 | | 
05-08-04, 08:19 PM
|  | Member | | Join Date: April 2003
Posts: 25
| | | Dyno Results are in, Pics - Holley Systemax II Kit :sad:
89' 5L w/ 90,000km
-Holley Systemax Kit II (heads/intake/cam)
-Crane Gold RR's
-BBK Longtube headers, H-pipe, flowmasters
-70mm Holley TB
-75mm C&L MAF w/ 24lb injectors
-lightweight flywheel, alum driveshaft, Tremec tranny
-Electric water pump, electric fan
-Superchip Custom Tuneable chip using a R/T interface
247whp @ 5100RPM
275tq @ 4000RPM
We were on the dyno for 3hrs trying to figure out why the numbers were so low, but ended up nowhere. We ran a test on each cylinder to check for a differential but they were all even.
It falls on it's face after 5200RPM and sounds weird after that point. One weird thing is that the MAF voltage climbed like normal until 5200rpm, and then stopped going up. This is where the power begain to drop hard and a different sound could be heard. We couldn't figure out if the MAF was the problem, or if it's voltage thing was a biproduct of another issue.
We spend 3 hours on the dyno trying to figure it out, but I think this is jus the power that it's going to make. We suspect its that the Holley heads are not the best.
Yesterday I raced my old Mustang (335whp on a dynojet, 102mph trap).
It begain to pull on me a little at about 65mph, but we were even untill then.     
Oh, and I'm losing that big tach. It's 2000rpm off anyway.
Last edited by Ekliptix; 05-08-04 at 08:54 PM.
|
05-08-04, 08:34 PM
|  | Founding Member | | Join Date: October 2002 Location: High Springs, Florida
Posts: 1,644
| |
Wow, I've always heard the holley heads flowed really well! Theres got to be another problem. |
05-08-04, 08:42 PM
| | Member | | Join Date: April 2003
Posts: 25
| |
I've found another thread on here where a guy w/ a similar setup to me had numbers even lower.
My plan is to try to get hold of a different 24lb MAF to try. That'll tell me if mine is busted w/ that voltage thing.
Next I'll be replacing ignition parts. It's got those iridium plugs which I'll be changing to copper ones. |
05-08-04, 09:01 PM
| | Founding Member | | Join Date: October 2002 Location: High Springs, Florida
Posts: 1,644
| | Quote: |
Originally Posted by Ekliptix I've found another thread on here where a guy w/ a similar setup to me had numbers even lower.
My plan is to try to get hold of a different 24lb MAF to try. That'll tell me if mine is busted w/ that voltage thing.
Next I'll be replacing ignition parts. It's got those iridium plugs which I'll be changing to copper ones. | Whats wrong with iridium plugs? I thought the were the best thing you could get? |
05-09-04, 12:12 AM
|  | I will have images of molesting stuffed animals in my mind forever! | | Join Date: December 2003 Location: St.Petersburg,FL
Posts: 1,756
| |
I would change the C&L to a Pro-M I personally thing they work better,also make sure your mass air meter is calibrated to your 24lbs injectors and that your comuter is also calibrated to your injectors and meter. |
05-09-04, 02:04 AM
|  | Official Member | | Join Date: November 2002 Location: Maple Ridge British Columbia
Posts: 304
| |
Hey bluevenom 867, what do you mean when you say: make sure your computer is calibrated to the 24#ers. What does this entail ? I swapped up to 24# injectors, and put a 24# sampler tube in my 73 C&L meter. I didn't do anything with the computer. What am I missing here.
Rick |
05-09-04, 02:11 AM
|  | Founding Member | | Join Date: May 2002 Location: Queens, NY
Posts: 1,332
| |
computer does not have to be calibrated to your injectors...... |
05-09-04, 04:09 AM
| | Founding Member | | Join Date: June 2002 Location: Newark, CA
Posts: 151
| |
my stock systemax kit was 275rwhp and 305 tq, with a spun bearing and no tb or chip. My numbers are about average with the kit. The came really shines from 2800 -5800. I would check your MAF. good luck 
james |
05-09-04, 08:02 AM
|  | Official Member | | Join Date: November 2002 Location: New England
Posts: 2,408
| | Quote: |
Originally Posted by cardudeusa Whats wrong with iridium plugs? I thought the were the best thing you could get? | They are, if you drive a Honda. For a Mustang, just plain old Motorcraft or Autolite plugs work best. Anyone who tells you different is trying to sell you something, or convince themselves they didn't waste their money on them. Ekliptix- Obviously I think you should take out the iridiums, you may be surprised what happens. Otherwise I'm betting on the MAF too- have you run it for codes? I suspect that the 350HP they advertise is possible with the Systemmax kit is flywheel, not rear wheel. Of course, it should still be over 300 regardless. How does it feel on the street? Any drivability issues? I know Holley had some problems with the heads when they first came out, but I was under the impression they fixed it a long time ago. What's the likelihood you got yourself one of the older packages? Good luck. |
05-09-04, 08:02 AM
|  | Officially Addicted | | Join Date: April 2002 Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 9,042
| |
Given the type of dyno it looks like you were on, your numbers don't look all that bad to me. However, you haven't given us much to work with. What kind of dyno was that, Mustang brand? If so, they're gonna be much lower numbers than a dynojet - I think you know that already. What did your a/f ratio data look like? What was the HP curve doing after peak at 5100 - drastic drop off, or was it basically flat up there? Did the power curve fall flat on it's face at 5200 along with the differences in sound you've described? What happened to a/f ratio at 5200?
