Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[rich96cobra]

modifications....don't you love them!   

I know with some of the newer mustang, you can get some great results from modifications.  But on the older 96 mustangs......do not waste your money!   I have some people that I know that have taken there newer stangs (2005+ etc) and they  have got some some great numbers with my same setup.  Great for them.....   Not so, for us older stang owners.

 I have the following: K&N cold air kit, long tube headers, high flow cats.  I had my car dynoed before I did any modifications.    250 1st pull, 255 wrhp 2nd pull, and 3rd pull 260 wrhp.  Now, I have added SCT programmer, ( suppose to get 12 hp at the crank), long tube headers, and high flow cats ( at least 20-30 hp at the crank). 

I went and dynoed and got the same 260 wrhp, I was like...... what the...( insert bad word) .  the car was running rich around 14 air to ratio.  He said, let me have the sct programmer.  He finally got the air to ratio to around 13.  He said this was perfect for my car and he got a whopping 266 wrhp

Ok, the bad news.  I have $800.00 bucks in headers, and cats.  I have $399.00 in the sct programmer and $300.00 in dyno.  Ok, that adds to be around $1400.00 .......266 wrhp! 

WOW!  6 more horses!  The sad news.  There are innocent people out there that is running around with the same set up as me and they are thinking they have gain all this hp and they have not!

Why? cuz they never dynoed, they read the box that said...... headers..."20 more HP"... sct programmer "12 more hp". like I did.  Now for more even bad news, the headers are a pain to work with when changing clutches.  Save your money people!

If you get a 2000 + 4.6 liter, these upgrades may have got you some great numbers, but for you older 4.6 liter guys.  Save your money.  It is not worth the work, hassle, or money.  Famous quote by the flintstone wifes....betty and wilma....SUPERCHARGE it!   

Good luck guys, if you need any help with questions feel free to ask me.

Rich

[Soaring]

Thanks Rich for your truthful and candid reply.  I have an 03 Mach 1 4.6 32 valve, and I have read too much to not believe all the hype about all these upgrades.  If you can't be happy with the factory 4.6 32 valve, then you need to build a special race engine, but you are going to need a feather foot, because the 4.6 does not even require a lead foot to kick azz on bow ties.   

[xnutt]

biggest drawback to the 98 and older 4.6's are the heads 1 is p.i. ( performance improved ) and the other non p.i.'s . the non p.i.'s are junk !!!!
now if you take a set of p.i. heads and swap them on the 98 engine's you will gain more compression and hence more power with the mods you have.

[rich96cobra]

thanks guys

 I did not know about the pi heads.  Oh well, I have documented proof that modifications are not always the best way to go.  Now, I am only speaking of the older cars of course. 

Thanks again!

Rich

[Soaring]

One of the best mods I did to my 03 Mach1 was to add a Steeda Tri-X short throw shifter.  I used to miss 3rd gear a lot with the stock shifter with any RPM over 5K.  Now I just slap it straight up, and the Steeda guides it right in.  I absolutely love it. 

[xnutt]

hmm the last post i made sounds confusing to me so......... 96-98 have non p.i. heads  and 99-04 have p.i. heads

and i'll agree with soaring the stock shifters are junk !!!

[gordon]

hi all i have a 98 stang gt with a 4.6 in her can i get it down to 13 s in the quater i have a son in law with a 350 slitly built duing 13.7 and i  would love to out run him i bought this car in nov and she only had 56000 miles on her but shes mine now
                             MAY GOD BLESS

[rich96cobra]

Gordon,

Low or High 13 in a 98 stang? Considering they have 225 at the crank, which is about 180 at the rear wheels, please post what "modifications" you have done.  I do not want people confused with the "98 stang 13 in a quarter" statement made without some justification behind it.

 I have owned a 98 stang, 5 speed, it would take a little help or alot of modifications to get it in the low 13's  Maybe high 13 with slicks, 4:55 gears, and with a prayer also.  My 98 stang got spanked by a 2003 maxima that is why I purchase the cobra.  Now, my cobra, is a different story.  I have 4:10 gears, 266 rwhp ( please read, that mean rear that is 311 at the crank) is still not much to brag considering the ls1 is stock 320 at the REAR wheels!!!!!! 

My cobra stang gets stock....305 at the crank which has been dynoed 260 at the rear, with 3:27 with a "professional" driver gets 13.9 in the 1/4 mile. So a stock 98 stang, I do not think so, maybe a  "built" 98 stang or major modifications.  Example, I doubt a long tube headers will do just alone. 4:55 gears may do it, but who wants to drive down the road at 55 miles an hour, with your tach on 4 grand all the time?

