Small 16g dyno numbers here!

[kpt4321]

many people are misinformed about the whole timing advance thing. yes, more advance will give you more power....however, above a certain number, say 23*, the STOCK ecu will move to a "cruising map" for fuel and you can acctually lose power. if you have a standalone or dsmlink where YOU are manipulating the timing, then it's a different story. so yes, more advance=more power. but only to a point.
no 20g wheel unless someone sold me a FP sleeper 16g
i will try to find some other threads on the larger injector-timing advance relationship.....also, still waiting on dave to post up the dyno sheets at rmdsm.

Looks like I missed this the first time this thread came around, for once I am glad someone dug it up.

Simply put, you're a little bit off here. Yes, using bigger injectors with a SAFC will very much effect the fuel enrichment value, which can cause the car to get leaner, etc.

HOWEVER, it's not really the way you have suggested. First of all, the fuel is in no way dependant on the timing advance level. Just because two things happen concurrently, does not mean that they are dependant on one another. The reason that X fuel change may happen at Y timing advance is simply because the fuel enrichment value and the timing advance value both depend on the same stored information within the ECU.

In addition, there is no "cruising map" that the car is just going to switch to; the enrichment value simply decreases (AFR gets leaner) as the load decreases, when you use a SAFC you are decreasing the load that the ECU thinks you are putting on the motor.

 

[kpt4321]

The dynojet at MAC Autosport is legit. If you are comparing dynojet numbers to DD dyno's then you will see a difference. The DD Dyno's don't put a high enough load on the car.

I don't agree with you here at all. For one, I feel that Dynojets are certainly not as good from a tuning standpoint, and a number standpoint, as a dynojet. Dynojets are nice and simple, but the DD Dyno (and any other dyno that isn't inertial, particularily eddy current dynos) is going to be more accurate and more repeatable. It's simple a better way of measurement than an inertial.

Second of all, to say that a DD Dyno doesn't load the car up enough is a bit silly, when the load rate is adjustable; you can make a 3rd gear pull feel like 1st gear, or like 5th...

 

[Rice Over Wheat]

Regarding the poster's dyno numbers on a 16G, sounds like they're right where they're supposed to be. The 350 hp that the turbo is supposed to max at, that's whp not crank right? That being the case, with that setup why the surprise? I've seen 250 - 275 whp average at 15 psi for T28 and 16G setups without the fmic and on stock injectors. 290 awhp sounds about right to me for his setup.

 

[NewB2dsm]

The best dyno to tune on is a dyno dynamics dyno. Its the most repetable and acurtate dyno i have ever seen and ever sport compac car says the same thing when they did their dyno shootout. ANd it read 40-50hp lower than the rest but had the most repetable results out of any dyno they tested. Also its a great thing when you can see boost vs hp vs afr vs torque all on one screen. Expecially boost vs afr to me it helps alot when tuning afr, you can see what boost does to the afr and so on.

 

[jmakado]

I just have a big 16g, Custom FMIC, 550s, 3" downpipe back, SAFC, hallman MBC and I made 317whp and 285ft lbs on my 2g with 1g swap. On my heavy axis 18s, full body kit and shifting at random spots, I ran a 12.3 @ 108 with a 1.8 60ft. Spinnin like a madman. I dont understand how your car can make so much more power and not run cloer to that type of time or even faster? I'm not doggin cuz ur numbers are very impressive but I just would think it would be quicker.

read post #24 again. my track is at 5800' elevation. also, their were some other factors, namely the stock clutch finally dieing. i will post some "real" numbers once i get the feramic clutch in.....i just wanted to give an update.

 

[jmakado]

Looks like I missed this the first time this thread came around, for once I am glad someone dug it up.

Simply put, you're a little bit off here. Yes, using bigger injectors with a SAFC will very much effect the fuel enrichment value, which can cause the car to get leaner, etc.

HOWEVER, it's not really the way you have suggested. First of all, the fuel is in no way dependant on the timing advance level. Just because two things happen concurrently, does not mean that they are dependant on one another. The reason that X fuel change may happen at Y timing advance is simply because the fuel enrichment value and the timing advance value both depend on the same stored information within the ECU.

In addition, there is no "cruising map" that the car is just going to switch to; the enrichment value simply decreases (AFR gets leaner) as the load decreases, when you use a SAFC you are decreasing the load that the ECU thinks you are putting on the motor.

this all sounds reasonable. i have heard/read some varying opinions that are different and some that agree. a lot of this goes over my head. however, i was just trying to state that i made more power with less advance. if i threw in some 660's for more advance i think i would have made less power and made tuning for pump really difficult as it would be tough to take enough fuel to get the AFR where i want it and NOT get dangerous timing advance for pump. again, if i had dsmlink, this would be a different story. i also know that i am not alone in the "made more power with less advance rather than more" catagory.

