Go Back   MustangForums.com > Ford Mustang Tech > 4.6L (1996-2004 Modular) Mustang
Sign in using an external account
Register Forgot Password?
Search


4.6L (1996-2004 Modular) Mustang Technical discussions on 1996-2004 4.6 Liter Modular Motors (2V and 4V) within.
Sponsored by Cruizin Concepts


Welcome to Mustang Forums!
Welcome to Mustang Forums.

You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, at no cost, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, so please join our community today!


Delta Force tuning software ?'s

Reply
 
 
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 03-02-2010, 07:29 PM   #21
cliffyk
TECH SAVANT
 
cliffyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Vehicle: 1998 SL500
Location: Saint Augustine, FL
Posts: 10,914
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris98Gt View Post
It also says that it's a direct bolt in for the 05+, would that not lead you to think that it has the same transfer function as the stock 05+, or do you think they just mean that it will bolt in, but still need tuning.

If it's a direct bolt-in that has the same transfer function then it's a stone cold waste of money as it would be the functional equivalent of the OEM unit.
This ad is not displayed to registered or logged-in members.
Register your free account today and become a member on Mustang Forums!
__________________
-cliff knight-
SOLD! - 2003 GT, UPR X, FRPP 24lb/h, Magnaflow, PP 70mm TB & plenum,
Delta Force tuned, Steeda UDPs, Ralco flywheel,
RAM HDX clutch, 3.73s, 262 rwHP/305 lb-ft.

New ride (7/1/2013) 1998 Mercedes SL500-5.0L 32V VVT 326/347 HP/tq


Engineering is, at its base, making what you want from what you have.
At its extreme it is making what you want from what you can get.
cliffyk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2010, 07:39 PM   #22
Chris98Gt
3rd Gear Member
 
Chris98Gt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Vehicle: 98 Mustang Gt
Location: Georgia
Posts: 931
Default

I see, I'm not sure I completely understand your other post though. Do you think s/f has a maf t/f thats close, or did I not find the actual t/f of this sensor in the first place?
__________________

98 Turbo GT
Chris98Gt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2010, 08:01 PM   #23
cliffyk
TECH SAVANT
 
cliffyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Vehicle: 1998 SL500
Location: Saint Augustine, FL
Posts: 10,914
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris98Gt View Post
I see, I'm not sure I completely understand your other post though. Do you think s/f has a maf t/f thats close, or did I not find the actual t/f of this sensor in the first place?
According to their worksheet, the 75mm housing you linked to, with the PMAS HPX sensor, can measure mass air flows of about the same at 5.0V (1240kg/h) as the Special Forces "24 lb" drop-down selection (1220kg/h), and has a similar curve.

However as I said earlier, this is quite a bit less than a plain ol' stock 80mm MAF from a '99 to '04 GT can measure. I don't understand why you want to use it on your car, why aren't you looking at the larger diameter housings VMP offers?

Also, in a blow-through installation you need yet a larger MAF as the elevated intake air temperatures make the air less dense, despite its being compressed...
__________________
-cliff knight-
SOLD! - 2003 GT, UPR X, FRPP 24lb/h, Magnaflow, PP 70mm TB & plenum,
Delta Force tuned, Steeda UDPs, Ralco flywheel,
RAM HDX clutch, 3.73s, 262 rwHP/305 lb-ft.

New ride (7/1/2013) 1998 Mercedes SL500-5.0L 32V VVT 326/347 HP/tq


Engineering is, at its base, making what you want from what you have.
At its extreme it is making what you want from what you can get.
cliffyk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2010, 08:09 PM   #24
Chris98Gt
3rd Gear Member
 
Chris98Gt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Vehicle: 98 Mustang Gt
Location: Georgia
Posts: 931
Default

