Sup w/them 2024 Summer Projects?
Jan 19, 2021, 08:36 AM
#2806
I dont know if I posted about my testing at the end of this season with RC adjustment vs front bar to get a little more roll control.
Front RC adjustment, I swapped out my OG fixed ball joints for the newer adjustable version with +0, +5, and +10 settings. I had +0 in the car and went to +10 setting on new joints. I dont recall all the specifics of what I felt in the car since it was like 5 month ago, but it was a move in the right direction. Front was sharper as you'd expect from reduced roll couple, and I just felt a little less of that flopped over feel. Wasnt back to back on same course so its all subjective, but if it wasnt better Its 5min to adjust back, but +10 is staying in. Total of 60mm roll correction up front now.
The change was done between Packwood Tour and Pro. Tour was really good (I raw timed people I shouldnt be raw timing...), Pro was really great (Even giving up 0.2 on each side from launch and RT, and Left being the WORST COURSE EVER, I was a tenth out of top PAX from Keisel).
Front Swaybar, I run stock front bar on extra soft setting (~70% of factory) normally. With lifting inside rear, I had an idea I thought to be wrong but wanted to verify. I thought, what if more front bar gave the rear more to leverage off, would that make the rear a little more effective with the front giving a net increase at both ends? So I stiffened back to 100% stock setting. Results were just weak. It was fine in transitions and slaloms but it really was ****ty when you needed the front like big offsets or tight sweepers. Front just didn't want to bite.
I was annoyed enough here I bailed on the car after 3 runs and let my codriver for the day keep playing and jumped into an RX7 with all the power and none of the diff which was way more exciting
So Im going to order the Cusco 21mm bar to go even softer up front and see if I'm in the happy range or it still wants less. I know it didn't like no bar after spending a full season trying to make that work. But it seems to want just a little. The 21mm bar is 64% of stock and with the bracket I can get a little stiffer than I am now or a lot softer. It also has the benefit of more deflection at this setting to push past bushing slop/squish (a minor thing, but a thing).
Front RC adjustment, I swapped out my OG fixed ball joints for the newer adjustable version with +0, +5, and +10 settings. I had +0 in the car and went to +10 setting on new joints. I dont recall all the specifics of what I felt in the car since it was like 5 month ago, but it was a move in the right direction. Front was sharper as you'd expect from reduced roll couple, and I just felt a little less of that flopped over feel. Wasnt back to back on same course so its all subjective, but if it wasnt better Its 5min to adjust back, but +10 is staying in. Total of 60mm roll correction up front now.
The change was done between Packwood Tour and Pro. Tour was really good (I raw timed people I shouldnt be raw timing...), Pro was really great (Even giving up 0.2 on each side from launch and RT, and Left being the WORST COURSE EVER, I was a tenth out of top PAX from Keisel).
Front Swaybar, I run stock front bar on extra soft setting (~70% of factory) normally. With lifting inside rear, I had an idea I thought to be wrong but wanted to verify. I thought, what if more front bar gave the rear more to leverage off, would that make the rear a little more effective with the front giving a net increase at both ends? So I stiffened back to 100% stock setting. Results were just weak. It was fine in transitions and slaloms but it really was ****ty when you needed the front like big offsets or tight sweepers. Front just didn't want to bite.
I was annoyed enough here I bailed on the car after 3 runs and let my codriver for the day keep playing and jumped into an RX7 with all the power and none of the diff which was way more exciting
So Im going to order the Cusco 21mm bar to go even softer up front and see if I'm in the happy range or it still wants less. I know it didn't like no bar after spending a full season trying to make that work. But it seems to want just a little. The 21mm bar is 64% of stock and with the bracket I can get a little stiffer than I am now or a lot softer. It also has the benefit of more deflection at this setting to push past bushing slop/squish (a minor thing, but a thing).
The following users liked this post:
Construct (Jan 19, 2021)
Jan 19, 2021, 08:58 AM
#2807
I did the gear swap back when I blew the 2.3l after sitting on the limiter on pretty much every course. Even the smallest courses I could hit the limiter. But with the 2.3 I set limiter at 7800 and with 24.8" tires the speeds were 45.6/65.2. After the change, I've hit the rev limiter in 2 places in almost 3 years. Once in crows right before a sweeper with only 1 blip, and once into a finish chute at Packwood where it didnt matter. So its basically too tall for the sacrifice of low end punch and launching.
