PDA

View Full Version : MISSION ACCOMPLISHED. 300+ WHP on gruppe-s Dyno!



earlyapex
12-02-2005, 08:15 PM
Well, I gave myself the goal of making 300whp or more on the gruppe-s dyno on the stock turbo with a safe AFR on 91 octane and today I did it!

303.1whp
270.2wtq
11.0 AFR to 11.2 AFR @ 6800rpm +
91 octane

Here are the dyno charts:

http://www.norcalmotorsports.org/users/bryan/mods/EVO/dyno/120205/303whp_dynochart01.jpg

http://www.norcalmotorsports.org/users/bryan/mods/EVO/dyno/120205/303whp_AFRchart01.jpg

here is an overlay of my ECU + dyno pull with stock cams and my dyno pull with 272s:

http://www.norcalmotorsports.org/users/bryan/mods/EVO/dyno/120205/stockcamsVS272s.gif

Mods:
05 Evo MR
HKS 272/272 cams
HKS cam gears +1/-1
720cc injectors
Fuel Pump
MBC set at 1.5bar, holds 1.3 up top
MR bov
Turboback
ECU Plus piggyback
91 octane

It took about 2+ hours and around 16 dyno pulls of me tuning it and fiddling with cam gear settings. I did a best of 294whp and 265wtq with the gears set at 0/0. As you can see, messing with the cam gears can give you some great curves and numbers! My horsepower increased 30whp from when I had stock cams!

I wish my peak torque was stronger but I think one of the reasons is I wasn't spiking to 1.6bar on the dyno like I do on the street this time for some reason. The actual torque curve stays on SO much longer now then stock. Feels amazing. I'll be continuing to refine this tune on the street to try to get the torque up a bit. I was too tired by the end to try and mess with the torque more.

I am super happy that I was able to do this on this dyno with a great safe AFR. BIG THANKS to gruppe-s Tom and Mike for letting me take over their dyno and for installing the cams as well!

White rabbit wha?

lqdchkn
12-02-2005, 08:35 PM
Nice 8)

SouthernCrane
12-02-2005, 08:50 PM
Wow, great numbers Bryan (Especially for stock turbo). 8) How much are the Medway Tuning services :D What is next for you?

gbpkr
12-02-2005, 09:08 PM
Nice!!! How do you like the idle with the 272's? Is it alot worse than stock?

earlyapex
12-02-2005, 09:08 PM
put graph in 1st post...

StockEVO
12-02-2005, 09:09 PM
Nice! Now retard the exhaust another degree and advance the intake another notch. Take it up another notch! BAM! :D

Still no love from you McFly. :roll: j/k

earlyapex
12-02-2005, 09:12 PM
Nice!!! How do you like the idle with the 272's? Is it alot worse than stock?

actually, with the cam gears set at 0/0 the idle was great, not lopey much at all.

Now with the +1/-1 it's pretty damn lopey but the idle is strong and doesn't want to stall at all. I chose power over idle quality. You can make the 272's idle like stock with the cam gears if you want I heard.

Gruppe-S
12-02-2005, 09:16 PM
Your exhaust fumes were making me sick!!!! Watch out for my dyno next monday... :lol:

Tom

dohcvtec
12-02-2005, 09:19 PM
woo woo

lqdchkn
12-02-2005, 09:24 PM
Thanks for the side by side "cam"parison.

MarkSAE
12-02-2005, 10:07 PM
Nice! You should be able to run mid to low 12s on pump gas w/ that power.

Evo442
12-02-2005, 10:19 PM
Good stuff, Bryan! Congrats!

EFIxMR
12-02-2005, 11:03 PM
watch out for the White Rabbit Strikes back! :twisted:

Gruppe-S
12-02-2005, 11:13 PM
watch out for the White Rabbit Strikes back! :twisted:

:lol:

Tom

jbigelow
12-03-2005, 12:26 AM
NIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIICE!!!!!!!

wilson1
12-03-2005, 12:32 AM
NIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIICE!!!!!!!

