Whats next for more N/A power?

[BlackNDecker]

Black n decker, I have not ever seen until you posted the above dyno sheet a performance cam on these cars that did not give up some low end. Now the dyno sheet you refer to is on another engine, so I do not know the applicability to ours, but if someone makes a cam like that I would be interested. The thing to note however is that even the Boss loses some low and midrange torque in comparison to the GT. So whatever the problem, apparently Ford has not fixed it. If you do a complete build, headers, cams, intake, ported heads, torque over the entire power band will increase in comparison to stock. If you do cams and intake only, then yes you wil lose some low end torque. But from my perspective and driving experience this torque loss does not effect ultimate performance and driving enjoyment. Others like to have their neck snap back when they touch the throttle. I on the other hand, enjoy the torque building over the entire RPM band. Isn't that what the concept of the Boss is all about? I wish I could easily post my dyno sheets. Cause I think it would be good information for everybody to have. I did about ten dyno runs on this car and the info really should be out there for everybody else. As to high compression, for the track F@#$ yeah, but e85 is not readily available and I do like to drive the car. I do not know why I cannot just scan my sheets and post them. If anybody could give me some help on this, I would appreciate it.

My understanding comes from experience building and dyno testing Honda motors (hence the graph I posted). I've only been a Mustang owner since January 2012...but I realize people approach engine mods much differently here. For one, I never would've imagined that people would spend lots of money on name brand parts and then run a "canned tune". In the Honda community (specifically the K-series motors), virtually everyone runs a legit dyno tune regardless if they're just running bolt ons or a full stroked/bored/high compression motor.

I believe the lack of legit dyno tuning leads to a lot of confusion about which parts work, which don't, and most importantly....how all the parts work together to make power (and specifically where the power is made).

We (Honda K-series community) have large databases of dyno graphs on virtually every possible set up to say, for example, which stage cams (i.e. 1, 2, 3, etc) will work best with a stock block and which require higher compression pistons. Same for when a ported manifold or ported head will be beneficial. Unfortunately, this is lacking forthe Coyote...but it's a new motor and undoubtedly people will start to compile this information over time.

I posted those graphs to demonstrate a concept. Once you understand the concepts you can apply it to any engine. Dont get caught up with trying to compare the actual hp amd tq numbers....rather, look at the graphs and appreciate how the power band is shifted (rightward in the first graph, and upward in the second graph). Now imagine shading in the area under the hp and TQ curves in each example and see how the "area under the curve" changes (no change in the first graph, net increase in the second).

The two graphs I posted show two completely different responses to cams...a racer may purposely select the different power bands depending on the track. Personally, I'd rather build a motor with the second powerband....and although it would make less "peak power"....it would make more power everywhere else.

 

[Highway Star]

The torque curve your graph shows is very similar to the torque curve in a stock mustang 5.0. Long and flat. Did that engine have variable cam timing? But when you are talking about 550- 620 crank horsepower on a naturally aspirated engine you will need a longer duration, higher lift cam and that means limiting variable cam timing. Consequently, you get a more traditional cammed torque curve. That is always the tradeoff. Achieving volumetric efficiency at high rpms to achieve high horsepower requires long duration / high lift cams that do not perform as well at low rpms. Thus, I just can't see getting that kind of torque curve in our engines without maintaining full variable cam timing. That is I think the technical challenge: To have long duration/ high lift cams with full rather than partial variable cam timing. I simply do not know enough about the japanese four cylinder engines and their aftermarket to judge their applicability to the mustang. But I can say pretty much unequivocally that I have never seen a cam made for any car in the mustang aftermarket that will give you the high horsepower you seek and the torque curve you have shown. Now if you can find some, I am interested.

 

[Highway Star]

As for dyno tuning. Almost all serious enthusiasts dyno tune. Canned tunes can be great. But blowers, turbos, serious engine builds almost always require dyno tuning. And many in the mustang community do it regardless.

 

[Boss 327]

Here's a big (undegreed) cammed 4V (244/242 @.050" .495/.450 116lsa) graph for comparison sake: (Non Coyote/roadrunner engine) Pretty much inline with what Highway Star is talking about.

 

[BlackNDecker]

The torque curve your graph shows is very similar to the torque curve in a stock mustang 5.0. Long and flat. Did that engine have variable cam timing?

Yes...Honda motors had variable cam timing long before Ford. This is not new technology. Amazing how a 2.4 liter can have such flat TQ....

But when you are talking about 550- 620 crank horsepower on a naturally aspirated engine you will need a longer duration, higher lift cam and that means limiting variable cam timing.

The only reason VCT is limited is to prevent p2v contact. All you are saying here is that the pistons are incorrect for these cams...this is what I've been saying the whole time.;-)

Consequently, you get a more traditional cammed torque curve. That is always the tradeoff. Achieving volumetric efficiency at high rpms to achieve high horsepower requires long duration / high lift cams that do not perform as well at low rpms. Thus, I just can't see getting that kind of torque curve in our engines without maintaining full variable cam timing. That is I think the technical challenge: To have long duration/ high lift cams with full rather than partial variable cam timing.

