TT Coyote produces 900+rwhp. Stock engine on 91

TheRealJoeDirt

New Member
Established Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2010
Messages
21
Location
In a trailer at the track
It's not the power he's griping about. It's the amount of power per psi. Basic laws state the best you can hope for when boosting is to double the engines original output at 14.7psi or one atmosphere. In this case 824hp at the flywheel. Then pump loses and heat rise will drop the actual output. In a perfect world 824 would be the highest possible output. At 18 psi the engine is at 248% it's original output. Impossible without the ability to change cam timing.

It has to do with intake wave pulse tuning. Google it for more in depth explanation. Hours of fun reading. Intake pulse tuning is why cams and intakes change power levels, and their rpm ranges. When a cylinder is filled, the intake valve opens, vacuum draws the charge in, intake valve closes and then boom. What some people over look is what happens next. When the intake valve shuts, all that air that didnt get it, back ups behind the intake valve causing positive pressure in the intake runner. Now this pulse will back up at the valve, and eventually goes backwards towards the plenum. If the intake valve opens at this point, the cylinder will be left to draw in what it can by pure vacumm as the piston heads to bottom dead center. As an engine speeds up, these pulses become more in tune with ea other. Intake will open then close, the charge will back up at the valve again, until this time, the runner is packed, but the puslse has not changed directions and the intake opens again forcing the charge in as the intake is sucking. This timing is why 4 stroke engines make more power as engine rpm rises.

Now what if you could have that max cylinder fill at all rpm? Boost is measured in the plenum, not the intake runner itself. 14.7 in the plenum, 18 in the intake runner when the intake opens. The intake charge will see more than one wave pulse after the intake closes. The first is the strongest and will make the most power. But not the one most engine are capable of using because of intake manifold restrictions. Most use the third plulse. So it actually hits the intake, bounces back to the plenum and back again. It does this a few times before the intake opens up. Usually the thrid time the pulse heads to the intake vale is when it opens. A gross over simplication, but the best I could do w my weak background.:lol:

LMMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :rockon::rockon::rockon::rockon:
 

CPRsm

Active Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
4,400
Location
San Diego, Ca
Found out the car made 305 uncorrected rwhp. On 16.85psi it made 930rwhp, also uncorrected.
I asked for the maf reading and he said it wouldnt be accurate. The HPX maf just didnt read in the 3.5 in tube like it should. Was hoping to translate the lbs/per minute. But he had to add 60% more fuel to that, so that's out the window. Again there Joe, if you guys want to pool your money and make it worth while, the car will come to you. Until then all I see is naysayers without the balls to call a bluff.
 

JaysonMFK

5.0 Fanboy
Established Member
Joined
May 20, 2011
Messages
1,278
Location
Texas
What type of EMS are you using?


EDIT: Why not run a MAP emulator that can use RPM/MAP/IAT , and then translate that to MAF output for the EMS. Something like http://www.mapecu.com/
 
Last edited:

CPRsm

Active Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
4,400
Location
San Diego, Ca
The EMS is stock. Translating the maf reading to map wouldn't really tell us anything. One reads only pressure, the other measures air density. In a known size tube you should be able know the lbs/min. That's the log I was hoping to show but it wasn't accurate I guess. Did I understand ur question right? Not sure I did.
 

JaysonMFK

5.0 Fanboy
Established Member
Joined
May 20, 2011
Messages
1,278
Location
Texas
Found out the car made 305 uncorrected rwhp. On 16.85psi it made 930rwhp, also uncorrected.
I asked for the maf reading and he said it wouldnt be accurate. The HPX maf just didnt read in the 3.5 in tube like it should. Was hoping to translate the lbs/per minute. But he had to add 60% more fuel to that, so that's out the window. Again there Joe, if you guys want to pool your money and make it worth while, the car will come to you. Until then all I see is naysayers without the balls to call a bluff.

The EMS is stock. Translating the maf reading to map wouldn't really tell us anything. One reads only pressure, the other measures air density. In a known size tube you should be able know the lbs/min. That's the log I was hoping to show but it wasn't accurate I guess. Did I understand ur question right? Not sure I did.

