Woo Hoo! Dyno time next week!

[macx]

I hope, anyway, if I can get in.

Got home from my job in Montana Christmas Eve Day,
no next job.

Got a call today, I start Mon 1/16!

Didn't really think it'd happen quite this soon, but
I'll take it.

That means I won't get my 4R70W gone thru and
in with the Baumann TCS by then, BUT I WILL
hopefully finally get it dyno tuned!

Not going for big numbers, just looking to get
a safe street tune (like getting things adjusted
in the ECM so it doesn't over advance it cuz
of the difference in the load rating info the
tps will send the ECM versus a stock 302) and
get my fuel delivery adjusted properly.

I'd be satisfied with 300 rwhp, and am more
concerned with low/midrange rwtq as I've just
got 3.55's and a 2500 stall (2800 when I get my
4R70W in there) and it runs (real nice!) around
2500 at 80. Hoping for 325+. With my mild
cam (stock HO, with 1.72 roller rockers) I
think I should at least hit that torque goal.

Also, with a little luck, find out I'll be OK
with mid grade if not 87, at least if it
doesn't degrade performance significantly -
have been using 91 to be on the safe side
so I don't burn the thing down till I can
get it tuned.

After all the real muscle I have owned in
years past (incl 375hp 396, 440 6 pack,
426 Hemi - all with various levels of
"extra"), this is my first dyno tune and
I'm excited - even if it is real close to the
mildest V8 I've ever run.

This kind of will be either a vindication or
a bust of the combo I picked for good torque
without killing highway mileage. Small heads,
torque type intake, mild cam. Not concerned
with numbers much over about 5000 rpm.
Wanted the same basic CURVE as a stock
HO, but of course with a little higher bumps :-)
The improvement in heads & intake, even though
small for a 351, plus the higher ratio rockers
should help compensate for the extra cubes.
I've managed 21+mpg at 75 to 80mph most
of the time in warmer weather, so hit that goal anyway.

[NYC LS8]

Nice. I for one am interested in the numbers. Good luck.

[90LSC]

VERY curious.

[John Dancy]

Do you think he'll beat my 15.09@92mph :)

Congratulations on scoring the gig.

[pro-five-oh]

Do you think he'll beat my 15.09@92mph :)

Congratulations on scoring the gig.
I donno...he doesn't have a superchip! Yeah baby, I went there again! :eek:

Looking forward to the results, man! I am real curious to see what the stock cam will run on a bigger Windsor motor. It will help me determine if my foxbody Continental project with a 331 can get away with using that sneaky stock cam. I really want a stock cam in that car, its just too Lincolny to get a lumpy cam.

Hate to be a stinker, but I'm gonna move this over to the Modified Mark VII forum. :)

[John Dancy]

I donno...he doesn't have a superchip! Yeah baby, I went there again! :eek:
...


You're not a stinker ... but I did have to laugh out loud when I read your reply. Maybe two hours ago, I laid hands on my $300.00 JetChip. It has taken up residence in the lower section of my toolbox. I'm also proud to report that I have the FASTEST toolbox in Primos, PA!

[macx]

Hate to be a stinker, but I'm gonna move this over to the Modified Mark VII forum. :)[/QUOTE]

Hey, that's where I actually intended to post it anyway,
was just too excited and got it in the wrong spot :o

About the cam, I did lots of research before I decided on
my combo, and budget was a major issue.

I've read a number of mag articles about small block builds
and many have said the stock cam is surprisingly good.
In fact, read one article that took a not-low miles totally
stock 302 HO shortblock, (carb'd) , and stuck headers on it
and baselined it at 300hp. Then swapped for AFR 165 heads
and then if I recall added a Perf RPM and Holley and got 400 hp!
Dont' recall if they even went high ratio roller rockers, though I
think maybe they did. It's online in one of the magazine sites.
The made a big point of bragging up the stock cam which had to
be pretty decent to make that much power. Also, lots of
stock type class drag Mustangs do extremely well with the stock cam.
That's what led me to use it, along with the low cost.

