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

Just got back from the Dyno

  • Thread starter Thread starter HoofnIt
  • Start date Start date Nov 9, 2004
Prev
  • 1
  • 2
First Prev 2 of 2

GRGT1994

New Member
Sep 22, 2004
1,034
0
0
Nov 10, 2004
#21
  • Nov 10, 2004
  • #21
Joes95GT said:
Have you ever seen inside of a Flowmaster muffler? If you have, you would know why they kill horsepower. It looks like Flowmaster welded metal bricks in the muffler...
Click to expand...
I don't get it. Were you expecting mufflers to add power?
 

go.rei GT

New Member
Nov 29, 2003
267
0
0
Az
Nov 10, 2004
#22
  • Nov 10, 2004
  • #22
GRGT1994 said:
I don't get it. Were you expecting mufflers to add power?
Click to expand...


See the 94-95 faq sheet at the top for catback hp numbers, which would have even larger differences on a forced induction application.
 

moneypit94

Active Member
May 23, 2003
1,723
2
39
Macomb, IL
Nov 10, 2004
#23
  • Nov 10, 2004
  • #23
hey send me the winPEP files at dlb1982@macomb.com and i will get it to were you can post the graphs on here..

Very interesting with the #'s with no c-back... my dad has always told me that open headers would produce more power... But you had to extend them. He said to spray white paint on your h-pipe and where it stopped turning yellow from the heat thats how long you needed to extend them to..

Like i said very interesting.. Another one of those times were later on in life you find out your parents might now what they are talking about... hehehe
 

tmoss

Gettin Wired
Founding Member
Jun 28, 2001
7,153
32
128
Saint Louis, MO
Nov 11, 2004
#24
  • Nov 11, 2004
  • #24
moneypit94 said:
... my dad has always told me that open headers would produce more power... But you had to extend them. He said to spray white paint on your h-pipe and where it stopped turning yellow from the heat thats how long you needed to extend them to...
Click to expand...

Old racers trick that works. Using a new header extension without paint works too, just look at where the heat discoloration marking on the steel extension stops and cut them off there.
 

Joes95GT

New Member
Jan 23, 2003
3,132
1
0
Delaware
Nov 11, 2004
#25
  • Nov 11, 2004
  • #25
tmoss said:
Old racers trick that works. Using a new header extension without paint works too, just look at where the heat discoloration marking on the steel extension stops and cut them off there.
Click to expand...
LOL. Tom's one of them old guys who knows about that stuff . Just havin a little fun with ya Tom.
GRGT1994 said:
I don't get it. Were you expecting mufflers to add power?
Click to expand...
You missed the point.

On a mild street car with a GOOD exhaust and muffer combination, there is no reason why a car should pick up that much power simply by unhooking the mufflers.
final5-0 said:
A thought or maybe it is a Q, it don't matter. Paul says he has same springs as HoofnIt and has no valve float plus higher rpms.
Click to expand...
YES!

I could go on for hours about this because I just learned about it in school, but I'll summarize it...

Valve float is caused by spring harmonics. Harmonics are caused by many things. In cars, the primary (2) reasons for harmonics are from being pushed too close to coil bind or spring compression.

Take a spring in a pen for example. Compress it slowly between your fingers. Right before it coil binds, it's going to buckle and fly out of your fingers. That's harmonics.

Now, do the same thing, compressing the spring between your fingers, but do it much faster. Harmonics are created much faster.

This is the same idea with valve springs. With a higher rocker ratio, the spring is being compressed MUCH faster and it's trying to "jump" (in a sense) out of the pocket.

If I were a betting kind of guy, I'd put the farm on the valve springs if you are really experiencing valve float.

Joe
 

HoofnIt

Founding Member
Jan 8, 2001
1,175
0
36
North Carolina
Nov 11, 2004
#26
  • Nov 11, 2004
  • #26
Sorry it took me so long to reply back.

moneypit94 - I emailed you with the dyno run files attached.

If it was ported correctly, it will make a lot of power.
Click to expand...

tmoss - you have done so many you probably don't remember doing mine. I sent the lower off to you last spring. I have no intentions of replacing the intake at this time. The Flowmasters are going to be the first thing to go. I will wait for the dyno runs to be posted before I make any other decisions.

With reference to the flows I cannot positively say that the flows alone were taking 8rwhp because we didn't replace them with straight pipes and get a run with just the tailpipes. I really don't know how much power the tailpipes are taking?

As to losing power after 5000rpm, are your distributor & coil stock? If so, you may want to upgrade them.
Click to expand...

The dist is stock w/80K miles and the coil is a MSD Blaster. I also have a new stator, cap and rotor. The dyno operator said that the ignition was holding up fine.

On a mild street car with a GOOD exhaust and muffer combination, there is no reason why a car should pick up that much power simply by unhooking the mufflers.
Click to expand...

