had my dyno tune today

[mto502]

I'm much happier with the way the car runs and drives now. There's a little bit better throttle response due to adjustments made with the timing curve and the car was running rich but not as rich as I had first thought.
A proper bung was drilled out and installed in the header whereas when my AF was previously checked it was done by removing one of the 02 sensors from the header and replacing it with the wideband sensor. This was not the proper way because the computer would try to recalibrate with that 02 sensor missing creating a more rich condition.
I'd post the graphs but I'm still waiting for Kennedy's to e-mail them to me since I don't have a scanner.
Man did I have a long wait this morning trying to cross the Queenston Lewiston bridge. The damn long weekend traffic was already bad at 8 this morning.

My peak SAE rwhp landed up being 293 and the torque was 311.
The STD numbers were 300.6 rwhp and 318 rw torque. Bob Kennedy said that he only ever goes by the STD numbers because those are the true numbers.

Anyway, like most people who run their car on the dyno, I was a little disappointed and hoping for somewhere around 310 rwhp and 330 torque. I suppose with the baby cam (TFS Stage 1) I have in there I did alright though.
If anyone's interested I'll see if I can post the graphs. I'm still waiting for Kennedy's to e-mail them to me because I don't have a scanner.

Cheers

Rick

 

[5literstang]

those are some nice numbers once i get my crate motor in and break it in i'm goin to get a dyno tune

 

[mto502]

those are some nice numbers once i get my crate motor in and break it in i'm goin to get a dyno tune

Thanks.

Have you ordered it yet and if so when should it arrive ?

 

[5literstang]

well i'm suppose to order tonight if my parents sit down with me with htere creadit card, but if not i'm goin to order on monday or hopefully over the weekend.

 

[94GTLaserRC]

My peak SAE rwhp landed up being 293 and the torque was 311.
The STD numbers were 300.6 rwhp and 318 rw torque. Bob Kennedy said that he only ever goes by the STD numbers because those are the true numbers.

Rick

I always thought the SAE were more "true" or "accurate"...I think they tell you STD IS because they want you to fell better.

Anyway, I keep saying there are very few of our year stangs that reach the 300 HP PK mark w/o a power adder (stock block that is), but as Paul always says, the "band" or area under the curve is more important than just "peak" HP, so yeah, we would like to see that graph..

Thanks
RC

 

[mto502]

I always thought the SAE were more "true" or "accurate"...I think they tell you STD IS because they want you to fell better.

Anyway, I keep saying there are very few of our year stangs that reach the 300 HP PK mark w/o a power adder (stock block that is), but as Paul always says, the "band" or area under the curve is more important than just "peak" HP, so yeah, we would like to see that graph..

Thanks
RC

Well the way I understand it is like this. The STD reading is what your car actually put down at the time of the dyno. Those are uncorrected numbers but they are also true numbers that actually happened in real time. SAE numbers are simply corrected numbers which are altered to determine an average area for air, elevation and sea level, but are not true numbers.

When we go to the track, we don't correct our ETs for atmospheric conditions; we report what she ran. Why should dyno results be any different?


Read this thread to see how easily SAE numbers can be adjusted to appease the customer.
http://www.ls2.com/forums/showthrea...ge=15&highlight=interesting dyno&pagenumber=1

Then when you're done with that this is an interesting article about SAE compared to STD numbers as well. STD numbers are raw true numbers.
http://www.dynoperformance.com/article_details.php?ID=18

and here's another article:

The thing to remember is your “real” results are the uncorrected numbers. That is what your car was actually doing during the dyno run. But, for the purposes of the Dynoperformance d-base for example, we only want corrected numbers because we are looking at before and after situations and trying to compare different cars and we need a way of taking out the environmental variations. If we couldn’t equalize the test environment, then we would never be able to tell if something made a difference.

http://www.wahiduddin.net/calc/calc_cf.htm

 

[mto502]

My oil must have been sucked up into the intake a little today. I did 7 dyno runs and drove a few hundred kilometers to and from the dyno shop. On top of that I sat and idled in stop and go, but mostly stop traffic waiting to get across the border at the bridge. It looks like I used almost half a litre of oil.

