Here is a article I ran into that I thought some of you may find interesting. I find it kind of disappointing. Only a gain of 14hp w/ Edge, cat-back, and CAI.


http://www.supermotors.net/vehicles/.../16162/54602-2

 

I wouldn't be a happy camper if, after forking out the dollars for the mods listed, I only returned 14-ponies.

Why, though, am I not surprised...

 

Good article hmfic.
It seems to be about as honest as they come. 14 hp IMO is bang on and very respectable and realistic for a CAI, catback and tune. They actually gained more torque down low as well, which is a benefit. The stock numbers are inline with that 20% driveline loss:

 

Some observations, IMHO mind you ....

Either the truck is a freak of nature stock, or the dyno was optimistic ( a.k.a. wrong). Stock trucks running 87 octane usually produce no more than 210-215 rwhp.

So, since the 'before' numbers are skewed, the 'after' numbers are as well.

Hp numbers are too high, but the tq numbers are retardedly low - don't make no sense at all. Tq numbers on a high octane perf tune should be in the 300-325 rwtq range. Where's that BS flag when ya need one lol.

Agree - regardless whether or not you correct for the skew - the numbers are flat horrible. That's generisized 'canned' tuning for ya.

A proper max perf tune should always produce more torque than a tow tune @ equal octane - not less. The Edge seems 'unique' in this respect. SCT custom does not behave this way.

Also - a proper report would have given tq & hp for each level, with at least 2 octane levels. And A/F's. It's known that the Edge achieves gains in part by leaning out the motor. Add a CAI and those air-fuels need to be known. What gear were the pulls done in? Dyno type? Conditions?

Jeez - what useless crap. Prolly on a non-load-cell ricer dyno, strapped down with duct tape/bungie cords

Driveline losses are 27-30% or so & not fixed - it's soooo been covered before. 20% would be a pipe dream. Smoke up.

In summation - an inaccurate, incomplete AND inadequate report. But since this is just IMHO, coupled with the fact that I really don't give a rat's patootie.... fek it.

 

If you want to just get 15 hp from a catback alone, get this

http://www.magnaflow.com/05news/maga...ruckinpg03.asp

Take notice at how they give you the peak power gains at different rpms. Even though it's only a difference of 200 rpm, there's still a big difference if you look at the graph. Anyone can do this with any graph. They're playing with numbers. It's the total power under the curve that counts. Dyno graphs 101. If they advertised the hp at 4300 rpm stock, why wouldn't they give the hp at the same rpm with the catback?

 

Hey Bubba; this thread is right up your alley
I tried to pm it to you but this site won't let me yet.
I posted a link to the above article over here:

http://www.ford-trucks.com/forums/65...ml#post5112909

Edit: I think FTE Ken has to be careful about what he says in regards to the Edge though ...LOL

 

Thanks. I think.

What - you actually beginning to agree with me?

Nah - must be these cheap painkillers I'm on ....

 

I never disagreed with you. You never really gave me anything to disagree with. Your hp and torque numbers were always taken as a joke, as I thought you meant them to be..LOL.

 

OK - bear with me - drugs 'n all ....

Who said was joking?

The OP's article - now that's a joke

 

It's the most realistic article I've seen to date

 

And - I agree with that Ken guy - there's sumptin not kosher with yer stang. It could be a systemic problem.

Give MT a call - on my dime if you wish - to discuss. I agree - don't believe what you see on GeekNet, but he may be able to give you some insight. Ok?

bubba

 

The Stang is fine, in fact, Kennedy warned me that he may not get anything out of it before I spent the coin. He's dealt with 94-95 puters a few times as he has with everything else out there.
I'm making exactly what I should be in the rwhp/torque department with the mods I have.

Anything else I can do on your dime?

 

Just suggesting you solicit a second opinion, is all.

I personally think you results are on the low side, but it's your car & your call.

I meant what I said - beleive it or not.

 

I appreciate that. I've done my fair share of research on this and others with the same setups as me, which is not an uncommon setup in the least being a H/C/I 5.0, so I'm comfortable that it's fine where it is. It did have a slight bit more in it (like 2-3 hp), but Bob Kennedy wanted to keep things safe. I've been driving the **** out of it this way for 4 years now.

As Ken mentioned, the 5.0 is not the 5.4, and I conceded that I wasn't comparing apples to aples.

 

OK - perhaps, when all the **** is completely out of it, it will run a little better.

Thanks for the link, BTW - I'll drop by when I'm down there later this month.

bubba