Sorry for the confusion. I didn't mean translate the maf to map, I meant use a MAP sensor instead.

From the first post I thought you were saying the MAF readings were inaccurate, so I assumed it was likely because the MAF sensor was pegged. That's why I was suggesting switching to a speed density sensor.

With the turbocharged cars that I've dealt with in the past, the MAF tends to lose resolution as the pressures increase.

No experience with the coyote engine at all though. Hope that clears up what I was saying?
 

CPRsm

Active Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
4,400
Location
San Diego, Ca
Ohhhhh, ok. Nah, none of those problems. But it was "only" 16 psi lol. What pressure have you seen problems? Were they slot mafs?
 

CPRsm

Active Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
4,400
Location
San Diego, Ca
LOL............CPRsm asked at what PRESSURE he was having problems. Pressure has nothing to do with pegging a MAF
Please pay attention. Go back and read again. He said when pressure went up, his maf had resolution problems. So I asked at what PRESSURE he was having those problems. This car didn't have any resolutions problems with the maf at 16 psi. Nor did I mention a maf being pegged. You're just grabbing at straws.
 

Nathan'sTsi

New Member
Established Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2004
Messages
1,293
Location
Texas
Found out the car made 305 uncorrected rwhp. On 16.85psi it made 930rwhp, also uncorrected.
I asked for the maf reading and he said it wouldnt be accurate. The HPX maf just didnt read in the 3.5 in tube like it should. Was hoping to translate the lbs/per minute. But he had to add 60% more fuel to that, so that's out the window. Again there Joe, if you guys want to pool your money and make it worth while, the car will come to you. Until then all I see is naysayers without the balls to call a bluff.

Altitude inflates the numbers for turbo cars pretty severly. However, the uncorrected numbers are just fine :)
 

CPRsm

Active Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
4,400
Location
San Diego, Ca
Altitude inflates the numbers for turbo cars pretty severly. However, the uncorrected numbers are just fine :)

That's what I said also. He headed back from here at sea level to test the car at 5000ft and found SAE correction to read only 3% high. We actually made it a point to find out because I said the exact same thing a few months ago. When he compared the numbers to here, not much I could really say.
 

TheRealJoeDirt

New Member
Established Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2010
Messages
21
Location
In a trailer at the track
Please pay attention. Go back and read again. He said when pressure went up, his maf had resolution problems. So I asked at what PRESSURE he was having those problems. This car didn't have any resolutions problems with the maf at 16 psi. Nor did I mention a maf being pegged. You're just grabbing at straws.

MAFs don't read pressure.
 

CPRsm

Active Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
4,400
Location
San Diego, Ca
Really? Neither do O2's. But put them under pressure and they skew readings. Again, go back and read the posts to understand what you're talking about.
 

BTrinanes

New Member
Established Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Messages
64
Location
Ma
MAFs don't read pressure.

Ok BIG GUY... If you were half as good at reading as runinng your mouth you would clearly understand what was said.. I actually kept checking this thread cus originally I thought you knew something and possibly had some intelligence to add to this but its obvious your a dumbass...
 

TheRealJoeDirt

New Member
Established Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2010
Messages
21
Location
In a trailer at the track
Ok BIG GUY... If you were half as good at reading as runinng your mouth you would clearly understand what was said.. I actually kept checking this thread cus originally I thought you knew something and possibly had some intelligence to add to this but its obvious your a dumbass...

LMMFAO!

You people on this site are so damn gullible it's pathetic.

Boost has nothing to do with where the problem occurs.
IF Dustin was really interested and able to help the guy his problem, he would have asked more and different questions.............like maf count, load rpms...ect
 

CPRsm

Active Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2009
Messages
4,400
Location
San Diego, Ca
I wasn't trying to help with his problems or diagnose. I was wondering if he was running 30+psi. I've never heard of pressure changing resolution.
 

Users who are viewing this thread



Top