Go Back  CorvetteForum - Chevrolet Corvette Forum Discussion > Off Topic > F-Body General Discussion
Reload this Page >

Comments for Phoenix'97 on the TPI LT1 concept.

Notices
F-Body General Discussion Non-Corvette General Discussion on Camaro, Firebird and Trans Am, F-Body Technical Info, for sale

Comments for Phoenix'97 on the TPI LT1 concept.

 
Old 05-16-2018, 12:06 AM
  #41  
Phoenix'97
CF Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Phoenix'97's Avatar
 
Member Since: Oct 2017
Posts: 375
Thanked 4 Times in 4 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by bjankuski View Post
look at previous post, i highlighted the lt1 intake part, just buy the lt1 intake and move on.
I didn't see your post after I made that other one. Thank you for letting me know! It will help getting the intake on my engine when the time comes.
Phoenix'97 is offline  
Old 05-16-2018, 01:19 AM
  #42  
GS_Guy
CF Senior Member
 
Member Since: Apr 2018
Location: Ontario
Posts: 145
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Phoenix'97 View Post
I won't say that to you and I won't harass you. Why is this thread strange by the way?
Youre just all over the place. You want more power with better mileage (no going to happen). Its a daily driver that needs to pass emissions but you want to do a cam swap and keep factory manifolds on it. Everything is contradictory. The build just doesnt make sense. My advice...seems like you want better low end acceleration? Keep it stock and do a gear swap. Youll save yourself alot of time and money
GS_Guy is offline  
Old 05-16-2018, 01:34 AM
  #43  
Space387
CF Senior Member
 
Space387's Avatar
 
Member Since: Sep 2017
Location: Marianna Fl
Posts: 284
Thanked 12 Times in 12 Posts
Default

The gear swap has been brought up on every prior thread he has started and he is absolutely sure that it is not the way to go. No matter how many people who have done the change and provide results it's not an option to him.
Space387 is offline  
Old 05-16-2018, 01:42 AM
  #44  
GREGGPENN
CF Senior Member
 
GREGGPENN's Avatar
 
Member Since: Nov 2003
Location: Overland Park Kansas
Posts: 11,285
Thanked 116 Times in 111 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by bjankuski View Post
Just got easier.














They may or may not have EGR capable intakes, call then and find out. They must have had them in the past.


At some point....probably early on (six months ago), I directed Phoenix to [email protected] I even confirmed FFI had announced a gen 2 (LT1/4) solution long ago. IIRC, that thread ended with him boasting the FFI was the way to go...and promptly posted a picture of an HSR. It was a hilarious, head-shaking, priceless moment in time.

In a short time later (without talking to Ken), it seemed he was more interested in the TPI-to-LT1 conversion or maybe back to it? Whatever the case, I provided a lead to an LT1/TPI on eBay. He said "No thanks" to that too...then posted about how hard it would be to find one when he was "ready". Of course, a white knuckles debate insued about his ability to even INSTALL a TPI or FFI under his hood. So...let's talk about cams instead.

There have been way too many posts about problems with our suggestions, why some bizzare aspect eliminates a suggestion, why he can't do ANYTHING for years, and yet how cost doesn't really matter! But -- to him -- the problem is we don't provide good enough answers.

Priceless!

This "talk" is coming full-circle again....which is EXACTLY why you see members getting unruly and impatient. HP Bushrod suggested why Phoenix SHOULD consider some of his posts unreasonable. Anyone NOT notice how he found a way to push back against the moderator! Why am I not surprised! LOL

In his last (closed) thread, I suggested he is making himself "toxic" for this very reason. I'm not sure if he'll ever see it. I think he has gotten THIS FAR because....somehow, somewhere it does SEEM like actual thought IS happening. Then major lapses occur....or excuses.

Phoenix obviously made another HUGE mistake in this thread...by not accepting a (focused?) conversation with you. (BTW...something I would have found enjoyable back during my build). Many of us KNOW your abilities/experience and know what he passed up on (and accused you of ill-intent). We ALL see his lunacy and just shake our heads.

It's a good thing the internet is a "big place". I'm sure someone...in some forum will always want to jibber-jabber about the prospect of a flux-capacitor mounted on an LT1. You know....one with a restrictor-plate insuring that it can't jump forward/reverse more than a FEW days at a time.

