"Rufs Garage"

[RUFDRAFT]

Conspiracy going on? Error code on the Brenspeed link? Hm.....interesting.

 

90 - my tech at Pecheles Ford was offered a job working for Dale Earnhardt, Inc building engines. Do you think he put the cams in right? I do.

 

I'll learn on Thursday about the octane tune. No pinging. No knock. No response today from Brenspeed.

 

Hopefully all this will be fixed on Thursday.

 

My money is on my Ford Master Tech. He doesn't mess around.

 

Do I like suspense? Oh, Daddy.

 

I have faith that Brenspeed will take appropriate actions if it turns out they're at fault here. I"m sure they're reputation is important to them. I'll place no blame until the facts are in.

 

I should have copied and printed their screen that said 347 hp with the bolt ons I have. The only bolt on I don't have that they suggested is the long tube headers.

 

Edit - matter of fact - I did print off their web page claiming 347. Imagine that.

[carnut]

 

:hyper: :hyper: :hyper:

[moabman]

I also don't think that your tech installed them wrong and I would give him a bottle of wine to keep him happy :happy feet:

 

Look, your graph shows that the engine was heading towards 327 rwhp until it hit 5000 + rpm. If the cams were installed wrong, I don't think you would have seen the normal looking curve at the lower rpms (no NASCAR team has asked me to work for them, however ).

 

I'm betting that the canned tune wasn't installed "properly" with the variables set to take advantage of all that air and fuel getting to the cylinders from the CAI and cams. In fact, I agree with all the folks who are guessing that the computer is limiting the power by yanking timing or monkeying with the fuel injector duty cycle as ordered by the tune in an mistaken effort to protect the engine.

 

I personally would be happy with 327 vs 347 rwhp - it's in the ballpark and we know the claims are hyped. What would worry me more is their reluctance to give you detailed instructions and meaningful advice and help.

 

Hang in there and I'm sure it will get straightened out Thursday.

[90GT]

Conspiracy going on? Error code on the Brenspeed link? Hm.....interesting.

 

90 - my tech at Pecheles Ford was offered a job working for Dale Earnhardt, Inc building engines. Do you think he put the cams in right? I do.

 

I'll learn on Thursday about the octane tune. No pinging. No knock. No response today from Brenspeed.

 

Hopefully all this will be fixed on Thursday.

 

My money is on my Ford Master Tech. He doesn't mess around.

 

Do I like suspense? Oh, Daddy.

 

I have faith that Brenspeed will take appropriate actions if it turns out they're at fault here. I"m sure they're reputation is important to them. I'll place no blame until the facts are in.

 

I should have copied and printed their screen that said 347 hp with the bolt ons I have. The only bolt on I don't have that they suggested is the long tube headers.

 

Edit - matter of fact - I did print off their web page claiming 347. Imagine that.

 

 

 

If it's not the install then it has to be some thing with the tune. Keep us posted!!!

[68fastback]

 

 

Edit - matter of fact - I did print off their web page claiming 347. Imagine that.

 

 

I'm sure it's just a generic pic, but it seems odd that they would show a cam for a Ford pushrod smallblock motor in their writeup for the 4.6 3V GT.

 

Well, at least we know they didn't ship the one in the picture <lol> I'm sure they know what they're doing -- just seems like poor marketing to show the wrong cam, don't ya think?

 

Ruf, fyi.. here's another site that gives more detailed info on the Comp cams:

http://www.motoblue.com/05gtknn.htm

 

I noticed that the Comp cams are specifically designed to accommmodate the 4.6's VCT programming, to wit:

In addition, by advancing the camshaft timing at low rpm but maintaining similar intake valve closing points, improved throttle responsiveness was gained. Working with the VCT, which is programmed to retard the engine timing at peak power, COMP Cams® new Ford 3 valve cams optimize both low and high rpm performance.

 

Given that, the tune would have to be specific to these cams used with VCT -- if not, that may account for problem (dunno -- just a thought).

 

Good luck, my friend -- they'll get to the bottom of it. It's gotta be something simple -- possibly Motoblue has seen this problem before ...their techline is (281) 261-6244

 

Keep smilin'

-Dan

[RUFDRAFT]

You guys have been a valuable resource for me (and for all the others who view these posts!).

