Dominus
Dedicated LVC Member
vr4 said:
Sorry, but you know nothing about S2000s. That car consistently runs low tens all day long. That's far more than a single dyno run.
500rwhp?
- Thread starter Slowlincoln
- Start date
Sorry, but you know nothing about S2000s. That car consistently runs low tens all day long. That's far more than a single dyno run.
Dominus
Dedicated LVC Member
2002WRXSTi said:OMG not 10:1 to 11:1but you said 10:1 and I said 9.5:1 but hey there just #'s and don't matter cause you have some wonder ECU that doesn't apply to real life.
9.4:1 is far more than the crappy 8.whatever:1 that your amazing C-Spec engine runs.
It doesn't take a wonder ECU, just the use of a compressor that utilizes high volumetric efficiency so you don't have to run a million pounds of boost to make power, and then add in an incredibly efficient intercooling system, and even alchohol injection.
You are also a tractor puller and know all about the diesel theory too...go figure. Can't wait to see your name on the winning lists
Just try and refute anything I have said so far about diesels. Just try it.
vr4
Dedicated LVC Member
Dominus said:
then get some hard info on it.
it must be under a rock considering its not heard of on the s2k boards. i had an NFR 00 for a few months. i also did an assload of research on the car in that time.
Dominus
Dedicated LVC Member
I will try and find a link so you can see it. It was mentioned quite a few times on the boards.
2002WRXSTi
Dedicated LVC Member
BaHaHaHa and you know even less about them! Please I want to see a stock driveline S2000 in the low 10'sDominus said:
My car was Dyno'd @ TurboTrix and although this is not my shop I will drop by and mention this record breaking S2k and here a lot of who said that?!You already did or do you not even see it?Dominus said:
As I stated earlier in this thread about Hi compression being a handicap for pump gas. You are bringing up a C16 or Methanol car kinda like a TA dragster of course it has compression out the ass, it runs for a few seconds and thats it. However I was looking up John Mihovitz and found a 1000hp engine that he built and it was running 8:1 compression as it was an engine made to run on the streets.95LSC32V said:
I stated that a high compression engine is a handicap on pump gas on the streets. Everyone here can mention all the 11:1 cars they want and when they show me the actual proof that it is the correct way to build an engine for boost on pump gas I will say WOW you must be right. Your not going to though, so I am fine that all I know is correct and this is just Internet BS
Dominus
Dedicated LVC Member
2002WRXSTi said:BaHaHaHa and you know even less about them! Please I want to see a stock driveline S2000 in the low 10's
http://www.honda-tech.com/zerothread?id=1548942
You go drop by Turbotrix and let him know how much better InlinePro is at tuning S2000's.
You and VR4 have a LOT of learning to do.
I saw nothing refuted. Just a lot of "no way man!". Give me one single reasonable explanation as to why a disel engine would need to lower its compression, aside from engine durability. It certainly has nothing to do with the combustion event.
As I stated earlier in this thread about Hi compression being a handicap for pump gas. You are bringing up a C16 or Methanol car kinda like a TA dragster of course it has compression out the ass, it runs for a few seconds and thats it. However I was looking up John Mihovitz and found a 1000hp engine that he built and it was running 8:1 compression as it was an engine made to run on the streets.
I stated that a high compression engine is a handicap on pump gas on the streets. Everyone here can mention all the 11:1 cars they want and when they show me the actual proof that it is the correct way to build an engine for boost on pump gas I will say WOW you must be right. Your not going to though, so I am fine that all I know is correct and this is just Internet BS
High compression is not the handicap. Poor volumetric and adiabatic efficiency is. Low compression is just a band-aid for that situation.
2002WRXSTi
Dedicated LVC Member
It says right in his list it has a 3 mm head gasket for starters. A thicker headgasket has nothing to do with compression though right? Then on to AEM, DSS axles and drivetrain...yeah they came stock with all that stuff. They just threw on a turbo and put boost to a stock drivetrain :shifty:Dominus said:
The engine is is now far from stock. Yeah they did an impressive job on the S2k but the compression is not stock with a 3mm gasket.2002WRXSTi said:
I have seen it plenty of times in SS pulling.Dominus said:
"The most extreme example is a three stage turbo diesel tractor pulling engine. The first stage actually uses twin parallel turbos to provide the required airflow. Twin parallel turbos don't provide more pressure, just more airflow. The outlet from the twin parallel turbos (low pressure turbos) feeds an intercooler and is then sent to a single intermediate pressure turbo. The intermediate pressure turbo increases the pressure further, and sends the flow to another intercooler, which then sends the flow to a high pressure turbocharger, which will be smaller in size. The high pressure turbocharger feeds an aftercooler, which then feeds the engine with up to 250 psi of boost pressure. No gasoline engine could withstand this level of boost. With this much boost, a Diesel tractor pulling engine can produce something like 5,000 horsepower from a basically stock tractor block."
