Trick Flow Engine Kit Dyno results cont.

[Ed Calvert]

Hello all,
About a week or so ago I started a thread outlining some dyno results after installing the Trick Flow Kit. Some of you where curious to see the curves so here they are in .pdf form. Please note that the data in blue is the most recent (272.06 HP & 306.66 lb/ft torque). The red data was taken last October with the stock CATS and headers still attached. Note that by going from the stock exhaust to the MAC high flow CATS and BBK 1-5/8" shorties we gained 16HP and 6lb/ft of torque. The air/fuel is tuned to 13.45. My goal is >300RWHP. I've got 30 to go. Any more suggestions, comments? You guys are way smarter than me on all of this.
Thanks for the help.

 

[JJ95GTID]

Looks like a better cam is in order now. If your TF stuff (H/I) is box stock you may want to get them ported for even better flow.

 

[Grn92LX]

You do NOT need porting or a new cam.

Try adding more fuel pressure on one run. Try adding more timing on another run. Try swapping maf's with a friend just to test. Where do you live and are you high elevation?

Here is my TFS combo dyno graph. This was with shorty headers, a small 65mm tb, c&l 76mm maf and 24# injectors. I think I ran 40psi and 18* timing. I could hae used a touch more fuel, but the a/f was pretty much near perfect. I track tuned the car, didnt make any changes on the dyno. This was on stock eec and a half hour cool down. The car made 299hp/329tq fully warmed up right off the highway and a touch lean. The cool down richened it up a little and made better power.

 

[JJ95GTID]

Grn92LX: Never said that he had to get porting and a new cam. Just a suggestion. For some reason Ed has A/F tuned for 13.45:1 and didn't mention timing. I concur on your suggestions.

 

[mo_dingo]

Yeah, get the a/f ratio to 13.0 across the board, play with the timing across the board.

Some underdrives might help some as well. But personally I wouldn't want to sacrifice the cooling or charging.
Scott

 

[Ed Calvert]

Ok, the timing was actually 12* on the most recent run. We had it set to 14* but actually lost HP. I notice that alot of guys are running at minimum 12* and in some cases 18*. Maybe we should have tried that. I'm not 100% sure if the dyno techs knew what they were doing. Fuel pressure is at 44lbs. Now that I think about it we were doing 5 to 10 minutes between runs for cool down. Not sure if that was enough. By the way, I do have the UD pulleys. The engine has 99K miles on it and was babied. The dyno tech suggested that I go Nitrous and get it over with. Not sure I want to do that, although it's an option.

 

[YEAHLOH95]

that was not enough cool down our cars like to be run cold

 

[JJ95GTID]

Don't know if you put a 180* thermostat in there yet but that will help run a little cooler. And, I swear by RedLine's Water Wetter. I use two bottles and distilled water only and never run hot.
44psi of fuel pressure and 24# injectors with a 190lph fuel pump and you couldn't get it to run rich is strange. When's the last time you replaced the fuel filter? If you can't get it to run a little rich (13.0-12.0) then I don't think bumping the timing will help.

 

[Touring23]

Guys, pardon an interruption, why is there such a large difference in the shape of the torque curves? There's some other factor here I'm not understanding.
Ed C.......~265 ft-lbs@3000
Grn92LX..~185 ft-lbs@3000
That's a lot of difference to assign to A/F ratios, especially since 3000 should still be closed-loop, right?

 

[zenboy99]

FYI, with my current combo I gained 5rwhp going from 13.3 to 13.1 AF ratio.

 

[JJ95GTID]

Guys, pardon an interruption, why is there such a large difference in the shape of the torque curves? There's some other factor here I'm not understanding.
Ed C.......~265 ft-lbs@3000
Grn92LX..~185 ft-lbs@3000
That's a lot of difference to assign to A/F ratios, especially since 3000 should still be closed-loop, right?

When you are at WOT as seen by the TPS voltage your are at open loop regardless of RPM. Although the 94-95 EEC monitors all sensors at all times unlike the 88-93 EEC. Don't know how it uses the data in OL mode though.

Edit: Grn92LX has a different EEC-IV than Ed C's 94-95 EEC-IV. They should dyno close but at the track they will be different. This link is a good read. http://www.mustangworks.com/articles/electronics/eek-vs-eek.html

 

[Grn92LX]

Guys, pardon an interruption, why is there such a large difference in the shape of the torque curves? There's some other factor here I'm not understanding.
Ed C.......~265 ft-lbs@3000
Grn92LX..~185 ft-lbs@3000
That's a lot of difference to assign to A/F ratios, especially since 3000 should still be closed-loop, right?

My combo was making 285-290 ft/lbs @ 3000 rpm. You must be looking at the HP curve. That was with shortys too like I said. Longtubes would have made more. The FTI/LT swap helped a lot in that area.

 

[Joes95GT]

Ditch the 65mm TB.
Ditch the 75mm MAF.

Feed it more fuel and throw more timing in it. I'm running 16* initial and about 36* total. There is no reason you shouldn't be able to run AT LEAST 14* initial and 30-32* total. This, of course, is assuming that you are using 93 pump gas....

Joe

 

[Touring23]

My combo was making 285-290 ft/lbs @ 3000 rpm. You must be looking at the HP curve.

Yeah.....I just came back with that thought. Sorry.

 

[slytherin]

What altitude you at/ where do you live? I would think that combo would make more oomph than that.

 

[final5-0]

When you are at WOT as seen by the TPS voltage your are at open loop regardless of RPM. Although the 94-95 EEC monitors all sensors at all times unlike the 88-93 EEC. Don't know how it uses the data in OL mode though.

This is correct and another thing that causes you to switch from CL to OL is the amount of load your operating with.

I thought it might help some to know you can operate in OL without WOT driving conditions.

Load conditions ........That is THE main difference between our how pcm and the older Fox pcm arrives at making its decisions.

Later
Grady

 

[Ed Calvert]

The dyno run was done near Carlilse, PA. Altitude I suspect is <1000ft.
Joe, you don't like the 65mm TB and the 75mm MAF. What should I do instead? Not a good combo?
You know, I'm sure that the readings will very from Dyno to Dyno. One of the questions that I asked the tech running the thing was if they get the dynometer set-up calibrated? He said that to the best of his knowledge it does not get calibrated. Does the thing have a way of self calibrating? I guess maybe what I'm asking here is, how do I now that the dyno is correct? Go run it at another one I guess.
Thanks Guys

 

[Joes95GT]

The dyno run was done near Carlilse, PA. Altitude I suspect is <1000ft.
Joe, you don't like the 65mm TB and the 75mm MAF. What should I do instead? Not a good combo?
You know, I'm sure that the readings will very from Dyno to Dyno. One of the questions that I asked the tech running the thing was if they get the dynometer set-up calibrated? He said that to the best of his knowledge it does not get calibrated. Does the thing have a way of self calibrating? I guess maybe what I'm asking here is, how do I now that the dyno is correct? Go run it at another one I guess.
Thanks Guys

I believe STD and SAE correct for some kind of DA. If that is the case, altitude doesn't make a difference.

It's not that I don't like the 65mm and 75mm pieces, it just doesn't optimize the combination. A 70 or 75mm TB (depending on elbow diameter) and an 80mm Pro-M meter would work best in this application. I also wouldn't be surprised to see it pick up 10 extra horsepower, too.

Joe

 

[ufctv]

What does the trickflow kit have.

 

[Grn92LX]

What does the trickflow kit have.

75mm.

Joe, won't a 70 or 75mm be too big for a 302? I thought those were for 2000hp funny cars?