90GT Posted November 30, 2006 Report Share Posted November 30, 2006 Check his other thread, he posted results in that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pitpup Posted November 30, 2006 Report Share Posted November 30, 2006 All I can hear over and over in my head is Richard Dawson saying... "And the survey SAYS!..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUFDRAFT Posted November 30, 2006 Author Report Share Posted November 30, 2006 330 (329...) at the wheels!! :banana piano: Woo Hoo! Hubba Hubba! Bada Bing! 'in A! Oh, Daddy! Mama Mia! I got your h.p. - right here! :hyper: Caleb at http://www.fastlanemotorsports.us/UHome.asp Tuned me good. A 93 octane tune. 4 pulls. First was baseline - then a 321 pull - then the 330 - then the same. Great folks at Fastlane. I wet myself when I left the place and grabbed a hard 2nd gear! I tried attaching the jpeg graph but it wouldn't take. But the curve is much different - it gradually climbs - right up to 6500. They happen to sell and install Vortechs at the place......anybody want me to write their biography? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
90GT Posted November 30, 2006 Report Share Posted November 30, 2006 330 (329...) at the wheels!! :banana piano: Woo Hoo! Hubba Hubba! Bada Bing! 'in A! Oh, Daddy! Mama Mia! I got your h.p. - right here! :hyper: Caleb at http://www.fastlanemotorsports.us/UHome.asp Tuned me good. A 93 octane tune. 4 pulls. First was baseline - then a 321 pull - then the 330 - then the same. Great folks at Fastlane. I wet myself when I left the place and grabbed a hard 2nd gear! I tried attaching the jpeg graph but it wouldn't take. But the curve is much different - it gradually climbs - right up to 6500. They happen to sell and install Vortechs at the place......anybody want me to write their biography? Very nice!!!! I say forget the Vortech. Get the Fast intake, long tube headers and an x pipe. You should break the 400 crank hp mark then. :happy feet: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moabman Posted November 30, 2006 Report Share Posted November 30, 2006 Rock on Ruf It must have looked something like this: Ruf's graf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUFDRAFT Posted November 30, 2006 Author Report Share Posted November 30, 2006 You the Man! Just like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
68fastback Posted November 30, 2006 Report Share Posted November 30, 2006 330 (329...) at the wheels!! :banana piano: Well allright!!! :happy feet: :happy feet: :happy feet: That's more like it! I thought a real tune would do it! Btw, (ahem) see post #225: ..... "...Good Luck, Bryan. I figure 375-385 at the crank ...330 or so at the wheels..." ..... Ok, where's my half-quart of 10W30?! -Dan . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pitpup Posted November 30, 2006 Report Share Posted November 30, 2006 330whp!!! Excellent. Refresh my memory. What was the previous number before today? 309? 298? Geesh, I can't remember. Anyone? Meanwhile, I have total faith in Brenspeed, but one has to ask, how could they be so far off? I believe I would have to dyno tune, also, if I went with the Comp Cam Upgrade, just to be on the safe side. RUF, what does SOTP tell you after you came out of the shop tonight? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carnut Posted December 1, 2006 Report Share Posted December 1, 2006 Rumpity Rumpity Rumpity No speeding now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUFDRAFT Posted December 1, 2006 Author Report Share Posted December 1, 2006 :happy feet: I find myself checking the rear view mirror more and more - target aquisition! ...93 octane.... You wanna play? You gotta pay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carnut Posted December 1, 2006 Report Share Posted December 1, 2006 Congrats Bryan, nice to see they got you straight...now I'm scared. :happy feet: You ought to be, I been checking the old threads, Pandering Boy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ratnacage Posted December 1, 2006 Report Share Posted December 1, 2006 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. While you can't have power without torque, you can have torque without power. In the simplest sense, think of a torque wrench. You can tighten a bolt until it doesn't move anymore - you're still applying torque (force), yet no work and thus no power is generated because the torque (force) is no longer being applied through a distance - it's static. I see what you're saying about a fixed torque (Tref) being overcome by a prime mover (PM), thus you can then calculate the torque of the PM, however in this scenario, the torque of the PM would have to equal the Tref at all points. You'd have a graph showing constant torque and increasing HP, however HP would still be a calculated value based on known values of torque (Tref), distance (revolutions = distance), and time. It is inescapable that HP cannot exist without the component of force (Torque) being applied through a distance over time, thus HP will always be a calculated value based on those three essential values. To rephrase, you cannot know power until you know force, distance, and time. Wigglies: i did speak with my tuner today and brought up the interesting coincidence of the wiggles showing up at that critical 5252 rpm value. He seemed open to the possibility that it could be an anomally with the dyno and/or dyno software and that the condition may not actually exist in the real world. 