Early on, I tried to be understanding/patient for a good amount of time. That's until I realized talking to Phoenix wasn't unlike trying to catch a FAST bug in a small room. FRANTIC. Can't pin him down...but can't get away either! LOL

Anyway Brian, I have always found you to be a patient and generous person. Once again, I think you should be thanked for that! To be honest, I was surprised you didn't delete your phone from your post!

GREGGPENN is offline  
Old 05-16-2018, 01:55 PM
  #45  
leadfoot4
CF Senior Member
 
leadfoot4's Avatar
 
Member Since: May 2001
Location: Western NY
Posts: 57,442
Thanked 395 Times in 365 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by GREGGPENN View Post
.....There have been way too many posts about problems with our suggestions, why some bizzare aspect eliminates a suggestion, why he can't do ANYTHING for years, and yet how cost doesn't really matter! But -- to him -- the problem is we don't provide good enough answers.

Priceless!

This "talk" is coming full-circle again....which is EXACTLY why you see members getting unruly and impatient. HP Bushrod suggested why Phoenix SHOULD consider some of his posts unreasonable. Anyone NOT notice how he found a way to push back against the moderator! Why am I not surprised! LOL

leadfoot4 is offline  
Old 05-16-2018, 07:29 PM
  #46  
Tom400CFI
CF Senior Member
 
Tom400CFI's Avatar
 
Member Since: Aug 2004
Location: Park City Utah
Posts: 13,808
Thanked 586 Times in 520 Posts
Default

Greggpenn...well said, man.
Tom400CFI is offline  
Old 05-16-2018, 07:58 PM
  #47  
Phoenix'97
CF Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Phoenix'97's Avatar
 
Member Since: Oct 2017
Posts: 375
Thanked 4 Times in 4 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by GREGGPENN View Post
At some point....probably early on (six months ago), I directed Phoenix to [email protected] I even confirmed FFI had announced a gen 2 (LT1/4) solution long ago. IIRC, that thread ended with him boasting the FFI was the way to go...and promptly posted a picture of an HSR. It was a hilarious, head-shaking, priceless moment in time.

In a short time later (without talking to Ken), it seemed he was more interested in the TPI-to-LT1 conversion or maybe back to it? Whatever the case, I provided a lead to an LT1/TPI on eBay. He said "No thanks" to that too...then posted about how hard it would be to find one when he was "ready". Of course, a white knuckles debate insued about his ability to even INSTALL a TPI or FFI under his hood. So...let's talk about cams instead.

There have been way too many posts about problems with our suggestions, why some bizzare aspect eliminates a suggestion, why he can't do ANYTHING for years, and yet how cost doesn't really matter! But -- to him -- the problem is we don't provide good enough answers.

Priceless!

This "talk" is coming full-circle again....which is EXACTLY why you see members getting unruly and impatient. HP Bushrod suggested why Phoenix SHOULD consider some of his posts unreasonable. Anyone NOT notice how he found a way to push back against the moderator! Why am I not surprised! LOL

In his last (closed) thread, I suggested he is making himself "toxic" for this very reason. I'm not sure if he'll ever see it. I think he has gotten THIS FAR because....somehow, somewhere it does SEEM like actual thought IS happening. Then major lapses occur....or excuses.

Phoenix obviously made another HUGE mistake in this thread...by not accepting a (focused?) conversation with you. (BTW...something I would have found enjoyable back during my build). Many of us KNOW your abilities/experience and know what he passed up on (and accused you of ill-intent). We ALL see his lunacy and just shake our heads.

It's a good thing the internet is a "big place". I'm sure someone...in some forum will always want to jibber-jabber about the prospect of a flux-capacitor mounted on an LT1. You know....one with a restrictor-plate insuring that it can't jump forward/reverse more than a FEW days at a time.

Early on, I tried to be understanding/patient for a good amount of time. That's until I realized talking to Phoenix wasn't unlike trying to catch a FAST bug in a small room. FRANTIC. Can't pin him down...but can't get away either! LOL

Anyway Brian, I have always found you to be a patient and generous person. Once again, I think you should be thanked for that! To be honest, I was surprised you didn't delete your phone from your post!

