Thoughts on MHS PI H/C and stock bottom end

[theterminator93]

Didn't they have a way to lock the converter and lock 3rd gear to pull on out past 5800.

he has the PRP, so "they" don't have to do anything.

How can the torque be right and the HP not be? They are inseparably related, since one is derived from the other. If the torque curve as a whole is correct, then the HP curve has to be correct as well, and vice-versa.


One way to "verify" the validity of HP numbers is to look at the raw airflow data. Every 1 lb/min of airflow makes about 10BHP (depending on compression ratio). At the HP peak RPM, this engine should have an airflow about 30 < airflow < 32.

What correction factor was used for this dyno run? This has a lot to do with what numbers the dyno program spits out.

Just remembered, did you fix you fuel flow model? If not, the maf is gonna be off (gonna show too low), which would then call the wrong cells in the borderline spark table (spark too high).

The correction factor was 1.04, and IIRC the airflow was in the high 20s (29ish) when I was dialing in the MAF some weeks ago. Also IIRC spark was in the 26-27 range at WOT > 5000 RPM, which would be in the neighborhood of 80-85% load. If the dyno is correct, and if my 14.4% driveline figure is correct, AND if my memory is correct, all these numbers line up. 255 RWHP would be about 291 BHP, which fits into the ~29 #/min. airflow figure.

I did get the fuel flow model dialed in as well using the following method. I installed the stock 19s and loaded their values from the base tune and dialed in the MAF transfer up to about 400 counts using the wideband in open loop/adaptive off. Then I put the 30s in, tweaked the flow model so the A/F was right on again, then continued to dial in the transfer function above 400 counts. After I did that A/F was within 2% of what was commanded - the vast majority of that time it was within 1% or right on.

I'll get some fresh data when I can and inform the world.

 

[theterminator93]

One question: why did you stop tuning the maf at 400 counts? Probably doesn't matter--just curious.

I find it odd that my old motor pulled more air. But then again I had terminator (no pun intended) injectors, and never checked if those are 39 or 43.5 psi referenced.

GM,

There is still something amiss. He's running the same injectors as I am. I have JBA headers and he has ported manifolds. Probably better than mine if it came out in the wash.

My AF ratio's at WOT ran right at 12.9 to 13.0. I do not believe that the bullitt and Bullitt TB with stock PI heads and PI cams is going to outflow a PI intake with stage 2 heads and cams and very same shortblock. That makes 0 sense.

You may put numbers on airflow or whatever but reality is it shouldn't be. My HP peak is at 5000 and holds to 5500 where it starts falling off. His was still climbing at 5800 until you could see where they lifted on the graph. It should have more of a higher power band than that.

You may be correct as far as loading the dyno. There could be something there as far as the numbers. I would certainly think that his combo would reach max HP in the 6000-6300 range, all things considered. However, again the state of tune is better than the sum of numbers if its where it needs to be.

But as far as the shown numbers, something just doesn't add up with that combination.

I agree there is something off somewhere. I wonder, is there is a datalog for the dyno run.....

One thing I can think of is that his cams are on a 106ish intake centerline. Stock PI cams are on 114° intake centerline.

Chris M has talked about loaded dynos before where if the tuner loads the dyno with too much weight and wind resistance than the dyno can put out more hp than it really puts down. Same goes for a smaller weight and wind resistance load that can under shoot his actual rwhp. Chris also said that torque numbers never lie so his 290 rwtq is probably correct. Just a thought. Chris can fill in on anything I missed.

According to your Dyno graph..I'm the winner!..






Rayo..

Chris M has talked about loaded dynos before where if the tuner loads the dyno with too much weight and wind resistance than the dyno can put out more hp than it really puts down. Same goes for a smaller weight and wind resistance load that can under shoot his actual rwhp. Chris also said that torque numbers never lie so his 290 rwtq is probably correct. Just a thought. Chris can fill in on anything I missed.

Those are only load bearing dynos.

One question: why did you stop tuning the maf at 400 counts? Probably doesn't matter--just curious.

I didn't want to go too high and run the risk of it leaning out because of maxing out the injectors. But as I see now, I wouldn't have even at WOT.

 

[theterminator93]

That reminds me. If you can do a wot log at some point, log airflow rate, fuel mass flow and injector tics, injector slope, and stft's. I can back calculate the required airflow to see how it compares to logged airflow.

I'll add this one to the list of logs to make, lol.

Chris M has talked about loaded dynos before where if the tuner loads the dyno with too much weight and wind resistance than the dyno can put out more hp than it really puts down. Same goes for a smaller weight and wind resistance load that can under shoot his actual rwhp. Chris also said that torque numbers never lie so his 290 rwtq is probably correct. Just a thought. Chris can fill in on anything I missed.

Too much weight/resistance = Lower #'s
Too little weight/resistance = Higher numbers.

And yes the torque seldom lies.

However like previously mentioned that only applies to load bearing dynos.

Dynajets are non load bearing. There for unless it's calibrated incorrectly some how, then those numbers are what they are.

Also while big numbers are nice to brag about sometimes it's better to have a vehicle with good drivability rather than being tuned on the razor edge of performance and failure. This rule is also true of racing.

I didn't want to go too high and run the risk of it leaning out because of maxing out the injectors. But as I see now, I wouldn't have even at WOT.

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. His set up is close to yours with the exception of Kooks mid lengths and a stock PI bottom instead of a stock 96-97 bird bottom end. Remember that car has already gone 12.7's NA.

Now with a power adder on the other hand you would be right on the edge. That is where mine is and Stuckinkaos found out as well that the 24# were not enough to support his motor and the nitrous.

Bottom line is I KNOW there is more in that car. You just need to find it. Between you and GM maybe you can find it in the tweaking of the tune.

Oh yeah, absolutely not. What I was worried about was getting too close to the limit of the 19s when I put them back onto the car while I was tweaking the MAF transfer function when the flow model of the 30s was a question.

I think a little more can be had out of it from the tune, but how much I can't say... I went very conservative on it with it being my first "all around" tuning experience so I wanted to be sure to err on the side of safety this time around.

While we are on the subject of injectors would 42's or 60's be too much for my 4v? I want to experiment with E85 so I will be needing more injector, I think my dual 255 walbro's are up to the task and I'll be fabricating new filter to fuel rail lines and in tank lines / y-fitting.

P.S. I don't mean to thread jack. Just asking, if I'm out of line then someone please move this to it's own thread.

 

[theterminator93]

I just don't understand, I found 2 others who had over 270hp with "nearly" the same mods with the exception of headers. I'm not bashing or anything either, I just want to be able to get the most out of my setup up since it will be almost identical to yours.

