NA4LSOHCBUT [Not ANOTHER 4.0L SOHC Build Up Thread!]

[Jakee]

My bad Fred. I had some problems that I got worked out so it's looking better!

I guess I need to make a public apoligy now. Sorry Fredness.

I just couln't figure out what I had did wrong. One problem I found was my filter was clogged bigtime. Being that I have a "ram air" intake, I've realized I have to clean it more often.

Anyways, the data you've posted to date DOES make sense now.


About the MAX HP. When I first started modding my X, I made the goal that I'm trying to reach now. Along the way, I've learned that "MAX" is not what you should be concerned about, but more what you can use in the RPM range. You'll be at "Max" for a split secong, but you'll be inthe RPM range for the entire run. Again, JAH81592 is who really tought me this, and I appriciate it.

 

[rocket 5979]

About the MAX HP. When I first started modding my X, I made the goal that I'm trying to reach now. Along the way, I've learned that "MAX" is not what you should be concerned about, but more what you can use in the RPM range. You'll be at "Max" for a split secong, but you'll be inthe RPM range for the entire run. Again, JAH81592 is who really tought me this, and I appriciate it.

Actually Jakee you should probably be focused on how fast the vehicle becomes versus how much power it makes. After all we don't race dyno's, we race other cars.

Dyno's are good for comparative purposes like James mentioned and that is it. Of course allot of people have become dyno queens nowadays and have totally lost site of useable horsepower and its importance.

 

[au01st]

Here is you explanation. You are right and Rocket is right in the same token. First off some software doesn't allow locking of the torque convertor. So they would pull in 2nd (which obviously would yield a higher rpm) and more than likely the convertor would stay locked and especially if the vehicle has the speed limiter enabled you would get on the speed limiter before ever completing a full pull in a 1:1 gear. Believe it or not I do have customers who at thier request still have the stock limiters in place. As a side note just for dyno purposes yes I could temporarily remove it on the dyno then replace the limiter when finished but at 4 customers request they wanted to see what the vehicle would do in "street" form so 2nd gear pull was a mandatory-don't ask I dont know they pay I execute. Also 2nd is mandatory for a stock vehicle wanting a baseline-untuned. Now on the dyno I have tested the differences between 2nd and 4th(5speed auto) and there wasnt an ounce of difference in hp. The dyno operater (owner, not a kid) confirmed this as well. Now don't think I would ever dyno a higher hp automobile in 2nd the pull would just be too quick. But on the stock explorers if it has to be done then I feel comfortable. I personally always lock the convertor and pull 4th, but on occasion have had to execute 2nd.

This is exactly what Doug told me during our dyno day. He did pulls in my truck in 2nd, and locked in 4th. No difference whatsoever.

 

[DLIDDYFL]

okay, I must be missing something here. You have a 1998 V6 4.0 L with 85,000 miles on it, and bone stock you say you started with 184 HP at 5252 rpm????
And after intake, exhaust and tune you only got 4 more HP at peak? I don't know,,, I'm studying the live link now and starting to do some test runs later, but I did a base line dyno with my 2003 and started at 155 HP at around 4000 rpm. I know that your V6 and the V6 in the 03' are different, but I don't see a 30 HP drop from stock. I'll need to look into this more.
And yes, I understand the difference between peak and average. I know this is not about peak hp. But even on your first rogue dyno you were showing higher average hp over a longer rev than mine at stock. So, is there that much of a difference between the sport and the X besides the number of doors?

 

[Fredness]

2 more doors and 500-800 lbs based on options.
4,000 RPM's is MUCH too low to start looking at HP numbers, but it looks right for that RPM. Take a peak at 5,400-5,500.
The only difference between "my" V6 and the 2003 is the intake from the airbox to the heads. The rest is nearly unchanged.

 

[Jakee]

okay, I must be missing something here. You have a 1998 V6 4.0 L with 85,000 miles on it, and bone stock you say you started with 184 HP at 5252 rpm????
And after intake, exhaust and tune you only got 4 more HP at peak? I don't know,,, I'm studying the live link now and starting to do some test runs later, but I did a base line dyno with my 2003 and started at 155 HP at around 4000 rpm. I know that your V6 and the V6 in the 03' are different, but I don't see a 30 HP drop from stock. I'll need to look into this more.
And yes, I understand the difference between peak and average. I know this is not about peak hp. But even on your first rogue dyno you were showing higher average hp over a longer rev than mine at stock. So, is there that much of a difference between the sport and the X besides the number of doors?

I think youre "Lean" condition had something to do with your numbers.

And yes, I questioned the start off excel dyno compared to the 0-60 runs...didn't seem like it added up but it looks like Fredness has made some adjustments to the rogue dyno that may be almost correct now;however, I don't think the start off dyno was right.

All and all, this is good data. It prompted me to find out what the heck I did wrong.