You just need something to complain about, don't you? Thank you for all of your suggestions in the past and I really feel bad that this idea has since become a joke to you. You don't realize I am not financially ready to commit to this build yet? You don't realize I have been trying to figure out how best to go about this and it took Brian to guide me in the right direction after all of your suggestions which did not suit my wants. Let it go and stop crapping up another thread.
Phoenix'97 is offline  
Old 05-16-2018, 08:08 PM
  #48  
Phoenix'97
CF Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Phoenix'97's Avatar
 
Member Since: Oct 2017
Posts: 375
Thanked 4 Times in 4 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by GS_Guy View Post
Youre just all over the place. You want more power with better mileage (no going to happen). Its a daily driver that needs to pass emissions but you want to do a cam swap and keep factory manifolds on it. Everything is contradictory. The build just doesnt make sense. My advice...seems like you want better low end acceleration? Keep it stock and do a gear swap. Youll save yourself alot of time and money
Here is a fine example of more power and better mileage, conservative driving taking advantage of either: more low end torque, OR, increased pumping ability from a supercharger. Conservative driving that takes advantage of more power production with regards to torque will help increase fuel mileage. The less the engine has to work the less fuel it needs to do the work, but I shouldn't have to tell any of you this.

I told you all, this is a fine balance of being practical, trying to increase torque production within the given RPM band off idle to 5000 RPM without reducing fuel economy. I feel the stroker suggestion will not fit the criteria that I have with regards to fuel economy. I looked into supercharging my LT1, nearly the same cost to stroke the engine, but I prefer to keep her naturally aspirated for simplicity. Besides what good is a stroker or supercharger for winter driving? I have to keep this in mind! Fuel economy needs to be a focus in this build!

What you call "all over the place" is what I call being PRACTICAL. Brian's suggestion is the best fit for my wants and "balance" to be practical. Another thought did dawn on me with regards to fuel economy, if I am using reproductions of the factory exhaust manifolds which are restrictive, and I am losing some power as a result, wouldn't this ultimately translate into marginal fuel savings? The car needs to be tuned for this restriction and as you all have said about more power requiring more fuel, well the inverse should be true as well, less power, less fuel!
Phoenix'97 is offline  
Old 05-16-2018, 08:27 PM
  #49  
Tom400CFI
CF Senior Member
 
Tom400CFI's Avatar
 
Member Since: Aug 2004
Location: Park City Utah
Posts: 13,808
Thanked 586 Times in 520 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Phoenix'97 View Post
The less the engine has to work the less fuel it needs to do the work, but I shouldn't have to tell any of you this.
So your engine is going to work less hard, but accelerate the car faster? Phoenix, have you ever met my friend, Physics? I want to see how you accomplish this magic.



Originally Posted by Phoenix'97 View Post
I feel the stroker suggestion will not fit the criteria that I have with regards to fuel economy. I looked into supercharging my LT1, nearly the same cost to stroke the engine, but I prefer to keep her naturally aspirated for simplicity. Besides what good is a stroker or supercharger for winter driving? I have to keep this in mind! Fuel economy needs to be a focus in this build!
This is a paragraph of cow dung.
1. I already showed you an example of a "Stroker" (and bore job) that got the same fuel economy before and after.
2. NO WAY in hell, a supercharger was the same cost as a stroker. You've stated already, that your engine needs a rebuild, and you have "your builder". The additional cost of stroking is hundreds of dollars....a supercharger is thousands. This was covered, by me, to you, several threads and one mountainous pile of cow dung ago.
3. A stroker is fine for winter use. Use the gas pedal as the variable device that it is.



Originally Posted by Phoenix'97 View Post
if I am using reproductions of the factory exhaust manifolds which are restrictive, and I am losing some power as a result, wouldn't this ultimately translate into marginal fuel savings? The car needs to be tuned for this restriction and as you all have said about more power requiring more fuel, well the inverse should be true as well, less power, less fuel!
I can't believe you type this stuff out, for public to see. YES Of course that is all totally correct! You could also accomplish the same thing, using an efficient exhaust...and then use the throttle pedal as the variable device that it is, to control power and fuel economy....and "winter/snow" driving with a stroker (on not).


.

Last edited by Tom400CFI; 05-16-2018 at 08:30 PM.
Tom400CFI is offline  
Old 05-16-2018, 09:02 PM
  #50  
Tom400CFI
CF Senior Member
 
Tom400CFI's Avatar
 
Member Since: Aug 2004
Location: Park City Utah
Posts: 13,808
Thanked 586 Times in 520 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Tom400CFI View Post
1. I already showed you an example of a "Stroker" (and bore job) that got the same fuel economy before and after.
Now, I've told you ^That^ in at least two of your threads. The most recent of which, you claimed that I made up my numbers.

I hand calc every tank every car, I always have. It's "a thing" that I do. Here is some evidence that I wasn't B.S.'ing:
HERE IS A POST from thirdgen, from 15 years ago.

I'm sure that there are more, if you care to take the time to look, but THIS POST HERE, from '04 gives a lot more detail.

What do you think? You think that it's fairly believable? Or ya think that I "planted" those posts there, 15 yeas ago, anticipating your posts 15 years in the future, and having a "15 year plan" to use them as fake evidence to make a fake point? What do ya think?

*I* Think it's a LOT more likely that I just simply posted the results back then...AND today, that I actually calc'ed when I filled my tank with gas.
Tom400CFI is offline  
Old 05-16-2018, 09:39 PM
  #51  
Phoenix'97
CF Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Phoenix'97's Avatar
 
Member Since: Oct 2017
Posts: 375
Thanked 4 Times in 4 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Tom400CFI View Post
So your engine is going to work less hard, but accelerate the car faster? Phoenix, have you ever met my friend, Physics? I want to see how you accomplish this magic...

... I can't believe you type this stuff out, for public to see. YES Of course that is all totally correct! You could also accomplish the same thing, using an efficient exhaust...
Well, restrictive exhaust manifolds from the factory don't seem to screw up their production cars any. It's just, you guys seek to increase performance from the factory. My LT1 ran fine with it's restrictive exhaust manifolds. So, I give up (horrible guesstimate), a ten or so HP and some few pounds of torque, right? If the set-up that Brian gave me is producing far more torque with 1.6 RRs than I would have achieved with a B-body LT1 factory camshaft and let alone with my stock camshaft, what am I losing by using factory exhaust manifold reproductions? Not much to cry about for a daily driver. You want to throw about "physics" in name only!



Originally Posted by Tom400CFI View Post
1. I already showed you an example of a "Stroker" (and bore job) that got the same fuel economy before and after.
2. NO WAY in hell, a supercharger was the same cost as a stroker. You've stated already, that your engine needs a rebuild, and you have "your builder". The additional cost of stroking is hundreds of dollars....a supercharger is thousands. This was covered, by me, to you, several threads and one mountainous pile of cow dung ago.
3. A stroker is fine for winter use. Use the gas pedal as the variable device that it is.

...and then use the throttle pedal as the variable device that it is, to control power and fuel economy....and "winter/snow" driving with a stroker (on not)...
GREGGPENN admitted that I will lose city mileage while possibly increasing highway mileage. Now, let me give you a strong idea of my concern about fuel economy with regards to winter.

As per the EPA website: (https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/coldweather.shtml)
"Fuel economy tests show that, in short-trip city driving, a conventional gasoline car's gas mileage is about 12% lower at 20F than it would be at 77F. It can drop as much as 22% for very short trips (3 to 4 miles)."

I have indeed lost around 12% fuel economy during the winter time given the added friction from road conditions and cold metal parts that need lubrication. I would like to know how a stroker motor would fair in terms of fuel economy loss when I stand to take a hit for city driving, which, during severe winter conditions, you spend a good half an hour or even an hour idling in traffic jams. I have my logic behind why I don't want a stroker.



Originally Posted by Tom400CFI View Post
Now, I've told you ^That^ in at least two of your threads. The most recent of which, you claimed that I made up my numbers.

I hand calc every tank every car, I always have. It's "a thing" that I do. Here is some evidence that I wasn't B.S.'ing:
HERE IS A POST from thirdgen, from 15 years ago.

I'm sure that there are more, if you care to take the time to look, but THIS POST HERE, from '04 gives a lot more detail.

