How does this dyno look?

[jstreet0204]

Yeah, I though my Pro-M was ok.

It may or may not be. Read up on how the MAF's work, and make sure you have the right tansfer curve in your tune. I wouldn't say the MAF you have is junk, but if the tune to be set up for it, meaning the transfer curve is dialed in, not just WOT fuel adjustments to get a flat a/f on the dyno run. That is the band-aid fix that many tuners use. This does not correct the actual reading of the MAF, and because of this, throws off load scaling. The eec uses the MAF reading not only to determine how much fuel to add, but also to determine how hard the engine is working (load, or volumetric effeciency) Basically it knows the cubic inches of the motor and the rpm, so it uses the MAF to determine how much air is flowing through the engine, compared to how much it is capable of flowing. There are several of tables in the eec that use load to determine spark, fuel, ect. If the curve is off, so are all the load dependant functions.

 

[Give Me TP]

The biggest problems I've heard of with the C&L is yes they tend to run lean, and I thought I remembered you posting that you had to tune to correct the lean condition.

True, I did have to tune to correct a lean condition, but the same lean condition was evident with my vehicle when I used a K&N CAI with the MAF in the stock housing. In and of itself the C&L did not change my A/F significantly, but it did completely eliminate an occasional stalling issue that occurred when I was using the K&N setup.

 

[jstreet0204]

True, I did have to tune to correct a lean condition, but the same lean condition was evident with my vehicle when I used a K&N CAI with the MAF in the stock housing. In and of itself the C&L did not change my A/F significantly, but it did completely eliminate an occasional stalling issue that occurred when I was using the K&N setup.

Can you datalog a parameter called KAMRF, or it may be called Short term fuel trims in the predator. If you can it will give you an idea of how far the MAF curve is off during closed loop. These are the correction values that tell the difference between what it is seeing at the MAF, and what the results are at the o2 sensors. If the MAF curve is close, then the values will be within a tenth or so of 1. If it is off, you will likely see values like 1.7 to -1.7 or more. Will it hurt your car? Probably not, it just isn't runing the best it could is all. Again though WOT a/f is only half of the issue. If the transfer curve isn't correct load is calculated wrong and hence, so is timing among other things.

 

[forpit2000gt]

I don't know what truth there is in this but if it is true, the maf may have something to do with the numbers(not the size) the type and the 99 computer. read whole thing. New to me but there is always something to learn.

http://eelink.net/~p-nowak/EEC-Archive/msg02867.html

 

[Give Me TP]

Yes it can be logged. I'll do so in the near future and see what it reads. Thanks.

 

[forpit2000gt]

BTW, I thought Granatelli supplied the transfer curve info with the MAF.
right , wrong???
timing advance is the one thing that should gain you as much or more than any other basic bolton.

 

[jstreet0204]

I don't know what truth there is in this but if it is true, the maf may have something to do with the numbers(not the size) the type and the 99 computer. read whole thing. New to me but there is always something to learn.

http://eelink.net/~p-nowak/EEC-Archive/msg02867.html

This is a good example of what I was explaining about the MAF curve being corrected for WOT and not correcting the actual curve.

> Posted By: V8VENOM (209.233.225.146) On Date: Tue 9/28/99 13:51
>
> I just got off the phone with a couple of people, one was a Steeda tech
> person and the other was tech person from SVT. I was talking to the Steeda
> guy about ProM MAF kits and he told me they had problems making and MAF
> changes to the '99 Cobra and GT due to the ECU. Apparently they would see
a
> good 12+ RWHP gain using the ProM 80mm MAF (same with the 77mm) kit, but
> after about a week of driving they'd show only a 3 HP gain!! He said they
> tried reseting the computer ran the dyno again and it showed 12+ HP gain,
> they ran it for another week and back it went to 3 HP gain (over
baseline).
>
> They started doing all kinds of adjustments to figure out what is going on
> with the '99 GT & Cobras. It turns out that FORD have changed the ECU for
> '99 which now doesn't permit good gains from MAF kits (in other words you
> can't fool the ECU anymore). Steeda have since recommended to not use the
> ProM or any MAF kit for the '99 series mustangs (Cobra or GT). They'll
> still sell the MAF kit if you really want it, but they do say you'll only
> get 3 RWHP from it (not a good investment for $400).
>
> So, I had a chat with FORD SVT to see if I could get info about the new
ECU
> for '99 Mustangs (careful not to mention modifications) under the
> impression I was talking about the "fix". SVT said the ECU in the '99 is
> not the same as the prior year SVT Cobra. I asked if the ECU is replaced
or
> just updated for the fix. He said, the ECU can't be updated easily and
will
> be replaced.
>
> Take this info for what it is worth, but I'm interested to see if any '99
> GT or Cobra owners have dyno'd with MAF changes and then dyno'd a week
> later to see if the RWHP was still the same?
>
> Cheers, Rob.

