MoFO 4.1 - HHP High Flow Cats & S&B Frankentake II - RESULTS

**CoolVanilla** · 07-01-2006, 12:42 AM

~ The MoFO 4.1 ~
What: HHP High Flow Cats / S&B Frankentake II
When: This Friday, 6/30 9am-3pm 'ish
Where: SVS R&D, Sacramento CA - "The MythBreakers"

Here are the results:

Edited after digestion:
I probably should have let the numbers sit for a while and spoke with Matt first before publishing these. But, ya'll would have hung me from the rafters so I was screwed either way.

So here is the final word: it seems these cats are worth, on average, 9hp and 12trq! Runs #1 and #4 are the most comparable, as they were carried out on a "cool" car, with the same intake.

The other runs, #2, 3, 5, & 6 show us just how detrimental heat soak is, and should not be taken as gospel. The heat soak factor is just to prevalent to make these runs truly worth much. In future MoFO events, we will be making adjustments to minimize this effect.

More power + more sound = a must have mod.

**Meister** · 07-01-2006, 01:10 AM

Given that the graph with Robertson 30, 21 at the top depicts the hi-flow cats that's a very nice little gain of around 10 hp and 12 tq, with very sweetly expanded power and torque bands prior to gear shift, and a nice increase afterward.

No early fall off of either.

Looks sweet.

EDIT: However, the apparent gain shown in the graph isn't borne out by the number chart. So I'm not sure what the story is.

I'll sit down now and wait for CV.

**quinn** · 07-01-2006, 01:30 AM

Originally Posted by Meister

EDIT: However, the apparent gain shown in the graph isn't borne out by the number chart. So I'm not sure what the story is.

I'll sit down now and wait for CV.

That's what I was thinking, too. I'm probably just reading something wrong.

**CoolVanilla** · 07-01-2006, 02:15 AM

Ya gotta look closely at the graph... I know its hard to tell but the blue lines are after cats, and the red lines are before cats

{edited as my previous comments were misleading}

**Meister** · 07-01-2006, 02:34 AM

Originally Posted by CoolVanilla

...As with most all other mods leading up to this one, I get the feeling this is another "setting the stage" mod. Its not really worth much today in terms of performance, but its an absolute must if we ever truly crack this damn computer of ours...

I agree fully.

The great news is that, per Jeff & Ted (MSPC) Mopar Performance is soon to be releasing a modified PCM & TCM for use with their new cam, and their new heads, no doubt.

It was suggested, and certainly sounds plausible, that Mopar Performance found that the heads and cam weren't delivering the horsepower the engineers expected due to Hal, and had to domesticate a TCM & PCM to be able to attain their stated horsepower gains.

Breakthrough may be just around the corner. Stated release time is mid-July.

Here's the thread - see posts 81 & above: http://www.lxforums.com/board/showth...d=1#post403494

**MattRobertson** · 07-01-2006, 04:24 AM

I just flew in from Sacramento and boy are my arms tired.

Same with the rest of me.

Sorry for the initial confusion fellas. Jason and I probably should have talked to keep the stupefication to the usual level :-)

Group 1 was with the 'baseline' Typhoon intake. Same with Group 4, which was post-cats. So compare those two runs. 292.1 average horsepower versus 301.8. 314.7 tq versus 326. Boo-yah.

Groups 2 and 5 were with the Typhoon tube and the S&B filter. 3 and 6 were with the S&B and the WR #1 prototype tube.

One thing that was clear was that heat was kicking our ass. Even though engine temp was settling fast thanks both to the GSM mod being switched on and my readings from the ScanGuage (thanks again goes to NC-SXT for loaning it to me... time to get it sent back). We were just getting consistently crappier readings as we went forward and the thoughts from the guys at the shop were that heat was not our friend.

I'm not sure I would trust any of the secondary runs made on this day. And further I think we need to think hard on this for future testing to make sure it doesn't happen again. What I would trust is Groups 1 and 4, which are the ones which were made when the car had the most downtime.

There's a little more, including my driving impressions on the cats, but I'll save that stuff for a couple new threads.

**jarrod** · 07-01-2006, 10:36 AM

nice work.. thanks!

