Jump to content
TEAM SHELBY FORUM

Rat's Ride


ratnacage

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 179
  • Created
  • Last Reply
:hysterical::hysterical:

 

ok, GPM? :hysterical2:

 

Well, cruising at 80 I was averaging 22 mpg...before the cams. Now it's more like 18 mpg. I figure that will improve slightly with the 295/45's. At highway speed it drops the RPM by about 200 - just enough to drop it below the gas guzzling part of the air/fuel/load map...I think. This could be an entire topic unto itself. Has anyone noticed a distinct change in engine characteristics above and below about 3000 rpm? I'm talking about normal driving (part throttle, not WOT)?

 

Consider how far along we've come with technology. I mean, I'm making close to 400 hp with 4.10's and I'm getting 18 mpg on the highway even at a "brisk" pace with the AC running. 40 years ago a 400 hp car with 4.10's would be lucky to get 18 downhill and no AC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, cruising at 80 I was averaging 22 mpg...before the cams. Now it's more like 18 mpg. I figure that will improve slightly with the 295/45's. At highway speed it drops the RPM by about 200 - just enough to drop it below the gas guzzling part of the air/fuel/load map...I think. This could be an entire topic unto itself. Has anyone noticed a distinct change in engine characteristics above and below about 3000 rpm? I'm talking about normal driving (part throttle, not WOT)?

 

Consider how far along we've come with technology. I mean, I'm making close to 400 hp with 4.10's and I'm getting 18 mpg on the highway even at a "brisk" pace with the AC running. 40 years ago a 400 hp car with 4.10's would be lucky to get 18 downhill and no AC.

 

For sure... if I babied it, I'd get about 20 with the '68 R-code at 65mph, but that was 325bHP (old method) or maybe 260crank by today's rating. That was with 3.00 gears and no OD so nearly comparable to 4.10s in 6th (with .69 OD and same tire diameter ) -- 60mph was at 1,800 or so if I recall, so the older tires must have been just a bit taller (F70-14s <lol>). So you're making about 50% more power and getting similar milage....and less than 1/100th of the nasty emissions! Not too shabby ;-)

 

Dan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I promised a video, but sorry, I didn't make it on the dyno today. There was a 600 hp ricer and 600 hp Fox body ahead of me and they took too long, but it was fun to watch. Should go on tomorrow (Saturday). But, I did also promise a full side view with all the new tires, so I did get that.

 

Since I mentioned rice...the one on the dyno today is one I can respect. Not because of it's outrageous hp (not to mention its 2200 lb weight!!), but it was a nice clean little black Civic hatchback completely devoid of ridiculous "R" emblems, spoilers, stickers, etc. Just a clean purposeful ricer, uh, I mean car. I even complimented the guy and mentioned that cars like his were the ones we need to look out for because it was obvious all the money was spent on things we can't see! The ricer dynoed at 550 fwhp, all on a turbo'd 1.8L 4-cylinder! Crazy!

 

Edit: thanks for all the compliments!

post-5356-1176526983_thumb.jpg

post-5356-1176526983_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's the dyno Video: 342 rwhp, 322 rwtq (previous best 341/313)

 

If I may take a very convenient liberty, it gained HP and TQ even with the larger tires in back, so I'm going to take the easy way out and say the engine is making 400 hp. At 341 (previous) that equates to 392 engine HP (15% std drive train loss), so I figure if the larger tires caused at least a 2% drop in drive train efficiency, then 342 rwhp = 400 engine hp (it's my party I can do whatever I want :hysterical2: )

 

 

(may take a while to finish "processing" before the video is available for viewing)

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3727562242206882486

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's the dyno Video: 342 rwhp, 322 rwtq (previous best 341/313)

 

If I may take a very convenient liberty, it gained HP and TQ even with the larger tires in back, so I'm going to take the easy way out and say the engine is making 400 hp. At 341 (previous) that equates to 392 engine HP (15% std drive train loss), so I figure if the larger tires caused at least a 2% drop in drive train efficiency, then 342 rwhp = 400 engine hp (it's my party I can do whatever I want :hysterical2: )

(may take a while to finish "processing" before the video is available for viewing)

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3727562242206882486

 

Hey, good numbers man! It sounds mean. I may not have counted the shifts right but looks like he made the dyno pull in 3rd gear. You have the 5sp manual?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, good numbers man! It sounds mean. I may not have counted the shifts right but looks like he made the dyno pull in 3rd gear. You have the 5sp manual?

 

Yes, it's a manual - he skipped third, run was made in fourth gear.

 

Moab: The Roush spoiler bolts to the factory locations on the trunk, but you need to drill the rear qtr panels for the end pieces. The spoiler comes with a template and you can use the original rubber pads if they don't get too torn up during removal of the stock spoiler (they're very sticky). If Josh does it for you (he did mine, I highly recomend him again), he will not reuse the factory pads. He's extraordinarilly anal, and he removes the factory pads (a HUGE PITA), and then uses the fresh pads supplied with the kit.

