I was kinda disappointed
275.4 hp and 324.1 tq

Super ram
XR269HR Cam
TF Heads...

But I'm still running the stock chip...

 

I'm surprised it runs that good with the stock chip on those "air" mods... A nice tune and you should crest 300 pretty easy if you have the mods to support the three you listed. Stock chip... tisk tisk tisk... for shame...

 

Could you list all of you mods? Also, what are all of the specs for that Comp cam?

 

Engine & Drive Train
- Stock 89 L98 Short Block
- Trick Flow 195 cc 64cc Aluminum Heads. 2.02 1.60 Valves
- Comp Xtreme 218/224 .495/. 503 112 LSA Camshaft
- Edelbrock Hi-Flow Intake Manifold Gasket Matched to 1205 Gasket
- Accel Super Ram Intake
- BBK 52mm Throttle Body
- Comp Pro Magnum 1.6 Roller Rockers
- Trick Flow 5.300 Pushrods
- Edelbrock Aluminum Water Pump
- Moroso Polished Aluminum Valve Covers
- MSD Competition Fuel Injectors
- Crane Fuel Pressure Regulator
- March Under Drive Pulleys
- MSD 6AL & Blaster Coil
- MSD Adjustable Timing Control
- MSD Rotor
- MSD RPM Selector
- Conrad Cap
- Taylor Spiral Pro Wires
- AC Delco FR3LS Spark Plugs
- Edelbrock Tubular Exhaust System 1 5/8 Headers Coated by Jet-Hot
- Edelbrock Y-Pipe Coated with Eastwood Silver Coating.
- GM Oxygen Sensor
- Walbro 255 Fuel Pump
- Catco 3in Converter
- Edelbrock Cat-Back System
- Stock GM Distributor Rebuilt With GM Pick-Up Coil & GM Ignition Module
- Stock 700R4 with Shift Kit
- 1LE Aluminum Driveshaft
- Stock 9 Bolt 3:27:1 Posi Rear - Derale Transmission Pan
- PermaCool Remote Transmission Filter
- Flex-a-lite Transmission Cooler
- ARP Fasteners
- Made-For-You Sparkplug Wire Looms
- Duralast Battery
- Duralast Alternator

Chassis & Suspension
- Koni Adjustable Rear Shocks
- KYB AGX Adjustable Front Struts
- BMR Adjustable Torque Arm
- BMR Lower Control Arm Relocation Brackets
- Hotchkis Lower Control Arms
- Hotchkis Adjustable Panhard Bar
- Stock WS6 36mm/24mm Sway Bars
- Energy Suspension Poly Sway Bar Mounts and End Links
- Energy Suspension Transmission Mount
- Energy Suspension Front Lower Control Arm Bushings.
- Stock WS6 Springs With New GM Isolators
- Moog Inner & Outer Tie Rod Ends
- Moog Idler Arm
- Moog Draglink
- Moog Ball Joints
- Energy Suspension Dust Boot Covers
- Whole Underside Painted With Rust-O-Lium Hammer Tough Black
- Spohn Driveshaft Loop
-Alston Racing SubFrame Connectors
- Spohn AWonder Bar@
- Energy Suspension Bump Stops
- Hotchkis Strut Tower Brace

Interior

- YearOne Headliner
- YearOne. Sun Visors
- YearOne Sail Panels
- ACC Floor Mats
- GM New Console & Shift Plate
- GM New Shift Boot & ****
- GM New PW & PM Switches
- Autometer Duel Gauge Pod
- Autometer Boost/Vac Gauge
- Autometer Transmission Temp Gauge
- Pioneer Head Unit
- Kenwood 3-Way 6x9=s
- Boston Acoustics 4x6=s
- Sony Amp
- 2 JL Audio 10-W0 10


Miscellaneous

- AC Delco PF 35 Oil Filter
- Ford FL1A Transmission Filter
- Mobil 1 15W-50 Synthetic Oil
- Mobil Dextron III Transmission Fluid
- Costal Rear Differential Gear Oil
- GM Fuel Filter

 

