sycd

One question about the steeda elbow: why are the silicone hose connectors blue? The C&L has the same thing. I hate the look of these things. Can I get black ones instead? steeda.com doesn't say anything about that.

Also, am I really going to see some gains if I switch from the stock elbow to the steeda elbow? steeda.com claims 8hp gain, but it's not clear compared to what, and that sounds like a lot to me. Any thoughts?

YaoNYC

thanks rondosa. that is great advice! im going to consider all options...

TillmanSpeed

Rocky,

Yea that's some good numbers there! I think with the correction factor out of there, it would have seen 302 probably. That's awesome!

Also, regarding your other post I would wait until the ProChamber to dyno, it will make about a 5RWHP+ increase with the right tuning.

Yeah, let me know. If Powerhouse doesn't work out for you, we sure will! Now that the weather is clearing up, maybe we can get you in before or after the April showers?

CR
Tillman Speed

tifo

I think the 8 HP is a pretty optimistic, but Doug from Bamachips personally recommended the inlet elbow to me and I figured with his tuning experience there is a good reason...

Just looking at the difference in diameter (especially where it feeds into the throttle body) you can see that the Steeda elbow is much wider and probably feeds more air than the stock tube. IMO, It looks pretty sweet on my sky blue Mustang too.

Take a look:

DynamicmustangGT

it looks a lot better than the stock tube with the ribs, and its a more direct route to the tb instead of curving towrds the front then into the tb, this design probably helps out alot with throttle lag but I don not have proof of that yet.

DynamicmustangGT

[quote=sycd;872449]One question about the steeda elbow: why are the silicone hose connectors blue? quote]

Not sure the size on the diameter but I have found some at jegs, check under superchargers but don't go car specific, and they have back ones up to 3.0" which seems about right. maybe not though but they have different sizes there

DynamicmustangGT

here ya go

thump_rrr

Just to make myself perfectly clear I am not a great believer in bench racing and dyno numbers don't mean much to me.
This is not the first time I see you stating that dyno numbers are not accurate. The last time was in the Shelby GT thread.
I don't think that you understand the amount of problems a higher manufacturers rating can bring given the manufacturing tolerances and the different break in methods used by different people.

With all the lawsuits surrounding the horsepower ratings of the first generation Cobras it is reasonable for Ford to use an attainable rating.

I prefer dragstrip testing in conjunction with weather monitoring for density altitude purposes.
There are correction factors which can be used to level the playing field and make the data usefull.

A dyno is instrumental in the development and tuning and testing different variables but a 1% margin of error will throw a wrench into almost any test result especially when other variables such as weather and heat soak are involved.

When you also add in the fact that different pulls are done on different days or different dynos and you have a recipe for failure.

Just to clear up a few things here when you say a few have made 270 rwhp you are correct but that number is not the norm.

If you dig up very early posts during the S197 life cycle you will find that the low was an oddball 246rwhp and the other oddball was 280rwhp.
The 280rwhp was the Anderson Ford Motorsport screaming yellow shop car which was selected by dynoing 20 of the cars that they received on their own dyno.
The average was 264rwhp which with a 15% drivetrain loss would put it closer to 305rwhp.

I have always used canned tunes in my car with great results. When I was naturally aspirated I performed some back to back tests one day when there was not much activity at our local dragstrip.
I had posted the results quite a while back but it goes to show you the differences made between tunes and components.

This is instrumental in also showing what increased torque does since the rule of thumb is 2/10ths at the end of the 1/4 mile for every 1/10th reduction in 60' time.

Here is the link to the earlier post.
http://forums.bradbarnett.net/showpo...63&postcount=6

Here is the cut and paste
"3 runs were done with each configuration.
1/2 hour cool down time between runs.
The MPH is always high at that track by 2.5-3 mph.

I actually did back to back to back testing.
Stock VS. 93 Octane Diablosport Canned tune VS. C&L Street Kit and 93 Octane Diablosport C&L Canned tune.

The results were

Stock intake and stock tune 2.094 ft. 13.757 @ 102.630 mph.
Stock intake and Diablo 93 octane tune 2.041 ft. 13.535 @ 104.577 mph.
C&L Intake and Diablo 93 octane C&L tune 1.954 ft. 13.274 @ 107.453 mph.

