Edelbrock E-Force Troubleshooting Manual

[Semp1]

My chart actually looks really good. You want a linear hp curve and a torque curve that gives a quick snap up and then holds pretty flat across the RPM band. Your torque looks like a roller coaster. If I knew what the cause could be, I would try to help you.

Drivability is like stock. Mpg is good. Car puts the power down with no wheel hop. Yes, if they had used SAE, it would be down a little bit. But this is the boring, safe, canned Roush tune using the stock fuel pump and 47 lb injectors or whatever it is that comes with the kit.

Draw whatever conclusions you would like, but you seem to be really defensive when he was just trying to help.

Edit: here is another edelbrock dyno from the dyno thread. Numbers are lower but the torque curve is almost identical to the roush.

My car drives like stock. I really can’t even have this conversation with you guys. No offense. Drive your car and enjoy it. Your curve is the same as mine in regards to tq. Tq curves are always sloppy looking vs hp power curves. It’s when the hp looks like that, that theres an issue. The curve is fine. And you’re showing me a car on that dyno chart that is severely less powerful than mine. Not comparable by any means. The car has 160hp less than mine. Lol. And what are the details to that car. What stage. What fuel. What tuner. What trans. All relevant. Another canned tune. Which by the way Edlebrock tunes are terrible. Again you’re just showing me dyno charts. I showed mine to show the power. And if you. Look back I had cold start issues along with many others who have the 2650TVS. do you even have an Edlebrock? I don’t really care what a internet mechanic using a canned tune thinks. To answer your question about some things you see. In the tune the tuner intentionally changed certain things in certain gears to make the car come out the gate easier and not be so “dangerous” (considering the car wants to go sideways when you hit it) in low gear at lower rpm’s. Specifically second gear. Unnoticeable to the driver probably visible on a dyno chart.

Sponsored

 

[illtal]

There’s nothing wrong with the “shape”. Lol. Your Roush chart is just showing it differnt than my printout. Your tq range there looks as wacky vs the hp. and these graphs aren’t apples to apples. For example is your cold start Good. Is your drivability good. Is your mpg Good. Is your car actually putting that power down. Show me SAE with smoothing set to 5. I promise it dips 20-30hp and tq.

Do you have cash to back that up?

My car drives fine, cold starts are fine, and it actually does put power down when it's at least 60 degrees. lol you can look on the internet and see sae smoothing isn't even worth 20-30 hp between 0 and 5 this one is 4. And again sir, it only just smooths the curve out. If you take out points which is what smoothing does, then of course you will miss some data and of course there will a dip somewhere. You're super combative about that low tq thing. Centri's drive fine as well but the TQ is low, should be easier to drive.

Actually I drove this with the stage 1 eb tune and it was shit so I canned it. THAT was ass.
I'm probably gonna dyno the car in SOUP, in the summer with a 3.0 pulley on it.
Do you care to wager what it will make? Same dyno.

Also you can't compare the two? why not? they are the same but the cooling isn't.
the shape is important, power under the curve and all that. I have a manual, if it was Auto it wouldn't matter as much.

I get about 24MPG when I drive on cruise on the highway, much less in the city but I wasn't only getting but 16-18 before the SC anyway in the city.

anyways there is a thread in here with tons of sheets, take a gander at them. learn something.

 

[Torinate]

Not wanting to add any fire to this whole thing... but I haven’t seen any Edelbrocks with 525 torque peak. I thought it was low as well. Honestly, when mine “only” gave me 590 I thought I had an issue but track numbers told me otherwise.

Like others have said numerous times... dynos are for data... tracks are for results. If the times and mph are where they should be or where you want them to be, then dyno numbers ran squat.

 

[illtal]

Not wanting to add any fire to this whole thing... but I haven’t seen any Edelbrocks with 525 torque peak. I thought it was low as well. Honestly, when mine “only” gave me 590 I thought I had an issue but track numbers told me otherwise.

Like others have said numerous times... dynos are for data... tracks are for results. If the times and mph are where they should be or where you want them to be, then dyno numbers ran squat.

Honestly I wasn't trying to start an argument but I honestly wanted to know why that graph resembled a whipple if there's some trick to making the power not nose over at high RPM hell I want to know.

Guess it's not worth the hassle.

My 5.2 Predator engine is getting built, but first I'm going to run an ATI 15% lower, and see what I can squeeze out of the 3.0 pulley I have. I'll post the results when I get time to do it.

 

[illtal]

Boosted car drives like stock lololol. It can't because it is not stock. It makes less power out of boost and way more in boost. Can't drive like stock bruddah.

If you are referring to street manners should be fine out of boost considering that we are making less power.

