[Hostile_1LE]

I just figured for the loss in drivability, it would be faster.

[FlukeSS]

Originally Posted by Hostile_1LE

M6 is stuck shift, so no converter, only clutch. Stock clutch is good for the power. My basis for thinking it’s slow is the gap between me and my brother’s bone stock 23’ mustang gt auto. The gap between us was the same both HCI on 93 and FBO E85. I feel like it shoulda been a little more. Also I haven’t done a 60-130 with my dragy, but hand timed was like 11.20 something in 4200 DA.

You should be way lower than 11.20 with your setup. I am at low 9.0 to 9.2 seconds 60-130 and that is according to data logs.

According to my data logs, my peak HP maxes out in real time at about 591 hp at the crank, which is about 490-500 rwhp including drivetrain loss and that is on E85.

Your car and mine run about the same power level, albeit I may have more torque than you since I'm using a Stage 1 BTR cam which would be most similar to GPI's SS1 cam.

Realistically you should have higher HP than me on top end given your intake manifold, TB, and cam especially on E85. Otherwise we are going to be about the same rwhp right now.

Generally E85 difference vs 93 is going to be about 30rwhp give or take depending on tuner.

So at 481 RWHP on E85 before, your expectation of 500-510 rwhp on 93 might be a little over zealous. You are probably closer to 450+ and the difference in RWHP depending on cam. In my case I gained 70rwhp on E85 (including the cam)

So you would be lucky if you are at just under 500 right now on 93.

Generally Stage 2, 3, and 4 cams are blower cams. Stage 1's can still be used with a blower but just won't produce as much power as your GPI SS3 would.

At some point your Atomic Airforce manifold is going to hold back your SS3 cam in terms of top end gains. In addition to manual RPM optimization for best shift points.

Disclaimer: This is based on my own research, dyno numbers I've seen and general modest consensus regarding reasonable gain expectations and not expectations that are maximized as we all would hope.

Disclaimer 2: Obviously take what I say with a grain of salt as there are probably inaccuracies other people will be able to specify more clearly.

Originally Posted by Hostile_1LE

I just figured for the loss in drivability, it would be faster.

Don't forget most M6'ers cannot out shift an A10, and that GT has the same A10 as our cars. Even professional drivers struggle to beat the A10 in shifting speed.

For example my car shifts in about 200-220 milliseconds or about 1/5th of a second. And that can be changed some in a TCM tune.



Edit: Also you can discount my dyno sheet, because what I think the first tuner did originally was do a max effort tune just to see what my car could do then gave me the conservative tune I asked for. According to calculators that dyno sheet says I'm at about 605 hp at the crank. On the original conservative tune, I was peaking 525 hp at the crank, then retuned to 591. That max effort dyno tune was done when it was 30 degrees F outside as well so my numbers are probably higher unlike after the retune to 591 and normal driving circumstances such as 60-90 degree F days at the strip or on the street.

[Hostile_1LE]

I get everything you said, but here’s the thing. I made 465 whp on 93 when I was just FBO… on the same dyno as all my other numbers. GPI Told me I should be making 500+ on 93, and close to 570 on e85. Now idk if that was just them trying to get me to buy their stuff, but I’ve seen plenty of ss3 dyno numbed and they are all 550+ on e85, so there has to be some merit to the 570 number. Now 100%, there is a difference in GPI’s dyno and my local one, but 60 hp difference? Idk about that.

[Hostile_1LE]

Now here is an update, I just ran a 60-130 with my dragy, for some real data. I was full weight, 1/4 tank of gas, with a 120-ish lb passenger. My shifting wasn’t great. Take note the average slope was uphill, and the DA was 4300, and ambient temp was 84 degrees.

I know it’s invalid, but it’s only due to low sats so I’ll count it personally.



My fastest time EVER was an 8.89, at -1400 DA, and that was FBO E85 on a 28” tall tire.

I’m actually pretty happy with this 9.76, considering previously, at anything above 1000 DA, I was fighting for a 9.99, and I did it tonight at 4300!! Not to mention I can still do another run almost 200 lbs lighter by having no passenger and no seats + even less fuel. Idk tho, all speculation.