I guess the question is why did it then? You'll notice that the hp went up but the torque did not.

I have a suspicion that the 1.7 rockers are too much for the stock AFR springs. Maybe that is why the power is dropping off so early. The cobra intake should be making power up to 6K rpms.
 

moneypit94

Active Member
May 23, 2003
1,723
2
39
Macomb, IL
Nov 11, 2004
#27
  • Nov 11, 2004
  • #27
Ok here is runs 1, 11, 15, and 12 of them put together.

I don't know why I couldn't get the a/f to come up on 15. Also the run viewer seems to never match exactly with the numbers you see on the dyno computer but are usually really close...








 

Joes95GT

New Member
Jan 23, 2003
3,132
1
0
Delaware
Nov 11, 2004
#28
  • Nov 11, 2004
  • #28
HoofnIt said:
I guess the question is why did it then? You'll notice that the hp went up but the torque did not.

I have a suspicion that the 1.7 rockers are too much for the stock AFR springs. Maybe that is why the power is dropping off so early. The cobra intake should be making power up to 6K rpms.
Click to expand...
The 1.7 rockers combined with weak spring pressures are causing the float problems.

When I can get a long enough break from school, I work at my neighbor's muffler shop for some extra loot. I've modified a few sets of Flowmaster mufflers for cars who want to say, "I run the car through mufflers." I basically cut out all the baffling inside of them so they're just a hollow box with the little gills along the side. In the middle, there is this huge wall that completely deflects air in every direction except towards the back of the muffler, causing huge amounts of turbulence. It's very hard to predict dyno numbers, but I'm willing to guess that you would pick up 5 more horsepower simply by switching to a quality stainless muffler. It will also get rid of the dreadful Flowmaster sound.

Joe
 

final5-0

Mustang Master
Apr 6, 2003
6,817
12
79
DFW Texas
Nov 11, 2004
#29
  • Nov 11, 2004
  • #29
tmoss said:
Old racers trick that works. Using a new header extension without paint works too, just look at where the heat discoloration marking on the steel extension stops and cut them off there.
Click to expand...

OK Tom!

You done went and let the cat out of the bag

By saying that kind of stuff I now know that you ain't no youngster

Later
Grady
 

tmoss

Gettin Wired
Founding Member
Jun 28, 2001
7,153
32
128
Saint Louis, MO
Nov 11, 2004
#30
  • Nov 11, 2004
  • #30
Your right, I didn't rememer doing your intake off the top of my head. I guess it was done "right" then.

I just re-read the thread and noticed you said you were gonna re-do the lifters to 3/4 turn - please don't. I only take 1/4 turn on mine and feel it's much better than 1/2 or 3/4 turns. Ford at one time actually recommended just zero lash for race cars on the hydraulics.

How was the cam installed? The Crowers have 4* of advance ground in, so waht ICL was it installed at?

MattZ281LE had the SAME combo (even headers) except he used a 77mm MAF and 1.6 rockers and he made 306HP/329TQ.
 
T

Touring23

Founding Member
Dec 29, 2001
294
0
0
Washington
Nov 12, 2004
#31
  • Nov 12, 2004
  • #31
Wow, it sure is lean off-idle...vacuum leak?
 

Joes95GT

New Member
Jan 23, 2003
3,132
1
0
Delaware
Nov 12, 2004
#32
  • Nov 12, 2004
  • #32
tmoss said:
I only take 1/4 turn on mine and feel it's much better than 1/2 or 3/4 turns. Ford at one time actually recommended just zero lash for race cars on the hydraulics.
Click to expand...
My Dad has worked as a mechanic at Ford for the past 22 years, so he's worked with TONS of hydraulic race junk. That's almost exactly what we did with my car. We did zero + "a tad".

Chalk up another one for Tom....

Joe
 

HoofnIt

Founding Member
Jan 8, 2001
1,175
0
36
North Carolina
Nov 12, 2004
#33
  • Nov 12, 2004
  • #33
How was the cam installed? The Crowers have 4* of advance ground in, so waht ICL was it installed at?
Click to expand...

I have not heard of ICL but I'm guessing you're talking about whether or not I advanced or retarded the cam when I installed it. I did neither; I lined the dots up straight up and down. I guess if what you're saying is correct about the 4 deg. of advance built in that would explain the car not picking up more power with more timing.

I knew about Matt's combo and was hopeful mine would be similar. Do you think the 1.7 rockers are actually costing me power? What do you think will happen to the hp and tq by going down to 1.6 rockers?
 
