[ion wrote: C2]Summer 2007
I have had mine since spring of 04. The calibration number has changed several times since mine and it seems that with the different calibration the car will run different. I want to get an early calibration but no longer have access to TIS.
DOHC_tuner wrote:wow...starting a whole thread and ''not'' for ego?.....uh....yeah.
I couldn't have said that better myself .
I have been on here a long time. I recall several times where protomec has acted like an ass hole to people who happen to have less knowledge on a subject than him. Here is something you should know. You can build a good engine I will give you that, but your attitude and ego have made you seem like a prick to alot of people on here. You are a mechanic / engine builder . Whoopidy fukin doo da jag bag. You guys need to quit with this gay ass s@!#$t
Windy City TurboZ
[ion wrote: C2]mitdr774 wrote:short of the problems with the Cometic HG that build was problem free for 16.5K miles. It wasnt till I added the turbo for one night that my problems started. Also I was barely creeping to mid 12's as far as AFR. I would honestly have no problem doing that exact build again. Jeremy isnt saying its fine, on numerous occasions I have seen him advise against doing it.
maybe your wideband was way off, because the reflash tune targets 13.0 AFR under PE, and with all those airflow increasing modifications there's no way you'd be richer than what it was stock... lol
I have to say that means nothing. I have seen many N/A crs with stock AFR target of 13.0, but still running in the 11's for AFR. I also feel 310cc injectors are too small for 300WHP. I now SS/SC injectors were too small for 266WHP on the twin charged set-up, but different set-up.
FU Tuning
I just assumed it'd actually be VE tuned from the factory to meet that target. I didn't get my wideband until after I had the 2.6" pulley, 62mm TB, in which I found my AFRs were pretty scary.
2001 Olds Alero (LD9)
636 whp / 543 ft-lb
@turboalero
can someone please pass me the popcorn?
Its all mine
PRND321 Till I DIE
Old Motor: 160whp & 152ft/lbs, 1/4 Mile 15.4 @88.2
M45 + LD9 + 4T40-E, GO GO GO
^^^YOU GREEDY SUMANA BITCH.
lol same thing from modren muscel car lol ^^^
8 psi with m62 and IAT under 100
I posted it here quite a while ago.
on todds side :
i met him @ route 66 dragway and hung out in illinois , i want to say 7 years ago with a few other members who were some of the first pioneers for these cars.
Todd knows his stuff, i seen his work and it is top notch. Most of you probably dont know he works for roush (not sure if he still does, been a long time since i talked to him and he probably dont remember me).
at that time i thought "roush" was all ford, but then i learned how much GM stuff goes through that shop. He didnt tell me exactly what he did there though.
Doesnt really matter though, i dont talk to the guy at all anymore, but he knows alot more then people think. He doesnt come off as a know it all to me. He just states the facts and some people take him wrong. the .org should be thankful you have guys as knowledgable as him still lurking around.
as you were :
Jake wrote:on todds side :
Todd knows his stuff, i seen his work and it is top notch. Most of you probably dont know he works for roush (not sure if he still does, been a long time since i talked to him and he probably dont remember me).
at that time i thought "roush" was all ford, but then i learned how much GM stuff goes through that shop. He didnt tell me exactly what he did there though.
Doesnt really matter though, i dont talk to the guy at all anymore, but he knows alot more then people think. He doesnt come off as a know it all to me. He just states the facts and some people take him wrong. the .org should be thankful you have guys as knowledgable as him still lurking around.
as you were :
Jake,
This may be true, and promotec may know his stuff. However, what is the point of a forum to discuss engines if no one is willing to share knowledge? If promotec is right, and he knows his stuff, and even employed by Roush, then it should be no big deal for him to explain to all of us how this is possible. But he hasnt. which is leading me to believe he cant. This discussion has been going on for over a week now, and all he has managed to do is insult those who dont believe him... demand that we believe him becuase he knows better than us... wont explain a damn thing.... deflect and differ the issue. This is a pretty good indicator he's not going to ever post what his rational is on this subject. he's had ample time to do so.
Promotec wrote: I am just trying to decide if there would be even the slightest point in writing an accurate listing of common misconceptions and explaining why they are popular yet wrong... later in this post. Something I have started to write a few times now but decided it wasn;t worth the time it would take to type it.:
Sounds to me like every way he tried to explain it, he keeps coming up short... as in its just not possible. Yet he just cant say it.
If he did come up with a resonable explaination, how hard would it have been to post it by now???
M90'd Built LGO-15 PSI
http://webstarts.com/quadper4mance
I don't think he wanted people to know that Jake....
To me, this "argument" is simple.
Just because on paper, something can not work, dose NOT mean it cant in the real world.
It happened.
End*
Chris
'02 Z-24 Supercharged
13.7 @102.45 MPH Third Place, 2007 GMSC Bash SOLD AS OF 01MAR08
Taetsch Z-24 wrote:I don't think he wanted people to know that Jake....
To me, this "argument" is simple.
Just because on paper, something can not work, dose NOT mean it cant in the real world.
It happened.
End*
Chris
Agreed. Look at his times with the car and tell me it is only making 193 WHP. The few HP calculators I have used put my WHP very close to what the dyno said. Therefore since he used the exact same dyno on the exact same day I would have to deduce that his numbers would be accurate.
so the laws of physics apply to pretty much everything in the universe expect Todds engines, and your Supercharger?
I think your opinion is biased. For one, you already posted you believe Todd becuase people said your supercharger wouldnt make it to the 13's. Those people saying that were basing there statements off of opinion, not physics. your supercharger setup obviously does follow the lines of predicable physics. It was the peoples opinion that you trusted more than physics, but then let you down when you proved them wrong with showing it can be done. So again, opinions have no place in this discussion. mathmatics and physics do. opinions will just lead people down the wrong path.
Let me do the math on your setup and see how close we get.
(psi) = (PR x 14.7 x V / C/2 ) - 14.7 - I
(PSI)= (2.303 x 14.7 x ((737.415 x .9)) / (2392.502 / 2 ) - 14.7 - i
PSI = 22468.069 / 1196.251 - 14.7 - i
PSI = 18.782- 14,7 - i
PSI = 4.082
(Psi + 14.7) / 14.7 x Stock HP = New HP
( 4.082 + 14.7) / 14.7 x 160 = new HP
18.782 / 14.7 x 160 = New HP
1.277 x 160 = 204 HP
Your Flywheel HP should be right at 204 HP. Am I right? Ah yes, there it is right in your sig....
Now, whoever those fools where that said you couldnt, obviously didnt know how to use math to figure out yes you could. Opinions are worthless. What works on paper is always what is in the real world.
M90'd Built LGO-15 PSI
http://webstarts.com/quadper4mance
Umm you sure that his sig doesn't say front WHEEL horsepower...if that's the case, then yes you are wrong. But I'll let him answer if he got the engine dyno'd alone. (highly doubtful)
From what I read in the other post, nukkinfutz is estimating important numbers in his magical calculations, which can throw the numbers all off.
You want to claim the numbers are not possible, then you can't be using estimated numbers.
Also, no i do not know how to do the math, Nor do I care that much. But I do know that for it to be accurate, and to be to argue your point nukkinfutz, you have to have actual numbers and not estimates, sorry, you just can't claim something else is inaccurate, if your not being accurate..
FWHP = Flywheel Horse Power. If it was Wheel HP, you say WHP.
non of those numbers are made up. Please specify which one you think is, and i'll gladly show you proof.
M90'd Built LGO-15 PSI
http://webstarts.com/quadper4mance
Some people Fwhp = front wheel horsepower, Rwhp= rear wheel horsepower and Awhp= all wheel horsepower..
Like i said, from what I read in the other post. you were claim drivetrain lost at 18% in a manual Jbody.. Lets see real proof of this, and not just calculations, because the calculations to figure this out would require real flywheel horsepower and real wheel horsepower...
Numbers do not explain EVERYTHING..
Nukkinfuttz wrote:
What works on paper is always what is in the real world.
Never heard of the Wankle Rotatory hey?
Looks great on paper....
in practice?
