Dynoed the 412 today without any tuning whatsoever
10-04-2003, 09:57 PM
#1
TGO Supporter
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Cheyenne, Wyoming
Posts: 4,991
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Car: 1992 B4C 1LE
Engine: Proaction 412, Accel singleplane
Transmission: built 700R4 w/custom converter
Axle/Gears: stock w/later 4th gen torsen pos
Dynoed the 412 today without any tuning whatsoever
The silly thing is that I knew this thing would not make a great number today anyhow. I figured it would be atleast 10 or 15 hp higher.
Anyhow I figured those of you that are used to dyno'ing like me will be familiar with this sort of AF ratio.
If I cant this AF right ahead of time then adding my nitrous wont exactly be helpful.
As a recap for others I will explain:
This is a stock 1992 730 ECM with the stock 'AUJP' (350 5.7 auto) program.
24# Ford injectors
The car has a AFPR but it has NO adjusment added.
It has a 412 cid
9.9:1 compression
a HUGE cam (Crane Hyd roller # 119681 240/248 @ .050, 306/314 advertised, .595" lift with my 1.6's 114 lobe sep.)
Protopline 200cc heads
Chip burning here I come
Anyhow I figured those of you that are used to dyno'ing like me will be familiar with this sort of AF ratio.
If I cant this AF right ahead of time then adding my nitrous wont exactly be helpful.
As a recap for others I will explain:
This is a stock 1992 730 ECM with the stock 'AUJP' (350 5.7 auto) program.
24# Ford injectors
The car has a AFPR but it has NO adjusment added.
It has a 412 cid
9.9:1 compression
a HUGE cam (Crane Hyd roller # 119681 240/248 @ .050, 306/314 advertised, .595" lift with my 1.6's 114 lobe sep.)
Protopline 200cc heads
Chip burning here I come
Last edited by B4Ctom1; 10-08-2003 at 01:19 PM.
10-05-2003, 10:56 AM
#2
Supreme Member
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Mesa, AZ: Transplanted from Chicago, IL
Posts: 1,824
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wow, no offense but those #s are real poor.
Just goes to show how much work needs to be done with the stock tune in order to get some power on modded motors.
Upper rpm fueling sucks, as your graph shows, but spark advance sucks also.
In the .bin you are running 24* is max WOT spark advance.
You should be able to extract some serious power out of that baby once the tune is on.
Just goes to show how much work needs to be done with the stock tune in order to get some power on modded motors.
Upper rpm fueling sucks, as your graph shows, but spark advance sucks also.
In the .bin you are running 24* is max WOT spark advance.
You should be able to extract some serious power out of that baby once the tune is on.
10-05-2003, 12:46 PM
#3
TGO Supporter
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Cheyenne, Wyoming
Posts: 4,991
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Car: 1992 B4C 1LE
Engine: Proaction 412, Accel singleplane
Transmission: built 700R4 w/custom converter
Axle/Gears: stock w/later 4th gen torsen pos
Originally posted by OMINOUS_87
Wow, no offense but those #s are real poor.
Just goes to show how much work needs to be done with the stock tune in order to get some power on modded motors.
Upper rpm fueling sucks, as your graph shows, but spark advance sucks also.
In the .bin you are running 24* is max WOT spark advance.
You should be able to extract some serious power out of that baby once the tune is on.
Wow, no offense but those #s are real poor.
Just goes to show how much work needs to be done with the stock tune in order to get some power on modded motors.
Upper rpm fueling sucks, as your graph shows, but spark advance sucks also.
In the .bin you are running 24* is max WOT spark advance.
You should be able to extract some serious power out of that baby once the tune is on.
The only problem is that after reading traxions article, the next place to go for info is DIY but the info there is so out of your league its like going from jr high science class to physics 101
my first step is to create a dependable data link to my car and go from there, I have the stuff Im working out some simple issues with lots of help from the DIY guys
10-05-2003, 08:20 PM
#4
TGO Supporter
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: St. Augustine, FL
Posts: 1,852
Likes: 0
Received 12 Likes
on
11 Posts
Car: 89 GTA
Engine: 383
Transmission: 4L80E
Axle/Gears: 12 bolt-3.73
What is the rest of your combo?
I have some map bins you could use for starting points, just change the injector constant to your injectors and you will have to adjust the ve table to get the idle blms to 128.
I have some map bins you could use for starting points, just change the injector constant to your injectors and you will have to adjust the ve table to get the idle blms to 128.
10-06-2003, 04:06 AM
#5
it seems to me that the tune is not _that_ bad. You are lean (probably approaching dangerously lean in places), but you're not quite at the point where you'll be blowing stuff up.
I'm surprised that you didn't just turn up the fuel pressure and try again till you stopped seeing an improvement and then did the same with the timing... once you get those 2 in the ballpark manually it's fairly easy to figure out what you need to do to the programming to make the ecm do the same thing.
I'm surprised that you didn't just turn up the fuel pressure and try again till you stopped seeing an improvement and then did the same with the timing... once you get those 2 in the ballpark manually it's fairly easy to figure out what you need to do to the programming to make the ecm do the same thing.
10-06-2003, 08:05 AM
#6
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: A thorn in a few people's sides
Posts: 820
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Engine: 2 mice and a cat
I commented on this in another post.
I hate to be the one to say it here but there is something obviously messed up with that setup, and its NOT all the tune, maybe 25% the tune, but the rest is either miss-matched components not properly working ones (rings), cam degreed off, etc.
That motor, should be making over 390 rwhp all day long with any tune.
The heads are the first real weakness I see, they don't even flow what a AFR 190 head does. So you are loosing all sorts of torque from the largers port size, and gaining nothing up high, since they can't flow.
Even where the AFR is around 13.X, which is leaner than I like to see, but still able to make power, the car is 100+ HP and 100+ ft-lbs off pace. My car made best power and torque at 13.5 AFR, but that is a little too lean like I said for my liking.
I seriously suggest a leakdown on the motor. Rings might not be at all sealing. But then again , my 350 with EVERY top ring broken, dynoed at 295rwHP and ~330ft-lbs.
It looks like your barely able to make 4500 RPM.
Give us the rest of your setup, and we might be able to help. Sorry for the blunt, but honest answers, but that is what I would want if I was in your boat.
Best of luck!
I hate to be the one to say it here but there is something obviously messed up with that setup, and its NOT all the tune, maybe 25% the tune, but the rest is either miss-matched components not properly working ones (rings), cam degreed off, etc.
That motor, should be making over 390 rwhp all day long with any tune.
The heads are the first real weakness I see, they don't even flow what a AFR 190 head does. So you are loosing all sorts of torque from the largers port size, and gaining nothing up high, since they can't flow.
Even where the AFR is around 13.X, which is leaner than I like to see, but still able to make power, the car is 100+ HP and 100+ ft-lbs off pace. My car made best power and torque at 13.5 AFR, but that is a little too lean like I said for my liking.
