Granatelli

If you guys think there is an idle issue now...just try a huge single blade. The answer to the question is simple, the factory intake does not allow for a large single blade. I will take a picture and forward it off. Or perhaps the next time someone installs a new Billet T body they can post a picture of the intake with the T body removed.

Dubai

the result at last.. love the numbers..
seems like ill get it ..

GIG4FUN

Guys,
Would any added spring tension towards the blades closing help the off throttle delayed rpm drop?

Also, My TB looks identical and my throttle blades overtravel & I have to hold a .200 pin against the gear rack to case, to see it stop at full on throttle. It appears that my gear rack was pressed on the throttle blade shaft a few degrees off.

-->JR Question for you...
Do you press the shafts onto the gear rack there or do they come in assembled? I am considering sending mine to you for a replacement shaft or to "learn" how I can do it. I am not sure of the "press" onto the shaft, that being if it is a size on size fit or more "press" I would fear cracking the gear rack performing the work. It seem that I could put a set screw in the rack easier.

I am a machinist and work in a gear plant. I have ALL machines at my disposal. ie. mills, lathes, grinders,shapers, hobs, broach,cmm,cad etc. (any and everything)...so if I knew is SHOULD BE straight in the bore at WOT I could fix it if I knew just a bit about it. I ask that you PM me please if you want to keep some of these details off the board.

Thank you for the work done here!

Russ

Granatelli

Please note all this talk about Air Fuel ratio is totally off base and quite honestly misstates the fact about a 281 motor 2v, 3v or 4v. 281's like fuel. Leaning them out does not make more power. Well let me clarify that and stock 03-04 Cobra will blow 10.3 to 1 A/F right off the show room floor so yes if you lean them out to 11.0 to 1 they usually step up in power a slight bit - but lets stay focused here

When George came in his car had already had a few mods. Like the JLT intake tube and SCT tuner. SO this is not a "true test" on a stone stock car. But it still shows the power gain. A gain that comes from increased airflow "laminar airflow" as much as just plain more air. From an engineering stand point I have not done all the numbers but from my experience this is what I surmise.

I explained to George that our Billet MAF will move as much air at 81% throttle angle and the factory T body can move at WOT (wide open). The gain in power is coming from the larger T body’s ability to flow way more air across the blades with less pressure drop. It is like this. If I ask you to walk across a football field breathing through a garden hose, that would be no big deal. Now If I say run as fast as you can you could still do it but it would be difficult. Now do the same test but breath through a fire hose that is like 2.5 inch in diameter. Comparing our t-body to the factory is like a garden hose to a fire hose. The engine can accelerate much faster and smoother with the larger blades. The power increase comes from the larger t-body’s ability to move the air quicker and with less resistance

As for the comments on A/F ratio and the speculation that the leaner mixture made the power, that is just plain hogwash. However I have tried to attached the back to back A/F sheet for you - if you can’t see it here then I screwed up and don’t know how to get it up on the screen so wait until Monday when my Computer nerds get here.

Note:
Minimum A/F was 12.4 at 1990 rpm with and without the T Body. Maximum A/F was 12.9 at 6000 stock and 13.1 at 5999 with the GMS T Body.
The average A/F was 12.6 stock and 12.7 with the Granatelli.

NEEDLESS TO SAY THE POWER COMES FROM THE PART NOT THE LEANER MIXTURE. we are talking .2 (less then a 1/4) of an a/f ratio

For those looking for or asking for my credentials, I ran Paxton superchargers from 1989 to 1998. I am credited with designing and creating the Novi 2000. This and only 50 State Legal Supercharger that will support 1000hp out of the box. I tell you all this not really to brag but more to back up my opinions. I have been a loyal Mustang guy since 1982 and built the first ever blown Saleen for Steve Saleen in 1983 - man I feel old.

celticstanger

Looks like the usual rash of head-in-sand, blinkered bs from the naysayers. On the one hand, "TB does NOTHING", now it's "TB is leaning out the a/f to get gains".

Nice to see the a/f's have been added to the original post. What do you know, the numbers are WELL short of lean

Can't wait to see the next rash of knocks ("Ur, the dyno was on a down-slope to aid power...")

Granatelli

I can't figure out how to make the image small enough - I am happy to email or PM the PDF of the dyno A/F sheets

Granatelli

That is not what he said - the runs are tuned. Stkdidy is trying to say perhaps more power can be had with another reflash but I don’t see it based on the a/f traces

Granatelli

Dan misstaed what George said

Quote:

Originally posted by thump_rrr@January 28, 2006, 2:59 AM
The increase in HP is probably due to the leaning out of the A/F ratio since there was no tuning done.

Quoted post

Not true the a/f traces are almost identical

Quote:

Originally posted by thump_rrr@January 28, 2006, 2:59 AM
We need all the pieces of the puzzle for both before and after the TB installation to determine if there were legitimate gains made.

Quoted post

I have emailed them to you

Quote:

Originally posted by thump_rrr@January 28, 2006, 2:59 AM
I can lean out my car too and make more hp. The great equalizer is maintaining a consistent A/F ratio.

Why don't we have any A/F readings on the pulls with the stock TB?

I can't even read the numbers on the A/F chart that's there.

