do this well, and there is no standard, or, mark to meet across the tool's production. While this makes the Mustang more adaptable to many testing situations, such as emission testing (where it's widely used), it's unfavorable to motorsports enthuiasts because it can be manipulated to report almost any power results the operator wants to dial in. This is my chief objection to any dyno data on performance gains of any mod taken from an eddy-current dyno, you can fudge it, and there is no stability across the tool's platform.

The DynoJet is a static 3400 pound weighted drum that cannot be manipulated, and performance is measured on movement of a static weight. Everyone pulls the same weight and the playing field is level. The vehicle's weight a factor, but a minor factor. It's more accurate and more stable across the platform, so, if I show 400 RWHP in Chicago from a Dynojet, I will should see between 395 and 405 RWHP in Atlanta, and I've proven this to be true.

BTW, by design, all dynos under report power, simply because you're not actually moving the weight of the car down the track, and not working against real wind resistance. But, mathmatically, it's a good guess, and in the absence of any other methods of testing, it works.

[martyo]

BTW, by design, all dynos under report power, simply because you're not actually moving the weight of the car down the track, and not working against real wind resistance. But, mathmatically, it's a good guess, and in the absence of any other methods of testing, it works.

Well, not exactly Mac. How does wind resistance or weight affect power? It doesn't. They may consume power but not, as you do point out, in a static situation. The motor and drivetrain will make a certain amount of power and how that power is consummed is a completely separate issue. Otherwise that would be like saying that my car would make less power just because me, Todd, Donny Carlson and Big Dog Jim (sorry to throw your weight around here Jim) are sitting in my car the power numbers would go down. That's just not so. On the other hand, my car would get down the track slower with the passengers on board.

[SergntMac]

That's a better explanation and it does help. You need to make sure that the masses get your point and now I do.
Me too.

Tucker...Don't sweat 5-6 pages on this, any time money and performance gains are part of a topic, we dice it up rather fine. We've gone on longer over much less, it's what we do. Moreover, though you see it as one, two or three of the same members pitching pennies, most of the time there are seven to ten readers thinking "I could not have said it better" and they don't pitch in. Don't discount the telephone calls, e-mails and PMs traded in the background. Seems like the only times we really hear from all our members, is when there is a poll involved, or, a chance of free beer. Hang in here, you're doing fine, it's just one of the flaws of this one-dimentional medium.

[SergntMac]

Well, not exactly Mac. How does wind resistance or weight affect power? It doesn't. They may consume power but not, as you do point out, in a static situation. The motor and drivetrain will make a certain amount of power and how that power is consummed is a completely separate issue. Otherwise that would be like saying that my car would make less power just because me, Todd, Donny Carlson and Big Dog Jim (sorry to throw your weight around here Jim) are sitting in my car the power numbers would go down. That's just not so. On the other hand, my car would get down the track slower with the passengers on board.
Then it's just not so, and I am not going to quibble over it. Here's some on-line calculators using the same mathmatical equasions dyno software uses. Fiddle with the weight?

http://www.binaryinc.org/auto_calc/

http://www.speedworldmotorplex.com/calc.htm

http://www.tciauto.com/tech_info/calculators.htm

On second thought...As long as tires and restraining straps are involved in this measurement, the end result of X RWHP and X RWTQ will not be accurate. Try getting a dyno test on a DynaPack 2000 dyno, where the rear wheels and stretching straps are removed from the test. It's the most accurate dyno test available today, but it's new technology and just starting to catch on. Now that the NHRA is paying some attention, maybe we'll see more popularity?

http://www.dynapack.com

[FordNut]

[QUOTE=SergntMac]While we debate what's right, true or correct, we're also debating with a board vendor who's trying to make a living from a product he developed for the MM. I'm sure we would like to throw our support towards that effort, but the vendor needs to work with us too.

We are spread out over the country, yet we're sitting right next to each other here. When you take a seat at the table, have some respect for the talent and experience that sat down before your did. If you want to sell us something, take advantage of our collective experience, both with this particular automobile, and life in general. Dog us as country bumpkins, and no one will save your seat when you step away.
QUOTE]
I never said anything about "country bumpkins". If that's how you took it then I don't know what to say.

I feel I am working with the MM members here. Many have bought the kit and all are very happy. How am I supposed to work with the few who insist that air filters and CAI's don't work. I prove my product and so do my customers.

Every time someone posts a thread about what they think on the subject the same 2-3 members jump in and call foul. Sarg, (if I remember correctly)you seem to be one of them. Continuing to say "it can't happen" "not from a air filter" "I for one don't believe it".

