Nate1647545505

You fucked your brother? :gtfo:

We call the EE building here "little asia" Thank the lord I don't have to take any EE classes here.

I agree that valve area is generally a good thing. If the 5L V8 and 5L V12 have the same total head flow - the total potential airmass is going to be similar. If the V12 has higher flow on a cylinder to cylinder basis, it will of course, make more power.

Not your fault, I think I put the emphasis in the wrong area. One thing to keep in mind: LRBT - Least Rich, Best Torque. Additional fueling controls combustion and component temperatures - to a point. Their main point is keeping the catalytic converter somewhat operational, and cool.

This is a somewhat decent example: LEV 2, 2007 STI, factory tune: http://img341.imageshack.us/img341/345/afrboostvc3.jpg

11.5:1 is spot on for best power & combustion temperature control for that setup (2x the cylinder density). Brian's tune is fantastic, no way am I questioning his work. Notice the key words: as close as possible and as long as possible. Every AFR has a unique spark timing curve. Whether operation can happen without detonation or large operating temperatures is conditional both on the engine design and operating condition.

Not with the correct timing Lots of ULEV/LEV engine's (even with forced induction) will run close to stoic as possible, for as long as possible.

Very good point. With today's and tomorrow's engines we are seeing technology like variable valve timing, cam phasing, and soon - variable cylinder to cylinder valve event timing. Couple technology, forced induction, and displacement and you can rule the world - or atleast a few highways on it.

My .02 (engine theory point of view -- don't have much experience in the drag racing realm) Energy is energy. Lower the displacement, higher the cylinder pressure needs to be to achieve the same output. For some engines, like the 4G, 2J, S5x, etc have the sealing capabilities with great combustion chamber design that can effectively handle it (on pump gas, too). There are some notable 80's F1 engines from Honda and BMW rated in the 1000bhp range from 1.5L and 6 cylinders. The thing to keep in mind - these engines made their power from 6k-10k RPM. Great if your application and gearing can take advantage of it. The other side of the story is accepting the physics of turbos, mainly the turbine. There are two accepted components that contribute to spinning it, mass flow, and heat (enthalpy across). Mass flow into the turbine is equal to mass flow into the intake + fuel mass. Squires quotes this as one of their main selling points - but they somewhat abuse it neglecting the other component, heat. Mass flow is the same through out an engine, but temperature has changed from the intake to the exhaust. Having a higher concentration of heat leads to a higher concentration of pressure, which is stored energy that aids the turbine. Back on topic, going to the Smokey Yunick side of things, a larger displacement motor with lower cylinder pressure outputting similar power is going to be generally accepted as the safer choice. Generally, it will have a higher mass flow rate (assuming it's a performance built V8) then a smaller displacement motor. That translates to more mass flow available for the turbine. Hopefully Mark and Anthony with APS TT Vette's at IPS will let us sneak a peak at their dynos - if they do, study it, compare it to similar horsepower smaller displacement engines along with those having less cylinders. The largest problem with displacement usually means an unfavorable bore/stroke ratio, or a large bore. That can really drive up weight and stresses in the rotating assembly, which often limits the max engine speed. So, how do you combat this -- increase the amount of cylinders. There's a reason the Veyron uses 16, and carries a healthy displacement of 8L. Like anything, I think there's a healthy balance between the two.

You should see what specialty engineered race headers cost.....

From all of my time at Mallett - 6,500 RPM was considered the safe point for the rotating assembley on a factory long block.

That would alleviate the calibration being the problem?

The interior is filled with love Phil, you have to let it replace the hate.

Why on earth would you blank out a rev limiter?

vwjeff's post #95 has working vid links

Seester....eh? http://smiliesftw.com/x/pimp_1.gif

Hal, you left your socks over here.............:gay:, sthilly.

You're correct. For any alcohol based fuel to be econiomically feasible it will simply have to be cheap. The net gain in thermal & chemicle efficiency is offest by lower energy density.

Steven, Tyler: That was a generalization, not a literal example. You cannot generalize volumetric consumption with octane rating alone.

The power increase comes from (re)centering the combustion event. Adding 4-5 degrees nets nearly the same peak pressure point.

So my car will run great if I use diesel..it has one the lowest ratings in the RON and MON tests...something like 10 RON 15 MON. There is alot more to fuel chemistry the octane rating that determines volumetric consuption.

That is a very misleading and open ended statement.

Dibs on the motor / tranny

I admit, I'm jaded from trying to perfect my shooting skills. However, I think if you spent some time behind a .308/.338/.300WSM you'd have a better feel as to how much destruction the smaller bore rifles can cause, with damn near pin point accuracy. I'm all about blowing shit up, but that's half the battle - you need to hit the shit, to blow it up....I guess.

It takes awhile to re-tool the facilities. GM isn't that out of touch with the market...you'd hope.