 
     |
| Project 3400 Roller Cam Block (Page 63/82) |
|
ericjon262
|
JAN 22, 08:22 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by lou_dias:
You can claim anything you want about the exhaust. It's not stock and is probably better than stock since we all know stock exhausts generally suck.
As for "area under the curve", again, it depends how you measure.
|
|
this is like you can measure the area of a rectangle 2 different ways and get 2 different results, it doesn't work that way... area under the curve is area under the curve, I don't understand how this is a hard concept.
| quote | Originally posted by lou_dias:
The dyno operator on my graph gunned it at just over 2000rpm so my tip-in was bad but I was still flat close to 249 ft*lbs from 2000rpm to 3600 rpm which is higher than this 3500. That configuration just got a base tune from Ryan and as you can see it's pretty rich never going above 12:1 and dipping as the RPM go up, so it definitely had some power left on the table. In fact we are making about the same HP at my peak of 4100ish. My graph cuts off at 5200. It seems I am higher for ~2000rpm and the 3500 is higher for 1200 rpm. You'd have to really plot it out on excel but the "area under the curve" difference is minimal at best either way and my intake had a documented/well-known restriction. For daily street driving, my engine - back then, would feel stronger.
Again, please wait a couple of months until I can get the old intake back on, now with the DAWG mod done to it instead of continuing this "war of attrition". I've always been open about my mods and will continue to do so...even when it has shown that I lost power (like when I switched intakes). I'm not here to hide anything. If I can squeeze more power out of my setup, then everyone can copy it if they choose and benefit from it.
|
|
why do you always blame someone else when your engine doesn't perform? first you blame Ryan, now you blame the dyno operator, who next? me?
I'd rather my engine be stronger then just feel stonger.
|
|
|
|
lou_dias
|
JAN 23, 09:31 AM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by ericjon262:
why do you always blame someone else when your engine doesn't perform? first you blame Ryan, now you blame the dyno operator, who next? me?
I'd rather my engine be stronger then just feel stonger. |
|
Where do I blame Ryan? He sent me a base tune for my mods. With the stock chip it was running even richer because of the Ford injectors. I never asked for more tuning on the Fiero ECM setup because I moved to the Trueleo + '7730 + DIS. Who's putting words in who's mouth now?[This message has been edited by lou_dias (edited 01-23-2014).]
|
|
|
|
lou_dias
|
JAN 23, 09:36 AM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by Blacktree:
Been there, done that. My old 2.8 V6 started out with a ported stock intake and stock throttle body. When I replaced it with the Trueleo intake and a Buick GN throttle body (59mm), I gained about 2 HP. Whoopty-freaking-doo. 
The problem? I don't think the rest of the engine was able to make use of the better intake. Sound familiar? IMO, the solution is not to put a crappy intake back on, but rather improve the rest of the engine so it can use the better intake. That starts with the camshaft. And since your heads are already aggressively ported, they should respond pretty well to a camshaft upgrade.
Not to be rude, but I think you're knee-capping your engine by keeping the "grocery getter" camshaft in it. |
|
I understand that but I'm not going to remove a running engine. So to get and exceed power, I'm doing a simple intake swap with the added DAWG-mod.
I actually need to get the S neck redesigned into an L on the Trueleo setup so that I can actually put on an intake tube and air filter on that setup. Right now the TB sits infront of the hinge which prevents me from running a proper CAI system...
The Fiero intake with DAWG-mod has been shown to flow in excess of 375 cfm which in plenty for any 3.4L NA motor to ~6000rpm...and my ports are larger than the one flow-tested...[This message has been edited by lou_dias (edited 01-23-2014).]
|
|
|
|
Will
|
JAN 23, 10:29 AM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by lou_dias:
So there are gear-sets for the F40? If there are, I'd also like to replace 1st gear if the final is going that high...as well as space out 4-5-6 more to get some economy back... |
|
There's an older 3.91 set available for the F40, as well as modern 3.73's and maybe one in the 4's. I assume you have teh 3.55. The '06 and older transmissions had taller 3rd-6th gears, while the '07 and newer units had shorter 3rd-6th. The 3.79 first you likely have now is the tallest first made for that transmission... you won't do better than that without going custom.