I know my compression is fine and the rear main seal was recently replaced and the car doesn't leak a drop. I suppose it's somewhat normal to use some oil while running on the dyno ?

I just find it odd that it used that much in 1 day so it must have something to do with the dyno as well as sitting for an hour and a half in stop and go traffic.

EDIT: I was just thinking... Bob at Kennedy's while running my car on the dyno let the car gear down quite a bit after each run so that would have sucked up oil for sure.

 

[VIPERn94Five-0]

most feel that SAE are the better numbers to go by....thats what everyone wants to see when you run on the dyno....


...but anyways nice numbers....swap to a Fox style TB and i bet you pick up that extra to get you to 300....


Anthony

 

[Grn92LX]

STD #'s are the only way to go, no need to "correct" the numbers. STD is what your car made on the dyno under the given conditions. Sounds like that tfs 1 cam isn't doing it for you, time to consider a new grind..

 

[mo_dingo]

Once we see the graph, we will know. Still, nice numbers. You are doing well!
Scott

 

[mto502]

I thought 300 hp and 318 torque with the TFS stage 1 cam was pretty good Grn92LX I'm beginning to believe the STD's are the only way to go as well. When Bob Kennedy tells me the same thing, you have to respect that. He's been in the business for over 40 years and has an over 200 mph drag car to boot ! Man I was impressed with his staff and his shop !

P.S. The other thing to remeber is that I have shorty unequal length headers,
catalytic converters, EGR, smog pump and A/C. All the smog equipment is there because I wanted this car to be fully street legal.


Thanks Mo_dingo : I still haven't received the e-mail from Kennedy's Dyno with all my graphs. I have hard copy's right here right in front of me but no scanner.

VIPERn94FiveO : Thankyou, but has the Fox TB conversion been proven to gain anything ?

 

[tmoss]

SAE and STD numbers are both REAL numbers. STD is the power the engine made on that day under those atmoshperic conditions. SAE has at least two "correction" factors..........."most of the standards that are presently used are defined by the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE). When something is corrected to those standards it is often said that this run was “SAE Corrected.” Now, one of the problems with this is that SAE has a few different standards which are frequently used in the industry. So, if I say that this is SAE corrected how do you know which one? One of the main differences between the various specs is what they consider to be a “normal environment.” After all, that is all that these formulae do. They correct the numbers coming out of the dyno for the environment. There are many factors that go into these calculations. Among them are temperature, humidity, pressure, and altitude. The J607 specification uses a temperature of 60 F as “normal” compared to J1349 (or J1985) which used 77 F. This means that if you use both systems with the same set of data you will get higher results for HP/TRQ with the J607. That means you cannot compare corrected data from the two different systems."

If you want to identify as closely as possible what a certain mod did for an engine, you use the same SAE correction factor for your dyno runs so that varying atmospheric conditions affect the HP measurement as little as possible.

 

[stack]

what did he charge and what was the time frame that he needed the car. I have been thinking about going up there.

stack

 

[mto502]

what did he charge and what was the time frame that he needed the car. I have been thinking about going up there.

stack

He charges $650-700 depending on the chip he uses. I have the Autologic 8 way chip, not that I need it but that's what I got. That price includes 2 hours of dyno time. He landed up doing 7 pulls with my car with allowing cool down between pulls and making adjustments to the chip. They use the Chipmaster software as well. Bob was excellent to deal with. He really knows his stuff. The shop was impressive as well.
If he needs to go over the 2 hours of dyno time he will work out an agreement between you and him so you're both happy, because he won't stop making adjustments until he gets it right. My car was completed within 2 hours. Most cars WILL be completed within two hours anyway. He mentioned there are not many that go over the 2 hour mark. When he was done with the dyno we went for a good drive to make sure there were no problems.

 

[mto502]

That was a good explanation of SAE vs STD Tmoss !

I'll consider that since yesterday was a bit of a muggy day my car will probably make a little more power on a dry day.