That's what's needed to quell all doubts

Quoted post

OK – then it is quelled – check your email

<!--QuoteBegin-thump_rrr@January 28, 2006, 2:59 AM
If both the before and after pulls have the same A/F ratio then yes the TB made more power.

Quoted post

[/quote]
Then there you have it – the power comes from the part

Granatelli

The power gain comes from the increase airflow with less resistance


I guess I lied I can't email the other guy cuz I can't find his email address

Granatelli

<!--QuoteBegin-Doug904@January 28, 2006, 6:33 AM
You're kinda right here. Where the actual problem lie's is that the 05-06 Mustangs with Drive-By-Wire doesn't have an Idle air control valve anymore. So it uses the throttle plate and a HIGHLY researched table to create the dashpot affect for the TB. When you install a larger sized TB you increase the amount of airflow not only while under throttle loads but also when you are of the throttle and trying to slow the engine down.

I have the LFP 62mm TB, that by the way looks exactly the same. Now, with an automatic like mine I've not found this to be a problem at all but I'm assuming the additional load from the transmission is aiding in slowing the engine. With a 5-speed In slowing down situations or depressing the clutch I can definatly see the issue.

An even worse situation is with a Supercharged car, you are not only forcing more air but simply moving more air at idle because the supercharger may not be pressurizing it at idle but it is working like a $5000 air intake and aiding in getting some air to the engine. I've seen a Vortech S/C car run great under loads but when coming to a stop or even between shifts it goes to 3000 rpm's and stays for a while.

The fix, yes, custom tuning can help to solve this problem and it can be fixed entirely by doing this. Don't worry about dynotime because it's going to be done on the street with a data logger. No true dynotime needed. It will be a slow process but it can be tuned out and made to perform like a stocker under closed throttle situations.

And as for the slowing effect of the engine with the stock TB, I have a tune that is ALOT better for that with the manual cars. I do it to every manual program I do. It's actually one of the top requests I get from you guys.

Thanks, Doug.

Quoted post

[/quote]

All excellent points. I think the problem is no body ever really stopped to work on the maps down there. Most just look for big power. – Not driveablity. We close the blades as far as they can go. However due to the increase size of the blades more air can bleed by even when the blades are shot

celticstanger

[rant]

This is why manufacturers are on a lose-lose situation in these boards. Without ANY knowledge of the facts, people will make statements with so much certainty and continue to bash.

To say this

and then not have the stones to step up and give credit where it's due is just plain childish. To blindly bash products/manufacturers is poor enough form, but to continue to do so in spite of neutrally observed/validated test data shows a closed-mindedness that beggars belief. You ask for proof, you get proof. Does that satisfy? Of course not - you turn around and take a shot at the guy's integrity and all but accuse him of cheating.

This type of attitude is EXACTLY why hard-working manufacturers should NOT come in here and try to help us out. Some people deserve to be left to wallow in their ignorance and pettiness.

[/rant]

Granatelli

We are happy to help you but it really does not effect HP if the blade travels .125 past center

Granatelli

Thanks

Enfynet

a 62mm TB (with a 90+mm MAF) is asking for larger diameter exhaust pipes to keep airflow consistant in and out of the engine. Otherwise you're just building up backpressure. Someone needs to test a 95mm MAF with a 62mm TB with 1 3/4" headers and 3" pipes. That way you won't have any bottlenecking of air through the system.

Granatelli

Well it just so happens that Granatelli offers a complete 3" header back system for the Mustang. And everyone know we are the MAF experts - I see another test coming

GOFISCH

What do you suggest for those of us that can't run headers?

Granatelli

Header back means FROM

We also have a system that bolts up to the factory exhaust manifolds back

Granatelli

http://www.granatellimotorsports.com/image...ES0530small.jpg

Granatelli

Lastly - it should be noted that simple changes that are done downstream of the Mass Airflow Sensor are automatically calibrated for (factored in) this explains the air fuel ratio similarities.

stkdidy

Here is the back-story on the A/F of this car when stock, after my dyno tune, and after the TB:


As for tunes and leaning out...

When i got my dyno tune, we leaned it out to 12.8:1 at first, put down 319rwhp (no load dyno). then we leaned it out to 13.1, and saw 323rwhp. then we richened it up to stay on the safe side back down to 12.9:1, and saw 322rwhp
torque was within 2ft-lbs of 343rwtq on all three runs

Moral of the story, just leaning it out more, in my experience, did not get any sizeable gains.

The dyno tune that is in my car made 12.9:1 peak A/F ratio on the before runs, with variance of about .2 up and down (aka 12.7 to ~13.0 was the range at the time it was done), and with the TB, you can see how the A/F was affected.

edit: according to the before A/F, it is indeed rich (~12.4 down low and leans out to 12.9, the afterward A/F starts around 12.5 and leans to 13.1 peak. it seems that the effective A/F was richer down low than when i got the tune originally...maybe because of different temp conditions?)

There is slight leaning out from top to bottom, but as far as i can tell, the torque and hp gains were fairly consistant through all rpms


note: please stop the bashing, everyone. i did all this to provide my experience of bolt-on response of our 4.6 3V to a twin 62mm TB, not to say that it is the best thing to get or worst, but just to show what happened. and to JR, edit some of your posts in this thread from now on rather than making new ones to keep the thread looking less cluttered.