The CR is dropped with custom pistons as there is no need for cold starting reliability. They have gone as low at 8:1 CR and must be started with Either if conditions are not correct. At the boost pressures they run there is no mechanical advantage to higher compression ratios.
I found this while I was looking for the diesel turbo answer.Dominus said:
"Reduced Static Compression- Due to the compression of the turbo, engine compression ratio must be reduced to bring the overall compression ratio to a safe range, which will reduce charge temperatures in the cylinder. A typical compression ratio in a high performance turbo street engine is around 9:1. Non turbo engines can go as high as 11.5:1 on the street."
How are you altering this with engine managment? I have been asking this and all you come back with is prove me wrong. Were are your records and wins? Turbotrix has the record for a 4G63 engine and the shop I worked at doing SC installs still has a NHRA record that stands to this day in SS done in 1970!
Also here are a few diesel engine CR's form the manufactures because they have found that boost negates the need for higher CR's.
1982-93 GM NA 6.2L V8-Compression Ratio: 21.3
2001-up GM/Isuzu DI Turbo Duramax V8-Compression Ratio: 17.5:1
1983-88 Ford 6.9L and 1988-92 7.3L NA V8-Compression Ratio: 21.5:1
1994-98 Ford Powerstroke DI Turbo V8-Compression Ratio: 17.5:1
The manufacturers have found like racing engine builders that the amount of effort wasted on higher CR's can be better used with boost to fill the cylinder and alter the efficiency in a better way. Hence my quote as a high CR is a Handicap at this point! Not for a NA car but on a boosted car.
You are assuming a lot of things. Each engine is built for the particular application it will be used in. When I get a built motor for a turbo I don't plan on running anymore than 20lbs of boost~750hp. At this level I can run 10:1 compression safely because of modern technology, not only in engine design but ECM control and programming. Unless you want to run a rediculous amount of boost there is no real need to lower compression ratios. High c:r gives you way more torque under the curve and gives you about 6% more power to jump from say 8.5 to 10:1. At the 6-700 hp level that is 40-60 hp from cr alone. In my case running 94 octane this is feasible. I really don't want to go any higher. This is a new era, do not let the old ideas prevent you from trying new things. Technology has opened up new limits.
2002WRXSTi
Dedicated LVC Member
Yeah good luck with that. This engine is built and doing exactly this right now right? Cause an ECM can change the factor of when detonation occurs in an engine how?DonLino said:
Lets see a 10:1 CR with 20psi boost = a static CR of 23.6 so even if you were running 94(where are you getting this in Cali?) it is going to Unless you have a direct injection engine or running straight methanol it ain't gonna work with a CR like that.
I just witnessed a SB2 Chevy on the dyno a month ago that was broken in with a Carb setup. They made pulls with the Carb then switched to a DFI Gen7 system and made within 4HP total of the Carb. I was betting it was going to be better but it was not even worth it HP wise. Drivability it would be better but HP it wasn't. I have sat at the dyno and witnessed this stuff, not theory so everyone can claim all these High CR with 20psi boost on pump gas and I know it will not work.
My car will only work on specific days because when the atmosphere changes the car will not run right @max boost and I am not going to tune for each day with a daily driver. Plus we don't even have 94octane in NJ anymore
2002WRXSTi said:
The point of a stand-alone is not necessarily ultimate power production, but the other functionality that exists. Let me know when you find a carburetor with progressive boost control, built-in 2 step, and tunes itself...
Paul.
2002WRXSTi
Dedicated LVC Member
Ditto on any ECU...Dr. Paul said:
vr4
Dedicated LVC Member
2002WRXSTi said:
ign timing does play a big role.
ever see a supras timing curve? its fkn LOW.
2002WRXSTi said:Yeah good luck with that. This engine is built and doing exactly this right now right? Cause an ECM can change the factor of when detonation occurs in an engine how?
Lets see a 10:1 CR with 20psi boost = a static CR of 23.6 so even if you were running 94(where are you getting this in Cali?) it is going to Unless you have a direct injection engine or running straight methanol it ain't gonna work with a CR like that.
