greenlantern
Member
Exellent write up 5spd GT, I have heard lots of arguments about throttlebody size. That makes sense. Good lookin out.
Back to back fox versus 94-95 TB dyno results inside!!!
- Thread starter Killercanary
- Start date
-
Sponsors (?)
I'm glad some of you found useful information in this thread since that was my intention when I decided to share it with everyone, but a lot of you made me feel like all I did was to waste my time for nothing. I'll be more careful when sharing my findings in the future.
In the end though all that matters to me is that I'm happy with my findings and I'll take 9rwhp and 5ftlbs of torque anyday, especially with a mismatched combo like I have. I never expected to make 380rwhp/380rwtq with an 8.89:1 compression 331 with AFR 165 heads, a cam made for a stock shortblock setup, and the exhaust I have.
In the end though all that matters to me is that I'm happy with my findings and I'll take 9rwhp and 5ftlbs of torque anyday, especially with a mismatched combo like I have. I never expected to make 380rwhp/380rwtq with an 8.89:1 compression 331 with AFR 165 heads, a cam made for a stock shortblock setup, and the exhaust I have.
Don't let a few party poopers ruin some good controlled testing
Add 121 more CFM for the race version (1045-9240. It is not due because the opening. I believe the design is less restrictive, as it is not smog legal.
Quite true. However, this it was putting out 364 RWHP, before any swapping of set-up and TB sizing. As stated, it is the equivalent of a ~ 330 RWHP 302. It is obviously getting AIR.
I see bad advice all the time of guys saying that the reason their 302-347 CI engines do not have over 330 RWHP is because of the the TB. Start watching how quickly you will see it being one of the route causes of a bad HP problem, when it is clearly not. Paul seen a 9 RWHP/5 RWTQ gain, by swapping to a 15% larger TB, but getting a 1-2 % return when he changed both parts (the restritive bends in the Sn-95 set-up and the brand new TB.
Remember, every engine has restrictions. You can never get rid of them.
I found the information very useful anyway even if it was more about 65mm TB v 75mm TB rather than Fox v SN95 TB. It'll help us make more informed choices of TB size for modded engines.
Paul, I've had your site bookmarked in my favorites ever since I found out you ran low 12's in a 304rwhp vert. I'd be interested to see what you'd run now but I'll bet about 11.2@121. Still, 380rwhp from 331ci is rockin' considering it's a "mismatched combo". I can only think that a well-matched combo could have topped 400rwhp, but I'd settle for 380 any day.
Paul, I've had your site bookmarked in my favorites ever since I found out you ran low 12's in a 304rwhp vert. I'd be interested to see what you'd run now but I'll bet about 11.2@121. Still, 380rwhp from 331ci is rockin' considering it's a "mismatched combo". I can only think that a well-matched combo could have topped 400rwhp, but I'd settle for 380 any day.
Thanks! I'm hoping that the car will in fact trap over 120mph this year NA. I'm adding a set of MAC longtubes and Dr. Gas 3 into 2.5" X pipe. The previous owner of these parts picked up 12rwhp on a ~335rwhp 347 combo when switching from 1-5/8" shorties. I just hope that I will see the same gain, a little more would always be welcomed though too. I also got a set of 30lb injectors from the same seller. I noticed on my data logs that my duty cycle peaked out at 89%, so I know I'm at the limit now. I'm still impressed that they supported this much power though. My plan was to dyno the car as I did, swap on the new 185 comp heads and then go back and repeat the same test. Now I'm going to try and wait for the headers, X pipe, and injectors and run it again with the 165's to see just how close to 400rwhp I end up, all with the little pedestal mount AFR165's and my old custom cam that was designed for my stock shortblock combo. If I don't make more than 400-410rwhp after the new heads, rockers, exhaust, and injectors are on I'm going to be upset. That is funny in a way because I didn't think this combo would make more than 330rwhp or so when I put it together, and I didn't think that even a 10.5:1 compression 347 with all of the right parts could make these numbers and still be streetable. Had I known that I could do this, I never would have bought the turbo kit.
