Follow up dyno on 5.0

Black 5.0

Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2011
Posts
243
Reaction score
0
About a month and a half ago, I took my '11 GT down to Performance Race engineering for a 'stock pull'. They have a Dyno Dynamics dynomometer. It is different than a DynoJet dyno in that the Dynamics dyno is a "load bearing" dyno versus an "inertia dyno" that the DynaJet is. According to Jason @ PRE, there would be a 10% difference in numbers between the two; DynaJet being on the high side.

My previous 'stock pull' produced 345rwhp/355rwtorque @ 6000 rpm using 87 octane.

This morning, using a performance [91 octane] tune loaded from my Cortex 1950 using 92 octane gas, the numbers were: 376rwhp/365rwTorque @ 6500 rpm. The A/F ratio up high registered @ 12.2:1 which is where it should be.

Since we don't have 93 octane readlily availible here in Oregon, the 91 tune was as high as I was willing to go because of issues other folks have been having which are well documented. Anyway, I'm fairly certain that the numbers would be significantly higher on the 93 tune and I do have that ability to load it if I run across 94 octane or better.

The two test, at any rate, were to determine if I would keep the SC Cortex tuner or send it back if the numbers were not satisfactory. I bought the Cortex because it is virtually the only tuner that will handle muliple vehicles of the same manufacturer (Ford and Gm) on the same unit. I would also like to have a tune program for my '07 Ranger.

It looks as though the Cortex is going to be a keeper even after all the problems of having to wait 2 months for a properly calibrated program. However, a problem occured with the 91 tune as it all the sudden ran rich (10:1) puffing black out the tail pipes before the pull. Had to uninstall and re- install the tune and then it ran OK. Funny thing about that is the tune had been loaded for at least a week before putting it on the dyno with no problems! Weird! Will have to consult SC about why it might have done this.

Anyway, dyno sheets below, before and after w/ current A/F numbers...
smile.gif
:
 

Attachments

  • Glenden Beach and Boiler Bay 002.jpg
    Glenden Beach and Boiler Bay 002.jpg
    384.1 KB · Views: 8
  • 19 Aug 11 dyno-GT.jpg
    19 Aug 11 dyno-GT.jpg
    134.6 KB · Views: 8
  • 18 Aug 11 dyno AFR-GT.jpg
    18 Aug 11 dyno AFR-GT.jpg
    75.2 KB · Views: 8

Black 5.0

Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2011
Posts
243
Reaction score
0
That's good. I've never seen any higher than 93 octane.
With the issues involving 93 tunes and the 5.0, I don't believe just using 93 octane would be good enough. You could raise the octane level by pumping in few gallons of racing fuel but unless you're at a track or a location that sells it, it's not a vialbe choice. YMMV
 

ZLLJ

Junior Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2011
Posts
34
Reaction score
0
Can it datalog events like knock? I'd be especially cautious since you're the only person I've seen use that tune on a 5.0.
 

Black 5.0

Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2011
Posts
243
Reaction score
0
It has a lot of datalogging features but, I don't think it does the knock sensor unfortunetly. I'm not concerned about using a 91 octane tune on the 5.0. The problems people are having seen to be with a 93 octane tune and some over zealous tuning settings. I feel confident the tune I have will have no such problems.

Of all the conversations about the #8 issue, the one constant denominator has been an aggressive 93 tune. I'm fairly certain I know what's going on with this issue. But, I'll leave it at that as this story has been over played all over the inner webs.
 

Seer

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2011
Posts
6,516
Reaction score
1
The #8 issue is from tuners tuning the 4v like it was a 3v. Disable Knock sensor, jack up the timing and lean it out.
 

Support us!

Support Us - Become A Supporting Member Today!

Click Here For Details

Back
Top