HELP!! Having a horrendous time with the installation of my Kenne Bell 2.8 LC

[kook]

Sorry to hear about your troubles. Sounds like you are in good hands with a new beast waiting to be unleashed.

[kook]

Hats off to Torq for going the extra mile to help this guy out and as hard as it is, keeping it all business.

[PQ]

Originally Posted by Meister@Torq

We do not really want to get into a he said/she said, pointing fingers at anyone. We like to keep to our selves and not bash anyone or get into shop wars. We are professional and will always remain so. Our goal as always is to get the customers car setup properly and safely.

The problem had nothing to do with Kenne Bell and their blower's....they make a fine setup. After some mechanical repairs this morning, which I do not feel were causing the problem, were made I am glad to say the car is on the dyno with zero problems controlling fuel (which was the major issue for this car). Of course, as always, we started with a scratch factory file and made our typical custom tune adjustments.

The customer was told it "made" 550rwhp on ONLY 8.5psi but our initial testing has shown just a tick under 11psi at 6500rpm which is not even max rpm for this setup. I will spend the rest of the evening working on the engine and trans calibrations and wait for the stock pulley to show up, which will put us around 8.5psi, and is a great spot for these engines. 8.5psi provides the optimal pressure ratio and allows for the right amount of ignition timing for these engines

We appreciate everyone pointing the customer to the right place. Your continued support is what keeps is going!!

Urelated mechanical fix. Good you got it right, but can you make a guess at what caused the problem with the fuel control?

[buzzy56]

Originally Posted by Meister@Torq

We do not really want to get into a he said/she said, pointing fingers at anyone. We like to keep to our selves and not bash anyone or get into shop wars. We are professional and will always remain so. Our goal as always is to get the customers car setup properly and safely.

The problem had nothing to do with Kenne Bell and their blower's....they make a fine setup. After some mechanical repairs this morning, which I do not feel were causing the problem, were made I am glad to say the car is on the dyno with zero problems controlling fuel (which was the major issue for this car). Of course, as always, we started with a scratch factory file and made our typical custom tune adjustments.

The customer was told it "made" 550rwhp on ONLY 8.5psi but our initial testing has shown just a tick under 11psi at 6500rpm which is not even max rpm for this setup. I will spend the rest of the evening working on the engine and trans calibrations and wait for the stock pulley to show up, which will put us around 8.5psi, and is a great spot for these engines. 8.5psi provides the optimal pressure ratio and allows for the right amount of ignition timing for these engines

We appreciate everyone pointing the customer to the right place. Your continued support is what keeps is going!!

Wow what a professional response.Do it right, solve the problem and move on. My kind of business.To bad I am so far from you.You are the kind of business that I would love to spend my $ at.Very profession response.Hat's off to you.

[Meister@Torq]

Originally Posted by PQ

Urelated mechanical fix. Good you got it right, but can you make a guess at what caused the problem with the fuel control?

I can do more than make a guess but I will not conduct myself or my business in a way they, or their employees/representatives, have towards us on other forums

Maybe it was some of the mechanical issues, which I do not think they caused the problem, maybe it was the tune (we started from a factory tune anyway and I do not feel comfortable making runs with the tune)....you guys are welcome to guess

I would rather just get the thread headed back in the direction. You all came together and helped a brother in need.

Once again, thanks Camaro5!

These L99's make about 315-320RWHP bone stock on our dyno. KB claims 174rwhp with the setup at 8-8.5psi, which is around 490rwhp on our Mustang Dyno. With the addition of the headers and bringing the boost back down we should be in that area or close to 500. I have also seen other dynojet's with a KB on a L99 come in around 480-500.

A LS3 manual car around 8.5psi with headers, on our dyno and our tuning, makes about 540-550rwhp (which if you subtract 20HP between the L99 and LS3 and the 5% drivetrain differences, 500 is right on the money)....our datalogs of airflow should back this up in relation to BHP as they can somewhat be directly related

[PQ]

Originally Posted by Meister@Torq

I can do more than make a guess but I will not conduct myself or my business in a way they, or their employees/representatives, have towards us on other forums

Maybe it was some of the mechanical issues, which I do not think they caused the problem, maybe it was the tune (we started from a factory tune anyway and I do not feel comfortable making runs with the tune)....you guys are welcome to guess

I would rather just get the thread headed back in the direction. You all came together and helped a brother in need.

Once again, thanks Camaro5!

These L99's make about 315-320RWHP bone stock on our dyno. KB claims 174rwhp with the setup at 8-8.5psi, which is around 490rwhp on our Mustang Dyno. With the addition of the headers and bringing the boost back down we should be in that area or close to 500. I have also seen other dynojet's with a KB on a L99 come in around 480-500.

A LS3 manual car around 8.5psi with headers, on our dyno and our tuning, makes about 540-550rwhp (which if you subtract 20HP between the L99 and LS3 and the 5% drivetrain differences, 500 is right on the money)....our datalogs of airflow should back this up in relation to BHP as they can somewhat be directly related

I don't think it would be bashing at all to share what the problem was. I like to learn things this way. Sorry they weren't as proffesional as you are but I thought I might be able to learn something. Sorry I asked. No biggie.

