Hey guys,
Aside from the fact that the numbers were truely disappointing, and the car didn't seem to respond much to any of the changes I made, I was very concerned that the A/F mixture in the lower rpm range (< 3500) was really lean - like off the scale lean. I realized we don't spend much, if any, time in the lower rpms, but I was wondering if this is typical with this car, or if this is something I need to look into. I've attached a copy of one of the pulls; they were pretty much all the same as far as the A/F curve is concerned. The fuel pressure for this pull was set at 33/41psi, cam and ignition timing were spec.
[attachmentid=627]
[/b]
Do you have the secondary intake butterflies removed from the intake manifold?[/b]

Steve - yes on the butterflies (for those wagging fingers it was explained to me that once I had the (legal) port matching done these butterfiles no longer seat properly and must be removed), no on the bypass, yes on the stock intake(other than the port matching). Compression numbers are a little low, but consistent; 165 - 170. Leakdown was under 2% across the board. I already knew the compression was going to be low - when I had the head done my engine guy calculated my new compression to be around 8.7, and my own calculations had it at 8.8. And that was after the head was shaved .023". The injectors were cleaned and flow-tested last year; they were flowing between 260 - 264 cc/min at 43 psi (I believe they're rated at 270cc?).Glad you posted the plot. For your build the numbers do seem off. Seems like the engine is not running right or something is choking you down. Do you have the secondary intake butterflies removed from the intake manifold? Did you do a coolant bypass on the manifold/TB? (doubt this makes a difference but just wondering). Stock intake? What are the compression numbers? Balanced and blueprinted injectors? [/b]
There may be a couple of things there - I'm still using the S&S header in its 'street' configuration. I know several guys have mentioned there are gains to be found by opening up the exhaust, so that will be one of my next projects. Also, I did everything with the JWT ECU in the car - in hindsight I wish I had tried at least 2 - 3 pulls with the stock ECU. The only other thing I can think of is that maybe I plugged a vacuum line I shouldn't have when I pulled the EGR & AIV systems. I'll have to go back and look at that.Not sure what but something is up. Below is a dyno of 2 different motors for comparison's sake.
The red line is a junkyard motor that wasn't cracked open. The S&S header on this car was badly dented where it bends to go under the car. Exhaust wasn't the greatest work but flowed well i guess. Compression test was 175, 180, 175, 175. So, it was a very nice junkyard motor.
The blue line is actually a built motor. Shaved head, decked block (for the +.5 CR increase), valve job, new valves, pistons, balanced, etc. Goes to show it takes a lot to beat the factory numbers sometimes. Compression test was 180 across the board. We had dyno'd it with a JWT ecu also, but the peak numbers didn't change. There was an increase in power from 2k - 4500 rpm (which we don't use anyways) and after that it was the same as the stock ecu. With the JWT, after 5500 rpm the a/f dropped to 11.5:1, but the power was the same.[/b]
Steve - yes on the butterflies (for those wagging fingers it was explained to me that once I had the (legal) port matching done these butterfiles no longer seat properly and must be removed)... [/b]
Gary, you're absolutely correct, there's nothing in the ITCS that specifically allows the removal of the butterflies. What the ITCS does explicitly permit is "manifold and cylinder head port matching". What it does not say is "manifold and cylinder head port matching is permitted unless it requires the removal of the butterflies to do so". To quote the second-most uttered mantra of IT (right after IIDSYCYC), "If it says you can, then you bloody well can".Sorry about the hijack here, but you've certainly gotten my attention with that statement. Please point to the paragraph in the ITCS that allows removal of butterflies because they don't fit after you've performed an optional port matching mod.[/b]
Gary, you're absolutely correct, there's nothing in the ITCS that specifically allows the removal of the butterflies. What the ITCS does explicitly permit is "manifold and cylinder head port matching". What it does not say is "manifold and cylinder head port matching is permitted unless it requires the removal of the butterflies to do so". To quote the second-most uttered mantra of IT (right after IIDSYCYC), "If it says you can, then you bloody well can".
[/b]
Sorry about the hijack here, but you've certainly gotten my attention with that statement. Please point to the paragraph in the ITCS that allows removal of butterflies because they don't fit after you've performed an optional port matching mod.
[/b]
[/b]
Steve - yes on the butterflies (for those wagging fingers it was explained to me that once I had the (legal) port matching done these butterfiles no longer seat properly and must be removed), no on the bypass, yes on the stock intake(other than the port matching). Compression numbers are a little low, but consistent; 165 - 170. Leakdown was under 2% across the board. I already knew the compression was going to be low - when I had the head done my engine guy calculated my new compression to be around 8.7, and my own calculations had it at 8.8. And that was after the head was shaved .023". The injectors were cleaned and flow-tested last year; they were flowing between 260 - 264 cc/min at 43 psi (I believe they're rated at 270cc?).
[/b]
There may be a couple of things there - I'm still using the S&S header in its 'street' configuration. I know several guys have mentioned there are gains to be found by opening up the exhaust, so that will be one of my next projects. Also, I did everything with the JWT ECU in the car - in hindsight I wish I had tried at least 2 - 3 pulls with the stock ECU. The only other thing I can think of is that maybe I plugged a vacuum line I shouldn't have when I pulled the EGR & AIV systems. I'll have to go back and look at that.
[/b]
Anyway, I'll be doing a complete rebuild over the winter, including boring .020 over and going to the flat-top pistons. In the mean time I'll go over everything else and see if we can't do a little better next time.
Thanks again.
[/b]
Jim - I actually remembered you telling me that in a previous conversation, and just to check I did a run with timing at 10 degrees. It was one of the few times I saw noticeable results - unfortunately in the wrong direction. I am starting to believe though that whatever the problem is, once I get it figured out I will be pretty much starting from scratch, so I won't rule that out just yet.FWIW, My ITA 240 made the most power at 5* advance. That was with a JWT ecu and S&S header with merge collector. IIRC, with the bigger header, 6* was the magic point. YMMV. [/b]
Yes, it did.I bet the wideband o2 sensor on the dyno used a probe for the tailpipe.[/b]
Thanks - that makes me feel a little better. I'm still pretty sure the low hp/tq numbers are for real though; at MARRS IX those damn RX7s were walking away from me on the straights, even though I was getting good runs on them through the corners! Oh the shame...The lean condition at low RPMs is a result of insufficient exhaust gas volume flowing through the small diameter probe which shows as lean (high 02 content).
Also keep in mind different dynos, different days, different weather etc has a huge impact on dyno numbers. You can take that very same car back on another day and make 10HP +/- [/b]
That is possible, but I've seen tons of dyno sheets where the A/Fs are correct from low to high RPMs.I bet the wideband o2 sensor on the dyno used a probe for the tailpipe. The lean condition at low RPMs is a result of insufficient exhaust gas volume flowing through the small diameter probe which shows as lean (high 02 content).
[/b]