2013 XSport Dyno Runs - MiWiAu
- Thread starter MiWiAu
- Start date
You definately gave your turbos some exercise.
To bad your weren't on a dynojet but it is what it is and you were able to gain useful information..Thanks for sharing and Merry Christmas.I got a request to show the total power comparison across the entire RPM band, so I updated Figures 6 & 7 in post #9.
There was a teeny-tiny drop in total % increase across the overall RPM band as compared to the 3500-5940RPM range, mainly because the biggest gains were mid-range RPM. You can see in the Figure 6 area plot that the HP curves didn't really start to diverge until about 2900 RPM. I excluded the Unleashed numbers for the overall RPM band, since we couldn't WOT until 3500RPM due to downshifts, and it wouldn't be a fair comparison.
There was a teeny-tiny drop in total % increase across the overall RPM band as compared to the 3500-5940RPM range, mainly because the biggest gains were mid-range RPM. You can see in the Figure 6 area plot that the HP curves didn't really start to diverge until about 2900 RPM. I excluded the Unleashed numbers for the overall RPM band, since we couldn't WOT until 3500RPM due to downshifts, and it wouldn't be a fair comparison.
Wow way to get granular with the data. Fantastic break down. I've almost always seen an increase in numbers from a mustang dyno to a DJ. These are pretty much the mods I'm doing to the Xsport and I was kind of hoping to see higher numbers I didn't think the base run would be that low but I'm assuming that is the dyno being used.
AJP turbo said:
While the absolute numbers on the Mustang dyno are low, I believe the relative deltas are accurate, as alluded to by AJP Turbo.
As a [rough] point of comparison, I ran on a Dynojet a day prior to my Post #1 run on the Mustang. The results are not totally apples to apples, since AWD was disabled for the Dynojet (no linked rollers), but looking at an average of the peak HP/torque numbers, the Mustang read about 15% lower than the Dynojet, which is in the ballpark of the 12-15% difference I have read elsewhere.
If you start with the OE crank HP and torque (365HP/350TQ) and factor in 20% drivetrain loss and a less generous 12% reduction from Dynojet to Mustang correction you’d come up with:
365 Crank HP * (1-0.20 drivetrain loss-0.12 Mustang correction) = 365 * 0.68 = 248.2 Mustang HP
350 Crank TQ * (1-0.20 drivetrain loss-0.12 Mustang correction) = 350 * 0.68 = 238.0 Mustang TQ
Looking at the Peak HP/TQ numbers from my last Mustang dyno runs with the OE tune and 93 octane fuel, I was at 245HP/242.8TQ, which is pretty darn close to the calculated value of 248.2HP/238.0TQ using the 20% drivetrain loss and 12% Mustang correction.
I haven’t done any other correlation work to confirm these drivetrain losses or the Mustang correction factor, but anecdotal evidence leads me to believe these assumptions are not wildly unreasonable, and makes my numbers on the Mustang a little less… err... heartbreaking? Hopefully nobody goes pissing in my Cheerios, because I feel pretty good with how everything seems to be shaking out.
At any rate, it’s a good example of why you’d want to use the same dyno for all your testing, because moving from dyno to dyno (even of the same type) could give false positive (or negative) gains.
FordFam said:
Personally, I'd focus on the relative changes between the baseline and tuned runs (almost 10% total power increase with tuned 87 octane and nearly 20% with tuned 93 octane!). I wasn't really chasing numbers, moreso just curious about relative gains between all the tunes. I can tell you that my @$$ dyno definitely picks up power improvements for any of the tunes over OE, and my on-road data logs also show that AJP's 87 performance tune was 0.162 sec faster in 0-60MPH time over the Unleashed tune as well (see post #2).
If you buy what I'm selling above about the 20% drivetrain loss and 12% lower reading from Dynojet to Mustang, you should be able to take any of my Mustang numbers and multiply them by 1.176 to get an approximation of what sort of output you might see on a Dynojet.
The nice thing is, the more I stack up the data, the more confidence I gain that my results are correlated, because SCIENCE, lol.
QuickSilver
New member
I'm not a big math guy(or even good with numbers actually :-\ ) so I want to thank you for explaining the data results in a way that even I can understand it. Interesting that the 87 tune made a little more power in certain areas than the 93 tune ???. I haven't done anything other than maintenance on my XSport in too long 
QuickSilver said:I'm not a big math guy(or even good with numbers actually :-\ ) so I want to thank you for explaining the data results in a way that even I can understand it. Interesting that the 87 tune made a little more power in certain areas than the 93 tune ???. I haven't done anything other than maintenance on my XSport in too long
No problem, AJ! Thanks for checking out the thread, and I really appreciate the feedback! As long as it's helping people out (and Manu continues to help me fix my image links), I'll keep posting stuff up as I get it.
With regards to your question on the 87 vs 93 tune, I assume you're referring to the chart in post #15? Frankly, I was hesitant to post that one and did so just for a rough reference point. Those runs were done 2 months apart, and I also just realized that I ran those in different gears (the 87 pull was in 4th, the 93 was in 3rd). I went back to post 15 and noted the difference. There were also some hardware differences. What was weird was that there was a big dip in the HP/Torque curves on the 87 that was not there on the 93. I can't really explain why that happened, but the dip on the 87 was present in 3 pulls on the Mustang dyno as well as 3 pulls on a Dynojet a day prior.
The results in post #9 are all same day, same gear, same hardware, same fuel so these are better comparison points. The only variables were the tunes. You'll note on those charts that the 93 tune was consistently above all the 87 tunes. Granted, I was running 93 fuel with the 87 tunes, but I wouldn't expect a HUGE difference with 87, since Brad's tune is set to max out at 3 degrees of additional advance under WOT.
Any other questions, feel free to ask, before it all gets too fuzzy.