I know there are a lot of different contributing factors (different dynos, more aggressive tuning etc), but I cant imagine that headers will really make a 20hp+ increase on a T-bird. If that were true, I may say goodbye ported manifolds and get some kooks!

I have never had them on my car but from what I've seen and know the Kooks are the hot ticket for these cars right now.

The car is able to breathe better particularly when set up with ported and polished heads, aftermarket cams and the correct tuning. The air flow is there and it needs them. As far as power output again that can vary.

As I've mentioned many times already and before, dyno numbers in effect really mean nothing to me. It does give you data to work with as far as where you are making power and torque and state of tune. Otherwise the numbers will and do vary from dyno to dyno, weather conditions and dyno type.

They are a tuning tool, nothing more and nothing less.

Tuning, set up efficiency, and track numbers are what I look at to determine whether or not I'm making more power. I've seen cars that don't dyno well but still run awesome numbers and or perform very well. Mine is one them.

As another example, I know of two comparable 10.0 cars on here that run great numbers and are about 175+ HP apart as far as dyno numbers. Go figure. Then two cars that make in the 450-470 HP zone running very High 10's - low 11's. Power adder cars of course. As far as just using a calculator to give you true numbers its just not possible. Too many variations.

Chris, as far as the 4V motor and E85 I would have no clue on injector size. Robert P might be the guy to answer that question for you since he has dealt with the stuff. Its a different set up compared to gasoline. On a healthy 4V I expect it would need more than that but on something close to a stock motor its hard to say.

Hard to say you say? Mere child's play to calculate it

E85 "needs" 9.85 lb air-to every- 1 lb fuel. This is not how you want to look at things because the "number" of emphasis is on the "air" side of the ratio. It's better (in this case) to look at the air:fuel ratio inverted to place emphasis on the "fuel" side of the ratio, known as the "equivalence ratio":

(9.85)^-1 = 0.102 lb_E85-for every-1 lb air

[similarly, for comparison, gasoline only requires
(14.67)^-1 = 0.068 lb_gas-for every-1 lb air]

It's easy to see from the above, if not from anything else, that E85 needs a heck of a lot more fuel injected than gasoline for similar running conditions.

0.102/0.068 = 1.5. So this means you need 50% more injector to handle E85 IF your injectors are maxxed out. This is not the case for all engines, so you can get a way with less than 50% more because injectors are NEVER fully "used" in factory stock conditions. For a 4V MarkVIII you can get a way with 30 lb/hr injectors (already including 10% to account for not getting the injectors to 100% duty cycle) because a MarkVIII 4V will just barely max out 19 lb/hr injectors in the first place, yet they come with 24s for safety reasons. Anything higher won't have any benefit, but can certainly work so long as it is accounted for in the tune.

Nice numbers!

I agree, those don't seem quite right.

I'd expect the hp number to be higher with that Tq value, for one.



I wonder if the 127.5mph shift problem caused my 4-3-4 shift... That's around the right speed, and I was foot-off-throttle.

Anyone have more data on this effect?

I'm wondering if I've reached the point where the throttle body and plenum need some attention.

Don't wonder. Swap all that crap out for an SVO or Bullitt if you can find them, or just spring for a TFS intake with a dual 57mm TB. It WILL make more bacon up on top.

Anyone have more data on this effect?

not many people willing to experiment with a potentially transmission-destroying shifting scenario, lol. The key IMO lies in purposely shifting the N/V scalar, among other things. I'm still collecting notes from all corners of the web to see if I can figure it out correctly. Then I'll consult with LaSota to see what he thinks.

I'm on the fence about getting modularbird's Bullitt, but I'm hesitant because I would like to find something that will clear the stock hood without modifications. I need to spend some time researching, but before I start doing that I need to relax and enjoy the fruits of my labors over the winter.

 

[theterminator93]

It WILL make more bacon up on top.

The old rule of thumb was you need intake work for more than one step in cams; so at stage two, you need an intake.

Dang Good Job, man!

not many people willing to experiment with a potentially transmission-destroying shifting scenario, lol. The key IMO lies in purposely shifting the N/V scalar, among other things. I'm still collecting notes from all corners of the web to see if I can figure it out correctly. Then I'll consult with LaSota to see what he thinks.

Thanks, GM. This issue is infrequent, but destructive. And all of y'all are hitting these speeds...

Something's gotta give somewhere if you want power. Look at me, I ain't gonna run a hood lol.

Extra power is just waiting for you via a better intake.

Congrats Brandon , On your successful upgrade and work

Nice curves! I bet that car is a blast to drive - nice work!

Something's gotta give somewhere if you want power. Look at me, I ain't gonna run a hood lol.

Extra power is just waiting for you via a better intake.

Ok, where does a stock bullitt intake fit into that chart????

I know you have the data GM. Plug it so I can see it. I don't understand how that car is NOT making 30-40 more HP than mine on a dyno. I may be making a couple more ponies from the intake than he is but the PI is not that restrictive on that configuration.

Looking at the charts the pulls look good and clean. Maybe just something with the dyno calibration.

Thanks Chris for clearing that up!

I've read that JL dropped the bullit intake and went back to the PI intake. I think the reasoning behind it was that although he might loose a couple ponies up top it was worth it in weight savings.. But I can't remember for sure maybe it was just an experiment he wanted to try

What I'm finding in preliminary research is that the Bullitt isn't good for any peak horsepower but rather adds power at either end of the curve. E.G. peak numbers with a PI intake and Bullitt intake are the same, but the "area under the curve" with a Bullitt is greater than a PI. Not sure on the validity of this statement yet as again, these are the preliminary findings on my part. The last thing I need to do is start down a particular path before I fully understand the direction through which that path will take me.

 

[theterminator93]

Hook a vacuum gauge up to your manifold and stick the gauge under your windshield wiper.

If your vacuum isn't very, very close to 0.0 at WOT, you need to open something up in your intake (throttle body, upper plenum, filter, etc)...

It was worth a couple of HP in my near-stock case, but with your Stage 2 H/C, I would think it would be worth more.

Do you remember what intake centerlines the cams were set to with the settings Nick gave you?

Ok, where does a stock bullitt intake fit into that chart????

I know you have the data GM. Plug it so I can see it. I don't understand how that car is NOT making 30-40 more HP than mine on a dyno. I may be making a couple more ponies from the intake than he is but the PI is not that restrictive on that configuration.

Looking at the charts the pulls look good and clean. Maybe just something with the dyno calibration.

Maybe you should have sent me your Bullitt intake when I was running that SVO intake. I never had any Bullitt intake to make a comparison/datalog alongside that SVO.

