Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Members
Registered members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
RAM TRX - TRX-Forum.com
Bronco Raptor - BroncoRaptorForum.com
Forums
GEN 2 (2017-2020) Ford F-150 Raptor Forums
Ford Raptor Engine Discussion and Performance Mods
2 raptors 2017 were tested on dyno today ..
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Bombsquad68" data-source="post: 1132168" data-attributes="member: 20615"><p>XRocket, I appreciate your post on them but these are my reservations on the adapters.</p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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.<span style="color: Red"></span></p><p><span style="color: Red"></span></p><p><span style="color: Red"><span style="font-size: 9px">---------- Post added at 07:57 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:39 AM ----------</span></span></p><p><span style="color: Red"></span></p><p><span style="color: Red"></span>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Bombsquad68, post: 1132168, member: 20615"] 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.[COLOR="Red"] [SIZE=1]---------- Post added at 07:57 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:39 AM ----------[/SIZE] [/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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Members online
taquitos
Gumby
Frogger22
gatorbyteme
RdR2027
HAP
bakwaas4eva
foreignracer
Yc_Raptor
ktownsensation
NJ2020
Turning Blue
killallblue
IIAWAH808
WhiskeyTangoGTFO
RaptorMach3p5
cfmistry
TomDirt
Jmeo
Dnpbakon
ToadSmasher2K1
RaptorAW
Dev
Keith88
Badboy4fun_wa
someday
Johnny@Apollo-Optics
Space Ghost
Nick@Apollo-Optics
NickyF25
bigdave18629
DougDimmadome
Raptorman19
mprice1234
dbonzo
WRX2RAPTOR
GCATX
raptordoke
Stingray23
Westbayou
kknyrass
johnnytapia
Hasty
Rekkr
3Dog
New recaros
Chupacabras
RaptorFun
HeyItsARaptor
BoostCreep
... and 16 more.
Forum statistics
Threads
93,198
Posts
1,955,806
Members
56,485
Latest member
bjorn-dpc
Forums
GEN 2 (2017-2020) Ford F-150 Raptor Forums
Ford Raptor Engine Discussion and Performance Mods
2 raptors 2017 were tested on dyno today ..
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top