I seriously suggest a leakdown on the motor. Rings might not be at all sealing. But then again , my 350 with EVERY top ring broken, dynoed at 295rwHP and ~330ft-lbs.
It looks like your barely able to make 4500 RPM.
Give us the rest of your setup, and we might be able to help. Sorry for the blunt, but honest answers, but that is what I would want if I was in your boat.
Best of luck!
10-06-2003, 06:13 PM
#7
Originally posted by ski_dwn_it
I commented on this in another post.
I hate to be the one to say it here but there is something obviously messed up with that setup, and its NOT all the tune, maybe 25% the tune, but the rest is either miss-matched components not properly working ones (rings), cam degreed off, etc.
That motor, should be making over 390 rwhp all day long with any tune.
….
Even where the AFR is around 13.X, which is leaner than I like to see, but still able to make power, the car is 100+ HP and 100+ ft-lbs off pace. My car made best power and torque at 13.5 AFR, but that is a little too lean like I said for my liking.
I commented on this in another post.
I hate to be the one to say it here but there is something obviously messed up with that setup, and its NOT all the tune, maybe 25% the tune, but the rest is either miss-matched components not properly working ones (rings), cam degreed off, etc.
That motor, should be making over 390 rwhp all day long with any tune.
….
Even where the AFR is around 13.X, which is leaner than I like to see, but still able to make power, the car is 100+ HP and 100+ ft-lbs off pace. My car made best power and torque at 13.5 AFR, but that is a little too lean like I said for my liking.
Assuming that it’s got an appropriate intake and exhaust on it, I would guess that engine should be in the mid 400hp range at the crank, maybe 375 or so at the wheels.
The heads are the first real weakness I see, they don't even flow what a AFR 190 head does. So you are loosing all sorts of torque from the largers port size, and gaining nothing up high, since they can't flow.
Give us the rest of your setup, and we might be able to help. Sorry for the blunt, but honest answers, but that is what I would want if I was in your boat.
Trending Topics
10-06-2003, 06:55 PM
#8
Supreme Member
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Mesa, AZ: Transplanted from Chicago, IL
Posts: 1,824
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ski_dwn_it
Where you previously commented, dont you mean where you previously insulted the methods that B4Ctom1 used to build his motor and then called his heads crap?
https://www.thirdgen.org/techbb2/sho...31#post1507631
Where you previously commented, dont you mean where you previously insulted the methods that B4Ctom1 used to build his motor and then called his heads crap?
Ominous_87,
let me first say before we draw a conclusion that the car is going to gain anything with tuning we must know the rest of the setup.
Furthermore, I hate to be the one to break the news to the guys, but there is something GROSSLY wrong with that setup. 421CI motor, should be putting out 390+ rwhp without even trying, and 400+ ft-lb, in its sleep.
Either the build is bad on that motor or he has totally mismatched parts. First thing I see are the heads are not the greatest thing around. I looked at their website and the 200cc heads don't even flow as much as a 190 AFR head. They are crap. Then you stick them on a larger CI motor, and expect them to make decent power. Not going to happen.
Its takes me back to my original statement. Well balanced setups. I if he get that thing over over 425 rwhp, which it clearly should do with a motor like that, and the right parts. But if he gets that thing over those numbers with TUNING alone, I will kiss his *** at 5th and main, and give him a day to gather an audience.
I mean on the dyno that thing was struggling to barely weep out 4500RPM. Something is seriously a-miss.
let me first say before we draw a conclusion that the car is going to gain anything with tuning we must know the rest of the setup.
Furthermore, I hate to be the one to break the news to the guys, but there is something GROSSLY wrong with that setup. 421CI motor, should be putting out 390+ rwhp without even trying, and 400+ ft-lb, in its sleep.
Either the build is bad on that motor or he has totally mismatched parts. First thing I see are the heads are not the greatest thing around. I looked at their website and the 200cc heads don't even flow as much as a 190 AFR head. They are crap. Then you stick them on a larger CI motor, and expect them to make decent power. Not going to happen.
Its takes me back to my original statement. Well balanced setups. I if he get that thing over over 425 rwhp, which it clearly should do with a motor like that, and the right parts. But if he gets that thing over those numbers with TUNING alone, I will kiss his *** at 5th and main, and give him a day to gather an audience.
I mean on the dyno that thing was struggling to barely weep out 4500RPM. Something is seriously a-miss.
Last edited by OMINOUS_87; 10-06-2003 at 07:06 PM.
10-06-2003, 07:04 PM
#9
Supreme Member
That looks a lot like the compression ratio is just too low for the cam, killing all cylinder pressure, OR the timing's pretty far retarded (false knock? retarded initial setting? Something else?). Soprry I'm not in the loop, but what intake are you running?
Your A/F ratio is pretty lean in some spots but that doesn't look like you're giving up 100Hp or anything like that to the A/F ratio. And it doesn't ramp up or down too much vs. RPM.
Your A/F ratio is pretty lean in some spots but that doesn't look like you're giving up 100Hp or anything like that to the A/F ratio. And it doesn't ramp up or down too much vs. RPM.
10-06-2003, 07:51 PM
#10
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: A thorn in a few people's sides
Posts: 820
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Engine: 2 mice and a cat
83_crossfire you misunderstood what I was saying. I was saying that you have larger cc heads, that do not even flow what some of the other smaller cc heads will do. Hence less power (torque).
87_ominous,
Look I told my dad the other day, yesterday, that his heads on his 509 merlin are **** also, so believe me there was no insult that should be taken. There is no simple way to tell someone that they could have had a better head for a larger ci motor.
a 200cc head that barely flows 252CFM is not exactly optimum. At least not the last time I looked at flow numbers for heads.
perhaps I am wrong.
When I post on the boards asking for advice, I expect to get it straight. Not be told I have something great when in fact its not.
If B4ctom took offense to my observations, then I appologize. Just telling it like I see it. Not making someone thing they are going to recoupe 200 missing hp from tuning. That is, I would say, more of an insult; like to their intelligence.
87_ominous,
Look I told my dad the other day, yesterday, that his heads on his 509 merlin are **** also, so believe me there was no insult that should be taken. There is no simple way to tell someone that they could have had a better head for a larger ci motor.
a 200cc head that barely flows 252CFM is not exactly optimum. At least not the last time I looked at flow numbers for heads.
perhaps I am wrong.
When I post on the boards asking for advice, I expect to get it straight. Not be told I have something great when in fact its not.
If B4ctom took offense to my observations, then I appologize. Just telling it like I see it. Not making someone thing they are going to recoupe 200 missing hp from tuning. That is, I would say, more of an insult; like to their intelligence.
10-07-2003, 12:49 AM
#11
TGO Supporter
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Cheyenne, Wyoming
Posts: 4,991
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Car: 1992 B4C 1LE
Engine: Proaction 412, Accel singleplane
Transmission: built 700R4 w/custom converter
Axle/Gears: stock w/later 4th gen torsen pos
Thats fine this is like a drill to find this stuff out. I thought I would share the process. We will see how it pans out. When I get the PE adustments closer to correct the dyno will be way different with a more desirable A/F.