With the 2.2, I'm more RPM limited by the valve springs but if I beef those up and push to say 8500 its all in over-rev territory but just in an area we spend very little time. The 4.11 just creates the lack of punch out of corners especially when mixed with the taller tires. So 8500, even if I do something silly like tapering a TBW position to reduce throttle from 8000 to 8500 just to soften the limiter would at least let me reach 73 in 2nd.
Looking at the data, current course trends seem to have us 40-60 75% of them. 20% of the remainder is less and less than 5% is above. And it also shows accel G builds slowly coming out of slow corners even loading it early (the car takes early loading WAAAYYYY better now with the diffs working, no snap under to over steer...). So in the more critical area at the beginning of an accel zone we're sluggish at the sake of potentially not blipping a limiter a couple times.
Anyways, this is my justification for going back to short final. For turbo changes, its like cams... where do we want the power. I just have a small upgrade from stock to push more mid range without loosing bottom end but top end is certainly choked up a bit. If I find this to just fall off too hard after ~6500/58mph we may look at something like the G25-660. Buf if I make that change, it will probably be more for a track focus since we have the Tesla now for playing in AX.
With the 2.2, I'm more RPM limited by the valve springs but if I beef those up and push to say 8500 its all in over-rev territory but just in an area we spend very little time. The 4.11 just creates the lack of punch out of corners especially when mixed with the taller tires. So 8500, even if I do something silly like tapering a TBW position to reduce throttle from 8000 to 8500 just to soften the limiter would at least let me reach 73 in 2nd.
Looking at the data, current course trends seem to have us 40-60 75% of them. 20% of the remainder is less and less than 5% is above. And it also shows accel G builds slowly coming out of slow corners even loading it early (the car takes early loading WAAAYYYY better now with the diffs working, no snap under to over steer...). So in the more critical area at the beginning of an accel zone we're sluggish at the sake of potentially not blipping a limiter a couple times.
Anyways, this is my justification for going back to short final. For turbo changes, its like cams... where do we want the power. I just have a small upgrade from stock to push more mid range without loosing bottom end but top end is certainly choked up a bit. If I find this to just fall off too hard after ~6500/58mph we may look at something like the G25-660. Buf if I make that change, it will probably be more for a track focus since we have the Tesla now for playing in AX.
So really, a taller FD gives advantage of more MPH which can be beneficial but there are only a couple elements where you need it so why make everything slower bc of that? Raise the rev limiter. When you need the revs you'll have it but otherwise you arent changing anything else with how you drive the car and 98% of the time it'll be faster. Power will obviously be falling off drastically but again who cares?
Jan 19, 2021, 09:58 AM
#2808
Having a 4.11 last year I can attest to the lack of grunt that I used to have in certain corners so I started to re-learn the whole "home track" that is road atlanta for me. Before I used to short shift 5th at the top of 11 for the long right hand that is 12 coming on the front straight. With the 4.11 I could keep 4th all the way to turn 1. However, I lost time because I USED to be able to keep 4th coming out of 5 with is a very Uphill left hander but 4th fell on it's face so I had to start downshifting in this super short braking area to 3rd, only to go to 4th, and right back to 3rd 1 corner later.
Jury is still out but my guess, as dallas mentioned earlier, is that the 4.30 is going to be the ticket. Unless you had the 4.3 with the 2.2? Hard to keep track lol.
Jury is still out but my guess, as dallas mentioned earlier, is that the 4.30 is going to be the ticket. Unless you had the 4.3 with the 2.2? Hard to keep track lol.
Jan 19, 2021, 09:29 PM
#2811
Evolved Member
Is this RC location correction or correction of the relative height of ball joints in relation to the axle centerline?
