We went to the dyno and got some real numbers on what the Bama tune is worth, and then went back to see how much the headers did. Here are the results:

(The truck now has these mods: Permacool e-fan, airbox mod, Hushpower II muffler w/ stock pipes, Bama Xcal2 tune, JBA headers, Mobil 1 in engine, tranny, t-case. The only things we changed during these tests was the tune and adding the headers. When we put on the headers, we also changed out the factory plugs for Autolite 5144 copper plugs at .048" and new JBA wires. We did no tuning when we added the headers, we used the same 89 perf tune as we had in before the headers.)

NOTE: This data is collected at 5700' elevation and corrected to sea level. Actual sea level results may vary.

Stock tune compared to Bama 89 perf:



Here is the Bama 89 tune before and after headers:




As you can see from the data, the Bama tune added significant (~5 lb-ft or more) through much of the speed range, compared to the Ford tune. Both runs were made using mid-grade fuel. BTW, my mileage data shows that there is enough mileage gain with the tune to offset the added cost of mid-grade fuel, so there is no ongoing cost for the added torque. (19.5 mpg stock, 20.3 mpg for 89 perf tune with a minimum of 3000 miles tested.)

As you can see from the second graph, the headers actually reduced the torque below 3500 rpm. As is often the case, improving the airflow out of the combustion chamber allows too much flow at lower rpms and reduces the torque. What I expected to see, but did not see, was an improvement in torque at the higher rpms.

My conclusions are that the Bama Xcal2 is a good investment, and that the headers are a waste of time and money on a naturally aspirated 4.0 sohc.

 

looks like the headers lost power everywhere. Do you have baseline #s with zero mods?

 

No, the first data I have includes the e-fan, airbox mod, and Hushpower II muffler. The truck like that puts down a corrected 183 hp. Reportedly, stock Rangers w/ 4.0 sohc put down ~174. (But I don't know if the 174 is for stick or auto, I'm sure the auto costs a little hp.) FWIW, I don't think the e-fan difference was measureable. The airbox mod and muffler probably only help at higher rpms.

For reference, here is the published Ford flywheel data for both of the 4.0 engines:

 

I'm having trouble with your justification of the 89 octane gas. Here in NC, the difference between 87 and 89 octane gas is $0.10. Assuming a tank of 15 gallons, it's going to cost you $1.50 more for a fill up of 15 gallons. With a MPG difference of 0.8 MPG, you are only going to get 12 miles more out of 15 gallons. So, you can't recover any for the 0.8MPG, and you are still behind in the tuner cost!

Good data, however! It's good to see a truely independent dyno test for a "performance mod"!!!!! I do not think that 5ft/lbs (around 2%) increase in torque, and basically the same HP is worth the cost of the tuner!!

 

For all you mod haters, I wouldn't get to excited, JBA claims 11 hp I believe with thier power cables and catback, Ruby had the headers, power cables and stock piping, however, the biggest factor, is that he is allmost 6000 ft a bove sea level in the thin air. when thei NHRA has the nationals out there, funny car speeds drop off from 323 mph to 294 as an example. I've discused the results with Ruby on another forum and hoped he wouldn't post the results here to give fuel to the mod haters and get these arguments going again. However, I called Jba with Ruby's results and they assured me their headers make power, and told me if I bring my truck to them, that they would pull the headers and do a dyno for a base, and reinstall and dyno tune with the headers. If they couldn't get at least 8, they would give me my money back and I could keep the headers. I'm not going all the way out there is tempting as it is. I can't prove hp or anything, but I can say that the headers did improve the topend, it pulls harder from 4000 -5500 rpm without running out of breath like it use to. That was the whole reason for the headers, to help on the topend and that it did. Ruby is also super charging his truck, he will need the headers. Bama is a given, the higher the octane better the results. When they have dyno day at the strip this summer, I'm going to take my truck, last year I took the focus, but I'm going to get some real numbers here in ohio. My buddy has a truck just like mine, but it's an 05 for a baseline, it's all stock, cause I'm not taking my stuff off for a baseline, but I'm gonna settle this once and for all.