What do you think? You think that it's fairly believable? Or ya think that I "planted" those posts there, 15 yeas ago, anticipating your posts 15 years in the future, and having a "15 year plan" to use them as fake evidence to make a fake point? What do ya think?

*I* Think it's a LOT more likely that I just simply posted the results back then...AND today, that I actually calc'ed when I filled my tank with gas.
Just because you post a number on a forum does not make it true. I actually log my mileage on the EPA website! What about you?

Phoenix'97 is offline  
Old 05-16-2018, 10:15 PM
  #52  
84 4+3
CF Senior Member
 
Member Since: Aug 2017
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 1,449
Thanked 166 Times in 148 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Phoenix'97 View Post
Well, restrictive exhaust manifolds from the factory don't seem to screw up their production cars any. It's just, you guys seek to increase performance from the factory. My LT1 ran fine with it's restrictive exhaust manifolds. So, I give up (horrible guesstimate), a ten or so HP and some few pounds of torque, right? If the set-up that Brian gave me is producing far more torque with 1.6 RRs than I would have achieved with a B-body LT1 factory camshaft and let alone with my stock camshaft, what am I losing by using factory exhaust manifold reproductions? Not much to cry about for a daily driver. You want to throw about "physics" in name only!





GREGGPENN admitted that I will lose city mileage while possibly increasing highway mileage. Now, let me give you a strong idea of my concern about fuel economy with regards to winter.

As per the EPA website: (https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/coldweather.shtml)
"Fuel economy tests show that, in short-trip city driving, a conventional gasoline car's gas mileage is about 12% lower at 20F than it would be at 77F. It can drop as much as 22% for very short trips (3 to 4 miles)."

I have indeed lost around 12% fuel economy during the winter time given the added friction from road conditions and cold metal parts that need lubrication. I would like to know how a stroker motor would fair in terms of fuel economy loss when I stand to take a hit for city driving, which, during severe winter conditions, you spend a good half an hour or even an hour idling in traffic jams. I have my logic behind why I don't want a stroker.





Just because you post a number on a forum does not make it true. I actually log my mileage on the EPA website! What about you?

The fuel economy reduction in the winter is from the crap winter blend of fuel more than anything... On top of that warm up time is increased so fluids take longer to thin out this thicker and more resistance in that respect. Road condition shouldn't have an affect, actually it should be less resistance because the tires are cooler... (that's why winter tires are sticky...)

I don't use anything fancy, just a notebook.
84 4+3 is offline  
Old 05-16-2018, 10:31 PM
  #53  
Phoenix'97
CF Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Phoenix'97's Avatar
 
Member Since: Oct 2017
Posts: 375
Thanked 4 Times in 4 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by 84 4+3 View Post
The fuel economy reduction in the winter is from the crap winter blend of fuel more than anything... On top of that warm up time is increased so fluids take longer to thin out this thicker and more resistance in that respect. Road condition shouldn't have an affect, actually it should be less resistance because the tires are cooler... (that's why winter tires are sticky...)

I don't use anything fancy, just a notebook.
Okay. I don't know why we need to have this discussion again over my choices for this build. I have thought about this on and off, obsessed over it, soul searched it, and tried to be honest with myself. I don't need a 6.0L version of my engine to make me happy. Something that replicates the L98 in my LT1 is really all that I want. I want to maintain my factory EPA mileage with the hope that this build will help to improve it, not by much but an improvement that can be recorded and maintained. On top of other means to reduce internal engine friction which lends itself to more power and fuel economy potential, using racing technology, I should be able to achieve my goal to bump up engine torque production over factory stock by as much as is possible with a camshaft change, low friction internal parts and coating, and the addition of that TPI intake that I am so obsessed with!