I just witnessed a SB2 Chevy on the dyno a month ago that was broken in with a Carb setup. They made pulls with the Carb then switched to a DFI Gen7 system and made within 4HP total of the Carb. I was betting it was going to be better but it was not even worth it HP wise. Drivability it would be better but HP it wasn't. I have sat at the dyno and witnessed this stuff, not theory so everyone can claim all these High CR with 20psi boost on pump gas and I know it will not work.
My car will only work on specific days because when the atmosphere changes the car will not run right @max boost and I am not going to tune for each day with a daily driver. Plus we don't even have 94octane in NJ anymore
Unfortunately I am picking up my mark this weekend and I don't have any crazy setup to show. I can show you other peoples. 2004 cobra stock motor, hellion kit "25psi, 19 degrees, below 12 on af" http://img363.imageshack.us/img363/7671/1kstockmotor0ek.jpg I can find more examples, this one stuck out in my mind though. Once again slowly for you, STOCK MOTOR, STOCK ECM! You apparently think your smarter than everyone else.
2002WRXSTi
Dedicated LVC Member
Exactly, you think that it has optimized you cars timing and fuel curves all by itself? You think that it has left no room for improvement or no horsepower is left to be found by a real tuner?Dr. Paul said:
But I mentioned some of the things being said to my Pro friends tonight and they laughed. They told me to ignore the crap on here and let everyone put whatever boost they want on 11:1 cause it don't concern me and they are right. Call whatever stock you want and pump gas that is magic, I don't care.
When I see one of you in a mag and not spouting others accomplishments (which I did note online that there custom builds were low CR) than I will take notice....
2002WRXSTi said:
You asked for an ECU that had a built-in progressive boost controller, two step, and could tune itself. I simply showed you.
No, my fuel and timing curves are not set automatically, I have to do the initial tune. However, the AEM can track a particular AFR and makes thousands of adjustments to reach that - there is NO carburetor that will do that. Nor is there one that can control boost or provide a 2 step.
By the way, Mr. Wizard, I don't disagree that lower compression motors are more boost-friendly on the street where limited fuel alternatives exist. I'm simply saying that low compression is not the end-all, be-all solution to maximize power in a pressurized application.
Can you show us all the pictures of your car in a magazine? Or how about just more information on your wonder-combinations?
Paul.
2002WRXSTi
Dedicated LVC Member
I was thinking you were stating that it does all of the above. TurboTrix is one of the main AEM vendors that get products to test before they go public so I know what they are and aren't capable of.Dr. Paul said:
Carburetors make more adjustments than any FI system will ever be able to period. No amount of ECU memory or power will ever be able to keep up with a Jets ability to meter air. I didn't agree with that until it was explained to me. The FI is better for emission bur lacks elsewhere.
My pic ain't in the Magazine but my name is in Turbo even tho it is spelled wrong. My combination was on it's way to being great until I went through $5000 in clutches trying to get a decent 1/4 mile run and the car still remains in the shop awaiting Tiltons warranty on the clutch. Otherwise I have a friend that went under 7 secs and over 200mph in a Mustang so I am not dense as to the 4.6 area either.
Matter of fact for the rest on the board I was looking through a 1/4 registry at the times and parts used for there runs. Out of the 10 I saw 2 used pump 93 with stock pistons. One O ringed the the heads and the other was a V6 with twin turbos. The rest were using 100 octane and up not pump gas as others keep assuming like the S2000 with the thicker head gasket.
ECM is superior to carburation. There is no appriciable power difference, but the benefits of Fuel injection are incredible. Emissions :shifty: tunability, ability to make big hp on pump gas. There are many cars making 5-600hp and they are completely stock untill you get on it, and you can still get 20mpg (no bull:q:q:q:q) blowing cold a/c on a roadtrip without overheating. Not having to constantly re-tune for weather, altitude.
What are you trying to prove? Yes I understand the "rule" has been low compression for FI. You can't seem to grasp that someone can have higher compression and boost. The decision is between you and your engine builder, what is the goal of your project.
What are you trying to prove? Yes I understand the "rule" has been low compression for FI. You can't seem to grasp that someone can have higher compression and boost. The decision is between you and your engine builder, what is the goal of your project.
2002WRXSTi said:
Please tell me you're kidding. Seriously. This is a joke, right? Are you really that ignorant?
You seem to be doing a lot of hidden name-dropping, and talking a lot about all these fast cars, but fail to elaborate on any of it.
I call BS.
Oh, and my AEM does have progressive boost control, a built-in two step, and can tune itself. (to an extent)
2002WRXSTi
Dedicated LVC Member
I will not bring the name in because this is all a BS thing to him. However as was explained to me any FI system is incapable of being able to do what a Carb can do.Dr. Paul said:Please tell me you're kidding. Seriously. This is a joke, right? Are you really that ignorant?
