This is topic Dyno Time! Fun Fun Fun. in forum Tech Talk at Northern California Ford Owners .
To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://californiafords.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=6;t=002833
Posted by FasterDamnit (Member # 442) on
:
Went to Advanced Dyno in Suisun (Fairfield) 707-425-DYNO. I am quite pleased with the results. Anyone want to guess?
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posted by flatacid (Member # 878) on
:
im guessing 280rwhp. but i have no idea. just tell us! ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
Posted by bunchmyfunky (Member # 360) on
:
Can I guess ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posted by st5150 (Member # 51) on
:
304.3 RWHP
I just used 111.6 mph, 3250 lbs going down the track and 15% drivetrain loss.
Posted by FasterDamnit (Member # 442) on
:
Why not use 111.95?
The baseline was lower then that, but you hit the post tune number pretty close.
303hp 336.4lb/ft ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
I hit my goal w/ use parts and tight budget. HP peak was right at 5250 and TQ was 4450. Time to try long tubes and retard the cam (one at a time , of course.) But first, back to the track! Who's with me?! AAaaaaaahhhhhh!!!!
![[burnout]](graemlins/burnout.gif)
Posted by st5150 (Member # 51) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by FasterDamnit:
Why not use 111.95?
You only listed 11.6 in your sig so thats what I used
So what were the basline numbers? What was your air fuel ratio at? And what/how did you tune it on the dyno?
So far the these are the only 300+ rwhp 302's I know of around here:
Team-Solo 310rwhp?(stock bottem end, ported windsor heads, edelbrock intake, dunno the cam, but it was healthy)
Jon 327rwhp?((stock bottem end, ported TFS heads, TFS 1 cam, forgot the intake)
FasterDamnit 303 rwhp ((stock bottem end, ported TFS heads, TFS 1 cam, ported cobra intake)
AaronC 340 rwhp (306, AFR165's, ported RPM intake, custom cam)
Posted by FasterDamnit (Member # 442) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by st5150:
quote:
Originally posted by FasterDamnit:
Why not use 111.95?
You only listed 11.6 in your sig so thats what I used
So what were the basline numbers? What was your air fuel ratio at? And what/how did you tune it on the dyno?
So far the these are the only 300+ rwhp 302's I know of around here:
Team-Solo 310rwhp?(stock bottem end, ported windsor heads, edelbrock intake, dunno the cam, but it was healthy)
Jon 327rwhp?((stock bottem end, ported TFS heads, TFS 1 cam, forgot the intake)
FasterDamnit 303 rwhp ((stock bottem end, ported TFS heads, TFS 1 cam, ported cobra intake)
AaronC 340 rwhp (306, AFR165's, ported RPM intake, custom cam)
Look again, oh slow one. The details will come in an article for F/M. I adjusted F/P and timing. And I ran the short belt to emulate track conditions. It was worth 5hp (one run w/ reg belt.) Made the fuel adj. base on initial ratio. Now its between 12.5 and 13.
Posted by shade-tree (Member # 298) on
:
sounds good! I hope I can hit that number too ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Posted by FasterDamnit (Member # 442) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by shade-tree:
sounds good! I hope I can hit that number too
Did you race today? I would think you should hit it. How much porting was done?
Posted by shade-tree (Member # 298) on
:
no, but I resolved my exhaust leak and vacuum leak today ![[patriot]](graemlins/patriot.gif)
[ January 20, 2003, 03:33 PM: Message edited by: shade-tree ]
Posted by FasterDamnit (Member # 442) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by shade-tree:
is somebody giving me up already? remind me to kick him in the nuts ![[Mad]](mad.gif)
Umm, you posted pics, Joe. It was kinda obvious. The finish in the intake ports plus the size. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Posted by st5150 (Member # 51) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by FasterDamnit:
Look again, oh slow one. The details will come in an article for F/M. I adjusted F/P and timing. And I ran the short belt to emulate track conditions. It was worth 5hp (one run w/ reg belt.) Made the fuel adj. base on initial ratio. Now its between 12.5 and 13.
