Power finally has power...
11-19-2004, 01:36 PM
#1
Instructor
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 216
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Power finally has power...
I replaced my turbo some time ago with a Garret T36RS motorsports from TPC. Mike Levitas said it should have made 425 rear wheel hp, but when I dynoed it, we only got about 300 rwhp. I took it to Dougherty Automotive in West Chester (Philly) and they replaced my 02 senor, frequency valve and some relays, and tightened things down all round.
The car then made 424 rwhp on AWE's Mustang dyno, but I was running 16 psi and had AFR's over 15 at 1 bar and above. So, I added the Andial fuel enhancement system and dialled the AFR's back down to about 13:1. I'll post dyno results and AFR's over the weekend. The dyno was a Mustang chassis dyno, so their direct number was 384, but they have a Dynojet correction feature that gave the 424 rwhp number. Torque was 394 (Mustang) /446 (Dynojet) (see http://www.mustangdyne.com/Articles/...article-01.htm).
Overally, I'm now very pleased with the results. The motor isn't stressed out, but is making adequate power. I am going to ditch my Moton remote reservoir shocks, because even at soft settings I am breaking my sway bar mounts. The car is a daily driver, so the highways around here (Routes 78 and 287) are beatiung it up so much more than a track would. If anyone has interest PM me.
Gordon
The car then made 424 rwhp on AWE's Mustang dyno, but I was running 16 psi and had AFR's over 15 at 1 bar and above. So, I added the Andial fuel enhancement system and dialled the AFR's back down to about 13:1. I'll post dyno results and AFR's over the weekend. The dyno was a Mustang chassis dyno, so their direct number was 384, but they have a Dynojet correction feature that gave the 424 rwhp number. Torque was 394 (Mustang) /446 (Dynojet) (see http://www.mustangdyne.com/Articles/...article-01.htm).
Overally, I'm now very pleased with the results. The motor isn't stressed out, but is making adequate power. I am going to ditch my Moton remote reservoir shocks, because even at soft settings I am breaking my sway bar mounts. The car is a daily driver, so the highways around here (Routes 78 and 287) are beatiung it up so much more than a track would. If anyone has interest PM me.
Gordon
11-19-2004, 03:11 PM
#2
Great results. Although your air fuel ratio is still high. What you'll see a lot on the boards is most folks shooting for ~11.5 to 1 (for the air cooled motors).
What cam grind are you running?
What cam grind are you running?
11-19-2004, 03:20 PM
#3
Instructor
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 216
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jeff,
You'll see on the dyno chart that the AFR's are generally around 12, but go up to about 13. I am comfortable with this. I can just add some fuel (1-click), if I start to experience any knock.
Its a C2 NA cam...
Gordon
You'll see on the dyno chart that the AFR's are generally around 12, but go up to about 13. I am comfortable with this. I can just add some fuel (1-click), if I start to experience any knock.
Its a C2 NA cam...
Gordon
11-19-2004, 03:59 PM
#4
Nordschleife Master
13:1 is too high for the 911 Turbo engine. I can tell you from experience that 12.7:1 AFR will lead to melted pistons with prolonged boost (without the car detonating). The purpose of the additional fuel is to cool the engine, nothing more. You need to be in the 12.0-12.2:1 range for 1bar of boost in order to cool the cylinder heads, valves, pistons, etc. Although they are related, knock is primarly a function of too much ignition timing, not an indication of too lean a mixture. Too lean a mixture compared to where it was tuned may allow hot spots to occur which will cause pre-ignition or detonation. By the time knock is heard, damage is already being done. It is also possible for you to melt pistions because of too much heat without ever experiencing detonation which is what happened in my example on an endurance racing engine.
11-19-2004, 09:12 PM
#5
Instructor
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 216
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Geoff,
I understand well the ignition versus fuel issues. I am comfortable where I am for my (non-track) driving, though I understand and appreciate the comment. I spent a lot of time with Andial and AWE on this and that's why I have it where it is. As I said, Its around 12.5:1 over most of the rpm and boost ranges and everybody seems to think this should be fine. I'll keep an eye on it.
