fast951

Picture of a mAF on a customer car. All MAF kits (Stage I, II & III) look the same.

<img src="http://boards.rennlist.com/upload/Vit_MAF_Pic.jpg" alt=" - " />

Luke

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">Originally posted by fast951:
I'm trying a new cyl. head that uses a different valves size.
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">This is what the 2.8 guys need to do, and Mr. Anderson. That's why they can't make as much hp as TQ... CAn't breath.

fast951

Luke,

I'm not sure how much of a difference the valve size makes on cars with 400-420rwhp or less. I think it makes a difference once you go over this number. Again, I have not done a back to back test to measure how much of a difference the different valve sizes make.
Unless you plan on going for every HP, I'm not sure the cost of changing valves is worth it.

Luke

John,

THere is a post on the NA 944 side about a week page, where Mr. Anderson is bragging about a motor that makes 390rwhp and 460lbs/ft of tq. I suggested that the tq figure was so much larger ( obvoiusly) because he couldn't move the air up top to sustain it ( carrying the hp threw the curve )

at 15lbs of boost I made 30 more lbs/ft than hp... SO i've been looking into this alot lately, but then I realized that I was throwing off the O2 readings by running Toululene.

one of Toululenes by products when burned is water, and the Oxygen in water throws off a wideband, SO nobody run on the dyno w/ toululene or xylene <img border="0" alt="[cheers]" title="" src="graemlins/beerchug.gif" /> ....

since then I dialed down FP and saw at least another 30 hp at the same boost pressure.

I doubt that is MR.anderson's issue though.

rage2

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">Originally posted by fast951:
<strong>Boost was at 22 or 23. I did a run at 26psi

At 18-19psi I was around 380-390rwhp.

Not bad for a 2.5L engine, with stock internals!!</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">Sounds familiar over here... I'm guessing we have pretty much the same sized turbo . Even the HP peak is at the same RPM! I'm running pretty much the same setup, except I'm using MAP/SDS, and you're using MAF/stock ECU.

I'm still running stock intercooler and pipes.

fast951

Luke,

I'm attaching a graph from a run I did earlier yesterday. It'll show the torque curve. The AF is steady, but I needed to richen it a bit at higher RPM. Then rescale the whole curve.

Rage,

Are you making 380rwhp out of a 2.5L? Would like to see a dyno graph, just for comparison purposes.

<img src="http://boards.rennlist.com/upload/VITESSE-6.gif" alt=" - " />

jimbo1111

Great run fast951. Only think I can comment on would be the dip at around 4000 rpms. Is that when the turbo goes into the surge limit momentarily?

fast951

As I mentioned, I was doing the actual tuning during the above run. The dip was a set of values in the chip that I had to alter some.

If you look at my earlier graph, one of them had the dip, while the second graph did not.

It's work in progress, some cleaning up is still needed.

rage2

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">Originally posted by fast951:
<strong>Rage,

Are you making 380rwhp out of a 2.5L? Would like to see a dyno graph, just for comparison purposes.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">Yes, 2.5L stock bottom end, stock head (cleaned up slightly), stock intake manifold (extrudehoned), stock IC pipes, stock IC. Bolt-ons!

Here's my dyno history. I have access to 3 dynos, a Mustang dyno with load capabilities, a Dynojet without load simulation (they've since upgraded but I haven't been back), and my Blitz Power Meter, which is pretty darn close to what the Dynojets shows as tested on 2 of my other cars.

- 450rwhp@5800rpm at around 25psi (measured by Blitz power meter). 103 octane fuel.
- At 20psi of boost, I'm making 380rwhp (Blitz power meter). 103 octane fuel.
- 284rwhp@6800rpm on a mustang dyno, 325rwhp on my Blitz Power meter, that's at somewhere between 12-13psi of boost. 91 octane **** fuel.
- 338rwhp@4200rpm (somewhere around there) on a dynojet 17psi. Could not hold boost because there was no load on the dyno.

This is at 3700ft elevation, and boost is referenced to atmospheric conditions here, so knock 1 or 2 psi off what I'm running as compared to sea level. Here's the mustang dyno sheet :

<img src="http://www.virgeweb.com/rage2/944t/2002-10%2012psi951mustangdyno.jpg" alt=" - " />

I had the boost controller tweaked to run a bit more boost up top (about 1psi more), and a/f richened a bit at that point to to battle knock. This was good for about 10hp at that point (brought peak up by 3 or 4 hp). Timing's at 18 degrees from 3400rpm till redline.

