Dyno - 447 RWHP on CIS
08-07-2003, 08:33 AM
#31
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Concord, NC
Posts: 2,882
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, but how do I do that?
Yesterday I connected the pressure gauges in-line with the fitting that goes into the warmup regulator. That is where I measured my pressures.
I assume to check it under boost, I pump air into the WUR, but where? That is what I am not sure of. Or, I could be wrong altogether.
Yesterday I connected the pressure gauges in-line with the fitting that goes into the warmup regulator. That is where I measured my pressures.
I assume to check it under boost, I pump air into the WUR, but where? That is what I am not sure of. Or, I could be wrong altogether.
08-07-2003, 09:40 AM
#32
Racer
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: CO
Posts: 497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is a vacuum/ boost line going to it, remove that line and hook up yours and pump at least 7psi but no more than 14psi (the book says no more than .8bar) during warm control pressure and watch the pressure go down. My guess is it will go down to 3.2-3.3bar only because like I said before your WUR is most likely bad. You can get a rebuilt one for $160.
Brent
Brent
08-13-2003, 11:25 PM
#33
Pro
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: sacramento
Posts: 542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rob,
Was great talking to you today on the phone.
You already have the pin travel mod so trying to richen your A/F using the 3mm metering arm adjusting screw will not help you get more fuel at the top end any more as you are maxed out!
Sence adjusting the arm does not add any more fuel at the top end it also indicates that you have bottomed out the metering arm. Thus adding a Brent WUR , Rice WUR, or Andial fueler "may not" give you any more fuel at the top end as all they do is allow the arm to travel toward the open position faster. (Gets to max fuel capacaty faster.)
Thus the only way to get more fuel with a strictly CIS based system is to have the CIS head rebuilt and set up so it flows fuel beond the normal Bosh specs like Brent did, you should get to 12.5 to one like he did. The difference between 12.5 -v- 14.5 to 1 is about 16% varance in fuel capacaty of my math is correct.
There is one potental draw back to this approach in theory. You will get more fuel at max boost but would will also likely get more fuel everyware. Meaning that if you set you idle at 14/1 you may get 13/1 at cruse where you should get 14/1 with a stock head.
As a bonuis though, after you rebuild the head, you will know that you have ballanced fuel flow to all your cylinders and you will know that you are not running any lean injector circuts. ( I don't think it is a falty maniflod design that creats lean cylinders as 14 lbs of air presure will get into the cylinders just fine. It is under vacum conditions that the manifold design seems likely to creat uneaqual air flows.)
Keith
Was great talking to you today on the phone.
You already have the pin travel mod so trying to richen your A/F using the 3mm metering arm adjusting screw will not help you get more fuel at the top end any more as you are maxed out!
Sence adjusting the arm does not add any more fuel at the top end it also indicates that you have bottomed out the metering arm. Thus adding a Brent WUR , Rice WUR, or Andial fueler "may not" give you any more fuel at the top end as all they do is allow the arm to travel toward the open position faster. (Gets to max fuel capacaty faster.)
Thus the only way to get more fuel with a strictly CIS based system is to have the CIS head rebuilt and set up so it flows fuel beond the normal Bosh specs like Brent did, you should get to 12.5 to one like he did. The difference between 12.5 -v- 14.5 to 1 is about 16% varance in fuel capacaty of my math is correct.
There is one potental draw back to this approach in theory. You will get more fuel at max boost but would will also likely get more fuel everyware. Meaning that if you set you idle at 14/1 you may get 13/1 at cruse where you should get 14/1 with a stock head.
As a bonuis though, after you rebuild the head, you will know that you have ballanced fuel flow to all your cylinders and you will know that you are not running any lean injector circuts. ( I don't think it is a falty maniflod design that creats lean cylinders as 14 lbs of air presure will get into the cylinders just fine. It is under vacum conditions that the manifold design seems likely to creat uneaqual air flows.)
Keith
08-14-2003, 01:15 AM
#34
Racer
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: CO
Posts: 497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have noticed .5-1:1 more fuel using enrichment vs. stock. It's not much but there is more fuel or no one would do it. As for the fuel pin which I also did is another question, that is something I have already commented on before. I do believe however that running more than 1bar regardless of enrichment, the control arm will max out.
