DR750's V1 guess the dyno

[kywhitelightning]

Which connecting rod did you bend, I can't remember if you mentioned it or not ?

Post 106. 19T-L's 594AWHP/551AWTQ - Page 11 - 3000GT/Stealth International Message Center (http://www.3si.org/forum/f35/19t-ls-594awhp-551awtq-495320/index11.html)

Keith I'm not a member so all I get with your link is the login page.

Jeff

[HellBringer]

So you also had the wavy dyno issue on your old setup with 19T's? Back then it was concluded to be a boost controller setup issue, but you're confident it's something else now..?

[Greg E]

So you also had the wavy dyno issue on your old setup with 19T's? Back then it was concluded to be a boost controller setup issue, but you're confident it's something else now..?

What's got me scratching my head is, if it was a boost controler issue, why do AFRs change so much?

I honestly think its a resolution loss issue with the MAFT or maybe he's maxed MAF itself (or both).

[J. Fast]

I wonder if the timing is drifting? The 50hp waves are really strange. AFR doesn't impact power output, only timing. I noticed it's shown the condition on 3 different dyno too. Damn that would really bug me if it was my setup. I'd take it apart till I figured it out. 10% power output sweeps is a big problem.

[kywhitelightning]

So you also had the wavy dyno issue on your old setup with 19T's? Back then it was concluded to be a boost controller setup issue, but you're confident it's something else now..?

Back then, in Louisville, the limiter was hit. I know because I was driving the car and heard it. It makes an audible beep and the screen turns red. It didn't at IPS and this time it wasn't. I checked peak boost after every pull and the highest it read was 1.97 and the limiter was set at 2.05. I am very confident it was a cold engine as tonight I had the car out and it cut out shortly after leaving the house. Once warm, no issues. I'm going to pull some trimming from the coolant temp correction. As of now it is still the stock value. I know to look for this the next time it goes on the rollers.


I wonder if the timing is drifting? The 50hp waves are really strange. AFR doesn't impact power output, only timing. I noticed it's shown the condition on 3 different dyno too. Damn that would really bug me if it was my setup. I'd take it apart till I figured it out. 10% power output sweeps is a big problem.

The log was posted. Timing is on there.

Jeff

[kywhitelightning]

Honestly, what would you look for by tearing the engine apart? I just compression tested about a month ago and had all cylinders around 180psi. Oil pressure is great. There is no audible noise present. There is engine vibration but it is a solidly mounted engine. The pan is going to come off shortly to check bearings and to replace a leaky rear main but otherwise everything seems healthy to me.

Jeff

[KeithMac]

My 3" Maf is done by 15psi, when it tops out it's not linear so the maf oscillation could possibly effect timing due to altering the calculated load?. Can't see a 3.5" MAF supporting more than 20psi reliably.

That said I'm surprised you don't feel it on the road?.

[KeithMac]

My 3" Maf is done by 15psi, when it tops out it's not linear so the maf oscillation could possibly effect timing due to altering the calculated load?. Can't see a 3.5" MAF supporting more than 20psi reliably.

That said I'm surprised you don't feel it on the road?.

[kywhitelightning]

Keith, PM me an email address and I'll send a log from the translator for you to look at. Timing will follow the map because the load is locked at 299 for the duration.

Jeff

[KeithMac]

Hello Jeff, I'm on the plain Maf-t 2.02 box not the pro. Can you post a graph up of your Maf hz vs rpm?.

I'll try and post a screenshot up of mine when it overruns, basically anything over 5000rpm 15psi is a write off.

I have some mods to do to the intake piping and maf placement to see if it makes a difference.

I know it's common for GM tuners to "fail" the maf under boost and run off another table.

One odd thing is I used to have a problem right around 2500rpm and this new one is exactly double that?.

[kywhitelightning]

I found the second and most important issue. Don't know how I/we looked over this but the rail pressure was messed with the last time I pressure tested and was set 2 psi high. 45.5 instead of 43.5. Someting told me to check this today and boy do I feel like a goof after seeing that. Both the cold engine and elevated rail pressure caused an overly rich condition. The dyno demon is me!!!!!

Jeff

[KeithMac]

Funny as it sounds you may have to have a street tune and dyno tune?.

On the street the car itself dictates how the power is put down and you supply it fuel where needed, on the Dyno the ramp rate dictates how the car reacts and the fueling can be very different!.

Are you running fixed hit methanol as well?, this can cause problems when the car is artificially loaded up.

You'll get there!.

[Greg E]

i found the second and most important issue. Don't know how i/we looked over this but the rail pressure was messed with the last time i pressure tested and was set 2 psi high. 45.5 instead of 43.5. Someting told me to check this today and boy do i feel like a goof after seeing that. Both the cold engine and elevated rail pressure caused an overly rich condition. The dyno demon is me!!!!!

Jeff

lol!!!

[kywhitelightning]

Funny as it sounds you may have to have a street tune and dyno tune?.

On the street the car itself dictates how the power is put down and you supply it fuel where needed, on the Dyno the ramp rate dictates how the car reacts and the fueling can be very different!.

Are you running fixed hit methanol as well?, this can cause problems when the car is artificially loaded up.

You'll get there!.

It's a progressive controller. Boost based.

Jeff

[kywhitelightning]

Well it's back to normal now. I pushed it hard tonight and banged the limiter in the boost controller. No knock detected. I'll ask Nomie to post up the log for me again as this one is pretty special. It actually registered over 299 ecuload. The boost controller registered 2.1 and the limiter is still set at 2.05. The log only read to 29psi and some change but it is only a 3 bar. AFR and boost smoothing is turned off and this graph is temp and baro corrected. This is with the race gas still in the tank from the dyno. Coopkill asked for it and I honestly didn't think it could be delivered but.....:eek5:

http://i495.photobucket.com/albums/rr316/jjd222002/Everythingcorrectwithracegasvd_zpsd977ee88.jpg

I can't wait to see the 9 blade DR750 projects out there come to completion as I hope they can out do this one. This is ~5 seconds from 60-120mph. 4.63 seconds from 3968RPM to 7343RPM to be exact from the log. The next time I take the car out it'll have to get some more pump 93 added so the big power fun is pretty much over for now. This pull also started over 170*ECT.

Hellbringer, just out of curiousity, have you ever checked to see what your 60-120mph time is? I know your car dynoed near 700. I'm just curious. JFast's sig says 750 and I think that's a little out of this cars league. Not to mention, this car is still a heavy weight.

Jeff

[NOMIEZVR4]

holy shit...gawd dayum

Don't hold your breath for other setups...I don't think anyone is going to come near this for a looong time....

Half the pull your AFR is in the 13's...:p Great Motivation!

Ohh..I wanna pull my 60-120 time from my old datalogs!! Not to compare to this but just cause..

At least now you're a believer in VD! :D

Hey if you're still running the wiseco wrist pins...I wouldn't push it much harder...FYI

P.S. If you post this on 3si...you will automatically enable 'god mode'...;) those guys are dr750 crazy...ask familyMan..haha

[HellBringer]

I don't have an accurate way of measuring 60-120; it's not a very useful metric, IMO as 60-130 is the accepted standard. Come to think of it, I do have an older G-Tech Pro buried in a box somewhere, but I don't think it would be useful unless we were comparing readings from the same device. Very useful device for what it's worth, though. I've considered getting a VBOX, which everyone uses for official 60-130 times, but I'd rather just go to the drag strip and get a "real" number, or line up.. :awesome:

The dyno I posted a few pages back is from my old car on a less than optimized setup. My current setup did 700.31WHP at 24.8psi peak (about 24psi avg), limited by the 100% stock ignition with plugs gapped at .032. Unfortunately, the weather has killed all of my track plans as of late (today, in fact). I'm expecting ~800WHP on KILL when I get back on the dyno in January.

Your setup would definitely benefit with a mild to moderate set of cams. The negligible hit you'd take down low would be more than worth it if you were carrying that power past 6000. I don't think you'll find huge improvement above 7000RPM, though; my assumption is backpressure is to the moon and you've found the choke point -- even though boost ramped at 7000, power still took a big nosedive. Other than to show the curve on the graph, there's no value in revving that high on the street/strip. Absolutely killer numbers either way; I would LOVE to see what this setup did walking it down the track. Makes me want 750's, but I have zero plans to build the motor to support them...

[kywhitelightning]

holy shit...gawd dayum

Don't hold your breath for other setups...I don't think anyone is going to come near this for a looong time....

Half the pull your AFR is in the 13's...:p Great Motivation!

Ohh..I wanna pull my 60-120 time from my old datalogs!! Not to compare to this but just cause..

At least now you're a believer in VD! :D

Hey if you're still running the wiseco wrist pins...I wouldn't push it much harder...FYI

P.S. If you post this on 3si...you will automatically enable 'god mode'...;) those guys are dr750 crazy...ask familyMan..haha

As scary as this sounds I think if this was put on the dyno last night the numbers would register higher than this. Even in the crappy weather on the dyno the uncorrected numbers were 650. The highest VD I have ever done to this point corrected was 650 something. I'm beginning to think that VD is a little tougher than the real thing, once corrected. I do want to ask Brad to see if he can also incorperate humidity into his algorithm as the real dyno takes that into account too.

Pampena wrist pins so, no worries there. They're Ross pistons and when I pulled the pins out of the box that came with the pistons I wanted to call 3SX up and ask them if someone made a packaging mistake. The stock pins are way bigger than the ones they sent.

I've been watching what you guys are doing over there. I prefer my DR750's car color to be white, lol.


I don't have an accurate way of measuring 60-120; it's not a very useful metric, IMO as 60-130 is the accepted standard. Come to think of it, I do have an older G-Tech Pro buried in a box somewhere, but I don't think it would be useful unless we were comparing readings from the same device. Very useful device for what it's worth, though. I've considered getting a VBOX, which everyone uses for official 60-130 times, but I'd rather just go to the drag strip and get a "real" number, or line up.. :awesome:

The dyno I posted a few pages back is from my old car on a less than optimized setup. My current setup did 700.31WHP at 24.8psi peak (about 24psi avg), limited by the 100% stock ignition with plugs gapped at .032. Unfortunately, the weather has killed all of my track plans as of late (today, in fact). I'm expecting ~800WHP on KILL when I get back on the dyno in January.

Your setup would definitely benefit with a mild to moderate set of cams. The negligible hit you'd take down low would be more than worth it if you were carrying that power past 6000. I don't think you'll find huge improvement above 7000RPM, though; my assumption is backpressure is to the moon and you've found the choke point -- even though boost ramped at 7000, power still took a big nosedive. Other than to show the curve on the graph, there's no value in revving that high on the street/strip. Absolutely killer numbers either way; I would LOVE to see what this setup did walking it down the track. Makes me want 750's, but I have zero plans to build the motor to support them...

Yeah, when I looked it up I found 60-130 too. I do have track plans in the beginning of next year though as I have taken your idea under advisement and hell I would just like to see it for myself. Pray for my tranny please. I have notoriously bombed track appearences in the past as I for some reason focus on the track at speed and not the tach. This has developed into a short shift habit in 3rd. ET's register OK but traps suffer horribly. That is the one thing I plan to focus on correcting when I go in a couple months. Thank you for insight on this, btw.

I wonder if it really would or not; benefit from cams pushed to this level. I'm thinking it's near every wall this setup has in it. I think a bigger TB would net me the same HP based on IM pressure. A better IM probably wouldn't help either as I think the turbos are probably about out even though the DSBC was set to 0 gain and 87 ratio last night. When I heard the limiter go off, I said, no way in hell. I actually turned it down!!! The boost ramp at the end was certainly not on purpose but I think it really shows the wall it's hitting at this boost level.

Jeff

[kywhitelightning]

I have zero plans to build the motor to support them...

This puzzles me a bit. Would you explore head work? Having my heads done cost me more than the entire built bottom end machining and all. The crank is stock, the pistons were >$800, the rods were >$600, bearings ~$100, the fastening hardware was ~$200, cylinder checking and honing was ~$60, and the seal kit was >$300. ~$2000 for a DIYer built bottom end and ~$2500 for head work, lol. The bottom end shouldn't be ignored IMHO if you are planning to upgrade at all. After my bent rod experience and thanking all my lucky stars, I don't think it's wise to push it with the stock stuff in there. Confidence is key and I have a ton of confidence to push this setup without fail because I have a strong engine.

Jeff

[HellBringer]

Can you set up a shiftlight with Chrome? Like flash one of the cluster warning lights? If not, they're relatively cheap and easy to set up, so may be worthwhile if nailing shifts is a concern. At that power level, you will find there is a definite sweet spot to shift at, and over or under can have a considerable impact on MPH. I've picked up +3MPH in the 1/8 from moving a shiftpoint ~400RPM.

If you're concerned with fragging the drivetrain at the track, then just walk it out of the hole at 3-4000RPM at ,most with a quick slip and then bang gears down the track just like you would on the street. You don't need to "launch", which is where 90% of the likelihood of damage will occur. As long as you're not roasting the tires and/or powershifting, etc.., you should be fine. Once you've gotten some good clean passes and have gotten the log/tuning/MPH, etc.. data, then you can go for broke and try to improve the final ET with aggressive launching... or not..! Like I said before, you don't need to chase a specific ET, of which 85% is a result of the 60', to get what you need by way of usable and informative data. You can bench-race what your final ET could/should be with a relative degree of accuracy based on the rest of the slip.

I, personally, don't believe you will find a lot of value in a larger TB, modified intake manifold, etc.. Obviously there are definitely some gains to be had, but bang for the buck-wise, not a value spend, IMO. Not apples to apples, but there are Supras making 1300WHP and running low 8's at 174MPH with a STOCK throttlebody, and lightly modded stock intake manifold. I'd put that money into drivetrain mods well before TB/intake.

[HellBringer]

As for my comment about not building the motor. I guess I should clarify -- I'm not trying to build a big HP monster, or a track car, etc... I have no intentions of chasing big numbers or even racing this car. I have other (non-3/s) cars for that. :bigthumb: Just a simple/basic daily driver setup with 450+ WHP on pure pump gas. Essentially mirroring Ray's original billet DR650 setup except with Chrome. No need to build the motor for that! Though with your results it's very tempting to try and build a 600WHP daily, but I've already drawn that line with myself.. :poke::Angel:


RE: Headwork... I had DR Stage II heads on my old Sandstone DR650 car 10+ years ago. In hindsight, the headwork was not really a value spend on that setup. The bang for the buck was not there for a sub 500WHP car, IMO. The car was maybe a little quicker than most (11.4 @ 124.7) but others had gone quicker/faster without headwork.

[kywhitelightning]

Following the original plan of basically rolling out of the hole and then hitting it is the intention (no cage, gotta stay above 11.5 anyway). I plan on watching the tach this go around as I have never done that before. 1st is truely the only concern for a wild ride so after the 1-2 shift I will adhere to the tach.

My first couple 1/4 mile passes in stock form I crossed the finish line in 4th at 99MPH just as an example of my driving inability.

The head work made a HUGE difference on this car with the 19T's. You didn't opt for the oversized valves and I suspect you got a bad taste in your mouth from that. They were a fantastic investment IMO.

Jeff

[NOMIEZVR4]

Jeff you've been watching this thread like a hawk the whole day...;) :p

[fastfalcon94]

If you drive the car up to Vermont we can cross the border into Canada. The dragstrip up there does not have the same regulations most people have down here. They only make you wear a helmet if your car runs low 11's or faster. Plus when you pay to get in they give you a number and a free beer coupon lol.

[CoopKill]

Awesome sauce overload!


Sent from the CaveMan Cave!

[NOMIEZVR4]

If you drive the car up to Vermont we can cross the border into Canada. The dragstrip up there does not have the same regulations most people have down here. They only make you wear a helmet if your car runs low 11's or faster. Plus when you pay to get in they give you a number and a free beer coupon lol.

lol @ driving 10 possibly 15+hrs for a pass at the dragstrip...

[NOMIEZVR4]

Finally got my laptop...sorry for the delay :)
http://i314.photobucket.com/albums/ll440/nomiezvr4/jeff_zps3894a2b8.png (http://s314.photobucket.com/user/nomiezvr4/media/jeff_zps3894a2b8.png.html)

[kywhitelightning]

If you drive the car up to Vermont we can cross the border into Canada. The dragstrip up there does not have the same regulations most people have down here. They only make you wear a helmet if your car runs low 11's or faster. Plus when you pay to get in they give you a number and a free beer coupon lol.

That's one hell of a drive for me. It's 12 hours just to get back home in PA from here. There are tracks down here that turn the other cheek from what I have read but I don't want to take the chance of getting booted from any one of them until I have the drivetrain braced and slicks.

Looks like it cut off the NB's but all the big items are there. Thanks Nomie!

Jeff

[HellBringer]

Drive all the way to Canadaland to race..!? :lol: You can come up to Darlington and run low 10's all day with nothing more than a helmet... In fact, there's a TnT today! :bigthumb:

[futurevr4man]

jeff, did you mess with your knock filter at all? i mean even a little bit?

im curious because greg has mentioned to me to watch the raw knock voltage and adjust my filter so that it only shows knock when there really is some. ray tells me that the stroker engines he builds on these cars are pretty noisy engines... and i have to agree with that. i believe most of my tolerances are pretty loose.

[familyMAN]

That's one hell of a drive for me. It's 12 hours just to get back home in PA from here. There are tracks down here that turn the other cheek from what I have read but I don't want to take the chance of getting booted from any one of them until I have the drivetrain braced and slicks.

Looks like it cut off the NB's but all the big items are there. Thanks Nomie!

Jeff

Why not do as HB said and baby it out of hole and then let it rip. Trap speed will tell all. I have no reason to doubt the results since you have both a dyno and VD chart but I still am in disbelief that baby turbos can put out that kind of power! :D Running some 130 traps would take care of ANY skepticism left.

Good work on the build and tune. It's obviously working well together. Those heads must be very helpful. Not sure I would have the balls to run that much timing at peak tq but it's working for you and that much meth may need the timing.

[kywhitelightning]

jeff, did you mess with your knock filter at all? i mean even a little bit?

im curious because greg has mentioned to me to watch the raw knock voltage and adjust my filter so that it only shows knock when there really is some. ray tells me that the stroker engines he builds on these cars are pretty noisy engines... and i have to agree with that. i believe most of my tolerances are pretty loose.

Nothing has changed in knockland in the tune. Brand new OE sensor put in this year. What are you guys doing with the knock stuff, adding sensitivity or taking some away? I think it has been pretty reliable so far.


Why not do as HB said and baby it out of hole and then let it rip. Trap speed will tell all. I have no reason to doubt the results since you have both a dyno and VD chart but I still am in disbelief that baby turbos can put out that kind of power! :D Running some 130 traps would take care of ANY skepticism left.

Good work on the build and tune. It's obviously working well together. Those heads must be very helpful. Not sure I would have the balls to run that much timing at peak tq but it's working for you and that much meth may need the timing.

I plan to run the 1/4 next year as suggested. It's posted back a page or two. Like I said before, there will always be skeptics as long as Matt or Ray didn't do it. They have certainly earned the respect they are due and while I feel I don't have to prove anything to anyone, I honestly would like to make a good representative track pass for myself. HB's suggestion is certainly something I would like to try now and when the tracks open back up I'll go.

The timing that is in there only seems to bother the knock sensor in certain ranges and only with the pump gas in there. I want to say between 5500-6200 and 6700-7000. You, I, we would all think that near VE peak and full boost ~4500-4700 knock likelyhood would be the highest but because the meth injection is full on in that range, I would say that the majority of the fuel in the combustion chamber is methanol not gas. As the RPM's rise the methanol volume per stroke certainly goes down and I believe that is why I get knock up there with pump gas and not at or near VE peak. I hope I explained this well enough to understand.

Thank you for the kind words.

Jeff

[CoopKill]

Where can I find info on raw knock voltage, and tolerances to stay within?

[Greg E]

I never posted a thread about tuning the knock sensor because I don't trust you guys to use it properly. :p

All the Chrome pro tuners have gotten the instructions on it though.

[CoopKill]

I only am seeking the voltage point at which a count of knock is logged.

[futurevr4man]

yeah, there has been nothing posted on it, and i agree with greg that there shouldnt be. might should have pm'd that question, but oh well, too late now.

jeff, i havent done anything with my voltage, i just know you can mess with it and i was wondering if you had.

[TurboSinceBirth]

I'm sure if you read up about raw knock voltage on AEM tuning you'll get a good idea of determining whether a voltage spike is actual knock. After you figure out your baseline given how noisy your engine is it should be relatively clear where things should be setup at. I don't think the majority of people need to mess with the knock sensor though.

[Greg E]

I'm sure if you read up about raw knock voltage on AEM tuning you'll get a good idea of determining whether a voltage spike is actual knock. After you figure out your baseline given how noisy your engine is it should be relatively clear where things should be setup at. I don't think the majority of people need to mess with the knock sensor though.

I've found that the more HP an engine makes, the noisier it gets. The noisier it gets, the harder it is to detect knock.

This is a flaw with the nature of "microphone style" knock detection. Not just our cars.

[Greg E]

I only am seeking the voltage point at which a count of knock is logged.

It's a bit more complicated than that.

If you read up on Merlin's guide to tuning an evo, you can get a general idea about how it works.

[TurboSinceBirth]

I've found that the more HP an engine makes, the noisier it gets. The noisier it gets, the harder it is to detect knock.

This is a flaw with the nature of "microphone style" knock detection. Not just our cars.

True, but since the AEM uses our stock knock sensor you still have a threshold to tune for. The raw knock voltage acceptable baseline will be different from car to car. You can't trade stuff around with other tuners in that respect. Things like piston to wall clearance will also influence how noisy the engine is. I guess I understand why it's a liability to give a how-to for tuning the knock sensor but I also don't see it as much different than what you have to do with AEM. There's also been high horsepower builds on piggybacks that never altered the knock sensor so it's ultimately up to the end user what they want to do.

[kywhitelightning]

There's also been high horsepower builds on piggybacks that never altered the knock sensor so it's ultimately up to the end user what they want to do.

/\ This. Seeing as race gas eliminates all the knock issues I have it's pretty reasonable to say it's true knock when it happens and not just inherent engine noise. Pulling sensitivity away IMO would simply be adding a band aid to a bigger problem. OE sensor with the OE tune for knock just makes good sense to me. I feel a little for the AEM guys as us Chrome users are spoiled with the goods from the engineers.

Jeff

[KeithMac]

Can anyone remember a thread ages ago by Mellon?, he added the timing back in that the stock ecu/ knock sensor pulled out as he thought it was overly sensitive. Be a and end all they blew the engine.

