Cascade Crew

blue89 · Posted: Fri Sep 05, 2008 5:46 pm Post subject: Dyno Results: V6

I can't get a image deal to work so I posted it on tgo, but I made three runs:

122/150
121/148
123/151

peak torque at 3650 rpm, peak hp at 4600 on a Mustang Dyno. Torque at peak power was 140ft.lbs. All that to the wheels. So at a 30% loss through the 700r4 and thats 160hp/196tq, but I'm sure its more like 20% right?

Twilightoptics · Posted: Sat Sep 06, 2008 10:31 am Post subject:

Depends on converterslip alot. When we go to Steve's shop here outside Portland, he gives us a disc with the dyno run on it. Download a run viewer from the dyno manufacturers website and you can manipulate the data.

If you compare RPM vs Speed is should be linear. If it's not your converter has excess slippage !

Only 120 horse though eh? Isn't yours a stroked 2.8 with a cam?
How was the air fuel?

blue89 · Posted: Sun Sep 07, 2008 9:10 am Post subject:

Air fuel is plotted on the graph. It was tuned with Cheezx and we hit around 13.0-13.5 WOT through the band. I'm giving up on this motor. There just isn't much you can do with it. So if anyone needs a good motor for their S10 or S10 Blazer let me know.

Twilightoptics · Posted: Sun Sep 07, 2008 8:10 pm Post subject:

I just see a red x.

Dewey316 · Posted: Sun Sep 07, 2008 8:11 pm Post subject:

Dewey316 · Posted: Sun Sep 07, 2008 8:14 pm Post subject:

Travis,

were you datalogging during the run? You are a lot leaner than I would have tuned my car. most of the time, you are at about 14:1, I would shoot more for like 12.8:1. I wonder if you weren't picking up knock counts at WOT. A datalog would sure be helpful. If you were knocking, and the computer was pulling 8*-10* of timing out, there there is probably a bit of power to still be had.

Also, notice how you also have those "power spikes" where the AFR went a little richer...

Twilightoptics · Posted: Sun Sep 07, 2008 8:18 pm Post subject:

I'm with john on this one. Even if it wasn't pulling timing, the sheer being off on the tune is cause for some power.

blue89 · Posted: Mon Sep 08, 2008 7:22 am Post subject:

That is odd cause when we were tuning the WOT the car actually pulled harder when we leaned it out (started at 10-12:1). The knock sensor has been bypassed, timing is stock. Timing map is untouched. If I had more time I would have turned the dizzy a little just to see if anything happened. I think base+map gives it about 40* advance or so.

I still can and intended to that. I can do a pretty good butt dyno with the g-force. My pulls were done in 3rd gear.

Al, how did your 3.1 do? Better I assume.

Twilightoptics · Posted: Mon Sep 08, 2008 2:22 pm Post subject:

3rd gear?

I'm going to just start thinking the dyno is out of whack. These should have been done in 4th gear.

Don't know how you can get away with 40º total timing WOT. I've got my 2.8L at like 34º. Anymore and it gets to pinging.

10-12:1 is going to be too rich for an NA motor. My Camaro was 285 horse at 11.8:1, and over 300 @ 12.8:1.

Al Hasse · Posted: Mon Sep 08, 2008 9:07 pm Post subject:

91RSVert · Posted: Tue Sep 09, 2008 9:23 am Post subject:

91RSVert · Posted: Tue Sep 09, 2008 9:39 am Post subject:

[img]http://img117.imageshack.us/my.php?image=41imageairfuelpu4.jpg[/img]

http://img117.imageshack.us/my.php?image=41imageairfuelpu4.jpg

blue89 · Posted: Tue Sep 09, 2008 10:33 am Post subject:

(Were you trying to do that Jay? Right click properties and copy the address)

Well according to that I was doing just fine. Slightly under 14:1. Neat to see the CO emissions in comparison to AFR! Wish I could have data logged my run but my laptop battery toasted.

Twilightoptics · Posted: Tue Sep 09, 2008 7:35 pm Post subject:

Can you believe a map that says 14:1 is best milage when 14.7:1 is SToiCH!?!?!?!?!?!

To me it's saying 12-12.8-13 is best horsepower.

Twilightoptics · Posted: Tue Sep 09, 2008 7:38 pm Post subject: