[JANNETTYRACING]

Originally Posted by Kiefer

Somewhat looking into a badass NA setup. Not 100% sure yet over a procharger.

Essentially what you are asking for amounts to 75-85 RWHP base on the testing we have done on our superflow where Auto cars are 4 teens and manual cars are 420s RWHP

You need to make about 100 Crank HP more than stock at 46 lbs a minute/340 grams a second.

So you need 56 lbs a minute of air flow, or 425 Grams a Second.

Highly unlikely without the help of a good cam, our emissions cams just can't move the air needed.

So Unless you see a gain of 10 lbs a minute or 76 grams a second over stock it is not real.

The computer measures torque via the MAF air flow so we can always back reference it for HP providing it was calibrated correctly by your tuner.

Ted.

[SSTony]

^^^^It's science ^^^^

[PRAY]

I have picked up 120rw with my bolt on's and my ported heads on two different dyno's. The track in same weather proves the gains. My initial dyno numbers did suck for some reason. I attribute that to the stock tunes super aggressive KR and rich fueling.

With just bolt on's with the stock converter the car went 125 which backs up the high dyno's numbers (495/511rw) for the weight of my car.

You can't compare pre converter and post converter mph and dyno numbers really but that is how they lay out.

[PRAY]

Originally Posted by JANNETTYRACING

Essentially what you are asking for amounts to 75-85 RWHP base on the testing we have done on our superflow where Auto cars are 4 teens and manual cars are 420s RWHP

You need to make about 100 Crank HP more than stock at 46 lbs a minute/340 grams a second.

So you need 56 lbs a minute of air flow, or 425 Grams a Second.

Highly unlikely without the help of a good cam, our emissions cams just can't move the air needed.

So Unless you see a gain of 10 lbs a minute or 76 grams a second over stock it is not real.

The computer measures torque via the MAF air flow so we can always back reference it for HP providing it was calibrated correctly by your tuner.

Ted.

Ted, thanks for the technical input. Question, if I want to go back and look at my logs from stock to now with your comparison, I need to look at my MAF g/sec correct? If that is directly correlated to my MAF Frq/hz and that is effected by weather, will the testing need to be in same weather scenarios? Sorry for the question but I think your experience and answers will benefit all of us.

Looking back at some of my logs my MAF frq/hz was around 8,300 and g/sec was 320ish stock. Now MAF frq/hz is 9K and the g/sec is 410ish. I am thinking that the commanded fuel ratio would have something to do with this as well? I am also supposing that VVE tuning will effect these numbers. So a lower/leaner VVE table would require a fatter MAF curve. If the stock tune is commanding 12.5 AFR that would require more g/sec. If you tune your VVE curve correctly you could require less MAF g/sec for final tuning. Especially if you are now commanding 13.0. What I don't know is how pump gas to E85 effects things. E85 can yield an extra 25-30rw that the MAF won't see as extra air. All of my stock stuff was on pump gas and all of my latest stuff is on E85.

[JANNETTYRACING]

Originally Posted by PRAY

Ted, thanks for the technical input. Question, if I want to go back and look at my logs from stock to now with your comparison, I need to look at my MAF g/sec correct? If that is directly correlated to my MAF Frq/hz and that is effected by weather, will the testing need to be in same weather scenarios? Sorry for the question but I think your experience and answers will benefit all of us.

Looking back at some of my logs my MAF frq/hz was around 8,300 and g/sec was 320ish stock. Now MAF frq/hz is 9K and the g/sec is 410ish. I am thinking that the commanded fuel ratio would have something to do with this as well? I am also supposing that VVE tuning will effect these numbers. So a lower/leaner VVE table would require a fatter MAF curve. If the stock tune is commanding 12.5 AFR that would require more g/sec. If you tune your VVE curve correctly you could require less MAF g/sec for final tuning. Especially if you are now commanding 13.0. What I don't know is how pump gas to E85 effects things. E85 can yield an extra 25-30rw that the MAF won't see as extra air. All of my stock stuff was on pump gas and all of my latest stuff is on E85.

