Another trip to the Dyno

[kenewagner]

So I decided to schedule some Dyno time to see what changes in HP & TQ after having the TQ Converter rebuilt this winter. One of the first times that I only made one change performance wise. Was not expecting to do any tuning. Didnt even take my laptop, stupid thing to do. First run shows the car running very lean on the top end. The tuner was able to access the computer and richen up the top end. The car decided to start glitching electrically after the 4th run. MAF signal would drop at around 4500 as before. With some testing we felt the problem was a ground problem in the MAF wiring. With the key in the on position he cut the ground wire for the MAF and guess what? the pump for the snow system starts running. We decided that there is a feed back through the ground that I will still have to track down. After much decussion his opinion was the stock MAF sensor was not able to keep up with the air flow and recommended a slot style sensor to replace the stock sensor. Spent a lot of time on looking at all grounds.

Anyway I picked the worst day to dyno possible. The best run of the day was 415 rwhp and 411 rwtq. The shop temperature was 99.5 degrees and it has rained for several days so I can tell you humitidy wasnt far behind. Car was heat soaked and we waited quite a long time between runs to try and get it cooled off. Best TQ reading was 430 on another earlier run. The new TQ converter I beleive made a big diffrence TQ wise through out the RPM range and the HP was better as well. Had I picked even a 70 degree day I might have seen a bigger improvement. So even though I still have a ways to go, today I wasnt dissapointed as in previous trips on the dyno. Since I have well over 100 runs on this dyno over the course of 8 years I feel I am comparing apples to apples. I was wondering what my first run on this dyno run was, I asked dan to pull it up. 230 rwhp and 311 rwtq. So I have shown some improvement.


Ken

[Mike8675309]

Nice little bump Ken. I'd nail down all equipment problems right now, before adding any new hardware to the mix.

[David Neibert]

Ken,

It's a good idea to do this kind of testing now, rather than wait until race day to try and work out the bugs. Anyone who thinks they are just going to bolt a bunch of stuff on and tweak the tune, are kidding themselves.

I really like the slotted SCT slotted MAF I'm using. It has plenty of range left over at wide open throttle, and still has very good resolution at idle and part throttle. With the old style MAF, the larger the diameter of housing you used to get more range without pegging, the worse the low speed resolution got. That was my experience anyway.

David

[kenewagner]

Originally Posted by David Neibert

Ken,

It's a good idea to do this kind of testing now, rather than wait until race day to try and work out the bugs. Anyone who thinks they are just going to bolt a bunch of stuff on and tweak the tune, are kidding themselves.

I really like the slotted SCT slotted MAF I'm using. It has plenty of range left over at wide open throttle, and still has very good resolution at idle and part throttle. With the old style MAF, the larger the diameter of housing you used to get more range without pegging, the worse the low speed resolution got. That was my experience anyway.

David

Really was looking to only see if the TQ converter made a diffrence, which it does. When looking at the tq curve & hp on the previous runs on this same dyno & it now shows a much fatter TQ & HP curve. I was disappointed in the final # but than realized that the car ran 401 hp on previous runs at a much lower outside temp and Im sure less humitidy. So I beleive the TQ converter is making a diffrence. The temps in the shop acording to the dyno sheet was 99.5 degrees. It really sucked sitting in the car each run and Im sure the car was heat soaked to the max. I still have to find this pesky ground problem, I think I have an idea where it is. The big question is installing the slotted MAF into the existing 3.5" tube with an 85MM TB or buying a 95MM TB and making that change now. Anyway I run it will require returning to the dyno to dial it in. Guess selling my entire 85MM setup would offset a lot of the cost of the changeover and not put a big hurt on the pocket book.

Ken

[David Neibert]

Originally Posted by kenewagner

Really was looking to only see if the TQ converter made a diffrence, which it does. When looking at the tq curve & hp on the previous runs on this same dyno & it now shows a much fatter TQ & HP curve. I was disappointed in the final # but than realized that the car ran 401 hp on previous runs at a much lower outside temp and Im sure less humitidy. So I beleive the TQ converter is making a diffrence. The temps in the shop acording to the dyno sheet was 99.5 degrees. It really sucked sitting in the car each run and Im sure the car was heat soaked to the max. I still have to find this pesky ground problem, I think I have an idea where it is. The big question is installing the slotted MAF into the existing 3.5" tube with an 85MM TB or buying a 95MM TB and making that change now. Anyway I run it will require returning to the dyno to dial it in. Guess selling my entire 85MM setup would offset a lot of the cost of the changeover and not put a big hurt on the pocket book.

Ken

Ken,

I think it would make more sense to switch to the slotted MAF at the same time you install the 95mm TB and 4" intake pipe, but it certianly wouldn't hurt anything to do the intake and MAF first. BTW, I've got a 3.5" to 4.0" silicone adaptor I could ship to you if you decide to do the 4" intake and keep the 85mm TB for now.

David

[kenewagner]

Originally Posted by David Neibert

Ken,

I think it would make more sense to switch to the slotted MAF at the same time you install the 95mm TB and 4" intake pipe, but it certianly wouldn't hurt anything to do the intake and MAF first. BTW, I've got a 3.5" to 4.0" silicone adaptor I could ship to you if you decide to do the 4" intake and keep the 85mm TB for now.

David

I will keep that in mind, thanks

Ken

[Roadhawg]

Make sure you get an upgraded slotted MAF like the HPX, as you will peg the stock GT slotted MAF.

[kenewagner]

Originally Posted by Roadhawg

Make sure you get an upgraded slotted MAF like the HPX, as you will peg the stock GT slotted MAF.

Is this what everyone running the slotted Maf using. Does the sensor come with a peg tail to splice into the existing wiring


Ken

[Roadhawg]

Originally Posted by kenewagner

Is this what everyone running the slotted Maf using. Does the sensor come with a peg tail to splice into the existing wiring


Ken

I spliced the 05+ connector in. We used a stock 05 GT slot MAF only to find out it ran out at 4500rpms. We had to use a Mafia MAF extender to finish the tune, as they did not have a HPX or a SCT BA 5000 slot MAF on hand. There are adapter pigtails available.

[Mike8675309]

check with DD, I believe the perfect slot sensor and associated harness stuff is either available from him or he'll point you to the source.

[Kevin Leitem]

Originally Posted by kenewagner

Is this what everyone running the slotted Maf using. Does the sensor come with a peg tail to splice into the existing wiring


Ken

I went to the junk yard to get mine, 5.00 is all they wanted.

And this is the cheapest maf mount. http://www.summitracing.com/parts/NAL-19166574/

[ScrapSC]

Slotted MAF's for 5 bones??? What junk yard is this???

[Kevin Leitem]

Originally Posted by ScrapSC

Slotted MAF's for 5 bones??? What junk yard is this???

For the pig tail. You don't want to run a factory ford meter. And the sct meter does not come with anything to wire it

[Roadhawg]

Originally Posted by Kevin Leitem

For the pig tail. You don't want to run a factory ford meter. And the sct meter does not come with anything to wire it

Just the pigtail makes more sense. Heck, you would probably peg the stock slotted MAF at idle.

[rzimmerl]

I'm still running the factory slot sensor, no extender or anything.