For my road car, I didn't want something that had too high
of an rpm curve, and it's mostly duration that decides that,
in relation to cubes etc of course.

So, the torque peak rpm range of the stock cam was quite
close to what I wanted. Of course, it would be lower with
the extra cubes, although it's only actually about 16% more.
However, the considerable improvement in heads, intake
and exhaust I felt would largely compensate, along with
the lift increase from .444 to .477, and probly keep the
torque peak at pretty close to the same rpm, all the while
doing what I was most after - adding torque.

Another big concern was gas mileage. Sure, I'd of loved
a setup with bigger heads, cam, intake, etc, but I could
just see me making one of my long road trips (sometimes
over 2000 miles) and getting no more than mid teens for mileage.
NOT a pleasant thought! I did 2600 miles the week before
Christmas, 1400 of it pulling about a 1,000 lb trailer. MAN
was I glad I didn't have a "bigger" setup!

Besides, I got a very low miles takeout cam for $40.
In fact, most of my major parts were basically lower
miles used. I figure I saved about 40% over new overall.

I'd have gone 331, but I've got my eye on building an FFR
Cobra when I retire, and this 351 can be turned into a 393
pretty economically as far as recip assy goes (cast crank,
rework my existing football rods w/ARP bolts, stock dimension
302 pistons) course it would then need some more serious H/C/I.
However, I can then re-use the current heads and intake for a
nice spirited yet smooth 331 in front of my current AOD for just
a nice cruiser setup in my 70 Stang convert ;-) so it's not like
they'll go to waste.

I'll post my results (if they're not too embarrassing!)
Remember (laying a little ground work here) I'm concentrating
on mid range torque - let the hp numbers fall where they may.

[justindwright]

Oldschool....Whats done to your 15.09 Mark??? is it an E7 motor?

[pro-five-oh]

Mark, which rockers are you running? The more I listen to you the more I want a stock cam in a 331 and top it off with 1.7 rockers. I was pretty amazed at the high rpm power of the stock cam and 1.7s in LSC-R #002, and your info only adds to that. Granted a lumpier cam would get way more power, but this is a Lincoln and will continue to idle like a Lincoln. ;)

Can't wait to see the results!

[NYC LS8]

I donno...he doesn't have a superchip! Yeah baby, I went there again! :eek:




:wheee:

[macx]

Mark, which rockers are you running? The more I listen to you the more I want a stock cam in a 331 and top it off with 1.7 rockers. I was pretty amazed at the high rpm power of the stock cam and 1.7s in LSC-R #002, and your info only adds to that. Granted a lumpier cam would get way more power, but this is a Lincoln and will continue to idle like a Lincoln. ;)

Can't wait to see the results!

Yeah, for sure me too!

I scored a used set of Crane/Ford 1.72 pedestal rockers pretty reasonable.

There's no doubt other cams that would increase the hp and
tq, even without getting a radical lumpy idle. I've read that what's called the "Baby Crower" has brutal torque all the way up a normal rpm range and many of the SD guys swear by it. It's not a "big" cam duration wise and is meant just for 5.0's so probly would idle decently even in a stocker. There are others in Crower, Crane, Comp & Lunati that are just a little larger on duration so would probly work out real nice in a 331 or 347 also without getting radical.
If I'd of had the $ I'd of had one of those, but I got what I got.
At least I get good mileage :p

[macx]

Oh YEAH!

