little bit more power??

[Irokranger93]

just to mod- it air intake blah blah blah i
changes everything, I think

 

[Bird]

Jim - obvously you don't know how the engine management of the Ford tuning works - I highly recommend that you take a tuning course from SCT - then you might have some idea of load calculation and how it is used in the Ford management of engine performance.

More airflow that is registered through the MAF for a given RPM = higher load = more fuel and timing adjustments (if needed) = more power + no detonation - it has nothing to do with a supercharger being 'turned on' (obviously your knowledge of supercharging is limited to those electric ones we see on Ebay that are operated with a switch). This load based calculation is the very basis of all Ford engine management systems - not just the forced induction versions. If you do something that will allow for more airflow (removing intake restriction, cams, headers, p/'p heads, free flowing exhaust) within some pretty wide parameters, the system will take care of it in pretty good fashion. Now, granted, if you do something drastic like throw a supercharger/turbo on a N/A based system, then a retune of all the parameters will be needed as the load calculation will have to be changed for the VE greater than 100% that will be seen.

You might 'getcha' a few books and learn about engine management in the 21'st centry - we no longer run carbs.

Bird

ps. Jim - extra fuel in the combustion chamber actually cools the combustion process and retards detonation / pinging - it's 'lean' cylinder conditions that have a tendency to cause pinging. Sure glad you're not tuning anything I own...............

 

[Big Jim M]

Yep!

Jim - obvously you don't know how the engine management of the Ford tuning works - I highly recommend that you take a tuning course from SCT - then you might have some idea of load calculation and how it is used in the Ford management of engine performance.

More airflow that is registered through the MAF for a given RPM = higher load = more fuel and timing adjustments (if needed) = more power + no detonation - it has nothing to do with a supercharger being 'turned on' (obviously your knowledge of supercharging is limited to those electric ones we see on Ebay that are operated with a switch). This load based calculation is the very basis of all Ford engine management systems - not just the forced induction versions. If you do something that will allow for more airflow (removing intake restriction, cams, headers, p/'p heads, free flowing exhaust) within some pretty wide parameters, the system will take care of it in pretty good fashion. Now, granted, if you do something drastic like throw a supercharger/turbo on a N/A based system, then a retune of all the parameters will be needed as the load calculation will have to be changed for the VE greater than 100% that will be seen.

You might 'getcha' a few books and learn about engine management in the 21'st centry - we no longer run carbs.

Bird

ps. Jim - extra fuel in the combustion chamber actually cools the combustion process and retards detonation / pinging - it's 'lean' cylinder conditions that have a tendency to cause pinging. Sure glad you're not tuning anything I own...............

Bird you are preaching to the choir here. However that 100% Ve you speak of is Actually 100% of the Ve EXPECTED by the computer.. In certain engine management systems that MAY be 90% actual Ve..

By managing what you do NOT say is "managing" means, in the case of MORE than the expected Ve, the system will retard timing and richen the mixture to take care of the clatter..

So if MORE than the expected Ve is reached the engine will run WORSE than it does at the expected Ve.
Yep! A lean mixture runs a little better than a rich mixture. And yep a rich mixture is a bit cooler than a lean mixture.

And NO, lean mixture isn't the ONLY thing that causes ping! More compression causes it also and is far more likely to cause ping, and constant ping at that.

That higher compression would be caused by better intake flow. That flow would cause a higher than expected Ve. The computer would attempt to cover this ping, prolly occuring at all rpm, by retarding the timing and richening the mixture. So any possible gain from introducing a "better" intake system in our rides would result in a WORSE operation of the engine.

In a carbed engine it might be possible to richen the mixture and set the timing retarded.. then use fuel to accomodate the increased Ve.

My point in all this is simply that the aftermarket "CAI" that are for sale CANNOT do anything good for our engines. If they ACTUALLY did what most folks seem to THINK they do, the results would be WORSE not better running.

And yeah.. I do get it. I been around a long time.
Big JIm

 

[Bird]

Sorry Jim - first you try telling us that too much fuel causes pinging and then admit that it cools things down and that lean causes pinging - contradicting yourself ????

