well THAT certainly makes me feel better.

Funny how changing dynos makes the engine make more power. LOL!! J/K

 

It would probably be more like 270-280 rwhp on a Dynojet actually, making it a good 340-350 HP engine. The Navi engine is seriously undercammed, not to mention the intake isn't as good as what's on the newer 3V 5.4s, Nissan 5.6 or Tundra 5.7. So all in all I think those numbers are really good with alot more on the table if you ever want to take advantage of it. The 5.4 4V is a beast.

FWIW, Dynojet numbers typically line up with manufacturers numbers (once driveline loss is accounted for) better than Mustang dynos do.

For example, the 231 HP 4.6 would need a roughly 40% drivetrain loss to see roughly 140 rwhp. That 4.6 bone stock would see around 170 rwhp on a Dynojet.

It's the difference between a loading (Mustang) and an inertial (Dynojet) dynamometer. Hell, enter the wrong vehicle weight in Mustang dyno software and the results will be skewed. The fact that the 4.6 baselined at 142 rwhp tells me the dyno was reading WAY conservative. Dynojet is the only dyno that counts, IMO.

Is the engine stock? What modifications?

 

The engine is bone stock. The only mods are a weld-in Flow and a high flow air-filter.

NOW, I think I'm going to turn the recent discussion on it's ear. The dyno used to produce those numbers was indeed a DynoJet. However, what I have learned from asking IDC, Dallas Mustang and Texas Hotrods is that DynoJet dynos and Mustang dynos are very similar in their readings because about a year ago, Mustang dynos began using different software that made them read HP numbers similarly to DynoJets.

Talked again to the head tuner at Dallas Mustang and THEY said with the new software, Mustang dynos will actually read LOWER than a DynoJet.

Who the heck knows, eh?
With correction factors and load settings, it seems subjective.

 

40%? I was thinking that the parasitic drivetrain loss on a car is about 15-18% (manual lower than auto) and about 18-20% for a truck and about 20-25% for a 4X4? Thoughts on that, BB?

 

Any suggestions on aftermarket intakes? different cams may be a stretch from a capital outlay standpoint, but an intake swap might be in the offing. CERTAINLY, more tuning...

 

They really don't read comparaly at all. I've known several mid-300 rwhp Mustangs that read a good 40-50 rwhp lower just by going from Dynojet to a Mustang dyno. Musang dyno operators often will try to tell people they read the same as a Dynojet, but even Mustang's "dynojet correction factor" is way off from reality.

Unless the Mustang dyno was maniulated to read artificially high (which is common, tuners like to see high numbers as it can help business) the Mustang dyno always read significantly lower than a Dynojet.

The point that I was making with the 40% driveline loss was that the only way the 230 HP 4.6 dyno'd at 140 rwhp was if it was experiencing a roughly 40% driveline loss.

In reality the stock F150 driveline will eat 18-20%, that's how I know that dyno is way conservative.

 

IMO, you'd want to swap cams along with the intake. Those small 184 degree intake cams won't really support much more intake on a 5.4. The only 5.4 intake that mainains good mid-range is the Boss 290 intake (it's expensive) and it would need more cam duration to be taken advantage of.

 

On Dynos - my experience is very few calibrate them correctly. many do not know what that means. As big bad noted for higher numbers is better business. No Chevy owner wants to hear the his mighty 400hp engine is only making 118hp. (almost always less than the stock factory motor did) A good calibration will be proven by running a stock motor for validation. Seen many a mustang show low on the dyno and blame it. Then backed up the dyno findings on the track against the same stock mustang. Excuses run wild. My point is that if both are calibrated correctly each time they are fired up they should read a little more comparable numbers. There are many motor dyno results showing big numbers on a mere .3lb per hr of fuel. Seen some in the .2x range. The numbers are not suprising. It is a good shop.

You might ask about their calibration process.

A good Mustang operator will have scales to get the real numbers as very few people are correct on the wieght of the ride.

Again all about the operator and intent to make right or the need to make money to stay in business.

 

Not to go and my own thread here, but what does it mean when one has SAE numbers, like the 505 SAE HP on the Z06's?

How does one arrive at an SAE number?

 

Society of Automotive Engineers.

 

The Z06 is rated according to the new SAE J1349 standard, which means a couple different engines were pulled from the production line and independent parties witnessed the engine make 505 hp, or the engine outputs averaged to 505 hp. Takes a little fibbing out of the equation. Funnily enough, some of Toyotas V6 ratings got hit the hardest by the new standard.

On a dynosheet, SAE is a correction factor.

Meaning the SAE correction factor was applied to the raw/uncorrected data actually observed by the dyno and converts the numbers to what would be observed if the temp. was 77 deg. F, 0% humidity, and 29.23" of mercury. Essentially taking the weather/density altitude variable out of the equation.

There is also the standard "STD" correction factor that corrects the conditions to 68 degrees F, 0% humidity, and 29.92 inches of Mercury. There's also DIN, JIS, and EEC correction factors, but those are rarely used by anyone in the U.S.

Uncorrected numbers can vary wildly from morning to afternoon, they can get even more divergent when comparing dyno results from sea level to those obtained at say...5,000 feet.

 

so what kind of dyno did the testers use? Do we know that?

 

I don't know that one. It's an engine dyno though, not a chassis dyno.

 

That's what I figured.

 

I have a '99 F-150 4x4 with a 5.4 in it, and wwonder if the swap would be worth it, also wonder what year the navi motor is that he used?