--------------------
Jim Langley
Tech Editor, Fordmuscle.com
'65 Coupe, 289, no tranny!
'92 LX T5Z
Looks stock, goes 12's! 303rwhp/336rwtq 12.37 @ 111.64 mph, 1.82 60ft. on Nitto's, Ported Cobra Intake, Twisted Wedge heads, 1.7 rockers, TFS stage 1 cam, C&L 76mm MAF w/ pipe, 65mm TB, 3.73's, pulleys, short belt, ice, Nitto's, shorties- MAC Prochamber+catback
New best 60 ft.- 1.75!(ET Streets) Best mph- 111.95
Green Machine II
Nope, still says 11.6 MPH my fellow slow one. Your 5 rwhp short belt gain is consistant with a 4 rwhp gain I saw dyno tested on a stocker AOD car. Then again according to Ed Curtis the great, we know nothing. I've watched several hundred Mustang's dyno and walked away with nothing and you my friend have a rinky dink fluke combo
Posted by shade-tree (Member # 298) on
:
umm, whatever, they aren't even gasket matched, lol. runner size is totally stock.
call it stage 0.5 porting if you must. didn't touch bowl area.
I sanded down the carbon buildup in the exhaust, basically, and cleaned all the oil build up crap on the valves, lol.
Posted by FasterDamnit (Member # 442) on
:
best mph- 111.95.
Dufus.
Oh, yeah, Ed compared me to Bob Cosby's 12.5 w/ stock motor. Made me feel warm and fuzzy. I am such an underacheiver...
[ January 20, 2003, 03:40 PM: Message edited by: FasterDamnit ]
Posted by shade-tree (Member # 298) on
:
oh, my guess is that Long tubes will be worth about 5 rwhp and TQ across the board on your car. Possibly closer to 10
When you switch, just try and remember all the good times you had with swapping your shorty headers around and not having a hassle.
Posted by st5150 (Member # 51) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by FasterDamnit:
best mph- 111.95.
Dufus.
Oh, yeah, Ed compared me to Bob Cosby's 12.5 w/ stock motor. Made me feel warm and fuzzy. I am such an underacheiver...
Doh, your best MPH got lost in that heavy sig of yours What is your initial timing set at now?
Tell Ed he can't take credit for Bob's 12.5@108 car since he had nothing to do with that combo. Tell Ed to take credit for Bob's JOKE 10.9 second Ed ported Canfields, ported Holley intake, Ed cam, AOD with stall incon TT car
[ January 20, 2003, 03:55 PM: Message edited by: st5150 ]
Posted by shade-tree (Member # 298) on
:
Hey did you see on Bob's website his best NA dyno figures? it's there...
277 to the wheels, FTI poked and probed stock ported heads/intake and an Ed C. special bump-stick.
Sr. Roberto piloted the thing to 11.8s @ 113 (IIRC)
High 1.5x short times, and I believe a 4.3 gear and 28x10 slicks.
Raceweight should be around 3150 lbs. I believe...
Posted by FasterDamnit (Member # 442) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by st5150:
quote:
Originally posted by FasterDamnit:
best mph- 111.95.
Dufus.
Oh, yeah, Ed compared me to Bob Cosby's 12.5 w/ stock motor. Made me feel warm and fuzzy. I am such an underacheiver...
Doh, your best MPH got lost in that heavy sig of yours
Tell Ed he can't take credit for Bob's 12.5@108 car since he had nothing to do with that combo. Tell Ed to take credit for Bob's JOKE 10.9 second Ed ported Canfields, ported Holley intake, Ed cam, AOD with stall incon TT car
LOL! That one is all yours, my friend! I wouldn't want to deny you the pleasure of getting in a sharp jab at an opportune moment.
I bet I could beat that 10.9 w/ an Incon TT kit. Wany do you say, Shaun?
JL
Posted by FasterDamnit (Member # 442) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by shade-tree:
Hey did you see on Bob's website his best NA dyno figures? it's there...
