Soarer Central: New dyno sheet

Soarer Central Mechanical - V8 - Supercharged New dyno sheet

Thread	Last Poster	Posts	Pages
Archive through May 16, 2008	Damian Ware	30	1
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page

Author

Message

Andrew Ferres
DieHard
WA
'90 C-F Celsior V8, '84 Soarer V8, '91 Supra V8

Posts: 821
Reg: 07-2005

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!)

Friday, May 16, 2008 - 02:53 pm, by: Andrew Ferres (Peewee)

Pinging occurs because the air temp coming from an M90 at >8psi is going to be very high.

With a properly sized intercooler the airtemp from the turbos could easily be not that much greater than ambient.

That said, I highly doubt the stock injectors can handle 500hp... So chances of stock ecu is minimal.

Daniel Clarke
Goo Roo
NSW
TT 2.5L 6 cylinder

Posts: 3458
Reg: 03-2006

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!)

Friday, May 16, 2008 - 02:57 pm, by: Daniel Clarke (Dieseltrain)

Stock motor, cams, heads everything...

He is running an EMS 8860 i think. Basic tune in it, nothing aggressive thats for sure. was only tune to get it running, not for massive numbers) PLus he has a big stall convertor which sux a bit of rwhp figures.

His car ran 10.6 @ 124mph with 355rwhp from a small block windsor... He is hoping this will run high 9's as it is.

Tai Johnsen
DieHard
QLD
UZZ31 - V8

Posts: 574
Reg: 04-2006

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!)

Friday, May 16, 2008 - 07:30 pm, by: Tai Johnsen (Privatejohnsen)

Damian Ware wrote on Friday, May 16, 2008 - 12:36 pm:
And how much timing has been pulled????

It may be possible to run with water/meth without blowing up the motor by pulling all the timing adding fuel and reducing the output power but this would be no where near optimal.

Stock TT runs about 10psi of boost and has 8.5:1 comp. Why would toyota do so if it could run optimally on 10:1 (stock 1uz compression early models). Simple they wouldn't, I have also heard that the 8.5:1 comp is too high for 1 and 2J's when running high boost ie 20psi plus, sure the motor didn't blow up but heaps of timing/power was reduced so that the motor didn't ping.

What is optimal I don't know but perhaps dropping the comps by 0.5 to 1.0 would be ideal at 11 or so psi for a stock internal motor....

I understand what you are getting at, but whats to say that if they came out with water/meth systems from the factory, the CR wouldn't be high?

They were designed to work with what they have stock. Any more and you're getting away from what was intended in the first place..

My grasp on WI is that you are able to add more timing due to the cooling properties of the water vapour and also pull fuel because you don't need it butt rich to cool either.. So you gain twice, you can run more timing, and a more power friendly AFR.

Boost is boost isn't it? What is the difference in running high boost in a low CR motor, than lower boost in a higher CR motor? As long as there is no detonation...

Daniel Clarke
Goo Roo
NSW
TT 2.5L 6 cylinder

Posts: 3460
Reg: 03-2006

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!)

Friday, May 16, 2008 - 10:52 pm, by: Daniel Clarke (Dieseltrain)

Dont forget though Tai, Fuel acts as a cooler as well.. If your tune is already close to detonation or causing it, removing fuel will increase that detonation as the fuel is helping cool it...

I would only be using Water/Methanol injection as a prevention.. NOT as a full time way of trying to make more power. .. If you want that, then do it the safer way and upgrade the restriction.

Remember, a safer tune is a longer lasting motor.. Having it tuned on the edge and driving it like that is what causes failures with Headgaskets and Broken Pistons and rings...

Damian Ware
DieHard
Victoria
UZZ32

Posts: 673
Reg: 10-2005

Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!)

Friday, May 16, 2008 - 11:12 pm, by: Damian Ware (Frozenpod)

First some great comments by all in this thread. Good to see all sides of it and what has been achieved ect.

In terms of the water/meth lower comp from this point on it gets very complex to do with piston design, combustion chamber shape and is somewhat beyond my knowledge. Here is my understanding of it but perhaps some of the gurus can confirm/correct/clear things up.

Back to first principles more air plus more fuel equals bigger bang equals more power.

Bigger space ie lower compression allows more air plus more fuel which equals bigger bang ie more power. But this is not always true the, correct combustion mixture and the space available (squash) for the bang is critical. Ignore mixtures at this point in time.

Example of size of bang from the space available, a sealed container with an appropirate air and fuel mixture when ignited will explode. The same amount of fuel and air in a much larger space ie very very large container will burn when ignited not explode. Hence way too lower compression doesn't create a bigger bang from the extra fuel and air and results in less power.

There is no easy answer to this as there is two factors to consider, off the line response and red line hp/reliability. Typically at higher RPM the lower comps do wonders but at the same time you loose off the line response.

Something to think about as you have mentioned to, we are not designing or building an engine from scratch but as you say modifying it from its original purpose.

The original purpose was to have optimal compression for best power/reliability for N/A volumes of air fuel. With forced induction wouldn't it be logical that the extra air and fuel needs a little extra space?

Best example I can think of is a car I read up on recently it has two versions NA and turbo.

The pistons were the same, block the same, robs slightly stronger in the turbo version, cams the same. The turbo motor had lower comps and they used a thicker MLS head gasket to drop the comps. It seemed very strange to do this in a OEM application where they can manufacture things to be exactly as they want but they still used a thicker gasket.

I cant remember the exact details for comps I will look them up once I am home (25th of may) but around 9.X:1 for N/A and 8.4:1 for the turbo version.

Again is it worth the time/cost of lowering the comps for the potential extra top end power or ease of tune if your car is still running reliable at you desired boost level. For most the answer to that question clearly is no otherwise everyone would be dropping the comps when going down the forced induction path on the 1uz.

When taking this into account what boost level do most people run though? From what I have seen most people are only running 5.5 to 7psi and the standard comps have proven to live with that without issue. In the scheme of things there are only a few pushing it further with stock internals and they may need to lower the comps for optimal performance.

What that comp is I don't know but from passed experience I have seen guys drop the comps with gaskets to run higher boost. MLS gasket kit for a 1uz drops the comps how much? There is one available off the shelf probably would be good to find out how much it drops the comps.

Another example Greg Holden is building the stroked blower 1uz and running 9.5:1. Peter Taplins built 1uz is also running lower comps.

Back to water/meth as I understand it, it doesn't burn as well as fuel air mixture and increases the resistance to burn which reduces detonation and allows more timing. When it does burn it also adds a little extra bang.

It is often used instead of an intercooler to prevent detonation but I don't think it offers much of a cooling effect.

As per above I welcome comment/correct and suggest wherever possible as I still have a few areas that are not 100% clear and some unanswered questions myself.

Cihan Aday
Moderator
www.etuner.com.au
JZZ30

Posts: 2541
Reg: 07-2005

Rating:
Votes: 1 (Vote!)

Saturday, May 17, 2008 - 12:58 am, by: Cihan Aday (Cihan)

Tai Johnsen wrote on Friday, May 16, 2008 - 07:30 pm:
Boost is boost isn't it? What is the difference in running high boost in a low CR motor, than lower boost in a higher CR motor? As long as there is no detonation...