2012 Mustang 5.0 Dyno Tuned - Boss 302 Intake

[kris5597]

...time to un-wad your panties.

1. I am not using the stock cam timing....it is wrong for you to assume such as you have been doing in your responses in this thread.
2. I have comparison data using multiple intakes on multiple cars. I tuned the first 2013-2014 Mustang GT to run 10's N/A with the stock long block using a Boss intake. I am working with another that is running 11.1x's@125+.
3. It is a known fact that the Boss intake WILL make less TQ and HP in the middle of the RPM range vs. the stock intake.
4. As I previously stated, there is not a 15HP peak swing by simply bolting a Boss intake on and making cam timing changes. The secret sauce with both the Boss and CJ are where they make power.
5. I have used all 3 intakes on my car running sub 7 second 1/8th mile ET's on both e85 and 93.

Here is a dyno sheet on my 2011 comparing the stock to Boss intakes. Notice the stock intake numbers in the middle drop. That was due to TQ mgmt and exactly why I made the previous comments in this thread.






Your words:


I said provide the data. I have mine, let's see your's.

I am very happy for you and all of your accomplishments. You seem like a real nice fella...

For one, I don't know if it's my misunderstanding of what you are saying or the way you are typing it, but from what I gathered in your previous posts, yes, I assumed you were running stock cam timing and bolting on a boss manifold and saying it doesn't make the car faster. Per these statements...

I didn't say there wasn't more to be done with VCT using the Boss, I am saying I didn't change it. This would be one of the very few instances where a dyno would be needed to make those changes however I don't expect there to be any large gains over where it is/was. I didn't spent the time to mess with it.

I will also add that I ran the CJ setup on my car for quite some time comparing track data to the Boss. There were exactly 0 gains seen.

So again, perhaps I misunderstood what you are saying.

And again, perhaps you missed my explanations. I have ZERO data to back up my assumptions, and honestly these videos are irrelevant, I have no idea what modifications are done to these cars, nor do I really care. This is simply a discussion in saying that the boss manifold WILL make more power of the factory intake manifold, and the Cobra jet will make more than both. But, I will be tuning a car in the next couple of weeks that will do a boss swap. I will completely remap VCT to see if there are any changes. If there aren't any, I will gladly say I'm wrong, I don't mind being wrong. If there is power to be made, I will post stock VCT, my tuned VCT with the stock manifold, and tuned VCT with the boss manifold for everyone to see, I don't mind sharing.

In your previous statement about the CJ over the boss, are you saying the CJ setup is no better than the boss based on your track data?

[kris5597]

I'm pretty sure you were one of the first people I've spoken to on this forum since I've joined, you were just as nice then as you are now lol.

[wbt]

Not to get off topic, all of this info is gold, what torque management change picked up power in the mid-range? The fact a torque management change consistently picked up power half way through a pull is baffling to me, can't think why something would be intervening at that point.

My specific issue was due to not removing the clutch protection on the trans side which caused the throttle body to close partially during the pull.

[wbt]

I am very happy for you and all of your accomplishments. You seem like a real nice fella...

For one, I don't know if it's my misunderstanding of what you are saying or the way you are typing it, but from what I gathered in your previous posts, yes, I assumed you were running stock cam timing and bolting on a boss manifold and saying it doesn't make the car faster. Per these statements...



So again, perhaps I misunderstood what you are saying.

And again, perhaps you missed my explanations. I have ZERO data to back up my assumptions, and honestly these videos are irrelevant, I have no idea what modifications are done to these cars, nor do I really care. This is simply a discussion in saying that the boss manifold WILL make more power of the factory intake manifold, and the Cobra jet will make more than both. But, I will be tuning a car in the next couple of weeks that will do a boss swap. I will completely remap VCT to see if there are any changes. If there aren't any, I will gladly say I'm wrong, I don't mind being wrong. If there is power to be made, I will post stock VCT, my tuned VCT with the stock manifold, and tuned VCT with the boss manifold for everyone to see, I don't mind sharing.

