![]() |
also the good about these KN filters is they dont sound like a toilet flushing when you're on the gas. :D
|
Your toilet shouldn't growl kenchan, better get that checked out. :)
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
the low numbers are normal for the dyno i went on. lots of high horsepower cars go there to dyno and found out the dyno reads a lot lower. |
Stop using that dyno and tell others to not go there.
|
Honestly, unless you dyno'd atop of a mountain, you should never have numbers that low.
It effects your gain results as well, as it will "read" them as low. aka if it's 6hp it's probably 9-10 |
I am pretty impressed with this Short Ram Intake! I do miss the intake growl of the SRI. I went back to a stock box + smooth tube design because my Takeda SRI turned out to be a crap. Good to see a nice SRI option that increases power.
|
Nice:tup:
|
I have a question about dyno numbers, doesn't location effect how much power the car is able to produce. for example above or below sea level, with the different concentration of air, so let's say if you are 2,000FT above sea level you will get a lower power reading compared to 2,000FT below sea level?
|
Quote:
so i wouldnt tell people not to go there, but i wouldnt do any more dyno pulls since its now 90/3 pulls... they gave me 30/3 pulls.. thats why i did the dyno pulls |
Quote:
|
Heart breaker indeed -- that dyno is giving values about 25 - 30% lower than a dynojet.
The altitude may be killing actual power, tho' -- less O2 in the air. Be interesting to see what you make on a dynojet with SAE correction. Not sure what kinds of corrections Mustang dynos are programmed to apply. A 6% gain from baseline with CBE and K&N sounds about right. HFC's or TP's will probably net you another 3-5% |
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:54 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2