I think the intake centerlines (being advanced) might be hindering the top-end output just a tad. Stock PI/NPI cams are ground on a 114° centerline, but with the variances in stock cam sprockets, the centerlines could be even more retarded thus up'ing the top-end power output. Only other thing I can thing of besides not running any underdrive pullies nor accessory deletes that you were running Steve.

What I'm finding in preliminary research is that the Bullitt isn't good for any peak horsepower but rather adds power at either end of the curve. E.G. peak numbers with a PI intake and Bullitt intake are the same, but the "area under the curve" with a Bullitt is greater than a PI. Not sure on the validity of this statement yet as again, these are the preliminary findings on my part. The last thing I need to do is start down a particular path before I fully understand the direction through which that path will take me.

No possible way IF the bullitt is anything like the SVO.

If you look at the RPMs near where the HP peak normally occurs with stageIIish cams, there's no question that my old motor is making more power via the increased engine load (and thus power production).

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.

Hook a vacuum gauge up to your manifold and stick the gauge under your windshield wiper.

If your vacuum isn't very, very close to 0.0 at WOT, you need to open something up in your intake (throttle body, upper plenum, filter, etc)...

It was worth a couple of HP in my near-stock case, but with your Stage 2 H/C, I would think it would be worth more.

I'm sure it's nowhere near 0 if yours wasn't with mild mods and stock NPI heads.

I've been leaning towards getting a P/P'd TB and plenum to bide my time until I decide what I want to do with the intake. I refuse to buy a cowl hood but if I have to I could be coaxed to do some minor trimming to bracing (though I greatly prefer to avoid this).

I remember Traveler giving high marks to the work done by the ebay seller 618jerrys and last night I found this, so I sprung on it. It looks like it will work with the factory GT setup I have on the car now with some minor stretching to the tube. I'm keeping my eyes out for a plenum too. Once I get them installed I'll double check my A/Fs then I'll likely take it back to the dyno to see what it did.

GM, the cams are spec'd as follows:

Duration at .050: I225 E223
Lobe lift: I.3056 E.2700
Separation 108
Timing Events .050 I-OP 6.5 I-CL 38.5 E-OP 41.5 E-CL 1.5
Duration at .006 I265 E262
Gross valve lift I .550 E .500

The cams are installed with the true centerlines at 107 and 107.5.

 

[theterminator93]

The c&l plenum seems to be a popular choice and is only $99 on there website. They also post dyno graphs with proven gains. When I need one I will most likely go there.

Actually, mine wasn't close to 0 as stock, but when I got through with the ported & polished upper plenum and the CAI, it was VERY close to 0.0 - so I know I did some good.

If you want, I have both a stock upper and a CV upper plenum here (it's 1/2"-3/4" taller) that I would be happy to port and polish for you; let me know if you are interested. If I had your TB you just bought, I could port the plenum to match perfectly.

Thanks for the offer Rick, but I already committed to get one from the ebay seller who ported the 70MM throttle body.

Believe me though, your tests are more or less what pushed me over the edge to try a P&P'd stock plenum/TB.

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.

Then either your dyno numbers are wonky or his are. Based on what he's telling me about how much airflow he's pulling, I'm starting to think yours are the ones that might have been fudged all this time.

I'm sure it's nowhere near 0 if yours wasn't with mild mods and stock NPI heads.

I've been leaning towards getting a P/P'd TB and plenum to bide my time until I decide what I want to do with the intake. I refuse to buy a cowl hood but if I have to I could be coaxed to do some minor trimming to bracing (though I greatly prefer to avoid this).

I remember Traveler giving high marks to the work done by the ebay seller 618jerrys and last night I found this, so I sprung on it. It looks like it will work with the factory GT setup I have on the car now with some minor stretching to the tube. I'm keeping my eyes out for a plenum too. Once I get them installed I'll double check my A/Fs then I'll likely take it back to the dyno to see what it did.

GM, the cams are spec'd as follows:

Duration at .050: I225 E223
Lobe lift: I.3056 E.2700
Separation 108
Timing Events .050 I-OP 6.5 I-CL 38.5 E-OP 41.5 E-CL 1.5
Duration at .006 I265 E262
Gross valve lift I .550 E .500

The cams are installed with the true centerlines at 107 and 107.5.

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.

I kinda expected that a little - the description of the stage 2P cams was an advanced intake lobe version of the stage 2.5 (or 2, can't recall) which would produce a wider torque curve but at a sacrifice of about 5 peak RWHP. With the application of the car being my summer DD -

I'm going to start by re-verifying my AFRs and logging my airflow. Then when I get the ported TB/plenum installed I'll re-log airflow to see how much of a change there is, and if there's any kind of gain I'll scale it based on the old RWHP/airflow figures to approximate the new RWHP figures.

I'm on the fence about getting modularbird's Bullitt, but I'm hesitant because I would like to find something that will clear the stock hood without modifications. I need to spend some time researching, but before I start doing that I need to relax and enjoy the fruits of my labors over the winter.

my brothers SVO may be up for sale real soon, if you are interested.

Man, now I'm tempted to buy modularbird's Bullitt AND an SVO - just to have the two available so I can choose which to use when the time comes!

I might be interested; it completely depends on price. I'm not really needing or looking to get one so chances are he'll get more for it if he sells it to someone who's been looking for one for a while. But all the same, let him know I'm out there.

 

[theterminator93]

No problem......he bought it, installed it, and now never drives the car.....so now hes thinking about selling the car, and i told him, well, lets see if the intake still has any demand..he would need something to put back on though....so, maybe yall can work out a trade plus cash.....I dunno, if yall are both interested, I will get yall in touch with each other.

Then either your dyno numbers are wonky or his are. Based on what he's telling me about how much airflow he's pulling, I'm starting to think yours are the ones that might have been fudged all this time.

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.

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.

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

You know, you could save it as a .csv file, and cut and paste it with notepad as text to a post, and we could look at it in excel, or whatever, easily.

I'd love to see it, I'm sure others would, and it could be maintained by you by editing the post.

Are you willing to share your hard earned work to the aholes on other forums who'd steal it, is the real question. And I won't complain if you don't want to; I understand.

I'm sure we can get someone to sticky it, if you should choose to contribute it.

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 254/315 with stock PI Heads/PI cams, Bullitt Intake, u/d, & JBA shorties, stock 96 shortblock.

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).....

Corrected! Mine has never been dynod with the stage 1 VT cams. All my dyno pulls have been on PI cams and Bullitt Intake only. All the rest of my information is correct.

Also added Stuckinkaos!

without knowing whether the dyno runs were corrected to SAE or STD makes useful comparisons rather useless. Even some track runs are useless unless they are corrected to the respective D.A.

that "70mm" TB is junk. It narrows back down to 65mm or whatever. It's just the opening where the intake tube attaches to, then right before the actual blade, it necks down to "stock".