I also loved how you say that compression will increase with greater flow and cause problems - compression is basically a fixed value (static and dynamic) of the engine configuration and the only way you will ever dynamically increase it is to increase flow over 1 bar (forced induction) - removing a restriction in the intake path on a naturally aspirated engine won't do that....................

Apparently, you're confused about the difference between load and VE - VE is a FIXED characteristic of the engine as it is configured - it won't change on a NA engine until you change a part. Load is CALCULATED by the PCM from several variables - especially airflow as registered by the MAF vs. RPM vs. throttle position and then fueling and timing are adjusted for the 'known' volumetric efficiency of the engine in question to obtain maximum performance. If there is a restriction in the intake and that restriction is removed, there will be additional flow through the MAF for that throttle position and the engine will respond with greater power for that throttle position because of the fueling and timing adjustments made due to the increase air (load). If there is no restriction, nothing changes with the addition of the bigger intake (except noise).

VE won't change on an engine unless you change an internal part that will cause an increase of the engine's ability to flow and utilize that greater flow ie: ported heads, bigger cam, etc.

Now, let's get to the meat of the thread - do add-on's (cai, headers) work ??? For the most part.....not significantly. Yep, I'm agreeing with you here. Back in the old days, intakes were restrictive and exhaust manifolds were horrendous log jams to flow and carburators were setup for that. All you had to do was open both ends up, bump the jets in the carb a couple of numbers and voila' - more power. Now we're in the age of fuel injection and government mandates for efficiency and for the most part, the manufacturers do get things pretty close to right for the stock motors (except the 4.0 OHV exhaust ports and exhaust manifolds - the flow bench will tell you the real story). They have to squeeze all the power and efficiency out of each drop of fuel as they can within reasonable limits to keep wear and tear down on the engines for longevity. Sure, the factory hi-po cars may pick up some HP in the high end RPM's from a more open CAI or exhaust, but I've not really seen any across the board increases for any of the 'regular' daily driver vehicles which we're talking about here. Older 4.0's will generally pick up 5+ hp throughout the operating range with decent headers and no other mods and with a decent porting of the exhaust port, another 5 hp throughout the range with no other mods - I've done that with more than one engine - like I said, those ports / manifolds were a factory screw-up. Even with the better breathing exhaust, I've not seen the factory MAF's peg out on a stock block/cam, so that's not a restriction (notice I said 'stock'). Bigger throttle bodies on the 4.0 OHV only change the response due to different load calculation from increase airflow at a lower throttle position, but not at the top end.

My idea on the subject is that most people spend the money for the 'improvements' of the cat back exhausts and the CAI's and really want to believe that it wasn't wasted. They hear more noise and that seems to cause a short circuit in the butt dyno and then they perceive more power which may be there from replacing a clogged air filter or a plugged exhaust system - call it blasphemy or whatever they may - it is what it is - justification.

Now, change the cam, really port the heads, bigger valves, bump the compression, etc and you actually do change the true FIXED volumetric efficiency of the engine and the PCM will actually adjust for the changed load (provided you didn't go massive on the cam or compression) and it will make more power - not as much as getting the PCM retuned for the greater fixed VE, but definitely more measured power. We don't have production cams available to go 'massive' on the OHV.

The SOHC is different animal and from what I've done with them - the factory got them right and you really have to do something drastic ($$$) to realize any true gains.

I've been doing this a long time also, Jim (45 years now) and I take pride in admitting I don't know it all and am always try to learn more - can't always say " there's nothing you can do - just change the gears". Been building performance engines all my life and have more hours on dyno's and flow benches than I want to remember and it still amazes me what I have to learn next. Just 'doing it a long time' doesn't necessarily mean 'doing it right' or conveying the right advice - gotta keep trying new things, learning new concepts and sometimes replacing old ones.

Bird

 

[Yellowsplash]

Sounds to me like you have drank the coolaid! If you think having more fuel in a cylinder than it was designed for won't cause PINGING and other bad things you need to think again..

No matter what the Ve is in any particular engine THAT Ve is what the engine was designed to injest! ANY more volume added WILL give problems!

The FACT that these problems don't exist after these so called "improvements" are added to our engines simply means there was NO GAIN!

Sure they are nice and bright yellow and red... but that is all they are, EYE CANDY!

You need to stop reading magazines that are PAID to write articles, and stop watching TV shows that are PAID to advertise..

Getcha a few books about how engines work. That would be a good start.
Big JIm

Zackly what I an saying!!! IF a higher flowing filter actually DID flow more the damn engine would have a higher Ve and would go to hell!

Can'tcha get that into your bean? ANY more flow INTO the cylinder will change the VE of that engine and the damn thing will COMPLAIN! If the engine and computer are built for a 85% Ve then a 86% Ve will cause a PING and reterded timing..

So MAYBE there is a filter out there that WILL flow more than stock...SO? The engine itself WILL NOT flow more than AS BUILT! Even without a filter all together.. Ya got what ya got!

Quit drinking that koolaid and THINK about your mechanics.
Big JIm

The whole name of the game is to get more air into the cylinder at any rpm. Unfortunately, the days of having electrical operated valves that are operated independently without a camshaft and open and close faster than allowable from the camshaft in order to maximize airflow into the cylinder to promote 100% VE doesnt quite exist....yet for production engines. Thats where variable valve timing comes in. Do I need to mention the new 3.7L V6 mustang, or even the new coyote 5.0L. Look at the specs of ANY VVT engine and I betcha the numbers are much higher than the non-VVT prodecessor. Its because it allows more airflow into the engine at any given rpm compared to a non-VVT engine.

Anytime you get more air into the cylinder you will create more power.The engine has an ecu to compensate for infinite variables...thats the amazing thing about EFI. And whats better with OBDII is that you can actually change these parameters yourself if you actually know what you are doing. The ecu has these things called "sensors" that measure these variables in realtime and makes changes on the fly hundreds of times a second. Pretty high-tech, huh? Secondly, if the engines are designed to only handle an exact amount of airflow, what happens when you drive from death valley to denver colorado, then back again. You dont think the altitude changes the parameters at which the engine sees? Another great thing about EFI is that the ecu already made these changes as you were driving without any input from you whatsoever...and you dont think by seeing a small addition of airflow the ecu wont be able to compensate? I thought soo...

I dont read magazines or watch tv shows. I have built and tuned motors which make 100+ hp per cyliner tuned by myself. I think I have a firm grip on tuning parameters and how to make power...wheres your credentials at?

Bird you are preaching to the choir here. However that 100% Ve you speak of is Actually 100% of the Ve EXPECTED by the computer.. In certain engine management systems that MAY be 90% actual Ve..

By managing what you do NOT say is "managing" means, in the case of MORE than the expected Ve, the system will retard timing and richen the mixture to take care of the clatter..

So if MORE than the expected Ve is reached the engine will run WORSE than it does at the expected Ve.
Yep! A lean mixture runs a little better than a rich mixture. And yep a rich mixture is a bit cooler than a lean mixture.

And NO, lean mixture isn't the ONLY thing that causes ping! More compression causes it also and is far more likely to cause ping, and constant ping at that.

That higher compression would be caused by better intake flow. That flow would cause a higher than expected Ve. The computer would attempt to cover this ping, prolly occuring at all rpm, by retarding the timing and richening the mixture. So any possible gain from introducing a "better" intake system in our rides would result in a WORSE operation of the engine.

In a carbed engine it might be possible to richen the mixture and set the timing retarded.. then use fuel to accomodate the increased Ve.

My point in all this is simply that the aftermarket "CAI" that are for sale CANNOT do anything good for our engines. If they ACTUALLY did what most folks seem to THINK they do, the results would be WORSE not better running.

And yeah.. I do get it. I been around a long time.
Big JIm

Wrong...apparently you DONT get it and you've never tuned an engine before. Its the 21st century and we dont rely on guessing games to tune carbed engines anymore.

Your terms lean and rich are used loosely. What one considers lean is actually in fact rich, and can be perceived differently from one person to another. On the basis of stoichiometry, 14.7:1 is the ideal situation for perfect combustion, where all fuel and air is burnt completely. The ECU will infinitely search for this and make changes on the fly in order to acheive this throughout the drive cycle.