Update -

Talked to the dyno guy on the phone -
BTW, from several posts on (un-named)
Mustang forums in response to my query,
I'm going to http://www.mustangmuscleonline.com/Contact.aspx
(WELL, there's no LINCOLN dyno tuner that I
could find! :D ) on the South side of St Louis
(who BTW has some impressive shop and
customer cars with efi 302's in the 10's on the
strip, so he MUST have SOME idea of what
he's doing, huh!?) to get my little ol mild
351 tuned tomorrow/Wed (but you KNOW
that already), -

Anyhoo - talking with the maestro on the
phone he adivsed me to install an adjustable
fuel pressure regulator. Now, I had read some
time ago (and maybe even in Mr. Probst's
excellent Ford efi book) that the EEC-IV
computer (mine's a mass air convert) would
add or subtract fuel if an adjustable regulator
were used to up or down the pressure.

Well, this guy said that wasn't the case, so
I installed a Kirban I got off ebay (yeah, I'm
a cheap SOB - translated means "poor")
just today.

(Totally 'nother story, but some
diabolical Ford engineer with a sick
sense of humor must have got his
jollies putting that inside screw on the press
regulator where he put it)

ANAYWAY, got it changed, and per the
advice of Mr. Dyno Tuner, reduced the
pressure to 36 lbs (he actually said 34,
but I'm "conservative").

Went out and tried it and
HOLY CRAP!! Smoked the 245x17s
from a standing start and the tach
nearly immediately jumped to nearly
5k (mild motor - short cam/torque type
heads & intake) before the beast even
began to lunge forward! FAR cry from
the perf at higher fuel pressure! Methinks
the gentleman may know of which he
speaks!

NOW I'm actually/really looking forward
to the dyno session without TOO much
fear of outright embarrassment!

Might even post my results :confused:

If I don't, well, DON'T ASK!! :o

(signed) HOT TO TROT!

(edit) KINDA hesitant to post this, BUT
may not be "around" for a few years.

Other than on the internet.

Far as I can determine, might be
working in (gulp!) Abu Dhabi for
a few years. Out of the blue,
but from what I can find out,
is legitimate job offer on a
large by huge natural gas
liquification project
as QC Manager, yet!!
If it comes thru, will
DEFINITELY be my
RETIREMENT (YEAH!!)
job!! THEN my mild
351 turns into a 393 with
a www.squiresturbo.com
system plus better H/C/I.
PLAY TIME!! (If I live
that long!)

[John Dancy]

Oldschool....Whats done to your 15.09 Mark??? is it an E7 motor?
cone filter
cold air intake
65mm throttle body
MSD coil, cap, rotor, ignition module
9mm wires
platinum plugs
high flow cats
2" exhaust throughout
JetChip delete

[NYC LS8]

Dyno the damn car already :D

[macx]

Dyno the damn car already :D

Well, time for True Confessions boys and girls.

Please bear in mind that's I'm baring my soul here for the
benefit of everyone else, so please hold down the laughter
so at least I don't hear it in SE MO! :(

To summarize (and delay the inevitable a wee bit longer ;-)
here were my goals and rationale for building that combo.

Budget, and increased low/mid range torque and throttle
response without destroying my gas mileage for those
fairly frequent long road trips. (Now I thank my lucky
stars for that!)

Knowing the HO cam was small for a 351 let alone a warmed
up 302, I thought that adding better heads, intake, exhaust,
and hi lift rockers to get the lift from .444 to .477 would help
the cam compensate for the only 17% added cubes.

I purposely wanted the torque peak low. My 80 mph rpms
is 2500, and I rarely have occasion to push the rpms over
5000.

The heads also are small - 170cc intake ports. Good low rpm
velocity which helps torque, but of course will choke off the
top end. Plus I got a lo miles set used for $600. Had looked
into modified GT40Ps but didn't want or have the time to chance
having major header fitment problems. Plus the aluminum ones
help get the engine weight down fairly close to 302 numbers.

My torque and hp curves are quite flat. Torque stays within
5 lbs from 3400 to 4000. Hp stays within 5 from 3800 to 4800.

And torque is only 25 lbs less at 2600 than it is at 3000, and
75 less than at the start of the peak area at 3300.

