My experience with Hellion Top Mount..

[Angrey]

You have to take the RPM into account, it may make more torque at that RPM but that doesnt matter because its power over time that matters. 1197*6900= 8977500 per min
1207*5800 = 7000600

Basically, making 1197 torque 6900 times per minute is better than making 1207 torque 5800 times per minute which is why horsepower matters more than torque for acceleration. (horsepower is derived from torque and RPM)

and when I said he doesnt have to rev that high earlier in the post I meant like 8k plus.

Optimum acceleration will always be through the highest peak HP powerband not the peak torque powerband.

Just no.

The dyno reports the physical torque the motor is creating all the way to drum AT THAT RPM. It's already a result of what the motor can produce AT THAT RPM.

Look, this isn't a difficult concept. Torque is what produces force, which is what accelerates the mass of the car. In SOME CASES, where the torque is much higher lower in the RPM range, it's actually faster to sacrifice gear multiplication in favor of increased torque production. You're free to read up on this if you wish. There's mountains of literature on the subject. I'm not making it up and it's not something revolutionary.

Sponsored

 

[wingnutt]

I can't spell it out for you any more than I already have. I can present it to you but I can't understand it for you.

no dog in this fight…

…but are you saying I should shift before 6,000rpms? Askin for a friend

 

[Angrey]

no dog in this fight…

…but are you saying I should shift before 6,000rpms? Askin for a friend

Torque drop off isn't drastic enough and gear ratios aren't close enough.

 

[Ph363]

Just wanted to post a quick journey into my build since i don't post much...
I started off with a 2016 PP1 GT with plans on making power, I always wanted that Whipple whine lol, but as my time passed being a member on this forum I seen a member post a used top mount for under 5k I was like ive never owned a turbo v8 before and cant beat the price, ill send him a lower offer and see if they would take it, figured why not. To my surprise they said yes and i drove my ass to San Diego and picked it up. Called hellion, got an instruction guide and any addition parts i may need and started putting it together. I was intimidated for sure but the instructions were so clear even included photos and their support on IG and on this board was soo great. Found out vbands are a Pain in the rear to get just right, but got it done. Used a BAP and 1050x injectors and car made 740 on e85 i was more than happy. But i was also worried about stock fuel pump shitting out on me so i didn't push her too hard. Well after some saving and waiting for parts i got a dual pump return style fuel system for my car and had her re-tuned yesterday and now she makes good safe power, I just wanna say thank you to all the Mustang6g members for helping me out with questions and parts, I truly love this car its an absolute dream to work on and drive.
The car made 843 hp on 12 psi on e85, we were having some valve float issues the first time we tuned the car so i installed cutouts which really helps but my tuner said im pretty much at the limit of this system due to the two turbos down pipes joining together causing too much turbulence and creating back pressure causing valve float I have attached a dyno graph lemme know what y'all think
Thanks again for everyone's help

Sorry to revive an old thread, but at what point did you originally start seeing valve float prior to installing cutouts?

I am running a similar setup and appear to be hitting a limit at about 10psi. The car spits and sputters at 6k rpm and above at wot - almost feels like bad coil packs. Not sure if this is float, or if I am running into another issue.

 

[Zrussian13]

Sorry to revive an old thread, but at what point did you originally start seeing valve float prior to installing cutouts?

I am running a similar setup and appear to be hitting a limit at about 10psi. The car spits and sputters at 6k rpm and above at wot - almost feels like bad coil packs. Not sure if this is float, or if I am running into another issue.

10lbs is early to be experiencing valve float. I'd be looking at other causes.

 

[K4fxd]

In SOME CASES, where the torque is much higher lower in the RPM range, it's actually faster to sacrifice gear multiplication in favor of increased torque production.

Thought I'd toss this out there.

2017 base GT with GT350 manifold is only .25 second faster 60 to 100 than the same car with a 2018 F150 manifold.

GT350 manifold shifting at 7500 and F150 shifting at 6800.

I'm hoping to tune it to be faster than the 350 manifold. This is a thing I do in my spare time. The truck manifold is MUCH better street driving with the A6 tranny. I actually have power in 6th at 1700 RPM

 

[Ph363]

10lbs is early to be experiencing valve float. I'd be looking at other causes.

That was my thought as well. Car pulls clean at 8psi. Tuner says logs look good. Not sure what else it could be.

 

[Zrussian13]

That was my thought as well. Car pulls clean at 8psi. Tuner says logs look good. Not sure what else it could be.

What's your spark plug gap? And which tuner?

 

[Ph363]

What's your spark plug gap? And which tuner?

Cannot remember gap - I didn't change plugs or gap going from 93 to e85. Lund tuning with pcmtec on their LRX.

 

[Ph363]

Cannot remember gap - I didn't change plugs or gap going from 93 to e85. Lund tuning with pcmtec on their LRX.

Pulled a plug today, running tr7's @ 0.040

 

[Zrussian13]

Pulled a plug today, running tr7's @ 0.040

That could be your problem if your getting spark blow out. .040 is wide for boost. Lund usually recommends like .028-.026

 

[blakeman8192]

Just no.

