• Sign Up! To view all forums and unlock additional cool features

    Welcome to the #1 Fiesta ST Forum and Fiesta ST community dedicated to Fiesta ST owners and enthusiasts. Register for an account, it's free and it's easy, so don't hesitate to join the Fiesta ST Forum today!

What 300whp on the stock fuel system looks like and more inside!

Hijinx

3000 Post Club
Messages
3,244
Likes
1,506
Location
Fairview Heights
#1
Once upon a time there was a company called DHM... Sorry, this won't be that interesting or long. You can search for the rest if you don't know it, because it's long, complicated, and at times, nasty story. Anyway, back in the heyday a few others, and myself did a little bit of datalogging. I'm just gonna dump a bunch of logs in vdyno's for you.

Here's the parts set up: DHM 450r (Gen 1 GTX2867r) kit, DHM Race Intercooler and Crash Bar, MBRP catback, Mountune Silicone Hose and Filter for intake. STOCK Fuel system on 93oct.

300whp runs.jpg


Now, before I get to the obvious objection, I'd like to answer "why am I doing this?" Well, because I have the data from my car that clearly shows 300whp on the stock fuel fuel system. Keep in mind this was 2 years ago, at least. So, moving on, the objection is: "Is this safe?" My reply would be "what's the lambda?" I'm going to give you what I know... There are many blanks as my knowledge is shallow, and I won't make anything up to cover them, so hopefully people can add, or subtract, so on and so forth. This is only what I've learned about tuning in general.

E10 93 oct stoich is ~14.11; which equals a lambda of 1. However, the wideband O2 sensor will give a reading of 14.7...because lambda of 1 has been achieved. That's the calibration on the wideband O2 sensor. In other words, the wideband sensor works on lambda and not AFR. With that in mind, let's move to the AFR equivalence ratio using the stoich number for E10 93:

Lamda = (Actual AFR) / (14.11) = 14.11 / 14.11 = 1

Wideband see's a lambda of 1...it shows 14.7. Again, that's the way it's calibrated (lambda 1 = 14.7 AFR) and it scales as such.

Now, let's take a look at what happens up top in the vydno here.

13.3 / 14.11 = .94

13.7 / 14.11 = .97

13.2 / 14.11 = .94

12.8 / 14.11 = .90


.95 is the lambda which is considered best for power. So, looking at these runs, @7200rpm 13.7 is a bit lean, but 12.8 is rich (it's also a much earlier log). BTW, I used 7200rpm because it's already made 300whp by that point, except the 299whp run. Why keep running it out to 7400? I'm not sure...breathing room? If it were going to pop from 200rpm more, it was bound to pop anyway.

Oh, yeah...you probably have one lingering question. It's probably along the lines of "then why do other tuners have lower AFRs?" Here's the math... 12.8 / 14.7 = .87 (richer, not optimal for best power).

So, yeah, there it is. It’s important because misinformation spreads quickly and some people have strong bias regarding this platform’s potential. Those people will tell you that you don’t need more than X amount of power and have alternative facts to support their agenda. It’s also important because 300whp (and 300wtq) has been one of this forums moving goal posts. In the past, we wanted 200whp, then 220whp, 250whp... The current meta is hybrid turbos, so people will easily believe someone who says 300whp is impossible on the stock fuel system and that it’s dangerous. I created this thread with the intent to inform that that is not completely true.

At the end of the day, I hope I’m not just a complete idiot (I’m ok with half idiot). Please research all of this if you'd like and I welcome anyone to drop more knowledge and experience (read: research and data, not opinions) because this is only what I've picked up, and what I've learned from hitting books.



P.S. - This vydno is just for fun. This is the same parts and fuel, but with aux fuel added. I saw the logs and thought, why not?
93 Aux.jpg
 
Last edited:

M-Sport fan

8000 Post Club
Messages
8,061
Likes
1,569
Location
Solebury, Pennsyltuckeyvania
#2
Could it simply be that those tuners are CTA (Covering THEIR AZZES against customers claiming/blaming that they popped their engines) by employing those richer mixtures, even at the expense of giving up a few (or even more than a few) more ponies solely for shop 'bragging rights'/'marketing'? [dunno]
 

felopr

Active member
Messages
713
Likes
215
Location
JD
#3
I dont get it, the point of this post is? bashing aux fuel delivery that it can be done without it, or praising it?
i understand all that you said but by comparing graphs , your 1st graph (without aux ) afr after 6.5k rpm start to shoot up (hpfp running out of steam, unsafe imo) and your second graph afr stays on point and not going up ( reliable, safer) plus look at the consistency of the power compare to the 1st graph
 

jeff

1000 Post Club
Messages
1,696
Likes
1,467
Location
Evans
#4
This is some great info, but can you post a real dyno chart to prove what you're saying?

