Orr89RocZ

iTrader: (20)

How sure are you that they are 65 lb injectors?? I agree, 65's should support a BUNCH more power than you have.

junkcltr

iTrader: (1)

If your 22PSI fuel pressure at 14PSI reading is correct then I would think the AFPR is not doing a 1:1 gain as it should. Get an air compressor and a air regulator. Attach the regulator to the AFPR reference line that goes to the intake. Increase air pressure up to 14PSI and watch the fuel pressure for a like rise.

As Orr89RocZ said, it is worth checking that the injectors are really 65#/hr. What are you pulsewidths at idle. They should be almost sub 1ms if they are 65 #/hr saturated...........and hard to tune idle.

ZZ3Astro

Well I sure hope they are Orr!! PT injectors aren't exactly marked, but once again I defer to the fuel pressure dropping and thus not supplying the amount of fuel required.

Not sure on the idle pulsewidth but I'm about to go try Junkcltr's compressed air test and I'll datalog the idle pw. My fuel pressure drops to 22psi but it also goes up initially as it is supposed to. I routinely see a peak fuel pressure in the high 50's. I have a static fuel pressure of 39 psi so I would expect 15 psi + 39 psi reading of 54 psi. I wish I could datalog the fuel pressure to see if there was a pattern to where it lets go.

I'm 100% confident the regulator test will show me a 1:1 at least up to 30 psi in the regulator line. It's not a pressure issue but rather a flow issue. Just talked to my turbo tpi friend this morning and he said he never even bothered changed the fuel filter that was on the car when he got it!!! He did have to wire a relay and bigger gauge power source in before it would supply enough fuel to run over 20 psi of boost though. He can't figure out why I would be having problems even at 14 psi. I thought he was 383 cubes but it's a 355. Same pump ordered from same source, same injectors direct from precision turbo (he's a dealer). I'm also going to do the pinch off test in a minute to see what the max pressure is.

project89

iTrader: (1)

m pw at idle with 65# injectors is .7ms

ZZ3Astro

I ran the following tests with the following results:

static pressure - pump manually wired on - engine off - 42-43 psi
return line pinched off (not quite 100% but close) 97 psi
FPR reference line test ~25 psi test air - engine off - 68 psi (shows 1:1)

Boring so far..

static pressure - engine running - no reference hooked up - 32-39 psi jumping around

This got me curious.. seems like the injectors might affect this a bit but the drop seems excessive for just idling and moving around a lot

This brings up junkcltr's question about the idle pw. Mine is 2.4-2.5ms. I went into the 'injection events per cycle' and found a setting of 1. Now the reason it is 1 has to do with idle quality. The idle is quite rough with a setting of 4, but that reduces the pulsewidth down considerably closer to 1.0 ms. However the 2.4 is something I arrived at by following the instructions, which state you should use a setting that results in a minimum of 2.0 ms injector pulsewidth.

Probably this is an area where sequential injection would be quite helpful. I have 8 injectors opening at once and with a 1 firing per cycle, perhaps it is too much flow for the fuel system to deal with and not enough recovery time?

So for the moment I have increased the setting to 4. I will deal with the rough idle long enough to retune it in the boost range and see if there is a difference in the behaviour of the fuel pressure and engine performance.

Thanks for the input guys. Details at 6!

ZZ3Astro

Ok results are in... no go.

I did see a slight improvement in fuel pressure. Sustained 15 psi of boost we were able to get about 29 pounds of fuel pressure. No where near enough but better than the 20-22 we saw last time. Changing the injector firing method of course will have some effect on how the fuel is flowing and that is probably responsible for the slightly better pressure tonight... but the fact that changing something so minute as that even had an effect tells me the fuel delivery system is absolutely maxed out.

<-- Bangs head on table

project89

iTrader: (1)

2 squirts alternating is what u should be using this way i fire 4 incjectors at a time this allows the best fuel recovery in the rail

project89

iTrader: (1)

ur forget to subtract injector dead time if urs is at 2.4/2.5 subtract the dead time to get actual open time. my dead time i set to .7ms

u using low or hi z pt injectors? im using low z on mine

Drac0nic

Don't forget that there could also be a VOLUME issue as well as a pressure issue. Time for a few thoughts and an ancedote.