Is it possible with a 98 stang?  Sure....but not with sometype of major modification, or someone pushing it.  I have seen the 98 stangs stock run at the track, I have to go get a burger and come back before they reach the end of the track

  Plus, 13 in a quarter is not much to brag about.  That is why I am looking to supercharge mine to get it with the "real" cars, like the ls1 or 2003 cobra terminator.

 I do want people to waste there money on crap. If they want to, fine I could care less Example, the k&N filter claims to get you 20 more hp at the crank, they are around 320 bucks.  The dyno (with fans blowing like crap on that K&N) you get....wait for it.......NOTHING!!! 

The whole reason for the post: On the newer cars, the 2000 +, you see a huge gain on small modifications.  On the 90+ you may or MAY not see little or no gain.  That is the reason for these sites, is for people to learn from others and other people mistakes. 

Rich

[gordon]

hi rich
  i thank you for getting back with me on this the only thing i have done to her is put a cold air return on her my son was talking to a friend of his that has a 97 stang and he told me to go with under pullys and 410s in the rear end and to take the rear catlic converters off and she should get up and go i should note that this is a automatic for im handie caped and thats all i can drive she gets good rubber in three gears and is still pulling at the end of the 1/4 mile right now she is only pulling 15 flat in the 1/4
 will wait for youre reply
                                 MAY GOD BLESS [stream=475,325][/stream]

[rich96cobra]

Gordon,

Make sure that you understand that if you change you automatic 97 stang to 4:10 gears, to change your speedo.  Your car should have a plastic gear to change and this should match your 4:10 gears.  The dealership can get your speedo really close, but it will still be a little off.  You may want to have someone trail behind you to see how far the speedo is off.  I have 4:10 and it is still 5 miles an hour off.  I drive 60 to go 55!  HAHA!

Look at my modification post, someones said that if you change your non-pi heads to pi heads that will increase you hp.  Also, pullies are only going to give you about 3-4 hp, if you plan on putting in a amp with your high fi stereo later, you may want to skip the pullies.

Here is my suggestion for upgrades.  Get the pi (performance improved) intake, bigger maf, bigger throttle body.

Now, maybe some longtube headers, you suggested removing the cats ( I have high flow cats)

You have to match the intake to match you exhaust.  To one without the other is useless.

Example, bigger MAF and stock exhaust, you are not going to see any gain.  If you MAF, bigger throttle body, then long tube headers, you will see a hp increase.

Now, if you cannot afford alot, my suggestion is gears.  Removing the cats alone, you will not get a increase.

Good luck,

Rich

[Soaring]

Yeah, the quickest way to achieve HP is gears and heads.  All the other add-ons should have those two dimensions in mind while selecting the gears and heads. 

[KJ]

I have an 01 mustang gt, but only have a catback exhaust system and cold air intake system on it...not sure whether or not i'll be doing anything else to it.

If I did I wouldn't know where to start for the next mod.

[Soaring]

Like I said, the heads need to be upgraded.  Then add 410-411 gears to the rear.  The exhaust system will give you a few horses with expensive upgrades, but not really worth the output of cash if you are not racing, and if you are racing, you need to open up that exhaust system with cut outs.  Watch Nascar races and notice the fire spitting out the side exhaust pipes.

[fjt226]

Please allow me to throw my 2 cents in here.  After reading the initial post for this thread I am reminded of the article contained in the 2008 Ford Racing Parts Catalog that discusses the fine art, and it is an art, of the dynomometer.  For those of you who have not read it I suggest that you do, it is very informative.  I won't repeat it all here but suffice to say that if you are going to have someone dyno your vehicle there is information you need to know to ask to ensure that your results are valid.  The article gives several examples of how your results could be skewed because of operator error and other issues.  In fact the article helped me determine that should I employ the services of a dyno that I will stay right there with them and watch to be sure I get the services I am paying for.  Hope this helps.

[Soaring]

Can you send the URL for that article to here so we can all read it?  I just figured a dyno was a dyno, but it appears not.   

[fjt226]

As requested I spent considerable time and effort, read cut and paste, to include the article I mentioned into this thread.  Again, this article was taken verbatim from the 2008 Ford Racing Parts Catalog.  I have always believed that no one knows a vehicle better than those who designed it and I would take Ford information over most others.  Please read and enjoy and I would be curious to what the group thinks.