I don't need a stroker and really I have no desire for it. Brian's suggestion is what I will go with. There is no point to argue anymore.
Phoenix'97 is offline  
Old 05-16-2018, 10:56 PM
  #54  
MatthewMiller
CF Senior Member
 
MatthewMiller's Avatar
 
Member Since: Aug 2015
Location: St. Charles MO
Posts: 1,983
Thanked 283 Times in 237 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Phoenix'97 View Post
Here is a fine example of more power and better mileage, conservative driving taking advantage of either: more low end torque, OR, increased pumping ability from a supercharger. Conservative driving that takes advantage of more power production with regards to torque will help increase fuel mileage. The less the engine has to work the less fuel it needs to do the work, but I shouldn't have to tell any of you this.
You still don't understand any of this. Conservative driving to improve mileage means using less power and "torque," not more...at any rpm. Superchargers don't improve fuel efficiency - they decrease it...significantly. I don't understand what any of your ideas for a build have to do with the amount of work the engine has to do. The amount of work required is dependent on the mass and drag of the car and the rate of acceleration you're demanding of it via the gas pedal. That doesn't change just because you move your powerband around.

Another thought did dawn on me with regards to fuel economy, if I am using reproductions of the factory exhaust manifolds which are restrictive, and I am losing some power as a result, wouldn't this ultimately translate into marginal fuel savings?
No. Again, that's not how this works. A loss of power due to an exhaust restriction is not the same as a loss of power due to less fuel (leaning out the mixture), or smaller displacement, or less throttle angle. It is a loss of power purely due to pumping losses: you're using the same amount of fuel to make less power, which is the literal definition of "specific fuel consumption." It takes power to overcome the pumping loss of a more restrictive exhaust, but that power never makes it to the crankshaft. I had a long, drawn out attempt to discuss this with you in a previous thread, and you refused to acknowledge what I was trying to teach you. You were confusing high flow velocities from small-diameter exhaust primaries with poor flow rates caused by restrictions. They are not the same thing, no matter how much you insist that they are. The less restrictive your exhaust (all else being equal), the more efficient your engine will be at converting fuel BTUs into crankshaft power.

Well, restrictive exhaust manifolds from the factory don't seem to screw up their production cars any.
The factory used log-style cast manifolds through the 90s because they were uber-cheap, not because they were the best for performance of efficiency. And in fact, during that time Ford was going to extra expense to use better flowing manifolds for the Mustang GT in order to get more power of their smaller engine. In current times, manufacturers are indeed paying more and more attention to better flowing exhaust manifolds, even casting them as part of the head casting, in part to improve efficiency.
MatthewMiller is offline  
Old 05-16-2018, 11:11 PM
  #55  
Tom400CFI
CF Senior Member
 
Tom400CFI's Avatar
 
Member Since: Aug 2004
Location: Park City Utah
Posts: 13,808
Thanked 586 Times in 520 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Phoenix'97 View Post
I have my logic behind why I don't want a stroker.

Just because you post a number on a forum does not make it true. I actually log my mileage on the EPA website! What about you?
For the purpose of giving you advice, it really doesn't matter WTF I do with my data, where or how I keep it. What matters is how I've acquired it, and that I've acquired it. Just because you post a spread sheet on the 'net does not make it true. Right? That might be someone else's data that you copied. Or you just made it up to post. Right? Anyone with a modicum of brain cells, however, can reason that I didn't make up and post data, 15 years ago on a different forum, just so I could sucker you, today. Remember what I said about using your brain? Use your brain.

As for you having your logic...you have ideas....there isn't much logic involved, if you know how motors and cars work. I threw out "physics" because it matters. Facts and understanding matter. Now you've twisted the original point into something else. You originally stated that....never mind. This is total waste of time. Everyone can see what you're doing.
Tom400CFI is offline  
Old 05-16-2018, 11:20 PM
  #56  
Tom400CFI
CF Senior Member
 
Tom400CFI's Avatar
 
Member Since: Aug 2004
Location: Park City Utah
Posts: 13,808
Thanked 586 Times in 520 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Phoenix'97 View Post
I don't need a 6.0L version of my engine to make me happy. Something that replicates the L98 in my LT1 is really all that I want..
You have no F'N IDEA what you want....because you've still not gone out and driven an L98 car! -Like you've been told to do, several times now.

Originally Posted by Phoenix'97 View Post
I want to maintain my factory EPA mileage with the hope that this build will help to improve it, not by much but an improvement that can be recorded and maintained.
You don't know that either! It's a WAG. The TPI got worse gas mileage than the LT1 car...so on what basis can you claim any kind of increase? None.