The dyno reports the physical torque the motor is creating all the way to drum AT THAT RPM. It's already a result of what the motor can produce AT THAT RPM.

Look, this isn't a difficult concept. Torque is what produces force, which is what accelerates the mass of the car. In SOME CASES, where the torque is much higher lower in the RPM range, it's actually faster to sacrifice gear multiplication in favor of increased torque production. You're free to read up on this if you wish. There's mountains of literature on the subject. I'm not making it up and it's not something revolutionary.

My dude, acceleration is force over time.

Consider the following two engines during a 2 second pull:

1. A v8 engine making 500ft lbs of torque at 3000RPM
2. A v8 engine making 300ft lbs of torque at 7000RPM

Engine #1 is running at 3000RPM, and makes 8 power strokes of 500ft lb of force every two revolutions - or every 0.005 seconds (60 seconds / (3000RPM / 2 * 8cyl)). That means engine #1 applies a 500ft lb force 400 times during our 2 second pull - a total of 200,000ft lbs of force.

Engine #2 is running at 7000RPM and makes 8 power strokes of 300ft lb of force every two revolutions - or every 0.00214 seconds (60 seconds / (7000RPM / 2 * 8cyl)). That means engine #2 applies a 300ft lb force 934.58 times during our 2 second pull - a total of 280,374ft lbs of force.

Engine 2 is making less torque, but making about 40% more power. The fact that we measure horsepower at all is for this reason - you need to consider the rate at which the torque is applied. Torque is a measurement of force at an instant, and horsepower is a measure of that force and the rate at which that force is applied.

 

[Ph363]

That could be your problem if your getting spark blow out. .040 is wide for boost. Lund usually recommends like .028-.026

Blow out was the issue. Gapped at 0.025 and the car pulls clean to 13psi.

 

[Angrey]

My dude, acceleration is force over time.

Consider the following two engines during a 2 second pull:

1. A v8 engine making 500ft lbs of torque at 3000RPM
2. A v8 engine making 300ft lbs of torque at 7000RPM

Engine #1 is running at 3000RPM, and makes 8 power strokes of 500ft lb of force every two revolutions - or every 0.005 seconds (60 seconds / (3000RPM / 2 * 8cyl)). That means engine #1 applies a 500ft lb force 400 times during our 2 second pull - a total of 200,000ft lbs of force.

Engine #2 is running at 7000RPM and makes 8 power strokes of 300ft lb of force every two revolutions - or every 0.00214 seconds (60 seconds / (7000RPM / 2 * 8cyl)). That means engine #2 applies a 300ft lb force 934.58 times during our 2 second pull - a total of 280,374ft lbs of force.

Engine 2 is making less torque, but making about 40% more power. The fact that we measure horsepower at all is for this reason - you need to consider the rate at which the torque is applied. Torque is a measurement of force at an instant, and horsepower is a measure of that force and the rate at which that force is applied.

In a word no. The dynomometer measures the torque being applied to the roller at that RPM. So the number of combustion events required to produce that torque value at that RPM is already baked into the result.

Moreover, the power is "inferred" based off the change in torque. Or more simply put, the power is a component development of what the motor must do in order to produce the torque at that engine speed.

Which is why you see the power increasing when torque is either flat or in some cases declining. In order to maintain the torque the motor must continue to increase power output up the RPM range.

At a 1:1 drive ratio with a fixed rear ratio, the motor must increase power output all the way up the rpm range in order to maintain a desired torque output.

This isn't a difficult concept. It's why they make transmissions in the first place, to increase the torque multiplication as the engine runs out of rpm/power to sustain it as speed increases.

Your example is laughably flawed. When a motor vehicle tops out it's generally either RPM limited or torque limited (meaning it runs out of rpm to redline and can no longer accelerate or apply more power to accelerate the car any further, OR it runs out of torque required to push against the exponentially increasing wind resistance).

 

[Angrey]

In a word no. The dynomometer measures the torque being applied to the roller at that RPM. So the number of combustion events required to produce that torque value at that RPM is already baked into the result.

Moreover, the power is "inferred" based off the change in torque. Or more simply put, the power is a component development of what the motor must do in order to produce the torque at that engine speed.

Which is why you see the power increasing when torque is either flat or in some cases declining. In order to maintain the torque the motor must continue to increase power output up the RPM range.

At a 1:1 drive ratio with a fixed rear ratio, the motor must increase power output all the way up the rpm range in order to maintain a desired torque output.

This isn't a difficult concept. It's why they make transmissions in the first place, to increase the torque multiplication as the engine runs out of rpm/power to sustain it as speed increases.

Your example is laughably flawed. When a motor vehicle tops out it's generally either RPM limited or torque limited (meaning it runs out of rpm to redline and can no longer accelerate or apply more power to accelerate the car any further, OR it runs out of torque required to push against the exponentially increasing wind resistance).

In short, torque is how far back in the seat the car can put you (acceleration) and power is how long it can sustain or keep you there. Torque is what accelerates a wheeled motor vehicle.

Sponsored