The following 2 users liked this post by Dallas J:
alpinaturbo (Jan 20, 2021),
kikiturbo (Jan 20, 2021)
Jan 20, 2021, 01:05 PM
#2813
But have you actually checked if they have in stock? If its drop shipped you wont save on shipping and they're on backorder right now. I've been waiting 2mo for buddyclub sliders.
I have the Bride mount for driver side but like you said it makes the seat too high so its just sitting in the garage now.
I have the Bride mount for driver side but like you said it makes the seat too high so its just sitting in the garage now.
Who did you order the rails/sliders from? I just checked and I believe these are all I need for my recaros:
https://www.evasivemotorsports.com/s...89-03-07-left/
https://www.evasivemotorsports.com/s...9-03-07-right/
I called Evasive today and they confirmed that everything is in stock so I went ahead and ordered.
Jan 23, 2021, 01:21 PM
#2814
Sigh...I think I have an issue with my new Walbro 450/FIC 1650 setup. I've been trying to get the stock ECU tune roughly dialed in on 93 before installing the G25-660 and am finding that I need significantly higher loads under boost in EcuFlash to maintain a similar AFR compared to my old Walbro 255/FIC 1050 setup (tephra V7 SD converted), even though nothing has changed but the fuel system. Although I don't have a fuel pressure gauge (though I did install one under the hood briefly to check that idle pressure was okay), this seems consistent with insufficiently rising fuel pressure under boost. My fuel system is Walbro 450 (high pressure one), stock hard lines to Radium feed line to Radium rail to Radium pulse dampener (smoothed out low RPM driving) to FIC high impedance 1650s (with Spoolin Up resistor delete) to *stock FPR* to Innovate ethanol sensor (could this be a return line restriction?) back to stock return hard line. The pump is driven by stock wiring supplemented with a Hobbs switch triggering a 10 gauge hard wire intersecting stock pump wiring (and a beefed up ground wire). I've verified that the Hobbs switch/hard wire is working and turns on the pump under boost pressure to the Hobbs switch.
I'm thinking of getting an AFPR to start and to have a place to mount a gauge. If that doesn't solve the issue (and I think it won't), then the only thing I can think is that I need to replace the stock feed and/or return line between the engine compartment and sending unit. I really don't want to do that, but I don't know what else could be the culprit. Or maybe I could swap in a Walbro 525 rather than upgrade the lines, though that seems like a hack way of going about things.
Suggestions more than welcome. Thanks!
EDIT: Odds that I got a bad pump? I bought it from MAP, so hopefully it's not just a convincing counterfeit unit.
1/24 EDIT: I think I’m going to bypass my flex fuel sensor in the return line and see if that helps. I’m also suspecting that I could have a flow issue in the return line from using 90 degree quick disconnects on the flex fuel sensor, as in the Boosted Films install video, even if the sensor itself isn’t restrictive.
I'm thinking of getting an AFPR to start and to have a place to mount a gauge. If that doesn't solve the issue (and I think it won't), then the only thing I can think is that I need to replace the stock feed and/or return line between the engine compartment and sending unit. I really don't want to do that, but I don't know what else could be the culprit. Or maybe I could swap in a Walbro 525 rather than upgrade the lines, though that seems like a hack way of going about things.
Suggestions more than welcome. Thanks!
EDIT: Odds that I got a bad pump? I bought it from MAP, so hopefully it's not just a convincing counterfeit unit.
1/24 EDIT: I think I’m going to bypass my flex fuel sensor in the return line and see if that helps. I’m also suspecting that I could have a flow issue in the return line from using 90 degree quick disconnects on the flex fuel sensor, as in the Boosted Films install video, even if the sensor itself isn’t restrictive.
Last edited by EVO8LTW; Jan 24, 2021 at 04:45 AM.
Jan 23, 2021, 02:09 PM
#2815
You just carry a spare and the tools to change it real quick.
The AEM's seem to not scale well with the stock ECU and create drivability quirks, so I would only use those if you're maxing out the OMNI. And at that power level (44psi+ lol) some drivability quirks probably aren't a huge concern.
I don't have experience with the Kavlico.
The AEM's seem to not scale well with the stock ECU and create drivability quirks, so I would only use those if you're maxing out the OMNI. And at that power level (44psi+ lol) some drivability quirks probably aren't a huge concern.
