5.0L Screamer Motor goes to the dyno. (w/ graphs & video)
11-13-2008, 07:32 PM
#31
Rennlist Member
how did you do this? release the gas pedal? and do a coast down in gear?
If you put it in neutral , and did a coast down, its more like 20hp at 150mph down to 10hp at 80mph and goes down from there.
If your parasitic loss was in gear, it also had the compression forces of the engine, as well as transmission losses. not really related to the topic of converting rwhp to flywheel hp values.
as a general number, 15% losses for everything would be close enough at the top speeds of the dyno run.
mk
If you put it in neutral , and did a coast down, its more like 20hp at 150mph down to 10hp at 80mph and goes down from there.
If your parasitic loss was in gear, it also had the compression forces of the engine, as well as transmission losses. not really related to the topic of converting rwhp to flywheel hp values.
as a general number, 15% losses for everything would be close enough at the top speeds of the dyno run.
mk
11-13-2008, 07:49 PM
#32
Rennlist Member
I thought Dennis said that he had a 1mm lift improvement over the GT/S3 cam. still, .5mm is still great without the use of shims.
since the oil level is just at the bottom of the crank, i dont imagine that the whipping is that great. sure, there are some losses, but its not like it is submerged. after all, after a 6000rpm average 1/2 hour of racing, i imediately check the oil and there is not a bubble to be found. plus with the knife edged cranks, its probably reduced even further. I doubt that 6000rpm whipping the surface of a pool of oil would drag more than 10hp at worst. I kind of like the idea of oil splashing all over the place for better lubrication.
since the oil level is just at the bottom of the crank, i dont imagine that the whipping is that great. sure, there are some losses, but its not like it is submerged. after all, after a 6000rpm average 1/2 hour of racing, i imediately check the oil and there is not a bubble to be found. plus with the knife edged cranks, its probably reduced even further. I doubt that 6000rpm whipping the surface of a pool of oil would drag more than 10hp at worst. I kind of like the idea of oil splashing all over the place for better lubrication.
... 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.
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.
11-13-2008, 08:32 PM
#33
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Congratulation Dennis (and Jim and Bill).
Those are great numbers, quite an accomplishment. It'll be good seeing you out
on the track again Dennis, it's been too long since the last time.
Those are great numbers, quite an accomplishment. It'll be good seeing you out
on the track again Dennis, it's been too long since the last time.
11-13-2008, 09:00 PM
#34
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
Alright, my boys Jim & Bill took care of all the technical questions w/ aplomb while I was out of the office today.
I wanted to expand on Bill's post about Jim's Sharktuning. The LH & EZK maps, the Sharktuner datalogs and the Techedge WBO2 logs were all exported into Excel. From there we could compare the AFR w/ the values in the base fuel map offset + the WOT map offset. The greater sampling rate of the WBO2 logs allowed us to look at several samples of AFR numbers for each fuel map cell. With the right equation, we were able to see how much the offset needed to be adjusted. However, the process is not quite automatic, as some decisions have to be made on where and how much you modify the fuel maps. Sharktuner is an incredible tool, but like any tool, you need someone with experience to use it effectively.
Which brings up another anecdote to show how far Jim went to ensure we had good data to work with. When we arrived at the dyno, the computer was an old Win98 machine w/ no USB connector. Basically it was impossible to get the data from the dyno runs off the computer. Remember the old 3.5" floppies? Even that didn't work. So Jim takes upon himself to upgrade this thing. (he's also an IT guru) Now Holleran's computer has a flat panel, a USB connection and a laser printer. Soon it will be a completely new XP box w/ new CPU, motherboard, solid state drive (no mere platter hard drive because one died due to the vibrations in the dyno room) etc. We all know what a huge pain in the *** it is to upgrade the OS on any computer, now imagine trying to go from 98 to XP while maintaining all the data from all the dyno runs, all the settings for the dyno and transferring all the Mustang hardware (longest freaking ISA board I've ever seen). When you have to start looking at IRQ's to get things to work, I'd rather gouge my eyes out w/ a rusty spoon. All this just for the data.
I wanted to expand on Bill's post about Jim's Sharktuning. The LH & EZK maps, the Sharktuner datalogs and the Techedge WBO2 logs were all exported into Excel. From there we could compare the AFR w/ the values in the base fuel map offset + the WOT map offset. The greater sampling rate of the WBO2 logs allowed us to look at several samples of AFR numbers for each fuel map cell. With the right equation, we were able to see how much the offset needed to be adjusted. However, the process is not quite automatic, as some decisions have to be made on where and how much you modify the fuel maps. Sharktuner is an incredible tool, but like any tool, you need someone with experience to use it effectively.
