'86.5 5-speed, 321 rwhp (std)
09-25-2011, 02:34 PM
#32
Inventor
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
None with straight line driving/WOT runs, and on the dyno. But the small version I had before, without the horizontal section, handled this OK. The real test is full throttle out of corners, up and down hills, and hard braking from high rpm. (Basically, I need to take it out on your 'suburban test track' again.)
I am trying to combine two functions with this version, vapor reduction and excess oil control. The packing scrubbies, lightly soaked in oil, condense oil vapor and (stinky) crankcase gasses, and slow oil ejecta. The rest of the pipe is empty, to store oil discharged at high rpm. The 1" outlet pipe extends to the orange (anti-abrasion) hose, ending in a 45° cut, like the 1.25" inlet pipe. (My thought was, in not extending it to the end of the 3" pipe, was that sloshing oil would have a more difficult time getting into the outlet. The 45s are a poor man's bellmouth.)
On the dyno, I put the outlet hose (draft tube) over the fender so I could watch it's output (along with the KnockLite). Only steam came out.
I am trying to combine two functions with this version, vapor reduction and excess oil control. The packing scrubbies, lightly soaked in oil, condense oil vapor and (stinky) crankcase gasses, and slow oil ejecta. The rest of the pipe is empty, to store oil discharged at high rpm. The 1" outlet pipe extends to the orange (anti-abrasion) hose, ending in a 45° cut, like the 1.25" inlet pipe. (My thought was, in not extending it to the end of the 3" pipe, was that sloshing oil would have a more difficult time getting into the outlet. The 45s are a poor man's bellmouth.)
On the dyno, I put the outlet hose (draft tube) over the fender so I could watch it's output (along with the KnockLite). Only steam came out.
09-25-2011, 02:35 PM
#33
Inventor
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
I take it back that you can't 'feel' high rpm HP.
You can, but you need an external metric to realize that you have more and more power as the rpms climb, and that the metric, for example, a sport bike, seems like it is has a tractor beam on it.
You can, but you need an external metric to realize that you have more and more power as the rpms climb, and that the metric, for example, a sport bike, seems like it is has a tractor beam on it.
09-26-2011, 11:09 AM
#34
Craic Head
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Ken,
The car is even more of a beast than before, thanks for the new chips and TQ rings!
One thing I think I need to do is maybe switch to some non-standard intake boots. Mine are too soft and squishy when the car warms up and they squeeze out from under the clamps. Not to the point of leaking, but they bulge a little here and there. This has never been a problem since I never thought of the flow through that part before the rings were put in.
I doubt the torque rings are flush with both surfaces (intake runners and the side plenums) inside the boots because of this.
I actually put the rings in with the previous chips so I could tell if there was a difference with just them and I think there was. Now with the chips and rings it is definitely noticeable.
Do you have any problems with the stock boots on there?
The car is even more of a beast than before, thanks for the new chips and TQ rings!
One thing I think I need to do is maybe switch to some non-standard intake boots. Mine are too soft and squishy when the car warms up and they squeeze out from under the clamps. Not to the point of leaking, but they bulge a little here and there. This has never been a problem since I never thought of the flow through that part before the rings were put in.
I doubt the torque rings are flush with both surfaces (intake runners and the side plenums) inside the boots because of this.
I actually put the rings in with the previous chips so I could tell if there was a difference with just them and I think there was. Now with the chips and rings it is definitely noticeable.
Do you have any problems with the stock boots on there?
09-26-2011, 01:18 PM
#35
Rennlist Member
Ken,
how much cost your "pipe bomb"oil control solution?Is this device also useable on a S 2?I´m astonished
you find always new solutions for better running 928.
I hope my S 2 is in a few weeks on the road again.
In 6 weeks is the biogas plant ready and I have more time for my hobby!
how much cost your "pipe bomb"oil control solution?Is this device also useable on a S 2?I´m astonished
you find always new solutions for better running 928.
I hope my S 2 is in a few weeks on the road again.
In 6 weeks is the biogas plant ready and I have more time for my hobby!
09-26-2011, 02:54 PM
#36
Inventor
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
Mike,
I think you need new boots? Those sound like they are oil soaked. I like the factory ones as they have the ridges to keep the clamps on. The clamps tend to slide around with the plain silicon ones. Also, it's not easy to cut the hoses exactly by hand - would have to have some cut professionally. (Fortunately though, it's an easy ID, 2" hose fits perfectly.)
The gap is slightly different between each runner depending on the casting. The rings fill most of the gap. (I picked a size that would fit all the runners.) I don't think what's left is going to make a big difference in flow. The ID of the runners is not perfect either, so a little bit of a transition may be good. I think the casting differences may be why the gap is there. (Heck, it's good enough for a consistent 288 chp rating - 350+, not so much.)