How many miles on the shortblock? I would suggest doing a leakdown test first thing, your rings may be worn causing cylinder pressure to be lost. I think your engine should be showing around 300-320rwhp with that setup. Your selection of parts seems to be well-matched except I think the superram prefers single pattern cams. But your cam matches the Trickflow heads pretty good so I think overall your setup is fine. If you decide or find out you need to upgrade the shortblock when your funds permit it I think you'd be better off by upping the static compression to around 10.5:1 . You'll find around 15hp just by doing that. I think when adding major mods like heads and cam that the block should be completely refreshed with a fresh bore and upgraded pistons and rings. Excellently performed machine work is crucial to getting ever hp out of your engine is what I've had to find out the hard way. Don't feel too bad, you're not the only one dissatisfied with your power output. At least you have a stock short block to blame most likely for your missing power unlike my myself who has overlooked a few crucial steps in the two rebuilds I've done in the past year. My rings are not sealing right now with only 1400 miles. Anyway, somehow run a leakdown test and go from there. Anthing over 8% loss on any of the cylinders, I'd recommend saving up for a rebuild.

 

Oh yeah, as far as the stock chip is concerned, if you're running MAF, your chip is NOT causing your lack of power. Tuning your MAF setup is not going to recover your some 60+odd pounds of torque you're missing. I've talked to several guys with MAF setups and major mods and the most power they ever gain at the dyno is like 15rwhp and tq running MAF. Now burning a chip for part throttle response and driveability is a different story. That I would recommend, but you're still not going to see your power all of the sudden appear because you put in your "magical" custom burnt chip.

 

77,000 miles on it. Didnt do a leak down yet.. It burns 0 oil. I run synthetic and have about 5,000 miles on the oil. Still at the full line all 5,000 miles. Passed emisions perfectly, and also got 24 MPG with the stock chip on the Power Tour.

 

How big are the injectors and what did the WB O2 say?

 

Baaaaaaaahahahahahahahaha! MAF cars can get very confused when major mods are performed without proper tuning. Hell, some cars don't even run after things as huge as a totally different intake or cam. I've not only seen or heard about cars gaining near 100 HP and TQ from tuning in a radical combination, I've helped tune some of them!

These early computers aren't nearly as versitle (read "smart") as the '96+ OBD-II ones are, so you have to tell them what's going on. If you add a cam with longer duration, you have to tell the car there's less CFM coming in per RPM because you low RPM efficiency went down the drain. Better heads and intake? Better add more fuel to go with that higher air flow at upper RPM, or you're not going to see a drip of that power...

My 305 TPI only gained two tenths with a cam change and SLP runners from a peanut cam '86 305 TPI. With tuning, I'm down a full second from stock and I know there's more to be had if I get some actual dyno time instead of just a street tune. Imagine if I added heads/headers/full intake/etc!!!!

 

They are 22lbs. I dont know the air fuel. I had it dynoed on the hotrod power tour. The dyno was free so there was like 40 cars getting done a day and I didnt get a chance to ask. The dyno was on one of those mobil units. Although I know it didnt hit 15:1 cause they said they shut it done if it gets that far.

 

OMG you're kidding me right?? 100hp gain, with tuning a mild heads and cam car. HAAAAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!This guy's MKos car is not all that radical. I don't know what you're smoking or what planet you're from, but I think you need to put down your GMhitech Perf. magazines ( relating to Magnum TPI) and come down from the clouds and join the rest of us in the real world. You're never going to see 100+ gain except I guess if you're working with a power adder or maybe some radical big inch combo. That's right, you've SEEN and HEARD gain 100hp in your book stack, but I'm talking about real life.

