The 2nd MS6 Build-a-Beast in the country!!!

I am curious as to why your hp is significantly higher than your tq though. I have no problem doing the honors and being the first 11 sec speed on here. I think I'll change my name at that point to "PIONEER."

Are you serious? Any turbo thats not being over worked will put out more hp then tq hence why my little k04 was 70 tq over my hp on a high psi pull.....
 
Are you serious? Any turbo thats not being over worked will put out more hp then tq hence why my little k04 was 70 tq over my hp on a high psi pull.....

actually dynopacks and dynojets use a different method to load vehicles, hence why they are the least expensive alternative and show controversial figures. most companies will purchase them for the simple fact that they will gauge a variance from a stock vehicle pull to a modified vehicle pull but giving true torque and horsepower numbers are where they fall short. it all depends on what you are looking for. i will have some answers this week when i do a quarter-mile pull on the mustang all wheel and then take it to the drag strip to show the level of accuracy.
 
actually dynopacks and dynojets use a different method to load vehicles, hence why they are the least expensive alternative and show controversial figures. most companies will purchase them for the simple fact that they will gauge a variance from a stock vehicle pull to a modified vehicle pull but giving true torque and horsepower numbers are where they fall short. it all depends on what you are looking for. i will have some answers this week when i do a quarter-mile pull on the mustang all wheel and then take it to the drag strip to show the level of accuracy.

ok you do that...
 
that coming from Mr. Pissed I blew my engine and quit
+ you are only posting that on 247 makes this funny actually roll on the floor funny

I'd love to see a speed 3 or 6 put down some times like you say

but I'll wait to hear that the car is not street driven and that the original DI set up is no longer used to accomplish the above mentioned 10.9ET

unless you were at an 1/8 mile track which makes your 10.9 "you witnessed" suck eggs lol

trust me when I say we'll all be waiting for the full write up and mod list so all of the hard work that went into that car can help the Mazdaspeed community move forward.

check my post! i fixed the blown engine!!!! (bird) but then the car got totaled! by some guy who hit me!!!(braindead also i only post in this forum!!!! and i did a thread on that car and explained all i know! and you have not really accomplish nothing great! track your car to see if after all this time you got it to be faster than mine! I WILL LOVE AND HOPE YOU DID! but most likely you havent! (sleep) SO dont dare to even judge me if you dont know the story! (nuts)


oww BTW! my 12.8 and his 10.9 were both on 1/4 mile tracks!
 
check my post! i fixed the blown engine!!!! (bird) but then the car got totaled! by some guy who hit me!!!(braindead also i only post in this forum!!!! and i did a thread on that car and explained all i know! and you have not really accomplish nothing great! track your car to see if after all this time you got it to be faster than mine! I WILL LOVE AND HOPE YOU DID! but most likely you havent! (sleep) SO dont dare to even judge me if you dont know the story! (nuts)


oww BTW! my 12.8 and his 10.9 were both on 1/4 mile tracks!
wow.... talk about the pot calling the kettle black...

where is your thread where you revealed everything about this ultra speed6?
 
well yesterday didn't pan out as expected, but I think I learned a great deal about this car. I had the car on the mustang dyno. I hit a fuel cut at 5500rpm. The car made 309.8 hp @ 5500rpm and 310.8 tq @ 4750 on 22 psi. The hp curve still was on a 20 degree angle and if it would have reached 6500rpm or higher it would have easily yielded 335-340hp. If I was on a dynojet, my 310hp would read 350-355hp. All of this is really water under the bridge. I will be at the track tomorrow and then post my time, even with the fuel cut which I have managed to control somewhat but not entirely. Thanks to Jordan at cp-e for helping me make sense of some of the stand back settings and my datalogs, we seem to think that the MAF sensor is being used at its full potential (maxed out). This makes alot of sense because the fuel pressure demand in forth gear is quite high, 1st and 2nd, the FPv is 3.8ish but third gear it ramps up to 4.5v and 4th is even more load on the engine but the pressure isnt as high. I used the stand back and pulled 1 percent of MAF from my tune between the key areas where the cut was taking place, 5800-6000rpm mostly in 4th gear and up. This dropped the MAF voltage from 4.79 to 4.71. (on a side note MAF never gets higher than 4.82v no matter what in any gear). I cant lie to the ecu too much more about the MAF because my AFR's are 12.5 at this point (WOT) via the dashhawk. They do not go any higher though, but it's best to be between 11.5-11.9 usually. I can be a bit more aggressive because my compression is 8.8:1. Knock retard was pretty much non existent at this point so everything should be ok.

I would like to know if anybody has similar results with fuel cut. I do have a splitsec MAP clamp wired to the map sensor, and i'm using the boost clip settings in the stand back. I tried the clip at 13psi (3.56v on the MAP) and 6psi (2.66v on the MAP). Once again the problem is not MAP related but seems to be MAF based on fuel trends. I'm wondering if I can get a different MAF sensor for the car, something that reads higher than the rated 5v, something like 6v. Also, I was wondering if I change my cp-e CAI to a SRI where the MAF housing is a bit larger and doesn't taper down as much would that make the air less dense and lower my initial MAF voltage? Appreciate any info. Thanks.
 
Last edited:

New Threads and Articles

Back