Which brings up another anecdote to show how far Jim went to ensure we had good data to work with. When we arrived at the dyno, the computer was an old Win98 machine w/ no USB connector. Basically it was impossible to get the data from the dyno runs off the computer. Remember the old 3.5" floppies? Even that didn't work. So Jim takes upon himself to upgrade this thing. (he's also an IT guru) Now Holleran's computer has a flat panel, a USB connection and a laser printer. Soon it will be a completely new XP box w/ new CPU, motherboard, solid state drive (no mere platter hard drive because one died due to the vibrations in the dyno room) etc. We all know what a huge pain in the *** it is to upgrade the OS on any computer, now imagine trying to go from 98 to XP while maintaining all the data from all the dyno runs, all the settings for the dyno and transferring all the Mustang hardware (longest freaking ISA board I've ever seen). When you have to start looking at IRQ's to get things to work, I'd rather gouge my eyes out w/ a rusty spoon. All this just for the data.
11-13-2008, 10:34 PM
#35
Rennlist Member
Seriously, Congratulations to you, Jim and Bill for a terrific job! Those are seriously impressive numbers, and the photo galleries are terrific.
Thanks for sharing it all!!
11-14-2008, 12:03 AM
#37
Race Director
... 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.
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.
A windage vs no windage controlled motor test.....that would be interesting...but quite time consuming too!!
11-14-2008, 12:18 AM
#38
Rennlist Member
It is amazing. Its the first time we have seen a modified cam on an S4 bottom end. The tuning was amazing as well.
If you look at that dyno run, Dennis could have the same power and rear wheel torque if he tachs it out to 7k per shift. so, its intesting. cams and tuning give you a stroker, that might have a little less life due to rpms, but will sure sound better being shifted at 7krpm!
mk
If you look at that dyno run, Dennis could have the same power and rear wheel torque if he tachs it out to 7k per shift. so, its intesting. cams and tuning give you a stroker, that might have a little less life due to rpms, but will sure sound better being shifted at 7krpm!
mk
11-14-2008, 12:31 AM
#39
Rennlist Member
Dennis..............is it possible the cams, headers and tuning info could be available through one of our sponsers.............Roger?
Very impressive!
Very impressive!
11-14-2008, 02:39 AM
#40
Three Wheelin'
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 1,663
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FWIW, I am considring how I might assemble a reasonable "kit" based on this engine. There are many considerations before moving forward.
Good cam cores is a rather large issue to overcome. I have been talking with Dema about best ways to possibly bring these costs down. 32 lifters is another cost item many do not like. Then, of course we have the whole cam timing thing. Lots of variables here.
All of the above is likely workable. Making it worthwhile commerce is the real question.
Good cam cores is a rather large issue to overcome. I have been talking with Dema about best ways to possibly bring these costs down. 32 lifters is another cost item many do not like. Then, of course we have the whole cam timing thing. Lots of variables here.
All of the above is likely workable. Making it worthwhile commerce is the real question.
11-14-2008, 02:52 AM
#41
Nordschleife Master
FWIW, I am considring how I might assemble a reasonable "kit" based on this engine. There are many considerations before moving forward.
Good cam cores is a rather large issue to overcome. I have been talking with Dema about best ways to possibly bring these costs down. 32 lifters is another cost item many do not like. Then, of course we have the whole cam timing thing. Lots of variables here.
All of the above is likely workable. Making it worthwhile commerce is the real question.
Good cam cores is a rather large issue to overcome. I have been talking with Dema about best ways to possibly bring these costs down. 32 lifters is another cost item many do not like. Then, of course we have the whole cam timing thing. Lots of variables here.
All of the above is likely workable. Making it worthwhile commerce is the real question.
I think youve done one hell of a job learning the ins and outs of the sharktuner. Your knowledge here is something i could never comprehend! I would think that knowing what you know now, your map could be duplicated with some of the little tricks youve surely learned. I doubt you could ever just assemble parts and bolt them on with a burnt chip and equal the same results. But it is a start.
The lifters? I assume these are the lightweight variety? I guess with new cams you need 32 new lifters, or are they stock replacement's? Lifters are an area i had forgotten about, that could be another $700 give or take for all thats stuff.
I love the results you guys have gotten. I think your easily 80HP up on any other 5L M28 engine. VERY COOL STUFF!
Would love to know what ideas you had for a type of kit.
I know this makes the Level 2 Devek headers even more expensive to buy now, i am sure there are a ton of people now that want them after this post and the one by Louie last month. Maybe we can convince Mark A to prototype a more streetable version of his race only headers? The price for those seems very reasonable. But maybe he would have issues legally selling them, not sure on that. I guess CARB would have something to say about this......
11-14-2008, 10:23 AM
#42
Three Wheelin'
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Banished to the SBC Wastelands
Posts: 1,578
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
3 Posts
First post said base circle not changed a lot so no modifications were needed to the lifters. I'm assuming stock lifters.
