Another new PUMP gas record, thanks Driven Innovations
Feb 24, 2008, 03:42 PM
#301
Evolving Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: 900 pounds lighter than a X.
Posts: 486
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think I have listed what I feel is important to making big power on pump gas actually.
Tell you what. I'll get into it more when I dyno my RS on 93 octane in a week or so. I intend to set another new record with my own car when that time comes. I'll be pushing for 35 psi or more on 93 when I do it. 600 is NOT going to be a problem on our dyno.
Tell you what. I'll get into it more when I dyno my RS on 93 octane in a week or so. I intend to set another new record with my own car when that time comes. I'll be pushing for 35 psi or more on 93 when I do it. 600 is NOT going to be a problem on our dyno.
Feb 24, 2008, 03:51 PM
#304
Evolving Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: 900 pounds lighter than a X.
Posts: 486
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just get Bob Dylan in the back ground...knockknockknockin on heaven's door LOL!!
Last edited by U2SLO; Feb 24, 2008 at 03:55 PM.
this is gonna be interesting
Feb 24, 2008, 06:13 PM
#309
Evolved Member
iTrader: (19)
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: NJ
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
By all means, I enjoy reading the results of your testing, and I certainly give credit where it is due. Perhaps the most important point for those who remain skeptical is the results are very real, and this isn't an isolated case.
DTM did it for me, but it need not be so complicated.
Well, one thing to keep in mind is that 600hp is 600hp is 600hp, no matter how you slice it.
DTM did it for me, but it need not be so complicated.
Well, one thing to keep in mind is that 600hp is 600hp is 600hp, no matter how you slice it.
so reliability is what i was questioning.
Feb 24, 2008, 06:18 PM
#310
Evolved Member
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 874
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry to qoute such alot of text but these two posts are the best bit of technical informantion ive seen on any forum in a long while 
The timing VS boost balancing act is a tough one and is different for every engine, but what would be the biggest contributing factors in being able to run big boost and still a reasonable amount of timing without getting to the point of diminishing power returns and high EGT's? I think i allready know the answer, your going to say its a combination of all parts which all add to improving effeciency, but i would like to know what parts/tuning matter most. How much does boost make more power than timing?
Ted B, do you think this comment you made nearly a year ago still stands? Do you think your knowledge on this has changed much recently due to what Dave B and the UK tuners have proven? This was quoted from this thread https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/sh...d.php?t=250559
The timing VS boost balancing act is a tough one and is different for every engine, but what would be the biggest contributing factors in being able to run big boost and still a reasonable amount of timing without getting to the point of diminishing power returns and high EGT's? I think i allready know the answer, your going to say its a combination of all parts which all add to improving effeciency, but i would like to know what parts/tuning matter most. How much does boost make more power than timing?
Your quest for knowledge is downright expected! You have the right to question and ponder how or why something that may not be mainstream is accepted by a group of individual tuner(s), customers or forum members.
With that said, for every exaggerated or legitimate claim, there still needs to be factual and theoretical basis for truth without hype as its main driving source.
The "general" consensus you mention; "20-22 psi is dangerous on pump gas" is not only incorrect but not common practice. Maybe in the honda world or 240 community but not here. But, let me say this, it is not your fault that you were told or taught that theory. In practice we can see that it is a variable that many people do not understand.
The ability to run xx boost pressure has to do with many controlled and dynamic variables. The key point to remember is that airflow and boost pressure are not the same thing. It is a very common misconception. If not the greatest myth in this industry second to exhaust "backpressure."
The ability to run a specific boost pressure is dictated by and not limited to the following:
Turbo (compressor) inlet pressure and temperature
Discharge pressure, velocity and temperature
IC design, flow rate, heat exchange efficiency and outlet velocity
Differential pressure between the throttle blade and the intake plenum.
Charge temperature after the IC and in the engine bay
Type of material used to transfer this charge to the engine components named above
Head: port velocity, valve face and bowl geometry, inlet and exhaust port geometry, flow rate, coolant temp, combustion chamber shape, size and cc.
