I have stock internals right now and plan on doing at least thumper stage 1 head and forged pistons and keeping my JCW turbo.
And just adding some DashCmd pics I got with my stage 3 Manic with WMI. Oh and my dual port Kompack witch I love too. N14

 

Great video and good numbers too. Looks like you hit 20+ boost somewhere in the 4500+ RPM band? Solid 3rd gear pull!

Which WMI are you running? Also, which map of the stage 3?

BTW, If you're looking for forged pistons, I've got a brand new set of 9.5:1 CP over in the classified section (I decided to go with an overbore).

 

Oh and I just rolled into the throttle, if I just floor it, it hits full boost 21-22 just over 2,000 rpms😎
I have the Aquamist HFS-3 from Howerton Engineering. And I'm running on Map A. I know map C is for the WMI but just was wanting it for cleaning and cooling. Witch it does look like it's been working. Took a few shots with a endoscope down the spark plug hole. Number 2 piston still has carbon built up on it but the rest are clean. N14 with 119,000 miles.

Im probably going to have to do the overbore with my mileage but thanks.

 

UPDATE! Finally got on a local dyno --- Reno Speed Labs, catering mostly to the local large muscle cars --- they have a Mustang AWD500 they refer to as "The Heartbreaker". Lotsa guys expecting huge numbers and don't get them --- breaks their heart. I only asked for two pulls, one on map B, then one on map C. Results were about the same as my AMVIV pulls, both dyno's produced a weather corrected chart --- the "WC" referenced by the numbers. During the test, temp was mid 90's and humidity was in the teens. Reno is about 4500' elevation. They also provided actual numbers, so before correction, WHP was 309.5 and torque was 296.4.

There's still a lot I don't know about dyno's, so I'm guessing my map C corrected torque, about 50 lower than AMVIV, is due to the driver not going "pedal-to-the-metal", he accelerated a bit slower than when running map B. Corrected WHP is almost identical. Boost was about 1PSI lower this time too, so there's bound to be some differences.

Because the AMVIV boost curves didn't stay at the MBC setting, I was hoping that by relocating the MBC source hose closer to the throttle body, there would be less loss. No such luck --- boost curves are still sloping down after peaking --- not as drastic a slope but still a drop from 29 at about 5K to 22PSI at 7.4K. Popular opinion for this loss is the GTX2860R can't provide the air. Garrett rates this model at 300 - 400 HP --- apparently they rate it using BHP, and according to a "tech tip" I found --- http://www.badasscars.com/index.cfm/...prod/prd64.htm I'm exceeding that max.

One last significant mod is the JMTC ICI unfinished pipe. Had to relocate my external DV and connect it as a BOV --- no way to reconnect the output end from the location I chose. Looks cleaner with one less hose draped across the valve cover, but a plumbing nightmare to connect --- due to my configuration, not normally an install problem.

Anyhow, here's the latest dyno charts showing corrections for map C, one for WHP / torque, the other for AFR / boost ---

Now to clean it all up and enjoy!

 

That's got to be a fun/crazy ride. I'm at 244WHP and it's crazy.

What tires are you running to get traction?

 

Only gets crazy when I get on it, which isn't often --- don't need to!

Tires are 195/55/R16, 87W, Bridgestone Potenza RE760 Sport --- asymetric, not directional --- nice on mountain roads and the track, but not soft enough for straight-line traction.

 

Those are amazing numbers on the Heartbreaker!

You've inspired me to complete my tune, get back on the Mustang and see where it stands. Damn sure won't get close to your figures, though!

 

Any thoughts on torque going down soooo much?

 

First guess is how slowly the operator accelerated. Checkout the two videos I took during the dyno pulls --- https://www.youtube.com/profile?user...nd&view=videos Notice the map C pull is a bit slower than the map B. Maybe not the cause, but pretty sure the low torque isn't due to elevation. Map B is a little better than the LV pull on both HP and torque, which is what I was expecting, and even that pull seems to be slow. So it's only the map C pull that's questionable.

I still know little about dyno's and their operation --- I'm pretty much at their mercy. However, considering the magnitude of my numbers, I'm not gonna get too worried about them being off a bit. Next time I'm in town, I'll stop by and talk to them about dyno techniques, etc.

OK --- here's the map B results ---

 

I guess the real question then should be, any guess on why the boost goes down? from almos 30 to 20 in the pull. It looks it cant keep the boost.

 

My posts get kinda lengthy and it's easy to miss info. Here's a copy of a paragraph in post #79 --- Because the AMVIV boost curves didn't stay at the MBC setting, I was hoping that by relocating the MBC source hose closer to the throttle body, there would be less loss. No such luck --- boost curves are still sloping down after peaking --- not as drastic a slope but still a drop from 29 at about 5K to 22PSI at 7.4K. Popular opinion for this loss is the GTX2860R can't provide the air. Garrett rates this model at 300 - 400 HP --- apparently they rate it using BHP, and according to a "tech tip" I found --- http://www.badasscars.com/index.cfm/...prod/prd64.htm I'm exceeding that max.

According to this "tech tip", I'm quite a bit over 400BHP, so it makes sense that the turbo just can't supply the air I need --- if the rating is really in BHP. Not a bad problem to have, just gonna be awhile before I resolve it.

 

Ahhhhhh sorry, Yep, I remember reading that explanation.

 

Hi - glad to hear the car is up and running again :-). I've a bunch of quick questions if that is okay and I guess a couple of lines on our build at the moment.


400 bhp seems a bit high at 22psi at the top end. Assuming your engine is about 130 bhp with zero boost. 22psi would be around 325 bhp. (130 *2.5). Do you really think it is over 400bhp?


I'd like mine to rev to more than 7,000 rpm but we haven't managed to move the rev limit past 7,000. Was that easy and was it just something you were provided by say manic?


Can I check that you are still using the standard fuel system for the current BHP?


Has anyone checked the fuel pressure in the line from the lift tank to the HPFP at such high bhp? It is supposed to maintain 5 bar but that is for a car asking for say 175bhp or maybe up to 210 bhp on the GP model, not 300 to 400bhp.


We have our 2nd turbo up and running and have seen just over 300 engine (flywheel) bhp. We have no fuel cut defenders so we are limited by what the ECU is willing to see boost wise. so that 300bhp is just about 1.5 bar (22psi). What fuel cut defender did you use and how much did it cost if you don't mind?


We have installed a second set of 4 injectors (sequential not direct injection..) with injectors and a pump that can do up to 350bhp in isolation, so we should have enough fuel for around 600 to 650bhp (which we will never get to..).


We will find a way to get by the standard boost limit and add more boost and fuel. Should be interesting.


The second turbo we are using is capable of 500bhp itself, plus the other turbo we have which the max we have seen is 280bhp.


I am still here and plugging away at the car and will update more when it looks less like a test bed :-).

Cheers


Steven RW

 

I'm currently looking at bigger turbos and changing from OEM exhaust manifold to a custom header. So much to learn about turbos! No hurry 'cause I seldom use max power --- just gotta satisfy the mod bug. Do you have turbo setup pics in your thread?

 

Got a chance to talk with the local dyno operator and he tells me that all my pulls were done with pedal-to-the-metal. So I can't blame the torque loss on him. Another more likely suspect is the Vegas dyno setup --- that operator used a vehicle weight of 2450, while the local dyno used 2875. There were also a couple other differences that may or may not have caused the variation, I'm still learning about it.

Not long after my last post in Sept, I was pushing hard on a long gradual incline out in the middle of nowhere, and blew a #1 exhaust valve. Also lost the ground electrode on #1 plug. Those that can recognize the indications, tell me it was overheated and I have either a lean AFR or not enough WMI. Pretty sure the AFR is OK, so I added a WMI jet to each intake port and increased the total jets from 1.2 to 2.0mm --- here's some pics of the changes. Note the homemade bracket supporting the MAF sensor and filter. Maybe someday I'll paint it. Also took out the long air tube from the front to the filter housing. Filter is now completely exposed to engine compartment heat. We'll see how air inlet temps respond.

Valves are now all SuperTech --- sodium filled inconel for ex and black nitrided SS for in. Should be able to handle a bit more heat now. Also found some heat range 9 plugs --- NGK R2556B-9/4962. Just put it back on the road today and working out my mistakes, so I haven't yet stressed anything. First thing I noticed was it doesn't like to idle at start-up --- takes a minute or so to get happy. I'm hoping it's just the way cold plugs react. Tappets were a little noisy during first start-up, but they probably needed time to pump up --- no excess noise after warm-up.

Now to put some miles on it. After blowing the valve, I'm gonna be extra sensitive about getting on it. Maybe only when the spouse isn't with me ---

 

Wow... now you’re making me wonder what weight my dyno guy put in.

Sorry to hear about the valve misadventure, but glad to hear you’re rolling again.

How do you get around the 22psi boost cut? My Turbosmart has the ECU tricked on its end, but something else must not be in agreement. Mine sharply popped at 22 a couple of days ago, but no CELs, pendings, etc. (I use BlueDriver to test on the fly.)

Also, a dual catch can? Why not just block the vacuum side?

WMI is next up for me... after we get past the holidays.

 

Excellent idea. It's amazing how vocal they can get during an Italian tune up lol.

 

I'm not positive the different weight caused the difference, but it kinda seems logical. Gotta have more talks with dyno guys.

Currently, my Manic tune defeats the 22psi limit. Originally I used a pair of Fuel (or Boost) Cut Defenders one wired in to each MAP sensor. Basically a zener diode with a 10-turn adjustable resistor. Still have them if you're interested --- PM me for details.

Didn't want to defeat the PCV vacuum port --- want to keep crankcase pressure at a minimum. When CC pressure builds up, turbo oil wont drain properly, so it leaks thru the turbo seal and into the combustable air --- had that problem for a long time.

 

So, you’d recommend that I get another BSH for the vacuum side?

As for the weight/dyno thing, I found this link: http://www.tuneruniversity.com/blog/...-weight-ratio/

 

Also, let’s talk plugs... I’ve got stock NGKs in right now (burned up the Brisk). I just got a set of NGK 1422s, but haven’t put them in.

Buzz is running tight and strong right now, good cold start, zero codes (occasional B2A00/B2AAA).

 

If you're happy with your oil consumption, don't bother with another OCC. It's also a PITA to connect, given the OEM interface hardware.

Based on your linked article, I'd expect the sample torque to be affected at the same rate as HP. In my charts, the "corrected" HP was very similar --- 368.7 vs. 370.2. It was the "corrected" torque that was significantly different --- 353.1 vs. 403.1. Confusing!!! Charts attached --- note the "actuals".

I've read that for every 75HP increase from OEM, one step colder plug is recommended. Might be worthwhile to change them --- at least for a trial run or two. Remember, the last digit in the NGK part number relates to the gap, i.e., an "8" translates to a 0.8mm gap, and a "6" is a 0.6mm gap.

 

I ser 6 hoses for the WMI, i can guess 5 of them, but what about the 6th?

 

1: supply from meth pump to distribution manifold
2-5: one to each intake port
6: charge pipe located before the t-map sensor

 

Gotcha, So much meth my small tank wont last more than a few miles

 

If you ever decide to go with one port for each cylinder, you can decrease the jet size to keep meth consumption down. I need more cooling and better distribution, so the added ports were the best solution --- I hope.