2 raptors 2017 were tested on dyno today ..

[kdub405]

I'll pass on this mod. Thanks for the info!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Dartv8r]

Im not convinced the Turbo adapters make any difference.

Has anyone done a before and after dyne yet?? Doing these mods without a baseline dyno is pretty useless.

 

[xrocket21]

Im not convinced the Turbo adapters make any difference.

based on?

you think a ported outlet, 25% bigger in area right off the turbo, wouldn't make a difference?

 

[Bombsquad68]

based on?

you think a ported outlet, 25% bigger in area right off the turbo, wouldn't make a difference?

XRocket, I appreciate your post on them but these are my reservations on the adapters.

The ID necks down in the turbine housing even smaller, but the size of an opening does not mean it is an impedance to efficiency, sometimes flow velocity and scavenging is preferential to overall volume. Also, the cats immediately downstream of the turbo are going to be more of a restriction.

The other thing is that overall power is very closely tied to boost levels, which are now controlled by the EBC. So gaining a solid 24 rwhp and 40 rwtq seems even less likely with such a small change and nothing done to the ECU. AFE posted gains on their whole catback exhaust system and it was 0.

A less concrete reason is that if there were sizeable efficiency gains to be had by merely casting a bigger hole in the adapters, I think Honeywell and Ford would have used it because overall efficiency is so important on the latest gens of trucks.

Just my opinion, but the juice isn't worth the squeeze without 3rd party dyno evidence on them. If I'm tearing all that out, I'm either adding high flow cats or catless DP's, or bigger turbos when they're available. However, big kudos to you for undertaking that amount of labor to install them and document the process.

---------- Post added at 07:57 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:39 AM ----------

Also, to OP, there is no way to convert it to Dynojet numbers. Try to find one in your area and give it a go.

But to say that every dyno reads different and you can't compare numbers is BS, we've been doing this for 15 years and if you compare a Dynojet to a Dynojet at any reputable shop, they are pretty similar. I wouldn't do is compare a Mustang to a Dynojet to a Superflow.

 

[CatchMeOffroad]

[/COLOR]Also, to OP, there is no way to convert it to Dynojet numbers. Try to find one in your area and give it a go.

But to say that every dyno reads different and you can't compare numbers is BS, we've been doing this for 15 years and if you compare a Dynojet to a Dynojet at any reputable shop, they are pretty similar. I wouldn't do is compare a Mustang to a Dynojet to a Superflow.

The issue is not so much that dyno results change with different brands, as it is with calibration frequency. If the load cells have not been calibrated in 2 years it's very likely that they have drifted significantly. Also, the skill level of the dyno operator plays a large roll...was there enough cooling capacity for the engine; did he input the correct values in the software for tire size, gear ratio, etc; were his pulls smooth and in the correct RPM range; etc

 

[Bombsquad68]

The issue is not so much that dyno results change with different brands, as it is with calibration frequency. If the load cells have not been calibrated in 2 years it's very likely that they have drifted significantly. Also, the skill level of the dyno operator plays a large roll...was there enough cooling capacity for the engine; did he input the correct values in the software for tire size, gear ratio, etc; were his pulls smooth and in the correct RPM range; etc

That applies for Mustangs, Dyno Dynamics, Superflow, not inertial Dynojets. Those are Eddy current dynos, energy is absorbed by an electric power absorption unit. These read all over the map because the units vary between brands, and a Mustang will usually read 10-12% lower than a Dynojet when properly calibrated. The benefit to these is that you can perform steady state load testing or help you increase load artificially to spool turbos. But these EC dynos at crappy shops are also where the BS that dyno numbers are useless beyond a single dyno and vehicle come from.

A true inertial dyno like a Dynojet 224, 240C, 424, uses a fixed load (the roller) and it doesn't matter if it's in Alabama or Saudi Arabia, you're moving the same load and it's easy to operate. That's why guys in legit performance forums like LS1tech will readily compare Dynojet numbers, it's pretty legit unless you're running big turbos and need load for spooling or have traction issues.