Don't let a few party poopers ruin some good controlled testing
When people complain over the free information I provided and obtained on my own dime and time, its a real slap in the face, especially because I mainly did it for everyone here. I easily could have saved my time and energy and just dyno'd the car with the fox TB and then posted up that the conversion was worth a whopping 25rwhp on my car, and I'm sure that thread would have had way different responses than this one had. I didn't do that because I wanted to provide as controlled results as I possibly could. People are so quick to judge the results and say the finding are irrelevant because I used a 65 versus a 75... well I've been saying for months now that I was going to do this test yet no one offered up a 75mm for testing purposes. If people are not happy with my test and results then they should go do their own. I will continue to test this car and combo, but I'm unsure if I'll share my findings as I did with this thread. I didn't state or intend this thread to be the end-all, be-all thread on the fox versus 94-95 TB debate. I did however find some interesting results and wanted to share them with the members here for their benefit, not mine, and yet people still want to bitch and complain. Oh well, live and learn as they say. I am glad though that some found some useful information here as that is why I did it. I know I personally found out a lot by doing this test and I guess that is all that truly matters.
rj95svt
Member
I found this thread to be very informative!! You listed all the differences in the beginning so while it's not a back to back test of two 75mm TB's it is the only test we've seen comparing sn to fox style TB's. I think you picked up some power from the accufab 75mm but I think you also probably picked up a couple of hp from getting rid of the elbow as well and the difference between the two is probably not as great as some of us have thought (including myself). On a na 302 the difference is probably not worth the effort unless you just want to clean up the engine bay a little.
Thanks. I tend to agree with you that on a 302, it may not be worth as much as previously thought. I must say though that the fox setup produced more power everywhere, even down low where the 94-95 shouldn't have been a restriction. The results were not huge, but they are there. Maybe the fox helps with low end cylinder filling due to being less restrictive. I don't know. I did notice that my peak power moved up a few hundred RPM with this swap though... was the old TB just so restrictive at that point that it fell off earlier, or was it the shortening of the runner length by removing the inlet elbow that helped account for it, again I don't know but these findings have me thinking about it.
rj95svt
Member
Good points.
Don't let a few naysayers stop you from posting results like this because there are alot of people here that truely appreciate results like these. Probably just as many that just read this and don't post anything. I find it just as interesting that you picked up a good bit of power just breaking in the motor good.
Don't let a few naysayers stop you from posting results like this because there are alot of people here that truely appreciate results like these. Probably just as many that just read this and don't post anything. I find it just as interesting that you picked up a good bit of power just breaking in the motor good.
BlackVert
15 Year Member
It is not too late to decide to stay NA and sell it.
Especially nowadays, with the gas prices what they are, a low compression motor that lets you run lower octane fuel is a very good thing. The fact that it also puts down almost 400 hp and tq at the wheels makes it that much more of a good thing.
please do post up any further results you get. I was all about doing this swap, but now i'm thinking it may not be worth the cost. for the cost of the swap and the fox vortech discharge tube, it would probably cost me half of those comp 185s.
I kind of figured you were feeling dejected after all the naysayers. Its not like you to not post and let everyone else haggle it out.
I kind of figured you were feeling dejected after all the naysayers. Its not like you to not post and let everyone else haggle it out.
Wi Stang
Member
I had read this when you first posted it up, and thought it was a great post with great information. I don't do a whole lot of posting, but figured I would let you know.
I always anticipate any new post you put up about your car or combo since it just always seems to work so well.
I always anticipate any new post you put up about your car or combo since it just always seems to work so well.
rj95svt- Thanks. You know I had completely forgotten about the possibility of picking up power from the engine being broken in a little more. When the numbers came up I tried to figure out where the added power had come from in comparison to my old 355rwhp numbers. Troy (yeahloh95) mentioned it may have been due to the engine loosening up a little and it made perfect sense.
Chris- Have you been talking to my local friends? LOL! The reason I ask is because I've been saying the exact same thing since I got off of the dyno on friday. With the cash from selling my turbo kit, my T64e turbo, and my T76 I could do a high compression 363 and stay NA. I wouldn't have to redo the entire fuel system either. I'm VERY tempted to take this route now with the car... VERY.
Ryan- you were right about me posting. As for whether or not its worth it, IMO on a vortech car it absolutely is worth it. See my additional response below too about some additional information I just found out. It may change things if its true.