Maybe adjust a little with the strokers but 3l is quite lenient as it is, all the counts I've had have proved to be real (pulling timing or adding octane irradicated them).

One of the things that swayed me back from AEM was the knock filtering/ knock window that Mitsu spent a lot of time setting up.

[JasonY]

Todds 3.5 stroker(72 block/74 crank) is very noisy vs a normal 3L forged engine. Cant make any power with the stock sensor calibration.

Jason

[Greg E]

True, but since the AEM uses our stock knock sensor you still have a threshold to tune for. The raw knock voltage acceptable baseline will be different from car to car. You can't trade stuff around with other tuners in that respect. Things like piston to wall clearance will also influence how noisy the engine is. I guess I understand why it's a liability to give a how-to for tuning the knock sensor but I also don't see it as much different than what you have to do with AEM. There's also been high horsepower builds on piggybacks that never altered the knock sensor so it's ultimately up to the end user what they want to do.

Ill walk you thru it if you really want. Just won't post a discussion thread about it.

[Greg E]

One of the things that swayed me back from AEM was the knock filtering/ knock window that Mitsu spent a lot of time setting up.

The only real advantage of the stock knock detection vs an AEM is its ability to adapt/learn from the average noise level of the engine. ...to an extent.

[fastfalcon94]

I set mine with aem. You log knock volts under known safe conditions (maybe wastegate turbo pressure). Then you do a bunch of pulls and do an average of all the numbers at each rpm point. That becomes your normal rpm vs knock volt graph line. Then anything 1 volt above this line registers as a count of knock. Mine goes from 0 to about 1.4v at around 7k rpms. It seems like everyone else says 0-1.8v is normal for stock. I always log knock volts as well as knock count just because. Honestly I haven't knocked yet tuning my car so it does worry me a little. However it wasn't up until recently that I started running more timing. Before it was retarded a lot more than it should have been.

[Greg E]

See the stock setup actually amplifies the noise signals at lower RPMs so what happens is you see it start around 2-3volts and it gradually climbs to 4-4.5volts. Then around 4000rpms, the raw voltage then drops significantly and the process starts again. The advantage of this is you can detect suttle jumps instead of listening for major noise occurances overall (which at that point are already damaging your motor).

[J. Fast]

See the stock setup actually amplifies the noise signals at lower RPMs so what happens is you see it start around 2-3volts and it gradually climbs to 4-4.5volts. Then around 4000rpms, the raw voltage then drops significantly and the process starts again. The advantage of this is you can detect suttle jumps instead of listening for major noise occurances overall (which at that point are already damaging your motor).

The knock multiplyer used in closed loop is higher because the sample set is smaller. The first number that you set it how many samples you pull in the window from idle to the transition from closed-loop to open. The big number is how many samples you take from open loop to the rev limiter. The stock ECU knock control is not progressive noise adaptive. It just says when I hear noises I'm going to apply the rules from the octane multiplier and transition to the timing and fuel input in the low octane map.

You can see the subtle differences in Jeffs back to back pulls on his race gas logs. The first pull on the dyno is using the fuel and timing from the low octane maps and his last pull indexed the timing from the high-octane map. There's 2-3 degrees of timing difference between the two maps and the afr changed. The differences are indicative of being in a different octane-knock interpolation..

AEM is similar in that when you start to hear noise you can add scaler or fixed increases.

[J. Fast]

See the stock setup actually amplifies the noise signals at lower RPMs so what happens is you see it start around 2-3volts and it gradually climbs to 4-4.5volts. Then around 4000rpms, the raw voltage then drops significantly and the process starts again. The advantage of this is you can detect suttle jumps instead of listening for major noise occurances overall (which at that point are already damaging your motor).

The knock multiplyer used in closed loop is higher because the sample set is smaller. The first number that you set it how many samples you pull in the window from idle to the transition from closed-loop to open. The big number is how many samples you take from open loop to the rev limiter. The stock ECU knock control is not progressive noise adaptive. It just says when I hear noises I'm going to apply the rules from the octane multiplier and transition to the timing and fuel input in the low octane map.

You can see the subtle differences in Jeffs back to back pulls on his race gas logs. The first pull on the dyno is using the fuel and timing from the low octane maps and his last pull indexed the timing from the high-octane map. There's 2-3 degrees of timing difference between the two maps and the afr changed. The differences are indicative of being in a different octane-knock interpolation..

AEM is similar in that when you start to hear noise you can add scaler or fixed increases.

[Greg E]

The knock multiplyer used in closed loop is higher because the sample set is smaller. The first number that you set it how many samples you pull in the window from idle to the transition from closed-loop to open. The big number is how many samples you take from open loop to the rev limiter. The stock ECU knock control is not progressive noise adaptive. It just says when I hear noises I'm going to apply the rules from the octane multiplier and transition to the timing and fuel input in the low octane map.

You can see the subtle differences in Jeffs back to back pulls on his race gas logs. The first pull on the dyno is using the fuel and timing from the low octane maps and his last pull indexed the timing from the high-octane map. There's 2-3 degrees of timing difference between the two maps and the afr changed. The differences are indicative of being in a different octane-knock interpolation..

AEM is similar in that when you start to hear noise you can add scaler or fixed increases.

Huh???? Is Brett doing your ROM disassembly? :p For some reason, he like to make up "facts" based on theories, then try to teach them to me. Makes me chuckle inside...

For example, open/closed loop play no part in which adder value is used. Jeff's tune uses no part of the low octane map. Ever.

The ECU must see a knock sum of 7 or greater in order to start interpolating into the low octane map. At a knock count of 7, 1/4 of a perfect is taken away from the octane value every 10th of a second. The higher the knock sum, the faster the ECU takes away from the octane value.

The ECU needs to see a sustaned knock sum of 7 counts for a few minutes before it uses 100% of the low octane map.

[kywhitelightning]

For example, open/closed loop play no part in which adder value is used. Jeff's tune uses no part of the low octane map. Ever.

True dat!!

Jeff

[Greg E]

True dat!!

Jeff

Something I should point out. The octane values and knock retard are two separate things.

Say you did see a sustaned knock count of 7 for several minutes (pretend you're in 6th gear, foot to the floor trying to max the speed in your car). After that time, the base timing number then comes solely from the low octane map. The number you see on the logger will actually be about 2.33 degrees less than that base number as knock counts themselves also take away about 1/3 of a degree of timing. This is of course, forgetting all about the other modifiers that come into play too.

[TurboSinceBirth]

Ill walk you thru it if you really want. Just won't post a discussion thread about it.

I appreciate it Greg. Honestly, it'll be awhile before I need to use it. I'm going to run this 3.0L for a little while longer since for some odd reason it was working. I have plenty of sampling and tuning to do before I switch setups also. The Pampena stroker and SCE transmission parts can sit on the shelf longer and it won't bother me. I have other priorities plus it would be nice to get some more tools for the garage so that I can make more effective use of my time than wrenching with hand tools.

[futurevr4man]

Todds 3.5 stroker(72 block/74 crank) is very noisy vs a normal 3L forged engine. Cant make any power with the stock sensor calibration.

Jason

You should see what mine does. It's ridiculous.

[kywhitelightning]

You should see what mine does. It's ridiculous.

What are the internals of both of these engines? Maybe there is a common part causing it.

Jeff

[JasonY]

Rays pistons/forged rods.

Jason

[fastfalcon94]

I have rays rods/pistons/wrist pins and my knock sensor seems to sense less voltage up high than the norm. But mine are not oversized and it's not a stroker. Just stock 3.0L setup.

[J. Fast]

Jeff's tune uses no part of the low octane map. Ever.

The ECU must see a knock sum of 7 or greater in order to start interpolating into the low octane map. At a knock count of 7, 1/4 of a perfect is taken away from the octane value every 10th of a second. The higher the knock sum, the faster the ECU takes away from the octane value.

The ECU needs to see a sustaned knock sum of 7 counts for a few minutes before it uses 100% of the low octane map.

I disagree with you. If any knock is present the low octane map always comes into play.

Octane number is what controls the interpolation between the low octane map and high octane map. Everytime knock voltage spikes above the noise thereshold it registers a knocksum. Consecutive knock sums reduce octane number just as large increment knock sums reduce octane number.

If you register seven consecutive samplings with one count of knock the knocksum total is 7 and will be interpolated as such. At the same time a single event with a knocksum of say, 7 counts will reduce the octane number aswell but the octane number will taper off more rapidly.

As the octane number decreases the percent of interpolation shared between the load cells in the low octane map and high octane map increases. When the octane number is reduced to 0 the ecu interpolates 100% off the low octane map. When the octane number is reduced to 50% the ecu interpolates an average of the high octane map and low octane map timing number. For example, say at a load of 180kpa @ 5000rpms the high octane map has a timing number of 18. The high octane map in the same position has a timing of 22 degrees. The two are added and then divided by the octane number (in this case 50%) therefore the ignition timing the ecu will interpolate will be 18+22 (x) .5 = 20 degrees of timing. If the octane number has counted down to .25 then 75% of the low octane timing number is weighted to be used and 25% of the high octane map.

Now, According to Jeff... Jeff, said when he was at the dyno
Today's session took 1.5hrs and I got 5 pulls.

Now, according to his pump gas logs...

http://i314.photobucket.com/albums/ll440/nomiezvr4/racegas_zpsdc207362.png

He registered a sum of 36 knock counts which effectively reduced the octane number to 0. So now what happens? Well, he's now effectively using 100% of the low octane timing map because the knocksum has achieve a value greater than 36 which is max octane default before an actual knock strategy is delivered for three knock counts.

According to John Banks (the person who disassembled and decifered the knock code for EvoScan/ECU Flash Knock control - load vs RPM table found - evolutionm.net (http://forums.evolutionm.net/ecuflash/382625-knock-control-load-vs-rpm-table-found.html) ) and Merlin.


The ECU holds the current OCTANE NUMBER in non-volatile random access memory when the ignition is switched off. If for example, a dyno session produced a number of knocks and you want to get the octane number quickly back to 100% the ECU will have to be disconnected.

If infact the ECU is not reset the OCTANE NUMBER will gradually raise, however, if any knock is encountered during octane number recovery the counter will count down again until it reaches zero. Whatever the percentage in the octane counter reference is the percentage of timing interpolated between the high octane and low octane ignition and fueling maps.

Saying that Jeff never uses the low octane map is absolutely incorrect. Both high octane timing and fueling maps are utilized everytime consecutive knocksums occur. When they do the octane number starts counting down and a percentage of timing and fuel is derived between the two maps.

This is how it works.

Lastly, some portions of the EvoECU Flash have direct correlations with our ECU's. However if you read JCBanks EvoM Knock disassembly thread you'll find ours is quite a bit different. A few tables in our case are absent. Therefore ours really doesn't work like theirs at all. You cant just automatically make generalizations about ours working like theirs if they don't look the same.

What we really need is datalogs or oscilliscope feedback with enough resultion to pickup every ignition timing event like jcbanks did right here. evolutionm.net - View Single Post - Knock control - load vs RPM table found (http://forums.evolutionm.net/6395529-post63.html) http://forums.evolutionm.net/attachments/ecuflash/126101d1227718376-knock-control-load-vs-rpm-table-found-knockbase.png

Raw datalogs like the ones posted in this thread do not provide enough resolution to use for factual knocksum data because the RPM's the engine is turning vs. sampling is way off. The log only provides one data line every 50+ ignition timing events. Our logging capability rate needs to be improved to legitimize 3/S knock disassembly and your findings in said thread.

[Greg E]

I disagree with you. If any knock is present the low octane map always comes into play.

I stopped reading after this.

If you have your own rom disassembly to show me this, please post it.

[Chris@Rvengeperformance]

I disagree with you. If any knock is present the low octane map always comes into play.

Octane number is what controls the interpolation between the low octane map and high octane map. Everytime knock voltage spikes above the noise thereshold it registers a knocksum. Consecutive knock sums reduce octane number just as large increment knock sums reduce octane number.

If you register seven consecutive samplings with one count of knock the knocksum total is 7 and will be interpolated as such. At the same time a single event with a knocksum of say, 7 counts will reduce the octane number aswell but the octane number will taper off more rapidly.

As the octane number decreases the percent of interpolation shared between the load cells in the low octane map and high octane map increases. When the octane number is reduced to 0 the ecu interpolates 100% off the low octane map. When the octane number is reduced to 50% the ecu interpolates an average of the high octane map and low octane map timing number. For example, say at a load of 180kpa @ 5000rpms the high octane map has a timing number of 18. The high octane map in the same position has a timing of 22 degrees. The two are added and then divided by the octane number (in this case 50%) therefore the ignition timing the ecu will interpolate will be 18+22 (x) .5 = 20 degrees of timing. If the octane number has counted down to .25 then 75% of the low octane timing number is weighted to be used and 25% of the high octane map.

Now, According to Jeff... Jeff, said when he was at the dyno

Now, according to his pump gas logs...

http://i314.photobucket.com/albums/ll440/nomiezvr4/racegas_zpsdc207362.png

He registered a sum of 36 knock counts which effectively reduced the octane number to 0. So now what happens? Well, he's now effectively using 100% of the low octane timing map because the knocksum has achieve a value greater than 36 which is max octane default before an actual knock strategy is delivered for three knock counts.

According to John Banks (the person who disassembled and decifered the knock code for EvoScan/ECU Flash Knock control - load vs RPM table found - evolutionm.net (http://forums.evolutionm.net/ecuflash/382625-knock-control-load-vs-rpm-table-found.html) ) and Merlin.



If infact the ECU is not reset the OCTANE NUMBER will gradually raise, however, if any knock is encountered during octane number recovery the counter will count down again until it reaches zero. Whatever the percentage in the octane counter reference is the percentage of timing interpolated between the high octane and low octane ignition and fueling maps.

Saying that Jeff never uses the low octane map is absolutely incorrect. Both high octane timing and fueling maps are utilized everytime consecutive knocksums occur. When they do the octane number starts counting down and a percentage of timing and fuel is derived between the two maps.

This is how it works.

Lastly, some portions of the EvoECU Flash have direct correlations with our ECU's. However if you read JCBanks EvoM Knock disassembly thread you'll find ours is quite a bit different. A few tables in our case are absent. Therefore ours really doesn't work like theirs at all. You cant just automatically make generalizations about ours working like theirs if they don't look the same.

What we really need is datalogs or oscilliscope feedback with enough resultion to pickup every ignition timing event like jcbanks did right here. evolutionm.net - View Single Post - Knock control - load vs RPM table found (http://forums.evolutionm.net/6395529-post63.html) http://forums.evolutionm.net/attachments/ecuflash/126101d1227718376-knock-control-load-vs-rpm-table-found-knockbase.png

Raw datalogs like the ones posted in this thread do not provide enough resolution to use for factual knocksum data because the RPM's the engine is turning vs. sampling is way off. The log only provides one data line every 50+ ignition timing events. Our logging capability rate needs to be improved to legitimize 3/S knock disassembly and your findings in said thread.

Why are you arguing with the developer who has disassembled the code and can look at exactly what it does? Your posts are really dangerous to this forum because you post enough technical sounding stuff to make it sound like you are an expert, even on topics where you are just guessing how it works based on other systems.

This is easily evidenced by the fact you think ecu load is somehow in KPA.

[Greg E]

Jeff, can you do Jeremy a favor?

Next time you post a log, can you please log the octane request?

[J. Fast]

Why are you arguing with the developer who has disassembled the code and can look at exactly what it does? Your posts are really dangerous to this forum because you post enough technical sounding stuff to make it sound like you are an expert, even on topics where you are just guessing how it works based on other systems.

This is easily evidenced by the fact you think ecu load is somehow in KPA.

You mean I researched it and have a legitimate argument based on my interpretation? Read it... Section 8, Page 105. Knock Tuning Knock Sum and Octane Number. http://www.evoscan.com/ecuflash/Merlins%20EcuFlash%20EVO%207-8-9%20TUNING%20GUIDE-V1.7a.pdf

The moment you encounter consecutive knock counts the octane counter starts counting down from 100 to 0. When it reaches 0 You're 100% in the low octane timing and fueling map. 100% octane counter is 100% in the high octane timing and fuel maps. Anywhere in the middle and both timing and fuel maps are utilized.

The Octane counter also impacts boost control. Says it in the guide, same section too.

[Chris@Rvengeperformance]

You mean I researched it and have a legitimate argument based on my interpretation? Read it... Section 8, Page 105. Knock Tuning Knock Sum and Octane Number. http://www.evoscan.com/ecuflash/Merlins%20EcuFlash%20EVO%207-8-9%20TUNING%20GUIDE-V1.7a.pdf

The moment you encounter consecutive knock counts the octane counter starts counting down from 100 to 0. When it reaches 0 You're 100% in the low octane timing and fueling map. 100% octane counter is 100% in the high octane timing and fuel maps. Anywhere in the middle and both timing and fuel maps are utilized.

The Octane counter also impacts boost control. Says it in the guide, same section too.




so you believe merlins evo tuning guide for an evo over the guy who has the decompiled code for a 3/s in front of him.

Sounds typical





Sent from my RM-845_nam_vzw_100 using Tapatalk

[J. Fast]

so you believe merlins evo tuning guide for an evo over the guy who has the decompiled code for a 3/s in front of him.

Sounds typical





Sent from my RM-845_nam_vzw_100 using Tapatalk

I believe the octane derived portion of our ECU's interacts the same as the Evo's, yes. That's why we have a high octane and low octane timing/fuel maps and a hex counter for octane number from 255 to 0.

[Greg E]

Guess I have to post the code...

Knock counts 7 and over take away from octane.
Knock counts 3 and lower add to octane.

It's gotta wait till after I get home though. I don't keep a copy of the disassembly on my phone.

[Greg E]

Jeremy... Read page 106 again. Dave (Merlin) talked about how knock ignition retard is calculated. It's almost exactly as I described in my posts above. This is something completely separate from how the octane number is derived.

[J. Fast]

Jeremy... Read page 106 again. Dave (Merlin) talked about how knock ignition retard is calculated. It's almost exactly as I described in my posts above. This is something completely separate from how the octane number is derived.

Ignition timing will always derive from (((255-Octane# (x) Low Map) + (Octane# (x) High Map)) /255). The Octane number counter will always play a role in deriving final timing numbers. Anytime the Octane#<255 both maps are utilized. If the Hex number is 250 than the interpolation is 2%. If its 122.5 then it's 50%. That's my interpretation of Merlin's guide.

Your Knockspark retard derivative of roughly .35 degrees per count is the exact same as the Evo. There is no clarification needed for that. I absolutely agree with that number.
it
I just wanted to clarify that whenever a count of knock occurs that triggers the octane counter to count down. Ass soon as the counter comes off 255 and starts walking towards 0 both high and low ignition/timing maps are used. On Jeff's pumpgas log he definitely was interpolating in the counter. More than likely the next consecutive pulls still were indexing the stored octane counter number too. He only did 5 pulls and one had obvious knock. The recovery of the octane number likely takes a long time to average back out. Not a pull or two.

[Greg E]

Something I should point out. The octane values and knock retard are two separate things.

I think this is the thing Jeremy is having a hard time understanding. Let me try to explain it better because I don't believe he's alone.

Think of the ignition table look up as the base value. Then think of knock retard as a correction from that base value. The octane value is the ECUs way of remembering to lower that base value instead of backing away when knock is happening.

If you think of knock as getting punched in the face (which it quite literally is), the knock retard is your learning expedience to know to back away so that knock doesn't hit you as hard as last time.

While ignition retard reminds you to back away so you don't get punched as hard, octane helps you to prevent getting punched in the first place.

Does this make more sense now?

[Greg E]

The recovery of the octane number likely takes a long time to average back out. Not a pull or two.

This is correct. The recovery time is a bit longer than the retard time. I can't remember the recovery time frame off the top of my head right now but its minutes, not factions of a second.

Note: now that you've read both my posts and Merlin's guide, you should clearly understand that Jeff's tune never uses the low octane map because he never saw knock counts high enough to effect the Octane number.

[vTaKwiTHsLiCkS]

Congrats on the dyno numbers!

c16 + Meth + higher compression.. those numbers seem plausible to me.

[kywhitelightning]

My low octane map is actually a hopped up version of the stock high octane map for reference sake. Here is the information required.

RPM Advance
3000 10
3500 14
4000 15
4500 16
5000 17
5500 18
6000 19
6500 20
7000 21
7500 22

I challenge both sides to restake their claims based on that piece of information.

I agree with JFast................

The logging rate we currently have is too slow.

Jeff

[Greg E]

My low octane map is actually a hopped up version of the stock high octane map for reference sake. Here is the information required.

RPM Advance
3000 10
3500 14
4000 15
4500 16
5000 17
5500 18
6000 19
6500 20
7000 21
7500 22

I challenge both sides to restake their claims based on that piece of information.

I agree with JFast................

The logging rate we currently have is too slow.

Jeff

Final ignition advance (what you just posted) is your ignition timing after all correction factors are applied (knock retard, EGR retard, AIT modifier, CAS latency, etc...). That's all at the very end of the equation.

The ignition map is the base value.

BTW, did you just say that your low octane map has higher values than your high octane map?

[kywhitelightning]

BTW, did you just say that your low octane map has higher values than your high octane map?

Through the lower RPM's it is a little more aggressive than the STOCK high octane map(I just removed the large goofy jumps). Up top it's less aggressive. 299 is pretty much always my load value so you can easily see where load would put me if I were in the stock high octane map vs my low octane map. I have said before that if I under time the car it knocks. That makes absolutely no sense to me at all but it was happening when I tested. That's kind of how I got to where it is now. My old 19T setup ran at 27* up top all the time because of the piggy so I based my stopping point on that. The fact that this is a higher compression motor and it's flowing a lot more air tells me to limit my timing to at least less than that.

Jeff

[Greg E]

Through the lower RPM's it is a little more aggressive than the STOCK high octane map(I just removed the large goofy jumps). Up top it's less aggressive. 299 is pretty much always my load value so you can easily see where load would put me if I were in the stock high octane map vs my low octane map. I have said before that if I under time the car it knocks. That makes absolutely no sense to me at all but it was happening when I tested. That's kind of how I got to where it is now. My old 19T setup ran at 27* up top all the time because of the piggy so I based my stopping point on that. The fact that this is a higher compression motor and it's flowing a lot more air tells me to limit my timing to at least less than that.

Jeff

Ah I see.

I could see lower timing numbers causing knock from higher EGTs. Either that or its not even real knock. Just a resonation that gets registered as knock.

[Chris@Rvengeperformance]

oh btw Jeff, super congratz on the numbers. You gotta be happy with the payoff now!