I'm glad to hear the way you break down the numbers from L99 to LS3, that's right at about what I've been saying. Outside of my 22 inch boat anchors my car at 7.3 poinds of boost, was around 490 so very cool.

Good to have it turning out well.

[Meister@Torq]

Originally Posted by PQ

I don't think it would be bashing at all to share what the problem was. I like to learn things this way. Sorry they weren't as proffesional as you are but I thought I might be able to learn something. Sorry I asked. No biggie.

I'm glad to hear the way you break down the numbers from L99 to LS3, that's right at about what I've been saying. Outside of my 22 inch boat anchors my car at 7.3 poinds of boost, was around 490 so very cool.

Good to have it turning out well.

Please don't be sorry...you asked a simple question I just know what would come of it and we have strict policies in place to remain professional at all times.

[PQ]

Originally Posted by Meister@Torq

Please don't be sorry...you asked a simple question I just know what would come of it and we have strict policies in place to remain professional at all times.

Wish I had someone like you guys here in Mobile.

I had to trailer my car to Jacksonville to get tuned.

[mikepage0007]

A LS3 manual car around 8.5psi with headers, on our dyno and our tuning, makes about 540-550rwhp (which if you subtract 20HP between the L99 and LS3 and the 5% drivetrain differences, 500 is right on the money)....our datalogs of airflow should back this up in relation to BHP as they can somewhat be directly related[/QUOTE]

i have a ls3 with the 4 1/8 pulley, with NO OTHER MODS, which ran out 7.5 boost@ 559 rwhp and this was dyno in summer 95 degree florida day..this was 1 of the first kb units , they are now putting on the 4 inch pulley as the 4 1/8 pulley rubbed.. so i concur you should get about 50 below my ls3...so what was actually holding up the install? glad to hear its running btw , now running 3 3/4 pulley@ 9.2 boost , cam kit with kb injectors running out @ 89% duty cycle 654rwhp

[Meister@Torq]

Originally Posted by mikepage0007

A LS3 manual car around 8.5psi with headers, on our dyno and our tuning, makes about 540-550rwhp (which if you subtract 20HP between the L99 and LS3 and the 5% drivetrain differences, 500 is right on the money)....our datalogs of airflow should back this up in relation to BHP as they can somewhat be directly related

i have a ls3 with the 4 1/8 pulley, with NO OTHER MODS, which ran out 7.5 boost@ 559 rwhp and this was dyno in summer 95 degree florida day..this was 1 of the first kb units , they are now putting on the 4 inch pulley as the 4 1/8 pulley rubbed.. so i concur you should get about 50 below my ls3...so what was actually holding up the install? glad to hear its running btw , now running 3 3/4 pulley@ 9.2 boost , cam kit with kb injectors running out @ 89% duty cycle 654rwhp[/QUOTE]

Please remember the following with your numbers
1. Dynojet's read about 30-40rwhp more than our MD
2. The numbers on your graph are STD correction, not SAE which is the STANDARD for dyno numbers and reads approx CONSIDERABLY higher than SAE (probably 20+rwhp in your case). You can pull up your graph and have them click on SAE correction for a more accurate comparison it should be about 4% less so it would be about 537
3. If you have accurate numbers (read above) you would be more like 537rwhp on a dynojet with an LS3. Remove the 5% drivetrain loss and you are at 510rwhp on a DJ..

I can play these numbers games all day long. I have been doing this gig for a very long time and have owned a Mustang Dyno for 10yrs

[Meister@Torq]

PASTED FROM MY NOTEBOOK:

We get a lot of questions every day about our Mustang Dyno, why we feel it is better, why the numbers read lower than a dynojet or other manufacturer dyno's so I wanted to take this time to clear up any confusion and provide some links to useful information.

A Mustang Dyno is an eddy current absorption dyno whereas a dynojet is simply an Inertial machine. Yes, dynojet has come out with a loaded version of their 224x but why this machine is just as bad as their standard 224x will be saved for another discussion.

It should also be noted that all numbers produced on a MD are SAE corrected (a number with weather correction and without are always shown). Be very careful when looking at dynojet numbers. A lot of companies will always display the HIGHER (STD) numbers.

The inertial dynamometer does not measure torque directly, but instead measures the acceleration of a known mass.

The inertial-exclusive chassis dynamometer utilizes a large drum in order to achieve a high mechanical inertia, which acts as a static load. Incidentally, the large size of the drum leads to several more interesting advantages, most notably top end speed and peak power measurement capabilities. The inertia dynamometer actually calculates torque and power independent of a force sensing transducer and power absorption device. While this precludes the need for regular calibration, it does present the user with a number of challenges. Most notably: the inertia dynamometer only calculates Acceleration Torque and Acceleration Power – and cannot measure, nor create the conditions necessary to measure, static torque and static power. Its also important to note that, despite the inertial-exclusive dynamometer’s imposing size, it usually fails to provide a load, or measure of work, to the vehicle’s engine equal that which would be required for it to accelerate its own mass. In essence, driving on an inertial dynamometer is a kin to driving down a hill.