I prefer a A/F ratio ( on a dynojet wideband) in the upper 12:1 range above 13 and close to 14 are not in my experience of dyno tuning ideal. Its the GM ecm tuning part which is new to me. I understand the madness, its the method that I am learning.
My personal final estimates for this motor range to the 380 RW HP range and mid 400's in torque. Others with more experience at the dyno place are more optomistic than I. This thing still has the stock 3.23 rear and a 700 converter custom built by emerald converter in walnut creek california and is a very efficient 3000-3200 version. The car is a full weight (heavy), full accessory (A/C and all), non emmisions ride (stripped the crap off)
The car is mainly a cruiser, my race car is a whole different other beast. I just wanted a show car that was more than show with this one. If I was going to try to make this a race car I would have gone for some porting of the runners and bowls etc and the cam would have been different. the compression as well. I have done my best to try to avoid getting too exotic. When done if I decide to fill'er up and drive 2600 miles round trip to see my family I dont want to give it a second thought. Like some kind of deranged ***** I went with a cam that had some "lope" to add to it's presence. If there is one thing I am very unhappy with it would be the exhaust. I do have SLP 1 3/4" shorties and the dual cats are hollow but I think they are still a source of restriction and the SLP cat back really seems to be restrictive. When I lean under the car I can hear the lope of the cam which in most cars comes out of the tail pipe popping in the empty cats (sometimes mistaken by casual observers as an exhaust leak).
You did see Im running .595" lift right?
I prefer a A/F ratio ( on a dynojet wideband) in the upper 12:1 range above 13 and close to 14 are not in my experience of dyno tuning ideal. Its the GM ecm tuning part which is new to me. I understand the madness, its the method that I am learning.
My personal final estimates for this motor range to the 380 RW HP range and mid 400's in torque. Others with more experience at the dyno place are more optomistic than I. This thing still has the stock 3.23 rear and a 700 converter custom built by emerald converter in walnut creek california and is a very efficient 3000-3200 version. The car is a full weight (heavy), full accessory (A/C and all), non emmisions ride (stripped the crap off)
The car is mainly a cruiser, my race car is a whole different other beast. I just wanted a show car that was more than show with this one. If I was going to try to make this a race car I would have gone for some porting of the runners and bowls etc and the cam would have been different. the compression as well. I have done my best to try to avoid getting too exotic. When done if I decide to fill'er up and drive 2600 miles round trip to see my family I dont want to give it a second thought. Like some kind of deranged ***** I went with a cam that had some "lope" to add to it's presence. If there is one thing I am very unhappy with it would be the exhaust. I do have SLP 1 3/4" shorties and the dual cats are hollow but I think they are still a source of restriction and the SLP cat back really seems to be restrictive. When I lean under the car I can hear the lope of the cam which in most cars comes out of the tail pipe popping in the empty cats (sometimes mistaken by casual observers as an exhaust leak).
Originally posted by ski_dwn_it
a 200cc head that barely flows 252CFM is not exactly optimum. At least not the last time I looked at flow numbers for heads.
perhaps I am wrong.
a 200cc head that barely flows 252CFM is not exactly optimum. At least not the last time I looked at flow numbers for heads.
perhaps I am wrong.
Last edited by B4Ctom1; 10-07-2003 at 01:04 AM.
10-07-2003, 03:19 AM
#12
Originally posted by ski_dwn_it
83_crossfire you misunderstood what I was saying. I was saying that you have larger cc heads, that do not even flow what some of the other smaller cc heads will do. Hence less power (torque).
…
a 200cc head that barely flows 252CFM is not exactly optimum. At least not the last time I looked at flow numbers for heads.
perhaps I am wrong.
83_crossfire you misunderstood what I was saying. I was saying that you have larger cc heads, that do not even flow what some of the other smaller cc heads will do. Hence less power (torque).
…
a 200cc head that barely flows 252CFM is not exactly optimum. At least not the last time I looked at flow numbers for heads.
perhaps I am wrong.
That being the case, I’m not sure where you’re getting that they are such crappy heads… comparing them to a set of AFR 195’s (I’ve seen a set of the pro topline 200’s cc’ed at 197), they are only 8 cfm down at the same lift, which will work out to less then 10hp difference if you ran both heads at the ragged edge (somewhere in the 550hp range) and probably less then 2 hp in the mid 400hp range…
Woops, sorry, those were advertised numbers… I just dugout a set of flowsheets for both and found that at every lift the 200cc pro toplines did better on the intake (the AFR 195’s stalled somewhere around .550” at 260cfm and where the toplines are at 268 and they didn’t stall in the tested range but topped out at 279 at .700”… On the exhaust the AFR’s have the PT’s beat at every point by about 2cfm…
10-07-2003, 10:30 AM
#13
TGO Supporter
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Cheyenne, Wyoming
Posts: 4,991
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Car: 1992 B4C 1LE
Engine: Proaction 412, Accel singleplane
Transmission: built 700R4 w/custom converter
Axle/Gears: stock w/later 4th gen torsen pos
Originally posted by 83 Crossfire TA
I'm surprised that you didn't just turn up the fuel pressure and try again till you stopped seeing an improvement and then did the same with the timing... once you get those 2 in the ballpark manually it's fairly easy to figure out what you need to do to the programming to make the ecm do the same thing.
I'm surprised that you didn't just turn up the fuel pressure and try again till you stopped seeing an improvement and then did the same with the timing... once you get those 2 in the ballpark manually it's fairly easy to figure out what you need to do to the programming to make the ecm do the same thing.
Originally posted by Damon
That looks a lot like the compression ratio is just too low for the cam, killing all cylinder pressure, OR the timing's pretty far retarded (false knock? retarded initial setting? Something else?). Soprry I'm not in the loop, but what intake are you running?
That looks a lot like the compression ratio is just too low for the cam, killing all cylinder pressure, OR the timing's pretty far retarded (false knock? retarded initial setting? Something else?). Soprry I'm not in the loop, but what intake are you running?
as far as to the flow of the heads and thier size; I did have to open them up a bunch to port match the intake for some reason as delivered they are narrow port as hell.
Last edited by B4Ctom1; 10-07-2003 at 11:01 AM.
10-07-2003, 10:46 AM
#14
TGO Supporter
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Cheyenne, Wyoming
Posts: 4,991
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Car: 1992 B4C 1LE
Engine: Proaction 412, Accel singleplane
Transmission: built 700R4 w/custom converter
Axle/Gears: stock w/later 4th gen torsen pos
these sorry
10-07-2003, 10:48 AM
#15
TGO Supporter
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Cheyenne, Wyoming
Posts: 4,991
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Car: 1992 B4C 1LE
Engine: Proaction 412, Accel singleplane
Transmission: built 700R4 w/custom converter
Axle/Gears: stock w/later 4th gen torsen pos
sorry 
10-07-2003, 01:56 PM
#16
Supreme Member
Tom
These poeple trying to tell you that your combo sucks....