277 to the wheels, FTI poked and probed stock ported heads/intake and an Ed C. special bump-stick.
Sr. Roberto piloted the thing to 11.8s @ 113 (IIRC)
High 1.5x short times, and I believe a 4.3 gear and 28x10 slicks.
Raceweight should be around 3150 lbs. I believe...
Bob can DRIVE! ![[worship]](graemlins/worship.gif)
I guess I could beat that if I put in a complete drag race suspension, changed gears and pulled a 1.5x. But I am missing having my front sway bar. Damn Z06 hit the freeway on ramp and I had to back off thanks to the front end imitating a porpoise. I was sticking w/ him up to that point. Think I will pick up a hollow sway bar and undo the links at the track. Put the strut brace back on and drop 1".
Posted by 93PONY (Member # 60) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by FasterDamnit:
I bet I could beat that 10.9 w/ an Incon TT kit. What do you say, Shaun?
JL
Sure.... And then you woke up & had to wipe off your stomach.
Keep dreaming Jim!
Posted by bunchmyfunky (Member # 360) on
:
LMAO!
Posted by FasterDamnit (Member # 442) on
:
Some people are really not very giving...
Pic of graph
http://photos.yahoo.com/bc/fasterdamnit/vwp?.dir=/My+Photos&.src=ph&.dnm=GMII+Dyno2.jpg&.view=t&.done=http%3a//photos.yahoo.com/bc/fasterdamnit/lst%3f%26.dir=/My%2bPhotos%26.src=ph%26.view=t
Posted by 93PONY (Member # 60) on
:
Nice curve. Seems like it's dipping a little fast above 5500, then levels out again at 6K. I think there's more in it!
4400 torque peak would normally have a 5400-5600 HP peak.
Posted by FasterDamnit (Member # 442) on
:
Look at the A/F at that point. Goes from 13 to 12.5. And yeah, I wondered about the peak spacing.
Posted by FasterDamnit (Member # 442) on
:
Lets see if this works...
Posted by AaronC (Member # 86) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by st5150:
AaronC 340 rwhp (306, AFR165's, ported RPM intake, custom cam)[/QB]
Just for clarification, my car had the performer intake and it just had casting flash smoothed out. Runner size was un altered. The second setup had the Ported lower (matched to head opening) with stock RPM upper.
Just want all the trees in my forrest to match up correctly
Almost forgot. Good #'s Jim. Toss on the longtubes and retard the cam and watch power start to go up. The little things add up fast
[ January 22, 2003, 08:26 PM: Message edited by: AaronC ]
Posted by FasterDamnit (Member # 442) on
:
Thank's Aaron. I am going to try and match the output of your first combo (but not its longevity .) Got the torque, need to bring up the top end a bit. What size throttle body di dyou have? I am thinking my 65 is a possible restriction above 5500. Hence the change in A/F up there. Could be wrong...
JL
Posted by AaronC (Member # 86) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by FasterDamnit:
Thank's Aaron. I am going to try and match the output of your first combo (but not its longevity .) Got the torque, need to bring up the top end a bit. What size throttle body di dyou have? I am thinking my 65 is a possible restriction above 5500. Hence the change in A/F up there. Could be wrong...
JL
Longevity was my fault. Leaky water pump hose blew the headgaskets and the second was P/V clearance. Upon teardown the shortblock was flawless. 3rd time will be the charm, haha I have a 70mm TB. I'll post my dyno graph so you can see the curve and A/F ratio. Yours definitely went rich up top and there's power hiding. Mine was rich in the middle. I wish you the best of luck in attaining your goals, and hope you surpass them
forgot:
http://www.californiafords.com/images/dyno/aaron_mike/
[ January 22, 2003, 08:48 PM: Message edited by: AaronC ]
Posted by FasterDamnit (Member # 442) on
:
Now that is a FLAT torque curve. Visual evidence of velocity at lower rpms. Wonder if the long tubs will help that.
JL
Posted by st5150 (Member # 51) on
:
Jim - I hope you're getting 1 3/4" long tubes..
Aaron- I haven't been on the corral since Ed called Jim and I morons. Is it still going? If you liked that, you should have seen him almost 2 years ago. I really pissed him off then... but then again he was a holley and brodix head salesmen at the time so he just made ripping on him and his holley and brodix heads so easy. Kind of a shame, I use to help out the "little" guys a lot when I posted there (3000+ posts?). You know, all the spark plug, TPS, MAF, ect posts that championship racers like Ed are too good to help with out getting a credit card number first
Posted by AaronC (Member # 86) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by FasterDamnit:
Wonder if the long tubes will help that.
JL
It should ![[dance]](graemlins/dance.gif)
Posted by AaronC (Member # 86) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by st5150:
Jim - I hope you're getting 1 3/4" long tubes..
Aaron- I haven't been on the corral since Ed called Jim and I morons. Is it still going? If you liked that, you should have seen him almost 2 years ago. I really pissed him off then... but then again he was a holley and brodix head salesmen at the time so he just made ripping on him and his holley and brodix heads so easy. Kind of a shame, I use to help out the "little" guys a lot when I posted there (3000+ posts?). You know, all the spark plug, TPS, MAF, ect posts that championship racers like Ed are too good to help with out getting a credit card number first
LOL, I got some humor out of it. I haven't posted much lately. I think it died out. I'm not gonna post much tech anymore, it justs starts and ends in too many debates and fights, etc. Bottom line, I hope local cars keep improving and we start seeing more eye popping #'s at the track and on the dyno.
Posted by FasterDamnit (Member # 442) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by AaronC:
Bottom line, I hope local cars keep improving and we start seeing more eye popping #'s at the track and on the dyno.
Hear! Hear!
Posted by st5150 (Member # 51) on
:
Yeah, thats why I stopped posting on the corral. It got to be too trendy and orginal ideas were lost. I'd rather help the locals go fast than some guy in Alabama. I'd like to think that this tech forum and drag racing forum has helped bring the local 5.O guys together and help eachother go faster in the past year or two. As for the arguements... I only harrass people that I want to see do good. If I didn't care for them, I'd keep my mouth shut and let them bite the dust.
Did you see my latest original idea? Universal CARB stamping kit: Its garunteed to make any automotive part CARB approved:
http://www.harborfreight.com/cpi/ctaf/Displayitem.taf?itemnumber=35121 I have a feeling this idea will take off.
Oh yeah, to correct my last post.....I think I was the stupid one and Jim was just lucky according to Ed I guess Jon's identical combo but with better flowing heads and 25 more rwhp was also dumb luck
Posted by FasterDamnit (Member # 442) on
:
You're finally starting to see the light, Sawson. Don't make waves and follow the herd. Baaaa. ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Posted by 93PONY (Member # 60) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by st5150:
Jim - I hope you're getting 1 3/4" long tubes..
Aaron- I haven't been on the corral since Ed called Jim and I morons. Is it still going? If you liked that, you should have seen him almost 2 years ago. I really pissed him off then... but then again he was a holley and brodix head salesmen at the time so he just made ripping on him and his holley and brodix heads so easy. Kind of a shame, I use to help out the "little" guys a lot when I posted there (3000+ posts?). You know, all the spark plug, TPS, MAF, ect posts that championship racers like Ed are too good to help with out getting a credit card number first
I thought that thread on the Corral was hilarious! Sorry Sawson, sometimes you bring it on yourself. Internet Cyber combos....Haha!
BTW, I think that C.A.R.B. stamping idea is one of your best.
Posted by st5150 (Member # 51) on
:
So you guys think Ed got the upper hand on me in that post?????????????? It looked like he was getting slaped around a bit so he started swinging below the belt.
I'm not too too proud of the "Sawson universal CARB aproved kit".... my favorite idea is that torque doesn't matter; its all HP....followed closely by my "cubic inches doesn't matter (much) because its all about air flow" theory
Others on on my "original" ideas list....