 

[jmakado]

Also its a great thing when you can see boost vs hp vs afr vs torque all on one screen. Expecially boost vs afr to me it helps alot when tuning afr, you can see what boost does to the afr and so on.

that sounds pretty nice to me too.

 

[Mirageman]

My small 16G'd Mirage has done 309WHP on a Mustang Dyno at 20# on a Toluene/ pump mix. It now has 264's and has done 4 118-119 MPH runs, so it must be in the 320-330 range. This is not unusual for a 16G. A tuning shop near Chicago posted dyno #'s in the same range when they made a cam comparison testing 7 or 8 cams. Some have said that the "small" is underrated. I have to agree.

 

[jmakado]

My small 16G'd Mirage has done 309WHP on a Mustang Dyno at 20# on a Toluene/ pump mix. It now has 264's and has done 4 118-119 MPH runs, so it must be in the 320-330 range. This is not unusual for a 16G. A tuning shop near Chicago posted dyno #'s in the same range when they made a cam comparison testing 7 or 8 cams. Some have said that the "small" is underrated. I have to agree.

NICE!!! i bet that car is soooo sick! i think the shop you're talking about is AMS with the cam comparo. i may step up to 264's or 272's soon depending on if i decide to keep the 16g or not.....i really like it. a BB 44lb/min turbo would be the only "upgrade" i would consider at the moment. something like a FP 2544 but with a 7cm housing instead of the *tiny* 6cm they put on it.

 

[rarson]

Nsomething like a FP 2544 but with a 7cm housing instead of the *tiny* 6cm they put on it.

AGP SS-44. Used to be the L1R.

 

[jmakado]

i like it!! maybe this winter.....

 

[myblack98gst]

nice numbers...

My friend has a 1g talon FWD, he put down 329 hp @ 17 psi on pump gas.
with a big 16g, front mount, and 620cc injectors.
then took it to the 1/8th track and ran a 8.15 @ 89.8 MPH on 17 psi pump gas!!!!!

I am hoping to get around 350-360 out of my big 16g hopefully it will happen but it is just staying on the car till I get the money for a slightly bigger turbo scm-61!!!

 

[jmakado]

nice numbers...

My friend has a 1g talon FWD, he put down 329 hp @ 17 psi on pump gas.
with a big 16g, front mount, and 620cc injectors.
then took it to the 1/8th track and ran a 8.15 @ 89.8 MPH on 17 psi pump gas!!!!!

pretty impressive! any link to the dyno sheet at all? i would like to compare it to mine. thanks.

 

[myblack98gst]

no he never put up a dyno sheet... But I did look for it.. he did 330 ft/lbs torque too!!

 

[d_breezer13]

well i made it to the track on july 7 for some "real" numbers. unfortunatly, the flywheel is still not here (waiting 6 weeks now) so i had to run on my stock clutch with 40+ passes and 80k miles. i hoped it would hold since i made 20 dyno pulls with it not slipping at all......boy was i wrong!! my first two passes i blew a coupler off at the 60'. on my third i got a clean run but the clutch was slipping so bad i ended up just coasting through the lights.
after letting the the car cool down for an hour i made my final attempt. the clutch was slipping so bad i was driving off the rev limiter in first and second. it slipped through 3rd and 4th as well but i just kept it floored and hoped for the best. i had a 1.9 60' :thumbdown and ran a 13.4@102mph. my previous best before the new mods was a 13.6@100 with no clutch slip. now before you gasp at the times: my track is at 5800ft ASL and 50trims tend to run mid-high 12's. we tend to shy away from NHRA corrections up here but you can take off about .75-.85 of a second and add about 4-6mph to correct for sea level. i was really hoping for 12's and now think that it is possible with the current set up. again, just for reference, a high 12 would correct to a low 12 at sea level. that would make me very happy considering my car is not stripped at all and i have a sub, etc. the car weighs 3415lbs with me in it. i hope to get back to the track and run a 12 some time in august!

I had the same thing at the track. But im running only fmic, fp manifold, and full 3inch exhaust and ran a 13.7 with the clutch slipping in fourth. I was pretty happy with that time! now installing the small 16g and other supporting mods!

 

[snowborder714]

Date check.

 

[d_breezer13]

Date check.

my bad!

 

[JayRolla]

Very good numbers. Not sure why people are so surprised though. Buddy made 280whp on a 14b and a dynojet. I made 297hp on a 16g at 17psi and a dynojet. Then only made 330whp at 30psi and e85 on a load bearing dyno. Dynojets show high numbers. I would have made 400whp on the same dynojet.