GTS gone to the dyno. chart on page 2
#32
Flappy was working and got a good hammer last summer when I did the intake refresh and checked the tune (I thought it was running rich, but is was running lean). My wrench suggested a new MAF then, but the A/F doesn't look bad enough to me to cause that much power loss. Guess something could have died over the winter.
I am not going to do the cam upgrade I was planning on until I am positive everything is running as it should. That was one of the reasons why I did the pulls today, to make sure it was good to go. Another reason I am a little disappointed, pause on the cams.
Got some wrench time scheduled for next week to plug in the hammer and check everything out.
I am not going to do the cam upgrade I was planning on until I am positive everything is running as it should. That was one of the reasons why I did the pulls today, to make sure it was good to go. Another reason I am a little disappointed, pause on the cams.
Got some wrench time scheduled for next week to plug in the hammer and check everything out.
If you are going to spend money on performance, you should pay attention to the basics: Air, fuel, spark. An installed WBO2 will tell you where you are fuel-wise, and some time with a Sharktuner will let you do something about it-- as well as telling you something about your ignition timing.
There's no question that a cam upgrade will pay off-- that's the "air" part of the equation. But unless you also pay attention to fuel (and ignition timing), you will be leaving something on the table.
I would respectfully suggest a two-step approach: Swap the cams, do another dyno run; then spend some time with a Sharktuner and optimize the fuel, and check again; and then see what might still be on the table for ignition timing.
The '91GT referenced above is not a good data point, it should be doing over 300rwhp... 275 is S4 territory.
(Disclaimer: I have a Sharktuner and love it, and also distribute them for JDSPorsche).
#34
Note that SAE and STD correction are intermixed in the dyno sheets posted (upper right corner).
Depending on air temp, etc. STD is usually 8-10 TQ/HP higher than SAE @~300.
(I use STandarD in my sig. )
Depending on air temp, etc. STD is usually 8-10 TQ/HP higher than SAE @~300.
(I use STandarD in my sig. )
#35
im still amazed that they dont incorporate the conditions for SAE correction. Its one of the reasons I like to do an actual print out too. you can go back and have that printed out, just to see if it was corrected more than it should have been.
all interesting stuff.
seems like there should be a lot more power lurking. we got 40hp just for bolting on 300ccs to scots part euro, AFM version 5 Liter, vs his prior 250rwhp 4.7 euro, with Ljet. seems like 400cc should at least do that to the 5 liter GT or S4. i wonder where the issue would lie.
all interesting stuff.
seems like there should be a lot more power lurking. we got 40hp just for bolting on 300ccs to scots part euro, AFM version 5 Liter, vs his prior 250rwhp 4.7 euro, with Ljet. seems like 400cc should at least do that to the 5 liter GT or S4. i wonder where the issue would lie.
#36
interesting that the closed flappy seeemed to kill top end HP, is that what Im seeing here? I didnt see this with my dyno runs with a working flappy, then dynoed held open. (easy to do, just tie it directly to the brake booster) and then closed (easy to do, just disconnect the vacuum feed line.
mk
mk
#37
After the dyno guy printed out the Std I asked for SAE. He did a weather measurement and entered the results, pulled up the SAE and there was only a 2hp change in either of my runs so I didn't ask him to print the SAE. Said today's temp, altitude, and water was a really good day to dyno in OKC.
Jim, thanks for you input. I think I am going to do the Keith Widom thing and go through the sensors, wiring, connectors, plugs, etc. and maybe even check the cam timing and do another run before I put cams in. I would dislike spending the money on cams and only get 313hp when Keith got that stock and 330 with x-pipe just because of some wiring or sensor issue due to the car being 17 years old no matter how well the service was kept up.
Jim, thanks for you input. I think I am going to do the Keith Widom thing and go through the sensors, wiring, connectors, plugs, etc. and maybe even check the cam timing and do another run before I put cams in. I would dislike spending the money on cams and only get 313hp when Keith got that stock and 330 with x-pipe just because of some wiring or sensor issue due to the car being 17 years old no matter how well the service was kept up.
#39
Check your plug gap too!
It is possible that your spark is being "blown out"
Try setting it to .023" or .028" and run again.
Also I only recommend Bosch or NGK Coppers. Nothing else. Try a WR5DC+ plug.
It is possible that your spark is being "blown out"
Try setting it to .023" or .028" and run again.
Also I only recommend Bosch or NGK Coppers. Nothing else. Try a WR5DC+ plug.
#41
Below are the best runs (so far ) from my '85 in SAE, STD, and UNC on a cold winter day vs. summer (same 248x dyno).
SAE (306 tq/305 hp)
STD (314 tq/314 hp)
UNC (323 tq/316 hp)
#42
This is interesting...
Doing a search and pulling up dyno charts and overlaying them I found this...
The pink and green with shading is Keith Widoms 93 GTS pre and post x-pipe runs. He was claiming 314 pre and 330 post x-pipe. His hp curve is on a different scale (doesn't cross at 5250rpm), but I just don't see his numbers being accurate as my torque curves are between his and only 279 max hp. The charts are aligned and scaled by the torque graphs.
Interesting how my flappy is changing later.
Doing a search and pulling up dyno charts and overlaying them I found this...
The pink and green with shading is Keith Widoms 93 GTS pre and post x-pipe runs. He was claiming 314 pre and 330 post x-pipe. His hp curve is on a different scale (doesn't cross at 5250rpm), but I just don't see his numbers being accurate as my torque curves are between his and only 279 max hp. The charts are aligned and scaled by the torque graphs.
Interesting how my flappy is changing later.
#44
my 335 was actual and SAE on that day.
doesnt always work out that way, but in California, most days dont need much correction. if its cold, sure, its brought down a bit and if hot, it goes up, but sometimes not as much as you think, because of barametric pressure being higher. anyway, i usually run both each time to see what i going on and mark the conditions on the dyno sheets.
doesnt always work out that way, but in California, most days dont need much correction. if its cold, sure, its brought down a bit and if hot, it goes up, but sometimes not as much as you think, because of barametric pressure being higher. anyway, i usually run both each time to see what i going on and mark the conditions on the dyno sheets.
UNCorrected is nice to see if the conditions are good. It shows what the engine is capable of.
Below are the best runs (so far ) from my '85 in SAE, STD, and UNC on a cold winter day vs. summer (same 248x dyno).
SAE (306 tq/305 hp)
STD (314 tq/314 hp)
UNC (323 tq/316 hp)
Below are the best runs (so far ) from my '85 in SAE, STD, and UNC on a cold winter day vs. summer (same 248x dyno).
SAE (306 tq/305 hp)
STD (314 tq/314 hp)
UNC (323 tq/316 hp)