|
Author
|
Topic: yet another set of dyno results
|
JoeT
¯
Member # 298
|
posted
 
 
don't have the graph (will post later tonight)
but: raw #'s are...
318.0 rwhp @ 5700, where air/fuel was ~13.7:1
340.9 rwtq @ 3800, where air/fuel was 13.8 ~1
this was the first pull, car is currently my daily driver (bad tahoe, bad) but I did just put a set of fresh 3924's in, gapped to 0.05
car had a short belt (bypassed PS, smog, and AC) but no underdrives, and tranny is a tremec 3550. Two fat bags of ice on the intake.
stage 0.5 home ported TFS TW heads, stock springs, home ported stage 1 'typhoon' (aka POS performer RPM knockoff) intake, Anderson N-41 cam (222/230 @0.05, 110 LSA, .512/.512, installed 105.5 ICL 3k miles ago)
65mm TB, and home ported stock EGR spacer (probably 63mm), 30# injectors, 75mm PRO-M maf, Anderson fenderwell cold-air intake.
run #1: baseline, what I've ended up at after roughly 4 visits to the track , fuel pressure and timing tuned for ET.
318.0 RWHP, 337.5 RWTQ
run #2: saw the graph tending a little lean, so I changed the fuel setting from 37.75 PSI vac off to 39.25 PSI (a 90 turn on the AFPR). air fuel went from ~13.5- 13.8 to ~12.5 ~12.8
+ heat soak, - 0.7 HP, +2.2 TQ
317.3 RWHP, 339.7 RWTQ
run #3:
since I went the wrong way on the fuel, I aimed for slightly more fuel than the first run, 38 PSI vac-off. Also I added about 1.5 degrees of timing to ~17 BTDC (91 octane used)
317.7 RWHP, 340.9 RWTQ
+ heat soak, + 0.4 HP, + 1.2 TQ
#'s from the ricer dyno look good, but the tuning session was a failure. I conclude nothing but that my original settings might have been the best. Possibly a HP gain from the timing change. I don't honestly know.
dyno operator did say that I came in about 10 RWHP higher than the typical completely stock M6 LS1.
I'll post the graph later, but feel free to hate on the ricer dyno. ![[patriot]](graemlins/patriot.gif)
--------------------
1984 Ford Tempo AOD--- RIP
Posts: 6785 | From: San Jose | Registered: Jun 2001
| :
|
|
JoeT
¯
Member # 298
|
posted
oh yeah, non SAE adjusted, temperatures in Fremont today were ~ 87 degrees, no idea on pressure, I'll look up a density altitude and try to convert.
here's a pic: I'll try to make it look better (better resolution) damn digi-cam.
this looks better...
[ July 01, 2003, 08:01 PM: Message edited by: shade-tree ]
--------------------
1984 Ford Tempo AOD--- RIP
Posts: 6785 | From: San Jose | Registered: Jun 2001
| :
|
|
Stimson
_
Member # 51
|
posted
Dude, you need SAE numbers to compare with other people. Call them up and ask for the file if you didn't get the SAE graph. I conclude from your tuning results that your motor isn't very sensative to timing and air fuel ratio.... then again surprise, its a NA motor ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Posts: 2373 | Registered: Jun 2000
| :
|
|
Primer GR40
¯
Member # 476
|
posted
why no spray?
--------------------
Superdupercharged Cobra
No Transmatic Notch
Posts: 2108 | Registered: Sep 2001
| :
|
|
JoeT
¯
Member # 298
|
posted
>300 rwhp from 4700 to where the MSD 6200 pill ended the party. ![[Whoo Whooooo!]](graemlins/woowoo.gif)
I'll double check my #'s, but preliminary air/density conversion from today's weather in Fremont @ 2:30 PM turns 318.0 rwhp into 324 rwhp.
--------------------
1984 Ford Tempo AOD--- RIP
Posts: 6785 | From: San Jose | Registered: Jun 2001
| :
|
|
FordPny
¯
Member # 510
|
posted
Great Numbers,
What happend to the merk?
--------------------
Holla at yoo boooyyy
Posts: 2458 | From: San Jose CA | Registered: Oct 2001
| :
|
|
Stimson
_
Member # 51
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by shade-tree:
>300 rwhp from 4700 to where the MSD 6200 pill ended the party.
I'll double check my #'s, but preliminary air/density conversion from today's weather in Fremont @ 2:30 PM turns 318.0 rwhp into 324 rwhp.
Does the Y axis of your graph say "SAE HP" or "Actual HP"?
Posts: 2373 | Registered: Jun 2000
| :
|
|
JoeT
¯
Member # 298
|
posted
actual
--------------------
1984 Ford Tempo AOD--- RIP
Posts: 6785 | From: San Jose | Registered: Jun 2001
| :
|
|
67stang
¯
Member # 549
|
posted
good numbers joe. I'd love to see your graph. You're making peak torque at a interestingly low rpm for that cam!
Posts: 596 | Registered: Nov 2001
| :
|
|
Stimson
_
Member # 51
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by shade-tree:
actual
Boo! We want SAE numbers ![[Mad]](mad.gif)
Posts: 2373 | Registered: Jun 2000
| :
|
|
FordPny
¯
Member # 510
|
posted
just blew by my post 
--------------------
Holla at yoo boooyyy
Posts: 2458 | From: San Jose CA | Registered: Oct 2001
| :
|
|
FasterDamnit
Bad Attitude
Member # 442
|
posted
Hmm, looks like I need to change my intake since I only pulled 315rwhp corrected. Good numbers Joe!