Back when I was stand testing my 305, I was having to bump the PW to get the engine to keep running it just kept running lean for some reason. Well, as it turns out I found out that my FP was spiking to huge levels and the pump was bypassing even though there was little to no fuel coming out of the return. After figuring this out, a bit of electric fence wire later I found out I had a wasp nest in the fuel rail.

Why do I bring this up? If you're seeing high demand on the engine that means it could be consuming fuel before the pressure builds up. Even though it doesn't seem common a bit of fuel system restriction combined with the small cross over could be making it where the passenger side isn't seeing the same amount of pressure as the driver's side. JMO get a gauge, hook it up where the line goes into the rail, see what the pressure is there and verify it falls off there. You can start working your way "up" the fuel system if it does and figure out where the restriction is. I am fairly certain there's something there. Mac makes an in line pressure gauge setup, or you can buy one of the adapters that lets you put a 1/8 NPT gauge in line on ebay.

ED:If it turns out to be this, there's a set of knock off fuel rails that would probably work for you with very little mods for a very good price on evilbay. You'd need a regulator but the rails are about $45 shipped and would only require minor dimpling of the EGR passage to fit. They have a HUGE internal diameter too so they would eliminate the restriction as well if it exists.

ZZ3Astro

Project89, I always forget which mine are (high vs low) but they are the same as the oem injectors' impedence. I want to say that is high impedence. My injector open time setting is 1 ms in the megasquirt config.

Drac0nic, this was one of my conclusions during previous troubleshooting of this problem. As a result I made the secondary fuel feed line that goes into the cold start injector fitting with AN6 fittings. The feed comes directly out of the factory rubber line (which was cut and fittings added) into the rear of the fuel rail. The original front feed is also still hooked up, so I have about three times more fuel feeding into the rail than stock. I can hook a pressure gauge up there though, to compare line fuel pressure to the rail pressure... just don't think there is any way possible now for it to drop inside the rail. When you take the cold start fitting out you can stick a finger in the hole as opposed to the tiny hole in the factory feed side (hidden behind the hard line).

At any rate, it seems I need to tap into the fuel system at various points and see what the pressure is doing there. Most logical place to start is in back. Probably at the fuel filter. I might just weld a fitting into the filter I just replaced. That way I don't have to hack up the fuel lines anywhere. If the pressure is fine there, I will know the problem is up front. If it's low there I can isolate it to the rear.

ZZ3Astro

Using Junkcltr's 80% of rated flow formula for fuel pumps, I come up with 402 rwhp at 15 psi as the maximum supported. That 400 figure is about what I'm at, although at a lower level of boost.

My thinking right now is to cut to the chase, drop the tank and install my old Walbro pump alongside the new one. I'm not sure if I should turn it on all the time or add wiring with a hobbs switch. If it runs all the time I'm worried about the return line flowing enough to return the fuel at idle and low demand.

One other thing I noticed in my testing this week.. the priming pulse would always hold 39 psi for a while. Now it falls to 9 immediately. Not sure if it started when the new pump went in, but this was never the case when the old pump was in. I'm going to block off the return line again and see if the pressure holds, to eliminate the regulator as a factor.

ZZ3Astro

Looks like the pump side is the leakdown. With the return line pinched off 100%, pressure holds about 15 psi when off. Spikes over 100 if pump runs. The old pump always held 39 psi for several mins and slowly leaked down afterwards.

Two bad pumps in a row?

Orr89RocZ

iTrader: (20)

Buy a 5-6psi hobs switch and have the second pump come on via that. Thats how I run my dual intank setup.

I hope i dont have issues with my pumps...I am gonna be pushing this setup to its limits next year. Dual pumps should be good to 1000whp and singles good to atleast 500 but for some reason yours is just not putting out?

What are the odds that you'd have 2 bad pumps in a row??

ZZ3Astro

I dunno Orr, but lets say I had this new pump as the secondary pump on a hobbs. Since it only holds 15 psi rail pressure when off, it seems this pump would be a leak in the system while off. AFAIK the one way check valve in the 255 should hold regulator pressure for several minutes and very slowly drop off, like the old pump did.

NufNuffZ28

iTrader: (10)

I just checked in to say KEEP at it. I'm enjoy following your build as I'm slightly behind you in mine!

ZZ3Astro

Ok I decided F--- Walbro. First my less than one year old pump had problems maintaining fuel pressure with the original turbo. Then I replace it and the problems go away until the moment I upgrade to a better turbo. Now I do these leakdown tests and the check-valve isn't holding pressure in the new one.

