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

[RobAGD]

Woops that posted up kinda weird.

Well the reason I like to see RPM vs speed, is that give ( I think ) an better idea of whats going on under the curve. it will show in the MPH as well, but because the strech of the graph its a little easier to follow.

Ok so with the station, its alway going to correct to sea level ? You may want to look at whats it is correcting to as well.

I'll tinker a little with the dyno files I have from my header install and see how the graphs look in MPH vs Matts.

Thanks for all the hard work guys, I am a question asking kinda person, I just didn't want to come off like I didn't trust your work. Just making suggestion and offing ideas.

-Robert

PS - Us East Coast guys just think your westies dont like making power

[CoolVanilla]

Rob, PM me your email address and I'll send over the files and reader. Please do dig into them... I'd very interested to hear you opinion.

PS: I get the feeling Josh is ready to run today, if you are.

[CoolVanilla]

...though a little disappointing we'll all agree

I dunno Josh... 9hp/12trq is pretty impressive...

[MattRobertson]

Great job, guys! What a long day for all of you. Great work, though a little disappointing we'll all agree.

What CV said on the gains. You did better than you expected. I am guessing you looked at the first post and didn't find mine made a few hours later when I got back and onto a computer?

Incidentally I tried PM'ing you yesterday to tell you that you did well, but your PM box was full. Clean that sucker out!

As to the rotational weight, I will let CoolVanilla's comments on that stand for the most part. GIFO3 demonstrated this quite nicely. Something not widely published but interesting nonetheless was that David from FactoryDUSA tested a 3.5-litre 300 on the dyno with stock wheels and 22's as part of his V6 Weapon-R dyno testing... and he got a pretty nasty power loss. So while rotational mass is not a nonexistent factor for everything, it is not a measurably meaningful factor with 5.7's on anything we have been able to throw at them thus far, or are likely to in a real-world situation.

If I recall correctly, ToddTCE told me that the brake kits would be a bit LIGHTER than stock. I'll check on that and save specifics for another thread. I am guessing (and that is IT, based on picking up the boxes) that I lost 15 lbs across all *four* wheels. Thats less than a wheel swap by a fair bit, but we'll see if that count holds up.

While it may seem self-serving to say so, I can't help but doubly agree with CV's assessment of splitting up the dyno time to multiple shops. If you want to create a scenario where two different sets of data tell you two different things, then change everything around. You just can't do it and expect to get usable results. If you want to run a genuinely scientific test you have to have a control of ALL of your variables.

And one of those is frequency. We should mandate an interval between test groups based on temperature. Thats going to drive the cost of shop time up but its the only way to eliminate heat as an issue. From what I saw, I was able to cool the engine down pretty good after about 15 minutes with first the GSM fan and later that and the shop fan on the engine. We should spend a little independent time figuring out how long it takes to cool the engine off between tests, and make that a part of the standard. Unfortunately, in the past this has been something left to chance, but now that we've got things like extra intake sensors and experience at fast swaps, we may have shot ourselves in the foot with respect to making the process too easy.

EDIT:

As to locking the car into a gear. At this point, should we change testing methods and blow out all of the historical data we have to go on? Right now we can pull curves that were run at GIFO1 and line them right up against runs made today (thanks to the magic of software). We'd lose that if we switched. I know its not the norm for testing but its all we had for a long time and I think we might consider sticking with it. I'll leave that decision to those of you who are smarter than I on these things.

Speaking of which, CV can you post a comparison graph of my best first dyno run at GIFO2 versus the best from Group 4 yesterday? That might be interesting to see.

[CoolVanilla]

First post updated. I've edited my comments, hoping to clear up confusion by removing stuff I said that was just plain wrong. Sorry guys.

[RobAGD]

EDIT:

As to locking the car into a gear. At this point, should we change testing methods and blow out all of the historical data we have to go on? Right now we can pull curves that were run at GIFO1 and line them right up against runs made today (thanks to the magic of software). We'd lose that if we switched. I know its not the norm for testing but its all we had for a long time and I think we might consider sticking with it. I'll leave that decision to those of you who are smarter than I on these things.

Speaking of which, CV can you post a comparison graph of my best first dyno run at GIFO2 versus the best from Group 4 yesterday? That might be interesting to see.