Just watch.
tom had a crappy $#IT running like a 10 flat at 99999 feet
I doubt anyone can say he doesnt know what hes doing
And just look at the tune as it sits...
<b>maybe 25% the tune</b>
Come on, stock tune? 24* of timing? Your telling me thats only a 25% loss? Take your motor down to 24* of advance and see what happens. hell take out all your chip revisions and go to stock, tell me how much power you make.
TOM knows what hes doing, IMO he will pull 25 MPG and well over even his own projected RWHP goals. just watch.
Just watch.
tom had a crappy $#IT running like a 10 flat at 99999 feet
I doubt anyone can say he doesnt know what hes doing
And just look at the tune as it sits...
<b>maybe 25% the tune</b>
Come on, stock tune? 24* of timing? Your telling me thats only a 25% loss? Take your motor down to 24* of advance and see what happens. hell take out all your chip revisions and go to stock, tell me how much power you make.
TOM knows what hes doing, IMO he will pull 25 MPG and well over even his own projected RWHP goals. just watch.
10-07-2003, 02:45 PM
#17
TGO Supporter
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Cheyenne, Wyoming
Posts: 4,991
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Car: 1992 B4C 1LE
Engine: Proaction 412, Accel singleplane
Transmission: built 700R4 w/custom converter
Axle/Gears: stock w/later 4th gen torsen pos
stop it talon dont let it all out of the bag lol, you are going to ruin the surprise 
10-07-2003, 03:05 PM
#18
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: A thorn in a few people's sides
Posts: 820
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Engine: 2 mice and a cat
I whole hardely agree that a 412 CI motor should be able to put out well over 380 rwHP, without even trying.
I also agree, to my surprise, that the protopline heads are better than I remember than being a while back.
One of the major reasons the tune is so far out with the stock chip is that its a SD setup. I know people will think I eggin some on, it just my observation that the MAF system would have been much better off stock.
Pehaps a little more information would be good. As I think we are only getting portions of the story here.
I also agree, to my surprise, that the protopline heads are better than I remember than being a while back.
One of the major reasons the tune is so far out with the stock chip is that its a SD setup. I know people will think I eggin some on, it just my observation that the MAF system would have been much better off stock.
Pehaps a little more information would be good. As I think we are only getting portions of the story here.
Last edited by ski_dwn_it; 10-07-2003 at 03:08 PM.
10-07-2003, 04:11 PM
#19
TGO Supporter
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Cheyenne, Wyoming
Posts: 4,991
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Car: 1992 B4C 1LE
Engine: Proaction 412, Accel singleplane
Transmission: built 700R4 w/custom converter
Axle/Gears: stock w/later 4th gen torsen pos
IM not sure what info you are asking about that isnt contained within this post?
10-07-2003, 06:20 PM
#21
Supreme Member
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Mesa, AZ: Transplanted from Chicago, IL
Posts: 1,824
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tom
These poeple trying to tell you that your combo sucks....
Just watch.
tom had a crappy $#IT running like a 10 flat at 99999 feet
I doubt anyone can say he doesnt know what hes doing
And just look at the tune as it sits...
maybe 25% the tune
Come on, stock tune? 24* of timing? Your telling me thats only a 25% loss? Take your motor down to 24* of advance and see what happens. hell take out all your chip revisions and go to stock, tell me how much power you make.
TOM knows what hes doing, IMO he will pull 25 MPG and well over even his own projected RWHP goals. just watch
These poeple trying to tell you that your combo sucks....
Just watch.
tom had a crappy $#IT running like a 10 flat at 99999 feet
I doubt anyone can say he doesnt know what hes doing
And just look at the tune as it sits...
maybe 25% the tune
Come on, stock tune? 24* of timing? Your telling me thats only a 25% loss? Take your motor down to 24* of advance and see what happens. hell take out all your chip revisions and go to stock, tell me how much power you make.
TOM knows what hes doing, IMO he will pull 25 MPG and well over even his own projected RWHP goals. just watch
The only person to really come out and take a few shots is it_dwn_ski. He came out to open his big mouth and interject his .02 on subject matter he doesnt even know, and now he feels that more info is required, LOL!!!
I whole hardely agree that a 412 CI motor should be able to put out well over 380 rwHP, without even trying.
I also agree, to my surprise, that the protopline heads are better than I remember than being a while back.
One of the major reasons the tune is so far out with the stock chip is that its a SD setup. I know people will think I eggin some on, it just my observation that the MAF system would have been much better off stock.
Pehaps a little more information would be good. As I think we are only getting portions of the story here.
I also agree, to my surprise, that the protopline heads are better than I remember than being a while back.
One of the major reasons the tune is so far out with the stock chip is that its a SD setup. I know people will think I eggin some on, it just my observation that the MAF system would have been much better off stock.
Pehaps a little more information would be good. As I think we are only getting portions of the story here.
I hold true to my first observation, 92 stock .bin, 24* WOT advance, that is your big power loss, no other info really needed.
If an example is needed look to the post by JMATLOCK88 about his first dyno runs, first run stock 92 .bin, by the time done on the dyno 80hp more, tuned by fastchip, I have seen enough of those Ed Wright .bins to bet he is running at least 36*-38* advance in the end.
Dont ring up that timing advance though without extra PE fuel or you gonna be dangerously lean, but I have a feeling Tom already knows this.
10-07-2003, 09:50 PM
#22
TGO Supporter
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Cheyenne, Wyoming
Posts: 4,991
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Car: 1992 B4C 1LE
Engine: Proaction 412, Accel singleplane
Transmission: built 700R4 w/custom converter
Axle/Gears: stock w/later 4th gen torsen pos
Originally posted by OMINOUS_87
Tom hasnt stated the compression ratio but they look to me to be about a 12cc dish piston and am betting that he is running 64cc heads for ~10:1 compression.
Tom hasnt stated the compression ratio but they look to me to be about a 12cc dish piston and am betting that he is running 64cc heads for ~10:1 compression.
Bad job on my part I reviewed my posts and saw you are correct I forgot the compression, I totally thought I had layed it all out. There are definmitely no secrets here. I will reveal any part of this setup. The cam as I relented earlier in this post is about two sizes too large but I think it will help save the tranny and rear end maybe, and the price was right ($150 new/used)
10-08-2003, 12:17 AM
#23
Supreme Member
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Mesa, AZ: Transplanted from Chicago, IL
Posts: 1,824
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmmmm, well that shows that the compression ratio is inline to allow for the cam timing events to occur in the motor.
Good job Tom!!!
It has also been established that the heads are worthy of the motor and able to flow the demands of the cam, in contrast to what someone else thinks, i dont understand, flow #s are so easily found on the internet, hard to argue against the facts.
Again, nice motor Tom! It is only a matter of time before that beast is thumping out some big #s.
Good job Tom!!!
It has also been established that the heads are worthy of the motor and able to flow the demands of the cam, in contrast to what someone else thinks, i dont understand, flow #s are so easily found on the internet, hard to argue against the facts.
