I wonder if by posting 3 dynos from 3 different shops if anyone's learned anything about dynos yet... FYI under 10:1 compression, a motor will not produce more than 1 ft*lbs per cubic inch. I'd most likely have posted something like 202/249 right now on the dyno I originally did 187/249, (so @Carbon: take your 275/249 3500 dyno with the same grain of salt you take my 187/249 dyno...and my 149/167 dyno) . It all depends on the calibration. Dynojets are 'fairly' standard. Mustang dynos are wildly different. You can't compare 2 cars on 2 different dynos. This is why track times are king and dynos are just for tuning. Dynos are RELATIVE.
To give everyone a better idea of how much power I'm making, I'd have to bring my stock Formula to the shop and see what power it produces on THAT dyno. At that point I'd just be throwing money away to satisfy trolls.. I'd also have to take time off from work again since other than the 'low' dyno shop, these other shops are M-F/9-5 shops.
Since you mentioned me... he's also got 1/4 mile times that back him up.
And just for the record from page 11 of this thread:
quote
Originally posted by carbon: Yeah, you can't compare two different dyno setups even if they are the same brand. It would be nice if there was a standard. Even "SAE corrected" results are all over the place...
Do you really only read the posts that piss you off?
[This message has been edited by carbon (edited 07-18-2013).]
His track times are still relative to his weight...and I don't run the 1/4 mile...
Whatever... 1/4 mile time HP calcs require weight to estimate horsepower.
quote
It's funny because you're the one ramming HIS dyno down my throat.
I referred to it once...
quote
So it seems you just used it to troll when you knew it was relative all along.
You keep calling me a troll... you made the claim that aluminum heads were no better than iron heads, heck you even started a new post to fan the flames from other threads hoping to draw more into the argument: For "aluminum head enthusiasts" During which you said:
quote
Originally posted by lou_dias: As I said, it's not worth arguing over 'theory'. My future dyno will speak for itself.
You didn't think that would attract interest? So here is your thread and here are your dyno's and you've had a couple of 'low' ones that agree with each other and one or two high ones one of which seems like an operator error due to other behaviors attributed to the operator by you. You're tune is never right, everyone here is a troll, everyone at 60DegreeV6 is a troll, you talk about people talking down to you... do you ever read your own posts?
If you're arguing that your iron heads with an undefined amount of porting, an aftermarket intake, corrected exhaust and bigger throttle body matches/beats what a stock 3400 can do with the same cam, then congrats, you've most likely done it.
That, however, does not make them equal yet, because you can still do the same thing to the aluminum heads and make similar gains beyond that...
Honestly, it will be interesting to see how it behaves with your new cam next season, as that will tell even more about the heads' ability to flow.
[This message has been edited by carbon (edited 07-18-2013).]
Yes, the AL enthusiast argument was that iron heads don't flow poop and you're stupid for sticking with iron heads. It was the AL enthusiasts that started the flame war.
I've looked at 3400 dynos running the stock cam and where realistic torque #'s are reported (aka scaling/calibration of the dyno is correct), my iron heads are putting down comparable numbers. So my point is correct.
One of my points was that my intake (stock ported) still had a restrictive neck and that's why my peak was 4100 rpm in the 187/249 dyno. Surprise - I was correct. I would have only posted ~152/203 on this dynojet with the restrictive Fiero intake I was running. On the 'low' mustang dyno, my top end tune was better and I peaked at the cam specs. I re-tuned my car 2 nights ago and leaned out my top end too much after 4400 rpm and my peak went down to 4800 rpm. I shot myself in the foot with my tuning. An easy fix.
People like you, see - I didn't call you a troll this time - got on me for trying to scale the dynos to match. Coming from an engineering background, that is a totally normal thing to do when independently calibrated devices are in play.
As for going forward, I'll probably either turbo or go the LSx route since like I said before - 25 more hp isn't going to get me 1st place at this track with the competition that's ahead of me.
Nope. Bone stock Mustang orange pintle injectors. Throttle gets mashed and my a/f ratio drops to 10:1 even though I have it set for 14:1 down low...
EECtuning.org is down ATT and im pretty sure they have the "orange" 19# injector data sheets for the voltage compensation. Hopefully the site is back up soon.
what are you tuning with? Tunerpro? Might be able to fix the low end rich condition by changing affected cells in the VE table depending on how you are tuning.
