TCCoA Forums banner

221 - 240 of 286 Posts

·
Super Moderator
1997 Thunderbird 4.6, 1998 Mark VIII LSC
Joined
·
10,381 Posts
Discussion Starter · #221 · (Edited)
Hah, go figure. Well here's hoping the porting is worth something! :rolleyes:

If it turns out to do nothing for me I'll sell it to another unsuspecting soul and learn from the experience. I was originally planning on a simple P&P'd stocker anyway so I'm more or less getting the same thing then.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
13,725 Posts
GM,

Mine was running full accessories but I was running underdrives on it. That was back in 2004. It was dynoed again in 2006 with nearly identical numbers. Hasn't been since.
... and that engine never will be again.

Well interestingly enough when Mike V (Bullittbird) had the stocker in his car before I purchased it , it put down 250 WHP. That was before 2004. Mine put those numbers down and slightly better later in my car.

Regardless of flow and dyno numbers, track numbers don't lie.
The intake and Dyno numbers have very little to do with track numbers when they're skewed by nitrous and other mods.

If y'all want to talk numbers, I have a great spreadsheet with almost 100 different dynos with different combinations. The ones putting down near the numbers you have, Brandon are as follows:

Big Pete made 243/281 rwhp/rwtq with Renegade heads, XE262H cams, BBK/CL Upper/TB, & stock headers.
96_GoldBird made 245/282 with Renegade heads, XE268H cams, 75mm TB, u/d, & Kooks headers.
02auto made 253/291 with PI Heads/Cams, PnP Intake, u/d, & Long-tube headers.
1MTNCAT made 257/316 with PI Heads/Stage 1 cams, GT Intake, u/d, & JBA shorties.
CableGuyJJ3 made 260/295 with PI Heads, XE270AH cams, CAI, u/d, & JBA shorties.
paintme205 made 260/288 with PI Heads/Cams, CL TB/Intake, u/d, & Kooks headers.
Dynotune04 made 267/301 with PI Heads/Cams, CL Intake, u/d, 5-speed, & Long-tube headers.
Texas01GT made 267/308 with PI Heads/Cams, BBK Intake, u/d, 5-speed, & Long-tube headers.
Stukinkaos made 281/317 with MMR Stage 2 heads/Stage 2 cams, PI intake with Elbow, & Kooks on 01 block.

Just a few for reference (if anybody knows any of these to be wrong, please correct me).....
Thanks for the chart Rick.

LOL :tongue:

I have to laugh at the bickering about mid 200 HP numbers.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,643 Posts
... and that engine never will be again.



The intake and Dyno numbers have very little to do with track numbers when they're skewed by nitrous and other mods.



Thanks for the chart Rick.

LOL :tongue:

I have to laugh at the bickering about mid 200 HP numbers.
You are missing the point TM. This has nothing to do with power adders or nitrous etc. Its about a base bolt on factory 96-97 shortblock block which has had a PI head swap done-Ported heads with stage 2 cams. Same exact set up as my Bullitt intake stocker was except for his worked top end and cams. What this does show is what differences in dyno numbers and combination are had on dyno results. Numbers do mean something.

Track numbers themselves are a result not only of HP/TQ dyno numbers, but combination and a whole bunch of other factors. Track numbers and set ups are why Siska's 560WHP car runs 10'0's and Roberts 730WHP car runs 9.97-10's and nearly the same MPH. Same with Vinings V6 SC car making 450WHP but able to run in the 10's and Keiths 380WHP car running low 11's. My refence to track numbers is only in respect to my car. If I make more power I run consistantly better times so I know its putting more to the ground all other things being equal.

I'm not arguing his numbers. They are good numbers. I believe they should be better. Either the combo has not reached its potential or there is an issue with the dyno numbers. The state of tune itself may be fine. When you have another car for example-- Jeffs old TBird (Stuckinkaos) car now that has made between 280-290HP & over 310+TQ with a similar set up with kooks but also down on compression since its a 2001 block, it makes you question the dyno numbers. I saw Jeffs on the dyno up here a couple years back make almost 290. Justin has made over 280WHP at Pro Dyno even without being able to wind it to 58-5900. That is my point.