One thing to remember is this doesnt happen to be the ideal operating conditions for high-load situations, however, due to heat and other factors. When your ECU sees above say a 75% load (as calculated exactly as bird described - i.e. at wide-open throttle or "WOT"), your ECU will richen the mixture in order to help "cool" the combustion chamber and prevent predetonation. The factory tune is quite conservative with this value and alittle bit more airflow wont hurt it, even if the ecu couldnt compensate for it (which it DOES, CAN, and WILL). This is a value that tuners change in order to extract more power out of your engine. Most vehicles run richer than necessary from the factory anyway. By removing this "cushion", you can make more power.

Also, compression doesnt change the amount of air that enters the engine, only displacement and VE can change that. What it DOES change however is how much is it "compressed" once in the combustion chamber. Kinda interesting where they get this terminology from, huh? Understand there is a difference between compression and cylinder pressure...Ive corrected you too many times now.

The only time an engine will retard timing is if the load you are under is very high, as calculated from the engines sensors, and will change to another preset value located in the timing tables within the ECU. These values are already established and written within the tables, the addition of a small amount of air wont change this. The other possibility is if the engine is equipped with a knock sensor and undergoes knock. It will then retard timing until knock is no longer present and then start adding degrees back in. By seeing more airflow, the engine wont retard timing. These timing tables again are very conservative from the factory, and the addition of an intake system wont induce predetonation. By changing these values you can make more power, which is exactly what a tuner does.

This information isnt secret, just the values a tuner changes them to...which is why one would pay for his services because he has put in R&D time to find out what works.

 

[86 slo-vo]

Sorry Jim - first you try telling us that too much fuel causes pinging and then admit that it cools things down and that lean causes pinging - contradicting yourself ????

I also loved how you say that compression will increase with greater flow and cause problems - compression is basically a fixed value (static and dynamic) of the engine configuration and the only way you will ever dynamically increase it is to increase flow over 1 bar (forced induction) - removing a restriction in the intake path on a naturally aspirated engine won't do that....................

Apparently, you're confused about the difference between load and VE - VE is a FIXED characteristic of the engine as it is configured - it won't change on a NA engine until you change a part. Load is CALCULATED by the PCM from several variables - especially airflow as registered by the MAF vs. RPM vs. throttle position and then fueling and timing are adjusted for the 'known' volumetric efficiency of the engine in question to obtain maximum performance. If there is a restriction in the intake and that restriction is removed, there will be additional flow through the MAF for that throttle position and the engine will respond with greater power for that throttle position because of the fueling and timing adjustments made due to the increase air (load). If there is no restriction, nothing changes with the addition of the bigger intake (except noise).

VE won't change on an engine unless you change an internal part that will cause an increase of the engine's ability to flow and utilize that greater flow ie: ported heads, bigger cam, etc.

Now, let's get to the meat of the thread - do add-on's (cai, headers) work ??? For the most part.....not significantly. Yep, I'm agreeing with you here. Back in the old days, intakes were restrictive and exhaust manifolds were horrendous log jams to flow and carburators were setup for that. All you had to do was open both ends up, bump the jets in the carb a couple of numbers and voila' - more power. Now we're in the age of fuel injection and government mandates for efficiency and for the most part, the manufacturers do get things pretty close to right for the stock motors (except the 4.0 OHV exhaust ports and exhaust manifolds - the flow bench will tell you the real story). They have to squeeze all the power and efficiency out of each drop of fuel as they can within reasonable limits to keep wear and tear down on the engines for longevity. Sure, the factory hi-po cars may pick up some HP in the high end RPM's from a more open CAI or exhaust, but I've not really seen any across the board increases for any of the 'regular' daily driver vehicles which we're talking about here. Older 4.0's will generally pick up 5+ hp throughout the operating range with decent headers and no other mods and with a decent porting of the exhaust port, another 5 hp throughout the range with no other mods - I've done that with more than one engine - like I said, those ports / manifolds were a factory screw-up. Even with the better breathing exhaust, I've not seen the factory MAF's peg out on a stock block/cam, so that's not a restriction (notice I said 'stock'). Bigger throttle bodies on the 4.0 OHV only change the response due to different load calculation from increase airflow at a lower throttle position, but not at the top end.

My idea on the subject is that most people spend the money for the 'improvements' of the cat back exhausts and the CAI's and really want to believe that it wasn't wasted. They hear more noise and that seems to cause a short circuit in the butt dyno and then they perceive more power which may be there from replacing a clogged air filter or a plugged exhaust system - call it blasphemy or whatever they may - it is what it is - justification.

Now, change the cam, really port the heads, bigger valves, bump the compression, etc and you actually do change the true FIXED volumetric efficiency of the engine and the PCM will actually adjust for the changed load (provided you didn't go massive on the cam or compression) and it will make more power - not as much as getting the PCM retuned for the greater fixed VE, but definitely more measured power. We don't have production cams available to go 'massive' on the OHV.

The SOHC is different animal and from what I've done with them - the factory got them right and you really have to do something drastic ($$$) to realize any true gains.

I've been doing this a long time also, Jim (45 years now) and I take pride in admitting I don't know it all and am always try to learn more - can't always say " there's nothing you can do - just change the gears". Been building performance engines all my life and have more hours on dyno's and flow benches than I want to remember and it still amazes me what I have to learn next. Just 'doing it a long time' doesn't necessarily mean 'doing it right' or conveying the right advice - gotta keep trying new things, learning new concepts and sometimes replacing old ones.

Bird

thank you for speaking some truth in a thread full of bullshit.

 

[THE H.P FREAK]

HI!... Wow after reading this thread, I'm going to go out and take all my bolt-ons off my Ranger................ so I can go MUCH slower in the 1/4 mile...... (Sarcasm).... I guess bolt-ons don't work. I ran 15.98E.T bone stock on a set of DR's. After a custom CAI (mines a true cold air design), cat-back, tune, electric fan, under drive pulleys it went 14.42E.t. I guess that 1.56E.T reduction was a dream.........

 

[Bird]

HI!... Wow after reading this thread, I'm going to go out and take all my bolt-ons off my Ranger................ so I can go MUCH slower in the 1/4 mile...... (Sarcasm).... I guess bolt-ons don't work. I ran 15.98E.T bone stock on a set of DR's. After a custom CAI (mines a true cold air design), cat-back, tune, electric fan, under drive pulleys it went 14.42E.t. I guess that 1.56E.T reduction was a dream.........

And the justification begins..............

I'd be willing to bet that the last 3 things you listed probably contributed most (if not all ) of the improvements, but unless you ran any comparison data under exactly the same conditions, you really cannot fully quantify the total improvement. If you had a partially plugged stock air filter and then installed the CAI and ran immediately afterwards, that's tilted in favor of the CAI - if your new tune is a premium fuel tune with more timing and you compared it to the stocker tune with timing set up for regular octane fuel, that's tilted also. If the track conditions weren't identical, that's tilted.

I have definitely seen benefits of an electric fan and UD pullies, but those aren't in the 'power adder' groups we're talking about and if you had noticed, you would have seen that I did mention things change when you retune for some items added. Take out your tune and put the stock fan and pullies and then see just how much 'power' you picked up with the CAI and catback - probably mostly noise.........................

Bird

 

[disciplerocks]

Hahaha I love these threads. Lets see if someone else came come in and show their ass.

 

[THE H.P FREAK]

And the justification begins..............

I'd be willing to bet that the last 3 things you listed probably contributed most (if not all ) of the improvements, but unless you ran any comparison data under exactly the same conditions, you really cannot fully quantify the total improvement. If you had a partially plugged stock air filter and then installed the CAI and ran immediately afterwards, that's tilted in favor of the CAI - if your new tune is a premium fuel tune with more timing and you compared it to the stocker tune with timing set up for regular octane fuel, that's tilted also. If the track conditions weren't identical, that's tilted.

