Dyno Results (Final)

R

Ray@VSK

New Member

Aug 27, 2004

355

0

0

Oct 25, 2004

#1

• Oct 25, 2004

• #1

I pulled 272/303 a few weeks ago with no air box & the car was running real lean (See Graph), I since put my air box back on "as needed for my Ram air hood" & put on me much needed Pro-M Optimizer for adjusting my air/fuel ratio issues & pulled a 279/317 consistantly. I'm going to be pulling about 10 horses more than dynoed though because they had to leave my air/fuel ratio a bit rich with the Ram Air once I get going, so basicaly one could comfortably say I will be pulling 290/325 or so, Enjoy.

 

GroverDill

GoldMember

Founding Member

Aug 18, 1999

5,442

1,490

214

Demotte IN 46310

Oct 25, 2004

#2

• Oct 25, 2004

• #2

Not bad, you do know STD numbers are usally 3-4% higher than SAE numbers.

 

R

Ray@VSK

New Member

Aug 27, 2004

355

0

0

Oct 25, 2004

#3

• Oct 25, 2004

• #3

GroverDill said:

Not bad, you do know STD numbers are usally 3-4% higher than SAE numbers.

Click to expand...

Nope did not know there was a difference, either way since no ram air on dyno I'd still be about the same as picture SAE, What does STD & SAE meen anyways ?

 

tmoss

Gettin Wired

Founding Member

Jun 28, 2001

7,153

32

128

Saint Louis, MO

Oct 25, 2004

#4

• Oct 25, 2004

• #4

SAE corrects to a standard temperature - 77*F for J1349 or J1985. There are many factors that go into these calculations. Among them are temperature, humidity, pressure, and altitude. The J607 specification uses a temperature of 60 F as “normal” compared to J1349 (or J1985) which used 77 F. This means that if you use both systems with the same set of data you will get higher results for HP/TRQ with the J607. That means you cannot compare corrected data from the two different systems. I think STD just uses the atmoshperic conditions that existed that day at that time.

 

R

Ray@VSK

New Member

Aug 27, 2004

355

0

0

Oct 26, 2004

#5

• Oct 26, 2004

• #5

That's a very small difference, eitherway I'm pulling 280+

 

T

tjm73

Founding Member

Aug 3, 2000

2,418

2

48

Rush, NY

Oct 26, 2004

#6

• Oct 26, 2004

• #6

what do you run at the track?

 

IndyBlk5.0

New Member

Nov 24, 2003

1,122

1

0

New Whiteland, IN

Oct 26, 2004

#7

• Oct 26, 2004

• #7

cool, good numbers.

 

IndyBlk5.0

New Member

Nov 24, 2003

1,122

1

0

New Whiteland, IN

Oct 26, 2004

#8

• Oct 26, 2004

• #8

BTW, how did you correct your lean situation?

 

R

Ray@VSK

New Member

Aug 27, 2004

355

0

0

Oct 26, 2004

#9

• Oct 26, 2004

• #9

Don't race it, I used a Pro-M Optimizer "Works great btw".

 

IndyBlk5.0

New Member

Nov 24, 2003

1,122

1

0

New Whiteland, IN

Oct 26, 2004

#10

• Oct 26, 2004

• #10

What is that? a custom chip? im not lean in my power band....

It's lean at idle and cruise though...

 

R

Ray@VSK

New Member

Aug 27, 2004

355

0

0

Oct 26, 2004

#11

• Oct 26, 2004

• #11

Wow that's real bad, your real lean @ low rpm & rich @ high rpm's, the Pro-M Optimizer would work perfect for you, it's adjustable @ low & high rpms, you can get it here http://www.pro-flow.com/Product pages/remote_optimizer.htm

 

9

90Notch

Founding Member

Jan 31, 2002

1,046

0

0

Westwood, MA & yes it's killing me that I'm no

Oct 26, 2004

#12

• Oct 26, 2004

• #12

Stock cam?

 

R

Ray@VSK

New Member

Aug 27, 2004

355

0

0

Oct 26, 2004

#13

• Oct 26, 2004

• #13

90Notch said:

Stock cam?

Click to expand...

Yep

 

A

autoXr1

Founding Member

May 3, 2001

1,838

0

0

Michigan

Oct 26, 2004

#14

• Oct 26, 2004

• #14

Was this on an inertial-type dyno like a Dynojet, or was it a load-bearing dyno like a Mustang? It will make a difference in your dyno readings and how you're going to tune.

Was the AFR readings done at the tailpipe or before the catalytic convertors?

 

IndyBlk5.0

New Member

Nov 24, 2003

1,122

1

0

New Whiteland, IN

Oct 26, 2004

#15

• Oct 26, 2004

• #15

Great info, I think I might invest in one of those. Was that the only thing you did was use the optimizer between the dynos? If so, im buying one right now! My a/f ratios are similiar to where you started if not worse. 7hp / 14ftlbs increase on MAX and your torque curve moved up VERY much at lower rpms. Is it too good to be true, tell me its not!
Why did you go with the stock cam?

 

R

Ray@VSK

New Member

Aug 27, 2004

355

0

0

Oct 26, 2004

#16

• Oct 26, 2004

• #16

It was a DynoJet & it was @ the tail pipe.

Yes that's all I did, I tried everything & was pulling my hair out wondering why I had to have some 100#'s fuel pressure just to be driveable & still running lean so I took the recommendation of my Dyno shop to get a optimizer & as soon as I put it inline it was night & day, I would highly suggest this thing as it works excellent & does just the exact same thing as a programmable computer system but around $500.00 cheaper, I seen somewhere I think a Pro-M affiliate site that was offering em for like $149.00 "$20 cheaper than Pro-M's site" I got mine new on ebay for $100

btw I actually would be pulling more horse & torque than what you see on my sheet because last time I had no air box, it was straight air filter on meter & the new #'s are in a box & that's running allittle rich on my runs as I had him leave allittle bit extra fuel in there for my Ram Air.

The reason I went with a stock cam is because I did not want to loose any lowend to midrange torque, I am a city driver & rarely ever see 5k rpms.

 

IndyBlk5.0

New Member

Nov 24, 2003

1,122

1

0

New Whiteland, IN

Oct 26, 2004

#17

• Oct 26, 2004

• #17

WOW, im going to buy one right now...

 

R

Ray@VSK

New Member

Aug 27, 2004

355

0

0

Oct 26, 2004

#18

• Oct 26, 2004

• #18

IndyBlk5.0 said:

WOW, im going to buy one right now...

Click to expand...

You won't be dissapointed I'll tell you that, it will definately allow you to straighten your curve & it even allows you to upgrade injectors without having to get a new meter aswell

 

IndyBlk5.0

New Member

Nov 24, 2003

1,122

1

0

New Whiteland, IN

Oct 26, 2004

#19

• Oct 26, 2004

• #19

Ray@VSK said:

The reason I went with a stock cam is because I did not want to loose any lowend to midrange torque, I am a city driver & rarely ever see 5k rpms.

Click to expand...

I have an f cam, look at my torque curve (with the crappy air fuel) I think it has great low end torque, i pass people like they are standing still at 2500rpms.. I would have went aftermarket and you would of seen nice gains in both hp and torque, not to mention mid range.

 

R

Ray@VSK

New Member

Aug 27, 2004

355

0

0

Oct 26, 2004

#20

• Oct 26, 2004

• #20

I love the sound but hate the lowend