Cam profile: lift and duration for a given piston speed and engine displacement
Quench area, piston design, static and dynamic compression, rpm, combustion chamber turbulence, flame speed and propagation, injection angle and atomization, fuel droplet size vs air molecule density and how the fuel and air molecules attach to each other.
Ignition lead, quality of the spark, plug gap, cylinder temp, charge temp and air fuel ratio.
Valve overlap and scavenging properties based on the rpm band and the design of the exhaust header.
Turbine nozzle area, exhaust gas velocity, port taper and flow rate, differential pressure between the inlet of the turbo chargers hot side and the discharge area.
And of course the type, design and efficiency of the entire turbocharger.
EDIT I guess I should a competent Tuner!
DB and many other have obviously figured out how to use a combination of parts that make this equation work for them. It really isn't that hard to see.
What many will question, is the reliability associated with the type of fuel being used. Again no one has tested these limits or extremes before so it seems a bit "strange" For those who have seen or tested it it is becoming quite common.
Keep some things in mind here, if you look at the specific vehicles that claim this type of power level, what are the common combination of parts being utilized?
And no the answer (I'm sorry dave) is not ALL BUSCHUR products. It is the right combination of parts as stated many times BY Dave. That is the key. Most of, if not all 4-5 vehicles I have seen and researched have very similar setups. Dave can claim that his parts and his tuning produce those results because they are IN FACT his combination, that he assembled, whether he made them or not, they are producing said results. BUT that does not mean that others have not done the same. He is just smart enough to be different and provide a product that works for him and his customers are happy with the results.
Since 06 when we sponsored a cylinder head for one of our local customers we immediately saw amazing gains with pump gas and one of our hybrid 35's What we were making on pump gas, a blueprinted and ported cylinder head, stock block, and 18 psi of boost was more than previous versions with NO cylinder head work at all. Actually over 55 WHP. At that time 18 psi and 420 WHP on our MD dyno was outstanding. We would not see that number unless we ran alky and 25-26 psi on the same turbo before. Knock was almost extinct. I remember trying to get to the knock threshold of the engine, but instead reached a power loss over any signs of detonation.
Bottom line is that it takes quite a bit of trial and error to get to that point. Maybe Dave finally got there? It seems so.
.
With that said, for every exaggerated or legitimate claim, there still needs to be factual and theoretical basis for truth without hype as its main driving source.
The "general" consensus you mention; "20-22 psi is dangerous on pump gas" is not only incorrect but not common practice. Maybe in the honda world or 240 community but not here. But, let me say this, it is not your fault that you were told or taught that theory. In practice we can see that it is a variable that many people do not understand.
The ability to run xx boost pressure has to do with many controlled and dynamic variables. The key point to remember is that airflow and boost pressure are not the same thing. It is a very common misconception. If not the greatest myth in this industry second to exhaust "backpressure."
The ability to run a specific boost pressure is dictated by and not limited to the following:
Turbo (compressor) inlet pressure and temperature
Discharge pressure, velocity and temperature
IC design, flow rate, heat exchange efficiency and outlet velocity
Differential pressure between the throttle blade and the intake plenum.
Charge temperature after the IC and in the engine bay
Type of material used to transfer this charge to the engine components named above
Head: port velocity, valve face and bowl geometry, inlet and exhaust port geometry, flow rate, coolant temp, combustion chamber shape, size and cc.
Cam profile: lift and duration for a given piston speed and engine displacement
Quench area, piston design, static and dynamic compression, rpm, combustion chamber turbulence, flame speed and propagation, injection angle and atomization, fuel droplet size vs air molecule density and how the fuel and air molecules attach to each other.
Ignition lead, quality of the spark, plug gap, cylinder temp, charge temp and air fuel ratio.
Valve overlap and scavenging properties based on the rpm band and the design of the exhaust header.
Turbine nozzle area, exhaust gas velocity, port taper and flow rate, differential pressure between the inlet of the turbo chargers hot side and the discharge area.
And of course the type, design and efficiency of the entire turbocharger.
EDIT I guess I should a competent Tuner!
DB and many other have obviously figured out how to use a combination of parts that make this equation work for them. It really isn't that hard to see.
