360 CS Dyno Run Results

"the question is how active the knock control is - is it realistic that it never reaches the normal operating curve, i.e. ignition point is always late?"

YES...that is the whole point of the system....your graphs clearly show that you have an octane problem. It looks like the ECU turned the timing to full at 2 points (the bumps) on your first run, but sensed knock and pulled it back. On the second run, when the engine was hotter, the ECU pulled the iming back further...that is what it is designed to do.

"I never thought the effect that big in NA engines"

When I used to roadrace and dyno-shoot out bikes, I found that just 2 degrees of timing retard cost me about 10% on hp. That is why traditionally manufactures drop the compression rather than spec retarded timing, the net hp is higher and it's much safer for the engine. With todays electronics, most manufactures are building engines that they know will knock under some conditions and letting the computer correct it. It looks like Ferrari went a little to close to the line on the CS, so on 91 octane pump gas, the ECU is always pulling back the timing.

 

Good point on the knock sensor pulling back on the timing, I hope that's it. I'm in for a Stradale and am getting quite concerned.

Thomas B, How about trying a Dyno pull with some unleaded high octane race gas? If it's just the knock sensor retarding the timing it would sure make us all feel better.

 

Thomas: in looking at your thread you mention that the tech had issues with the motor at 7400 RPM...could it be possible that the ECU was cutting back the timing due to lack of octane?

By the way...thank you for your honest answers and assitance, you are a great help to many existing and future Stradale owners...happy holidays!!!

 

Thomas,

Your Ferrari dealer can easily tell you if your car has run into the knock control (and retarded the timing), and I believe how many times it has occured, by plugging in their computer. I was told during routine service by my mechanic that my 360 Spider was running into this problem and that I should use better fuel but I was already running 93 octane gas. I don't know if you have experienced "sometimes it is fast as hell and sometimes not" in your 360 (I have), but once I started mixing 100 octane unleaded (available at some local stations) with premium at a 1:5 ratio the problem was gone. If you run straight 100 octane you may actually lose power, unless your engine really requires it.

Paul

 

Thats the problem.

There is no "set" rules for pump gas. All they need to do is reach a certain RON+MON/2 rating (aka "CLC rating"). But, for most people looking for performance, all that is really of concern is the MON number (motor octane). RON (research octane) doesnt even need to be considered.

For example, a certain 93 octane pump fuel could be 98 RON and 88 MON.

Another that is also called 93 could be 100 RON and 86 MON.

Which one do you think youd want in your tank?

From my research, it appears that Shell pump fuels seem to have the highest MON ratings for a given CLC rating.

Here are some definitions from racefuels.com that might be found helpful--------

"Motor Octane (MON):
(a) CFR Tested @ 900 RPMs, timing is varied with compression ratio, fuel is preheated to 300 degrees Fahrenheit, intake air is preheated to 100 degrees Fahrenheit. (b) Motor Octane, measured under varying load is definitely the most representative octane measurement for Real World Hi-Performance Engine Applications. (c) The closer the Motor Octane number to the Research Octane number the more stable the fuel is throughout the RPM range (see the Octane Differential in the chart above). This is very critical when running higher that 7500+ RPMs engine speed.

R+M Octane (R+M):
(a) This method of measurement consists of adding together both the motor and research octane numbers and then dividing by two. (b) This is the number in that yellow box that you see on the gas pumps. (c) This number should only be used when determining which fuel to use in your street car or tow vehicle. This method is NOT intended for correct use in your racing engine.

Research Octane (RON):
(a) CFR tested @ 600 RPMs, fixed timing at 13 degrees BTDC, fuel temp is not controlled and intake air is varied with the barometric pressure. (b) This is basically a No-Load test and this number should never be used to determine which fuel to use in your race engine. "

 

