New dyno numbers. Does this torque curve look normal?
03-08-2009, 07:09 PM
#1
New dyno numbers. Does this torque curve look normal? Got a new dyno tune and put down 381RWHP and 358RWTQ SAE through the 9" and Truetrac. This was an improvment over my last setup that used mid-tube headers and smaller injectors. The tuner is convinced the tune is optimized and dead on. We beat on the fuel and ignition for hours and the numbers moved very little. The engine has none of the valve float that was biting me in the *** last year as many of you may recall. I have a speed density tune that made 384RWHP /360RWTQ also.
Red = previous setup with mid-tube headers & 30# injectors
Blue = current setp with LPP long tube headers & 37# injectors
Look at the little (blue) torque hump at 4K RPM as compared to rest of the (blue) torque line. Is that bump a "bonus" or is there a torque defficiency from 4K - 5K RPM or so? I was expecting a nice crown or so.
Car runs very strong and screams to 6.4K RPM when you beat on it and drives like stock and I do mean stock when cruising around or going to the grocery store. I am not detecting anything at all to raise any concern that something is wrong or not working right. Going to the track in April, I hope.
Does this graph look normal?
Comments?
Red = previous setup with mid-tube headers & 30# injectors
Blue = current setp with LPP long tube headers & 37# injectors
Look at the little (blue) torque hump at 4K RPM as compared to rest of the (blue) torque line. Is that bump a "bonus" or is there a torque defficiency from 4K - 5K RPM or so? I was expecting a nice crown or so.
Car runs very strong and screams to 6.4K RPM when you beat on it and drives like stock and I do mean stock when cruising around or going to the grocery store. I am not detecting anything at all to raise any concern that something is wrong or not working right. Going to the track in April, I hope.
Does this graph look normal?
Comments?
Last edited by wrd1972; 03-08-2009 at 07:21 PM.
03-08-2009, 07:47 PM
#2
It's almost like the motor prefers 13.5:1
Notice that where AFR dips to 13:0, power dips as well.
Gonna post a vid? I've been wanting to hear what that cam sounds like.
Notice that where AFR dips to 13:0, power dips as well.
Gonna post a vid? I've been wanting to hear what that cam sounds like.
03-08-2009, 07:53 PM
#3
We raised and lowered the A/F across the curve and it did not move much at all. I agree it looks like there is a connection there. We tried like Hell to round over that TQ curve. Nothing worked and we tried for hours.
Last edited by wrd1972; 03-08-2009 at 07:59 PM.
03-09-2009, 02:13 AM
#4
TECH Senior Member
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Decatur, TN (N-W of Athens)
Posts: 7,564
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
I don't notice any dip @ 13, it stays flat the whole time it's down in 13:0 area.
I had PMed Speed Inc about a cam and mentioned Desktop Dyno. He had said that one of the guys in the shop had used it before and noticed it was surprisingly quite accurate. With that, here's a cam I made for fun with an otherwise stock LT1 with LTs. Oddly similar huh?
I had PMed Speed Inc about a cam and mentioned Desktop Dyno. He had said that one of the guys in the shop had used it before and noticed it was surprisingly quite accurate. With that, here's a cam I made for fun with an otherwise stock LT1 with LTs. Oddly similar huh?
Trending Topics
03-09-2009, 06:12 PM
#10
TECH Resident
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Redondo Beach, CA
Posts: 968
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
360whp is not uncommon with just a cc503 and bolt ons. those heads didnt get you very much more power..
or something is wrong
or something is wrong
Last edited by nik1703; 03-09-2009 at 06:49 PM.
03-09-2009, 08:15 PM
#11
The way I understand it. If I had the ten bolt still, I would be right at about 400RWHP. Is that still not very good for a 223/230 cam? I am turning that heavy 9" with a Truetrack and a 4.11 which is going to lower the numbers a good bit. AChotrod stated he lost 13RWHP when going to the Dana 60 (less loss than the 9" BTW) with numbers a little bit bigger than mine.
03-10-2009, 12:21 AM
#12
Never seen a bolt-on car with that cam put down 360rwhp, its not a GM847 or the like now. Seen them hit 350-355rwhp but with valve jobs and such. Ran that cam with bolt-ons and dynoed 328rwhp granted that was an auto but cars never do 360rwhp cam-only with the cc503.
03-10-2009, 01:07 AM
#13
TECH Resident
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Redondo Beach, CA
Posts: 968
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Never seen a bolt-on car with that cam put down 360rwhp, its not a GM847 or the like now. Seen them hit 350-355rwhp but with valve jobs and such. Ran that cam with bolt-ons and dynoed 328rwhp granted that was an auto but cars never do 360rwhp cam-only with the cc503.
03-10-2009, 01:08 AM
#14
TECH Resident
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Redondo Beach, CA
Posts: 968
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The way I understand it. If I had the ten bolt still, I would be right at about 400RWHP. Is that still not very good for a 223/230 cam? I am turning that heavy 9" with a Truetrack and a 4.11 which is going to lower the numbers a good bit. AChotrod stated he lost 13RWHP when going to the Dana 60 (less loss than the 9" BTW) with numbers a little bit bigger than mine.
03-10-2009, 11:18 AM
#15
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Carol Stream Il.
Posts: 1,524
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was going to say that, but figured that it was just plain mean at this point, after all he has been through.
Two things though, I too would recommend adding a little fuel for street and track use compared to dyno pulls. And I would recommend trying the shift points at 67-6800 rpm, since it doesn't seem to be falling off much at the upper rpms.
Two things though, I too would recommend adding a little fuel for street and track use compared to dyno pulls. And I would recommend trying the shift points at 67-6800 rpm, since it doesn't seem to be falling off much at the upper rpms.
03-10-2009, 07:30 PM
#18
i saw a thread a few weeks ago with someone putting down 367rwhp with just cam/boltons. you are right though, im not entirely sure if it was a cc503. 328 is WAY low for a cc503, im pretty sure 350 is average? Anyways, regardless of cam size.. it seems like he's on the low side with power..
03-11-2009, 04:14 AM
#19
jeff at cam told me the "hump" is common with decent sized cams but didnt say why. my graph looks very similar as well. my hp plateau was caused by an intake restriction. was pulling ~4" of vacuum above 6k. might be something to look into. http://s190.photobucket.com/albums/z...9302008076.jpg
03-11-2009, 07:28 AM
#20
jeff at cam told me the "hump" is common with decent sized cams but didnt say why. my graph looks very similar as well. my hp plateau was caused by an intake restriction. was pulling ~4" of vacuum above 6k. might be something to look into. http://s190.photobucket.com/albums/z...9302008076.jpg
I restriction in the intake manifold or in the intake CAI?