3L on the Dyno

[jaged]

got the car dyno tuned today to fix the ADC chip and get the thing running right. I had it done at logan motor sports in S. Elgin IL. Highly reccomend them


2003 escape motor (stock cams)
2001 sable intake
short ram
ford racing plug wires
weapon r headers y pipe,
test pipe w/high flow cat
duals with borla muffler
87 octane

186.7 hp @5538 rpm
195.3 ft/lbs @ 4427 rpm

http://photobucket.com/albums/b379/jaged/mtang/?action=view&current=jageddynoplot.jpg

http://photobucket.com/albums/b379/jaged/mtang/?action=view&current=jaged3ldynoplot2.jpg

http://photobucket.com/albums/b379/jaged/mtang/?action=view&current=jaged3Londyno.jpg

[StealthyWeasel]

at the flywheel? that doesnt sound right to me

[jaged]

oh sorry at the wheels

[StealthyWeasel]

how come that says torqfly? does that not mean at the flywheel?

[jaged]

if i remember right that is the average over the length of the run

[StealthyWeasel]

oh looks great of course, seems a little low for your mods, was that before or after the tune was applied

[Mtang4life]

Lookin' great Jason! :biggrin:

[jaged]

thats after, and this is on 87 octane as well

[StealthyWeasel]

ohh, I gotcha.

[Neilsan]

torquey. pretty cool.

[Mtang4life]

oh looks great of course, seems a little low for your mods, was that before or after the tune was applied

I am kinda suprized you seem dissapointed in those numbers. That motor was rated at 200/200 according to ford Literature, IIRC. It is basically an escape with full exhaust, and an intake. Its not like the heads are ported, custom cams, FI, etc. Heck, the stock 2.5L put out only 170 Hp at the flywheel... With the car being lighter, and all that new power, especially the torque, which that alone is a big increase. It aught to be a blast at the SCCA events Jason is involved with.


Jason great torque!!!! When can I drive the car again? :biggrin:

[fordrule]

i thought it had svt cams and also thought it would be closer to 200 at the wheels

[Mtang4life]

It has the stock Escape cams.

[jaged]

no cams, im gonna run it this season and see how things go. Heck im 99% sure i won the SM class in the 2.5 atx. So im gunning for winning my region and the south bend region this season.

If it doesnt work out this summer im gonna do something drastic :evil:

Chris you can driv it sat if i get to drive the sti......

[CougarGT]

at the flywheel? that doesnt sound right to me

Are you the official 3.0L naysayer?

I think anytime anyone posts dyno numbers you are there telling them its "low". Build your own 3.0L and then post some numbers noob.

:rolleyes:

[DemonSVT]

That certainly shows the oval port cams make a nice fat torque hump. Nice power curves. That should be a very fun driving car.

How's the traction? :biggrin:


Yes like some other have stated the SVT cams would out perform this but these cams make nice power in the 4000-6000 rpm range. The SVT cams broaden the curve and make more TQ at higher rpm which equates to a sizeable jump in HP.

[Logan Motorsports]

Hi! This is DeWayne Logan, I'm the one who tuned Jason's car. I wanted to hop on here and clear up the confusion about "flywheel" power and "wheel" power on our dyno. Our dyno is manufactured in New Zealand, and the way that they name different types of power readings differs greatly from what we are used to here. For example, in the screen shot that Jason supplied, it says "flywheel power". This does not mean horsepower at the crankshaft, as measured on an engine dyno. There are two types of power readings, a "sweep" type reading and a "brake horsepower" reading. You may be familiar with the "bhp" acronym used in many magazines like Motor Trend and Car and Driver. BHP test are done in a steady state, with some kind of "brake" to keep the motor at a completely steady RPM. Sweep type readings are what we are more used to, done in an accelerating sweep across the RPM range. Overseas sweep type tests are commonly called "flywheel" test because they take into account the flywheel effect of the internals of the engine, the transmission, differential, etc. This is why it says flywheel power on our dyno, because we did a sweep type test (as a note: we can do BHP with our dyno, which roller dynos can't do). Just so you know, BHP readings are always alittle higher because they don't account for flywheel effect, and that is why the auto manufacturers always quote BHP instead of just HP.