Idk, it said it can support the hp I was planning on making and thought that if I had a 3" pipe from the intercooler to the 95mm Bazooka or the BA series it would mess with the maf since it will be stepping up and then back down again to go the the t/b. Do you see no problem with that? Since I honestly don't know what maf would you suggest for a setup like this. Forged .020 over 4.6 with Trickflow heads, edelbrock intake, turbo cams, 60lb injectors, twin 255lph pumps and an on3turbo kit with the Masterpowers upgrade. Should I just go with the bazooka or the ba3000 and call it a day?
__________________

98 Turbo GT

Last edited by Chris98Gt; 03-02-2010 at 08:19 PM.
Chris98Gt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2010, 08:26 PM   #25
cliffyk
TECH SAVANT
 
cliffyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Vehicle: 1998 SL500
Location: Saint Augustine, FL
Posts: 10,914
Default

I don't know, as I said actual mass air measurement gets strange in blow-through situations because of the extreme air temps. If your inter-cooler is 75mm then I suppose there really isn't any point of having a larger MAF housing, however I am certain that 2650lb/h of air (as is indicated at 5.0V output on their worksheet) will not support much more than 400 fwHP at 11.5:1 AFR. The stock 80mm unit can do better than this.

2650lb/h of air / 11.5:1 AFR = 231 lb/h of fuel. At a BSFC (Brake Specific Fuel Consumption) of 0.6lb/HP (rule of thumb for f/i) that's 384 fwHP.

I have never used a blow-through setup, don't like 'em (barring leaks there's nothing that happens to the air in a blower or intercooler that alters it's mass), so maybe there's some magic there, but the numbers they provide don't seem right to me...
__________________
-cliff knight-
SOLD! - 2003 GT, UPR X, FRPP 24lb/h, Magnaflow, PP 70mm TB & plenum,
Delta Force tuned, Steeda UDPs, Ralco flywheel,
RAM HDX clutch, 3.73s, 262 rwHP/305 lb-ft.

New ride (7/1/2013) 1998 Mercedes SL500-5.0L 32V VVT 326/347 HP/tq


Engineering is, at its base, making what you want from what you have.
At its extreme it is making what you want from what you can get.

Last edited by cliffyk; 03-02-2010 at 08:29 PM.
cliffyk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2010, 08:27 PM   #26
Stevecooper
3rd Gear Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 912
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cliffyk View Post
Appendix A. page 110...and I think you are correct as he says it affects only 2002+ EEC-V PCMs.

I just looked at a 2000 MY Special Forces template and found that the >1700 kg/h scaling indicator is not set...

Hey even a stopped watch is right twice a day

This would explain why my PCM does not experience this issue but most of the cars / trucks I have tuned have been affected. I never seem to touch anything that's not 2002+ and normally a lightning or a Cobra.
__________________
2001 Bullitt
281CI Blue Printed Engine (Teksid, CP's, Manley Billit, Cobra Crank,) Foxlake Ported SVO heads, PI CAM's, kooks LT's, 2.3L Allen Twin Screw Blower, 63lb, SCT2800 MAF, Mcloed 8" Twin disk, Viper T-56, Griggs GR40 With Watt Link. SSR GT3's... and more. Tuned by... Me.
535HP, 530TQ 12PSI .
Stevecooper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2010, 08:33 PM   #27
cliffyk
TECH SAVANT
 
cliffyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Vehicle: 1998 SL500
Location: Saint Augustine, FL
Posts: 10,914
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevecooper View Post
Hey even a stopped watch is right twice a day
I have a Russian 24-hour watch that would only be right once a day were it stopped--this much better fits the workings of my 62 year-old brain...
__________________
-cliff knight-
SOLD! - 2003 GT, UPR X, FRPP 24lb/h, Magnaflow, PP 70mm TB & plenum,
Delta Force tuned, Steeda UDPs, Ralco flywheel,
RAM HDX clutch, 3.73s, 262 rwHP/305 lb-ft.