Trying an Aeromotive Stealth 340. Meant to ship it overnight but screwed up, so now it will just get here whenever. Will take a couple of days to get the motivation to drop the tank anyways, yet AGAIN.

Orr89RocZ

iTrader: (20)

Interesting...i never checked to see how my fuel pressure holds on my new twin pump setup but I do know this. The old single walbro would hold pressure after shutdown or initial prime. My new setup will spike to near 50psi at startup but bleed down quickly to 10-15 and hold that for alittle while, but during running, it stays on and holds 50psi. I think its the regulator design. It doesnt hold the high pressure unless car runs. I havent documented fuel pressure during boosted situations, I just know my car runs fine and I have plenty of room on the injectors and definately not lean so I have no reason to doubt my pumps are working.

ZZ3Astro

For once, a smoking gun is found! The problem centers on the fuel line I was sold. I should have used the stuff that comes with the walbro, but my friend always upgrades to an expensive high pressure fuel line (not sure of the brand but it's light blue) and told me where to get it. When I went there, it had been discontinued and they had a 'great new product' that was the replacement. I knew I should have turned away when it said 'green solution' on it. Seems like anything that isn't "bad for the environment" is gonna be "bad for the project". Just LOOK at the hose clamp impressions and this is only five weeks in fuel. In fact the hose feels exactly the same as when I put it in and I don't think this is the result of fuel soaking. It seems to be more of a plastic hose than a rubber hose. I bet a few smacks with a hammer would flatten it out.

Anyway fuel was spraying out around the hardline where this hose slides over it.

I think I'm still going to install the aeromotive 340 pump though. It has at least 30% more capacity than the Walbro and seems like it would give me room to run a little faster if I choose to in the future. Or I could just send that back and save $170. Hmm.

Drac0nic

I'd save $170 personally. Then again you may need the pump with the way you've turboed this. Did you happen to save the old one?

ZZ3Astro

Yeah I still have the first Walbro as well. I ended up sticking with the new Walbro. The Aeromotive just won't fit without major modification to the hanger. Also I was surprised to find the Walbro inlet is more than twice as big as the Aero and there is no screen on the Aero. The sock is non-adjustable on the Aero and that's what really ended the plan.

On the bright side of all this.. I took the tank out in 1 hr and 10 mins. I put it all back in the car by myself in about the same amount of time. Practice makes efficient!
Car runs great now. A real tire spinner in third gear and I still haven't taken enough fuel out of it yet. Tomorrow we will try to get the tune dialed in a bit better. I haven't been able to watch the fuel pressure because it will jump off the road in a hurry, but what little I've been able to watch looks like it's going to about 50 psi when boosting.

junkcltr

iTrader: (1)

Yeah, that is why I said to check the rubber line in the tank first. Check post 149. Always use the line that comes with the Walbro. I don't know why anyone would use anything different.

junkcltr

iTrader: (1)

That leak down test pointed to a bad rubber line in the tank.
You running 14 PSI of boost now? Must be a hand full. What do you have in it for the 3/4 clutch pack?
That Aero with no fuel sock/filter sounds like junk to me. Did it not come with one or is there no way to install a filter?

ZZ3Astro

It's a Pro-Built pro-street kit. Can't remember the specifics on the 3/4 but so far it's holding up.

So fueling is much better now, though I'm still hesitant to call it 100%. I'm only seeing 49 psi at 15 pounds of boost. Regulator + 15 psi should put me at 57 psi. I guess with the injectors going like crazy the rail pressure just doesn't ever make it all the way? My first turbo + injection setup so I'm still learning here!

I'm still rich at full boost but I can only push my wife so far on tuning. We'll hit it some more tomorrow. Seeing 10.4-10.6 afr at full boost in 3rd between 4100 and 5100. Also added 1.5 degrees of timing in the 200 kpa row and man did it ever wake up! No signs of detonation anywhere but I'm not gonna push my luck too much for now. Still feels flat in the upper rpm of third but the rich afr isn't helping I'm sure. Lots of progress today so I decided just to drive it around and enjoy it a bit.

It's all over the road in the first two gears. Third will come out from under you on certain roads. Can't watch the gauges, that's for sure. Long ways to go still but I have another 6-7 psi I can dial in to get there.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-J4NFEqzsLc

A little short video of some 'testing' from this afternoon!

junkcltr

iTrader: (1)

Dana's pro-street kits are really tough and I think would live behind your setup for a long time.
Do you actual see 43 PSI of fuel pressure before boost? Any way you look at it, tuning engines with HP like this on the street is not easy. I try to do idle, cruise, and short WOT bursts. Then it is on to the track for the real WOT stuff and I tune by looking at the datalogs.

What are you doing with the ebay turbo with worn thrust bearing? I always wondered if they are a true Garrett knock-off and take Garrett internal parts.

project89

iTrader: (1)

they do ive rebuilt ebay turbos with genuine garrett parts and ive also rebuilt garrett stuff with the rebuild kit off ebay from china

the t3/60-1 garrett on my v6 car has a set if ebay bearings and 270* thrust bearing

ZZ3Astro

Haven't decided on the old turbo yet. It could end up on the Monte Carlo or become my second home made jet engine

Update on the car, and it is NOT good. My friend talked me into going to the track today. It's actually a car club challenge but they do t&t in between rounds. I went there expecting 7.50's because of the improved bottom end. The top still feels flat but I was seeing 10.6 afr there so figured I could tune that while on the track. Immediately the problems started. It will only make 11 psi going down the track. It only went 7.94 at 91.x mph. Second pass went 8.0x at 92. Sixty foots were low 1.9x so not far off my from 1.87 on the previous visit with the new engine. Even accounting for that .05 difference, it sure isn't near the 7.71 I put down previously with the ebay turbo.

I noticed the second run was slighly lean while the first run was slightly rich. Now I did tune a bit less fuel, but only a couple of clicks on the VE table which normally wouldn't bring it from 10.7 to 11.3. That was the first clue. I added half the fuel back in that I had taken out (added one click in the 175-200 kpa range). Then I adjusted the wastegate to get more boost. Next run it ran right at 195-200 kpa so about 14.5 psi. It was 12.0's AFR!!! On the street we had this range dialed to perfection at 10.9-11.0. I added three clicks to the VE table. This time I had my passenger watching the fuel pressure during the run. Now it was worse, with a 12.5-12.7 AFR. Fuel pressure is DROPPING AGAIN!! I saw it for myself as well. So on the way home I find out it's making 16 psi on the street. AFR goes to 13.0. Fuel pressure falls to 30 psi at 16 psi boost.

Obviously this needs to be resolved before I can worry about anything else. What sucks is I found that fuel line spraying fuel and it was a pretty conclusive source of the prior fueling problems.. that said, it wasn't a major leak based on how fine the spray was. I would say more like a spraying injector than a serious leak.

What I can't figure out right now is how my times were worse with a better turbo and better fueling than I've had previously. Also I was shocked to see on my first run that inlet temps were at 120 by the end of the run. The ebay turbo never got the air hot enough to come out of the intercooler that hot even in warmer weather. However I'm pretty sure this is because of the lean run putting more heat into the turbo itself.

Not a good day at the track.

Orr89RocZ

iTrader: (20)

weather conditions from before and after runs? Hard to compare times. My 99 went 12.6's in 60-70's deg weather but in the low 50's, it went 12.31. Air makes a difference

ZZ3Astro

Ok guys... clue me in if I'm doing this the wrong way:

Flow testing a fuel pump.. place regulator on pressure side of pump. Set it to whatever pressure (say 60 psi). Block off the outlet and measure the fuel that comes out of the return line for a set amount of time. Is this a sufficient way of measuring pumping capacity at a given pressure?

If so, my pump is performing almost exactly to spec on this page http://www.autoperformanceengineerin...l/fpspecs.html

We actually had the regulator set to 60 psi but during the test it stayed at 69-70 psi. The setup wasn't ideal by any means.. because the rubber hose shop put some oddball size flare fittings on, I couldn't put the regulator directly on the main feed line. Instead I had to run the fuel through the rails and factory regulator, down the return line to the wheel well. I installed the aeromotive regulator there and measured the fuel coming out of it for 34 seconds. A battery charger was connected at the alternator to simulate the engine running.

It delivered 1.81 qts in 34 seconds. That is 0.053235 qts per second or 191.64 quarts per hour. That converts to 181.36 liters per hour ir 47.91 gallons per hour.

Expected flow from a Walbro 255 LPH at 70 psi @ 13.5 volts is 50 gallons per hour.

Considering the expected loss of 5-6 psi from pump to front of the car, not to mention going through two regulators and the fuel rails, this number is phenomenal!

47 gallons per hour equates to 290 pounds per hour. That is 483 hp at .6 bsfc and that's at 70 psi. I should be at 57 psi right now. At 60 psi the pump should support 563 hp - well above a car running 7.99!

And my fuel pressure just 10 minutes before this test was 39 psi with 16 psi of boost. Static fuel pressure during the prime a perfect 42 every time (using stock regulator only).

Continued baffledness!

NufNuffZ28

iTrader: (10)

Hey man, random question. Can you throw up your timing tables? I just have some questions/ideas that I'm wondering about regarding my build. More megasquirt issues......

Orr89RocZ

iTrader: (20)

What regulator are you using? I've heard that some of the aeromotive boost referenced regulators do not give a true 1 to 1 change and sometimes put out less pressure! I run Fuel Lab on my car since it was recommended due to the aeromotive problems.

ZZ3Astro

Well stock regulator but had the aeromotive in the return line to assist the stock (do the job for it!). Not sure which model just a nice looking piece.

Update.. installed the Aeromotive 340L in tank pump. Immediately had the same lower than it should be idle fuel pressure. 28-32 psi when vacuum dictated a requestion fuel pressure of 33. Hit 15.9 peak boost and saw a peak fuel pressure of 45. Seems like the pump switch gave a few psi extra but still about 13 psi short, and that 45 is a peak while it needs a sustained 58 psi at 16 pounds of boost.

Next up.. going to do the same static flow test through the regulator to see how much fuel is moves in the same amount of time as the Walbro.

This SUCKS

Drac0nic

That just seems the hell goofy. It almost is like there's a check valve in the line some where. You'd get a little drop b/c of the increase in RPM but overall not. By the way BOTH regulators are boost referenced at the same spot, right?

ED:

JMO plug one reg then plug the other. Running 2 units just seems to beg for odd results IMO.

ZZ3Astro

Ok it looks like we were dealing with separate issues after-all.

Issue 1: Lower than requested fuel pressure while the engine is running. After multiple comparisons between the digital gauge and a mechanical gauge, it was confirmed the digital gauge was accurate. However tonight was the first time I was able to compare gauges while the enigne was running. For some reason the pulses of the injectors firing creates a 15-20% error to the low side on the digital gauge! This explains the all around lower than correct readings. I cannot yet account for lowering readings as the temp rises, except that the sensor is on the same side of the engine as the down pipe. I have 100% confidence now that the normal driving pressure is regulator + reference.

Issue 2: Losing fuel pressure on the top side at boost. This problem was confirmed to be occuring. See below..

Static tests were quite interesting with the new Aeromotive pump! It delivered 2 quarts in 34 seconds at 72 psi compared to the Walbro at 1.81. However, this was done at battery voltage with no charger. At 12.7 volts the additional fuel was enough to support another 60 hp over the Walbro at 13.3 volts! I then did an engine running test at ~35 psi. It delivered enough to support right at 340 liters per hour! This thing moves some serious fuel around.

Driving tests tonight have found a NEW brick wall. First though, I can report that with up to 16.5 psi tonight, we did not once see the fuel pressure go in the wrong direction! In addition, I had to remove tons of fuel, progressively in the high rpm range. As I got close to 10.9 and it started to respond with some power, it has started breaking up at full boost. This doesn't shock me as now there is fuel and I'm certain a few wires are baked from the lean runs this past week. Not to mention there is actually fuel in the mixture. I'll inspect those tomorrow. Also could be the plugs from the rich runs. Either way, for the moment it seems fueling is under control (until I want another couple of psi of boost I'm sure).

Should know by the end of the weekend if this fuel pump is the trick.

project89

iTrader: (1)

unhook the stockregulator refrence line, and only run a line on the secondary regulator.

iused the samesetup u have on my v6 car

ZZ3Astro

Well the external regulator was just for testing but I'm back on the stock regulator for now. Fuel pressure looks good today (except the digital gauge is reading low across the board). I put the exhaust back on and cannot hear it breaking up, but I can feel it breaking up.

Starting to think about the fact that it runs very strong only for the first several minutes from a cold start and then breaks up. I'm starting to think going to a lower heat range spark plug might be in order. While I have no signs of detonation, it still could be a heat issue with the plugs causing resistance to increase to the point that the spark isn't strong enough. The problem absolutely comes and goes at a specific level of boost. What really bothers me is that I cannot hear the breaking up at all with the muffler on. I can feel it but not hear it. This might have been a bigger issue than the fuel pressure. I'm even wondering if the misfire is a bigger contributor to the increasing AFR than the fuel pressure.

Next step is to pull the plugs on the driver side and go get four in the colder heat range. In theory, if this is the source of the problem, the engine should make more power just by changing those four. If it still runs the same, I can eliminate that as the issue. If it runs better, yay I get to take the whole turbo system off again!!! Gonna wear out these bolts sooner or later.

ZZ3Astro

Reading my existing plugs, they appear to be running slightly too hot based on the color of the ceramic and the heat on the ground strap. They certainly don't show any signs of over heating (no breaking down of anything or dark spots). I've been doing a lot of reading tonight on what people are running for plug gaps and I seem to be running a relatively large gap at .035". It seems like .025-.030" is more in line with the 16-20 psi I plan to run. Some people are running as low as .018" on their turbo sbc's!

I think I'm going to shoot for somewhere between .024-.030". With the smaller gap, it would put more heat load on the plug so tonight I picked up some AC Delco 41-602 (ac heat range 1 vs the 4 of my current plugs). Not sure I'm just going to do one side now. Seeing that my .035 gap is more than most people run with 15+ psi it seems obvious I'm blowing my spark out. Sure don't like the thought of pulling all of that stuff off again though! Oh well.

Orr89RocZ

iTrader: (20)

I run a NGK plug...8 heat range, .028-.030" gap, 18psi no problems that I could notice. Stock is a 4 heat range on NGK's scale. 11 to 1 383 on pump gas I ran 6 heat range, even with the spray, I just tightened the gaps to .030 or so. Now I'm 2 steps colder than that and it seems to be ok.

project89

iTrader: (1)

yeah u had way to much plug gap, start with .025.
that should clear up the breaking up issues, u still running an acdelco plug?
i like to run the acdelco standard r42ts in my v6 and thats what ill be runnning in my iroc
i actually have a set of r44ts in mine now but ill be swaping them out for the 42's in a few days

ZZ3Astro

Yep AC Delcos. 41-602 is what I just got, which is the same heat range as a R41. Old plugs were AC 41-629 (heat range 4) so the same as R44 which is what was spec'd for aluminum headed L98's. I should have put more thought into the initial plug purchase but I was doing a lot of store runs at the time. Wish I had done more research on the gap as well but I have a pretty trusted source that told me to go with .035.

Do you think the heat range 1 is going to run too cold? I'm thinking the gap was the bigger issue. Perhaps I should go for heat range 2 or 3 instead. I haven't had any detonation ever with this engine so even if the plugs were a bit too hot it wasn't excessive.

to

ZZ3Astro

Hmm according to my research, AC's heat range 1 is close to NGK's heat range 6. Hmm that might work ok then.

project89

iTrader: (1)

i trust the r24's in all the stuff i build and never had an issue with them id just get those

Orr89RocZ

iTrader: (20)

Yeah i'd run 2 steps colder than stock for starters which would be NGK 6, so if your 1's are about even, then that should be ok.

ZZ3Astro

Mostly good news from the plug swap. I still need to pull one and see how it looks but the driving results indicate the problem is solved! Finally have good fuel supply and the ignition is happy too. Car is running fantastic at 16 psi tonight. Still not all over the road in 3rd but 1st and 2nd require a lot of pedal work to keep it on the road. I think it will take about 20-21 psi to make the power I want but with that extra 100 hp it should be quite interesting to drive.

So on my test drive this morning (the first on dry roads) it ran great BUT I suddenly had the smell of an oil leak. When I pulled over the car was leaking all over the place. It was bad enough to set off my smoke detector when I got home. Didn't take me long to decide to push it outside in case it started burning. It cooled off pretty quick and I was able to narrow it down to the oil return line. The lower AN fitting worked its way partially off the braided line and it was leaking bad. It was very easy to remove and put back together correctly. I think that line ended up being a bit short so I need to make a longer one.

Oddly enough the fuel tune is just about spot on, so I guess we did a good job even with it breaking up before. I need to figure out a safe spark advance to run from 4000-5000 rpm at 16-20 psi. Not sure if I should go searching for detonation or not, but I'd rather see what you guys are getting away with and compare to what I'm at now (conservative).

