Disappointed at the Dyno- Need Help!

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Oct 29, 2006 | 10:10 PM
  #31  
Jordan not Mike's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,714
Likes: 0
From: The LBC (Long Beach, CA)
Originally Posted by mcdover
What do you think about upgrading to a 95mm MAF? Other than doing some tranny work and maybe freeing up some of that massive drivetrain loss, any more suggestions?
Not sure about the MAF.

May be worth a little bit, but no way it'll give a significant gain IMHO...not unless your current MAF's voltage is maxxed-out, and that would be evident in yout A/F rations I believe.

Not sure if paying dyno-tuning money for a MAF experiment would be worth it...maybe if you were on the dyno for another reason you could do a quick swap, but IMHO it wouldn't be worth it to put it on a dyno by itself.

I don't think a built tranny will offer reduced parasitic losses unless somthing is really wrong with the one you have. But a valve body is a good idea at any rate.

Your odd torque converter behavior should be easily eliminated on the dyno...I'm pretty sure your tuner can command it to lock.

Have you considered that the low dyno numbers for your stock setup may be something besides your tranny? Just throwing it out there...have you had a compression/leakdown test done to check cylinder pressure?

Large tires can and your 3.73 gear ratio may also be hurting your power numbers. (As an example I run 4.10s with 285-60R18 street tires but my '97 makes nowhere near the power newer trucks sre making) I could be mistaken, but I think a shorter gear ratio would net a few more ponies and a little less torque. A good experiment may be to put some smaller tires on next time you go to the dyno...?
(It's late an I've been drinking beer watching football all day so who knows...)

Really, though, I think your numbers are good.
The power that most of us expect, versus what we actually get, are often a bit different.
 

Last edited by Jordan not Mike; Oct 29, 2006 at 10:32 PM.
Reply
Old Oct 29, 2006 | 11:39 PM
  #32  
mcdover's Avatar
Thread Starter
|
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 615
Likes: 0
From: Deatsville, AL
Originally Posted by Jordan not Mike
Not sure about the MAF.

May be worth a little bit, but no way it'll give a significant gain IMHO...not unless your current MAF's voltage is maxxed-out, and that would be evident in yout A/F rations I believe.

Not sure if paying dyno-tuning money for a MAF experiment would be worth it...maybe if you were on the dyno for another reason you could do a quick swap, but IMHO it wouldn't be worth it to put it on a dyno by itself.

I don't think a built tranny will offer reduced parasitic losses unless somthing is really wrong with the one you have. But a valve body is a good idea at any rate.

Your odd torque converter behavior should be easily eliminated on the dyno...I'm pretty sure your tuner can command it to lock.

Have you considered that the low dyno numbers for your stock setup may be something besides your tranny? Just throwing it out there...have you had a compression/leakdown test done to check cylinder pressure?

Large tires can and your 3.73 gear ratio may also be hurting your power numbers. (As an example I run 4.10s with 285-60R18 street tires but my '97 makes nowhere near the power newer trucks sre making) I could be mistaken, but I think a shorter gear ratio would net a few more ponies and a little less torque. A good experiment may be to put some smaller tires on next time you go to the dyno...?
(It's late an I've been drinking beer watching football all day so who knows...)

Really, though, I think your numbers are good.
The power that most of us expect, versus what we actually get, are often a bit different.
Thanks for the advice. I'll look into the leakdown test.
 
Reply
Old Oct 30, 2006 | 03:26 AM
  #33  
madferraristi's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 1,002
Likes: 1
From: Newark,CA
I wouldn't be surprised if you saw better numbers if you took off the Headers. Usually, LT's don't help until you are above 500 hp and even then it's a marginal improvement.

I'm making 600+ through stock manifolds and would expect a minor increase with LT's but can't use them because of CA smog laws.

I also doubt that your trans is hurting you though I'm not behind the wheel. You should however, at least have a FT Plate Kit in there to protect your trans.

Give me a call.
 