**RandomAccess** · 07-01-2006, 11:07 AM

First guys... Thanks for the great effort as usual!

I am however a little disappointed that the cats were changed at the same time as the breaks. Changing the rotatoinal mass is not really a clean test...

I am also still in denial that all these mods tested don't have a bigger affect.

Please don't take offense because it isn't meant to attack any of you who are going a great job... BUT... I think we need to get a second locatoin going for these types of tests.

We've all seen contradicting results from various individuals posting their runs... (and we've all seen the manufacturer's plots)

I just feel there HAS to be something unique to the way we are testing... maybe the operator... I don't know... I mean we see HUGE swings in max HP between test runs of the same setup... some variance Okay... but...

9 HP drop between run 15 and 16... I could buy heat soak... but then looking at 20 and 21 you have an INCREASE in HP on the same setup that was made back to back... So with heat soak you would expect to see a drop consistantly...

It might be a good idea to have a second location in the future as geographical, equiupment and operator diversity.

I don't know... what do you guys think?

**CoolVanilla** · 07-01-2006, 01:39 PM

I say the following very carefully, as I in no way mean this to be attacking. Its very hard to express a "discussive" tone over these boards.

Originally Posted by RandomAccess

I am however a little disappointed that the cats were changed at the same time as the breaks. Changing the rotatoinal mass is not really a clean test...

Quite true; its not as clean of a test as we might have hoped. But, remember, we did this exact thing on the dyno at the GIFO3, for the purposes to discovering if, at our power levels, rotational weight is an issue. We swapped out the stock 18" RT rims for 20" Diablo wishbone rims & tires. We absolutly showed ZERO difference in the dyno numbers.

Bottom line: At our power levels, rotational weight differences of a few pounds just is NOT a factor.

I am also still in denial that all these mods tested don't have a bigger affect.

Why? We've made far more significant mods over the GIFOs and shown very similar results. Our results also jive with more than one "speed expert's" expectation. The suprising thing would have been if we DID show a huge difference.

Hell, take a look at Heat Performance's issues with their new heads; they netted a whopping 10 hp with heads that should have netted 45ish or better. Granted this was on the 6.1L, but we share the PCM (for the most part)... that computer is truly becoming the single focus of our modding future.

Please don't take offense because it isn't meant to attack any of you who are going a great job... BUT... I think we need to get a second locatoin going for these types of tests.

We've all seen contradicting results from various individuals posting their runs... (and we've all seen the manufacturer's plots)

No offense taken. However, and I say this with love, the truth really does hurt sometimes. There is nothing wrong with our method. There is nothing wrong with the shop. There is nothing wrong with the dyno. There is nothing wrong with the operator. There is EVERYTHING wrong with our PCM's. It really is that simple.

I just feel there HAS to be something unique to the way we are testing... maybe the operator... I don't know... I mean we see HUGE swings in max HP between test runs of the same setup... some variance Okay... but...

Heat soak is a very real thing my friend. As Matt rightly points out, I think we need to take to heart runs 1 and 4 as our true cats difference runs. We are just too heat soaked from those runs forward to really know what's going on.

I'd like to drive home the following point regarding this subject: while heat soak is a huge problem, and we ought to look at ways of reducing it for further MoFO events, its actually the way we all drive every day. This in its self is really good to know as what I think most folks are interested in is how these mods are going to affect their driving experience. Since we drive with a hot engine, these results are what you want to see.

9 HP drop between run 15 and 16... I could buy heat soak... but then looking at 20 and 21 you have an INCREASE in HP on the same setup that was made back to back... So with heat soak you would expect to see a drop consistantly...

Between runs 20 and 21 was an intake swap, aka down time and therefore cooling time, thus reducing heat soak and therefore bringing the numbers back up. I'll clean up the chart to clarify this.

It might be a good idea to have a second location in the future as geographical, equiupment and operator diversity.

I don't know... what do you guys think?

I'm all for it! The more testing the better. However, we'd need to work extremely close together to ensure testing consistancy. We'd need the same make of dyno, same humidity and temp variables, same level of modded cars, same softwares, same... not impossible, but IMHO very improbable.