There's a lot to be gained for perf. tuning that can be done with a simple fp adjustment and a cheap investment, a timing light. Need a little more fuel bump up the pressure, car running a little sluggish bump the timing a couple of degrees. These two things probably would have gained you the same time that you have been brainwashed in to believing that could only be accomplished within the chip with your 305 MAF car. Then again I don't run 305's so I can't say that I've tuned one. But when running 350's+ I've noticed that with MAF there's not a whole lot to be gained as far as max hp goes even when dyno tuning with a wide-band o2. I've talked to guys whogained 20-30hp max and that was with 383+ 230/230+cams and big intakes. I'm not going to go into detail about all the people I've talked to and dyno sheets I've seen, but if you want proof just open your new GMHiTech Perf. A 350 Trickflow 218/224 550 lift cam, stealthram, car put down 330rwhp and about 400rwtq with the STOCK CHIP. These are the #'s that Mkos1980 sould be seeing with his setup PERIOD. At least they're close. Anyway, I'm done wasting my breath, the truth is out there waiting to be discovered....

 

Theres at least one guy on the board who got 100 hp tuning ...cant remember his name tho. He had a bunch of posts about the stealthram a bit bak

 

Yeah, and he's running Speed Density, so he doesn't matter in a post about helping a guy with a MAF setup.

 

Oh yeah another thing, JMatlock88 is the guy you're talking about that gained about 100rwhp and he is running slower than Buckeyeroc who ran quicker with his MAF setup and he is only runnining a pretty much stock vette chip (The ARAP bin.). There's some food for thought guys, I could come up with plenty more examples of fast MAF cars running basically stock chips, but it just really isn't necissary.

 

Dude, what planet are you from? You might wanna join the rest of us up here in the clouds.

The guy in question from this board was JMatlack or however you spell it, that gained over 100hp from a GOOD tune in his chip. I'll tell you right now, Joe, last year I gained .7 and 5mph in the 1/4 on my VERY FIRST chip burn. This was AFTER it had worn on longer into the summers heat. Granted there was a .1 difference in my 60ft time but still thats not 5mph and .7 tenths.

So, no one can gain 100hp from tuning? Might wanna question your own statement.

 

BTW, Speed Density doesn't mean d*ck as compared to MAF. Neither is better. They are of equal capability. ski_dwn_it has proven that with his 10 second MAF C4 car.

There is NO clear winner between the 2 so how is it that Jmatlack gained 100rwhp? Because he switched to SD? Puh-lease...

 

Wow what a surprise, another Jr. member is gonna come on these boards and say a bunch of stupid stuff that doesn't have any relevance to the original post. Yeah I know SD doesn't mean d*ck as compared to MAF. That's my point. Matlock88 HAS SD and Mkos1980 HAS MAF. You understand that? Matlock's car gaining 100hp has nothing to do with MAF. Got it? Yeah SD and MAF both have their plusses and minuses but that's NOT what this post is about. Use the search function if you wanna chime in about the SD vs. MAF debate, because quite honestly, I don't give a f*ck. That's a dead horse.

As for your car, read what I said about bnoon and how you can tweak your setup by ways other than just the chip.

Yeah I know all about Ski_dwn_it's car, you don't have to tell me. You wanna know something else? There's another guy, Corky, with his exact same setup, which runs about the exact same times, and that's with, get this, a mail order chip. Another guy you might want to talk to is Lethalracer, he also trapped oh about 116mph with the stock chip. There's a handful of others that are running great times on the stock chip. I'm not bashing tuning via the chip in MAF setups I'm just saying it's more for fine tuning driveability and part-throttle tuning. Chip-burning is great and I'd highly recommend to get the most out of your setup, but I do believe you won't see huge and I mean huge gains (not 20-30hp) in avg. tq and hp across the rpm band from a custom chip. I'm done posting on this thread because it just looks like I'm gonna get flamed on more from people who need to do more research.

Mkos1980, good luck with finding your missing power, I still recommend running a leakdown test and going from there. Make sure you do a leakdown test and not a comp. test, they're not very accurate or accurate enough to find the possible problems that a leakdown will find. Hopefully others will chime in with their opinions so this doesn't become one big flame war. Don't be afraid to post on other forums like the vetteforum for help, the guys their aren't nearly as juvinelle as some here and I'm sure you'll find some answers to what you're looking for. Later.

