Thread: Dyno Results

On top of all those prices, a given is for the tranny that is a hefty price in addition.

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.

Originally Posted by SnowFlake

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.

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.