Gordon
I understand well the ignition versus fuel issues. I am comfortable where I am for my (non-track) driving, though I understand and appreciate the comment. I spent a lot of time with Andial and AWE on this and that's why I have it where it is. As I said, Its around 12.5:1 over most of the rpm and boost ranges and everybody seems to think this should be fine. I'll keep an eye on it.
Gordon
11-20-2004, 10:40 AM
#7
Instructor
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 216
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sameer,
The FEC is on position 4 of 5. Not much more room there. The CO is at 3, I believe. I may add either an intercooler or water injection. I am going to run the car hard and see if I hole anything. (It'd be what I need to do the Pat Williams EFI conversion.) I use water injection on my RX7 and it is very effective. However, I am really happy with the power as is and the smooth almost linear pull. There's still a kick as it comes on, but its less sudden than it was before.
Gordon
The FEC is on position 4 of 5. Not much more room there. The CO is at 3, I believe. I may add either an intercooler or water injection. I am going to run the car hard and see if I hole anything. (It'd be what I need to do the Pat Williams EFI conversion.) I use water injection on my RX7 and it is very effective. However, I am really happy with the power as is and the smooth almost linear pull. There's still a kick as it comes on, but its less sudden than it was before.
Gordon
Trending Topics
11-20-2004, 02:48 PM
#9
Rennlist Member
Originally Posted by gmonsen
I replaced my turbo some time ago with a Garret T36RS motorsports from TPC. Mike Levitas said it should have made 425 rear wheel hp, but when I dynoed it, we only got about 300 rwhp. I took it to Dougherty Automotive in West Chester (Philly) and they replaced my 02 senor, frequency valve and some relays, and tightened things down all round.
The car then made 424 rwhp on AWE's Mustang dyno, but I was running 16 psi and had AFR's over 15 at 1 bar and above. So, I added the Andial fuel enhancement system and dialled the AFR's back down to about 13:1. I'll post dyno results and AFR's over the weekend. The dyno was a Mustang chassis dyno, so their direct number was 384, but they have a Dynojet correction feature that gave the 424 rwhp number. Torque was 394 (Mustang) /446 (Dynojet) (see http://www.mustangdyne.com/Articles/...article-01.htm).
Overally, I'm now very pleased with the results. The motor isn't stressed out, but is making adequate power. I am going to ditch my Moton remote reservoir shocks, because even at soft settings I am breaking my sway bar mounts. The car is a daily driver, so the highways around here (Routes 78 and 287) are beatiung it up so much more than a track would. If anyone has interest PM me.
Gordon
The car then made 424 rwhp on AWE's Mustang dyno, but I was running 16 psi and had AFR's over 15 at 1 bar and above. So, I added the Andial fuel enhancement system and dialled the AFR's back down to about 13:1. I'll post dyno results and AFR's over the weekend. The dyno was a Mustang chassis dyno, so their direct number was 384, but they have a Dynojet correction feature that gave the 424 rwhp number. Torque was 394 (Mustang) /446 (Dynojet) (see http://www.mustangdyne.com/Articles/...article-01.htm).
Overally, I'm now very pleased with the results. The motor isn't stressed out, but is making adequate power. I am going to ditch my Moton remote reservoir shocks, because even at soft settings I am breaking my sway bar mounts. The car is a daily driver, so the highways around here (Routes 78 and 287) are beatiung it up so much more than a track would. If anyone has interest PM me.
Gordon
11-21-2004, 03:25 AM
#10
Instructor
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 216
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When I bought the car it had 450 front and 725 rears. The dealer didn;t know what they were and I found out from the huge oversteer. The rears are now 500's and the car rides very nicely, imho, except over some of the poor roads in southeast Pennsylvania. At 80 some of the bumps jar it pretty hard. I believe I have the Moton's at 95 psi front and 110 psi rear, which is way on the soft side of their setting range.
Gordon
Gordon