Thomas,

For a dyno test, according to your chart using 92 octane gas, I would use a mixture of 1:3 minimum, maybe even 1:2. My 360 needed at least 94 octane average to prevent any pinging on the street, so the Stradale might need even more. On the street it's not really necessary, usually you would use the lowest gear possible for max acceleration (high rpms = less load) and if it pulls back the timing slightly it's no big deal, but on the dyno, where you are using 5th gear from about 2000 all the way to 8500 under full throttle and you really want to see what the car is capable of, you may need the 1:2 (94.7.) I still stand by what I said about the incoming air being warmed up by the airbox, maybe not at 5000rpm and up, but definitely at 2000 rpm where the run starts, and warm air will increase the need for octane to prevent knock. I can't see how a Stradale wouldn't put out at least the power of a GT3 on the dyno, considering that the British magazines stated the Stradale was quicker than the GT3 from a roll and even in the Car & Driver test it pulled out a faster mph in the quarter mile. Maybe I just don't want to believe it.


You really opened up a can of worms here for future Stradale owners

 

This may have been discussed before but what would be the difference in figures with the car breathing dense cold air over warm air? Does the factory state an ambient temperature when the dyno tests are taken?

The reason I ask is that I used to have an old Capri that used to love the cold - It almost felt as though it had an extra 10% BHP when driving around in temperatures less than 10 deg C - pity it could not stick to the damn road though!!!

Paul

 

Thomas,

Read most of the thread, and I can see you are a bit bummed at the performance of the 360CS.

A few comments..

First, I disagree that 18-20% driveline loss is "normal". Bear in mind tuners love to hand out high #'s because since you can only measure rear wheel numbers with the engine in, it "translates" into bigger effective numbers on their wares. I would go out on a limb and say I'd be amazed if you could be losing more than 15%, and actually I'd bet its a little less than that.

Second, my experience tells me the Mustang dyno isn't the best one out there. I don't know what it is about this unit, but I've seen numbers that were excessively high, and that were excessively low. More often than not, when some sulking guy posts about lower than expected numbers, it is very often on a Mustang dyno. Get your car dynoed on a Dynojet to see how it compares.

Third, if, as you say, your RPM readings were not clean, it could be the source of your problem right there. The factors taht go into the calculation of HP are torque and RPM. You say the torque readings look good to you... but since HP is calculated from TQ and RPM, if RPM is not being read correctly, it will throw a big wrench into your HP numbers!

Fourth, if you think the car is knocking and the ECU is pulling timing, that is easy to determine either with a code scanner (see if you're getting knock - best way to check) or failing that, put some 94 octane, or even 102 octane race gas in and it will provide a "clean baseline" for you to work from.

Don't sulk too much just yet. There is only a single datapoint so far, and you need at least a couple more before you feel down on the cars performance. Good luck!

 

spyderman posted:
________________________________________________________
Car & Driver results:
Testing Numbers: HP/lbs** 0-60MPH 0-100MPH 0-150 MPH 1/4 mile Weight lbs
Porsche GT3 '04 ** 380/284 ** 4.0 *** 9.3 *** 23.9 ***12.3 ***3219
Porsche 996TT ** 420/420 ** 3.9 *** 9.4 *** 23.1 *** 12.3 *** 3470
Ferrari Stradale ** 425/275 ** 4.0 *** 9.5 *** 23.9 *** 12.5 ***3152
Viper SRT10 '04 ** 500/525 ** 3.9 *** 8.5 *** 22.4 *** 12.1 ***3408
Ford GT 2005's ** 500/500 ** 3.3 *** 7.6 *** 16.9 *** 11.6 *** 3429
___________________________________________________________

In the January issue of Motor Trend, the 04 Viper beat the 05 Ford GT in the 1/4 mile by .01 sec. (11.77 vs 11.78). This was done in a side-by-side comparison.

Also, go here to see how the 575M fared against the competition (click on bar graphs to enlarge):
http://www.motortrend.com/features/scenes/112_0306_spdtest/

 

The C&D results for the Ford GT were way out of line with reality (at least as far as the listed horsepower and weight), and with all the other car mags. Their times were right there with cars with 150hp more and lighter to boot. I don't know if Ford tried to slip in a hotter motor for press effect, or if there was a mistake.