I also have catalytic converters, unequal length shorty headers, smog pump, egr and all the emissions goodies. I also have A/C, so these things may want to be taken into consideration. I would think a short belt would help me considerably as well.

 

[Grn92LX]

I thought 300 hp and 318 torque with the TFS stage 1 cam was pretty good Grn92LX I'm beginning to believe the STD's are the only way to go as well. When Bob Kennedy tells me the same thing, you have to respect that. He's been in the business for over 40 years and has an over 200 mph drag car to boot ! Man I was impressed with his staff and his shop !

I had a tfs stage 1 cam in my car. I have a smaller head and a smaller intake and I made more power (304hp/339tq with a cool down). Your canfield heads are bigger than my trickflow tw heads. I wasn't knocking your set up, I was just stating what I thought was obvious that with such a good head, those #'s can be improved with the proper cam. I'd like to see the graphs so we can see how the under the curve and low end torque looks.

MIke

 

[mto502]

I had a tfs stage 1 cam in my car. I have a smaller head and a smaller intake and I made more power (304hp/339tq with a cool down). Your canfield heads are bigger than my trickflow tw heads. I wasn't knocking your set up, I was just stating what I thought was obvious that with such a good head, those #'s can be improved with the proper cam. I'd like to see the graphs so we can see how the under the curve and low end torque looks.

MIke

Oh no problem, I didn't think you were knocking it down. I may have made more power/torque with a proper 1 hour cool down, in fact I'm quite certain I would have. Again, it was a bit of a muggy day as well. Yes I agree a better cam would probably net me 10-20 more horsepower. Maybe next year.
The curve isn't all that bad really for an off the shelf cam. I compared it to Killercanary's graph and his hp is definitely better but I'm not disappointed. The torque curve is actually very nice.

Did your car have cats, unequal shorty's, smog pump, EGR and A/C when you had the TFS stage 1 ?

 

[Grn92LX]

Oh no problem, I didn't think you were knocking it down. I may have made more power/torque with a proper 1 hour cool down, in fact I'm quite certain I would have. Again, it was a bit of a muggy day as well. Yes I agree a better cam would probably net me 10-20 more horsepower. Maybe next year.
The curve isn't all that bad really for an off the shelf cam. I compared it to Killercanary's graph and his hp is definitely better but I'm not disappointed. The torque curve is actually very nice.

Did your car have cats, unequal shorty's, smog pump, EGR and A/C when you had the TFS stage 1 ?

Yes, when I had the tfs stage 1, I had all that stuff (and the stock clutch fan) except the smog pump. With the car fully warmed up, it made 299hp/329tq but the overall curve was weaker and the a/f was a little leaner. I use an Ed Curtis custom grind now and my low end is much much more improved. I also have longtubes and I removed the AC too. Post the graph when you can man. Its only money man, so get out there and spend it on the car

Mike

 

[mto502]

LOL ! I spent a fortune last summer and just bought the car the summer before. Like I mentioned, I did it all in one shot. 99% of those parts were brand new. Lets just say the wife wasn't very happy. Now that I just sank another $900 Canadian (Canadian dollar sucks again) into a tune she didn't appreciate that much either.
I have to spread these things out and play the game if ya know what I mean.

I wish I could post the damn graph. I'm guessing I won't get it until Monday now, unless I pop over to a friends house to get him to scan them. Bob at Kennedy's did e-mail them to me because I saw him do it while I was still there. I just didn't receive them. I called him to let him know and he said he would send them again. I think he's having some computer problems.

The STD torque starts at 260 down low and by 2700 it's starting to climb at about 270. 3500 is at 290. 3900 is at 318 and it stays fairly flat at 318-315 until about 4700 where it starts to drop. After 5000 it starts to drop. At 5800 it's back down to 260.
There, picture that in your head

 

[VIPERn94Five-0]

no, the Fox TB setup has not been "proven" yet because no1 that i know of has dynoed it yet (its a fairly recent thing) but im wondering what else can account for the consistent SN95 dynos of low to mid 290rwhp range while Fox cars usually hit 300rwhp....and i dont think its the computer...



Anthony