180hp is all i got...:-(
#21
Yeah, don't change the gauge display, leave it on gas. You can just run it a smidge thinner than on gas.
To get mine running well enough to get it on the trailer, literally all I had to change was reqfuel. And I changed EVERYTHING about the car.
So, you tuned it on the dyno? He didn't add spark angle to reach mbt?
To get mine running well enough to get it on the trailer, literally all I had to change was reqfuel. And I changed EVERYTHING about the car.
So, you tuned it on the dyno? He didn't add spark angle to reach mbt?
#22
Senior Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 963
Total Cats: -1
Yeah, don't change the gauge display, leave it on gas. You can just run it a smidge thinner than on gas.
To get mine running well enough to get it on the trailer, literally all I had to change was reqfuel. And I changed EVERYTHING about the car.
So, you tuned it on the dyno? He didn't add spark angle to reach mbt?
To get mine running well enough to get it on the trailer, literally all I had to change was reqfuel. And I changed EVERYTHING about the car.
So, you tuned it on the dyno? He didn't add spark angle to reach mbt?
I did road tune the car for e85 myself, by just scaling the map and leaning it out and making it a little richer in some spots. But did not touch the spark map
On saturday the place had a dyno day so i just did a few pulls for fun and to my surprise got way lower numbers than before.
#23
Can you post up your reqfuels before and after E85, and how you got them?
Meh, I was looking at your spark table vs my old one. Wait until I get home to load my new E85 table, but I'm thinking you can add at least 6-8* everwhere in boost, and as much as 8-10 at the big end. Your map is conservative for 93, weakfailboat for E85.
Meh, I was looking at your spark table vs my old one. Wait until I get home to load my new E85 table, but I'm thinking you can add at least 6-8* everwhere in boost, and as much as 8-10 at the big end. Your map is conservative for 93, weakfailboat for E85.
#24
Wait...you have a 3" downpipe hooked up to a 2.25" exhaust?
That's worse than a 2.25" downpipe and exhaust because you have a sudden contraction, which causes a vena contraction immediately downstream, equivalent in flow restriction to a pipe of about 40% smaller diameter...or 65% less cross sectional flow area.
Your **** will haul ***** once you put a real exhaust on there, you might as well have a stock system on there right now.
Oh yeah, and get some knock boxing, tune timing, profit.
That's worse than a 2.25" downpipe and exhaust because you have a sudden contraction, which causes a vena contraction immediately downstream, equivalent in flow restriction to a pipe of about 40% smaller diameter...or 65% less cross sectional flow area.
Your **** will haul ***** once you put a real exhaust on there, you might as well have a stock system on there right now.
Oh yeah, and get some knock boxing, tune timing, profit.
#25
Senior Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 963
Total Cats: -1
Wait...you have a 3" downpipe hooked up to a 2.25" exhaust?
That's worse than a 2.25" downpipe and exhaust because you have a sudden contraction, which causes a vena contraction immediately downstream, equivalent in flow restriction to a pipe of about 40% smaller diameter...or 65% less cross sectional flow area.
Your **** will haul ***** once you put a real exhaust on there, you might as well have a stock system on there right now.
Oh yeah, and get some knock boxing, tune timing, profit.
That's worse than a 2.25" downpipe and exhaust because you have a sudden contraction, which causes a vena contraction immediately downstream, equivalent in flow restriction to a pipe of about 40% smaller diameter...or 65% less cross sectional flow area.
Your **** will haul ***** once you put a real exhaust on there, you might as well have a stock system on there right now.
Oh yeah, and get some knock boxing, tune timing, profit.
#31
Not that much advance here, but we reached mbt and didn't pull timing from there. Built forged 1.9ish engine, 9.5:1, 2000 head with os valves, 2560R with Begi S4 mani and mid-sized fmic, 3" dp transitioning to 2 1/2" dual resonator exhaust (ran out of schekels). FWIW in boost runs of around 12psi I'm logging 11.3-11.6 (gas equiv) AFRs. I do have a tip-in transition to boost that's logging low 10s, but that's with some accel enrichment. I'm still waiting on plots so that I can report more fully.
#32
Senior Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 963
Total Cats: -1
Not that much advance here, but we reached mbt and didn't pull timing from there. Built forged 1.9ish engine, 9.5:1, 2000 head with os valves, 2560R with Begi S4 mani and mid-sized fmic, 3" dp transitioning to 2 1/2" dual resonator exhaust (ran out of schekels). FWIW in boost runs of around 12psi I'm logging 11.3-11.6 (gas equiv) AFRs. I do have a tip-in transition to boost that's logging low 10s, but that's with some accel enrichment. I'm still waiting on plots so that I can report more fully.
#34
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,493
Total Cats: 4,080
on a built motor with lowish compression, i don't see how 20° at 12psi is "a lot of timing" On 93 octane on my stock 1.6L block i run around 17-18° at the same boost...With 8.5:1 CR motors we've pushed 23-24° of timing at +15psi without signs of det...
#35
http://www.rif.org/
I was expecting to run more angle, but mbt trumps being able to brag on the webz how much angle you run.
I was expecting to run more angle, but mbt trumps being able to brag on the webz how much angle you run.
#38
If you are confident in your WB and feel like being a man, pull more fuel. We saw lots of power pulling fuel, 10.8 is fat for that sweet ****** alky. Get that **** to 11.3 on the big and add some angle to get within 2* of mine then put it back on the rollers. I wouldn't expect a lot more power than with gas, if any, but for a given tune it will be safer.
#39
For whatever it's worth, this screenshot of a log from a dyno pull shows the VE table. And yes, sunshine, it is on E85, or whatever the pumps put out now which is probably more like E70. This pull was probably around 287 whp on a dynapack, but without plots .
Edit: I posted the wrong msq associated with the log. Fixed in this post.
Edit: I posted the wrong msq associated with the log. Fixed in this post.
Last edited by webby459; 04-27-2010 at 10:56 AM.