Got an Ecoboost and a Cobb AP? Then you have a free lifetime Dyno!

jbailer · Apr 6, 2017

MakStang said:
So in a similar way to Glenn's, I did third gear pulls using the AP to get the Estimated Torque. I know these numbers are calculated through an algorithm, but they should give a good estimation of the engine's torque and, consequently, hp.

The only mods that I have so far on the car is the MBRP Race Catback Exhaust system and a Cobb Accessport Stage 1 map (which is night and day compared to the stock map). In a couple of days I will install the cp-e intercooler and right afterwords I will get an e-Tune from Adam. So I wanted a tool to follow-up on how things progress as I move along with the mods.

Although I am in Europe, I converted all numbers to the US system of measurement (lb-ft instead of Nm for Torque, F instead of C for temperature), as most of the members in this forum are from the US and this is the conventional way of plotting tq and hp.

Makis, that's a great idea and probably many of us wish we would have kept data like that for comparison. I think we all know the data won't be accurate but it should provide a good comparison of the performance differences over time. :clap2:

MakStang · Apr 7, 2017

I will do the same thing on Cobb Stage 1 tune once the cp-e DeltaCore intercooler is on. Also I will probably do a pull using Cobb Stage 2 tune, to see if there are any differences and how this Stage 2 map handles an intercooler that is different than Cobb's. Finaly I will do a pull after I have the final version of the e-Tune. THIS would be interesting!

Also I have logged data such as charge air, inlet air and ambient air temperature, rpm, speed and boost pressure. I will log the same data once the upgraded intercooler is on and also after I have the e-Tune. So we will have a lot to discuss about after I prepare the relevant graphs.

Now remember that I datalog at an open road, which is located by the sea and at sea level. Also the temperature in Greece at this time of the year is about 21 C (~70 F). So if other people do the same thing (and I think it would be a great idea to gather this kind of information), I expect to see different graphs, as car performance is influenced by temperature, barometric pressure and humidity. It would be interesting though to see what other people get.

Glenn G · Apr 7, 2017

Hey guys, It's cool you are keeping this alive,
Sometimes the crap that I see on the forum makes me walk away from it for long stretches.

So I got a chance to speak to a PCM calibrator at Bosch GmBH a few days ago. Because of the way the torque estimation works, removing restrictions in the intake and exhaust will actually report lower numbers.

In simple terms the sensors detect x amount of pressure at y temperature. There is a flow model programmed in the computer that tells it how much air that is and then calculates with RPM, Air fuel ratio, etc.

In our example we will use 10 psi at 5000 rpm with a 12-1 AFR (these numbers are just made up for this example) the ECU makes a relatively accurate reading of 200 ft/lbs with stock components.

When you remove restrictions you can flow more air at 7 psi than 10psi on stock equipment. A wheel dyno would show something like 220 ft/lbs. Unless the flow model is updated it would read lower, there is some correction built into the system but it is probably going to read 5-15% LOWER.

At the same 10 psi 5000 rpm, the sensors would show 220 ft/lbs, so you would see a gain, but the car would actually be outputting 240 ft/lbs.

The short version is that these sensors will under report significantly when a freer flowing down pipe and Intercooler is used and you can expect 10% more or better on a dyno. A cat back will not throw off the reading significantly and those gains would be solid.

The good news is that any changes that do not involve air flow (Like a tune) the increase from the baseline will be accurate so you can use it to measure gains.

Changing the turbo affects the flow model significantly enough to render it useless

jbailer · Apr 7, 2017

Glenn G said:
Hey guys, It's cool you are keeping this alive,
Sometimes the crap that I see on the forum makes me walk away from it for long stretches.

So I got a chance to speak to a PCM calibrator at Bosch GmBH a few days ago. Because of the way the torque estimation works, removing restrictions in the intake and exhaust will actually report lower numbers.

In simple terms the sensors detect x amount of pressure at y temperature. There is a flow model programmed in the computer that tells it how much air that is and then calculates with RPM, Air fuel ratio, etc.

In our example we will use 10 psi at 5000 rpm with a 12-1 AFR (these numbers are just made up for this example) the ECU makes a relatively accurate reading of 200 ft/lbs with stock components.

When you remove restrictions you can flow more air at 7 psi than 10psi on stock equipment. A wheel dyno would show something like 220 ft/lbs. Unless the flow model is updated it would read lower, there is some correction built into the system but it is probably going to read 5-15% LOWER.

At the same 10 psi 5000 rpm, the sensors would show 220 ft/lbs, so you would see a gain, but the car would actually be outputting 240 ft/lbs.

The short version is that these sensors will under report significantly when a freer flowing down pipe and Intercooler is used and you can expect 10% more or better on a dyno. A cat back will not throw off the reading significantly and those gains would be solid.