And Fredness - It gets harder from here. Catch me if you can!!! heehehe


***We also need to remember that Fred said he was running in 1st and the numbers might be a little "tainted".***

 

[DLIDDYFL]

The lean condition of my 03' only caused about a 3 to max 5 HP loss. So, as long as we agree that the first rogue dyno was off, then I can get on board with the numbers Fredness is showing now.
Also on the dyno I did, there is no 5400-5500 peak. It drops flat after around 4500 rpms. ( I know,!!) So right now I'm looking into the cause before moving forward. But this thread is about your build up, not mine. I was just doing some comparisons and trying to gauge performance differences based on choices and combinations. What I'm trying to say is, if you started with 184 and after three mods have 188, I started with 155 and lets say have 180 now, math is not adding up. Also, some freinds of mine are starting to see some stock differences from manufacturer to manufacturer as well. Example, The 2005 Chevy Colorado makes stock 200 hp at the crank. ( Close enouph to do comparisons to the Ford V6. But we just found out that the truck comes stock with a 2 1/2 inch exhaust, and a higher flow muffler. So after they put on a new "Performance" exhaust they saw very little gain if any. On the Ford though the gain looked huge by comparison.
So that's why I was questioning the numbers. I am following your logic and calculations, I was just trying to connect the dots. I would really like to have known your real starting numbers though.When you first posted those numbers I was waiting to see if you posted "after mod " readings along the way to see how it all worked out.

 

[Fredness]

I'll take a peek a the graphs, I'm sure there are errors. If nothing else, they need to be in the same format. I'll see if I can overlay them.

I think your lean issue and 4,500 RPM's are far bigger than you think, it is more like a 20-30HP issue.

 

[DLIDDYFL]

I'll take a peek a the graphs, I'm sure there are errors. If nothing else, they need to be in the same format. I'll see if I can overlay them.

I think your lean issue and 4,500 RPM's are far bigger than you think, it is more like a 20-30HP issue.

I agree that there is a 20-30 hp issue with my truck, but that would be the average hp across the rev range and not so much the peak hp. Maybe I was a bit course in saying 3-5, could be as much as 10, but beyond that no way. ( I know this now because I have isolated the issues.) I didn't want to just fix it, I wanted to know why it was like that and how it happened. So now that I have those answers I'm going to do the adjustments and tune from there.

 

[aldive]

What were the issues?

Thanks ....

 

[aldive]

I'll take a peek a the graphs, I'm sure there are errors. If nothing else, they need to be in the same format. I'll see if I can overlay them.

I think your lean issue and 4,500 RPM's are far bigger than you think, it is more like a 20-30HP issue.

Can you please post this data?

Thanks ....

 

[Fredness]

Sorry, this weekend turned in to a "honey-do" weekend. Good news is I got a 37" Plasma TV in the bargain. Can't complain.
I try again this week...

Here are runs 1 and 3, overlaped with 0-60 times. To show how stable the data is, both runs overlap so well I had to make one a dashed line, so the other line could show through the gaps. Otherwise you saw one HP/TQ line or the other, not all 4. I'm pretty confident in these numbers.

This is "pre-mod"; Stock, no tune.

More to follow...

 

[aldive]

Thats the most HP I have ever scene on a stock truck.

 

[DLIDDYFL]

Hey fredness, are these numbers at the crank? They must be right? Your not dyno running for rear wheel hp are you ?

 

[Jakee]

The AVERAGE 4.6 V8 makes 180ish HP stock, at the rear wheels.

 

[rocket 5979]

Hey fredness, are these numbers at the crank? They must be right? Your not dyno running for rear wheel hp are you ?

These numbers aren't even real. They are an extrapolation based upon a formula that assumes way too many variables. These numbers are about as realistic as the hp and tq estimates on one of those G-tech meters (craaaaap). Actually even those G-tech meters are more accurate because at least they pull from real world data. It is best if everyone took these "dynos" posted in here for a grain of salt as they are not real world numbers. Getting real world power takes into account many more variables than this does.

Fred, I don't mean to look like I am trying to step on your toes but it seems people are getting confused about the real world applicability of your "dyno" formula.

 

[aldive]

Fred, have you had it on an actual dyno?

 

[Fredness]

For those of you that have just woken up, or forgot what has happened in the past 6 pages...
We've covered this 2x already. These are CRANKSHAFT numbers computed from the PCM used to decide how much timing to pull from the engine as part of the torque limiting function. This is to tell the engine when it is about to shear the input shaft to the auto-trannies' pump.

These numbers are not "real", they are computed by the PCM. As I have PROVEN in the above picture, the results are 100% repeatable. In science, your numbers have to be repeatable. If they are repeatable (even if they are not accurate), they are good numbers. From there we can determine what needs to be done to make them more realistic. This is the EXACT same thing that happens when you install a wideband O2 sensor to an XCal2, you have to enter in a "correction factor", same thing.