Here you see someone that has had a tune to correct a/f during WOT, only to have the eec make adaptive changes during closed loop and throw off the next dyno run because the changes that needed to be made by the eec are applied back during WOT. Clearing the memory restored the previous gains, so that tells me the problem is in the short term fuel trims. I dissagree that gains can't be made in 99 up because of the changes to the ecu, but instead that there isnt much to gain because the factory mafs are already very good.

 

[forpit2000gt]

even with the current setup, shouldn't the car repond positively with an increase in timing up to the point of detonation?

 

[jstreet0204]

even with the current setup, shouldn't the car repond positively with an increase in timing up to the point of detonation?

It should respond with timing advanced over stock, but not always to the point of detonation.

 

[forpit2000gt]

I gained 10rwhp and 16 rwtq with a timing adjuster alone at 14-15 deg., 16 was to much. maybe i was + or - 1 deg. The 99-00 seem to make less power than 01 and up with same mods. Is this a EEC problem or other?

 

[jstreet0204]

I gained 10rwhp and 16 rwtq with a timing adjuster alone at 14-15 deg., 16 was to much. maybe i was + or - 1 deg. The 99-00 seem to make less power than 01 and up with same mods. Is this a EEC problem or other?

That's what I meant. You won't always make the most power 1 degree below the point where where you get detonation, and all cars aren't te same, so timing is a matter of finding that magic right number that works best on your car.

Also, 99-00 have a slightly lower compression ratio.

 

[Joel's98GT]

What a jerk. People like myself? What does that mean? I asked a simple, one worded question that required a simple, non attacking answer. Try answering a newbie's question without belittling him. I posted praise a day or two ago thanking everyone for their help, go back and look since criticizing others on their forum etiquette is so important to you. I started this thread to look for input on what might be wrong or where improvement is needed, not to bow down to every faster car than mine (and I know there are many). Congratulations, your car is faster & a '98, you are the man. Take a second & remember what it was like when you were new to the scene & thirsty for knowledge.

twogts4us, and billfisher told you why your dyno isn't smooth and you argued with them (this doesn't sound like somone searching for knowledge) Bill also answered your "why?" question before you asked it, which you ignored

jstreet0204 also gave the same advice, with links which you obviously didn't read by the "why?" which would have been answered if you would have.

2002BLGT, also said the maf was the problem.

in post #33 it shows you ignore four people to make up your own theory about your auto being the issue. I never said you should bow down to anyone, just to at least consider what they are saying instead of blowing it off. if you want to stay slow, go ahead, make up your own theories while everyone is telling you otherwise. There is a saying, "your ears don't work while your mouth is moving" also translates here, if you are busy arguing you aren't really thirsting for knowledge as you claim.

P.s. yeah, i'm a jerk, it's something i've learned to live with.

 

[comatose]

twogts4us, and billfisher told you why your dyno isn't smooth and you argued with them (this doesn't sound like somone searching for knowledge) Bill also answered your "why?" question before you asked it, which you ignored

jstreet0204 also gave the same advice, with links which you obviously didn't read by the "why?" which would have been answered if you would have.

2002BLGT, also said the maf was the problem.

in post #33 it shows you ignore four people to make up your own theory about your auto being the issue. I never said you should bow down to anyone, just to at least consider what they are saying instead of blowing it off. if you want to stay slow, go ahead, make up your own theories while everyone is telling you otherwise. There is a saying, "your ears don't work while your mouth is moving" also translates here, if you are busy arguing you aren't really thirsting for knowledge as you claim.

P.s. yeah, i'm a jerk, it's something i've learned to live with.

Not only are you a jerk, but I'm pretty sure you can't read. twogts4us said "Get rid of the MAF". That's it. Wow, that's great, I'd like to know why. He never posted anything more on his reasonings. billfisher seemed to have wrong information from the beginning on what the stock size of the MAF was. He did provide some other good info & I never bashed him on anything. You must take every word you hear as the gospel before hearing as many different views as possible, which is what I am trying to do. jstreet gave excellent information and supported his thoughts and I appreciate it, and I did read the links, thanks. Never did I dispute the advice from jstreet.

2002BLGT did the same thing as twogts4us and simply stated "get rid of the MAF" with no other explanation. I wanted to hear his opinion. I wasn't ignoring other advice, I wanted to know that person's point of view.

So is it a theory that autos sap power? I don't think so but maybe; see I was throwing it out there to get opinions. If it is wrong then oh well, but I think it is a valid point. The only one who is draining my thirst for knowledge is you, the snobby mustang "guru" with no respect for others who feels it necessary to make himself look superior on a public forum. If you haven't noticed, there have been many responses to various points in this forum & could do better without your two cents.

 

[forpit2000gt]

I looked at you list again, please get off the MAF thing.

