Thread: Dyno Results

Originally Posted by SlowFiero

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.

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.

well zzp claims hooper made 30 WHP more on his VS cam engine with S3 heads.... little do they mention that was on race gas.

So 34x WHP on a VS? not really.

In this sort of situation, you really want proof they were on pump, not vice versa.

It was probably 94.5 if anything. And not because of the booster.

Octane booster cannot affect octane significantly unless you have hardly any fuel in the tank at all.

Also ultra 94 is a minimum of 94, its typically ~94.5


FAQs — Questions, Answers, Octane, Gasoline Basics — Petro-Canada is octane?

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.

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.

Originally Posted by darkhorizon

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.

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.

Originally Posted by darkhorizon

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.

Where are they? Running on dynapacks and dynocoms? lol

dynojet / mustang.

For every example of what you claim, I can find 10 that support my comparison.

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

The inlet on my genV was lightly ported... Other than that everything was stock.

porting isn't something that should really be done....

polishing is where its at.

Don't wanna mess with a good thing... Eaton set this blower up well. I'm in no position to question them by porting it

Yeah I'm not trying to gamble on a $1200 supercharger