It's not that I don't believe you, but what I don't believe is a virtual computer program being used to prove something. If you're gonna make this claim, at least back it up with real data. I've taken dozens of datalogs with my hybrid setup and plugged them into Vdyno and I found the results unreliable after comparing them to my real dyno results, sometimes being exaggerated 10%. For example, we all know that an X47 makes around 270 on 93, but Vdyno put mine in the 290s, that's after meticulously plugging weight, tire, temp, pressure, etc. data into the program. Not to mention that Vdyno can add 30hp/30tq by simply logging when going downhill. I love Vdyno, and have used it on over 100 datalogs to compare before and after with various hardware and software changes, but I don't think it's the best evidence to use when talking real power numbers.
 
Messages
397
Likes
182
Location
North West
#5
This is some great info, but can you post a real dyno chart to prove what you're saying?

It's not that I don't believe you, but what I don't believe is a virtual computer program being used to prove something. If you're gonna make this claim, at least back it up with real data. I've taken dozens of datalogs with my hybrid setup and plugged them into Vdyno and I found the results unreliable after comparing them to my real dyno results, sometimes being exaggerated 10%. For example, we all know that an X47 makes around 270 on 93, but Vdyno put mine in the 290s, that's after meticulously plugging weight, tire, temp, pressure, etc. data into the program. Not to mention that Vdyno can add 30hp/30tq by simply logging when going downhill. I love Vdyno, and have used it on over 100 datalogs to compare before and after with various hardware and software changes, but I don't think it's the best evidence to use when talking real power numbers.
I will see if I can dig up a dyno chart today.(actually this video has a pretty good picture of the numbers...) My car made 297whp on a mustang chassis dyno with 91 octane.

Here is a video of it:
[video]https://youtu.be/mHnsFQeCnb4?t=1m12s[/video]

Pictures:
chrome_2017-11-17_07-10-00.png
chrome_2017-11-17_07-09-44.png
 
OP
Hijinx

Hijinx

3000 Post Club
Messages
3,244
Likes
1,506
Location
Fairview Heights
Thread Starter #7
This is some great info, but can you post a real dyno chart to prove what you're saying?

It's not that I don't believe you, but what I don't believe is a virtual computer program being used to prove something. If you're gonna make this claim, at least back it up with real data. I've taken dozens of datalogs with my hybrid setup and plugged them into Vdyno and I found the results unreliable after comparing them to my real dyno results, sometimes being exaggerated 10%. For example, we all know that an X47 makes around 270 on 93, but Vdyno put mine in the 290s, that's after meticulously plugging weight, tire, temp, pressure, etc. data into the program. Not to mention that Vdyno can add 30hp/30tq by simply logging when going downhill. I love Vdyno, and have used it on over 100 datalogs to compare before and after with various hardware and software changes, but I don't think it's the best evidence to use when talking real power numbers.
Dynos and vdyno are a tool to gauge deltas. My datalog pulls are always done in the same spot reaching all the way back to stock turbo. With that in mind, is the consistency not proof enough? I do not have “real dynos” from this particular set up. What I do have is real dyno from stock turbo that backs up vdyno (and be extension my datalogging spot). Because of that, I’ve always had faith that my inputs to vdyno resulted in truthful outputs. I’ll have to look for them if you’d like to see those.

Edit - So, I was wrong. It's been a few years... The vdyno's actually UNDERSTATE when compared to the dyno. Taken a few days before here is the tune I ran on the dyno (which I'll have up shortly in case this is being read while I upload the pic via Tapatalk):

All Datalogs Before Dyno.jpg



 
Messages
397
Likes
182
Location
North West
#8
23718169_10210633832626233_326933248_n.png

Here is the dyno sheet. I requested the sheet from run 3 when it was actually on the dyno, but this is the only one they provided me.

My car is weird, it seemed to always get stronger the hotter it was. The same thing went at the track, the more passes I made through the day the better the car did.


This isn't how VirtualDyno is meant to be used, but I did log the pulls on the dyno. I just dug these up from what I had saved. These were Pull 2 and Pull 3 on the Mustang Dyno:
DynoDay.jpg
 
OP
Hijinx

Hijinx

3000 Post Club
Messages
3,244
Likes
1,506
Location
Fairview Heights
Thread Starter #10
And another.

Fully bolted GTX360R (Garrett 2860r Gen 2), 93 octane, no meth/aux fuel.

FORUM NAME: mercdank
TURBO: Dead Hook Motorsports GTX360R Turbo Kit (Garret 2860r Gen 2)
ADDITIONAL UPGRADES: Boomba Intake Manifold and Throttle Body Spacers
SiTech Racing Superlight Omega Forged Pistons
Formula Ford Bearings
Mountune Valve Springs
Mishimoto Oil Cooler Non-Thermostatic
2J Racing Cowl Intake
Mishimoto Oil Catch Can
Boomba Short Shifter and Bushings
Depo Racing Downpipe
Boomba Rear Motor Mount
MBRP XP Exhaust
Velossa Tech ST Logo Dead Pedal
Velossa Tech ST Logo Center Wheel Caps
Sparco Asseto Garra 16in Wrapped in Federal 595 RS-R 205/45/16
MTC Motorsports Intercooler
Denso Iridium Spark Plugs Pre-gapped
DHM Crashbar
Rally Invoations Carbon Fiber Wing (to be installed)

FUEL:93 octane
DYNO OR V-DYNO: Dynojet
TUNER: Russell Culver, Dead Hook Motorsports
RESULTS (please clarify if whp or bhp): 305.52whp/283.82tq



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
OP
Hijinx

Hijinx

3000 Post Club
Messages
3,244
Likes
1,506
Location
Fairview Heights
Thread Starter #11
I dont get it, the point of this post is? bashing aux fuel delivery that it can be done without it, or praising it?
i understand all that you said but by comparing graphs , your 1st graph (without aux ) afr after 6.5k rpm start to shoot up (hpfp running out of steam, unsafe imo) and your second graph afr stays on point and not going up ( reliable, safer) plus look at the consistency of the power compare to the 1st graph
Updated my post for those new to the conversation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Pete

Active member
Messages
787
Likes
322
Location
San Diego
#12
X47 hybrid turbo with 100 octane on the stock fuel system. 90 degree day, Never got a chance to take the car to the dyno to confirm however this is the same road I have used for all my vdyno's including the MP215 numbers and everythign inbetween (I log both ways and they were within 1 hp of each other all the time). But again this is to help show hitting 300 hp on the stock fuel system is possible without AUX fuel or WMI.
 

Attachments

Messages
295
Likes
103
Location
Toronto
#13
P.S. - This vydno is just for fun. This is the same parts and fuel, but with aux fuel added. I saw the logs and thought, why not?
View attachment 15980
This was with just the one TB injector correct? I am guessing it is because you didn't try to improve on the powerband even though the turbo should be able to support more torque up top.

Curious how the 2867 actually felt on the road. I have one on my STI and while it hits 300wtq by 3800 on the dyno, actual boost threshold is around 2800 or less in any gear that is long enough to not out accelerate it, so 3rd and up. On the 2.5 its very responsive in the lower gears and will hit 18psi just about instantly, but more importantly only exhibits lag in a few wrong gear instances. My stock ST feels more laggy tbh, so how is this?

I wouldn't mind making similar power on my FIST, making 300wtq flat to 7000+rpm if the turbo doesn't feel too big.
 
Messages
295
Likes
103
Location
Toronto
#14
X47 hybrid turbo with 100 octane on the stock fuel system. 90 degree day, Never got a chance to take the car to the dyno to confirm however this is the same road I have used for all my vdyno's including the MP215 numbers and everythign inbetween (I log both ways and they were within 1 hp of each other all the time). But again this is to help show hitting 300 hp on the stock fuel system is possible without AUX fuel or WMI.

This is the VDyno issue I don't like. Your powerband does not all of a sudden flatten your torque and then actually rise without a large boost increase. This is not an accurate power dyno graph. Your torque should continue dropping at the same rate or faster with the boost drop up top. Your hp peak at 5700rpm is your "true" max power.
 

Pete

Active member
Messages
787
Likes
322
Location
San Diego
#15
This is the VDyno issue I don't like. Your powerband does not all of a sudden flatten your torque and then actually rise without a large boost increase. This is not an accurate power dyno graph. Your torque should continue dropping at the same rate or faster with the boost drop up top. Your hp peak at 5700rpm is your "true" max power.
Give me a bit and I will find a better example. I am looking for my 110 octane results
 
Messages
70
Likes
17
Location
Biloxi
#17
I 100% believe that tuners stop short with mixtures, boost, and timing. If I was tuning someone's car for money I would do the same. Consistent, safe results make people happy. As for the dyno talk, shit.... I remember when my 416ci LS3 stroker Rx7 did 397whp on a Mustang dyno. I heard nothing but shit from that community. "Something is seriously wrong", "get it tuned by a real tuner". It was quite comical. Nevermind the car would light up my 285s in 4th at 60mph. Nevermind, it did 647hp/586ftlbs on an engine dyno after assembly. Nope, those numbers are crap and it didn't matter what I said about it. People are just stuck on NUMBERS. Dyno's mean SQUAT. Inertia or load bearing, they can ALL be set up differently or manipulated to read what a tech wants. Give me a 60ft, and trap time in the quarter, then we will talk. Even v-box 60-100 times are more reliable than those spinning roller thingys.

Do I think the stock fuel system will do 300whp safely, yes. Because that "number" sways 20-30whp based on many different variables (real world or virtual).

It really does suck DHM is no more. I was seriously looking forward to a GTX360R kit....
 

M-Sport fan

8000 Post Club
Messages
8,061
Likes
1,569
Location
Solebury, Pennsyltuckeyvania
#18
^^^The reputable and sane LSx tuners (vs. the braggadocio driven dyno queen number whores) were EXACTLY who I was thinking of when I made the post on page 1 of this thread.

And yeah, there comes a point where all of that over excess peak(y) power (vs. solid, reliable, 'under the curve' power) does nothing but make a tire smoke show, and put the whole power/drive train at 'close to the ragged edge' strain.
 

Similar threads



Top