Last edited by madferraristi; Oct 30, 2006 at 03:34 AM.
Reply
Old Oct 30, 2006 | 08:32 AM
  #34  
rafa26's Avatar
Senior Member
20 Year Member
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,388
Likes: 0
From: hatboro-pa
Originally Posted by mcdover
What do you think about upgrading to a 95mm MAF? Other than doing some tranny work and maybe freeing up some of that massive drivetrain loss, any more suggestions?
Man i forgot you still use stock MAF right ! I have a 95MM cobra machined MAF made by Whipple. I used for 1000 miles and now will be replaced because of the new engine.

If you have any interest, i can sell it for you.
Let me know.
 
Reply
Old Oct 31, 2006 | 03:24 AM
  #35  
05RoushMarkLT's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,022
Likes: 0
From: Fairbanks, Alaska
I think it's your flux capacitor. Have you tuned that in yet?

I'm thinking the LT headers are actually hurting the performance, but possibly helps take the pressure off the engine making it a little safer for the long term. I'd look into that 95mm MAF housing that rafa is offering you too. That was one of the components of the kit that Whipple hooked my truck up with. I'd be real curious to see what your numbers would be without the LT headers.

Regardless, 400+ RWHP kicks ***. I'm happy with mine right where it's at, but it's so damn slick outside now that the extra horsepower really isn't much fun... more like downright scarey.

Good luck with it!
 
Reply
Old Oct 31, 2006 | 07:05 AM
  #36  
mcdover's Avatar
Thread Starter
|
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 615
Likes: 0
From: Deatsville, AL
Originally Posted by 05RoushMarkLT
I think it's your flux capacitor. Have you tuned that in yet?

I'm thinking the LT headers are actually hurting the performance, but possibly helps take the pressure off the engine making it a little safer for the long term. I'd look into that 95mm MAF housing that rafa is offering you too. That was one of the components of the kit that Whipple hooked my truck up with. I'd be real curious to see what your numbers would be without the LT headers.

Regardless, 400+ RWHP kicks ***. I'm happy with mine right where it's at, but it's so damn slick outside now that the extra horsepower really isn't much fun... more like downright scarey.

Good luck with it!
It's the MAF. Thanks to Rafa for pointing me in the right direction. He found an old thread, about a year old, written by Mike Troyer that spelled it out real clear and sent me some dyno graphs of before and after runs with the larger MAF. I also got some advice from a very respected mustang forum member who immediately said that he suspected the MAF was holding me back. Then, Whipple called me back and confirmed it. So, a new 95mm MAF is on the way. So, back to the dyno next week after my tuner gets back from SEMA. I've got my fingers crossed.
 
Reply
Old Oct 31, 2006 | 01:29 PM
  #37  
05RoushMarkLT's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,022
Likes: 0
From: Fairbanks, Alaska
Good deal, hopefully that will help.
 
Reply
Old Oct 31, 2006 | 05:17 PM
  #38  
tigerballz88's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
From: San Diego
This message is for 05RoushMarkLT,
Whipple is now offering the upgrade kit for the supercharger (injectors,95mm MAF, new pulley, and upgraded software). I was wondering what you thought of the Ford Racing Program that Whipple uses.
 
Reply
Old Oct 31, 2006 | 08:32 PM
  #39  
mcdover's Avatar
Thread Starter
|
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 615
Likes: 0
From: Deatsville, AL
Originally Posted by tigerballz88
This message is for 05RoushMarkLT,
Whipple is now offering the upgrade kit for the supercharger (injectors,95mm MAF, new pulley, and upgraded software). I was wondering what you thought of the Ford Racing Program that Whipple uses.
Software? Does that mean a new tune?
 
Reply
Old Oct 31, 2006 | 09:21 PM
  #40  
tigerballz88's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
From: San Diego
i spoke with someone from Whipple and it's basically a new tune for the new upgraded pulley system, cobra injectors and cobra MAF. probably another download from Ford Racing.
 
Reply
Old Nov 1, 2006 | 01:08 AM
  #41  
05RoushMarkLT's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,022
Likes: 0
From: Fairbanks, Alaska
Originally Posted by tigerballz88
This message is for 05RoushMarkLT,
Whipple is now offering the upgrade kit for the supercharger (injectors,95mm MAF, new pulley, and upgraded software). I was wondering what you thought of the Ford Racing Program that Whipple uses.
I was real impressed with the Ford Racing guy that was working on dialing in my tune. Whipple worked with my truck to help develop that tune. One thing I am not impressed with it on is towing ability. I had severe pinging while towing 7000 pounds, and had to back way off on a 3300 mile drive from Vegas to Alaska. As for performance though, I'm happy with the tune, but I don't have anything to really compare it to. I think the shift points could be a little firmer, and I might be able to go up a few more RPM's before the shift points, but I'd rather be safe than sorry.

We really dialed in the tune for my truck while it was on the dyno, which is probably the best way to go. I'd trust Whipples & Ford Racings tunes though, they seem to be very reliable. While Whipple was data logging off the dyno and e-mailing the info to the Ford Racing guy, he was able to dial in right where we needed everything to be. He was usually within 3-5 horses on what his estimate was on the new tune.

I'm curious to see what the final tune they are going to supply with the upgrade kit is going to produce. Make sure to post up some numbers when you get everything done. If you don't mind me asking, what are they charging for the upgrade kit? It is definately worth doing. The difference is very noticeable.
 
Reply
Old Nov 1, 2006 | 10:04 AM
  #42  
madferraristi's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 1,002
Likes: 1
From: Newark,CA
Originally Posted by 05RoushMarkLT
We really dialed in the tune for my truck while it was on the dyno, which is probably the best way to go. I'd trust Whipples & Ford Racings tunes though, they seem to be very reliable. While Whipple was data logging off the dyno and e-mailing the info to the Ford Racing guy, he was able to dial in right where we needed everything to be. He was usually within 3-5 horses on what his estimate was on the new tune.
Unless you are on an eddy current dyno where you can run with a steady state load, the tune you get on a dyno may not eliminate low rpm detonation nor will it uncover "tip in" detonation. The only way to address these issues is to road test it under various load conditions and adjust timing and fuel accordingly.
 
Reply
Old Nov 1, 2006 | 10:54 PM
  #43  
tigerballz88's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 100
Likes: 0
From: San Diego
Originally Posted by 05RoushMarkLT
I was real impressed with the Ford Racing guy that was working on dialing in my tune. Whipple worked with my truck to help develop that tune. One thing I am not impressed with it on is towing ability. I had severe pinging while towing 7000 pounds, and had to back way off on a 3300 mile drive from Vegas to Alaska. As for performance though, I'm happy with the tune, but I don't have anything to really compare it to. I think the shift points could be a little firmer, and I might be able to go up a few more RPM's before the shift points, but I'd rather be safe than sorry.

We really dialed in the tune for my truck while it was on the dyno, which is probably the best way to go. I'd trust Whipples & Ford Racings tunes though, they seem to be very reliable. While Whipple was data logging off the dyno and e-mailing the info to the Ford Racing guy, he was able to dial in right where we needed everything to be. He was usually within 3-5 horses on what his estimate was on the new tune.

I'm curious to see what the final tune they are going to supply with the upgrade kit is going to produce. Make sure to post up some numbers when you get everything done. If you don't mind me asking, what are they charging for the upgrade kit? It is definately worth doing. The difference is very noticeable.
they quoted me $899 for the upgrade kit. i'm not going to upgrade for a few months but when i do, i'll post my numbers.
 
Reply
Old Nov 1, 2006 | 11:06 PM
  #44  
justjames80's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 465
Likes: 0
From: Louisiana
Yup...sweep tuning is ok in the upper rpms where you may not be comfortable holding a vehicle at 5000 rpms for 10 minutes or so while you make adjustments. On a load cell dyno you can modulate engine load from say 10% to 100% at any given rpm. If I could cough up $55,000 or so I'd put a nice little DynoDynamics machine in my garage...
 
Reply
Old Nov 2, 2006 | 03:49 AM
  #45  
05RoushMarkLT's Avatar
Senior Member
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,022
Likes: 0
From: Fairbanks, Alaska
We did run the truck on the streets with the computer hooked up. We actually did this almost as many times as we monitored it on the dyno. We did the road tuning first, then finished tuning it on the dyno a week or so later.

$899 is a hell of a good price for this upgrade package. You should go from the 340-350 RWHP range with the limiter to the near or above 400 RWHP range without the limiter with the upgraded parts and tune.
 
Reply



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:02 AM.