You seem to be doing a lot of hidden name-dropping, and talking a lot about all these fast cars, but fail to elaborate on any of it.
I call BS.
Oh, and my AEM does have progressive boost control, a built-in two step, and can tune itself. (to an extent)
Think about it, a jet has billions of maps if you look at it. When air changes going across it then a different amount of fuel if metered. FI it is measured against a map. How many parameters are in this map? How fast can it measure and adjust to the air going into an engine? A Carb is real time is mechanical FI has a very narrow window because it is limited to the tables it has to measure from.
I did not believe it but when you sit there and think about it there is no comparison! It is not worth arguing this with anyone here because your going to have your own fixed opinions. I still like FI and thought it is better but I see on a dyno my thoughts proved wrong.
Frogman
Dedicated LVC Member
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2005
- Messages
- 6,987
- Reaction score
- 1
Who am I to say anything, but most new cars don't rely on a preprogrammed fuel/ignition map. That's why they use an Air Meter, so the computer knows how much air enters the engine, and in concert with input from other sensors, adjusts fuel/ignition timing appropriately, in real time[b/]. Hell, even an OEM computer can tune itself to a degree.
Yes, it will use a preprogrammed map at WOT, that I am aware of. But for sup WOT, it's real time, no?
I don't think FORD has had an old school MAP computer in a production car since what, 1987? 88? Can't remember.
Yes, it will use a preprogrammed map at WOT, that I am aware of. But for sup WOT, it's real time, no?
I don't think FORD has had an old school MAP computer in a production car since what, 1987? 88? Can't remember.
vr4
Dedicated LVC Member
2002WRXSTi said:
while a carb has many perceived settings....it doesnt know when is the best time to use them.
you have AEM, you should know better. you can program fuel and ign timing for each RPM cell AND load cell. first....i dont know of any carb/non-computer controlled setups that will allow 28 deg advance and then 1k rpm later or back off on the throttle and allow the timing to be 2 degrees IF you want it to.
the ONLY think ive seen from carbs is instant throttle response. something EFI systems have been trying to catch up on....but with proper tuning can be matched. how about cold starts? maybe part throttle drivability?
boosted applications......pop an IC pipe off on a carb setup....god knows what might happen. on a MAP efi setup....youre down on power. thats it as far as drivability.
then you have to look at fuel distribution in a carb setup. whats to guarentee each cylinder gets the same about of fuel? what if you get some fuel puddling in the intake?
2002WRXSTi said:
You are an idiot. Seriously, you're 17 years old, right?
Why don't you drop names man? You know all these uber-smart racecar gods - so it's no big deal.
There is NO WAY a carburetor can respond as quickly, or with the degree of latitude that a fuel injection setup can. If they could, almost all the racecars would run carbs - gues what? They don't.
Fuel injection can measure, and respond to:
intake air temp
air mass
barometric pressure
engine knock
air/fuel ratio (by individual cylinder if you like)
throttle position
boost pressure
engine coolant temp
...and on and on and on...
Paul.
2002WRXSTi
Dedicated LVC Member
Buy the looks of it I am older than most of the people here. Especially if they do not remember what a Carb is capable of. Or is the fact that they do not know how to tune a carb, that would be my thought
I will not drop any names as I have gone to school with said people and worked with them for years. When I mention any of the things you are countering with I get a lecture as to why I am wrong and they explain what the plus of a carb is over FI. FI is very narrow on what it can do but it makes things emission friendly and much more daily drivable.
If I spit out names then I am no longer going to be allowed in the shop discussions period. The shop attitude is not very friendly towards anything rice. The son was DFI certified years ago almost against his fathers opinion as his father has made the most HP out of a SSGTA BBC. 850HP out of a stock 454 with factory compression with a CARB! No fuel puddling or distribution problems but yes it is unstreetable.
FI could possibly make a few more HP and attempt to make it drivable but the class does not allow this. That and the valve train cannot live on the streets. As I said a SB2 headed SBC was built and broken in with a carb then switched to DFI and came out only 4hp more @644 instead of 640hp. That is naturally aspirated HP too.
Watching it with the carb it started and ran fine. Made the pulls did everything hands off except for setting timing. When the FI was added it is still using a mechanical pushrod style pump with no return line. That was a very interesting thing to me as when is the last time you saw a HiPo FI system with no return line?!