This may get a little confusing but I will do my best to add to this conversation and hopefully get my point across in English.

You have to back the fuel out of the equation as we know different fuels make different power, if you put Nitro in the tank we can probably double the power for example.

Any fuels that carry they're own oxygen can't be used for this example.

All of my data is based on gasoline, which is Knock Limited on a LT-1 on 93 octane pump gas.

This is where you can find about 25-30 RWHP on E-85, because you can achieve MBT without Knock interference.

If the ECM is commanding .86 and your wide band reads .86 at every data point we can assume your MAF readings are Accurate, the VE tables will have no affect on this.

We know it takes 1 lb. of air per minute ( 7.55987 grams per second) to make 10 HP and it does not stray much from that number more efficient engines may crest this number less efficient engines will fall short of this number.

Again it comes down to how well your MAF is calibrated to start.

If your MAF reports 320 gr per second you can expect about 425 Crank HP which would be about 374 RWHP using .88 as drivetrain loss Estimate.

If you are now reporting 410 and your MAF is dialed in you are making about 510 at the crank or 448 at the wheels using the same .88 factor.

Essentially you pick up 85 Crank HP over a low reading LT-1

But only 50 Crank HP over a good running stock LT-1 which I believe to make all of 460 Crank HP based on all my testing.

Again leaving E-85 out of the equation.

If your MAF is not dialed in then it is a moot point and all the dream numbers go out the window.

Something else you should know is Knock will reduce Airflow, and Timing will change air flow if the further you get from MBT.

[PRAY]

Originally Posted by JANNETTYRACING

This may get a little confusing but I will do my best to add to this conversation and hopefully get my point across in English.

You have to back the fuel out of the equation as we know different fuels make different power, if you put Nitro in the tank we can probably double the power for example.

Any fuels that carry they're own oxygen can't be used for this example.

All of my data is based on gasoline, which is Knock Limited on a LT-1 on 93 octane pump gas.

This is where you can find about 25-30 RWHP on E-85, because you can achieve MBT without Knock interference.

If the ECM is commanding .86 and your wide band reads .86 at every data point we can assume your MAF readings are Accurate, the VE tables will have no affect on this.

We know it takes 1 lb. of air per minute ( 7.55987 grams per second) to make 10 HP and it does not stray much from that number more efficient engines may crest this number less efficient engines will fall short of this number.

Again it comes down to how well your MAF is calibrated to start.

If your MAF reports 320 gr per second you can expect about 425 Crank HP which would be about 374 RWHP using .88 as drivetrain loss Estimate.

If you are now reporting 410 and your MAF is dialed in you are making about 510 at the crank or 448 at the wheels using the same .88 factor.

Essentially you pick up 85 Crank HP over a low reading LT-1

But only 50 Crank HP over a good running stock LT-1 which I believe to make all of 460 Crank HP based on all my testing.

Again leaving E-85 out of the equation.

If your MAF is not dialed in then it is a moot point and all the dream numbers go out the window.

Something else you should know is Knock will reduce Airflow.

You nailed the rwhp. It made 376rw stock. Now I am at 498rw on the same dyno.

[JANNETTYRACING]

Originally Posted by PRAY

You nailed the rwhp. It made 376rw stock.

I edited my post a little so scan through it again.

[PRAY]

Originally Posted by JANNETTYRACING

I edited my post a little so scan through it again.

Great information as usual. I always learn something from your posts.

I usually go with what it made on the dyno and ran at the track from mod to mod to validate them. I just know that I have adjusted the VVE table and MAF curve from stock and I wasn't sure how they tied together with your post. I get it now. Having the technical side is great.

[EFI Tuning]

Originally Posted by PRAY

You nailed the rwhp. It made 376rw stock. Now I am at 498rw on the same dyno.

Who needs a calibrated MAF???

I know someone that doesn't even need a MAP sensor

LOL

[BradfordCamaro]

Another bunch of posts from the experts that make no sense to me...
..let me have a couple more Jack and cokes and read them again...

[JCunningham]

and if porting heads you might as well do a cam. If your going to do a cam might as well do ported heads