Again, I maintain that the lost TQ will be made up for by increasing the compression. But I guess we will have to wait and see:read:

You actually can have a smooth idle AND high lift/long duration cams....the compromise will be that you will just have a big dip in power as you transition from the small to large cam lobes

I simply do not know enough about the japanese four cylinder engines and their aftermarket to judge their applicability to the mustang. But I can say pretty much unequivocally that I have never seen a cam made for any car in the mustang aftermarket that will give you the high horsepower you seek and the torque curve you have shown. Now if you can find some, I am interested.

So like I've been trying to explain by sharing the dyno graphs and engine theory...you CAN have both TQ and HP gains all across the power band. You just can't have BOTH max "peak hp" gains AND increase in "area under the curve" when the cam is not optimally matched to the motor.

In the "Ford 393 dyno graph" posted above, a left shift of the curve will maintain the peak hp AND the "area under the curve" will INCREASE with optimal motor + cam selection...the compromise will be that peak hp comes earlier in the RPM range.

This is a simple concept....for some reason I'm not getting the message through:shrug:

 

[BlackNDecker]

Here's a big (undegreed) cammed 4V (244/242 @.050" .495/.450 116lsa) graph for comparison sake: (Non Coyote/roadrunner engine) Pretty much inline with what Highway Star is talking about.

I'm sorry but I don't see how this graph adds to Highway Star's argument?

Both graphs show optimal cam to motor matching. Notice the fat parabolic hp curve (which actually is inline with what I'm talking about) as opposed to a sigmoid shaped hp curve (resulting from a loss of midrange power...which is inline with what Highway Star is talking about).

 

[Highway Star]

Black n decker. I agree with you to a point, but at some point costs has to come into play here. I suppose it is possible theoretically to achieve this broad flat torque curve characteristic of the stock engines albeit with more horsepower. But, What you are talking about requires a fair degree of trial and error experimentation. On the one hand you are talking about increasing compression, which means essentially a taller piston head and also maintaining variable cam timing. This Also means running on E85 or race gas. In a perfect world with race gas on every corner, unlimited funds, and a machine shop at your disposal grinding cams valves and piston heads to avoid clearance issues it is doable. But there is nothing on the market like that now. Also you know it is a total apples and oranges comparison. A Japanese four banger turning out 220 plus Hp compared to an American V-8 turning out 450-520. I do not think it is a failure of the aftermarket. There is no more comprehensive aftermarket for any car. The problem with what you are talking about is that to reproduce this torque cure and to achieve 500+ naturally aspirated rwhp will take a lot more than cams on these engines. One must also keep in mind relative advantage here. Your mustang whatever your build, will produce more torque and horsepower off idle than that Japanese car will produce at 8000 rpm. I assume that is why you put the rice away and started eating American Beef Steak! Anyways good luck with your build and I look forward to the day when someone has the time and money to do what you are talking about. Meanwhile, I really wish you could drive my car because I do not think you would mind the torque curve at all.

 

[BlackNDecker]

LOL @ 220 hp...you coukd get that with a street tune and taiwanese header. People are getting 300+ whp on these 2.4 liter motors. With increased bore and stroke (i.e. 2.6 liters), people are getting 400+ NA on race gas. With a Vortech style (i.e. Rotrex) supercharger, people are getting 550-650 whp. There are not many Mustangs that could hang with that on the highway.

My current civic build is going to be a mild build with stock block, full bolt ons, and cams. I'm hoping for 260+ hp NA in a 2200 lb car. It is being built for road racing and maximum TQ is the goal.

 

[BlackNDecker]

I really wish you could drive my car because I do not think you would mind the torque curve at all.

I would gladly take you up on the offer

There is obviously more than one way to build a car...please don't misunderstand and think I'm arguing this is the only way.

 

[Boss 327]

I'm sorry but I don't see how this graph adds to Highway Star's argument?

Both graphs show optimal cam to motor matching. Notice the fat parabolic hp curve (which actually is inline with what I'm talking about) as opposed to a sigmoid shaped hp curve (resulting from a loss of midrange power...which is inline with what Highway Star is talking about).

Yea I read it wrong.

 

[Rebel302]

I was trying to find this article that explains why they used the limiters with the comp cams. I read this earlier this year as I was trying to understand the whole "phaser limiter" thing myself but I couldn't remember where I saw it. I posted before the Brenspeed testing earlier in the thread.

Installing and Dynoing COMP Cams’ New Stage II 5.0 Coyote Camshafts - StangTV

 

[BlackNDecker]

I was trying to find this article that explains why they used the limiters with the comp cams. I read this earlier this year as I was trying to understand the whole "phaser limiter" thing myself but I couldn't remember where I saw it. I posted before the Brenspeed testing earlier in the thread.

Installing and Dynoing COMP Cams’ New Stage II 5.0 Coyote Camshafts - StangTV

Yeah, VCT limiting is simply to prevent p2v (piston to valve) contact when you're running big lobe cams. A way around this is to run high compression pistons with deep valve reliefs...of course you'll still have to clay your motor to be 100% certain of clearance.