EECtuning.org is down ATT and im pretty sure they have the "orange" 19# injector data sheets for the voltage compensation. Hopefully the site is back up soon.
what are you tuning with? Tunerpro? Might be able to fix the low end rich condition by changing affected cells in the VE table depending on how you are tuning.
This is why track times are king and dynos are just for tuning. Dynos are RELATIVE.
To give everyone a better idea of how much power I'm making, I'd have to bring my stock Formula to the shop and see what power it produces on THAT dyno. At that point I'd just be throwing money away to satisfy trolls.. I'd also have to take time off from work again since other than the 'low' dyno shop, these other shops are M-F/9-5 shops.
Are you running at the same spot on the track, turning your wheels at the same spot to the same degree everytime, mashing throttle and letting out at the exact same spot every time for this to be a controlled expiriment? This is why quarter mile track times beat a circle track time. you have too maby variables to even compare it to. Again good luck lou.
As you can see below, my re-tune cause me to go too lean after 4400 so I lost peak power but before that it still goes way too rich when the throttle gets mashed...
The a/f table I used:
I can see it putting down 17X hp when I re-richen up the top end but I am not going for a dyno until I can fix the bottom end because it's my launches that are killing me at the track.
[This message has been edited by lou_dias (edited 07-18-2013).]
...... but I am not going for a dyno until I can fix the bottom end because it's my launches that are killing me at the track.
I'd go to the Mustang dyno and practice hard launches while recording data to view after the runs. Forget about making power, just concentrate about getting a crispy clean throttle response with no hiccups. Hmmm! I'm running about 14.xx from 4000rpm and up and I'm peaking 173 hp at 6000 rpm. Let us know if numbers go up when you do enrich it so I can try the same.
Good luck!
[This message has been edited by La fiera (edited 07-19-2013).]
I'd go to the Mustang dyno and practice hard launches while recording data to view after the runs. Forget about making power, just concentrate about getting a crispy clean throttle response with no hiccups. Hmmm! I'm running about 14.xx from 4000rpm and up and I'm peaking 173 hp at 6000 rpm. Let us know if numbers go up when you do enrich it so I can try the same.
Good luck!
Thanks! Out of curiosity what cam are you running? Looking at your a/f, it seems you do climb to 14 for a couple of thousand rpm but go back to 13 at your peak. You should try to keep it at 13 the whole time.
[This message has been edited by lou_dias (edited 07-19-2013).]
Thanks! Out of curiosity what cam are you running?
Adv. Duration 274* Duration @ .050 230* LCA 112 Lift @1.6 .512 Not the greates idle but for what I use it, track only; it is just fine. http://youtu.be/dsmLNzb_P0g
Looking back at my 187/249 dyno I find it odd that I had an easier time controlling my A/F ratio with the stock Fiero computer using Mustang injectors than the '7730 ... Like: WTH!
Adv. Duration 274* Duration @ .050 230* LCA 112 Lift @1.6 .512 Not the greates idle but for what I use it, track only; it is just fine. http://youtu.be/dsmLNzb_P0g
Originally posted by La fiera: Adv. Duration 274* Duration @ .050 230* LCA 112 Lift @1.6 .512 Not the greates idle but for what I use it, track only; it is just fine. http://youtu.be/dsmLNzb_P0g
Thanks!!! I was going to experiment with .67 at 12.8 but with this reading of .627 at 13v - it should probably be .61 ... I hope these 19#ers are enough past 5k rpm and that I don't constantly go lean. I'd hate to have to do the whole thing again with another set of injectors...
" I hope these 19#ers are enough past 5k rpm and that I don't constantly go lean. I'd hate to have to do the whole thing again with another set of injectors..."
Looking at your dyno sheet the 19#ers are right on the edge for the fuel requirement of your engine power levels up to 5k. After that they can supply more than the engine needs. I say that because at 5k you're making about 185bhp and as the engine climbs to 6k its making about 140bhp. Fuel requirement for 185bhp @ 5k is around 19.20lbs/hr and at 140bhp@ 6k is close to 14.60lbs/hr. You shouldn't have any problem increasing injection pulse past 5k to enrichen the top end.