[kywhitelightning]

Thanks, it was a long time coming with the move. Total build time was about 3 months and working out the bugs seemed to take forever. The NG was an embarasment this past year and I plan to make it to NG14 as it would be a homecoming for me. I hope to see you AND your car there.

Jeff

[Chris@Rvengeperformance]

I really want to be there with the car too, but the move has practically set me back a year, I'm sure you know.

If I can get my motor in the next few months I should be okay, but if I get it back up to 500 I'll probably sit on it a while and shoot more for the moon in 2015. I can't fix it again for a while if it blows up. It ought to make 450 on wastegate (12PSI) haha.

[futurevr4man]

Jeff, the rods and pistons, while both probably Ross and Oliver (respectively)... are still different if I'm not mistaken. There is no internal engine components you can compare between mine and Todd's. I may be wrong about the rods and pistons... It's been a long time since I read up on any of that and I can't remember anymore.

The 3.5 uses a 6g74 crank, and I use a 6g75 crank. Ray told me all of the strokers he's built are noisy and its nothing out of the ordinary.

[kywhitelightning]

I really want to be there with the car too, but the move has practically set me back a year, I'm sure you know.

If I can get my motor in the next few months I should be okay, but if I get it back up to 500 I'll probably sit on it a while and shoot more for the moon in 2015. I can't fix it again for a while if it blows up. It ought to make 450 on wastegate (12PSI) haha.

At wastegate pressure on pump I have seen 430HP in VD. That's right around 14ish psi. 480HP on a cold night with good air at 17ish psi. These were both done with the BC turned off. Offset the boost pressures with the added displacement you have and 450 is a good ball park guestimate. Are you staying with E85?

Jeff

[kywhitelightning]

Jeff, the rods and pistons, while both probably Ross and Oliver (respectively)... are still different if I'm not mistaken. There is no internal engine components you can compare between mine and Todd's. I may be wrong about the rods and pistons... It's been a long time since I read up on any of that and I can't remember anymore.

The 3.5 uses a 6g74 crank, and I use a 6g75 crank. Ray told me all of the strokers he's built are noisy and its nothing out of the ordinary.

I will start logging my knock voltages to see what I have going on. I doubt anything will change in my tune as it has worked well so far. Care to share some of your knock voltages with me either here or in private?

Jeff

[futurevr4man]

I don't care at all, but it will have to wait for my new laptop at Christmas, and me getting it all setup. My laptop I was using had a motherboard meltdown on me :(

[KeithMac]

Jeff, what boost pressure do you run on the street?, 30psi?.

[kywhitelightning]

On pump gas 22-25psi weather permitting. Race gas was in there with the most recent vd graph. That was something I have never done. The most pressure I ran prior to that was 28psi on race gas in the summer. I had blowout issues and didn't push it again until it hit the dyno. Obviously a plug regap fixed the blowout as I had no misfires during that pull.

Jeff

[Chris@Rvengeperformance]

At wastegate pressure on pump I have seen 430HP in VD. That's right around 14ish psi. 480HP on a cold night with good air at 17ish psi. These were both done with the BC turned off. Offset the boost pressures with the added displacement you have and 450 is a good ball park guestimate. Are you staying with E85?

Jeff

yes, staying e85, unless it just makes surprising power at low boost and I can run just 93

[Ray Pampena]

Hey Jeff congrats on the numbers! glad to see its running great! cant wait to see it at the track.. great job!

as for the stroker stuff.. the strokers are more noisy due to the skirts being shorter and the pin being higher.. typical stroker requirements. i have no problem tuning them with aem. Greg is going to go over more knock filter options with me to see how to make it work right. so far ive always had false knock readings with engines like that with the stock ecu stuff.

when tuning 1000whp stuff and larger noisier engines with aem.. sometimes i have the filter set really high. you cant tune engines like that using knock anyway. if it reads knock at that level its probably already dead.

[kywhitelightning]

Thanks for the clarification on why strokers "make more noise" as I think I have every other criteria in my engine that is supposed to raise the noise level and am seeing no ill effects. The shorter skirts make perfect sense to me as they would have a higher likelyhood of tilting causing piston slap. I know when assembling this one I had to call Ross to see if my clearances were correct because I could literally tip the pistons back and forth on the pin in the bore. That was very concerning and I lost a few hours of sleep because of it. The rep told me that was OK as long as the measurements were within spec and to not run the engine hard until warmed up.

Jeff

[J. Fast]

It just dawned on me looking back thru this thread that you're Injector duty cycle peaks at 58% on 680cc injectors. Based on your Injector pulsewidth on your last pull at 28psi your only using 150lph of fuel at Redline. For the sake of discussion that's the same consumption of fuel at 15psi of boost or 100%IDC on stock injectors. So your developing over 50% of your power off the methanol. Atleast 300 horsepower from it. Not trying to detract from a TD-04 record but it's really more than just the turbos when you really look at it. The amount of Methanol your injecting is equivalent to a 300shot of NOS on top. You're only injecting 400crank horsepower worth of fuel. That really surprised me when I calculated your fuel delivery.

[kywhitelightning]

I agree but probably not to that extent. I think somewhere around 30% of my fueling is methanol in boost but you are right that it feels like something smacks it in the ass when it comes in. I have never ridden in a nitrous car but I imagine that is what it would feel like.

Jeff

[kywhitelightning]

The latest vd graph with the log is the best representation of how the fueling is set up. Idc's typically peak near 70%. I have physically flow tested the methanol system in a bucket to flow the 1600ml/min and while some of that volume may have been lost from evaporating/still in the pipe, it's pretty close to what is happening in the intake. That should be all the information required for good solid calculations of fuel delivery.

Also don't forget the regulator was set 2psi high on the dyno.

Jeff

[NOMIEZVR4]

What do you think will happen if you're car is tuned to run on e85? Do you think numbers will be affected?? If at all??

[SnakeSkinner]

The amount of Methanol your injecting is equivalent to a 300shot of NOS on top. You're only injecting 400crank horsepower worth of fuel.

Methanol is like NOS now? what planet is that on?

Every car I have ever sprayed meth on has LOST power if you did not add timing or boost to go along with it. All meth does is allow you to add more boost or timing with out detonation, the boost and or timing is what adds the power. Take a car dont change anything other them adding a meth kit to it and your not really going to gain any power, I dont care how much you spray it with.

NOS with fuel makes power on it's own.

2 totally different things.


(and before you start on any crap about how cars that run on 100% meth that are built for it make more power, thats true but thats a totally different story, and not worth bringing it into this, your trying to compare a Meth kit to NOS and there 100% totally not the same thing, not even close)

[kywhitelightning]

What do you think will happen if you're car is tuned to run on e85? Do you think numbers will be affected?? If at all??

They would certainly be effected if I chose to omit the race gas from the equation. E85 AKI (anti knock index) is 94-96 octane varying based on wether there is crap gas going in or higher octane gas blended. I'm sure most of it from the pumps will put out closer to the lower number as it would be cheaper for them that way. My little handy dandy calculator has my octane with 93 pump (AKI 93, doh) and methanol (AKI 98.65) going together at a 70/30 ratio to be near 94.7 octane. Once I split the C16 in there the game changes a bunch. C16 to my knowledge doesn't even have a research method as all I have ever seen was the motor number. All the other ratings were both methods averaged (AKI = RON + MON / 2). Simply going off of the motor octane number for the C16 would be cheating a little low for calculations sake as the research method is always higher than the motor number. But, I'll try and I'm sure the brains out there will fix me if I'm skewed. On the dyno I had ~5 gallons of pump 93 left in the tank when I added 5 gallons of C16 to it. That mix has an octane rating of 105 by itself, and that is the low ball figure. Adding methanol to the mix actually decreases that octane number down to 103 but it is part of the package deal with this setup. I would hope to think that just E85 would be capable of producing the pump plus methanol numbers I have made only based on octane values but I think Ray made his 650 dyno pulls on E85 only. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

I just learned something from the yellow bullet forums by researching this some. Adding too much C16 could change AFR's to slightly richer than normal. Here's a quote from over there taken from this thread 93 octane to c16 - Yellow Bullet Forums (http://www.yellowbullet.com/forum/showthread.php?t=167380) "93 octane from most major retailers has a wieght of roughly .720-730 and c16 is like .700 ish the tune up should be pretty close. I have seen alot of engines gain enrichment on race fuels thanks to slightly high BTU content over todays bullshit pump fuels."

They seem to be full of good info over there. Anybody else have knowledge of this as I have always thought of gas to be gas but according to that, not so much. Prior to the dyno I played with 2 gallons of C16 at a time making a much more diluted blend in the tank. That was not on full tanks either. I would say it was an 80/20 split. At the NG I poured in 5 gallons but that nearly filled the tank up as I had almost 3/4 of a tank of 93 in there already. This mix was very close to 50/50 in the tank on the dyno. I wanted the best protection possible in there and actually drove around a bit trying to burn off some of the 93 in the tank to get the most C16 available in there. That could have been another potential problem with the rich mixtures. The last VD run posted was with that 50/50 mix plus after the dyno on the way home I added another 7-8 gallons of 93 on top further diluting the C16.

Jeff

[futurevr4man]

i am definitely no expert on this field, but im going to put my 2 cents in for the sake of discussion and if im wrong im hoping someone will tell me why.

my understanding is that gasoline is refined from crude oil. they use distillation (i think is what its called) which is where you can use heat (or a lack thereof) to cause different chains of carbon and hydrogen to separate in an organized fashion. i think like C8H20(ish) is an example of a chain they can separate. the chains all have different names that we all know like butane, kerosene, diesel, and a lot of others. i guess some of the chains are mixed which is what is used to create most of gasoline. the part im really iffy about is what percentage of gasoline these chains make up. i have always heard that gasoline can have a max of 10% ethanol (which i will talk about next). with that being said, i also know there are additives in gas which i think are to help stabilize it and help with temperature changes and junk like that.

so if i had to take a stab, i would think the different carbon/hydrogen chains make up like 85%, ethanol makes up 8-10%, and the additives would be the remaining 5-7%. i could be wayyyy off, and i would like someone to correct me if i am please!

now, as far as ethanol goes, i know the chemical chain that makes that up consists of carbon, hydrogen, AND oxygen. C2H6O if im not mistaken. the fact that it has oxygen in its chain, and taking the weight of oxygen etc into account, its actually a lot of oxygen. its the most oxygen-enriched fuel i think. so i have always thought that was why it was knock resistant.

on the subject of ethanol, i am still learning all of this but from what greg has been talking about, it may not have to do with the oxygen content at all. maybe the frequency it creates when it ignites, is just not out of the range that the knock sensor is tuned for. or maybe the frequency is affected by the oxygen content? idk, but its food for thought.

on the subject of octane, it is more complicated than i understand. jeff brushed the surface of it, but there are a lot of different properties that make up octane number (the RON and MON he was talking about are a small part of it). I dont understand chemistry well enough to really expand on it, but the very basics are that its based off a mixture of iso-octane and heptane. they have octane numbers of 100 and 0 respectively. as i said earlier with the additives in gasoline, those can also change the octane rating, so its really a very blurry picture, even if you understand it well.

i dont know much about race gas, so i got nothing on that.

lastly, ethanol from the pump and the methanol jeff is using, i would assume are quite different. jeff, your methanol is almost pure ethanol isnt it? the ethanol from the pump is usually 85% ethanol (at best... assuming e85). the original question about how ethanol would affect the car shouldnt be confused between the methanol you use for injecting and e85. anything that is as consumer based as e85 is going to be like gasoline. trying to break it down will show that it is diluted by additives and other things. i need to do more research one day to see what the 'other things' are.

very lastly... everything also changes between countries, seasons, and sometimes even states.

if im wrong on all of this dont chastise me! this is my limited understanding, but im curious on the subject. i am considering getting into this field as a career in the future!

[Greg E]

on the subject of ethanol, i am still learning all of this but from what greg has been talking about, it may not have to do with the oxygen content at all. maybe the frequency it creates when it ignites, is just not out of the range that the knock sensor is tuned for. or maybe the frequency is affected by the oxygen content? idk, but its food for thought.

I don't know who started the rumor that ethanol creates some mystical "silent" knock but that's not what kills engines. It's exessive cylinder pressure caused from runing too much boost and too much timing. Ethanol gets you past the "heat" which causes knock and thus exposes the next weakest link.

[futurevr4man]

i never believed anything along the lines of silent knock. someone said a few posts back that when different fuels burn, they create different frequencies. i thought maybe thats why knock sensors couldnt detect the knock? you dont think ethanol knocks at all?

also, on the subject of cylinder pressures and the like, if im not mistaken, you have to run a rich(er) AFR with e85 than normal gasoline... combine that with the additional 30% fuel you have to run, is there a possibility of hydro-locking your motor? or am i just way off base here?

[J. Fast]

Methanol is like NOS now? what planet is that on?

Every car I have ever sprayed meth on has LOST power if you did not add timing or boost to go along with it. All meth does is allow you to add more boost or timing with out detonation, the boost and or timing is what adds the power. Take a car dont change anything other them adding a meth kit to it and your not really going to gain any power, I dont care how much you spray it with.

NOS with fuel makes power on it's own.

2 totally different things.


(and before you start on any crap about how cars that run on 100% meth that are built for it make more power, thats true but thats a totally different story, and not worth bringing it into this, your trying to compare a Meth kit to NOS and there 100% totally not the same thing, not even close)
I used the 300shot as an example of pill enrichment. His last log where he developed over 700whp shows an Injector pulsewidth of 11.5ms. Using Jeff Lucius calculator and adding the knowns:

http://www.stealth316.com/2-calc-idc.htm

11.5 Injector pulsewidth
14.9 intake pressure
680cc injectors
18psi of boost

It spits out the fuel consumption portion in lph and confirms the duty cycle.

What kind of power do TD-04 turbos develop at 18psi? 450hp maybe? That's the power output of the gas portion coming from the gas tank. The additional power being developed is from the Methanol.

I never said NOS is like methanol you misread what I typed. I said he's burning atleast 300hp worth of Methanol. For Tge sake of discussion by weight that's around 200lph of Methanol vs 160lph of gas that he's delivering. Now, when you look at the actual volumes of each type of fuel being injected he's actually injecting more meth than fuel.

That's my point really. The numbers belong in a category by themselves and should not be compared with all gas numbers.

[Greg E]

you dont think ethanol knocks at all?

Of course it will knock.

[futurevr4man]

dont give me your attitude gregory

[Greg E]

dont give me your attitude gregory

No Ginger ale for you next NG. :p

[familyMAN]

I used the 300shot as an example of pill enrichment. His last log where he developed over 700whp shows an Injector pulsewidth of 11.5ms. Using Jeff Lucius calculator and adding the knowns:

http://www.stealth316.com/2-calc-idc.htm

11.5 Injector pulsewidth
14.9 intake pressure
680cc injectors
18psi of boost

It spits out the fuel consumption portion in lph and confirms the duty cycle.

What kind of power do TD-04 turbos develop at 18psi? 450hp maybe? That's the power output of the gas portion coming from the gas tank. The additional power being developed is from the Methanol.

I never said NOS is like methanol you misread what I typed. I said he's burning atleast 300hp worth of Methanol. For Tge sake of discussion by weight that's around 200lph of Methanol vs 160lph of gas that he's delivering. Now, when you look at the actual volumes of each type of fuel being injected he's actually injecting more meth than fuel.

That's my point really. The numbers belong in a category by themselves and should not be compared with all gas numbers.

I'm not sure why you are making this out to be some mythical magic methanol hp injection. IT IS SUPPLEMENTAL FUEL. That's why his IDC is low. Would you say the same thing if he had 12 injectors and the main set was at 50% IDC???

[familyMAN]

i never believed anything along the lines of silent knock. someone said a few posts back that when different fuels burn, they create different frequencies. i thought maybe thats why knock sensors couldnt detect the knock? you dont think ethanol knocks at all?

also, on the subject of cylinder pressures and the like, if im not mistaken, you have to run a rich(er) AFR with e85 than normal gasoline... combine that with the additional 30% fuel you have to run, is there a possibility of hydro-locking your motor? or am i just way off base here?

You don't run richer on a gas scale on e85. Most people target 12:1 in boost like race gas. You can run it leaner without harm typically. Yes it takes 30% more fuel approx but you target around the same (or leaner) than gas/race gas.

[J. Fast]

I'm not sure why you are making this out to be some mythical magic methanol hp injection. IT IS SUPPLEMENTAL FUEL. That's why his IDC is low. Would you say the same thing if he had 12 injectors and the main set was at 50% IDC???

The chemistry being injected skews the capability of the turbos just as it did with UPPCOS on his 93 trim single turbo. The cfm ceiling on his turbo was 850 but meth injection allowed him another 15% beyond it. Same here.

640+cfm per turbo is unrealistic flow and borderline defys the laws of physics for the frame of turbo unless the compressor wheel is as big as a 20g or HTA68 and I missed something.

In order to achieve the numbers being illustrated you have to direct inject oxygen and internally evaporative cool.. I do not believe the turbos can bite enough to flow 800+crank hp on their own do you? That's why Jeff's setup, just like UPPCOS, deserves to be in a category of its own. Setups like this are more demonstrative of ingenuity, innovation, and chemistry migration, that which extend theoretical turbo output capability.

[CoopKill]

Huh? He is not doing anything special unless you consider pouring the meth without the water in the tank special?

[futurevr4man]

You don't run richer on a gas scale on e85. Most people target 12:1 in boost like race gas. You can run it leaner without harm typically. Yes it takes 30% more fuel approx but you target around the same (or leaner) than gas/race gas.

good to know. we dont have any e85 around here so i have zero hands on experience. i usually remember things better when i mess with them personally instead of just reading about them ya know?

[SnakeSkinner]

The chemistry being injected skews the capability of the turbos just as it did with UPPCOS on his 93 trim single turbo. The cfm ceiling on his turbo was 850 but meth injection allowed him another 15% beyond it. Same here.

640+cfm per turbo is unrealistic flow and borderline defys the laws of physics for the frame of turbo unless the compressor wheel is as big as a 20g or HTA68 and I missed something.

In order to achieve the numbers being illustrated you have to direct inject oxygen and internally evaporative cool.. I do not believe the turbos can bite enough to flow 800+crank hp on their own do you? That's why Jeff's setup, just like UPPCOS, deserves to be in a category of its own. Setups like this are more demonstrative of ingenuity, innovation, and chemistry migration, that which extend theoretical turbo output capability.


So any car with a water/meth kit on it no longer counts no matter what it does? But some how a car running E85 does? A car running 100% E-85 is injecting way more oxagen in the fuel then a car running a water/meth kit is by a long shot. I would venture to say that over 50% of the 3/s cars built now a days either have a meth injection kit on them or are running on E85. I can tell you this at least 75% of the 3/s cars I have built in the last 10 yrs we either already had a meth kit on them or we installed one when doing the build. So now by your logic all of those cars should be in a "class all of there own" because YOU, the guy we posted a dyno chart of a turbo charged V8 928 porsche on 3si a few yrs ago claiming it was the dyno chart from your 19T 3000gt says so? oooookkkkkk

If you ask me, not running a water/meth kit on a FI car on the street that run's on pump gas is just leaving power on the table, I even have one on my 2012 CTS-v Cadillac, it allowed me to run 8 deg more timing and pick up a tun of power on pump gas, but simply adding race gas would have done the same thing. And when I turned the meth on on the dyno before adding the timing the car LOST 18hp with the meth on till I added the timing and leaned it out that the water/meth kit allows me to do.

I have never seen a car on the dyno ever some how make more power with a meth kit then it did on race gas, not one time. It's just running race gas all the time on the street tends to get expensive and a meth kit is really cheep.

Jeff's car would make just as much power on 100% C16 as it does with his meth kit, and I can say that with total confidence because I have run plenty of cars over the yrs on the dyno with meth kits and on race gas and I have never seen one magically make more power by adding meth injection to a car on race gas. Less the injectors were maxed out and adding meth allowed the running of more BOOST to make more power with out running out of fuel, and simply adding bigger injectors would have done the same thing. I know Ray has too so he can chime in on this. But I know from arguing with you on 3si before you got BANNED FOR LIFE for spreading false tech information that was detrimental to the community. Facts in the real world mean nothing to you, only theory in your warped world were you are God do so there is no point in arguing with you about it. You will for ever be were you have always been, in the slow lane, talking trash about everybody that does what you cant.

[FeaRpb]

http://persephonemagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/jon-stewart-popcorn.gif

[futurevr4man]

So any car with a water/meth kit on it no longer counts no matter what it does? But some how a car running E85 does? A car running 100% E-85 is injecting way more oxagen in the fuel then a car running a water/meth kit is by a long shot. I would venture to say that over 50% of the 3/s cars built now a days either have a meth injection kit on them or are running on E85. I can tell you this at least 75% of the 3/s cars I have built in the last 10 yrs we either already had a meth kit on them or we installed one when doing the build. So now by your logic all of those cars should be in a "class all of there own" because YOU, the guy we posted a dyno chart of a turbo charged V8 928 porsche on 3si a few yrs ago claiming it was the dyno chart from your 19T 3000gt says so? oooookkkkkk

If you ask me, not running a water/meth kit on a FI car on the street that run's on pump gas is just leaving power on the table, I even have one on my 2012 CTS-v Cadillac, it allowed me to run 8 deg more timing and pick up a tun of power on pump gas, but simply adding race gas would have done the same thing. And when I turned the meth on on the dyno before adding the timing the car LOST 18hp with the meth on till I added the timing and leaned it out that the water/meth kit allows me to do.

I have never seen a car on the dyno ever some how make more power with a meth kit then it did on race gas, not one time. It's just running race gas all the time on the street tends to get expensive and a meth kit is really cheep.

Jeff's car would make just as much power on 100% C16 as it does with his meth kit, and I can say that with total confidence because I have run plenty of cars over the yrs on the dyno with meth kits and on race gas and I have never seen one magically make more power by adding meth injection to a car on race gas. Less the injectors were maxed out and adding meth allowed the running of more BOOST to make more power with out running out of fuel, and simply adding bigger injectors would have done the same thing. I know Ray has too so he can chime in on this. But I know from arguing with you on 3si before you got BANNED FOR LIFE for spreading false tech information that was detrimental to the community. Facts in the real world mean nothing to you, only theory in your warped world were you are God do so there is no point in arguing with you about it. You will for ever be were you have always been, in the slow lane, talking trash about everybody that does what you cant.

to jfast: they're there their, lets get along :)
:popcorn:

[Alex3000gt]

I disagree with you. If any knock is present the low octane map always comes into play.

Octane number is what controls the interpolation between the low octane map and high octane map. Everytime knock voltage spikes above the noise thereshold it registers a knocksum. Consecutive knock sums reduce octane number just as large increment knock sums reduce octane number.

