• Mustang Forums
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
  • 1994 - 1995 Specific Tech

AFRs not all they're cracked up to be?

  • Thread starter Thread starter walker95svt
  • Start date Start date Sep 11, 2005
Status
Not open for further replies.
Prev
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Next
First Prev 2 of 3 Next Last

nmcgrawj

Advanced Member
Sep 28, 2003
3,651
4
68
Indianapolis, IN
Sep 11, 2005
#21
  • Sep 11, 2005
  • #21
final5-0 said:
I see three things I wonder about with that combo list.

1) You gotta be very close to the limit of those 24's!

3) This one is the big one IMHO .............

I pegged the stock maf with my combo which in no way, shape, or form should be able to move as much air as yours.

I'd go for 30's with bigger maf & intake.

Grady
Click to expand...


And those 2 should have been addressed by the tuner if they were a problem right? I mean...if they failed then that would mean they couldnt tune it correct? Or would the car just not perform like it should?
 

nmcgrawj

Advanced Member
Sep 28, 2003
3,651
4
68
Indianapolis, IN
Sep 11, 2005
#22
  • Sep 11, 2005
  • #22
walker95svt said:
t I'm sure are just fine for low 300s. Maybe just as fine for 300 as 24lb injectors...Anyway, a 331 with heads and cam should outpower a stock cobra 302, at ANY gear ratio 1.31, or 4.10. Thank you everyone that gave me honest answers.
Click to expand...

Low 300's can be done by 302's

And it "should" outpower the cobra....but it WONT beat the cobra with a tall(numerically low right?) gear. I cant imagine driving a car with a 1.31 gear. I wonder if you could beat a semi truck? lol But I understand you were probably just over exaggeratting(sp? thats gotta be wrong) a little.
 

WhiteDevil

New Member
Feb 4, 2003
2,717
0
0
San Diego
Sep 11, 2005
#23
  • Sep 11, 2005
  • #23
nmcgrawj said:
Low 300's can be done by 302's

And it "should" outpower the cobra....but it WONT beat the cobra with a tall(numerically low right?) gear. I cant imagine driving a car with a 1.31 gear. I wonder if you could beat a semi truck? lol But I understand you were probably just over exaggeratting(sp? thats gotta be wrong) a little.
Click to expand...

Exactly most of us put around 300hp to the wheels with stock blocked 302s which is like 350hp flywheel. You say you only want 270-300 flywheel???????? You should be way obove your goal.
 
W

walker95svt

New Member
May 21, 2005
69
0
0
Abilene, TX
Sep 11, 2005
#24
  • Sep 11, 2005
  • #24
correction

I did mean to say 300 rwhp, in my haste at work I made that post. and yes, I was exaggerating about the 1.31 or whatever it was I said about gears. My point was, 3.08s are 3.08s, and one "modified" motor should feel a whole lot faster than a stock one, given the similar gear ratio that's stayed with my car for both motors. The tuner never got my car on the dyno, and before everyone jumps my case, yes, it IS possible to put a DECENT tune on a car without it making it on a dyno. Note I said decent, not perfect. and before I get my case jumped about that, I'm referring to NA, non-exotic setups. The computer does a damn good job on its own, it just needs a lot of help to be maximized. There's probably no more than five horsepower and slight tweaking of timing to be had by me going back. The tuner refused to put my car on the dyno due to a fuel pressure leak down. oddly enough, he messed with it not on the dyno.......... but that's a different deal for a different time.
 
W

walker95svt

New Member
May 21, 2005
69
0
0
Abilene, TX
Sep 11, 2005
#25
  • Sep 11, 2005
  • #25
I do agree with the guys who think I need to get my car to the track and see what happens there, and not neccesarily how it feels on the street. Nor should one judge an engine by it's peak numbers on the dyno.....we all know powerband equals acceleration with an average street-going tranny.......

But I do wish I'd gone with CNC trick flows
 
W

walker95svt

New Member
May 21, 2005
69
0
0
Abilene, TX
Sep 11, 2005
#26
  • Sep 11, 2005
  • #26
low 300's?

low 300s at the wheels (mustang dyno, not dynojet) can be done by an average 302 with compression in the low 9's? show me please!!!
 

final5-0

Mustang Master
Apr 6, 2003
6,817
12
79
DFW Texas
Sep 11, 2005
#27
  • Sep 11, 2005
  • #27
nmcgrawj said:
And those 2 should have been addressed by the tuner if they were a problem right? I mean...if they failed then that would mean they couldnt tune it correct? Or would the car just not perform like it should?
Click to expand...

