Initial dyno results for the 2009!
#1
01-15-2009, 02:03 PM
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Winder, GA
Posts: 866
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Initial dyno results for the 2009!
Hey all...
Finally got back from Dyno Tuning the 2009 F150 and needless to say, I AM EXCITED!
The new 2009 F-150 is running awesome and actually looks to be making a little bit more power than the earlier 2004 to 2008 versions.
From what we've found so far, the only major difference under the hood is that the air filter housing has been relocated directly behind the driver's headlight and now uses a LARGE 12" x 12" pleated panel filter. This is definitely helping airflow.
As you well know, the new platform sports a new 6-speed automatic transmission which now has its own controller which is separate from the ECM. The ECM itself has been updated to a new, faster processor as well. Fortunately, the tuning is quite similar and we were able to get the base tuning done without any difficulty. Here are the preliminary results:
Test Conditions:
Horsepower Only
Torque Only
Horsepower and Torque
Horsepower, Torque and AFR
As you can see, the biggest gains were not on the top end but in the midrange... which is where you really need it! Notice that the stock AFR curve does not allow any WOT enrichment until about 4500 RPM! And you wonder why the trucks are always so sluggish off the line.
The AFR stays right at 14.6:1 throughout most of the acceleration. Now add a Cold Air Intake which in most cases cause a slight to moderate lean condition and suddenly you have a situation that could be very detrimental to the engine. 
I also included an additional dyno plot which shows without question that removing the snorkel does, in fact, improve the performance of the vehicle, particularly above 3500 RPM. Based on calculations, removing the snorkel picked up 7.5 HP and 7.6 Ft./Lbs. These figures are very respectable, especially considering that we had already made a significant gain with tuning. Unfortunately, I didn't have time to retest the vehicle with the Performance calibration, but I would certainly expect to see similar improvements with the same modification.
Needless to say, we are really excited about the results, especially since we only ran 85 Octane fuel. We will be doing some (relatively) sea-level testing here in the next week or two along with 93 Octane fuel testing and fully expect to see even better results.
We'll keep everyone posted on the results as development progresses. Stay tuned...
Finally got back from Dyno Tuning the 2009 F150 and needless to say, I AM EXCITED!
The new 2009 F-150 is running awesome and actually looks to be making a little bit more power than the earlier 2004 to 2008 versions.
From what we've found so far, the only major difference under the hood is that the air filter housing has been relocated directly behind the driver's headlight and now uses a LARGE 12" x 12" pleated panel filter. This is definitely helping airflow.
As you well know, the new platform sports a new 6-speed automatic transmission which now has its own controller which is separate from the ECM. The ECM itself has been updated to a new, faster processor as well. Fortunately, the tuning is quite similar and we were able to get the base tuning done without any difficulty. Here are the preliminary results:
Test Conditions:
- Vehicle - 2009 F-150
- Engine - 5.4L
- Transmission - 6-Speed Automatic
- Gear - 3.73
- Fuel - 85 Octane
- Altitude - 4500 Feet
- Ambient Temp - 76º F.
- Barometric Pr. - 26.65 In. Hg. (absolute)
Horsepower Only
Torque Only
Horsepower and Torque
Horsepower, Torque and AFR
As you can see, the biggest gains were not on the top end but in the midrange... which is where you really need it! Notice that the stock AFR curve does not allow any WOT enrichment until about 4500 RPM! And you wonder why the trucks are always so sluggish off the line.
The AFR stays right at 14.6:1 throughout most of the acceleration. Now add a Cold Air Intake which in most cases cause a slight to moderate lean condition and suddenly you have a situation that could be very detrimental to the engine. I also included an additional dyno plot which shows without question that removing the snorkel does, in fact, improve the performance of the vehicle, particularly above 3500 RPM. Based on calculations, removing the snorkel picked up 7.5 HP and 7.6 Ft./Lbs. These figures are very respectable, especially considering that we had already made a significant gain with tuning. Unfortunately, I didn't have time to retest the vehicle with the Performance calibration, but I would certainly expect to see similar improvements with the same modification.
Needless to say, we are really excited about the results, especially since we only ran 85 Octane fuel. We will be doing some (relatively) sea-level testing here in the next week or two along with 93 Octane fuel testing and fully expect to see even better results.
