DynoJet results: Accufab 'X' pipe & SCT Tuner

[SLF360]

One should and must take responsibility for their actions, absolutely!
I 100% certainly do not condone insurance fraud, or any other form of illegal activity.

Very Sincerely,

James

James,

maybe my Engalisch is not good enough, but you mean what you wrote here ? You mean condone like in the meaning of condemn.. ?

I am in the same camp as Chris and JJ.. When I ripped up the clutch due to too much hp and hard driving, making Ford pay for it never came to my mind

We do, so we should be done... :biggrin

 

[RWTD]

LOL, I see what you're saying. How bout I say:

"Anyone condoning such behavior as insurance fraud, or any other form of illegal activity, should be roped up and burned at the stake!"

Is that better? :biggrin :lol

Hey, I'm in the same camp as Chris, JJ, and yourself! Trust me. :thumbsup
I made a poor choice of words. They were sporadic, and I even recall chuckling when I typed it.

Hey, as for a change of subject, check out this tech response here:

http://www.fordgtforum.com/forums/showthread.php?p=38462#post38462

Later,

James

 

[richardhead]

To continue on my previous post (#49), in regards to the COT, I also wanted to show you a Cobra before/after once the COT was toggled off. FYI, the biggest gain in upper rpm power, on the 2nd graph below, came from the added JLT 12" CAI system (he previously had the stock airbox w/ drop-in K&N filter), but toggling the COT to OFF also contributed, and also smoothed out his upper rpm power delivery, as you can clearly see.

Before COT was disabled:

After COT was disabled:

FROM:Also posted under the discussion topic: "Serious Question Regarding ECU Tune":

"I would like to mention, "711" posted information on this forum regarding his installation of the FRP Long Tube Headers into the stock muffler. He indicated a large HP gain of about 61HP, along with an additional torque increase. I saw his dyno curves, and the computer adjusted the A/F ratio to 12.5:1 after the install (It was also 12.5:1 before the change). Both HP and torque curves smoothed out significantly after the install, but there was no feedback input from the outside cat sensor. The frontside sensor was connected. Without turning the outside sensor off, the check engine light comes on. On another tech topic regarding an Accufab installation and lots of input on tuning, the curves displayed by 711's after install, and the curves displayed when the after sensor on the stock cat installation is turned off, were very similar: they smoothed significantly. The main point here is the engine management computer system adjusted "automatically" to maintain A/F ratio and provide HP/Torque increases."

The curves smoothing effect are very similar to those posted here. Again, for what it is worth....

 

[tmcphail]

The primary 02 sensors are only used in regards to closed loop. When you enter WOT / Open loop Fueling on its very basic level its dictated by the maf voltage / transfer function and what is commanded thru the base fuel table.

The sole use of the secondary 02 sensor is to monitor the cat. So if you remove it without disabling it thru the calibration it throws codes as it should.

HP / TQ and AF curves only represent a small section of the data involved in tuning properly. without full logs you can only make educated guesses what occured / where in regards to the full run. And guessing is one thing I have never done.

 

[RWTD]

The primary 02 sensors are only used in regards to closed loop. When you enter WOT / Open loop Fueling on its very basic level its dictated by the maf voltage / transfer function and what is commanded thru the base fuel table.

The sole use of the secondary 02 sensor is to monitor the cat. So if you remove it without disabling it thru the calibration it throws codes as it should.

HP / TQ and AF curves only represent a small section of the data involved in tuning properly. without full logs you can only make educated guesses what occured / where in regards to the full run. And guessing is one thing I have never done.

RIGHT ON Torrie! :thumbsup

I also made a reply to his post in the other thread here:

http://www.fordgtforum.com/forums/showthread.php?p=38525#post38525

Sincerely,

James

 

[richardhead]

Update for Black2003Cobra

Great discussion! But for what it’s worth, maximum cylinder pressures occur at peak torque – not at peak power. (MEP = 4πTQ/Vd). From the dynograph, peak torque looks to be somewhere between 4.5 and 5 krpm…not at redline.

Also, reducing the AFR doesn’t reduce the air charge temperatures within the cylinders (from the vaporization of the fuel when it is injected) as much as one might think. For example, using Lv = 340 kJ/kg (the latent heat of vaporization for gasoline), richening the AFR from 12:1 to 11:1 would only change the air charge temperature by about –2.6 °K (or °C). Even richening the AFR to 10:1 (from 12:1) would only result in a change in temps by about -5.7 °K. Compared to typical temperatures at the intake ports under full boost at WOT, (which depending on boost pressure, SC isentropic efficiency, intercooler efficiency and ambient temps can easily be in the neighborhood of 400 °K, or more), or compared to the combustion temperatures after the spark, (which are on the order of 2500 °K!), that reduction of a few degrees just isn’t that significant. A richer AFR does help reduce knock (post-ignition), but it is by a different mechanism…not from cooling the intake charge.

Edit: BTW, π = pi = 3.141592.......And MEP = mean-effective pressure, and Vd = displacement

Black2003Cobra...and others looking for additional information on knock/detonation/preignition. Apparently, cooling the intake charge temperature can have a significant effect...Notice the work was confirmed by some Ford engineers. Full article:

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2006/engine.html

Excerpt:

"When the engine is working hard and knock is likely, a small amount of ethanol is directly injected into the hot combustion chamber, where it quickly vaporizes, cooling the fuel and air and making spontaneous combustion much less likely. According to a simulation developed by Bromberg, with ethanol injection the engine won't knock even when the pressure inside the cylinder is three times higher than that in a conventional SI engine. Engine tests by collaborators at Ford Motor Company produced results consistent with the model's predictions."