I've been trying to get one guy to understand my typing. I'm still not sure he gets it.
I'm not a young'n as he called me, I've been doing this type of thing for many years. I also started this business because it works and works better then anything I've ever used. I made it look good, work good and very well priced!

If any of you took my words out of context then for that I'm sorry. But, when your continuesly beaten down by members you tend to want to bark back.
Tucker,
I don't believe anybody here has been trying to knock your product. It looks like a good intake tube to me. Had you been to market before Metco I would have probably bought it instead, but in this case the early bird got the worm. Seems to me you don't even have a dog in this fight...

The issue we do have is with a drop-in replacement panel air filter making the improvements reported here. Many of us have done the exact same tests in many different ways (cool down, no cool down, K&N first then OEM, OEM first then K&N, no filter at all, etc.) and have not seen these gains. Some of the tests were done by individuals, some by professional tuners. And now since these latest results are different, we're all wrong? I don't think so.

[martyo]

Then it's just not so, and I am not going to quibble over it. Here's some on-line calculators using the same mathematical equations dyno software uses. Fiddle with the weight?

Not meant to quibble Mac. I was simply raising a point that in a static setting such as a dyno where you aren't overcoming inertia weight doesn't/shouldn't matter. The "calculators" that you posted are algorithms designed to allow us to extrapolate expected results. Scientific best guesses which certainly do help when the car isn't strapped to the dyno itself.

By the way, I really loved the calculator pages and they are fun to play with as well as informative. Did you know that I need close to 55,000 hp if I want to attain a trap speed of 1,125 mph? Typos cause interesting results!! :rofl:

[MM03MOK]

By the way, I really loved the calculator pages and they are fun to play with as well as informative. Did you know that I need close to 55,000 hp if I want to attain a trap speed of 1,125 mph? Typos cause interesting results!! :rofl: Now THAT would be a MONSTER!! http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/15/15_3_9v.gif (http://www.smileycentral.com/?partner=ZSzeb001_VSXXXXXX46US )

[RF Overlord]

The issue we do have is with a drop-in replacement panel air filter making the improvements reported here. Many of us have done the exact same tests in many different ways (cool down, no cool down, K&N first then OEM, OEM first then K&N, no filter at all, etc.) and have not seen these gains. Some of the tests were done by individuals, some by professional tuners. And now since these latest results are different, we're all wrong? I don't think so.Exactly. Precisely. 'Nut has boiled all these pages down to the essence. Thank you, sir.

BTW, I also agree with FordNut's statement that none of us are dissing the JLT system. In fact, it seems everyone who has purchased one is very happy with it, so please don't take any of this personally, Mr. Tucker...

[DEFYANT]

I appreciate your humor, it's good to chuckle about some things. Other times, it's not.

While we debate what's right, true or correct, we're also debating with a board vendor who's trying to make a living from a product he developed for the MM. I'm sure we would like to throw our support towards that effort, but the vendor needs to work with us too.

We are spread out over the country, yet we're sitting right next to each other here. When you take a seat at the table, have some respect for the talent and experience that sat down before your did. If you want to sell us something, take advantage of our collective experience, both with this particular automobile, and life in general. Dog us as country bumpkins, and no one will save your seat when you step away.

BTW, a Mustang dyno is a brand name. It's not related to any particular automobile.
:bs: WTF? So let me get this straight.... You have your panties in a bunch because I didnt buy something from a vendor? And who Dogged you as a county bumpkin??? Not me, and I cant see anyone else who did. All I have done is compliment the "talent and experience" on this board. You may qualify as a board elder with 4400 + posts, but you dont "outrank" anyone. You want my seat? Take it, if you can! If I or anyone else has good or bad reviews about any product, or vendor for that matter, I feel it is my duty to let other enthusiests know about it.

I am laid back and dont hold grudes, dispite some of the inuendos about me, my car, this test, or my integrity.

For christ sake people! We are talking about an air filter in a car on a :censor: dyno!!!

So who is the vendor your sticking up for? I have a long list of mods for this car and need good references.

[DEFYANT]

Exactly. Precisely. 'Nut has boiled all these pages down to the essence. Thank you, sir.

BTW, I also agree with FordNut's statement that none of us are dissing the JLT system. In fact, it seems everyone who has purchased one is very happy with it, so please don't take any of this personally, Mr. Tucker...
Yes! Thank you! A drop-in K&N has always been my first mod on many cars. This is not a attack on any vendor. I never purchased any products from any vendors here - yet.