Again, nice motor Tom! It is only a matter of time before that beast is thumping out some big #s.
10-08-2003, 12:25 AM
#24
TGO Supporter
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Cheyenne, Wyoming
Posts: 4,991
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Car: 1992 B4C 1LE
Engine: Proaction 412, Accel singleplane
Transmission: built 700R4 w/custom converter
Axle/Gears: stock w/later 4th gen torsen pos
I still stand by my 380 RW hp estimate I figure anything after that is gravy 
10-08-2003, 06:38 AM
#25
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: A thorn in a few people's sides
Posts: 820
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Engine: 2 mice and a cat
Originally posted by OMINOUS_87
Thats not exactly true.
The only person to really come out and take a few shots is it_dwn_ski. He came out to open his big mouth and interject his .02 on subject matter he doesnt even know, and now he feels that more info is required, LOL!!!
Thats not exactly true.
The only person to really come out and take a few shots is it_dwn_ski. He came out to open his big mouth and interject his .02 on subject matter he doesnt even know, and now he feels that more info is required, LOL!!!
Hey take a chill, no-one but you is getting personal, or trying to get personal.
Its my opinion that there is no way he is going to tune that car to put out the numbers *I* think a 412 CI motor should be putting out. I don't care if you agree with me or not. As I said its my opinion. I hope he proves me wrong.
My estimates are 11.6-7 sec on the strip MAX.
It just seems from some people's comments that they already know what it will do, and are bating a few of us in. Which is fine. I hope it hits 10s for him, as that is where I think it should be with that inch motor.
I will wait to see the slip/video or whatever.
B4ctom1, I'm with you on this and hope to see some really cool numbers/ETs! Good luck!
10-08-2003, 06:59 AM
#26
Supreme Member
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Changing Tires
Posts: 5,675
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
Car: too many ...
This is an interesting thread. Please share with us your experiences while you get it tuned the DIY route. I'd be interested to see how it goes. I will be trying the DIY route as well as soon as I get another reliable car for a daily driver. Currently my 91 Z is a stock L98 with a 730 ECM and a Vortech S-Trim V1 blower @ 6psi (Vortech FMU). Previous owner didnt really have a good combo LOL. I recently sold my house and set aside a nice chunk of change for a 427 SBC project. Undecided on what heads/cam/etc, and to tell you the truth I'll have to go over that with World Products. I plan to use the Holley Stealthram for the intake, unknown injector size/type as of yet (not to mention overhaul of the fuel system starting with a sumped tank), re-use the Vortech S-Trim Blower but convert to cogs and intercool), convert to a 749 Syclone ECM (got it from a wrecked 93 Syclone) and do a custom tune with $58 code. I plan to use TunerCat R_T with an ALDL cable and burn EEPROMS the old school way. The 749 ECM has an extra injector driver so I'll have alot of choices as far as injectors (low or high impedence). Problem is, this will be my first time trying it on a big motor with boost so I know it will take some time to do it right. I've only just begun reading up on DIY tuning, and so far I've only pulled scans. Haven't even practiced on my other L98 yet (went L03 to MAF TPI L98, now going to SD TPI). I'm going to do what Grumpy says and take ALOT of notes, even record my voice if I have to. Of course my family and girlfriend will think I've gone insane, but its worth it. It would be cool to see how you do so maybe I'll know what I'm getting myself into. 
10-08-2003, 11:45 AM
#27
TGO Supporter
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Cheyenne, Wyoming
Posts: 4,991
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Car: 1992 B4C 1LE
Engine: Proaction 412, Accel singleplane
Transmission: built 700R4 w/custom converter
Axle/Gears: stock w/later 4th gen torsen pos
Originally posted by ski_dwn_it
Ominous,
Hey take a chill, no-one but you is getting personal, or trying to get personal.
Its my opinion that there is no way he is going to tune that car to put out the numbers *I* think a 412 CI motor should be putting out. I don't care if you agree with me or not. As I said its my opinion. I hope he proves me wrong.
Ominous,
Hey take a chill, no-one but you is getting personal, or trying to get personal.
Its my opinion that there is no way he is going to tune that car to put out the numbers *I* think a 412 CI motor should be putting out. I don't care if you agree with me or not. As I said its my opinion. I hope he proves me wrong.
My estimates are 11.6-7 sec on the strip MAX.
It just seems from some people's comments that they already know what it will do, and are bating a few of us in. Which is fine. I hope it hits 10s for him, as that is where I think it should be with that inch motor.
It just seems from some people's comments that they already know what it will do, and are bating a few of us in. Which is fine. I hope it hits 10s for him, as that is where I think it should be with that inch motor.
I will wait to see the slip/video or whatever.
B4ctom1, I'm with you on this and hope to see some really cool numbers/ETs! Good luck!
B4ctom1, I'm with you on this and hope to see some really cool numbers/ETs! Good luck!
Last edited by B4Ctom1; 10-08-2003 at 11:47 AM.
10-08-2003, 11:05 PM
#29
Supreme Member
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: the garage
Posts: 1,612
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 84 SVO
Engine: Volvo headed 2.3T
Transmission: WCT5
Axle/Gears: 8.8" 3.73
Originally posted by Beast5spdGTA
What intake manifold is on this engine? stock TPI?
What intake manifold is on this engine? stock TPI?
Super ram
10-09-2003, 05:31 PM
#30
Supreme Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: In the corner of my mind!
Posts: 1,100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 1989 TTA #1240
Engine: 3.8 SFI turbo
Transmission: 2004r
Axle/Gears: 3.27
One thing I see is that you can't see how much tourqe is made below 3000, you see the drop and flat line which tells a few things. Could be a higher tq lower in the rpm but the dyno cannot read it then it goes lean waiting for this big ingestion of air accompanied by spinning a long stroke high in the rpm band and it never happens.
Then the graph ends at 5900 ? Why wouldn't you want to try to spin the engine past 6500 with that large of a runner and cubic inches to maximize it's potential. Didn't see all the cam specs, but what is the LSA on the cam. If it's too large it would be an indication of cylinder pressure bleed off as both vlaves are open in the transistion between the exhaust and intake strokes of different cylinders, which kills velocity(still need some with a superrram/TPI type manifold) and will not let the hp peak(engine to breathe).
Have you tried to play with cam timing yet? I'm sure more is to be had with a few degrees of cam timing. Also even though the superram is superior to the other TPI components The runners are still small at like 180 cfm range(ported) Stock TPI was in the 145-160 range. To keep those heads I would either get a miniram or stealth ram.
Also I think You're holding out on us. There seems to be another plan amongst the cob webs up there. Break down and give up the guts. No reason to have that big of a runner in the heads and a small tourqe biased intake unless you plan on having artificial atmosphere Which helps, but does not eliminate the the restriction.
So my opinion is that you are looking to build as much tq as possible in the lower range using the Superram to jam air in there at lower speeds, but hoping as rpm's increase(aka increased atmosphere with a centrifugal blower) and leaning the mixture out(too help a fast burn, aka rpm's) You will try to maximize the long stroke tourqe of the 412 down low, but try to spin it high enough to get hp out of the larger runner heads with the help of a blower.
