Switching Camps - TTIX --> UPP - The Search for Big Power
05-25-2016, 04:30 PM
#401
Drifting
05-25-2016, 04:44 PM
#402
Race Director
Member Since: May 2004
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 16,664
Received 1,193 Likes
on
1,052 Posts
St. Jude Donor '15
Yeah shoot me another log when you get a chance with the the polling interval changed.. 2.24 basically matched everything to the slowest parameter and created "frames", V3 each thing has it's own channel at whatever rate it can get data. The interval setting is honestly more of a priority list than anything, it doesn't set the exact update speed in a lot of cases (even though it lets you pick one) but it's still a lot more control than 2.24
05-25-2016, 05:13 PM
#403
Team Owner
05-25-2016, 08:36 PM
#405
Race Director
Member Since: May 2004
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 16,664
Received 1,193 Likes
on
1,052 Posts
St. Jude Donor '15
05-25-2016, 11:40 PM
#406
Le Mans Master
Thread Starter
The following users liked this post:
LoganExplosion (02-21-2017)
05-26-2016, 12:16 PM
#407
Former Vendor
I took a look through your 22psi log a bit ago--the wideband looks like it's reading super slow. Like half a second behind the narrowbands slow. Were these logs before you turned up the logging rate for AC voltage?
The WB readings don't make a lot of sense--I pulled the V/0.833+9.7 formula out of the config you sent and used that, but there are spots in this log where the NB O2's are swinging from rich to lean but the WB reading literally doesn't move at all (it's just a flat 15.68 AFR in gasoline terms, so we'll call it 1.07 lambda since I think you're on E85). I'm still surprised it's not reading closer to lambda=1 when the NB O2's are going back and forth. The slow "polling interval" could explain some of it but I don't think that's all of it.
Can you add injector PW to your list of channels too?
Hate to keep throwing money at it but I'd probably consider a newer/faster/better WB given how much you've already spent and how important it is. I don't know if something is up from using the AC sensor port, polling interval too slow, old wide-band, calibration.. I dunno, but readings don't look right to me.
The WB readings don't make a lot of sense--I pulled the V/0.833+9.7 formula out of the config you sent and used that, but there are spots in this log where the NB O2's are swinging from rich to lean but the WB reading literally doesn't move at all (it's just a flat 15.68 AFR in gasoline terms, so we'll call it 1.07 lambda since I think you're on E85). I'm still surprised it's not reading closer to lambda=1 when the NB O2's are going back and forth. The slow "polling interval" could explain some of it but I don't think that's all of it.
Can you add injector PW to your list of channels too?
Hate to keep throwing money at it but I'd probably consider a newer/faster/better WB given how much you've already spent and how important it is. I don't know if something is up from using the AC sensor port, polling interval too slow, old wide-band, calibration.. I dunno, but readings don't look right to me.
^^^^This sounds familiar^^^^
When you look at your VE table, that's the absolute main table the car used to figure out what the hell is going on. If it's literally up/down by 30-40% variations from one cell to the next, the ecu will change fueling and timing load by 30-40%. There is no way you should have swings that drastic from one to the other. You can set the data update rate on your WB too. I would set that as high as it possibly goes, and then use LogWorks to data log and see what the AFR's are really doing. If that still shows flat, throw the WB in the trash, as there's no way in hell the AFR could even be remotely flat with that VE table. And that would absolutely account for ANY variance in HP. That table has the ability to make the car run 1400whp, or not run at all. So there really is no limit to "how much hp is withheld" there.
In terms of the turbo sizing. We're making kits to service the majority. The majority is in the 600-800whp range which is why we started with the 58mm. We stepped it up because people were asking for more. Hence came the 62mm. Now people are asking for more still, so we're trying to come up with an option that would provide more, but would still fit in the existing location; and I'm not sure T4 is an option (nor which of the T4's would actually fit). Hence we designed the 72mm still in the same housing as the 62mm. I know there is going to be flow restriction over a traditional T4 72mm; but what we're seaking is something bigger than the 62mm, yet still in a smaller package than a full T4. T3 flange and .63AR is a bit on the small side for what he's trying to do, but it's still very much doable. We originally went with this on the 62mm simply for spooling characteristics and to make the cars still fun to drive. This was then carried over to the 72mm, although we are in the process of trying to get .82AR housings cast (but this doesn't happen overnight, and we've been working on it for a while). No, these are not "optimally" sized for the power Bill is trying to make, however they are also not the limiting factor. Bigger power has been made on a smaller version of this turbo many times over. And the fact that he's running into issues at much lower boost levels, and still not in the realm of power that should be produced (at lower boost) exemplifies this.
