2.9L & 3.0L V6 Tech General discussion of 2.9L and 3.0L V6 Ford Ranger engines.

Dynoed My Truck Today at School ???

Old Sep 4, 2008
  #1  
ike34's Avatar
Thread Starter
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 268
Likes: 0
From: Waterloo, IA
Dynoed My Truck Today at School ???

I dynoed my truck today at school today, Im confused/disappointed

I started with a baseline run with all of my mods except my tuner (xcalibrator 1) I put it back to stock. I got 144hp and 175torque I ran into the governor on this run also.

Then I just changed my tune to my 89 performance tune and it made 95hp and 155 torque. I went up to 5000 rpm even tho it wanted to keep going.

Whats going on?
 
Reply
Old Sep 4, 2008
  #2  
Goodysgotacuda's Avatar
Member
iTrader: (1)
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,496
Likes: 7
From: Las Vegas, NV
Did you only make two pulls? Sometimes dynos can give funny figures. Also how does it drive? 50rwhp between the two should be easy to tell by just driving it.
 
Reply
Old Sep 4, 2008
  #3  
ike34's Avatar
Thread Starter
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 268
Likes: 0
From: Waterloo, IA
Originally Posted by Goodysgotacuda
Did you only make two pulls? Sometimes dynos can give funny figures. Also how does it drive? 50rwhp between the two should be easy to tell by just driving it.
Yeah I did 2 pulls for both runs. My truck seems to drive better and be quicker with the tune thats why I don't get why it dynoed 50hp less
 
Reply
Old Sep 4, 2008
  #4  
Redneckstone's Avatar
Level III Supporter
iTrader: (2)
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 24,936
Likes: 11
From: usa
well usually the performance tune is the "fuel" saver and the Torque tune is usually the "power-adder" from what i understood
 
Reply
Old Sep 4, 2008
  #5  
ManEHawke's Avatar
Member
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 327
Likes: 0
From: Riverside, CA
The tunes I have for my Stang, the performance focuses on top end power, the torque more low-end, and a race tune that is just badass all over.

How did the graphs actually compare, was the 89 perf tune lower the whole graph? Pretty odd, considering you said you like that one better on the butt dyno
Did you allow some cooling time between runs, and did you have a fan blowing?
 
Reply
Old Sep 5, 2008
  #6  
Fx4wannabe01's Avatar
RF Veteran
iTrader: (23)
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 21,721
Likes: 17
From: Boring, Oregon
175ft/lbs at the wheels with an engine that's rated at like 190ft/lbs at the crank....

not that much parasitc loss/drivetrain loss...
 
Reply
Old Sep 5, 2008
  #7  
graniteguy's Avatar
Member
iTrader: (3)
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 3,221
Likes: 1
From: Texas
that baseline is not shabby. with just 3.0 underdog pulley on an automatic i got 130 HP and 154 torque.
 
Reply
Old Sep 6, 2008
  #8  
ike34's Avatar
Thread Starter
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 268
Likes: 0
From: Waterloo, IA
Originally Posted by ManEHawke
The tunes I have for my Stang, the performance focuses on top end power, the torque more low-end, and a race tune that is just badass all over.

How did the graphs actually compare, was the 89 perf tune lower the whole graph? Pretty odd, considering you said you like that one better on the butt dyno
Did you allow some cooling time between runs, and did you have a fan blowing?
Yeah I allowed cooling and had a fan blowing in front
 
Reply
Old Sep 7, 2008
  #9  
dangeranger01's Avatar
Member
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
From: Longview, WA
Was it detonating at all causing it to retard the timing? Or does it not have a knock sensor?
 
Reply
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Cody_288
Forced Induction & N20 Tech
24
Dec 26, 2010 01:57 AM
ford rules
Project Logs
11
Jun 6, 2010 10:33 AM
TheBearJeweler
Snapshots
55
Oct 28, 2009 01:17 PM
jake1z
General Ford Ranger Discussion
38
Mar 11, 2008 07:07 PM
jmacmaster
2.9L & 3.0L V6 Tech
1
Jun 20, 2006 01:34 PM


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:09 PM.