New ride (7/1/2013) 1998 Mercedes SL500-5.0L 32V VVT 326/347 HP/tq


Engineering is, at its base, making what you want from what you have.
At its extreme it is making what you want from what you can get.
cliffyk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2010, 08:52 PM   #28
Chris98Gt
3rd Gear Member
 
Chris98Gt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Vehicle: 98 Mustang Gt
Location: Georgia
Posts: 931
Default

I thought Lizzyfan was running this maf on his blow through setup and making somewhere around 430rwhp.
__________________

98 Turbo GT
Chris98Gt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2010, 09:06 PM   #29
cliffyk
TECH SAVANT
 
cliffyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Vehicle: 1998 SL500
Location: Saint Augustine, FL
Posts: 10,914
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris98Gt View Post
I thought Lizzyfan was running this maf on his blow through setup and making somewhere around 430rwhp.
That would be possible--it's a bit over the "rule-of-thumb" (RoT) sizing formulae, but not that far over...

The RoT sizing formulas are starting points for selecting the right components in the first place, not 100% infallible calculations.

Nonetheless, when someone say they are supporting 640 HP with 2650lb/h of air my meter goes:

Click the image to open in full size.
__________________
-cliff knight-
SOLD! - 2003 GT, UPR X, FRPP 24lb/h, Magnaflow, PP 70mm TB & plenum,
Delta Force tuned, Steeda UDPs, Ralco flywheel,
RAM HDX clutch, 3.73s, 262 rwHP/305 lb-ft.

New ride (7/1/2013) 1998 Mercedes SL500-5.0L 32V VVT 326/347 HP/tq


Engineering is, at its base, making what you want from what you have.
At its extreme it is making what you want from what you can get.
cliffyk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2010, 09:37 PM   #30
vanquish
4th Gear Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Vehicle: Mustang GT
Location: asdf
Posts: 1,600
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris98Gt View Post
Idk, it said it can support the hp I was planning on making and thought that if I had a 3" pipe from the intercooler to the 95mm Bazooka or the BA series it would mess with the maf since it will be stepping up and then back down again to go the the t/b. Do you see no problem with that? Since I honestly don't know what maf would you suggest for a setup like this. Forged .020 over 4.6 with Trickflow heads, edelbrock intake, turbo cams, 60lb injectors, twin 255lph pumps and an on3turbo kit with the Masterpowers upgrade. Should I just go with the bazooka or the ba3000 and call it a day?
I would go with the Bazooka. I am using the BA3000 and even though it was listed for use in special forces it was off and the car wouldn't run right. But Chris at Sniper emailed me a couple modified tunes based on my feedback and its running well now.
vanquish is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2010, 11:43 PM   #31
HaneyMotorsport.Com
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Vehicle: 07' Mustang GT Supercharged
Location: Goodyear, AZ
Posts: 1,631
Default

The stock S197 MAF housing/air box top is 80mm. "Direct replacement for 05-up" I believe means it is the same as factory (as far as physical diamentions)

Your 98 pcm is not hard limited on air mass #s. As stated, 02-04 EEC5 are.

The HPX spreadsheet will give you a rough baseline function to start with. It will need to be globally adjusted!

The tube is designed really for blow through set ups, not draw through. Blow through works very well with turbo and centri s/c set ups. You do not need a "larger than average" i.d. for blow through.

I have used/tuned with the HPX and Justin's 3" tube. This was on an 06 3V with an exile twin turbo kit....blow through. The car had drive-ability issues, slightly rough and hunting idle and light load cruise. The MAF (stock one) was giving a crappy signal. The problem was the kit's intake/intercooler tubing. The cf elbow/MAF housing diameter increases in size and two 90 degree bends right before the sensor, which is not good for smooth air flow over the sensor. Anyhow, I removed one of the 90's, added the 3" tube, new elbow (vortech) and re-tuned the car. If memory is correct, I had to adjust the transfer function around 23% from the baseline!

Bottom line, you will need the Commando to tune it correctly. This really goes for any other MAF used....SCT BA****, Bazooka or HPX.

Casey
HaneyMotorsport.Com is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-02-2010, 11:49 PM   #32
cliffyk
TECH SAVANT
 
cliffyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Vehicle: 1998 SL500
Location: Saint Augustine, FL
Posts: 10,914
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HaneyMotorsport.Com View Post
The stock S197 MAF housing/air box top is 80mm. "Direct replacement for 05-up" I believe means it is the same as factory (as far as physical diamentions)

Your 98 pcm is not hard limited on air mass #s. As stated, 02-04 EEC5 are.

The HPX spreadsheet will give you a rough baseline function to start with. It will need to be globally adjusted!

The tube is designed really for blow through set ups, not draw through. Blow through works very well with turbo and centri s/c set ups. You do not need a "larger than average" i.d. for blow through.

I have used/tuned with the HPX and Justin's 3" tube. This was on an 06 3V with an exile twin turbo kit....blow through. The car had drive-ability issues, slightly rough and hunting idle and light load cruise. The MAF (stock one) was giving a crappy signal. The problem was the kit's intake/intercooler tubing. The cf elbow/MAF housing diameter increases in size and two 90 degree bends right before the sensor, which is not good for smooth air flow over the sensor. Anyhow, I removed one of the 90's, added the 3" tube, new elbow (vortech) and re-tuned the car. If memory is correct, I had to adjust the transfer function around 23% from the baseline!

Bottom line, you will need the Commando to tune it correctly. This really goes for any other MAF used....SCT BA****, Bazooka or HPX.

Casey
Casey,

Thank you for addding some emprical reality, I have no experience with turbos (exhaust or "belt driven"--don't like 'em as I said) I am glad you jumped in...

-cliff-
__________________
-cliff knight-
SOLD! - 2003 GT, UPR X, FRPP 24lb/h, Magnaflow, PP 70mm TB & plenum,
Delta Force tuned, Steeda UDPs, Ralco flywheel,
RAM HDX clutch, 3.73s, 262 rwHP/305 lb-ft.

New ride (7/1/2013) 1998 Mercedes SL500-5.0L 32V VVT 326/347 HP/tq


Engineering is, at its base, making what you want from what you have.
At its extreme it is making what you want from what you can get.
cliffyk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2010, 05:33 AM   #33
Chris98Gt
3rd Gear Member
 
Chris98Gt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Vehicle: 98 Mustang Gt
Location: Georgia
Posts: 931
Default

Ok, so if I added 23% to the 3" tube diameter, making it a 3.7", and took those values is that the same as when you say you adjusted the function 23%? If so, that seems easy enough to play with to get it just right. Thanks again guys for the help.
__________________

98 Turbo GT
Chris98Gt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2010, 11:51 AM   #34
Stevecooper
3rd Gear Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 912
Default

One thing to note, the SCT MAF units are all contained in the same size housing but have the ability to measure different quantities of air. Perhaps this sensor is a "05+ slot" style sensor that has the ability to measure larger quantities of air much like the SCT units.
__________________
2001 Bullitt
281CI Blue Printed Engine (Teksid, CP's, Manley Billit, Cobra Crank,) Foxlake Ported SVO heads, PI CAM's, kooks LT's, 2.3L Allen Twin Screw Blower, 63lb, SCT2800 MAF, Mcloed 8" Twin disk, Viper T-56, Griggs GR40 With Watt Link. SSR GT3's... and more. Tuned by... Me.
535HP, 530TQ 12PSI .
Stevecooper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2010, 12:10 PM   #35
cliffyk
TECH SAVANT
 
cliffyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Vehicle: 1998 SL500
Location: Saint Augustine, FL
Posts: 10,914
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevecooper View Post
One thing to note, the SCT MAF units are all contained in the same size housing but have the ability to measure different quantities of air. Perhaps this sensor is a "05+ slot" style sensor that has the ability to measure larger quantities of air much like the SCT units.
It may well be, however according to the worksheet on the VMP site the PMAS HPX sensor under discussion, in a 3" tube. pegs at 2650lb/h. 400lb/h or so less than my stock '03 GT 80mm unit.

The sensor's electronics can be easily built, or tweaked, to alter the relationship between the current required to keep the hot wire at a set temperature, and the output voltage.