 

[CatchMeOffroad]

That applies for Mustangs, Dyno Dynamics, Superflow, not inertial Dynojets. Those are Eddy current dynos, energy is absorbed by an electric power absorption unit. These read all over the map because the units vary between brands, and a Mustang will usually read 10-12% lower than a Dynojet when properly calibrated. The benefit to these is that you can perform steady state load testing or help you increase load artificially to spool turbos. But these EC dynos at crappy shops are also where the BS that dyno numbers are useless beyond a single dyno and vehicle come from.

A true inertial dyno like a Dynojet 224, 240C, 424, uses a fixed load (the roller) and it doesn't matter if it's in Alabama or Saudi Arabia, you're moving the same load and it's easy to operate. That's why guys in legit performance forums like LS1tech will readily compare Dynojet numbers, it's pretty legit unless you're running big turbos and need load for spooling or have traction issues.

Ah, that makes sense; I assumed they were all EC dynos and didn't realize that inertial dynos were that common anymore.

 

[byz250f]

based on?

you think a ported outlet, 25% bigger in area right off the turbo, wouldn't make a difference?

If it worked Ford would do it.....Billions of dollars in R&D spent each year. A Cast turbo flange cost Ford about $3.00. To gain 20hp for 3.00 would be a no brainer....yet they didnt do it from the factory.

Also based on I have saw some dyno overlays done the same day and off idle to 2700rpm there was a 50-150tq loss vs stock and a 20-75hp loss vs stock. So for 80-90% of the driving around town, highway and towing stock is far superior.

---------- Post added at 10:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:44 PM ----------

XRocket, I appreciate your post on them but these are my reservations on the adapters.

The ID necks down in the turbine housing even smaller, but the size of an opening does not mean it is an impedance to efficiency, sometimes flow velocity and scavenging is preferential to overall volume. Also, the cats immediately downstream of the turbo are going to be more of a restriction.

The other thing is that overall power is very closely tied to boost levels, which are now controlled by the EBC. So gaining a solid 24 rwhp and 40 rwtq seems even less likely with such a small change and nothing done to the ECU. AFE posted gains on their whole catback exhaust system and it was 0.

A less concrete reason is that if there were sizeable efficiency gains to be had by merely casting a bigger hole in the adapters, I think Honeywell and Ford would have used it because overall efficiency is so important on the latest gens of trucks.

Just my opinion, but the juice isn't worth the squeeze without 3rd party dyno evidence on them. If I'm tearing all that out, I'm either adding high flow cats or catless DP's, or bigger turbos when they're available. However, big kudos to you for undertaking that amount of labor to install them and document the process.

---------- Post added at 07:57 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:39 AM ----------

Also, to OP, there is no way to convert it to Dynojet numbers. Try to find one in your area and give it a go.

But to say that every dyno reads different and you can't compare numbers is BS, we've been doing this for 15 years and if you compare a Dynojet to a Dynojet at any reputable shop, they are pretty similar. I wouldn't do is compare a Mustang to a Dynojet to a Superflow.

Agreed...I work with Ford daily on exhaust design so I know the amount of design that went into the stock exhaust system. 'Hi flow' Cats may net you 2hp if that...and the reliability of a high flow cat is garbage. I have been working with 90% of the aftermarket exhaust industry that does cataylst design and they do the best they can but the quality is comparable to exhaust systems made in the 80s. Stock is really good quality stuff. If you want to gain performance just remove the cats from the stock exhaust.

 

[JacobSPDPERF]

Jerrod tested SPD Turbo Adapters

Jerrod Corey did before and after dynos on his Tuned 2016 F-150 3.5L Ecoboost and seen +16rwhp and +32rrwtq. See video below.

https://youtu.be/kvGlcVo5aEY

The ecoboost motors are very difficult to test. The Ecoboost ECM requires 50-80 miles to fully adjust. Installing products and immediately testing them will not give the ECM enough time to adjust.

 

[xrocket21]

Jerrod Corey did before and after dynos on his Tuned 2016 F-150 3.5L Ecoboost and seen +16rwhp and +32rrwtq. See video below.

https://youtu.be/kvGlcVo5aEY

The ecoboost motors are very difficult to test. The Ecoboost ECM requires 50-80 miles to fully adjust. Installing products and immediately testing them will not give the ECM enough time to adjust.