68, that was a great observation - I can't imagine how long I might have chased that thing around ($$) - the more I think about it, the more I think you're right about that being an imaginary issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUFDRAFT Posted December 1, 2006 Author Report Share Posted December 1, 2006 Oh, you submariners are all the same - all talk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ratnacage Posted December 1, 2006 Report Share Posted December 1, 2006 Oh, you submariners are all the same - all talk we can't help ourselves. We WILL analyze anything, no matter how mundane, into oblivion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pitpup Posted December 1, 2006 Report Share Posted December 1, 2006 we can't help ourselves. We WILL analyze anything, no matter how mundane, into oblivion. Makes me think my time in the Gator Navy wasn't all that bad! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
68fastback Posted December 1, 2006 Report Share Posted December 1, 2006 While you can't have power without torque, you can have torque without power. In the simplest sense, think of a torque wrench. You can tighten a bolt until it doesn't move anymore - you're still applying torque (force), yet no work and thus no power is generated because the torque (force) is no longer being applied through a distance - it's static. I see what you're saying about a fixed torque (Tref) being overcome by a prime mover (PM), thus you can then calculate the torque of the PM, however in this scenario, the torque of the PM would have to equal the Tref at all points. You'd have a graph showing constant torque and increasing HP, however HP would still be a calculated value based on known values of torque (Tref), distance (revolutions = distance), and time. It is inescapable that HP cannot exist without the component of force (Torque) being applied through a distance over time, thus HP will always be a calculated value based on those three essential values. To rephrase, you cannot know power until you know force, distance, and time. Wigglies: i did speak with my tuner today and brought up the interesting coincidence of the wiggles showing up at that critical 5252 rpm value. He seemed open to the possibility that it could be an anomally with the dyno and/or dyno software and that the condition may not actually exist in the real world. 68, that was a great observation - I can't imagine how long I might have chased that thing around ($$) - the more I think about it, the more I think you're right about that being an imaginary issue. Thanks for the feedback from your tuner on the 'wiggles.' Timing oscillation was entirely plauible to me and might look the same (curves mimicing each other) but where it began made me suspicious of an anomally. Still, who knows?! ---- Well, since Power = work/time and work = force x distance, for a rotating engine torque would have to be the force, so: Power = (torque x distance) / time. And since distance/time for a rotating engine = rpm: Power = torque x rpm (not adjusting for units of measure -- just relationships). But notice how "rpm" bridges across force and power. So force (in this case torque) must be the basis of work (as you pointed out) and is also the basis of (and is inextricably tied to) Power. Thanks for helping me to think through that. That would also mean that while Power cannot exist without torque, torque becomes meaningless without Power since T=P/rpm or T=P/rev/time. Set P to zero and T=0/rpm, or T x rpm = 0. That makes sense because a powerless force is, by definition, incapable of doing work (hmmm, sounds freakily existential like a teenager cleaning up his/her room and nothing looks different <lol>) As a pragmatic of measurement, I think a dyno that fixes rotational resistance to measure torque permits revs to increase as more Power is applied and translates that to a HP@rpm curve (as you pointed out). Is that consistent with your thinking? I suspect we're on the same wavelength, and just approached it initially from two different perspectives of what is being held constant and what is being measured/calculated and how that is occurring. I think HP can be measured directly -- a horse lifting (puling over a pulley) 150lbs at a rate of 220'/min is expending 1 HP and a weight-scale hooked in-line would