What many will question, is the reliability associated with the type of fuel being used. Again no one has tested these limits or extremes before so it seems a bit "strange" For those who have seen or tested it it is becoming quite common.
Keep some things in mind here, if you look at the specific vehicles that claim this type of power level, what are the common combination of parts being utilized?
And no the answer (I'm sorry dave) is not ALL BUSCHUR products. It is the right combination of parts as stated many times BY Dave. That is the key. Most of, if not all 4-5 vehicles I have seen and researched have very similar setups. Dave can claim that his parts and his tuning produce those results because they are IN FACT his combination, that he assembled, whether he made them or not, they are producing said results. BUT that does not mean that others have not done the same. He is just smart enough to be different and provide a product that works for him and his customers are happy with the results.
Since 06 when we sponsored a cylinder head for one of our local customers we immediately saw amazing gains with pump gas and one of our hybrid 35's What we were making on pump gas, a blueprinted and ported cylinder head, stock block, and 18 psi of boost was more than previous versions with NO cylinder head work at all. Actually over 55 WHP. At that time 18 psi and 420 WHP on our MD dyno was outstanding. We would not see that number unless we ran alky and 25-26 psi on the same turbo before. Knock was almost extinct. I remember trying to get to the knock threshold of the engine, but instead reached a power loss over any signs of detonation.
Bottom line is that it takes quite a bit of trial and error to get to that point. Maybe Dave finally got there? It seems so.
.
The simple version . . .
The piston is moving faster than the flame front. The position of the piston (after it crosses TDC) has a direct bearing on what we get in the way of power and EGT, all else being relatively equal. This is important to remember when we think how ignition timing relates to the position of the piston in the bore when max cyl pressure is reached. Max cyl pressure is a factor of static pressure (piston position) and air density (boost pressure) when the charge is ignited.
If our turbo is plenty efficient and of ample size, and we set our boost pressure to let's say 20 psi across the board, we tune to the detonation threshold and record a certain amount of power. At that point, if we advance the timing any further, the limits of pump fuel octane will prevent the piston from being any higher in the bore when max cyl pressure occurs, simply because the fuel becomes unstable when subjected to greater static pressure.
If we raise the boost pressure to 25 psi, we have to retard the timing to adjust to the new detonation threshold, which means that when max cyl pressure is reached, the piston will be a little further down the bore (static pressure slightly reduced). The difference is that at 25 psi, we make more power because the same volume of air in the cylinder is more dense (more O2 molecules), and this offsets the fact that the static cyl pressure is not as great, simply because the piston is a little further from TDC.
As we keep increasing the boost pressure, we will reach a point where the increased air density cannot compensate for the reduction in static pressure, simply because the detonation threshold sets our piston too far down the bore when max cyl pressure is reached. When we get to this point, increasing the boost further and resetting the timing gives no more power, and we see an increase in EGT, because the fuel charge is burning so late in piston travel, that it is still burning when the exhaust valve is opened. We don't want this, so monitoring EGT is a good idea when tuning like this. The unknown here is that where this point occurs will be different according to a variety of physical and mechanical factors. Differences in cams, headwork, intake, exhaust, piston design, turbo particulars etc., will all play a role. For example, if we reduce our static compression ratio (SCR) slightly, we can get away with a bit more boost pressure until we hit this point.
Please understand that this explanation omits numerous variables and aggravating factors. It serves as a simple explanation - an explanation that also illustrates why increasing air density trumps static compression . . . until a practical limit anyway.
I'm on the beach at the present, so no more car talk for me today.
The piston is moving faster than the flame front. The position of the piston (after it crosses TDC) has a direct bearing on what we get in the way of power and EGT, all else being relatively equal. This is important to remember when we think how ignition timing relates to the position of the piston in the bore when max cyl pressure is reached. Max cyl pressure is a factor of static pressure (piston position) and air density (boost pressure) when the charge is ignited.
If our turbo is plenty efficient and of ample size, and we set our boost pressure to let's say 20 psi across the board, we tune to the detonation threshold and record a certain amount of power. At that point, if we advance the timing any further, the limits of pump fuel octane will prevent the piston from being any higher in the bore when max cyl pressure occurs, simply because the fuel becomes unstable when subjected to greater static pressure.