In my case of getting more fuel I can run a lower CO% at idle which will also help the fuel curve a little. Then I don't need enrichment till later, much later which I'm working on.
In my case of getting more fuel I can run a lower CO% at idle which will also help the fuel curve a little. Then I don't need enrichment till later, much later which I'm working on.
08-19-2003, 05:58 PM
#35
Pro
Thread Starter
Well, I've made the decision to go EFI. I think that with 447 RWHP (525 crank hp), I'm just beyond the threshold of realistically making the CIS work to my satisfaction. I commend all those (Brent, Keith, and others) who are devoting time and effort to squeezing the last bit out of CIS. I think if I were 10% lower in power potential, I would do the same. It's possible that I might get there with this system, but I'd rather not try.
Hence, this will be a big and expensive change. I'm going to sell my entire intake and induction system. It may even mean a different turbo, but I'm hoping to keep power to the 550 crank hp limit, which I understand is the maximum my Garrett turbo can support. I'm in the market for and EFI brain and an intercooler. I may have an intercooler custom made. I have some 3.2 manifolds available.
For those who are modifying a 930 to a level just short of mine (say, up to 480 crank hp or so, you may be interested in what I have. My dyno runs near the beginning of this thread show the A/F ratio going beyond the acceptable limit at around the 500 hp mark. I think it would work comfortably well at the 480 hp limit. And with the porting and flow work in the manifold, it will help you get there. And I've decided to start with a newer EFI brain (rather than use the TEC-1 that fires my twin plug ignition ) so while I'm at it, the TEC-1 is available too -- along with the Kokeln IC that I won't be using. It's for sale in the Rennlist classifieds and on Pelican. In shameless self promotion, here's what the ad says. Please contact me if you are interested, I have pics and the system is still in my running car:
I'm going electronic. I'm offering these from my 78 Euro 930:
Kokeln Intercooler, complete, like new with 600 mi on it, w/temp probe on outlet, $1400. Euro CIS fuel system, complete with steel fuel lines, w/Rennsport head mod for max fuel flow, including match ported manifold and injector blocks by Randall Aase. Dyno documented performance to 500 hp, $1450.
6 Matched injectors – documented equal flow by Marren Motorsports, 300 mi, $200. Air box (air cleaner housing) excellent, painted professionally, $100.
Electromotive TEC-1 twin plug setup, including ECU, both coil packs, twin plug ignition wires, crank sensor and bracket and numerous sensors (MAP, 02, MAT, knock, and others), injector harness, ECU and coil pack power harness w/dual relays, boost control solenoid valve, and computer hookup cable $1350.
Hence, this will be a big and expensive change. I'm going to sell my entire intake and induction system. It may even mean a different turbo, but I'm hoping to keep power to the 550 crank hp limit, which I understand is the maximum my Garrett turbo can support. I'm in the market for and EFI brain and an intercooler. I may have an intercooler custom made. I have some 3.2 manifolds available.
For those who are modifying a 930 to a level just short of mine (say, up to 480 crank hp or so, you may be interested in what I have. My dyno runs near the beginning of this thread show the A/F ratio going beyond the acceptable limit at around the 500 hp mark. I think it would work comfortably well at the 480 hp limit. And with the porting and flow work in the manifold, it will help you get there. And I've decided to start with a newer EFI brain (rather than use the TEC-1 that fires my twin plug ignition ) so while I'm at it, the TEC-1 is available too -- along with the Kokeln IC that I won't be using. It's for sale in the Rennlist classifieds and on Pelican. In shameless self promotion, here's what the ad says. Please contact me if you are interested, I have pics and the system is still in my running car:
I'm going electronic. I'm offering these from my 78 Euro 930:
Kokeln Intercooler, complete, like new with 600 mi on it, w/temp probe on outlet, $1400. Euro CIS fuel system, complete with steel fuel lines, w/Rennsport head mod for max fuel flow, including match ported manifold and injector blocks by Randall Aase. Dyno documented performance to 500 hp, $1450.
6 Matched injectors – documented equal flow by Marren Motorsports, 300 mi, $200. Air box (air cleaner housing) excellent, painted professionally, $100.