This is a Dynojet dyno, and the operator said that for that
particular dyno you have to add about 23% to the wheel
numbers to get flywheel numbers. I would think that the
actual numbers loss would be pretty constant for the same
drivetrain rather than a %. Cuz if you have low numbers,
a % calculation would say you're losing a lot less than if
you have big numbers, and I don't see where running more
power thru the same drivetrain would significantly change
the amount of loss. Well, anyway. Maybe he was talking
at my level of numbers.

Torque actually is pretty decent, with 310 at the wheels
so about 375 to 380 at the flywheel, and peaking early.

HP is lower than I would have thought. I anticipated somewhere
around 325 flywheel for that mild setup, but I was (choke!) about
50 too high. Yup, 225 at the wheels so about 275 flywheel.
That cam apparently is even milder than I figured.
And I didn't exactly impress the dyno guy :( - especially
considering the graph he had hanging about an 03 Cobra
(mods not listed) with the final run showing 674
AT THE WHEELS at a tad under 6500!! MUST have
had something other than the stock Eaton roots type blower.
Maybe either a centrifugal or a Kenne Bell.

The operator said typical stock 5.0's run about 50 less on both
hp and torque at the wheels on that dyno. So, essentially, I
added about 60 hp and torque for the 50 cubes I added -
pretty much maintaining the output per displacement ratio.
Makes me wonder how low the hp would have been had I used
stock 351 iron heads! - even the stock Lighting GT40's.

Hell, now when I read about daily driver 306's doing 300 hp at the wheels,
that's actually pretty impressive.

However, with 21+ mpg hauling around that heavy and usually
loaded down car at 80, I'm going to leave it right like it is.
I did meet my goal of a lot better seat of the pants torque
on the road and throttle response from a dead start -
at least now it will smoke the 245's and pull steep hills on the freeway
without nearly having to downshift. The little ol 302 RARELY was
able to squeak the 225's even with a 2250 stall.

I had set my initial spout-out timing at 10 to be on the safe side
for detonation. They tried it at the typical 14 which made no
improvement whatsoever, and was actually a tad lower under 3000
on both torque and hp.

Although they weren't able to electronically check for detonation,
the operator said I should likely be able to run mid grade if I set
it back down to 10.

I had talked to the operator a few days before, and he strongly
suggested putting on an adjustable fuel regulator and setting it
down to as low as 34 versus the stock 40+. Of course leans it
out. He was right on, I set it at 36 to be conservative and the
fuel air ratio was real close to optimum for a street motor.

Bottom line - unless you're real concerned about mileage and low end torque,
you NEED bigger cam and heads.

Rest assured that when I am able to build my FFR Cobra (OR put
this drivetrain in my 70 Stang convert depending on the bankroll) when I retire,
besides hopefully growing to 393, it WILL have a
more righteous cam and heads!! In the meantime, I'll save more
pennies for that happy day every time I fill up.

MY - confession DOES cleanse the soul! :D

[NYC LS8]

That's not all that bad considering the heads and cam you have! :)

I went with a 218/224, .544/.544 cam (Comp Cams XE270HR-14) with ported E7s, stock valves and 1.72s. I'm surprised it runs as hard as it does, to be honest. I was pretty nervous that the big cam and stock-ish heads would be a bad move. It also got 21MPG at 80+ on a trip to and from SSHS5 in Georgia with 4.10s out back.

I was hoping to have the car dyno'ed over the winter, but it's sitting outside my apartment busted. :(

Congrats!!! :D

[pro-five-oh]

Ok, maybe I don't want an HO cam with my 331. :(

Thank you for sharing the info, Mark. This will be very helpful for all of us figuring out what combo we want with our stroker motors.

The torque figure was pretty nice, though. :D

[macx]

I went with a 218/224, .544/.544 cam (Comp Cams XE270HR-14) with ported E7s, stock valves and 1.72s. I'm surprised it runs as hard as it does, to be honest. I was pretty nervous that the big cam and stock-ish heads would be a bad move. It also got 21MPG at 80+ on a trip to and from SSHS5 in Georgia with 4.10s out back

That's good to know about the mileage with a bigger cam and deeper gears. I apparently was a little too cautious on that score!


