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

Trick Flow Engine Kit Dyno results cont.

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ed Calvert
  • Start date Start date Apr 24, 2005
  • 1
  • 2
Next
1 of 2 Next Last
E

Ed Calvert

New Member
Mar 26, 2004
40
0
0
Apr 24, 2005
#1
  • Apr 24, 2005
  • #1
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.
 

Attachments

  • Calvert.pdf
    Calvert.pdf
    63.3 KB · Views: 321

JJ95GTID

Active Member
Sep 22, 2003
1,141
4
49
Phoenix, AZ
Apr 24, 2005
#2
  • Apr 24, 2005
  • #2
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

Fidanza Man!
Founding Member
Jan 14, 2001
6,819
64
129
New York
Apr 24, 2005
#3
  • Apr 24, 2005
  • #3
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

Active Member
Sep 22, 2003
1,141
4
49
Phoenix, AZ
Apr 24, 2005
#4
  • Apr 24, 2005
  • #4
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

20+ Year Stangneter
Aug 26, 2003
3,031
2
58
Tucson, AZ
Apr 24, 2005
#5
  • Apr 24, 2005
  • #5
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
 
E

Ed Calvert

New Member
Mar 26, 2004
40
0
0
Apr 25, 2005
#6
  • Apr 25, 2005
  • #6
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

Founding Member
Nov 19, 2001
1,249
3
39
EVERETT,PA
Apr 25, 2005
#7
  • Apr 25, 2005
  • #7
that was not enough cool down our cars like to be run cold
 

JJ95GTID

Active Member
Sep 22, 2003
1,141
4
49
Phoenix, AZ
Apr 25, 2005
#8
  • Apr 25, 2005
  • #8
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.
 
T

Touring23

Founding Member
Dec 29, 2001
294
0
0
Washington
Apr 25, 2005
#9
  • Apr 25, 2005
  • #9
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

Founding Member
May 12, 2002
2,212
0
47
Madison, WI
Apr 25, 2005
#10
  • Apr 25, 2005
  • #10
FYI, with my current combo I gained 5rwhp going from 13.3 to 13.1 AF ratio.
 

JJ95GTID

Active Member
Sep 22, 2003
1,141
4
49
Phoenix, AZ
Apr 25, 2005
#11
  • Apr 25, 2005
  • #11
Touring23 said:
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?
Click to expand...

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

Fidanza Man!
Founding Member
Jan 14, 2001
6,819
64
129
New York
Apr 25, 2005
#12
  • Apr 25, 2005
  • #12
Touring23 said:
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?
Click to expand...

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

New Member
Jan 23, 2003
3,132
1
0
Delaware
Apr 25, 2005
#13
  • Apr 25, 2005
  • #13
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
 
T

Touring23

Founding Member
Dec 29, 2001
294
0
0
Washington
Apr 25, 2005
#14
  • Apr 25, 2005
  • #14
Grn92LX said:
My combo was making 285-290 ft/lbs @ 3000 rpm. You must be looking at the HP curve.
Click to expand...
Yeah.....I just came back with that thought. Sorry.
 
S

slytherin

New Member
Apr 5, 2004
702
1
0
northeast ohio
Apr 25, 2005
#15
  • Apr 25, 2005
  • #15
What altitude you at/ where do you live? I would think that combo would make more oomph than that.
 

final5-0

Mustang Master
Apr 6, 2003
6,817
12
79
DFW Texas
Apr 25, 2005
#16
  • Apr 25, 2005
  • #16
JJ95GTID said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
E

Ed Calvert

New Member
Mar 26, 2004
40
0
0
Apr 25, 2005
#17
  • Apr 25, 2005
  • #17
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

New Member
Jan 23, 2003
3,132
1
0
Delaware
Apr 25, 2005
#18
  • Apr 25, 2005
  • #18
Ed Calvert said:
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
Click to expand...
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
 
U

ufctv

New Member
Apr 21, 2005
13
0
0
Apr 25, 2005
#19
  • Apr 25, 2005
  • #19
What does the trickflow kit have.
 

Grn92LX

Fidanza Man!
Founding Member
Jan 14, 2001
6,819
64
129
New York
Apr 25, 2005
#20
  • Apr 25, 2005
  • #20
ufctv said:
What does the trickflow kit have.
Click to expand...


75mm.

Joe, won't a 70 or 75mm be too big for a 302? I thought those were for 2000hp funny cars?
 
  • 1
  • 2
Next
1 of 2 Next Last
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

SN95 Desktop 363 Engine Combination - Looking for input
  • WhiteCobra95
  • Sep 8, 2025
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Replies
11
Views
1K
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Oct 6, 2025
Habu135
Fox Am I The Only One Shocked By My Dyno Results?
  • Vinnyc1487
  • Sep 8, 2021
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Replies
10
Views
2K
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Sep 13, 2021
revhead347
Trying To Match The Hci-plus-vortech Build Described In This Article As Close As Possible
  • revcor
  • Jan 3, 2018
  • Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech
Replies
15
Views
8K
Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech Jan 20, 2018
Reddevil91
R
Lincon Mk Vii - Trick Flow & Supercharged- Report
  • Rapalyea
  • May 2, 2016
  • Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech
Replies
0
Views
3K
Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech May 2, 2016
Rapalyea
R
New Dyno #'s 95 Gt Graphs Below Comments Welcome
  • 90lxwhite
  • Dec 2, 2013
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Replies
6
Views
978
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Dec 4, 2013
NIKwoaC
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?