+1

DJMic0
12-03-2005, 01:05 AM
congrats. What's next?

Cameron@xperformance
12-03-2005, 01:28 AM
nice!

L84AD8
12-03-2005, 08:02 AM
watch out for the White Rabbit Strikes back! :twisted:

:lol: Be careful Andy... the force is strong with that one! :lol: 8)

Stormtrooper
12-03-2005, 10:21 AM
wow nice numbers bryan!

chris
12-03-2005, 11:01 AM
awesome #'s bryan.

Gruppe-S
12-03-2005, 12:45 PM
With a good tune, a stock turbo Evo is capable of making serious power with a good safety margin. AFR in the 11.0 range is very conservative unlike some of the other shop tunes with an aggressive 11.5+ AFR and made less power. :roll:

Thanks,
Tom

Eclipse
12-03-2005, 12:51 PM
Nice numbers Bryan.

I'm curious what your duty cycles are like on 720's and that AFR?

turbotiger
12-03-2005, 01:24 PM
Wow, looks really good! You should've put the cams on before the gruppes dyno day! Goes to show you that the right selection of parts and a good tune can do.

Matz
12-03-2005, 01:25 PM
Great job hitting the 300WHP mark on Gruppe-S's dyno! You must love tuning with the ECU+ now. :)

earlyapex
12-03-2005, 01:32 PM
I'm curious what your duty cycles are like on 720's and that AFR?

79% at 7,000rpm
74% at 6,000rpm
68% at 5,000rpm

I'd post the excel sheet but its huge.

earlyapex
12-03-2005, 01:36 PM
Great job hitting the 300WHP mark on Gruppe-S's dyno! You must love tuning with the ECU+ now. :)

The ability to make timing changes is what made me able to break the 300whp mark.

I was getting some knock in the midrange and up top and Mike suggested that I might be running too much timing. I was peaking about 22-23 degrees.

We took some out and it made more power, so I kept messing with that and bam, 303whp and my torque came back. 8)

That 303whp log it peaked at 18 degrees timing up top.

btw, I ran 2 pulls after that 303whp pull just to make sure the tune was stable. I got 302 and 302.8. 8)

gOt BoOsT
12-03-2005, 01:43 PM
272's chunky idle rocks...nice #'s

Matz
12-03-2005, 02:25 PM
I'm curious what your duty cycles are like on 720's and that AFR?

79% at 7,000rpm
74% at 6,000rpm
68% at 5,000rpm

I'd post the excel sheet but its huge.

Please post the Excel file (CSV format is fine) zipped instead. Not that I know anything about this stuff, but it would still be cool to study.

Matz
12-03-2005, 02:30 PM
The ability to make timing changes is what made me able to break the 300whp mark.

I was getting some knock in the midrange and up top and Mike suggested that I might be running too much timing. I was peaking about 22-23 degrees.

We took some out and it made more power, so I kept messing with that and bam, 303whp and my torque came back. 8)

That 303whp log it peaked at 18 degrees timing up top.

btw, I ran 2 pulls after that 303whp pull just to make sure the tune was stable. I got 302 and 302.8. 8)

Big time noob question -- can you define "running too much timing" and "pulling timing". I assume that you're referring to ignition timing, but I only understand advance and retard, and don't understand the others (which everyone uses) :oops:

When you are referring to the degrees, is that BTDC? In other words, when you say you were running too much timing and peaking at 22-23 degrees, are you saying that you're firing at 22-23 degrees BTDC? I'm just assuming this because you reduced knock by going to 18 degrees, which is closer to TDC, I assume.

Sorry, I just want to understand this lingo more. :oops:

MarkSAE
12-03-2005, 02:38 PM
Yeah, timing values are BTDC. Timing retard is degrees of timing the ECU pulls back from the target value when it sees a signal from the knock sensor.

