4.6 numbers?

[TxCMC22]

I'm curious what numbers you guys are getting around the US on your 4.6L mod motors. What mods are you guys running that are helping your numbers if you are closer to peak?

 

I dyno'd and came off at 252ish 284ish? I have the 96 bottom end with the PI heads, pulleys, long tubes, and K&N. would like to get to the numbers if possible... I am also running a T-5 which supposedly has less parasitic loss, aluminum driveshaft. I can't think of anything else I can do to get to the numbers... Help?

[mitchntx1548534714]

Disregard his post.

 

He needs no help.

[TxCMC22]

Disregard his post.

 

He needs no help.

 

I do actually. Any information you have, or if you can't make the numbers please post it up here. I am trying to get the few 4.6 Mod guys in the country to get on the same page as far as what we are doing, so we can all get to the numbers. I have a lot of time and money in my drive line, all to get to a number I still can't reach, so I would like to save the next guy and myself the time and effort to get there. Any information would be greatly appreciated.

 

I have thought about the bullet intake, throttle body, mass air, computer, etc, but for the minimal gain its around 1500-3000 dollars. Thoughts?

[sacabuche]

Chuck Weeks and I have been working on this for a while now. We´ve done all the mods you have listed, The engine doesn´t have the higher compression pistons but our numbers are pretty similar. I have thought about either adding tail pipes or a y pipe to boost up torque. Charles contemplated changing to a bullitt style intake but is too much money for little change if any.

 

Although the numbers seem like they are close, they are not because the dyno graph is very peaky, so average numbers are nowhere close compared to the other platforms

Edited May 19, 2010 by Guest

[mitchntx1548534714]

Thoughts?

 

My "numbers" are 258/294 dragging around 3300lbs.

 

You're 252/284 light-footing it at 3150.

 

Cry me a river ...

[TxCMC22]

Thoughts?

 

My "numbers" are 258/294 dragging around 3300lbs.

 

You're 252/284 light-footing it at 3150.

 

Cry me a river ...

 

Hit the gym fatcat . go crap in the litterbox please

 

As far as the numbers go, we should be able to hit the numbers if we have maximized the rules...

 

Mitch I made ya your own thread....

http://www.camaromustangchallenge.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3639

[sacabuche]

Our numbers were 252hp and 290 torque. I could have sworn the numbers were lower but lots of changes were made, so i may have been confused. Yet, keep in mind that the numbers are just peak horsepower and torque figures.

[mitchntx1548534714]

 

Hit the gym fatcat . go crap in the litterbox please

 

As far as the numbers go, we should be able to hit the numbers if we have maximized the rules...

 

Mitch I made ya your own thread....

http://www.camaromustangchallenge.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3639

 

Thanks any way, but I'm OK here.

 

Once you get a clue, you'll realize it's not about a peak "number" at a single revolution of the motor, rather how quickly the motor gets to 80% of that peak number.

 

And then, gearing to keep the motor within that peak range.

 

If you tweak to max out "the number", you move the curve significantly and hurt that plateau ... typically.

 

People obssess about "the number" needlessly.

 

If your peak was 15% low, then yes ... obssess away. But you are within 5% of max allowed.

[TxCMC22]

Thanks any way, but I'm OK here.

 

Once you get a clue, you'll realize it's not about a peak "number" at a single revolution of the motor, rather how quickly the motor gets to 80% of that peak number.

 

And then, gearing to keep the motor within that peak range.

 

If you tweak to max out "the number", you move the curve significantly and hurt that plateau ... typically.

 

People obssess about "the number" needlessly.

 

If your peak was 15% low, then yes ... obssess away. But you are within 5% of max allowed.

 

you are right Mitch, I'm clueless, I "obssess" about the number, I am within 5% max, I don't need help... I shouldn't have started a thread for the Mod Motor guys to discuss what they have, the problems they are having, and if anyone has found a legal fix for it. I should just cheat and save everyone the headache...

 

If "The Number" isn't important why add weight for it? If 10 HP doesn't matter than why do you question legality when you get pulled down the straights by 1/2 a car length? If this sport wasn't about finding every tenth of a second than why the 1/16th of an inch diff in Tow?or 1/2 pound of tire pressure? or 10lbs per HP/TQ?

 

I'm 28 ft lbs low on torque, last time I checked that's about 9%... I know it makes a difference there yoda

[ShadowBolt]

Thanks any way, but I'm OK here.

 

Once you get a clue, you'll realize it's not about a peak "number" at a single revolution of the motor, rather how quickly the motor gets to 80% of that peak number.

 

And then, gearing to keep the motor within that peak range.

 

If you tweak to max out "the number", you move the curve significantly and hurt that plateau ... typically.

 

People obssess about "the number" needlessly.

 

If your peak was 15% low, then yes ... obssess away. But you are within 5% of max allowed.

 

you are right Mitch, I'm clueless, I "obssess" about the number, I am within 5% max, I don't need help... I shouldn't have started a thread for the Mod Motor guys to discuss what they have, the problems they are having, and if anyone has found a legal fix for it. I should just cheat and save everyone the headache...

 

If "The Number" isn't important why add weight for it? If 10 HP doesn't matter than why do you question legality when you get pulled down the straights by 1/2 a car length? If this sport wasn't about finding every tenth of a second than why the 1/16th of an inch diff in Tow?or 1/2 pound of tire pressure? or 10lbs per HP/TQ?

 

I'm 28 ft lbs low on torque, last time I checked that's about 9%... I know it makes a difference there yoda

 

My car is 23 ft lbs under and 8 h/p under. If I can find a copy of my dyno sheet I will send it to you. I would like to see how close they are.

 

JJ

[Glenn]

Jeremy, keep doing what your doing w/ regards to searching for legal power under the power limit. I can tell you when I put my CMC car together in 2005. I was making about 285tq. I was already at the HP limit.

I tried a smaller Y pipe (the OEM unit) and that helped some. The thing that made the biggest impovement was a rebuild. I got the motor back from a complete rebuild (long block) and the next dyno I was over 300 tq.

So, how fresh is the motor? Valve springs new? Whats the AFR look like?

What do other non-CMC cars like yours make power wise?

There are other things to take into consideration than just peak power. Where is the OEM rev limiter on your platform? Is it higher than other EFI platforms? Could that be a factor used to "balance" the platforms?

 

Only trying to help.

[TxCMC22]

So, how fresh is the motor? Valve springs new? Whats the AFR look like?

Motor is a fresh rebuild as of Hallett Last year. Heads were rebuilt, AFR= 13/1...

What do other non-CMC cars like yours make power wise?

We have three engines to go off of so far, not sure what the Cali guys are doing to get their numbers? My Dyno was at Alamo, so we know its accurate.

Where is the OEM rev limiter on your platform? Is it higher than other EFI platforms?

6150 RPM is red line. Not positive on other platforms and I'm not sure how having lower power levels the playing field compared to RPM red line... I thought power numbers were based on the graphs provided in the rules? Don't we level the fields with ballast? I had to add 50 pounds for this reason.

Maybe I am misunderstanding something, but I think we should all be at the same power levels.

[mitchntx1548534714]

you are right Mitch, I'm clueless, I "obssess" about the number, I am within 5% max, I don't need help... I shouldn't have started a thread for the Mod Motor guys to discuss what they have, the problems they are having, and if anyone has found a legal fix for it. I should just cheat and save everyone the headache...

 

Well you did consistently run upfront last year on way less power than stated above and narrower tires.

 

If "The Number" isn't important why add weight for it? If 10 HP doesn't matter than why do you question legality when you get pulled down the straights by 1/2 a car length? If this sport wasn't about finding every tenth of a second than why the 1/16th of an inch diff in Tow?or 1/2 pound of tire pressure? or 10lbs per HP/TQ?

 

In order ...

 

To keep people from getting out of hand, I guess.

 

In 08, the HP/Weight chart did in fact follow an exponential curve. Not sure why it was changed back to the traditional way.

 

Is the question about legality specific to me or rhetorical?

If specific, I don't recall filing any protest paper work. I did find it odd that a motor so hamstrung by design and with submitted numbers way down on the chart, yet still above minimum weight, could consistently out perfom peer classed cars. But I never questioned if it was a legal car or not.

 

If rhetorical, then why wouldn't someone question why a self proclaimed "out-classed car" was out performing "better cars" as described by said owner of "out-classed" car?

 

 

Toe and air pressure, for me, is about handling, comfort and tire wear.

 

10 HP/TQ ... meh ... there are bigger hurdles to over come.

 

I'm 28 ft lbs low on torque, last time I checked that's about 9%... I know it makes a difference there yoda

 

Ah the typical internet bait and switch. Draw attention here to take away from there. Classic move.

 

I posted my numbers and they just aren't that different from yours.

 

Not sure why you've decided to lower yourself to childish name-calling and insults. You lured me in on one. Not gonna play that game with you.

 

My first post was more of a compliment than you obviously care to admit to. Running up front in almost every race with what, 240ish/280ish was an accomplishment.

[OldCMC17]

Anyone able to upload their dyno graphs?

 

Or, if not, maybe they can plot their numbers off the sheet like this..

 

Motor specs: _________

 

RPMs TQ HP

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

5200

5500

5800

6000

 

Just curious. (no drama please)

[sacabuche]

Jeremy, you might want to try raising your fuel pressure, 13:1 is pretty lean.

 

As for the 76 car we have Long Tube headers, pullies, bbk x pipe, intake tube with K&N filter at stock location, with the PI motor at stock compression. No mufflers on exhaust and dump right before the axle. Haven´t installed a fuel psi regulator but its on the wish list.

 

You also might want to consider the aluminum block alternative since it was just legalized. Yes, you do have to add wait, but it takes around 75lbs off the nose of the car. This would make it easier to balance front:rear weight ratio, since these cars are nose heavy.

 

I´ll try and get a copy of the dyno sheet from Charles as soon as I can.

[Glenn]

13:1 on a dyno is lean.

I didnt ask about the red line of the motor, but rather the rev limiter. Where does the computer limit max RPMS. Why does it matter you ask? If you can mechanically spin the motor 1K RPMs more than me, you have an advantage. I dont think thats the case, but I wanted to know cause it matters.

 

 

Eric, the site will not allow you to attach the dynojet files. our own AICMCTexas site will not allow it either. I have several files. I wish we could post them. Care to send me what you have? I'll send what I got also.

[ShadowBolt]

 

You also might want to consider the aluminum block alternative since it was just legalized. Yes, you do have to add wait, but it takes around 75lbs off the nose of the car. This would make it easier to balance front:rear weight ratio, since these cars are nose heavy.

 

I´ll try and get a copy of the dyno sheet from Charles as soon as I can.

 

 

Jeremy's car does have the aluminum block.

 

JJ

[CMC#11]

Glenn, I could be totally wrong but I think Jeremy's 4.6 and my 5.0 both have the same rev limiter at 6250. Shift point are obviously a completely different story.

 

Also, can you even change fuel pressure on a 4.6?

[TxCMC22]

Jeremy, you might want to try raising your fuel pressure, 13:1 is pretty lean.

 

I would be ecstatic if you told me how...

 

Glenn sorry about the confusion, Rev limiter and Red line mean the same thing here...

 

Eric, The dyno is at the shop, I will try to get specifics up soon.

[sacabuche]

Sorry but I forgot there are two types of fuel systems. The earlier system lets you change the fuel pressure regulator on the fuel rail. Not sure how you would add a regulator on returnless system without breaking the rules. But adding a universal regulator would be an option to increasing fuel pressure.

 

Jeremy, since you do have the aluminum 4.6, I have some questions to ask regarding differences between the two. The mod motors are pretty scarce in California. The only other that I have seen from CMC2 was Tony G, and he is out of the scene.

[TxCMC22]

Jeremy, since you do have the aluminum 4.6, I have some questions to ask regarding differences between the two. The mod motors are pretty scarce in California. The only other that I have seen from CMC2 was Tony G, and he is out of the scene.

 

Here is my e-mail, [email protected], shoot me your questions... or post them here, I have nothing to hide. I have a friend who will have an answer if I don't. As most of the guys in Texas know, I'm not the smartest when it comes to the details of motors and suspension setups, but I'm learning...

 

As far as the fuel pressure, thanks for the info! I also found out on my motor the 13/1 is normal and at a safe level, any lower and I would be in a deep litter box... Without tuning the computer there isn't anything I can do. May a different fuel pump but I think the computer would reduce the pressure. not a big issue considering its pretty safe the way it is...

[sacabuche]

I´m not too familiar with ford logic. I was a technician for GM for a while. You are correct that the computer will make adjustments concerning fuel corrections. although this only affects adjustment when at cruise. WOT uses a different fuel map, which is primarily defaulted. The only way to adjust air/fuel ratio beyond tuning would be through fuel pressure adjustments. You at least want to see 12.5 for optimal horsepower and torque

Edited May 21, 2010 by Guest

[liebbe1548534713]

Just throwing out ideas here, but it seems like the only way to adjust fuel pressure in a returnless system at wide open throttle is to increase fuel pump output. A larger fuel pump with an adjustable voltage regulator seems like a possibility. If I remember correctly, there was a supercharger installer, possibly Kenne Bell, that made a "Boost-a-Pump" module that bumped up pump voltage under high demand situations.

 

Found it - http://www.kennebell.net/accessories/boostapump/boostapump.htm

[TxCMC22]

Just throwing out ideas here, but it seems like the only way to adjust fuel pressure in a returnless system at wide open throttle is to increase fuel pump output. A larger fuel pump with an adjustable voltage regulator seems like a possibility. If I remember correctly, there was a supercharger installer, possibly Kenne Bell, that made a "Boost-a-Pump" module that bumped up pump voltage under high demand situations.

 

Found it - http://www.kennebell.net/accessories/boostapump/boostapump.htm

 

Great product Liebbe! thanks!

[Al F.]

Have you put a fuel pressure gauge on the rails to see what it is? Could be the problem is as simple as a clean fuel filter, properly working regulator, or a relay.