I have definitely seen benefits of an electric fan and UD pullies, but those aren't in the 'power adder' groups we're talking about and if you had noticed, you would have seen that I did mention things change when you retune for some items added. Take out your tune and put the stock fan and pullies and then see just how much 'power' you picked up with the CAI and catback - probably mostly noise.........................

Bird

HI!... Every mod was documented at the dragstrip when it was added. Not a newb here. I've been building race cars for over 20 years. This Ranger has never been on the dyno but my F-150 was put on and every mod was documented. I luv when people sat adding a electric fan does nothing. Well on a 400H.P built 5.4 it gained 19RWH.P as soon as we removed the clutch fan. I laugh at threads like this. So many bench racers out thinking they know it all.

 

[Bird]

HI!... Every mod was documented at the dragstrip when it was added. Not a newb here. I've been building race cars for over 20 years. This Ranger has never been on the dyno but my F-150 was put on and every mod was documented. I luv when people sat adding a electric fan does nothing. Well on a 400H.P built 5.4 it gained 19RWH.P as soon as we removed the clutch fan. I laugh at threads like this. So many bench racers out thinking they know it all.

Electric fans and UD pulleys don't 'add' horsepower - all they do is free up whatever horsepower they are using.................the horsepower is already there. Saw very similar changes in RWHP on my Lightning also when I changed over to an electric fan (602 rwhp btw). Still haven't told us about your 'tune' either.

Like I said earlier - take out the tune, put back on the stock pullies and fan and then run it in the exact same track conditions as your 'stock' run and show us the 'real' gains from the CAI and catback - that's scientific testing.

Yeah, I know what you mean - I get a chuckle in these threads also when 'experienced' bulders come in these threads thinking they know it all.....

Bird

 

[THE H.P FREAK]

HI!... That's what people don't understand. The electric fan conversions and the U/D pulleys free up HP, but it's H.P that can be measured. I have proven this multiple times on the dyno and the dragstrip.

All runs done with my ranger were done with drag radials mounted. With the stock tune it was run on 91 octane. With the tune it was run on 91 octane. Temps with all runs were between 85-90 degrees. Stock air box had new filter, some runs with no filter, some runs with CAI. I have over 200 time slips for the testing we did. It was to prove a point. I'm not digging them up to post here. It's not worth my time because some know it all will just make excuse why he's right and the evidence is wrong.

The summary is this :

All N/A times were with a 2.0 60FT time.

- Bone stock on 275/60/R-15 NITTO drag radials = 15.98ET
- same as above but pulled stock filter = 15.90ET
- installed custom cai, removed p/s headlight = 15.68ET
- installed U/D crank pulley = 15.48ET

Then on next time out I had a MIKE TROYER tuned X-CAL2, ported TB, and the EGR mod. = 15.03ET

Then i added a electric fan and custom cat-back and went = 14.62ET

Next time out I had 4.10 gears and it went 14.42ET. It was running pig rich and needed a re-tune.


That same day I hit it with a 40H.P dry shot and it went 13.83 with me getting on the brakes due to I was bracket racing and didn't want to break out. I didn't get another run that day. Probably would of gone 13.60's. Then the tracks here closed for Winter before I had a chance to get back. Will be going in late spring. Currently having a 5R55E race built and going to run a custom built 3200 stall from TSI. Upgrading to a 75H.P dry shot and will need MIKE to re-tune it. Hoping to hit high 13's N/A and a 12.99 on the spray.

You can believe me or not, I really don't care. Same mods have worked for me on different vehicles over the years.

83 Ranger Pro Street 713H.P
99 F-150 built 5.4, T-88 turbo aiming for 900RWH.P
07 Ranger

 

[Bird]

- Bone stock on 275/60/R-15 NITTO drag radials = 15.98ET
- same as above but pulled stock filter = 15.90ET
- installed custom cai, removed p/s headlight = 15.68ET
- installed U/D crank pulley = 15.48ET

All runs on the same day or night under identical conditions? If not, then I have to question some of the validity.

Then on next time out I had a MIKE TROYER tuned X-CAL2, ported TB, and the EGR mod. = 15.03ET

You, as an experienced builder, should know that the EGR system only operates under part throttle - not WOT, so it has nothing to do with the results. The tune, with revised timing for the higher octane and I'll bet a revised shift schedule would definitely account for some serious differences. Troyer does know his tuning.............