The good news is that any changes that do not involve air flow (Like a tune) the increase from the baseline will be accurate so you can use it to measure gains.

Changing the turbo affects the flow model significantly enough to render it useless

That's interesting, understandable and very useful. So since neither an intake or a catback exhaust require a tune, it would be best to put those mods on and get a baseline log from there. You could even get a base before that and see how much impact the above has. It should show a net loss before any tune. Then that could be used as a true base before tune and real performance mods. I'm convinced that neither of those 2 mods will result in performance gains on a 93 pump gas, stock turbo car.

jbailer · Apr 7, 2017

MakStang said:
I will do the same thing on Cobb Stage 1 tune once the cp-e DeltaCore intercooler is on. Also I will probably do a pull using Cobb Stage 2 tune, to see if there are any differences and how this Stage 2 map handles an intercooler that is different than Cobb's. Finaly I will do a pull after I have the final version of the e-Tune. THIS would be interesting!

Also I have logged data such as charge air, inlet air and ambient air temperature, rpm, speed and boost pressure. I will log the same data once the upgraded intercooler is on and also after I have the e-Tune. So we will have a lot to discuss about after I prepare the relevant graphs.

Now remember that I datalog at an open road, which is located by the sea and at sea level. Also the temperature in Greece at this time of the year is about 21 C (~70 F). So if other people do the same thing (and I think it would be a great idea to gather this kind of information), I expect to see different graphs, as car performance is influenced by temperature, barometric pressure and humidity. It would be interesting though to see what other people get.

That's a very important point! Temperature is a huge impact to performance unfortunately we can't influence it. I think at best we can note the conditions and might be able to try to data log in that environment but for a layman like me, it's difficult to determine the expected differences from weather conditions.

The CAT (charge air temps) is the biggest example I can think of. You can data log on 2 different days at 70* and get wildly different CATs. While I'm sure relative humidity, barometric pressure and maybe even cloud cover influence it, it would be near impossible to wait to data log with those same conditions. Plus I don't think the car will know the humidity and barometric pressure, that would just have to be noted along with elevation.

Example: When I was testing when I got my ATM intercooler, at first I was just monitoring displayed gauges. The results weren't so great. The temperatures were within a few degrees which I thought would be close enough but I'm sure other conditions were different. I saw my CATs more than 20* above ambient. Then I data logged them another day and only saw 8* over ambient. This while trying as best I could to mirror conditions like; car warmed up, same spot on the road, same speed and RPM and temps within a few degrees.

My experience doing this type of exercise over the years says, while it's great information for 1 person, it's best as just that to control the experiment. The more people that are included the more wildly the variables will be and information taken from different sources and/or not included. Another person's experiment might also be useful but when combined, make both less useful or accurate.

While controlling the experiment to a single person makes it less useful to many because the set of mods we will all use is seemingly endless, a collection of these that could be viewed by others for evaluation would be great. I've never seen it materialize though. I'm not trying to be a negative Nelly, just my experience.

MakStang · Apr 7, 2017

Thank you both for the very useful analysis. Personally I really enjoy discussions like this one.

I put the cp-e FMIC on and datalogged again today. Unfortunately the temperature and humidity are higher today and it's a very sunny day (as compared to my previous datalog which took place on a cloudy day). However, even at this higher temperature there is still a difference of ~40 F between stock and upgraded FMIC. I tried both OTS 1 & 2 maps. Psi in all 3 cases are more or less the same.

Tq and hp curves seem to follow the same trend as with the stock intercooler, although the numbers are a bit off (a bit lower). But again this is expected, because even two consecutive datalogs on the same day, within minutes one from the other give different Tq and hp values (I tried it when I prepared the graph above and I obtained different values). I guess temperature, humidity and barometric pressure play a significant role. Also, judging for myself, even the sight of another car in front of me, can change how heavy on the pedal I can be (it's called psychology)! I will prepare graphs and post them for your information within the next couple of days, as I spent too much time today preparing for and executing the datalogging...

Glenn G · Apr 7, 2017

MakStang said:
Thank you both for the very useful analysis. Personally I really enjoy discussions like this one.

I put the cp-e FMIC on and datalogged again today. Unfortunately the temperature and humidity are higher today and it's a very sunny day (as compared to my previous datalog which took place on a cloudy day). However, even at this higher temperature there is still a difference of ~40 F between stock and upgraded FMIC. I tried both OTS 1 & 2 maps. Psi in all 3 cases are more or less the same.

Tq and hp curves seem to follow the same trend as with the stock intercooler, although the numbers are a bit off (a bit lower). But again this is expected, because even two consecutive datalogs on the same day, within minutes one from the other give different Tq and hp values (I tried it when I prepared the graph above and I obtained different values). I guess temperature, humidity and barometric pressure play a significant role. Also, judging for myself, even the sight of another car in front of me, can change how heavy on the pedal I can be (it's called psychology)! I will prepare graphs and post them for your information within the next couple of days, as I spent too much time today preparing for and executing the datalogging...