 

What keeps me going is knowing that all this intel might help others with their plans to "pump" up their Mustangs!

 

We'll get this worked out. Of that, be sure!

 

Thanks to all of you for your expertise. I'll be driving into the dyno-tune guy an informed rider!

 

Hopefully, the ride home will be a sweet one!

 

Y'all Rock, you hear?

 

 

Edit: Roller Boy - I'm gonna hit you real hard on your arm next time I see you.

[moabman]

That's a nice find 68.

 

Ruf now I'm sure it's not the cam because the stage III's are supposed to open up exactly where your curves flattened. It was also a good idea that you got the 4.10's according to the literature. It also says it needs custom computer programming and that doesn't mean a canned SCT 87 octane tune. Bingo!

 

You did install the new valve springs didn't you?

[RUFDRAFT]

Affirmative on the valve springs!

 

Can I skip Wed and go right to Thurs?

 

I've been very - very patient. I want to Rock! :hyper:

[moabman]

woah baby - once you get the tune and that baby hits 5000 it's going to jump out from underneath you and leave you pinned in the seat. You are very close and I may have underestimated the final number!

[ratnacage]

Yes, Ruf, the only error I can see throughout is the fact that there has been no custom tune done. I think you can rest easy - you won't believe what a huge difference a custom tune can do. You wouldn't think just changing some one's and zero's would do anything, but the impact on the operation of the engine management system is huge.

 

The following is true of many performance parts vendors: they are trying to sell you a part. It may be a very good part, but if they also say that in addition to the parts you have to do all this other stuff, then maybe you'll think twice and not buy it...because when you flip the page, there's someone else's ad that says bolt on an easy 20hp. It's Sales 101. That doesn't mean the cams won't produce the claimed HP, but you just have to be realistic about what it will take to make them sing.

 

CASE IN POINT: there are no 375 hp hotrods that run on 87 octane - but with today's fuel prices, that assurance sounds good to a lot of people. What they're really saying is, "you can put 87 in the tank and it will still run." Really, you can feed it crap gas all day long because it has knock sensors to save the day.

[ratnacage]

Ok, I'm going to go out on a limb here, but a short limb I think.

 

I finally looked at Ruf's dyno and it earily resembled mine at that HP level - pretty smooth, but after 5200 rpm there's some instability in torque (thus instability in hp). I studied his graph and mine at length. I did get my hp figures higher with the addition of the WMS CAI, but the instability grew more severe also. Not that you could really notice in the seat of the pants department, but it was obvious on the chart.

 

There're are several things that can cause this. A few can be eliminated such as fuel delivery - at these hp levels, fuel is sufficient especially given we have NA engines, and the A/F ratio was solid on the chart. Knock could be causing timing to be pulled, when it clears the timing is put back in, then knock comes back, timing is pulled again, etc - this might explain the waviness after 5200 rpm, but there's really nothing to cause any knocking, so scratch that cause too. That leaves one other likely culprit - spark.

 

Reaching into my FI experience, spark faults would onset suddenly and obviously, usually after a certain rpm threshhold. Since we have NA engines, this issue is not felt as much since the magnitude of the fault is not as great, however it is there. My opinion is that due to the increased demand on the engine, the spark is hitting a mild wall at 5200 rpm. I raised the issue with my tuner and he actually reached the same conclusion (independently) which is reassuring. In fact, when we were looking at the chart after the runs, we looked at that instability and both said "spark" at the same time, but didn't quite know what the answer was at the time, or why it would be an issue. Now at least we think we're on to the answer.

 

My next mod is to install the Granatelli coil packs and connectors. SOON. I'll post dyno results after I do that.

 

Here's my dyno - you can see the instability after 5200 rpm

20061122_dyno_3.bmp

20061122_dyno_3.bmp

[RUFDRAFT]

Most excellent, Rat - and Dan and Moab -

 

You know your stuff, y'all.

 

First off - Brent at Brenspeed said the cams didn't even need a tune to go with them. I asked.

 

He also said 87 octane was fine.

 

I'm stopping at a station before getting to Fastlane tomorrow and putting some 91 octane (or better) in the tank.