So instead of guessing, it's much better to go off facts. It is a fact that the tune that was on there is rubbish. If the WB doesn't pick this up, it too is rubbish. I would start there instead of guessing and throwing more money at the problem. There is no amount of parts that can offset a bad tune.
As far as the T3/T4 flanges goes, the measurements are:
T3: 57 x 44.5 = 2536.5 mm^2
T3/4: 63.5 x 53 = 3365.5 mm^2
So the T3/4 flange has 828.9mm^2 worth of flow MORE than the standard T3 flange. That's 33% more flow. And last time I checked 33% more would not equate out to more restriction. And it's not a shelf effect at the turbo either, because had the standard T3 flange been in place, the shelf would still be present. If these were T3 sized holes and he was running a T4, I could see the issue. But they're T4 holes running a T3.
^^This here is exactly what this thread is all about though. Wild speculation and accusations instead of good honest actual data. Blame something because we don't understand the situation. Even after the dimensions of the flanges (or at least a drawing) have been uploaded, this is still called into question. Why? Because you don't fully understand sizing or flow characteristics?
But what do I know, I'm just trying to sling parts.......
This is exactly the reason I get frustrated and leave the room, just a bunch of mindless bickering and people with an unexplained vengeance for each other.
Bill, you've got my number, and Lethal's. Both of us are wanting and willing to help you. Give either of us a call when you're ready....
CK
05-26-2016, 01:17 PM
#408
Wild speculation and accusations instead of good honest actual data. Blame something because we don't understand the situation. Even after the dimensions of the flanges (or at least a drawing) have been uploaded, this is still called into question. Why? Because you don't fully understand sizing or flow characteristics?
But what do I know, I'm just trying to sling parts.......
This is exactly the reason I get frustrated and leave the room, just a bunch of mindless bickering and people with an unexplained vengeance for each other.
Bill, you've got my number, and Lethal's. Both of us are wanting and willing to help you. Give either of us a call when you're ready....
CK
But what do I know, I'm just trying to sling parts.......
This is exactly the reason I get frustrated and leave the room, just a bunch of mindless bickering and people with an unexplained vengeance for each other.
Bill, you've got my number, and Lethal's. Both of us are wanting and willing to help you. Give either of us a call when you're ready....
CK
05-26-2016, 02:11 PM
#409
Drifting
05-26-2016, 04:03 PM
#410
Drifting
^^^^This sounds familiar^^^^
^^^And this^^^^
When you look at your VE table, that's the absolute main table the car used to figure out what the hell is going on. If it's literally up/down by 30-40% variations from one cell to the next, the ecu will change fueling and timing load by 30-40%. There is no way you should have swings that drastic from one to the other. You can set the data update rate on your WB too. I would set that as high as it possibly goes, and then use LogWorks to data log and see what the AFR's are really doing. If that still shows flat, throw the WB in the trash, as there's no way in hell the AFR could even be remotely flat with that VE table. And that would absolutely account for ANY variance in HP. That table has the ability to make the car run 1400whp, or not run at all. So there really is no limit to "how much hp is withheld" there.
In terms of the turbo sizing. We're making kits to service the majority. The majority is in the 600-800whp range which is why we started with the 58mm. We stepped it up because people were asking for more. Hence came the 62mm. Now people are asking for more still, so we're trying to come up with an option that would provide more, but would still fit in the existing location; and I'm not sure T4 is an option (nor which of the T4's would actually fit). Hence we designed the 72mm still in the same housing as the 62mm. I know there is going to be flow restriction over a traditional T4 72mm; but what we're seaking is something bigger than the 62mm, yet still in a smaller package than a full T4. T3 flange and .63AR is a bit on the small side for what he's trying to do, but it's still very much doable. We originally went with this on the 62mm simply for spooling characteristics and to make the cars still fun to drive. This was then carried over to the 72mm, although we are in the process of trying to get .82AR housings cast (but this doesn't happen overnight, and we've been working on it for a while). No, these are not "optimally" sized for the power Bill is trying to make, however they are also not the limiting factor. Bigger power has been made on a smaller version of this turbo many times over. And the fact that he's running into issues at much lower boost levels, and still not in the realm of power that should be produced (at lower boost) exemplifies this.
