Jeff M Posted October 17, 2005 Report Share Posted October 17, 2005 Jeff M -Umm (in a ribbing ya voice and some info for others reading that are still learning turbos and engines) that reply from a quite literate turbo/engine guy? See this is why I need to stop visting the boards at the crack of dawn. I ment to say for my 500Whp goal . I know dam well I can get 350hp right now using the stock airflow available. My map limit will be if I need the earge to step the boost up seeing if I can crack 500hp out of it(without changing to gen III or even braking the intake seal open...gen 2 all the way). My piston concern is the devius crown. She can only take so much abuse before she gets an angle crown. I yet to see a 2.8 piston fail like ours. But like I said..next spring...if my trans holds up. Yea I was wondering about you I mean I have learned from you in the past 8). I might have missunderstood your post too so sorry about that Angle crown?...my TSTE engine blew a piston for a good reason (not because of the piston ), and when I poppped off the heads to first see the damage, I found some pistons were stock size/stock crown and others were over-size/angle crown who the hell would do a rebuild with difference size and design pistons It got worse with finding the high volume oil pump was replaced with a regular oil pump, and other such stupid things like this, about the only good thing from a piston blowing was finding all this shit hiding in my engine, and then doing a rebuild proper Later Jeff M Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TGPilot Posted October 17, 2005 Report Share Posted October 17, 2005 Good luck on dyno day!! Jeff M Dyno day = no go for me. My client in North Carolina has requested I arrive Saturday morning to start the integration/migration instead of Monday morning. Oh well like I said at clubgp, the sooner I start the sooner I get paid. 8) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bossman429 Posted October 18, 2005 Report Share Posted October 18, 2005 Well, damn Kenny! I was looking forward to meeting you. Although I have already riden in your car. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TGPilot Posted October 18, 2005 Report Share Posted October 18, 2005 I am dissapointed also...but considering the paycheck I will have from this job alone...I am not too concerned with missing a dyno day! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TurboZ24 Posted October 18, 2005 Report Share Posted October 18, 2005 It probably has too do mostly with the overall flow capacity of the motor. you throw on a 254/246 @.05" .62"/.60" roller mechanical cam, add heads that flow 229 intake and 200 exhaust at .5", then throw on a decenly large exhaust and intake setup, and you can get it too flow damn well. I was hoping too get it back too the dyno, retune (it's currently running around 11:1 fuel ratio, which I feel is too rich) and the ignition is still crap tuned), and redyno at 7 and 16 psi. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TurboSedan Posted October 25, 2005 Report Share Posted October 25, 2005 My Prediction: 196 WHP 287 WTQ Who knows? Didn't Luke/Kenny's 5 speed TGP put down some insane amount of torque the last time he dynoed it? i managed to just barely edge out Kenny's TGP with 227whp & 325 ft/lbs....his TGP achieved 222whp & 322 ft/lbs at a different dyno that seems to be notorious for giving low numbers. i am looking forward to seeing what Kenny's TGP will put down at DynoPros in Denver. i'm sure he will top me. one thing is sure - an LG5 mated to a 5-speed with a manual boost controller is a recipe for some SERIOUS torque. i wouldn't reccomend a MBC with a 4T60 though...i sure as hell wouldn't put one on my Turbo STE. the ECM controlled wastegate provides a boost ramp that saves the transmission...the MBC on the other hand simply gives you MAX boost and ultra quick spool up (as if it didn't spool fast already ) regardless of TPS or RPM or whatever. a MBC would probably kill the TGP 4T60 in short order. get those TGPs and other TGP powered cars to the dyno guys....we need more dyno graphs on these things! i will scan and post my dyno chart tomarrow. i got the torque down....now i just need to work on getting some more horses even if it is at the expense of losing some of that torque. a bigger turbo would help of course....more HP and a little more lag might help my traction problems below 30mph until then i think i'm gonna look into staged boost control. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
