2009 DYNO RUNS- NISSAN F54 L28

By adding the mods above I wasn't under an illusion that I was going to see a major jump in power. But I was hoping for maybe 10 more hp at the rear wheels. I was told before hand that people are usually disappointed when using a Mustang dyno because they tend to show lower numbers. But what puzzled me was that my numbers were almost exactly the same compared to the 2007 Dynojet, even with several changes in fuel delivery and airflow. Since Mustang dynos read "lower" did these numbers mean that I had an solid increase across the board, or that the 2007 Dynojet was low to begin with? I may never know.

My car feels much stronger than in 2007. Because of the added torque the car pulls hard between 2500rpm-4k which mean I can easily drive around town without having to downshift constantly. On smooth pavement it will spin the tires on a rolling start in first gear, and has an effortless feel as it accelerates to redline. I believe the 2009 mods did more to boost power across the entire range rather than just add power near redline. So rather than lose sleep over chasing an elusive horsepower or two at redline I have decided I would rather have an engine that performs strongly in 90% of the rev range rather than worry about the power at 7000rpm.

2009 NUMBERS

FUEL/AIR
My main goal was to cure the fuel richness my 2007 dyno run uncovered around 4k. I installed new needles that measure leaner in the lower end while retaining the top end richness of the SM needles. When I first used these new needles on the street I was pleased that they did make my car feel much more torquey. On the dyno they seem to have leaned out the 4k rpm rich spot, it's still rich at 12.5 below 5000 and above 6300 though. What puzzles me is the slightly lean spot of 13.1 at 5500rpm. It's actually good because that's the hp peak, but the needles are fully open at that point so I have no idea why this occurs. The engine pulls to redline easily so I have decided this is not an issue.

Half a point of mixture is not a huge deal compared to many of the psychotic fuel injected curves I've seen. But I would like to try and get 13.5 level all the way across however. On 40 year old carbs this may not be easy but it's a good goal.

TORQUE
Compared to stock, the engine's torque peak has jumped up from 155 ft/lbs at 4000rpm to 167 at 4850.. 12 ft/lbs more may not seem like a lot but moving the torque peak up by 850rpm adds real performance. The effect is that you continue to pull harder the higher you accelerate instead on running out of steam early on. An added bonus is that my engine makes 160+ ft/lbs from 4050rpm all the way to 5400 which is a very broad range.

HORSEPOWER
I am running a "Stage1" cam which on paper should raise the rev range by 500rpm over stock...that's exactly what it did. The stock 145hp has jumped to 165 and the peak at 5200rpm has moved up to the 5600-6100rpm range. Going to a stage 2 cam would move the range up another 500rpm to probably 6000-6400.This would be great on an autocross or track car, but would move the power a bit too high for normal traffic use and might lose some of the fun L28 bottom end torque.

CONCLUSIONS
This engine is dead-reliable and drives like a torquey small-block V8 engine with the ability to pull hard to 7000rpm. Many of the mods: better cam and compression, lighter flywheel, improved head flow, MSD ignition, all contribute to better acceleration. What would I do if I had one change to make? I think I would go to a stage 2 cam of around 240 duration @.050 to open the top end a bit more.

On a V8 engine you can get large horsepower increases using the modification I've tried. As you would expect, on smallish 2.8 liter inline-6 engine these increases in hp and torque are much smaller but still create a very noticable difference in acceleration and performance.

2009 DYNO RESULTS F54 L28 with SU CARBS

STOCK ENGINE
145hp @ 5200
156 ft/lbs torque @ 4000

MODIFIED
165hp @ 6100 (206.25 flywheel)
167 ft/lbs @ 4850

RFG CORRECTED
175 hp @ 6100rpm (218 flywheel)
180 ft/lbs @ 4850rpm