 

[Semp1]

Boosted car drives like stock lololol. It can't because it is not stock. It makes less power out of boost and way more in boost. Can't drive like stock bruddah.

If you are referring to street manners should be fine out of boost considering that we are making less power.

I’m really not combative. Edelbrock doesn’t even advertise their stage 1 at what I’m at in regards to tq to the wheel. And the stage 2 barely touches my cars tq to the wheel in regard to what Edlebrock advertises. The reason I site them even though their tune is complete trash is because their tq levels clearly are lower based on their hp levels similar to a whipple. And their hp levels aren’t even in the same universe as what I put down on 93 which by the way I intentionally had the tuner stay “conservative” on. Point is the tq curve is normal for a stage 1 and the pulley and crank setup it comes with. And like I said things were done specifically with my tune to protect the motor on 93. So I don’t really think it’s matters much but it’s not really that serious to me. If you live local to me I have no issue meeting you in person and running the cars. I’m pretty confident you’re not gonna touch me. I honestly don’t see many Edlebrocks with much more tq than what I have. And I never see edelbrocks running the speed I ran on the dyno. Btw I have a mt82 with 4.09’s and still had no issue doing 170. I see your numbers are higher but I also see that it’s power curve isn’t as strong as mine in regards to the hp and it’s most likely not as fast as mine either in regards to top speed which whether you realize it or not is important. So it is what it is. Again I’m not combative but I also didn’t ask for advice or opinions on anything. I just wanted to state an issue was fixed. But You can trust the car and tune along with the build is very close to as perfect as can be. Let me know what state you live in and we can easily test both cars if close.

 

[illtal]

I’m really not combative. Edelbrock doesn’t even advertise their stage 1 at what I’m at in regards to tq to the wheel. And the stage 2 barely touches my cars tq to the wheel in regard to what Edlebrock advertises. The reason I site them even though their tune is complete trash is because their tq levels clearly are lower based on their hp levels similar to a whipple. And their hp levels aren’t even in the same universe as what I put down on 93 which by the way I intentionally had the tuner stay “conservative” on. Point is the tq curve is normal for a stage 1 and the pulley and crank setup it comes with. And like I said things were done specifically with my tune to protect the motor on 93. So I don’t really think it’s matters much but it’s not really that serious to me. If you live local to me I have no issue meeting you in person and running the cars. I’m pretty confident you’re not gonna touch me. I honestly don’t see many Edlebrocks with much more tq than what I have. And I never see edelbrocks running the speed I ran on the dyno. Btw I have a mt82 with 4.09’s and still had no issue doing 170. I see your numbers are higher but I also see that it’s power curve isn’t as strong as mine in regards to the hp and it’s most likely not as fast as mine either in regards to top speed which whether you realize it or not is important. So it is what it is. Again I’m not combative but I also didn’t ask for advice or opinions on anything. I just wanted to state an issue was fixed. But You can trust the car and tune along with the build is very close to as perfect as can be. Let me know what state you live in and we can easily test both cars if close.

Bruah, I was going to leave it but you said a few peculiar things:
1: EB's own website gives out a very low expectation for wheel hp and tq for stage 1 and 2

Also notice the shape of these graphs:

2: top speed of 170? with those gears? are you running out to 8400 RPM? because that's about what you would need to do in 4th with those gears. UNLESS you ran it in 5th
attached is a gear ratio calculator.

I have 3.55 gears we shifted at 7700 RPM which is 180 MPH, we also didn't have a problem.

I'll pm you when I go to the Dyno. And you can show up and run yours too. I'm in GA. That's quite a drive just to check out a whip, assuming you're in NY. The shop is VegaTuned, I don't do any tuning there just dyno.

also 704 - and 710 wheel isn't that big of a difference that could be just the variance you get when running on them. it's like 1%, ALSO having more available torque at any given RPM will lead to more acceleration....

 

[Semp1]

Bruah, I was going to leave it but you said a few peculiar things:
1: EB's own website gives out a very low expectation for wheel hp and tq for stage 1 and 2

Also notice the shape of these graphs:

2: top speed of 170? with those gears? are you running out to 8400 RPM? because that's about what you would need to do in 4th with those gears. UNLESS you ran it in 5th
attached is a gear ratio calculator.

I have 3.55 gears we shifted at 7700 RPM which is 180 MPH, we also didn't have a problem.

I'll pm you when I go to the Dyno. And you can show up and run yours too. I'm in GA. That's quite a drive just to check out a whip, assuming you're in NY. The shop is VegaTuned, I don't do any tuning there just dyno.

also 704 - and 710 wheel isn't that big of a difference that could be just the variance you get when running on them. it's like 1% having more available torque at any given RPM will lead to more acceleration....

