N/A motor talk. Thinking about CFM, Cam Specs, etc.

BruceH

BBB Big Bore Boss 322
Joined
Sep 13, 2009
Posts
13,801
Reaction score
14
Location
Pacific Northwest
Just can't leave well enough alone can you Bruce. You were my motivation to stay NA and be patient with my 5.3 setup. Now here you go again... and I can't wait to see what comes of it. Thanks for sharing all the things you try. I respect your objectivity.

I think I'm going to sell the dob (GT500) related components I've collected
and stay n/a. The biggest decision right now is between the Holley and FRPP intakes. I don't know if the Holley needs IMRC plates and everything I've seen for the Holley has a delayed shipping date.

Now that I think about it a GT500 tb flowing over 875cfm wouldn't change a thing with the Bullitt cai because the cai would be the biggest restriction.

I think I'll wait for the exhaust components and intake manifold before hitting the dyno. If they don't improve airflow and power enough then I'll look at the cai and tb.

Does anyone have hard data on cfm per hp requirements? I keep coming up with 1.5cfm per hp but it's all "rule of thumb" and comes up in pushrod motor discussions. If that was true then the stock 3v cai would be good for about 300rwhp and I'm pretty sure that has never happened so I place doubt on the 1.5cfm rule.
 

BruceH

BBB Big Bore Boss 322
Joined
Sep 13, 2009
Posts
13,801
Reaction score
14
Location
Pacific Northwest
Looked at the intake manifolds a little closer and realized the Holley has all the vacuum ports located on a boss. This means the factory pcv and vacuum lines won't work with it.

As of now I have the Pypes orh, Pypes high flow cats, and have an FRPP intake manifold on order.

The Pypes orh is missing two clamps, they sent me two right hand legs (should still work) and they didn't put cuts in the expanded pipe joint where the legs clamp on. I don't believe the guy doing the pick and pack really gave a shit and obviously neither does Pypes. In hindsight I should of went with a better quality manufacturer. I can probably make it all work.

I'm going to start with the intake manifold. First pass testing will be nothing more than a data log. I'm hoping to see an airflow increase significant enough to rule out variables and show that the intake was the main restriction.

Now that I think about it I'm pretty sure I have old logs that show the difference between the stock intake and frpp with this motor. Too bad I didn't remember it until now.
 

13726548

forum member
Joined
Jun 27, 2009
Posts
332
Reaction score
0
Location
GA
FWIW I've made 699rwhp with the stock cats. That was with a .030 over 4.6 and Procharger at 19psi fueled by E85 but the point is that it was made with stock cats.

Was that with a D1SC or an F1?
 

BruceH

BBB Big Bore Boss 322
Joined
Sep 13, 2009
Posts
13,801
Reaction score
14
Location
Pacific Northwest
So it turns out I already went through this airflow thing with both manifolds. I totally forgot that the comparisons had been made with the current exhaust setup but with a larger tb, delete plates, and larger cai.

Everything points to the stock intake manifold running out of air and being the biggest restriction. It also ran out of air around the same place with long tubes.

A few new logs to further confuse with questionable techniques.

These are on 92 octane and with a 65mm tb. The first is with the stock manifold and deletes, second is with the same 65mm tb and frpp intake.

Other differences are JBA shorty headers with factory cats.

The previous logs quoted in this post were with E85, 62mm tb, Mac LT headers with Pypes high flow cats and a prochamber.

I'm sticking with 41 lbs of airflow as the delta. It's important to note that the airflow measurement is dependent on the maf xfer, weather conditions, and other things so this is nothing more than a gee whiz comparison. Including all the variables I find it quite interesting that the numbers are somewhat repeatable in baseline numbers and with similar changes.

Once again 41 lbs was made at close to 6100 rpms with the stock intake manifold. It also maxed out around 43 lbs just like the previous log quoted in this post.



This is with the FRPP intake manifold. 41 lbs comes on earlier but not nearly as early as it did with E85. Max airflow is close to 47 lbs just like it was with E85.



Also of note is that the airflow in the lower rpms seems to be greater with the stock intake which is consistent with the lost power most na motors experience with the FRPP intake. IMO unless the motor is moving more than 40 lbs of air the FRPP intake is only going to result in losses. This was my experience with a smaller na 3v.

To get a better idea I should really switch back to E85 with the current setup and try to get out during similar weather conditions. The pulls are being made on the same stretch of pavement.