Now....onto the torque. Our dyno measures actual torque output at the wheels, so it is whatever the engine is making multiplied by the gear ratio. For example, if you had an engine making 100 lb-ft of torque with a gear ratio of 3.00 then it would have 300 lb-ft of torque at the wheels. So when our dyno says "flywheel torque", it merely means the torque output at the wheels divided by the gear ratio. They must have thought it easier to just refer to it as flywheel torque instead of what I listed above.

I hope that clears up confusion, sorry the post was so long!

[Mtang4life]

Chris you can drive it sat if i get to drive the sti......

You have yourself a deal! :thumbsup:

The cougar will probably be a night and day difference from the last time I drove it. It will also be my pride and joy for years to come.. even though I dont own it anymore, hehe.

[BigBalledOX]

Hey DeWayne! Glad to see you joined up man, I hope to see many more satisfied customers getting the benefits of your work. Feel free to drop by at any time, we always welcome more knowledge brought to the forums. :thumbsup:

[Rikenbomb]

Nice Jaged! Now we are getting a great comparison between a 3L Hybrid and a Oval port 3L. Great torque curve! It must be a blast to drive in.

I'm betting that'll get you to where you want to be in you Auto crossing events. With that torque curve, you'll have plenty of power coming out of turns.

I think anytime anyone posts dyno numbers you are there telling them its "low". Build your own 3.0L and then post some numbers noob.
:rolleyes:

:rofl: I was thinking the same thing. It's kind of insulting to say things like that.

[Blackcoog]

Those are great numbers. They would be higher on a Dynojet and even better with SVT cams. This is why I've been trying to push people to get 3L intakes over the SVT intakes. It saves you money and you get about the same amount of power compared to a ported oval port with a lot less hassle.

[bensenvill]

Those are great numbers. They would be higher on a Dynojet and even better with SVT cams. This is why I've been trying to push people to get 3L intakes over the SVT intakes. It saves you money and you get about the same amount of power compared to a ported oval port with a lot less hassle.

and a good amount of weight savings

[jaged]

and they stay soooooo much cooler. right after each pull i felt the intake. Hardly even warm!

[MetallicaCougs]

great numbers Jason

[fordrule]

so if it was compared to a mustang dyno or dynojet, what would the numbers be around

[StealthyWeasel]

Are you the official 3.0L naysayer?

I think anytime anyone posts dyno numbers you are there telling them its "low". Build your own 3.0L and then post some numbers noob.

:rolleyes:

blah blah blah, i've seen plenty of cars go together and have helped build more then 3 cars, not the cougar though. A 3L wouldn't be a huge hassle, especially with the amount of help is here. Am I the only one interested in the lowered numbers? no! Others posted here about that, including fordrule which had similar questions as me. I only asked this because similar builds dynoed in at more, plain and simple. Im just wondering the semantics of the situation.. I know theres alot of factors (octane, what type of dyno, etc.) No insults were made! Its great to see a straight 3L, thats the way to go. Lots of work and care was put into this car I can see in making it quick.

Try again.

[Logan Motorsports]

so if it was compared to a mustang dyno or dynojet, what would the numbers be around

It really is hard to say, but one of the biggest factors is the length of the sweep. On a roller dyno (Dynojet, Mustang, Superflow), the length of the pull is just however long it takes the vehicle to accelerate the weight of the roller over the RPM range. Now, for example in a car like Jason's, it would take about 9 seconds to do a third gear pull to redline and about 16 seconds in fourth on a dynojet. With the dynapack, we can change the amount of time that the sweep takes because we have direct control over the load. Now, let's look at those numbers for a second: we all know that a car with power like Jason's will not take 9 seconds to go from 2500 rpm to redline in third gear. Something like 6-7 seconds is more realistic. This is why our dyno will read slightly lower than a dynojet, because the longer the pull is, the less flywheel effect is taken into account. We could use a longer pull time like a dynojet, but it really doesn't have any benefit, and we like to keep things as real-world as possible. A very good article to check out on this subject is http://www.sportcompactcarweb.com/editors/technobabble/0110scc_technobabble/index.html. If you'll notice the numbers between the dynojet and the dynapack are within 2 hp when similar sweep lengths are used.

I hope this helps clear up the discrepancy, email me if you have any more questions.

[jaged]

sure we could have squeaked a little bit more out of it with 93 octane and tweaking it here and there to get a little bit more out of it on the top end. But im mainly gonna autox the car and im more concerned about low end torque for power out of tight corners. And ill prolly never get into 3rd gear with it on a track. I will when i take it to Gingerman Speedway and get on the road course, but thats once maybe twice this summer. I dont plan on tearing down the hwy at 100mph plus where i need power in the higher range cause well, the car screams "pull me over" as it is

[BigBalledOX]

sure we could have squeaked a little bit more out of it with 93 octane and tweaking it here and there to get a little bit more out of it on the top end. But im mainly gonna autox the car and im more concerned about low end torque for power out of tight corners. And ill prolly never get into 3rd gear with it on a track. I will when i take it to Gingerman Speedway and get on the road course, but thats once maybe twice this summer. I dont plan on tearing down the hwy at 100mph plus where i need power in the higher range cause well, the car screams "pull me over" as it is

You need to get some of my patented "Invisible Juice". I went truckin by another cop headin the other way at least 15 over the speedlimit and homefries didn't even blink. :biggrin:

Oh and Stealthy . . . uh . . . STFU n00b. CougarGT knows his biz.

As for the whole Dyno X vs. Dyno Y thing, well, the only way to truely compare the cars would be to run them on the same dyno under the same conditions. Maybe we could do something like that at Fest, no?

[mond12345]

Easy Kids!

[StealthyWeasel]

im not attacking his credibility.. and I don't believe I did anywhere. I just wanted some clarification holy ****

[DemonSVT]

Our dyno is manufactured in New Zealand, and the way that they name different types of power readings differs greatly from what we are used to here.
BHP readings are always alittle higher because they don't account for flywheel effect, and that is why the auto manufacturers always quote BHP instead of just HP.

I hope that clears up confusion, sorry the post was so long!
Oh so those numbers are not SAE corrected then??? The rolling road style BHP dynos do not calculate in the same way as a Dynojet or Mustang dyno. Yes they do give noticeably higher readings.

With that information now available I'd say the power readings are lower then I would have expected. I was thinking those were SAE corrected Dynojet numbers.

[Logan Motorsports]

No, we used the new SAE correction factor (J2723 I believe) that was just recently adopted by the manufactures. Sorry if I wasn't super clear about that, I was just explaining the differences between a BHP test and a HP test, both of which our dyno can do. As for correction factors, we can use "std" correction factors, but we use SAE because the manufacturers do.

[StealthyWeasel]

The rolling road style BHP dynos do not calculate in the same way as a Dynojet or Mustang dyno. Yes they do give noticeably higher readings.

With that information now available I'd say the power readings are lower then I would have expected. I was thinking those were SAE corrected Dynojet numbers.

Thats ALL I was wondering.. glad it got answered with minimal fighting

[Mtang4life]

In the end though, is it really importaint what numbers were seen with the dyno? I would be happier just knowing that the car was running/tuned correctly, and there were no issues. How the car does for Jason in Auto-X is way more importaint, in some "real world" tests, I guess you could say.

[jaged]

you could have the most powerful 3L mtx coug ever with a good tune and still get beat by a 2.5 atx in a autox.:biggrin: It depends on how the driver uses that power and handles the car. I like where the power is with the car, itll help me where i need it most. Now its just time to beat on the sti, the ss camaro even more than last season

[GrandMasterKhan]

you know that reminds me of cougar fest? Didnt you whoop up on a certain 3L at the autox?

[BigBalledOX]

What certain 3L?

[Topik]

Im not saying no names but a 3l turbo is in question. hehe.

[DanG]

You try hooking up with 312fwhp. :tongue:

[jaged]

i was all ready for :disgust:

:grouphug:

[BigBalledOX]

You try hooking up with 312fwhp. :tongue:

:rofl: Can I please? Cuz I'd be more than happy to try ;)

[weargle]

You try hooking up with 312fwhp. :tongue:

1200 lb/in springs in the rear and 16" Falkens at ~ 18 psi should do the trick.