Im not saying your BSing. I was just surprised to see your stock 4.2 to have as much as my 4.6 with a CAI and catback thats all.

 

I still want to know what kind of dyno it was, looks prehistoric.

 

it probably was one designed for lawnmowers

 

I guess he can be happy he has more RWHP than a sport bike does ...

I'm just kidding, it's in good fun bud.

 

As I'm not a "dyno queen", I won't comment too deeply. BUT i was under the impression that the dynometer readout should have your torque ALWAYS crossing hp at 5252 rpms. Some universal law... oh thats right,
HP = (TORQUE X RPM) / 5252. So on a graph reviewing torque as well as rwhp, the numerical value of torque and horsepower will be equal as long as the constant, 5252 is present. I do BELIEVE, and say believe because i can't actually read the graph to well, that 5252 is present. If it ISN'T, and you didn't rap out that far, then the horsepowe and torque figures should never meet, which they do. So while you say people can call B.S. all day, thats what you got, everyone would be right. It is a B.S. chart (not trying to burst your bubble, but you did want LEGITIMATE baselines so you could validate the price of mods) and people CAN call B.S. cause that's what that picture represents. Someone correct me if i'm incorrect here, i'd hate to sound this mean for nothing. Not trying to be, please understand that. But you deserve what you pay for, and it appears you didn't get it, so i'd go have a conversation with the shady character that ran the test. My $1.12

 

My post was skewed, someone come pick it apart. But one more question, how does the third run, where the engine would be the hottest, contain the best run? Only minutes apart? Isn't that reversed of most dyno runs? Gets LOWER as heat sinks set in, unless of course it's being tuned? As well as the HP figure being RIGHT AT 15-16% accounted for parasitic loss throughout the drivetrain... It would have actually been a PERFECT dyno run right off the showroom floor, if everything had been correct. Average allowed for loss runs 15-25%, depending on who you talk to. So from engines max man. output, to actual screened, that WOULD be quite impressive....

 

This is directly from their site.

Dynocom Model XXXX Chassis Dyno.

http://www.chandlertechnologies.com/dyno.php

 

Well thats pretty high #'s if you ask me, My bolt on 4x4 4.6L made 184/249 on a Dynojet with 1.01 CF, it was an almost perfect day, but thats with 135,000 miles at the time. And to be putting it through a Ford AT, thats pretty outrageous. We dyno'd a all stock 97 4x4 4.6 with 105,000 and it made 145/205 out of a 4r70w.

 

Our 98 Mustang GT 4.6 L with an auto put down only 180ish at the wheels on a mustang dyno... my bolt on 5.0 mustang put down 200hp/300 tq on the same dyno... If a v6 stock f150 can make power between these two cars then there's something fishy going on. Sure the dyno I ran on is probably one that will show the least power because it is "special" but still pretty damn close for a 4.2 liter?? oh well. i guess I'm done ranting for now. party on!

 

what does the users website have to do with any of this? I can read "that they are GOING TO INSTALL THE DYNO IN 2006...." When its friggin 2008 and the opening page STILL says they'll have it done in 06. These appear, and this is strictly based on web appearance, like guys who have done a lot of hands on work. Which is awesome, as they offer custom fab jobs. BUT! I know plenty of "wrenchers" who have attempted to tune customers cars after THEY installed a set of turbos, and had to call in for help. They can tuck it in and make it look and ****ion great mechanically, but when the tuning comes to computers, it doesn't take a lot, or really anything at all, to throw something off. Its bogus, bottom line. If it helps you sleep at night, stick to the numbers. But why wouldn't a company want you to show up and then blast out some inflated dyno queen drama, just to keep you liking them.... "Well compant X said i had 200 hp, but company Z said only 184, so company X is a better tuning shop!" When in all reality its the other way around more times than not.

 

.. taking it to heart much?

I agree completely but you seem to be a tad bent out of shape about it. Who cares? It's not like it effects anyone of us, other than the OP.

 

geez if I knew this was going to get me flamed or bring so much drama I wouldn't have posted the numbers. Next time I'll just keep them to myself. Saying its Bogus bottom line is pretty arrogant without any proof to back it up. And I sleep just fine, thanks for your concern

 

w/o any proof to back it up-ok you have the only 4.2 v6 in this world to put out v 8 numbers- we were all mistaken

 

No kidding, not to mention it's got a "few" miles on it. I guess it's just getting broken in ...

 

funny thumper- something we agree on