I don't have experience with the Kavlico.
Jan 24, 2021, 07:51 PM
#2816
EvoM Guru
iTrader: (1)
Sigh...I think I have an issue with my new Walbro 450/FIC 1650 setup. I've been trying to get the stock ECU tune roughly dialed in on 93 before installing the G25-660 and am finding that I need significantly higher loads under boost in EcuFlash to maintain a similar AFR compared to my old Walbro 255/FIC 1050 setup (tephra V7 SD converted), even though nothing has changed but the fuel system. Although I don't have a fuel pressure gauge (though I did install one under the hood briefly to check that idle pressure was okay), this seems consistent with insufficiently rising fuel pressure under boost. My fuel system is Walbro 450 (high pressure one), stock hard lines to Radium feed line to Radium rail to Radium pulse dampener (smoothed out low RPM driving) to FIC high impedance 1650s (with Spoolin Up resistor delete) to *stock FPR* to Innovate ethanol sensor (could this be a return line restriction?) back to stock return hard line. The pump is driven by stock wiring supplemented with a Hobbs switch triggering a 10 gauge hard wire intersecting stock pump wiring (and a beefed up ground wire). I've verified that the Hobbs switch/hard wire is working and turns on the pump under boost pressure to the Hobbs switch.
I'm thinking of getting an AFPR to start and to have a place to mount a gauge. If that doesn't solve the issue (and I think it won't), then the only thing I can think is that I need to replace the stock feed and/or return line between the engine compartment and sending unit. I really don't want to do that, but I don't know what else could be the culprit. Or maybe I could swap in a Walbro 525 rather than upgrade the lines, though that seems like a hack way of going about things.
Suggestions more than welcome. Thanks!
EDIT: Odds that I got a bad pump? I bought it from MAP, so hopefully it's not just a convincing counterfeit unit.
1/24 EDIT: I think I’m going to bypass my flex fuel sensor in the return line and see if that helps. I’m also suspecting that I could have a flow issue in the return line from using 90 degree quick disconnects on the flex fuel sensor, as in the Boosted Films install video, even if the sensor itself isn’t restrictive.
I'm thinking of getting an AFPR to start and to have a place to mount a gauge. If that doesn't solve the issue (and I think it won't), then the only thing I can think is that I need to replace the stock feed and/or return line between the engine compartment and sending unit. I really don't want to do that, but I don't know what else could be the culprit. Or maybe I could swap in a Walbro 525 rather than upgrade the lines, though that seems like a hack way of going about things.
Suggestions more than welcome. Thanks!
EDIT: Odds that I got a bad pump? I bought it from MAP, so hopefully it's not just a convincing counterfeit unit.
1/24 EDIT: I think I’m going to bypass my flex fuel sensor in the return line and see if that helps. I’m also suspecting that I could have a flow issue in the return line from using 90 degree quick disconnects on the flex fuel sensor, as in the Boosted Films install video, even if the sensor itself isn’t restrictive.
Also, did you drill the siphon tube to 9/64"?
On the "fun" tune, my car does 39psi on the hit. Too much boost for a JDM 3bar.
Jan 25, 2021, 10:47 AM
#2818
Jan 25, 2021, 10:54 AM
#2819
EvoM Community Team Leader
A restrictive return will force fuel pressure higher not lower, which would result in a rich condition. The factory high/low fuel pump demand is tuneable, so if you're too lean before the hobbs switch kicks in you could try lowering the load crossover point for high voltage on the oem circuit. Also worth considering is if you're still using the factory fuel filter in the oem hanger that could be getting restrictive. I found I had to remove that and add my own inline filter once my mileage got pretty high.
Jan 25, 2021, 11:04 AM
#2820
A restrictive return will force fuel pressure higher not lower, which would result in a rich condition. The factory high/low fuel pump demand is tuneable, so if you're too lean before the hobbs switch kicks in you could try lowering the load crossover point for high voltage on the oem circuit. Also worth considering is if you're still using the factory fuel filter in the oem hanger that could be getting restrictive. I found I had to remove that and add my own inline filter once my mileage got pretty high.