Thanks for sharing:beer:

 

[Rebel302]

Yeah, VCT limiting is simply to prevent p2v (piston to valve) contact when you're running big lobe cams. A way around this is to run high compression pistons with deep valve reliefs...of course you'll still have to clay your motor to be 100% certain of clearance.

Thanks for sharing:beer:

If I was racing for money, maybe I would put all the extra effort into building something like what you speak of cause it can be done(Read: Jon Kaase). All the higher end cars with a NA V8-V10 perform exactly as "Highway Star" suggests hell even the NSX performs the same. You gotta wind these motors up to make power. I've driven a few since I've been out here(F430, Gallardo, and most recently had the chance to get behind the wheel of the new GT3 4.0). Honestly, you really can't compare the characteristics between a smaller displacement(I'm a VW guy) to that of a larger displacement motor, especially when you are talking staying NA.

In the end, all this talk has me anxious to start my build and who knows? Maybe the larger Boss cams I'm going with might be just what the doctor ordered since there hasn't been anyone to test the waters yet. Can't wait to get home :rockon:

 

[ihatepotholes]

Yes. The Roadrunner ECU automatically adjusts the AFR. The same is not true with the Coyote ECU. This was shown by independent testing of the Kook's headers. I got into a big argument (imagine that:-D) with some people in the Coyote subforum about this very topic. I posted multiple links including dyno graphs proving this. Alot of people have trouble believing this.

LT headers are an awesome upgrade on the Boss, particularly for someone who doesn't want to mess with a tune. Not only do they increase rwhp and rwtq, but they do so across the powerband from around 4,000 rpm onward.

Sorry friend, that is not how ECU works. Dyno showing a boss gained power from exhaust does not mean the ECU automatically adjusts the AFR. Ford didn't put a Motec 800 in our cars.

Tuners can chime in on this.

 

[Rebel302]

Sorry friend, that is not how ECU works. Dyno showing a boss gained power from exhaust does not mean the ECU automatically adjusts the AFR. Ford didn't put a Motec 800 in our cars.

Tuners can chime in on this.

Actually Cooltech did show in their thread about the PCM and the factory widebands in the Boss when they did their testing of Kook's LTs on a stock LS. The link is on pg. 2 of this thread. Check it out

"The overall function of the new Copperhead PCM is similar to the old PCMs, but with some important changes. The addition of dual factory wideband O2 sensors and full-time, closed-loop operation has made the PCM more capable of dealing with changes" ---quote from Justin at VMP

 

[BlackNDecker]

Sorry friend, that is not how ECU works. Dyno showing a boss gained power from exhaust does not mean the ECU automatically adjusts the AFR. Ford didn't put a Motec 800 in our cars.

Tuners can chime in on this.

Sorry friend...reading owns you. Go back and actually read some of the information that I've been sharing in this thread.oke:

 

[ihatepotholes]

Sorry friend...reading owns you. Go back and actually read some of the information that I've been sharing in this thread.oke:

:dw:no wonder no one likes you here. Not only you have an attitude problem, you shared plenty wrong information.

 

[ihatepotholes]

Actually Cooltech did show in their thread about the PCM and the factory widebands in the Boss when they did their testing of Kook's LTs on a stock LS. The link is on pg. 2 of this thread. Check it out

"The overall function of the new Copperhead PCM is similar to the old PCMs, but with some important changes. The addition of dual factory wideband O2 sensors and full-time, closed-loop operation has made the PCM more capable of dealing with changes" ---quote from Justin at VMP

There are a lot more involved in adjusting afr than black and decker's puny mind could comprehend. Having a wide band o2 sensor reads the afr, there are many things to adjusting it. I love my boss 302, but its ecu's abilities is nothing to write home about. I'm trying to be unbiased here.

 

[twistedneck]

Yeah, VCT limiting is simply to prevent p2v (piston to valve) contact when you're running big lobe cams. A way around this is to run high compression pistons with deep valve reliefs...of course you'll still have to clay your motor to be 100% certain of clearance.

Thanks for sharing:beer:

Why then does the cobra jet cam with its huge duration similar to the comp cams not need the phase limiters? is there some special thing with those grinds that gives more piston to valve clearance?

 

[BlackNDecker]

:dw:no wonder no one likes you here. Not only you have an attitude problem, you shared plenty wrong information.

Internet is serious business for you bruh...

There are a lot more involved in adjusting afr than black and decker's puny mind could comprehend. Having a wide band o2 sensor reads the afr, there are many things to adjusting it. I love my boss 302, but its ecu's abilities is nothing to write home about. I'm trying to be unbiased here.

The only thing I've stated (and proved with not one but two dyno graphs in the thread I linked) is that LT headers on the Boss do not require a tune to see gains. Did you actually read the link? The dyno graphs show the AFR below the hp/TQ curves. Go back, read, contemplate, pause before you post, and try again.