Electromotive TEC-1 twin plug setup, including ECU, both coil packs, twin plug ignition wires, crank sensor and bracket and numerous sensors (MAP, 02, MAT, knock, and others), injector harness, ECU and coil pack power harness w/dual relays, boost control solenoid valve, and computer hookup cable $1350.
08-19-2003, 06:26 PM
#36
Racer
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: CO
Posts: 497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rob,
Only limiting to 550fwhp going EFI like you are vs. what I have done though not done tuning yet isn't worth the extra 40-45rwhp more for the money. Think about it...only 40-45rwhp more??? 600+ for sure but it's your car, goodluck.
Brent
Only limiting to 550fwhp going EFI like you are vs. what I have done though not done tuning yet isn't worth the extra 40-45rwhp more for the money. Think about it...only 40-45rwhp more??? 600+ for sure but it's your car, goodluck.
Brent
08-19-2003, 06:38 PM
#37
Racer
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: CO
Posts: 497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rob,
Only limiting to 550fwhp going EFI like you are vs. what I have done though not done tuning yet isn't worth the extra 40-45rwhp more for the money. Think about it...only 40-45rwhp more??? 600+ for sure but it's your car, goodluck.
Brent
Only limiting to 550fwhp going EFI like you are vs. what I have done though not done tuning yet isn't worth the extra 40-45rwhp more for the money. Think about it...only 40-45rwhp more??? 600+ for sure but it's your car, goodluck.
Brent
08-19-2003, 07:36 PM
#38
Pro
Thread Starter
Brent,
With the EFI I suspect I will have an engine that could produce more than 550 hp, but if it does, I'll just maintain a boost level that keeps me at or below that threshold. Besides, this is a track car, and I suspect 480 or 500 hp is more than enough on a road racing track with a torsion bar-equipped 930. If I choose to go for more horsepower someday, I'll have the foundation to do that properly. But for my situation, to extract 600 hp or more is like squeezing on a balloon, if I keep pushing one place, it will squeeze out somewhere else -- turbos, clutches, axles, and suspension components will suddenly be inadequate and I'll be caught in a viscious spiral of broken parts and out of control costs. What I want -- and will get with EFI -- will be solid fuel support across the whole spectrum of load conditions with the attendant benefit of better throttle response. If I had an engine with 40 or 50 hp less at 1 bar, I'd stay with the CIS. But I don't want to turn down the boost to keep the A/F safe. I'd rather have the A/F safe and turn down the boost to keep from breaking everything else. Plus, the dyno time I'd spend dialing in the CIS would probably rival the dyno time I'd spend dialing in the EFI.
But I still like what you're doing with your CIS research and I hope you manage to get it set right. It sounds like you may be close. It's just that I've decided to go a different way.
With the EFI I suspect I will have an engine that could produce more than 550 hp, but if it does, I'll just maintain a boost level that keeps me at or below that threshold. Besides, this is a track car, and I suspect 480 or 500 hp is more than enough on a road racing track with a torsion bar-equipped 930. If I choose to go for more horsepower someday, I'll have the foundation to do that properly. But for my situation, to extract 600 hp or more is like squeezing on a balloon, if I keep pushing one place, it will squeeze out somewhere else -- turbos, clutches, axles, and suspension components will suddenly be inadequate and I'll be caught in a viscious spiral of broken parts and out of control costs. What I want -- and will get with EFI -- will be solid fuel support across the whole spectrum of load conditions with the attendant benefit of better throttle response. If I had an engine with 40 or 50 hp less at 1 bar, I'd stay with the CIS. But I don't want to turn down the boost to keep the A/F safe. I'd rather have the A/F safe and turn down the boost to keep from breaking everything else. Plus, the dyno time I'd spend dialing in the CIS would probably rival the dyno time I'd spend dialing in the EFI.
But I still like what you're doing with your CIS research and I hope you manage to get it set right. It sounds like you may be close. It's just that I've decided to go a different way.