Wi Stang- Thanks man, I appreciate that. It looks like your stuff works well too judging by your sig!
Here's some new information I just came across. A local guy just posted up on our local stang site that he did back to back dyno runs with 65 and 75 and only saw a 3rwhp improvement with the larger TB. This is on a 94-95 cobra with a 347. I've asked him to post up the details on here and to provide dyno graphs if he has them. If this is the case, than maybe accufab was right and that a larger TB won't do much on a 94-95 and that the gains I saw had more to do with the fact that its a fox style TB than the size difference did. Time will tell.......
Chris- Have you been talking to my local friends? LOL! The reason I ask is because I've been saying the exact same thing since I got off of the dyno on friday. With the cash from selling my turbo kit, my T64e turbo, and my T76 I could do a high compression 363 and stay NA. I wouldn't have to redo the entire fuel system either. I'm VERY tempted to take this route now with the car... VERY.
Ryan- you were right about me posting. As for whether or not its worth it, IMO on a vortech car it absolutely is worth it. See my additional response below too about some additional information I just found out. It may change things if its true.
Wi Stang- Thanks man, I appreciate that. It looks like your stuff works well too judging by your sig!
Here's some new information I just came across. A local guy just posted up on our local stang site that he did back to back dyno runs with 65 and 75 and only saw a 3rwhp improvement with the larger TB. This is on a 94-95 cobra with a 347. I've asked him to post up the details on here and to provide dyno graphs if he has them. If this is the case, than maybe accufab was right and that a larger TB won't do much on a 94-95 and that the gains I saw had more to do with the fact that its a fox style TB than the size difference did. Time will tell.......
Wytstang and I will really appreciatte it. Get him to post as much info as possible.
This thread is turning out better and better!
BlackVert
15 Year Member
LOL, no I haven't been. I was actually thinking something much more simple ... take some of the money from selling the turbo stuff, finish this combo off (new cam and whatnot) and bank the rest (or put in a killer home theater/gaming system). Unless you are still not happy with the power yet and still want more. The thing is, you just put that combo together, it would be a shame to take it all apart so soon.
Will the compession go up with the new heads? What if you had them shaved a little to bump up the compression a little?
Wytstang and I will really appreciatte it. Get him to post as much info as possible.
This thread is turning out better and better!
Thank! I will. He doesn't post a whole lot on our local site, but when I get in touch with him I'll try to get as much info as possible or better yet I'll try and get him to post his findings here himself in case questions come up. I'm glad that others are taking something away from this thread as that was my only intention when I made it.
Chris-I hear you man! It'd be nice to wrap up the engine part of my car and finish the exterior by getting my hard top, and saleen side skirts and rear bumper put on the car. I'm also getting a legal roll bar put in the car this year, but I hope that will happen no matter what I end up doing with the turbo kit. As for the compression, yes it will go up a little. The new heads have 58cc chambers and the final compression should check in at exactly 9.0:1 with the MLS gaskets I'll be running. I know that will help with the power numbers too!
I just got a reply from the guy on my local site. Although its not back to back on the same dyno and day, there may be something to this and it may warrent further testing to sort it out and eliminate variables in the dynos/days. He saw a 3rwhp improvement with the 75 over the 65, both of which were 94-95 style TB's.
Here's his combo:
Here's his combo:
Nice. It just keeps reenforcing what a few of us have been saying for a while.
His combination has more compression and more cylinder head and more cubes, that was being said that it would show more gain.
Does he have any RWHP numbers?
I have concluded that the Sn-95 set-up is more of a restriction that the TB.
His combination has more compression and more cylinder head and more cubes, that was being said that it would show more gain.
Does he have any RWHP numbers?
I have concluded that the Sn-95 set-up is more of a restriction that the TB.
rj95svt
Member
Same here! I think a small TB is only a big restriction when used on the inlet side of a KB style supersharger where it restricts how much air can be pulled in to the supercharger.
You better believe it
Wytstang and I will really appreciatte it.
out of all the mag articles and countless threads I've read over the years YOUR info/data is the best and most accurate I've seen regarding this subject on our cars. Your data proved beyond a shadow of a doubt for me that G. Klass's (Accufab) article is absolutely right on the money on how to properly choose a TB ( again..CFM not the size of the hole).