Thanks,
Fred


DYNAMOMETER TESTING AND FORD RACING CALIBRATIONS

“Why do certain companies claim to make more power with their power upgrade kits than Ford Racing does with their kits?”  To address that question properly, it is necessary to understand some of the intricacies of chassis dynamometer testing as well as some of the compromises that must be made in order to simultaneously meet performance, emissions, durability and safety objectives.

Chassis Dynamometer Testing

There are two types of chassis dynamometer (dyno) in widespread use today.

• An inertia dyno uses a large spinning drum that is accelerated by the drive wheels of the test vehicle. Power is then computed by knowing the inertia of the drum and how quickly it was accelerated.  Torque can then be calculated by knowing the speed of the drum.
• An eddy-current dyno absorbs and measures power by rotating a metallic disc through a magnetic field.  Without getting into which dyno is more “correct” under what conditions, and why, we will simply say that these two types of dyno typically do not always give the same result even with all else being equal.  It is generally not possible to accurately compare numbers from one type of dyno with those from the other type of dyno.  Each type of dyno has its own advantages and disadvantages, but as long as all the tuning work is done on the same type of dyno, it doesn’t really matter which one is used.

With any dyno testing there is a need for correction factors that are applied to the raw numbers the dyno actually measures.  These correction factors are an attempt to correct for varying atmospheric conditions such as humidity, barometric pressure and air temperature.  The two most common standards are SAE J1349 and SAE J607 (sometimes known as “STD” on some dynos).  How correction factors are calculated is given in the “Crate Engine” section of this catalog.  For this article, understand that these correction factors will give results that are different from each other with SAE J1349 typically about 4% lower than SAE J607. OEMs will almost always quote J1349 corrected numbers when advertising horsepower and torque.

Whenever comparing dyno results, always be sure that the numbers are corrected to the same standard. Despite these correction factors, atmospheric conditions can play an additional role in terms of ignition timing.  The correction factors account only for the change in the density of the air due to atmospheric conditions and cannot account for things like engine borderline spark sensitivity.  As inlet air temperature increases, the PCM will generally retard spark to prevent detonation using the particular octane of fuel for which it was calibrated.  Correction factors cannot account for this because different engine designs can have different spark sensitivity and different sensitivity of torque relative to ignition timing.  Basically this means that the closer the actual conditions are to the SAE J1349 standard (77 deg F inlet air, 29.31 inHg barometric pressure) the more comparable the results are to those quoted by the manufacturer.

Most horsepower numbers in the Ford Racing catalog have been determined by using the
SAE J1349 standard.

When testing a particular calibration or performance enhancing part by performing back to back dyno runs, it is critical to keep test conditions as similar as possible between the runs.  This sounds obvious, but is very commonly overlooked by many aftermarket companies who frequently publish dyno charts depicting large gains, but fail to give all the necessary data to show the tests were run under similar conditions. In order to be certain that the test conditions are as similar as possible, the following data is mandatory and needs to be collected for each run:
• Ambient air temperature
• Barometric pressure
• Inlet air temperature (on a forced induction car, this is usually downstream of the power adder)
• Air/fuel (A/F) ratio (preferably upstream of any catalyst)

Truly meaningful power numbers cannot be collected without this data!

It is also a good idea to make sure the A/F ratio sensor in use on the dyno has not been exposed to leaded fuel and has not been in service for an excessive period of time (greater than six months, depending on frequency of use).  A/F ratio is the single most important parameter to measure accurately when doing any sort of dyno tuning, so it is critical the sensor is providing accurate information.  When doing any PCM calibration on a dyno, the resulting calibration will only be as good as the A/F sensor.  These additional inputs should be used for ideal dyno testing and calibration.

• Air/fuel ratio and spark advance commanded by the PCM
• Fuel injector pulsewidth
• Fuel pump duty cycle (in the case of ERFS)
• MAF sensor voltage
• Fuel pressure
• Engine oil temperature
• Differential oil temperature

For Ford Racing calibrations we use all of the data inputs listed both as mandatory and ideal.