-Aluminum pullies don't matter: A few ounces difference bolted at the end of a heavy mo fo crank won't make a difference.
-TPS 0.99834543543543 volt settings are BS.
-synthetic oil only adds emotional support and security to your engine...along with a few leaks
-heads with similar chamber sizes with similar size ports with similar size valves with similar flow numbers will make similar horse power numbers regardless of what brand is on the box they came in
-AFR head + custom cam owners solicit online message boards more than Mormon's and Jahova Witnesses solicit peoples homes.
-You can never have too "big" of a fuel system.
-Scott Peterson's B camed, stock shiftered, stock T5, FMS "heavy Duty $150 clutch, 200 cfm GT40X head, Cobra Computer mid 12's@110+MPH combo should teach us all something about what's really important and what's not. May that car/combo RIP.
-AOD mustangs run weak because no one puts in a 3500-4000 RPM stall converter in them.
-A penny makes a sweet bitch'n tool to adjust the idle stop screw on Ford throttle bodies.
-draining your washer fluid to save ~6 lbs off the nose of your car.
-There is an honest 10 mph and 1.0 second difference between what street racers "think" they run and what they'll actually run at the track.
-15,000+ miles of running 10-30W motor oil instead of AFT/power steering fluid and she'll still turn fine
-race gas is the poor mans intercooler
-A 12.2 second car and a 12.4 second car will be WAY too close to call in a race thanks to reaction time. 0.2 seconds/ 20 HP is too often given up before your car moves an inch.
On my "to-do" list.... figure out/prove that 1.5X 60 foots and power shifting are key to great ET (for obvious reasons), but ALSO GREAT MPH thanks to built up momentum (energy) in the flywheel when you dump it at 5500 RPM and the momentum (energy) that is released to the input shaft/driveline/tires when you power shift.... the RPM's jump up while power shifting, the flywheel builds up extra momentum (energy) and this energy gets released to the tires when the clutch grabs and brings the RPM's down to where they're suppose to be. These two things are Bob Cosby's mo jo.
Overall, I'm pretty proud of the local 5.O's we have running down the strip these days. I know two years ago I use feel ashamed when I'd go online and read the magazines... then go to Sac Raceway and see one weak 5.O combo after another.
[ January 22, 2003, 10:31 PM: Message edited by: st5150 ]
Posted by 93PONY (Member # 60) on
:
Yeah, your other ideas pretty much suck.
Posted by st5150 (Member # 51) on
:
They're all proven by physics/mathmatics or by several cases of experimentation/observation though
Posted by 93PONY (Member # 60) on
:
Don't think so.
Torque does matter. I proved that! My car feels SO much slower now. Even though I gained 1000 usable rpm!
& displacement increases velocity on any head you use. Why do you think torque goes up? Which throws out your theory on similar flowing heads.
Oh, & race gas isn't cheap. Alcohol injection is a poor mans intercooler!
I'm not even going to touch the synthetic oil thing.
Posted by st5150 (Member # 51) on
:
If you want me to back up any claim I've made with local examples or math, let me know. I don't speak out of my arse or just pass along other peoples thoughts as my own.
All I have to say about the HP/Torque issue is that almost no one truely knows what torque or HP is, BUT they think they do. At BEST they'll copy and paste a definition of it from the internet, but thats about as good as it gets. Don't feel bad, it took me about a year and half of engineering physics classes for the light to click on in my head.
I've never seen a proven local case study of alcohal injection on a 5.O so that theory is out the door. Even if I see one or two setups that work.... I've learned long ago that one or two combos doesn't make something "proven". Lets not forget that race gas will give more HP than alcohal injection can ever dream of giving.
Let me know when your motor dies. I want your bearings since they'll be in mint condition thanks to synthetic oil. I could do with out your busted piston/rod/block though
Looks to me that you're just trying to argue for the sake of arguement?