Posts: 2971 | From: NorCal | Registered: Sep 2001
| :
|
|
JoeT
¯
Member # 298
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by FordPny:
just blew by my post
come on dude, the Merkur is sitting on the side of the road where it's been for a few months and it's going to be for a few more ![[worship]](graemlins/worship.gif)
--------------------
1984 Ford Tempo AOD--- RIP
Posts: 6785 | From: San Jose | Registered: Jun 2001
| :
|
|
Hungry Hippo
¯
Member # 537
|
posted
whats a ricer dyno?
--------------------
05 S4 Avant(wagon)
09 C6 H/C/I
Posts: 2959 | From: east bay | Registered: Nov 2001
| :
|
|
Stimson
_
Member # 51
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by HungryHippo:
whats a ricer dyno?
This dyno in fremont at a riceboy shop that seems to read about 20 HP too high.
Posts: 2373 | Registered: Jun 2000
| :
|
|
JoeT
¯
Member # 298
|
posted
this is starting to remind of the joke where the guy says to his wife 'Hey! quick! get me a beer before it starts!'
(sorry if you haven't heard the joke)
... Wife, upset, grudgingly gets a beer.
10 minutes later, man to wife 'Hey! Looks like there's still time! get me another beer before it starts.....'
... Wife, yells back ' You lazy, good for nothing slob, I cook, clean, and work a fulltime job....'
Husband buts in... 'Oh shit. It's started'
lol.
--------------------
1984 Ford Tempo AOD--- RIP
Posts: 6785 | From: San Jose | Registered: Jun 2001
| :
|
|
Stimson
_
Member # 51
|
posted
Here is the joke: X
Here is my head: O
Posts: 2373 | Registered: Jun 2000
| :
|
|
AaronC
¯
Member # 86
|
posted
Good #'s Joe. They were better than I expected, but I'll give my props when I'm wrong. Slap on them pullies, and mill them heads when they come off.
--------------------
1991 GT Convertible: Stock 157k mile shortblock, HiTech cam, AFR 165 heads, Edelbrock RPM intake, 1 3/4 headers
12.23 at 112.99
Best MPH 113.97
Posts: 776 | From: woodland | Registered: Dec 2000
| :
|
|
Hungry Hippo
¯
Member # 537
|
posted
is it ATP? i have an appt there next monday... i'm only interested in the air/fuel readings though.
Posts: 2959 | From: east bay | Registered: Nov 2001
| :
|
|
JoeT
¯
Member # 298
|
posted
yes, ATP, and the dyno is a dynojet, and the air/fuel is just a sniffer up a tailpipe (I didn't alternate tailpipes, but that would be interesting data). I agree, getting the air/fuel right is probably most important.
I'm going to try in the next week or two on a 150 shot and see what happens.
thks Aaron: everybody's favorite whipping-boy combo signing in ![[Razz]](tongue.gif) (TFS + Anderson = poop)
but st5150 is probably right: my track #'s only indicate 300 rwhp max. *BUT* I am very consistent, and I have been only revving the car to a shiftpoint of 5800-6000 at the track.
With this data I'm going to ring the bitch out and it seems like an extender and ~ 6400 rpm shift points might be ideal ,I'll post the graph and maybe you guys can tell me I'm wrong on that, but I'm looking at 310 rwhp at 6200, and 310 rwhp at 5000 even, for instance, which tells me I think I can rev it another 200 rwhp for a net HP gain at the track. Then again, just wringing it another 200 rpm from where I currently short-shift it should be all I need for a few 11's on motor so I guess I don't really need it, although it might help in taking down Jon
also I could probably be talked into 4.10s if it's really worth another tenth or two which I suspect it is (3.73s currently)
Posts: 6785 | From: San Jose | Registered: Jun 2001
| :
|
|
jmcclesk
Moderator
Member # 1355
|
posted
Good job joe. nice # . Dont get too happy thought, for the first time in 3 months I have finished up ALL the side work I have. i will be able to work on my car. If all goes well I should be up and running in 2-3 weeks hopefuly with 11.80's. ![[burnout]](graemlins/burnout.gif)
[ July 01, 2003, 07:01 PM: Message edited by: jmcclesk ]
--------------------
Ford trained ASE master tech.
Posts: 4024 | From: marrysville | Registered: May 2002
| :
|
|
AaronC
¯
Member # 86
|
posted
Sounds like a very flat and long curve with lots of AVG power. I'm impressed, seriously. The only reason I haven't been an Anderson fan is because they usually lack a lot of midrange power, and use RPM as the way to make HP. Usually needing more RPM to attain the same level of power, and needing bigger parts to do it. Your setup seems very efficient and well above avg when compared to others I've seen. I'd have to agree, shift it higher and more MPH should come
--------------------
1991 GT Convertible: Stock 157k mile shortblock, HiTech cam, AFR 165 heads, Edelbrock RPM intake, 1 3/4 headers
12.23 at 112.99
Best MPH 113.97
Posts: 776 | From: woodland | Registered: Dec 2000
| :
|
|
67stang
¯
Member # 549
|
posted
Joe,
Did you get a table with avg HP calculated (say between 2800 and 5500?)
Posts: 596 | Registered: Nov 2001
| :
|
|
JoeT
¯
Member # 298
|
posted
nope. The graph doesn't have much room for me to do much more than guess at HP#'s at the intersectoin points
--------------------
1984 Ford Tempo AOD--- RIP
Posts: 6785 | From: San Jose | Registered: Jun 2001
| :
|
|
FasterDamnit
Bad Attitude
Member # 442
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by shade-tree:
nope. The graph doesn't have much room for me to do much more than guess at HP#'s at the intersectoin points
And it has 350 on one side and 400 on the other. Typical. If you set both sides the same, makes it a lot easier to extrapolate. So, plug the graph numbers into Excel and calculate the averages.
Posts: 2971 | From: NorCal | Registered: Sep 2001
| :
|
|
Email this post to someone!
Printer friendly view of this Ford topic
