GSXRAntwon Posted January 15, 2008 Report Share Posted January 15, 2008 Uh...duh. I was just making a statement. Of course you wanna start with low timing and work your way up from there.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nate1647545505 Posted January 15, 2008 Report Share Posted January 15, 2008 Antwon - Didn't mean to pick you out or anything offensive against you, just a general observation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tristanlee85 Posted January 15, 2008 Author Report Share Posted January 15, 2008 Tristan - what do your intake temps look like as I ASSume you are running Speed Density? I would work on maintaining 11.9-11.5:1 until redline IF your setup isn't producing a large intake temp spike or your car isn't running a cat(s). Currently I have a brass temperature sensor, not an open element one so the temperatures aren't accurate under boost. It's actually really bad because on the dyno I was only seeing temperatures of ~70* F at my highest point which definitely isn't right. Honestly I didn't have much time to tune it out as precise as I wanted it. I spent a greater portion of my time trying to fix the IC pipe. It kept blowing off on the first 4 pulls. This thing has been street-tuned for probably 7 months now so I didn't adjust anything on the dyno except a little more advance and a little more fuel. After all, these are stock pistons. I couldn't get too crazy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nate1647545505 Posted January 15, 2008 Report Share Posted January 15, 2008 Currently I have a brass temperature sensor, not an open element one so the temperatures aren't accurate under boost. It's actually really bad because on the dyno I was only seeing temperatures of ~70* F at my highest point which definitely isn't right. Honestly I didn't have much time to tune it out as precise as I wanted it. I spent a greater portion of my time trying to fix the IC pipe. It kept blowing off on the first 4 pulls. This thing has been street-tuned for probably 7 months now so I didn't adjust anything on the dyno except a little more advance and a little more fuel. After all, these are stock pistons. I couldn't get too crazy. "The devil is in the details". Beading the pipes is a solution, using hairspray on the silicone couplers is a common remedy. I'm not trying to slam your work, just give you some tid bits. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thorne Posted January 15, 2008 Report Share Posted January 15, 2008 I wish I could run a 12.5 AFR ;(. I was looking at my numbers and WB wise I'm similar cept at 4k I have to be richer as thats a area on the WRX thats prone to knock. I think you've got a Mean and uniquie little setup there and I give you mad props for it. Nate I want to also say your engine knowledge > mine Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rally Pat Posted January 15, 2008 Report Share Posted January 15, 2008 Arent all turbo motors in all cars supposed to run slightly lean under full boost? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrblunt Posted January 15, 2008 Report Share Posted January 15, 2008 IPS can roll a bead into the pipe to help keep it in place. I've used the hairspray trick before and it works well. It gets very sticky when its dry. Nice numbers. I'm using the Msns as well and really like it. For the money I've invested I couldn't be happier. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrblunt Posted January 15, 2008 Report Share Posted January 15, 2008 Arent all turbo motors in all cars supposed to run slightly lean under full boost? Sure, if you want to be on the edge of detonation and engine failure every day. Turbo's add a great amount of heat into the equation when the air is compressed which makes proper AF's that much more important. I try not to hit 12:0's when in full boost. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rally Pat Posted January 15, 2008 Report Share Posted January 15, 2008 Sure, if you want to be on the edge of detonation and engine failure every day. Turbo's add a great amount of heat into the equation when the air is compressed which makes proper AF's that much more important. I try not to hit 12:0's when in full boost. Excuse me, I meant all turbo cars minus DSMs, they tend to explode during anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thorne Posted January 15, 2008 Report Share Posted January 15, 2008 Excuse me, I meant all turbo cars minus DSMs, they tend to explode during anything. No all turbo cars should not be lean. I run my car at a 11.5 threw out most the top end as I found it to be the sweat spot on the trade off between timing boost afr. Compared to a NA car thats fucking rich. NA cars usally run much more lean. If you tuned a turbo car like a NA car and went full boost you would not have a motor very long. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rally Pat Posted January 15, 2008 Report Share Posted January 15, 2008 I forget where I read it, I think it was on TurboFord.net, in a discussion about 2.3 AFR's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tristanlee85 Posted January 15, 2008 Author Report Share Posted January 15, 2008 "The devil is in the details". Beading the pipes is a solution, using hairspray on the silicone couplers is a common remedy. I'm not trying to slam your work, just give you some tid bits. All my piping is steal so I welded beads around them to keep it from blowing off. The compressor has a very thin lip on it and that's where it's slipping off. I don't have any way to weld aluminum though. We used brake cleaner to clean out the coupler and compressor and then sprayed some VHT glue on it. I think Brian is going to sell it for $40 a can as "Intercooler Piping Glue." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s13 Posted January 16, 2008 Report Share Posted January 16, 2008 Excuse me, I meant all turbo cars minus DSMs, they tend to explode during anything. You seem to talk a lot of shit about Dsms seeing as how your car will never run. I can't wait till this spring, you plan on pushing 500+ on your shitbox, it should be quiet entertaining. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rally Pat Posted January 16, 2008 Report Share Posted January 16, 2008 You seem to talk a lot of shit about Dsms seeing as how your car will never run. I can't wait till this spring, you plan on pushing 500+ on your shitbox, it should be quiet entertaining. Jake what the hell man? I was just joking, not talking shit. What is up with you? And my car does run, its just not road worthy because I don't have the money for a turbo. As for the power "500+ HP statement", from 9/3/07 I am shooting for 400-450 whp. I have said the motor is capable of 500+, but rather unreliably. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NTHER91 Posted January 16, 2008 Report Share Posted January 16, 2008 Nate I want to also say your engine knowledge > mine id put nate up against slot of people in that dept, only prob with nate is he forgets he talking to someone without a masters degree sometimes. LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
s13 Posted January 16, 2008 Report Share Posted January 16, 2008 Jake what the hell man? I was just joking, not talking shit. What is up with you? And my car does run, its just not road worthy because I don't have the money for a turbo. As for the power "500+ HP statement", from 9/3/07 I have said the motor is capable of 500+, but rather unreliably. Im just grumpy don't mind me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nate1647545505 Posted January 16, 2008 Report Share Posted January 16, 2008 Eric- happpppyyyyyyyyyyy face. If I ever get above your or anyone else's head please don't hesitate to bring me back down. I constantly push enthusiasts and professional tuners alike to further their knowledge and scope as calibration has many deep sciences within it. Like mechanics have evolved into technicians, tuners will need to learn and understand engineering math & theory. This is very apparent with the learning curve of the new GM model based controllers (ex: C6 Z06) as well as new technologies like direct injection and valve timing & cam phasing. The nice thing about the universe is the same laws apply to any and all piston engines. While the specific engine design/materials are subject to their unique limits, there still are some general guidelines... Combustion is about heat release, and the respective timing of the release. On the chemical side, a fuel's heating value can be thumbed how much energy the molecules contain. The larger the number, the more energy can be obtained from the fuel. Some examples: 87 Octane is around 42kJ/kg, 93 Octane 43kJ/kg, E85 29kJ/kg. There is slight misinformation on the web that 87 octane has more potential energy compared to your premium 93/94 blends, this is simply not the case. Compared to regular, premium fuels have more groupings of stable molecules that tolerate higher temperatures before breaking down, this is what increases the octane rating (and somewhat slows the burn rate). Best power is usually around lambda of .89 to .92 for an NA engine, where flame speed nears peak. Keep in mind it is possible for combustion to happen anywhere from 8:1-26:1, if the operating variables support it. It has been mentioned already that high intake temperatures, more importantly density, won't allow for NA fueling calibration. Since our homeboy Boyle repersents PV=nRT, you can expect a more violent reaction when both temperature and density skyrocket (boost). Flame speed of 14:1 @ 1 atm is similar to 12:1 @ 2 atm, however the knock limitation of 12:1 @ 2 atm is marginally higher. Most of the padding can be contributed to richer (lambda < .9 ) mixtures having a lower overall burn temperature. A more pronounced affect on timing is present as inlet temperature rises, the timing is