For example, if the target value is 20 degrees of timing at 7k rpm, but you only see 18 degrees on the logger, the ECU pulled back 2 degrees. There are several safety features the stock ECU has to keep your motor nice and safe. If your coolant temps are over 210F, the ECU will pull your timing back 1 degree. If it's over 230F, it'll pull back 2 degrees. Also, if air intake temps are over 85F, it'll pull another degree. There are probably several more that I don't know of. But the whole air intake temp is reason enough not to get an open air intake IMO.

dohcvtec
12-03-2005, 02:40 PM
Pulling timing refers to retarding ignition timing.
Too much timing is having your ignition timing too advanced.

Matz
12-03-2005, 03:16 PM
awesome guys, thanks for clearing that up for me.

KevOVIII
12-03-2005, 04:24 PM
Congrats and nice numbers!

earlyapex
12-03-2005, 05:32 PM
Please post the Excel file (CSV format is fine) zipped instead. Not that I know anything about this stuff, but it would still be cool to study.

Here you go, in HTML:

http://www.norcalmotorsports.org/users/bryan/mods/EVO/ecu_plus/logs/120205/303whp_pull_data.htm

btw, the wideband in the car was reading a tad higher than the dyno wideband on the dyno. On the street my wideband reads 10.9/11.1 on pulls.

r6bruin
12-03-2005, 06:24 PM
Totally impressive!!! Good job Bryan! :)

KevOVIII
12-03-2005, 09:13 PM
Kind of OT but how's the install on the Helix injectors? I'm thinking about picking up a set and installing them before Al comes, but I don't want to leave myself out to dry if the install needs certain modifications.

Are they direct swaps?

Thanks.

earlyapex
12-03-2005, 09:25 PM
I have denso injectors ,

installs are the same though, make sure you get new orings though, its pretty straight forward, let me know if you need any help.


It's a 30min job.

crctslt
12-03-2005, 10:30 PM
Congratulations Bryan! Look forward to seeing how she runs at TH on the 12th. 8)

wrx2evo8
12-04-2005, 12:05 AM
that's awesome... i guess their dyno isn't a heart breaker for you anymore! lol

KevOVIII
12-04-2005, 02:11 AM
I have denso injectors ,

installs are the same though, make sure you get new orings though, its pretty straight forward, let me know if you need any help.


It's a 30min job.

Thanks for the info. Do you happen to remember what the part numbers were? I see in the service manual that 2 o-rings are needed, 1) fuel feed side and 2) fuel pressure regulator side.

Part numbers:
MD604696 Fuel rail feed o-ring
MB554317 Fuel rail return o-ring

Did the dealership have these in stock or did they have to order them for you?

Can I assume that the injectors came with o-rings on them already? From what I see, they should but I want to make sure. Thanks again.

I like how your injectors were at 80% IDC. :) I don't feel comfortable hitting and staying in the 90's with stock injectors.

earlyapex
12-04-2005, 02:21 AM
I bought my nippendenso 720cc from RRE. Usually 720cc's do not come with the upper o-rings.

You *can* reuse your old ones but I would not recommend that. All 4 top and bottom usually only cost around $15.

You can replace the fuel Pressure regulator o-ring too. I did not, EVO's are still pretty new so you can get away with it.

KevOVIII
12-04-2005, 02:27 AM
Cool, thanks.

1) 4 top o-rings MD614813
2) 4 bottom o-rings (also called insulators) MD087060
3) 1 fuel feed o-ring MD604696
4) 1 fuel regulator o-ring MB554317

5) ??? Fuel Injector Sheets MD614805 qty 4 required

Hopefully, I won't need #1 and #2 but I'll double check with Tom on that.

From the picture it looks like there are bottom o-rings but I can't tell if there are top ones

http://www.gruppe-s.com/Evo/evoeng/helix_injectors.jpg

Thanks again.