So instead of guessing, it's much better to go off facts. It is a fact that the tune that was on there is rubbish. If the WB doesn't pick this up, it too is rubbish. I would start there instead of guessing and throwing more money at the problem. There is no amount of parts that can offset a bad tune.
As far as the T3/T4 flanges goes, the measurements are:
T3: 57 x 44.5 = 2536.5 mm^2
T3/4: 63.5 x 53 = 3365.5 mm^2
So the T3/4 flange has 828.9mm^2 worth of flow MORE than the standard T3 flange. That's 33% more flow. And last time I checked 33% more would not equate out to more restriction. And it's not a shelf effect at the turbo either, because had the standard T3 flange been in place, the shelf would still be present. If these were T3 sized holes and he was running a T4, I could see the issue. But they're T4 holes running a T3.
^^This here is exactly what this thread is all about though. Wild speculation and accusations instead of good honest actual data. Blame something because we don't understand the situation. Even after the dimensions of the flanges (or at least a drawing) have been uploaded, this is still called into question. Why? Because you don't fully understand sizing or flow characteristics?
But what do I know, I'm just trying to sling parts.......
This is exactly the reason I get frustrated and leave the room, just a bunch of mindless bickering and people with an unexplained vengeance for each other.
Bill, you've got my number, and Lethal's. Both of us are wanting and willing to help you. Give either of us a call when you're ready....
CK
^^^And this^^^^
When you look at your VE table, that's the absolute main table the car used to figure out what the hell is going on. If it's literally up/down by 30-40% variations from one cell to the next, the ecu will change fueling and timing load by 30-40%. There is no way you should have swings that drastic from one to the other. You can set the data update rate on your WB too. I would set that as high as it possibly goes, and then use LogWorks to data log and see what the AFR's are really doing. If that still shows flat, throw the WB in the trash, as there's no way in hell the AFR could even be remotely flat with that VE table. And that would absolutely account for ANY variance in HP. That table has the ability to make the car run 1400whp, or not run at all. So there really is no limit to "how much hp is withheld" there.
In terms of the turbo sizing. We're making kits to service the majority. The majority is in the 600-800whp range which is why we started with the 58mm. We stepped it up because people were asking for more. Hence came the 62mm. Now people are asking for more still, so we're trying to come up with an option that would provide more, but would still fit in the existing location; and I'm not sure T4 is an option (nor which of the T4's would actually fit). Hence we designed the 72mm still in the same housing as the 62mm. I know there is going to be flow restriction over a traditional T4 72mm; but what we're seaking is something bigger than the 62mm, yet still in a smaller package than a full T4. T3 flange and .63AR is a bit on the small side for what he's trying to do, but it's still very much doable. We originally went with this on the 62mm simply for spooling characteristics and to make the cars still fun to drive. This was then carried over to the 72mm, although we are in the process of trying to get .82AR housings cast (but this doesn't happen overnight, and we've been working on it for a while). No, these are not "optimally" sized for the power Bill is trying to make, however they are also not the limiting factor. Bigger power has been made on a smaller version of this turbo many times over. And the fact that he's running into issues at much lower boost levels, and still not in the realm of power that should be produced (at lower boost) exemplifies this.
So instead of guessing, it's much better to go off facts. It is a fact that the tune that was on there is rubbish. If the WB doesn't pick this up, it too is rubbish. I would start there instead of guessing and throwing more money at the problem. There is no amount of parts that can offset a bad tune.
As far as the T3/T4 flanges goes, the measurements are:
T3: 57 x 44.5 = 2536.5 mm^2
T3/4: 63.5 x 53 = 3365.5 mm^2
So the T3/4 flange has 828.9mm^2 worth of flow MORE than the standard T3 flange. That's 33% more flow. And last time I checked 33% more would not equate out to more restriction. And it's not a shelf effect at the turbo either, because had the standard T3 flange been in place, the shelf would still be present. If these were T3 sized holes and he was running a T4, I could see the issue. But they're T4 holes running a T3.
^^This here is exactly what this thread is all about though. Wild speculation and accusations instead of good honest actual data. Blame something because we don't understand the situation. Even after the dimensions of the flanges (or at least a drawing) have been uploaded, this is still called into question. Why? Because you don't fully understand sizing or flow characteristics?