Then again I'm a conspiracy theorist. So I could be wrong. IMO It's not only in the tune, Why else would the thread seem to be a first step like post. Like not in so many words, but(although I'm dissapointed) "Here is what I put down before I put on my huge frickin blower"
Then the graph ends at 5900 ? Why wouldn't you want to try to spin the engine past 6500 with that large of a runner and cubic inches to maximize it's potential. Didn't see all the cam specs, but what is the LSA on the cam. If it's too large it would be an indication of cylinder pressure bleed off as both vlaves are open in the transistion between the exhaust and intake strokes of different cylinders, which kills velocity(still need some with a superrram/TPI type manifold) and will not let the hp peak(engine to breathe).
Have you tried to play with cam timing yet? I'm sure more is to be had with a few degrees of cam timing. Also even though the superram is superior to the other TPI components The runners are still small at like 180 cfm range(ported) Stock TPI was in the 145-160 range. To keep those heads I would either get a miniram or stealth ram.
Also I think You're holding out on us. There seems to be another plan amongst the cob webs up there. Break down and give up the guts. No reason to have that big of a runner in the heads and a small tourqe biased intake unless you plan on having artificial atmosphere
Which helps, but does not eliminate the the restriction. So my opinion is that you are looking to build as much tq as possible in the lower range using the Superram to jam air in there at lower speeds, but hoping as rpm's increase(aka increased atmosphere with a centrifugal blower) and leaning the mixture out(too help a fast burn, aka rpm's) You will try to maximize the long stroke tourqe of the 412 down low, but try to spin it high enough to get hp out of the larger runner heads with the help of a blower.
Then again I'm a conspiracy theorist. So I could be wrong. IMO It's not only in the tune, Why else would the thread seem to be a first step like post. Like not in so many words, but(although I'm dissapointed) "Here is what I put down before I put on my huge frickin blower"
10-09-2003, 08:07 PM
#31
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Indpls IN US
Posts: 812
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 91 Z28
Engine: Forged 383
Transmission: Pro-built 700R4
I do believe there's at least 60+ hp to be gained in this setup. I do believe that the parts are somewhat mis-matched though. I noticed you're running a SR, which means you need a very high velocity intake runner on your head to promote low end tq. See Ski's car for details. I also think the cam is too big and doesn't match the flow characteristics of the intake very well. I'm sure you'll be able to make the power you're looking for, once this car is tuned and checked for problems. I just think the SR is made more for low-mid range tq with dur. not much more than 230 at .050 lift, even w/ your cubes. If you for some odd reason don't get the power you're looking for, w/ your current setup, I'd toss that intake and try out a miniram or stealthram. I did and I like it. Revving an engine up past 6500rpm kinda makes you feel like Dale Jr. or something like that.
Revving an engine up past 6500rpm kinda makes you feel like Dale Jr. or something like that.
10-09-2003, 09:35 PM
#32
TGO Supporter
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Cheyenne, Wyoming
Posts: 4,991
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Car: 1992 B4C 1LE
Engine: Proaction 412, Accel singleplane
Transmission: built 700R4 w/custom converter
Axle/Gears: stock w/later 4th gen torsen pos
its kinda funny that you say that because on the dyno it bogged like the lockup came on and on the street it wants to rev to the moon.
BTW there is a big reason this thing has no tuning whatsoever, I implore any chip burners to please look at the following thread and chime in any help they may have.
https://www.thirdgen.org/techbb2/sho...hreadid=194677
BTW there is a big reason this thing has no tuning whatsoever, I implore any chip burners to please look at the following thread and chime in any help they may have.
https://www.thirdgen.org/techbb2/sho...hreadid=194677
Last edited by B4Ctom1; 10-09-2003 at 09:40 PM.
10-10-2003, 12:15 AM
#33
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Indpls IN US
Posts: 812
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 91 Z28
Engine: Forged 383
Transmission: Pro-built 700R4
It may feel like it revs to the moon on the street, but trust me that intake stops breathing good around 5500rpms, especially when it's not ported. I'm not assuming I'm more knowledgable than you, This IMO. That cam wants to rev to where that intake just doesn't flow enough.
10-10-2003, 09:39 AM
#35
Supreme Member
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: In reality
Posts: 7,554
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Car: An Ol Buick
Engine: Vsick
Transmission: Janis Tranny Yank Converter
Re: Dynoed the 412 today without any tuning whatsoever
Originally posted by B4Ctom1
The silly thing is that I knew this thing would not make a great number today anyhow. I figured it would be atleast 10 or 15 hp higher.
Anyhow I figured those of you that are used to dyno'ing like me will be familiar with this sort of AF ratio.
This is a stock 1992 730 ECM with the stock 'AUJP' (350 5.7 auto) program.
The silly thing is that I knew this thing would not make a great number today anyhow. I figured it would be atleast 10 or 15 hp higher.
Anyhow I figured those of you that are used to dyno'ing like me will be familiar with this sort of AF ratio.
This is a stock 1992 730 ECM with the stock 'AUJP' (350 5.7 auto) program.
I'll let you draw your own conclusions from that
10-10-2003, 10:14 AM
#36
Supreme Member
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: In reality
Posts: 7,554
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Car: An Ol Buick
Engine: Vsick
Transmission: Janis Tranny Yank Converter
Originally posted by ski_dwn_it
One of the major reasons the tune is so far out with the stock chip is that its a SD setup.
One of the major reasons the tune is so far out with the stock chip is that its a SD setup.
And which oem MAF chip are you suggesting he use?.
His test was about using a stock calibration and the HP generated in his particular set up.
10-10-2003, 12:19 PM
#37
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Indpls IN US
Posts: 812
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 91 Z28
Engine: Forged 383
Transmission: Pro-built 700R4
Come on Grumpy, we all know you can run a wicked setup with a MAF setup and not even have to get it tuned, that's yesterdays news. I'll personally have the pleasure of spending countless hours playing w/ chips since I chose to ditch my 89 for a 91 and I'm looking forward to it. 
Not really.
I'll personally have the pleasure of spending countless hours playing w/ chips since I chose to ditch my 89 for a 91 and I'm looking forward to it. Not really.
10-10-2003, 12:39 PM
#38
Supreme Member
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 2,844
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
2 Posts
Car: 2005 Subaru STI
Engine: 153ci of Turbo Power!
Transmission: 6-Speed
Why do you guys keep talking about only 24d of advance? That's dead wrong. Who said that? Let me check .... OMINOUS_87. Wrong information dude. For an AUJP it's a total of 30d by 4800rpms.
Tim
Tim
10-10-2003, 01:38 PM
#39
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: A thorn in a few people's sides
Posts: 820
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Engine: 2 mice and a cat
We'll see when the next number come in with some tuning. Assuming everything is done by the book, and there is no major problems fixed between this past run and the next ones, or power adders.
