southbay was it something that got in there form his fuel system? or was it something that may have been in there when they got shipped out?

fast might be time to flush the fuel lines and put a new fuel filter on

 

Well, my guess is that it got in there from the fuel system. When we service/"rebuild" our injectors they are placed through the entire flow testing process before they leave the shop and one of the tests that we perform is a leak test up to 80psi and they were fine. If I remember correctly in a previous post fasteddie installed them and they worked fine and then he developed problems. So again, I have to assume that it was something from the fuel system.

www.southbayfuelinjectors.com
516-442-4707

 

yeah it wouldnt surprise me, i thought all injectors have a screen on the top to stop debries from getting in though?

fast when u get a chance its time for half to 3/4 a can of seafoam in the gas tank run it threw and then disconect the fuel lines at the motor and blow compressed air threw them from the back of the car to clear them out

 

they do, however somehow the debris sometimes winds up in the tip. That is what causes injectors to leak.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VGEPq...ature=youtu.be

New best time tonight. 13.31@104.7mph. All trap speeds were over 104.0mph tonight. Believe it or not I beat a V8 automatice 2010 Camaro tonight, I have witnesses,...lol phoenixfirebird would be one of them. I barly got him but all that matters is I did tonight.


15psi tonight only, no KR and nice AFR's..11.5:1.

Once thing is that the car wanted to jerk to the left on the last run.. the 13.31 one, that caused me a little time lose I think.
Also in that video above that was against a Vette and a new one at that. He was running high 12's and it was nice to be on his tail, I acctually had faster 60ft times, still bad but consistant.

 

its jerking cause ur only hooking with one tire, weld up the rear or get a posi, saw the video befor eu even posted it sounds like u spun off the line.

any other vids from the night?

 

btw with that kind of mph u shoudl be going 12.60 or a tad faster

 

Thanks south bay, I will flush the fuel system.

Dave, it was the corvette that spun a little, i think as i couldnt tell if it was me or not. And the guy changed his mind about the rear end, which sucks. Those trap speeds are impressive and I agree it should make 12's with mph like that. Did you like my john force burn out? Lmao

 

Nice burn out, but you shouldn't do that with an open differential. It places a lot of force/stress on the small spider gears and increases the axle speed of the passenger side axle.

Best bet is to get an Eaton posi unit and bolt it in. I would stay with the 3.32's or maybe go with a set of 3.42 gears from a 5-speed V6 car. Don't want or need a a lot of gear with turbo cars.

Check the data log of a recent 1/4 run and check the RPM through the traps.

RBob.

 

he needs atleast 3:73's 3:42 would be a 210 rpm increase
3:73 would be a 500 rpm increase
4:10 would be a 870 rpm increase
4:56 would be a 1,330 rpm increase in ur trap rpm

4;10's wpould be ideal but he isnt going to turn his motor as high as mine being its a 100 something k mile shortblock and hes afraid to

i know for a fact 3:73 would have put his car into the low 12's on that run., 3:73 with a 26 inch tall tire, or 4:10 with a 28 inch tall tire is what it needs

fast did it still 60' in the 2.0's ?

 

3.73s are FAR too steep.

I would go with nothing higher than a 3.42, get some load on the turbo, in the low gears, who cares what RPM the car pulls through the traps at? That kind of thinking assumes that the higher you rev it, the more power it will make. He's still using asthmatic iron heads, a poorly laid out exhaust system (compared to ideal), and an open diff. He needs to get the rest sorted out, to take advantage of what good parts he already has.

I know some people who gear their cars to only use the first 3 gears in a run, leaving 4th out of the run. Less time shifting means that time that would be spent shifting is now used to propel the car forward. This is less of an issue with autos, but is still a factor.
Also with the very steep 1st of a 700R4, I can only see a steep diff gear hurting overall times.

 

i beg to differ with that since i went from 3:42's to 4:10's and saw huge gains.
gear ratio hurting load with a turbo is a load of bull, even with my 4:10's i went from 1 psi to full boost in my car in 3/10's of a second and that was with the 700r4. witht he 3:42's it was like 4-5/10ths, i still have the datalogs that show it

i do agree that he could get much more out of what he currently has, with some changes but he does have a log header setup that will be replacing his current setup.posi/spool is the next logical step though

i will be building him some sweeping foward facing headers this winter to replace that log setup as well

 

gimmie a few mins im looking for some datalogs i have so i can plot rpm/vs ,mph/vs boost between his and my car with the different gearing and u will be able to see the differences

 

i need to find the actuall datalog files as the graphs i have saved are to zoomed out to show u the point im trying to make



but anyways gearing is not going to hurt him its going to get him out of the hole a hella lot faster and up threw 3rd gear alot faster.

i had an unlimited supply of 7.5gear sets ive tried just about ever ratio in my car except 4:56's 3:73/4:10s were best all around

 

What you're trying to indicate goes against everything that is known to work with turbo vehicles. Turbo vehicles require less gear than a comparably powered N/A vehicle.

Your graphs mean nothing to me, just a bunch of squiggly lines.

I don't understand why everyone wants to rev the bag off everything...

 

dont want him to rev it to the moon but he should be crossing the stripe much closer to 6k hes barley above 5,000 as it is now

gears will give him more mechanical advantage of moving that heavy car, it will get up off the line faster and down track much faster with 3:73's

his rate of acceleration noses over in 3rdgear i.e not enough gear.
a turbo does not care what gear ratio is in the rear end. the only thing that matters to a turbocharge is that it has enough ex volume and velocity to drive its turbine wheel

a higher gear will result in more power multiplication period

far to many ppl think u need to gear low when turbocharged which is just not the case, u gear a turbo car the same way u would gear any car u are drag racing, just below redline at the stripe

the only thing lower gears do is make higher power numbers on a chassi dyno cause of the way they operate

and if i went by what everyone thinks should be done with gears cause my car is turbo the thing would be a slow *** ****ing turd, not making 12 second passes with only 9 psi of boost

 

I have to agree here, 3.42's at most. I had 3.73's in my old TTA once and I kept blowing through second like it wasn't even there right to third. Swapping back to the 3.27's fixed that...