[This message has been edited by La fiera (edited 07-21-2013).]
" I hope these 19#ers are enough past 5k rpm and that I don't constantly go lean. I'd hate to have to do the whole thing again with another set of injectors..."
Looking at your dyno sheet the 19#ers are right on the edge for the fuel requirement of your engine power levels up to 5k. After that they can supply more than the engine needs. I say that because at 5k you're making about 185bhp and as the engine climbs to 6k its making about 140bhp. Fuel requirement for 185bhp @ 5k is around 19.20lbs/hr and at 140bhp@ 6k is close to 14.60lbs/hr. You shouldn't have any problem increasing injection pulse past 5k to enrichen the top end.
The pulse width was already larger with the previous settings. When I wasn't as lean with my prior tune I still went lean after 5400rpm on the 149/167 'low' dyno. I've made the adjustments. Just got to burn the chip and go for a test drive sometime this week. I doubt I'll be able to get another dyno anytime soon unless I go to the 'low' shop again. Still it would be somewhat useful to see how my a/f is affected... It seems his claim of 13% lower than the other shop seemed right on.
The pulse width was already larger with the previous settings. When I wasn't as lean with my prior tune I still went lean after 5400rpm on the 149/167 'low' dyno. I've made the adjustments. Just got to burn the chip and go for a test drive sometime this week. I doubt I'll be able to get another dyno anytime soon unless I go to the 'low' shop again. Still it would be somewhat useful to see how my a/f is affected... It seems his claim of 13% lower than the other shop seemed right on.
After speaking with my brother and having him look at my a/f ratio I'm either going to need higher fuel pressure or new injectors down the road. One of the many cars he's owned was a 5.0 Mustang that put down 235 rwhp on stock injectors. In V6 terms that's ~176 rwhp. He was at the limits then. With my true peak at 5200 and my low dyno going lean after 5400, I should be somewhere between 168-176 rwhp. My shift point is what concerns me. For my peak to be at 5200, my shift point needs to be atleast 5500 rpm and perhaps 5600 or a bit more. An HP loss is an hp loss. I need a little more fuel to maximize my shifts. My "curve" goes down faster because of lack of fuel. A cam with more top end will only make the problem worse.
An adjustable FPR will probably be the Band-Aid I use for the time being. My guess is 45psi at idle instead of ~39. Thoughts?
After speaking with my brother and having him look at my a/f ratio I'm either going to need higher fuel pressure or new injectors down the road. One of the many cars he's owned was a 5.0 Mustang that put down 235 rwhp on stock injectors. In V6 terms that's ~176 rwhp. He was at the limits then. With my true peak at 5200 and my low dyno going lean after 5400, I should be somewhere between 168-176 rwhp. My shift point is what concerns me. For my peak to be at 5200, my shift point needs to be atleast 5500 rpm and perhaps 5600 or a bit more. An HP loss is an hp loss. I need a little more fuel to maximize my shifts. My "curve" goes down faster because of lack of fuel. A cam with more top end will only make the problem worse.
An adjustable FPR will probably be the Band-Aid I use for the time being. My guess is 45psi at idle instead of ~39. Thoughts?
I thought factory FPR setting was ~43 psi? if the rating for the ford injectors is 19# at 39psi, 43psi should flow enough for the demands of your engine. keep in mind that fuel demands are greater at peak torque rather than at peak horsepower. Once your AFRs are dialed in, refer to your injector PW to verify your DC. your using $88? if so the PW should be in the ADX.
heres a vid of a short pull in my mustang, im using 19# bosch III injectors and its still rich up top **but havent reached the limits. With the work done to the 302, im guessing the power is around 250 rwhp. PW decreases the further away from peak torque, WB AFR is on the far right and PW guage is overlayed on the tach graphic.
*edit* 100% DC for batch fire RPM.....PW ms 1,000....60 ms 2,000....30 ms 3,000....20 ms 4,000....15 ms 5,000....12 ms 6,000....10 ms
**EDIT AGAIN, disreguard the above statement, its been awhile since I drove and even tuned the mustang. Those look like they are going static at 6100 rpm.
[This message has been edited by sleevePAPA (edited 07-23-2013).]