Advancing the intake lobe increases mostly low-end torque, and tightening up the LSA brings up the mid-range torque---both attributes that a DD car really benefits from. Rest assured, your engine as it sits, in a 5-sp solid-axle car would likely put down 280 rwhp.

If that SVO is $400 shipped or less then it's a good deal. That's what I paid for one a couple years ago on Ebay after I had already sold mine. More than that it's just not worth it since for just a lil bit more you can get the TFS intakes brand new.

So all in all, buy the bullitt, the SVO, AND a TFS Streetburner so you can datalog all three so we can see which one is better!

Hah, go figure. Well here's hoping the porting is worth something!

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.

 

[theterminator93]

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

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.

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

Hey now, play nice. Us N/A guys take pride in not having a sissy power adder.

Amen,

I can play both ways!!!

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...





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.

 

[theterminator93]

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.

f 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.....



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.

Wow... 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.

 

[theterminator93]

Zero'ing out that table won't change your airflow-- simply suggest it to make tuning simpler. What A/F ratio are you running?

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.

 

[theterminator93]

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?

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.

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....

Nah, this stuff isn't that bad!

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.

 

[theterminator93]

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.

Good, that's what I'm in the middle of doing now - making a spreadsheet of acceleration rates.

 

[theterminator93]

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.

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.

I know there are a lot of different contributing factors (different dynos, more aggressive tuning etc), but I cant imagine that headers will really make a 20hp+ increase on a T-bird. If that were true, I may say goodbye ported manifolds and get some kooks!

Long duration cams with a tight LSA (long overlap period) and stock exh manifolds do not mix. The reason is the that the overlap period allows for the exiting exhaust gasses to draw more a/f into the cylinder but this doesn't happen when the engines have the stock manifolds. The longtubes allow for scavenging while the stock manifolds (and shortys) do not.

Long tubes are the best option for heavy, autmatic transmissioned cars as they produce more midrange hp/tq than manifolds, shortys and mid lengths. Mid lengths would be the next best option and IMO stock manifolds and shorty headers are not a viable option in any way.

While we are on the subject of injectors would 42's or 60's be too much for my 4v? I want to experiment with E85 so I will be needing more injector, I think my dual 255 walbro's are up to the task and I'll be fabricating new filter to fuel rail lines and in tank lines / y-fitting.

I'll make this quick as not to contribute to any hijacking of the thread. 42s would be enough for a stock 4v on e85. A single 340lph pump or two 255s will work.

Long tubes are the best option for heavy, autmatic transmissioned cars as they produce more midrange hp/tq than manifolds, shortys and mid lengths. Mid lengths would be the next best option and IMO stock manifolds and shorty headers are not a viable option in any way

THANK YOU! That's what I've been trying to cram into the skull of certain boneheaded people but nooooo, they won't hear of it!

THANK YOU! That's what I've been trying to cram into the skull of certain boneheaded people but nooooo, they won't hear of it!

Maybe two people doing the cramming will force it through the thick skulls? Maybe?

I dunno man, they're so hell-bent on winging stuff you'd think their skulls were made of Adamantium!

One darned good explanation there on how cam overlap works with scavenging. You pickin' on my hard skull GM?

I'll make do with what I've got, I more or less accomplished my goal to get a "fun street toy". It's more fun than last year for sure, but who knows - maybe it will be more fun next year than this year!

The tune needs work, no doubt, but I'm learning more as I go.

 

[theterminator93]

Nope I'm talking about others that shall remain nameless....

I'm not buying your $1,000 set of headers

 

[theterminator93]

Does anyone make headers to fit a 4.6?

Lots of companies make 4.6L headers. The real questions is who makes them for the MN12?

The answer is:

KOOKS is the only company who makes them for the MN12. They only come in mid-length and you can only buy them through SuperCouper Performance as he as exclusive rights to them. It's my understanding that he paid KOOKS to develop them in exchange for exclusive rights to sell them. The only other option is to make your own or buy the KOOKS used.

You can get the KOOKS with 2.5" collectors or the bigger 3" collectors.

Some here have made their own by modifying other headers to fit the MN12.

I've had many set of 4V and 2v headers but have never seen those for this body.

I would use the mids which I assume are 1 5/8" and lengten/step them with 1 3/4" tubing to 32-34" and use a collector no larger than 2 1/2". The amount if midrange power, at no loss of peak, would be substantial.

Has anyone tried the JBA mids made for the mustangs?

THANK YOU! That's what I've been trying to cram into the skull of certain boneheaded people but nooooo, they won't hear of it!

I have killer software program that provides the header dia/length for any given combo and i've never seen it recommend a primry length shorter than 30".

Pipemax?

So far its me and one other guy who have modified/rewelded MAC longtubes for our 'chassis' using a 4.6
.
I have a few "tools" as well.

Yup, and it hasn't steered me wrong yet.

IMHO - it needs a good set of headers. Stock MN12 manifolds start off 0.25" smaller inside than Mustang ones and the bends are horrendous. Cheap crappy Mustang long tubes are worth 18-20RWHP over Mustang manifolds so you can estimate about a 20-25RWHP gain from just a header swap in this chassis.

Then the auto sucks about 5-10RWHP over a stick, electric water pump is another 5-10, elbow/TB/inlet pipe is another 5-10. It all adds up but its a lot of small expensive stuff here and there. The 300ftlbs shows the potential, usually the HP limit is about 10 less than the torque peak with that intake on similar combos when maxed out.

The tighter LSA will make the torque peak higher, but will kill the power after the HP peak faster all else being equal. Retarding the cams with those exhaust manifolds will probably just cost power everywhere.

Thanks for the valuable input Nick. Headers are on my list of things to buy now that I better understand how cam profiles and scavenging complement one another, but I'm doubting they'll happen for at least 12-18 months. For the time being I'm focusing on cleaning up the rough edges in the tune and for the heck of it I'm putting a P&P'd plenum on it to go with the TB to see if it makes any noticeable difference in airflow.

 

[theterminator93]

Increasing the airflow will do little if you don't als increase the ability of the exhaust system to get the larger air mass out. Also, electric water pumps are gret for racing and will free up some power, but I've never seen a 10rwhp gain from one, 3-5 is the standard. Auto tran's use roughly 5% more power than a manual; the more your engine makes the more power they eat.

Something on the auto it sucks more power the higher the RPM and the heavier the converter. I remember a NMRA racer years back swapped from a 4R70 with a lightweight triple disc to a C4 with an unlocked converter and the HP curve matched up to about 4000, and above that the C4 was gaining more the higher the RPM. The C4 is a ton lighter rotationally.

On the plenum if you are going to polish up a stocker use the Crown Vic one, it is a good bit taller and fits under a stock MN12 hood. I have one on mine. You probably won't see any gain without also the exhaust swap, best I ever saw was 10RWHP from a combo of the Accufab and the JLT, and each seemed to be worth 5 by itself from all the other testers out there.

JL once mentioned to me the IRS ate a few HP (I don't know how much especially if the rear arm bushings are worn), and that his personal car never tested higher than 270RWHP.

The MAC headers GM has for sale would be nice or the Kooks I listed on Ebay. The Kooks are sweet at the head flange, best flange I have seen and equal to the Edelbrock Victor headers. The MAC need about an hour with the grinder in this spot, but with the MN12 conversion they have done that is a steal of a deal. Either one would be the best you could get IMHO, their just ain't any other choices I would spend money on.

I am very interested in GM's set of longtubes, but I'm not sure how much I can justify spending right now (wedding in less than 2 months). It also seems like there's a lot of competition for those - and for yours too for that matter.

The right deal will come along, I just seem to have to sit by and watch this one drive by...

Random little update.

I've been changing the oil at short intervals, like 2000 miles, and it's come out really dirty each time. Hopefully that means I'm starting to clean out that sludge in the bottom end.

I stuck the ported 70mm FRPP TB and plenum I bought from 618jerrys on ebay (Traveler had good things to say about his work) and am having a hard time adjusting to the throttle response now.

I'm still working on the tune, but it's getting closer as I focus on trouble areas. Fuel economy has been good overall, usually 20-21 in the city and mid 20s highway. Well, no worse than it was with the old setup.

 

[theterminator93]

You like the increased throttle response right? Sounds like a big difference the way you describe it. No power gain?

Sorry, I missed your reply somehow!

No, no power gain, although having all nice and shiny, freshly epoxy-clear-coated aluminum under the hood sure looks purdy. I'm at the point where I'm convinced the next restriction is the log exhaust manifolds. I'm biding my time to save up to get the front of the exhaust reworked so I can get headers installed... but this may be several years down the road. I gotta score a deal on mid-lengths or find someone selling some modded longtubes first.

I've still got a lot of little stuff that still needs to be sorted out in the tune for the time being anyways. Stuff like figuring out why it's missing during deceleration and how to get the converter lockup rates to be more consistent. That and little tweaks to spark here and there. I can probably get a few more ponies out of the tune once I finish sorting out the driveability stuff. Maybe I'll dyno it again after I "finish" tuning to see if I broke 260 and rev it out a little higher since I have the WOT 3-4 lockout in place now. One bit of consolation though is that after running the numbers from my pulls in May, the most conservative estimates place me at exactly 300 horsepower at the flywheel.

The list of things to do never gets shorter. One of my HID lamps is on the fritz and there's a new rattle coming from the trunk, so I gotta get that sorted out...

 

[theterminator93]

I would add solid mounts and/or a chain; throttle response from the pi intake swap alone pulled my mounts apart. (Chuck's mounts rock...)

If the TB stuffs against the hood, you won't let off until you hit something, like a curb, hopefully.

Your mounts must have been on their last legs to begin with. I'm PI H/C/I with a very harsh shifting trans on stock 100k mile motor mounts.

I've got new aftermarket mounts on there now. They're a little taller than stock, maybe 1/4" tops, and no issues with the TB or plenum rubbing against the hood blanket. In addition to everything else I've got way more driveline play than I think I should have. I know part of it is the CV joints in the halfshafts are worn, plus I think the driveshaft could use new U-joints.

Throttle response is good but not super good... I've got lots of work to do on transient fueling still.

 

[theterminator93]

.... Fast forward 6 years to December 6, 2019....

My turn to necropost.

Aside from needing to go through and update all those photo embeds, this thread brings back some memories! A handful of members we've lost for various reasons (I do wish Oscar was still around - and RIP to both Preston and Nick)...

In any case, there are a handful of things that have changed on the car since my last updates.

1. The trans and converter from Alan are long gone! When I paid him for a "built 2004 GT transmission", that he insisted install it and the converter, in reality all he did was adjust my J-mod settings and spray-paint the old trans black prior to re-installation. The trans failed (lost reverse) 2 years ago, before its first fluid change, and I installed a true J-spec transmission from Darrin - assembled using the best parts from 2004, 2007, and 1997 (he was my first choice builder when this venture began, but had just had his shop broken into and was unavailable). At the same time, I also ditched Alan's converter in favor of a functional equivalent from Circle D, their 245mm single-plate core and 3C impeller for a stall of 3400-3600.
2. I pretty well honed in the tune by the end of the 2017 driving season. I continued to need to pull quite a bit of spark at low RPM/load to control audible pinging, and I made several tweaks to EGR delivery. I was also able to dial in the MAF transfer function at the high end of the curve as a result of my taking the car to the test-n-tune sessions at Summit Motorsports Park a couple times towards the end of 2015. I also confirmed my shift points were were where they needed to be by using the acceleration data. Fuel economy remains relatively unchanged at 20-22 MPG city and 24ish highway.
3. With the new trans and converter installed 20-ish months ago I was able to completely eliminate the random "shift slamming" that was occurring with the basically-stock trans and DD converter I had before. The car no longer randomly "slams" the 1-2 shift if I accelerate then abruptly let off the pedal before the shift.
4. Last year I decided I had enough with paying a 30% (or more) price premium for 93 octane over 87, so I adapted my dialed-in 93 tune for 87 octane. There is some minor, intermittent missing that occurs at low TP/RPM due to the cam overlap causing inconsistent, uncommanded and undesired EGR. So yes - it is possible to run PI heads on the NPI block and rotating assembly with 87 pump gas (my having the fatter cam does help, though). I didn't make any changes to the program I had put together for this year's driving season to abate that, mainly because................
5. I bought SCP's second-to-last set of Kooks midlength headers last year. Once I get these installed, I expect to easily pick up at least 20 RWHP and take advantage of the int/exh overlap in my cam (finally) - and with that, eliminate the unpredictable EGR at low throttle/RPM so I can put the final (?) finishing touches on my tune.

Right now the car is at the body shop getting some rocker panel rot addressed, which pretty much saps the "car fund" for this winter. Next year my hope is to get the headers installed. Once I do, new dyno numbers (hoping for that 270-280 figure finally - or more??) - and maybe I'll take it back to the strip to get a 100 MPH pass.

Stay tuned.

 

[theterminator93]

Brandon, this is not a necropost, if it's your post.

Necropost is for some dweeb adding a non-needed addition to a post thread that died long ago.

Any post by the OP is Always on topic.