[CRUZTAKER]

..... I feel it is my duty to let other enthusiests know about it.......Exactly....and it is OUR duty to make sure that the results you post are within reality, and not misinforming other new members.


I have a long list of mods for this car and need good references.Then you really need to listen to those of us who have been there already, or every result you post is gonna end up this way.

Your screen name preceeded your posts, was this your intention from day one?

[DEFYANT]

My comments were not directed at you Cruztaker, but since you responded... I am listening to the group. I am not insisting the dyno results are absolute. I realize they are subjective. This is not that important to me frankly but this seems to becoming personal OVER FRIKIN DYNO RESULTS! Regarding my screen name, you can search "Defyant" at www.svtperformance.com where I have detailed where that came from.

Scroll through the 6 pages here and my other posts on other threads on this site and my character is clear.

[QWK SVT]

The weight of the vehicle is critical to the Mustang's eddy-current design, where the rolling resistance of the drum is adjustable, in an effort to simulate the resistance of moving the car down the road. It does not do this well, and there is no standard, or, mark to meet across the tool's production...This is my chief objection to any dyno data on performance gains of any mod taken from an eddy-current dyno, you can fudge it, and there is no stability across the tool's platform.


Then it's just not so, and I am not going to quibble over it. Here's some on-line calculators using the same mathmatical equasions dyno software uses. Fiddle with the weight?

http://www.binaryinc.org/auto_calc/

http://www.speedworldmotorplex.com/calc.htm

http://www.tciauto.com/tech_info/calculators.htm

And reducing the weight always shows lower horsepower... So wouldn't that be the case, here? It appears to be just the opposite, which (to me) is indicitive of something more than just error... (not bashing Defyant, just the tool/operator of the tool)

[SergntMac]

:bs: WTF? So let me get this straight.... You have your panties in a bunch because I didnt buy something from a vendor? And who Dogged you as a county bumpkin??? Not me, and I cant see anyone else who did. All I have done is compliment the "talent and experience" on this board. You may qualify as a board elder with 4400 + posts, but you dont "outrank" anyone. You want my seat? Take it, if you can! If I or anyone else has good or bad reviews about any product, or vendor for that matter, I feel it is my duty to let other enthusiests know about it.

I am laid back and dont hold grudes, dispite some of the inuendos about me, my car, this test, or my integrity.

For christ sake people! We are talking about an air filter in a car on a :censor: dyno!!!

So who is the vendor your sticking up for? I have a long list of mods for this car and need good references.
You're joking, right?

[SergntMac]

Defyant...You have misunderstood almost my entire post as you quoted it. My first sentence, maybe my last sentence too, had you in mind, based on your comments posted previous to that. The rest of it is specifically vague, there are no "targets." Moreover, I'm not laughing, or, yelling at you or anyone here. You have taken it all way of of context, please read again, and feel free to contact me at SergntMac@aol.com if you want to discuss this more.


And reducing the weight always shows lower horsepower... So wouldn't that be the case, here? It appears to be just the opposite, which (to me) is indicitive of something more than just error... (not bashing Defyant, just the tool/operator of the tool)
Our problem begins with understanding what a dyno does. It's a measuring tool that reports RWHP and RWTQ, nothing more. A dyno reports that data like a thermometer reports temperature, it just tells us how much. The dyno operator's talent is key to accurate 411, likewise correct data entry for the dyno to use in reporting results, as well as following routine test conditions.

We can extrapolate data from the dyno report and make some predictions, but we're not always right. The higher horsepower/torque is not always the faster car. As MartyO point out ^ there, adding weight to a car strapped into a static dyno should make no difference, and I disagree. It will, because you're changing traction to the 3400 pound drum, but only in that relationship. The change will not be severe, but you should change the dyno input data to reflect the change in weight to keep it's calculators honest. Likewise, over inflating the rear tires will change the traction relationship and you'll gain 10 RWHP, but that RWHP disappears at the track, because it's most likely that tire pressure will be lowered for improved traction.

You can use the on-line calculators I posted to play with a lot of scenarios, and make a few educated guesses, but they are just guesses, don't bank on them. While the DynoJet is probably the most accurate among drum based tools, it's still guessing. It's software is SAE corrected, and it does not factor in wind resistance and the reality of pushing a 4500 pound car down the 1320. In fact, I don't know how one could do that, without running a dyno in a wind tunnel. Calculate away, but remember it's not the real world.

Ive said before that 15 some HP from a panel filter is not realistic, and that points to questions of how the test was conducted. The exchange later came to include testing of induction kits, and it's all over the map from there (but at least it's still under the hood.) More importantly, how does this panel filter improve torque? It's torque that moves the car, yes?