Chris
'02 Z-24 Supercharged
13.7 @102.45 MPH Third Place, 2007 GMSC Bash SOLD AS OF 01MAR08
FWHP has ment FRONT WHEEL HORSE POWER to FWD guys for as long as I can remember...... (kinda like RWHP = REAR WHEEL HORSE POWER)
I like how in every one of your "calculations" you refer to "STOCK HP". That right there throws your "calculations" out the window. MOST production engines are not engineered to do efficient jobs of converting heat to power. Matter of fact, do a quick google search, you'll find TONS of articles on that. Two, you have no clue as to the tuning, compression, cams, cam timing, CFM of the engine, CFM (PSI means squat) of the turbo, or even the octane of the fuel in his tank. Are his pistons coated? How about the combustion chamber in the head? Exhaust manifold thermal coated? Sure, it takes X amount of fuel to produce X amount of HP, but production engines one convert so much of the provided fuel into usable HP. Increase its thermal efficiency, lower its BSFC = more hp
Quote:
It is a known fact that a piston engine does a rather inefficient job of converting fuel energy into power. The rule of thumb approximation is that nearly 1/3 of the fuel energy goes out the exhaust pipe as lost heat, approximately 1/3 of the fuel energy is lost to the cooling system (coolant, oil and surrounding airflow), leaving roughly 1/3 of the energy (best case) available for power output. Some of that power is lost to making the pistons go up and down, driving accessories (oil pump, coolant pump, alternator, vacuum pump, hydraulic pump, etc.), losses from pumping air through the engine, thrashing the oil in the crankcase, and friction in various forms.
Now in my case, I KNOW what injectors where in my car. I KNOW what fuel pressure my Adj. FPR was set at. I KNOW what my car weighed with my ass in the driver's seat, and I KNOW what 1/4 mile times I ran. My engine had a pair of "Secret" Cams, 320cc injectors, Adj. FPR, and a home built turbo system. Thats it.
Given your fondness of math
*Note: This is a rough estimate of engine horsepower.*
HP = 297.095802794
HP = 269.540427774
AVERAGE of 283.3181hp (subtract for 10% DTL = 255hp @ the wheels?)
So, HOW did I manage to run 12.8's @ 110mph, weighing in @ 2860lbs, with 320cc injectors? Not only once, but I managed to stay in that "ball park" consecutively. AND do it on a OEM Mass produced engine with a OEM GM S/C Reflash for a tune? But yet Jeremy's custom built, custom tuned engine cant make 35+/- more HP?
One last thing.
The injectors on Skilz's car spec'd at 320cc @ 43psi.
The OEM FPR has a normal WOT operating pressure of 50-55psi (from the GM Service manual)
That EFFECTIVLY changes the FLOW RATING of the Injectors to be
369-405cc @ 50-55psi.
AND NO WHERE HAS IT BEEN SAID THAT 320cc INJECTORS ARE RECOMMENDED FOR 300HP, ITS SIMPLY BEEN SAID THAT IT COULD BE DONE.
Quote:
VOLUMETRIC EFFICIENCY
Imagine that you have a 100 cubic inch single cylinder engine. On the intake stroke, the piston moves to the bottom of the cylinder and creates a volume that is 100 cubic inches. The fuel/air mixture that fills this volume is what will be used to create the power.
Now imagine that this engine has some type of restricted intake, such as a small carburetor or restrictor plate like they use in NASCAR. With this configuration, the intake manifold has a fairly good vacuum. In this case, even though the piston pulls a volume of 100 cubic inches into the cylinder, it is not atmospheric air. Here, you have the 100 cubic inches of the vacuum from the manifold. You can think of this as the opposite of super charging because the cylinder ended up with less fuel and air molecules rather than having more fuel/air packed into the same volume.
Volumetric efficiency (VE) is used to describe the amount of fuel/air in the cylinder in relation to regular atmospheric air. If the cylinder is filled with fuel/air at atmospheric pressure, then the engine is said to have 100% volumetric efficiency. On the other hand, super chargers and turbo chargers increase the pressure entering the cylinder, giving the engine a volumetric efficiency greater than 100%. However, if the cylinder is pulling in a vacuum, then the engine has less than 100% volumetric efficiency. Normally aspirated engines typically run anywhere between 80% and 100% VE. So now, when you read that a certain manifold and cam combination tested out to have a 95% VE, you will know that the higher the number, the more power the engine can produce.
Basically, volumetric efficiency is effected by your carb, intake manifold, headers, and cam specs. All of these items effect how much fuel/air will flow into the cylinder. But remember, the more fuel/air that gets into the cylinder, the more power the engine will produce.
THERMAL EFFICIENCY
Getting more fuel/air into the cylinder means more fuel energy is available to make power. Unfortunately, not all of the fuel's energy gets converted to rotating energy. Of the 19,000 to 20,000 Btu per pound of gasoline, typically less than 1/3 ends up as useable horsepower.
Compression ratio, ignition timing, thermal coatings, plug location and chamber design all affect the thermal efficiency (TE). Low compression street engines (smog motors) may have a TE of approximately 0.26. A racing engine may have a TE of approximately 0.34. Because these numbers are relatively small, at first glance there may not seem to be much difference between the street engine and the racing engine. However, when you grind out the math (.34 - .26 / .26), the racing engine produces about 30% more power because of the higher TE.
Finding little improvements to the TE can end up as a significant improvement to the final horsepower that the engine produces.
MECHANICAL EFFICIENCY
Volumetric efficiency identifies how much fuel/air gets into the cylinder and thermal efficiency identifies how much of the fuel gets converted to useable power, but some of this power is robbed by the engine's moving parts. It takes power to overcome the friction between parts and to run engine accessories such as the water pump.
So, depending on how much fuel gets into the cylinder and depending on how much of the fuel gets converted to workable power, some of this power is used by the engine to run itself. The left over power is what you would measure on a dynamometer. The difference between what you would measure on the dyno and the workable power in the cylinder is the mechanical efficiency (ME).
Mechanical efficiency is effected by rocker friction, bearing friction, piston skirt area, and other moving parts, but it is also dependent on the engine's RPM. The greater the RPM, the more power it takes to turn the engine. This means the faster the engine runs the more the ME drops. Often times the ME is expressed in terms of friction horsepower. Or in other words, how much horsepower is needed just to overcome the friction.
SPD RCR Z -
'02 Z24 420whp
SLO GOAT -
'04 GTO 305whp
W41 BOI -
'78 Buick Opel Isuzu W41 Swap
Thank you Brian, you have hit on some of the major points that I have been trying to drive into his head.
What Nukkinfuttz does know for certain:
Several accurate math equations pertaining to engine operation.
What Nukkinfuttz has guessed at, inaccurately, but is passing off as hard facts:
The actual flywheel horsepower of Skilz engine.
The actual fuel pressure of skilz engine.
Why Nukkinfuttz made those guesses and why they are wrong:
He thinks drivetrain loss is a simple percentage in the 15-18% range. This is completely wrong. I don't know if it has ever been correct, but it has been marketted as a "rule" by many... especially Dyno Shops.
It may have been correct in "the old days" when cars had drivetrains designed in the 1940's and 1950's and ran misaligned u-loints, heavy gear oil and even tar coated rope seals but it simply does not apply accurately to modern cars. Engineers are always trying to improve drivetrain loss to improve mileage and emissions from high amounts of fuel use. The simple fact is that even in RWD cars where the power is "bent" 90° to get it to the wheel (the worst case for loss of any drivetrain loss). I HAVE actually tested engines under SAE requirements on certified engine dynos and them installed them into cars and chassis dynoed the car and found that a typical modern RWD installation loses 11-12% and this is the worst layout for loss.
Dyno shops continue to promote the higher % for the same reason they cheat correction factors... higher numbers, even if only calculated #s mean happier customers.
Without having a tested and reviewed # for loss through a Jbody trans at 300ish hp, anything else he chooses to use to backcalculate flywheel hp from whp is always going to be wrong!
He bases his guess on what fuel pressure was for this engine on the statement that it did not have an adjustable FPR and that he thinks stock pressure is 50PSI. He goes way wrong with that guess because most J's run higher than that stock, 52-55psi, AND that he thinks a stock FPR can not be adjusted for higher pressure. A moment in a bench vise with 2 sockets around it will easilly let you raise its pressure.
Nukkinfuttz mistakenly believes that BSFC has some kind of preordained perfect solution
There are 2 kinds of formulas for engine parameters- ones that are hard rules, and ones that are simple indications.
An example of a hard math rule is the formula for horsepower... tq x rpm / 5252 = hp. Based on tq and rpm the answer cannot ever deviate from what it is and is an accurate basis of comparison.
Then there are formulas for that are simple indications of what is going on like hp /liter displacement. in this case there is no hard set rule of what the answer has to be. A 1.0 liter engine can easily make 20hp/liter, 100hp/liter or make 500hp/liter depending on how its built. The result from that equation is just an indication of is happening.
