Boport wrote:mpgmike wrote:- 2000 Ford Ranger 2.5; from 21 mpg to 27 mpg and had the power of the 3.0 V-6
All this from grooves only or is this from the portwork done as well? I see a significant amount of porting done in the pictures of the ranger head and that would invalidate your performance claims if included as part of your back to back testing.
I own a vehicle with that same engine and am to the point where I want to test this myself on a dyno to put this to rest or be another believer. Please elaborate on your testing!
andrew wrote:So many people talk of dyno testing to prove benefits. From what I read, that’s not the ideal approach. Without comprehensive knowledge of controlling cylinder pressure and engine detonation limits it’s easy to walk away very disappointed.
I have been doing this for about 2 years now...
...and long story short, it works.
The increases in low end torque and stable low speed flame propogation are valid and is the increase in detonation resistance. Idle vacuum increases a bit too.
There are not really any HP benefits at the top of the RPM window but more so at the bottom and mid range.
I used them at EMC this year and two years ago with good results, our combo was pulled down to 1,900 RPM at WOT with an 1150 dominator with out missing a beat. No detonation at 10.5 to 1 nor 12.5 to 1 on pump premium