read 150lbs which could be remarked as 1 HP -- 300lbs = 2HP etc. But I agree that for engines that rotate where rpm is an imprtant variable, another method is needed. This makes me curious of the specifics of how the actual torque measurement physically occurs. I've heard modern engine dynos use a water brake and hydraulics to measure torque gauged by rotational resistance to calculate HP@rpm. But not clear to me exactly how that's performed. I was thinking that torque@rpm would have to be calculated from that, but if torque is being measured dynamically, I suspect you're correct that HP is measured from torque as a matter of pragmatics. Not sure if chassis dynos also use water brakes since it would seem to me that the motor-generator method would be a bit more accurate and wires are easier to deal with than plumbing, but it's possible the water brake approach is both accurate and may be cheaper too -- dunno. --- This is one of the things that makes this site so great -- interacting and getting new perspectives. Rat, you're a real straight shooter and you explain your position well and keep things in perspective. Too bad I don't get down Houston way anymore -- I'd have to look you up for a beer or two ;-) . To break down this tecnical jargone into simple street talk.....Ruf your gonna haul butt!!!! <lol> now that's the real net! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
68fastback Posted December 1, 2006 Report Share Posted December 1, 2006 . Rat... did some poking around on the net. The Mustang Dyno site had more variations than you can believe. Seems they use water-brake, hydraulic and AC/DC electric solutions for their engine dynos whereas it seems all of their chassis dynos are electric. Let's chip in -- we can buy a nice little Gladiator for under well uner $30K ;-) And for you gals in here wanting to truly surprise your other half this holiday season, a chassis dyno in his stocking really says I Love You! <ok, big stocking ;-) > . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUFDRAFT Posted December 1, 2006 Author Report Share Posted December 1, 2006 Dan - I posted my dyno graph from yesterday over on the Ruf's Dyno thread. (I'd post it here - but it's on wifey's computer and she's playing on Chippendale's.com Pup - (dumb question) - what's the Gator Navy? Scuba? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ratnacage Posted December 2, 2006 Report Share Posted December 2, 2006 . Rat... did some poking around on the net. The Mustang Dyno site had more variations than you can believe. Seems they use water-brake, hydraulic and AC/DC electric solutions for their engine dynos whereas it seems all of their chassis dynos are electric. Let's chip in -- we can buy a nice little Gladiator for under well uner $30K ;-) And for you gals in here wanting to truly surprise your other half this holiday season, a chassis dyno in his stocking really says I Love You! <ok, big stocking ;-) > . Nothing says "manly" like a full chassis dyno built into the garage. How about this water brake: the torque on the propeller shaft of my boat (submarine) was measured by a device that detected the magnitude of rotational deflection (twist) on the shaft. Using known material characteristics of the shaft, it translated the deflection into units of torque...lots and lots of torque. (noted for the benefit and curiosity of everyone else cuz I think 68 already knows this). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pitpup Posted December 2, 2006 Report Share Posted December 2, 2006 Pup - (dumb question) - what's the Gator Navy? Scuba? Gator Navy refers to anything that deals with amphibious assault. IE. US Marines and beach landings. I was on board a Marine helicopter carrier. 600' in length, we had two types of 'troop carrying' helos. CH-46's and CH-53's. You can google their images if you're so inclined. We anchor off the coast of XXX country and fly them into shore. Supporting ships would lauch amphibious crafts out of their well decks (out the ass end of the ships). It's not a very glamorous side of the business (No Tom Cruise and F-14 Tomcats...) but I suppose someone had to do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUFDRAFT Posted December 2, 2006 Author Report Share Posted December 2, 2006 Thanks - sounds very cool. I'd hate to be a bad guy and see y'all just off shore! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
68fastback Posted December 2, 2006 Report Share Posted December 2, 2006 Nothing says "manly" like a full chassis dyno built into the garage. How about this water brake: the torque on the propeller shaft of my boat (submarine) was measured by a device that detected the magnitude of rotational deflection (twist) on the shaft. Using known material characteristics of the shaft, it translated the deflection into units of torque...lots and lots of torque. (noted for the benefit and curiosity of everyone else cuz I think 68 already knows this). Wow! Now that's a clever solution -- sounds pretty simple to implement too (once materials characteristics are translated/calibrated into deflection/torque). Impresive! . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUFDRAFT Posted December 2, 2006 Author Report Share Posted December 2, 2006 Agreed! Wonderful calibrational synthesis on the rotating axis mass of Saturn! Whew. So - took wifey out for a little ride this afternoon. Just a putt downtown along the riverfront. No target aquisitions... I back into the driveway and just before I stop - she says "Are you too old for this thing?" (now I hadn't tried this since the dyno tune, mind ya) I stuck it in first and launched. It spun the 275 Toyos for about 75 feet! I hauled her down and stopped just before the street - looked over at her and just gently smiled. She said "Oh, Daddy!" :hyper: It hasn't got huge numbers - but this thing Rocks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carnut Posted December 3, 2006 Report Share Posted December 3, 2006 They'll have to pry that shifter outta those cold dead hands Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moabman Posted December 3, 2006 Report Share Posted December 3, 2006 What's this "not great numbers"? You've got about 50 to 70 more HP at the wheels, gears that will translate that into motion really fast, one of the coolest looking rides around, and a wife who says "Oh Daddy" after you light them up. Sounds pretty good from here. Rat & dan - I've looked at several dyno graphs and it looks like the stock tune from the factory mimics rufs and rats graph with a flat section "with wiggles" starting around 5200. I also noticed that Ford quotes the 300 hp at the crank spec for the stock GT at 5400. I'm thinking maybe it isn't the dyno but a cautious tune for 87 octane. Also if it was the 5200 crossover phenomena, how do you explain his second "tuned" graph that doesn't go flat? Finally, some have objected to my comments about Brenspeed and I'll be the first to admit that I haven't done any business with them and my comments were based on Bryan's description. However, what I found most troubling is that when Bryan called an faxed his curves to them for help, instead of questioning him about the tune, they suggested that maybe he needed to install another expensive piece of hardware - the charge motion plate replacements. I can't know their motives but several of us immediately honed in the tune as the culprit - why didn't they? Also Bryan apparently didn't know about the custom tune recommendation with the Comp stage III cams. Shouldn't they have reminded or informed him of this when he bought them? IMO Bryan has a legitimate beef. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUFDRAFT Posted December 3, 2006 Author Report Share Posted December 3, 2006 Thanks for the kind words. Christine is the First woman I've been with that likes to go Fast. When we're out and about and I grab 3 gears, then back off - she'll say, "Let's go!" :hyper: I asked Brenspeed for "some" compensation on this deal. Their response today was that they'd try to give me a break on my next purchase of parts. And, they've revised their website to let buyers know that a 93 octane tune is suggested to achieve the numbers posted. I think I'm going to shop elsewhere in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
68fastback Posted December 3, 2006 Report Share Posted December 3, 2006 Dan - I posted my dyno graph from yesterday over on the Ruf's Dyno thread. (I'd post it here - but it's on wifey's computer and she's playing on Chippendale's.com Pup - (dumb question) - what's the Gator Navy? Scuba? Thanks, Bryan... just saw them a little while ago... see my comments over there... I think you can get even more by going down to a 12.6:1 or so a/f. 13.2 or so seems too fat. Maybe others have more isight. There's probably another solid 15HP in there ...but those curves are really sweet! Man, you've got plenty of room in that torque curve to pick shift points ...and looks to be more top end too (beyond 6500). Those 4.6 3Vs are pretty amazing! Moabman, I'm with you: Ruf's one lucky dude Sweet car, $28K. Mods to customize and kick it up, $7K. Wifey who actually appreciates it, priceless!!! ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pitpup Posted December 3, 2006 Report Share Posted December 3, 2006 Where is Ruf's dyno thread? How did I miss this? LINK PLEASE!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUFDRAFT Posted December 3, 2006 Author Report Share Posted December 3, 2006 Good morning! http://www.stangsunleashed.com/forums/inde...?showtopic=4175 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carnut Posted December 3, 2006 Report Share Posted December 3, 2006 Good morning! http://www.stangsunleashed.com/forums/inde...?showtopic=4175 GOOD MORNING :hyper: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.