Posted by 93PONY (Member # 60) on
:
I really don't care what the definitions of HP & torque are. If what they measure on a dynometer was called dingleberries instead of torque, it's still measurable. & HP is still of function of that measured output. Therefore torque DOES matter.
Look at AaronC's before & after dyno's. He gained about 3HP peak & nearly 30TQ. Was his car faster after the tune? More then .03 in the 1/4? Probably. Why? Because AVG HP went up....why? Because Torque went through the roof.
Oh, I forgot about that..... If you haven't seen it, it doesn't exist. Damn Internet Cyber Ideal Combos!
Nah, we're not arguing.... We're having a intelectual conversation over the internet. Notice I spring this on you just when you go back to school? Haha! Go do some homework!
Posted by 91PONY (Member # 206) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by 93PONY:
If what they measure on a dynometer was called dingleberries instead of torque, it's still measurable.
LMAO! 
Posted by st5150 (Member # 51) on
:
Actually I saw Aaron's car dyno so I saw all his pulls. I knew he'd be the highest RWHP NA 302 around and wanted to be there when history was made How do you think these pictures got here:
http://www.californiafords.com/images/dyno/aaron_mike/
and this video:
http://www.californiafords.com/mpg/06_00_02/aaron_dyno.mpg
Plus, how do you think Mike's mystery stuttering problem and the inability for his car to idle with the C&L MAF was solved? I'll give you a hint, it wasn't related to the valve train what so ever
It looks like you have a problem differentiating torque and HP. I'll give you a hint, as soon as you mention torque and a certain RPM, what you really just said is HP in a much more complicated and unclear way
Posted by 93PONY (Member # 60) on
:
You flip-flop sides to suit your arguments...
I never said that Aaron's dyno tune wasn't neccessary. What I DID say was this: Based on your 'theory' of torque doesn't matter, Aaron gained very little power from his dyno tune. When in fact he gain a TON of average power.....namely TORQUE.
You say torque doesn't matter....yet you also say HP is torque at RPM. So, I'm drawing the conclusion that you believe HP doesn't matter. What DOES matter Sawson???
Although, I see why you keep saying Torque doesn't matter. If you actaully admitted that it does, it throws out your 'similar heads, with simillar cc's & similar flow #'s' theory. Namely, your 'velocity doesn't matter' theory. If velocity doesn't matter, why have a long-runner intake? The entire theory of runner length is based on the air-charge velocity.
BTW, Race gas does NOTHING if all you do is fill the tank. In order to gain power from high octane fuel you must increase the timing, or add boost....or both. Throw race gas in my car as it sits right now & it'll lose power. The higher the octane, the slower the burn rate. At the very least, you should increase timing to take advantage of the slow burn rate. As for it being a poor-mans intercooler....higher octane fuel does NOT cool the intake charge. It actually burns hotter. Just another band-aid for a poor tune. Much like the S-trim band-aid for a poor H/C/I setup.
Give this some thought:
I'll show you just one of the properies of synthetic oil that YOUR car would've benefited from. Low ash content. Ash is a measure of residue when the oil burns. Amsoil has been tested & proven to have lower ash content then any other oil on the market....FAR less then conventional oil.
You burn what.....1qt of oil every 500miles? Do you realize how fast carbon is building up on your pistons & valves? I've pulled heads on a motor that burned 1qt every 1000miles. The pistons had 1/8 inch domes of carbon on them. There was no sign of any valve reliefs. & the valves.....what a sight. What's happening on your motor is the compression is going through the roof, but the carbon is also getting nice & hot during combustion & creating hot-spots in the cylinders. Why do you think you can't run as much timing anymore? You're also slowly chocking off the air-flow due to the buildup on the valves.....not to mention the buildup on the chambers of the heads, which shrouds the valves, impeading air-flow.
I wonder how your valveguides would be now if you would've used a superior lubricant like Amsoil......
But your right, synthetics is a waste of $$$.