Assuming tuning is the only things that changes between the last run and the next one, my opinion is the gains will not put the motor where it should be at for that size motor/cam/intake etc.
But the proof is in the pudding, and we will see, so long as the information we are being fed is truthful.
Assuming tuning is the only things that changes between the last run and the next one, my opinion is the gains will not put the motor where it should be at for that size motor/cam/intake etc.
But the proof is in the pudding, and we will see, so long as the information we are being fed is truthful.
10-10-2003, 02:36 PM
#40
Supreme Member
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Mesa, AZ: Transplanted from Chicago, IL
Posts: 1,824
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
30* is it is, 24* is not accurate.
I was unaware until now that 8d uses a different routine to calculate total timing Vs. 6e, I tune 6e in my ride, apologies.
Would have been nice though for one of the experienced 8d tuners to point this out instead of us having to go dig this info from the archives, as I am sure that this is common knowledge in their world, especially a moderator.
This is quoted from the first thread linked below.
The following threads shed light on the subject of total timing calculation in 6e Vs. 8d.
https://www.thirdgen.org/techbb2/sho...ghlight=timing
https://www.thirdgen.org/techbb2/sho...ghlight=timing
I was unaware until now that 8d uses a different routine to calculate total timing Vs. 6e, I tune 6e in my ride, apologies.
Would have been nice though for one of the experienced 8d tuners to point this out instead of us having to go dig this info from the archives, as I am sure that this is common knowledge in their world, especially a moderator.
This is quoted from the first thread linked below.
Straight from TC,
Hi Tom,
This depends on what version of the $8D ECM Definition File you're using. Earlier version mistakenly included the initial spark advance value into the Main Spark Advance table. Since this value is the initial spark setting that is mechanically set by the distributor it is not a spark bias for the main table and should not be included in the table values. If you are using the current $8D Definition File (version AB) the initial spark advance value is not included and you would need to account for the initial spark advance when relating the main spark advance table values to actual measured spark advance.
Best Regards,
TC
Hi Tom,
This depends on what version of the $8D ECM Definition File you're using. Earlier version mistakenly included the initial spark advance value into the Main Spark Advance table. Since this value is the initial spark setting that is mechanically set by the distributor it is not a spark bias for the main table and should not be included in the table values. If you are using the current $8D Definition File (version AB) the initial spark advance value is not included and you would need to account for the initial spark advance when relating the main spark advance table values to actual measured spark advance.
Best Regards,
TC
https://www.thirdgen.org/techbb2/sho...ghlight=timing
https://www.thirdgen.org/techbb2/sho...ghlight=timing
10-10-2003, 02:44 PM
#41
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: A thorn in a few people's sides
Posts: 820
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Engine: 2 mice and a cat
here is an example of a HP/TQ graphs from a friend that dynoed his car recently. As you can see the A/F ratios varied greatly on the runs. Yet the Hp/TQ stayed relatively untouched.
I stick to my guns with the fact that something is not right with the 412CI motor. And the gains from tuning will not be all that great.
This is just another example of what I have been saying.
I stick to my guns with the fact that something is not right with the 412CI motor. And the gains from tuning will not be all that great.
This is just another example of what I have been saying.
Last edited by ski_dwn_it; 10-10-2003 at 02:49 PM.
10-10-2003, 05:51 PM
#43
Supreme Member
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Maryland
Posts: 2,844
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
2 Posts
Car: 2005 Subaru STI
Engine: 153ci of Turbo Power!
Transmission: 6-Speed
With regard to TunerCat ... both $6E and $8D show timing is the same way. It didn't use to be this way ... but it has been this way for QUITE some time now. I've been over this about a thousand times at this point with various people. There is no difference (except LV8 vs MAP). The main spark table is what you will get so long as your base timing is set to the exact value that you have the base timing constant set to. Just add in your PE spark and you're done (30d = 26d + 4d of PE). Of course I am ignoring knock retard, etc for simplicity sake. I am also ASSuming that you have a REGISTERED VERSION OF TUNERCAT WITH REGISTERED VERSIONS OF THE LATEST TDF FILES. BTW - You said you wished somebody would have pointed it out? Isn't that what I did?
Tim
Tim
Last edited by TRAXION; 10-10-2003 at 05:55 PM.
10-10-2003, 08:54 PM
#44
Supreme Member
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Mesa, AZ: Transplanted from Chicago, IL
Posts: 1,824
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ASSuming
Cruise down to Phoenix and stepup if you want to throw that kind of language around.
10-10-2003, 09:39 PM
#45
I always find it funny how the relative noobs on these boards (not necessarily going by posts, but some of us have been around here since day one or close to it) find it so easy to take shots at the guys that know way more then they do…
I also think it’s funny how offended some of you get when someone doesn’t take the time to properly stroke your all knowing ego when correcting something blatantly wrong in a thread.
I’d suggest that if you want to take shots at Tim you come up here rather then throw around empty threats on the ‘net… and instead of wasting all of our time taking the inevitable shots at me since I pointed this out, why don't you just come up here and kick my *** too, I only live about 30 min from Tim. Or at least take it offline where I can properly ignore you.
I also think it’s funny how offended some of you get when someone doesn’t take the time to properly stroke your all knowing ego when correcting something blatantly wrong in a thread.
I’d suggest that if you want to take shots at Tim you come up here rather then throw around empty threats on the ‘net… and instead of wasting all of our time taking the inevitable shots at me since I pointed this out, why don't you just come up here and kick my *** too, I only live about 30 min from Tim. Or at least take it offline where I can properly ignore you.
10-10-2003, 10:49 PM
#46
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Indpls IN US
Posts: 812
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 91 Z28
Engine: Forged 383
Transmission: Pro-built 700R4
Alright kids lets get back to the main jist of this thread. Ahh..nevermind what the hell.
83 Crossfire, what the hell is, "For that matter, how about a stock maf that can meter more then about 300hp worth of air..." supposed to mean? Have you been keeping up with current events or what, I mean there have been two or three vette guys running MAF who've been posting here making us thirdgenners (some) look like idiots, in regards to how they run with pretty much stock programming. Ski, corkvette, Todd85, etc. They're all pushing 360rwhp or were w/ pretty much stock ecms and chips. So where do you come up and question whether a MAF can meter only 300hp of air? I guess it's as some old philosophers put it best, "ignorance is bliss".
I can see a lock coming on this post, so B4Ctom, do us a favor and keep us updated on your findings.
83 Crossfire, what the hell is, "For that matter, how about a stock maf that can meter more then about 300hp worth of air..." supposed to mean? Have you been keeping up with current events or what, I mean there have been two or three vette guys running MAF who've been posting here making us thirdgenners (some) look like idiots, in regards to how they run with pretty much stock programming. Ski, corkvette, Todd85, etc. They're all pushing 360rwhp or were w/ pretty much stock ecms and chips. So where do you come up and question whether a MAF can meter only 300hp of air? I guess it's as some old philosophers put it best, "ignorance is bliss".