Altering of the amplitude and curve of the output is how most "calibrated" MAFs work...
__________________
-cliff knight-
SOLD! - 2003 GT, UPR X, FRPP 24lb/h, Magnaflow, PP 70mm TB & plenum,
Delta Force tuned, Steeda UDPs, Ralco flywheel,
RAM HDX clutch, 3.73s, 262 rwHP/305 lb-ft.

New ride (7/1/2013) 1998 Mercedes SL500-5.0L 32V VVT 326/347 HP/tq


Engineering is, at its base, making what you want from what you have.
At its extreme it is making what you want from what you can get.
cliffyk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2010, 12:18 PM   #36
Stevecooper
3rd Gear Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 912
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cliffyk View Post
It may well be, however according to the worksheet on the VMP site the PMAS HPX sensor under discussion, in a 3" tube. pegs at 2650lb/h. 400lb/h or so less than my stock '03 GT 80mm unit.

The sensor's electronics can be easily built, or tweaked, to alter the relationship between the current required to keep the hot wire at a set temperature, and the output voltage.

Altering of the amplitude and curve of the output is how most "calibrated" MAFs work...
Ah, I see your point. There is no way you are going to make the suggested 643RWHP with 44Lb/Min of air. I am exceeding 44LB/Min and then some making about 100rwhp less.

Something doesn't add up...
__________________
2001 Bullitt
281CI Blue Printed Engine (Teksid, CP's, Manley Billit, Cobra Crank,) Foxlake Ported SVO heads, PI CAM's, kooks LT's, 2.3L Allen Twin Screw Blower, 63lb, SCT2800 MAF, Mcloed 8" Twin disk, Viper T-56, Griggs GR40 With Watt Link. SSR GT3's... and more. Tuned by... Me.
535HP, 530TQ 12PSI .
Stevecooper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2010, 01:16 PM   #37
tbirdscwd
5th Gear Member
 
tbirdscwd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Vehicle: 04 Black GT
Location: CA
Posts: 4,039
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevecooper View Post
Ah, I see your point. There is no way you are going to make the suggested 643RWHP with 44Lb/Min of air. I am exceeding 44LB/Min and then some making about 100rwhp less.

Something doesn't add up...
Well, I'm hoping by the rest of your setup that those "PI cams" listed in your sig aren't Stock cam grinds. That could very well be making up the difference in power you are noting.
__________________
Fun: 2004 Mustang GT
DD: 1994 Ram 2500 Cummins 4x4
tbirdscwd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2010, 01:45 PM   #38
cliffyk
TECH SAVANT
 
cliffyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Vehicle: 1998 SL500
Location: Saint Augustine, FL
Posts: 10,914
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevecooper View Post
Ah, I see your point. There is no way you are going to make the suggested 643RWHP with 44Lb/Min of air. I am exceeding 44LB/Min and then some making about 100rwhp less.

Something doesn't add up...
Yup...

Are you up around 55 to 65 lb/m, that's what I would expect?

I hacked their worksheet just now:

Click the image to open in full size.

The A and B columns hold a lookup table of the output voltage vs. an airflow constant for the sensor. The constant is derived from a 9th order polynomial equation, which is:

Code:
-9.475184+59.921788
*A11-135.60886
*A11^2+166.77782
*A11^3-111.50394
*A11^4+44.218751
*A11^5-10.131798
*A11^6+1.2482716
*A11^7-0.065666262
*A11^8+0.00029343852
*A11^9
Cell A11 is the sensor output voltage, the variable element of the equation. In columns E and J the total flow through the tube is calculated using the airflow constant value from column B times the tube area in cell F8 or I8.

The potential horsepower value is calculated as the 5.0V airflow divided by 1750, and then multiplied by 425--I.e. =E40/1750*425, or =J40/1750*425.

This formula then is asserting that 1750lb/h of air can support 425fwHP.

But, 1750lb/h of air cannot support 425HP (280 to 300 tops)...

However after throwing a whole bunch of fudge at this, and seeing what would stick, I came up with this:

1750kg/h * 2.2 = 3858lb/h;

3858lb/h of air at 12:1 AFR = 321lb/h of fuel;

321lb/h of fuel, at 0.6 BSFC (typical for f/i) = 536fwHP;

536fwHP - 20% loss from peripherals and drivetrain = 428rwHP...

Now as I said there's a whoile bunch of speculation in this, however the assumptions (12:1 AFR, and 20% parasitic/drivetrain loss) are in the right ball park.

--------------------------------------------------
Steve,

Too bad you are there and I am here, I suspect we would have a lot to talk about while tossing back a few pints!
__________________
-cliff knight-
SOLD! - 2003 GT, UPR X, FRPP 24lb/h, Magnaflow, PP 70mm TB & plenum,
Delta Force tuned, Steeda UDPs, Ralco flywheel,
RAM HDX clutch, 3.73s, 262 rwHP/305 lb-ft.

New ride (7/1/2013) 1998 Mercedes SL500-5.0L 32V VVT 326/347 HP/tq


Engineering is, at its base, making what you want from what you have.
At its extreme it is making what you want from what you can get.

Last edited by cliffyk; 03-03-2010 at 01:48 PM.
cliffyk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2010, 01:58 PM   #39
cliffyk
TECH SAVANT
 
cliffyk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Vehicle: 1998 SL500
Location: Saint Augustine, FL
Posts: 10,914
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tbirdscwd View Post
Well, I'm hoping by the rest of your setup that those "PI cams" listed in your sig aren't Stock cam grinds. That could very well be making up the difference in power you are noting.
Higher performance cams would indeed cause engine output to go up, however this would be accomplished by increasing the VE of the engine and causing it to consume more air (and fuel, though actually the air and gasoline are the "fuel") which of course = more HP.

However in this diuscussion we are going about things sort of backwards and discussing how much HP a given mass of air per time unit can support, not what the effects of increasing that amount of air would be...
__________________
-cliff knight-
SOLD! - 2003 GT, UPR X, FRPP 24lb/h, Magnaflow, PP 70mm TB & plenum,
Delta Force tuned, Steeda UDPs, Ralco flywheel,
RAM HDX clutch, 3.73s, 262 rwHP/305 lb-ft.

New ride (7/1/2013) 1998 Mercedes SL500-5.0L 32V VVT 326/347 HP/tq


Engineering is, at its base, making what you want from what you have.
At its extreme it is making what you want from what you can get.
cliffyk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2010, 02:16 PM   #40
HaneyMotorsport.Com
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Vehicle: 07' Mustang GT Supercharged
Location: Goodyear, AZ
Posts: 1,631
Default

Cliff- No problem! I am happy to help/educate with what I know and have experienced.

As Cliff and others have said, buy Greg's books (2 now). These are a must read for anyone getting into self tuning, especially boosted applications. I have also taken his Ford class, which was great. Advanced Ford and GM classes coming soon!

You cannot do it that way (add 23% to tube i.d.) That is not going to give you the correct function. Each and every engine set up is going to require it's own calibration. You need to set lambda in the tune, run the car at steady state for each break point, record real lambda readings via wide band, then adjust the difference in the function.

The HPX is not maxed...5v @ 2650 flow # given. As I stated before, this is just a rough curve. If you take my 23% adjustment ( more air mass), the new 5v would be 3441.***.
HaneyMotorsport.Com is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2010, 02:16 PM
MustangForums
Ford Mustang




Paid Advertisement

 
 
 
Reply

Tags
44, 75mm, delta, deltaforcetuning, force, gm, hack, hpx, lbmin, maf, sct, sniper, software, spreadsheet, tuning

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

Forum Jump

Advertising

Featured Sponsors
Vendor Directory
New Sponsors
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:56 AM.

© Internet Brands, Inc.


This forum is owned and operated by Internet Brands, Inc., a Delaware corporation. It is not authorized or endorsed by the Ford Motor Company and is not affiliated with the Ford Motor Company or its related companies in any way. Ford® is a registered trademark of the Ford Motor Company
Emails Backup