Offical SCCOA Top HP List

Jacob_Royer

SCCoA Member
Casey A aron 805hp/750tq 4.2/m5/turbo

Corey Binkiewicz 737hp/674tq 3.8/m6/turbo

David Dalke 537hp/528tq 4.2/???/2.0ar

Ryan Zimmerly 506hp/479tq 3.8/aod/2.1

David Neibert 504/467tq 4.2/aod/2.3 whipple

John Ludorf 484hp/455tq 3.8/m6/2.0l

Keith Nichols 478rwhp/467tq 3.8/4r70w/MPx/n20

Ziad Baroody 478hp/435tq 2.3L TVS 4.2 AOD

Ricardo Alfonseca 471hp/441Tq 3.8/m5/2.1

David Clark 470hp/469tq 3.8/m6/1.7/n20

Randy Hunerkoch 459hp/557tq 3.8/m5/1.7/n20

David Rowe 451hp /475tq 3.8/m5/turbo

Michael Inch 444hp/523tq 3.8/m5/mpx/n20

Christopher Wise 442hp/404tq 4.2/4r70w/d1sc

Paul Smarsh 1990 35th anny 2.3 tv's 3.8 aod 437hp/401tq

Chris Homan 430hp/464tq/m5/1.7

Molly Norris 423hp/449tq 3.8/m5/turbsky

90blkbird 402hp/407tq 3.8/m5/1.7

Phillip Dalke 399hp/409tq 3.8/m5/mpx

Jacob Royer 395hp/409tq 4.2/aod/whipple

Derek Thompson 385/474 4.2/m5/mpx

Daniel Michael Boyd 380hp/456tq 3.8/aod/mpxs

Zach Casswell 370hp/339tq 3.8/c4/mpx

William Yaunce 311hp/344tq 3/8/aod/mpx

Jimmy White 306hp/388tq 3.8/m5/Magnaport 1 M90

Matt Haub 301hp/375tq 3.8/m5/sport

Jeff Bratton 273hp/347tq 3.8/aod/mpiii/300k stock longblock

Benjamin L. Goering 272hp/347tq ??/??/??

Kurt Sunday 250hp/338tq 3.8/aod/late model/190k stock longblock


Rules:

Must be a mn12 OR an SC engine
Must be a FORD engine
To be on the list you must post a dyno sheet
I need hp/tq/engine/trans/power adder

Someone please make this a sticky! I will update as i get more! The pulls posted here have all been verified with a Dyno sheet on the Sccoa FB post.
 
Last edited:
I did 456 hp 415tq actual 437hp 401tq corrected on a base tune by Dave D.

Paul Smarsh 1990 35th anny 2.3 tv's 3.8 aod 437hp/401tq corrected
 

Attachments

  • IMG_20150224_0002.pdf
    417.9 KB · Views: 144
Last edited:
Can someone explain the whole corrected variable that happens at TI

As with any dyno test that is properly administered, there is a weather correction applied. Otherwise I could do a pull in January that no one could match. All dyno runs are (or should be corrected). There are, across the industry, typically two standards that are used. One standard is called just that - Standard- This corrects the numbers to 60deg and sea level standard air pressure. STD numbers are always going to be higher than the other more modern and popular standard - SAE. The SAE standard was developed to make numbers more realistic and repeatable. The SAE standard is 77 deg and standard 14.7psi ambient air pressure.

TI's Mustang Dyno records both actual and SAE values based on weather station readings in the shop at the time. Most other reputable dynos also record and print SAE numbers. If you don't see SAE on your sheet, then it might be STD or actual values. Actual values vary the most. I know for a fact some of the cars here were dyno'd in the middle of winter and some were dyno'd in the middle of summer with 100 deg heat. SAE does not correct for a heat soaked intercooler or one that is literally frozen. Results will always vary.

It's not a variable. It's a correction factor and it's an industry standard. That being said, EVERY shop will occasionally experience errors in software or hardware that can skew results. In the case of TI Dyno leading up to the 2017 Shootout, there was a fault in the calibration values that caused numbers to read 40-80hp low. For example, Ira's car dyno'd 427rwhp the day he left for the Shootout, but the error likely means his car was closer to 490rwhp. I can't prove that and so his car must stand on his old numbers.

Things like this happen, but our dyno is quite literally one of the most accurate and consistent in existence. Period. And I stand on that. One of the "problems" that we often run into with dyno'ing cars here is that the car might be a fresh build, or it might have problems that are being diagnosed, etc. It's hard to get a reliable number under conditions like that. But as an example of how consistent the dyno is, we took a car that had been built quite a few years ago and was running fine and dyno'd it back in summer. In October we dyno'd the car again. Check the chart. Different day, different weather, look how close the result mirrored each other. The only real difference is that the one pull shows significant wheel spin and hence a lower torque reading in the lower/mid range.

IMG_4272.JPG
 
So how can we tell if the numbers are corrected or standard or gross?

Seems like the list becomes less relevant without that piece of information.
 
So how can we tell if the numbers are corrected or standard or gross?

Seems like the list becomes less relevant without that piece of information.

It should be printed on the dyno sheet. Like 90blkbrd it says SAE power and torque.
 
On Mustang Dyno's you can specify any correction value you want, which is why it says "WCF" which simply means "With Correction Factor". In our case it's SAE as I have set and verified this myself, but it also means that another Mustang Dyno can have any "correction factor" in place and no way for you to verify it after the fact.

This is one of the reasons that DynoJet is preferred for dyno competitions and comparisons. It's easier to compare the numbers because Dynojet software doesn't allow as many user input corrections.
But Mustang Dyno's have way more capabilities than a Dynojet so for tuning purposes, it's vastly superior, but it is also subject to more manipulations.

Other dyno's such as DynoPak and others are even more into the tuning end and less and less into the comparison end of things. A Dyno Dynamics dyno sheet has little relevance compared to a Mustang or Dynojet chart. There are too many user programmable variables with those dyno's since they are designed primarily as tuning tools, not as avenues for internet competition.

It's also worth noting that Dynojet in particular has radically changed the way that it interprets the raw data during a dyno pull over the years. So if your shop happens to be using really old Dynojet software, or if you have a chart from may years ago, it's entirely possible that your numbers today on a modern DynoJet would be entirely different. This is one of the reasons that we find when everything is working well here (like it wasn't this year) our corrected numbers are nearly identical to those generated on Backstreet's dyno. They have the latest Dynojet software which is pretty accurate, and Erik is very adamant about his calibrations, etc. Since they do highly regulated dyno testing for the road racing community (like the American Iron Series, for example) their equipment has to be dead on and its verified regularly.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top