Joe

 

Re=read my post again smart ***. I've helped tune in over 100 HP on RADICAL combinations. GM High tech? Never read it... I read the online stuff while I'm at work, then go home and make performance for real for myself and my friends. Judging by what I've SEEN IN REAL LIFE, MAF cars need to be treated gently when making cam changes. I put a 280* cam in my 305 TPI car and it runs great. I'm not wasting time with a dyno yet until I get the parts I need to complete this stage of the project, but it took 20+ burns to get the car to run better because of a cam... let alone an intake change, head swap, etc.

Fuel pressure bumps and base timing bumps are band aid fixes for the poor man and have very little to do with realworld tuning. Those are global changes that change everything from idle to redline... what if I only need fuel from 3500-4800? (Like I really did on my MAF car) Just FYI, if you want to know what you're changing the injector flow rating to when you boost or lower pressure, do the math... new flow rate = sq rt (new pressure/old pressure) X old flow rate.

As far as what the magazine got out of their combination, well... looks like you'd better listen to your own advice and put the rag down. Unless you're on the same dyno, same day, running back to back, don't compare dyno runs from two different cars for anything other than bragging rights. It won't hold up.

 

camarojoe, truce brotha!

I'm by far not a junior member, trust me. I used to have a S/N here from somewhere in 2000 but it got lost in the shuffle. I have been posting on UBB's for 3+ years and have had my car for that long also.

All I (We?) are sayin is that sure you can turn your Fuel pressure up to 90psi to compensate for a 22# injector programming when running 42 # injectors but then you run the risk of actually making the injectors static. global changes like using Fuel pressure and base timing have helped people a lot. But those same people would see even larger gains if they fine tuned their setup. Imagine adding subtracting those extra few millaseconds the injectors are open in the areas they need it like 3500-4800 for example and making on average of 30 more hp. Thats quite a considerable gain if you ask me just for changing some numbers.

Imagine getting 30+ MPG on the highway in your daily driver that rips off 10.80's at 128 mph. You can only do it by tuning the chip/pcm. But some people don't mind getting 6mpg highway as long as they trap 116 in the 1/4.

Cliff notes: Its worth it to play with the chip. There are massive gains to be had in many areas. Fine tuning a combo for every last little bit of power can only be done via the chip.

 

RedIrocZ,
I apologize for acting like a pri*k, I just thought everyone overlooked my main point, which was that I think that Mkos1980's problem has more to do than just chip tuning. So I agree to a truce. Actually now that I think about, dynos are sometimes way off and the best thing for Mkos to do would be to run his car at the track to see how his car is really performing. I've had a friend show me how to tune chips and he's awesome at it. And I will be burning my own when I can afford the equipment. Everyone should be burning chips for their car when they have major mods, I never meant that burning chips was pointless. But when I put my custom chip in at the track after my mail order Perf. Res. chip, I ran almost the exact times with both chips. The custom one had a much better fuel curve and the spark tables were much more aggressive. Maybe some people do gain a lot with custom chips, it's just that I haven't talked to many in person that have with MAF setups.

bnoon,
I'm glad you resorted to namecalling as I assumed you would with your meaningless last post. Re-read my posts more than once and maybe you'll understand my point. As far as a poorman's bandaid, I would consider performance tuning a 305 a true poorman's bandaid. No offense to you guys with trick 305's cause I know you're out there.

 

Cararojoe, as far as the name calling goes, I can't believe I did that and for that, I am sorry.

As for tuning the 305, I guess you've got me there. I guess I should learn these ECU's by starting with a 400 and a Holley SR set up then eh? The fact is, I'm modding the car with pretty much what I've already got in the garage or can get very cheaply because I'm saving money for a new car and fixing this one up on the side. The major concerns are to get it looking good first, make it run decent second, and still be able to make some money selling it when it comes time next year when I get the new car third... Making the car go faster is a distant fourth. I could hardly make any money back on the car if I built the engine I really wanted to put into it. I've got $17,000 saved up so far since January of last year. That could build one hell of an F-body... What it comes down to is... I put you down, now you felt the need to put me and my car down. We're even.

