Can anyone tell me how much additional horsepower each of these pulleys make. I have read it before but forget. :bash: From what I have heard they do not require a chip. Is that correct? :shrug:
3.2 and 3.4 pulley
- Thread starter 03_silver_coupe
- Start date
I asked Terry at SFP the same questions. This is what he told me.
I would still like to see a dyno graph with the air fuel through the rpm band though.
"We have tested the 2.3 & 3.4 DUB Pulley Units and the stock Air/Fuel Ratio is 10.0. Now with rnning the 3.2 DUB Pulley, you weill see your Air / Fuel Ratio between 11.3 to 11.8 and the 3.4 DUB Pulley will produce Air / Fuel Ratio of 11.5 to 12.0 on all 03 cobra's, providing your also change your Sprkplugs from the stock Platinum tipped to our NGK TR6's gapped at exactly .........the maximum you can expect just from the 3.2 pulley is between 22 to 25 horsepower ."
I would still like to see a dyno graph with the air fuel through the rpm band though.
"We have tested the 2.3 & 3.4 DUB Pulley Units and the stock Air/Fuel Ratio is 10.0. Now with rnning the 3.2 DUB Pulley, you weill see your Air / Fuel Ratio between 11.3 to 11.8 and the 3.4 DUB Pulley will produce Air / Fuel Ratio of 11.5 to 12.0 on all 03 cobra's, providing your also change your Sprkplugs from the stock Platinum tipped to our NGK TR6's gapped at exactly .........the maximum you can expect just from the 3.2 pulley is between 22 to 25 horsepower ."
My A/F did pick up a bit at 5000rpms and below, but at peak HP (~6500rpms) it was still <10:1. My hp gain was 8hp.
Earlier cars are programmed leaner and may get those A/F numbers he is talking about. Not mine.
However, I did not know about the plugs. Maybe I'll try that next.
I'll try to find a scanner today to post my dyno charts.
Earlier cars are programmed leaner and may get those A/F numbers he is talking about. Not mine.
However, I did not know about the plugs. Maybe I'll try that next.
I'll try to find a scanner today to post my dyno charts.
Here is the latest dyno chart with the 3.2 pulley. I couldn't find a color scanner, sorry.
Ignoring the little hp blip:
402hp w/stock pulley
414hp w/3.2 pulley
As you can see, the 3.2 pulley leaned it up a bit but not enough to bring up the power considerably.
Ignoring the little hp blip:
402hp w/stock pulley
414hp w/3.2 pulley
As you can see, the 3.2 pulley leaned it up a bit but not enough to bring up the power considerably.
I thought the general concensus was that the "early" cars computer tune was fatter than the later cars? Jon, you mention it being leaner??
Which one is it?
Ko
Which one is it?
Ko
Yes, leaner is faster. And I thought early cars were leaner, did I hear wrong?
My car is a late car, 10/02 production.
That is, in this context. As you can see by the above chart, my car is so rich on the top end that it is off-scale!
The 3.2 pulley leaned things up a bit, as did the 95mm MAF. A 2.93 pulley may even lean things up more but, at that point, I would start to be concerned about the mid-range being too lean.
The strange thing is that the 3.2 pulley did not have a big effect on the midrange A/F. That's good.
Last edited:
My July build YDH0 car is 11:1 from 5,400 - 5,800; 10:1 (and off the chart) above, stock.
My October build car (can't find the computer code) is 11:1 from 3800 and 10:1 (off the chart) from 4200.
Users who are viewing this thread