Originally Posted by Phoenix'97 View Post
I don't need a stroker and really I have no desire for it.
You don't know what you want. because you've still not gone out and driven an L98 car! -Like you've been told to do, several times now.


Originally Posted by Phoenix'97 View Post
Brian's suggestion is what I will go with. There is no point to argue anymore.
Great so you're done here, then! BTW; no one is arguing...just correcting.


Originally Posted by MatthewMiller View Post
You still don't understand any of this. The amount of work required is dependent on the mass and drag of the car and the rate of acceleration you're demanding of it via the gas pedal.
This is "physics" Phoenix. It matters.

Last edited by Tom400CFI; 05-16-2018 at 11:28 PM.
Tom400CFI is offline  
Old 05-16-2018, 11:55 PM
  #57  
Tom400CFI
CF Senior Member
 
Tom400CFI's Avatar
 
Member Since: Aug 2004
Location: Park City Utah
Posts: 13,808
Thanked 586 Times in 520 Posts
Default

LOL just re-reading some old posts and found the actual, raw numbers from 17 years ago!

POST 25

POST 49

Yep. I planted those posts there, 17 years ago, anticipating that some guy named Penix would come along in 2018 (on a forum that I wasn't yet a member of, and didn't yet know existed)...and I could GIT 'IM, with the made up stuff I posted in '01! First though, I had to PM a bunch of guys on thridgen, and have them set up a fake thread about fuel pressure regulators, -a thread in which I could cleverly lace my made up data for later "fake news" use in another forum!


Ahhh...these threads are SO dumb. So dumb....
Tom400CFI is offline  
Old 05-17-2018, 02:29 AM
  #58  
GREGGPENN
CF Senior Member
 
GREGGPENN's Avatar
 
Member Since: Nov 2003
Location: Overland Park Kansas
Posts: 11,285
Thanked 116 Times in 111 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by MatthewMiller View Post
I don't understand what any of your ideas for a build have to do with the amount of work the engine has to do. The amount of work required is dependent on the mass and drag of the car and the rate of acceleration you're demanding of it via the gas pedal. That doesn't change just because you move your powerband around..... A loss of power due to an exhaust restriction is not the same as a loss of power due to less fuel (leaning out the mixture), or smaller displacement, or less throttle angle. It is a loss of power purely due to pumping losses: you're using the same amount of fuel to make less power, which is the literal definition of "specific fuel consumption." It takes power to overcome the pumping loss of a more restrictive exhaust, but that power never makes it to the crankshaft. I had a long, drawn out attempt to discuss this with you in a previous thread, and you refused to acknowledge what I was trying to teach you. You were confusing high flow velocities from small-diameter exhaust primaries with poor flow rates caused by restrictions. They are not the same thing, no matter how much you insist that they are. The less restrictive your exhaust (all else being equal), the more efficient your engine will be at converting fuel BTUs into crankshaft power.
Some great points made above. The only thing I would add is that you should use a similar amount of fuel with a 4-cylinder or 12-cylinder engine -- propelling the same weight car. Any differences would be due to friction/drivetrain loss. Going from a V8 to a V8 stroker doesn't add to your losses. You'd need LESS accelerator pedal to propel the car with a stroker. Also, less drivetrain loss with a higher compression engine (e.g., via stroking). The BIG bonus is you'd have more potential power on tap if/when you wanted it. Plus, you'd have the extra torque at the LOWEST rpms. That's why more cubes provide the best answer to your SPECIFIC desires.

There is kind of a "dead spot" on a TPI at the lowest rpms. I mentioned this before. It's because it takes more work to move air into the engine because of the longer tubes. You might not FEEL it but it's measurable and documented. You definitely won't FEEL it when swapping in a longtube intake and cam COMBO. That's because the cam WILL increase power vs what you've been used to.

It's BECAUSE you've been so INSISTENT on the best possible off-idle mpg/performance that we've continued to point out the LT1 intake isn't such a bad choice. Or...even CONCEEDED to smaller cams in response to your own WORRY. Stroking and gearing have been offered for specific reasons related to YOUR needs....not our own "racing addictions".

Did you ever consider that gearing is the ONLY option where you don't have to tune or worry about emissions in your state? Plus you don't have to worry about intake clearance, tuning, or changing from the "heritage" of the car you seem to want to keep.