I think these numbers are very generous, someone will chime in I'm sure.
70mm TB=10hp
UD Pulleys=5hp
BBK CAI=0hp
ProM 87mm MAF=5hp
Flowmasters3 chamber=10hp
Diablo Predator=10hp

If the car had 260 fom the factory and you add the gained hp from the parts, 40hp, that would give you 300hp.
with an average loss of 20% with the autoand the 4.10s you have 240rwhp.
( 15% loss with manual)
You are a little under what the numbers should add up to. You probably don't get these numbers anyways. You are right in line with the mods you have.
Please don't tell me that the BBK cai gives any measurable hp. Somes tests show it loses hp.

 

[twogts4us]

There are no numbers in your reply.

No numbers? Do you need numbers? Pictures too? Exactly what numbers would you like?

I don't use a C&L MAF, I use a C&L MAF housing. A good-looking billet piece too I might add.

Oh Jesus, you want to split hairs on what name to give it? Oh, and, by the way - it is NOT billet. It's a cheap, porous casting.

Thanks to jstreet0204 for his excellent posts . (Hey, Give Me TP - I think he had a couple numbers in a post of his...maybe that will help you understand? )

I am so over arguing with people about MAFs. If some of you want to continue to believe that you NEED a different MAF to make more power, then by all means go for it. I'd just encourage you to educate yourself (and not by the manufacturer's ads) but from actual tuners or independent articles. www.modulardepot.com has some great resources, excellent information and, IMO, the best mod motor tech on the web. It's amazing to try and talk tech over here...and then go over there. StangNet is like middle school, whereas ModularDepot is graduate school.
Also, thanks to Joel's98GT for his straight talk post.

 

[Joel's98GT]

So is it a theory that autos sap power? I don't think so but maybe; see I was throwing it out there to get opinions. If it is wrong then oh well, but I think it is a valid point. The only one who is draining my thirst for knowledge is you, the snobby mustang "guru" with no respect for others who feels it necessary to make himself look superior on a public forum. If you haven't noticed, there have been many responses to various points in this forum & could do better without your two cents.

not it's fact that it takes more hp to put power through an auto, but 99+ autos put down 230 at the wheels STOCK! dumbass.

noob, act like a noob, shut up and listen. you took my first post personally, boo hoo for you, i didn't mean it that way, stop whining already.

 

[Give Me TP]

No numbers? Do you need numbers? Pictures too? Exactly what numbers would you like?


Oh Jesus, you want to split hairs on what name to give it? Oh, and, by the way - it is NOT billet. It's a cheap, porous casting.

Thanks to jstreet0204 for his excellent posts . (Hey, Give Me TP - I think he had a couple numbers in a post of his...maybe that will help you understand? )

I am so over arguing with people about MAFs. If some of you want to continue to believe that you NEED a different MAF to make more power, then by all means go for it. I'd just encourage you to educate yourself (and not by the manufacturer's ads) but from actual tuners or independent articles. www.modulardepot.com has some great resources, excellent information and, IMO, the best mod motor tech on the web. It's amazing to try and talk tech over here...and then go over there. StangNet is like middle school, whereas ModularDepot is graduate school.
Also, thanks to Joel's98GT for his straight talk post.

You need numbers to make your "opinion" any more than just that. I personally would never refer to any mod as "junk" without backing it up with some actual before/after results. Your "opinion" of a C&L MAF housing says nothing to me other than you were incapable of tuning to realize any of it's potential. Using an aftermarket MAF housing with stock sample tubes and a complete aftermarket MAF with totally different sample tubes makes far more difference than "splitting hairs" when it comes to tuning. Spend more time at graduate school, you're still wet behind the ears on the subject of tuning. You are correct in stating that the housing is cast, not billet, however adding that it is a "cheap, porous casting" is only another "opinion" that means nothing. Mine has a machined bore that is neither "porous" or "cheap".

Agree with you on info provided by jstreet0204, that's exactly what I mean by numbers. Notice that he doesn't use 'high tech" terminology such as "junk" and that middle-school age "Idiot flag" like you.

 

[jstreet0204]

Just to be clear here, I never said the MAF was causing him to be down on his dyno numbers. Personally I think his numbers fall about right. You can't nitpick 10hp from different dynos on different days from different cars. The numbers just vary too much. My original point was to point out that the problem with aftermarket MAF's was not that they are too big (as someone had said), but there were other problems with them that make them difficult to tune. Some of the links I gave were messages posted Jerry from SCT and Mike Wesley who wrote the chipmaster software used to burn chips. I don't know if you could find more knowledgable people to get your info from. Most of the tuning knowledge I have learned so far has come from things these guys have written.

 

[Give Me TP]

I have found the ambient air temp plays a significant role in dyno results.

 

[forpit2000gt]

not it's fact that it takes more hp to put power through an auto, but 99+ autos put down 230 at the wheels STOCK! dumbass.

noob, act like a noob, shut up and listen. you took my first post personally, boo hoo for you, i didn't mean it that way, stop whining already.

maybe 01-04 autos put down 230 to the ground , stock but 99-00 typically have somewhere between 215-225 rwhp. 225 is still generous.