Oh, and if you're wondering why boost/torque looks like it's building up slow on the dynosheet, this was my winter boost curve. Cures wheelspin .

fast951

rage2,

Nice curve, tahnks for the info. On the street (better air flow) I expect better numbers that on the dyno. However, as you might have noticed already, unless you are using the same type of dyno, it'll be difficult to compare numbers.
Numbers alone are meaningless, the shape of the HP/TQ is what's important. You dyno graph shows nice curves.

Why do you have timing set at 18deg from 3400rpm on up?

rage2

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">Originally posted by fast951:
<strong>Why do you have timing set at 18deg from 3400rpm on up?</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Helvetica">Pump gas, I can't run anymore timing with that without detonation. Any lower and my WB02 complains of too high EGT temps. It's the best power/safety ratio I can find.

I run about 20 degrees at high boost on 103 octane. My car's setup at the limit of detonation on 103octane at 28psi and the limit of detonation on 91 octane at 12-13psi.

m42racer

Rage2,

Why does your A/F go richer at peak Torque?

Don't understand that. How are you controlloing the fuelling?

AC

I was there at the dyno Sat. Awesome place. It was my car John was testing his chipset that gave me 20 ft/lbs more torque. But due to me having a different MAF sensor, caused a very rich run. I am currently running with APE stg 2 chips. I really need software now to better match my setup. Here are my run numbers from Sat.

I will upload a photo when I can get it scanned.

Run #1: 279.5 RWHP 282.9 ft/lbs Torque - Baseline - Boost @ 14 psi - Fuel 95 octane unleaded.
Run #7: 319.3 RWHP 323.7 ft/lbs Torque - Raised FP from stock to 45psi - Boost @ 18psi - Fuel 95 octane unleaded.
Run #8: 333.1 RWHP 333.4 ft/lbs Torque - Same as #7 but added 1 Gallon Xylene to 3/4 tank of 95 octane unleaded - Boost @ 18psi.

Run w/John's chips: 323.? RWHP 340.1 ft/lbs Torgue - Boost 18 psi - Fuel 95 octane unleaded. Due to some differences in MAF sensor, I ran very rich. I cannot wait to see what a few adjustments will provide after John does some chip tuning.

My goal is a reliable, drivable 350 rwhp.

I am running:
55 lbs injectors
Lindsey's Stg 2 Head
Stock Intake
Stock Intercooler
Stock Intake pipes
SFR's Stg 2 turbo
Lindsey's MAF
Tial 35mm Wastegate
Stock Exhaust w/ wielded in test pipe
Non-rebuilt Stock Bottom End w/ 94K miles

I would like to think John for taking the time and opportunity to try and help me get more out of my car even though that I do not have his setup. My friends car is the one that put out the 369 rwhp @ 18psi. The only things that he had in his car are 55 lbs injectors, comp valve grind (no P&P or bigger valves), stock exhaust w/ wielded test pipe, John's Turbo, MAF, piggyback w/custom chips, w/140K miles on a stock bottom end.

I have about 250 MB of video that I am getting ready for posting.

boostaholic

Post the vid! Post the vid!

86944turbo

Fast951,

Beautiful numbers. I was studying the A/F ratio graph. While I don't know the RPM, or the amount of boost used during the pull, it seems very lean at the top. On my 2.5L, I needed a larger fuel pump when I changed cams. The owner of the shop installed a fitting that was smaller than I requested. After driving, I look at the dump and it's lean at the top. I E-mail the file to Jon, he makes corrections and I install. The motor was supposed to run .83, or approx. 12.2, at 20lbs. and above 6000rpm. With the smaller fitting it was running .95-99. Jon's file did not fix. I did not know how dangerous this was. Ignorance on my part. Another file from Jon, did little help. Dropped an exhaust valve, that ate the head and more. The ex. valve was Inconel. I had drioven approx. 1200, mainly street miles with the wrong fitting. If I would have known the importance of the fitting, I would have watched it installed. This was using Sunoco GT-Plus 104 unleaded, also. My 3.1 runs .83 @ 20lbs, from 4-5k, .82 from 5-6k and .81 from there. It's probably leaving a few ponies on the table, but not many. With over 500 H/P at the flywheel, your boost is probably pretty high. Mine runs very lean off boost and then gets 4 miles to the gallon. My 2 cents worth. Nice work and great results on your car.