zenboy99
Founding Member
05GT DYNO NUMBERS!!
- Thread starter [email protected]
- Start date
-
Sponsors (?)
nick26
New Member
http://www.modularfords.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3404
regardless of whats "advertised" (since we all know advertising is so reliable)... that thread shows real world results of 434 at the wheels and 510 at the crank with a tremec 3650 equating to 15% loss. Now im not sure if the mach has IRS and if that would add to the loss or be negligible compared to the solid axle but those are some pretty definitive results.
regardless of whats "advertised" (since we all know advertising is so reliable)... that thread shows real world results of 434 at the wheels and 510 at the crank with a tremec 3650 equating to 15% loss. Now im not sure if the mach has IRS and if that would add to the loss or be negligible compared to the solid axle but those are some pretty definitive results.
MineralgreyGT01
New Member
Well I put down 276.9 and 301.2 bone stock down to the paper filter at 1100 miles with a 12-12.5 avg A/F ratio.Gears & Crosses said:
I really like the gains the new engine is putting out but I am really concerned over the A/F ratio everyone is reporting. Ford made it rich for a reason. I understand all OEM's are rich from the factory because it is safer, but this is a little 'too' safe.
I wonder if it has something to do with the operating range of the VVT and the charge motion controller? I really hope someone gets a hold of a Ford engineer that worked on the programing before people (tuners) arbitrarily raise the A/F ratio up to 13.0 for a quick boost in performance. HP gains sell products......
MineralgreyGT01 said:
Reportedly the reason whey the A/F ratio is so rich is to make the cats last longer. I think they now have to last 120K miles. Although this may seem counter intuitive, apparantly richer mixtures let the cats run cooler.
The other thing that suffers is gas mileage. Over on Brad's side they are discussing gas mileage and it's HORRIBLE. Someone reported 22 MPH on a long trip (05 GT MTX). I get 22 in normal driving with my '01 GT and have gotten as high as 28.5 MPG on long trips.
MineralgreyGT01
New Member
351CJ said:
Your right that does sound bass ackwards
I would still get some conformation on that though. It looks like the cats on the 05 are the same shape and size as the Ford GT..... I wonder....... Maybe since a SC tune has a low A/F by design maybe its needed for the cats too and it just transfered over due to simular design?Shoot I get around 16 MPG in town and 27 MPG highway Sometimes I get 12 MPG in town
MineralgreyGT01 said:Your right that does sound bass ackwards
Shoot I get around 16 MPG in town and 27 MPG highway Sometimes I get 12 MPG in town
I found this on the web and it doesn't jive with what you guys are saying about a richer mixture being better for the cats:
Here's the link:
http://ca.autos.yahoo.com/maintain/catalytic_converteranswer2.html
MineralgreyGT01
New Member
TomServo92 said:
Right thats what we are saying. It is backwards thinking for traditional cats......
No, nothing about running slightly rich goes against the usual thinking about EGT or cat life.
Lean AF mixture = high EGT = engine damage
Rich AF mixture = low EGT = dirty sooty exhaust = f-upped cats = poor performance. But no long term damage other than carbon build up and in extreme cases (read when raw fuel passes into the exhaust) you can clog up and destroy the cats.
What they are talking about here is running a little rich to lower the EGT I guess in attempt to make the cats last longer? By no means should anyone assume that the 05 passes raw fuel into the exhaust ala an F16. I run my motorcycle a little rich as extra insurance against lean FA damage and also it nearly eliminates the need to use the choke.
As a side note light planes have a mixture control lever that lets you alter the AF ratio, older planes use charts and graphs to help you set the AF ratio and newer ones also have EGT thermocouples for each hole.
A buddy of mine flew his Mooney M21 from Tulsa to Dallas on 11 gallons of gas with the AF set at like 6.5... Too bad cars can't run that lean
Lean AF mixture = high EGT = engine damage
Rich AF mixture = low EGT = dirty sooty exhaust = f-upped cats = poor performance. But no long term damage other than carbon build up and in extreme cases (read when raw fuel passes into the exhaust) you can clog up and destroy the cats.
What they are talking about here is running a little rich to lower the EGT I guess in attempt to make the cats last longer? By no means should anyone assume that the 05 passes raw fuel into the exhaust ala an F16. I run my motorcycle a little rich as extra insurance against lean FA damage and also it nearly eliminates the need to use the choke.
As a side note light planes have a mixture control lever that lets you alter the AF ratio, older planes use charts and graphs to help you set the AF ratio and newer ones also have EGT thermocouples for each hole.
A buddy of mine flew his Mooney M21 from Tulsa to Dallas on 11 gallons of gas with the AF set at like 6.5... Too bad cars can't run that lean
sasscuba
Member
Lawman85 said:
Total
Drivetrian losses are generally 16-20% depending on whether it's a stick or auto...and the type of stick or auto being used. Modern transmissions are more efficient than the older ones generally.
310-320 at the crank is more likely the case if the car makes about 265 at the wheels.
TheEvII
New Member
sasscuba
Member
Ya but that is with some mod work, ( 325 hp 4.6L 3V SOHC V8 Engine; PowerFlash Performance Calibration; Saleen Power Pulleys and SFI approved damperTheEvII said:
Similar threads