Edit... Added part numbers and I wonder what #5 is?!?! Looks like the bottom o-rings are not in the picture because they are really thick.

dohcvtec
12-04-2005, 10:57 AM
I'm not seeing any O-rings in that picture. Just get a set of new top and bottom ones. You don't need the regulator O-ring since you should not be removing your regulator. And depending on how you releave pressure on the fuel system, you may not need the fuel feed O-ring either. On Honda's I normally releave the pressure at the fuel filter where you really don't need to replace anything (Just injector O-rings since you're removing them). I'm not sure what best practice is on the Evo though.

Steiner
12-04-2005, 01:23 PM
Way to go Bryan! 300whp on that dyno is no joke.

I know that you said the torque numbers on the dyno chart are not representative of how the car feels, but I really like the curve and all the torque between 3500 and 4000 RPM's. I thought that the trade-off of the improved top end from the 272/272 cams was a small sacrifice in power on the low-end :?:

earlyapex
12-04-2005, 01:35 PM
I thought that the trade-off of the improved top end from the 272/272 cams was a small sacrifice in power on the low-end :?:

Yea, most people would have you believe that. Now that I have had a full day to drive the car, the car actually feels better everywhere. WOT, low-throttle, off-boost, etc.

I don't notice any sacrifice in power down low, if anything, like I said above, the car just feels better all over.

From the ECU+ dyno overlay, you can see I actually didn't lose any trq or hp down low but gained a bunch in the midrange, and a buttload up top.

KevOVIII
12-04-2005, 01:49 PM
I'm not seeing any O-rings in that picture. Just get a set of new top and bottom ones. You don't need the regulator O-ring since you should not be removing your regulator. And depending on how you releave pressure on the fuel system, you may not need the fuel feed O-ring either. On Honda's I normally releave the pressure at the fuel filter where you really don't need to replace anything (Just injector O-rings since you're removing them). I'm not sure what best practice is on the Evo though.

Thanks. I thought I would get the feed and return o-rings in case it was easier to work on the rail/injectors away from the car.

Steiner
12-04-2005, 02:10 PM
I thought that the trade-off of the improved top end from the 272/272 cams was a small sacrifice in power on the low-end :?:

Yea, most people would have you believe that. Now that I have had a full day to drive the car, the car actually feels better everywhere. WOT, low-throttle, off-boost, etc.

I don't notice any sacrifice in power down low, if anything, like I said above, the car just feels better all over.

From the ECU+ dyno overlay, you can see I actually didn't lose any trq or hp down low but gained a bunch in the midrange, and a buttload up top.
Do I even want to ask about gas mileage? :?

earlyapex
12-04-2005, 03:22 PM
Thanks. I thought I would get the feed and return o-rings in case it was easier to work on the rail/injectors away from the car.

That is a good idea, it is much easier to take the whole rail off with the injectors.

earlyapex
12-04-2005, 03:23 PM
Do I even want to ask about gas mileage? :?

Too early to tell if it changed since I have been going WOT everywhere. :)

I'll let you know in a week or so. :)

Gruppe-S
12-04-2005, 09:49 PM
Just a reminder...our dyno is a heart breaker. 300whp is a magical number and its very hard to acheive. Some of the WR turbo Evo with Works' reflash are only making 280whp ish. Stromtrooper's WR was making 295whp on 93-94 octane running 11.9 AFR...caution on pump!! Adrian's WR was making only around 280ish on pump with 11.7 AFR.

http://www.norcalevo.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=7229

Thanks,
Tom

L84AD8
12-04-2005, 10:28 PM
Just a reminder...our dyno is a heart breaker. 300whp is a magical number and its very hard to acheive. Some of the WR turbo Evo with Works' reflash are only making 280whp ish. Stromtrooper's WR was making 295whp on 93-94 octane running 11.9 AFR...caution on pump!! Adrian's WR was making only around 280ish on pump with 11.7 AFR.

http://www.norcalevo.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=7229

Thanks,
Tom

:cry:

Matz
12-04-2005, 10:31 PM
I thought that the trade-off of the improved top end from the 272/272 cams was a small sacrifice in power on the low-end :?:

Yea, most people would have you believe that. Now that I have had a full day to drive the car, the car actually feels better everywhere. WOT, low-throttle, off-boost, etc.

I don't notice any sacrifice in power down low, if anything, like I said above, the car just feels better all over.

From the ECU+ dyno overlay, you can see I actually didn't lose any trq or hp down low but gained a bunch in the midrange, and a buttload up top.

Hey Bryan, are you gonna be at the NCE Meet #11 at FIA in Stockton? Would love to check out your setup.

earlyapex
12-04-2005, 10:43 PM
Hey Bryan, are you gonna be at the NCE Meet #11 at FIA in Stockton? Would love to check out your setup.

Nope, friends birthday party for me. 8)

dohcvtec
12-05-2005, 12:16 AM
Just went for a ride in it with another person. It pulled with even 3 guys in the car. And damn its smooth too. The top end is the most noticable, now I want. :) I'm diggin the ride on the apexi's too.

mygsx
12-05-2005, 04:59 AM
Bryan,
I live in Alameda as well, Would you be willing to take me for a spin in your ride :P :bow: :werd: 8) :lol: :buds: :woowoo: :driving: :bow: :D

methods4
12-05-2005, 10:34 AM
Congrats on the great numbers. Goes to show how "inferior" these piggyback systems are compared to reflashes. :wink:

earlyapex
12-05-2005, 10:37 AM
Anyone know the proper way to determine flywheel power?

The UK guys say the EVOs have 24% drivetrain loss and the way to determine flywheel is divide by .76

That gives me 398hp and 355trq. As much as I would love to say I have 400hp, for some reason that doesn't seem right.

dohcvtec
12-05-2005, 10:40 AM
Try this.

Take that percentage from the stock hp/tq. Take that actual tq/hp number and add it to what you have now. I have always believed you cannot lose more power the more power you make. Drivetrain loss should be a set value, not a ratio.

nebolic
12-05-2005, 11:05 AM
Anyone know the proper way to determine flywheel power?

The UK guys say the EVOs have 24% drivetrain loss and the way to determine flywheel is divide by .76

That gives me 398hp and 355trq. As much as I would love to say I have 400hp, for some reason that doesn't seem right.

24% drivetrain loss is a guesstimate. In proportion to the power increase, that 24% drivetrain loss will not remain constant.

Something to think about is this:
At the flywheel the car is rated 271 stock (2003 Evo 8)
It dyno's at 203WHP
which computes to a 25% drivetrain loss
so you're using around 68hp to "push" that drive train.

If you increase your car to 1000HP at the flywheel and you're computing 25% drivetrain loss, that means you're using 250hp to "push" that same drive train.

Somehow, i think there is a flaw in that theory of percentage loss due to drivetrain . . . .


nebo

Matz
12-05-2005, 11:25 AM
Try this.

Take that percentage from the stock hp/tq. Take that actual tq/hp number and add it to what you have now. I have always believed you cannot lose more power the more power you make. Drivetrain loss should be a set value, not a ratio.

I would totally agree with that, though I have no concrete numbers to prove it. Mechanical losses are due to friction, which changes with engine speed. I would expect that the diff. between a manufacturer's engine HP number and the dyno numbers would cover the effects of the change in dynamic friction, and therefore you should be able to just subtract this difference from any future dyno HP values.

smack
12-05-2005, 11:39 AM
not to mention the fact that the 271 is probably on 94 or whatever the highest octane "street" fuel is for the manufacture numbers to sound the best they can legally.

great numbers btw. i can see myself losing some time on the track over this one :evil:

earlyapex
12-05-2005, 11:53 AM
I can see myself losing some time on the track over this one :evil:

Just wait till I make the 100 octane map. :twisted:

smack
12-05-2005, 12:06 PM
oh well it was fun while it lasted... :cry:

SouthernCrane
12-05-2005, 01:29 PM
Bryan,
I live in Alameda as well, Would you be willing to take me for a spin in your ride :P :bow: :werd: 8) :lol: :buds: :woowoo: :driving: :bow: :D