They sat tuning for a few days to try to get everything running as good as the carb does. I left by that time as it was getting boring and it was to hot in there. The main reason he wanted the FI is #1 looks #2 it would be doing a lot of low idle cruising and idling witch would make the FI the No1 pick. However the amount of money in the system plus all the tuning problems as it is not even in the vehicle yet was offset by the fact that it is a rite off cause it is advertising for his company.
I wont even get into how a Carb does not need to know anything. They have MSD ignitions now that are programmable along with boost controllers and such. It's only thing to do is meter air and it does it better than FI ever will be able to. FI's advantage is the injectors can be placed rite at the port so there will be no puddling or fuel drop out at low RPM and also can be forced to run lean for emissions reasons easily. FI is not the end all be all however, remember throttle body injection? TPI and EFI systems were better than it ever could be but none can meter air at speed like a Carb can. No mater what AEM or Motec system is out there they all use tables to make adjustments and know what timing and fuel should be doing. Even stock FI systems have to have tables to run from, they cannot just measure the amount of air being ingested and know what to do unless they have a table to compare it to and make calculations from. A carburetor can however because the air runs through a venturi so it never has to compare to a map. It mechanically does it no matter how small the difference is, not by load cells.
Like I said I have FI in my cars(not AEM) and am not going to switch to a Carb but the FI does not change physics. If you program your FI to pull timing back because you have a hi CR then you are and will lose HP. Same with a Carb it is just easier to do most things with FI cause you can sit and change it from one point. So some people here are baffled by carbs and are against them. Fine you like FI fine again but no matter what the FI can figure out from all it's sensors it does not allow it to change what is physically possible period.
PS Dr. Nascar Carb Pro Stock Carb the FI systems are just catching up and they don't even have to be streetable
I will not drop any names as I have gone to school with said people and worked with them for years. When I mention any of the things you are countering with I get a lecture as to why I am wrong and they explain what the plus of a carb is over FI. FI is very narrow on what it can do but it makes things emission friendly and much more daily drivable.
If I spit out names then I am no longer going to be allowed in the shop discussions period. The shop attitude is not very friendly towards anything rice. The son was DFI certified years ago almost against his fathers opinion as his father has made the most HP out of a SSGTA BBC. 850HP out of a stock 454 with factory compression with a CARB! No fuel puddling or distribution problems but yes it is unstreetable.
FI could possibly make a few more HP and attempt to make it drivable but the class does not allow this. That and the valve train cannot live on the streets. As I said a SB2 headed SBC was built and broken in with a carb then switched to DFI and came out only 4hp more @644 instead of 640hp. That is naturally aspirated HP too.
Watching it with the carb it started and ran fine. Made the pulls did everything hands off except for setting timing. When the FI was added it is still using a mechanical pushrod style pump with no return line. That was a very interesting thing to me as when is the last time you saw a HiPo FI system with no return line?!
They sat tuning for a few days to try to get everything running as good as the carb does. I left by that time as it was getting boring and it was to hot in there. The main reason he wanted the FI is #1 looks #2 it would be doing a lot of low idle cruising and idling witch would make the FI the No1 pick. However the amount of money in the system plus all the tuning problems as it is not even in the vehicle yet was offset by the fact that it is a rite off cause it is advertising for his company.
I wont even get into how a Carb does not need to know anything. They have MSD ignitions now that are programmable along with boost controllers and such. It's only thing to do is meter air and it does it better than FI ever will be able to. FI's advantage is the injectors can be placed rite at the port so there will be no puddling or fuel drop out at low RPM and also can be forced to run lean for emissions reasons easily. FI is not the end all be all however, remember throttle body injection? TPI and EFI systems were better than it ever could be but none can meter air at speed like a Carb can. No mater what AEM or Motec system is out there they all use tables to make adjustments and know what timing and fuel should be doing. Even stock FI systems have to have tables to run from, they cannot just measure the amount of air being ingested and know what to do unless they have a table to compare it to and make calculations from. A carburetor can however because the air runs through a venturi so it never has to compare to a map. It mechanically does it no matter how small the difference is, not by load cells.
Like I said I have FI in my cars(not AEM) and am not going to switch to a Carb but the FI does not change physics. If you program your FI to pull timing back because you have a hi CR then you are and will lose HP. Same with a Carb it is just easier to do most things with FI cause you can sit and change it from one point. So some people here are baffled by carbs and are against them. Fine you like FI fine again but no matter what the FI can figure out from all it's sensors it does not allow it to change what is physically possible period.
PS Dr. Nascar Carb Pro Stock Carb the FI systems are just catching up and they don't even have to be streetable