Quick update on jlitman's Soon to be Water/Alcohol Injected S/C AT GT-S

[jlitman]

This dynochart, shows the difference from baseline (pre-S/C) through various iterations of tuning. The highest one is for the Milesplume Pulley



Here's the latest and greatest after 1/2 qt of polydyn (Thanks Boosted2.0!) and the replacement of my defunct catyltic converter with a new factory one (most likely will replace soon with a test pipe).



Direct port Water/Alcohol Injection kit will be installed this week (FINALLY!!!). So new dynos coming soon -- should easily exceed 200 whp. Not bad for an auto, eh

BTW: Although these are all SAE corrected, I recently stumbled on some info suggesting that us FI guys should be using a revised correction factor -- the way the numbers come out, we'd be using uncorrected values Link to the relevant thread is here. In case you were wondering, uncorrected, my latest dyno is >195 whp >135 wtq

[GTsRasta]

Niceeeeee, congratz =). Hows the 10.5 psi pulley from miles coming along in your car?

[zuoom]

good good.

will be interesting to see how the autobox take it.

[boardernr]

direct port alky injection? meaning 4 nozzles directly into each intake manifold runner? who makes that kit? BTW, nice numbers so far

[boardernr]

oh, and was there a noticable difference after adding that polydine? what's your opinion on it after using it?

[GTsRasta]

http://www.enginerunup.com/digital-p...it/prod_43.php

He used this one, he started an interest thread for it. I'm looking to use this too if I go this route . Time goes so damn slow...I can't wait to get out of this appearance mod phase...

[boardernr]

pretty cool ,that install is kinda tacky looking in their ad though. Should be nice and safe

[elcelicagts]

damn thats awsome!

im so looking foward to put all my dynos after each mod. my 10.5 pulley is being worked on all ready. after that im glad to see some improvement from that oil treatment boosted is selling, hope to get some soon.

is that the same alky kit miles had????

[jlitman]

Originally Posted by boardernr

direct port alky injection? meaning 4 nozzles directly into each intake manifold runner? who makes that kit? BTW, nice numbers so far

Originally Posted by GTsRasta

http://www.enginerunup.com/digital-p...it/prod_43.php

Originally Posted by elcelicagts

is that the same alky kit miles had????

That's the one! Assuming all goes well, I may be ordering a smaller pulley to bump up the boost a little more, say to 11.5 or so

Originally Posted by boardernr

oh, and was there a noticable difference after adding that polydine? what's your opinion on it after using it?

Yeah -- that stuff definitely works! I had a dyno right before this one, but after adding the polydyn. Even with the clogged cat, I still made an extra 2-3 whp over my last best one, with average gains of ~8 whp throughout the rev range! Unbelieveable! In regard to feel, there was somewhat improved cold start-up and a little more torquey from a stop. The oil analysis information indicates that it's safe to use and it does actually increase power, so I'd say it was worth it considering how inexpensive it is.

Thanks for the positive comments guys! More dynos coming soon

[GTsRasta]

Awesome news. I feel more comfortalbe wanting a 10.5 psi pulley now .

[elcelicagts]

^ yep, just dont go saying something rude like "if an auto can handle it....." lol.

[Boosted2.0]

Lookin great! I can't wait to see how your car does with the water injection andonce we get a power FC on it!

[zuoom]

the powerFC on the autoGTS will probably be the finishing touch to cap it off.

uber.

[LightningRod]

Sweet!

[Jesse IL]

Are you sure a direct port system is the best way to go? With nitrous, you can't go below a 150 shot on direct port, due to the limitations on how small the nozzles can get. I'd be worried that with four sprayers, you'd be dumping way too much methanol. Why not just run a single port Aquamist system?

[Boosted2.0]

Originally Posted by Jesse IL

Are you sure a direct port system is the best way to go? With nitrous, you can't go below a 150 shot on direct port, due to the limitations on how small the nozzles can get. I'd be worried that with four sprayers, you'd be dumping way too much methanol. Why not just run a single port Aquamist system?

It would be very difficult to get even distribution to the cylinders with a single sprayer system due to the Greddy manifold design.

[jlitman]

I just downloaded the windows viewer for dynojet runfiles -- now I can make my own dynocharts -- whee! Here's a nice one that shows what my AT GT-S put down stock (only mods were greddy Evo II and the torque converter, which I don't think affected power output) to be compared with what it's putting down now (other mods listed in sig )



Come a long way, hasn't it

Originally Posted by Boosted2.0

Lookin great! I can't wait to see how your car does with the water injection andonce we get a power FC on it!

Thanks!! Yes -- looking forward to a PFC thanks to your harness in the near future!!!

Originally Posted by Boosted2.0

It would be very difficult to get even distribution to the cylinders with a single sprayer system due to the Greddy manifold design.