The car went on to run 12.95 @ 103 on the brakes with BFG Drag Radials later the same day during eliminations.

My 1/4 mile times were within 0.015 between this track and Englishtown NJ. with a comparable DA"

My car now has over 800 1/4 mile runs to date along with over 20,000 street driven miles so I'm confident in the data which I provide.

metroplex

Most of the CAI kits come with a new flasher. It's cheaper if you don't buy it with the flasher, but sometimes there's no option. I know of a few Mustang owners that just buy the CAI combo kits and end up with 2-3 different flasher units. I would recommend just buying the CAI you want (without a flasher) and get custom made tunes from a SCT dealer or make the tunes yourself using the SCT PRP.

The SCT PRP includes the same Advantage 3 software that SCT dealers are using. No programming skills are required, but a half-way decent idea of how to tune cars is required, along with an interest in learning about the "tuning" process. If you can use a mouse to click through some items, you can use the SCT PRP to load the proper air transfer function for your CAI kit. I've been using the SCT PRP for the past 3 years mainly to tune my Crown Vic. I'm waiting for the warranty to expire on the Stang before I perform any real mods.

metroplex

Is that an actual correction factor or just a standard rule of thumb (like 25% for automatics)? At 16%, the TR-3650 is less efficient than the 4R70W.
Has anyone determined the actual drivetrain loss for the TR-3650 in 4th gear?

tifo

On one hand you say that dyno numbers don't mean much to you because certain variables can create inaccuracies, but then you state your claims on 1/4 mile times which have even more variables and margins for error (not to mention driver variables).

thump_rrr

If you don't know how to drive that's your problem.
We test our cars to see how they perform but the bottom line is that they must perform with us behind the wheel.
Here are 3 runs I have done within 1/100th of a second of each other.
2 of the slips are within 2/1000ths of a second of each other.
This is on a manual transmission equipped car.
Is this a coincidence?
I think not.
BTW my suspension is setp for roadracing not drag racing.

TillmanSpeed

Load from the dyno, actual correction factor. What you would see on and MD, as opposed to a Dynajet. However there are ways now to use correction on Dynajet's as well depending on what model you get.

TillmanSpeed

It's a little harder than just loading the value files and being done. The MAF is never right from those values. I've seen it for NA as much as 8% lean fuel. For blower.... nearly 55% lean.

CR

metroplex

Thanks! With a 16% correction, 270 rwhp is actually closer to 321 fwhp, which is very good for a bone stock S197 GT.

metroplex

There are wideband O2s that the PRP users can use to monitor AFR and tweak the transfer function accordingly but it involves access to a chassis dyno, or a long stretch of road

Luckily I used the Marauder airbox and MAF on my Vic, so I just imported the factory air transfer function (which is now included in the value files that SCT supplies). My LTFT looks to be no more than 5%-7% (which is not the same as logging wideband O2 readings in closed loop on a chassis dyno), well within the factory spec of +/- 20% for that model year.

tifo

Hang on a minute there Captain 1/4 mile...

Before you found an excuse to post your proud timesheet, remember that the discussion was over the "stock" HP rating of a Mustang GT.

CR from TillmanSpeed has also stated that there is a 16% loss from the flywheel to the wheels. So even if (according to what you said) the average Mustang is at 264 RWHP that is still 314HP at the flywheel with a 16% loss. My estimate of 317HP for a manual trans is not far off.

I don't know why I'm looking at your 1/4 mile time sheet. My post was to show the horsepower gains from a Steeda CAI (that's what this thread is about) with Ford Racing's pro-cal tune vs. a custom tune.

If you don't believe in dyno numbers that's your problem, but I see no point in your post (except) to flash us your 1/4 mile times.

~Ray

YaoNYC

hi everyone...

lets keep the PEACEFUL steeda cai/90mm elbow discussion going

everyone has the right to own opinions


thanks very much everyone!

sycd

Thanks for the pointer! Maybe I'll take the plunge, measure the connectors, and find the best match at jegs.

DynamicmustangGT

for the two its going to be around $23 it's not that bad, They also have other silcone hoses but I didn't see anything in black, also try napa or autozone, they usually stock ricer cai's and probably have the parts