If we raise the boost pressure to 25 psi, we have to retard the timing to adjust to the new detonation threshold, which means that when max cyl pressure is reached, the piston will be a little further down the bore (static pressure slightly reduced). The difference is that at 25 psi, we make more power because the same volume of air in the cylinder is more dense (more O2 molecules), and this offsets the fact that the static cyl pressure is not as great, simply because the piston is a little further from TDC.
As we keep increasing the boost pressure, we will reach a point where the increased air density cannot compensate for the reduction in static pressure, simply because the detonation threshold sets our piston too far down the bore when max cyl pressure is reached. When we get to this point, increasing the boost further and resetting the timing gives no more power, and we see an increase in EGT, because the fuel charge is burning so late in piston travel, that it is still burning when the exhaust valve is opened. We don't want this, so monitoring EGT is a good idea when tuning like this. The unknown here is that where this point occurs will be different according to a variety of physical and mechanical factors. Differences in cams, headwork, intake, exhaust, piston design, turbo particulars etc., will all play a role. For example, if we reduce our static compression ratio (SCR) slightly, we can get away with a bit more boost pressure until we hit this point.
Please understand that this explanation omits numerous variables and aggravating factors. It serves as a simple explanation - an explanation that also illustrates why increasing air density trumps static compression . . . until a practical limit anyway.
I'm on the beach at the present, so no more car talk for me today.
Ted B, do you think this comment you made nearly a year ago still stands? Do you think your knowledge on this has changed much recently due to what Dave B and the UK tuners have proven? This was quoted from this thread https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/sh...d.php?t=250559
Just a minute you two!
Anyone can crank up the boost with low octane fuel on the street, so long as the ignition timing is retarded - very far. This gives no greater power than less boost and a more realistic ignition map, and increases the EGT significantly. I'd love to know what the EGT was for this car, and I'll bet it was through the roof.
I hope this sheds some clarification on the subject, and it sounds like those UK guys running all that pressure on low octane fuel are slowly cooking their exhaust components with all that heat.
Anyone can crank up the boost with low octane fuel on the street, so long as the ignition timing is retarded - very far. This gives no greater power than less boost and a more realistic ignition map, and increases the EGT significantly. I'd love to know what the EGT was for this car, and I'll bet it was through the roof.
I hope this sheds some clarification on the subject, and it sounds like those UK guys running all that pressure on low octane fuel are slowly cooking their exhaust components with all that heat.
Last edited by JC evo1; Feb 24, 2008 at 06:20 PM.
Feb 24, 2008, 06:51 PM
#311
Evolved Member
iTrader: (13)
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Las Vegas and HATING it
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
OK all this power has me thinking Dave. Seem how my build in a few weeks here will be just about the same as Peters car, if not the same, here it goes...
We talked about E85 cause I have it all around me when you do this build on 1200's. You said maybe 26psi would be possible and we would be out of injector.
Pump at 30 psi has shown awsome power already.
I was just sitting here wondering what would be better for the street power wise
I guess we will find out when we cross that bridge
We talked about E85 cause I have it all around me when you do this build on 1200's. You said maybe 26psi would be possible and we would be out of injector.
Pump at 30 psi has shown awsome power already.
I was just sitting here wondering what would be better for the street power wise
I guess we will find out when we cross that bridge
Feb 24, 2008, 07:07 PM
#315
Account Disabled
iTrader: (10)
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 1,180
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK all this power has me thinking Dave. Seem how my build in a few weeks here will be just about the same as Peters car, if not the same, here it goes...
We talked about E85 cause I have it all around me when you do this build on 1200's. You said maybe 26psi would be possible and we would be out of injector.
Pump at 30 psi has shown awsome power already.
I was just sitting here wondering what would be better for the street power wise
I guess we will find out when we cross that bridge
We talked about E85 cause I have it all around me when you do this build on 1200's. You said maybe 26psi would be possible and we would be out of injector.
Pump at 30 psi has shown awsome power already.
I was just sitting here wondering what would be better for the street power wise
I guess we will find out when we cross that bridge
If you have e85 available i wouldn't even consider pushing the limits of pump gas...