One last thing I notice with the FRPP intake is that load doesn't have the big drop in higher rpms. Since load is a measure of volumetric efficiency or how much air is moving through the motor these logs show that magic point of 41 lbs of air as being where the stock intake drops off and the frpp takes off.

I'm going to reiterate that these tests aren't very exact, they are ballpark figures but there are enough similarities that IMO the FRPP intake manifold is of no benefit to a motor moving less than 41 lbs of air and even then the benefits don't really manifest unless you are revving to at least 7000 rpm.
 

A John In NJ

Rice Cooker
Joined
Jul 1, 2007
Posts
858
Reaction score
1
Location
NJ
D1



Expound upon that thought please.

I love that you are giving us little 3V guys a reason to not go FI. Ever since I first bought my 3V back in 07 I've always wanted a NA V8 but I cheated and bought a Kenne Bell which was a huge mistake.

I also love that you are making an effort to find the best combination of mods.

The end results should be published in a magazine.
 

BruceH

BBB Big Bore Boss 322
Joined
Sep 13, 2009
Posts
13,801
Reaction score
14
Location
Pacific Northwest
I love that you are giving us little 3V guys a reason to not go FI. Ever since I first bought my 3V back in 07 I've always wanted a NA V8 but I cheated and bought a Kenne Bell which was a huge mistake.

I also love that you are making an effort to find the best combination of mods.

The end results should be published in a magazine.

Thanks for the kind words. I had gotten a different meaning when I saw the ... but thought I'd ask in case I was interpreting it wrong. I was.
 

Boone

Automotive Enthusiast
Joined
Feb 24, 2015
Posts
320
Reaction score
4
Location
High Point, NC
I was wondering why you're getting much better mileage than my 5.3L when I have less restrictions to airflow which should be more efficient. I believe the answer is the charge motion plates on the stock manifold. Ford really did know what they were doing. Yahoo highlighted the following video which does a great job at answering my question.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CxXJhEGZ40
 

BruceH

BBB Big Bore Boss 322
Joined
Sep 13, 2009
Posts
13,801
Reaction score
14
Location
Pacific Northwest
I was wondering why you're getting much better mileage than my 5.3L when I have less restrictions to airflow which should be more efficient. I believe the answer is the charge motion plates on the stock manifold. Ford really did know what they were doing. Yahoo highlighted the following video which does a great job at answering my question.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CxXJhEGZ40

Adding the CMCV gained about 2+ mpg. They do something to help with combustion. It's too bad I can't put them on the FRPP intake. I would if I could.
 

BruceH

BBB Big Bore Boss 322
Joined
Sep 13, 2009
Posts
13,801
Reaction score
14
Location
Pacific Northwest
Finally got the FRPP intake in. Previous max airflow with this setup was 40lbs/min. Now it's 44.8.

The only thing that was changed was the intake manifold. Still have stock cats and JBA equal length shorties.

This is an increase in airflow of about 11%. It's more ballpark than exact because of things like air density but it's using the same maf, cai, and maf xfer function. A/F stayed pretty close to what it was previously although some tweaking is needed. My guess is that there is more air available for a given maf count at some rpm ranges and that's giving me a few lean areas. 1.5 degrees of spark advance was pulled, the ecu only allowed 26.5 past 5200rpm. 28 degrees was commanded.

Airflow keeps climbing instead of topping out like the stock intake. I'll get on the dyno sometime in the future.
 

BruceH

BBB Big Bore Boss 322
Joined
Sep 13, 2009
Posts
13,801
Reaction score
14
Location
Pacific Northwest
How's the testing going?

It isn't. I have a set of Lunati 21270716 cams just waiting to go in but I don't have the motivation. I also have the off road pipes and high flow cats sitting in the boxes brand new, just don't feel like doing anything to the car.

Haven't made it to the dyno either. The weather and road conditions aren't going to work for doing road pulls to tweak prior to the dyno.

I've also signed up for a voluntary layoff at work so I'm more content to leave well enough alone due to watching my savings and making it last until retirement in 3.5 years.

As is the car drives great, is reliable and makes respectable power. Keeping it that way is the new priority.

BTW it recently passed emissions with the current setup. Not only obd but a sniffer at idle and I was running gasoline.
 

Support us!

Support Us - Become A Supporting Member Today!

Click Here For Details

Sponsor Links

Banner image
Back
Top