z284pwr Posted October 25, 2005 Report Share Posted October 25, 2005 My Prediction: 196 WHP 287 WTQ Who knows? Didn't Luke/Kenny's 5 speed TGP put down some insane amount of torque the last time he dynoed it? i managed to just barely edge out Kenny's TGP with 227whp & 325 ft/lbs....his TGP achieved 222whp & 322 ft/lbs at a different dyno that seems to be notorious for giving low numbers. i am looking forward to seeing what Kenny's TGP will put down at DynoPros in Denver. i'm sure he will top me. one thing is sure - an LG5 mated to a 5-speed with a manual boost controller is a recipe for some SERIOUS torque. i wouldn't reccomend a MBC with a 4T60 though...i sure as hell wouldn't put one on my Turbo STE. the ECM controlled wastegate provides a boost ramp that saves the transmission...the MBC on the other hand simply gives you MAX boost and ultra quick spool up (as if it didn't spool fast already ) regardless of TPS or RPM or whatever. a MBC would probably kill the TGP 4T60 in short order. get those TGPs and other TGP powered cars to the dyno guys....we need more dyno graphs on these things! i will scan and post my dyno chart tomarrow. i got the torque down....now i just need to work on getting some more horses even if it is at the expense of losing some of that torque. a bigger turbo would help of course....more HP and a little more lag might help my traction problems below 30mph until then i think i'm gonna look into staged boost control. Oh very nice indeed Maybe I should get my car to the dyno after all, even the poor old slipping trans won't mind....just have to run 3rd gear I guess.....now I just have to figure out what chip to run, top gun one, or the other one....one is better tuned, one has a much nicer rev limiter....hmmm Oh yeah, do you have your dyno chart posted or can get it posted? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TurboSedan Posted October 26, 2005 Report Share Posted October 26, 2005 Oh yeah, do you have your dyno chart posted or can get it posted? http://www.w-body.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=29569&start=90 really needs some tuning.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TGPilot Posted October 27, 2005 Report Share Posted October 27, 2005 i managed to just barely edge out Kenny's TGP with 227whp & 325 ft/lbs....his TGP achieved 222whp & 322 ft/lbs at a different dyno that seems to be notorious for giving low numbers. i am looking forward to seeing what Kenny's TGP will put down at DynoPros in Denver. i'm sure he will top me. Holy Cow man!! That is awesome. I am hoping to talk to Bear in the next couple of weeks and drop the TGP on the dyno for a couple of pulls. I see your car falls on it's face at 3500RPM...I wonder if this is a chip problem or if the car literally runs out of breath at that RPM? Is there really that much backpressure from the T-25? Jeff...Jud any input? But that must have made you feel pretty good seeing those numbers?!? :shock: 8) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TurboSedan Posted October 27, 2005 Report Share Posted October 27, 2005 yeah, hard to say. i haven't even been able to datalog yet. the HP didn't drop off much at all even to 5K. the TQ certaintly dropped alot but i was expecting that. it looks like i made peak TQ about 500 RPM sooner than your TGP did. EDIT: i was just looking at your TGP graph and they look VERY similar. i was still making more HP and TQ than you at 5K though get that TGP to DynoPros Kenny! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TGPilot Posted October 27, 2005 Report Share Posted October 27, 2005 EDIT: i was just looking at your TGP graph and they look VERY similar. i was still making more HP and TQ than you at 5K though :flip: get that TGP to DynoPros Kenny! I called Bear this afternoon and left him a message. We will see when I can get it up there... 8) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TurboSedan Posted October 28, 2005 Report Share Posted October 28, 2005 yeah i was really looking forward to seeing you there (and Luke too). i mean, look what Dan's '00 GTP did. with no changes to his GTP, he went from 249ft/lbs at PFI to 319ft/lbs at DynoPros! seriously WTF? and then there is your Turbo STE, which put down 254 ft/lbs at PFI but then (with no other changes?) put down 280ft/lbs at DynoPros. who should we trust? i know Bear just went to a new shop and had his dynojet recently calibrated, and the RMCGP guys will only accept numbers from DynoPros, so i guess i will trust DynoPros over PFI. my Lebaron GTS put down 178whp/217wtq at PFI. i can't help but wonder how it would have done at DynoPros. it's very frustrating getting seeing such a discrepancy between the two shops. i will be honest here and say that i do not trust either of them. wayyyy too much discrepancy to trust one or the other IMO. if your TGP already put down 322 ft/lbs at PFI, god knows what you will get at DynoPros. all i know is that you will kick my ass! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TurboGTU Posted October 28, 2005 Report Share Posted October 28, 2005 Theres alot of talk about you 5spd guys at beretta.net. DAM...40lbs gain for a 5spd. So is that with tq management turned off? TGPilot..are the mods the same for both of your cars? Is the boost the same? Seems like 5spd make 100lbs more than hp and Autos make only 60 lbs more at 10-11psi. (I dunnot wanto to do homework for calculating airflow). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sl3196 Posted October 28, 2005 Report Share Posted October 28, 2005 yeah i was really looking forward to seeing you there (and Luke too). i mean, look what Dan's '00 GTP did. with no changes to his GTP, he went from 249ft/lbs at PFI to 319ft/lbs at DynoPros! seriously WTF? and then there is your Turbo STE, which put down 254 ft/lbs at PFI but then (with no other changes?) put down 280ft/lbs at DynoPros. who should we trust? i know Bear just went to a new shop and had his dynojet recently calibrated, and the RMCGP guys will only accept numbers from DynoPros, so i guess i will trust DynoPros over PFI. my Lebaron GTS put down 178whp/217wtq at PFI. i can't help but wonder how it would have done at DynoPros. it's very frustrating getting seeing such a discrepancy between the two shops. i will be honest here and say that i do not trust either of them. wayyyy too much discrepancy to trust one or the other IMO. if your TGP already put down 322 ft/lbs at PFI, god knows what you will get at DynoPros. all i know is that you will kick my ass! I really think the guys at pfi did not drive the gtp's right is why the numbers were low. And I would say dyno pro's shop looked to be in better repair then pfi. (so ya i trust dyno pros more lol) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TGPilot Posted October 28, 2005 Report Share Posted October 28, 2005 TGPilot..are the mods the same for both of your cars? Is the boost the same? Seems like 5spd make 100lbs more than hp and Autos make only 60 lbs more at 10-11psi. The TGP has more chip changes than the TSTE...but some of the changes run hand in hand...but different levels. Both are running the same "mods"...open boost control = 12.5 psi (high altitude ONLY), free flow air filter, and better flowing exhaust than stock. Considering that the 5-speed flywheel and clutch assembly is nearly half the weight of the auto-tranny torque converter (full of fluid) and flexplate. Then you have to consider the power robbing internals of a stock auto tranny. If you have better locking clutches (or whatever the hell makes an auto tranny solid in gear) and a shift kit in a TGP tranny that will LOCK the tranny in gear and not allow slippage...then you may see slightly better numbers out of an auto TGP/TSTE. The internals of a 5-speed tranny also have less rotating mass than an auto car. Shit the 5-speed transmission is 95lbs LIGHTER than the auto tranny just sitting on the floor without fluid in either tranny or the auto's converter! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff M Posted October 28, 2005 Report Share Posted October 28, 2005 Hey I thought I talked all about that in the recent past, that dyno numbers can be all over the place :shock: One thing was it having a lot to do with them not using fans that simulate anywhere near what happens on the road (and that one shop uses no fan/little fan/little bigger fan etc), or one person’s engine is fully heat soaked while another’s has cooled down lots waiting to be next. Calibration is a tough one too, just how good is the shop in knowing their dyno and what can effect its accuracy, I mean we hear stories of owners getting work done on their cars by dealers that are supposed to be trained ASE mechanics, that mess up things worse then when their car pulled in the garage, human factor can be huge too. Then there is dyno’s that give huge numbers so you walk away very happy with the money you spent, and know that when you brag to your boys, they will all want to dyno their engines and bring more money to that shop (just like is happening in these Replies (in a Topic about some joker bragging he has some big hp engine , though I don’t think he is into bragging ), with everyone here encouraging other owners to go get dyno’d…..BTW, I don’t care if guys want to talk their hp number here, its great to see all the big numbers and people enjoying their cars so whatever). Or the shop that sells you parts and wants you to see gains by having bigger numbers calibrated into their dyno, or those that want you to be bummed with low numbers so you will buy more parts from them. Those few points aside, and there are more if you do a search on the Internet on the results others have found and more reasons why, but then there is the variations every engine has when fricken brand new (we ain’t new no more ) and there should not be much difference. Easiest and quickest is to quote the numbers from car mags that we got back in 1989-90; 0-60MPH 8.18 7.86 7.8 7.7 7.2 7.0 the best a mag did (6.7 for a 260hp Grand Prix GTX quote I seen once) Then quarter mile times 16.31 16.15 15.9 15.6 15.5 15.3 the best a mag did (15.1 for that same GTX) Top Speeds ranged from 122-134mph So even brand new when there is not a ton of wear on the turbo, engine, tranny etc, the numbers were all over the place, and on a dyno would have varied just like the acceleration times. Then add the state of tune, past ownership maintenance the car has had, injector condition/spray pattern, tranny filter restricted/fluid flow restricted from an old filter/old oil, combustion chamber build-up, gas quality, ambient conditions, more……but all sorts of opportunities for variations, so it shouldn’t be too surprising that dyno numbers are all over the place too. I could go on but if I type too much it might get forgotten in the next post on numbers or speeds achieved . P.S. Something else I just remembered, rolling mass/weight, the TGP has a 245mm tires and the TSTE has a 215mm tires, and the rim weight difference from a 16x8 verses 16x6.5. Then the differences in weight on a TGP running a heavy ass 6 ply Z rated tire verses someone that saved some money and got a much lighter H speed rated tire. And last so I will shut up, the tire pressure you run when on the dyno. Ok, nuff from me . Jeff M Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff M Posted October 28, 2005 Report Share Posted October 28, 2005 TGPilot..are the mods the same for both of your cars? Is the boost the same? Seems like 5spd make 100lbs more than hp and Autos make only 60 lbs more at 10-11psi. Considering that the 5-speed flywheel and clutch assembly is nearly half the weight of the auto-tranny torque converter (full of fluid) and flexplate. Then you have to consider the power robbing internals of a stock auto tranny. If you have better locking clutches (or whatever the hell makes an auto tranny solid in gear) and a shift kit in a TGP tranny that will LOCK the tranny in gear and not allow slippage...then you may see slightly better numbers out of an auto TGP/TSTE. The internals of a 5-speed tranny also have less rotating mass than an auto car. Shit the 5-speed transmission is 95lbs LIGHTER than the auto tranny just sitting on the floor without fluid in either tranny or the auto's converter! Lighter (by 95 lbs) tranny body :shock: that won't make more hp on the dyno tee-hee, just kidding, less weight when running times though 8). But less rolling mass like the tires I just quoted above is a key factor, but you know what, torque converters have one last thing I have yet to get anyone in the business to confirm/clear up, they have a stall/slip that happens to them like you say and I understand, but then other torque converter manufactures state the different multiplication factor of their converter that multiplies/makes more power go to the tranny :? Some quote 1.5 others 2.0 so if your engine is putting out 240 crank hp does that mean we we get 360 to 480 before it hits the tranny input shaft/after their converter Don’t know yet so am waiting before I quote if it helps or hurts . Jeff M Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff M Posted October 28, 2005 Report Share Posted October 28, 2005 If you have better locking clutches (or whatever the hell makes an auto tranny solid in gear) and a shift kit in a TGP tranny that will LOCK the tranny in gear and not allow slippage...then you may see slightly better numbers out of an auto TGP/TSTE. Lock-up converter is yet another discussion all unto itself (other than that damn “Multiplier :x );. My truck has what they call a 9/11, it has a 9 inch stall section and an 11 inch lock-up section, so that the 9 inch side can spin up faster (are you listening mister soon to be 30xx turbo ), and a larger 11 inch lock-up side to hold the power when that side is engaged :shock: They graft half of a 9 inch converter to an 11 inch (Continental) converter and upgrade the fins (brazing, etc) of the 9 inch side and upgrade the clutches of the 11 inch side (Torrington bearings, clutch material and whatever). There are quite a few guys that have my truck that are running those now too. As for the TGP, I ran a lock-up on it back in 1997-on. And had a friend do his around the same time, I hardly used mine since I did not think (stock converter) it would last a long time locked-up with power so just saved it for special occasions. My friend though used it quite often, and after about 2 years, it quit holding under power, but thankfully for him it could still hold the old way via ECM control for cruise/light load periods. And yes, is pulled