Here is an excerpt from an old Hot Rod Magazing article where the inventor/owner of dynojet essentially claims his machine is a BS meter:

"Dynojet's final number-fudge was arbitrarily based on a number from the most powerful road-going motorcycle of the time, the '85 1,200cc Yamaha VMax. The VMax had 145 advertised factory horsepower, which was far above the raw 90hp number spit out by the formula. Meanwhile, existing aftermarket torque-cell engine dynamometers delivered numbers that clustered around 120. Always a pragmatist, Dobeck finally ordered his Chief Engineer to doctor the math so that the Dynojet 100 measured 120 hp for a stock VMax. And that was that: For once and forever, the power of everything else in the world would be relative to the '85 Yamaha VMax and a fudged imaginary number. Dobeck's engineering staff was dismayed by the decision, but the Dynojet 100 exclusively measured surplus power available to accelerate the vehicle's mass-no more, no less-and that was true even if the modification was a low-inertia flywheel or lightweight wheels. As long as the inertial dyno's numbers were repeatable, the critical question (did a particular modification make the engine accelerate faster or slower?) would be answered correctly."

Read the complete article here

[HondaPowered]

Originally Posted by Meister@Torq

I can do more than make a guess but I will not conduct myself or my business in a way they, or their employees/representatives, have towards us on other forums

Maybe it was some of the mechanical issues, which I do not think they caused the problem, maybe it was the tune (we started from a factory tune anyway and I do not feel comfortable making runs with the tune)....you guys are welcome to guess

I would rather just get the thread headed back in the direction. You all came together and helped a brother in need.

Once again, thanks Camaro5!

These L99's make about 315-320RWHP bone stock on our dyno. KB claims 174rwhp with the setup at 8-8.5psi, which is around 490rwhp on our Mustang Dyno. With the addition of the headers and bringing the boost back down we should be in that area or close to 500. I have also seen other dynojet's with a KB on a L99 come in around 480-500.

A LS3 manual car around 8.5psi with headers, on our dyno and our tuning, makes about 540-550rwhp (which if you subtract 20HP between the L99 and LS3 and the 5% drivetrain differences, 500 is right on the money)....our datalogs of airflow should back this up in relation to BHP as they can somewhat be directly related

I understand where you are coming from, and I like it. You represent a small percentage of good people in this world.
However the thing I was trying to make is, the OP payed the ford guy for what? Nothing really.

I was just recommending that the OP sue the ford guy, by reading im guessing the OP spent at least 1-2k for that guy.
And 1-2k is nothing to bawk at. *For me at least*

The way you guys (torq) sound, hell I'd get the money from that guy and give it straight to you guys.

2 the guys at torq

[red 2011 ss]

Originally Posted by Meister@Torq

We do not really want to get into a he said/she said, pointing fingers at anyone. We like to keep to our selves and not bash anyone or get into shop wars. We are professional and will always remain so. Our goal as always is to get the customers car setup properly and safely.

The problem had nothing to do with Kenne Bell and their blower's....they make a fine setup. After some mechanical repairs this morning, which I do not feel were causing the problem, were made I am glad to say the car is on the dyno with zero problems controlling fuel (which was the major issue for this car). Of course, as always, we started with a scratch factory file and made our typical custom tune adjustments.

The customer was told it "made" 550rwhp on ONLY 8.5psi but our initial testing has shown just a tick under 11psi at 6500rpm which is not even max rpm for this setup. I will spend the rest of the evening working on the engine and trans calibrations and wait for the stock pulley to show up, which will put us around 8.5psi, and is a great spot for these engines. 8.5psi provides the optimal pressure ratio and allows for the right amount of ignition timing for these engines

We appreciate everyone pointing the customer to the right place. Your continued support is what keeps is going!!

My question is i have a kb installed and havent started it yet. This kinda scares me to use the kb tune.
Since we have no known good tunners in the omaha neb area. should i trust the kb tune? thanks

[Meister@Torq]

Originally Posted by HondaPowered

I understand where you are coming from, and I like it. You represent a small percentage of good people in this world.
However the thing I was trying to make is, the OP payed the ford guy for what? Nothing really.

I was just recommending that the OP sue the ford guy, by reading im guessing the OP spent at least 1-2k for that guy.
And 1-2k is nothing to bawk at. *For me at least*

The way you guys (torq) sound, hell I'd get the money from that guy and give it straight to you guys.

2 the guys at torq

The customer is aware of the problems and if he chooses to post up our discussions that is his choice. We understand it has been a frustrating build, that is now finally coming to an end, and I know he wants to just enjoy his car.

Thanks for the kudos