BOY - you guys were circling just waiting to pounce, hey!?
:D

Yeah, I think after that revelation you'd definitely want a bigger
cam in that 331. The dyno guy said lots of his customers like
the Stage 1 Trick Flow cam. And I've read of a few monstrously
powerful blown 351 strokers that, with drivetrain combo giving
only around 2000 at 75, they STILL get 20+ mpg!!! Talk about
having your cake and eating it too!

Like the guy at LaSota Racing's site.

Well, thanks for the encouragement! MUCH appreciated!
You were both kind AND gentle! ;-))

[NYC LS8]

Ok, maybe I don't want an HO cam with my 331. :(


Are you serious? A stock H.O. cam in a 331? There's times when it's cool to be different. That's just not one of them lol

[macx]

Yeah, agreed!

I did it in mine strictly because of cost and the desire for low
rpm torque and mileage, with no concern for hp numbers.
Attained those goals, but if I wanted to hot rod the motor,
it sure wouldn't get me very far! Specially with the small port
heads and torque type intake, it's pretty much out of breath
by 5000, but that's fine for my current needs. Lots of long
road trips at 80 mph. Couldn't afford 12 or 14 mpg, specially
now with premium ~$2.50 or more.

If nothing else, it was an "engineering exercise" or whatever.
Now there's no need for speculation, we all KNOW the exact
results.

When I retire and put the drivetrain either in a FFR Cobra or
my 70 Stang convert, THEN it'll be playtime! ;)

[pro-five-oh]

Are you serious? A stock H.O. cam in a 331? There's times when it's cool to be different. That's just not one of them lol

Didn't want to be different, just want a cam that idles about as smooth as stock...the '83 Continental is too mellow of a car for a hot cam.

Well I guess now I have to go back and do more research, no way I'm going with that dull of a cam!

[NYC LS8]

Get some quiet mufflers and you won't have to worry about anything ;)

[pro-five-oh]

Meh, my Cougar will have a hot 331 and a nice turbo to quiet the exhaust one of these days...the Conti has to have the effortless feel of a big block 60s Conti. And the stock HO cam will have the feel, but even I don't want it to be THAT tame. :)

[macx]

If you're looking at a turbo, check this out

www.ststurbo.com

an interesting, unique approach, lots of
benefits like considerably reduced underhood
clutter and temps, no need for an intercooler,
etc.

I emailed them and asked if they'd work
with someone on a custom setup, they
said no problem.

I never did ask them about placement
of the mass air meter, but suspect
it would work better as far as the
metering goes in the intake side of
the turbo rather on the pressure side
like close to the engine.

Have been noodling over possibilities
for a "protected" inlet location.

You'll see what I mean when you
check it out.

[mark007]

only thing i see is that it'll take more exhaust gases to turn the turbo. and even at that point the the air has that moch more further to travel. by the time it hits the manifold it will have been heated up. due to the simple fact that moving air generates heat and the farther the source is from the destination the less beneficial it will be. now if i'm wrong let me know. but even though a good idea, and they can produce nice numbers, lets see to even matched cars from same manufacture, with similar mods, and one be front mounted turbo, the other remote and lets see the numbers and times then. again sounds and looks good, just not sure.

[macx]

Oh, yes, I'm sure they're putting the best face on it,
and it likely would less effective at higher turbo pressures,
but they say the long feed pipe has equivalent volume
to an intercooler, so that SEEMS to take care of the
turbo lag thing, plus they say moving air cools that pipe.

Also you supposedly don't need an oil supply after the
turbo shuts off cuz it supposedly runs cooler. I know
from ownng an over-road trucking company that heat
is a problem on shut-down turbo life.

Only a trial would tell.

The things that interested me were the lack of
underhood heat and lack of underhood plumbing.