Dyno engine combination is one thing, Track set up and combo is a whole other animal entirely.
 

·
Super Moderator
1997 Thunderbird 4.6, 1998 Mark VIII LSC
Joined
·
10,381 Posts
Discussion Starter · #224 ·

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,643 Posts

·
Super Moderator
1997 Thunderbird 4.6, 1998 Mark VIII LSC
Joined
·
10,381 Posts
Discussion Starter · #226 · (Edited)
Okay so I got that 70mm TB. I decided to find out how it compared to the stocker, so I used a post-it note to figure out how big each blade was...

43854


43855


Sure enough, a true 70mm vs 65mm.

I then decided to do a before and after datalog. As expected, the peak airflow of the pre-installation log was nearly identical to that of the pre-installation datalog - however the post installation log showed .3-.5 lb/min at peak gain over the stock TB. HOWEVER... I would dare to say that's just the margin of error. Through the RPM range of the log it was give or take .5 lb/min on either TB vs the other. We'll see what a plenum does, I guess.

One thing I did notice is that the airflow kept climbing steadily with RPM up until about 5400 RPM, after which it more or less flatlines (or only goes up 1/2 lb/min over the next 800 RPM).

GM, question for you. I noticed the spark source is 2 at WOT, which would mean a base spark table. Where is that located? I appear to be running 30 degrees of spark at 75% load at 6000 RPM, which is 2 more than what's commanded in the borderline table. If you include the spark adder for AFR that would account for 1.5 degrees of that...

It doesn't ping, but I wonder if it might be a little too far advanced for peak power.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
11,281 Posts
One thing I did notice is that the airflow kept climbing steadily with RPM up until about 5400 RPM, after which it more or less flatlines (or only goes up 1/2 lb/min over the next 800 RPM).
You need to put a vacuum gauge on the "closest to plenum" port you have, and see what it is at WOT. (Someone suggested this above)

This will tell you IF an airbox, MAF, TB, or inlet tube will help or not. :)

Inlet 'accessories' are much cheaper than Higher Flowing intakes, lol.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
11,984 Posts
If the blade turned out to be a true 70mm then thats good. I know I had seen some that necked down in previous years.

GM, question for you. I noticed the spark source is 2 at WOT, which would mean a base spark table
Try again.....

http://forums.tccoa.com/showpost.php?p=1386228&postcount=11

Zero out the entire Spark adder for A/F ratio table. FYI, the base spark table = max allowed.

As for the airflow, did you look at logs in 1st gear or in 2nd? Statistically, you can do multiple runs with each setup, then overlay them, and you can get a much better view of things (if there is any real difference). Only catch though is the air has to be the same, so you'd have to do back-to-back runs within a short time-span. If you didn't, you might want to do the datalogs in 2nd instead of 1st gear.

As for the flat-lining, either your exhaust is not up to par, or it might be because of the tight LSA of the cams along with the advanced intake lobe. Even with a PI intake/75mm TB/C&L plenum, my old motor with KDanner's old crower cams was pulling more and more air up to 6000 (and likely a bit higher if I had let it). Would probably not have flat-lined til 6300-6400. So it's not the intake manifold that is flat-lining that's for sure. In my airflow datalog, I was running stock manifolds, into 2.5" Magnaflow high flow cats, merging into a double X-pipe, then dual 2.5" compression bent pipes out back with no mufflers.

My old Crower cam specs:

Duration @ 0.050": 222° Intake/222° Exhaust
LSA: 114°
Intake lobe centerline: 110°
Valve lift: 0.493" Intake/0.493" Exhaust

IF you wanted to bump up the top-end, we could try retarding the cams via the crank gears (you'd have to check with Nick @ MHS how much retarding would be safe on this cam given your piston situation), but even then there are no guarantees if you'd pick up anything at all. Rest assured there is no free lunch---you'll lose torque down low if you want extra beef up top.
 

·
Super Moderator
1997 Thunderbird 4.6, 1998 Mark VIII LSC
Joined
·
10,381 Posts
Discussion Starter · #229 ·
Wow... :facepalm: I don't know how I misread that one! Okay - borderline. That I CAN find. I'll zero the spark adder table and see what that does for my airflow. That is, assuming that a change in spark will affect the airflow data if it yields a change in output.

The airflow figures were 2nd gear. It ran through first too fast to get any kind of resolution on the data. :)
 

·
Super Moderator
1997 Thunderbird 4.6, 1998 Mark VIII LSC
Joined
·
10,381 Posts
Discussion Starter · #231 · (Edited)
WOT A/F is .86 lambda.

This brings to mind something I'm not sure I understand and think I really should. Right now, if I command a lambda of .86, a lambda of .86 shows up on the wideband and the fuel in the tank has a stoich of 14.08 (like E10 does, which is all that's available here). If I set the stoich A:F ratio in the tune to 14.64 (E0), does that affect fuel calculations and will that affect the AFRs, even though the fuel and lambda hasn't changed? IE if my PCM is set up for 14.64 stoich and I'm actually using E10, commanding .86 lambda and seeing .86 lambda on the wideband, is that an AFR of 12.6 or 12.1? And the reverse - if the PCM is set up for 14.08 stoich, I'm using E10, I'm commanding .86 and seeing .86, that's an AFR of 12.1, right?

I ask because if I misunderstood something and it's set up wrong, I could be running an actual AFR of 12.1, which means I could be safely making more power by leaning it out to closer to 12.5 or 12.6.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
11,984 Posts
WOT A/F is .86 lambda.

This brings to mind something I'm not sure I understand and think I really should. Right now, if I command a lambda of .86, a lambda of .86 shows up on the wideband and the fuel in the tank has a stoich of 14.08 (like E10 does, which is all that's available here). If I set the stoich A:F ratio in the tune to 14.64 (E0), does that affect fuel calculations and will that affect the AFRs, even though the fuel and lambda hasn't changed? IE if my PCM is set up for 14.64 stoich and I'm actually using E10, commanding .86 lambda and seeing .86 lambda on the wideband, is that an AFR of 12.6 or 12.1? And the reverse - if the PCM is set up for 14.08 stoich, I'm using E10, I'm commanding .86 and seeing .86, that's an AFR of 12.1, right?

I ask because if I misunderstood something and it's set up wrong, I could be running an actual AFR of 12.1, which means I could be safely making more power by leaning it out to closer to 12.5 or 12.6.
Precisely why I asked. It's a tricky situation because everything is based on the maf transfer reflecting reality, not satisfying a number on a WB.

AFAIK,

If your stoich scalar is not what is in the tank, it will force you to incorrectly skew the maf transfer function as you're trying to get the commanded lambda to show up on the WB. The commanded lambda has to have some kind of reference for it to mean anything, and this reference is the stoich scalar.

If you're seeing 0.86 lambda on your WB, that is 12.1:1 on E10. The issue is I don't know if your PCM is arriving at that lambda correctly. Just because you command 0.86 and see 0.86, doesn't mean that things behind the scenes are happening correctly. It's like asking what two numbers when multiplied give you 4? There are an infinite number of combinations of numbers that satisfy that question. Similarly, there are an infinite combination of stoich scalars combined with slightly skewed maf transfer functions that will cause a 0.86 to show up on the wideband. Skew one a little bit, and you inadvertently have to skew the other one without realizing that it shifts the whole tune away from being where it should be.

The following paragraph assumes a properly set tune:

Running 12.1:1 on E10 is identical to running 12.5:1 on E0. This is because they are both running at 0.86 lambda for their respective fuels. They are equivalent running conditions because the stoich of the different fuels is the grand equalizer that sets them both to 0.86 lambda. Power production is typically maximized at lambda ~0.90-0.91. In terms of E0, this would be about 13.2-13.4:1. In term of E10 this would be 12.85-12.67:1 (for those people reading who's WBs read in air:fuel ratio and not lambda).

That said, what did you leave your stoich scalar at? I know in the EEC Tuning thread I mentioned that you could leave it 14.67, but then I corrected myself because it's not like it has an effect on part-throttle operation anyways, where the O2s are still in command of things.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,147 Posts
I think I'm going to be sick....
 

·
Super Moderator
1997 Thunderbird 4.6, 1998 Mark VIII LSC
Joined
·
10,381 Posts
Discussion Starter · #234 ·
The following paragraph assumes a properly set tune:

Running 12.1:1 on E10 is identical to running 12.5:1 on E0. This is because they are both running at 0.86 lambda for their respective fuels. They are equivalent running conditions because the stoich of the different fuels is the grand equalizer that sets them both to 0.86 lambda. Power production is typically maximized at lambda ~0.90-0.91. In terms of E0, this would be about 13.2-13.4:1. In term of E10 this would be 12.85-12.67:1 (for those people reading who's WBs read in air:fuel ratio and not lambda).

That said, what did you leave your stoich scalar at? I know in the EEC Tuning thread I mentioned that you could leave it 14.67, but then I corrected myself because it's not like it has an effect on part-throttle operation anyways, where the O2s are still in command of things.
Good thing I asked. Stoich in the tune is/was always set to 14.08 and that is always what will be in the tank, and that's how it was set when I was dialing in the injector flow model and the MAF transfer function.

Is it safe to deduce then that the MAF transfer etc. is set correctly? If it means anything, my STFTs on both banks average 3% lean - which is (I assume) a result of the 3% lean O2 bias I have set in the name of fuel economy. Because of that I deduce that the MAF/fuel delivery relationship is correct since the O2s aren't making any corrections to the amount of fuel delivered based on MAF sensor feedback, and that since I used stock injectors and a stock flow model to dial in the MAF initially I deduce that the MAF transfer and injector flow models are also correct. FWIW, (IIRC) I made corrections to the MAF transfer value file of no more than ~3% when I was dialing it in.

If everything in that last paragraph is true, then since I know the car isn't pinging with the extra 2 degrees of spark at WOT (which are now being pulled due to zeroing the open loop spark adder table) would it be recommended/worthwhile/safe to slightly lean out the mixture to something closer to that .90 lambda at WOT? Something like .88 or .89?

I think I'm going to be sick....
:rofl: Nah, this stuff isn't that bad! :tongue:
 

·
Super Moderator
1997 Thunderbird 4.6, 1998 Mark VIII LSC
Joined
·
10,381 Posts
Discussion Starter · #235 ·
Okay so I went ahead and zero'd the spark adder for A/F in the baseline table. I re-checked my logs and I goofed - it IS base spark (source 1) and since I knew where to look for it this time, I backed the high load/rpm spark down a little. I also changed the WOT A/F to .88 lambda.

On the way in to work this morning I logged a few things and well whaddaya know... the average airflow between 4000 and 5500 went up by .8 #/min. :)
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
11,984 Posts
Good thing I asked. Stoich in the tune is/was always set to 14.08 and that is always what will be in the tank, and that's how it was set when I was dialing in the injector flow model and the MAF transfer function.

Is it safe to deduce then that the MAF transfer etc. is set correctly? If it means anything, my STFTs on both banks average 3% lean - which is (I assume) a result of the 3% lean O2 bias I have set in the name of fuel economy. Because of that I deduce that the MAF/fuel delivery relationship is correct since the O2s aren't making any corrections to the amount of fuel delivered based on MAF sensor feedback, and that since I used stock injectors and a stock flow model to dial in the MyAF initially I deduce that the MAF transfer and injector flow models are also correct. FWIW, (IIRC) I made corrections to the MAF transfer value file of no more than ~3% when I was dialing it in.