 

The main purpose of todays tuning was really to figure out the flat spot around 2250-2750 rpm under part throttle. He fixed it to the point where it is no longer annoying (it's now only present at 2450-2550 rpm). When I get more time, we'll tinker with it some more, but the source of the issue is the computer wanting to zero out the cam timing under cruise conditions. This is normal and with milder cams it's not as much of an issue.

 

We made several pulls and each time the curve virtually superimposed itself on the previous pull's curve - very, very repeatable performance. His printer wasn't working so I need to get him to e-mail it or I'll get him to put it on a flash drive. When I get it, I'll post it here. The curves are very smooth and torque comes up very quickly (thank you Ford for variable valve timing!!). To answer a previous question from 90GT, the butt-o-meter says there's gobs of low end torque. High end torque is equally as impressive; normally when I would down shift aggressively (landing me at about 4500 rpm), with the stock cams you could definitely feel the torque falling fast, but with these cams I can down shift into a high rpm situation and it still pulls like a mad-dog all the way to 7k (it really caught me off guard the first time I did it - almost had to change my undies).

 

I have to say I'm extremely happy with the way this car's turned out so far. After I hit the lottery, we're going to do the heads. :happy feet:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, it's a manual - he skipped third, run was made in fourth gear.

 

Moab: The Roush spoiler bolts to the factory locations on the trunk, but you need to drill the rear qtr panels for the end pieces. The spoiler comes with a template and you can use the original rubber pads if they don't get too torn up during removal of the stock spoiler (they're very sticky). If Josh does it for you (he did mine, I highly recomend him again), he will not reuse the factory pads. He's extraordinarilly anal, and he removes the factory pads (a HUGE PITA), and then uses the fresh pads supplied with the kit.

 

The main purpose of todays tuning was really to figure out the flat spot around 2250-2750 rpm under part throttle. He fixed it to the point where it is no longer annoying (it's now only present at 2450-2550 rpm). When I get more time, we'll tinker with it some more, but the source of the issue is the computer wanting to zero out the cam timing under cruise conditions. This is normal and with milder cams it's not as much of an issue.

 

We made several pulls and each time the curve virtually superimposed itself on the previous pull's curve - very, very repeatable performance. His printer wasn't working so I need to get him to e-mail it or I'll get him to put it on a flash drive. When I get it, I'll post it here. The curves are very smooth and torque comes up very quickly (thank you Ford for variable valve timing!!). To answer a previous question from 90GT, the butt-o-meter says there's gobs of low end torque. High end torque is equally as impressive; normally when I would down shift aggressively (landing me at about 4500 rpm), with the stock cams you could definitely feel the torque falling fast, but with these cams I can down shift into a high rpm situation and it still pulls like a mad-dog all the way to 7k (it really caught me off guard the first time I did it - almost had to change my undies).

 

I have to say I'm extremely happy with the way this car's turned out so far. After I hit the lottery, we're going to do the heads. :happy feet:

 

 

Nice numbers Rat!!! Glad to see you finally hit that magic 400hp mark!!! :happy feet: :happy feet: :happy feet:

 

Now I have some thing to model my car after. :hysterical2::hysterical2::hysterical2:

 

No but seriously, I'll be doing a lot of what you had done to your car except for the cams. I know you say your combo lost no low end torque but the dyno I posted from May's 5.0 Mustang and Superfords showed huge losses in low end power below 3800 rpm. This was with FRPP's CNC 3V heads and Comp Cams Stage 3 cams. Here's the graph just for comparison when you post yours:

 

post-6180-1176670581_thumb.jpg

 

Overall they gained 48hp and 39 ft lbs of torque but below 3500 rpms they had losses of up to 20+ ft lbs of torque. I'm a torque junky and have issues with loses like that. Your 4.10's may offset some of the loss but I plan to keep the stock 3:55's so I'll notice it more.

 

Any way, different strokes for different folks!!! It will be interesting to see how my numbers will compare to yours.

post-6180-1176670581_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No but seriously, I'll be doing a lot of what you had done to your car except for the cams. I know you say your combo lost no low end torque but the dyno I posted from May's 5.0 Mustang and Superfords showed huge losses in low end power below 3800 rpm. This was with FRPP's CNC 3V heads and Comp Cams Stage 3 cams. Here's the graph just for comparison when you post yours:

 

The results of that head/cam combination show why you can't just select parts individually, but they must be selected as a package. The Comp Cams website does recommend a higher gear ratio when using the stage 3 cams. I suspect the torque spread has something to do with that. However, if you're racing and your car ever sees less than 3500 rpm during that race, you've already lost! Realistically, when racing, you launch at 2-3k rpm, or you launch from idle if you have serious traction issues. In any case, you blow through 3500 rpm virtually instantly, and as you shift through the gears, your engine will never see that lower rpm range again, so I'd say that the loss of torque below 3500 rpm is a non-issue. The gains in torque provided by that combination are right in the range your engine needs it most (4500-6500) while blasting down the track, thus I'd have to conclude that the combinantion selected will beat the stock combination in the qtr mile. I'll be interested to see how my graph compares to stock across the entire range though. Having said that, my cams are not the stage 3 (mine are more aggressive in every measure) and my heads are not ported, so it will be interesting to see how they compare.

