Bill Ball

By my recollection, more than 40 HP and 40 ft-lbs of TQ were gained by Jim's Sharktuning on the dyno. This is AFTER Dennis and I did a fair amount of street tuning with the SharkTuner. We had the fuel curve in a safe zone during WOT after a bunch of terrifying WOT runs on the highway and had idle and cruise pretty well adjusted for good daily drivability.

Jim spent a lot of time developing a dyno tuning plan. Although the basic use of the Sharktuner is fairly intuitive and can produce good improvements by driving and logging and adjusting, it's not obvious how to best use the various fuel and ignition maps and adjustment parameters to get the most out it. I really can't encapsulate what Jim did, but he spent a lot of time preparing for the dyno sessions so that we could get a good idea of just how sensitive the new motor was to fuel and igntion changes and make best use of the time. A lot of spreadsheets with lookup tables and fomulas were created to provide an efficient way to determine how to change the maps from logged data. Dennis's film doesn't capture all the activity as we had two laptops collecting data (one for the Sharktuner and one for the TechEdge) and after each run, Jim ran the logs through his spreadheets and came up with precise tweaks. The improvements were dramatic.

Jim R.

Excellent results from a well built and tuned motor! Nice to see how far they can be pushed NA. Is there any plan for a check of the 2/6 bearings after a period of track use with the oiling mods to see how well they are working?

Jim

Bill Ball

Jim:

FWIW, the crank was drilled and the galleys were tweaked to improve 2/6 oiling. Also, we have a pressure gauge and switch going right on the galley via an access hole drilled in the girdle prior to assembly.

mark kibort

Do you really think crank scraper and lowered sump gave him 50hp. by the the way, the noise at the top is noise. the peak real hp is 375ish. which is amazing. BUT, Ill clue you in on something. Our cams are crap compared to other stock performance cams out there. Not only did Dennis get 1mm more lift, but he also did some profiling. that coupled with some fuel optimization, and behold the dyno. Remember, my bone stock set up was 335rwhp very close to Rons car in shape and Hp with only headers and near the same GT cam.

So, the question is, where did the near 40hp come from. rememeber, before optimization, he was near 350rwhp the last 25 came from tuning. Me thinks much of the gains are in the cams. I guess all we need to do now, is fit a s4 with those cams and no other mods and see what it will do. maybe the Blackwidow will be the next inline. 305rwhp with stock S4 cams now.

mk

drnick

dennis, those are some nice results! ive parted company with the orange beast and never got to the point of sharktuning. id be interested to see what the GTS engine would have made with essentialy similar mods to yours (elgin cams and devek headers). also interesting to note your experience of sharktuning on the street versus on the dyno.

Bill Ball

Sorry to see the orange beast go. The street tuning that Dennis and I did left some overly rich spots that we could not quite figure out. Even if we could have, we had no solid idea what the target AFR should be for maximum power. So, the dyno was a necessity, and Jim had developed tools that got rid of the lumps in the AFR curve rather quickly.

Jim Morton

Nick:

I have all the pieces to make this mod on my GTS, just limited in disposable free time... Stay tuned over the next 3-6 months.

Jim bailey - 928 International

Keeping the oil off the crank is Guesstimated at 2 - 3 % but who knows usually other things are done at the same time. You see claims of much greater benefits. Plus all that kinetic energy turns to heat ( you can " cook " soup in a blender if you churn it long enough) which is a bad thing.

John Speake

Very impressive results !! Congrats to all :-)

IcemanG17

304whp actually...but close enough..... not bad, pretty good considering the lousy AFR & mustang dyno.... I made an overlay of Dennis's graph and my best graph....the power curves are similar, but his torque is far later..with mine peaking early at 3250rpm....vs 4250rpm or so for Dennis...whats more depressing is he makes as much torque at 2500rpm as I do PEAK.....so his power curve is FAR better.... But the cams help produce more torque later in the rpm than the stock S4 cams.... I'm hoping that with some tuning I can get close to 325whp....315 torque..but I'm not really in a hurry either...since I can't drive like Dennis or MK

Jim Morton

... if all of the result was only tied to one thing.

Some fun facts:

1.) The intake cams are less than 0.5mm more lift than S3/GT's. The exhaust a bit more.
2.) For the intake cam, the profile has about 15 percent more area under the lift curve than an S4...
3.) From my experiences with the 928 bottom end, improvements in windage control are worth more a little more than 2-3 percent given the small volume of the crankcase... certainly not 40-50 RWHP, but not 6-8 either. If someone had lots of time on their hands, it would be fun to have a mule engine and test the effects of windage improvements.

john gill

Hello Dennis

what correction factor was used or the driveline loss?

do you have the wheel measured results ??

thanks
JG

Bill Ball

John: These are rear wheel!

Jim Morton

John:

We did measure a parasitic curve before performing the pulls. The curve was not linear. The power loss at 100MPH was about 70HP.

FWIW, our pulls were measured from just under 40MPH to 130MPH, done in 4th gear.

RicerSchnitzzle

Beyond impressive!