Any aftermarket intercooler is going to flow much better than stock, I'm sure the CP-E one is exceptional and it meshes with what the engineer said that better flow at the same psi will result in less torque being reported.

I think jbailer hit it on the head, we need to do a baseline with all the hard parts in place(FMIC, Intake, DP and exhaust) and the stock tune then put the tune on and see the difference.

jbailer · Apr 7, 2017

I enjoy these discussions too and the data is still good and useful, even when it doesn't show what we expect. I am 100% convinced in the benefit of upgrading to a better FMIC so I hope nobody misinterprets my following statement. I think the benefits of the FMIC aren't like some people think. To really see the difference, we'd have to be able to look in some of those tables, mostly the ones with temperature as one of the parameters.

During normal operation under whatever temperature setting is in the tables to start retarding timing, the only benefit to the better FMIC is the lower air temp for combustion. Lower air temps = higher density = more burnable O2 = more power. Add to that with most of these aftermarket FMICs, along with the additional mass comes additional heat soak. So part of the time the air is hotter but it cools off quickly with movement and eventually provides lower temps. So the real benefit is where we want/need it, under heavy load where the stock FMIC fell on it's face with exponentially rising temps. That is where you have a combined hotter CAT (less burnable O2) and timing is being retarded to prevent detonation and a big loss of power. That is where the data logging will show the most benefit.

PS. I have to ignore the other recent thread in this section or I'll lose it.

MakStang · Apr 7, 2017

I totally agree Glenn/jbailer. Although the car feels torquier with the upgraded intercooler and Stage 1 or 2 OTS tune, I log 15-20 lb-ft less torque than what I had with the stock intercooler.

I will do what you both suggested, as I am not planning any other mods on the car. I am now working with Adam on my car's tuning strategy, so as soon as I have the final tune on the car, I will datalog having Cobb Stage 0 map on (in order to establish the baseline) and then I will datalog again with Adam's e-Tune.

It would be nice to engage more people in this fun project. We could even establish a database with the effect that several combinations of mods have on our cars.

Will keep you posted as soon I finalize my tune with Adam - I will need a few days for that as I just started.

MakStang · Apr 7, 2017

To put it simply, if we establish a baseline Estimated Torque with all the mods on at Stage 0 (stock tune) and then we put the tune on (e-Tune, OTS 1, OTS 2, OTS 3 or any other tune), the model will give us the torque gains that we get from the mods and the tune combined!

In other words, we will be able to measure Tq and hp gains, not absolute numbers.

MakStang · Apr 11, 2017

Just for your information, I asked Adam which data monitor on the Accessport would give a good indication of the actual engine torque. I think it's important to share with you his answer.

He said that actually there is no accurate indication of torque output. There are too many factors for the ECU to accurately calculate torque, especially when we actually make more power and torque than what the ECU was scaled to. He brought the example of a 500 whp Focus ST, where all the torque monitors read like 197 max (and obviously it was much higher)!

So, to be honest with you, I do not even know if it even makes any sense to measure Estimated Torque before and after installing the hardware + tune. I think this is something that needs further discussion for what we want to do.

Dspec_S550 · Apr 11, 2017

you guys are killing it with this tech talk! thanks for the informations.

MakStang · Nov 27, 2017

A little thread revival.

I just realized that after the latest update, an Estimated Horsepower data monitor has been added to the Accessport. I will add this next to the Estimated Torque data monitor on my Accessport, in order to see if the values are sort of realistic and if they are the same as if they were derived by the hp=(tq x rpm)/5252 formula.

trippleyelo · Nov 27, 2017

Nice work mate keep us informed :headbang:

Only have mustang dyno good to see other at
Work..:ford:

MakStang · Nov 27, 2017

OK, this is not a datalog, not even a pull, it's simply a snapshot of my Accessport after some spirited driving. If the numbers are not too far off, the power is at 470 hp and the torque at about 560 Nm (~411 lb-ft) to the crank. This is exactly where I would expect my car to be in terms of power and Tq, based on my mods and tuning.

Got an Ecoboost and a Cobb AP? Then you have a free lifetime Dyno!

jbailer

Well-Known Member

MakStang

Well-Known Member

Glenn G

Well-Known Member

jbailer

Well-Known Member

jbailer

Well-Known Member

MakStang

Well-Known Member

Glenn G

Well-Known Member

jbailer

Well-Known Member

MakStang

Well-Known Member

MakStang

Well-Known Member

MakStang

Well-Known Member

Dspec_S550

Well-Known Member

MakStang

Well-Known Member

trippleyelo

Well-Known Member

MakStang

Well-Known Member