In truth guys, I firmly believe we can trust our process and its associated variables. We are using the best tools, the best people and trying for the best circumstances. I think, ultimately, our numbers are trustworthy and can be taken to heart. There is certainly a lot to be learned here and improved upon; but that doesn't mean the numbers above are off somehow.

**RobAGD** · 07-01-2006, 02:17 PM

I do have a question, why do all the phaphs for the dynos show MPH vs RPM for the range ?

How are the pulls actually made ?

Do they happen to have an on site weather station for temp, dew point, Alt etc ?

And this is done on a Superflow dyno correct ? i have done a lot of reading the the mustang and the DynoJets, I have been lacking on other types.

Just wondering.

-R

**CoolVanilla** · 07-01-2006, 02:25 PM

Originally Posted by RobAGD

I do have a question, why do all the phaphs for the dynos show MPH vs RPM for the range ?

How are the pulls actually made ?

I have to graph them this way cause our wonderful TCMs wont allow for a single gear pull. Thats why you see a dip in the power curve (gear shifting) as we climb the speed ladder.

I *could* plot the numbers vs RPM, but you'd end up with this (from the GIFO3):

Do they happen to have an on site weather station for temp, dew point, Alt etc ?

You betcha. All that info is buried in the dyno files that I've yet to make available. I need to check with my web guy first to ensure I share them in the right way

And this is done on a Superflow dyno correct ? i have done a lot of reading the the mustang and the DynoJets, I have been lacking on other types.

Yeppers. And as an aside, Bob always ensures we have a freshly calibrated dyno each and every time we schedule one of these MoFO's, so we are assured the dyno is reading most accurately.

**RobAGD** · 07-01-2006, 02:55 PM

Humm Matt has a Flash Pac correct ? Flash with Auto Kick OR Paddle hold and you can do a 3rd grea pull from about 2k no problems, we even did a pull in mine in 4th at 2k and it ran until it shifted to 5th 2 158-160mph.

As long as you have a base run where only product changes being tested this should keep the test clean.

We had all kinds of problems with the mustang dyno we were playing with this winter, but I put most of those problems on the heads of the operator not having a clue.

Given that the system has a weather station attached is it doing auto correction for that ? or are you getting ture raw numbers on each pass ?

-R

**HighHorseman** · 07-01-2006, 03:02 PM

Great job, guys! What a long day for all of you.

[Delete delete delete]

Joshua, HHP

**CoolVanilla** · 07-01-2006, 03:07 PM

Originally Posted by RobAGD

Humm Matt has a Flash Pac correct ? Flash with Auto Kick OR Paddle hold and you can do a 3rd grea pull from about 2k no problems, we even did a pull in mine in 4th at 2k and it ran until it shifted to 5th 2 158-160mph.

We've seen such a wide range of reactions to this very thing... it seemed every LX we had on the dyno behaved differently. I know you and I have talked about this before too; like how you can go into 5th at 15mph? I can't get anywhere close to that. (PS: What TCM version are you running? I'm now running the latest as per MagnumFreak and still can't do the 5th gear thing).

I don't think its an issue though. Other than a straight line graph... and besides, this actually helps show us how much of a difference the SC makes with our shift points.

As long as you have a base run where only product changes being tested this should keep the test clean...Given that the system has a weather station attached is it doing auto correction for that ? or are you getting ture raw numbers on each pass ?

Yep, these are STP corrected numbers. The dyno files contain all the raw data you could dream up. Once up on our server, you can download them and the DataView.exe reader and play with the settings forever. There are literally thousands of ways to view the raw data contained in the files. I've selected this one cause I think it presents the clearest picture for those less number savvy.

We had all kinds of problems with the mustang dyno we were playing with this winter, but I put most of those problems on the heads of the operator not having a clue.

No doubt. Thats why we've worked so hard to find a group of guys that really know what their doing and know their equipment. I'd challenge anyone to find a more experienced and knowledgeable group than SVS (home of the MoFOs).

**RobAGD** · 07-01-2006, 03:08 PM

Well Iw ould be all over this, but I have to work monday, I am free all day Tuesday though :D

Let me know, if you can schedule something, Ill be the test mule.

-R