If you register seven consecutive samplings with one count of knock the knocksum total is 7 and will be interpolated as such. At the same time a single event with a knocksum of say, 7 counts will reduce the octane number aswell but the octane number will taper off more rapidly.

As the octane number decreases the percent of interpolation shared between the load cells in the low octane map and high octane map increases. When the octane number is reduced to 0 the ecu interpolates 100% off the low octane map. When the octane number is reduced to 50% the ecu interpolates an average of the high octane map and low octane map timing number. For example, say at a load of 180kpa @ 5000rpms the high octane map has a timing number of 18. The high octane map in the same position has a timing of 22 degrees. The two are added and then divided by the octane number (in this case 50%) therefore the ignition timing the ecu will interpolate will be 18+22 (x) .5 = 20 degrees of timing. If the octane number has counted down to .25 then 75% of the low octane timing number is weighted to be used and 25% of the high octane map.

Now, According to Jeff... Jeff, said when he was at the dyno

Now, according to his pump gas logs...

http://i314.photobucket.com/albums/ll440/nomiezvr4/racegas_zpsdc207362.png

He registered a sum of 36 knock counts which effectively reduced the octane number to 0. So now what happens? Well, he's now effectively using 100% of the low octane timing map because the knocksum has achieve a value greater than 36 which is max octane default before an actual knock strategy is delivered for three knock counts.

According to John Banks (the person who disassembled and decifered the knock code for EvoScan/ECU Flash Knock control - load vs RPM table found - evolutionm.net (http://forums.evolutionm.net/ecuflash/382625-knock-control-load-vs-rpm-table-found.html) ) and Merlin.



If infact the ECU is not reset the OCTANE NUMBER will gradually raise, however, if any knock is encountered during octane number recovery the counter will count down again until it reaches zero. Whatever the percentage in the octane counter reference is the percentage of timing interpolated between the high octane and low octane ignition and fueling maps.

Saying that Jeff never uses the low octane map is absolutely incorrect. Both high octane timing and fueling maps are utilized everytime consecutive knocksums occur. When they do the octane number starts counting down and a percentage of timing and fuel is derived between the two maps.

This is how it works.

Lastly, some portions of the EvoECU Flash have direct correlations with our ECU's. However if you read JCBanks EvoM Knock disassembly thread you'll find ours is quite a bit different. A few tables in our case are absent. Therefore ours really doesn't work like theirs at all. You cant just automatically make generalizations about ours working like theirs if they don't look the same.

What we really need is datalogs or oscilliscope feedback with enough resultion to pickup every ignition timing event like jcbanks did right here. evolutionm.net - View Single Post - Knock control - load vs RPM table found (http://forums.evolutionm.net/6395529-post63.html) http://forums.evolutionm.net/attachments/ecuflash/126101d1227718376-knock-control-load-vs-rpm-table-found-knockbase.png

Raw datalogs like the ones posted in this thread do not provide enough resolution to use for factual knocksum data because the RPM's the engine is turning vs. sampling is way off. The log only provides one data line every 50+ ignition timing events. Our logging capability rate needs to be improved to legitimize 3/S knock disassembly and your findings in said thread.


I stopped reading after this.

If you have your own rom disassembly to show me this, please post it.

http://5.media.bustedtees.cvcdn.com/6/-/bustedtees.fb92e676-387e-41f7-96b7-3685b5d3.gif

[J. Fast]

So any car with a water/meth kit on it no longer counts no matter what it does? But some how a car running E85 does? A car running 100% E-85 is injecting way more oxagen in the fuel then a car running a water/meth kit is by a long shot.
Not exactly. Jeff's not injecting any water at all, he's supplementing 56% of his fuel delivery with 100% methanol (200lph of methanol vs 160lph of fuel).

The molecular weight of 100% methanol which is what Jeff's injecting, CH3OH = according to the periodic table of elements (C)12.0107 + (H3)1.00794*3 + (O)15.9994 + (H)1.00794 = 32.04186 g/mol


Element

Symbol

Atomic Mass

# of Atoms

Mass Percent



Hydrogen

H

1.00794

4

12.583%



Carbon

C

12.0107

1

37.484%



Oxygen


15.9994

1

49.933%



50% of the mass of this Molecule is Oxygen


Now, Let's do Ethanol = CH3CH2OH = according to the periodic table of elements (C)12.0107 + (H3)1.00794*3 + (C)12.0107 + (H2)1.00794*2 + (O)15.9994 + (H)1.00794
= 46.06844 g/mol.


Element

Symbol

Atomic Mass

# of Atoms

Mass Percent



Hydrogen

H

1.00794

6

13.128%



Carbon

C

12.0107

2

52.143%



Oxygen


15.9994

1

34.730%



34% of the mass of this molecule is oxygen.

So, by the prevailing rules of science:

20 moles of 100% Ethanol weigh 921grams. However, if it's E-85 and we dilute 15% of the molecule then the 921g (x) 85% = 782grams.
Ethanol weighs 789grams per litre. So, given one litre of E-85 ethanol fuel 320 grams of the mixture is oxygen by mass (16grams(atomic mass of oxygen) (x) 20 moles = 320grams).

On the other hand we have methanol... One litre of Methanol weighs the same as Ethanol, 789grams. However, 24.5 moles of 100% methanol weigh 392grams (16grams(atomic mass of oxygen) (x) 24.5 moles = 392grams)..

Making sense out of it all... If we have two 1 litre bottles, one filled with E-85, and the other filled with VP Racing Methanol the bottles will both weigh the same but the one with 100% methanol in it has 22.5% more oxygen in it by mass.

Knowing the fuel delivery is 56% methanol and understanding the chemistry tells me the amount of methanol being injected plus the fuel in the tank has an equivalent oxygen percentage to that of E-85. ( If you would like me to prove it using EFI by calculating the air mass of the engine using the injector pulsewidth, afr, and include the chemistry I can do that too)

You can't just say one can't EVER be equal to the other. It's a whole hell of a lot different when you know exactly how much oxygen is being poured in.




I have never seen a car on the dyno ever some how make more power with a meth kit then it did on race gas, not one time. It's just running race gas all the time on the street tends to get expensive and a meth kit is really cheep.
Jeff's car would make just as much power on 100% C16 as it does with his meth kit, and I can say that with total confidence because I have run plenty of cars over the yrs on the dyno with meth kits and on race gas and I have never seen one magically make more power by adding meth injection to a car on race gas. Less the injectors were maxed out and adding meth allowed the running of more BOOST to make more power with out running out of fuel, and simply adding bigger injectors would have done the same thing. I know Ray has too so he can chime in on this.

LOL, no it wouldn't. Where would you get the added 22% oxygen enrichment that's being delivered the fuel? You think you could just grab it by turning the boost knob? You know what happens when you run 100% racegas and 32psi on DR750's? Andre` knows... at 2.2BAR of boost which by my reconing is 32psi of boost

http://www.3si.org/forum/attachments/f35/81522d1279011150-my-dr750r-project-dr750-dyno-080710-30.5-psi-race-afwhp-vs-afwtq.jpg


But I know from arguing with you on 3si before you got BANNED FOR LIFE for spreading false tech information that was detrimental to the community. Facts in the real world mean nothing to you, only theory in your warped world were you are God do so there is no point in arguing with you about it. You will for ever be were you have always been, in the slow lane, talking trash about everybody that does what you cant.

I realize it's really hard for you to get past my apology and move onto the person I am today. That's fine really. It's just too damn bad you can't have very forward and scientific discussions without bringing up your passed biases and getting pissed off. I understand you will always carry your past indifference with me and that's fine. I got something for that in the garage that weighs about 2300lbs with a big ass motor that's coming out this year and we'll see how slow I can get it rolling.

Frankly, since we're ALL having really open and honest conversations right now and everyone's saying what they want to say lot's see some honest shit... how about you post up your uncorrected DR750 dyno numbers from your dyno session in Albiquerque where you made 600awhp SAE Corrected on 25psi on your stock motor. What did you make uncorrected, 500whp? LOL. Your snails make 480whp uncorrected at 25psi here. I've tuned a few.

[Greg E]

I realize it's really hard for you to get past my apology and move onto the person I am today

Jeremy... It's great that you learned that lies don't get you anywhere in this community but why haven't you learned that attitude is the root cause of why you still don't get respect?

[J. Fast]

Jeremy... It's great that you learned that lies don't get you anywhere in this community but why haven't you learned that attitude is the root cause of why you still don't get respect?

On the internet you get what you give to me... You think its funny and play along too right? LOL, it's the internet. Face to face attitude is different. Although, if you step out of line in my face... I'm not some little out of shape pussy LOL.

[FeaRpb]

Does that last comment mean you turn violent if someone steps out of line?

[Alex3000gt]

On the internet you get what you give to me... You think its funny and play along too right? LOL, it's the internet. Face to face attitude is different. Although, if you step out of line in my face... I'm not some little out of shape pussy LOL.

Quoted for the ages.

[Greg E]

On the internet you get what you give to me... You think its funny and play along too right? LOL, it's the internet. Face to face attitude is different. Although, if you step out of line in my face... I'm not some little out of shape pussy LOL.

I'm sorry Mike Brown. Didn't mean to imply there is a flaw in your logic.

[familyMAN]

Making sense out of it all... If we have two 1 litre bottles, one filled with E-85, and the other filled with VP Racing Methanol the bottles will both weigh the same but the one with 100% methanol in it has 22.5% more oxygen in it by mass.

Knowing the fuel delivery is 56% methanol and understanding the chemistry tells me the amount of methanol being injected plus the fuel in the tank has an equivalent oxygen percentage to that of E-85. ( If you would like me to prove it using EFI by calculating the air mass of the engine using the injector pulsewidth, afr, and include the chemistry I can do that too)



J, thanks for finally posting substance. I think most know that e85 has oxygen content and we also know that it translates to real HP based on Chris Hills results. I suspected that meth may be similar but you didn't post any to the point reasoning for your magic, mythical meth claims until now. Now the question....if Jeff's meth injection has equivalent o2 % as e85, why is it out-dynoing Ray's e85 car by a good amount.



I got something for that in the garage that weighs about 2300lbs with a big ass motor that's coming out this year and we'll see how slow I can get it rolling.

WTF? What does this have to do with anything? Is this supposed to be a "call out" to Matt? Bizarre.

[Alex3000gt]

Drmbldr, JeremyVR-4 a sincere apology. - 3000GT/Stealth International Message Center (http://www.3si.org/forum/f1/drmbldr-jeremyvr-4-sincere-apology-480647/#post5690479)

To: Members and administrators of 3si

To anyone wondering who I am. I’m Jeremy, drmbldr, JeremyVR-4. I’m really sorry for all the b.s. I started and spread at 3si.org some time ago. I formerly apologized to Mr. Kuhn about my actions and am offering my most sincere apologies here. I’ve learned a lot about being straight with people, being honest with myself and others, and only discussing fact and experience. It took a lot of time and self reflection to acknowledge my own mistakes. I am truly sorry to any and all members for my past dealings and and hope some will forgive my previous actions and behavior. I'm trying to pave a new road and walk a new line. I hope that I may be allowed to stay. I hope that you all trust what I say is true and genuine and accept my apology. If allowed to stay I will always be honest with my dealings.

Thank you for your time and for allowing me to speak on my own about my actions. Feel free to share whatever thoughts and opinions you may have.

Respecfully,

Jeremy

[Chris@Rvengeperformance]

it blows my mind how every thread eventually turns into this bullshit. All it takes is one member...

[J. Fast]

J, thanks for finally posting substance. I think most know that e85 has oxygen content and we also know that it translates to real HP based on Chris Hills results. I suspected that meth may be similar but you didn't post any to the point reasoning for your magic, mythical meth claims until now. Now the question....if Jeff's meth injection has equivalent o2 % as e85, why is it out-dynoing Ray's e85 car by a good amount.




WTF? What does this have to do with anything? Is this supposed to be a "call out" to Matt? Bizarre.

It's all good man. I'm not offended or anything. The stupid jokes and snickers from the few comedians just get old after awhile.

I was only implying that I won't always be in the slow lane. I've learned a thing or two in the many years I've been away from 3si. Hopefully some good shit shines thru.

[Greg E]

Now the question....if Jeff's meth injection has equivalent o2 % as e85, why is it out-dynoing Ray's e85 car by a good amount.

Ray still runs a stock cat back, draw thru MAF, piggybacks with a stock ECU and less boost. I'm sure we will seem him do a little more when he installs the flash ECU and plays with the timing numbers.




WTF? What does this have to do with anything? Is this supposed to be a "call out" to Matt? Bizarre.

I get the whole "question everything" mindset. I honestly do.

What I don't get is the attitude... Why be a complete ignorant prick to someone in an effort to try to get useful knowledge out of them?

Oh wait... It's the Internet. :rolleyes:

[SnakeSkinner]

Not exactly. Jeff's not injecting any water at all, he's supplementing 56% of his fuel delivery with 100% methanol (200lph of methanol vs 160lph of fuel).

The molecular weight of 100% methanol which is what Jeff's injecting, CH3OH = according to the periodic table of elements (C)12.0107 + (H3)1.00794*3 + (O)15.9994 + (H)1.00794 = 32.04186 g/mol


Element

Symbol

Atomic Mass

# of Atoms

Mass Percent



Hydrogen

H

1.00794

4

12.583%



Carbon

C

12.0107

1

37.484%



Oxygen


15.9994

1

49.933%



50% of the mass of this Molecule is Oxygen


Now, Let's do Ethanol = CH3CH2OH = according to the periodic table of elements (C)12.0107 + (H3)1.00794*3 + (C)12.0107 + (H2)1.00794*2 + (O)15.9994 + (H)1.00794
= 46.06844 g/mol.


Element

Symbol

Atomic Mass

# of Atoms

Mass Percent



Hydrogen

H

1.00794

6

13.128%



Carbon

C

12.0107

2

52.143%



Oxygen


15.9994

1

34.730%



34% of the mass of this molecule is oxygen.

So, by the prevailing rules of science:

20 moles of 100% Ethanol weigh 921grams. However, if it's E-85 and we dilute 15% of the molecule then the 921g (x) 85% = 782grams.
Ethanol weighs 789grams per litre. So, given one litre of E-85 ethanol fuel 320 grams of the mixture is oxygen by mass (16grams(atomic mass of oxygen) (x) 20 moles = 320grams).

On the other hand we have methanol... One litre of Methanol weighs the same as Ethanol, 789grams. However, 24.5 moles of 100% methanol weigh 392grams (16grams(atomic mass of oxygen) (x) 24.5 moles = 392grams)..

Making sense out of it all... If we have two 1 litre bottles, one filled with E-85, and the other filled with VP Racing Methanol the bottles will both weigh the same but the one with 100% methanol in it has 22.5% more oxygen in it by mass.

Knowing the fuel delivery is 56% methanol and understanding the chemistry tells me the amount of methanol being injected plus the fuel in the tank has an equivalent oxygen percentage to that of E-85. ( If you would like me to prove it using EFI by calculating the air mass of the engine using the injector pulsewidth, afr, and include the chemistry I can do that too)

You can't just say one can't EVER be equal to the other. It's a whole hell of a lot different when you know exactly how much oxygen is being poured in.




LOL, no it wouldn't. Where would you get the added 22% oxygen enrichment that's being delivered the fuel? You think you could just grab it by turning the boost knob? You know what happens when you run 100% racegas and 32psi on DR750's? Andre` knows... at 2.2BAR of boost which by my reconing is 32psi of boost

http://www.3si.org/forum/attachments/f35/81522d1279011150-my-dr750r-project-dr750-dyno-080710-30.5-psi-race-afwhp-vs-afwtq.jpg



I realize it's really hard for you to get past my apology and move onto the person I am today. That's fine really. It's just too damn bad you can't have very forward and scientific discussions without bringing up your passed biases and getting pissed off. I understand you will always carry your past indifference with me and that's fine. I got something for that in the garage that weighs about 2300lbs with a big ass motor that's coming out this year and we'll see how slow I can get it rolling.

Frankly, since we're ALL having really open and honest conversations right now and everyone's saying what they want to say lot's see some honest shit... how about you post up your uncorrected DR750 dyno numbers from your dyno session in Albiquerque where you made 600awhp SAE Corrected on 25psi on your stock motor. What did you make uncorrected, 500whp? LOL. Your snails make 480whp uncorrected at 25psi here. I've tuned a few.



God your a retard,and so full of your self (ie SHIT).

I'm getting ready to go on vacation so I'm not going to waist time arguing with you. I'll just hit some fast points.

Lets start with that you first said


The amount of Methanol your injecting is equivalent to a 300shot of NOS on top

And anybody that knows the first thing about Gas motors knows thats not true, Meth and NOS are not even remotely the same thing.

yes there is oxygen in Meth, I dont have time to brake it all down but there is 28,316cc in 1 Cubic Foot, If Jeff was injecting 1600cc/min of meth and as you say 49% of it is oxygen thats 784cc of oxygen. Do you really think that mounts to a hill of beans when the turbos are are pushing 1300 cfm or 36,810,800cc of air into the motor at the same time thats ~21% oxygen? How much of a difference in power do you really think adding 784cc of oxygen to 7,730,268cc of oxygen really is going to make? 0.01% oxygen enrichment in the fuel.... big whoop! (i'm in a hurry so there may be some math errors above, but you get the idea)

So I will concede, his car will make 0.01% less HP (6.8 less HP) if he was running 100% C16 and no meth and all the stars aligned. Your right... lolol..... but if he simply changed over to a oxygenated fuel like Q16 he would gain that back.

Are you going also count out anybody using and form of oxygenated fuel also? that will remove 90% of all pump gas sold in the USA now.

And you left one part out of Andre above dyno, he ran that on 100% PUMP GAS, if I remember right he had his total timing down around 6 deg and still made that 618 hp on a totaly stock motor, on 100% pump gas.

I'm not sure what I uncorrected numbers were on my car but most likely around 16% less for Albq alitude, so what? DR750's would make 0hp on the moon, that does not change what they make at sea level, thats why Dynos have correction factors for air density, and from what I have seen there accurate. Seeing how long the list of DR750 cars dynoed at sea level on stock motors is getting that make basically the same HP SAE. And By the way how much power did your car that you even have in you avatar as "725 awhp" make uncorrected in CO? 500? so what? Or better yet Ray's car I know made MORE HP uncorrected then the 653 AWHP it made SAE, you dont see us talking about his uncorrected numbers do you? Corrected numbers are the only way you can compare dyno numbers less you are all on the same dyno the same day at the same place at the same time.

And BTW god I feel sorry for anybody that would let you tune there car! yikes....

[NOMIEZVR4]

NOW this is finally a 5 star thread....BRAVO! :D

[J. Fast]

And anybody that knows the first thing about Gas motors knows thats not true, Meth and NOS are not even remotely the same thing.

yes there is 02 in Meth, I dont have time to brake it all down but there is 28,316cc in 1 Cubic Foot, If Jeff was injecting 1600cc/min of meth and as you say 22% of it is oxygen thats 352cc of oxygen. Do you really think that mounts to a hill of beans when the turbos are are pushing 1300 cfm or 36,810,800cc of air into the motor at the same time thats ~21% oxygen? How much of a difference in power do you really think adding 352cc of oxygen to 7,730,268cc of oxygen really is going to make? 0.0045% oxygen enrichment in the fuel.... big whoop! (i'm in a hurry so there may be some math errors above, but you get the idea)
Methanol by molecular structure is 50% oxygen by weight. 50% of every speck of methanol fuel being injected is oxygen.

Where you're misinterpreting is there's 22% more oxygen in 1 litre of methanol as compared to 1 litre of E-85 (There's 392grams of oxygen in a one litre bottle of Methanol. There's 320grams of oxygen in 1 litre of E-85).




So I will concede, hit car will make 0.0045% less HP (3 less HP) if he was running 100% C16 and no meth. Your right... lolol

And you left one part out of Andre above dyno, he ran that on 100% PUMP GAS, if I remember right he had his total timing down around 6 deg and still made that 618 hp on a totaly stock motor, on 100% pump gas.

I'm not sure what I uncorrected numbers were on my car but most likely around 16% less for Albq alitude, so what? DR750's would make 0hp on the moon, that does not change what they make at sea level, thats why Dynos have correction factors for air density, and from what I have seen there accurate. Seeing how long the list of DR750 cars dynoed at sea level on stock motors is getting that make basically the same HP. And By the way how much power did your car that you even have in you avatar as "725 awhp" make uncorrected in CO? 500? so what?

And BTW god I feel sorry for anybody that would let you tune there car! yikes....

Round here nobody cares about SAE numbers. They care about Uncorrected numbers. I make 720whp at sea level and 580uncorrected here in Denver. I'm pretty open about that. You made under 500whp at 25psi uncorrected on DR750's on a stock motor in Albq and you never said one thing about it till I just asked you point blank right here and now. People want to know that stuff.

For clarification...

Andre`, 100% pumpgas DR750's 31PSI...

http://www.3si.org/forum/attachments/f35/81521d1279011096-my-dr750r-project-dr750-dyno-080710-32-psi-pump-afwhp-vs-awfwtq.jpg



I'm not asking for you to concede man. I've been trying to have conversations with you for years but often you're so keen on talking down to others because your intelligence is above them. I don't want to have insulting conversations with you anymore man. I want to talk to you. Let that shit back then go so we can move forward and talk about cool shit.

When you get time please clarify the point you did not have time to make regarding meth injection. Your thoughts and opinions are highly regarded and others like to learn.

[SnakeSkinner]

Methanol by molecular structure is 50% oxygen by weight. 50% of every speck of methanol fuel being injected is oxygen.

Where you're misinterpreting is there's 22% more oxygen in 1 litre of methanol as compared to 1 litre of E-85 (There's 392grams of oxygen in a one litre bottle of Methanol. There's 320grams of oxygen in 1 litre of E-85).


ya ya ya, like I said I was in a hurry I already went back and edited my post for 49% oxygen. here it is again.

yes there is oxygen in Meth, I dont have time to brake it all down but there is 28,316cc in 1 Cubic Foot, If Jeff was injecting 1600cc/min of meth and as you say 49% of it is oxygen thats 784cc of oxygen. Do you really think that mounts to a hill of beans when the turbos are are pushing 1300 cfm or 36,810,800cc of air into the motor at the same time thats ~21% oxygen? How much of a difference in power do you really think adding 784cc of oxygen to 7,730,268cc of oxygen really is going to make? 0.01% oxygen enrichment in the fuel.... big whoop! (i'm in a hurry so there may be some math errors above, but you get the idea)

So I will concede, his car will make 0.01% less HP (6.8 less HP) if he was running 100% C16 and no meth and all the stars aligned. Your right... lolol..... but if he simply changed over to a oxygenated fuel like Q16 he would gain that back.