I have a digital progessive controller, so we can tune exactly how much will spray at different psi, so it should be fine. Ill be running 50/50 W/M. Also, the Aquamist kit is about twice the price, and they didn't have a plug-and-play direct port set-up

[drewd]

[Boosted2.0]

Originally Posted by jlitman

I have a digital progessive controller, so we can tune exactly how much will spray at different psi, so it should be fine. Ill be running 50/50 W/M. Also, the Aquamist kit is about twice the price, and they didn't have a plug-and-play direct port set-up

Sure has come a long way!

Yeah I saw that kit - it looks really good for this application.

[boardernr]

jlitman, do you have control over lift engagement? if so, looks like you might want to lower it by a couple hundred rpms.

[Boosted2.0]

Originally Posted by boardernr

jlitman, do you have control over lift engagement? if so, looks like you might want to lower it by a couple hundred rpms.

Nope - hes on E-Manage for the time being

[Celicasaur]

well done good work

one question, why should the actual power output be lower than a manual gt-s s/c? i mean, its the same engine putting the same 'power' on a dyno...?

[Boosted2.0]

Originally Posted by Celicasaur

well done good work

one question, why should the actual power output be lower than a manual gt-s s/c? i mean, its the same engine putting the same 'power' on a dyno...?

Auto transmission. Its a hell of a lot less efficient at transfering power - way more parasitic loss.

[jlitman]

Originally Posted by Boosted2.0

Auto transmission. Its a hell of a lot less efficient at transfering power - way more parasitic loss.

My estimate is about 11 - 13% for the MT and around DOUBLE that for the AT. This same set-up, same dyno, would be making between 225 and 230 whp on a MT. Oh well...

[Celicasaur]

ahhhhhh..... (learnt something new there )

thanx guys. damn, thats about as bad transmission loss as four wheel drive, but without the benefits of it either!

[Gravel]

Originally Posted by jlitman

I just downloaded the windows viewer for dynojet runfiles -- now I can make my own dynocharts -- whee! Here's a nice one that shows what my AT GT-S put down stock (only mods were greddy Evo II and the torque converter, which I don't think affected power output) to be compared with what it's putting down now (other mods listed in sig )



Come a long way, hasn't it

Looking really good Jiltman

[LightningRod]

Originally Posted by jlitman

Damn, nearly 40 lb-ft. gained in torque all across the rev range! I wonder what that feels like ...

[jlitman]

Originally Posted by LightningRod

Damn, nearly 40 lb-ft. gained in torque all across the rev range! I wonder what that feels like ...

The fast side of slow

The S/C plus milesplume pulley, VVTi/AF tuning, and polydyn has resulted in about a 46% gain in whp and a 34% gain in wtq -- not too shabby!

But, man, if only the 2ZZ made nearly as much torque as it did power.

[elcelicagts]

Originally Posted by jlitman

But, man, if only the 2ZZ made nearly as much torque as it did power.

amen.

hey dude, i checked the map bank, and i see the greddy base maps are locked, do you have an unlocked base map? im going to another tuner, and hope he can tune my car.

[Boosted2.0]

There are plenty of unlocked Greddy maps in there - or at least there were when I loaded them

[boardernr]

Originally Posted by jlitman

But, man, if only the 2ZZ made nearly as much torque as it did power.

hey man, that's the nature of high revving motors..... hp is how fast you make torque, the higher you rev, the bigger that gap gets.

[jlitman]

Originally Posted by boardernr

hey man, that's the nature of high revving motors..... hp is how fast you make torque, the higher you rev, the bigger that gap gets.

Too true... speaking of which, theoretically (I say that because I know there have been few dynos...) what would be the expected % improvement in torque if it were bored out the extra .1999 ltrs?

[Boosted2.0]

should be 10% or more as that would increase the displacement by over 10% - longer stroke motors also tend to be more torquey anyways so maybe 15%

[jlitman]

Originally Posted by Boosted2.0

should be 10% or more as that would increase the displacement by over 10% - longer stroke motors also tend to be more torquey anyways so maybe 15%

Interesting -- I like switching the discussion to torque, as we've mostly been talking about horsepower limits for the 2ZZ recently, and the difference between the two values on this motor is considerable. If ~300 whp is about the limit of power on stock internals, do you have any inferences on the highest wtq torque a stock 2ZZ could make?

[Gravel]

Originally Posted by jlitman

Interesting -- I like switching the discussion to torque, as we've mostly been talking about horsepower limits for the 2ZZ recently, and the difference between the two values on this motor is considerable. If ~300 whp is about the limit of power on stock internals, do you have any inferences on the highest wtq torque a stock 2ZZ could make?