My addition is: If you're still getting dirty oil out, at reasonable intervals, on a good engine, adding Seafoam to the oil a week before a change will help clean the engine over time.

When I first got Lazarus, my Dad used Quaker State, and it was Fu*king nasty.

I switched to Castrol Syntec, and seafoam, and it WAS pristine; but in the last 100k miles it's dirtied up a bit; especially if I go over 3k miles between changes.
It's over 300k miles, so I don't see this as a problem, exactly; it shows me that my rings, valve stem seals, and overall engine leakage is at the upper end of the range.
I'm building a Teksid block for it, so it's not a problem.

If I were you, I'd add the Seafoam, add a catchcan on the PCV circuit, and call it good.
(You'd be amazed how much sh!t ends up in the catchcan.)

I am very interested in GM's set of longtubes, but I'm not sure how much I can justify spending right now (wedding in less than 2 months). It also seems like there's a lot of competition for those - and for yours too for that matter.

The right deal will come along, I just seem to have to sit by and watch this one drive by...

.... 18 months passes, now June 9, 2021...

This new super-old-thread-bump comes along courtesy of my desire to keep all this straight, in one place.

So most here know I did eventually get my hands on those headers. I've gotten in touch with Dave Dalke to have these modified with an EGR bung and installed, possibly later this summer. I know I keep walking on the fence about these, but I just need to make the drive over there and let him do his thing!



Maybe I'll break that 270 RWHP goal I set 8 years ago, finally?

Granted I've been dialing in the tune since 2013, for both the original 93 and a new 87 program, but I doubt there's much I've gained on that, honestly. I'll switch back to 93 in the tank to dial in that part of the tune when these do go in, but this could bean opportunity to objectify the benefit of headers on combos that are designed for it, that omit them.

So, General Zod... if you're still around and reading, anything I need to change in the tune when I install these aside from the O2 transport delay?

 

[theterminator93]

Heck if I know, lol. I never installed mine . Besides, I've all but forgotten everything about tuning, heck I don't even know if I have my dongle for the PRP, lol.

If you haven't taken the online"training", it won't work anyway.
It will force an update the next time you run it, and then force you to pass the training to open back up.
Can you tell I'm still pissed?
Those headers look pretty good.
I have a set of the 2v midlength kooks.
Of course I need 4v, lol.

Funny enough I found my dongle and fired up prp for the first time in over two years(prior to the crackdown) and it fired right up without a forced update. (I keep auto updates off and just in case I shut off wifi when I open the program so maybe that helped.) Sure would be nice if one of you computer nerds figured out how to crack the lisence for this thing so we’re not at the mercy of a shady company or the EPA

How do you take the test? I have heard absolutely nothing from SCT in all this time, did you contact them?

Yes; I found an email in my spam folder long after I got it, and sent an email.
They sent links.look for sct emails.

Send an email to compliance@derivesystems.com and they'll enroll you in the course. Once you finish they re-enable the "privileged" functions for you.

I never updated mine either, so no changes for me. I've got over a hundred burns left - and I made an image of my tuning computer before it was powered up for the first time, after the whole scandal went down. So as long as the burn count isn't on the dongle itself, I have unlimited writes.

Heck if I know, lol. I never installed mine . Besides, I've all but forgotten everything about tuning, heck I don't even know if I have my dongle for the PRP, lol.

You didn't sell your car, did you?

 

[theterminator93]

You didn't sell your car, did you?

what's left of it? Nope!

Sure would be nice if one of you computer nerds figured out how to crack the lisence for this thing so we’re not at the mercy of a shady company or the EPA

I had read (on one of the mustang forums) about one guy who actually did, but he did it with the intent to sell cracked copies to make money off people. Someone he offered it to squealed on him and it wasn't pretty what ensued. This was some time back, probably around 2009 or 2010 or so.

Ive been out of the loop, how bad is the tuning situation currently

SCT was bought by Derive, not sure exactly when. But you can still get the PRP from a dealer of your choice (I always recommend LaSota) and, from what I understand, all the functions are there after you pass the "class" from them about emissions (mostly diesel stuff, really easy). So aside from that, it's as annoying as it was 10 years ago.

 

[theterminator93]

Quarterhorse is the way to go. I stay with SCT because I'm stuck with them, though I do like having the tune written into the PCM rather than a chip

Will that still matter to me if I get a car dyno tuned? Never have, so I assume they just plug into the EEC and essentially jail brake it.


How far can you go with tuning a factory EEC from 96?

No, any dealer/tuner has passed their test to stay in business so you dnt really have to worry unless you cant find anybody. Its us who write our own tunes where it's all a big hassle.

The 96 EEC is capable of supporting pretty much anything you can throw at it

Quarterhorse is the way to go. I stay with SCT because I'm stuck with them, though I do like having the tune written into the PCM rather than a chip

Do they still make the chip that you can tune on-the-fly?

Found my dongle, had to do the update. Yup, it sucks, lol. I guess I'll be doing coursework.

As far as I know they do, they didn't get cracked down on, actually I think there's some loophole that shields them from it because they're selling hardware only while the software is basically crowdsourced or something.

I got PRP a year too early when quarterhorse came out with on the fly tuning, ugh!

Got my full access up and running! Woohooo!



compliance@derivesystems.com did nothing for me. No answer, even after I sent it a 2nd time. They only do "call backs" from their phone, and their chat service is disabled. I posted in the PRP forum and someone replied to send an email to contactsales@derivesystems.com. I had already done the emissions course and passed the 5-question quiz and that is all that I needed. They just need your name, the email you have registered with them, and the USB Dongle Serial number found in the lower left corner of the Advantage software.

I'd be willing to bet that some ******* rolled coal on someone from the epa,lol.

I see they dropped the burn count from 150 to 100. Guess who's not updating for a while, lol.

 

[theterminator93]

Ah I’ve been trying to send to the compliance@ email address, was just about to resend actually. I have my dongle number and my name but I do not have the original email I had in 2007 when I bought it, so that might suck

I see they dropped the burn count from 150 to 100. Guess who's not updating for a while, lol.

What in the actual hell, I wish they’d just nuke the burn counter.

I'm sure they'll be able to figure it out regarding the email. Pretty sure they only need your email to make sure you did the training, where by the website uses your email as a username and thus for future correspondence as well. Just tell them you want to update it so they can get the ball rolling. The training website is advantage.learnupon.com, but I'd suggest don't try to create your account just yet. Ask them first to make sure you don't go messing things up.

Wow I actually got on the pro racer support forum! I forgot I fat fingered my username to XR7-4.7 lol

That has me thinking of a SOHC magnum swap now...

Passed the test! after getting 80% on the first, stupid diesels.