I live in sunnyvale, come pick me up too 8)

Matz
12-05-2005, 11:31 PM
Bryan,
I live in Alameda as well, Would you be willing to take me for a spin in your ride :P :bow: :werd: 8) :lol: :buds: :woowoo: :driving: :bow: :D

I live in sunnyvale, come pick me up too 8)

And since you're heading in my general direction, you may as well swing by San Jose, too. :)

Matz
12-08-2005, 09:09 PM
Any word on fuel economy with the new setup, or are we still bouncing off of the rev limiter every day? :lol:

earlyapex
12-08-2005, 09:18 PM
Any word on fuel economy with the new setup, or are we still bouncing off of the rev limiter every day? :lol:

Seems the same so far, I am only on my 2nd tank of gas and yes I am driving it like I stole it right now so that's not helping. :twisted:

Keep in mind, I cheer if I get over 210 a tank since I have owned the car so I'm not the best person to gauge fuel economy on. I barely ever do long freeway trips in the car, mainly back and forth from Alameda to SF, night tuning sessions, and trips to thill.

The drive to thunderhil sunday should be a good test though.

Steiner
12-08-2005, 09:23 PM
A little OT Bryan...but when do you suggest adding a Walbro pump? The 'ol lady is looking for Christmas ideas and I'm guessing this might be a good one.

earlyapex
12-08-2005, 09:42 PM
A little OT Bryan...but when do you suggest adding a Walbro pump? The 'ol lady is looking for Christmas ideas and I'm guessing this might be a good one.

any time, it's cheap insurance. Espically if you have upped the boost at all. I would not however, get one unless you have a reflash or some way of tuning the car.

KitW
12-09-2005, 01:01 PM
damn, I wish the ECU+ worked on the ix. :/ I really like the sound of it!

earlyapex
12-09-2005, 01:51 PM
damn, I wish the ECU+ worked on the ix. :/ I really like the sound of it!

No reason why it shouldn't, it's just the ECU harness extension isn't plug and play, you would have to wire straight to the factory harness. I am SURE a harness will come out soon though. I know Tom is working on getting a ECU + on a IX for testing.

EFIxMR
12-11-2005, 06:03 PM
how is the drivability of your car Brian? any complaints?

earlyapex
12-12-2005, 10:04 PM
how is the drivability of your car Brian? any complaints?

it's great, better than before cams and new tune.

Well except for the little problem of blowing my headgasket at thunderhill today. :oops:

crctslt
12-12-2005, 10:40 PM
I think that headgasket was weakend from earlier damage. Those A/F numbers were/are very conservative. Everything else was well within spec. That headgasket was borked back in July. Someone just forgot to tell it to die 8)

SouthernCrane
12-12-2005, 10:41 PM
Well except for the little problem of blowing my headgasket at thunderhill today. :oops:

how did it happen?

earlyapex
12-12-2005, 10:55 PM
how did it happen?

I doubt it was from my current tune since it was so conservative. I was running 100 octane and more boost today, but I was running a super rich 10.8 AFR on 100 octane because i didn't want to lean it out a bunch without logging it or tuning it on the dyno.

I think I was running too much timing back when I had the safc and no way of reducing timing. That and now more power and more boost finally made it give. Or maybe the studs stretched and the head lifted and I didn't actually blow the gasket.

The car didn't overheat at all, highest it ever got was 92c. I actually would have never known if I didn't see that my coolant res bottle was totally full after session 3. I thought it was odd, but I did one more session but was taking it easy. I checked it again after that 4th session and it was even more full and a small amount of bubbling from the coolant res bottle hose. The car is totally drivable but I think it pushes coolant under boost now.

Guess it's time for head studs. 8)

One good thing about the day was that the car was a freaking rocketship on 100 octane even with that rich arse AFR. It was pulling so hard that I was actually missing my braking points because I was carrying so much more speed that I usually do. I scared myself a couple times. I usually hit about 120 in the front straight at thill, today I was hitting over 130!