harder since it kept the rpms down lower longer 8)..... you remember, where this torque monster is peaked-power at Jeff M Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TGPilot Posted October 29, 2005 Report Share Posted October 29, 2005 Lighter (by 95 lbs) tranny body :shock: that won't make more hp on the dyno tee-hee, just kidding, less weight when running times though 8). But less rolling mass like the tires I just quoted above is a key factor, Jeff M Well no duhhhh! What I was comparing to was the fact of all of the internal rotating parts that need to be spun as well as the torque converter mass will REDUCE the actual output. Just like a big blower on a motor that requires 50 HP just to turn it. Catch my drift? It is all rotating mass to put into the calculations of lost HP/Torque. Crank HP/Torque is one thing...but getting all of that translated to the wheels to a ratio as close to 1:1 as possible is the final result we are all looking for. If a car makes 500HP/500 ft-lbs of torque that is cool. But if it has to turn 600lbs of rotating mass before it gets to the rubber and then finally pull a 3490lbs car down the road that is a bummer. Now once all of that mass is moving look out...but getting it there is the issue. Make less rotating mass it will get to "x" speed much faster. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff M Posted October 29, 2005 Report Share Posted October 29, 2005 But less rolling mass like the tires I just quoted above is a key factor, Jeff M Well no duhhhh! What I was comparing to was the fact of all of the internal rotating parts that need to be spun as well as the torque converter mass will REDUCE the actual output. Just like a big blower on a motor that requires 50 HP just to turn it. Catch my drift? It is all rotating mass to put into the calculations of lost HP/Torque. Crank HP/Torque is one thing...but getting all of that translated to the wheels to a ratio as close to 1:1 as possible is the final result we are all looking for. If a car makes 500HP/500 ft-lbs of torque that is cool. But if it has to turn 600lbs of rotating mass before it gets to the rubber and then finally pull a 3490lbs car down the road that is a bummer. Now once all of that mass is moving look out...but getting it there is the issue. Make less rotating mass it will get to "x" speed much faster. I did not read all of your reply yet, I just bolded what I already said which was the same as you silly "less rolling mass" just like the weight of the tires/rims in my other reply, same with the tranny quote I made, ect 8) . G-Night 8) Jeff M Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TurboSedan Posted October 29, 2005 Report Share Posted October 29, 2005 Theres alot of talk about you 5spd guys at beretta.net. DAM...40lbs gain for a 5spd. So is that with tq management turned off? TGPilot..are the mods the same for both of your cars? Is the boost the same? Seems like 5spd make 100lbs more than hp and Autos make only 60 lbs more at 10-11psi. (I dunnot wanto to do homework for calculating airflow). absolutely NO torque management when running a grainger valve MBC like both Kenny's and my car were running. with the grainger valve, boost pressure doesn't even start to open the wastegate until full (preset) boost is reached. so it's FAST spool up & MAX preset boost. when boost pressure overcomes the grainger valve's internal ball and spring setting, full boost pressure hits the wastegate can and controls boost....somewhat crudely. it's the boost spike you have to watch out for. crank it high enough and you might hit overboost with the short boost spike. i was running 12psi indicated but still hit 14psi with a very brief boost spike. i'm sure my 326 ft/lbs have something to do with the boost spike, but i still would have hit 300+ ft/lbs regardless of boost spike issues IMO. i have my MBC sourced from the fitting on the compressor outlet, but if i had the MBC sourced from the plenum the boost spike would likely be worse. it very quickly settled back down to 12 though...and i was gettting a little (very little) boost creep. the boost creep might not have been due to my boost controller though....that might have been the wastegate not being able to flow enough exhaust gas before the turbine to keep boost pressure steady. btw. i tried turning up my MBC half-turn for my 3rd run. the car took a big shit on me there. during spool up it coughed and you could see it on the dyno graph....HUGE dip in both hp and torque lines! DynoPros didn't print out that run for me, but i wish i could look at it now. i don't know what the problem was since i can't datalog yet. was the ECM pulling timing? hit overboost? weak ignition components? (my plugs were gapped down to .035" as a band-aid fix for an assumed weak 230,000 mile ignition system). or maybe it was compressor surge from trying to push too much boost into a motor at low RPM that doesn't flow very well. i promptly lowered the boost back down after that! one thing is sure....if i raise the boost up anymore, the engine cuts out bad. time for more mods. T3/T04E + FMIC here i come. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff M Posted October 29, 2005 Report Share Posted October 29, 2005 btw. i tried turning up my MBC half-turn for my 3rd run. the car took a big shit on me there. during spool up it coughed and you could see it on the dyno graph....HUGE dip in both hp and torque lines! DynoPros didn't print out that run for me, but i wish i could look at it now. i don't know what the problem was since i can't datalog yet. was the ECM pulling timing? hit overboost? weak ignition components? (my plugs were gapped down to .035" as a band-aid fix for an assumed weak 230,000 mile ignition system). or maybe it was compressor surge from trying to push too much boost into a motor at low RPM that doesn't flow very well. i promptly lowered the boost back down after that! one thing is sure....if i raise the boost up anymore, the engine cuts out bad. time for more mods. T3/T04E + FMIC here i come. Yes, that could have been some compressor surge but more than likely it was more timing being taking out from my chip timing tables that is there to try and keep too much boost for 92 octane from blowing things apart right away :!: I didn’t want to see that much boost happen to someone that at those low of rpms/torque peak areas, can knock really hard and fast and blow pistons like right now :shock:. Knock at higher rpms is not so bad, not good, but at higher rpms there is more air coming in (i.e. air exchange, faster air in/exhaust out period) to try and cool the combustion chamber and keep things a little cooler than at lower rpms when the air in and exhaust out time period is slower and the combustion chamber when being served detonation can heat up quickly and stay hot longer :!: . This is also the same approach with the use of knock retard, it has a delay that is there to allow time for the combustion chamber to cool back down before the knock retard values (negative timing values) are taken out and normal timing is resumed. Back in 1996 after I did my chip tuning and was happy with the results, I then went on to find out where big detonation was and how easy it was to hit (and what would happen ), so I tested from low rpms to high rpms and at different extreme boost levels, then tossed in other variables such as colder outside air temps verses hot outside air temps. During those tests, intentional detonation at higher rpms took some effort and only blew closed, then blew apart spark plug tips , where as detonation at lower rpms was very easy to happen and with some huge knock-retard values showing up, testing here did not last long as too high a boost blew a piston apart right quick :shock: :!: (and testing was over ). So I learned what areas to add more safety to (less timing at super high boost) and what areas to leave with my last tuning values. Though I did all this extra work at blowing spark plugs and pistons to find key detonation prone areas and added more safety settings, there is still no timing that you can take out that will give you 100% safe running with boost that is too high for the octane, I mean diesel engines have no timing (no spark plug) and self ignite the fuel mixture from super high compression/22:1, that too when you get a bigger turbo as even better air from a larger turbo can still make the cylinder pressure too high for 92 octane and you can still detonate :!: so just know this too and stay safe 8) Jeff M Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garrett Powered Posted October 29, 2005 Report Share Posted October 29, 2005 Hey Jeff, got a question. Is there a way to test the octane of your gas besides having the car do it? what is the best way to stay safe/keep the computer from pulling timing? Is alcohol injection neccesary or just a shot of Turbo 108 octane booster? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TurboSedan Posted October 29, 2005 Report Share Posted October 29, 2005 Yes, that could have been some compressor surge but more than likely it was more timing being taking out from my chip timing tables that is there to try and keep too much boost for 92 octane from blowing things apart right away :!: I didn’t want to see that much boost happen to someone that at those low of rpms/torque peak areas, can knock really hard and fast and blow pistons like right now :shock:. Knock at higher rpms is not so bad, not good, but at higher rpms there is more air coming in (i.e. air exchange, faster air in/exhaust out period) to try and cool the combustion chamber and keep things a little cooler than at lower rpms when the air in and exhaust out time period is slower and the combustion chamber when being served detonation can heat up quickly and stay hot longer :!: . This is also the same approach with the use of knock retard, it has a delay that is there to allow time for the combustion chamber to cool back down before the knock retard values (negative timing values) are taken out and normal timing is resumed. Back in 1996 after I did my chip tuning and was happy with the results, I then went on to find out where big detonation was and how easy it was to hit (and what would happen ), so I tested from low rpms to high rpms and at different extreme boost levels, then tossed in other variables such as colder outside air temps verses hot outside air temps. During those tests, intentional detonation at higher rpms took some effort and only blew closed, then blew apart spark plug tips , where as detonation at lower rpms was very easy to happen and with some huge knock-retard values showing up, testing here did not last long as too high a boost blew a piston apart right quick :shock: :!: (and testing was over ). So I learned what areas to add more safety to (less timing at super high boost) and what areas to leave with my last tuning values. Though I did all this extra work at blowing spark plugs and pistons to find key detonation prone areas and added more safety settings, there is still no timing that you can take out that will give you 100% safe running with boost that is too high for the octane, I mean diesel engines have no timing (no spark plug) and self ignite the fuel mixture from super high compression/22:1, that too when you get a bigger turbo as even better air from a larger turbo can still make the cylinder pressure too high for 92 octane and you can still detonate :!: so just know this too and stay safe 8) Jeff M i was under the impression that i didn't have a Top Gun chip, i could be wrong though, i have no idea where this chip has been. fwiw it is the very same chip that god910 used in his black 5-speed TGP. i'm using 91 octane right now, which is the highest available here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff M Posted October 29, 2005 Report Share Posted October 29, 2005 i was under the impression that i didn't have a Top Gun chip, i could be wrong though, i have no idea where this chip has been. fwiw it is the very same chip that god910 used in his black 5-speed TGP. i'm using 91 octane right now, which is the highest available here. No problem , the one God910 had when it got around was still based a lot off of my TopGun, so that is good for you 8) since all the work I mentioned above about me testing the shit out of the chip well beyond the safe boost settings that the chip is setup to run (areas such as 12 to 15 psi). That to make sure that timing, in areas that should not be run and can happen when someone is cranking and testing the limits with a MBC , or just having the boost lines pop off :shock: , would be there to try and save the engine for the owner. I set up my chips to run up to 11.8 psi, 12 psi and beyond was not good for 92 octane, especially in those low rpm/peak torque areas, so I still tested in those areas to try and find the effects on engine longevity. As for 91 octane, that sucks , I heard all of Cali went that way a while back. 91 octane is something I included in my test and is a reason my chip has some conservative settings. We have here in MN; 93, 92 and 91 octane here to test with, along with that alcohol laced shit , and I wanted to make sure there was a safety margin should an owner get lesser octane (to a point), and since I found when I lived in Michigan that what it says on the pump is not always what you get :shock: ……..yes, found this out when I turned in a Sunoco gas station for using lead to up the octane for their 94 octane fuel :x , I found this from engine oil analysis done where I had 10,000 ppm of lead in my oil that was NOT from my bearings, or an oil treatment or any other source. While talking to the government employee (“Weights and Measures Divisionâ€Â, the ones that certify that a gallon pumped is a gallon received) about my problem, I also asked if they ever tested for octane, they said in Detroit it was done once, and that 75% of the gas stations tested failed the octane that was listed on their pump , WTF??? I then asked if they went after those gas stations and they said the court costs would have been way out of their budget to handle to they just sent letters basically slapping the hands of those gas stations, great!!! So, yet another underlying factor for tuners, careful what you drink . Jeff M Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.