I know...I know....hwy mileage. To be honest, I'm not sure anyone so conservative/worried about hwy mpg would see much of a loss with gears. How much driving do you (will you) do on the hwy anyway? For me, it's probably 10%. A 10% change to 10% of my driving is only about 1% real world difference. IOW...it's insignificant.

If I TRIED to get the best mpg with my stroker (vs my OEM setup), I wouldn't be surprised if I could better my OEM numbers. I tried driving feather-footed once (for grins) and felt like it would be true. However, I didn't document strictly...because I didn't care. If I cared THAT much about mpg, I probably wouldn't have bought a vette...or built for more power.

If you HAVE more power, you WILL use it. If you WANTED that power enough to BUILD it in, you WILL use it. Take that to the bank.
GREGGPENN is offline  
Old 05-17-2018, 02:41 AM
  #59  
GREGGPENN
CF Senior Member
 
GREGGPENN's Avatar
 
Member Since: Nov 2003
Location: Overland Park Kansas
Posts: 11,285
Thanked 116 Times in 111 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Phoenix'97 View Post
GREGGPENN admitted that I will lose city mileage while possibly increasing highway mileage. Now, let me give you a strong idea of my concern about fuel economy with regards to winter.
I'd have to see the context of when/where I said that.


Originally Posted by Phoenix'97 View Post
I have indeed lost around 12% fuel economy during the winter time given the added friction from road conditions and cold metal parts that need lubrication. I would like to know how a stroker motor would fair in terms of fuel economy loss when I stand to take a hit for city driving, which, during severe winter conditions, you spend a good half an hour or even an hour idling in traffic jams. I have my logic behind why I don't want a stroker.
By that logic, you shouldn't "cam it" either. Even with a cam you're just as likely to DECREASE idle mpg. For one thing cams usually require a higher idle for driveability (50-100rpms). Unless you raise compression (via heads/pistons), camming will lower dynamic compression. Lower compression is less efficient and may decrease mpg further. This MAY be why I said you're likely to lose city mileage? I don't remember saying why you might gain mpg on the hwy....unless MAYBE you are able to upshift slightly sooner in higher gears. You know....lug it.

High compression and good cylinder head (chamber) designs did about the most for mpg until newer engines were designed (with things like variable timing, direct injection, etc...)

Last edited by GREGGPENN; 05-17-2018 at 02:45 AM. Reason: changed the word increase to decrease
GREGGPENN is offline  
Old 05-17-2018, 09:15 AM
  #60  
84 4+3
CF Senior Member
 
Member Since: Aug 2017
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 1,449
Thanked 166 Times in 148 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by Phoenix'97 View Post
Okay. I don't know why we need to have this discussion again over my choices for this build. I have thought about this on and off, obsessed over it, soul searched it, and tried to be honest with myself. I don't need a 6.0L version of my engine to make me happy. Something that replicates the L98 in my LT1 is really all that I want. I want to maintain my factory EPA mileage with the hope that this build will help to improve it, not by much but an improvement that can be recorded and maintained. On top of other means to reduce internal engine friction which lends itself to more power and fuel economy potential, using racing technology, I should be able to achieve my goal to bump up engine torque production over factory stock by as much as is possible with a camshaft change, low friction internal parts and coating, and the addition of that TPI intake that I am so obsessed with!

I don't need a stroker and really I have no desire for it. Brian's suggestion is what I will go with. There is no point to argue anymore.
I never once said to stroke the damn thing... I explained why you lose fuel economy in the winter and then just showed you my log for my DD... it's a straight 6 engine. I meant it as I log my fuel economy too. My log goes back about 4 years...

Now the 383 in the work truck gets 10mpg no matter what as did the 350 and so does the 6.0l ls in the Sierra. But you're talking 6k and 7.5k weighted vehicles respectively. Never once brought them up here.

If you want lower friction just replace all the bearings with needle bearings. Boom.
84 4+3 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Quick Reply: Comments for Phoenix'97 on the TPI LT1 concept.


Sponsored Ads
Vendor Directory

Contact Us - About Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

© 2019 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands

We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.
 
  • Ask a Question
    Get answers from community experts
Question Title:
Description:
Your question will be posted in: