Bbk Fuel Regulator Pressure

Discussion in 'Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech' started by 306N/A, Sep 15, 2013.

  1. If you take a look at the bottom on the "Avg #'s List" notice how close that "295.3hp" is to the rwhp calculation I gave earlier at 15% loss, it's showing -66.7hp difference which is of 18.4% loss.
    So there went the being nice today 15% where we started at :rolleyes: .....with "NO Mufflers" btw :nonono:
  2. Looks like i struck a nerve fellas :rlaugh: Im no car expert .. not ashamed to say it..
    Im running efi with 24 lb inj to keep it reliable. and i know that set up will be less than a carb set up.. the shop that built my motor build pretty much the same setup, bigger cam and carb put him over 400hp .

    ps i have seen people with 24lb inj running way higher than 326hp ... but maybe those were lies because you guys have never seen it :canada:
  3. But enough with ball busting :hail: so 39 to 41 is good for that regulator for my 375-362- 400 no wait 326 but maybe 295 hp setup ??
    how will i know if it is good ? check if it runs rich or lean ?? no idea on that one? you expertise would be helpfull :hail:
  4. Fair enough brother :cheers: guys on here call it out quick :lol:
    I'm getting close to maxing out my 19lbr's flow rate, but I got it up a notch at 40psi to help the last bit of tbe 10% flow rate. Got a chip tune also so its better than it would be without it, I don't rev past 5,700rpm anyways. Just a DD street car, but it's damn fun to drive cause of my torque curve:nice:
    Mike has more experience and knows WAY more than me, so I would listen to him if he chirps in.

    So whats your plans track, street both???

    BTW, those #'s you got aren't bad at all:cool:
    #25 Grabbin' Asphalt, Sep 17, 2013
    Last edited: Sep 17, 2013
  5. We put a small cam in it so plans are mostly street.. track just for fun to see what it does?
  6. Well as long as the Fuel Pressure regulator is set with the vaccum hose off, then the computer will fill the demand for fuel requirements. The return system will send back what you don't need. As far as running rich at idle etc, there are many sensors that can cause that, o2's, ect, act, maf and down the line. Normally codes will point you in the right direction when that happens. Here was my rich problem, no codes at all, running pig rich. New o2's, Ect sensors, changed back to a 192* stat from the 180* and cleared right up. It just messed with my closed loop operations big time. Computer was always trying to get my car warm so it was just dumping fuel like crazy. Parking deck and stop kights sucked ass :nonono:
  7. I personally found the A/F ratio numbers interesting.
  8. ^^^^tru dat, he needs to take it for a 2nd dyno somewhere else. That's a long way from 14.7:1 threshold
  9. From the looks of it. The fuel pressure may be jacked way up to compensate for the smallish injectors. Just a guess though from going off his thread title. They can support more power with higher fuel pressure. Not really the ideal way to do it, but its been done many times on cars that mostly see the drag strip.
  10. Surely you dont think a WOT dyno run is going to be done at 14.7:1? The ECM is not always aiming for stoich under all conditions.

  11. Agreed but an A/F ratio in the 9's and low 10's is not what you want to see on a dyno run. At least not on mine. Certainly not what you want to run on the street with IMO.
    Grabbin' Asphalt likes this.
  12. Yeah, Id expect the engine to actually lose power at those numbers. Could be the wideband is garbage or needs calibrated. Actually, I just seen where the fuel pressure is at 39psi. So id definitely say the wideband is wacky.
  13. For comparative purposes.....I don't think my stroker 331 with ported GT40X's, Trick Flow Track Heat and Comp XE274HR along with full intake, exhaust and fuel system mods are even making 362rwhp.

    I'm thinking that Dyno is calibrated for grins, and not so much for accuracy. Sorry man, but this guy just doesn't have the parts to make those numbers legitimately.
  14. Of course not WHO wants detonation??? Just leaving performance on the table,
    Hence LONG ways away :nice: .....BUT besides the threshold of the 24lber's it's just all kinda fudgeness cause it was way rich instead of lean, right??
    #35 Grabbin' Asphalt, Sep 19, 2013
    Last edited: Sep 19, 2013
  15. So why even mention a 14.7:1 threshhold? It has no relevance.
  16. My point exactly. Can't change the laws of physics, but when you are trying to sell something to someone, it sure looks great to say "WOW.. look at those damn numbers on the dyno". We all know that the operator of a dyno can pretty much make the numbers whatever they want to by playing with the input parameters. I don't like to use absolutes, but honestly I cannot ever remember a similar combo laying down 375hp, when similar setups are putting out no where near those numbers. Jack must have sprinkled a few magic beans on that dyno.

    Hey, people spend their money and they are entitled to believe what they want to believe.
  17. All the relevance,
    ...because it's the opposite of what it should be, it's rich not lean, fudgeness factor, pretty clear guy.
    ^^^^As stated in your loss of power numbers holds true ;)

    #38 Grabbin' Asphalt, Sep 19, 2013
    Last edited: Sep 19, 2013
  18. I missed it earlier. The engine was dyno'd with a Carb on it. So you have no idea what the AFR is with the 24lbs. Niether do I.
  19. wtf, how'd we miss that? good ole bait n' switch :doh: