When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
An example on the Tti X at 9psi it typically makes 600 rwhpish.
Phil
What car (346cid) through stock cats and 91 octane put down 600rwhp???? I saw Noobs dyno results on his 383cid and 94 octane. When I look back on his thread, he made like 540rwhp @9lbs and then an additional 60rwhp with the Catback change..that was a significant improvement.
I thought you told me you did not make over 600rwhp on your car @9lbs of boost. I wish we had 94 octane out here..it is like the difference between tuning with 87-89 and 91 where I am at, compared to tuning with 94 over 91. I could get 100 octane at the Unocal 76 out here..but I don't want to have to do that everytime I fill up.
My car makes over 600 (no cats full exhaust) to the tires at 9psi and noobs will also even thru the cats when its all said and done. I have attached my 9psi sheet. I pulled out of testing early with a valvetrain issue up top as you can see.
My car makes over 600 (no cats full exhaust) to the tires at 9psi and noobs will also even thru the cats when its all said and done. I have attached my 9psi sheet. I pulled out of testing early with a valvetrain issue up top as you can see.
Thanks for sharing....gives me a good baseline and actually makes me feel better about my results. I am thinking with no cats and tuning on Sunoco 94...our results would be real close @9lbs. However I am not sure what your cam profile looks like and your CR @9.2 is most likely better at 9lbs then my 8.9 CR..especially being able to use the 94 octane in preventing detonation.
For 9lbs I am going to maintain the 91 tune and then turn on the boost controller with straight 100 octane and 14lbs to see what whe will do.
Got a different question for you. I was talking to one of the Aussie's who does Speed Density tuning. He told me if you don't have cats, you can actaully retard the timing off boost and it will spool the turbos up faster...you buy that?
What car (346cid) through stock cats and 91 octane put down 600rwhp???? I saw Noobs dyno results on his 383cid and 94 octane.
Not to split hairs, but it was on 93 octane
When I look back on his thread, he made like 540rwhp @9lbs and then an additional 60rwhp with the Catback change..that was a significant improvement.
Again, not splitting hairs... but when it was making 540rwhp the boost was falling off the charts up top. So it was like 540rwhp on 7psi I can't explain that phenomena directly, but Mike felt the stock Ti exhaust was just too restrictive and was causing a flow issue. 608rwhp through cats @ 9psi right now.
Just guessing but he probably penciled in what he thought the graph should look like without the valve train problem as opposed to how it turned out. I got a few laying around where I did the same thing.
Again, not splitting hairs... but when it was making 540rwhp the boost was falling off the charts up top. So it was like 540rwhp on 7psi I can't explain that phenomena directly, but Mike felt the stock Ti exhaust was just too restrictive and was causing a flow issue. 608rwhp through cats @ 9psi right now.
No splitting I think you are right where you should be with a 383cid @9lbs of boost with 93 octane. Its interesting to see Phil's dyno run at 9lbs of boost with a 346cid and Sunoco 94...almost the same numbers...Could make a stronger arguement for removing the cats. If you are running stock cats and removed them..you might be at 668rwhp at 9lbs..
I am thinking with no cats and tuning on Sunoco 94...our results would be real close @9lbs. However I am not sure what your cam profile looks like and your CR @9.2 is most likely better at 9lbs then my 8.9 CR..especially being able to use the 94 octane in preventing detonation.
Got a different question for you. I was talking to one of the Aussie's who does Speed Density tuning. He told me if you don't have cats, you can actaully retard the timing off boost and it will spool the turbos up faster...you buy that?
Lastly what is the eraser mark on your dyno sheet
Take your cats off and put 94 in and give it a shot 100hp is a lot to find
I am more prone to detonation at 9.2 then your 8.9..so you can wash some of the octane theory a bit as 9psi on 91 isnt that horrible. Anytime you want to stop on by for some real fuel I will point ya in the right direction .
As for the Aussies, thats old news as any competent tuner knows this. Heck read back as to what I posted in my last 3 or 4 posts in tuning and timing. It works both ways , If you add timing and run it leaner is softens it up.
The eraser is actually where I tried to pencil in the profile of what the power cure might have been had the valvetrain not gone into resonance.
Just guessing but he probably penciled in what he thought the graph should look like without the valve train problem as opposed to how it turned out. I got a few laying around where I did the same thing.
Take your cats off and put 94 in and give it a shot 100hp is a lot to find
Phil
60 is a lot less than 100. Being able to add timing makes a big difference. I don't even know that I trust that our 91 octane is really 91...but I can get Sunoco 104 too..I just have to buy it in 5 gallon buckets. I trust the Unocal 100 octane though.