From what I've read, the counter is to make sure you aren't doing commercial tunes without buying the dealers' version.
IIRC, if you hit the limit you can call sct and have them reset it; the software keeps a record of what vin numbers you've tuned.

I got an email after I swapped the eec in the tbird; having a 4th vin pop up was a problem for them; I just had to explain.
They know the FTE1 eecs are crap.

Passed the test! after getting 80% on the first, stupid diesels.

Hey take it easy on the diesels

From what I've read, the counter is to make sure you aren't doing commercial tunes without buying the dealers' version.
IIRC, if you hit the limit you can call sct and have them reset it; the software keeps a record of what vin numbers you've tuned.

I got an email after I swapped the eec in the tbird; having a 4th vin pop up was a problem for them; I just had to explain.
They know the FTE1 eecs are crap.

I don't think so, first of all unless you're only tuning thunderbirds, and only ones that use the same strategy as you, you'd need to purchase all the extra databases of various strategies and by that point it would probably be smarter money on your end to actually become a full on dealer. Second, any time you update Advantage the burn counter resets to 100(formery 150) and you can do that as many times as you like. SCT has no issue with making burns, and the way tuning works with this software it's trial and error making/checking datalogs, correcting/burning the new tune, making/checking the datalogs, and so on to get it all optimized, you can run through that burn count pretty quick just tuning one car.

The primary desire of the burn counter is to force you into keeping the software up to date. And even if you did keep the burns low there was some sort of timer that would coax you into updating after a year or two (or there was since mine's still working on the version I last updated to in 2017). I personally don't need or want the updates, as very little I see added pertains to these cars or Mustangs of the same era, and more importantly I still remember the one that eliminated the Xcal 1 tuning option and as someone still rocking an ancient reflective screen X2 I'm a bit concerned the button to write tunes to it disappears someday as well.

Hey take it easy on the diesels

It's all diesel's fault I have to take this stupid test lol

Mine doesn't have any of that crap on it anyway.

I'm sure they'll be able to figure it out regarding the email. Pretty sure they only need your email to make sure you did the training, where by the website uses your email as a username and thus for future correspondence as well. Just tell them you want to update it so they can get the ball rolling. The training website is advantage.learnupon.com, but I'd suggest don't try to create your account just yet. Ask them first to make sure you don't go messing things up.

So after passing the test do they contact me or should I them from the contactsales@ address? I finished my test at 1:14 and haven't gotten any emails, also updated Advantage on my second laptop just now and it gave me the neutered version so obviously they haven't granted me access yet.


Oh yeah If you have Advantage on two PCs, if you update one you have to update the other it seems. They must write something into the dongle when you do it so you can't have the latest version and the older version.

Email them with those 3 info pieces and they look it up and do their thing. After they do their thing, your dongle won't be recognized if you try to start up AdvantageIII. You have to run the UpdateCliente.exe first, download all updates, and then open up AdvantageIII.

I’ll do it tomorrow, whatever time it was I emailed them this morning seemed to be the sweet spot, I got the “learning” links within the hour

I’m back baby!



Here’s something odd, my burn count is still 150, and even odder Xcal 1 programming is back

I finally logged into the PRP forum and searched to find what needed to be changed in the tune for installing longtubes. For future reference (for me mostly, lol), here's some tidbits I grabbed to help remind me of what needs to be done. Along with an interesting comment about low speed operation.

David Dalke is also in the middle of moving shops, so I'll be in touch with him in September or so to set up a time for him to take a look at installing mine. I just need to do it.

Good headers in general, reduce the pressure in the cylinder during the overlap cycle - initiating low pressure in the inlet tract; in doing so, unburnt fuel (hydrocarbons) & oxygen flow into the exhaust tract causing the O2 sensor to read lean, MOST PREVALENT AT LOW SPEED OPERATION.

A misfire will also show a lean exhaust stream due to excess oxygen.

O2s are now farther away, so increase transport delay by 10-20%. I used to increase it a LOT more but I don't think thats necessary. You can also increase the limits where transport delay learning occurs if you have access to that in your PCM.

O2s have less engine heat, so they need the O2 heater duty cycle increased to warm them up faster.

You also want to increase the closed loop delay time so they have more time to get warm. As long as you are able to increase the heater duty cycle then this only needs to be another 10 seconds or so. On 99/98+ this is a function of ECT vs time. On older cars the function is not used and a scalar is used instead.

I have never seen a mass air based system require more fuel with an LT header change. I've heard rumors of it, but have never seen it happen on a single Ford vehicle.

you need 20-30% more heater duty cycle

Ok! I got back from visitng David Dalke this afternoon and we've settled on getting those longtubes installed at the end of next month. He's going to fab up an EGR bung and replace the ball-and-socket end of the headers with a 3-bolt flange as well. He was pleasantly surprised when he found out the heads (and exhaust studs) were "recently" installed by me, 8 years ago. He was NOT looking forward to the potential of having seized studs before that.

We're going to dyno it before and after to see what the difference is as well. It'll also be good to see fresh numbers after some years of tweaking the tune - and with the new trans and TC from Circle D and Darrin. This means I need to spend some extra $$$ and start putting 93 back into it, and getting that tune re-loaded! I've been on the 87 tune for so many years now, it'll take me a few to figure out what tweaks I've made to the tune that don't relate to timing since I last ran it on 93...

 

[theterminator93]

I've seen the nut frozen to the stud, but not the stud to the block.

Left the car with David this afternoon. We did 3 pulls to "pre" measure it before the headers go on, but for some reason the TC is unlocking at 80 MPH and neither he nor I could immediately tell why given a 15-minute glance through the tune in Advantage. It is definitely commanding it to unlock though, given the datalogs. He's going to look through the MTF in his software to see if there might be some hidden settings related to torque limits that needs to be changed.

On the botched pulls though I did see it made it to 260 RWTQ around 4200 RPM before the TC unlocked.

 

[theterminator93]

Seems to me there's a value file for that; specifically for locking it on the dyno.
Also, don't forget the 127.5mph upshift file.

Oh, I loaded that some years ago. Though I have never tested it.

 

[theterminator93]

... Fast forward to November 15, 2021...

The car is ready for me to pick up this coming weekend!

We did a few pulls on the dyno before it went under the knife and will do 3 more before I head home. A new problem is that it's unlocking the TC at 80 MPH in 3rd, which I have yet to find a reason for in the tune. Nothing that is an obvious cause appears to have changed from when I did the 1/4 passes a few years ago (it didn't do it then) and David briefly looked over my MTF in Advantage and it wasn't what he thought it was either. So my numbers will probably be coming from 2nd gear pull comparisons and/or extrapolations of what it does in 3rd if it unlocks again.

Anyone want to take a[n educated] guess on what my net gains from going from Preston's ported stockers to GM's longtubes will be? I'm hoping for a 20 HP gain...

 

[theterminator93]

I’m going to guess 18hp and 32ft-lbs maximum gain.

Id say 20hp is a good guess. Scavenging from LTs does wonders. Especially with all the stuff you have done to it.

Well, here we have it! No fancy undercar photos aside from this one, which will just have to do for now.

Hey @guitar maestro - recognize those?



Both David and I were hoping for a relatively easy install of guitar maestro's headers, but given the unique nature of the headers (being customized by him to clear the steering shaft without modding it - which btw, worked perfectly) neither he nor I could predict what obstacles would be encountered.

Me, being a stubborn completionist, wanted to keep EGR for the slight improvement in fuel efficiency it offered. The headers as they were had no EGR bung, so I had David add one. Of note, he told me this was the single most difficult thing he's had to do for exhaust on an MN12 due to the tight spaces afforded by the engine being in the car during welding - not sure if I should be proud of that or not!

With the engine still in the car he had to modify both the headers and the EGR tube to make it work, which added on quite a bit of extra time and complexity. He had to extend the EGR tube because as it was, it intersected with the headers in a place a bung couldn't be added. The ball-and-socket fittings on the headers were also deformed so he cut them off and welded on a traditional flange. I made the decision to keep the cats (yes, most unusual with headers, especially long tubes), despite their new position in an area that will take considerably longer to reach temperature. This I did if only because I really hate the smell of catless cars. No codes thrown, in the 120 miles or so it's been driven so far.

Anyway...

The paint GM used on the headers sure didn't fail to put on a show! As the headers heated up, gobs and gobs of smoke started pouring off them as the paint was cooked into place. And then we were in for smoke show 2.0 during the first pull as it cooked the headers properly, all the way to the end.

I didn't take any photos or videos of the pulls, but I snapped a couple photos of the graphs owing to them not being able to print them at the shop. We dyno'd the car mostly to try and see the difference before/after but unfortunately, we didn't get any solid pulls before as the TC was unlocking at 80-82 MPH. Today it stayed locked for the first pull, then unlocked for the 2nd. He's sending me a value file with the scalar he thinks is causing it; I don't have access to it in my copy of Advantage.

I also talked to David a bit about his dyno numbers and how I could "compare" them to my DynoJet pulls from back in 2013. He gave me a complicated answer.... but basically said there isn't a way to know for sure. Newer DynoJets will compare much more apples-to-apples to the other dynos out there (inc. the Mustang dynos) but the one I ran on 8 years ago was definitely the older style that was "nicer" to numbers, so I'm going to use the old formula for a Dynojet reading about 8% higher than a properly set Mustang dyno. It's the lowest figure to approximate and compare (some as high as 12% but I care less about bragging rights and more about measuring gains).

SO.... all that said, the best numbers I saw were 265 RWTQ at 4200 RPM and 255 RWHP (yet again) at 5200 on the first pull, when he let off at 5200. To our delight the TC remained locked for that pull. I had him do a 2nd pull out past 6000 to see the curves, but the TC unlocked again and it peaked this time at 243 at 5600, staying flat to 5800.

We were looking at comparisons of the "unlocked" runs and the unlocked TC transmits a solid 10% less WHP compared to it being locked. We looked at the before pull to 5400, with the TC unlocked, and compared it to the after pull to 6000, with the TC unlocked. Before the TC unlocked at around 4000, there was a pretty consistent 5-7 WHP gain after the headers went on. Higher up it was more apparent, but difficult to measure due to the before pull ending at 5400. Extrapolating the curves and guessing, it looks like a difference of about 15 peak WHP from before the headers, to after. Doing the same extrapolation of the shape/position of the curves to estimate what a fully locked run would have done (bench racing, lol), it looks like it would probably have peaked around 260 WHP on the 6000 RPM run, or ~280-285 WHP on the Dynojet I ran on in 2013 (using the 8% figure). So that's a 25 WHP gain due to polishing up my "rough cut" tune over the last 8 years and installing the longtubes. 15-20 WHP from the headers and I somehow found 5-10 RWHP through the tune by perfecting my mixture and dialing in the spark. Given Nick McKinney's statements that the H/C/I combo I went with was a proven 300 WHP combo on Mustangs (assuming a Dynojet measurement), I figure 280 is a pretty close estimate given the extra losses due to IRS and the 4R70W.

As I left, David mentioned he was going to be putting Brian Herron's Mark VIII - with two PCMs and 2 MAFs - under the microscope next week. I told him I didn't envy him.

Here are the 3 photos of the pulls/comparisons I took.


This first one shows the last pull, the one to about 6100, where the converter unlocked at about 4300, as well as the best "before" pull to 5400 with the same erroneous unlock. Modest yet consistent gains up through about 4000, then widening more substantially after the curve resumes.



This graph shows the same 6100 RPM pull at the end of the day (that unlocked) next to the previous to 5400 that did not unlock. There's no argument that an unlocked converter transmits less power to the wheels looking at that graph! Of importance for my case is the ~20 HP loss between locked and unlocked, from which I estimate my RWHP figure.

This final comparison shows the "before" and "after" pulls where it's really easy to see the consistent 5-7 HP gains down low. Trying to look through the mess of the TC unlocking, it's the best guess of David's and mine that the longtubes by themselves were worth at about 15 RWHP. He suggested I consider adding more timing to compensate for the cooler combustion afforded by the new headers, which I may yet do... in the spring.

Now, as for the rest of you... I legitimately await for you to tell me where my logic has failed and how my conclusions are flawed...




See less

 

[theterminator93]

I always wondered if header paint self cured after enough time, guess not lol Did you go through the whole bake in process with them? Speaking of paint I hate when shops overspray onto the underbody, big little peeve of mine.

15 horsepower is about what I expected with MACs, that’s very consistent with what I’ve seen posted up on Mustangs with them. I like the flanges you used, my 4V MACs need them added to the collectors which has been part of my demotivation from using them(also need blasting, touch ups of any deep pits that might blow through from the blasting, and bungs ugh). It would have probably been easier to have used a SN95 EGR tube that feeds off the driver side header, obviously Oscar eliminated the tube/bung for it when he modified them but the factory tube would have likely cleared and probably wouldn’t have been such a tight squeeze for Dave to get in there

Nothing special, we just let the car warm up at idle and they started smoking on their own. After that stopped we ran the car up a little and let them smoke/clear up some more before doing the first pull.

Oh well, 96-97 EGR tubes are rare enough nowadays but now I have the rarest one of them all!