Does Nukkinfuttz make protomec look bad? - Boost Forum

Forum Post / Reply
You must log in before you can post or reply to messages.
Does Nukkinfuttz make protomec look bad?
Sunday, February 01, 2009 1:45 PM
Here is a quote from the "Videos" post...

Nukkinfuttz wrote:I know you probably want me to quite making you look bad. huh?


I am just curious if this is the true general consensus here.

The reason I'm an asking is not ego, I could care less what the general opinion of my work is or isn't here...
Rather 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.
But I don't to waste my time if its falling on deaf ears or ends up simply being another useless .org argument that serves no purpose.
So feel free to let me know what you think . Would you want mine or Nukkinfuttz's opinion on the "technical" aspects he has referred to in his posts?


sig not found

Re: Does Nukkinfuttz make protomec look bad?
Sunday, February 01, 2009 1:53 PM
roflmao




M90'd Built LGO-15 PSI
http://webstarts.com/quadper4mance
Re: Does Nukkinfuttz make protomec look bad?
Sunday, February 01, 2009 2:01 PM
i like where this is going





Re: Does Nukkinfuttz make protomec look bad?
Sunday, February 01, 2009 2:03 PM
This has epic stamped all over it.

-Chris-



-Sweetness-
-Turbocharged-
Slowly but surely may some day win this race...
Re: Does Nukkinfuttz make protomec look bad?
Sunday, February 01, 2009 2:04 PM
Break it down promotec. You've shared quite a bit of knowledge in the past, I'm always down to do a little learin.


Nukkinfuttz- badass Baretta






Re: Does Nukkinfuttz make protomec look bad?
Sunday, February 01, 2009 2:11 PM
The makin's of an EPIC ownage thread.










"The FACTS are always subject to CHANGE once the TRUTH is applied"
"In the entire history of man the only stupid questions are the ones that don't get asked"
Re: Does Nukkinfuttz make protomec look bad?
Sunday, February 01, 2009 2:18 PM
I've been watching this situation. I would also like to know how 320cc injectors are adequate for 13s and 280-300whp. Was the target AFR 15:1 in PE?


2001 Olds Alero (LD9)
636 whp / 543 ft-lb
@turboalero
Re: Does Nukkinfuttz make protomec look bad?
Sunday, February 01, 2009 2:18 PM
this pertains to boost, how?



Needing 2.3 oil pump stuff? PM me...
Re: Does Nukkinfuttz make protomec look bad?
Sunday, February 01, 2009 3:33 PM
This is simple mathmatics. Lets break down what we know.

We know he had 7.5 PSI of boost.

we know he used 330cc injectors according to the datasheet picture of when they were flow tested. to convert CC's to Lbs/hr, you divide by 10.5. so,

330 / 10.5 = 31.428lbs/hr.

now the ONLY reconized gasoline fuel equation in the whole wide world is as follows....
HP = (Flow rate x # of injectors x Duty cycle) / BSFC
another way of saying the same thing is....
Flow Rate = (HP x BSFC) / (# of injectors x Duty cycle)


So, since all power production MUST come from the total amount of fuel injected into the engine, and gasoline has a known energy content, there is

absolutely NO lee-way in this portion of the discussion. The ONLY way for the HP numbers claimed to have actually occured is # 1. Inertia Dyno sweep

tests are fraudulent. OR #2 His engines BSFC must be so low, its beyond reason, becuase even the best motors in the world cannot come close to

these levels. I'll get more into that later.

We also know he had a 1:1 Ratio FPR. So, even though his fuel pressure raised 7.5 PSI above normal, there was also 7.5 PSI in the manifold, cuasing

the differential pressure to remain unchanged. 50 PSI is normal WOT rail pressure.

BSFC, is Brake Specific Fuel Consumption. This number is just a way of totalizing the amount of fuel you inject vs. the amount of HP you get out. It

refers to the engines efficiency in developing power. Most every production production vehicle on the market has around a .5xx BSFC. When you add a

turbo or supercharger to an engine, your BSFC goes UP. this is becuase the power to drive the turbo or SC has to come from the fuel. so, the engine

will use more fuel than a N/A motor to make power, becuase it has to also power your F/I method. So, a typical F/I car will be HIGHER BSFC than an

equivalent N/A model.

BSFC can be made to go lower. this is through raising your compression ratio. Diesel engines are some of the worlds highest compression engines, so

high, they auto-ignite the fuel. they only have a BSFC of .4xx

So, our argument is that either his car has an extremely low BSFC rate, or the dyno had to much human error in the programming of a machine thats

doing something its not really designed to be doing in the first place. hmmm, this is gonna be hard.