 

If you're a torque junky, I don't understand why you'd want to stay with 3.55 gears - doesn't make sense. Why not at least go to 3.73? A gear swap is one of the most effective and least expensive mods available. I love my 4.10's and I had the same reservations that most people have about going that high, but by themselves, they cause no problems with daily driving or mileage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The results of that head/cam combination show why you can't just select parts individually, but they must be selected as a package. The Comp Cams website does recommend a higher gear ratio when using the stage 3 cams. I suspect the torque spread has something to do with that. However, if you're racing and your car ever sees less than 3500 rpm during that race, you've already lost! Realistically, when racing, you launch at 2-3k rpm, or you launch from idle if you have serious traction issues. In any case, you blow through 3500 rpm virtually instantly, and as you shift through the gears, your engine will never see that lower rpm range again, so I'd say that the loss of torque below 3500 rpm is a non-issue. The gains in torque provided by that combination are right in the range your engine needs it most (4500-6500) while blasting down the track, thus I'd have to conclude that the combinantion selected will beat the stock combination in the qtr mile. I'll be interested to see how my graph compares to stock across the entire range though. Having said that, my cams are not the stage 3 (mine are more aggressive in every measure) and my heads are not ported, so it will be interesting to see how they compare.

 

If you're a torque junky, I don't understand why you'd want to stay with 3.55 gears - doesn't make sense. Why not at least go to 3.73? A gear swap is one of the most effective and least expensive mods available. I love my 4.10's and I had the same reservations that most people have about going that high, but by themselves, they cause no problems with daily driving or mileage.

 

 

My problem is I'm coming from a 03 Cobra which had gobs of torque avail at any rpm. I don't want to get 4.10's because my car is driven on the highway and I like the relaxed cruising at highway speeds. Going with 3.73's isn't worth the expense in my opinion because the performance increase from 3.55's will be marginal.

 

I'm not saying what you did with your car is wrong, just that we have different wants as far as the performance from our cars. Your car puts down some strong numbers and I'm sure it's a blast to drive. The cams I'm going with are the Crower Stage 2 cams, see how they compare to the cams you used.

 

Crower Cams

 

The stage 2's are advertised with a rpm range from 1200 - 6200 rpms. I think the Comp Cams Stage 3's are 2500 - 7000 rpm but don't quote me on that. If your cams are more agressive than the Comp stage 3's then that's a pretty healthy cam.

 

Like I said, it will be cool to compare numbers and dyno graphs once I start doing my power mods. Right now I still have a few more things I want to do to the suspension and then get a aluminum 1 piece drive shaft.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My problem is I'm coming from a 03 Cobra which had gobs of torque avail at any rpm. I don't want to get 4.10's because my car is driven on the highway and I like the relaxed cruising at highway speeds. Going with 3.73's isn't worth the expense in my opinion because the performance increase from 3.55's will be marginal.

 

I'm not saying what you did with your car is wrong, just that we have different wants as far as the performance from our cars. Your car puts down some strong numbers and I'm sure it's a blast to drive. The cams I'm going with are the Crower Stage 2 cams, see how they compare to the cams you used.

 

Crower Cams

 

The stage 2's are advertised with a rpm range from 1200 - 6200 rpms. I think the Comp Cams Stage 3's are 2500 - 7000 rpm but don't quote me on that. If your cams are more agressive than the Comp stage 3's then that's a pretty healthy cam.

 

Like I said, it will be cool to compare numbers and dyno graphs once I start doing my power mods. Right now I still have a few more things I want to do to the suspension and then get a aluminum 1 piece drive shaft.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not criticizing you nor did I think your were criticizing me. It's all good, I was just curious about your direction. :headspin:

 

From that link, spec-wise, my cams are similar to the Crower stage 3's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't get me wrong, I'm not criticizing you nor did I think your were criticizing me. It's all good, I was just curious about your direction. :headspin:

 

From that link, spec-wise, my cams are similar to the Crower stage 3's.

 

 

Some times I wonder what direction I'm heading myself............ :headspin::headspin::headspin:

 

 

:hysterical2::hysterical2::hysterical2:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

It's been awhile, huh?

 

I just got the delete plates installed today and when it came time to also apply some new tuning tricks for the cams, we found my SCT tuner was crapped out. So any new tuning will have to wait until I find out if it's fixable or if I have to get a new tuner.

 

HOWEVER...

 

Just to make sure everything was still running right after the deletes were installed we did one pull on the dyno. So keep in mind no tuning, it was over 90F and horribly humid (it is Houston), but it still managed to put 350 (actually 350.2) to the wheels and 329 lb-ft tq. Previous best was 342 rwhp.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • 1 year later...
What ever happened to Rat ?

 

Wow, Rob, this thread petered out 14 months ago. But, good question none-the-less. Rat's a good guy and I haven't heard from him in a long time.

 

He worked at a Ford dealership, if I remember correctly. With all the dealerships going out of business, I hope he hasn't been negatively affected!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...
...