The 'T' sets the overall distance. It actually touches the plenums.
...
Karsten,
I don't know how much such a system would cost. Right now, I'm having a radiator shop fabricate it for me. I also need to test to see if the extra space helps control the oil at high rpms while 'racing'. I would prefer to have an even larger (triangular?) shaped tank to fit in that area, which would look more factory. I would also like to fit an even larger (oval?) pipe to the cover, for more room for vapor and oil to flow separately, and/or have an additional drain to where the 16V drains to the sump (h/t rad_951).
Only the 32V have an opening under the coolant bridge for a combined vent/drain hose. (S4-up, this opening is blocked by the fuel feed line, so it confines the 'easy installation' market to S3s - this realization made me lose enthusiasm for developing the system for sale.)
I think you need new boots? Those sound like they are oil soaked. I like the factory ones as they have the ridges to keep the clamps on. The clamps tend to slide around with the plain silicon ones. Also, it's not easy to cut the hoses exactly by hand - would have to have some cut professionally. (Fortunately though, it's an easy ID, 2" hose fits perfectly.)
The gap is slightly different between each runner depending on the casting. The rings fill most of the gap. (I picked a size that would fit all the runners.) I don't think what's left is going to make a big difference in flow. The ID of the runners is not perfect either, so a little bit of a transition may be good. I think the casting differences may be why the gap is there. (Heck, it's good enough for a consistent 288 chp rating - 350+, not so much.
)The 'T' sets the overall distance. It actually touches the plenums.
...
Karsten,
I don't know how much such a system would cost. Right now, I'm having a radiator shop fabricate it for me. I also need to test to see if the extra space helps control the oil at high rpms while 'racing'. I would prefer to have an even larger (triangular?) shaped tank to fit in that area, which would look more factory. I would also like to fit an even larger (oval?) pipe to the cover, for more room for vapor and oil to flow separately, and/or have an additional drain to where the 16V drains to the sump (h/t rad_951).
Only the 32V have an opening under the coolant bridge for a combined vent/drain hose. (S4-up, this opening is blocked by the fuel feed line, so it confines the 'easy installation' market to S3s - this realization made me lose enthusiasm for developing the system for sale.)
09-26-2011, 03:17 PM
#37
Craic Head
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
Lifetime Rennlist
Member
The boots are new. I think that's why they're so soft. When they're cold they seem OK, but just about every time I remove one of the side boxes I have to put them on, warm up the car and then adjust them again because something will have moved or slid or something. It may be an oil thing, I don't know.
I'll have to check. I think I saw someone with some really wide clamps on there that basically took up the whole width of the boot and had a metal strap that tightened down. Almost like a Fernco coupling or something. Might have actually been plumbing pieces. They looked OK though.
I have to say I was never impressed with the fit and finish of the cam covers and intake runners on these cars. Every cam cover I've seen stripped has had the same nasty gash in the mold. They just filled it with filler and painted it. The runners too, sloppy seams throughout and just really rough inside and out. I did smooth the insides of the runners when I had them out last time.
WHAT?!?! I thought you were the S3 guy. Come on, you know there are lots of rabid S3 'subscribers' out here who are just waiting for your next development.
You never let that stop you before.
I like the factory ones as they have the ridges to keep the clamps on. The clamps tend to slide around with the plain silicon ones. Also, it's not easy to cut the hoses exactly by hand - would have to have some cut professionally. Fortunately though, it's an easy ID, 2" hose fits perfectly.
The gap is slightly different between each runner depending on the casting.
The rings fill most of the gap. What's left isn't going to make a big difference. The ID of the runners is not perfect either, so a little bit of a transition may be good. I think the casting differences may be why the gap is there. (Heck, it's good enough for a consistent 288 chp rating - 350+, not so much.)
The rings fill most of the gap. What's left isn't going to make a big difference. The ID of the runners is not perfect either, so a little bit of a transition may be good. I think the casting differences may be why the gap is there. (Heck, it's good enough for a consistent 288 chp rating - 350+, not so much.
)
The 'T' sets the overall distance. It actually touches the plenums.
...
Karsten,
(S4-up, this opening is blocked by the fuel feed line, so it confines the 'easy installation' market to S3s - this realization made me lose enthusiasm for developing the system for sale.)
]
...
Karsten,
(S4-up, this opening is blocked by the fuel feed line, so it confines the 'easy installation' market to S3s - this realization made me lose enthusiasm for developing the system for sale.)