As for the post being meaningless... hardly. You told him he would never see more than 15 HP from tuning on a majorly modded MAF car. I told him he should see the high side of 300 pretty easy (gains of 25 or so HP from where he sits now) with what he had listed if he had the other mods needed to support them. I have re-read your posts several times... You couldn't be more wrong, at least, until this last post. Some horsepower is hidden in different combinations due to A/F ratios and to unlock that power, you have to know where to look. Some fairly stock MAF cars can see larger gains than the max 15 HP you stated from those cars you know. I'm not arguing with you that the guys you know couldn't make more, or that their combinations had any more in them. I guess it's as simple as this; I've been a part of it and seen it happen on MAF cars, you have not.

Mkos1980, it would be interesting to see your plot with an A/F curve. Any chance you have a sniffer readout from the dyno shop? Have you taken it to the track or run anyone that should have similar times to yours?

 

For the sake of this thread, it's probably a really good thing that I don't moderate this Board. Try that on the Tech/General board and see how far you get...

There's nothing wrong with a healthy and heated disagreement or differing philosophies. Without different ideas (and people with the 'nads to stand behind them) we'd all be driving Chevettes and Hondas. However, everyone needs to be careful of how their argument is presented. "Tact" is being able to call someone an "idiot" without using the word "idiot".

 

I appologize for to the mods and to Camarojoe for the name calling. The out and out name calling could have been left out of my reply and still have gotten my valid points across. Believe me, on this side of the keyboard, it was meant as light hearted ribbing to poke fun and I will do my best to see that I don't step over the line again.

 

bnoon,

The only reason I am trying to come across so strongly is that I recently found out that my engine's a stone that doesn't worth a freak'n s*it. This is because my rings didn't seal properly because of 1. My old man didn't install them right, he banged them em in with a hammer handle or 2. I either cracked a piston or few rings when I encountered severe detonation a while back. So I guess I was just taking out my agression in my posts. Anyway, I have no hard feelings.

 

We're cool joe.

BTW, hammer handle is what I've always used to tap the assembly down into the bore (using a ring compressor of course). I've cracked one or two rings thoughout the years from not having the ring compressor seated against the deck properly, but that had nothing to do with using a hammer handle... Hammer handle is what we were actually taught to use in engine class way back in high school...

 

Damn guys, settle down! This is supposed to be an information board to help people, not a pissing contest.

My advice and theories for the motor results in question:

you do have decent numbers for your combo.

You "should be making" ~ 320 rwhp and ~ 375 rwtq
or close to those numbers.

possible and probable issues:

1st, I assume that you have an automatic tranny. 700r4's are notorious for robbing rear wheel horse power. Especially if your tranny is tired. Also, stall convertors "trick" dyno's. Some convertors that make the car have the fastest 1/4 mile times sometimes dyno lower than the actual HP that the car is making. So, changing stall speeds, slippage %, etc.... will affect dyno results.

2nd, in "my" experience, MAF car's are easier to tune. However, the stock chip wouldn't even start my car (yes, I know that I'm speed density), but none the less, you need tuning badly. I would start off with the ARAP .bin and go from there. Make changes in the PROM necessary according to what the scanner shows. Or, you can collect scanner data and send it to a mail order chip company (like www.fastchip.com) and they will make the corrections to your PROM for you if you lack the abiltiy to burn your own chips.


So, the scanner is the first place that I would start. It will show you your timing, BLM's, INT, TPS voltage, IAC counts, etc.. etc... Without this data to see what the car is doing.......... well, you would be just pissing in the wind.


With the tuning straight and a decent tranny, your numbers will increase to where they should be. Welcome to the fun part of hot-rodding!



Mike

 

Mike,

I agree with your diagnosis about the possible reasons for power losses on dynos. I also think that we're all big boys here and that we can decide to settle down and realize we're out of line for ourselves. I don't think there was much of a "pissing contest" going on here and it was more or less a lack of understanding each other's points. That may be because it's sometimes hard to communicate and get your point across when you're writing on message boards. There's just a lot of misunderstanding in other words.

