Couple of dyno charts, may help some folks

[SWAGGA]

This is my mom's 1999(non PI) EB 5.4. The first graph is completely stock down to the paper air filter, with the exception of synthetic oil. We have since flushed the transmission and went synthetic there as well.

The second graph has 2 runs: intake/exhaust, and intake/exhaust/tune
-spectre intake (got it off ebay for under $100 because it was scratched up)
-dynomax catback (pieced it together through advanced auto and used coupon codes from retailmenot to get it for under $200)
-Mild tune. Now keep in mind a huge part of tuning is adjusting a/f ratio, and factory vehicles tend to run rich--adding the intake already leaned it out a bit to correct the ratio. We didn't jack the timing through the roof... I'd still say this is the biggest advantage: timing, a/f, transmission shift points, etc.


HP increase total: 24 rwhp (170 to 194)
TQ increase total: 26 rwtq (232 to 258)
Notice with the tuning that the power band overall is better, it doesn't nose dive as quickly.

Hope this may help any of you considering these mods!

 

[toms89]

The 2000's have pi heads and intake.

Is this a 2wd or 4wd vehicle? Just curious because of personal interest in the potential difference in drivetrain losses on the expy (Flywheel hp vs Rwhp). I wish I had dyno'd mine while it was stock for a point of reference to calculate approximate drivetrain losses. The generally accepted figure seems to be 15-20% loss but it all depends on drivetrain and vehicle. Fwd, Rwd, Awd, 4wd, auto, manual, type of tranny, etc...

Anyways...

I think the members should appreciate you sharing these before and after dyno results. This is a great tool to determine the effectiveness of potential modifications.

 

[1997SCEBFEX]

+1 on 15-22% parasitic loss in drivetrain.

 

[SWAGGA]

Sorry, it is a 99-- I originally typed that then realized the graph said 2000, I verified it is a 99 and non PI.

Also, 4x4, and this was in 2wd mode as the dyno is 2wd.

 

[SWAGGA]

I just noticed I didn't mention the significance of average hp & average torque in the second dyno graph. The second dynograph shows 2 runs: 1 with the addition of the intake & catback on the stock tune, and one with the addition of the intake & catback with a tune.

At first glance, the numbers may be misleading in that tuning doesn't make a substantial gain as the max hp jumped from 189.8 to 194.2, and the max torque jumped from 251.1 to 258.5 --some may think "well that isn't worth a few hundred bucks."

I would say tuning makes the biggest difference of these "bolt on" mods. Check out the average HP and average Torque across the entire RPM range. You can see the blue line (tuned) has a significantly better hp and torque curve throughout the RPM range. For the incredible benefit of tuning, check out the average hp and torque.

No Tune: Avg HP: 153.8 Avg TQ: 212.7
W/ Tune: Avg HP: 167.8 Avg TQ: 231.3

These figures are significantly more important than a single figure of peak hp and torque! While some of this can be attributed possibly the differences between when the car was under WOT, we did aim to do it at the same RPM.

 

[joezek]

Did your tuner use a premade tune file, or did he write it based on the dyno runs and what a/f ratio he was seeing? I'm wondering because I have dual exhaust and the GOTTS mod, and I don't think a premade tune file will be nearly as accurate as dyno tuning. The Gotts mod is getting me pretty cold air, according to my "Torque" app on my phone, it's reading about 4 degrees hotter than ambient. The only time the intake air gets hotter is if I'm stuck at a traffic light for a few minutes.

 

[SWAGGA]

Did your tuner use a premade tune file, or did he write it based on the dyno runs and what a/f ratio he was seeing? I'm wondering because I have dual exhaust and the GOTTS mod, and I don't think a premade tune file will be nearly as accurate as dyno tuning. The Gotts mod is getting me pretty cold air, according to my "Torque" app on my phone, it's reading about 4 degrees hotter than ambient. The only time the intake air gets hotter is if I'm stuck at a traffic light for a few minutes.

We used a premade base-tune then dialed it in to be a little more accurate.

 

[Kracker]

thats definitely a good gain. i am assuming he just made the changes in the fuel table, and the spark table. do you know if he adjusted the maf curve. so you are getting the commanded a/f ratio. But those gains are good and a good shift schedule minor tweaks on the shift pressure and WOT rpm command shifts To keep it in the power band would definitely be worth doing. When you increase power you increase your acceleration rate so the commanded shift will happen at a higher mph and RPM. i really haven't got around to start tuning my expedition. I data logged it a few times just haven't had time to sit down and focus on writing a tune yet.

 

[toms89]

I just noticed I didn't mention the significance of average hp & average torque in the second dyno graph. The second dynograph shows 2 runs: 1 with the addition of the intake & catback on the stock tune, and one with the addition of the intake & catback with a tune.

At first glance, the numbers may be misleading in that tuning doesn't make a substantial gain as the max hp jumped from 189.8 to 194.2, and the max torque jumped from 251.1 to 258.5 --some may think "well that isn't worth a few hundred bucks."

I would say tuning makes the biggest difference of these "bolt on" mods. Check out the average HP and average Torque across the entire RPM range. You can see the blue line (tuned) has a significantly better hp and torque curve throughout the RPM range. For the incredible benefit of tuning, check out the average hp and torque.

No Tune: Avg HP: 153.8 Avg TQ: 212.7
W/ Tune: Avg HP: 167.8 Avg TQ: 231.3

These figures are significantly more important than a single figure of peak hp and torque! While some of this can be attributed possibly the differences between when the car was under WOT, we did aim to do it at the same RPM.

When you compare the non-tuned vs tuned on the same graph I think the average gain would be more accurately represented by the peak figures. Just look at the graph..

The difference in the average numbers listed below are most likely skewed higher because of the motor was run longer on the "tuned" run. The motor was obviously shutdown earlier on the non-tuned run. It may be because it hit the rev limiter and it was raised in the tune but still......

I would say the gain in the tune was most likely a few extra degrees of timing.

 

[toms89]

thats definitely a good gain. i am assuming he just made the changes in the fuel table, and the spark table. do you know if he adjusted the maf curve. so you are getting the commanded a/f ratio. But those gains are good and a good shift schedule minor tweaks on the shift pressure and WOT rpm command shifts To keep it in the power band would definitely be worth doing. When you increase power you increase your acceleration rate so the commanded shift will happen at a higher mph and RPM. i really haven't got around to start tuning my expedition. I data logged it a few times just haven't had time to sit down and focus on writing a tune yet.

Ignition timing and shift schedules are where most of your gains are to be had. The mass air transfer function should be dialed in pretty well from the factory and should not be messed with unless you change to a non-factory meter. If you want to add fuel at w.o.t. I would tweak the base fuel table. I found the factory had mine set at 12.5 to 1 though which should be ideal. Of course in closed loop no matter what you do the adaptive will learn and over ride it in short order. I have been surprised at how quickly it adapts... lol.

 

[1997SCEBFEX]

As I recall, my bone-stock '97 made 185 rwhp on the best of three dyno runs in the High Desert in December 1998 @ 27626 miles before the mods and those early First Gens were advertised @ 235 hp; so 50 hp loss in the drivetrain.

Can' find the paper, but the next three runs put the dyno >300 rwhp easily, and that was the limit of the dyno (truck stop/garage dyno).

PanHandler.

 

[SWAGGA]

oops wrong thread.