But what do I know, I'm just trying to sling parts.......
This is exactly the reason I get frustrated and leave the room, just a bunch of mindless bickering and people with an unexplained vengeance for each other.
Bill, you've got my number, and Lethal's. Both of us are wanting and willing to help you. Give either of us a call when you're ready....
CK
I will disagree that 33.33% more flow is significant amount of flow, just may not be the only limiting factor in this situation.
Thanks
05-26-2016, 09:22 PM
#411
How much can a tune affect BP?
Seems like there are really only two possible solutions...
1.) Fix the tune and gain 200+hp while still having high backpressure
2.) Tune stays the same and lower backpressure w/ new turbo to gain 200+hp
One or the other has to be true? Or a combination of both... Why not just change the tune first as that would be the easiest to test. If you get nothing from a tune change then the problem is obviously the turbo.
Seems like there are really only two possible solutions...
1.) Fix the tune and gain 200+hp while still having high backpressure
2.) Tune stays the same and lower backpressure w/ new turbo to gain 200+hp
One or the other has to be true? Or a combination of both... Why not just change the tune first as that would be the easiest to test. If you get nothing from a tune change then the problem is obviously the turbo.
Last edited by Spoolin8; 05-26-2016 at 09:25 PM.
05-26-2016, 09:37 PM
#412
Drifting
Well CK was basically saying the opening on the flange is slightly bigger than the T3 housing on the turbo. And saying that it shouldn't be any significant restriction. But I kind of agree/disagree, because when port matching an intake to a head if the intake is smaller and doesn't match up perfect it usually doesn't kill you terribly. But if the intake side is bigger than the port on the head it does hurt quite a bit. And this seems to be the case in this situation. And I understand what he's saying that he doesn't think it would be enough to even be a factor in this case. That is where we disagree on it at least that's what I got out of his last post. I know the turbo's had some play with the bolts that bolt up the turbo to the flange, and Bill had a little bit of a time getting the pipes to line up and getting the turbo's on, and so if the turbo's are cocked a little bit the overhang could be more than just what was calculated by the math of the openings. I will agree with CK and others on Bills WB through the AC as I never liked it or knew if I could have ever trusted it so they have some real good points on that aspect. But Bill has used that in the past and I don't think he ever really thought it could be a problem till now. So once he figures out what he's doing to eliminate the possibilities with the WB and tuning issues we will see.
05-27-2016, 01:44 PM
#413
How much can a tune affect BP?
Seems like there are really only two possible solutions...
1.) Fix the tune and gain 200+hp while still having high backpressure
2.) Tune stays the same and lower backpressure w/ new turbo to gain 200+hp
One or the other has to be true? Or a combination of both... Why not just change the tune first as that would be the easiest to test. If you get nothing from a tune change then the problem is obviously the turbo.
Seems like there are really only two possible solutions...
1.) Fix the tune and gain 200+hp while still having high backpressure
2.) Tune stays the same and lower backpressure w/ new turbo to gain 200+hp
One or the other has to be true? Or a combination of both... Why not just change the tune first as that would be the easiest to test. If you get nothing from a tune change then the problem is obviously the turbo.
I would fix the back pressure issue and the tune for the best results.
05-30-2016, 09:29 AM
#414
Safety Car
What was the comparison of the flow rate of the heads?
The following users liked this post:
helga203 (05-31-2016)
06-05-2016, 04:04 PM
#416
Le Mans Master
Thread Starter
Well post turbo pressure appears to be zero with the cutouts open or closed. Ran 20# and I didn't see the gauge move. I could go back to the video to make sure but if it did it was maybe 1-2# at most with them closed which would have had to have been zero with them open.
Leaving for Greece in a few days so unfortunately further troubleshooting will have to wait til I get back in like three weeks.
Leaving for Greece in a few days so unfortunately further troubleshooting will have to wait til I get back in like three weeks.
Last edited by 5 Liter Eater; 06-06-2016 at 12:09 AM.
06-06-2016, 12:35 PM
#419
Drifting
06-08-2016, 09:18 AM
#420
Melting Slicks
LOL, Good post. After the last 2 to 3 years of bogus dyno numbers posted online by "shops", I don't even pay attention anymore. I give zero credit to dyno numbers until the car goes to the drag strip, runway, or gets in the other lane and actually proves it.
The following users liked this post:
ajrothm (06-10-2016)
