JB4 and Injen Intake Dyno Results

[19GT]

I've been lurking on this site since buying a Stinger in Sept. I had a JB4 and Injen intakes installed about a month ago and was a bit surprised (disappointed) to see the dyno results.

First, the stock put down 340 whp when it was dyno'd the day before. The following day, JB4 Map 0 put down 333 whp. I get that different conditions between the two days could have played a role, but I still wouldn't have expected it to show that I lost hp after adding the intakes. Could the fact that the Map 0 run (12:05pm) took place at the end (Map 2 result was done at 11:52am and Map 1 was 11:50am - I have a hard copy of the results that shows times and max hp and tq numbers) have had an impact?

Second, Map 2 put down 388 whp and 443 torque, which was +55 and +65 from what Map 0 put down at the last run and only +48 whp from what stock showed before adding intakes. I guess that I thought both mods combined would have led to higher numbers. What type of hp and tq gains could I expect from something like map 5 if I find access to 100 octane gas?

Third, Map 1 did 383 whp and 432 torque, which was only -5 and -11 from what Map 2 did. I would have expected a larger gains from Map 2. Map 1 run was done first and Map 2 run was 2 minutes after, so maybe that factored into why it did not show greater gains?

Any insights into the above would be appreciated, as I am still obviously quite green and trying to learn how all of this works. Thanks!

 

[19GT]

Forgot to mention that I had the plugs changed as well. The tuning place said they ordered HKS like I told them, but got sent the wrong plugs. They had NGK - LFR7AIX (which are Iridium, high performance plugs, I believe) in stock and said they were compatible, so they used those instead. Car had 93 octane in it.

 

[runner1]

That’s 440 flywheel and over 500 foot lbs torque....that pretty significant gain. Doing map zero would’ve had the highest temperatures for the IAT and absolutely would affect #s. What was the temperature when you get this?

 

[Terry@BMS]

Gains look good. MD dynos are a real crap shoot and will vary dramatically day to day based on their settings.

You would need to see the JB4 logs from the dyno runs for any useful analysis on it.

 

[HerbieTheCar]

Gains look good. MD dynos are a real crap shoot and will vary dramatically day to day based on their settings.

You would need to see the JB4 logs from the dyno runs for any useful analysis on it.

I'm interested in getting mine Dyno'd in the Spring, what brand of dynamometer would be the most accurate/the ones that BMS uses?

 

[Terry@BMS]

Dynojet is the only machine to use if you plan to do any sort of internet comparisons.

 

[Shenanigans302]

mustang dyno vs dynojet - Google Search

I used a Google link not to be a tool but this is an on going debate on car boards. I’ve always been told that a mustang dyno provides more real world as it has a load during the run. That’s why the numbers are often lower. Where as a dynojet is run without a load and the numbers are often higher. If you put your car on a dynojet you’ll likely “make” more power.

 

[Terry@BMS]

There are a lot of differences. MD are load based so the power output will depend on the load settings and correction factors used. Which is why they are worthless for internet comparisons. I do prefer tuning high HP vehicles on a MD or other brand load dynos though as that simulates more real world conditions. But 98% of the customers on forums are looking for internet numbers. So it has to be a dynojet.

 

[Regs120]

Even so, why was there minimal difference between map 1 and map 2 using the same dyno? What could cause that?

 

[Terry@BMS]

Charts look like a normal difference to me. Beyond that you'd need JB4 logs for any useful tuning analysis. No physic powers here.