How drivetrain affects wheel horsepower:

Most chassis dyno tests are performed using the “roll-on” method, where the vehicle’s drive wheels are accelerated in a particular gear from a low speed to a high speed (generally to the rev limit of the engine) in one continuous sweep.  Because of this constant acceleration, engine and transmission inertia, drive wheel inertia, gear ratio, and axle ratio can all affect the final measured horsepower.  Generally a heavier wheel will take more torque to accelerate at the same rate as a lighter wheel, so heavier wheels will tend to reduce the measured wheel horsepower.  Gear ratio comes into play because as the gear ratio strays from a 1:1, the efficiency drops and therefore the measured horsepower at the wheels also drops.  This is why most dyno runs are run in the 1:1 gear (i.e., 4th gear in a 5 speed overdrive transmission) whenever possible.  The same logic applies to axle ratio as well, which means that changing nothing but axle ratio can have an effect on measured wheel horsepower.  Remember, this does NOT change brake (flywheel) horsepower, only the delivered wheel horsepower due to the change in drivetrain efficiency.

How calibration can cause misleading dyno results:

Production calibrations have an inferred catalyst temperature protection model which constantly calculates the temperature in the hottest part of the hottest catalyst.  This calculated temperature is based on many PCM parameters, such as engine speed, load, ingested air mass, time, inlet air temperature, EGR flow rate and many others.

When the catalyst model calculates that the catalyst temperature is about to exceed a level that is safe for the catalyst (generally around 1650 deg F), the PCM will richen the A/F mixture as necessary to lower the exhaust gas temperature and cool the catalyst.  This richened A/F ratio will decrease power output, but is absolutely necessary to keep the catalyst from being permanently damaged.  Unless A/F ratio is monitored during a dyno pull, the dyno operator will have no idea when catalyst temperature protection has been invoked and can make erroneous conclusions with regard to power output.

As a trivial example of how this can affect dyno testing, consider a supercharged production vehicle with production calibration performing back to back runs under identical conditions except as noted.  The car is driven to a dyno facility and immediately put on the dyno and a run is performed, yielding a result of 420 hp. In this example, A/F ratio is not monitored.  A part is swapped for another “high-performance” part and another dyno run is performed, resulting in 430 hp.  The dyno operator concludes the “highperformance” part is worth 10 hp.  This is not accurate because when the car was first dyno tested, its catalysts were sufficiently hot that catalyst temperature protection was invoked during the dyno pull which reduced power output by richening the A/F ratio.  While the car was having the parts swapped, the catalysts cooled down enough that during the next dyno pull catalyst temperature protection was not invoked.  The engine made more power on the second pull because it was running a leaner A/F ratio closer to optimal and not necessarily because of the “high-performance” part.  If the dyno operator was monitoring A/F ratio, this would have been readily apparent.

If the operator was monitoring the A/F ratio commanded by the PCM, the invocation of catalyst temperature protection would become self evident.  In this example, the erroneous conclusion that was reached suggested the “high-performance” part was worth 10 hp when it really wasn’t, but the opposite can also occur quite easily.  Without covering every possible scenario, it will suffice to say that dyno numbers are ONLY meaningful when supporting data such as A/F ratio, inlet air temperature and the others listed above are also provided.

There is also a model for oxygen sensor protection and exhaust valve protection that when not taken into account can cause misleading dyno data.  In general, exhaust temperatures greater than about 1650 deg F can damage exhaust valves, and extreme care is taken in production calibrations to ensure that sustained engine operation beyond that temperature does not occur.  This is rarely an instantaneous failure but rather one that over time “tulips” the exhaust valves and ultimately will fail the engine.

Cold-air kits that claim to work without the need of a PCM recalibration are a common source of misleading dyno power claims.  Some of these kits claim enormous power gains using nothing but their kit and a production calibration.  Most of these claims are not supported with A/F, inlet temperature or spark advance traces during the dyno pulls that are shown in their advertising.  In some cases, the apparent increase in power is due to differing dyno test conditions as mentioned previously, while in other cases they can be due to the fact that the MAF sensor transfer function in the PCM is left stock.  If the cold-air kit flows more air, and the MAF transfer function in the PCM is stock it will not “know” about the extra air that’s entering the engine.  This will result in the engine running an A/F ratio that is leaner than it should be for engine durability.  While this has the potential to produce more power, it can also be potentially damaging to catalysts, exhaust valves, piston rings and other engine components.  The commanded spark advance can also be incorrect and result in detonation or pre-ignition with potentially catastrophic results.  Air inlet restrictions generally only become significant at higher airflows, so if a claim is made that a coldair kit increases torque at 2000 rpm without the aid of a calibration, you can be sure that varying dyno test conditions or a significant change in A/F ratio are the cause.  Ask for more supporting data!