FlukeSS, would you share the DA of you low 9 second runs?

Anyone please chime in and tell me if 9.7 60-130 @4300 DA is good or bad for my current setup.

[Hostile_1LE]

The math would suggest that my race weight there was about 3880 lbs. using the gm value for curb weight:
3696
-85.5 (missing weight in fuel)
+150 lbs (driver)
+120 lbs (pass)

[FlukeSS]

Originally Posted by Hostile_1LE

Now here is an update, I just ran a 60-130 with my dragy, for some real data. I was full weight, 1/4 tank of gas, with a 120-ish lb passenger. My shifting wasn’t great. Take note the average slope was uphill, and the DA was 4300, and ambient temp was 84 degrees.

I know it’s invalid, but it’s only due to low sats so I’ll count it personally.

Attachment 1151979

My fastest time EVER was an 8.89, at -1400 DA, and that was FBO E85 on a 28” tall tire.

I’m actually pretty happy with this 9.76, considering previously, at anything above 1000 DA, I was fighting for a 9.99, and I did it tonight at 4300!! Not to mention I can still do another run almost 200 lbs lighter by having no passenger and no seats + even less fuel. Idk tho, all speculation.

FlukeSS, would you share the DA of you low 9 second runs?

Anyone please chime in and tell me if 9.7 60-130 @4300 DA is good or bad for my current setup.

OK, that DA is killing it then for sure. And your 9.7 is more what I was expecting in that DA, I can see a 10 here and there, but ultimately in the same conditions as my run below... you'd be way into the 8's I believe. Or should be. But, that 11.2 you said earlier threw a huge wrench into things for me lol.

Ya sure one sec. Also I'm 238lbs, so little less than you. I'm full weight on the car though, no weight reductions. Also 16.9 gallons of gas, so about 3/4's of a tank of E85

Comes to about 9.277 seconds. My 60-100 comes to about 4.202 seconds.

Like I said, based on what I've read you on 93 puts us at about the same power level. Only real difference is DA at the moment, and your times are close to mine. So on E85, you should notice a difference as well. Only difference at that point is you are going to be faster on the top end than I will be. Should have a better 60-130, and ultimately high end power. If I had to guess I'd say you'd be closer to 530-540 rwhp MAYBE even 550 on a dyno, if nothing had to be adjusted on your tune and the E85 tune is good, and you have good E85 where you are. Can't see it in the picture but in my log I'm running E77-E81.

Also note: The added Fuel Lobe of the cam wakes up E85 more as well, so I wouldn't be surprised if you dyno at 550 on E85 with your setup. Which for reference puts you at Stock ZL1 A10 territory. Just keep in mind that ZL1 is going to beat you on low end, but he won't pull away from you on high end. (or shouldn't on paper at least)

[FlukeSS]

Originally Posted by Hostile_1LE

I get everything you said, but here’s the thing. I made 465 whp on 93 when I was just FBO… on the same dyno as all my other numbers. GPI Told me I should be making 500+ on 93, and close to 570 on e85. Now idk if that was just them trying to get me to buy their stuff, but I’ve seen plenty of ss3 dyno numbed and they are all 550+ on e85, so there has to be some merit to the 570 number. Now 100%, there is a difference in GPI’s dyno and my local one, but 60 hp difference? Idk about that.

So regarding what a manufacturer says, vs what is reality is often different.

Before I had my engine rebuilt, and added the cam.

I had one dyno tell me I was at 460rwhp and 477 ft/lbs. on a Dynojet. After the rebuild and cam upgrade, my dyno sheet (on a mustang dyno) says 510 rwhp and 472 ft/lbs. So I lost torque but gained HP. Here's the other thing. Obviously mustang dynos read lower, so on a dynojet figure 530 rwhp with my cam setup and rebuild.

So how do I predict what my cam upgrade gains were? I have to base it on what normal stage 1's usually get, and that's 70rwhp with E85. So if this mustang dyno as some people say is more accurate, that means my pre cam dyno numbers were fudged and not by a little bit.

In the end what dyno numbers say doesn't really matter as it is only a tool used for tuning. What you get in 1/4 mile times matters a lot. It allows you to gauge where about you should be. But that said, understand some people do max effort builds vs someone like me who is not at max effort yet. I want to make sure my car isn't going to blow rods and pistons again first.