Like bluevenom, I think you need to take a close look at your maf situation. You need to be sure that the voltage/air flow transfer function of your maf matches up with the transfer curve the ecu is expecting (stock HO transfer function). Calibration of an maf for different injectors is usually done with a pretty simple voltage adjustment based on a simple ratio of injector size - 19/24 in your case. But the transfer function is a map that corelates a certain amount of air flow to a certain voltage reading. The computer is expecting a certain transfer function based on the stock HO maf function (the Cobra has a different one, the Lincoln LSC had a different one, the Lightning had a different one, etc). Some transfer functions used by maf manufacturers don't match up very well with what the computer is expecting. If that's the case, it can affect output, drivability, etc. And it seems you read more posts about challenges with C&L meters than with ProM meters. But the folks who really have things tuned use a chip or tweecer to actually alter the ecu and input the actual transfer curve from their specific maf -- the data is usually available from the manufacturer; at least I know ProM provides it.  |
05-09-04, 08:10 AM
| | Official Member | | Join Date: November 2002 Location: New England
Posts: 2,408
| |
That's the deal with the C&L- it re-uses the stock MAF electronics, unlike Pro-M who sends their meters with a newly calibrated plug and play sensor. So theoretically, the C&L shouldnt offer any discrepancy with the tranfer functions and the computer. Some people make out fine with the C&L sample tube/stock sensor setup, and some... well... |
05-09-04, 09:01 AM
| | Officially Addicted | | Join Date: April 2002 Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 9,042
| |
Bear - what's up? Understand about the C&L function - problem is, meters get passed around used like they're truly a "plug and play"; many times/many people don't know what kind of transfer function they've got in their meter because they don't know what it originally came from. Mystery, layered upon mystery. |
05-09-04, 09:18 AM
|  | Official Member | | Join Date: December 2003 Location: living on edge like the motor
Posts: 160
| |
I can tell ya from expierience that almost 95% of my previous problems with stalling driveability,surgeing idle and everyother thing came from maf and it was a new 73c&l set up for the injector size I was running and we could never tune the car.I bought a 77 pro-m and the car is perfect and as far as plugs are concerned,I couldn't agree more with the autolites(1.17) a piece or motorcrafts (1.03) because if my blown 11 sec ride has no problems than youre's won't either.
The only way your computer in the car would have an effect is with a chip that doesn't work well with the mods and is throwing bad or incorrect demands on parts that are also not working together. |
05-09-04, 10:31 AM
| | Official Member | | Join Date: November 2002 Location: New England
Posts: 2,408
| |
New avitar Blown93? Good show. Love Motorcraft plugs. Quote: |
Originally Posted by Michael Yount Mystery, layered upon mystery. |  So, ignorance isn't bliss after all?! Well there goes the neighborhood!  |
05-09-04, 10:33 AM
|  | I need NOS....make it 2 of the big ones | | Join Date: July 2000 Location: Kingston, PA, USA
Posts: 2,686
| |
something sounds a bit off with your tach too. if anything, the stock one should be off. Mine is more accurate than the stock one.....but 2000 off by the aftermarket one....seems odd.
check your maf too. |
05-09-04, 10:37 AM
| | Official Member | | Join Date: November 2002 Location: New England
Posts: 2,408
| |
Yeah, what's up with that? Where are you getting your tach input from? That thing should be dead on. What brand is it? I'm surprised mainly because it looks like an Autometer Sport Comp in your pics. The factory tach is at least 200rpm low, guaranteed. |
05-09-04, 10:39 AM
|  | Official Member | | Join Date: October 2003 Location: Tampa Florida....USF!!!
