Well as many of you know, Will, (rklessdriver) built a motor for my car. I will go back and link the build post to this post latter. Its with Ed Hutchings being tuned. (hi-tech tuning) Ed has sent me numbers and dyno sheets showing what it is doing on E85 and this is for emissions tuning!! Keep in mind this is through a 3000 stall converter.



To say the least, I am beside myself with both Will and Ed on this one!! 462rwhp and 398 tq. Again this is on E85 and for emissions!!

 

Wow! GJ cant wait to see more.

 

Nice numbers. The torque curve is very nice!

 

great results!

I cant tell you how many times Ive read about someone building a 383 that posts less rwhp than my hotcamm'd (former setup) stock head motor did.

Those results are very promising and I think are testament to Will's work.

What head/cam/headers/ exhaust did you do?

Whats cool about that is you are making more and more power as you rev that thing!
Must be some lightweight pistons, great flowing heads/cam/exhaust


My suggestions are:

1. Invest in a moates adapter, tunerproRT, and a $DA2 definition file (for 92-93 speed density) and tune yourself. Its so much easier then having to send a chip out and wait to get it back.


2. Add a blower on top of that for an extra 200+ rwhp (just kidding, you got a lot of power already!)

Again awesome numbers!

 

Great numbers. I wish my 383 saw numbers even close to that!

 

are those numbers on E85?

Im guessing they cant be, because an AFR of 13.0:1 (That you show) would be waaay lean.

 

Looks like it! 13 isn't way lean. Ran mine up to 13.2 with no knock and it just kept making power.

 

Considering your converter that is making a gang of power for what it is youre going to love driving that!! Should have good manners, too.

 

for E85 (as your fuel), 13.2:1 is incredibly lean.

9.7:1 is the stoichiometric ratio for E85


Now for pure gasoline (octane) then 13.2:1 is where max torque is typically made

14.7:1 is the stoichiometric ratio for gasoline (octane)


That said, most (if not all) gasoline has some ethanol in it and stoichiometric fuel ratio is going to be less (and so will max torque AFR) than 14.7:1 on pump gas.

 

13.00 afr on E85 for an NA engine is not lean at all... keep in mind we are not measuring the actual fuel being burned but the left over oxygen in the exhaust... you try running 9.70 afr on e85 and a wideband set for normal fuel and you will hurt the motor.

I ran E85 on my turbo vette making over 900rwhp and I was seeing anywhere from 12.0-12.4 afr on my wideband running 25+ psi and it was very happy with no knock.

Chris

 

I went back through and read the build thread, what was the final compression ratio of the motor?

also.. if you have E85 available to run all the time where you live.... I would, you can tune it much more aggressively then 93 pump gas, it makes a lot more power also.

If I lived somewhere E85 was readily available, I would have a 13:1 scr motor just for it...lol corn fuel ROCKS for power!!

Chris

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by lcvette

I went back through and read the build thread, what was the final compression ratio of the motor?

also.. if you have E85 available to run all the time where you live.... I would, you can tune it much more aggressively then 93 pump gas, it makes a lot more power also.

If I lived somewhere E85 was readily available, I would have a 13:1 scr motor just for it...lol corn fuel ROCKS for power!!

Chris

Chris, I think Will had told me the compression was 11.3 to 1. But FWIW the only e85 in my area is about 20-25 miles away. Never intended to run it on e85, just had Ed tuning it with the e85 to try and get it to pass emissions inspection.
Ed is burning 2 chips for the motor. 1 for e85 and one for pump gas. Ed told me I will probably loose about 20hp or so on pump gas.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by cuisinartvette

Considering your converter that is making a gang of torque youre going to love driving that!! Should have good manners, too.

Kinda a long story, but on my mail order tune I ran a 7.85 at 90.xx mph on street tires. Car was going way lean at top and just flat cutting out. Turned out the 30lb injectors that I bought used were bad. Ed is actually tuning it with a set of injectors he has at his shop (60lb) Said he had to cut the fuel down to 25percent of what it was with the 30's It should have been approximately half, but again the injectors just aren't flowing.
But even with all that going on, the car was just as streetable as it was when it was stock bottom end, HC , ported heads and headers.

 

Have you ever used E85? 13.2 (.89 lambda) is not incredibly lean.

Will you get a dyno on normal fuel too? It would be interesting to see what the combo puts down for E85 compared to gasoline though the time spent tuning to optimize might not be cost effective just for curiosity.

 

WOW those numbers look nice !!

 

Nice output

 

Very nice. I had Ed tune a car for me. Absolutely awesome tuner.

And your engine builder does awesome work as well, and is very helpful.

Great numbers man!

 

Guys lets not turn this into a E85 AFR thread... The car was tuned on a Dyno Jet by one of the most respected tuners on the east coast. If 13:1 AF is where it made the best power and it dosen't burn down - then that's the end of story.

The E85 deal was an afterthought - Suposed to be for emissions testing ONLY... I never expected this from Ed's tune and honeslty if I would have know that power comes this easy with E85, I may have talked Rich into something different with the engine....

The engine is built to run on 93 octane and yes it'll be dyno'd on 93 as well... I think Ed will be done by the end of the week. I too am interested to see the power difference...

All that said... I told Rich that with building to suit his current driveline, this engine would probally be around 420RWHP... He told me that he was hoping for around 400RWHP and wanted to have driveability similar to his former Hot Cammed and TEA headed LT1 - The HP is more than there and the driveability - on even the initial start up tune - was totally acceptable, so everybody's happy.

The orginal 93 ragtop Engine Build Thread is located here.

http://forums.corvetteforum.com/c4-t...new-motor.html

I am really blessed to have family in the racing engine business and to have been able to do this type of work from a very young age. Even thou I don't work in the family business anymore, racing is important to me and without the racing engine consulting that I do on the side for people, I wouldn't be able to stay on my game.

It is also a blessing to have friends like Rich who needed and was willing to accept my help to replace his blown up Corvette engine with something much better. Rich is a hard working guy and that is alot of his $$$$$ on those dyno sheets. I know it's hard to trust your hard earned $$$$$ on the hope that some guy (you first met at the race track 6yrs ago) is all he says he is when it comes to spec-ing and building engines.

I want to thank everybody on the board for giving us a community to show our hard work to. I hope the sharing of what is in and what was done to this engine helps someone else with what to build down the road.
Will

 

rklessdriver,

you did a great job on that motor spec. I will be interested to see where the numbers fall with 93 pump gas, looking forward to those results.

E85 is like having 110 octane race fuel at the pump..lol with a tremendous cooling effect similar to methanol.

Pro's: awesome octane, compression to about 14.5 is great (actually improves cold starting on E85 and makes a lot more power) awesome nitrous fuel so feel free to spray the heck out of the motor with E85. cheap.

con's: requires significantly beefier fuel system about 30-40% larger then what would be required for a naturally aspirated motor of the same design. not readily available everywhere so trips on a sole built E85 motor would be difficult or impossible.

I would have him ring all he could out of that E85 tune and make sue your duty cycles are under 85%, add to your fuel system if need be. then use the E85 for track use!!

Chris

 

Alright. I concede. I've never tuned for it.

Just confused why I hear 9.7:1 is stoichiometric afr for e85.

I still say if 13:0:1 was your actual afr w/e85 it'd be lean.

Must have something to do with the way we measure (and predict) what our afr is using an indirect measurement (measuring leftover air vs. Actual air burned).

Its not my post and I don't want to take away from the great results of this build. Again, congratulations on the numbers and good work will!