Not the best video because it's very dark but this is from tonight. It's a 0 to 100ish takeoff down in mexico. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w76LvynijJ4

Hopefully some dragstrip video soon.

Drac0nic

Don't get all excited about turning the boost up quite yet IMO. Get the timing worked out THEN turn the boost up. Depending on what conservative is you may find the power you're looking for.

ZZ3Astro

Ok, I take EVERYTHING back I ever said about having a conservative timing map. It started out very conservative a while back and as we increase timing it's usually done around 1/2 degree at a time. My wife runs the laptop while I drive, so I haven't paid attention to the actual numbers on the timing map lately. I think you'll agree there is ZERO room for increasing values here. It's almost confusing that I haven't had detonation with these numbers considering 8.6:1 and 93 pump gas.

Timing Advance KPA vs RPM:

*edit* Stupid forum editor screwed the table all up.. highlights:

16 psi - 4300 rpm = 24.5 degrees
16 psi - 4900 rpm = 24.9 degrees


I'm going to dyno it tomorrow if I can. That will get me a good reference point. My guess is it will struggle to put down more than 410 rwhp and it should be north of 450. I hope I'm wrong. Time for headers?

DIGGLER

iTrader: (1)

i watched your other vid of the plug change and had some thoughts:
wouldnt it be better to run a non-projected tip plug? seems like it would help avoid detonation under higher boost. this should also help some with your heat going all the way down the strap to the threads of the plug. if its non-projected, the strap will be shorter so it can dissipate the heat faster and you wont get the strap so hot.
when tuning, i would think you should pull more timing to an extra safe range, and get your a/f right. see what makes the most power a/f-wise on the dyno and roll with that as your a/f goal. once thats done you could do the same with the timing. add timing until power stops picking up and pull it back a degree or 2.

i may be a little off on this stuff, i donno... im still a nitrous guy. lol i love the car and how its still got the tpi on there. very very cool.

Drac0nic

Hrrm, that's more timing that I would have thought for "conservative" at high boost. How many passes are you planning on taking tomorrow? JMO bump a degree or two and see if it still makes more power, if not back it off a degree or two at WOT. Besides that I'd rather track than dyno honestly. The picture is a lot more accurate of the car's capacities. I mean hell you've got extra cam, better heads and intake as well as a good exhaust off the turbo. That's definitely the low hanging fruit turbo wise. What are the chances that the "butt dyno" is out of calibration?

ZZ3Astro

That's why I took back what I said about conservative LOL! I had no idea it had 'crept' into the mid 20's timing wise. The butt dyno has been fairly accurate. There are two of them you know.. the cynical one in the back of your butt and other one that is more wishful. They disagreed on my last visit several times. The one in the back of the butt was more accurate.

I have been thinking a bit more about the level of performance thing. I have to remind myself this is a stock tpi intake and its going to take more boost to make the hp numbers than optimum. If it is making right at 500 hp at the crank at 16 psi, that probably isn't so bad at all. I think 21-22 will get it to the 600 I want. All of the rules go out of the window with this intake. If I want 600 hp at 16 psi it would require a better flowing intake. Hopefully the numbers at the track will show at least 500-525 though.

Unfortunately the dyno session never came to be (no call today). Weather looks like crap for the track tomorrow. We'll see.

Also going to get my hands on a zeroing timing gun to make sure I haven't lost any advance there.

Orr89RocZ

iTrader: (20)

Yeah I am about 1 deg per pound of boost and abit more timing pulled per psi boost as it gets higher. I think I have around 14 degs at 16 psi and it doesnt seem to want any more than that. I get alittle spark retard but hard to say if its real

ZZ3Astro

Turned the boost up to 20 psi and it still doesn't impress me. Today I took the muffler off so I could listen for breakup. It made another 2 psi. That is an acceptable loss to have the quite muffler. Performance was no better (no appreciable tire spin in third gear). I think it is breaking up a little at 22 psi but I can't tell. Certainly not anything like what I had before the new plugs/gaps and definitely not at the 16-17 psi where it did it before.

At this point it seems I am exceeding the capacity of the turbo manifold. The only good news is I can sell this setup for enough money to fund the tubing for headers. The bad news is it's a huge job and there isn't a lot of room to do it. I'm also not excited about so much more exhaust material to super-heat the engine compartment. I had hoped this manifold could get me to my goal of 500 rwhp. There really isn't anything else I can think of that would cause the car to be a dog at 22 psi.

Iroc 1 - me 0