Ford Forums banner

1 - 20 of 49 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
119 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
y0,

Here is the before & after Dyno of my BA XR8 Ute. The standard dynoed at 185rwkw & the after was 199rwkw. Thats a 14rwkw increase from putting a Dual 2.5" from the cats back! & Yes i have proof, just check the dyno! I big shout out to Bill's Exhuast from doing a great, reliable job on the exhuast & Gladstone Dyno Tune for the use of there Dyno. Also it is sounds the bomb!

http://www.fordgallery.com/showphoto.php/photo/6172/password//sort/1/cat/all/page/1

Cheers

Memphis!
 

·
no tire smoke no fun!
Joined
·
458 Posts
bleax this makes my I6 look whimpy good power tho!
 

·
no tire smoke no fun!
Joined
·
458 Posts
AU did that the BA is around 220 at the flywheel or so
 

·
Pursuit Reincarnation Dog
Joined
·
7,777 Posts
You guys must be smoking some serious stuff......

BA XR8 (from my memory) has oh, maybe, 260 flywheel kWs.
BA XT/XL/XLS etc V8 has 220 flywheel kWs
 

·
When 2 T3s are not enough
Joined
·
1,934 Posts
Aussie Pete said:
You guys must be smoking some serious stuff......

BA XR8 (from my memory) has oh, maybe, 260 flywheel kWs.
BA XT/XL/XLS etc V8 has 220 flywheel kWs
Oh boy what can I say%$%#*(&
Anyway back to the tread 16 kws is great and better still you have the proof, Good result mate and with a twin 2/12 system ripper!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
695 Posts
memphis said:
y0,

Here is the before & after Dyno of my BA XR8 Ute. The standard dynoed at 185rwkw & the after was 199rwkw. Thats a 14rwkw increase from putting a Dual 2.5" from the cats back! & Yes i have proof, just check the dyno! I big shout out to Bill's Exhuast from doing a great, reliable job on the exhuast & Gladstone Dyno Tune for the use of there Dyno. Also it is sounds the bomb!

http://www.fordgallery.com/showphoto.php/photo/6172/password//sort/1/cat/all/page/1

Cheers

Memphis!

On ya memphis. How many Ks have you done on your car? An intake will give you another ~10rwkw :eek:) Cheap too...

BTW...on the chart it looks like you are making over 200rwkw. The peak power is definately above the 200 line!
 

·
now with EF power!
Joined
·
891 Posts
Hey mate, what colour's your car, i might've seen it around
 

·
X-DM!!
Joined
·
1,114 Posts
A good gain from a 2.5in cats back twin exhaust but on paper it looks like it has bought the power up to what is was suppose to be originally.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
119 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
I think when i got it dynoed it was around the 2000km, i think it might have been a bit under. I nearly have 5000km on the clock now. danege, I own a black XR8 Ute, with 18's & hard-top. Only one in Gladstone...... :wnc:

Not to sure what the next mod is ganna be. Kinda worried with the air-induction side because they said it can void your warranty.

Dropping the back 60mm for around $500 i guess will be my next...

Cheers

Memphis.
 

·
More horsepower required
Joined
·
612 Posts
Forget about the power its making.
I'm interested in the dodgy torque figures . At 696Nm , it doesn't add up.
 

·
More horsepower required
Joined
·
612 Posts
memphis said:
What do u mean? Where it peaks at the start on the second run ?
No mate. Both before and after figures and everything in between

BEFORE EXHAUST : 580Nm at the start of the torque curve with 680Nm peak torque
AFTER EXHAUST : 640Nm at the start of the curve with 740Nm at the top( minus the peak at the start which is around 750Nm)

500Nm is standard for the XR8 and 520Nm for the GT . And they are peak figures.
 

·
347 cubic power!
Joined
·
171 Posts
I think the "torque" values printed on dyno sheets are worthless and not what they seem. Even the two dyno sheets posted have radically different scales. The stock XR8 makes 260kW @ 5250RPM and 500Nm @ 4250RPM (all flywheel values) according to Ford. Using the dyno sheet posted by memphis, we can calculate the torque at the wheels working back from the power figure:

HP = RPM x T(torque in ft/lb) / 5252
Therefore
T(torque in ft/lb) = HP x 5252 / RPM

So, If I *assume* peak torque arrives at 4250RPM, which I am *assuming* to be 110km/h. This may vary depending on the gearing of the car. Therefore:

T = (167 / 0.7457) x 5252 / 4250
T = 276ft/lbs which is 375Nm at the wheels

Dividing by 0.7457 converts kilowatts into HP. To convert from ft/lb to Nm, multiply by 1.356. If we *assume* 25% drive train loss, this gives us 500Nm at the flywheel. How about that?

If there were RPM along the X-axis rather than road speed, there would be no need to assume anything. Why the hell don't dyno operators print power vs RPM???

---------------------------------
"When you assume, you make an 'ass' out of 'u' and 'me'"
Benny Hill.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
695 Posts
Slipper. That is exactly the same question I asked on another thread. I'm still waiting for someone with more experience to tell me how having km/h on the x axis is helpful to the owner. :eek:)

I tend to trust the CAPA dyno chart. The torque line looks almost identical in shape to the dyno I had done on the weekend. Freaky!
 

·
347 cubic power!
Joined
·
171 Posts
fullthrottle said:
Slipper. That is exactly the same question I asked on another thread. I'm still waiting for someone with more experience to tell me how having km/h on the x axis is helpful to the owner. :eek:)

I tend to trust the CAPA dyno chart. The torque line looks almost identical in shape to the dyno I had done on the weekend. Freaky!
I agree with you, km/h on the X-axis is just plain useless. Somebody needs to teach these dyno guys how to display RPM. Dyno Dynamics certainly supports this option.

Note that I am not saying that the CAPA chart is dodgy, only that the "torque" values displayed on it are useless.
 

·
Rip Up The Track Join OFR
Joined
·
6,021 Posts
take your car down the 1/4 mile get a few times, then do your mods take it down the 1/4 agian then you will see what your gains are...
 
1 - 20 of 49 Posts
Top