Lastly, dyno numbers can be fudged regardless of what type of dyno it is. For example even on a mustang dyno those numbers can be fudge to show a stock Camaro pulling 1000hp with 0 mods. Then again so can a dynojet. Its not the tool that matters its how it is used that matters. And the safe assumption with dynos is that it is a tool used to tune the vehicle and the numbers don't matter at all.

For example my best time is 11.639 1/4 mile. The problem with that is people are saying I should be like 11.3 or lower. So I've been going over my build checking logs etc, trying to find weak points. And I found several.

1. Cam settings were not set in the tune (not sure why) They are now. That alone increased airflow into the engine thus more power. I had to call BTR to get my cam card. Didn't know I was supposed to get one from the build shop.

2. My CAI is crap at best it allows engine heat into the intake system, and thus I have high Intake Air Temps which robs me of power.

3. Trans tuning wasn't really optimized based on the mods. Shift points were off.

4. I did ask for a conservative tune initially. Now I've had someone retune things and adjust the TCM tune.

5. Had issues with drivability which are now corrected.

6. Cylinders 1, 4, 5, and 7 are showing knock retard in the logs. Not sure yet if its cylinder knock or vibration setting off the knock sensors. Or could be bad O2 sensors not reading correct AFR. Either way tuner changed timing to account for it.

7. I need a wideband now so my tuner can set the appropriate AFR settings.

8. Stock Torque Converter believed to be holding me back on launches. My 60ft time is at 1.8+ which is high according to some people, that I should be able to get 1.6 to 1.7 60ft's. To me right now seems like a pipe dream.

10. Me not driving the car correctly... yet. aka Pilot error.

What was explained to me in my car's case seemed like whoever tuned it may have been an LS tuner and not someone as familiar with LT tuning. There are differences and nuances that can bork things up too.

And obviously your DA is working against you hard with 4000+ DA at 84 degrees F. Even at 85 degrees F here our DA might go up to 2900 give or take a few at the drag strip. But I've never seen a 4000 DA day where I live yet at least not at the drag strip. I'm sure they are there, I just don't pay attention to them enough to know how often it happens.

[CHASLT1]

Originally Posted by Germansheperd1

Without a higher stall converter and a way deeper gear i think that new combo would kill the low end and not be pleasant on the street.

I got a used V8 S10 with a big cam and it was dead from a stop. But at 3k rmp's came alive.

[Tim M]

I use dyno's to confirm power gains. Sometimes the gain is not expected and/or has discrepancies (valve float on one occasion).

Pay the $300 and get factual data from the same dyno and remain with that dyno (and operator). Other than the strip, it is the best comparison option.

I'd recommend putting the car on a scale with you and the fuel in it...get factual data. You might be surprised at the numbers. My 2018 1SS 1LE is 3641 pounds, no fuel/people.

Big cams do not encourage snappiness!

Good luck!

[Hostile_1LE]

I definitely still want to get on that dyno to see where I am at compared to stick and fbo e85. I’m very interested to see what e85 will do. And then after that, I’ll get to weight reduction.

[s346k]

i second the fact collection.

accurate weight
lose the passenger, get accurate 60-130
accurate weather data. NOT dragy provided info

also i presume you are shifting the car at a higher rpm? 9.76 was the time i showed my friends when i had a bolt on 18 ss 1LE ��. id be disappointed without a 7.anything. my car went 8.4x 60-130 with a raceweight over 3900 lb.

[Hostile_1LE]

Dragy info is pretty accurate. I have an app that calculates DA based on local weather data and dragy is typically within 2%. What was the DA when you went 9.7, and what were the mods and DA for your 8.4? I went 8.89 FBO E85, but the DA was -1400.

I’m shifting at 7000 rpm. I could got to like 7200 but I don’t think it’ll make much difference.

[FactoryMatt]

you should post before and after dynos so that we can compare the curves. is it the case that the ss3 needs more revs to make power? does it need larger headers?

[Hostile_1LE]

I have the old graphs in a drawer somewhere. When I take it back to the dyno, I will post all of them.