Similar misleading results can be caused by a failure to keep inlet air temperature constant between runs. The PCM will retard spark timing to prevent detonation as inlet air temperature increases, lowering power output.  On a forced induction car, the inlet air temperature is generally measured after the power adder (and after the intercooler, if applicable) and can be MUCH greater than ambient temperature.  Careful monitoring of A/F ratio, and inlet air temperature, are critical to making accurate conclusions regarding the effectiveness of various high-performance parts.

Secondary factors that also affect measured wheel horsepower are engine oil temperature, differential oil temperature, humidity, etc.  It cannot be overstated that all conditions need to be as similar as possible between dyno runs in order to have a meaningful scientific conclusion, which requires the supporting data previously discussed.

Ford Racing Calibrations

The calibrations that Ford Racing provides for our cold-air and supercharger kits are done by Ford engineers who, in many cases, worked on the actual production vehicles.  No one is more familiar with Ford engines and Ford control systems than Ford engineers.  Extreme care is taken to provide as much power and torque as can be safely delivered, but also to deliver high durability and exceptional drivability.  Most of our kits are also 50-State emissions legal and many are now even offered with a Ford Racing limited warranty.

Here are a couple of aftermarket tuners practices that we do NOT recommend:

• Turning off the inferred catalyst, oxygen sensor and exhaust valve temperature protection logic discussed in the previous section.  This prevents the PCM from richening the A/F ratio to protect these components which can result in more power under certain conditions.  The downside is drastically decreased durability of these expensive components.  Ford Racing does not compromise durability by turning off this calibration logic.
• They often advance spark timing to potentially unsafe levels.  We test our calibrations in a wind tunnel and in hot dry weather to verify that potentially damaging spark knock or catastrophic pre-ignition does not occur. We also do cold weather and altitude testing as well as extensive emissions and durability testing on several vehicles before we release a calibration to the customer.  Some companies do not realize that they need to perform this type of testing in the first place!

Automatic transmission calibration is an area that Ford Racing sets itself apart from other “tuners”.  We generally make extensive calibration changes to not only improve shift quality and give the transmission a more performance oriented feel, but take great care to ensure that durability is not compromised to levels we feel would be unacceptable to a customer.  In development we monitor things like clutch slip times, slip energies, band temperatures and other variables to make calibration changes as appropriate so that the customer can be sure of a quality product that will continue to deliver improved performance in the long term.  As mentioned before, these changes are performed by the same engineers who designed and developed the vehicles in the first place, and who are more familiar than anyone with their performance and durability envelopes.

Some aftermarket tuners develop their calibrations exclusively on a chassis dyno and go straight to the end customer.  While dyno work is a critical part of the development process, it is only one piece of a complex puzzle.  Calibrating for wide open throttle (WOT) is generally simple, but the bulk of the calibration effort is getting the part (and closed) throttle drivability correct.  Our calibrations are developed not only on the dyno, but also on the street for production (or better) quality drivability, and across many vehicles to allow for manufacturing tolerances.  Varied driving conditions, constant data monitoring, and long-term testing ensure consistent drivability.

In recent years, cars and trucks have shifted toward electronic throttle control (ETC) or “drive-by-wire” systems for packaging, cost and enhanced calibration functions.  Ford Racing calibrations for ETC vehicles take advantage of some of the increased functionality offered by these systems by changing the relationship between the pedal and the throttle for improved “performance feel”.  This allows us to provide substantial improvements in “performance feel” even on the kits where the peak horsepower increase might be considered modest by some.  The peak power numbers do not always tell the whole story.

Why some companies claim to make more power:

Some claims are due to poor and misleading dynamometer test practices.  Others are genuine but at the expense of engine, catalyst or drivetrain durability.  Hopefully this article gives you the tools necessary to determine what is real dyno horsepower, manipulated false horsepower and temporary horsepower waiting to cause a failure.  We are confident that as a potential customer you will agree that no one knows your car or truck better than the Ford engineers who designed it in the first place.  Our kits offer the best blend of performance, durability and drivability that exists on the market today.

[Soaring]

Thank you fjt226.  That was very informative. 

[fjt226]

Hey Soaring, I want to apologize.  It seems that my post has killed this thread.  I took an interest in all the replies which is why I put my two cents in.  My intention was not to kill the thread but to hopefully answer some questions that may have been out there and give out a little accurate information.  Maybe next time I will keep my mouth, and keyboard shut.  In any case I enjoy the site, keep up the good work.