 

Sounds like I'll be getting the same sort of feeling from this engine as I did in the Mach1. From 5k up - it really came to life and Sang!

 

So far, the only thing Brenspeed has done is send a copy of my graph to Comp Cams - who said they had never seen one similar - then they asked if the cams and springs were installed correctly. No further support or remedy has been forthcoming from Brenspeed.

 

If tomorrow's dyno tune shows that the fault is the generic tune supplied by Brenspeed - I would expect some sort of compensation for the cost of the dyno tune.

[RUFDRAFT]

16 hours..... :happy feet: :hyper:

[carnut]

16 hours..... :happy feet: :hyper:

 

Tick...Tick....Tick

[carnut]

Oh Oh.....Ah.....Carnut made me say it! :happy feet:

 

You're gonna get a lump of coal in your sock, poster boy

[RUFDRAFT]

the Harrier is fueling as I type...

[Grabber]

Oh Oh ...ah.....Rob made me say it! :hyper:

 

Please keep me out of it. I am flying as wingman, running the .50 cal tonight....Boy.

[carnut]

Please keep me out of it. I am flying as wingman, running the .50 cal tonight....Boy.

 

and the list of voluteers is getting longer and longer. HURAH :hyper:

[RUFDRAFT]

Ooh-Rah?

 

Y'all better keep low, hear?

[68fastback]

These are the coil-on-plug units rat was talking about (option-C -- scroll down a bit):

http://www.motoblue.com/05gt.htm

 

Rat, those wiggles are interesting --- especially since they seem to occur starting at the algorythmic crossover point of 5252 rpm. That's a staggering coincidence unless induced by an algorithm glitch in the dyno software or in the ECU/tune. Dynos actually measure work over time (HP) and "impute" torque based on a mutual rate-of-change algorithm:

Torque = (HP x 5252) / RPM

The wiggle in the HP curve must therefore transfer directly to the Torque calculation -- but the fact that there is no wiggle whatsoever before 5252rpm seems suspect of an algorithmic problem of some sort. Even tire slip -- which can produce similar looking wiggles -- would be an amazing coincidence if it began at 5252rpm so I'm tending to discount that (though still possible).

 

Ruf, just some thoughts -- if you do put in 91 octane, make sure you run a tank through to almost empty and then fill it again and repeat before your dyno tune (not likely by tomorrow, eh?). Else, your tune will be optimized to a mix of 91 with a litte 87 and it will run suboptimally on either straight 87 or 91. Unles you change compression there's no point in running more octane, but, if you do switch to 91, make sure it's not mixed with 87 (or anything else) and then run only 91 with that tune in the future. If you have acess to BP, their AMOCO 91 is about he best pump 91 around -- less out-of-spec octane chains than any other 91 gas available in the US -- it's why BP bought AMOCO (their refinery process for 91 octane is different than other brands incvolving additional steps that insure better octane chain-length consistency).

 

Good luck tomorrow in dynoland! ;-) Can't wait!

 

-Dan

[ratnacage]

Rat, those wiggles are interesting --- especially since they seem to occur starting at the algorythmic crossover point of 5252 rpm. That's a staggering coincidence unless induced by an algorithm glitch in the dyno software or in the ECU/tune. Dynos actually measure work over time (HP) and "impute" torque based on a mutual rate-of-change algorithm:

Torque = (HP x 5252) / RPM

The wiggle in the HP curve must therefore transfer directly to the Torque calculation -- but the fact that there is no wiggle whatsoever before 5252rpm seems suspect of an algorithmic problem of some sort. Even tire slip -- which can produce similar looking wiggles -- would be an amazing coincidence if it began at 5252rpm so I'm tending to discount that (though still possible).

 

 

Dan, you need to be reeeaal careful with talk like that....I'm at work all day and come home starved for intellectual banter. Talk of formulas, theory, C-A-L-C-U-L-A-T-I-O-N-S, etc, are like crack cocaine to me.

 

Ok, now as I understand it, you can't really measure horspower. You can measure torque (twisting force) and you can measure rotational speed, both of which are needed to calculate HP. However, it is very interesting that this wiggle occurs at that value - maybe it's all just in the dyno's head?