Isn't the problem that you're using your engine to spin up a big pair of rotors in the s/c? I thought 230 odd WHP 2ZZ's had a shed load more torque than that

[jlitman]

Originally Posted by Gravel

Isn't the problem that you're using your engine to spin up a big pair of rotors in the s/c?

Well... right. But even the turboed 2ZZ's are making far more power than torque -- that's just the nature of the motor.

My question is, what's the safe limit for torque before something goes pop. It looks like the typical ratio of tq:hp is between .7 and .8. So does that mean if up to 300 whp is safe on a stock motor, one could shoot for up to, say, somewhere between 210 and 240 wtq (on a dynojet) without too much worry?

[BuRn1nG]

over 300 wtq and you are looking for trouble as most clutches dont hold past that point. but then you would need to make at least 450whp in order to reach that torque line.

[Gravel]

Originally Posted by jlitman

Well... right. But even the turboed 2ZZ's are making far more power than torque -- that's just the nature of the motor.

My question is, what's the safe limit for torque before something goes pop. It looks like the typical ratio of tq:hp is between .7 and .8. So does that mean if up to 300 whp is safe on a stock motor, one could shoot for up to, say, somewhere between 210 and 240 wtq (on a dynojet) without too much worry?

What's the stock diff good for? MWR had a Quaife in their crazy unbuilt 400+whp monster...

[Boosted2.0]

Originally Posted by jlitman

Interesting -- I like switching the discussion to torque, as we've mostly been talking about horsepower limits for the 2ZZ recently, and the difference between the two values on this motor is considerable. If ~300 whp is about the limit of power on stock internals, do you have any inferences on the highest wtq torque a stock 2ZZ could make?

who knows - the issue is one of tuning anyways - the weak spot is the pistons (ring lands_ which are most likely going to fail due to detonation. I don't know where the knock limit is going to be on a stroked 2ZZ with stock compression and a non intercooled SC, but frankly with the water and alcohol injection and a proper standalone I'd be wlilling to bet you'll max out that blower before you'll reach the mechanical limits of the 2ZZ

[jlitman]

Originally Posted by Boosted2.0

who knows - the issue is one of tuning anyways - the weak spot is the pistons (ring lands_ which are most likely going to fail due to detonation. I don't know where the knock limit is going to be on a stroked 2ZZ with stock compression and a non intercooled SC, but frankly with the water and alcohol injection and a proper standalone I'd be wlilling to bet you'll max out that blower before you'll reach the mechanical limits of the 2ZZ

Awesome

Actually, according to a Magnusson rep I spoke with some time ago, he seemed to feel that 11.5 psi was about as much as the MP62 compressor could handle before it was loosing too much effficiency to operate properly, so I can squeeze a little more boost out of it, no? ...

Gravel and BuRn1nG both noted that the transaxle might brake before the engine -- any thoughts on the sturdiness of the autotrans on these cars? I was always of the (perhaps erroneous) belief, that slushboxes for all their liabilities at least tended to be a bit more stout in terms of holding power. Is that true? I know Jersey Jay put down 240+ whp witout any problems.

[GTsRasta]

If the transmission goes, put on the auto Matrix AWD tranny You already got an auto, who cares about the extra weight.

[jlitman]

Originally Posted by GTsRasta

If the transmission goes, put on the auto Matrix AWD tranny You already got an auto, who cares about the extra weight.

Hmmm. Well, don't think I haven't considered it, but I imagine it would be a bit tricky coordinating various ECU's and a standalone to make it all work together harmoniously. Hopefully I just won't blow up my current trans

[jlitman]

ARGH -- Installation delayed again.

[Celicasaur]

why, what happened?

[jlitman]

Originally Posted by Celicasaur

why, what happened?

The person who will be doing this for me is still wrapping up on another project that is taking a lot of his time... he's shoehorning a 6-cyl into an MR2 for a custom engine swap, but had hoped he'd be done by now...

Just spoke to him on the phone, should happen this coming week...

[Devious]

Originally Posted by jlitman

Actually, according to a Magnusson rep I spoke with some time ago, he seemed to feel that 11.5 psi was about as much as the MP62 compressor could handle before it was loosing too much effficiency to operate properly, so I can squeeze a little more boost out of it, no?

The limit will be the airflow THROUGH the blower, not just the efficiency (see the flow rates for the M62 at Eaton's website). The M64 has a fairly low max flow for this application. Adding a smaller blower drive pulley will increase boost (heating the air), but not airflow. Remember, "boost" is an indication of a restriction to airflow and/or decreased density, not the actual flow or density.

Spinning the blower faster actually reduces the air flow through the blower - less time to fill the lobes with air, and more heat from the drive gears. But the same blower inlet and outlet orifaces.