reduced as a result of the evaporation rate and burn rate being marginally higher. You may see 11-10-9:1 commanded AFR with OEM calibrations, this mainly to protect the internal components under high load / increased time and to protect the cats from becoming fireballs (they shouldn't operate with incoming temperatures > 1200F). Timing must be added to keep peak burn pressure at the correct crank angle as these overly rich mixtures have a very slow burn speed. Knowing the above, the next large factor in torque output to consider is spark timing. Timing is very unique to the application and conditions. You can model it in programs like GT-Power or Aveos, or find the optimum via dyno. Both fueling and timing affect each other. Its not uncommon for a calibrator to revise fueling, timing, fueling again and timing again. Best power is achieved when the spark is timed properly for the conditions to hit peak pressure at roughly 7 to 15* ATDC. I prefer to find it via loaded dyno (no offense to the non-loaded dyno's out there) and see the power drop off versus using an acoustical knock sensor. The real way would be pressure traces from the cylinder, but even here at Purdue its very hard to get access to such a thing. The actual amount of charge being burned and its relation to crank angle is also something to be pondered, but really not considered. We just would like the charge to be consumed before the exhaust valve opens (google Mass Fraction Burned if you want to know more) Nate Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thorne Posted January 16, 2008 Report Share Posted January 16, 2008 Hrmmm I would like to see GT-Power. So If I'm understanding right with say 2.5 atm 12:1 is to high and if my fuzy math is right closer to 11.6 would be optium Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nate1647545505 Posted January 16, 2008 Report Share Posted January 16, 2008 Hrmmm I would like to see GT-Power. So If I'm understanding right with say 2.5 atm 12:1 is to high and if my fuzy math is right closer to 11.6 would be optium GT-Power is very hard to come by as its somewhere around 10,000$? Most univeristies have a copy though. Its a very high level engineering program (OEMs use it to model for months, years before an engine is started) and requires a great deal of information about the combustion chamber that can't be easily obtained with your average tools in the garage. Regarding flame speed at x atm, that was a ballpark estimate. I do believe there are charts out there on the net, there is said chart in Heywood's ICE Principles. Nate Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thorne Posted January 16, 2008 Report Share Posted January 16, 2008 GT-Power is very hard to come by as its somewhere around 10,000$? Most univeristies have a copy though. Its a very high level engineering program (OEMs use it to model for months, years before an engine is started) and requires a great deal of information about the combustion chamber that can't be easily obtained with your average tools in the garage. Regarding flame speed at x atm, that was a ballpark estimate. I do believe there are charts out there on the net, there is said chart in Heywood's ICE Principles. Nate whats your major? Just curious because you seem to know more about tuning on a Theoritcal level then anyone I've talked to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nate1647545505 Posted January 16, 2008 Report Share Posted January 16, 2008 whats your major? Just curious because you seem to know more about tuning on a Theoritcal level then anyone I've talked to. Aeronautical (mainly because of turbo machinery), but I hang around the ICE classes and FSAE team more then I should. The neat thing is, we don't know much more about combustion now compared to the 1950's. The sciences involved are the same anywhere, so ME's and AE's from any university generally study this, but few retain it if they don't see/need the value in it Nate Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallard Posted January 16, 2008 Report Share Posted January 16, 2008 Aeronautical (mainly because of turbo machinery), but I hang around the ICE classes and FSAE team more then I should. The neat thing is, we don't know much more about combustion now compared to the 1950's. The sciences involved are the same anywhere, so ME's and AE's from any university generally study this, but few retain it if they don't see/need the value in it Nate So very true. And I do commend Nate for his vast knowledge on engines and tuning. 99% of the people I went to school with would not be able to hold a conversation with Nate about engines because if you don't use it everyday, you forget it. I only say 99% because one of my friends works at GM doing GTPower simulations for engine development. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GSXRAntwon Posted January 17, 2008 Report Share Posted January 17, 2008 Eric- happpppyyyyyyyyyyy face. If I ever get above your or anyone else's head please don't hesitate to bring me back down. I constantly push enthusiasts and professional tuners alike to further their knowledge and scope as calibration has many deep sciences within it. Like mechanics have evolved into technicians, tuners will need to learn and understand engineering math & theory. This is very apparent with the learning curve of the new GM model based controllers (ex: C6 Z06) as well as new technologies like direct injection and valve timing & cam phasing. The nice thing about the universe is the same laws apply to any and all piston engines. While the specific engine design/materials are subject to their unique limits, there still are some general guidelines... Combustion is about heat release, and the respective timing of the release. On the chemical side, a fuel's heating value can be thumbed how much energy the molecules contain. The larger the number, the more energy can be obtained from the fuel. Some examples: 87 Octane is around 42kJ/kg, 93 Octane 43kJ/kg, E85 29kJ/kg. There is slight misinformation on the web that 87 octane has more potential energy compared to your premium 93/94 blends, this is simply not the case. Compared to regular, premium fuels have more groupings of stable molecules that tolerate higher temperatures before breaking down, this is what increases the octane rating (and somewhat slows the burn rate). Best power is usually around lambda of .89 to .92 for an NA engine, where flame speed nears peak. Keep in mind it is possible for combustion to happen anywhere from 8:1-26:1, if the operating variables support it. It has been mentioned already that high intake temperatures, more importantly density, won't allow for NA fueling calibration. Since our homeboy Boyle repersents PV=nRT, you can expect a more violent reaction when both temperature and density skyrocket (boost). Flame speed of 14:1 @ 1 atm is similar to 12:1 @ 2 atm, however the knock limitation of 12:1 @ 2 atm is marginally higher. Most of the padding can be contributed to richer (lambda < .9 ) mixtures having a lower overall burn temperature. A more pronounced affect on timing is present as inlet temperature rises, the timing is reduced as a result of the evaporation rate and burn rate being marginally higher. You may see 11-10-9:1 commanded AFR with OEM calibrations, this mainly to protect the internal components under high load / increased time and to protect the cats from becoming fireballs (they shouldn't operate with incoming temperatures > 1200F). Timing must be added to keep peak burn pressure at the correct crank angle as these overly rich mixtures have a very slow burn speed. Knowing the above, the next large factor in torque output to consider is spark timing. Timing is very unique to the application and conditions. You can model it in programs like GT-Power or Aveos, or find the optimum via dyno. Both fueling and timing affect each other. Its not uncommon for a calibrator to revise fueling, timing, fueling again and timing again. Best power is achieved when the spark is timed properly for the conditions to hit peak pressure at roughly 7 to 15* ATDC. I prefer to find it via loaded dyno (no offense to the non-loaded dyno's out there) and see the power drop off versus using an acoustical knock sensor. The real way would be pressure traces from the cylinder, but even here at Purdue its very hard to get access to such a thing. The actual amount of charge being burned and its relation to crank angle is also something to be pondered, but really not considered. We just would like the charge to be consumed before the exhaust valve opens (google Mass Fraction Burned if you want to know more) Nate Please tell me that you copy/paste all of that....Good info sir! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nate1647545505 Posted January 17, 2008 Report Share Posted January 17, 2008 Please tell me that you copy/paste all of that....Good info sir! Nah, had some spare time in between classes. Phil - GT3076. By all means, there is still lots I don't know, and many that do. "Tuning", can be as simple as matching an air/fuel ratio and/or watching knock sensor counts/feedback. Its the drive to understand "why" that keeps very knowledgeable professionals and enthusiasts out there. I still learn from friends Marcin Pohle (redhardsupra) and Nick Glantzis (NickG) everday. Just remember, I started out reading posts and asking a fair amount of (stupid) questions when I first joined here. I've come along way since then, but you get the point - We're all beginners at one point or another. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallard Posted January 17, 2008 Report Share Posted January 17, 2008 Nah, had some spare time in between classes. Phil - GT3076. You may get you wish, but not with the turbine housing that I originally wanted. "Tuning" I thought it was spelled "tooning." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.