I don't think you would be throwing all the old data out the window, you are just making a slight change at the testing run, and as long as you have a solid base when you do that for the days tests that will keep A & B the same except for the tested items.

Also give that your a lot better off doing a pull in one gear vs over 2 for consistant numbers and you dont have to worry about multiplyers from the trans and gears ( unless the shop programs those into the dyno software to account for that )

Just some ideas

-R

[HighHorseman]

Awesome! You guys had me a little worried there with the first few posts.

9hp and 12trq, assumed to be rear wheel (?), that's even better than we originally expected. Nice work, guys!


Too bad we can't go max to min with the 17 horsepower gain and the 21.5 trq gain, lol. When we're out in Cali this fall, first rounds on us.
Enjoy your weekend!

Joshua, HHP

[MattRobertson]

Just some ideas

Keep 'em coming Rob! We need people to check whats going on at every step.


I don't know what CV will come up with for MoFO 5, but I am pretty sure whatever the testing protocol is, it will be different based on what we saw yesterday, which is good. We're slowly evolving the process to sew it up tighter and tighter.

Speaking of which I have to take some of the blame for that early confusion. I have CV's cell number and I could have called him if I had thought to do it. Was a long day for me and I'm afraid I was more focused on getting the hell out of Dodge . I actually didn't realize so many people were hounding CV.

[HighHorseman]

So, just to have a little fun with it. As CV earlier said that he expects he has around a 2 mpg increase, at $3.49 a gallon, going from 22 to 24 mpg, these cats pay for themselves in only 1039.8 gallons. With a 19 gallon tank, that's only 54.7 fillups and after that you're saving 1.4277 cents per mile.

Yes, PER MILE! I know, that's incredible.

We're creating pandemonium here. I better stop. lol

[Meister]

...these cats pay for themselves in only 1039.8 gallons. With a 19 gallon tank, that's only 54.7 fillups and after that you're saving 1.4277 cents per mile...

Which equals right around a year, maybe less, for the majority of us, Josh.

Not too shabby, GI!

[desquirrel]

If you drive 12000 mi a year, you'll save $150/yr, so they better be real cheap or he better "think" the mileage difference is much higher. Or hope the wife is poor at math.

[Mosie]

... 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...

You bring up some good points RandomAccess. buy I agree with CV on what wsa said about the heat soak in the earlier post. I was there during the testing of the second series of runs. We were all cheering in the booth after the first set up of runs hit over 300HP!

The next few runs, weren’t the same.

Being a musician for over 25 years, I relied on my hearing and have really fine tuned 'what' to listen for. The folks in the booth, even the other SVS guys, we all looked at each other (especially the run that didn't break the 290 range) they didn't sound right. They sounded good, strong and all that, but not the same as the healthy runs earlier. The tone coming from the engine had changed a bit. Almost choked or held back. I believe a lot of it was heat soak.

Another thing on this, taking off the all metal tubing of the WeaponR, was too hot to hold! The Typhoon is some sort of flexible rubberized elbow that is closest to the engine... so... maybe that had a hand in it too...?
don't know... I'm just a drummer

[revdoctor]

Great data, CV!

Any chance I could get at the raw data (and viewer)?

Thanks

[RandomAccess]

I want to be very clear... I'm not trying to discredit anyone's work... and I want to make sure that everyone understands... as CV put it.. I'm not attacking just having a discussion. I know CV knows that... but I don't want to be on anyone else's S list... if you know what I mean...


I'm particularly commenting on the swing that we get and differences between the cars... Maybe it is a wide variety of PCM versions that are putting out different or inconsistant behavior... I don't think it is the testing methods, or impacted by anyone participating from this forum... But perhaps something out of our control...

I just think having a second location could weed out any Location related affects on the swings.

I also disagree that it would be improbable. As long as we have a baseline of the vehicle, and the "after" of whatever is being tested... in the same way the westies are doing it...

And... RobAGD... I do think it should be done on the east side to have geographical diversity.

[MattRobertson]

...I just think having a second location could weed out any Location related affects on the swings...

But you would be introducing *so* many more new variables... None of which can be avoided. And you wouldn't be eliminating location-related effects. Just exchanging yours for ours. If there are any such variables, they are consistently there, and a consistent, repeatable experiment is critical to a valid scientific method. West coast or East, there can be only one lab in my opinion.