Any stage one test results?

[robvas]

Something else is wrong with that setup. It's about 100rwhp off.

That's not far off of what the stage 1 cars make (a little higher because 93 instead of 91)





The higher HP cars you see have higher octane gas, headers, stage 2 tune, smaller pulley, blah blah

Sponsored

 

[Junkyard Dog]

That's not far off of what the stage 1 cars make (a little higher because 93 instead of 91)





The higher HP cars you see have higher octane gas, headers, stage 2 tune, smaller pulley, blah blah

The first one is in 6th gear, not 7th like the Edmunds video, with 93 octane, no octane booster.

The earlier video of the Edmunds car used an entire can of octane booster, so it is not fair to describe it as 91 octane. The octane was probably higher than 93 in the Edmunds video. That combined with seventh gear should have added up to a lot more.

 

[Junkyard Dog]

Roush supercharger, sticky tires, no other mods . . . 10.50. I doubt a set of sticky tires on the Edmunds car would drop that quarter mile time into the tens at all.

More mods (headers, pulley, octane) and into the 9s.

 

[Junkyard Dog]

With all of that having been said, none of these are same dyno, so I do not know how well you can compare them.

Nor did they go into correction factors (or lack thereof) or anything else.

And at the end of the day, I do not know how much difference 6th gear v. 7th gear makes, but it is probably only a few horsepower (10-15), but, still, the wrong way

How much drivetrain loss is being established for the Mustang Dark Horse with the automatic?

 

[robvas]

The first one is in 6th gear, not 7th like the Edmunds video, with 93 octane, no octane booster.

The earlier video of the Edmunds car used an entire can of octane booster, so it is not fair to describe it as 91 octane. The octane was probably higher than 93 in the Edmunds video. That combined with seventh gear should have added up to a lot more.

The Edmunds guys don't sound like they know what they are doing, they might not even have let the octane booster mix in all the way...

Without them recording the timing the engine saw during the run, we can only guess. And what do stage 1 cars on 93 see?

I doubt a set of sticky tires on the Edmunds car would drop that quarter mile time into the tens

Tough to say, they didn't even say their 60 foot time did they?

 

[Junkyard Dog]

Roush supercharger, sticky tires, no other mods . . . 10.50. I doubt a set of sticky tires on the Edmunds car would drop that quarter mile time into the tens at all.

More mods (headers, pulley, octane) and into the 9s.

I just watched this video through to the end, and, apparently, the lowest Roush package pulley makes significantly more boost than the Stage 1 Whipple.

 

[d4rkg04t]

Edmunds? I think you're right. Oh, rant time!

I'll tell you right now Edmunds (and most all web/mag reviewers like C&R, R&T, or U-turn or whatever they're called) seem to be terrible drag racers. I typically avoid their reviews. I don't talk a lot of crap about people but I consistently see them do stuff like run a manual DH in the mid 12's with a 2.2+ 60' claiming it's slow (on the few times where they have the balls to post a timeslip). Anyone can do the reverse math on that and see the car, stick stock and all, could have ran a flat 12 with an experienced driver and <1.9 60' on street radials. For example, I put down a 3.73 0-60 before blower and tires because I know how to launch by feel (20+ years experience, 3500rpm, NO LC enabled, manual throttle/clutch control), not 4.1 which is the best they could get (either trying to come off the line around idle or blowing the tires away a little in 1st). Clown show stuff. Then the normie viewers go off and parrot it in other comment sections as gospel.

Okay, rant over. Sorry.

 

[d4rkg04t]

That's not far off of what the stage 1 cars make (a little higher because 93 instead of 91)





The higher HP cars you see have higher octane gas, headers, stage 2 tune, smaller pulley, blah blah

OH! That's an auto, that's why. Makes sense. Nevermind. I'm wrong, you're right. I never think about automatics when I get into these discussions.

 

[Q6543]

Julian’s stage 1 went 10.2s mid 130s iirc.. he was shooting for 9s in the warranty tune, not sure if he made it or not

 

[Junkyard Dog]

Full interior, too.

Looks like he did it mainly by removing the sway bar and changing out shocks and tires, oh, removed front bumper support. I'll take a look at what else he did. Neat.

 

[Junkyard Dog]

Julian’s stage 1 went 10.2s mid 130s iirc.. he was shooting for 9s in the warranty tune, not sure if he made it or not

His next video is a visit to the dyno to figure out why it is going so fast, in 6th gear and 7th gear, with 93 and with E30, a bunch of pulls.

It sounds like he is saying that the visit to the track (your video) was E30, and the trap speed indicates 758 wheel horsepower.

"about, uuuuuh . . . , a 40-48 horsepower difference between boostane with 93, if the 93 fuel is ok, and E30," said at about 9:40 on the time stamp

 

[d4rkg04t]

His next video is a visit to the dyno to figure out why it is going so fast, in 6th gear and 7th gear, with 93 and with E30, a bunch of pulls.

It sounds like he is saying that the visit to the track (your video) was E30, and the trap speed indicates 758 wheel horsepower.

"about, uuuuuh . . . , a 40-48 horsepower difference between boostane with 93, if the 93 fuel is ok, and E30"

at about 9:40 on the time stamp

I typically see (locally) manuals putting down 700rwhp-730rwhp. But... to be fair, that's on a canned Whipple tune with 93 octane and I'm not sure if they threw some Boostane in there or not. You know how people hide stuff. I know I've walked stock (or near-stock) GT500's with no issue and I'm just stage-1, myself. Full disclosure: I'm running 93 w/ Boostane every time I leave the house, though.

Sponsored