Then i added a electric fan and custom cat-back and went = 14.62ET

Yep - an additional 10+ HP felt at the rear wheels from an electric fan (by your own admission) will do some serious reductions in ET. Can't say anything about the catback as you didn't do it by itself.

Next time out I had 4.10 gears and it went 14.42ET. It was running pig rich and needed a re-tune.

A perfect example of the benefits of gearing and if it was truly running pig rich, would definitely run even faster with proper fueling.

Now, as we all have a tendency to report only the fastest ET's (myself included) and we know that you didn't run all these under identical track / weather conditions, why don't you take an average ET for all the runs under each configuration listed and see what the differences are - that will effectively filter/smooth out track differences and show a truer picture of the effects of your mods as you have them listed. With over 200 timeslips, it should be a much better analysis and would be extremely beneficial in that respect.

Bird

ps. the 99 F150 sounds real interesting

 

[THE H.P FREAK]

You, as an experienced builder, should know that the EGR system only operates under part throttle - not WOT, so it has nothing to do with the results. The tune, with revised timing for the higher octane and I'll bet a revised shift schedule would definitely account for some serious differences. Troyer does know his tuning.............

I don't know why people say well a tune plays with timing and shift characteristics and blah, blah. That's the point of the dam tune. If it didn't do that to get the benefits then a tune would be useless.........

You obviously don't know what the EGR mod is. It has nothing to do with the EGR working or not. It the EGR tube that sticks into the TB airflow pathway. By cutting this 90 degree bend flush with the inside it allows more air flow by deleting the restriction.


Yep - an additional 10+ HP felt at the rear wheels from an electric fan (by your own admission) will do some serious reductions in ET. Can't say anything about the catback as you didn't do it by itself.

Not on my Ranger but I have seen H.P/TQ gains on the dyno from cat-backs on other Rangers.



A perfect example of the benefits of gearing and if it was truly running pig rich, would definitely run even faster with proper fueling.

Yes I have a Innovate Motorsports wideband in the truck and it was running 9.8-10.4 A/F's during the last runs.

Now, as we all have a tendency to report only the fastest ET's (myself included) and we know that you didn't run all these under identical track / weather conditions, why don't you take an average ET for all the runs under each configuration listed and see what the differences are - that will effectively filter/smooth out track differences and show a truer picture of the effects of your mods as you have them listed. With over 200 timeslips, it should be a much better analysis and would be extremely beneficial in that respect.


Those times were the average of 5 runs each. FYI.[/QUOTE]

 

[Bird]

I don't know why people say well a tune plays with timing and shift characteristics and blah, blah. That's the point of the dam tune. If it didn't do that to get the benefits then a tune would be useless.........

Didn't say that it was bad, but when you lump other mods with it and report a gain for those other mods, you're mis-reporting

You obviously don't know what the EGR mod is. It has nothing to do with the EGR working or not. It the EGR tube that sticks into the TB airflow pathway. By cutting this 90 degree bend flush with the inside it allows more air flow by deleting the restriction.

I stand corrected on that - most of the EGR mods I've seen with other vehicles involve deleting the EGR. Went ahead and did a little research across the web on this mod and don't really see any reported gains - again, combined with a tune, it's hard to judge anything.

Not on my Ranger but I have seen H.P/TQ gains on the dyno from cat-backs on other Rangers.

And I and others have seen basically zero gains - especially on the SOHC, so what's your point?

Yes I have a Innovate Motorsports wideband in the truck and it was running 9.8-10.4 A/F's during the last runs.

Ouch - sounds like something went wrong if the tune was correct before. Hope nothing is hurt.

Those times were the average of 5 runs each. FYI.

Statistically, 5 runs for each configuration are better than 1 each, but then, you only covered a total of 35 of those 200 timeslips. I deal with data and analytics every day and would definitely like to see a better analysis if possible..............

Well, with everything all stacked together, you are making progress somewhere - just not definitive of the sources. Hope you reach your goals.

Bird