Are you going also count out anybody using and form of oxygenated fuel also? that will remove 90% of all pump gas sold in the USA now.

[J. Fast]

ya ya ya, like I said I was in a hurry I already went back and edited my post for 49% oxygen. here it is again.

yes there is oxygen in Meth, I dont have time to brake it all down but there is 28,316cc in 1 Cubic Foot, If Jeff was injecting 1600cc/min of meth and as you say 49% of it is oxygen thats 784cc of oxygen. Do you really think that mounts to a hill of beans when the turbos are are pushing 1300 cfm or 36,810,800cc of air into the motor at the same time thats ~21% oxygen? How much of a difference in power do you really think adding 784cc of oxygen to 7,730,268cc of oxygen really is going to make? 0.01% oxygen enrichment in the fuel.... big whoop! (i'm in a hurry so there may be some math errors above, but you get the idea)

So I will concede, his car will make 0.01% less HP (6.8 less HP) if he was running 100% C16 and no meth and all the stars aligned. Your right... lolol..... but if he simply changed over to a oxygenated fuel like Q16 he would gain that back.

Are you going also count out anybody using and form of oxygenated fuel also? that will remove 90% of all pump gas sold in the USA now.

I'm not discarding the results. I think they're absolutely COOL! Especially for a DIY builder. But the results are not inline with the norm of expectations for guys around the globe who live at elevation, have no knowledge of methanol injection, supplemental fuel, or access to oxygen enriched fuels. Would you offer some scrutiny If some tim3kgt turbos made equivalent power on 100% methanol? I'm sure you'd say "wait a minute that's something different. you can't compare it with this pile of apples that's oranges. 50% of the fuel is oxygen".

I don't want to talk above you or below you Matt, I want to talk to you. Let's move forward and try. I will take some time to read what you just said and get back to you.

[SnakeSkinner]

Round here nobody cares about SAE numbers. They care about Uncorrected numbers. I make 720whp at sea level and 580uncorrected here in Denver. I'm pretty open about that. You made under 500whp at 25psi uncorrected on DR750's on a stock motor in Albq and you never said one thing about it till I just asked you point blank right here and now. People want to know that stuff.


I'm have to find my Dyno file, but I'm sure the uncorrected numbers were still over 500, but what does that matter? Everybody posts corrected numbers thats thy only way you can compare dyno numbers. Uncorrected stock 3/s cars here make ~180 awhp, so what? If your compairing dyno's you MUST use corrected numbers, guys at sea level when it's cold there dyno numbers will be HIGHER uncorrected then they are corrected, and people like us that live at alitude will be lower, thats why dynos have correction factors. Your point makes no sense.

here are some sea level DR750 dynos for you that took all of 5 seconds to find on 3si

Then EricTT's dyno

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y275/Eric21/Album%20Stealth/IMG_2453.jpg

Here is Vipershark11's DR750 dyno chart also over 600 awhp
http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t117/vipershark11/IMAG0001_zps596a8fec.jpg

Also on that same day it Ray's dyno day Pensky3Thousand made 550 awhp on his DR750 car and he was having problems with the car at that time and it still made that power.
http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t117/vipershark11/IMAG0002_zps4d0fa7ee.jpg

And Ray's DR750 dyno

http://i27.photobucket.com/albums/c178/raysinsomnia/20120901_145447.jpg

[J. Fast]

ya ya ya, like I said I was in a hurry I already went back and edited my post for 49% oxygen. here it is again.

yes there is oxygen in Meth, I dont have time to brake it all down but there is 28,316cc in 1 Cubic Foot, If Jeff was injecting 1600cc/min of meth and as you say 49% of it is oxygen thats 784cc of oxygen. Do you really think that mounts to a hill of beans when the turbos are are pushing 1300 cfm or 36,810,800cc of air into the motor at the same time thats ~21% oxygen? How much of a difference in power do you really think adding 784cc of oxygen to 7,730,268cc of oxygen really is going to make? 0.01% oxygen enrichment in the fuel....

Alright so I see your point to an extent I'm seeing it like this though. If you see it different please clarify. If the engine is displacing somewhere's around 37,000,000cc's of oxygen then wouldn't it be fair to say if the AFR is 12.5:1 that you would need to inject like 3,000,000cc's of fuel to maintain the AFR? If 55% of that is methanol then the impact is 3/37 or 8% oxygen enrichment by fuel. 8% of 700hp is 56hp. Is it not fair to say that's how much power output is increased from the oxygen in the fuel that the turbo's aren't grabbing?

[SnakeSkinner]

I'm not discarding the results. I think they're absolutely COOL! Especially for a DIY builder. But the results are not inline with the norm of expectations for guys around the globe who live at elevation, have no knowledge of methanol injection, supplemental fuel, or access to oxygen enriched fuels. Would you offer some scrutiny If some tim3kgt turbos made equivalent power on 100% methanol? I'm sure you'd say [I]"wait a minute that's something different. you can't compare it with this pile of apples that's oranges. 50% of the fuel is oxygen".


I could care less what fuel people use, my point was there are so many variables in fuel there will be no way to brake down a dyno list for every kind. And in most cases the difference does not amount to a hill of beans as long as the fuel allows for the use of the same boost with out detonation. What difference does 10 hp make on a 600+ awhp car? your the only person that would even care and only if it was a way to try and discredit something somebody els built. You were trying to say that him running meth was equivalent to running "300 hp shot of NOS". If you had posted that his can would make 7 less hp on 100% c16 then he is making now, I would not of even posted, but there is a big difference between 300hp and 7hp. 7hp is nothing IMO in a car this weight and power it would mean a fraction of a MPH at the track.

If they sold E85 here I would run it, but they dont I'm not going to cry about it if the people living were they can get it make a few more HP because of it good for them.

[SnakeSkinner]

Alright so I see your point to an extent I'm seeing it like this though. If you see it different please clarify. If the engine is displacing somewhere's around 37,000,000cc's of oxygen then wouldn't it be fair to say if the AFR is 12.5:1 that you would need to inject like 3,000,000cc's of fuel to maintain the AFR? If 55% of that is methanol then the impact is 3/37 or 8% oxygen enrichment by fuel. 8% of 700hp is 56hp. Is it not fair to say that's how much power output is increased from the oxygen in the fuel that the turbo's aren't grabbing?

I dont know were your cumming up with 55% of his fuel was being supported by meth, he posted that he was running 1600cc of meth. Your taking bench racing to a entire new level, here and I dont have time to dissect it. But I'm sure it's like all of your bench racing always is, highly flawed.

[J. Fast]

I dont know were your cumming up with 55% of his fuel was being supported by meth, he posted that he was running 1600cc of meth. Your taking bench racing to a entire new level, here and I dont have time to dissect it. But I'm sure it's like all of your bench racing always is, highly flawed.I'm not makin any of this stuff up. It's free in the air being posted on datalogs.Jeff's injector pulsewidth is 11.5ms on 680cc injectors and the AFR is 12.5ish. That's 160lph of fuel being pumped from the gas tank. Can you make more than 450 crank hp with that much fuel? No. How much power can you make on the stock fuel pump and stock injectors? On 160lph of gas? In order to maintain the afr another 200lph of fuel IS being supplimented from the meth injection. You can't just wish fuel flow and consumption in there. Show me.

[SnakeSkinner]

I'm not makin any of this stuff up. It's free in the air being posted on datalogs.Jeff's injector pulsewidth is 11.5ms on 680cc injectors and the AFR is 12.5ish. That's 160lph of fuel being pumped from the gas tank. Can you make more than 450 crank hp with that much fuel? No. How much power can you make on the stock fuel pump and stock injectors? On 160lph of gas? In order to maintain the afr another 200lph of fuel IS being supplimented from the meth injection. You can't just wish fuel flow and consumption in there. Show me.

The problem is that every one of your calculations has some margin of error like all bench racing does. There is no possible way he is fueling his motor 55% on the meth the pumps that come with meth kits are not even designed to support what much fuel flow, how big is his meth tank? Was he using a 1/2 gallon of meth on every dyno pull? Your numbers are flawed in some way. I dont have time to calculate actual fuel flow, but there is no question there is a flaw in you thinking he is fueling his motor 55% on meth from a meth kit, he would need a meth tank as big as his gas tank.

This will be my last post till I get back on Jan. 2st, I really have got to go, I dont have any more time to spend on this I have got to go.

[HellBringer]

What exactly is the point of all this conjecture and assumption-based bench racing..!? You can post all of the equations, engineering buzzwords and whatever else you can regurgitate in attempts to validate your argument, but at the end of the day, you’re still trying to convince people that 2+2=5 Meth injection doesn’t intrinsically add HP, at least not a tangible amount. You keep parroting it over and over, but it’s never going to validate your buddy’s absurdly inflated dyno numbers…

[J. Fast]

The problem is that every one of your calculations has some margin of error like all bench racing does. There is no possible way he is fueling his motor 55% on the meth the pumps that come with meth kits are not even designed to support what much fuel flow, how big is his meth tank? Was he using a 1/2 gallon of meth on every dyno pull? Your numbers are flawed in some way. I dont , have time to calculate actual fuel flow, but there is no question there is a flaw in you thinking he is fueling his motor 55% on meth from a meth kit, he would need a meth tank as big as his gas tank

This will be my last post till I get back on Jan. 2st, I really have got to go, I dont have any more time to spend on this I have got to go.
It was nice to finally, FINALLY, have a discussion with you, Matt. I look forward to future discussion with you on this topic and hope you spend more time here on this board. There's really more substance to a number of discussions here and less new FG talk that you get over at 3si. Conversations can be quite challenging as there's a large pool of very brilliant people.

May you enjoy your holiday, family and a have a Merry Christmas.
Cheers,

Jeremy

[CoopKill]

I am truly glad to see you offering your hand out in a humbled way Jeremy. I really am...

[Greg E]

I am truly glad to see you offering your hand out in a humbled way Jeremy. I really am...

Same. Matt has always been a straight up and great person. If you got questions, he takes the time to answer them.

[J. Fast]

I would like to revisit this topic. I think there's a disconnect between using racegas, E-85, and injecting methanol and I'd like to mention a few empirical points, as it relates to power output, regarding the subject matter. I prepared a table to make interpretation simple.



Fuel Type
Racegas (Sunoco 100)
E-85, Ethanol
Methanol


Engine Airflow (CFM)
1135
1135
1135


Pounds of Air (lbs)
85.3
85.3
85.3


Air to Fuel Ratio
12.5
12.5
12.5


Fuel Type AFR Equivalent
12.5
8.3
5.44


Pounds of Fuel Consumed (lbs)
6.8
10.3
15.7


BTU Rating of Fuel
18,750
13,725
9,600


Thermal Energy Output
127,500 BTU
141,367 BTU
150,720 BTU


Power Increase from fuel type change
0%
10%
16%



The intention of the table is to illustrate the impact of fuel type selection. What's being injected plays a significant role in peak power output. When you hit the lid on a turbos max flow on racegas you can sneak roughly 10% more out of it with E85 / 15%+/- with methanol.

Putting 2+2 together. We've seen a 600whp output on DR750's which we agree is around 1135CFM/85.3lbs (42.5lbs per turbo)

Eric put down 600 on racegas?
Ray put down 660 on E85? 10% power Increase
Jeff put down 690 on methanol over racegas? 16% power Increase

Now look back at the chart... It's too much of a coincidence to ignore.

[CoopKill]

I believe Eric's was meth injection.

[J. Fast]

Either way, PG posted 600hp on 100% racegas / 32psi. Logs show 85lbs airflow and his AFR is on point too.

[JasonY]

Eric was on 94 octane(Canadian premium, on US 93 it knocked like crazy and he couldnt run the car at all at NG11) and 1000cc's of meth from the standard snow stage 2 pump. So it may not be a true 1k pending the pumps ability to meet the demand. I think he was running 25% water/75% meth at the time.

Eric was also on a 100% stock longblock. Had cam gears but they were set straight up. Eric was also on stock wastegates or too soft of a spring in the forge ones that didnt allow over 25psi by redline. Was running i think like a 28-ish psi spike and then fell to 24-25psi. With just an ARC2 and 660 injectors. Nothing fancy in the tuning. Just drove like 500 miles, dyno'd it and drove it home.

Jason

[J. Fast]

The btu rating for 93octane is actually 200 btu's higher than racegas. Sunoco rates their 93 pump around 18,900btu per lb. The net btu outputs are almost identical. The main difference is between the two fuels is additional retardant in the racegas. The octane/retardant doesn't add any btu to the energy output, it just delays the knock occurance..

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CCYQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fiqlearningsystems.com%2Fethanol%2 Fdownloads%2FRacing%2520Fuel%2520Characteristics.p df&ei=xTbwUpfrFO_yyAGxrYHwBg&usg=AFQjCNFxxr__9nEtcsmlgSuAiXOZg6wSxg

[fastfalcon94]

This is from EricTT's thread. I am very curious in all of the Timing numbers. I have Jeff's, but I don't have Rays or Erics or even Matts. They all ran some kind of piggyback so I'd expect the timing to be higher, just not sure what. I'm only running 11.8 afr with 800cc 50/50 meth and around 20-21 timing at 25 psi right now. Everyone else seems to be running more timing and more meth that me so I'd like to change that come spring.




Anyway, here is the results we got, all on pump gas + water/meth, at 12.0:1 - 12.5:1 A/F :

600AWHP @ 651AWTQ
609AWHP @ 633AWTQ (a small missfire killed some TQ here)

On another pull we saw 657AWTQ, but Ray stoped the pull cause he saw 33psi. Nevertheless, we never saw knock, not even one count. It was 67F.

[Greg E]

They all ran some kind of piggyback so I'd expect the timing to be higher, just not sure what.

It's not. Part throttle, you'll see more timing but WOT even with a piggy back making that kind of power, you'll still be in the upper end of the maps.

[kywhitelightning]

Unless you need to pull that much airflow out to get the AFR's in check because of the massive amount of methanol being injected. I was pulling 57% with the translator on the stock rom and I also reduced my rail pressure just to keep the airflow demand high enough to request IDC's in the mid 90's on 550cc injectors. That netted me 27-28* of timing advance. Adding rail pressure pushed timing higher as fuel demand went down. That usually netted me some form of knock on pump gas.

I wouldn't consider this current setup a piggyback setup as all the corrections are made via flashing.

TTEric's dyno was done with stock heads and is not a good example for that comparison. Ray's was done in draw through which I bet has created some vacuum pre-turbo. There were other items that weren't completely optimized for power in his build which probably cost some power. Again, not a good example for comparison. It would be really tough to find 3 setups very similarly matched mod wise for that comparison. The best way would be to have someone run all the different fuels all out on the same vehicle. That would be another healthy feat to accomplish.

Jeff

[kywhitelightning]

This is from EricTT's thread. I am very curious in all of the Timing numbers. I have Jeff's, but I don't have Rays or Erics or even Matts. They all ran some kind of piggyback so I'd expect the timing to be higher, just not sure what. I'm only running 11.8 afr with 800cc 50/50 meth and around 20-21 timing at 25 psi right now. Everyone else seems to be running more timing and more meth that me so I'd like to change that come spring.

I'm adding more methanol this year too.

Jeff

[familyMAN]

Power Increase from fuel type change
0%
10%
16%
[/tr]
[/table]


Eric put down 600 on racegas?
Ray put down 660 on E85? 10% power Increase
Jeff put down 690 on methanol over racegas? 16% power Increase

Now look back at the chart... It's too much of a coincidence to ignore.

Wouldn't this imply that Jeff is running 100% meth?

[J. Fast]

I'm adding more methanol this year too.

Jeff
The real fun would be converting to this... Fuel Systems - Injectors - Quantum Technologies (http://www.qtww.com/injectors)

Converting to Natural Gas... 130,000btu 1% power output increase over race gas.

Converting to Hydrogen.... 180,000btu 30% power output increase over racegas.

Converting ti Propane... 135,000btu 5% power output increase over racegas.

All off the above are 50% tax credit reimbursement, Alternative Fuel Vehicle reimbursed by the FED, and will never require emissions again. The cost to convert is pretty much 25% out of pocket when the state and federal credits kick in. $1500. :)

[CoopKill]

That would be interesting... What are the preignition thresholds of Propane?

[CoopKill]

BTW, you can keep the Hydrogen... NO THANKS!

[GTOJOE]

What you guys call propane we call LPG (liquid petroleum gas) and is extremely common over here and costs about half what normal petrol costs. It also has far less harmful emissions compared to normal petrol so the government gives rebates if you convert to LPG.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

[mb3000]

I know back in the day they used to inject propane like we spray meth, so I'm sure it's got some good pre-ignition characteristics.

[Chris@Rvengeperformance]

propane is 5 bucks a gallon right now in the US. Big shortage. Gas is around 3.25

[J. Fast]

BTW, you can keep the Hydrogen... NO THANKS!

Why not HHO injection, 50mpg, distilled water fuel, I don't follow?

[Alex3000gt]

:awesome:

[Chris@Rvengeperformance]

wow seriously?

[CoopKill]

After reading a few articles on it, and renewing the info I thought I knew on the subject it looks to be a cool option. Would you use a modified nos setup to deliver it?

[kywhitelightning]

Did a little investigating recently on my AFPR and noticed something strange. After a drive home from work, nothing special, I checked my rail pressure with the engine off and the engine bay heat soaked. Static pressure was low again. Me being the smart guy I am, I turned it up a bit to 43.5psi and went inside to check out my datalog from the drive. All my trims were right where they should be. :confused2:

I slept on that and when I went to the garage the next day I checked static pressure again and now it was high, WTF!!!! I reset it back to 43.5psi and drove into work again. Returned from work and took a picture this time of the static rail pressure when heat soaked to make sure I wasn't losing my freaking mind.

http://i495.photobucket.com/albums/rr316/jjd222002/IMAG1665_zps68211af6.jpg

The next day before work I took another picture of it with the engine bay completely cooled off.

http://i495.photobucket.com/albums/rr316/jjd222002/IMAG1666_zpse6697abc.jpg

Armed with pictoral proof that I'm not crazy I called Aeromotive about this and the tech laughed at first and asked, "Do you have an oil filled guage?". I said yes, and he commenced telling me that this is a normal thing and that there is nothing wrong with the regulator. Somehow the oil in the guage when heated skews the guages actual reading. He said Aeromotive is coming out with an oil filled guage that will be capable of equalizing atmospheric pressure inside the guage so this doesn't occur. This seems to be the only real downfall of an oil filled guage because he also explained why it is better to use an oil filled guage vs a dry guage in the engine bay.

This is why I set the rail pressure high prior to the dyno as I did set it correctly when I tinkered with it. It was hot and read low. I upped it and never rechecked it as at the time I thought I was competent enough to read a guage correctly.

For those of you out there that have an oil filled AFPR guage, check your rail pressure when cold only unless you have the latest fancy guage that is capable of correcting to atmospheric pressure when hot.

Jeff

[Greg E]

Good to know! I've experienced this once before and just figured I was crazy....

Thanks Jeff!

[kywhitelightning]

We're not crazy, lol.

It was refreshing to see that I didn't goof. I just was given skewed information from the guage. I hope this helps a lot of people because I'm sure there are more people out there that have seen it and weren't aware.

Jeff

[mb3000]

Wow, good info to know! Thanks for passing it on Jeff.

[Alex3000gt]

Gauge pressure (PSIG), pressure relative to atmospheric pressure (14.7 PSIA). Perhaps the reference 'atmospheric' pressure that this gauge is reading relative to is actually the sealed pressure (PSIS) inside the gauge face (assuming the gauge is hermetically sealed). If the gauge was sealed at atmospheric pressure and room temperature, then as the gauge itself warms up the reference pressure (inside the sealed gauge) actually rises above atmospheric pressure and your gauge pressure is now PSIG minus any pressure increase trapped inside the sealed unit above atmospheric.

Just a thought. Could be way off base here.

Alex

[HellBringer]

What fuel pump(s) are you running?

The fuel pressure drop is likely not (entirely) the gauge thing -- first I've actually heard of that. Your base FP will drop once the pump, fuel, etc.. heats up. Lots of contributors to this. I have some first hand experience with this, that caused me to do some tail chasing as well when I was tuning my former DSM on E85 with DSMLink. Pressure does indeed drop; it's not just the gauge reading low, in my experience. The Aeromotive A340 in particular is VERY susceptible to pressure dropping with heat. The one I had in my DSM would drop 7-8psi between cold start and some regular driving. The new Walbro 400 drops about 2-3psi on my Supra and the same is verified with the in-cabin gauge on my buddy's car, so it's not just the AFPR gauge reporting the drop. The OEM Supra pump had a pretty significant drop as well, like 4-5psi.

[kywhitelightning]

Aeromotive Stealth 340.

The fact that I can turn the pressure up when hot with the adjuster on top of the regulator tells me it's not the pump falling short as the pump simply provides flow. The regulator creates the restriction which sets the rail pressure. I can follow the skewed guage tale as my trims stay nearly centered on 0 all the time. Not only that, a few pages back I found the "dyno demon" was high rail pressure that I set based on a false guage reading. I then fixed said goof and proved it with a nice virtual dyno graph.

Even if the flow dropped off, pressure wouldn't until the regulator closed the bypass line completely and can no longer maintain line pressure. The pictures I posted above were taken with the engine off and the fuel pump check connector jumped to the battery. The only differences between the two pictures are time and temperature. The car wasn't touched between the two pictures. I cannot test under WOT conditions as I don't have an in car guage or a way to monitor pressure while running. I would suspect that if you were making enough power to max the pump's flow, the pressure would drop under WOT but I know I'm nowhere near maxing this pump (according to their phone line 700 fuel injected, forced induction hp). I can add fuel in the tune (IPW) and the AFR's change accordingly so I know I still have some gas left to add to the equation.

Were the above instances near maxing the pump's flow capability?

Jeff

[HellBringer]

It's not that your pump is falling short per say, it's just flowing a flowing a different amount once 'warmed up'. When I was troubleshooting this issue I could easily increase the static FP to 100psi when hot/heatsoaked. What I observed is static FP was set to say 50psi on a cold start. After 10-15min of driving the static FP was steady at 42-43psi and did not drop any farther. When this drop occurred, I did observe a drop in fuel flow as referenced by IDC's increasing and A/F leaning. I did the same thing -- I observed the drop, cranked the AFPR and then the next time I drove the car it was pig rich. I don't recall what the trims did since I never really paid attention to them since driveability and idle/cruise A/F was fine. So, in my case, it was not just the oil-filled gauge reporting low; base/static FP had indeed dropped. This is a relatively common observation with the A340 in particular. I think Trevor had this same observation and ended up adding fuel coolers to try and mitigate. It's probably a combination of things -- system voltage drop, pump and fuel heat up and lose efficiency, etc..