Posted by st5150 (Member # 51) on
:
Woah!!!! I just read this for the first time now I don't know how I missed it
I watched Aaron's car get tuned on the dyno with my own eyes... there was no "base line" dyno pull ever made, so I don't know what you're basing your assumptions on On this whole torque thing, the irony is... if you grasped the concept of torque and HP, you'd see we're really talking about the same thing 8-)
Increasing timing with race gas is always implied. Everyone knows thats why you add race gas.
As for your oil... cheap stuff works for me, expensive stuff works for you... lets be friends
ps- I saw that teal 93 cobra with the S trim you did the cam on. Its a very clean cobra! The owner is a cool guy and he has spent A LOT of time modifying that '93! I thought Bill @ Apex's teal '93 was highly modified for a fox body cobra... but I hadn't seen anything yet Anyways, I took a bunch of pictures of it and posted it on the norcal-ls1 dyno day post if you haven't seen them already.
Posted by 93PONY (Member # 60) on
:
Torque is a better indicator of cylinder pressure below 5252RPM. Look at JUST the HP curve & tell me at what RPM the motor is making the most cylinder pressure. Can you do it???
Here's Aarons dyno sheet. Look at the red vs. blue curves....then you'll know what I was talking about.
So, you met Mark. Nice guy. That's the new 347 he just had built. Sportsman block, high compression pistons , boost, & alcohol. I crunched the #'s on it....10.2 to 1 compression! I tried to talk him out of it....I would've liked to see 8.5 to 1 on that car. He tells me he's already got detonation issues. I've talked him into NOT hitting it at all until he can get that thing on the dyno for some tuning. One tune for pump gas & one with race gas. My guess is he'll gain ~60-70RWHP from the highest unleaded race gas (104 I think?) & full timing advance.
Posted by jayl (Member # 185) on
:
if that guy needs some 104 , we got plenty at a good price
Posted by 93PONY (Member # 60) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by jayl:
if that guy needs some 104 , we got plenty at a good price
I'll remember that!
Mark was actually at MustangRanch for my Dyno. The older guy with his wife & kid.
Posted by jayl (Member # 185) on
:
oh ok i remember now, his kid was funny.....
Posted by 88gt (Member # 579) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by jayl:
oh ok i remember now, his kid was funny.....
Ha Ha...he was the little dude with the ear muffs.
His dad seemed like a nice guy, but good luck with a blown 10:1 motor!
Posted by Yellow94GT (Member # 431) on
:
Mark already got his 347 together and tuned?!
I'm afraid I'll have to pass on driving that car the next time it is at the track. For some reason I can't see a 10:1 compression motor with 14 psi of boost lasting that long.
[ January 28, 2003, 11:59 PM: Message edited by: Yellow94GT ]
Posted by Jeff S (Member # 371) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by st5150:
Overall, I'm pretty proud of the local 5.O's we have running down the strip these days. I know two years ago I use feel ashamed when I'd go online and read the magazines... then go to Sac Raceway and see one weak 5.O combo after another.
So what is it that has changed in the past 2 years to make the local 5.0's go faster?
Posted by 93PONY (Member # 60) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Yellow94GT:
Mark already got his 347 together and tuned?!
I'm afraid I'll have to pass on driving that car the next time it is at the track. For some reason I can't see a 10:1 compression motor with 14 psi of boost lasting that long.
Oh you'll be driving it!
It's not tuned yet. He's gonna tune it on the dyno. One safe tune for daily driving/pump gas & another for track duty with race gas & full timing. So, it shouldn't ping anymore.
What? You don't want to drive a 550RWHP car at the track???
Posted by Jeff S (Member # 371) on
:
Aaron really gained more the 3 peak hp since the peak numbers of the "red" run where due to a spike in the graph.
I'd reply lots of other stuff int his post but i'm pretty tired and dont' want to think too much. Basically though 93pony is right and st5150 is wrong
Posted by 93PONY (Member # 60) on
:
I like you Jeff.
Fueled by Ford Mustang Owners
on CaliforniaFords.com