Ecoboost Performance Forum

I've attached the dyno graph for the pulls I had done on my 2013 XSport this past Tuesday. The third pull was significantly lower overall, so I omitted it from the graph. Unfortunately, I didn't have my SCT datalogger running during the pulls, and I'm not sure what's causing the dip in HP/TQ numbers around 4800 RPM. I also saw the same phenomenon when I made pulls on a DynoJet the day prior.

I did take some 4th gear data logs today on the road (attached). I'm hoping that someone can take a quick look and let me know if they see anything that might be amiss.

I'm planning on installing my drop-in AEM, 1 step cooler NGK plugs, 170 tstat, and 3-bar MAP from Unleashed tomorrow.

BASELINE RUN CONFIGURATION
Start Mileage 32,215
87 Octane Top Tier Fuel (Costco)
Tire Pressure @ 35PSI (All)
New Motorcraft Air Filter Installed @ 30,525
All Stock Except:
  Amsoil Engine/Trans/PTU Fluid Changed @ 29,948
  RX Monster Can Installed @ 30,434
  BOV VTA @ 30,434
  CAC Block Off Plate Removed @ 30,434
 

Alright boys and girls. As indicated in my other thread "Any Dyno Tips/Tricks" I'm schedule to do some additional dyno pulls this Friday. I'll have the dyno shop provide me all the raw data for post-processing.

In order to maximize my time, I'm planning to do 2-pulls for each tune and average the results for each.

The plan right now is to run:
  1) AJP 93 Perf
  2) AJP 87 Perf
  3) Unleashed 87 Perf
  4) OE Baseline

With the exception of the 2-bar MAP sensor for the OE tune, all of the installed hardware will be the same between runs - the only difference will be the tune. (I'll post up the hardware details with the results).

Since I don't have an unlimited budget or time, I am going to do all the pulls with the same tank of 93 octane winter blend fuel. This will probably result in a little more power out of the 87 tunes, but at least everything will be apples-to-apples. The AJP tunes are set to max out at 3 degrees spark advance at WOT, so I won't be able to add an exorbitant amount of timing.

On a side note, I did some data log comparisons yesterday of my 87 octane tunes to evaluate my 0-60 times.
  OE Baseline (same config as Post #1, 87 Octane Fuel): 6.608 s/62.6 deg F Ambient
  Unleashed 87P (v1, no add'l revisions per Torrie): 6.200 s/35.6 deg F Ambient
  AJP Turbo 87P (v3): 6.038 s/39.2 deg Ambient

The higher octane logs are not very good for comparison, since my tuning went well into December and a lot of my pulls were done on partially snow covered roads. ;)

Quote from: MiWiAu on December 21, 2016, 10:37:59 AM
Alright boys and girls. As indicated in my other thread "Any Dyno Tips/Tricks" I'm schedule to do some additional dyno pulls this Friday. I'll have the dyno shop provide me all the raw data for post-processing.

In order to maximize my time, I'm planning to do 2-pulls for each tune and average the results for each.

The plan right now is to run:
  1) AJP 93 Perf
  2) AJP 87 Perf
  3) Unleashed 87 Perf
  4) OE Baseline

With the exception of the 2-bar MAP sensor for the OE tune, all of the installed hardware will be the same between runs - the only difference will be the tune. (I'll post up the hardware details with the results).

Since I don't have an unlimited budget or time, I am going to do all the pulls with the same tank of 93 octane winter blend fuel. This will probably result in a little more power out of the 87 tunes, but at least everything will be apples-to-apples. The AJP tunes are set to max out at 3 degrees spark advance at WOT, so I won't be able to add an exorbitant amount of timing.

On a side note, I did some data log comparisons yesterday of my 87 octane tunes to evaluate my 0-60 times.
  OE Baseline (same config as Post #1, 87 Octane Fuel): 6.608 s/62.6 deg F Ambient
  Unleashed 87P (v1, no add'l revisions per Torrie): 6.200 s/35.6 deg F Ambient
  AJP Turbo 87P (v3): 6.038 s/39.2 deg Ambient

The higher octane logs are not very good for comparison, since my tuning went well into December and a lot of my pulls were done on partially snow covered roads. ;)

Just a thought for the OE/stock baseline run. I had Brad make me a "tune" that is the stock file, but just modified to allow for 3 bar when I installed the 3 bar. So that way I can go to that tune for stock driving/any fuel, but not have to swap the MAP sensor. May be an option. That tune evolves with each of my mods, as my back-up tune essentially. If I ever have a problem finding fuel, etc. I can just load the "stock" tune, and go on with my day.

Yes!

Quote from: AJP turbo on December 21, 2016, 12:00:02 PM
Yes!

At least I now have a face to go with the name, Brad. Not what I was expecting. LOL


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Just be happy it's the top half you are seeing.

Mission accomplished! Ahh!! So much data!!

Ran through 4 tunes. Ended up doing 20+ pulls today. I still need to process all the data. I'll try to get the results posted up tomorrow. :)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

:thumb: for soldiering through it!

Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays, everyone! I've spent several hours post processing this data since yesterday, so be forewarned: long post ahead! :)

Round 2 of dyno pulls was completed yesterday (12/23/16) at Endless Autosport in West Allis, WI. Dyno was a linked Mustang load based dynamometer. All runs were completed with the exact same hardware and tank of 93 octane (winter blend) fuel. All pulls were completed in third gear. Hood was left up. No adjustments to the straps were made from start to finish. Target pull RPM range was 2000-6000.

Pulls were made in the following order: 1) AJP 93R7, 2) AJP 87R3, 3) Unleashed 87R1, 4) OE 3Bar. For each of the tunes, two pulls were made back to back, then the truck was shut down to cool for 10 minutes and two more back to back pulls were made. Ten minute cool times were allowed while switching tunes, then the process was repeated.

I re-ran the OE tune (very slightly modified) due to the hardware changes and time since previous baseline pulls. The only modifications to the OE tune was to allow the use of the 3 bar map and also disable downshifting in manual mode. Spark, fuel and boost were all stock.

CONFIGURATION/HARDWARE (SAME FOR ALL 12/23/16 DYNO RUNS)
   Start Mileage 35,578 mi
   93 octane top tier fuel  (winter blend)
   Tire Pressure @ 35 PSI (All)
   AEM DryFlow Drop-in Air Filter Installed @ 32,400 mi
   RAT Stat 170 Degree Thermostat Installed @ 32,400 mi
   NGK 6510 Plugs (1 step cooler) Installed @ 32,400 mi
   3-Bar MAP Installed @ 32,400 mi
   AJP Turbo Boost Regulator Installed @ 34,675 mi

MISCELLANEOUS
   Amsoil 5W30 Oil/MC Filter Changed @ 32,770 mi
   Amsoil Trans/PTU Fluid Changed @ 29,948 mi
   Amsoil RDU Fluid Changed @ 32,912 mi
   Amsoil Dominator Coolant Boost Added @ 32,400 mi
   Rx Monster OCC Installed @ 30,434 mi
   CAC Block Off Plate Removed @ 30,434 mi
   BOV VTA @ 30,434 mi

Now, onto the results! Here is a summary of what's contained below.

Figure 1: OE 3-Bar Tune, 4 pulls plus average of 4 pulls (black lines)
Figure 2: Unleashed 87R1, 4 pulls plus average of 4 pulls (black lines)
Figure 3: AJP Turbo 87R3, 4 pulls plus average of 4 pulls (black lines)
Figure 4: AJP Turbo 93R7, 4 pulls plus average of 4 pulls (black lines)
Figure 5: Overall Tune Comparison, average HP/TQ from Figures 1-4
Figure 6: Total Power Comparison, Area Chart
Figure 7: Total Power Comparison, % change from stock by RPM range

I haven't had a chance to go through every single data log for each pull, but I checked some temps for the second set of back to back runs for both the first tune (AJP 93) and last tune (OE 3bar) and temps seem reasonably close considering 20 or so pulls. Ambient temps were as measured by the vehicle (inside the shop).

Beginning Temps (*F) – AJP 93 Pulls
  Ambient: 42
  IAT2: 93-122
  CHT: 184-207

Ending Temps (*F) – OE 3Bar Pulls
  Ambient: 50 ambient
  IAT2: 98-130
  CHT: 192-217

Figure 1: OE 3-Bar Tune, 4 pulls plus average of 4 pulls (black lines)
(http://i1076.photobucket.com/albums/w449/mauskings/Dyno%20Charts%20-%2023DEC16/OE%203Bar%20Tune_zpsgvlqzwzl.png)

Figure 2: Unleashed 87R1, 4 pulls plus average of 4 pulls (black lines)
(http://i1076.photobucket.com/albums/w449/mauskings/Dyno%20Charts%20-%2023DEC16/Unleashed%2087%20Rev%201_zpsys15pky5.png)

Figure 3: AJP Turbo 87R3, 4 pulls plus average of 4 pulls (black lines)
(http://i1076.photobucket.com/albums/w449/mauskings/Dyno%20Charts%20-%2023DEC16/AJP%2087%20Rev%203_zpssvvvql1r.png)

Figure 4: AJP Turbo 93R7, 4 pulls plus average of 4 pulls (black lines)
(http://i1076.photobucket.com/albums/w449/mauskings/Dyno%20Charts%20-%2023DEC16/AJP%2093%20Rev%207_zpsmlgerowl.png)

Figure 5: Overall Tune Comparison, average HP/TQ from Figures 1-4
(http://i1076.photobucket.com/albums/w449/mauskings/Dyno%20Charts%20-%2023DEC16/Overall%20Tune%20Comparison_zpsxotg8pxo.png)

Figure 6: Total Power Comparison, Area Chart
A better way to compare overall power is to look at the area under the HP curve. I used this to compare the overall relative power between each of the four tunes over set RPM ranges.

EDIT (12/29/16): Updated area chart to show entire RPM range of dyno pulls.
(http://i1076.photobucket.com/albums/w449/mauskings/Dyno%20Charts%20-%2023DEC16/Total%20Power%20Area%202_zpsbcyaat0w.png)

Figure 7: Total Power Comparison, % change from stock by RPM range
I applied the Trapezoid Rule (10 RPM increments) on the data used to generate the curves for Figure 6 and calculated the total power for each tune (relative to the OE tune) for the RPM ranges shown in the chart below.

EDIT (12/29/16): Added total power comparison across entire RPM range of dyno pulls (green bars); omitted Unleashed tune for 2140-5940 RPM range, since WOT was not achieved until 3000 RPM.
(http://i1076.photobucket.com/albums/w449/mauskings/Dyno%20Charts%20-%2023DEC16/Total%20Power%202_zpsh7nznfjs.png)

PEAK VALUES (take with a huge grain of salt – see observations and conclusions)
(http://i1076.photobucket.com/albums/w449/mauskings/Dyno%20Charts%20-%2023DEC16/Peak%20numbers_zpssgctpqqu.png)


My observations and conclusions:
I was little surprised at the peak HP numbers, especially considering the monster torque gains, but look how much higher the HP runs on the AJP tunes through most of the RPM range.

I did some nerdsmithing of the data and calculated Total Power, since this is a little more telling over the entire RPM band. Figure 6 is a chart to help visualize the areas under the curve. To be fair with the analysis for the Unleashed tune (since we were having downshifting issues during pulls), I set the bottom RPM cutoff at 3500 RPM and analyzed up to 5940 RPM. On the first set of pulls we did, the RPM settings at the top end were too low so it stopped logging a little early. I clipped the top end of the comparison at 5940 RPM, so everything was same-same.

In Figure 6, note the 4300RPM vertical marker. Looking back at my 0-90 MPH data logs, this is the lowest RPM I dropped to during 1>2 and 2>3 shifts under WOT.

My interpretation is that the AJP 87 tune would probably be a touch faster than the Unleashed 87 tune in the 1/4 mile. As you can see in Figure 7, they are both pretty similar above 4300RPM, but the AJP 87 tune makes more power lower in the RPM range. The AJP 87 tune at the high RPM cutoff starts tapering off a tad faster than the Unleashed, so if I extrapolated the data, say from 4300-6200 RPM, the Unleashed might be a touch better there, but with the increased lower end power, I think the AJP 87 tune would come out ahead at the end in a 1/4 mile match-up. The Unleashed tune likely would have a slight edge with a 60+ MPH roll-on race.

While the two 87 tunes might be fairly close in the 1/4 mile, in my opinion, the AJP 87 tune is definitely better as a general all-purpose driver, as the 87 AJP tune makes better overall power throughout the RPM range. And check out the Figure 7 gains for the 93 tune! Dag yo!!! :mj_banana:

Oh yeah, and the AJP tunes still utilize TORQUE MANAGEMENT for drivetrain longevity. :)

EDIT: Added peak summary table as image due to formatting issues with entered text.

Now that is a FANTASTIC xmas present for the data w****s among us :D

Quote from: SHOdded on December 24, 2016, 08:33:48 PM
Now that is a FANTASTIC xmas present for the data w****s among us :D

Are the charts working for you? I just checked in my Tapatalk and only one appears to be loading. It was working on the lappy earlier.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Fig 2 is working, the rest no.

Quote from: SHOdded on December 24, 2016, 08:37:58 PM
Fig 2 is working, the rest no.

Dang it. Sorry about that. I'll fix the links tonight when the outlaws head home.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote from: MiWiAu on December 24, 2016, 08:39:29 PM

Quote from: SHOdded on December 24, 2016, 08:37:58 PM
Fig 2 is working, the rest no.

Dang it. Sorry about that. I'll fix the links tonight when the outlaws head home.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I logged in to fix it, and they all appear to be working again, both on the laptop and the phone. Maybe it was a temporary glitch with Photobucket...

Here's one more chart for reference.

This is a comparison of average HP and TQ for the OE tunes with 87 vs 93 octane fuel. Keep in mind, while these were run on the same dyno, testing was performed about a month and a half apart, and with a couple different pieces of hardware (mainly the plugs, t-stat, and air filter). The 87 pull is the config from post #1, the 93 pull is from the config in post #9.

Unfortunately, I don't have any data logs for the 87 pull, so I'm not sure why the dip in HP/TQ numbers. However it was very persistent, as the phenomenon was present on all 3 pulls, and also manifested a day prior on a DynoJet dyno for both pulls. Obviously this was not present for the recent 93 octane pulls.

ALSO NOTE: The 87 pull was done in 4th gear, while the 93 pull was in 3rd gear. Again, not apples to apples, just a VERY ROUGH comparison.

(http://i1076.photobucket.com/albums/w449/mauskings/Dyno%20Charts%20-%2023DEC16/87vs93%20Reference%20Only_zpsdz6woeu7.png)

I fixed the links :) but got "chastised" for not paying attention :(

You can copy and paste in the direct links from PB, do not need to enclose within an IMG parameter.

The graphs show a nice progressive improvement, well done!  Points out the advantage of higher octane fueling.

Quote from: SHOdded on December 25, 2016, 07:21:33 AM
I fixed the links :) but got "chastised" for not paying attention :(

You can copy and paste in the direct links from PB, do not need to enclose within an IMG parameter.

The graphs show a nice progressive improvement, well done!  Points out the advantage of higher octane fueling.

Oh, okay! I got yelled at yesterday, too, for foruming while the outlaws were over. LOL

Thanks for the tip on the images, Manu! Now I can wipe my own butt! Hahaha

Merry Christmas!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I am guessing a lot more were "in the doghouse" but won't admit to it LOL.

Yeah i wish posting were more intuitive than it is, but ...

Thanks for the wishes, now quit browsing forums and go pamper wifey :D

Quote from: SHOdded on December 25, 2016, 09:18:14 AM
I am guessing a lot more were "in the doghouse" but won't admit to it LOL.

Yeah i wish posting were more intuitive than it is, but ...

Thanks for the wishes, now quit browsing forums and go pamper wifey :D

Or can't admit, because their phones or fingers got broken.

10-4 chief. Thanks for saving my marriage. :)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

:D

Mike, awesome amount of data collecting You definately gave your turbos some exercise. To bad your weren't on a dynojet but it is what it is and you were able to gain useful information..Thanks for sharing and Merry Christmas.

Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk

I got a request to show the total power comparison across the entire RPM band, so I updated Figures 6 & 7 in post #9.

There was a teeny-tiny drop in total % increase across the overall RPM band as compared to the 3500-5940RPM range, mainly because the biggest gains were mid-range RPM. You can see in the Figure 6 area plot that the HP curves didn't really start to diverge until about 2900 RPM. I excluded the Unleashed numbers for the overall RPM band, since we couldn't WOT until 3500RPM due to downshifts, and it wouldn't be a fair comparison.

Wow way to get granular with the data. Fantastic break down. I've almost always seen an increase in numbers from a mustang dyno to a DJ. These are pretty much the mods I'm doing to the Xsport and I was kind of hoping to see higher numbers I didn't think the base run would be that low but I'm assuming that is the dyno being used.

Yea I agree the numbers are low but the awsome thing he did was compare stock to 2 different tuners and at least the numbers are consistently low

They call those dynos heartbreakers fir a reason lol

Quote from: AJP turbo on January 02, 2017, 12:39:45 PM
Yea I agree the numbers are low but the awsome thing he did was compare stock to 2 different tuners and at least the numbers are consistently low

They call those dynos heartbreakers fir a reason lol

While the absolute numbers on the Mustang dyno are low, I believe the relative deltas are accurate, as alluded to by AJP Turbo.

As a [rough] point of comparison, I ran on a Dynojet a day prior to my Post #1 run on the Mustang. The results are not totally apples to apples, since AWD was disabled for the Dynojet (no linked rollers), but looking at an average of the peak HP/torque numbers, the Mustang read about 15% lower than the Dynojet, which is in the ballpark of the 12-15% difference I have read elsewhere.

If you start with the OE crank HP and torque (365HP/350TQ) and factor in 20% drivetrain loss and a less generous 12% reduction from Dynojet to Mustang correction you'd come up with:
  365 Crank HP * (1-0.20 drivetrain loss-0.12 Mustang correction) = 365 * 0.68 = 248.2 Mustang HP
  350 Crank TQ * (1-0.20 drivetrain loss-0.12 Mustang correction) = 350 * 0.68 = 238.0 Mustang TQ

Looking at the Peak HP/TQ numbers from my last Mustang dyno runs with the OE tune and 93 octane fuel, I was at 245HP/242.8TQ, which is pretty darn close to the calculated value of 248.2HP/238.0TQ using the 20% drivetrain loss and 12% Mustang correction.

I haven't done any other correlation work to confirm these drivetrain losses or the Mustang correction factor, but anecdotal evidence leads me to believe these assumptions are not wildly unreasonable, and makes my numbers on the Mustang a little less... err... heartbreaking? Hopefully nobody goes pissing in my Cheerios, because I feel pretty good with how everything seems to be shaking out. ;)

At any rate, it's a good example of why you'd want to use the same dyno for all your testing, because moving from dyno to dyno (even of the same type) could give false positive (or negative) gains.

Quote from: FordFam on January 02, 2017, 12:29:43 PM
Wow way to get granular with the data. Fantastic break down. I've almost always seen an increase in numbers from a mustang dyno to a DJ. These are pretty much the mods I'm doing to the Xsport and I was kind of hoping to see higher numbers I didn't think the base run would be that low but I'm assuming that is the dyno being used.

Personally, I'd focus on the relative changes between the baseline and tuned runs (almost 10% total power increase with tuned 87 octane and nearly 20% with tuned 93 octane!). I wasn't really chasing numbers, moreso just curious about relative gains between all the tunes. I can tell you that my @$$ dyno definitely picks up power improvements for any of the tunes over OE, and my on-road data logs also show that AJP's 87 performance tune was 0.162 sec faster in 0-60MPH time over the Unleashed tune as well (see post #2).

If you buy what I'm selling above about the 20% drivetrain loss and 12% lower reading from Dynojet to Mustang, you should be able to take any of my Mustang numbers and multiply them by 1.176 to get an approximation of what sort of output you might see on a Dynojet.

The nice thing is, the more I stack up the data, the more confidence I gain that my results are correlated, because SCIENCE, lol. :)

I'm not a big math guy(or even good with numbers actually :-\ ) so I want to thank you for explaining the data results in a way that even I can understand it. Interesting that the 87 tune made a little more power in certain areas than the 93 tune ???.  I haven't done anything other than maintenance on my XSport in too long :(

For what it is worth, the default 87 octane tune from Torrie doesn't add boost from my understanding.

Quote from: QuickSilver on January 09, 2017, 09:50:33 PM
Interesting that the 87 tune made a little more power in certain areas than the 93 tune ???. 

Im not seeing that?

Do you mean the stock tune but with 93 octan fuel?

Quote from: QuickSilver on January 09, 2017, 09:50:33 PM
I'm not a big math guy(or even good with numbers actually :-\ ) so I want to thank you for explaining the data results in a way that even I can understand it. Interesting that the 87 tune made a little more power in certain areas than the 93 tune ???.  I haven't done anything other than maintenance on my XSport in too long :(

No problem, AJ! Thanks for checking out the thread, and I really appreciate the feedback! As long as it's helping people out (and Manu continues to help me fix my image links), I'll keep posting stuff up as I get it. :)

With regards to your question on the 87 vs 93 tune, I assume you're referring to the chart in post #15? Frankly, I was hesitant to post that one and did so just for a rough reference point. Those runs were done 2 months apart, and I also just realized that I ran those in different gears (the 87 pull was in 4th, the 93 was in 3rd). I went back to post 15 and noted the difference. There were also some hardware differences. What was weird was that there was a big dip in the HP/Torque curves on the 87 that was not there on the 93. I can't really explain why that happened, but the dip on the 87 was present in 3 pulls on the Mustang dyno as well as 3 pulls on a Dynojet a day prior.

The results in post #9 are all same day, same gear, same hardware, same fuel so these are better comparison points. The only variables were the tunes. You'll note on those charts that the 93 tune was consistently above all the 87 tunes. Granted, I was running 93 fuel with the 87 tunes, but I wouldn't expect a HUGE difference with 87, since Brad's tune is set to max out at 3 degrees of additional advance under WOT.

Any other questions, feel free to ask, before it all gets too fuzzy. :)

Quote from: Blackhawk on January 09, 2017, 10:04:37 PM
For what it is worth, the default 87 octane tune from Torrie doesn't add boost from my understanding.

Could be. I won't have time tonight, but I'll go back and compare and post a log comparison of AJP vs Unleashed for the 87 tunes 0-60 WOT. I have some fuzzy recollections, but I'd rather go back and check the data before posting unverified information.