Dyno of the mild build 1984 CFI 5.0

[emerygt350]

Went and had the gt350 dynoed today. So much fun. AOD transmission, 3.73 gears, 1000 miles on the rebuild, 30 over, hypereuctectic pistons, 35-255-5 cam, gt-40 heads, shaved block .015, 8.8ish compression, edelbrock 3721 intake, hooker 6123hkr shorty equal length headers, bbk H pipe with cats, full dual exhaust, bullet style mufflers, lath stuffed into the tail pipes and a bone stock Ford CFI system working perfectly with the original Ford TFI ignition. All smog gear intact except for the thermactor to the heads, the gt40s I have don't have the ports (but they are 3 bar). No codes thrown on the computer.
Blue is the first run, red is the last.


Now don't everybody go out and get a CFI setup, they are rare and I bet you might have a hard time finding one


The CFI was really having a time of it. We got it tweaked best we could with increasing the fuel pressure and timing but there was only so much we could do. The top torque was in the 220s but it dropped when we bumped the timing. I am sure tuning the computer would add some more but I think next year we will be looking at a holley sniper. I will say that the CFI runs flawlessly and on the way back from the dyno I clocked a 0-60 of 6.34 seconds, which ain't bad and I think I could have done better letting the car shift when it wanted to (4800) now that I am home and have had a good look at the dyno results.

Also... bananas should always be a part of your lunch. When you are driving back from the dyno on an interstate highway and your wiring harness falls on to the header (I can't blame anyone but myself) and melts into a nasty mess and you have nothing in your car but your lunch, a banana peel will isolate melted wires quite well for at least an hour at 70mph.



cleaned it up a bit when I got home...

[4-barrel Mike]

Nice!

Mike

[erratic50]

Don’t go using all that torque in one place now.

The results look great knowing what you started with and are trying to keep happy.

[KevinK]

Excellent results. Looks like more than the feactory 165-185. Actuatty, those were the 85.5 numbers.
Did you do anything special besides making sure everything works?

[emerygt350]

Nothing special to the cfi, although I did bend the tab that stops the cfi from going fully open at WOT. Otherwise everything fuel wise is as it came from Ford.

[xctasy]

Greatest American Hero Banana trick....excellent!



Oh, and with a 1.5 factor loss, those 146.98/163.74 and 202.45/217.70's sure look like 220.47-245.61 Net BHP@ 4250 rpm and 303.68 lb-ft @ 2750 to 326.55 lb-ft at 3750 rpm to me.


The C4/C5/AOD trans loss factor is a mixture of heat and fluid coupling derived, and it varies a huge amount. Tires cause huge issues too. The chassis dynos counterweights or loss factors don't cut in well with the converter operation. It fully locks up at 2350 rpm, so your doing better than stock for sure.


Well done.

[emerygt350]

Thanks xctasy, i am very happy with it so I may leave it. It isn't a monster by any means but it sure is nice to drive. I want to try a year of driving and a quarter mile run before i do anything more. I also want to quiet it down more but I am not sure if that will be possible.

On a more serious note, my air pump's bearings are now going. What should I do? A new one is crazy expensive for what it is. It is now only pumping into the cats. Will my cats die without it?

[xctasy]

Put out an All Points Bulletin, and begg, steal or buy a used 31 pound pump from another 5.0 or 5.8. Then save up for a new one.

Thanks to all for the reply's, I'm going to put a cap on the extra port and call it good. the car ran fine before, so its no big deal. We don't have emission testing here anyway. Rev it up and go.





I'd Cap off the other fitting.



Hopefully this other stuff won't be just a lot of usless info.......




Lookes like an early carb air pump. All pumps should be the same, just different fittings. The later one had a curved back fitting


Carby



EFI





EFI hookup



" Port in Housing" Cardone 32-291 is the generic type of 1981 to 1987 pump E1TZ-9A486-B Ford Econoline E150 E250 E350 1975-1987, but also fits 5.0 Mustangs till 1992, so it is 31 lb/hr.

E1TZ-9A486-BA is CX1798, and they used it on passenger cars and F700 trucks to 1995.


Ford has an internal CX xx or Fxx code for ones that swap. Gross Vehicle Weight/Mass governs the flip between 38 lb/hr and the stock 31 lb/hr it should be.


The pumps come in generic families rated in pounds per hour (or liters per hour). Big EFI 5.8 F150 Truck ones are often 38.4 lb/hr, but some big block 2 and 4-BBL 370/6.1 Lliter trucks just ran car type 31 lb/hr pumps.

The Fxx classification of pumps are based on output and hose postion. A bewildering range of Rear or Side hose combinations, just gotta look through the on line 17, 31 and 38 pound interchanges, eliminating the 17 and 38's.


In liters per hour, thats

14.06 kg/hr (31 lb/hr, passenger car pumps between 3.8 and probably 5.8 liters in ohv engines)
7.7 kg/hr (17 pound per hour, 1.6 to 2.9 liter CVH/EOA/Lima/Cologne pumps generally stamped 1155)
17.44 kg/hr ( 38.4 pound per hour, generally van and truck pumps)

Generally, around 1986 was the pivotal port EFI swap-over year, when Ford changed its time honoured external Thermactor and EGR systems control hadware to incorpate EECIV TAB/TAD or DPFE electronic control.

Depending on the secondary AIR system, prior to 1986, every 1981 to 1985 Ford used versions of the E1TE-9B289-AA "Smog Pump Thermactor Air Bypass Diverter Valve" with a 31 pound per hour air pump on 232-460 (3.8 to 7.5 liter) passenger or sub 8 ton GVW engines

[emerygt350]

Thanks, will do.

[homer302]

Nice work! So glad you are happy. I think that's a good result. Let's face it, none of these Fox cars can compete in EVERY aspect with a new car, that's not a fair comparison. Maybe in that category or this one, but OVERALL the new car wins every time. Don't beat yourself up over that. I for one really think it's cool you are so invested in the CFI mill. I say maximize it. I doubt there is a documented 1/4 mile time of a CFI Automatic Convertible 1984 Mustang anyway. But who says you shouldn't try to make it the best it can be? It's not really relevant but just for FYI, I dyno'd my beater '94 5.0 5 speed probably 20 years ago and it put down 233 HP and 290 TQ so I think you have a good healthy setup for what it is. Keep us updated when you take her down the 1320!

[emerygt350]

Sooo.... I replaced the smog pump, the PIP, the ECT, the MAF and MAP, and made sure I was throwing no 'real' codes. Set the timing at 12 and the engine is running perfectly. Time for the dyno again. This time we kept the air cleaner buttoned up during runs to replicate real world conditions so there is probably even a bigger improvement from before where we left it off to make adjusting the fuel pressure easier (or just laziness).

With xctasy's conversion that puts it at 262 HP at the flywheel and 348 lbs of torque. Now, that is with a full on mechanical fan, stock air filter, AC, smog pump, etc all going at it too, so even if the AOD conversion is a little rosie, I think I have hit the 250hp goal for my CFI engine! The curve is hilarious. That is what you get when you put a truck 351 cam in a mustang (with a CFI). Of course I don't really drive around much at greater than 4.25k rpms... it is a 'drivers' car after all.
https://youtu.be/CgGBY73-FYY

[emerygt350]

And I am still working on that quarter mile. Local track was only doing 8ths due to a tech issue this summer. Maybe this fall...

[sm41]

I've always heard roughly 25% for an AOD. While that means your numbers are a bit off, you still hit your 250hp goal, and made some stump-pulling good torque. I think I would have gone carbed instead, but it's really impressive what you were able to do!

[emerygt350]

Yeah, xctasy says 1.5x so 33ish percent, and he is a good guy.

And I found a track so in late September I plan on getting the 1/4 mile too.

[sm41]

Yeah, I guess a couple more percent isn't out of the question in a 35 year old transmission. Definitely let us know!

[emerygt350]

Yeah, I think the quarter will be interesting. For me, onlookers will probably be confused and bored.

[ThunderStruck]

McGiver lives...

[xctasy]

A 1.5 factor loss as decimal is 150%, but we are talking about 50 hp lost per hundred delivered.

rear wheel hp
flywheel hp net



I talk percentages very rarely because of how its calculated. Its easy to get it wrong.


Once I used 70 of the 0.44 drag factor, and got 0.308.

Its acutally 30% off the first number.





http://vb.foureyedpride.com/showthre...71#post1656771

You use the complement rule to get a loss per hundred. Percent is %, numerator over denominator, and I messed up.

I use factors. Percentages require a little more carefull math....


. 50
100

At that time, we were able to eke out 365.6 hp at the rear wheels-a far cry from the 560 flywheel horsepower (5,800 rpm) of our initial engine test.

365.6
560

Thats a factor of 1.53. 1.49 to 1.40 is typical, as per one 626 hp engine giveing just 419 to 448 rwhp at the bags.

We’ve Been Down This Road Before
Before you start firing off angry letters about how we were victims of overly optimistic engine dyno numbers, just remember that we’ve seen boat loads of power evaporate on the chassis dyno before. In the July 2008 issue, we wrote how our 496-inch big-block went from 626 hp on the engine dyno to just 419 hp at the wheels after being installed in our ’68 Chevelle. Ironically, that 207hp drop is identical to the one we experienced this month with our Laguna. Still, 419 rear-wheel horsepower was enough to go 11.70s in the quarter-mile. After some tuning, improving the accessory drive, and installing a tighter converter, rear-wheel output increased to 448 hp, and quarter-mile e.t. dropped to an 11.30. If nothing else, it illustrates that the SuperFlow chassis dyno is consistently conservative.

After adding a larger diameter torque converter with more appropriate stall, they got a 1.27 factor.

With the converter’s flash point occurring another 500 rpm lower, the engine was now demanding more fuel earlier, and after a few changes to the primary and secondary jetting (pulling fuel out of the secondaries and adding it to the primaries), and upping the size of the squirters, the Laguna’s small-block pushed the pony count north to 441.9 hp (5,900 rpm) with 431.3 lb-ft of torque (4,800 rpm).The increase in output over the smaller, less-efficient converter was 76 hp and 23 lb-ft of torque. We were stunned.

On all the Aussie automatics with C3's, C4's, BW35's and there version of the AOD, it was in the 1.45 to 1.63 ratio from net installed horspower to rear wheel dyno horsepower.

All the other stuff is plain wrong. On a drag strip, an auto can show as little as a 15% loss verses an engine dyno reading, but thats due to other factors, like how good an auto hooks up. The losses are indeed greater.

http://vb.foureyedpride.com/showthre...Driveline-loss

Yes, it was done in Australia by Chevy Off-road and Marine Engines in 1996.

The Australian 5.0 was the 1992-1995 Mustang 5.0 or 1996-2001 Explorer engine. Ratings were the US engine, less 1.7% because you guys use SAE net.


Your 235 hp SAE net SVT Cobra for 1993 was 268 hp DIN net, so go figure....

For 1995, it was 221.3 hp DIN net, and with a T5 and 9 bolt 7-7/8" axle, it made exactly 175 rwhp.

Factor reduction was 1.264.

Same deal was done during the Dana 44/ 8.8 axle era, same hp loss, axle made little difference.


Automatics, based on historical Australian Ford data using Stewart's Mustang Dyno from 1976 to 1981, yielded 1.63 to 1.41 reduction on non lockup automatic's with 7-7/8 to 9" axles.



You guys get 1.40 for AOD/9"
And 1.163 for Muncie M22/12 Bolt 8.8"

http://www.hotrod.com/articles/ccrp-...in-power-loss/

http://vb.foureyedpride.com/showthre...vs-engine-dyno

https://fordsix.com/viewtopic.php?t=71753

Note that in a drag race, net flywheel to rear wheel hp losses are different to chassis dyno verses engine dyno.

Its the flywheel effect that creates the disparity, and automatics do much better at drags than manuals.

All those "14-18% loss for manuals and around 19-24% loss from automatics" are true, but on a chassis dyno, the total loss is more like 27 to 60%, and it depends on transmission type, if it has a torque converter, and its stall speed. When you drag race a shift kitted auto, there is still a 5 to 6% loss in power over a manual. In addition, flywheel hp ratings for 80's Fords were SAE net.

[xctasy]

I get a G minus for the above post. Sorry arbout the fraction mess up. It was a little early in the morning for me. I was walking to the Laboratory this morning and realised for about 1 hour that I had gotten the fraction, factor and percentages around the wrong way agian in my opening example.


I'll fix it, but I goofed it up.

[homer302]

I get a G minus for the above post. Sorry arbout the fraction mess up. It was a little early in the morning for me. I was walking to the Laboratory this morning and realised for about 1 hour that I had gotten the fraction, factor and percentages around the wrong way agian in my opening example.


I'll fix it, but I goofed it up.

Yeah, I could not make that math work. I believe it's a bit less but you spend so much time helping others on here that I was not about to say a thing. You are an asset to this forum and a wealth of information and tech support. Plus I think it's cool what he is doing. I've never read of anyone else trying to maximize this combination so good for him.