Originally Posted by P0 Corsa

Andy, a few comments about your dyno data.

I am not quite sure of what is being presented in the graph. The legend indicates “Run #1 CO-Boss-302 (Boss 30 Stock” is depicted in red color, “Run #2 CO-Boss 302 (Boss30 Custom Tune with VCT Changes” is depicted in green color and “Run #3” in blue color is untitled and thus unknown. The only colored lines represented are red (presumed to be “stock” engine horsepower) per the legend and blue (engine torque of unknown configuration per the legend). You can assume anything you want from the curves and delta’s are shown between the lines, however, what configurations are represented by the data is certainly not clear and contradicts that which is presented in the graph legend.

Let’s assume for talking purposes the upper line is representative of the custom tune and the lower lines are the stock engine data. You state, “This was run to 7800 and you can see the HP curve stays VERY level at these rpm levels unlike the stock Coyote.” The stock engine data only goes out to 7300 rpm. It is unclear why stock data was not taken out to the OE rpm limit of 7500. I believe both the soft and hard ECU engine speed limits are above 7300 rpm in the stock engine calibration. But the data is what it is.

The stock engine drops 0.5% in power and 4.3% in torque from 6800 to 7300 rpm while the tuned engine drops 1.5% in power and 11.7% in torque from 6800 to 7800 rpm. Thus I am not sure how your statement of horsepower stability is accurate. The tuned Coyote drops significant power (and torque) relative to the stock engine over the tested rpm bands. Because the rpm limit for the tuned engine was raised over the stock, in the speed range of 7300 to 7800 rpm the tuned engine looses 1.3% in horsepower and 3.5% in torque. Again your data shows both parameters are definitely trending DOWN, not up or even flat.


As my discussions (chronicled in a previous post) with actual Ford Coyote design engineers indicate the engine speed limits were imposed for specific rotor integrity concerns (as well as durability), why would an owner want to ignore these structural limits to achieve diminishing power?

Originally Posted by 2006stiguy

So let the benchracing continue and I'll find that graph!!

Andy

Originally Posted by cloud9

I think that says it all. Good luck running this motor over 8k RPMs on a routine basis for 20-30 minute sessions at WOT four to six times a day over two-three day events. As P0 has so eloquently put it, your power is diminishing that far out on the curve anyway, so outside of being a dyno queen, what is it accomplishing? Beyond durability, good luck keeping it cool at those RPMs during any serious track duty as well.

Originally Posted by P0 Corsa

Andy, a few comments about your dyno data.

I am not quite sure of what is being presented in the graph. The legend indicates “Run #1 CO-Boss-302 (Boss 30 Stock” is depicted in red color, “Run #2 CO-Boss 302 (Boss30 Custom Tune with VCT Changes” is depicted in green color and “Run #3” in blue color is untitled and thus unknown. The only colored lines represented are red (presumed to be “stock” engine horsepower) per the legend and blue (engine torque of unknown configuration per the legend). You can assume anything you want from the curves and delta’s are shown between the lines, however, what configurations are represented by the data is certainly not clear and contradicts that which is presented in the graph legend.

Let’s assume for talking purposes the upper line is representative of the custom tune and the lower lines are the stock engine data. You state, “This was run to 7800 and you can see the HP curve stays VERY level at these rpm levels unlike the stock Coyote.” The stock engine data only goes out to 7300 rpm. It is unclear why stock data was not taken out to the OE rpm limit of 7500. I believe both the soft and hard ECU engine speed limits are above 7300 rpm in the stock engine calibration. But the data is what it is.

The stock engine drops 0.5% in power and 4.3% in torque from 6800 to 7300 rpm while the tuned engine drops 1.5% in power and 11.7% in torque from 6800 to 7800 rpm. Thus I am not sure how your statement of horsepower stability is accurate. The tuned Coyote drops significant power (and torque) relative to the stock engine over the tested rpm bands. Because the rpm limit for the tuned engine was raised over the stock, in the speed range of 7300 to 7800 rpm the tuned engine looses 1.3% in horsepower and 3.5% in torque. Again your data shows both parameters are definitely trending DOWN, not up or even flat.


As my discussions (chronicled in a previous post) with actual Ford Coyote design engineers indicate the engine speed limits were imposed for specific rotor integrity concerns (as well as durability), why would an owner want to ignore these structural limits to achieve diminishing power?

Originally Posted by cloud9

I think that says it all. Good luck running this motor over 8k RPMs on a routine basis for 20-30 minute sessions at WOT four to six times a day over two-three day events. As P0 has so eloquently put it, your power is diminishing that far out on the curve anyway, so outside of being a dyno queen, what is it accomplishing? Beyond durability, good luck keeping it cool at those RPMs during any serious track duty as well.

Originally Posted by PACETTR

I am somewhat surprised that some of you actually drive performance cars. There are always risks involved in modding/racing. He didn't say he was going to run "over 8k RPMs on a routine basis for 20-30 minute sessions at WOT four to six times a day over two-three day events". His car would be a TON faster in the quarter, and he now has the ability to stretch it out when necessary at the road course.

You are ASSuming that there will be durability issues.

Does everyone understand "average usable power"? The power is "diminishing" at a far lesser rate than it would as the result of a shift.

I don't get why you guys are being so tough on this guy. IMO the results are awesome.

Originally Posted by meanmud

What org are you running with? I should have my car by then and am looking to get back there in September! Lightning is way cooler than Thunderbolt, btw.

Originally Posted by Jza1736

SCDA

http://www.scda1.com/schedule

I haven't registered yet because I havnt received my car yet, either. I've been on lightning b4 and had a blast. Never got a chance to run thunderbolt though. It would be great to see some Bosses there. We can beat up on my boys M3!

Originally Posted by cloud9

Thanks for clarifying the risks involved in modding/racing. If you check my sig, you'll see I'm not shy about modding where the risk justifies the reward and you are comfortable with the shop or company providing the mods. Oh and how many "bench racing" track days do you have in your Boss? At least some of us have actually put these cars on track and pushed them albeit HPDE, not racing.

As for being surprised, I'd have to say I'm surprised some of you are in sales

Originally Posted by Jza1736

This video is on lightning! I just found this
http://www.mustangevolution.com/must...ustang+News%29

Originally Posted by PACETTR

Originally Posted by Jza1736

SCDA

http://www.scda1.com/schedule

I haven't registered yet because I havnt received my car yet, either. I've been on lightning b4 and had a blast. Never got a chance to run thunderbolt though. It would be great to see some Bosses there. We can beat up on my boys M3!

Originally Posted by cloud9

Thanks for clarifying the risks involved in modding/racing. If you check my sig, you'll see I'm not shy about modding where the risk justifies the reward and you are comfortable with the shop or company providing the mods. Oh and how many "bench racing" track days do you have in your Boss? At least some of us have actually put these cars on track and pushed them albeit HPDE, not racing.

As for being surprised, I'd have to say I'm surprised some of you are in sales

Originally Posted by P0 Corsa

Pacetter, I too am always amused at your posts. Quick to point out how others are always wrong but yet you offer no other justification to or for your position. Clearly shows a lack of understanding.

Interesting

To answer your question, where am I getting my percentages, where else, the graphically presented DATA.(??)

Show me your numbers so we can compare if you think my percentages are not correct.

I don't see any numbers, only lines...

And you do correctly identify in your second sentence “the drop in torque”. That says it all whether significant or not (in your opinion).

Originally Posted by PACETTR

Not sure about the need for the jab. The fact that you DO mod and race your car is why I am surprised at some of your comments.

And I get to the track as much as my schedule allows. I just picked up my Boss from the rail yard, but the PJ has seen its share of track time, both straight and twisty.

Not opinion; FACT. hp = tq*rpm/5252. hp is what makes the car "faster". Greater average column hp is where it's at.

How much torque do you think F1 cars make?

Originally Posted by Big Vito

250?

Originally Posted by P0 Corsa

Show me your numbers so we can compare if you think my percentages are not correct.

I don't see any numbers, only lines...

Ok, I will say this again S L O W E R, so you might better understand. Show me your numbers to calculate the percentages of horsepower and torque rolloff. My percentage calculations are as accurate as the presented data. Show me YOUR numbers. If you only see “lines” why do you think my rolloff calculations are wrong?

I only see the peak numbers. I didn't say yours were incorrect, I only asked where you got them, which you have yet to show. I never claimed to hace any other than the peak numbers listed

Yep, you can recite the hp equation (as can most high school physics students). Where’s “greater average column hp” at?

It's at the top end of the power band, i.e. this particular engine makes more hp @ 7800rpm than it does at 5500rpm (I don't have EXACT numbers, but it is CLEAR from the graphical representation).

What does this have to do with your discussion??