Look what I said. You proved what I said. EB stage 1 lower than my Tq. Stage 2 pretty much even with my tq. My point is the expectation for higher isn’t there by Eb. which is how this convo started with you claiming it was low and me saying it was normal and fine for a TVS. You also claiming the curve was off and me saying it was fine. It’s very obvious. 623hp and 510tq on a stage 1 and 686hp and 532tq on at sage 2 advertised by EB with their canned tune is pretty much the exact same as where I’m at with 710hp and 525tq on a stage 1.5. Although my tune is leaps and bounds above theirs in regards to drivability and everything else right down to a cold start. I mean is that not similar though number wise to a stage2? Clearly EB isn’t advertising much higher and is impressed with that number themselves. They wouldn't advertise if they weren't. You’re a very "by the dyno charts" person it seems. Please let me know where we can meet. And we can see whose car is faster.

2. I ran it in the 1:1 gear on an 18. which is 4th on an MT82D4. You seem to think you're going to "out knowledge" me by saying silly things. You're not. You clearly don’t know how the gearing works on a 18+. The gearing was intentionally made long on the MT82 for 18+ by Ford To keep fuel economy down as they increased the hp/tq on the 18 but to keep the fuel economy even with the 15-17. This is why ford performance included the 4.09 gears in their upgrade package and is the reason everyone thinks the 18 "feels" slower in manual than a 15-17. Trust me the gears are fine. And probably make the car that much better. Would I have just stayed with 3:73 if I could go back now. Yes because it’s pointless to upgrade gears when boosted. But I did it when NA. But the gears are no different in length than a step below Vs the 15-17. Which is why 15-17 always feel more aggressive. A 3:55 is more equal to the feel of a 3:15 and 3:33 in a 2018 S550. A 4.09 is more equal to a 3:55/3:73 in a 15-17 MT82. Again it’s not apples to apples. And I was no where near out of gear. I’m not gonna sit here and explain gearing on the 18+ as you show me another chart of something you don’t understand in regards to the model we are speaking about. 4.09 and 4.10 are not the same just so you know. a 15-17 takes a 4:10. So basically as you said there’s not really a big difference. But if you look at EB stage 2. Their curves are very similar to me with a stage 2 and the power output is almost exact. The point I’m making which the numbers are fine. You have more tq through your tune which is great. Congrats! but like I said a lot was done with mine in regards to customization. And I wouldn’t run you at a dyno. If you can’t run the car at a track this convo is silly from the start. Every time you refer to a dyno chart or some graph. The gearing you clearly don’t understand. If you listen to Alejandro Flores from Lund he has even said the only car where anything above 3:55 when boosted is ok is the 18+. 4.09 is fine even though 3:73 is more equal to 3:55 and would probably be better. But the 4.09 is equal to 3:73 It’s one gear down for whatever you have with an MT82. Not to say your gearing is bad. Your gearing is very good due to it being so long. Keeps you in boost longer. But I do not run out of gearing in 4.09. Ever. It’s actually silly that ford did that. you seem a little butt hurt that my car is faster at 170 on the all telling dyno with 4.09's.

Listen enjoy your car. This convo has gone on way too long about something you seem to be going in circles about and clearly just now had no success in proving to me that my tq was low. Is it lower than yours? well based on your dyno chart. Yes. Is it lower than EB. Based on their dyno chart absolutely not. Its basically even with their stage 2 and the upgraded pulley and crank which I do not have installed from stage 2.

 

[illtal]

Look what I said. You proved what I said. EB stage 1 lower than my Tq. Stage 2 pretty much even with my tq. My point is the expectation for higher isn’t there by Eb. which is how this convo started with you claiming it was low and me saying it was normal and fine for a TVS. You also claiming the curve was off and me saying it was fine. It’s very obvious. 623hp and 510tq on a stage 1 and 686hp and 532tq on at sage 2 advertised by EB with their canned tune is pretty much the exact same as where I’m at with 710hp and 525tq on a stage 1.5. Although my tune is leaps and bounds above theirs in regards to drivability and everything else right down to a cold start. I mean is that not similar though number wise to a stage2? Clearly EB isn’t advertising much higher and is impressed with that number themselves. They wouldn't advertise if they weren't. You’re a very "by the dyno charts" person it seems. Please let me know where we can meet. And we can see whose car is faster.