 

Interesting that F-car folks dyno their cars and worry about horsepower - it really should not matter. The Viper, Corvette, even Porsche are just more powerful; add price and the Ferrari is just not there. I have the good fortune to have a Viper GTS and 355B and for pure acceleration the Viper is head and shoulders better. The 355 has many things I prefer, like sound and some aspects of the way it feels. I'd hate to have to choose between them.

I will say that I won't bother with an impromptu street race in the 355, too many cars out there would hand me my butt. But that's so immature, I'd never do it anyway ;-)

As for the CS, the thing just mystifies me - very slight reduction in weight, less comfort, no major improvement in power and a huge increase in price. Flame me, but I think it's just the exclusivity that sells the car, nothing remotely objective. But I'm a bit of a cheapskate, so what do I know?

 

Since you brought it up, why don't you ask Jim G or have a phone conversation with him? Unless you have him on your ignore list, you seem to convienantly leave out the third possibility that they made some changes (tweak boost, slightly lighten). They ARE coming out with a more powerful version after the first production run. Oh wait, nevermind, thats just a mistake too.

 

The C&D test was way out of line with all other magazine Ford GT tests, before and after, and out of line with stated hp and weight. If Ford made changes it would have been nice to tell C&D (and the readers). And no, I don't have Jim G on the ignore list, I value his opinions. I still haven't heard anyone, including Jim, say the C&D numbers were reasonable for a 500 hp, 3400 lbs car. Maybe Jim will chime in, but I'm sure his feeling is Ford bumped the hp on the C&D car, so I stand by my statement...they should have told us.

Gary

 

have you ever driven a stradale? although the individual changes and improvements by themselves do not seem particularly significant, the combination of these changes came together in a very special way. i have a friend in a technical capacity at ferrari. he doesn't get excited easily. he drove the stradale at fiorano a few months ago and was very excited by the experience. given that he doesn't get too worked up about things i was surprised when he said "the stradale is the best ferrari they've ever made". he said that i should do whatever it took to buy a stradale and keep the car. do not sell it. it is a very special ferrari. he said that the 360 replacement car (the 420 or whatever??) will surely be a great car also, but not nearly as exciting as the stradale.

i have another friend who has owned and/or driven about every ferrari ever made. he drove the stradale recently at fiorano also and said it was the first ferrari since the F40 that made the hair on the back of his neck stand up! he loved the stradale.

as for the cost of a stradale. what can i say? it's a personal thing i guess. for me the intangible "sex appeal" of a special ferrari like the stradale is worth the cost. besides, 100 years from now who's going to care that you spent some of your money to enjoy your life a bit more than may have been strictly necessary fyi, my yellow stradale is scheduled to be delivered in february...i can't wait!

 

Very well said...enjoy your car...love life

 

Thomas b

The Shell Optimax is a 98 RON street use pump fuel, available for about 90c (Aus) /litre.

The 360 N-GT (comp 13:1) uses 102 RON Elf WRF race fuel. The same as WRC rally cars. It costs about $5 AUS/litre.

This whole debate clarifies my opinions of Dyno's......They consume so many hours of manpower without yielding any conclusive product that we all go giddy and forget the real target........point to point speed is what we're all after.

$500 spent on driver training will do more for your laptimes than $5000 spent on car improvements.......and I make a living from improving cars! (But I also know a couple of top race drivers/instructors......)

 

5%! Wow. That seems overly generous considering modern machining, fuel injection, and ECU engine control technology. I would have thought more like 1 or 2%.

Gary

 

Most mass produced cars are much closer to the 1-2% you mentioned.

 

I dont really have an EU certification knowledge or experience so I couldnt comment on way or the other. I am just going by looking at many many dyno runs and looking at how they vary from same model car to same model car on the same dyno. Most stock (i.e unmolested by their owners) cars are very very close.

The other thing to keep in mind is that the conditions need to be nearly identical between power runs. Something like coolant temp change can make a very large difference in power output on most cars (i.e. far more than 1-2%!)

It also appears that many domestic models seem to provide more than the advertised hp.

 

To me, that would be unacceptable but I supposed it could happen.

Imagine plunking down $80k for a new 500 hp Viper and one's buddy does the same. The both cars hit the Dynojet and one makes 25 hp more than the other! That would be upsetting.