 

The equation [ T = HP x 5252/rpm ] can be rearranged solving for HP, [ HP = T*rpm/5252 ]

 

Here's a quickie on dyno's:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamometer

[90GT]

It's Thursday, any results!!!! Yes I'm a bit impatient.

[pitpup]

It's Thursday, any results!!!! Yes I'm a bit impatient.

 

 

Too funny. I was still in bed at 8:34am... ALMOST! Good luck today, RUF.

[moabman]

Good info on the dynamometer. Maybe we need to clear the air on the gasoline, however. Gasoline is refined to meet a common set of specs that the common carrier pipelines have in their tarrif. In reality, Exxon, Shell, BP, etc. all ship some of their product on a variety of third party pipelines. Yes, some of the big companies do have smaller company owned pipelines but none of them use them exclusively to move the product around. Because the output may go into a common carrier line, it is refined to meet those specs. There is no guarantee that at the end of the pipline, they will get their gasoline out, only gasoline that meets the pipeline specs. What does distinguish one brand of gasoline from another is the additives that are blended at the terminal before it is trucked to the station. All the big companies have their own proprietary additives that they blend. Smaller companies use the additive that the pipline company sells and blends for them. BTW the additives are primarily cleaners.

 

Having said that, most refineries will also have a truck rack so that they can distribute some of the gasoline locally, but remember, they will also be shipping some of it on a common carrier pipeline and they optimize the refining to meet those common specs.

 

Finally, I don't think that it's accurate to say that BP bought Amoco for their refineries. Remember 100 million barrels of recoverable oil in the ground in the North Slope is worth $7 billion at todays prices and that was only one of Amoco's fields (I don't know what Amoco's share was and how much recoverable reserves there were at the time of the takeover but this is a ball park figure). In general, recoverable reserves in the ground are the main driver when determining the price of an integrated oil company (one that has refineries). The refineries and distribution system are important but don't usually add as much as the reserves.

 

Not meant to criticize Dan, just add my 2 cents. I appreciate all of the good info that 68fastback has been posting

[carnut]

[68fastback]

Ok, now as I understand it, you can't really measure horspower. You can measure torque (twisting force) and you can measure rotational speed, both of which are needed to calculate HP. However, it is very interesting that this wiggle occurs at that value - maybe it's all just in the dyno's head?

 

You're correct, Rat... since rotational force over time = work (KW or HP or...)

 

I was thinking in an electromotive model/dyno, force over distance (revolutions) over time (per minute) = work and can be measured directly in KWs. At any point in time torque can be calculated.

 

Wikipedia states: Dynamometers can be equipped with a variety of control systems. If the dynamometer has a torque regulator, it operates at a set torque while the prime mover operates at whatever speed it can attain while developing the torque that has been set. If the dynamometer has a speed regulator, it develops whatever torque is necessary to force the prime mover to operate at the set speed.

 

If engine dynos operate at set torque, it would seem HP is the primary measure, since the motor will spin

at higher and higher rpm to the extent it can overcome the fixed torque resistance as it develops more horsepower (torque @ rpm). Actual torque is then calculated from that, I thought.

 

In a way it's the chicken and the egg -- since there can be no power without torque, and no torque without power. But I believe you are correct, Rat, that torque is the base (fixed design-point rotational resistance) measure from which actual HP@rpm and actual torque@rpm are calculated. At least that's my understanding.

 

Since the 'wiggles' in the two curves are physically tied, if a 'tune' mismatch is causing an oscillation, as you suggested, because timing is being dynamically varied, that could sure explain it. I was just musing that the fact that it begins right at the TQ/HP crossover is posssibly indicative of an algorithmic problem (in the ECU or dyno -- likely the former) which possibly is due to interaction with the 'canned' tune.

 

Actually, it could also be something like a sensor voltage variation due to a weak contact (in one of the many connectors) -- afterall, Ruf's Ford tech cetainly pulled a bunch of tem when he did the cams, etc -- but I'm at a loss to explain why it begins at the crossover point, unless that's purely coincidental ...possible but unlikely, I think.

 

.

[moabman]

Yeah where is Ruf? Enquiring minds like ours want to know......