In your previous statement about the CJ over the boss, are you saying the CJ setup is no better than the boss based on your track data?

That is why I take issue with what you are claiming. You have no data to back it but post it in such a way that everyone should believe it. Just making assumptions. That is a terrible way to approach things when tuning. Then when someone refutes the claim and posts data to support their point you dismiss it and deem it irrelevant. That is not a way to win friends and influence others.

FWIW dyno numbers can be manipulated to achieve a desired result. I prefer testing in real world conditions (at the track and on the street) capturing data for comparisons and have little need for a dyno.

Before and after Boss intake on the same car. No other mod changes:
Stock intake:


Boss Intake:


We know that there was no HP increase with the switch....tell me why the Boss intake was faster.

On the CJ, Boss comparison....I said I saw 0 gains between the two and when people approach me asking about which they should run I will point them to the Boss on a stock long block Coyote. The CJ isn't worth the extra expense unless you also free up the exhaust side of the motor with cams (another discussion). I base that on the data accumulated in real world testing.

[kris5597]

That is why I take issue with what you are claiming. You have no data to back it but post it in such a way that everyone should believe it. Just making assumptions. That is a terrible way to approach things when tuning. Then when someone refutes the claim and posts data to support their point you dismiss it and deem it irrelevant. That is not a way to win friends and influence others.

FWIW dyno numbers can be manipulated to achieve a desired result. I prefer testing in real world conditions (at the track and on the street) capturing data for comparisons and have little need for a dyno.

Before and after Boss intake on the same car. No other mod changes:
Stock intake:


Boss Intake:


We know that there was no HP increase with the switch....tell me why the Boss intake was faster.

On the CJ, Boss comparison....I said I saw 0 gains between the two and when people approach me asking about which they should run I will point them to the Boss on a stock long block Coyote. The CJ isn't worth the extra expense unless you also free up the exhaust side of the motor with cams (another discussion). I base that on the data accumulated in real world testing.

See, now we are becoming friends lol. Your second post was way more relevant and informative than the first, thank you for clearing that up. Because it provides information in the correct manor for the topic being discussed. The reason the boss car trapped higher and ran faster is the use of the higher revs. Less shifting I'm sure with that as well.

I do agree, dyno numbers can be manipulated. But I prefer to operate said dyno to rule out as many variables as possible during back to back testing for consistent and valid results. Again, perhaps I am wrong with my statement of making more power, but I am right in saying the car is now faster because of it.


On the CJ topic, I feel this manifold would be more ideal on the 2015 engine given the more aggressive cams, larger intake and exhaust ports, and larger valves. What is your opinion on that statement?

[kris5597]

Btw, with a 3 mph trap speed increase, I feel your car should have gained more than a .11 ET. It seems you didn't get off the line as well on the second video. With a 125 trap speed, that should be a 10 second car. Am I right?

[kris5597]

Also, my explanation on shifting VE with the Boss manifold seems correct as well, per your dyno graph. I don't think I'm wrong, I just don't think you like how I explained it. Which I agree. With no valid data, what I say is irrelevant, to an extent. I did however, admit to no data. Just want to make sure we are on the same page. I know this is good info for me, I'm sure everyone else would agree.

Kris

[wbt]

See, now we are becoming friends lol. Your second post was way more relevant and informative than the first, thank you for clearing that up. Because it provides information in the correct manor for the topic being discussed. The reason the boss car trapped higher and ran faster is the use of the higher revs. Less shifting I'm sure with that as well.

I do agree, dyno numbers can be manipulated. But I prefer to operate said dyno to rule out as many variables as possible during back to back testing for consistent and valid results. Again, perhaps I am wrong with my statement of making more power, but I am right in saying the car is now faster because of it.


On the CJ topic, I feel this manifold would be more ideal on the 2015 engine given the more aggressive cams, larger intake and exhaust ports, and larger valves. What is your opinion on that statement?

Both setups went through the traps at the top of 3rd. No extra shift as you can hear in the videos. The quick/faster time was due to the Boss intake making peak power for a longer time in the upper RPM range which is where it spends most of the time going down the track.