 

Keep in mind Wendell that Ruby was at the same altitude for both parts of the dyno comparison. If anything, there should be a bigger improvement at the high altitude!!!! Ruby's results were truely independent, not the numbers from a K&N, JBA, etc. .......

 

This statement tells me you have the same opinion of Ruby's results that I have Wendell!!!

If the results were in the favor of performance mods, you would have never said that!!!

Here is a quote from Ruby in a post from the other forum:

"I've always used +/- 2% for variability - anything within that is hard to justify as significant. That's around 8 lb-ft or 6 hp for these examples."

 

Like I say, I'm gonna get a pull done this summer here, cuase I'm not driving to Caily, but I will get it settled at least for me.

 

Also, anyone with jba headers on thier 4.0 who has concerns abut Ruby's dyno results can call JBA toll free at 1-800-830-3377. Has anyone else done a pull with headers on the 4.0 ?

 

Mileage is up approx 4+% according to my calculations. Here, mid-grade is 4-5% more money than regular (depends on the station), so its basically a wash. If I spend $1.50 more for 15 gallons, but I only use 14.3 gallons because of the increased mileage, it costs me like $.10 more per fill.

The SCT is more than a tuner - it also can read and reset OBD codes, and can do datalogging. All of that is worth something to me.

I wasn't trying to start a war! I just wanted to post some real-life data. As I believe I said earlier, its entirely possible that sea level results would be different.

Its also possible that the JBA exhaust is needed to allow the headers to perform better. If you guys want to contribute to the dyno test ($60.00), I would consider putting on a cat-back exhaust before I put on the s/c, otherwise I will do the s/c first as currently planned.

 

lol ! We do have our feet on the ground here - altitude is when you fly - its elevation when you're on the ground!

Air density is some 20% lower here than sea level, so the engine's performance curve may be different at sea level. For example, if you look at the Ford flywheel data, the torque curve is not nearly as flat as the rear wheel data we collected. Most people use 15% correction factor between flywheel data and rear wheel data, but we need only 11.5% correction to get the Ford tune rear wheel data to match the published flywheel data.

It would be really nice to see a test of one of you guys close to sea level to know how that would look.

 

You got me on that one Ruby!!!!!! lol

Again, great data, thanks!!!!

 

Ruby, are you getting the explorer express SC, or a different set up ? EE says thier system is worth 275 on a stock truck, so I'm kinda looking forward to your results there. It's one thing tp spend 400.00$ for nothing, but quite another to spend 4,000. Also is Doug goona do your tune for the SC, or does it come with one ?

 

I don't have the $$ for the EE kit, and I'm not that fond of the M62 anyway, so I bought the Caster and Morse kit -candmnovelties.com- which uses the T-Bird M90 from '89-'93. This will be half the money of EE and pretty close to the same power, depending on how its tuned... I have an email in to Doug right now, asking him about that. I think that the tuning is really pretty easy - conceptually it should be: just need the flow maps to go to higher values, and pull out some timing when under boost.

The guys who have Caster's kit say that they actually run pretty darn good with the stock tune, except they get too lean at real high speed (goes past the mapping of the tune, I think), so I think it will be a snap for Doug to alter one of his existing tunes to fix that. One of my main objectives is to not give up midrange, part-throttle performance to gain the wot power, so I'm not really going for max horsepower, but rather max torque from 2k to 4k rpm (that's what's really important, unless you're at the track). I'm hoping to see 270 lb-ft torque, and I'd like it to be pretty flat from 2-4k like the curves I have now. Time will tell...

 

Wendell, this might help you feel better:
I was reviewing the FourWheeler site, where they discuss their 02 FX4 project, when they put on the EE kit. They ran a dyno test stock - 176 lb-ft and 153 hp on the JBA racing dyno (which is reportedly 15% conservative compared to DynoJets) and ran a dyno test after the JBA headers and EVO exhaust - 188 lb-ft and 161 hp. Maybe that's where JBA got the 'guaranteed' 8 hp that they mentioned to you. With the EE blower, etc. they got 257 lb-ft and 225 hp.