Posts: 2,938
| |
Kinda OT, How come different dynos make differnet power levels? |
05-09-04, 10:42 AM
| | Official Member | | Join Date: November 2002 Location: New England
Posts: 2,408
| |
They use different methods to determine them. There are three main designs for Dynos, and they are pretty different. Kinda like a Power drill and a hand screwdriver. Both do the same job... one is just more versitile and efficient. |
05-09-04, 02:31 PM
| | Officially Addicted | | Join Date: April 2002 Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 9,042
| |
Different dynos don't "make different power levels" - they just produce different numbers. The Dynojet brand is an inertial dyno. It has a big arse set of rollers (8000 lbs.) and it's software knows how long it takes to accelerate that mass to a certain speed. By comparing how long your car takes to accelerate the mass to what it's been programmed for, it comes up with your HP (so even that is a calculated event), and then it calculates Torque based on the power level and the rpm. The Mustang brand dyno is an eddy-current type unit. It has the ability to electrically "load" the roller wheels - and based on how your car pulls against that load, it determines HP, and also calculates torque. Some units hook directly to the hub (you take your drive tires off), and based on a hydraulic "brake" pulling against a strain gauge (the 'brake' translates a torque or twisting force into a pulling force on the strain gauge) - they directly measure torque and calculate HP. In my opinion, those types (directly measure torque, calculate HP) are the ones that are most likely to deliver an accurate measure of things. But they are the hardest to find - I know there's not one anywhere near my area. The vast majority are the DynoJet (inertial) or the Mustang (eddy current). They're very useful for doing comparitive changes on the same car/same dyno/same operator/same ambient conditions. But beyond that, there's not much way of knowing how truly accurate the numbers are - and they shouldn't be used for such, although nearly everyone does. There's a great article in last month's HotRod magazine (should be online by now) about the different types of dyno's and how they work. There are so many variables that it's nearly impossible to reasonably compare one car's output to another's even on the same dyno. Thing's like how the car's strapped down, a few pounds difference in drive tire pressure, or even the quality of the tires can result in 10-15 HP difference. My younger brother just recently helped with the Mustang dyno test of a drag racer 68 Chevy pickup - blown big block and power-glide. In a before and after test where nothing else changed (they were monitoring air temps near the air intake, oil/coolant temps) they picked up 18HP by tightening the tie down straps on the rear axle by one click on the adjusters. How is anyone gonna compare numbers with variations like that? |
05-09-04, 03:24 PM
|  | Official Member | | Join Date: November 2003 Location: New Whiteland, IN
Posts: 1,136
| |
My car fires right up every time, no surging, no dieing, stays perfect at idle. I'm happy with my C&L 73mm, they really arent that bad IMO |
05-09-04, 03:41 PM
| | Member | | Join Date: April 2003
Posts: 25
| |
Thanks for the advice ppl.
I'll post the graph w/ A/F up when I get home later.
The A/F stays good after the sound changes and the power drops. It's a smooth drop, not choppy.
The sound is like a vibration, or turbulence of air being resisted.
This was on a Mustang Dyno that a Single turbo 5L coupe just layed 450whp down on as I arrived.
The RPM on the dyno chart was from the computer, not either of the tachs.
Driveability is great, I rev it to 5200 and it feels ok.
Like I said, yesterday I raced my old Mustang (335whp on a dynojet, 102mph trap). It begain to pull on me a little at about 65mph, but we were even untill then.
I'm going to:
1. Get normal copper plugs.
2. Borrow a 24lb Pro-M MAF if I can find one and try it out. |
05-09-04, 09:35 PM
| | Member | | Join Date: April 2003
Posts: 25
| |
Alright, here's the graph. The shape is not much like that on the Holley site.  |
05-09-04, 09:56 PM
| | Official Member | | Join Date: January 2004
Posts: 585
| | Quote: |
Originally Posted by stangbear427 They are, if you drive a Honda. For a Mustang, just plain old Motorcraft or Autolite plugs work best. Anyone who tells you different is trying to sell you something, or convince themselves they didn't waste their money on them.
Ekliptix- Obviously I think you should take out the iridiums, you may be surprised what happens. . |
Would iridiums really hurt HP/TQ ? |
05-09-04, 10:14 PM
|  | Official Member | | Join Date: September 2003 Location: Hamden CT
Posts: 1,452
| |
The power does seem low but on a Mustang dyno it isnt as low as you think. I would say on a dynojet your over 260 rwhp, which isnt bad, but definately wants more RPM...
Also your other car made 335 rwhp and only traps 102??? There is something wrong there also, should be well over 110 traps! |
05-09-04, 10:44 PM
| | Member | | Join Date: April 2003
Posts: 25
| | Quote: |
Originally Posted by 25thmustang The power does seem low but on a Mustang dyno it isnt as low as you think. I would say on a dynojet your over 260 rwhp, which isnt bad, but definately wants more RPM...
Also your other car made 335 rwhp and only traps 102??? There is something wrong there also, should be well over 110 traps! | 5L's here w/ similar combos but using TF TW heads usually make ~280hp on a MD.
That 335whp (and 358tq) was on a dynojet w/ my full weight 93 hatch LX.
Stock intake/heads/cam at 6.5psi of boost. The 1/4mi was run at 3500' elevation. | | Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode | 
Posting Rules
| You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
| | | |
| |