You might want to eventually have the blower (and inlet pipe) ported for a bit more flow and about 10% more power - http://www.stiegemeier.com/

A ported Eaton Roots design can efficiently flow enough air for approx. 250 rwhp per liter of blower displacement. The M64 displaces approximately 1.048 liters per revolution. The M90 displaces about 1.475 liters per revolution. So even a ported M64 will not flow more than a stock 4th generation M90.


I hope this helps.

[jlitman]

Originally Posted by Devious

The limit will be the airflow THROUGH the blower, not just the efficiency (see the flow rates for the M62 at Eaton's website). The M64 has a fairly low max flow for this application. Adding a smaller blower drive pulley will increase boost (heating the air), but not airflow. Remember, "boost" is an indication of a restriction to airflow and/or decreased density, not the actual flow or density.

Spinning the blower faster actually reduces the air flow through the blower - less time to fill the lobes with air, and more heat from the drive gears. But the same blower inlet and outlet orifaces.

You might want to eventually have the blower (and inlet pipe) ported for a bit more flow and about 10% more power - http://www.stiegemeier.com/

A ported Eaton Roots design can efficiently flow enough air for approx. 250 rwhp per liter of blower displacement. The M64 displaces approximately 1.048 liters per revolution. The M90 displaces about 1.475 liters per revolution. So even a ported M64 will not flow more than a stock 4th generation M90.


I hope this helps.

Actually, that was very helpful! I will definietely look into this! Please feel free to share more details suggestions as they occur to you either here or by PM

EDIT: Holy crap, over a grand and 1-2 weeks downtime!? Er... are you sure a smaller pulley would work against me if I'm using methanol?

[Gravel]

Originally Posted by Devious

The limit will be the airflow THROUGH the blower, not just the efficiency (see the flow rates for the M62 at Eaton's website). The M64 has a fairly low max flow for this application. Adding a smaller blower drive pulley will increase boost (heating the air), but not airflow. Remember, "boost" is an indication of a restriction to airflow and/or decreased density, not the actual flow or density.

Spinning the blower faster actually reduces the air flow through the blower - less time to fill the lobes with air, and more heat from the drive gears. But the same blower inlet and outlet orifaces.

You might want to eventually have the blower (and inlet pipe) ported for a bit more flow and about 10% more power - http://www.stiegemeier.com/

A ported Eaton Roots design can efficiently flow enough air for approx. 250 rwhp per liter of blower displacement. The M64 displaces approximately 1.048 liters per revolution. The M90 displaces about 1.475 liters per revolution. So even a ported M64 will not flow more than a stock 4th generation M90.


I hope this helps.

That's not what this says:

The flow rate looks pretty linear to me all the way to 16k rpm.

This thing is a constant displacement pump - it only makes any boost because there is air backed up at its outlet - i.e. in the inlet manifold. This air gets there by being pumped through the charger, and unless the air in the charger's inlet is approaching supersonic speeds, it really isn't going to have much difficulty filling the lobes.

As for flow capacity, that graph seems to suggest about 530cfm @ 10psi/16,000 rpm - which using the old 1.5cfm/hp rule allows for about 350HP at the crank. That will cost you 35HP to drive the charger, and the charge will be 200F above ambient, but it will work!

[Boosted2.0]

Originally Posted by Devious

The limit will be the airflow THROUGH the blower, not just the efficiency (see the flow rates for the M62 at Eaton's website). The M64 has a fairly low max flow for this application. Adding a smaller blower drive pulley will increase boost (heating the air), but not airflow. Remember, "boost" is an indication of a restriction to airflow and/or decreased density, not the actual flow or density.

Spinning the blower faster actually reduces the air flow through the blower - less time to fill the lobes with air, and more heat from the drive gears. But the same blower inlet and outlet orifaces.

You might want to eventually have the blower (and inlet pipe) ported for a bit more flow and about 10% more power - http://www.stiegemeier.com/

A ported Eaton Roots design can efficiently flow enough air for approx. 250 rwhp per liter of blower displacement. The M64 displaces approximately 1.048 liters per revolution. The M90 displaces about 1.475 liters per revolution. So even a ported M64 will not flow more than a stock 4th generation M90.


I hope this helps.

This is true to an extent *IF* you don't use charge cooling or higher effective octane / detonation supression. When coupled with charge cooling theres no problem at all with slapping a smaller pulley on it. Even without cooling it will still net some gain with sufficient octane.

[jlitman]

Originally Posted by Boosted2.0

This is true to an extent *IF* you don't use charge cooling or higher effective octane / detonation supression. When coupled with charge cooling theres no problem at all with slapping a smaller pulley on it. Even without cooling it will still net some gain with sufficient octane.

Boosted -- thanks for the input! I think once the water-meth cooling is installed and tuned safely, I'll swap pulleys once again for one that makes about 11.5 psi.