Dyno results!
12-21-2005, 01:29 AM
#34
Advanced
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
f = front wheel hp
r = rear wheel hp
a = all wheel hp
If you are running that lean on a turbo car not only does it hurt the motor, but it will hurt the numbers. I found I got the best numbers out of my turbo cars around 11.7-12.2 ish. It also will kill your torque running to lean.
r = rear wheel hp
a = all wheel hp
If you are running that lean on a turbo car not only does it hurt the motor, but it will hurt the numbers. I found I got the best numbers out of my turbo cars around 11.7-12.2 ish. It also will kill your torque running to lean.
12-21-2005, 03:54 AM
#35
Race Car
Thread Starter
Everyone one of you'll, thanks for the input.
I increased the CO today to abt 5% and Brian you are correct it made only a small difference. If I fatten the CO anymore, the idle gets really lumpy so I've basically maxed it out. I guess the K29 turbo is too much for the CIS not forgetting I got 3.4 P&C's. Anyway the only way to solve this problem is to go EFI.
When they did the dyno run, the a/f ratio was between 11-12 all the way upto 5000rpm than went all the way upto 13.504 at 6178rpm. So for now till I go EFI I shall keep it below 5000revs. No choice.
I have the dyno chart in PDF format and the file is too big to post here. If anyone needs to have a look, e-mail me at sameer@pacific.net.sg
I increased the CO today to abt 5% and Brian you are correct it made only a small difference. If I fatten the CO anymore, the idle gets really lumpy so I've basically maxed it out. I guess the K29 turbo is too much for the CIS not forgetting I got 3.4 P&C's. Anyway the only way to solve this problem is to go EFI.
When they did the dyno run, the a/f ratio was between 11-12 all the way upto 5000rpm than went all the way upto 13.504 at 6178rpm. So for now till I go EFI I shall keep it below 5000revs. No choice.
I have the dyno chart in PDF format and the file is too big to post here. If anyone needs to have a look, e-mail me at sameer@pacific.net.sg
12-21-2005, 10:43 AM
#38
Racer
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Tracy,Ca
Posts: 350
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I saw the same thing about 10 years ago. A buddy of mine and I both had 89 turbos. He had a k29 with CIS and I had a K26 (3LDZ) with CIS. Motors were pretty much identical......no actual dyno numbers but driving the cars individually and side by side, his was no faster than mine. In fact, mine always felt to have more usable torque. He then went to EFI and used the same turbo.....the motor ran a little better but he had to hammer the rpms also.
I would say the same thing as mentioned, try dumping the K29 for a smaller turbo and add the fuel head first.
I would say the same thing as mentioned, try dumping the K29 for a smaller turbo and add the fuel head first.
12-21-2005, 11:27 AM
#39
This thread is starting to go awry.
Lest anyone get the wrong idea, modern EFI is THOUSANDS of times better than CIS in EVERY SINGLE CATEGORY.
You cannot compare results given by mismatched, antique turbochargers for real results.
The 930 is an EASY 700 RWHP car (all track-day long) with modern management. 350 RWHP from a 3.3 liter car in 2006 is a laughable embarassment (if you are concerned and inclined to improve engine performance) - it is indicative of a very poor turbo choice and Fred Flintstone engine management.
Lest anyone get the wrong idea, modern EFI is THOUSANDS of times better than CIS in EVERY SINGLE CATEGORY.
You cannot compare results given by mismatched, antique turbochargers for real results.
The 930 is an EASY 700 RWHP car (all track-day long) with modern management. 350 RWHP from a 3.3 liter car in 2006 is a laughable embarassment (if you are concerned and inclined to improve engine performance) - it is indicative of a very poor turbo choice and Fred Flintstone engine management.
12-21-2005, 11:51 AM
#40
Drifting
Originally Posted by special tool
This thread is starting to go awry.
Lest anyone get the wrong idea, modern EFI is THOUSANDS of times better than CIS in EVERY SINGLE CATEGORY.
You cannot compare results given by mismatched, antique turbochargers for real results.
The 930 is an EASY 700 RWHP car (all track-day long) with modern management. 350 RWHP from a 3.3 liter car in 2006 is a laughable embarassment (if you are concerned and inclined to improve engine performance) - it is indicative of a very poor turbo choice and Fred Flintstone engine management.
Lest anyone get the wrong idea, modern EFI is THOUSANDS of times better than CIS in EVERY SINGLE CATEGORY.
You cannot compare results given by mismatched, antique turbochargers for real results.
The 930 is an EASY 700 RWHP car (all track-day long) with modern management. 350 RWHP from a 3.3 liter car in 2006 is a laughable embarassment (if you are concerned and inclined to improve engine performance) - it is indicative of a very poor turbo choice and Fred Flintstone engine management.
12-21-2005, 11:56 AM
#41
Interesting Sandman.
If you contend that cis is better than efi in ANY area, please let me hear your opinion.
No reason to be passive/aggressive.
I believe that cis is excellent for a show car or a daily driver. If you want performance to bring you into the 21st century, efi is the only way to go.
If you contend that cis is better than efi in ANY area, please let me hear your opinion.
No reason to be passive/aggressive.
I believe that cis is excellent for a show car or a daily driver. If you want performance to bring you into the 21st century, efi is the only way to go.
12-21-2005, 12:38 PM
#43
Nordschleife Master
Originally Posted by special tool
Lest anyone get the wrong idea, modern EFI is THOUSANDS of times better than CIS in EVERY SINGLE CATEGORY.
Originally Posted by special tool
The 930 is an EASY 700 RWHP car (all track-day long) with modern management.
12-21-2005, 01:12 PM
#44
Burning Brakes
Join Date: May 2005
Location: St Johns, FL
Posts: 794
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A 930 is an EASY 700 RWHP car? Easy? Not really, if you want it to stay together. Super-unbeleivably expensive? Absolutely.
You are right about CIS and EFI not being in the same league. However a good running CIS car (all things being equal) is every bit as reliable and powerful as an EFI conversion (again, all things being equal - same cams, heads, turbo, etc). In addition, with the CIS car, you'll still have $8 - $10k in your pocket. My 400+RWHP CIS car was pretty impressive. Now that its complete EFI (among other things), it has roughly 100 more RWHP. Yes I have complete control over spark and fuel, but the cost was $18,000 and that's with me doing all the work.
Now if your aspirations are bigger HP, you have no choice - so you're right, there is no comparison.
CIS works and works well for RWHP up to 400RWHP and reliability. I would put that money towards another, newer type car (better aerodynamics, suspension, tranny).
Sameer - sounds like you're itchin' to spend money. Good luck.
You are right about CIS and EFI not being in the same league. However a good running CIS car (all things being equal) is every bit as reliable and powerful as an EFI conversion (again, all things being equal - same cams, heads, turbo, etc). In addition, with the CIS car, you'll still have $8 - $10k in your pocket. My 400+RWHP CIS car was pretty impressive. Now that its complete EFI (among other things), it has roughly 100 more RWHP. Yes I have complete control over spark and fuel, but the cost was $18,000 and that's with me doing all the work.
Now if your aspirations are bigger HP, you have no choice - so you're right, there is no comparison.
CIS works and works well for RWHP up to 400RWHP and reliability. I would put that money towards another, newer type car (better aerodynamics, suspension, tranny).
Sameer - sounds like you're itchin' to spend money. Good luck.
12-21-2005, 01:33 PM
#45
Rennlist Member
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NY
Posts: 1,907
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i have a 3.5 based off the 3.0 liter. I have GHL full exhaust, with modified fuel head. k27hf turbo, garretton intercooler and i run .8 bar. all day i run under 12 A/F with no problem.