We'll keep everyone posted on the results as development progresses. Stay tuned...
Last edited by ASEMechanic; 01-17-2009 at 01:59 PM. Reason: Corrected Baro Pressure value
#5
01-15-2009, 03:02 PM
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Illinois
Posts: 1,590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#6
01-15-2009, 03:02 PM
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Winder, GA
Posts: 866
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's because you're in Florida. In Utah, octane is commonly 85, 87 and 89, with 91 floating around from time to time. This is because higher altitudes don't require fuel with as much octane as sea level.
As for the E85, even though the test vehicle we used was a Flex-Fuel, I did not have the opportunity to test the E85 fuel. There is actually very little E85 where we tested so it wasn't really a consideration at this point.
In Utah, octane is commonly 85, 87 and 89, with 91 floating around from time to time. This is because higher altitudes don't require fuel with as much octane as sea level.As for the E85, even though the test vehicle we used was a Flex-Fuel, I did not have the opportunity to test the E85 fuel. There is actually very little E85 where we tested so it wasn't really a consideration at this point.
#7
01-15-2009, 06:54 PM
That's because you're in Florida. In Utah, octane is commonly 85, 87 and 89, with 91 floating around from time to time. This is because higher altitudes don't require fuel with as much octane as sea level.
As for the E85, even though the test vehicle we used was a Flex-Fuel, I did not have the opportunity to test the E85 fuel. There is actually very little E85 where we tested so it wasn't really a consideration at this point.
In Utah, octane is commonly 85, 87 and 89, with 91 floating around from time to time. This is because higher altitudes don't require fuel with as much octane as sea level.As for the E85, even though the test vehicle we used was a Flex-Fuel, I did not have the opportunity to test the E85 fuel. There is actually very little E85 where we tested so it wasn't really a consideration at this point.
Trending Topics
#8
01-15-2009, 07:29 PM
Yeah whats the deal with all the knobly bits and funny shape things sticking out of the intake? I was thinking that the other day.
#9
01-15-2009, 08:01 PM
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Winder, GA
Posts: 866
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The knobly bits are Helmholtz filters used to eliminate the droning commonly associated with Cold Air Intakes. Obviously, it's not pretty looking but I am a function over form type of person. I don't particularly care what it looks like as long as it functions properly. Other folks have a different opinion and might prefer the cleaner look of a CAI. It's all personal preference at that point.
I'm not necessarily saying that a CAI is bad for the engine, but my concern is the fact that the AFR is already starting out at a dead 14.6 to 1 and historically CAIs cause the engine to run even leaner. I certainly wouldn't be running a CAI without appropriate tuning to correct any resultant lean problems, especially when I can pick up 7+ HP with a simple, free modification.
I'm not necessarily saying that a CAI is bad for the engine, but my concern is the fact that the AFR is already starting out at a dead 14.6 to 1 and historically CAIs cause the engine to run even leaner. I certainly wouldn't be running a CAI without appropriate tuning to correct any resultant lean problems, especially when I can pick up 7+ HP with a simple, free modification.
#10
01-15-2009, 08:08 PM
The knobly bits are Helmholtz filters used to eliminate the droning commonly associated with Cold Air Intakes. Obviously, it's not pretty looking but I am a function over form type of person. I don't particularly care what it looks like as long as it functions properly. Other folks have a different opinion and might prefer the cleaner look of a CAI. It's all personal preference at that point.
I'm not necessarily saying that a CAI is bad for the engine, but my concern is the fact that the AFR is already starting out at a dead 14.6 to 1 and historically CAIs cause the engine to run even leaner. I certainly wouldn't be running a CAI without appropriate tuning to correct any resultant lean problems, especially when I can pick up 7+ HP with a simple, free modification.
I'm not necessarily saying that a CAI is bad for the engine, but my concern is the fact that the AFR is already starting out at a dead 14.6 to 1 and historically CAIs cause the engine to run even leaner. I certainly wouldn't be running a CAI without appropriate tuning to correct any resultant lean problems, especially when I can pick up 7+ HP with a simple, free modification.
Well that interesting. I can now make out to people i know what im talking about when they ask me what those funny looking things are sticking out of the intake pipe lol.