I would wait Nick...I really would. You don't want to be stuck with something that does not work the way you want it. Let PTK get it right on my car and then there will be no doubts....cut outs are band aid fixes or for an all drag car....you don't see them on any LPE cars. Phil already posted a map that showed the TE44 out of the "sweet spot" he might be irritating to me these days..but I still place some value on what the ole fart has to say.
It would be better to go with Hi Flo or gutted cats than having to use electric cutouts to make boost. The PT52s made 2lbs of boost at 3000 rpms with a .58 AR....they are not that much different than TE44s...the rpms need to drop close to 700rpms to spool in the "sweet spot". The changes from TE63s to PT52s have only netted a 600rpm drop for max spool up...that is two ARs on the TE63s and 1 set of PT52 w/.58 AR. Just some advice from somebody that has been there before..your choice my friend.
Should I also wait? This is what I have LS2 stroked 402,LQ9 heads gutted cats, with cutouts 231/228 115 LSA 591/574.
What do you guys think? I'm new to this turbo stuff and kinda lost about the sweet spot and turbo sizes? Dalton sent me my turbos TE44's, I ordered the smaller one's (I think they were TE32's) for quicker spool time and the fact that they could support 980 HP which is way more than I will ever want or need, Dalton said they are having A hard time getting them or they can't get them? So now I'm wondering if TE44's are right for me?
Should I also wait? This is what I have LS2 stroked 402,LQ9 heads gutted cats, with cutouts 231/228 115 LSA 591/574.
What do you guys think? I'm new to this turbo stuff and kinda lost about the sweet spot and turbo sizes? Dalton sent me my turbos TE44's, I ordered the smaller one's (I think they were TE32's) for quicker spool time and the fact that they could support 980 HP which is way more than I will ever want or need, Dalton said they are having A hard time getting them or they can't get them? So now I'm wondering if TE44's are right for me?
Even though I'm still holding a grudge you need to send them back and wait for Kevins results. In order to make your turbo selection the data he can provide will save you alot of time and effort.
Forgive and forget!
Thanks Mike I think thats good advice what do you think Phil?
um..346 cui is out of the sweetspot of the TE44 compressor, but not horribly.... but 402cui wont even be in the zipcode..
This of course is my humble opinion supported by limited data supplied by shinobi.
Cam motion did A special grind that they highly reccomended with my set up.
How come you did not go with A reverse split?
i did?
trevor at tsp told me that was his vendor suggested for his set up too. must use cam motion too. he wants to run hp's kit with big turbos with ls2 motor.
Last edited by NICK YOSKIN; Mar 15, 2005 at 09:24 PM.
um..346 cui is out of the sweetspot of the TE44 compressor, but not horribly.... but 402cui wont even be in the zipcode..
This of course is my humble opinion supported by limited data supplied by shinobi.
Phil
sorry phil but a little confused with the above i was under the assumption that you thought te44 would be a little big for 346?
that would make a better fit for 402? pte doesnt make t4 gt30r.
te44 come in all different housings mine will be smallest with AR 58
sorry phil but a little confused with the above i was under the assumption that you thought te44 would be a little big for 346?
that would make a better fit for 402? pte doesnt make t4 gt30r.
te44 come in all different housings mine will be smallest with AR 58
No, the compressor flow profile on the TE-44 is not to "big". The flow profile just doesnt match the flow requirements spot on.
The more power you make at a given pressure ratio you will move to the RIGHT of the data points I did on the compressor map previously. The dark data point to the right of the sweet spot is based on shinobi's verbal data. The data point to the right of that is the same boost level but made more power, which used more airflow, pushes it further out of the sweet spot. Now, put 402cui and it moves the airflow even further away than that as it will require even more air at the same 9psi.
Now, the exhaust side of that turbo is a different story and Shinobi is finding out.
Phil
Phil
Last edited by RoadRebel; Mar 15, 2005 at 09:58 PM.
... but Mike felt the stock Ti exhaust was just too restrictive and was causing a flow issue. 608rwhp through cats @ 9psi right now.
I thought "we" had already proven the stock Ti system was pure junk on a turbo setup a year and a half ago. You are not paying for dyno time to prove this all over again are you?
Bill
Last edited by Bill Reid; Mar 15, 2005 at 11:07 PM.
Designer Imagines A Corvette That Looks More Like a Corvette Than the Corvette
Slideshow: A Jaguar designer's personal project imagines what a modern front-engined Corvette might look like if Chevrolet revisited the golden age of the Stingray.