[Patrick]

Sorry to jump in here but I have found the answer to this to settle this. This is not very expense and is made from BRAUN. Pic below. Official numbers not in but Coffe drinkers ALL AGREE it makes a great cup of coffe. :coffee: :coffee: :wflag:

[Bradley G]

That's nice Patrick,But the Black& Decker is much better(tastes great!)

Bradley G


Sorry to jump in here but I have found the answer to this to settle this. This is not very expense and is made from BRAUN. Pic below. Official numbers not in but Coffe drinkers ALL AGREE it makes a great cup of coffe. :coffee: :coffee: :wflag:

[QWK SVT]

Our problem begins with understanding what a dyno does. It's a measuring tool that reports RWHP and RWTQ, nothing more. A dyno reports that data like a thermometer reports temperature, it just tells us how much. The dyno operator's talent is key to accurate 411, likewise correct data entry for the dyno to use in reporting results, as well as following routine test conditions.

We can extrapolate data from the dyno report and make some predictions, but we're not always right. The higher horsepower/torque is not always the faster car. As MartyO point out ^ there, adding weight to a car strapped into a static dyno should make no difference, and I disagree. It will, because you're changing traction to the 3400 pound drum, but only in that relationship. The change will not be severe, but you should change the dyno input data to reflect the change in weight to keep it's calculators honest. Likewise, over inflating the rear tires will change the traction relationship and you'll gain 10 RWHP, but that RWHP disappears at the track, because it's most likely that tire pressure will be lowered for improved traction.

You can use the on-line calculators I posted to play with a lot of scenarios, and make a few educated guesses, but they are just guesses, don't bank on them. While the DynoJet is probably the most accurate among drum based tools, it's still guessing. It's software is SAE corrected, and it does not factor in wind resistance and the reality of pushing a 4500 pound car down the 1320. In fact, I don't know how one could do that, without running a dyno in a wind tunnel. Calculate away, but remember it's not the real world.

Ive said before that 15 some HP from a panel filter is not realistic, and that points to questions of how the test was conducted. The exchange later came to include testing of induction kits, and it's all over the map from there (but at least it's still under the hood.) More importantly, how does this panel filter improve torque? It's torque that moves the car, yes?
OK. So we're both on the same page...

I agree, the numbers are suspect. 15HP off a panel is just not possible, unless the previous filter was made of steel... Heck, my Lightning picked up nowhere near that much, and a supercharged engine should always benefit more from additional air (case in point Lidio's recent tests of the FIPK).

I understand how weight could impact the power calculation - I get why (anyone that's removed/added substancial weight would get why)... I've only been on Dynojets, so the weight being a factor on a dyno was news to me.

What I still don't understand, is how some dyno's can be so much "looser" than others? I have heard other stories, and understand why... "Look how great my tuning is - I just increased the horspower in your Civic by 50HP, just with a tune!" :rolleyes:

Why would the companies not put controls in place, to ensure their equipment is being used properly? One would think that their reputations take a hit, as a result of the unscrupulous operators.

PS - According to THIS dyno, the panel filter added 13 ft/lbs... :bs:

[Badger]

One interesting side effect of using the K&N filter was discovered in the CV community back in 1999. It was found that the benefit of the increased flow was only applicable to a new clean filter. Once the K&N filter was "in service" dust particles and debris continued to clog the filter. As a result, within a very finite time period the K&N filter actually had a greater resistance to flow then a paper filter. Then there were the issues of over oiling the filter, which caused MAF sensor problems.
IMHO I just found it easier to replace my paper filter on a regular basis.

BTW My dynojet numbers posted earlier were on a completely stock 04MM with paper filter.

[SergntMac]

One interesting side effect of using the K&N filter was discovered in the CV community back in 1999. It was found that the benefit of the increased flow was only applicable to a new clean filter. Once the K&N filter was "in service" dust particles and debris continued to clog the filter. As a result, within a very finite time period the K&N filter actually had a greater resistance to flow then a paper filter. Then there were the issues of over oiling the filter, which caused MAF sensor problems. IMHO I just found it easier to replace my paper filter on a regular basis. BTW My dynojet numbers posted earlier were on a completely stock 04MM with paper filter.That's been my contention since our first discussion of air filters over two years ago, when the K&N panel filter was the ONLY choice we had. A clean filter is the better filter, because any filter that improves breathing will likewise improve contamination. Larger holes pass more air, yes, which means they pass more dirt too.