#11
01-15-2009, 08:19 PM
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: MA
Posts: 1,553
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#13
01-15-2009, 11:34 PM
That's because you're in Florida. In Utah, octane is commonly 85, 87 and 89, with 91 floating around from time to time. This is because higher altitudes don't require fuel with as much octane as sea level.
As for the E85, even though the test vehicle we used was a Flex-Fuel, I did not have the opportunity to test the E85 fuel. There is actually very little E85 where we tested so it wasn't really a consideration at this point.
In Utah, octane is commonly 85, 87 and 89, with 91 floating around from time to time. This is because higher altitudes don't require fuel with as much octane as sea level.As for the E85, even though the test vehicle we used was a Flex-Fuel, I did not have the opportunity to test the E85 fuel. There is actually very little E85 where we tested so it wasn't really a consideration at this point.
#14
01-15-2009, 11:41 PM
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Winder, GA
Posts: 866
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How do I explain droning? That's a tough one. If you familiar at all with older cars with 4 barrel carbs, it sounds like the noise made when the secondaries opened up when you floor it. It not really a whine as it is much lower pitched. Maybe sort of like a cow mooing endlessly.
The snorkel is something like this (picture courtesy of the "Gotts Mod" thread https://www.f150online.com/forums/ex...t=gotts+intake)
This modification works on basically any 1997 and later. The filter arrangement is different, but they all use a snorkel to pull air from the fenderwell.
The reason it's used is to help smoothly curve airflow into the air box. The problem is that it is also the smallest diameter portion of the entire intake system. The one on the 2009 is part of the airbox, but pops out rather easily. Ford got a little smart on this one and actually perforated the snorkel so it looks a little like a Whiffle ball but as the dyno plot shows, it still is a bit restrictive. Go figure.
If you familiar at all with older cars with 4 barrel carbs, it sounds like the noise made when the secondaries opened up when you floor it. It not really a whine as it is much lower pitched. Maybe sort of like a cow mooing endlessly.The snorkel is something like this (picture courtesy of the "Gotts Mod" thread https://www.f150online.com/forums/ex...t=gotts+intake)
This modification works on basically any 1997 and later. The filter arrangement is different, but they all use a snorkel to pull air from the fenderwell.
The reason it's used is to help smoothly curve airflow into the air box. The problem is that it is also the smallest diameter portion of the entire intake system. The one on the 2009 is part of the airbox, but pops out rather easily. Ford got a little smart on this one and actually perforated the snorkel so it looks a little like a Whiffle ball but as the dyno plot shows, it still is a bit restrictive. Go figure.
Last edited by ASEMechanic; 01-15-2009 at 11:44 PM.
#15
01-15-2009, 11:44 PM
How do I explain droning? That's a tough one. If you familiar at all with older cars with 4 barrel carbs, it sounds like the noise made when the secondaries opened up when you floor it. It not really a whine as it is much lower pitched. Maybe sort of like a cow mooing endlessly.
The snorkel is something like this (picture courtesy of the "Gotts Mod" thread https://www.f150online.com/forums/ex...t=gotts+intake)
This modification works on basically any 1997 and later. The filter arrangement is different, but they all use a snorkel to pull air from the fenderwell.
The reason it's used is to help smoothly curve airflow into the air box. The problem is that it is also the smallest diameter portion of the entire intake system. The one on the 2009 is part of the airbox, but pops out rather easily. Ford got a little smart on this one and actually perforated the snorkel so it looks a little like a Whiffle ball but as the dyno plot shows, it still is a bit restrictive. Go figure.
If you familiar at all with older cars with 4 barrel carbs, it sounds like the noise made when the secondaries opened up when you floor it. It not really a whine as it is much lower pitched. Maybe sort of like a cow mooing endlessly.The snorkel is something like this (picture courtesy of the "Gotts Mod" thread https://www.f150online.com/forums/ex...t=gotts+intake)
This modification works on basically any 1997 and later. The filter arrangement is different, but they all use a snorkel to pull air from the fenderwell.
The reason it's used is to help smoothly curve airflow into the air box. The problem is that it is also the smallest diameter portion of the entire intake system. The one on the 2009 is part of the airbox, but pops out rather easily. Ford got a little smart on this one and actually perforated the snorkel so it looks a little like a Whiffle ball but as the dyno plot shows, it still is a bit restrictive. Go figure.
__________________
Jim
Jim
