That would work out to 600hp at the crank assuming 20% drivetrain loss. Since the base X50 is 440 @ crank, I'm pretty okay with my results (about 510hp @ crank). And that is exactly what FVD's web site promised (although my torque is a lot lower than their estimates).

 

I didn't want to rain on your parade, but that's what I was thinking. The torque seems rather low, although the curve is very flat. Was this on 93 octane?

 

Ya. There was a post a while back with someone at FVD claiming there is no gain with higher octane. On FVD's web site, their torque curve is very peaky.

 

Sounds like you are going to get the upgraded wastegates. you won't need to dyno it afterwards. You'll just know you've reclaimed the missing torque/HP.

I have a similar setup with GIAC. My dyno run was RWD on a Dynojet (which are known to read higher) running 91 octane, 80 degree day, max boost 1.1 BAR (I have since tightened the wastegates an run a solid 1.2). Almost every parameter was different!

 

Maybe I won't need to ... but I will

 

Great! We need empirical conformation.

 

I think you may have problems with upgraded wg with the fvd programming. fvd has an agressive 1.1-1.2 program that doesn't need upgraded wgs the extra boost is programmed.

 

Ohhh. What a twist!!!! Just when it seemed so simple.

 

i also think those dyno numbers look very low. I have seen dyno's of stage 2 cars (k16's with chip and exhaust) putting down about the same hp to the wheels. A stage 2 car should be between 500-510 at the crank, so i think you should be at least at 550 at the crank.

 

Oak,

I ran the upgraded wastegates with K16/24 turbos and FVD Stage 4 software (1.2 bar program) and did not have any problems at all - the car ran perfectly. Whether I really needed the wategates or not, I'm not sure, but Speed Gallery put together the kit and recommended them, so I took their advice and I was very pleased with the final product. No wastegate problems.

 

john, fvd has some aggressive prog that aren't well known and offered to general public. there are some programs that have issues with ob and will go into limp mode. I'm sure if sg put a kit together it's done well.

 

Here is a dyno graph of a 2004 X50 that we did a while back on our 4wd Dynojet. Car had Fabspeed version 3 exhaust, fabspeed headers, BMC filter, and PES ECU software. These numbers are at the rear wheels, because the customer has the driveshaft removed from the car.

 

YIKES! I don't even know what to say. That's a huge difference. Do you have a stock baseline for the car? If not that one, do you have any stock X50 graphs? Is it possible that Dynojet tries to simulate crank hp on its output? Cause his hp number is very close to my estimated crank numbers. Although his graph shows my torque curve is definitely lacking.

 

Dynojet on RWD vs. Mustang on AWD = apples to oranges.
However, either way, peak torque should definitely exceed peak hp.

 

I did not post the graph to compare a dynojet to a mustang Just trying to throw out what kind of numbers we saw on our dyno which are similar to the numbers ari put down with his car on a dynojet
These numbers are to the wheels, and are not corrected numbers to the crank!