 

u know what im done arguing

whos the one with the fast v6 car here ?????????????????????

been there done that know what works take it or leave it

 

Settle down beavis...

My TTA was running the 200R4 anyways, so it responded differently...

 

I see you are getting an ego about this, this is what caused the last thread to get locked, this one gets locked and fasteddi gets no more threads on the topic, period.

I don't doubt that a steeper gear worked for you, but that is opposite of what I have experienced and what has been shown to work, when making more power than previously.

Another case in point, a friend of mine that has a '71 Cutlass that I tune, prefers 3.42 gears, over 3.90s, he has both gear sets and changes between them whenever he feels like. He has the swap down to about 2 hours, using only jack stands, no hoist, from the car rolling into the garage to rolling back out with a properly set rear end. He says the car feels faster with the 3.90s, but in actually the 3.42s work better, getting the car to get into the converter harder, and not spinning (as much). He has a 4L80E in the car, and it weighs over 4400 lbs, making over 500 HP and 600 Ft/lbs, naturally aspirated. The same story comes from a lot of people that I know that actually try different gear sets and find that when making plenty of power (for the weight) that a gear that is not as steep as bench racers would use, works best.

Again, I'm not sure why anyone would want to select a gear based solely on trap RPM, that's like selecting a pair of shoes based solely on the size, disregarding the intended use of the shoe, the materials, etc, etc.

The gear does have an effect on how a turbo responds, it's based on engine load, I have this problem right now, when I had 3.54s in my car, my turbo spooled in the low to mid 2000 RPM range, but now that I have 3.90s, it's late 2000 to low 3000 RPM, in 1 through 3rd gears, 4th and 5th it spools up sooner and gets to a higher boost level, than 1st through 3rd gears. Gaining boost sooner will help get more area under the curve for power, broadening the torque curve, which is why many people with turbo cars run a shallow gear, and are quite quick, especially in the top end. This is also another reason turbo cars trap at a higher MPH that a similarly powered N/A car for the E.T., due to the top end pull. I've only seen less than a handful of times that a turbo car will trap very close to what it "should be" for the E.T. based on what a slide rule says it should be.

 

Looks like I missed alot in the last 2 days. I don't know personally which gears work best but ATM there is no rear that will be going in the car. The deal I had, the kid renigged so thats a no go.

I plan to start work on the logs tommorow and build the x over and hopefully get the flange off the turbo welded up also.

Does having only wastegate springs in the WG(only) no controler, generally make the boost smoother? I also plan to add both springs I have, the little one and large one together made 16.5psi the other day but since I didnt have time to tune I just took the small on back out. And used the controler.

Tonight I was launching the car at 1800-2k rpms so I coul get some good Rt's which I did. I lost in the 2nd round because of a horrible sandbagger.

Yes dave in still in the 2.00's 60 ft times on ave. It suxs to bbe honest. I was making consistant 13.50-60's tonight launching at those low rpms. 2500K launch=13.30's all night as of now.

 

Heres my buddy beating my butt in time trials. His 12 sec flat stang and me in the mid 13's I launched light 1800rpms.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxYYE...ature=youtu.be

Enjoy watching a stang beat me..lmao

 

u would be a douche bag and do that, u dont deserve to be a mod period with that ****ing attitude

 

I'm giving a fair warning (to everyone), and you personally are treading on thin ice.

I'm trying to keep this thread civil, but it seems that is not possible.

As it is, this little side discussion is enough to get this locked, due to the rules set out at the beginning of this thread. I'm trying to be fair to fasteddi, but if other members ruin it for him, so be it.

This side discussion ends now. If you don't like it, send another PM to JT.

 

LOL, it doesn't sound like much, until you get a visual like that, eh?

It only gets worse the quicker the times get.

 

no crap its not enough to get it locked it all pertians to his car, ur just looking for an excuse to close the thread

and i dont car what this or that car does with gears, for one its not a 3.1 its not an fbody, it dont have a turbo on it, it has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

i have first hand experiance when it comes to a turbo 3.1 thirdgen and what gear ratios do what to spoolup time et/mph. u dont ur just arguing based on what the general rule of thuimb is

 

spring only should make it smooth, though u may or may not increase spoolup time with springs only

 

Actually I do have first hand experience with a turbo 660 (or two), maybe not in third gens, but the same rules apply.

But the thread gets locked, because I said to keep it on topic, and Project89 chose to keep going with something unrelated. Sorry fasteddi.

 

So far I have not banned anyone, but this was in the very first post of this thread, and is now why this thread is locked.

I can ban certain people, and re-open the thread if people would prefer that. Personally, I'd rather not ban anyone.

I know not many will understand why this is locked, part of being a moderator is to keep situations from getting worse. As evident of the last thread on this topic, and now where this one was headed, it was only going to likely keep going on a downward spiral. In order to keep that from happening I have locked it. I don't like locking threads, nor do I appreciate name calling, of me or other members. There are a couple people tonight that don't seem to be able to refrain from doing so. I have been more than generous with only deleting certain posts and not issuing infractions (in this thread and others), that can change very quickly.

This site is meant to help one another through civil discussion, name calling and chest beating do not help move discussions along, they only serve to stop the discussion, and it usually spirals down to personal attacks.

In the future, even if you don't agree with a moderators decision (mine or anyone else's) there is likely a valid reason for it, even if the reason is not made public. You don't have to understand it, you just have to live with it.