08-19-2003, 08:09 PM
#40
Pro
Thread Starter
Brent,
I never want to run more than 1.0 bar -- ever. But I want to be able to run 1.0 bar with a safe A/F ratio, perhaps on pump gas. If 1.0 bar produces so much power (and it may) that it threatens to break things or it makes the car an unmanageable beast on the track, then I'll run less. In fact, I'd be thrilled if I can get 500 hp with 0.7 bar. Someday if I build the rest of the car to handle power produced by 1.0 bar boost, and I want to engage it, I'll have room to do it. But I don't want to be teetering on the brink of a lean condition that has me nervously watching the tach or boost gauge on a hot day, and I'm afraid that's what will happen if I stick with CIS. Besides, with EFI, I'm much more likely to enjoy better throttle response and performance at all load conditions. But I know it doesn't come cheaply...
I never want to run more than 1.0 bar -- ever. But I want to be able to run 1.0 bar with a safe A/F ratio, perhaps on pump gas. If 1.0 bar produces so much power (and it may) that it threatens to break things or it makes the car an unmanageable beast on the track, then I'll run less. In fact, I'd be thrilled if I can get 500 hp with 0.7 bar. Someday if I build the rest of the car to handle power produced by 1.0 bar boost, and I want to engage it, I'll have room to do it. But I don't want to be teetering on the brink of a lean condition that has me nervously watching the tach or boost gauge on a hot day, and I'm afraid that's what will happen if I stick with CIS. Besides, with EFI, I'm much more likely to enjoy better throttle response and performance at all load conditions. But I know it doesn't come cheaply...
08-19-2003, 09:12 PM
#41
Racer
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: CO
Posts: 497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can run 1bar and maybe more but I haven't tried yet. Last Sat. I hit 426.4rwhp at 428 ft. tq with an 11.7:1 A/F at 14psi. I don't feel I'm at the point of a lean condition at all. Remember you ran lean so you got more power than if you were running at a good A/F. Therefor you probably could run 1bar(if you did what I did) but it's not just about running 1bar but the most reliable power you can run. If that means lower boost then your better off. Also remember that on a hot day you will be richer than on a cold day and I don't mean $$$
) I figure I might not even need any enrichment or very little to get my fuel curve where I want it. When that happens my hp and tq curves will be awesome. Overall power won't increase but the power curves will. I should be there in the next few weeks and will make a final post. You will want to wait and see it before diving in EFI. Think about it, for $500 you send out your fuel head and then either just disconnect the vacuum/boost line from the WUR or have your stock WUR modified for a new control pressure on enrichment based on your power and your all tuned up. Or you could just leave the stock WUR alone and drive it like that too.
Brent
) I figure I might not even need any enrichment or very little to get my fuel curve where I want it. When that happens my hp and tq curves will be awesome. Overall power won't increase but the power curves will. I should be there in the next few weeks and will make a final post. You will want to wait and see it before diving in EFI. Think about it, for $500 you send out your fuel head and then either just disconnect the vacuum/boost line from the WUR or have your stock WUR modified for a new control pressure on enrichment based on your power and your all tuned up. Or you could just leave the stock WUR alone and drive it like that too. Brent
08-20-2003, 08:23 AM
#42
Nordschleife Master
Rob,
Almost more important that fueling, an electronic engine management system will give you control over the ignition which will give you the ability to maximize torque across the range and provide for a smooth running engine.
My original engine was 521hp@1bar on 93/94 pump fuel and after 5 years of track usage was taken apart and no signs of detonation. In fact, the piston/cylinder set was reused on another car. It is more than possible to have reliability. My new engine is 640hp@1bar but I'm running it at .7 which is about 540hp or so and with the shortened gearset in the 5spd is perfect.
To get 500hp@.7bar, you'll need to do some significant airflow modifications to the heads, intake and make sure you have good headers.
Also, to keep you a peace, you'll probably want to upgrade your oil cooling system. It made a huge difference in my cylinder head temperatures.
Almost more important that fueling, an electronic engine management system will give you control over the ignition which will give you the ability to maximize torque across the range and provide for a smooth running engine.
My original engine was 521hp@1bar on 93/94 pump fuel and after 5 years of track usage was taken apart and no signs of detonation. In fact, the piston/cylinder set was reused on another car. It is more than possible to have reliability. My new engine is 640hp@1bar but I'm running it at .7 which is about 540hp or so and with the shortened gearset in the 5spd is perfect.
To get 500hp@.7bar, you'll need to do some significant airflow modifications to the heads, intake and make sure you have good headers.
Also, to keep you a peace, you'll probably want to upgrade your oil cooling system. It made a huge difference in my cylinder head temperatures.
08-21-2003, 01:59 PM
#43
Pro
Thread Starter
Geoffrey,
I don't understand how oil cooling could affect cylinder head temps very dramatically. Obviously, good oil cooling would keep your oil temps in check. But it seems to me that the head temps would be relatively insensitive to oil temperatures. Head temps would be more a function of combustion temperatures that are based on parameters such as mixture, timing, boost level, intake charge air temp, and of course, detonation. The oil that flows through the engine doesn't impinge on the heads very directly. Most of the cooling of the heads is from air cooling (convection) and conduction to cam carriers and cylinders. Though the oil certainly carries away some of the heat from the heads, I don't think there's a strong correlation between oil temp and head temp, just as there isn't much correlation (or really any correlation) between oil temp (or coolant temp) and exhaust temperature. Head temps can vary by hundreds of degrees, whereas oil temps under load vary by only 30 or 40 degrees at operating condions (say, 190 to 230 unless you've got a problem).
By the way, I'm not debating the importance of oil cooling - just questioning how directly the oil cooling affects head temperatures.
My oil cooling right now consists of a fender-mounted Fluidyne double pass heat exchanger with a fan, properly ducted from the front valence. This is exactly what DonE did. But he also put a similar cooler in the left front fender, albeit a single pass. I was going to wait and see if one would be enough. I still don't know, having only driven the car 600 miles. It wouldn't be a big deal to add the second unit, and given that I'm producing more hp than planned (and now with EFI will raise the ceiling even more), the second cooler is likely to happen. I have been hesitant to do a center cooler for aesthetic reasons and because of their vulnerabilty during trackside agricultural explorations.
What are you doing to keep that monster cool? What is the highest oil temp you see on a hot track day? And how do you monitor head temp(s)?
I don't understand how oil cooling could affect cylinder head temps very dramatically. Obviously, good oil cooling would keep your oil temps in check. But it seems to me that the head temps would be relatively insensitive to oil temperatures. Head temps would be more a function of combustion temperatures that are based on parameters such as mixture, timing, boost level, intake charge air temp, and of course, detonation. The oil that flows through the engine doesn't impinge on the heads very directly. Most of the cooling of the heads is from air cooling (convection) and conduction to cam carriers and cylinders. Though the oil certainly carries away some of the heat from the heads, I don't think there's a strong correlation between oil temp and head temp, just as there isn't much correlation (or really any correlation) between oil temp (or coolant temp) and exhaust temperature. Head temps can vary by hundreds of degrees, whereas oil temps under load vary by only 30 or 40 degrees at operating condions (say, 190 to 230 unless you've got a problem).
By the way, I'm not debating the importance of oil cooling - just questioning how directly the oil cooling affects head temperatures.
My oil cooling right now consists of a fender-mounted Fluidyne double pass heat exchanger with a fan, properly ducted from the front valence. This is exactly what DonE did. But he also put a similar cooler in the left front fender, albeit a single pass. I was going to wait and see if one would be enough. I still don't know, having only driven the car 600 miles. It wouldn't be a big deal to add the second unit, and given that I'm producing more hp than planned (and now with EFI will raise the ceiling even more), the second cooler is likely to happen. I have been hesitant to do a center cooler for aesthetic reasons and because of their vulnerabilty during trackside agricultural explorations.
What are you doing to keep that monster cool? What is the highest oil temp you see on a hot track day? And how do you monitor head temp(s)?
08-21-2003, 02:28 PM
#44
Nordschleife Master
Rob,
I monior all engine functions through the data logging available in MoTec. I monitor the cylinder head temp via a 3.2 Carrera head temp sensor in cylinder #3.
I have the stock Carrera style cooler with a fan in the fender and I have the largest B&B front mounted cooler plumbed with -16an lines. I believe it is 24" wide.
Obviously the cylinder head temps do move quite a bit from a cold start to a hot running engine. However, on a warm engine, they don't move as much as you'd think. Running at Watkins Glen last month, I see the highest cylinder head temp occur after about 7 minutes on the track at a value of 155 degrees C (311F) and cool down to 120 degrees C (248F) while the car was idling down in the paddock. The temp then rises after steadily over 3-4 minutes to 134 degrees C (273F). The oil temp was at 177F while on the track at its hottest point.
Now I compare that with running last year without the oil cooler and the oil temp was 250F and my cylinder head temps were more like 170 degrees C.
The oil going into the engine with the additional cooling was almost 70 degrees cooler and did in fact help keep my cylinder heads cooler. Perhaps you've had different experiences with your temperature measurement processes and it didn't make much difference on your engine.
I monior all engine functions through the data logging available in MoTec. I monitor the cylinder head temp via a 3.2 Carrera head temp sensor in cylinder #3.
I have the stock Carrera style cooler with a fan in the fender and I have the largest B&B front mounted cooler plumbed with -16an lines. I believe it is 24" wide.
Obviously the cylinder head temps do move quite a bit from a cold start to a hot running engine. However, on a warm engine, they don't move as much as you'd think. Running at Watkins Glen last month, I see the highest cylinder head temp occur after about 7 minutes on the track at a value of 155 degrees C (311F) and cool down to 120 degrees C (248F) while the car was idling down in the paddock. The temp then rises after steadily over 3-4 minutes to 134 degrees C (273F). The oil temp was at 177F while on the track at its hottest point.
Now I compare that with running last year without the oil cooler and the oil temp was 250F and my cylinder head temps were more like 170 degrees C.
The oil going into the engine with the additional cooling was almost 70 degrees cooler and did in fact help keep my cylinder heads cooler. Perhaps you've had different experiences with your temperature measurement processes and it didn't make much difference on your engine.
08-21-2003, 03:33 PM
#45
Pro
Thread Starter
Geoffrey,
Wow! Oil temps of 177 deg F at the hottest on the track? You must have ice cubes rolling down the track behind you. As they say in those Bud Ice ads: "That's COLD!" And if last year you were running 250, that's dangerously hot. Isn't 177 actually a bit too low? I don't think at that temperature you're vaporizing the volatiles that need vaporizing. I've heard 180 at the absolute minimum, and depending on the oil being used, temps in the 190 to 210 range are optimal for the various tradeoffs in tribometry of oils, including frictional and pumping losses, viscosity, and film strength.
From last year to this, you have a larger range of oil temps than I'd expect, and I can see how it could certainly have some effect on head temps. But even with a span of 72 deg F (40 deg C) in oil temp, your head temps varied by only 26 deg F (15 deg C). Hence, for a 41% reduction in oil temp, you got an 8% reduction in head temperature. This is significant but not dramatic, and on the order of what I'd expect would be reasonable.
I'm interested in the 3.2 head temp sensor. This is a stock item for the Carrera? Can it be retrofitted to the 930 heads? How disassembled must the engine be to install one properly?
Wow! Oil temps of 177 deg F at the hottest on the track? You must have ice cubes rolling down the track behind you. As they say in those Bud Ice ads: "That's COLD!" And if last year you were running 250, that's dangerously hot. Isn't 177 actually a bit too low? I don't think at that temperature you're vaporizing the volatiles that need vaporizing. I've heard 180 at the absolute minimum, and depending on the oil being used, temps in the 190 to 210 range are optimal for the various tradeoffs in tribometry of oils, including frictional and pumping losses, viscosity, and film strength.
From last year to this, you have a larger range of oil temps than I'd expect, and I can see how it could certainly have some effect on head temps. But even with a span of 72 deg F (40 deg C) in oil temp, your head temps varied by only 26 deg F (15 deg C). Hence, for a 41% reduction in oil temp, you got an 8% reduction in head temperature. This is significant but not dramatic, and on the order of what I'd expect would be reasonable.
I'm interested in the 3.2 head temp sensor. This is a stock item for the Carrera? Can it be retrofitted to the 930 heads? How disassembled must the engine be to install one properly?