Now, what we have here are repeatable numbers, it doesn't make a rats-butt what these numbers are, only that they are repeatable. If we make a change, that change, good or bad, is reflected in these numbers. I have also proven this. So, we have a means of displaying actual PCM data, that shows changes in performance. Are we all on target here? The graphs, JUST LIKE the numbers, are 100% for comparison only. I am NOT stating that I am putting XXXHP or XXXTQ to the shaft, or the wheels, at any time. These numbers are for comparison only, mearly a REPRESENTATION of work that has been done.

I've also stated that I HAVE NOT done a dyno-run for comparison. My local dyno shop just installed a 4WD dyno and I want them to have a couple weeks to work out the kinks before I start my testing. Then I am going to run a datalog along with the dyno run to compare the results in each gear to see if there is any difference between gears between the actual dyno and the graph-work I'm doing. That work will determine the correction factor that I need to enter to get the "real" numbers.

Now, you will notice that the word real is in quotations. That is because a dyno does not give you actual numbers, it gives you a representation of what your vehicle is doing, compared to a test vehicle, expressed in torque and then converted to HP. These numbers are +/-4% ON EACH RUN. If your back to back numbers are within 4% each time, this is within the "slop-factor" for any given dyno.

Remember, HP is total crap, it is "derived" (mathmatically). It is a *******ized manipulation of torque (something real) because HP is (TQ/RPM)*5252. I say HP is crap, because it was based off of observation and you can do something so fast or so slow that the HP numbers CAN'T work. But eventhough it is impossible, there are still numbers to support it.

So, yes, it will be getting dyno'ed and yes the numbers do mean something...

 

[rocket 5979]

For those of you that have just woken up, or forgot what has happened in the past 6 pages...
We've covered this 2x already. These are CRANKSHAFT numbers computed from the PCM used to decide how much timing to pull from the engine as part of the torque limiting function. This is to tell the engine when it is about to shear the input shaft to the auto-trannies' pump.

These numbers are not "real", they are computed by the PCM. As I have PROVEN in the above picture, the results are 100% repeatable. In science, your numbers have to be repeatable. If they are repeatable (even if they are not accurate), they are good numbers. From there we can determine what needs to be done to make them more realistic. This is the EXACT same thing that happens when you install a wideband O2 sensor to an XCal2, you have to enter in a "correction factor", same thing.

Now, what we have here are repeatable numbers, it doesn't make a rats-butt what these numbers are, only that they are repeatable. If we make a change, that change, good or bad, is reflected in these numbers. I have also proven this. So, we have a means of displaying actual PCM data, that shows changes in performance. Are we all on target here? The graphs, JUST LIKE the numbers, are 100% for comparison only. I am NOT stating that I am putting XXXHP or XXXTQ to the shaft, or the wheels, at any time. These numbers are for comparison only, mearly a REPRESENTATION of work that has been done.

I've also stated that I HAVE NOT done a dyno-run for comparison. My local dyno shop just installed a 4WD dyno and I want them to have a couple weeks to work out the kinks before I start my testing. Then I am going to run a datalog along with the dyno run to compare the results in each gear to see if there is any difference between gears between the actual dyno and the graph-work I'm doing. That work will determine the correction factor that I need to enter to get the "real" numbers.

Now, you will notice that the word real is in quotations. That is because a dyno does not give you actual numbers, it gives you a representation of what your vehicle is doing, compared to a test vehicle, expressed in torque and then converted to HP. HP is a complete and total These numbers are +/-4% ON EACH RUN. If your back to back numbers are within 4% each time, this is within the "slop-factor" for any given dyno.

Remeber, HP is total crap, it is "dirived" (mathmatically). It is a *******ized manipulation of torque (something real) because HP is (TQ/RPM)*5252. I say HP is crap, because it was based off of observation and you can do something so fast or so slow that the HP numbers CAN'T work. But eventhough it is impossible, there are still numbers to support it.

Fred, I understand where you are coming from. It just seems that some people that may have not been present those 6 pages ago were wondering about the applicability of those numbers.

While dyno numbers are VERY subjective, they are at least based upon more real world variables having been taken into account. There are ways that dynos can be VERY accurate and repeatable but the effort required to do so is usually not worth it to most shops which is why there is soooo much slop from one to another (or even on the same dyno itself).

The best method to see what a person truly gained is to run it on the track to see what it does. Anything less is just "getting an idea". Too many people get trapped up in being dyno queens that they lose sight of the real goal which is NOT to have more power; it is to become faster.

With that said, get off your butt and take your truck to the track Fred. : BTW, your track is posted below. :

 

[Fredness]

That's what the 0-60's were for, but I am waiting to hear back from the track about their test&tune nights (Currently only on Wednesday, a school night ), but that was for a later post...

Remember, I wouldn't have passed the Tech Inspection because I had a sheered wheel stud. Now that's fixed and the brakes are "seasoned".

Oh, BTW: What's up with you people and that "Quote" button :