I can see a lock coming on this post, so B4Ctom, do us a favor and keep us updated on your findings.
10-10-2003, 11:07 PM
#47
Supreme Member
OMFG tom Dont look now but you have some HOLES in your pistons!
no one gets it? its a joke. laugh. ha-ha funny.
WHAT?
Error 404: funny not found
no one gets it? its a joke. laugh. ha-ha funny.
WHAT?
Error 404: funny not found
Last edited by Kingtal0n; 10-11-2003 at 02:39 AM.
10-10-2003, 11:18 PM
#48
Supreme Member
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: the garage
Posts: 1,612
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Car: 84 SVO
Engine: Volvo headed 2.3T
Transmission: WCT5
Axle/Gears: 8.8" 3.73
Originally posted by camarojoe
Alright kids lets get back to the main jist of this thread. Ahh..nevermind what the hell.
83 Crossfire, what the hell is, "For that matter, how about a stock maf that can meter more then about 300hp worth of air..." supposed to mean? Have you been keeping up with current events or what, I mean there have been two or three vette guys running MAF who've been posting here making us thirdgenners (some) look like idiots, in regards to how they run with pretty much stock programming. Ski, corkvette, Todd85, etc. They're all pushing 360rwhp or were w/ pretty much stock ecms and chips. So where do you come up and question whether a MAF can meter only 300hp of air? I guess it's as some old philosophers put it best, "ignorance is bliss".
I can see a lock coming on this post, so B4Ctom, do us a favor and keep us updated on your findings.
Alright kids lets get back to the main jist of this thread. Ahh..nevermind what the hell.
83 Crossfire, what the hell is, "For that matter, how about a stock maf that can meter more then about 300hp worth of air..." supposed to mean? Have you been keeping up with current events or what, I mean there have been two or three vette guys running MAF who've been posting here making us thirdgenners (some) look like idiots, in regards to how they run with pretty much stock programming. Ski, corkvette, Todd85, etc. They're all pushing 360rwhp or were w/ pretty much stock ecms and chips. So where do you come up and question whether a MAF can meter only 300hp of air? I guess it's as some old philosophers put it best, "ignorance is bliss".
I can see a lock coming on this post, so B4Ctom, do us a favor and keep us updated on your findings.
Simply put the MAF is maxed out code wise at 255 gps, while you can dump the screens, and cut out the fins, it still is maxed out at 255. So any additional air that passes thru it is NOT metered.
We won't go into your other questoin.. tho, if your impressed by them, then a 9 sec GN running a factory ECM should make your head spin.
Oh... enjoy the bliss.
BW
10-11-2003, 12:24 AM
#49
Supreme Member
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Mesa, AZ: Transplanted from Chicago, IL
Posts: 1,824
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
83 Crossfire TA
:lala: :lala: :lala: That is such a pretty song you sing. :lala: :lala: :lala:
As I previously mentioned, little girls throwing around vulgarity and threats on the internet. Not exactly a game that I play.
For the record to point out the facts, I am not the one out here calling people an *** or inviting local brawls.
I always find it funny how the relative noobs on these boards (not necessarily going by posts, but some of us have been around here since day one or close to it) find it so easy to take shots at the guys that know way more then they do…
I also think it’s funny how offended some of you get when someone doesn’t take the time to properly stroke your all knowing ego when correcting something blatantly wrong in a thread.
I’d suggest that if you want to take shots at Tim you come up here rather then throw around empty threats on the ‘net… and instead of wasting all of our time taking the inevitable shots at me since I pointed this out, why don't you just come up here and kick my *** too, I only live about 30 min from Tim. Or at least take it offline where I can properly ignore you.
I also think it’s funny how offended some of you get when someone doesn’t take the time to properly stroke your all knowing ego when correcting something blatantly wrong in a thread.
I’d suggest that if you want to take shots at Tim you come up here rather then throw around empty threats on the ‘net… and instead of wasting all of our time taking the inevitable shots at me since I pointed this out, why don't you just come up here and kick my *** too, I only live about 30 min from Tim. Or at least take it offline where I can properly ignore you.
:lala: :lala: :lala: That is such a pretty song you sing. :lala: :lala: :lala:
Cruise down to Phoenix and stepup if you want to throw that kind of language around.
For the record to point out the facts, I am not the one out here calling people an *** or inviting local brawls.
10-11-2003, 12:54 AM
#50
TGO Supporter
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Cheyenne, Wyoming
Posts: 4,991
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Car: 1992 B4C 1LE
Engine: Proaction 412, Accel singleplane
Transmission: built 700R4 w/custom converter
Axle/Gears: stock w/later 4th gen torsen pos
well of all the things you have said ski I can say without a doubt that that last dyno sheet speaks volumes. I have seen alot of dyno sheets, and I would have to say based on those extremes shown on that sheet, and my experience with the dyno that there is a huge chance that my expectations for this engines NA power may have been lofty. Our engines may be miles apart in design but I can say we have more in common than say I do with a 5.0 mustang. I will still go for that tune closer to a 12:1 than the 13-14:1 its seeing now and see what happens.
As far as switching to a HSR or miniram. I do have a a HSR but its going on the racecar. Maybe an LT1 intake conversion could happen because I have "service" issues with the access and removing re-installing problems with the accell super ram. I did get a feeling that the SR might be an eventual restriction but I went on undaunted because I was getting alot of flack from the local hicks and thier "just put a carb on it, don't ruin it with that EFI crap" attitude.
Tom be honest Im so caught up in getting my race car up and running next and fooling with my scooter that I cant even fathom which power adder to put on this 412 right now. I have a 5151 kit on the wall, a Turbo on the floor, and a procharger sitting in the engine bay of my race car
to round out this my main reason was to do something that many may have been curious about. "what would happen if a stock ECM was used on a severe motor" We all know that problems occur, but to what extent? and to what end? well we shall see I guess
Please dont squabble in this post I dont need it locked I need genuine help and through this debate I am actually getting it. If you wish to squabble set a date through PM and do it in chat we can all watch
As far as switching to a HSR or miniram. I do have a a HSR but its going on the racecar. Maybe an LT1 intake conversion could happen because I have "service" issues with the access and removing re-installing problems with the accell super ram. I did get a feeling that the SR might be an eventual restriction but I went on undaunted because I was getting alot of flack from the local hicks and thier "just put a carb on it, don't ruin it with that EFI crap" attitude.
Tom be honest Im so caught up in getting my race car up and running next and fooling with my scooter that I cant even fathom which power adder to put on this 412 right now. I have a 5151 kit on the wall, a Turbo on the floor, and a procharger sitting in the engine bay of my race car
to round out this my main reason was to do something that many may have been curious about. "what would happen if a stock ECM was used on a severe motor" We all know that problems occur, but to what extent? and to what end? well we shall see I guess
Please dont squabble in this post I dont need it locked I need genuine help and through this debate I am actually getting it. If you wish to squabble set a date through PM and do it in chat we can all watch
Last edited by B4Ctom1; 10-11-2003 at 01:16 AM.