[kywhitelightning]

You didn't answer my question. There is one way to verify flow and that is to do a hot flow test and a cold flow test. That will take the regulator out of the equation and either prove it or disprove it. It should be pretty easy for me to set up so I'll test and report back.

Jeff

[J. Fast]

My liquid filled fuel pressure gauge drifts based on temperature of the fluid in the gauge... Mine drifts at the track about 5psi. For the sake of sanity... my underhood temps are 350°+.

If you spy my garage albums one might find a fuel cooling system for that reason. My fuel is typically ambient temp or a bit below. My fuel rails, injectors, and FPR are 250° from radiant underhood heat. The gauge isn't busted, they just walk when the temperature of the fluid in the gauge increases dramatically.

[HellBringer]

You didn't answer my question. There is one way to verify flow and that is to do a hot flow test and a cold flow test. That will take the regulator out of the equation and either prove it or disprove it. It should be pretty easy for me to set up so I'll test and report back.

Jeff



Sorry.. This question: "Were the above instances near maxing the pump's flow capability?"..?


In the case of the A340 on my Talon, no -- it was not near the end of it's capabilities. Maybe 400-425WHP on E85. In the case of the OEM Denso pump, yes -- that was tested to at and beyond its flow capabilities (done at 560WHP, FWIW -- increasing base pressure resulted in decreased flow).


Agreed, the bucket test between hot and cold will prove/disprove -- a SF member did that a few years back when these first came out and he experienced the pump nosediving with heat. I don't recall the specifics, but there was a significant flow disparity between hot and cold.

[SnakeSkinner]

I would like to revisit this topic. I think there's a disconnect between using racegas, E-85, and injecting methanol and I'd like to mention a few empirical points, as it relates to power output, regarding the subject matter. I prepared a table to make interpretation simple.



Fuel Type
Racegas (Sunoco 100)
E-85, Ethanol
Methanol


Engine Airflow (CFM)
1135
1135
1135


Pounds of Air (lbs)
85.3
85.3
85.3


Air to Fuel Ratio
12.5
12.5
12.5


Fuel Type AFR Equivalent
12.5
8.3
5.44


Pounds of Fuel Consumed (lbs)
6.8
10.3
15.7


BTU Rating of Fuel
18,750
13,725
9,600


Thermal Energy Output
127,500 BTU
141,367 BTU
150,720 BTU


Power Increase from fuel type change
0%
10%
16%



The intention of the table is to illustrate the impact of fuel type selection. What's being injected plays a significant role in peak power output. When you hit the lid on a turbos max flow on racegas you can sneak roughly 10% more out of it with E85 / 15%+/- with methanol.

Putting 2+2 together. We've seen a 600whp output on DR750's which we agree is around 1135CFM/85.3lbs (42.5lbs per turbo)

Eric put down 600 on racegas?
Ray put down 660 on E85? 10% power Increase
Jeff put down 690 on methanol over racegas? 16% power Increase

Now look back at the chart... It's too much of a coincidence to ignore.

You can manipulate calculations to come up with what ever coincidence's you want, thats the problem with bench racing. I can dig you up some dynos of DR750 cars making less HP on E85 then other DR750's cars on gas, does that mean that E85 makes LESS power then gas? I can find you dynos of Red cars making more power then White cars and can put together a chart of them for proof, does that red cars more powerful then white cars? If I had as mutch time to waist making charts as you do I could make a very good case for either of those BS points, just as you have for your BS point.

Even if those calculations are correct that a car running on 100% meth would make 16% more HP then a car running on 100 oct unleaded, there is not a single 3/s car running on 100% meth at least not that I know of. Jeff's car was not even running on 50% meth, in reality threw those tiny little jets it was most likely 15% or less. His gain in power from having meth in the mix was most likely in the 1% range at best.

Running a highly oxygenated race fuel like Q16 of VPimport have been know to give even larger gains then that. I would be willing to bet that his car on Q16 and no meth would make the same power or more, and I bet by simply turning off the meth and turning on 100% C16 it would make within 5-7hp of what he made now. I bet after all your spouting of this BS that he does that very thing the next time he dynos.

If you think simply adding a meth kit with a little jet and running 100% meth in it (because with 50/50 water/meth you WILL loose power I have proven that time and time again on the dyno) you will gain 16% to hp at the same boost and timing you need to put down the crack pipe. Meth kits would be the best selling part in all of motorsports. Power gains compatible to a 100hp NOS kit with out a bottle that costs $80 to fill every 30 or so seconds of use, from a fuel that costs about the same as gas and a kit that costs $400. And a better question would be IF you think that is the case, WHY ON EARTH WOULD YOU NOT HAVE A METH KIT ON YOUR CAR? $400 for ~100 awhp with basically no down side other then filling the small tank every few weeks? Not having to add the risk or stress of more boost or more timing just and 100 awhp be spraying a little meth into the intake path..... welcome to fantasy island....

[mb3000]

You can manipulate calculations to come up with what ever coincidence's you want, thats the problem with bench racing. I can dig you up some dynos of DR750 cars making less HP on E85 then other DR750's cars on gas, does that mean that E85 makes LESS power then gas? I can find you dynos of Red cars making more power then White cars and can put together a chart of them for proof, does that red cars more powerful then white cars? If I had as mutch time to waist making charts as you do I could make a very good case for either of those BS points, just as you have for your BS point.

Even if those calculations are correct that a car running on 100% meth would make 16% more HP then a car running on 100 oct unleaded, there is not a single 3/s car running on 100% meth at least not that I know of. Jeff's car was not even running on 50% meth, in reality threw those tiny little jets it was most likely 15% or less. His gain in power from having meth in the mix was most likely in the 1% range at best.

Running a highly oxygenated race fuel like Q16 of VPimport have been know to give even larger gains then that. I would be willing to bet that his car on Q16 and no meth would make the same power or more, and I bet by simply turning off the meth and turning on 100% C16 it would make within 5-7hp of what he made now. I bet after all your spouting of this BS that he does that very thing the next time he dynos.

If you think simply adding a meth kit with a little jet and running 100% meth in it (because with 50/50 water/meth you WILL loose power I have proven that time and time again on the dyno) you will gain 16% to hp at the same boost and timing you need to put down the crack pipe. Meth kits would be the best selling part in all of motorsports. Power gains compatible to a 100hp NOS kit with out a bottle that costs $80 to fill every 30 or so seconds of use, from a fuel that costs about the same as gas and a kit that costs $400. And a better question would be IF you think that is the case, WHY ON EARTH WOULD YOU NOT HAVE A METH KIT ON YOUR CAR? $400 for ~100 awhp with basically no down side other then filling the small tank every few weeks? Not having to add the risk or stress of more boost or more timing just and 100 awhp be spraying a little meth into the intake path..... welcome to fantasy island....


Sorry to bother you, but do you have a link to those dyno charts that I could look at? Maybe a thread that I missed.

[SnakeSkinner]

Sorry to bother you, but do you have a link to those dyno charts that I could look at? Maybe a thread that I missed.

I'm not sure there have ever been any threads like that on here, and I dont want do dig threw 100's of old dyno charts trying to figure out what ones were after turning on water/meth but it's prity common knowledge that if you dyno a gas car then simply turn on a water meth kit with out making any other changes like adding timing or boost and dyno it again you will loose a few HP. Anybody that has ever spent any time on a dyno with water meth kits knows that. The point of running a watter/meth kit is the ability to turn up the boost, add timing or both thats were the added power comes from. (this is on Gas powered combustion engines, diesels are different)

[mb3000]

I'm not sure there have ever been any threads like that on here, and I dont want do dig threw 100's of old dyno charts trying to figure out what ones were after turning on water/meth but it's prity common knowledge that if you dyno a gas car then simply turn on a water meth kit with out making any other changes like adding timing or boost and dyno it again you will loose a few HP. Anybody that has ever spent any time on a dyno with water meth kits knows that. The point of running a watter/meth kit is the ability to turn up the boost, add timing or both thats were the added power comes from. (this is on Gas powered combustion engines, diesels are different)

My mistake, I thought you were referencing after the boost/timing/etc has been increased to compensate. IE spraying pure meth then switching to 50/50, without any other changes.

[CoopKill]

I was a little confused on that as well. Makes sense, now that I have had it made sense of... :p

I thought I had read that water added to the meth actually cooled better? I know Jeff dismissed the water due to issues with surge, but are there any other reasons to inject 100% meth vs 50-50?

[anyonebutme]

I was a little confused on that as well. Makes sense, now that I have had it made sense of... :p

I thought I had read that water added to the meth actually cooled better? I know Jeff dismissed the water due to issues with surge, but are there any other reasons to inject 100% meth vs 50-50?

Water cools the chamber, but only up to a point, then it drowns the flame kernel. If you're injecting meth to use it as a fuel and gain power, you want 100% meth, as any water will hamper you and most people inject so much meth that any water will hurt. If you are using it as a hot knock suppressant for MAINTAINING power, then you inject water alone or a small amount of meth just for freeze protection.

I bought my kit to inject 100% water for dropping EGT's and chamber temps while roadcoursing so I didn't have to keep lowering boost as the day went on and the engine heatsoaks. I can run 16+ psi at the drags or for a couple runs, but try that on the roadcourse and you'll be replacing engines yearly at the least.

Question you have to ask yourself before you decide what to inject is simply "how long do you plan on injecting". If you plan on injecting for 15-20 minutes straight like I do, select a small nozzle and do water. If you plan on injecting a crapload of something for 10 seconds for additional power over what you can make normally, 100% methanol. There is no middle ground as far as I'm concerned, all or nothing.

[JasonY]

I've come to the same conclusions lately also Chris. I'll be running pure water since Rotaries need all the internal cooling they can get, make plenty of power on fuel only.

Water is a good knock suppressant since it slows the ignition, hence why you can run too much and it WILL cost you some power.

Running 100% VP Meth in Todds car since its just used as an octane booster and short power blasts.

Jason

[CoopKill]

Thanks guys. I will be replacing my nozzles anyway to go to ss lines, so I need to think about what most of what I will be doing. I hate black n white decisions hrrrm...

[JasonY]

drag racing/power pulls = meth, road course = water and a whole lot less of it.

Just add another pump bill and run both..lol Water into the IC piping for roadcourse and the direct port meth when drag racing.

Put the water tank/pump in the truck and use the rear washer bottle...lol

Jason

[J. Fast]

Even if those calculations are correct that a car running on 100% meth would make 16% more HP then a car running on 100 oct unleaded, there is not a single 3/s car running on 100% meth at least not that I know of. Jeff's car was not even running on 50% meth, in reality threw those tiny little jets it was most likely 15% or less. His gain in power from having meth in the mix was most likely in the 1% range at best.

I disagree with you, and that's fine really. No big deal. I suppose where I'm "Mind Blown" is how you can have a 660cc injector duty cycle in the 50% range with a 40psi something base pressure and make 800bhp or 700whp. I'm sorry but it's just not possible. At first glance that only appears to be enough fuel for about 450bhp. Where's the additional 350bhp worth of fuel being delivered from?



Running a highly oxygenated race fuel like Q16 of VPimport have been know to give even larger gains then that. I would be willing to bet that his car on Q16 and no meth would make the same power or more, and I bet by simply turning off the meth and turning on 100% C16 it would make within 5-7hp of what he made now. I bet after all your spouting of this BS that he does that very thing the next time he dynos.

That's certainly a possibility but you won't see 660cc injectors with injector duty cycles in the 50's. The specific gravity of VP Import is quite a bit lighter than the fuel he's injecting right now therefore he will need more fuel in terms of weight. Off the meth it's a fair bet the injectors will hit 100% IDC.[/quote]


If you think simply adding a meth kit with a little jet and running 100% meth in it (because with 50/50 water/meth you WILL loose power I have proven that time and time again on the dyno) you will gain 16% to hp at the same boost and timing you need to put down the crack pipe. Meth kits would be the best selling part in all of motorsports. Power gains compatible to a 100hp NOS kit with out a bottle that costs $80 to fill every 30 or so seconds of use, from a fuel that costs about the same as gas and a kit that costs $400. And a better question would be IF you think that is the case, WHY ON EARTH WOULD YOU NOT HAVE A METH KIT ON YOUR CAR? $400 for ~100 awhp with basically no down side other then filling the small tank every few weeks? Not having to add the risk or stress of more boost or more timing just and 100 awhp be spraying a little meth into the intake path..... welcome to fantasy island....

What I'm alluding to is there's a big gap between the power output based on his actual logged IDC's. If his logs are correct and he is only demanding a little over 50% of fuel injector then the amount of meth he's injecting is significantly more than a little 1% meth tuner kit can provide. It's like 300-350bhp worth of meth. Are you seeing it differently? What is the bhp rating for 660injectors at 60% IDC and a base fuel pressure?

[SnakeSkinner]

I disagree with you, and that's fine really. No big deal. I suppose where I'm "Mind Blown" is how you can have a 660cc injector duty cycle in the 50% range with a 40psi something base pressure and make 800bhp or 700whp. I'm sorry but it's just not possible. At first glance that only appears to be enough fuel for about 450bhp. Where's the additional 350bhp worth of fuel being delivered from?

your problem is thats your calculation for IDC based off a data log, and those are NEVER correct fr IPW/IDC. Not even close, some read super high, and some read super low. I have seen loggers show stock cars at 140% IDC and I have seen cars running 15psi, and bolt on's with stock injectors showing 65% IDC on the logger.

Your problem is you picked that one thing to latch onto because it served your agenda to try and discredit Jef's accomplishment, and you totally ignored the fact that the jets and meth kit he is running can not possibly support 50% of the fueling for the power his car is making, it CANT no matter how you try and swist and turn it and try to ignore that fact you cant change it. Not to mention if it was he would have to be refilling his little meth tank every time he floored the car for more then a few seconds.




That's certainly a possibility but you won't see 660cc injectors with injector duty cycles in the 50's. The specific gravity of VP Import is quite a bit lighter than the fuel he's injecting right now therefore he will need more fuel in terms of weight. Off the meth it's a fair bet the injectors will hit 100% IDC.

660's can easily support 680 whp if he simply cranks the fuel pressure a little bit. His REAL IDC will be in 100% to do it, now that is calculated from a log my be very different but he will be running them at 100%




What I'm alluding to is there's a big gap between the power output based on his actual logged IDC's. If his logs are correct and he is only demanding a little over 50% of fuel injector then the amount of meth he's injecting is significantly more than a little 1% meth tuner kit can provide. It's like 300-350bhp worth of meth. Are you seeing it differently? What is the bhp rating for 660injectors at 60% IDC and a base fuel pressure?


Once again, your ignoring the facts and bench racing with IDC from a IDC thats is blatantly incorrect. He CAN NOT, and I Repeat CAN NOT be supporting 350HP from his meth kit. It takes twice as much Meth to support 350HP then it takes gas to support 350HP what your saying is he is using twice as much Meth during a Power pull as he is using Gas and some how doing that threw 2 tiny meth nozzles supplied from a tiny little tank? If you would just put aside your agenda and open your eyes you would see that that IS NOT POSSIBLE.

[J. Fast]

I was not discrediting Jeff, Matt. I congratulated him. Less than 1% of 3/S owners out there will ever crack 600+whp. It's quite a feat.

Having never seen this setup in person and having no first hand knowledge of Jeff I can only go off the data that's being presented to me. If one were to email me a log like the one posted that would be the first thing any EFI Calibrator would latch onto. I had no idea how many nozzles were plumbed in and know jack about the intricate details of the setup other than the posted mod list. I automatically assumed there must have been some huge ass secondary injector meth kit because the injector reporting doesn't jive with the HP numbers. I latched onto a red flag and made mention of it several times. You were the first person to candidly state his Flash ECU/Evo Scan logger is mis-reporting because you know what setup Jeff has in his car, I didn't.

Evo Scan / Flash ECU's have been highly regarded as a formidable tuning solutions. I'm quite surprised to learn the fuel injection reporting on this particular unit is off by about 50%.

I don't have some secret agenda or anything like that Matt. I just pay attention to intricacies. "Attention to detail" is a fatal flaw of my personality.

[SnakeSkinner]

I was not discrediting Jeff, Matt. I congratulated him. Less than 1% of 3/S owners out there will ever crack 600+whp. It's quite a feat.

Having never seen this setup in person and having no first hand knowledge of Jeff I can only go off the data that's being presented to me. If one were to email me a log like the one posted that would be the first thing any EFI Calibrator would latch onto. I had no idea how many nozzles were plumbed in and know jack about the intricate details of the setup other than the posted mod list. I automatically assumed there must have been some huge ass secondary injector meth kit because the injector reporting doesn't jive with the HP numbers. I latched onto a red flag and made mention of it several times. You were the first person to candidly state his Flash ECU/Evo Scan logger is mis-reporting because you know what setup Jeff has in his car, I didn't.

Evo Scan / Flash ECU's have been highly regarded as a formidable tuning solutions. I'm quite surprised to learn the fuel injection reporting on this particular unit is off by about 50%.

I don't have some secret agenda or anything like that Matt. I just pay attention to intricacies. "Attention to detail" is a fatal flaw of my personality.


To convert IPW to DIC is a very tricky thing there are allot of variables thats why the calculations for them are almost never correct, things like length and age of wiring and injector brand can throw them off. If I remember right the log Jef posted on here showed some samples were his IDC were over 70%, then you threw his IPW into Jef L's (Stealth316's) calculator and came up with 50% from the same numbers. (lets not forget that Jef L. (Stealth316) is the same guy that argued with me 15 yrs ago saying that no turbo no mater how big it was would ever make more HP on a 3/s car then a 15G would because the motor could simply not ingest the air. I think we can all agree now that he was dead wrong about that.). I have run 2 different brand of loggers on 3/s cars in the past and one showed IDC in the 80's% and the other showed it in the 130's% with out changing anything but the logger. Why? because they each use a different calculations for converting IPW into IDC and both company's claimed there way was correct. It truth most likely nether of them was correct. There is no way IDC can be over 100% because 100% is open all the time but lots of loggers show IDC over 100% all the time.

Next you cant calculate power directly to fuel usage there is more to it then that. A 12 to 1 compression motor will make more power on the exact same amount of fuel and air then a 8 to 1 compression motor will. And thats just one example. You can get a ball park idea of HP from fuel usage but thats it.

Here in lies the problems with bench racing from a bunch of calculations that all are based on a flawed human (we all are) writing them and when it comes to cars there most all written to a "one size fits all" idea, all have some kind of margin or error. So by the time you go threw all the calculations to bench race from A to Z all those small margins can add up to some huge swings one way or another.

[kywhitelightning]

You can manipulate calculations to come up with what ever coincidence's you want, thats the problem with bench racing. I can dig you up some dynos of DR750 cars making less HP on E85 then other DR750's cars on gas, does that mean that E85 makes LESS power then gas? I can find you dynos of Red cars making more power then White cars and can put together a chart of them for proof, does that red cars more powerful then white cars? If I had as mutch time to waist making charts as you do I could make a very good case for either of those BS points, just as you have for your BS point.

Even if those calculations are correct that a car running on 100% meth would make 16% more HP then a car running on 100 oct unleaded, there is not a single 3/s car running on 100% meth at least not that I know of. Jeff's car was not even running on 50% meth, in reality threw those tiny little jets it was most likely 15% or less. His gain in power from having meth in the mix was most likely in the 1% range at best.

Running a highly oxygenated race fuel like Q16 of VPimport have been know to give even larger gains then that. I would be willing to bet that his car on Q16 and no meth would make the same power or more, and I bet by simply turning off the meth and turning on 100% C16 it would make within 5-7hp of what he made now. I bet after all your spouting of this BS that he does that very thing the next time he dynos.

If you think simply adding a meth kit with a little jet and running 100% meth in it (because with 50/50 water/meth you WILL loose power I have proven that time and time again on the dyno) you will gain 16% to hp at the same boost and timing you need to put down the crack pipe. Meth kits would be the best selling part in all of motorsports. Power gains compatible to a 100hp NOS kit with out a bottle that costs $80 to fill every 30 or so seconds of use, from a fuel that costs about the same as gas and a kit that costs $400. And a better question would be IF you think that is the case, WHY ON EARTH WOULD YOU NOT HAVE A METH KIT ON YOUR CAR? $400 for ~100 awhp with basically no down side other then filling the small tank every few weeks? Not having to add the risk or stress of more boost or more timing just and 100 awhp be spraying a little meth into the intake path..... welcome to fantasy island....

The methanol added to this setup is worth at least 100+AWHP and I have dyno proof of that. At the NG this past year it made a whopping 495AWHP knocking like crazy with 3/4 tank pump 93 and 5 gallons of C16. The C16 pretty much topped the tank off at the time. This was the same timing map that was used on the 600+AWHP pump gas+meth dyno sheet posted here and ran a little more rich than I do now. The calculated octane value of the fuel at the time was at least 96 as VP only rates their fuel in motor. The calculation I get with the methanol added to just pump gas puts it somewhere slightly above 96 octane. It's about as apples to apples comparison as you are going to get.

The reason it was a gas only mix was because I ran the methanol feed line too close to the driveshaft, they had a fight, and had this happened.

http://i495.photobucket.com/albums/rr316/jjd222002/IMAG1233_zps548a3caa.jpg

http://i495.photobucket.com/albums/rr316/jjd222002/IMAG1232_zps21ba1e07.jpg

That drained the tank and while I didn't try to diagnose it the whole time I was in MO, once repaired she was back to her old self. That's how I know it didn't have any methanol in it.

Had I ran straight C16, yes it would have pushed the injectors to their limit for sure which would net somewhere near the same result. We can't ignore the cooling effect methanol has as those octane values are very close to each other.


I was a little confused on that as well. Makes sense, now that I have had it made sense of... :p

I thought I had read that water added to the meth actually cooled better? I know Jeff dismissed the water due to issues with surge, but are there any other reasons to inject 100% meth vs 50-50?

The water is excluded from my mixture because of bucking issues with high volumes of injection, not surge.


Water cools the chamber, but only up to a point, then it drowns the flame kernel. If you're injecting meth to use it as a fuel and gain power, you want 100% meth, as any water will hamper you and most people inject so much meth that any water will hurt. If you are using it as a hot knock suppressant for MAINTAINING power, then you inject water alone or a small amount of meth just for freeze protection.

I bought my kit to inject 100% water for dropping EGT's and chamber temps while roadcoursing so I didn't have to keep lowering boost as the day went on and the engine heatsoaks. I can run 16+ psi at the drags or for a couple runs, but try that on the roadcourse and you'll be replacing engines yearly at the least.

Question you have to ask yourself before you decide what to inject is simply "how long do you plan on injecting". If you plan on injecting for 15-20 minutes straight like I do, select a small nozzle and do water. If you plan on injecting a crapload of something for 10 seconds for additional power over what you can make normally, 100% methanol. There is no middle ground as far as I'm concerned, all or nothing.

Excellent post!!!!!!!


I disagree with you, and that's fine really. No big deal. I suppose where I'm "Mind Blown" is how you can have a 660cc injector duty cycle in the 50% range with a 40psi something base pressure and make 800bhp or 700whp. I'm sorry but it's just not possible. At first glance that only appears to be enough fuel for about 450bhp. Where's the additional 350bhp worth of fuel being delivered from?



That's certainly a possibility but you won't see 660cc injectors with injector duty cycles in the 50's. The specific gravity of VP Import is quite a bit lighter than the fuel he's injecting right now therefore he will need more fuel in terms of weight. Off the meth it's a fair bet the injectors will hit 100% IDC.

What I'm alluding to is there's a big gap between the power output based on his actual logged IDC's. If his logs are correct and he is only demanding a little over 50% of fuel injector then the amount of meth he's injecting is significantly more than a little 1% meth tuner kit can provide. It's like 300-350bhp worth of meth. Are you seeing it differently? What is the bhp rating for 660injectors at 60% IDC and a base fuel pressure?

PTE 680 injectors normally set at 43.5psi cold guage. The dyno charts posted here base pressure was near if not at 46psi cold guage.

Jeff

[kywhitelightning]

your problem is thats your calculation for IDC based off a data log, and those are NEVER correct fr IPW/IDC. Not even close, some read super high, and some read super low. I have seen loggers show stock cars at 140% IDC and I have seen cars running 15psi, and bolt on's with stock injectors showing 65% IDC on the logger.

Your problem is you picked that one thing to latch onto because it served your agenda to try and discredit Jef's accomplishment, and you totally ignored the fact that the jets and meth kit he is running can not possibly support 50% of the fueling for the power his car is making, it CANT no matter how you try and swist and turn it and try to ignore that fact you cant change it. Not to mention if it was he would have to be refilling his little meth tank every time he floored the car for more then a few seconds.




660's can easily support 680 whp if he simply cranks the fuel pressure a little bit. His REAL IDC will be in 100% to do it, now that is calculated from a log my be very different but he will be running them at 100%





Once again, your ignoring the facts and bench racing with IDC from a IDC thats is blatantly incorrect. He CAN NOT, and I Repeat CAN NOT be supporting 350HP from his meth kit. It takes twice as much Meth to support 350HP then it takes gas to support 350HP what your saying is he is using twice as much Meth during a Power pull as he is using Gas and some how doing that threw 2 tiny meth nozzles supplied from a tiny little tank? If you would just put aside your agenda and open your eyes you would see that that IS NOT POSSIBLE.

The highest IDC's recorded get into the low 70% range. That is what the logger reports as IDC and it is what I calculate from the logged IPW vs RPM. Unless there is something I missed with logging, it seems to be pretty accurate. It's simply because the car never revved all the way out that the peak IDC's were never seen on the datalog of the dyno. Look at the most recently posted VD graph with datalog and you'll see it.


I was not discrediting Jeff, Matt. I congratulated him. Less than 1% of 3/S owners out there will ever crack 600+whp. It's quite a feat.

Having never seen this setup in person and having no first hand knowledge of Jeff I can only go off the data that's being presented to me. If one were to email me a log like the one posted that would be the first thing any EFI Calibrator would latch onto. I had no idea how many nozzles were plumbed in and know jack about the intricate details of the setup other than the posted mod list. I automatically assumed there must have been some huge ass secondary injector meth kit because the injector reporting doesn't jive with the HP numbers. I latched onto a red flag and made mention of it several times. You were the first person to candidly state his Flash ECU/Evo Scan logger is mis-reporting because you know what setup Jeff has in his car, I didn't.

Evo Scan / Flash ECU's have been highly regarded as a formidable tuning solutions. I'm quite surprised to learn the fuel injection reporting on this particular unit is off by about 50%.

I don't have some secret agenda or anything like that Matt. I just pay attention to intricacies. "Attention to detail" is a fatal flaw of my personality.

I have never taken anything you said as discrediting the results and as a matter of fact you were one of the ones who encouraged me to post these results.

The kit flows 1600ml/min +/-50 into a bucket at atmospheric pressure. There are some misting losses that occur and I'm sure a little eveporates during the measuring process. At 22-23psi the kit is full on. With that information add in an additional 1psi pressure increase from the TB as the 2 nozzles are just before it and you should be able to calculate the exact flow going into the engine under boost.

Jeff

[fastfalcon94]

The kit flows 1600ml/min +/-50 into a bucket at atmospheric pressure. There are some misting losses that occur and I'm sure a little eveporates during the measuring process. At 22-23psi the kit is full on. With that information add in an additional 1psi pressure increase from the TB as the 2 nozzles are just before it and you should be able to calculate the exact flow going into the engine under boost.
Jeff


Yeah I was wondering if it could all be calculated. I looked up your DO14 meth nozels last night and saw they flowed 800cc each! So that is a lot of meth. Take that and a meth pump that runs at 150-200psi (not sure which one yours is) and compare it to your fuel pressure divided by your injector size (not sure what your fuel pressure would be under full boost), then maybe you could get a good idea of the ratio of gas to meth.

When I had 680cc injectors (flowtested more like 640-650) I was spiking 90-95% IDC with dr750s, 50/50 meth through 800cc injector, 25psi boost, 11.3-11.5 afr and 43.5 base fuel pressure. This was logged with AEM and not the stock ecu. However that was with a non-liquid filled aeromotive gauge and the thing froze up on me last summer. I put a liquid replacement gauge in and noticed it was actually reading more like 41psi. IDK what gauge was accurate but I adjusted the fuel pressure up 2psi since then. Before the gauge froze up I put in pte 1000cc injectors because I thought I'd be running more boost than 25psi. I wanted a good safety net. Looking back I wish I would have stayed with the 680s because they seemed to idle a little better. Now with the extra 2psi of fuel pressure, the fact that my afr is a little leaner now, and that I want to run a larger meth ratio the 680s probably would have been perfect.

[J. Fast]

The highest IDC's recorded get into the low 70% range. That is what the logger reports as IDC and it is what I calculate from the logged IPW vs RPM. Unless there is something I missed with logging, it seems to be pretty accurate. It's simply because the car never revved all the way out that the peak IDC's were never seen on the datalog of the dyno. Look at the most recently posted VD graph with datalog and you'll see it.


The kit flows 1600ml/min +/-50 into a bucket at atmospheric pressure.... you should be able to calculate the exact flow going into the engine under boost.

Jeff



in reality threw those tiny little jets it was most likely 15% or less. His gain in power from having meth in the mix was most likely in the 1% range at best.

If you think simply adding a meth kit with a little jet and running 100% meth in it (because with 50/50 water/meth you WILL loose power I have proven that time and time again on the dyno) you will gain 16% to hp at the same boost and timing you need to put down the crack pipe. Meth kits would be the best selling part in all of motorsports. Power gains compatible to a 100hp NOS kit with out a bottle that costs $80 to fill every 30 or so seconds of use, from a fuel that costs about the same as gas and a kit that costs $400. And a better question would be IF you think that is the case, WHY ON EARTH WOULD YOU NOT HAVE A METH KIT ON YOUR CAR? $400 for ~100 awhp with basically no down side other then filling the small tank every few weeks? Not having to add the risk or stress of more boost or more timing just and 100 awhp be spraying a little meth into the intake path..... welcome to fantasy island....

You raise very valid points, Matt. In this case though the meth setup being used isn't a little a little kit and the jets aren't exactly misting jets either. The post above just clarified he's injecting 1600cc's/min of meth. Is that not the equivalent of plumbing in (6) additional 360cc fuel injectors employed as secondary's and duty cycling them at 75%? 360cc/min (x) 6 (x) 75% = 1600cc/min =/-.

I was not aware kit's on the market were capable of lifting that much capacity. the question you raised earlier,

"WHY ON EARTH WOULD YOU NOT HAVE A METH KIT ON YOUR CAR? $400 for ~100 awhp with basically no down side other then filling the small tank every few weeks?"

... is a valid one. If indeed the setup was only for a $400 that's a damn inexpensive way to deliver significant supplemental fuel.



The methanol added to this setup is worth at least 100+AWHP and I have dyno proof of that. At the NG this past year it made a whopping 495AWHP knocking like crazy with 3/4 tank pump 93 and 5 gallons of C16. The C16 pretty much topped the tank off at the time. This was the same timing map that was used on the 600+AWHP pump gas+meth dyno sheet posted here and ran a little more rich than I do now. The calculated octane value of the fuel at the time was at least 96 as VP only rates their fuel in motor. The calculation I get with the methanol added to just pump gas puts it somewhere slightly above 96 octane. It's about as apples to apples comparison as you are going to get.

PTE 680 injectors normally set at 43.5psi cold guage. The dyno charts posted here base pressure was near if not at 46psi cold guage.

Jeff

I still am of the opinion you're developing a few hundred horsepower from the methanol. What do you estimate your fuel delivery in cc/min from the fuel tank to be on those injectors at your tested base pressure? 3100cc/min? You're not injecting 50% methanol in the pill like I had first suspected, however, it's A LOT of fuel. More than one might typically see from a tuner water/methanol injection kit.


Yeah I was wondering if it could all be calculated. I looked up your DO14 meth nozels last night and saw they flowed 800cc each! So that is a lot of meth. Take that and a meth pump that runs at 150-200psi (not sure which one yours is) and compare it to your fuel pressure divided by your injector size (not sure what your fuel pressure would be under full boost), then maybe you could get a good idea of the ratio of gas to meth.

When I had 680cc injectors (flowtested more like 640-650) I was spiking 90-95% IDC with dr750s, 50/50 meth through 800cc injector, 25psi boost, 11.3-11.5 afr and 43.5 base fuel pressure. This was logged with AEM and not the stock ecu. However that was with a non-liquid filled aeromotive gauge and the thing froze up on me last summer. I put a liquid replacement gauge in and noticed it was actually reading more like 41psi. IDK what gauge was accurate but I adjusted the fuel pressure up 2psi since then. Before the gauge froze up I put in pte 1000cc injectors because I thought I'd be running more boost than 25psi. I wanted a good safety net. Looking back I wish I would have stayed with the 680s because they seemed to idle a little better. Now with the extra 2psi of fuel pressure, the fact that my afr is a little leaner now, and that I want to run a larger meth ratio the 680s probably would have been perfect.

Was that a water/meth mixture? You weren't using it for fuel injection, only cooling, right? Aside from the nozzles, what's the difference between your kit and Jeff's kit? Can it flow the same, and how much was it?

[CoopKill]

Thought this was to turn into a train wreck! Sooo glad it has not! Excellent info flowing in this thread! :)

[fastfalcon94]

Was that a water/meth mixture? You weren't using it for fuel injection, only cooling, right? Aside from the nozzles, what's the difference between your kit and Jeff's kit? Can it flow the same, and how much was it?

I'm using an older AEM Meth kit, but I have replaced the pump with a newer 200psi coolingmist one. I'm also using the coolingmist super atomoizing CM10 injector which is ~ 800cc. I spray 50/50 meth and distilled water that I mix myself. I guess you could say I'm using it for cooling. I haven't really pushed my car to it's full potential yet. Waiting for spring.

Coolingmist High Pressure Pump (http://www.coolingmist.com/pagedisplay.aspx?pid=Cool250)

Super Atomizing Injector CM10 (http://www.coolingmist.com/pagedisplay.aspx?pid=13NCM10&feature_key=special_injectors,parts)

[kywhitelightning]

The pump I'm using is the Devil's Own 300psi pump. The problem I think I have is, my system is plumbed with 1/4" compression style fittings and they require a ferrule to be inserted in the tube. This reduces the ID of the tube and in essence reduces the flow. The pump is supposed to flow 1 gallon per minute and my system is flowing less than half that with the pump cranked or turned down 1/4 turn. My fix for that is to feed the pump's inlet with 3/8" tubing and compression fitting and then tee two 1/4" lines on the pumps outlet. This should open up the flow to the injectors as I believe they are barely seeing 85psi out of a 300psi pump. I know as flow goes up, pressure goes down but I think there is a huge bottleneck with these 1/4" compression fittings. They will certainly outflow 1 nozzle as I have measured near 1200ml/min with just one nozzle on my old pump. As I increase the flow capability of the nozzles (add more nozzles), the increases I'm seeing into the pipe are really diminishing. I also plan on adding a second stage hobbs switched nozzle to come on at the controllers set peak. I can't reduce the flow in the early RPM's as it will knock (the main purpose for the meth priming) and once the car goes over 22psi it starts leaning out based on boost. Makes it really interesting on race gas mixed in but significantly increases the butthole pucker factor on pump gas. I have considered a second pump but I think there is something left in this one still. Once rectified, I'll report back with those findings as well.

This build's goal was to make 600WHP on pump gas plus methanol. When the ambient temps come up and the humidity is high in the summer the boost must be reduced to eliminate knock. Doing this reduces the power to what I believe is below 600 (570ish). Methanol is cheap and since I bought a 55 gallon drum of it, I have an abundant supply.

Another thing worth mentioning is that Snow and Devils Own rate their nozzles at different pressures. Snow rates theirs at 60psi and Devil's Own rates theirs at 100psi. This will cause the DO products to look much larger than the Snow products but they are very similar in respects to flow capabilities once you crunch the numbers.

Jeff

[SnakeSkinner]

The methanol added to this setup is worth at least 100+AWHP and I have dyno proof of that. At the NG this past year it made a whopping 495AWHP knocking like crazy with 3/4 tank pump 93 and 5 gallons of C16. The C16 pretty much topped the tank off at the time. This was the same timing map that was used on the 600+AWHP pump gas+meth dyno sheet posted here and ran a little more rich than I do now. The calculated octane value of the fuel at the time was at least 96 as VP only rates their fuel in motor. The calculation I get with the methanol added to just pump gas puts it somewhere slightly above 96 octane. It's about as apples to apples comparison as you are going to get. \

A car "knocking like crazy" will make allot less power then a cars thats not knocking, if it was "knocking like crazy" the ECU would have been retarding timing like crazy not to mention the detonation trying to push the piston the wrong direction. My point is the meth ALLOWED you to make more power by keeping away knock and ALLOWING the use of more boost or timing but the meth did not MAKE and power like say adding a 100HP shot of NOS would. This is my point. 1600cc/min of meth being injected in place of fuel will not magically just add 100hp to a gas motor. It's not going to happen, next time you dyno your car try dynoing it on 100% C16 or Q16 then turn on your meth and dyno it again back to back same day no other changes and then you will know just how much power the Meth added.

Lets not forget I ran in that neighborhood amount off 100% meth on my race car as a way of stretching my 720CC injectors when I was still running them and it ALLOWED me to make ~ 100 whp more HP also but it was not the Meth adding the power it was the fact that I have more fuel to play with and was able to run more boost to make more power. Turning on the meth with out turning up the boost made no more then a negligible change in power on the dyno that was within the margin of change between back to back dyno pulls that was there anyway.

[SnakeSkinner]

The highest IDC's recorded get into the low 70% range. That is what the logger reports as IDC and it is what I calculate from the logged IPW vs RPM. Unless there is something I missed with logging, it seems to be pretty accurate. It's simply because the car never revved all the way out that the peak IDC's were never seen on the datalog of the dyno. Look at the most recently posted VD graph with datalog and you'll see it.

Jfast Keeps posting over and over that your IDC's never went over 50% using Jef L.'s (Stealth316) IDC calculator.

[SnakeSkinner]

You raise very valid points, Matt. In this case though the meth setup being used isn't a little a little kit and the jets aren't exactly misting jets either. The post above just clarified he's injecting 1600cc's/min of meth. Is that not the equivalent of plumbing in (6) additional 360cc fuel injectors employed as secondary's and duty cycling them at 75%? 360cc/min (x) 6 (x) 75% = 1600cc/min =/-.

I was not aware kit's on the market were capable of lifting that much capacity. the question you raised earlier,

"WHY ON EARTH WOULD YOU NOT HAVE A METH KIT ON YOUR CAR? $400 for ~100 awhp with basically no down side other then filling the small tank every few weeks?"

... is a valid one. If indeed the setup was only for a $400 that's a damn inexpensive way to deliver significant supplemental fuel.




I still am of the opinion you're developing a few hundred horsepower from the methanol. What do you estimate your fuel delivery in cc/min from the fuel tank to be on those injectors at your tested base pressure? 3100cc/min? You're not injecting 50% methanol in the pill like I had first suspected, however, it's A LOT of fuel. More than one might typically see from a tuner water/methanol injection kit.



Was that a water/meth mixture? You weren't using it for fuel injection, only cooling, right? Aside from the nozzles, what's the difference between your kit and Jeff's kit? Can it flow the same, and how much was it?


You know what guys, I'm dun beating my head on the wall on this. If you are convinced that spraying 1600cc on meth into a motor some how magically makes "few hundred horsepower from the methanol" so bee it. Your out of your mind, but so bee it, I dont care. Waisting my time in threads like this trying to explain how things work in the real world to people that refuse to grasp it is why I so rarely post on 3si or this form any longer. I dont have time for it and it serves no point, people that are intent on living in fantasyland can just stay there.

I would love to see you make a post like this on a forum like the Corvette forum, Viper Alley, or Supra Forum that adding a meth kit will add "hundreds of HP to your car all on it's own just by being there with out adding timing or boost" you would be lambasted and the thread would turn into a all out joke. This is a gas motor we are talking about here not a diesel....

I'm out of here.....

[familyMAN]

Very surprised you lasted this long:)

[GTOJOE]

\

A car "knocking like crazy" will make allot less power then a cars thats not knocking, if it was "knocking like crazy" the ECU would have been retarding timing like crazy not to mention the detonation trying to push the piston the wrong direction. My point is the meth ALLOWED you to make more power by keeping away knock and ALLOWING the use of more boost or timing but the meth did not MAKE and power like say adding a 100HP shot of NOS would. This is my point. 1600cc/min of meth being injected in place of fuel will not magically just add 100hp to a gas motor. It's not going to happen, next time you dyno your car try dynoing it on 100% C16 or Q16 then turn on your meth and dyno it again back to back same day no other changes and then you will know just how much power the Meth added.

Lets not forget I ran in that neighborhood amount off 100% meth on my race car as a way of stretching my 720CC injectors when I was still running them and it ALLOWED me to make ~ 100 whp more HP also but it was not the Meth adding the power it was the fact that I have more fuel to play with and was able to run more boost to make more power. Turning on the meth with out turning up the boost made no more then a negligible change in power on the dyno that was within the margin of change between back to back dyno pulls that was there anyway.

I thought this was common knowledge? I'm sure it has been discussed many times. I to am surprised you lasted this long LOL.

[kywhitelightning]

We are saying the same thing and you're beating your head against a wall trying to explain the same thing I already said. I could reduce the timing and the boost and then again prove the same thing. Adding the C16 to the mix, you would think would get the octane value near what the methanol brings when injected. The C16 mix with 93 only proves that the cooling effect that methanol adds allows the settings to be turned up to the levels they are without knocking. It's genious and right up your ally, bang for the buck. Maybe saying it differently will get you to see that. It's the same as running straight C16 vs the pump/meth mix with all the settings staying the same. Will it make more power just doing that? No. It has to be tuned/optimized. Can it make more? It should.

The reason I have chosen to run as much methanol as possible was your idea when you were running the 720's trying to stretch the capability of the arc. I'm stretching the capability of simply running 93 and filling my little tank occasionally with methanol.

Jeff

[CoopKill]

I thought all were on the same page that it allows power to be extracted, not adding it?

J are you saying different?

Sent from the Man Cave!

*\( ^o^ )/*

[kywhitelightning]

Coop, often times I have considered putting the 550's I have back in to see if they can do it. I think they could but like a friend of mine suggested, why run them at near max when these are being barely pushed. The 550's had very little starting problems and where very easy to flash in a solid tune with. The 680's were much more difficult to get right (mainly starting problems). IDK why and maybe Greg can expand on things I can't explain. That would certainly be a nail in the coffin on how much power from the extra fueling the methanol is providing. You would think that the IDC's + the rail pressure ran would speak volumes but, some just like to argue I think.

Jeff

[kywhitelightning]

Fuel volume test completed. There was no difference in volume hot or cold. There was a difference in the guage pressure hot and cold though. ~1.5 gallons/min both times. I put a line on the jug to mark it with the hot reading and the cold level was at the same spot.

Jeff

[fastbikes76]

Informative post and testing. I have the same enquiring thought process as you and always like too prove all my theories.

8-)

[kywhitelightning]

Methanol volume test today was 1675ml/min. I'll retest with the 3/8 feed and report back. Fingers crossed for a healthy increase in flow.

Jeff

[CoopKill]

Fuel volume test completed. There was no difference in volume hot or cold. There was a difference in the guage pressure hot and cold though. ~1.5 gallons/min both times. I put a line on the jug to mark it with the hot reading and the cold level was at the same spot.

JeffWould flow testing under pressure change the results at all?

[kywhitelightning]

I don't think you can and if you did I don't know how you would get any useful data from it as pressure is created from restriction. Looking for flow on a restricted line would change the pressure ie create more flow reducing pressure.

Jeff

[Chris@Rvengeperformance]

I think what he is saying is the 30 PSI of pressure in the intake piping is going to reduce the methanol flow.

[J. Fast]

Like I had mentioned earlier it's just the fluid in the gauge reacting with temperature. Onto a second issue, boiling fuel. If infact you are superheating fuel in a racing environment such as road course (you aren't) the tune will start to lean out and your power output will drop about 5%. That is a result of heat of vapoiization and specific gravity changes in the fuel. Keep testing, you'll find your own way.

As far as the comments made earlier regarding making the same power output on racegas as methanol, I'm sorry but that's a mis-nomer too. The only reason why the power output was the same was because the timing and afr was the same. One of the benefits of meth is its heat of vapoiization and burn off time. Those qualities impact timing. The knock threshold for meth is about 6° beyond that of racegas. Where you have to stop with racegas due to knock... you can keep advancing with meth. Unless you have an ignition control device you cannot optimize and reap 100% of the benefits of methanol. As I recall Matt M likes the stock ECU. You will never see 20+ degrees of timing advance in a stock ECU at 25+psi. If you have no ignition manipulation device ofcourse one can say you can't make more power. However, talk to Lucas English who performed back to back tests and increased power output by 10% in area under the curve...and 9 second bracket cars that shave .3 in the 1/4 mile from the fuel swap alone.

