Wow, Im impressed. You actually took time to explain some stuff, and its very elegant on its surface. but wait.... you still havent explained anything. lol all that typing, and it still amounts to explaining nothing.... deflecting the issue.... critisizing what i have done with my engine..... etc. just like always, except its longer here. lol
protomec wrote: 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 .
Im pretty dang close. Yeah, i am probably off by 1 or 2 %, but its alot better than 146% I suspect the "Dyno" is off. Fuel pressure- same thing. my guess is alot closer than just dropping the whole issue. Im saying 50 PSI becuase thats what ive tested on my car to be fuel rail pressure at WOT. Also, if your so hung up on maybe his base pressure is higher like 55, that only augments the injector size by 5% (340cc @ 50) (360cc @ 55) This is not going to make up for the 100 HP discrepancy. nice try.
protomec wrote: 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. .
I came up with that 15% loss for a MANUAL trans after reviewing Rex Weatherfords GTZ Stock Dyno run with 151WHP / 180 FWHP which equals 83.8% efficency or 16.2 % loss
http://www.beretta.net/behind_the_wheel/dyno_results.htm
doesnt take a rocket scientist to figure it out, however totally ignoring the issue becuase you cant get it to a precise 1000th of a percentage is probably a far worse crime. again, Im very close. I dont know where to find a stock automatic LD9 dyno so i can find the exact numbers, so i'll take a stab at 20%.
protomec wrote: 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..
Im glad you finally admitted to this being the cuase of our 100 HP discrepancy. finally. lol
protomec wrote: 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. 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...
I know this is possible. However, the owner never said it was done. So why are you making up mods out of thin air now?
protomec wrote: 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..
Yes, and those engines that are making 500hp/liter are also using a crapload more fuel, and not using gasoline either. So now your neglecting to realise the obscene .bsfc of those engines, and also compairing alchohol engines to gasoline engines. nice. Still doesnt explain anything relevant.
protomec wrote: 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. .
There is a perfect answer. Lets say your stock N/A motor runs a AFR of 13.7:1 and has a stock BSFC of .500 . By moving your AFR to a richer 12.7:1 ratio, you have increased fuel consumption by 7.2% or another way of saying the same thing is moved your BSFC from .500 to .536, When you run F/I you have to move your AFR richer and thus raise your BSFC.
protomec wrote: 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..
Wheres the proof? show an example. Im not going to just take your word on this if you believe .3's are possible with a simple built home turbo system. Nothing to reduce BSFC was done to his engine. His compression was lowered to accomodate the boost. this will raise his bsfc becuase his engine is now less effecient due to lowered compression, additional parasitic drag from spinning the turbo. he didnt mention any thermal coatings on the inside of the engine. So, all i see is things that would raise it, and NOTHING that would lower it. so again, your making up mods again.
protomec wrote: 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..
I have it in for this engine becuase the guy skylined himself making this claim. So, in the interest of getting to the bottom of the issue, I tried to stay focused on just this one. I know others are saying there doing it too. but i cant stage a war on multiple fronts. I have already started doing that, and now after this 1 hour long reply, im gonna have to write another one specifically to SpeedracerZ, and then another to TeachZ24. I dont have that kind of time. one argument at a time is enough.
.
protomec wrote: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..
What? do you think turbos operate for free or something? they induce power loss on the engine in the form of extremely high exhuast backpressure, rather than belt drawn HP. Turbos still take power, they dont operate free of charge dude.
protomec wrote: 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. ..
Here we go with deflecting the issue onto me, and now basing me for some reason. as if my motor build has something to do with skillz car making 100HP more than it should.
protomec wrote: 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. ..
and here come the personal insults to anyone who doesnt believe you just becuase you said, even though after this great post, you havent stated any reason as to why skillz car make 100HP more than should be possible with the injectors he's running... and we're the dumbasss huh?
Im not making you look bad, that was the wrong thing to say. Im just asking questions, and you are making yourself look bad due to your lack of knowledge. You may be able to spend alot of money, either yours or spending it for someone else project, and make cars that go fast, but you still have no idea how this stuff works, and cant even begin to explain it. you'd rather just ignore the 800lb elephant in the room than try to even speculate mathmatically how this is possible, because you might be off by a few percent. when were dealing with a 130% overstatement of power, being off 5% in your equations isnt going to hurt anything. becuase you wont even begin to try, you will never see the error in the claim. ignorance is bliss.
M90'd Built LGO-15 PSI
http://webstarts.com/quadper4mance