BSFC is simply that, an indication of how efficiently the engine is using the fuel its burning. Nukkinfuttz has tried to create a "perfect answer" to that indication by comparing it for a few stock engines and by what he has gleemed from a few websites (RCEng.com comes to mind). But engines are really inefficient when converting fuel to energy, so there is plenty of room to improve that over stock. I might add here that his "calculated" BSFC #s for his stock engines are also calculated using "imaginary" numbers he made up for fuel flow there too. This is because it does not matter what injectors were installed from the factory, it matters what they are flowing when the hp is recorded. Just because an engine has XX cc/min injectors does not mean they will run 80% duty cycle at peak power... as a matter of fact they won't. Injector sizing for stock cars is more based on cold start fuel needs than WOT fuel at operating temp. An engine can minimally need 2-3 times the fuel when cold as it needs when fully warm.
BSFC is simply a # showing how well the engine is turning the fuel into power. A well-built (bluprinted), and "tuned" (component matching, not fuel calibration) engine can really turn some good BSFC #s. Many I worked on in the past were actually in high .30s to low .40s over and over.
Now the reason why websites like RCEng say things like .55 BSFC for NA and .65 for FI is simple. They are also trying to cover for cold operation needs as well as typical inefficiencies that come from home built cars or boosted stock engines done by amatuers. They are intentionally making the sizing large to cover for everything their typical customer would forget or not understand to account for.
Nukkinfuttz continues to carry on about Skilz engine
He simply has it in for this engine. He seems to keep ignoring that there have been others who have done the same, or nearly the same, on different occassions in different areas of the country. Some of them have chimed-in in both of these threads, but were ignored.
Now some people hear have brought up example of other, blower-equipped engines as comparisons. Blowers are a completely different animal becasue they directly steal away crank hp to drive themselves. Causing a related drop in efficiency and therefore needing more fuel.
I am not going to dispute Nukkinfuttz's math examples by giving different #s
Simply put, I never put this engine on and engine dyno so I cannot tell you its actual hp output either. Anything I could post to contradict his guesses would be much closer to the truth, but still imaginary and therefore just as useless.
Now the reason I made this post was twofold:
1- I was sick of hearing it rail on over and over in someone elses VIDEO post (as in it was not on topic)
2- I wanted to get a gauge on whether style or substance mattered more on this site. I really guessed that style would win out and I don't think it looks like I was wrong on that point.
The way I see it, what was happening in the other post was that there was one guy (Style) arguing against another (Substance) and I want to see who would back up who.
I see Nukkinfuttz as all Style. Sure he bolted an enormous-for-the-application blower onto an engine, but what has he really done. Granted, what he did is way to hard for 95% of the people here to do for themselves, but on the grand scheme of car building, its pretty mediocre. As his basis for the argument, he uses a bunch of math equations and imaginary #s in those equations to make it seem his opinions are really justified. Again this is just style.
Now I see myself as Substance (here is your ego trip if you would like to complain). I have been around here for like 8 years and built some of the fastest cars/engines on this site. And we are not just talking about claiming to build them or hoping to build them, there are posts, slips, charts, vids and actual eyewitnesses at various events to back them up. There have not been alot of others on this site that can say the same thing, this includes some of the "great ones" who are now long gone and evidence that they did anything was always scarce.
So yes, I take great offense when some nobody comes along and start shouting he's "making me look bad", and worse, seem to get the impression at least that other nobodies are backing him up. Now I really don't care who anyone wants to believe or take advice from. I have better things to do than save the world from its own stupidity. I am just sick of wasting the time. Even in this exact post, 90% of what I wrote is the same info I posted in the other thread just presented differently.
So if I am being "owned" by some other guys imagination, so be it. I won't be bothered by this topic anymore. I will add that I am writing a paper on common misinterpretations like the ones Nukkinfuttzhas used, and more, that I will be posting on JBOMs forum in the tech articles section when I am done.
editted repeatedly for typos
Edited 9 time(s). Last edited Tuesday, February 03, 2009 12:15 AM
sig not found
McLovin wrote:Thank you Brian.
The nutswinging that goes on here is crazy. You act as if he just performed an act of god by his last post. You must have missed the part where he posted 10% DTL! That is laughable.
FORGET GIRLS GONE WILD WE HAVE GOVERNMENT SPENDING GONE WILD!