|
|
|
|
lou_dias
|
JAN 23, 10:34 AM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by Will:
There's an older 3.91 set available for the F40, as well as modern 3.73's and maybe one in the 4's. I assume you have teh 3.55. The '06 and older transmissions had taller 3rd-6th gears, while the '07 and newer units had shorter 3rd-6th. The 3.79 first you likely have now is the tallest first made for that transmission... you won't do better than that without going custom. |
|
Yeah, this car is the Archie 2.8 F40 prototype so it's an '05 transmission installed in March 2006. So I'm running the 3.55 ... thanks for the info.
|
|
|
|
Blacktree
|
JAN 23, 11:51 AM
|
|
| quote | | Originally posted by lou_dias: I understand that but I'm not going to remove a running engine. |
|
Aww, c'mon... where's your sense of adventure? 
|
|
|
|
ericjon262
|
JAN 24, 07:25 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by lou_dias:
Where do I blame Ryan? He sent me a base tune for my mods. With the stock chip it was running even richer because of the Ford injectors. I never asked for more tuning on the Fiero ECM setup because I moved to the Trueleo + '7730 + DIS. Who's putting words in who's mouth now?
|
|
you did it either on here or RFT, I remember Ryan dropping in to set the record straight after you bashed his mail order chip without sending him datalogs. I'm not about to go digging it up, you know you did, I know you did.
| quote | Originally posted by lou_dias:
The Fiero intake with DAWG-mod has been shown to flow in excess of 375 cfm which in plenty for any 3.4L NA motor to ~6000rpm...and my ports are larger than the one flow-tested...
|
|
now you're throwing flow numbers out there... so why is it when someone posts a flow number of a head, it doesn't matter, but you post the flow of an intake and it's magically supposed to matter?
|
|
|
|
carbon
|
JAN 25, 11:56 AM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by ericjon262:
206 hp, and looks like 235 or so ftlbs with way more area under the curve then you.
|
|
More like 245 or so ft.lbs... the torque scale is on the right. 
|
|
|
|
ericjon262
|
JAN 25, 12:04 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by carbon:
More like 245 or so ft.lbs... the torque scale is on the right. |
|
thanks, I didn't notice they were different.
|
|
|
|
lou_dias
|
JAN 25, 02:18 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by ericjon262:
you did it either on here or RFT, I remember Ryan dropping in to set the record straight after you bashed his mail order chip without sending him datalogs. I'm not about to go digging it up, you know you did, I know you did.
|
|
I said I'm done with them because I accept they'll never be perfect and I bought the hardware to do it myself. With the Fiero intake, the motor ran normal but when I snapped an axle the 2nd time, I had the ECM and intake switch done. So no performance tuning was done on the Fiero ECM. Ryan then sent me a chip for the 7730 setup. So I had paid Ryan twice now, iirc.
When I switched to '7730+dis+Trueleo: I spent more time just trying to get the motor running normal-ish that by the time it came to do performance tuning, the contracted tuning year was up and we had done no tuning. It was during this time I figured out I could use the 2000PPM output on the 7730 as an extra divisor for running the speedo with the F40 without a Dakota Digital unit. So when I looked at the costs, it was cheaper to buy the hardware and start learning how to do it myself. That's not a bash, that's simple economics. If Ryan 'set the record straight' on RFT, I'm sure you can count on one hand how many times I look at RFT.
| quote | Originally posted by ericjon262:
now you're throwing flow numbers out there... so why is it when someone posts a flow number of a head, it doesn't matter, but you post the flow of an intake and it's magically supposed to matter?
|
|
Someone here posted flow #'s to show the intake neck restriction which you like to pretend I didn't have when the motor made 187/249. If 165 cfm ported heads has made 205rwhp and we know 185 cfm CNC ported iron heads exist, why do you still insist that the HEADS are the main restriction in iron head motors? The intake is the restriction - PERIOD...and also an unported exhaust system... Because I can't stick a long intake tube with an air filter infront of my Trueleo, I couldn't build a pressure stream to create the TPI effect. It's the same problem individual throttle body intakes have at low rpm because you have to spin those engines to ridiculous rpm to mask the problem. With the current Trueleo intake setup I have, my motor is a dog until about 3000 rpm. With the old setup it felt as torque-y as my 4.9 and a dyno has proven as such that the trade-off was 12 more rwhp with 16 less rwTq compared to the 4.9.[This message has been edited by lou_dias (edited 01-25-2014).]
|
|
|
|