I guess I should remember that the 24's could be made to act bigger with elevated fuel pressures and I do forget about that since I tune at stock fuel pressure. It still it is my opinion that they are too small for that combo and with the issues that can happen with lean ratios .....................................

I just don't understand the reason or logic of taking a chance on bad things like that to happen with inj's that may be too small.

So, I will say that of the two things you ask about, the 24's are not as bad as the maf being too small.

I could be wrong about the maf but based on my findings with my combo and what I've seen happen over and over on the tuning forums .......................

I think the maf is too small for his air aiflow. Remember he said it is a stock oem Cobra maf. Heck fire, the maf transfer for that maf will only go as high as 875 kg/hr and I just don't see how it is able to support the air flow that his stroker combo is capable of producing. My little combo has pushed as high as 940 kg/hr so his has to flow more ............... don't ya think?

The maf being too small doesn't mean the car won't run or make power. It is not gonna be able to report the amount of air flow in the upper rpm range like it should.

So, YES ...... if the maf is too small, your not gonna get the best performance from that condition.

Now that I think about it, maybe the Cobra intake would not flow enough air at the upper rpm range to peg that maf ...... but I kinda doubt it. We don't have any data to tell us what happened during the pull so I'm just thinking out loud I guess.

He did ask for our thoughts

Grady
 

Redsnk95

Founding Member
Feb 3, 2002
2,243
1
0
Houston, TX
Sep 11, 2005
#28
  • Sep 11, 2005
  • #28
walker95svt said:
low 300s at the wheels (mustang dyno, not dynojet) can be done by an average 302 with compression in the low 9's? show me please!!!
Click to expand...


My buddies combo, pretty much "run-of-the-mill set-up".

http://forums.stangnet.com/showthread.php?t=572565&highlight=svegt

Troy
 

VibrantRedGT

"STANGNET'S PENGUIN SMACKER"
15 Year Member
Nov 29, 1999
14,679
424
154
Boca Raton, Florida
Sep 11, 2005
#29
  • Sep 11, 2005
  • #29
I get the feeling you think we are bashing your car. We simply addressed a few areas that can help get a bit more out of your combo is all. It will probably knock down 300 Rear wheel HP as it sits if the tuner will allow it to. With that meter and injectors he may shut it down early. Bigger injectors, mass air meter and that blower your going over 400 easy so don't sweat it. Lose the highway gear and she will rip.

Welcome to the boards.
 

tmoss

Gettin Wired
Founding Member
Jun 28, 2001
7,153
32
128
Saint Louis, MO
Sep 12, 2005
#30
  • Sep 12, 2005
  • #30
The intake does need to be worked or replaced for best N/A power - especially if blown. I agree about the tune without a wide band. It needs to be done at some point.
 

Killercanary

The car that set the bar.
Founding Member
Nov 29, 1999
5,676
1
76
Altoona, PA
Sep 12, 2005
#31
  • Sep 12, 2005
  • #31
I at or near the stock compression (9.2:1) and I made 304rwhp/331rwtq on a dynojet. My bottom end is COMPLETELY stock and my heads are 60cc combustion chambers as delivered from AFR. Stock are between 62-64cc's. So I guess I did it, and I know there are others hear that have done it as well.
 

95snoozer

Active Member
Dec 14, 2002
2,572
1
48
RCR
Sep 12, 2005
#32
  • Sep 12, 2005
  • #32
VibrantRedGT said:
I get the feeling you think we are bashing your car. We simply addressed a few areas that can help get a bit more out of your combo is all. It will probably knock down 300 Rear wheel HP as it sits if the tuner will allow it to. With that meter and injectors he may shut it down early. Bigger injectors, mass air meter and that blower your going over 400 easy so don't sweat it. Lose the highway gear and she will rip.

Welcome to the boards.
Click to expand...

i get the feeling this guy doesnt know what the hell he is talking about, yet thinks he does.
 

Killercanary

The car that set the bar.
Founding Member
Nov 29, 1999
5,676
1
76
Altoona, PA
Sep 12, 2005
#33
  • Sep 12, 2005
  • #33
95snoozer said:
i get the feeling this guy doesnt know what the hell he is talking about, yet thinks he does.
Click to expand...


 

95snoozer

Active Member
Dec 14, 2002
2,572
1
48
RCR
Sep 12, 2005
#34
  • Sep 12, 2005
  • #34
i was referring to the thread starter
 

Killercanary

The car that set the bar.
Founding Member
Nov 29, 1999
5,676
1
76
Altoona, PA
Sep 12, 2005
#35
  • Sep 12, 2005
  • #35
95snoozer said:
i was referring to the thread starter
Click to expand...

I know and I agree with you.
 

Rootus

Officially Addicted
Feb 8, 2003
6,659
1
0
Portland, Oregon
Sep 12, 2005
#36
  • Sep 12, 2005
  • #36
There have been many cars I've driven that did not have good SOTP feel, but were in fact quite fast. When it was stock, my Cobra felt slower than my '95... and in fact it was faster -- a good flat torque curve is great for going fast, but it's a peaky torque curve that gives you that feeling of power. I guess it depends on whether or want to think you're fast, or be fast

Dave
 

1EVIL88VERT

New Member
Jul 12, 2004
314
0
0
Dyess AFB, TX
Sep 12, 2005
#37
  • Sep 12, 2005
  • #37
walker i know you car will hit 300hp right now on a mustang dyno, It does'nt feel that fast because #1 your gear ratio is far from optimal for your car right now # 2 you car is damn heavy.....but that HUGE blower you got will change everything, i promise you that your car will scare you after you put that thing on
 
W

walker95svt

New Member
May 21, 2005
69
0
0
Abilene, TX
Sep 12, 2005
#38
  • Sep 12, 2005
  • #38
replies

Anyway, I was referring to a mustang dyno, not a dynojet, about the 300 hp 302s. I hope those knocking me know the difference between the two. a 300 rwhp 302 makes about 270 on a mustang dyno. I never tried to act as if I knew more than anyone here, but if someone wants to tell me they have know idea what I'm talking about, they'd better spell it out to me exactly what I'm saying that's incorrect, and correct it. Slinging mud without reason is childish. Thanks to all those that gave ACTUAL thought to the issue.
 
W

walker95svt

New Member
May 21, 2005
69
0
0
Abilene, TX
Sep 12, 2005
#39
  • Sep 12, 2005
  • #39
perfection.....

perfection? a 1/4 mile at a time? reminds me of a quote from a certain movie...




am I slinging mud now? It's okay I don't know what I'm talking about.....
 

95COBRA241

New Member
Sep 3, 2005
339
0
0
Delray Beach, FL
Sep 12, 2005
#40
  • Sep 12, 2005
  • #40
My engine builder recommended I use TFS T/W's for my 347 build when I suggested AFR's. He stated that AFR's might give better peak numbers, but he like the T/W's numbers across the board better. My car like yours will be mostly street driven.
 
Prev
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Next
First Prev 2 of 3 Next Last
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

L
95 gt engine vibration
  • lenzgt
  • May 11, 2026
  • 1994 - 1995 Specific Tech
Replies
6
Views
222
1994 - 1995 Specific Tech May 26, 2026
lenzgt
L
Fox Xtremely high fuel consumption
  • PonyGTrider
  • Apr 11, 2026
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
  • 9 10 11
Replies
213
Views
4K
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- May 9, 2026
PonyGTrider
6
2010 V6 Sees differently than GT?
  • 6t9Mach1
  • Mar 31, 2026
  • 2010 - 2014 Specific Tech
Replies
2
Views
191
2010 - 2014 Specific Tech Apr 1, 2026
6t9Mach1
6
J
Exhaust manifold to Y-pipe nut & stud dimensions?
  • joeybuddy96
  • Jul 7, 2026
  • SN95 V6 Mustang Tech
Replies
2
Views
83
SN95 V6 Mustang Tech Jul 9, 2026
joeybuddy96
J
Weber Carburetor tuning help
  • SchwarzStock
  • Jul 6, 2026
  • 1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk-
Replies
4
Views
96
1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk- Jul 19, 2026
SchwarzStock
Share:
Bluesky Email Share Link
  • Mustang Forums
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
  • 1994 - 1995 Specific Tech
Menu
Log in

Register

  • Forums
  • What's new
  • Media
  • Resources
  • Contact
  • Sponsor
X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?

X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?