Starting to Learn on 95 G30 5.7 for Towing

[donf]

I appreciate the Ideas. I will not be upset if it makes more hp than I expected. I set the roller lifters the standard way, 1/2 turn preload. Not running. I have not had problems setting them that way before, but I can check them again. I have upgraded springs so it could go higher, I just don't see the need. I still think that there is something wrong with the spark advance as its still not matching the table in tuner pro, but from what I did today, it did not seem to make a lot of difference at WOT. It made less HP with 10 degrees tacked on. Filling in the altitude scalar from 0 to 9.8 sure made a big loss though that was easy to see. Jegs has a house brand salad bowl, but I think I will do a run with no ring just to see if that's a big problem.

[donf]

One thing to keep in mind is you're comparing dyno dynamics numbers to dynojet. Even in NASA (the car racing association, not space travel) they take the DD and Mustang numbers both hp and torque and multiply them by 1.1 to get in the ballpark for DynoJet sometimes it's even more on top of that. The numbers I have were corrected (reduced) by 3% for weather it says that at the top of the sheet. Dynojet has inflated numbers because they think bragging rights = sales. I will be happy to find more hp, but the measuring stick has to be close before you compare.

[Fast355]

One thing to keep in mind is you're comparing dyno dynamics numbers to dynojet. Even in NASA (the car racing association, not space travel) they take the DD and Mustang numbers both hp and torque and multiply them by 1.1 to get in the ballpark for DynoJet sometimes it's even more on top of that. The numbers I have were corrected (reduced) by 3% for weather it says that at the top of the sheet. Dynojet has inflated numbers because they think bragging rights = sales. I will be happy to find more hp, but the measuring stick has to be close before you compare.

I know there is a difference. I ran my Titan on a Mustang dyno. It put down 296 rwhp and 388 rwtq. I put it on the same Dynojet and saw 330 rwhp and 396 rwtq. The 1.1 conversion is probably fairly accurate at the HP peak, but in atleast that instance the torque difference was much less.

[Fast355]

I am also only comparing to your comparitive numbers in your table form.

The TBI head and cam engine with rockers and headers made over 200 rwhp from 3,600-4,600 rpm. Kitch also saw very similar results. You both have standard 12cc dished pistons, mine were the 18cc dished but full disclosure here I had a 454 throttle body and 1" open center spacer under it with an edelbrock 3704 intake manifold that had been bored to 2".

The Express van hit 200 rwhp at 3,450 rpm and even with failing valve springs did not drop below 200 rwhp until over 5,200 rpm and even then it only did that because of horrendous valve float. I had never seen an engine fall off that badly before I experienced that. I have never seen such a mild cammed engine gain torque at peak, have the peak torque rpm drop 200 rpm and gain 27 hp with a 500 rpm higher peak from changing valve springs either.

[donf]

OK sounds good. Next step is I will try pulling the AC compressor and removing the valve covers for less lifter preload and getting the AFR to drop about 3/4 of a point at WOT. Thank you for the ideas. John from 1320 Electronics sent me a file to try on the ALDL Scan for Android, so a big thanks to him as well.

[Fast355]

One other thing I forgot to mention. I would try your timing increments in 2° increments.

[donf]

I hooked in AEM X-series wideband this weekend. I am attaching the modified adx incase someone wants to use the newer series of wideband. The newer AEM wideband voltage chart does not list a 0v or 5v number, but using their formula you can generate them and then follow the instructions listed on this forum to come up with the math for the adx. I have found a few small things, but have not put the van back on the dyno yet. For some strange reason resetting the initial timing advance back to zero in the chip and leaving the altitude adjustment off, mismatch between what is logged and what is on the table still there on some cells, but most are really close. I am not sure if I will keep it at zero, just looking at cause and effect. I also goofed on the base injector flow rate at 19psi, leaning out all the tables by a little bit with that mistake.

[Fast355]

I appreciate the Ideas. I will not be upset if it makes more hp than I expected. I set the roller lifters the standard way, 1/2 turn preload. Not running. I have not had problems setting them that way before, but I can check them again. I have upgraded springs so it could go higher, I just don't see the need. I still think that there is something wrong with the spark advance as its still not matching the table in tuner pro, but from what I did today, it did not seem to make a lot of difference at WOT. It made less HP with 10 degrees tacked on. Filling in the altitude scalar from 0 to 9.8 sure made a big loss though that was easy to see. Jegs has a house brand salad bowl, but I think I will do a run with no ring just to see if that's a big problem.

I would definately try a 1/4 turn running since it would not take long to do. It would be interesting to see if there is a difference and how much of a difference there might be. I had a blueprinted .040" over flat top piston 305 with 081 centerbolt TPI heads, a L69 cam, 1.6:1 rockers, swapped to TBI with those same Thorley headers years ago go from 140 hp and 220 tq to 193 hp and 282 tq on a Mustang dyno going from a static adjusted 1 turn to a running adjusted 1/4 turn. This was after being disgusted by building an engine that made less power than the stock 250K mile 305 that I had previously swapped to TBI. The stock LE9 engine with a 204/214 cam had made 165 hp and 250 tq. After beating my head on the wall and finally having an instructer at the trade school I attended with 30+ years experience building race motors suggest trying it. It actually made 181/268 from the valve adjustment alone but the afr was in the mid 13s after. Burned a chip with 10% added to the VE tables and the AFR went to the mid 12s. The AFR was spot on at 12.5 before the change. After thinking about it for a while it made sense that doing what I had done gave me a more accurate adjustment of the rockers, less chance for lifter pump up and overall more consistant valve lift and valve timing.

Also don't write off a powerbowl if your open TBI test results in no gains or a loss. IMO the TBI needs something to help straighten the airflow entering it. The choker ring does it to some effect but I feel the parabolic shape of the bowl does it even better.