Pretty cool that reducing the base circle .5mm will be accounted for by the hydraulic lifter resulting in a "Bigger Cam". Wonder if the stock lifters would accomadate a .75mm or 1mm smaller base circle?
JE is welding and regrinding mine to .503, maybe it would have been better to just reduce the base circle a bit? Too late now for my shark, but on my daughters Euro this ight be an easy way to go. Obviously on a 16V the cam alignment is not an issue.
Pretty cool that reducing the base circle .5mm will be accounted for by the hydraulic lifter resulting in a "Bigger Cam". Wonder if the stock lifters would accomadate a .75mm or 1mm smaller base circle?
JE is welding and regrinding mine to .503, maybe it would have been better to just reduce the base circle a bit? Too late now for my shark, but on my daughters Euro this ight be an easy way to go. Obviously on a 16V the cam alignment is not an issue.
Last edited by RicerSchnitzzle; 11-14-2008 at 11:08 AM.
11-14-2008, 12:17 PM
#43
Rennlist Member
not to take anything away from the "devil being in the details" because right down to cam timing, all the right things were done, BUT, if you just take a S4 and put on modified cams with a fuel regulator, 24lb injectors (I assume that Dennis is using them, which are stock 85 injectors) and a set of headers, I would imagine that the hp gains would be near the 350hp range. Remember, Rons stock GT and my S4 with 85 cams both ran around 335 and 325rwhp with no mods.
the funny thing about this is all the prediction of what mods do what. I can tell you from the bmw world, that the cams are everything. If they have been ground for more lift and have the 15% more (area under the lift curve), this is quite substantial.
Accounting for all the gains that have been talked about, at the levels estimated, would look like this:
balanced engine components: 3%
cam 10%
crank scraper 3%
cam timing opimization 3%
fuel/air optimization 10%
spark optimizaton 3%
So, you start out at 320rwhp as we have seen with the stock S4 with GT cams:
10% +3% +3% = 16% for cams and engne balancing and cam timing optimzation 371rwhp
If you value the crank scraper to save 3% that would take 371rwhp to 382rwhp
add another 13% for the fuel and spark optimization and you get 432rwhp.
since the total is off about 13% from what Dennis and team found, you have to start taking away weighted values.
If i was to guess the values would be :
balanced engine components: 1%
cam 10%
crank scraper 0%
cam timing opimization 1%
fuel/air optimization 8%
spark optimizaton 1%
355 for the base mods plus cam optimizaton timing, fuel air and spark tuning +10% = 390hp
so, i would think anyone could do the cookie cutter mods and get similar results but not quite as high as the scientists have got with their attention to detail, much of which was done to make sure this car drives like a normal unmodified street 928. I think 98% of the full power performance can be achieved with a fuel regulator and the correct injectors at 12.5:1 AFRs.
mk
the funny thing about this is all the prediction of what mods do what. I can tell you from the bmw world, that the cams are everything. If they have been ground for more lift and have the 15% more (area under the lift curve), this is quite substantial.
Accounting for all the gains that have been talked about, at the levels estimated, would look like this:
balanced engine components: 3%
cam 10%
crank scraper 3%
cam timing opimization 3%
fuel/air optimization 10%
spark optimizaton 3%
So, you start out at 320rwhp as we have seen with the stock S4 with GT cams:
10% +3% +3% = 16% for cams and engne balancing and cam timing optimzation 371rwhp
If you value the crank scraper to save 3% that would take 371rwhp to 382rwhp
add another 13% for the fuel and spark optimization and you get 432rwhp.
since the total is off about 13% from what Dennis and team found, you have to start taking away weighted values.
If i was to guess the values would be :
balanced engine components: 1%
cam 10%
crank scraper 0%
cam timing opimization 1%
fuel/air optimization 8%
spark optimizaton 1%
355 for the base mods plus cam optimizaton timing, fuel air and spark tuning +10% = 390hp
so, i would think anyone could do the cookie cutter mods and get similar results but not quite as high as the scientists have got with their attention to detail, much of which was done to make sure this car drives like a normal unmodified street 928. I think 98% of the full power performance can be achieved with a fuel regulator and the correct injectors at 12.5:1 AFRs.
mk
11-14-2008, 12:31 PM
#44
Rennlist Member
conceptually, you have to picture the crank mounted in the block with the oil pan attached filled with oil . The very edges of the crank would be touching the filled oil in the pan. Now, picture mounting a motor to the front of the crankshaft and rotating the engine crank to 6000rpm. what kind of motor would be able to spin our cranks to 6000 or even 7000rpm with nothing attached to the crank, but bearings and it touching the surface of the oil level in the pan. Do you think you would need a 250cc motorcycle engine to do this? a bet a 1.5hp lawn mower engine would be more than capable of doing this job. I think much of the purpose of the oil scraper is to keep the crank from foaming up the oil, as well as reducing the spray that can add to oil injestion through the breathers.
mk
mk