]
You never let that stop you before.
09-26-2011, 03:49 PM
#38
Inventor
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
I didn't use to add up my costs...or value my time, before. 
A complete oil control system like this could easily add up to over $400, so it needs to be as universal as possible to round up the few folks who might buy it. (Especially if it were made 'emission friendly', IE plumbed back into the intake.)
The S3 intakes that I've taken off have had varying amounts of core shift, some worse than others, but all had a few runners which were significantly smaller inside. (Again, good enough for 288 chp.)
It takes a lot of time to gasket match (like GTs were?) so I can see why it wasn't done.
A complete oil control system like this could easily add up to over $400, so it needs to be as universal as possible to round up the few folks who might buy it. (Especially if it were made 'emission friendly', IE plumbed back into the intake.)
The S3 intakes that I've taken off have had varying amounts of core shift, some worse than others, but all had a few runners which were significantly smaller inside. (Again, good enough for 288 chp.)
It takes a lot of time to gasket match (like GTs were?) so I can see why it wasn't done.
09-27-2011, 02:36 AM
#39
Rennlist Member
I think 500 € is okay for a good oil control solution.It´s one of the main problems of our cars and someone must solve it! ;-)
Before S4 are 30000? 928 build.The market is big enough.Or you invented a new fuel feed line-the S 4 guys are the ones with big money! *gggg*
After looking at your intake runner pics I think my intake need a little bit work.
Before S4 are 30000? 928 build.The market is big enough.Or you invented a new fuel feed line-the S 4 guys are the ones with big money! *gggg*
After looking at your intake runner pics I think my intake need a little bit work.
05-09-2012, 04:36 PM
#40
Advanced
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Mansfield, Tx
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ken did you gain 11hp by changing the timing from +2 to -2 degrees? Didn't realize timing had that big of an impact on hp. Didn't seem to affect the torque much correct?
05-09-2012, 05:33 PM
#41
Inventor
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
11 hp STD, about half that SAE. I also did an intake refresh, including some gasket matching, and a newer chipset between those dyno runs, too, though.
Going to -8° gained a whole bunch more 'under the curve'. The dyno shows there is a little less torque at the first harmonic, but it's really not noticeable.
I'm running -12° now, with a new chipset to match, which I have not dynoed, but it has made another large increase in power. Large enough that I'm in no hurry to rush to the dyno. I may dyno my auto, instead, as it has made huge gains with the same tune, on 87 octane!
Cam timing thread - https://rennlist.com/forums/928-foru...cts-32v-8.html
Going to -8° gained a whole bunch more 'under the curve'. The dyno shows there is a little less torque at the first harmonic, but it's really not noticeable.
I'm running -12° now, with a new chipset to match, which I have not dynoed, but it has made another large increase in power. Large enough that I'm in no hurry to rush to the dyno. I may dyno my auto, instead, as it has made huge gains with the same tune, on 87 octane!
Cam timing thread - https://rennlist.com/forums/928-foru...cts-32v-8.html
05-09-2012, 08:42 PM
#42
Rennlist Member
Well, I too have an s3 chiped beast and after changing the MAF, I can't believe how fast it is. And it is an auto. Ken, I have done my breakin milage. Now, what timing should I run on each side for maybe even better results. And, by the way, my car feels already like it has better than 300...
I have been meaning to ask this for the last several weeks.
Cheers,
I have been meaning to ask this for the last several weeks.
Cheers,
05-10-2012, 01:48 AM
#43
Inventor
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Thread Starter
Frank - your chipset is designed for stock, IE. 0° cam timing.
The upcoming 'Black Edition' chipset will be for max S3 performance. It won't be for everyone! It will require -12° retard, which is about the limit in the cam gear slot. It will use 87 octane. All the new power is over 5000 rpm, but the engine revs easier with the retard, and there is so much more power...
The upcoming 'Black Edition' chipset will be for max S3 performance. It won't be for everyone! It will require -12° retard, which is about the limit in the cam gear slot. It will use 87 octane. All the new power is over 5000 rpm, but the engine revs easier with the retard, and there is so much more power...
Last edited by PorKen; 05-10-2012 at 10:53 PM.
05-10-2012, 01:50 AM
#44
What would happen with the black edition if you use it without the retard but with fuel that would not detonate if a nuclear bomb exploded beside it?
05-10-2012, 02:03 AM
#45
The upcoming 'Black Edition' chipset will be for max S3 performance. It won't be for everyone! It will require -12° retard, which is about the limit in the cam gear slot. It will use 87 octane. All the new power is over 4000 rpm, but the engine revs easier with the retard, and there is so much more power...
What would the requirements be?