Notices
Evo Engine / Turbo / Drivetrain Everything from engine management to the best clutch and flywheel.

342whp on mustang dyno...

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Feb 24, 2004 | 12:01 PM
  #1  
HAALN's Avatar
Thread Starter
Newbie
iTrader: (7)
 
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
From: Hillsboro, OR
342whp on mustang dyno...

342whp, 262 ft/lbs of torque @ 20psi on 92oct pump gas!
EVO 8 tuning on a Mustang dyno
PDXTuning Dyno Day Feb. 21st 2004 – Matrix Engineering, Portland Oregon

The mods: Perrin FMIC, Perrin downpipe,racepipe & cat-back exhaust, HKS 272 cams, HKS cam gears -3 retard, 650cc injectors, Perrin fuel rail, Walbro 255lph fuel pump, AVC-R, and Vishnu’s Xede.

The story: After some initial tuning with the Xede we got 309whp. Boost was very inconsistent using the AVC-R. We worked on getting the boost to hold 20psi and we left it tapering off to 18 or so by redline. Smoothed out the fuel map a bit, took a degree here and there of timing off and we ended up with 323whp and running about 11:1AFR. No knock detected we decided to stop here. This is with the stock FMIC. At that point we swapped in the PERRIN FMIC. Got an instant 10whp! We decided heat soak could have played a part in that so we did several back to back runs and actually gained horsepower to about 12whp more. From there we played with the fuel and timing map a bit more and were able to increase the power to 342 and running 10.5:1AFR from when boost hits to redline. There is room to lean it out some more but we ran out of dyno time. With some more tuning we could get even more HP with the PERRIN FMIC. This is a Mustang dyno so don't know how the numbers compare but they seem to be pretty close to what others are getting. I know I am happy Dyno graphs here: http://www.pdxevo.com/DynoResults.htm AFR map coming soon.

I am really impressed as to how smooth the power is and how much HP the 4G63 can put out. Also how the HKS cams seem to want to rev well beyond the stock redline. But I was really impressed when we swapped the FMIC and could see before our eye’s the improvement it gave. All on the stock turbo.

I want to say thanks to PDXTuning, Jeff Perrin, and Matrix Engineering. They are all incredible people and amazing at what they do.

Just wanted to share with you my first of many dyno experiences with the EVO.
Thanks, John

For the dyno graphs and pictures goto: http://www.pdxevo.com/pdxtuning_dyno_day_at_matrix.htm
Info on PDXTuning goto: www.pdxtuning.com
Info on Perrin products goto: www.perrinperformance.com
Matrix Engineering is at: www.matrixengineering.cc/about_1.php
Old Feb 24, 2004 | 12:13 PM
  #2  
Guack007's Avatar
Evolved Member
 
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 1,290
Likes: 0
From: CA
Is it just me or does torque seem a bit low? Any reason why?
Old Feb 24, 2004 | 12:15 PM
  #3  
umiami80's Avatar
Account Disabled
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 2,026
Likes: 0
From: NJ
VERY LOW, there is 100 pounds missing
Old Feb 24, 2004 | 12:19 PM
  #4  
mitsuorder's Avatar
EvoM Staff Alumni
iTrader: (106)
 
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 2,816
Likes: 6
daily drivability couldn't be fun with such a diff in hp and tq
Old Feb 24, 2004 | 12:25 PM
  #5  
ez76's Avatar
Evolved Member
iTrader: (5)
 
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 1,332
Likes: 0
From: bay area
John, looks like you left a lot on the table in lower RPM's. Not making peak torque until well past 5000rpm. Curious the timing you're running there?
Old Feb 24, 2004 | 01:43 PM
  #6  
evo542's Avatar
Evolved Member
 
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,227
Likes: 0
10.5 AFR is a bit lean don't you think (especially for 92oct) Al said to be more safe you should be in 11s AFR, and with those mods you should have at least 340lbs if not 360lbs/ft
Old Feb 24, 2004 | 02:06 PM
  #7  
sponaugle's Avatar
Newbie
 
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Originally posted by umiami80
VERY LOW, there is 100 pounds missing
Part of the difference is the dyno, as this is not a Dynojet. The same car on the dynojet would probably be 15% higher, but of course that does not account for 100 ft-lbs. (15% would only be ~285) It would seem like there is a lot of room on the low end, especially in regards to timing to be had. I think John is planning on coming back down to the dyno to tune some more, so that should be interesting. It would be good to find another tuned EVO in the NW area that could come down to Matrix for some comparitive runs.

Anyone else ran on a similiar Mustang setup? At least in the WRX world, the Dynojet reads a stock car at about 190whp, while the Mustang dyno shows 160-165whp ( 15% difference )

Sponaugle
Old Feb 24, 2004 | 02:11 PM
  #8  
silvrevo's Avatar
Evolved Member
iTrader: (6)
 
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 1,114
Likes: 0
From: Big Red Country
10.5 is richer than 11,,,,, so 10.5 is safer than 11..... correct??
Old Feb 24, 2004 | 02:19 PM
  #9  
sponaugle's Avatar
Newbie
 
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
I'm not sure what EVO542 was saying. 10.5 is very rich, and 11 is leaner not richer. Take a look at many of the other dyno plots with AFR, and many are in the mid to high 11s.

Jeff Sponaugle
Old Feb 24, 2004 | 03:54 PM
  #10  
sponaugle's Avatar
Newbie
 
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Originally posted by Guack007
Is it just me or does torque seem a bit low? Any reason why?
I was looking around trying to gauge the common lower end torque from other cars:


For comparison, here are two stock cars on the mustang dyno:
"Stock 238whp/235tq
Mustang 550E AWD Dyno (SP?)
Temp (80-90) In Texas in summer "

"229whp and 243lbs tq. Stock . Mustang 550E AWD Dyno "

And for a dynojet, with a stock EVO:
"207 awhp and 219 awtq uncorrected on a dyno jet
250 awhp and 265 awtq corrected SAE: 1.21, 61.69 degrees, 24.62 in-Hg This was baseline pulls on a stock EVO VIII "

And lastly, from boostedwrx:
"Finally got my car to FAME automotive (Dyno Authority) in Redmon to get my car on the rollers again. They have a Mustang Dyno BTW.
First pull - 296hp/241tq
:Turbo Back exhaust
:21 psi
:Xede base map
After tuning - 310hp/249tq
Just leaned it out a little more up top... I also richened it up between 2000 and 3000. The turbo spooled quicker and I saw about 20hp between 2k and 3k.
btw the Mustand dyno's always seem to read weird. My torque has always been lower on it, even when stock. Also - my AFR was about 11.4 so I can still lean it out a little. My timing #'s were also in order, so I believe no timing was being yanked by ecu. Still getting 21 degrees advance at redline too.

I take that 241 torque back, its really 271 wheel torque baseline, 279 wheel torque after my tuning was done. I wasnt looking at my dyno printout when I was typing....

"

279 Torque is much better, and at lower rpm I would guess. The difference in boost is a factor here as well, as John was running only 20psi. BoostedWRX would have to comment on the dyno, as the FAME guys usually run a correction factor to crank HP using a coastdown test.

Either way, it would be interesting to see the timing curves on some of these runs to compare to Johns. The upper end, due to the cams, is strong.

Jeff Sponuagle


__________________
Old Feb 24, 2004 | 05:30 PM
  #11  
evo542's Avatar
Evolved Member
 
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 1,227
Likes: 0
Originally posted by silvrevo
10.5 is richer than 11,,,,, so 10.5 is safer than 11..... correct??
oops my bad(damn, I always get these two things mixed up) but Al did say 11 to 11.5 is in the safe zone, so then you should run a bit leaner.....

Last edited by evo542; Feb 24, 2004 at 05:35 PM.
Old Feb 28, 2004 | 01:04 PM
  #12  
boostedwrx's Avatar
Evolved Member
iTrader: (27)
 
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,034
Likes: 2
From: Seattle, WA
I talked with JEremy from MAtrix and he told me that the Mustang Dyno in Redmond is measuring crank HP. It figures in some load value or some ****.

I hope its not measuring crank hp though, if so, thats pretty damn low.

I think it may also be a different Mustang model than Jeremy's at matrix. He would have to comment.

I will be going down to PDX March 27 to get on the dyno, ill post the results!

Last edited by boostedwrx; Feb 29, 2004 at 10:02 PM.




All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:28 PM.