is 15 psi crazy or stupid?
#1
Senior Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Plano TX
Posts: 595
Total Cats: -1
is 15 psi crazy or stupid?
ok so I have ebc hooked up to the Diypnp and am running conservative fuel and ignition table.
Is running 15 psi on the small 2554 just stupid?
I have another engine (04 with 47k) in the garage but dont want to swap for 6-8 months so I can gather the stuff cheap.
So I dont need it to last for ever just 5-10k.
Is running 15 psi on the small 2554 just stupid?
I have another engine (04 with 47k) in the garage but dont want to swap for 6-8 months so I can gather the stuff cheap.
So I dont need it to last for ever just 5-10k.
#3
Slowest Progress Ever
iTrader: (26)
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: The coal ridden hills of Pennsylvania
Posts: 6,022
Total Cats: 304
You'll be fine...just makes sure your fuelling is right and your spark is conservative.
I'd think you'd be at 200whp with a 2554 at less than 15 psi. Don't make a number like "15" your goal...your target boost should be whatever it takes to make your whp goal.
I'd think you'd be at 200whp with a 2554 at less than 15 psi. Don't make a number like "15" your goal...your target boost should be whatever it takes to make your whp goal.
#5
Elite Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 8,682
Total Cats: 130
Choices choices.
More boost and less timing and richer afr?
Or
More timing and leaner afr and less boost?
Both can get you the same amount of HP.
Assuming your crankcase vent system can take it, and your air intake temps are ok, I would run more boost and less timing. Safer.
#6
Senior Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Plano TX
Posts: 595
Total Cats: -1
Ok thanks I have never thought about my crankcase vent system. what is the issue there?
How do I resolve it?
Currently stock with turbo side running to intake tube and intake side running into the intake runner behind the tb?
I have thought of using a basic filter for the turbo side or the valve cover is this a good idea?
How do I resolve it?
Currently stock with turbo side running to intake tube and intake side running into the intake runner behind the tb?
I have thought of using a basic filter for the turbo side or the valve cover is this a good idea?
#7
Slowest Progress Ever
iTrader: (26)
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: The coal ridden hills of Pennsylvania
Posts: 6,022
Total Cats: 304
I use a little breather filter. It just keeps the vapor from going through your turbo compressor, that all. I think what Faeflora is referring to is don't boost your crankcase.
What injectors are you running?
What injectors are you running?
#9
Senior Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Plano TX
Posts: 595
Total Cats: -1
460cc thanks for mentioning that I will add them to my sig right away.
How do I prevent boosting crankcase. I assume the valve in the tube from intake runner to valve cover is one way. I will check that.
How do I prevent boosting crankcase. I assume the valve in the tube from intake runner to valve cover is one way. I will check that.
#11
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,027
Total Cats: 6,593
^ Don't listen to this guy, he has 16" wheels.
You should absolutely make 15 PSI your goal
Then make 16 PSI your goal.
Then 17 PSI.
Then a new engine.
Then 18 PSI.
Then 19 PSI.
Then a new transmission.
(etc)
In all candor, I really don't see the difference between claiming a boost goal, a HP goal, or a ***** size goal. Just make the car as fast as it takes to satisfy you, and then make it slightly faster.
You should absolutely make 15 PSI your goal
Then make 16 PSI your goal.
Then 17 PSI.
Then a new engine.
Then 18 PSI.
Then 19 PSI.
Then a new transmission.
(etc)
In all candor, I really don't see the difference between claiming a boost goal, a HP goal, or a ***** size goal. Just make the car as fast as it takes to satisfy you, and then make it slightly faster.
#12
Choices choices.
More boost and less timing and richer afr?
Or
More timing and leaner afr and less boost?
Both can get you the same amount of HP.
Assuming your crankcase vent system can take it, and your air intake temps are ok, I would run more boost and less timing. Safer.
More boost and less timing and richer afr?
Or
More timing and leaner afr and less boost?
Both can get you the same amount of HP.
Assuming your crankcase vent system can take it, and your air intake temps are ok, I would run more boost and less timing. Safer.
#13
90, a well-tuned 1.6 using a GT25r with 3" exhaust and all the little stuff can make 220whp at 15psi (I don't think I've seen one make more, but you can get there)... but every little bit needs to be right to get it there.
Your hi-flow cat robs you of a few whp, old tranny/dif fluid maybe another whp or two, crappy or dirty air filter maybe another one or two.
With your conservative tune, you might only be making 180-190whp at 15psi... but you could achieve that same 190whp at 10psi with a less conservative but more optimal tune. That same "optimal" tune at 15psi will get you closer to the 220whp accepted upper limit of a GT25r on a stock 1.6.
I'd rather run a better tune at lower boost... better tune means quicker spool and smoother overall operation. I'd spend a couple hundred bucks to have a good tuner put it on a dyno and tweak you a couple good maps... I bet you'd find that right now, you could have more power on less boost with a still acceptable margin for safety, better engine response, and better overall reliability.
Your hi-flow cat robs you of a few whp, old tranny/dif fluid maybe another whp or two, crappy or dirty air filter maybe another one or two.
With your conservative tune, you might only be making 180-190whp at 15psi... but you could achieve that same 190whp at 10psi with a less conservative but more optimal tune. That same "optimal" tune at 15psi will get you closer to the 220whp accepted upper limit of a GT25r on a stock 1.6.
I'd rather run a better tune at lower boost... better tune means quicker spool and smoother overall operation. I'd spend a couple hundred bucks to have a good tuner put it on a dyno and tweak you a couple good maps... I bet you'd find that right now, you could have more power on less boost with a still acceptable margin for safety, better engine response, and better overall reliability.
#16
Senior Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Plano TX
Posts: 595
Total Cats: -1
Great this is just the info I was looking for thanks guys.
Regarding=
'In all candor, I really don't see the difference between claiming a boost goal, a HP goal, or a ***** size goal. Just make the car as fast as it takes to satisfy you, and then make it slightly faster. "
Joe bro I have really appreciated your posts and your knowledge. I am not trying to brag I know 80% of people on here make more power than me. I just dont want to spend 2-300 dollars dyno tuning a set up I will be changing in 6 months. So I wanted to make sure I was only pushing the limit not stepping over it by a mile.
Thanks
Brian
Regarding=
'In all candor, I really don't see the difference between claiming a boost goal, a HP goal, or a ***** size goal. Just make the car as fast as it takes to satisfy you, and then make it slightly faster. "
Joe bro I have really appreciated your posts and your knowledge. I am not trying to brag I know 80% of people on here make more power than me. I just dont want to spend 2-300 dollars dyno tuning a set up I will be changing in 6 months. So I wanted to make sure I was only pushing the limit not stepping over it by a mile.
Thanks
Brian
#18
I'm of the opinion anymore that I can do a better job tuning my car than most on the dyno. I say tune it yourself until you know you you've got the setup you want. I feel I can probably get 85%-90% of all I can get out of my setup. I learned that it is very easy to throw away money on a dyno until you know MS settings inside and out.
With proper knock detection and a little bit of theory written into the software, I think autotune for spark is not far away.
With proper knock detection and a little bit of theory written into the software, I think autotune for spark is not far away.