5

5.0snake

New Member
Nov 12, 2004
95
0
0
South Eastern PA
Nov 12, 2004
#34
  • Nov 12, 2004
  • #34
nice numbers....wish mine where that high
 

stangboy

Founding Member
Aug 31, 1999
3,932
469
194
New Orleans, LA
Nov 12, 2004
#35
  • Nov 12, 2004
  • #35
It interesting that you guys are saying that Ford used to do 0 lash. I set mine at a 1/2 turn after zero and my rockers are making more noise than they did before I readjusted them. I know the rockers aren't supposed to be making all that noise with a hydraulic cam/lifters. A friend of mine's solid lift valvetrain doesn't make as much noise as mine.
 

tmoss

Gettin Wired
Founding Member
Jun 28, 2001
7,153
32
128
Saint Louis, MO
Nov 12, 2004
#36
  • Nov 12, 2004
  • #36
HoofnIt said:
I have not heard of ICL but I'm guessing you're talking about whether or not I advanced or retarded the cam when I installed it. I did neither; I lined the dots up straight up and down. I guess if what you're saying is correct about the 4 deg. of advance built in that would explain the car not picking up more power with more timing.

I knew about Matt's combo and was hopeful mine would be similar. Do you think the 1.7 rockers are actually costing me power? What do you think will happen to the hp and tq by going down to 1.6 rockers?
Click to expand...

ICL = Intake Center Line. If the cam is spec'd out at 114* lobe centers, and the cam has 4* of advance ground in, then the dot-to-dot install should occur at (114-4) 110*. The car not picking up power with timing seems to indicate there is another problem as most cars pick up some power by moving from 10* to 14-16* initial. I wish I coould say you have a problem or not and identify it for you. Some combinations of the same engine just don't make as much power, but the fact that added timing did not pick up power is suggesting something isn't quite right. If you could beg/borrow some 1.6 rockers to put on the car to see, it might help eliminate the or verify a spring situation.
 

tmoss

Gettin Wired
Founding Member
Jun 28, 2001
7,153
32
128
Saint Louis, MO
Nov 12, 2004
#37
  • Nov 12, 2004
  • #37
stangboy said:
It interesting that you guys are saying that Ford used to do 0 lash. I set mine at a 1/2 turn after zero and my rockers are making more noise than they did before I readjusted them. I know the rockers aren't supposed to be making all that noise with a hydraulic cam/lifters. A friend of mine's solid lift valvetrain doesn't make as much noise as mine.
Click to expand...

Ford suggested 0 lash for race engines - they probably WOULD be noisy at that setting. My 1/4 turn lifters are wisper quiet - you would no know their there if I didn't tell you.
 

tmoss

Gettin Wired
Founding Member
Jun 28, 2001
7,153
32
128
Saint Louis, MO
Nov 12, 2004
#38
  • Nov 12, 2004
  • #38
Joes95GT said:
My Dad has worked as a mechanic at Ford for the past 22 years, so he's worked with TONS of hydraulic race junk. That's almost exactly what we did with my car. We did zero + "a tad".

Chalk up another one for Tom....

Joe
Click to expand...

Any noise out of yours Joe? You do tend to learn something if you listen over a 40 year period.
 

Joes95GT

New Member
Jan 23, 2003
3,132
1
0
Delaware
Nov 12, 2004
#39
  • Nov 12, 2004
  • #39
tmoss said:
Any noise out of yours Joe? You do tend to learn something if you listen over a 40 year period.
Click to expand...
Yep, a little. Cold starts are loud and it quiets down considerably once temperature is stabilized. It sounds like it's got a solid cam in it at first with the loose-like "chick-chick-chick" sound.

Another thing my Dad was concerned about was setting the rockers because with a minimal amount of preload he's afraid that the minimum will eventually wear to none (bolts backing out due to heat). So we've gone through and set the rockers a few times after the first heat cycles. The car hasn't been started since August, so whenever I decide to screw with it again, I'll probably set them to 1/4 turn and once race season comes (and my car stays together), I'll run them at zero again.

***To all others reading this, it is not recommended by Ford that you run a hydraulic roller valve train at zero lash on the street. There is much more room for failure as lifter preload minimizes. I believe Ford recommends that you run .040" - .060" of preload, but I could be incorrect.

Joe
 
Prev
  • 1
  • 2
First Prev 2 of 2
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Just got back from Anderson new dyno numbers
  • Kdubslugga
  • May 18, 2010
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Replies
16
Views
1K
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- May 27, 2010
Kdubslugga
Just got back from the dyno.
  • jivepepper
  • May 23, 2006
  • 1996 - 2004 SN95 Mustang -General/Talk-
Replies
14
Views
952
1996 - 2004 SN95 Mustang -General/Talk- May 24, 2006
Dan_Soprano
back from the track
  • Mustangless
  • Jan 15, 2006
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Replies
7
Views
696
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Jan 17, 2006
NotQuik
Just got car back from painter.....
  • 97Snake1668
  • Oct 3, 2005
  • Mustang Sound & Shine All
Replies
2
Views
758
Mustang Sound & Shine All Oct 4, 2005
zincyellow03
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?