If you optimize combustion events for any fuel at the same afr the one with the higher BTU rating will make more power. That's chemistry and physics.

[Greg E]

As I recall Matt M likes the stock ECU. You will never see 20+ degrees of timing advance in a stock ECU at 25+psi.

I don't know the details of Matt's setup nor do I wish to start any kind of debate but yes, you will see 20+ degrees of timing with a stock ECU (piggy back or no) when making power. Even showing the ECU less airflow, you'll still get to the 160 + load range which puts you at the end of the timing map.

[Chris@Rvengeperformance]

I also am not interested in debate, but just because a fuel supports more timing does not mean you will gain power from it. MTBT

Matt pulled 5 degrees of timing and picked up 60 horse on his setup at 1093 AWHP.

[J. Fast]

Timing and temperatures are essential fundamentals pieces of the entire picture with ethanol and especially methanol. It's important to pay attention to fuel temperatures and engine reactions because the byproducts of those fuels are superheating water. It's imperative the combustion charge remain a compressable gas. If you inject them outside of their boiling temperature they convert from compressable gas to liquid. Liquid is compressable... BOOM, congratulations you window a block or bend a rod.

[kywhitelightning]

Timing and temperatures are essential fundamentals pieces of the entire picture with ethanol and especially methanol. It's important to pay attention to fuel temperatures and engine reactions because the byproducts of those fuels are superheating water. It's imperative the combustion charge remain a compressable gas. If you inject them outside of their boiling temperature they convert from compressable gas to liquid. Liquid is NOT compressable... BOOM, congratulations you window a block or bend a rod.

Fixed


I also am not interested in debate, but just because a fuel supports more timing does not mean you will gain power from it. MTBT

Matt pulled 5 degrees of timing and picked up 60 horse on his setup at 1093 AWHP.

That should be because there is a window for optimizing. Go over and loose power. Go under and loose power. Hit the sweet spot and smile. All three variables are dependant on each other AFR, timing, and boost. Change one and the others might need to be shifted.

Jeff

[arm0red1]

THIS ^^^


Honestly this debate get hashed and boiled down to the same conclusion as it becomes VERY subjective to people's tuning preferences....


Some like to go with aggressive timing, some like to boost to the moon, and some like getting away with AFR's on the edge

you end up balancing out the other two ares to meet your preferences in the desired one.


Successful results have been REPEATEDLY demonstrated across multiple cars on all platforms. It's almost devolved to a point of semantics at this stage as there's so many success stories represented under each virtue.

[niterydr]

THIS ^^^


Honestly this debate get hashed and boiled down to the same conclusion as it becomes VERY subjective to people's tuning preferences....


Some like to go with aggressive timing, some like to boost to the moon, and some like getting away with AFR's on the edge

you end up balancing out the other two ares to meet your preferences in the desired one.


Successful results have been REPEATEDLY demonstrated across multiple cars on all platforms. It's almost devolved to a point of semantics at this stage as there's so many success stories represented under each virtue.

True and I'll share one :)

I've always had the best luck when trying to use fuel as a form of thermal management; as it is designed. That is of course until you can get to peak torque and horsepower figures based on the SG and octane of your particular fuel of choice. In most cases you'll get more power with boost over timing, until you run out of efficiency or backpressure issues. Timing should try to be optimized to get as close to MBT as possible, but that being said you are usually octane limited or will find a part failure before you reach it. When in doubt start "left" of optimum and add your way in. This is "most of the time" but occasionally you gotta start richer than you need (motor design/efficiency issues) or leaner than you need (short on fuel flow) to get where you need to be.
Thus set AFR in a safe range first. Then boost, then timing and move you way along the load scale until you hit your goal, hit a bottleneck, or break something.

If you are bored, swing the AFR a few points while starting out. You won't see but a minor change on power output; thus confirming it is for thermal management.

and wow is this thread a doozy to read, I can't believe I missed it. So much stuff posted I would love to chime in on, but not going to dredge up old crap. Congrats to the OP for the results I've always thought of the DR750's as a 700awhp turbo, glad to see its being done. I don't doubt the results for one moment looking at the parts combo and fuel choice.

[kywhitelightning]

So much stuff posted I would love to chime in on, but not going to dredge up old crap.

Bring your thoughts in as everyone has something to bring to the table.

Jeff

[kywhitelightning]

UPDATE TIME!!!!!

Been real busy lately and haven't had a chance to put some of this up.

Here is the result of the fuel pump flow test.

http://i495.photobucket.com/albums/rr316/jjd222002/IMAG1671_zpsad623cc0.jpg

The line was from the hot test inconspicuously marked with an "H". The result of the cold test is the level you see in the jug.

This is the result of 1675ml methanol in an 4.5QT/4.25L ice cream container.

http://i495.photobucket.com/albums/rr316/jjd222002/IMAG1672_zpsf8076e23.jpg

Both were 1 minute tests.

Jeff

[kywhitelightning]

Then there is this. The reason I've been so busy recently.

http://i495.photobucket.com/albums/rr316/jjd222002/IMAG1680_zpsd2a0a93b.jpg

#3 rod bearing slightly out of place lol.

http://i495.photobucket.com/albums/rr316/jjd222002/IMAG1678_zpsa1976411.jpg

The cause of that was this.

http://i495.photobucket.com/albums/rr316/jjd222002/IMAG1683_zps24d5df4e.jpg

The upper main bearings were also beat up. The cause of that was a bent crankshaft. There is .007" up and down movement on the #2 main journal and .0035" on #3 main journal. I noticed a little bit of oil pressure fluctuations just prior to this which had me puzzled at first. On decel, oil pressure would hang on the normal line and with any form of acceleration it would drop one tick mark below normal on the stock guage. It never bottomed out and I was just about to pull it to investigate when it started making noise.

That also caused abnormal wear on the wristpins and wiped a couple of them out.

I have ordered all the parts to fix it already and Matt received the turbos today.

I WILL be at the NG this year with it come hell or high water, lol.

Jeff

[Chris@Rvengeperformance]

wow man very sorry, I know how that feels. Looks familiar

Any wear on the rod bushings?

[familyMAN]

Not a pretty sight. Makes me a little queazy.

[kywhitelightning]

Haven't removed the rods from the wrist pins yet. When I move #3 rod back and forth over the wrist pin you can see the abnormal wear spot and it doesn't move as freely as the rest. I think there is another one like that but I don't remember off the top of my head which one. I'm going to say the rod bushings held up fine considering the the conditions they were put under. I think I know where that question stems from and for now I'm gonna say they held up fine. I have however ordered Ray's Oliver rods to replace them with as I have intentions of pushing this thing harder than before (at least on occasion).

Jeff

[kywhitelightning]

Not a pretty sight. Makes me a little queazy.

Considering what you went through previously I feel lucky.

Edit: I am taking this with a grain of salt and hopefully this will help someone else considering running a used crankshaft on an anticipated high HP build. The previous set of bearings removed from this looked good. I didn't have the crank magnifluxed (spelling?) only polished and figured it would be good to go. The original build plan had a new crankshaft in it until I saw a good set of bearings come out. Then the tight ass in me came out and this is the result.

Jeff

[familyMAN]

What do the other halves of mains look like? Couldn't this be "crank whip" that ray has described on high hp builds or even from pushing timing a little too far at one time or another during the process?

I know there are guys that change bearings after a dyno tune because they push and push and then back off. Pull the pan and swap bearings just in case.

[kywhitelightning]

I measured the crankshaft journals with a dial indicator while rotating it and had the above posted radial runout. The upper halves were beat up too as stated above.

If what you described was the case I would expect just the lower mains to be beat up from power. The outer mains were like the hands holding the jump rope to put it in perspective and only the insides were rubbed.

This crankshaft had a bent rod previously with the 19T's on #3. That may have started the process and the power it's pushing now just finished the job. It has nearly 140000 miles on it as it is the original OE shaft.

I might make a video of what I'm describing if there's intrest in seeing what I'm saying.

Jeff

[J. Fast]

Oh man, so sorry to see Jeff. FYI the Pauter Rods are beefier at the wrist pin and have more thread bite at the rod bolt than Olivers bro. Also something to think about... WPC coat what your putting back in. The zero friction upgrades are way better than any oil additives you can pour in.

When I see BC Rods and high horsepower builds... they're just not good enough. I know that wasn't the root cause in this case but it would have shown itself later. Damn bro... just damn.

[kywhitelightning]

Other than dry startup, what is the advantage of that coating? To me, if there is actual contact under power the coating is only going to last so long, right?

Link to said rods as I found some pauter rods on 3sx's site. I spent $1100 for these and all I have to go on was Matt said they were the best out there and when I called Ray earlier of coarse he said they were the best out there. Here's what I got. Prove them better please.

Pampena Motorsports Custom Billet Rods - Pampena Motorsports (http://www.pampenamotorsports.com/pampena-motorsports-custom-billet-rods/)

Jeff

[J. Fast]

Other than dry startup, what is the advantage of that coating? To me, if there is actual contact under power the coating is only going to last so long, right?

Link to said rods as I found some pauter rods on 3sx's site. I spent $1100 for these and all I have to go on was Matt said they were the best out there and when I called Ray earlier of coarse he said they were the best out there. Here's what I got. Prove them better please.

Pampena Motorsports Custom Billet Rods - Pampena Motorsports (http://www.pampenamotorsports.com/pampena-motorsports-custom-billet-rods/)

Jeff

Yes, there's protection there from the coating on startup but that's not the enemy of your engine. Friction is. When metal gets hot from elevated friction levels it fatigues and distorts. You ever spin an engine over by hand with a WPC vs without? It's a night and day difference. Less friction, less heat, lower heat, less stress on rotating hingepoints and fasteners. The benefit is half-life service interval extension.

There's nothing wrong with Oliver Rods. I was just throwing information out there. Bigger wrists and .more thread bite typically indicate more strength. I'm sure as you recently discovered... the good rods have those characteristics and ain't cheap. Olivers are a significant upgrade from BC's. I'm sure you saw that spread Ray did comparing the two. I compared rods and pins as well some time ago and have my own favorites. I have no run time on Olivers so I can't speak for them other than a side by side.


Everyone's always wanting proof on what lasts under stress. Proof is results and how long shit lasts till you have to take it apart for servicing.

All I do is drive and change the oil, 5w30. What's in there may not be the best out there, or the lightest, or blessed by the big 3, but it's still together and I have long term road race track tested results. There's not many guys out there who can run all out at 30+psi boost levels on a roadcourse and do pulls from 70mph to 175mph every minute for hours and hours. I've been doing it for years and years without component fatigue or failure.

I really feel for ya bro. All the time and money. You'll find your own way.

[Chris@Rvengeperformance]

Jeff, allow me to try to be helpful and don't take this as criticism.

What I see looking at your pics is a classic case of too much timing. Not only are the center mains wiped they have been beat on so hard that they are delaminating. The crank has bent from the excessive cylinder pressure and beat out the mains and the rest followed. I think you are doing the right thing switching to Oliver rods for 700AWHP, but I don't think any of the parts besides maybe the 4340 cranks could have taken this.

[Jimvr4]

Jeff are you running a stock flywheel and stock harmonic balancer?

[kywhitelightning]

Yes, there's protection there from the coating on startup but that's not the enemy of your engine. Friction is. When metal gets hot from elevated friction levels it fatigues and distorts. You ever spin an engine over by hand with a WPC vs without? It's a night and day difference. Less friction, less heat, lower heat, less stress on rotating hingepoints and fasteners. The benefit is half-life service interval extension.

There's nothing wrong with Oliver Rods. I was just throwing information out there. Bigger wrists and .more thread bite typically indicate more strength. I'm sure as you recently discovered... the good rods have those characteristics and ain't cheap. Olivers are a significant upgrade from BC's. I'm sure you saw that spread Ray did comparing the two. I compared rods and pins as well some time ago and have my own favorites. I have no run time on Olivers so I can't speak for them other than a side by side.


Everyone's always wanting proof on what lasts under stress. Proof is results and how long shit lasts till you have to take it apart for servicing.

All I do is drive and change the oil, 5w30. What's in there may not be the best out there, or the lightest, or blessed by the big 3, but it's still together and I have long term road race track tested results. There's not many guys out there who can run all out at 30+psi boost levels on a roadcourse and do pulls from 70mph to 175mph every minute for hours and hours. I've been doing it for years and years without component fatigue or failure.

I really feel for ya bro. All the time and money. You'll find your own way.

Thanks for your thoughts.


Jeff, allow me to try to be helpful and don't take this as criticism.

What I see looking at your pics is a classic case of too much timing. Not only are the center mains wiped they have been beat on so hard that they are delaminating. The crank has bent from the excessive cylinder pressure and beat out the mains and the rest followed. I think you are doing the right thing switching to Oliver rods for 700AWHP, but I don't think any of the parts besides maybe the 4340 cranks could have taken this.

Not taking anything wrong from you. Find out what kind of timing Ray is running on his setup and then let me know if his timing is comperable to what I have posted. This setup runs less timing at all RPM's than my 19T setup did with similar boost and making comperable power. Did you ever pull the girdle on yours when it spun the rod? All I remember from your thread was seeing everyone mention too much timing. Then I remember Ray posted that it just happens sometimes. I didn't feel like posting pictures of all the items that would've shown detonation issues but, trust me they all looked fine. I know what peppering looks like and there was none on any parts. If it truely was the tune I would expect all the mains to be beat up and all the rods uppers to be hammered. Not the case here. All the rods were fine on the upper halves and the only reason #3 spun was due to oil starvation because of excessive main bearing clearance on the #2 main from the crankshaft being contorted. I made mention of a jump rope earlier and if you think about the crank being curved like a jump rope you will see what I have been saying. Once it was bent more abuse just continued the process.

The plan is to back it down on a regular basis and only turn it up on occasion. It was making 600AWHP on pump gas on a daily basis so to say I wasn't aggressive with it would be just dumb but I rarely at best saw any knock.


Jeff are you running a stock flywheel and stock harmonic balancer?

Was running stock balancer with RPS flywheel. Going to stock flywheel this go around.

Jeff

[JasonY]

Todds car took out the center mains from excessive timing down low along with making good power(450tq around 3500rpms) but no counts of knock, besides the 1-2 from the noisy stroker up top on the inital pulls before it started to come apart(the mains)

Jason

[Chris@Rvengeperformance]

All it takes is one dose of knock at 680+

[Chris@Rvengeperformance]

Thanks for your thoughts.



Not taking anything wrong from you. Find out what kind of timing Ray is running on his setup and then let me know if his timing is comperable to what I have posted. This setup runs less timing at all RPM's than my 19T setup did with similar boost and making comperable power. Did you ever pull the girdle on yours when it spun the rod? All I remember from your thread was seeing everyone mention too much timing. Then I remember Ray posted that it just happens sometimes. I didn't feel like posting pictures of all the items that would've shown detonation issues but, trust me they all looked fine. I know what peppering looks like and there was none on any parts. If it truely was the tune I would expect all the mains to be beat up and all the rods uppers to be hammered. Not the case here. All the rods were fine on the upper halves and the only reason #3 spun was due to oil starvation because of excessive main bearing clearance on the #2 main from the crankshaft being contorted. I made mention of a jump rope earlier and if you think about the crank being curved like a jump rope you will see what I have been saying. Once it was bent more abuse just continued the process.

The plan is to back it down on a regular basis and only turn it up on occasion. It was making 600AWHP on pump gas on a daily basis so to say I wasn't aggressive with it would be just dumb but I rarely at best saw any knock.



Was running stock balancer with RPS flywheel. Going to stock flywheel this go around.

Jeff

Ray said the mains looked hammered from too much timing or detonation/preignition. There was no evidence of recent detonation I could see, but after seeing all the carbon cleaned off the heads there are some tiny specks, but they could be from years ago.

The center mains go away earlier than the ends because they have to support 4 rod loads and feed oil to 4 rods.

The meth issues you had last year could've been enough to lead to this.

[JasonY]

Yeah at that power level(where Jeff is) once you see knock, its already broken or will be soon.

Jason

[kywhitelightning]

Ok taking under consideration, I just built a new timing map. Softened VE peak up a bunch. Pulled 4* at 4000RPM and 3* at 4500RPM. Interpolated the remaining portion and pulled 1* up at 7500RPM. This is still higher than stock timing but if this was the cause, it'll certainly take longer to tear things up. This will go hand in hand with turning the boost down just a little for everyday street driving. I will build another map for race gas and big boost and soften VE peak up a bit but maintain the 26* timing peak up top. I refuse to turn the car into a turd for fear of breaking it again, but I will be cutting oil filters open from here on out as it was a practice I've not been doing. Maybe I could've caught this earlier had I been checking but, I guess we'll never know.

Just to be completely clear though, other than on Von's dyno where there was a lack of alcohol, it never knocked during VE peak. It would either happen at 5200 or 6200 +/- 200RPM. VE peak is near 4500RPM as it is still a stock cammed/IM car.

Jeff

[familyMAN]

So you have an eta on getting her back together? Other than rods, crank, bearings, and a little less timing, any other changes planned?

[NOMIEZVR4]

Jeff...post a picture of your updated map if you could please...:)

You can email it to me also...I could also post it in the other timing thread if you want..

[NOMIEZVR4]

So you have an eta on getting her back together? Other than rods, crank, bearings, and a little less timing, any other changes planned?

Don't quote me...but IMO he's getting everything in the shorty minus pistons..

[kywhitelightning]

So you have an eta on getting her back together? Other than rods, crank, bearings, and a little less timing, any other changes planned?

2 months as long as the rods are shipped within reason. I've been busy in the garage lately so I haven't been able to give mine the attention it needs but I will do all the cleaning as it was bathed by a machine shop near 1 year ago. The bores looked good at a quick glance.

None unless you have another suggestion. Like I already said, the parts that typically show signs of detonation, looked good. #2 and #4 rod bearings were wore and #3 spun. If you think about it you'll understand why and that also lines up with why I need new wrist pins and connecting rods. All the rest of the rod bearings were in good shape. No signs of flattening at all like others have posted around here.

Nomie, once I build a race gas map I'll send you both to put up. I honestly have confidence in the map that was in it, I just need to tone it down a bit on a daily basis as my financial advisor, as coop would call her, says that a hobby like this is hard on the marriage.

At the NG I plan on having C16 in it and it will have some fire in the oven.

Jeff

[NOMIEZVR4]

Loving your attitude about this whole ordeal...you almost make it seem like spinning a bearing ain't such a bad thing afterall...hahaha...:D

[Chris@Rvengeperformance]

Yeah no kidding, makes me feel like a pussy!

Sent from my RM-845_nam_vzw_100 using Tapatalk

[familyMAN]

None unless you have another suggestion.


Wastegate dumps instead of recirc into o2 housing:D Free up any post turbine back pressure.

Billet crank would be a good idea if you end up with the same issue. BC billet would use the rods you just bought and then you would need stroker pistons with the correct pin height.

[NOMIEZVR4]

Hey Eric...kinda OT but how did you bearings look after last seasons romping? Got pics? Maybe we should start a timing map/bearing pics thread...:p

On a more serious note, the reason I'm asking is because you were making north of 500+whp...and you got a chance to tear up your motor afterwards..might be a good opportunity for us to take a peek at things...your timing was in the upper teens, correct? How old was your crank? Mileage, etc...

[familyMAN]

No wear, at all on mains or rod bearings. Didn't even take pics because they looked just like how I put them in. (Edit: crank checked straight by machine shop also.) Big difference in setups though. I was running about 10* less timing everywhere, 10psi less boost, and 100-150 less tq. My timing was only 10* at peak tq up to 16*ish up top. Also no boost spike. I induced a creeping boost curve to keep from a tq spike. Ran 500awtq most of the time but touched 540 a couple times until I worked out my WG duty cycle map. Very little miles on the 500awtq tune as some time was spent at wastegate boost.

My tune wasn't pushed anywhere near Jeff's. That might not be the case this year with the forged rods:D. Especially if the misfire issue is solved with the ignition and ground changes I am making.

[kywhitelightning]

Loving your attitude about this whole ordeal...you almost make it seem like spinning a bearing ain't such a bad thing afterall...hahaha...:D

All my tears are dried up and it's time to get it back together. Mitsu called today and said all my parts are in and ready to ship. Just waiting on the turbos and the Pampena stuff. No word from Matt yet but, I expect a call next week sometime. The last time he had them it took something like 3 weeks so I'm not in a terrible rush. At least not until I get the engine put back together.


Yeah no kidding, makes me feel like a pussy!

Sent from my RM-845_nam_vzw_100 using Tapatalk

Just get it to the NG this year pussy:cheers2:


Wastegate dumps instead of recirc into o2 housing:D Free up any post turbine back pressure.

Billet crank would be a good idea if you end up with the same issue. BC billet would use the rods you just bought and then you would need stroker pistons with the correct pin height.

Both good ideas but, There shouldn't be any significant post turbine backpressure. It's all wadded up pre-turbine. I may have a fix in the works for that though;).

The billet crank was thought about until I saw the price tag which took nearly 1 millisecond to change my mind. The whole engine will be reassembled cheaper thaan just that one part. Couldn't justify it to my wife or even to myself.


No wear, at all on mains or rod bearings. Didn't even take pics because they looked just like how I put them in. (Edit: crank checked straight by machine shop also.) Big difference in setups though. I was running about 10* less timing everywhere, 10psi less boost, and 100-150 less tq. My timing was only 10* at peak tq up to 16*ish up top. Also no boost spike. I induced a creeping boost curve to keep from a tq spike. Ran 500awtq most of the time but touched 540 a couple times until I worked out my WG duty cycle map. Very little miles on the 500awtq tune as some time was spent at wastegate boost.

My tune wasn't pushed anywhere near Jeff's. That might not be the case this year with the forged rods:D. Especially if the misfire issue is solved with the ignition and ground changes I am making.

This excites me. I also need to add that Ray mentioned magnafluxing the crank to check for cracks. He said the crank cracks and the bend is the result. Good luck to you sir!!!

Jeff

[kywhitelightning]

Update time.

http://i495.photobucket.com/albums/rr316/jjd222002/IMAG1777_zps4f81927d.jpg

All future info for the rebuild will happen here as this car is no longer running DR750's V1.

http://www.3sgto.org/turbo-engines-systems/13940-rebirth-street-beast.html#post278547

Jeff