 

That was a good observation about the coincidence 68fastback. Ford specifies the HP rating at 5400 for the GT vs 6000 for the GT500. I wonder if that is significant or an indication that they have done something to the 3V 4.6 to lower the HP breakover.

 

I was sure it was the tune until I read Rat's spark theory and it made me re-think the whole process. I have a lot to learn about these modern engine controls. I guess we will soon find out.

[68fastback]

Good info on the dynamometer. Maybe we need to clear the air on the gasoline, however. Gasoline is refined to meet a common set of specs that the common carrier pipelines have in their tarrif. In reality, Exxon, Shell, BP, etc. all ship some of their product on a variety of third party pipelines. Yes, some of the big companies do have smaller company owned pipelines but none of them use them exclusively to move the product around. Because the output may go into a common carrier line, it is refined to meet those specs. There is no guarantee that at the end of the pipline, they will get their gasoline out, only gasoline that meets the pipeline specs. What does distinguish one brand of gasoline from another is the additives that are blended at the terminal before it is trucked to the station. All the big companies have their own proprietary additives that they blend. Smaller companies use the additive that the pipline company sells and blends for them. BTW the additives are primarily cleaners.

 

Having said that, most refineries will also have a truck rack so that they can distribute some of the gasoline locally, but remember, they will also be shipping some of it on a common carrier pipeline and they optimize the refining to meet those common specs.

 

Finally, I don't think that it's accurate to say that BP bought Amoco for their refineries. Remember 100 million barrels of recoverable oil in the ground in the North Slope is worth $7 billion at todays prices and that was only one of Amoco's fields (I don't know what Amoco's share was and how much recoverable reserves there were at the time of the takeover but this is a ball park figure). In general, recoverable reserves in the ground are the main driver when determining the price of an integrated oil company (one that has refineries). The refineries and distribution system are important but don't usually add as much as the reserves.

 

Not meant to criticize Dan, just add my 2 cents. I appreciate all of the good info that 68fastback has been posting

 

 

Hey, moabman, thanks for the insight on gas production/distrubution. Yeah, I'm sure AMOCO's reserves were the prime asset(s) and I had read that BP also was very interested in them because of the brand and planned fro the start to keep the AMOCO brand on the Premium grade because of that.

 

Possibly things have changed ... my understanding is that AMOCO Premium used to be refined further than other Premiums and my understanding was that is why it is crystal-clear (they used to advertise it that way too in the 60/70s. Based on your insight that may no longer be the case or at least there would seem to be no point. It still seems crystal clear (as of two years ago), while other permiums appear to have a pale color. Is it possible BP uses dedicated pipelines (sounds unlikely) or ships & trucks it? It is only available in certain areas, I've noticed. It would be sad if it's now just another Premium <sigh>

 

Back in the day it used to be 101 ocane, but that was based on a different measure/ratig system, I think.

-Dan

[68fastback]

.

 

Yeah, where's Ruf?

 

We want minute-by-minute updates from his Blackberry

 

Yo, RUFmeister -- you in there ? <lol>

 

We're ready for the good news!

 

:happy feet:

.

[moabman]

Now I understand....... that was back in the tetraETHYL lead days. Amoco and a few others sold what is called "white gas" that didn't have the lead in it. Lead was used to boost the octane by (you were right here) delaying the ignition. I think it was also supposed to "lubricate" the valves. The lead additive would turn the gas a very pale shade of red and so red coloring was also added to help distinguish it from white gas. I think the ethyl was added at the end of the pipeline but I could be wrong. White gas = coleman fuel (roughly). Amoco used a lower vapor pressure gasoline to get the same octane boost and I think they may have added something to clean and protect the valves.

 

We used to use white gas in our lawn mowers until B&S made engines that could use leaded fuel without lead buildup. Then lead was banned and they had to go back the other way.

 

I worked at an airport and we sold 80 octane (red) avaition gas and 100 octane (green) gas. They used to make a gas over 100 (110?) octane that was blue but we didn't carry it in the early 70's. The street racers would come in and buy the 100 octane for their rods. It was $2.00/gallon even back then when regular was selling for 33 cents/gallon