Sackett
12-12-2005, 11:06 PM
One good thing about the day was that the car was a freaking rocketship on 100 octane even with that rich arse AFR. It was pulling so hard that I was actually missing my braking points because I was carrying so much more speed that I usually do. I scared myself a couple times. I usually hit about 120 in the front straight at thill, today I was hitting over 130!

I can vouch for his car pulling like a rocketship.. i have a turboback and a way conservative 91 octane tune, and he was pulling away from me like i was driving a miata. that sucked. :oops:

course my stock suspension and tires didnt help my corner exit speed, but damn he was flying.

SouthernCrane
12-12-2005, 11:12 PM
Guess it's time for head studs. 8)

One good thing about the day was that the car was a freaking rocketship on 100 octane even with that rich arse AFR. It was pulling so hard that I was actually missing my braking points because I was carrying so much more speed that I usually do. I scared myself a couple times. I usually hit about 120 in the front straight at thill, today I was hitting over 130!

the head studs are pretty cheap insurance, although i don't know how bad it is to install them. i'm hoping i didn't blow a head gasket when i was at T-Hill on sat. on the front straight i was in 3rd and the car was pulling hard. i looked down and i was somewhere around 7500 rpm and 8K.....scared me a little, but i don't think i hit fuel or boost cut or anything like that. what should someone look for if they did blow a head gasket?

wow, 130! i think the fastest i hit was 100-110. at the HPDS they had the chikanes (sp?) up, plus i was too chicken to keep the gas down for much longer for fear of coming in too hot and running over the cones or off the track :lol:

BTW, were there a ton of spiders flaoting around when you were there like there were on saturday?

earlyapex
12-12-2005, 11:22 PM
I doubt you blew anything. The factory rev limiter is at 7600, and it can look pretty close to 8k rpm if you look down at it really fast.

EFIxMR
12-13-2005, 12:08 AM
Hey Brian, if you'd like you can take your car to my shop and have it looked at by my technician.

We will take care of you and save you some money.

EVO GRIM
12-13-2005, 07:58 AM
Sux Brian. Headstuds on my christmas list.

Now that we have switched topics. So its possible to use a thicker head gasket to lower compression? What are the up sides to this? Higher Boost?

Cameron@xperformance
12-13-2005, 08:08 AM
so with all this new power, what was your lap time?

earlyapex
12-13-2005, 10:06 AM
so with all this new power, what was your lap time?

It was really crowded today, I never got a clean lap. I did a 2:09 in pretty heavy traffic. This is with the syclone.

It has it, it just needs to be let free for a lap or so. 8)

I think smack got one clean lap and pulled a 2:06

smack
12-13-2005, 10:39 AM
so with all this new power, what was your lap time?

It was really crowded today, I never got a clean lap. I did a 2:09 in pretty heavy traffic. This is with the syclone.

It has it, it just needs to be let free for a lap or so. 8)

I think smack got one clean lap and pulled a 2:06

we should probably correct this right now :lol:
i think i had 6 or 7 2:06s but the last session i started to put some corners together
and ran a 2:06.7 with slowing down for a car going into 14 and finally get around him
on the front straight but that started the best lap of the day.

everything was good up until i saw the yellow flag at 14 and cruised through
the corner looking for the problem(944 was pulling off the track with a ton of
smoke pouring out of it) then finaly picked up the thottle at the apex of 15 coming on the the straight.

time... 2:06.3 and i know i left at least a second though 14 and 15, killing my speed on the straight.
oh well so much for getting down to 05's, next time.
fun seeing everyone again and i'm glad to see i'm competitive with everyone still(except maybe percy?, and navid doesn't count :lol:)

still want an damn diff though!
and more power wouldn't hurt either...

hagakure
12-13-2005, 10:44 AM
Good Times Sean!!

You are definitely faster than me, as the fastest I've gone over the top so far is 2:08.5.......