An adjustable FPR will probably be the Band-Aid I use for the time being. My guess is 45psi at idle instead of ~39. Thoughts?
If you crank up the fuel pressure, your rich condition at low RPM, and your stumble on take-off, are going to get even worse. What you REALLY need to do is go into the fueling tables and make the necessary adjustments.
If you crank up the fuel pressure, your rich condition at low RPM, and your stumble on take-off, are going to get even worse. What you REALLY need to do is go into the fueling tables and make the necessary adjustments.
I would increase the fuel pressure and decrease the BPW vs Bat Voltage... As it stands, I had to cut 30% off the BPW when SleevePPA linked that Mustang injector sheet. No wonder I was getting flooded and my idle erratic... I'll be plugging in the new burn tomorrow morning and taking the car to work to see how it runs. Next race is in 11 days or so...
[This message has been edited by lou_dias (edited 07-23-2013).]
Originally posted by sleevePAPA: I thought factory FPR setting was ~43 psi? if the rating for the ford injectors is 19# at 39psi, 43psi should flow enough for the demands of your engine. keep in mind that fuel demands are greater at peak torque rather than at peak horsepower. Once your AFRs are dialed in, refer to your injector PW to verify your DC. your using $88? if so the PW should be in the ADX.
heres a vid of a short pull in my mustang, im using 19# bosch III injectors and its still rich up top **but havent reached the limits. With the work done to the 302, im guessing the power is around 250 rwhp. PW decreases the further away from peak torque, WB AFR is on the far right and PW guage is overlayed on the tach graphic.
*edit* 100% DC for batch fire RPM.....PW ms 1,000....60 ms 2,000....30 ms 3,000....20 ms 4,000....15 ms 5,000....12 ms 6,000....10 ms
**EDIT AGAIN, disreguard the above statement, its been awhile since I drove and even tuned the mustang. Those look like they are going static at 6100 rpm.
250 hp is what I heard the MAX those injectors can do in a Mustang...but with dyno variation, your 250 could be my brother's 235... So it really looks like we are on the edge here... As for fuel pressure, perhaps my FPR needs some freshening up...
Oh and I'm running the $A1 ...
[This message has been edited by lou_dias (edited 07-23-2013).]
What you need to do is trim the fuel at lower RPM and increase fuel at upper RPM. Not to be rude, but fiddling with fuel pressure and BPW vs Volts isn't going to accomplish that.
The most direct route to address that problem is to adjust the VE tables. For starters, you could play with the VE Adder vs RPM table and see if that helps. Reduce the VE values from 4000 RPM on down, and increase the VE values from 4400 on up.
And to address the bogging on take-off issue, go to the AE Async Pulse Multiplier vs Coolant Temp table and reduce the values across the board.
Best of luck. And if you need any help with the programming, let me know. I also have TunerPro, and run the $A1 code mask with my 3.4 V6.
250 hp is what I heard the MAX those injectors can do in a Mustang...but with dyno variation, your 250 could be my brother's 235... So it really looks like we are on the edge here... As for fuel pressure, perhaps my FPR needs some freshening up...
Oh and I'm running the $A1 ...
The orange top injectors? I'm pushing 312 at the wheels with 8 or those in my Northstar.
doesn't really matter, sequential only really effects bottom end stability, by the time you start getting higher in the RPMs, the fuel is moving too fast for there to be a notable difference
in will's case, each of his injectors are supplying ~26 HP, which equates to ~160 HP for a V6.
------------------ we're in desperate need of a little more religion to nurse your god-like point of view...
doesn't really matter, sequential only really effects bottom end stability, by the time you start getting higher in the RPMs, the fuel is moving too fast for there to be a notable difference
in will's case, each of his injectors are supplying ~26 HP, which equates to ~160 HP for a V6.
eh?
batch fire(single injector driver ECMs) fires the injectors twice per 2 revolutions(720*), sequential each injector once per 2 revolutions. So batch firing injectors have roughly half the time to fire before they are static. If you look at the vid I posted above, just looking at the realtime data, the PW is ~9.41 ms at 6100 rpm. Thats why the WB goes rich, the injectors are static. Now if I was using the EEC with sequential injector firing, it would be ~55% roughly.
