I Went to the Dyno - ZFG 93 & E50

[LokiWolf]

Yep...you read that correctly!

Got sick of people saying there was no Dyno data for ZFG...so I went. Needed to do something since my local 1/4 Mile track is still not open.

The Numbers were GREAT! See for yourself!

Stock - 332/378
93 - 440/497
E50 - 486/505

E50 Pull Video!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[zdubyadubya]

assuming lots of things, including dyno accuracy, 17% drivetrain loss is impressive. well done Ford. also assuming that percentage holds, pushing over 580hp at the crank? thats insane.

and that torque curve... well done ZFG.

 

[LokiWolf]

assuming lots of things, including dyno accuracy, 17% drivetrain loss is impressive. well done Ford. also assuming that percentage holds, pushing over 580hp at the crank? thats insane.

and that torque curve... well done ZFG.

Stock Dyno numbers are very consistent with what others have seen. LMS got 321/406...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[DoingOK]

Very nice numbers. I may be picking your brain with what you've done so far. I'm not too far south from you (Smithfield). I know Elrich at National Speed. Also good friends with Kevin at Flim Flam Speed in Richmond. Curious if you have a list of all mods/adjustments you've made. You can PM if you'd like. Much appreciated.

Rich

 

[LokiWolf]

Kevin is Great! Used to hang with him and Mark when they were out in Goochland.

My ST is completely stock. Well, I have a few cosmetic mods, and I typically have an AFE dry drop in filter, but took it out for the Dyno pulls and put the stock paper filter back in...wanted this to be a stock pull, and tune only.

I cannot recommend ZFG enough for tuning!

PM me anytime!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

 

[DoingOK]

Kevin is Great! Used to hang with him and Mark when they were out in Goochland.

My ST is completely stock. Well, I have a few cosmetic mods, and I typically have an AFE dry drop in filter, but took it out for the Dyno pulls and put the stock paper filter back in...wanted this to be a stock pull, and tune only.

I cannot recommend ZFG enough for tuning!

PM me anytime!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

Nice. I've known Kevin almost 20 years along with Mark when he had Performance Autosports. Kevin has done some photoshoots for me as well. I usually catch up with him at VIR when I'm tracking or instructing. Good people. Thanks for the info.

Rich

 

[zdubyadubya]

Stock Dyno numbers are very consistent with what others have seen. LMS got 321/406...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

I'm still in shock at the 93 tune... over 100hp... a 25% gain in power over stock with simply a tune.... Ford must have left ALOT on the table with these motors. reminds me of 12V cummins. those things were soooo restricted before they were plopped into a ram. swap out a fuel plate, and BAM double your hp and tq. the only reason i can think is that this motor might be headed for something bigger... Explorer RS anyone?

 

[LokiWolf]

I'm still in shock at the 93 tune... over 100hp... a 25% gain in power over stock with simply a tune.... Ford must have left ALOT on the table with these motors. reminds me of 12V cummins. those things were soooo restricted before they were plopped into a ram. swap out a fuel plate, and BAM double your hp and tq. the only reason i can think is that this motor might be headed for something bigger... Explorer RS anyone?

The limitation on this platforms potential is going to be the 10R60. You can see how Adam keeps the Torque curve flat on the E50 tune. It could peak more but that would be hard on this Trans.

They should have put the 10R80 in this SUV!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[mdallas]

Yep...you read that correctly!

Got sick of people saying there was no Dyno data for ZFG...so I went. Needed to do something since my local 1/4 Mile track is still not open.

The Numbers were GREAT! See for yourself!

Stock - 332/378
93 - 440/497
E50 - 486/505
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Hi! can you attached the dyno result sheet a different way? I cant click on it to see it larger, more clear.
nice results!! thank you!

 

[LokiWolf]

Hi! can you attached the dyno result sheet a different way? I cant click on it to see it larger, more clear.
nice results!! thank you!

Here is the High Res file...

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[mdallas]

perfect!!! thank you!!

 

[F=MA]

I was thinking 485 hp (seat of the pants) so not far off. My ST feels similar to my old 1972 Chevelle SS454 which had a built-up LS-7, 4500 stall converter, racing turbo 400 and 5:38 posi with slicks. It is crazy to have so much potential power and not even have changed the stock exhaust yet.

 

[legacy404]

So on 93, ZFG picks up ~110whp over stock and livernois only 64? wow! i may have to switch tunes...

 

[LokiWolf]

So on 93, ZFG picks up ~110whp over stock and livernois only 64? wow! i may have to switch tunes...

Yep...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

 

[eec78]

I fear I am falling into a trap. I have been able to stay away from a tune on my RS, but I don’t think I’ll be able to do the same with the ST. Those ZFG numbers can’t be ignored. But if I’m going to tune my ST, I might as well do the same to my RS, right?

 

[LokiWolf]

I fear I am falling into a trap. I have been able to stay away from a tune on my RS, but I don’t think I’ll be able to do the same with the ST. Those ZFG numbers can’t be ignored. But if I’m going to tune my ST, I might as well do the same to my RS, right?

I don’t see why not. The logic is sound...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[eec78]

I don’t see why not. The logic is sound...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Ok - you put up a valid point. I’m convinced

 

[TMac]

I have to say thanks for the dyno charts. That's the way you want to see it- same dyno, with three different tunes. On another note, I have a pet peeve related to tuners who inflate crankshaft horsepower based on percentages (not saying anyone in this thread is doing that) Drive train loss is not a percentage of crankshaft hp. If I add 100 hp by adding boost and changing spark and cam timing, common sense would suggest that those changes didn't affect the amount of energy the drive train absorbed. For example, if one were to drop say a v-8 mountain motor with a supercharger which crank dynoed at 1200 hp into my ST, does anyone truly think that the vehicle would post chassis dyno numbers showing a 204 hp (1200 * .17) drive train loss vs the 68 shown above?

 

[dolsen]

I have to say thanks for the dyno charts. That's the way you want to see it- same dyno, with three different tunes. On another note, I have a pet peeve related to tuners who inflate crankshaft horsepower based on percentages (not saying anyone in this thread is doing that) Drive train loss is not a percentage of crankshaft hp. If I add 100 hp by adding boost and changing spark and cam timing, common sense would suggest that those changes didn't affect the amount of energy the drive train absorbed. For example, if one were to drop say a v-8 mountain motor with a supercharger which crank dynoed at 1200 hp into my ST, does anyone truly think that the vehicle would post chassis dyno numbers showing a 204 hp (1200 * .17) drive train loss vs the 68 shown above?

Are you suggesting that drivetrain losses are non-linear? Maybe logarithmic instead?

 

[zdubyadubya]

Are you suggesting that drivetrain losses are non-linear? Maybe logarithmic instead?

certainly not logarithmic but its also not a fixed value (i.e., 68hp) either. its more a baseline fixed value plus a percentage for additional hp added. the way to think of it is that friction isn't the only variable here. Rotational and fixed masses play a part as well. To spin a 50lb. drum to 400rpm in 1 minute takes a lot less energy than to spin the same drum to 400rpm in 30 seconds. In other words to get all rotational masses in the driveline (gears, shafts, wheels, brake rotors, etc.) up to speed takes energy, and it takes MORE energy to get them to speed more quickly. The resistance goes up simply because the gears are spinning with greater pressure (normal force), so there is more friction per unit time, which means more work must be done to overcome it. Now, there is no way that there would be over 200hp worth of of frictional losses just like TMac points out in the above post but there WILL be more than the 68hp loss at stock power levels.