I won't disagree with that as the heads flow better. The 2015's tend to support more RPM vs. the 11-14's.

Btw, with a 3 mph trap speed increase, I feel your car should have gained more than a .11 ET. It seems you didn't get off the line as well on the second video. With a 125 trap speed, that should be a 10 second car. Am I right?

60' times were roughly the same. The larger increase in trap speed was attributed to making peak power longer at upper RPM.

Also, my explanation on shifting VE with the Boss manifold seems correct as well, per your dyno graph. I don't think I'm wrong, I just don't think you like how I explained it. Which I agree. With no valid data, what I say is irrelevant, to an extent. I did however, admit to no data. Just want to make sure we are on the same page. I know this is good info for me, I'm sure everyone else would agree.

Kris

I suppose if you want to use that terminology. I prefer to look at is as extending the powerband. A little less in the middle at the same RPM's but the ability to make power is extended due to the short runner intake design. There is no significant drop off until you hit the hard limiter of ~7,800 whereas the stock intake starts to nose over quickly at 6,800.

[kris5597]

See, we are agreeing on something lol. The car is faster because of more RPM. So it is confirmed that you will have a faster car with the boss manifold. And again, I'm not completely wrong, you will make more power with the boss manifold. Just look at the power gain between the two manifolds at 7500rpm lol. I think it was clearly a misunderstanding and improper explanations on both our parts on this topic.

My terminology is correct terminology. It's all about volumetric efficiency. Like I previously stated, I've seen this exact scenario on a high flow engine when changing runner length on intake manifolds. The same works on the intake tube length and diameter, as well as header runner length, diameter, and collector placements.

When I tune VCT, I lock the exhaust cam at 0 and start with the most advance I can get out of the intake cam and work my way down from there degreasing IVO by 5* increments. By doing so I am able to build a linear torque curve around rpm breakpoints for VCT changes. After the intake cam is dialed in, I retard the exhaust cam in 5* increments. When I tuned the 2012, I was seeing 12-15whp increase every 5* from 0-10* everywhere in the power band. As I watched peak power peak at 6200 with 0 EVC, to 7100 at 15*. 10-15* change only resulted in a power increase from 6000+, but it was still 8whp. This car was surely much faster going from stock tune, to full tune on stock VCT, to completely tuned VCT mapping. I encourage all to tune this way. It's time consuming but worth it.

Kris

[kris5597]

Btw, do you mind sharing your mods on your car to trap 122 with stock manifold and 125 with the boss manifold? Cams?

Kris

[wbt]

See, we are agreeing on something lol. The car is faster because of more RPM. So it is confirmed that you will have a faster car with the boss manifold. And again, I'm not completely wrong, you will make more power with the boss manifold. Just look at the power gain between the two manifolds at 7500rpm lol. I think it was clearly a misunderstanding and improper explanations on both our parts on this topic.

We are going to have to agree to disagree on making more power. The peak power is the same. One design extends the peak power further. It's semantics at this point.

When I tune VCT, I lock the exhaust cam at 0 and start with the most advance I can get out of the intake cam and work my way down from there degreasing IVO by 5* increments. By doing so I am able to build a linear torque curve around rpm breakpoints for VCT changes. After the intake cam is dialed in, I retard the exhaust cam in 5* increments. When I tuned the 2012, I was seeing 12-15whp increase every 5* from 0-10* everywhere in the power band. As I watched peak power peak at 6200 with 0 EVC, to 7100 at 15*. 10-15* change only resulted in a power increase from 6000+, but it was still 8whp. This car was surely much faster going from stock tune, to full tune on stock VCT, to completely tuned VCT mapping. I encourage all to tune this way. It's time consuming but worth it.

Kris

+1

Btw, do you mind sharing your mods on your car to trap 122 with stock manifold and 125 with the boss manifold? Cams?

Kris

All the cars/videos posted are stock long blocks with headers and intakes only. Un-touched internals. The comparisons have the mods listed in the description of the videos on YouTube.

[etm351]

Well both of your cars run good 123 to 125 is good for all motor with the bolt ons you have. kris5597 you are completely right the combo works great on the track and that is where you use it, and i have seen many dyno number manipulated, or tweeked to make someone happy. 125mph is a good number on the track.

[Higgs Boson]

I think the term you are looking for is "Area Under The Curve."

Peak numbers don't mean all that much.

[kris5597]

We are going to have to agree to disagree on making more power. The peak power is the same. One design extends the peak power further. It's semantics at this point.



+1


All the cars/videos posted are stock long blocks with headers and intakes only. Un-touched internals. The comparisons have the mods listed in the description of the videos on YouTube.

Sounds good, agree to disagree lol. That is very impressive. Good job on your tuning and driving. Thank you for sharing that information, it is greatly appreciated.

Kris

[wbt]

I think the term you are looking for is "Area Under The Curve."

Peak numbers don't mean all that much.

There are 2 ranges in discussion. Under the curve and peak. Peak numbers are very important for the reasons discussed.

[wbt]

Sounds good, agree to disagree lol. That is very impressive. Good job on your tuning and driving. Thank you for sharing that information, it is greatly appreciated.

Kris

Thanks and apologies for the churn.

[kris5597]

Thanks and apologies for the churn.

Not a problem.

I have one question in regards to something previously mentioned about torque management. I tuned a 2011 A6 GT the other night and ran into ignition timing randomly being pulled at 4500-5500rpm. It would pull around 6 degrees of timing, but it was not registering knock retard. I would assume its torque management pulling throttle, however, in the middle of the pull, VCM Scanner crashed so I lost all recorded data. I will finish the tune up this weekend. I had one question, does ETC Torque Management: Scheduled Torque Max function as torque management on Autos? When modifying this table on a manual, the ECM would not reflash without throwing the car into anti-theft mode after the reflash.

Kris

[wbt]

Not a problem.

I have one question in regards to something previously mentioned about torque management. I tuned a 2011 A6 GT the other night and ran into ignition timing randomly being pulled at 4500-5500rpm. It would pull around 6 degrees of timing, but it was not registering knock retard. I would assume its torque management pulling throttle, however, in the middle of the pull, VCM Scanner crashed so I lost all recorded data. I will finish the tune up this weekend. I had one question, does ETC Torque Management: Scheduled Torque Max function as torque management on Autos? When modifying this table on a manual, the ECM would not reflash without throwing the car into anti-theft mode after the reflash.

Kris

The only way to know for sure would be a datalog when it occurs. It's just speculation without that.

I would recommend The Coyote Cookbook for HP Tuners Software for the ETC Torque Management piece. There is a section in there that discusses ETC and what tables to modify. There is also good info in there about ignition timing and what to change to achieve commanded.

I have tanked a car a couple of times my having inverse TQ tables wrong. It's easy to overloook.

[kris5597]

The only way to know for sure would be a datalog when it occurs. It's just speculation without that.

I would recommend The Coyote Cookbook for HP Tuners Software for the ETC Torque Management piece. There is a section in there that discusses ETC and what tables to modify. There is also good info in there about ignition timing and what to change to achieve commanded.

I have tanked a car a couple of times my having inverse TQ tables wrong. It's easy to overloook.

Touche. I figured it could have something to do with that as well. I'll trouble shoot it to determine the problem and the reasoning. I'd rather not purchase the book. I appreciate it!

Kris

[AKDMB]

IAT, Lambda, ECT, can have an effect on timing, but not to that degree midway through a pull. I would imagine it is something in the torque management too. I don't know too much about the torque management, so I'm interested to hear more about this. Let us know what you find, I have been trying to track down everything that affects timing in the PCM. I just finished up an excel calculator to figure out how much the IAT, Lambda and ECT affects timing.The thing I'm not sure about yet, is how transient affects timing, it can add and pull quite a bit apparently, and only at high rpm and load too, which makes no sense to me. Transient in my mind means part throttle, low load, low to moderate rpm. All speculation, in for a real tuners opinion.