[This message has been edited by sleevePAPA (edited 07-24-2013).]
doesn't really matter, sequential only really effects bottom end stability, by the time you start getting higher in the RPMs, the fuel is moving too fast for there to be a notable difference
in will's case, each of his injectors are supplying ~26 HP, which equates to ~160 HP for a V6.
Agreed on the value of SFI, but where did you get your math from? 312HP, at the wheels even, doesn't equate to 26HP each... its ~39HP, which equates to ~236HP at the wheels... did I miss something?
batch fire(single injector driver ECMs) fires the injectors twice per revolution, sequential each injector once per revolution. So batch firing injectors have roughly half the time to fire before they are static. If you look at the vid I posted above, just looking at the realtime data, the PW is ~9.41 ms at 6100 rpm. Thats why the WB goes rich, the injectors are static. Now if I was using the EEC with sequential injector firing, it would be ~55% roughly.
If that's the case why do all GM ECMs drop SFI and switch to batch as RPMs increase above ~3500RPM? It can't be because there's less time to inject with batch fire...
My misunderstanding... sorry!
[This message has been edited by carbon (edited 07-30-2013).]
If that's the case why do all GM ECMs drop SFI and switch to batch as RPMs increase above ~3500RPM? It can't be because there's less time to inject with batch fire...
They dont drop SFI? unless you have a snippet of code showing SFI becomes batch?
I don't have a bin file to dissect for you. But yes, GM SFI switches to batch fire above 3000 RPM.
I know a couple of people who looked into the code to confirm this and couldn't find anything to support that, maybe they were looking in the wrong place, IDK, but to me it sounds like a waste of bandwidth and adds to complexity.
------------------ we're in desperate need of a little more religion to nurse your god-like point of view...
batch fire(single injector driver ECMs) fires the injectors twice per 2 revolutions(720*), sequential each injector once per 2 revolutions. So batch firing injectors have roughly half the time to fire before they are static. If you look at the vid I posted above, just looking at the realtime data, the PW is ~9.41 ms at 6100 rpm. Thats why the WB goes rich, the injectors are static. Now if I was using the EEC with sequential injector firing, it would be ~55% roughly.
Sequential using a Shelby computer.
6000 RPM = 100 RPS = 10 ms per revolution. Say it takes 1.5 ms to close and reopen the injector. With TWO close/open sequences per cycle, the batch fired system spends 3 ms per cycle closing/opening the injector. The resulting on time is 17 out of 20 ms or 85%. A sequential injector that spends 1.5 ms closing and reopening the injector will spend 1.5 ms per cycle doing so. The resulting on time is 18.5 out of 20 ms or 92.5% duty cycle.
quote
Originally posted by Blacktree:
I don't have a bin file to dissect for you. But yes, GM SFI switches to batch fire above 3000 RPM.
I think this is the result of a terminology mixup.
At idle and low RPM, a sequential system fires the injector in synch with the intake valve. As engine load rises, the injector on time becomes greater than the intake valve open time. With 240 degrees overall duration, the intake valve operates on a 33% duty cycle, so it doesn't take much load for the injector DC to exceed this. So once that happens, the sequential injectors spray the back of a closed intake valve just like batch fire does.
However, I'm pretty sure the computers do NOT actually revert to the previous batch fire algorithm, for a couple of reasons: A) Code complexity - Why program the transition if you don't have to? Such a change in fueling algorithms would also create a border in the table that would require additional calibration time to smooth. B) Reduction in available max duty cycle as outlined above - GM wants to run the smallest injector they possibly can. Sequential lets them run a 7% smaller injector.
What you need to do is trim the fuel at lower RPM and increase fuel at upper RPM. Not to be rude, but fiddling with fuel pressure and BPW vs Volts isn't going to accomplish that.
The most direct route to address that problem is to adjust the VE tables. For starters, you could play with the VE Adder vs RPM table and see if that helps. Reduce the VE values from 4000 RPM on down, and increase the VE values from 4400 on up.
And to address the bogging on take-off issue, go to the AE Async Pulse Multiplier vs Coolant Temp table and reduce the values across the board.
Best of luck. And if you need any help with the programming, let me know. I also have TunerPro, and run the $A1 code mask with my 3.4 V6.
I can't seem to find these exact table names in Tuner Pro's A1_v5.xdf... Can anyone help me out?