If everything in that last paragraph is true, then since I know the car isn't pinging with the extra 2 degrees of spark at WOT (which are now being pulled due to zeroing the open loop spark adder table) would it be recommended/worthwhile/safe to slightly lean out the mixture to something closer to that .90 lambda at WOT? Something like .88 or .89?



:rofl: Nah, this stuff isn't that bad! :tongue:
The only concerns with leaning out the A:F ratio is that spark tolerance is reduced. If it turns out that you have to back off the timing too much then you're just chasing your tail and getting nowhere. One way to check is to log acceleration rate. It's kinda like looking at torque production on the dyno, except you dont have absolute values, only relative values. If accel. rate goes up you're making more torque and thus power.
 

·
Super Moderator
1997 Thunderbird 4.6, 1998 Mark VIII LSC
Joined
·
10,381 Posts
Discussion Starter · #237 ·
Good, that's what I'm in the middle of doing now - making a spreadsheet of acceleration rates. :cool:
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
11,984 Posts
Okay so I went ahead and zero'd the spark adder for A/F in the baseline table. I re-checked my logs and I goofed - it IS base spark (source 1) and since I knew where to look for it this time, I backed the high load/rpm spark down a little. I also changed the WOT A/F to .88 lambda.

On the way in to work this morning I logged a few things and well whaddaya know... the average airflow between 4000 and 5500 went up by .8 #/min. :)
At WOT, your spark source should unequivocally be 2. The max allowed is representative of MBT spark which you should not be able to run on pump gas since it is usually very high. Perhaps this means you set the borderline spark table too high?

Your airflow went up 0.8 lb/min compared to other mornings of the same temperature?. Remember, cooler air is denser. ;)

I think I'm going to be sick....
Wise man once said..."you don't know engines until you can make [a lot of] naturally aspirated horsepower."

If it means anything, my STFTs on both banks average 3% lean - which is (I assume) a result of the 3% lean O2 bias I have set in the name of fuel economy.
Your STFTs in combination with LTFTs should read much closer to zero. Remember STFTs alone mean squat unless the LFTFs are still zero and have not stored anything, They should not correct for you having shifted the O2 bias. If the pcm did that, then there would be no point to setting the O2 bias in the first place.

If your STFTs are showing 3% lean while the LTFTs are still showing 0, then you're running 3% lean above what you have set your bias to. Well technically you aren't running 3% lean anymore because the STFTs take care of it and the correction has already been done. But you get my drift; there is more tweaking to be done and more reading on the SCT PRP private forum needs to be done. ;)
 

·
Super Moderator
1997 Thunderbird 4.6, 1998 Mark VIII LSC
Joined
·
10,381 Posts
Discussion Starter · #239 ·
Any random mod out there, could you take the talk about charts and such and move it to another thread please? Thank you! :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
64 Posts
You are no where near maxing those 30# injectors on the motor. I saw Stuckinkaos car when Jeff had it dyno near 290 on 24# injectors and was nowhere near maxing those out.
That is where mine is and Stuckinkaos found out as well that the 24# were not enough to support his motor and the nitrous.
I use 24s on 370rwhp 4Vs and also 350rwhp 4vs and a 100hp wet shot. The 24s are nowhere near maxing at under 300.

Yep that's a tight LSA. Helps with midrange power but sometimes hinders top end. Not that we can change that, but we CAN change the centerlines via resetting the crank gears to retard the cams.
The tight LSA with the longer duration won't hurt hp with the stock intake. The tight LSA brings tq on much quicker which is needed for heavy, automatic transmission vehicles like thunderbirds.
 
221 - 240 of 286 Posts
Top