I do still think though that Mkos1980 needs to check out the condition of his shortblock first, becaue not doing so is more than anything else pissing in the wind. You can't make power if you're losing much if any cylinder pressure. I do agree that checking out the trans. is a good second place to look at. There's no point in dyno-tuning an old beat up dog of an engine at least not in the long run. It would be a good idea though to pick up a scan tool and all the equipment necissary to start burning chips like you said, Mike.

 

Mkos – If you dynoed the car while the power tour was in Jackson, MS I was there and saw it puff what looked to be oil from the exhaust a couple hundred RPM before you lifted. It did it on the two pulls I saw – not blowing,, just a little puff. Probably nothing to worry about, but I’d do a leak down compression test as already mentioned to rule out a mechanical problem.

What method did you use,,, or how did you end up at the timing and fuel pressure you had for the dyno pull? It sounds like you haven’t taken the car to the track or had it on a scanner. So I hope you at least tuned it old school (making fuel pressure and initial timing adjustments) eyeballing the plugs or with an accelerometer. Don’t take this as a flame,,, but if we’re talking about what power a buttometer tune made on a dyno,,, that could be “the problem”.

 

Wow, if it puffed smoke from the tail pipes each time, we could be dealing with a detonation problem, lean out problem, or a weak spark problem (spark blow out). All of which can cause you to lose serious power. Usually oil puffs from the tail pipe any time there is load on the engine at WOT, not just higher RPM... Until we see some dyno plots, A/F curves, or scanner readouts we're all just guessing. I hope one of our guesses helps you out.

 

I just put it at 11* and whatever the FP was. stock i think That was my car at Jackson. I have had the car at the track and the it ran a 13.52@ 102.6 on the power tour in LA. Scanner readings show 0 Knocks at WOT, .800 02 volts and 22 degrees max spark advance at WOT. BLM's with the stock chip are all a tad rich at 126 while driving. The only time it get in the 118 range is on the highway and letting off on the gas as in deceleration. On the 3000 miles my plugs looked brand new with no white or black spots at all. I'll look into the compression test next

Accually I hope my spark is good with the MSD unit and coil. Also I have my plugs gapped at .040

 

Try running a NGK-UR4 plug in your motor.

 

One thing to consider is that since you used your stock short block and installed the TF heads, you probably used a head gasket that is considerably thicker than the oem gasket. Most aftermarket/Fel-Pro head gaskets are .035-.040 in compressed thickness. This coupled with your stock 12cc dished pistons probably dropped your CR to around 9:1 or a little less. This is too low given your heads/cam/intake/exhaust combo.

Smaller chamber heads, or decked block and flat top pistons is the way to go.

Get the CR up around 10-10.5:1 and tune the ECU and you will be amazed.

 

i accually went with a thinner head gasket and the trick flow are 64 which is what the stock iron L98's are.

 

I ran a 13.3 at only 101 with the combo in my sig. and that's with pretty much the same scanner readings you mentioned. Except I know I'm losing about 20% of my power due to the rings never fully sealing. I've got tons of blowby. Having your blm's between 125-131 is fine 118 is a little rich, but I understand it takes many chips to get it dead on and I seriously doube that getting perfect 128blms across the board will give much performance gain.

 

Here are some scanns of his car..

This was witn winaldl since I couldnt get craigs software to run a a win2000 machine..

http://www.cecoatings.com/images/mkos1980/

Some of theres were STOCK CHIP.

They othres were froma moded chip a buddy of his did. If I recall They worked off a hypertech chips and went from there.

The logs have hypertechmoddedchip in the end of the file name.

 

I'm running 60cc chambers with the FelPro (thicker than stock) headgasket (1010). With the MiniRam, AFRs, and a CC 230/245 cam on my stock 350 (engine has never been out of the car) I laid down 364 horsepower to the rear wheels. My car would LOVE more compression but, as you can see, I am getting by fine even though my compression is probably close to stock.

Tim

 

It is a little rich at wot, but the part throttle blm's look fine.

Next time use the summary version, and not the detailed version, it uses a lot less fields that are useless.

 

Awesome numbers, Tim!! :hail: :hail:

 

roger that... This was the 1st Time I used winaldl.. next time Im just gona bring my laptop and use Craigs software.