2. I ran it in the 1:1 gear on an 18. which is 4th on an MT82D4. You seem to think you're going to "out knowledge" me by saying silly things. You're not. You clearly don’t know how the gearing works on a 18+. The gearing was intentionally made long on the MT82 for 18+ by Ford To keep fuel economy down as they increased the hp/tq on the 18 but to keep the fuel economy even with the 15-17. This is why ford performance included the 4.09 gears in their upgrade package and is the reason everyone thinks the 18 "feels" slower in manual than a 15-17. Trust me the gears are fine. And probably make the car that much better. Would I have just stayed with 3:73 if I could go back now. Yes because it’s pointless to upgrade gears when boosted. But I did it when NA. But the gears are no different in length than a step below Vs the 15-17. Which is why 15-17 always feel more aggressive. A 3:55 is more equal to the feel of a 3:15 and 3:33 in a 2018 S550. A 4.09 is more equal to a 3:55/3:73 in a 15-17 MT82. Again it’s not apples to apples. And I was no where near out of gear. I’m not gonna sit here and explain gearing on the 18+ as you show me another chart of something you don’t understand in regards to the model we are speaking about. 4.09 and 4.10 are not the same just so you know. a 15-17 takes a 4:10. So basically as you said there’s not really a big difference. But if you look at EB stage 2. Their curves are very similar to me with a stage 2 and the power output is almost exact. The point I’m making which the numbers are fine. You have more tq through your tune which is great. Congrats! but like I said a lot was done with mine in regards to customization. And I wouldn’t run you at a dyno. If you can’t run the car at a track this convo is silly from the start. Every time you refer to a dyno chart or some graph. The gearing you clearly don’t understand. If you listen to Alejandro Flores from Lund he has even said the only car where anything above 3:55 when boosted is ok is the 18+. 4.09 is fine even though 3:73 is more equal to 3:55 and would probably be better. But the 4.09 is equal to 3:73 It’s one gear down for whatever you have with an MT82. Not to say your gearing is bad. Your gearing is very good due to it being so long. Keeps you in boost longer. But I do not run out of gearing in 4.09. Ever. It’s actually silly that ford did that. you seem a little butt hurt that my car is faster at 170 on the all telling dyno with 4.09's.

Listen enjoy your car. This convo has gone on way too long about something you seem to be going in circles about and clearly just now had no success in proving to me that my tq was low. Is it lower than yours? well based on your dyno chart. Yes. Is it lower than EB. Based on their dyno chart absolutely not. Its basically even with their stage 2 and the upgraded pulley and crank which I do not have installed from stage 2.

UR WEIRD BRO.

You got it, everything is perfect.

you also never even said what the issue was to begin with.

Stay weird bro

 

[Semp1]

UR WEIRD BRO.

You got it, everything is perfect.

you also never even said what the issue was to begin with.

Stay weird bro

Stay in the know pal. You sound like those dyno charts are doing great for you. And you know what. You’re right Georgia is too far for us to do a run. So send your dragy when you get a chance.

 

[illtal]

Stay in the know pal. You sound like those dyno charts are doing great for you. And you know what. You’re right Georgia is too far for us to do a run. So send your dragy when you get a chance.

I actually DO know, just you're so combative its not worth my time. It's you with that piss poor dyno sheet and tq. that shit is mad low no matter what excuses you give it.
I don't dragy, I'll run you but I don't chase air times on the streets.

if you want come; your the one whom suggested it. if you don't want to it still cool. I disagree with your assessment of whatever the fuck you got going on.

PM me if you want to get down.

 

[Semp1]

I actually DO know, just you're so combative its not worth my time. It's you with that piss poor dyno sheet and tq. that shit is mad low no matter what excuses you give it.
I don't dragy, I'll run you but I don't chase air times on the streets.

if you want come; your the one whom suggested it. if you don't want to it still cool. I disagree with your assessment of whatever the fuck you got going on.

PM me if you want to get down.

Whatever you say. But let’s end the conversation here. There’s really no need to continue the argumentative debate. There’s nothing to “get down” with. The only realistic way this happens is with a dragy. Clearly we are worlds apart in regards to physical distance. So it is what it is.

 

[brianbr]

Holy shit this is like listening to two kids bicker. Both of you grow up...

 

[Roush05]

I'm glad I made my post and left lol..

But I do have 2 questions. Not argument questions, just questions.

@Semp1 Do you have any time slips? I'm genuinely curious, I'd just like to see them. You have upgraded pumps, injectors, intake, and a .25" pulley drop right?

The second question I can find with some googling, but what is the difference in gearing between the 15-17 and the 18+ with MT82? I see where you guys were talking about a higher gear in an 18+ feeling like a lower gear in a 15-17, but why?

 

[illtal]

Holy shit this is like listening to two kids bicker. Both of you grow up...

it's this guy, fuck him tho. shit is straight asinine. nothing he says makes sense to anyone with common sense.

I remember this is the same kid that had a problem with the bypass closing too "slowly" when we all have the exact opposite problem....

the mysterious problem was solved with these awesome techs up there.

GTFOH

Sponsored