Good work all you guys!

Percy

Cameron@xperformance
12-13-2005, 04:41 PM
nice times!

racers
12-20-2005, 05:57 PM
Nice!!! How do you like the idle with the 272's? Is it alot worse than stock?

actually, with the cam gears set at 0/0 the idle was great, not lopey much at all.

Now with the +1/-1 it's pretty damn lopey but the idle is strong and doesn't want to stall at all. I chose power over idle quality. You can make the 272's idle like stock with the cam gears if you want I heard.

Nice numbers. You should give -4, -1.5 a shot. Those were the settings that gave me my best mph at the track. And with those settings the car idles like stock, you cant even tell that the car has cams.

earlyapex
12-20-2005, 06:02 PM
Nice numbers. You should give -4, -1.5 a shot.

I tryed -4/-1 and didn't gain much and it got pretty damn laggy. Advancing the intake and retarding the exhuast is what gave me the most power. I am going to try advancing it a bit more at some point when I get back on the dyno.

My car idles really lopey but I don't mind much (for now).

Gruppe-S
12-20-2005, 06:10 PM
I am going to try advancing it a bit more at some point when I get back on the dyno.


What a trooper!! :lol:

Tom

racers
12-20-2005, 07:06 PM
Nice numbers. You should give -4, -1.5 a shot.

I tryed -4/-1 and didn't gain much and it got pretty damn laggy. Advancing the intake and retarding the exhuast is what gave me the most power. I am going to try advancing it a bit more at some point when I get back on the dyno.

My car idles really lopey but I don't mind much (for now).

I had the same experiece with our car. At +3, -1 it showed to make the best powerband. And it was very lumpy. But it ran almost 2 mph slower on the same day with those settings vs. the -4, -1.5.

smack
12-20-2005, 07:27 PM
I had the same experiece with our car. At +3, -1 it showed to make the best powerband. And it was very lumpy. But it ran almost 2 mph slower on the same day with those settings vs. the -4, -1.5.

do you think that the extra overlap(that is the right direction for more overlap, isn't it?) is keeping the turbo from spooling quite as fast?
so even though it makes more power up top it doesn't make up for what you lose down a bit lower?

earlyapex
12-20-2005, 08:27 PM
I had the same experiece with our car. At +3, -1 it showed to make the best powerband. And it was very lumpy. But it ran almost 2 mph slower on the same day with those settings vs. the -4, -1.5.

I don't do car bowling so I don't really want a peaky powerband. I would rather take the added power all over when I am on the open track. 8)

If I did do car bowling, it would probably be a different story.

earlyapex
12-20-2005, 08:28 PM
I had the same experiece with our car. At +3, -1 it showed to make the best powerband. And it was very lumpy. But it ran almost 2 mph slower on the same day with those settings vs. the -4, -1.5.

do you think that the extra overlap(that is the right direction for more overlap, isn't it?) is keeping the turbo from spooling quite as fast?
so even though it makes more power up top it doesn't make up for what you lose down a bit lower?

I actually made more power EVERYWHERE with +1/-1 than -4/-1. Keep in mind every car is different, racers car might like that setting more than mine.

dohcvtec
12-20-2005, 09:00 PM
I had the same experiece with our car. At +3, -1 it showed to make the best powerband. And it was very lumpy. But it ran almost 2 mph slower on the same day with those settings vs. the -4, -1.5.

do you think that the extra overlap(that is the right direction for more overlap, isn't it?) is keeping the turbo from spooling quite as fast?
so even though it makes more power up top it doesn't make up for what you lose down a bit lower?
Thats usually how it works on NA cars, so I guess it could apply here? Although, more overlap = more blowing boost out the exhaust vavles, so you don't want too much overlap in a boosted car. I think some is good however. I wonder how many degrees stock cams overlap, or if there is any?

blitzkrgCT9A
12-21-2005, 04:57 PM
wow very nice numbers! congrats!! :)

Cal