Lets do the math now.
HP= 297 to the wheels according to the claim. with an automatic trans, there has to be at least a 20% drive line loss. so, to convert to Crank HP, 297 x

120% = 356 HP at the crankshaft.

In order for that to be true, and for the 330cc's running at 100% duty cycle to be true, the only other item that can be flexible in the equation is BSFC.

356= (31.428 x 4 x .999) / BSFC
356= 125.586 / BSFC
BSFC = .352

This is an impossibility. I challenge any one to show me another example of a car with some remotely close. Not from this site, there seems to be

epidemic BSFC engines here. Show me another engine even close thats forced induction, and i'll eat my words.


heres what i think... the dyno is wrong. heres what i think his power should be...
HP= (31.428 X 4 X .999) / .520
HP= 125.586 / .520
HP= 241.51

WHP= 193.2

another little formula i know for figuring out HP from boost...

(PSI + 14.7) / 14.7 X STOCK HP = NEW HP
(7.5 + 14.7) / 14.7 X 160= NEW HP
22.2 / 14.7 X 160 = NEW HP
1.51 X 160 = NEW HP
NEW HP = 241.63

WHP= 193.3

hmmm, 241FHP / 193WHP ... isnt that the same result from my guess above????

wow, so now everything is in line, i say the probability that his engine is .352 BSFC is not likely at any stretch of the imagination. Did the dyno operator fudge his numbers? Thats a much more believeable explaination of what going on here.

Its also looking like these injectors are capable of 240 HP, and thats where he stopped increasing boost, at the 240HP level. this is where he would have just flat run out of fuel if he went any higher.



alright promotec, prove that wrong with something other than your good name, or "opening my mind", and i'll be glad to hear you out. if you just gonna ask about what my car has done , or whatever other crap you can come up with to deflect the issue, dont bother.



M90'd Built LGO-15 PSI
http://webstarts.com/quadper4mance
Re: Does Nukkinfuttz make protomec look bad?
Sunday, February 01, 2009 4:01 PM
No
I would say making you an immature titled thread such as this does.

Why did you not just do share whatever knowledge you have in the first thread or start another to discuss it then. I don't think it was never meant to be a pissing contest. I took it as an invitation for you to show him where he was wrong IF indeed he is.



FORGET GIRLS GONE WILD WE HAVE GOVERNMENT SPENDING GONE WILD!

Re: Does Nukkinfuttz make protomec look bad?
Sunday, February 01, 2009 4:48 PM
protomec wrote:Here is a quote from the "Videos" post...

Nukkinfuttz wrote:I know you probably want me to quite making you look bad. huh?


I am just curious if this is the true general consensus here.

The reason I'm an asking is not ego, I could care less what the general opinion of my work is or isn't here...
Rather 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.
But I don't to waste my time if its falling on deaf ears or ends up simply being another useless .org argument that serves no purpose.
So feel free to let me know what you think . Would you want mine or Nukkinfuttz's opinion on the "technical" aspects he has referred to in his posts?


You say the reason is not ego but making this post seems to prove that wrong



15.2@89mph 2.171 60ft. 9.830 1/8 R.I.P. "LULU"

Re: Does Nukkinfuttz make protomec look bad?
Sunday, February 01, 2009 5:05 PM






Re: Does Nukkinfuttz make protomec look bad?
Sunday, February 01, 2009 5:48 PM
Tod, I say hold your tongue.

Let your ACTIONS speak for themselves.

Chris





'02 Z-24 Supercharged
13.7 @102.45 MPH Third Place, 2007 GMSC Bash SOLD AS OF 01MAR08

Re: Does Nukkinfuttz make protomec look bad?
Sunday, February 01, 2009 5:55 PM
And what ACTION is he going to do? Go dyno a car and make 300whp with 320cc injectors? We've have the action already. We know two people went and had 280-300whp dynos with these tiny injectors. We'd like to know how its possible.


2001 Olds Alero (LD9)
636 whp / 543 ft-lb
@turboalero
Re: Does Nukkinfuttz make protomec look bad?
Sunday, February 01, 2009 6:00 PM
Same dyno on the same day my car put down 226 HP.

10:1 CR Pistons
2.3 oil pump swap
Aluminum flywheel
60mm TB
HO cams
Ported head
GMPP S/C with 2.4" pulley (7.5 PSI)
4-1 header
2.5" exhaust dump
Unaltered reflash
310cc injectors.

I suppose those number are bogus though, right?



Re: Does Nukkinfuttz make protomec look bad?
Sunday, February 01, 2009 6:03 PM
Cadwz24 wrote:i like where this is going

x2 show em what greatness is made of todd




Re: Does Nukkinfuttz make protomec look bad?
Sunday, February 01, 2009 7:08 PM
mitdr774 wrote:Same dyno on the same day my car put down 226 HP.

10:1 CR Pistons
2.3 oil pump swap
Aluminum flywheel
60mm TB
HO cams
Ported head
GMPP S/C with 2.4" pulley (7.5 PSI)
4-1 header
2.5" exhaust dump
Unaltered reflash
310cc injectors.

I suppose those number are bogus though, right?

With only a 2.6" pulley, the 310cc injectors, 62mm TB and stock reflash I saw up to 14.3:1 AFR at WOT. The above mods explain why yours blew up. So yeah you could put down 226 HP, that's reasonable running as lean as it must've. With bigger injectors and a real tune for it a bunch more power could've been had. There's nothing to knock those numbers, but when Skilz and whoever else are putting down 300whp with only 320-330cc injectors... It just doesn't make sense how they can have that much power for that little fuel.

Nobody's insulting anyone... just want to know how it's possible. Why should anyone get bigger injectors then? Over 100% duty cycle is fine? Doesn't make sense.


2001 Olds Alero (LD9)
636 whp / 543 ft-lb
@turboalero
Re: Does Nukkinfuttz make protomec look bad?
Sunday, February 01, 2009 7:31 PM
Well its entirely possible that I missed someone but did anyone ever mention fuel pressure?

320cc injectors effectively become larger with more fuel pressure then whatever they were originally rated at?

just tossin that out there



208whp 239wtq
13.7 @ 102mph 2.19 60'
Re: Does Nukkinfuttz make protomec look bad?
Sunday, February 01, 2009 7:34 PM
Nm I missed the part about the 1/1 ratio FPR what I get for skimmin



208whp 239wtq
13.7 @ 102mph 2.19 60'
Re: Does Nukkinfuttz make protomec look bad?
Sunday, February 01, 2009 7:47 PM
[ion wrote: C2]
mitdr774 wrote:Same dyno on the same day my car put down 226 HP.

10:1 CR Pistons
2.3 oil pump swap
Aluminum flywheel
60mm TB
HO cams
Ported head
GMPP S/C with 2.4" pulley (7.5 PSI)
4-1 header
2.5" exhaust dump
Unaltered reflash
310cc injectors.

I suppose those number are bogus though, right?

With only a 2.6" pulley, the 310cc injectors, 62mm TB and stock reflash I saw up to 14.3:1 AFR at WOT. The above mods explain why yours blew up. So yeah you could put down 226 HP, that's reasonable running as lean as it must've. With bigger injectors and a real tune for it a bunch more power could've been had. There's nothing to knock those numbers, but when Skilz and whoever else are putting down 300whp with only 320-330cc injectors... It just doesn't make sense how they can have that much power for that little fuel.

Nobody's insulting anyone... just want to know how it's possible. Why should anyone get bigger injectors then? Over 100% duty cycle is fine? Doesn't make sense.



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.



Re: Does Nukkinfuttz make protomec look bad?
Sunday, February 01, 2009 8:09 PM


Re: Does Nukkinfuttz make protomec look bad?
Sunday, February 01, 2009 8:45 PM
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


2001 Olds Alero (LD9)
636 whp / 543 ft-lb
@turboalero
Re: Does Nukkinfuttz make protomec look bad?
Sunday, February 01, 2009 8:56 PM
My readings were confirmed by the wide band at the shop when it was on the dyno. The readings at the shop were the same as every car dynoed that day with a wide band. I think i added maybe 5 PSI of fuel pressure. Also I never ran 13.0 AFR with everything stock, it was always richer than that. I will also say that no two S/C reflashed cars seem to do the exact same thing. Some are faster than others and some seem to have a better tune for all around use than others. When did you get your reflash done?



Re: Does Nukkinfuttz make protomec look bad?
Sunday, February 01, 2009 9:07 PM
Summer 2007


2001 Olds Alero (LD9)
636 whp / 543 ft-lb
@turboalero
Re: Does Nukkinfuttz make protomec look bad?
Sunday, February 01, 2009 9:21 PM
wow...starting a whole thread and ''not'' for ego?.....uh....yeah.


GMR has got nothing on this
Forum Post / Reply
You must log in before you can post or reply to messages.

 

Start New Topic Advanced Search