I have updated the fueling box summary with in-cab adjustability information. Also Added section on owner responsibilities. Refined the section on fueling box technology; distinguished between analog duration and digital duration, and the EGT consequences of duration without timing. Added a fuel economy section, and 600 specific comments. Added new section on electronic footprint and box detection.

in the matrix (link is at the bottom of all that verbiage) I have started to build in links to actual results pages. please forward your test results to me via email (address in the document) and I will include them. I'm looking for driveability descriptions as well as actual dyno data. As I gather more and more comments I'll begin to standardize and probably create a form so that all the comments are more useful. -Doug

 

dyno data added for the VA C3.2 + EZ stack on a 250 HP SO. see the "dougs results" section on the comparative matrix.

 

Doug,

What did the truck dyno stock? What did the truck dyno with the VA box only?

I have linked to a graph of a beta box we are working on. Pressure only. No boost fooling circuits are turned on in these runs to watch the ECM defuel.

The blue line is of course stock. The green line is a test 40 HP and the red line is a test 50 HP. The red line ( 50 HP ) is giving us over 58 HP in parts of the graph. The blue is kicking in 40 plus in most of the range. This a stock 03, 305 truck with a 6 speed. The tests were run in 5th gear.

I suspect a total increase of at least 90 plus HP is going to be very easy without reaching IMO what is a dangerous rail pressure level. More work is being done to look for long term wear on injectors at this power level.

http://www.f1diesel.com/4050.html

Don~

 

hey Don. I've expressed the same concern over that run -- there is no stock run so we can't really be accurate on the HP gain, and the VA box by itself was not tested. to bad. Using some generalizations (15% drivetrain loss) and assuming that the dyno was properly corrected, and all of that, the run represents about 146 HP peak gain -- this is with the VA box at 100% and the EZ on level 3.


ahh, finally someone concerned about injector wear and elevated pressures. thats very cool.

letting the ECM de-fuel is an interesting concept. If I remember right the 2nd gens would throw an overboost code if you did that (turned off boost fooling with additional fuel) But I know at least one mfg (Quadzilla) who discovered the same advantage -- of letting the ECM de-fuel.

keep up the good work!

 

Doug - I looked at your results for the stacked edge EZ on #3 and the VanAaken on 100% and needed to blink!. I have an 04-w-the same setup. It is an automatic so I have to ask is this a chassic dyno? I had my truck dynoe'd -w-a Mustang dyno-w-only the edge on #4 and no VA box and got 600 ft lbs and 318 hp. After adding the VA box I backed the Edge down to #3 and run the VA on #1 (except for rare play time). Am I to understand this combo is giving me more than 800 ft lbs? How much HP would you guess I would have? I thought of going to the dyno-w-this stacked combo and getting numbers but now I am afraid my tranny will become a flesh eating fragment bomb if I do so. Your thoughts please.
Howard Christian
Wilmington, NC

 

800 ft. lbs at the flywheel sounds entirely possible, Howard. But first note that this isn't my run -- it was submitted by bpendrod over on the TDR (I should have noted that). He is running a 250HP SO. I believe it was a chassis dyno, yes.

Its hard to infer 305 performance from a 250HP dyno. We do know that the 250 responds to pressure (has more to give) than the 305 does. From what I'm seeing you get about 20% more gain on an SO than you do on an HO -- for a pressure box. But I don't know how well the VA duration behavior on the SO correlates with that of the 305. We could assume the same, for sake of discussion... You're interested in tranny stresses, so let me read between the numbers and make some ballpark estimates, based on the (additional) assumption that bpendrod's dyno is properly corrected and accurate:

lets assume that the 250 HP (460 ft lbs) SO looses 15% in the drivetrain. that means it makes 391 ft. lbs of torque at the rear wheels. In bpenrod's dyno report, he got 534 ft. lbs from just the EZ on level 3, or 143 ft. lbs gain. on an HO I would expect 80% of that, or 114 ft. lbs from the EZ. ok, tuck that 114 ft. lb. number away.

As for the VA on level 1, in combo with the EZ on level 3, bpenrod's dyno shows 632 ft. lbs total, which would be a total of 241 ft. lbs peak gain at the rear wheels. but 143 of this is from the EZ, so that means 98 ft. lbs comes from the VA. ok, so the VA adds 98. tuck that number away.

So lets assume that the VA gives the same gains on the HO as on the SO. Well thats 98 ft. lbs from the VA, and we can infer that the EZ on level 3 would contribute 114 ft lbs on the HO. So you would have 114+98 = 212 ft lbs peak torque gain a the rear wheels.

With 555 ft. lbs of flywheel torque on the 305 HO, you get about 472 ft. lbs at the rear wheels. Add the EZ on level 3 and the VA on level 1 and you are at 472 + 212 = 684 ft. lbs at the rear wheels -- so on the order of 700 ft lbs. when you back out the drive train losses this amounts to about 800 ft lbs at the flywheel -- what the tranny sees, essentially. So yea, you have increased the input torque to the tranny by quite a bit -- about 70%.

As for HP gains, we can do the same type of creative extrapolation . The EZ on Level 3 makes about 60 HP on the SO and probably about 50 HP on the HO. bpenrods dyno runs show that the VA contributes about 50 HP as well, so I'd say you are somewhere around a 100 RWHP gain, or about 360 RWHP peak.

So recognizing the opportunities for error here, I'd say ballbark 700 ft lbs and 360 HP at the rear wheels for that combo on the HO.

So the EZ/3 and VA/1 combo makes just a bit more power than an aggressive pressure box. only it does so without raising rail pressure very high.

 

Doug,

What do you think about the stock 48RE on the before mentioned combo? What is the risk/odds of the tranny turning into a frag bomb? Or will it simply slip until it rolls over and dies?

 

I'm afraid I'm not a good one to answer that question. I run the NV5600 6-speed and not very well acquainted with the autos.

A 70% increase in torque input to the transmission is a pretty heavy increase, and that sets off a red flag in my mind. I don't have any data or experience around this, but I would suggest that there is probably not that much margin in the 48RE.

Flattening out the fueling curve is a good thing -- it eliminates the big, high-torque bump that is harder on the drivetrain. But still, input torque in the 800s (to me) is like holy smokes how long will this thing last.

Consider that the Banks box (I dont' think) is as strong as what we're talking about. and they do two things to protect the stock auto: (1) they defuel during the TCC lockup event itself, so that it is not so violent, and (2) they defuel when clutch slip is detected. So consider what you paid for this comment, but to me, the stock 48RE would not be up to this kind of abuse. hello ATS!