m42racer

My God!! I rest my case. I reserve my opinion of you sir due to the policies of this board to conduct ones self in a dignified manner.

m42racer

Patrick and all others who may be interested in this discussion.

I apoligize for where this has ended up. It was never my intention nor was it intended by me to make this any sort of personal attack on my friend here.

Lets hope he will offer up something of worth other than the snide remarks he has so far. I can take those all day long, but it bothers me that there are people here who wish to learn something and it ends up in the gutter.

I sincerely hope we can get back on to a discussion where we all can learn from others.

333pg333

Guys, as interesting as this is to eat popcorn by, you may as well leave the personal jibes at the door or take them off line. I'm not taking sides, merely asking questions. AW, you continue to point the accusation at M42 of tap dancing around the issue and/or laughing at his summation. Disregarding any of the close personal warmth that is being exuded from one to the other, I think it fair to answer his specific question or point out clearly where his equation is wrong.
Again, I'm not taking sides but there is a bit of tap dancing going on all over this post AND the CDI / Induction thread which was never resolved either. Feel free to expound upon that too guys.
Thanks.

A.Wayne

I'm the one to offer up something. LOL

Sure when he stops answering a question with another question, I answered all of his assumptions , again i produced a dyno sheet , in response to his diatribe and asked him to explain based on the dyno sheet where he would start to reduce the fuel quantity as per his theory and calculation he has yet to respond , because he does not know , does not have a clue and now wants me to tap dance in a circle around his ridiculous assumptions on how to fuel a turbo charged engine.

The CDI thread where he made ridiculous HP claims on , he never provided the proof, because there isn't any.. His formula is based on static assumptions, and is more applicable to NA motors, where VE and BFSC are more predictable.

SO again i have provided a DYNO sheet you have the numbers in front of you ,
my question again , where and why would you start reducing the fueling amount after the TQ peak as you stated via your theoretical fuel calculations.
If no answer , then move on. this is a waste of time. Hmmm OK you win , it makes no difference, you are right you fuel a 6000 rpm engine the same way you do a 12000 rpm engine , 400 ft/Tq requires more fuel than 700 bhp ,as you know after the TQ everything else is cheese.....

m42racer

Patrick,

Lets hope he does what we ask. Regarding the CDI discussion, I offered up equations etc proving my point. Not theory, but mathmatical proof etc. It ended the same way.

I just give up as its pointless to continue when you have no data or equations to compare theories.

Many others have asked of him to do the same, but he never does.

Shame.

A.Wayne

That is a blatant and outright lie and now we will see again as most here have you as a fairy.
Now POST A DYNO SHEET SHOWING YOUR CDI GAINS , AGAIN POST A DYNO SHEET SHOWING YOUR CDI BHP GAINS OR ONE OF YOUR TURBO ENGINES SHOWING WHAT YOU CLAIM OF INJ TIME VS BHP VS A/F reducing after TQ/P
with the power still rising , Post anything other than what you read in Fairy High performance of the month car magazine.......


Enuf said

m42racer

A Wayne.

May I suggest your life should not change whatever the outcome of this discussion is. There are no winners here. So there is no reason to get personal, ever. There is more to life than been right on any point on some silly forum board.

m42racer

Patrick,

I will PM you tomorrow with some data and proofs. I will also offer up some contacts that you can ask regarding the benifits of CDI over Inductive Ignition.

I strongly suggest you ask Neil about what size Injector to use on your engine, how he calculates the size required and ask him about his opinion on CDI. Lets face it, his background and experience gives him the credentials to offer up worthwhile advice. Maybe you can share with others on this board what he suggests and comments.

A.Wayne

I'm in Karma Grasshopper,
All is well , as i take my rising Injector time after T/q peak 9000 rpm beastie out for a night romp , at full boost i can see the curvature of the planet and bask in the fact that i might , just might have kept Al gore up wonder why the global warming meter in his bedroom flickered as my boost gauge pegs 36 psi .......
ahhh yes , all's well thank you .

Now about that Dyno sheet, by chance would you happen to have any that would help me understand your position ...why just PM them to Patrick , share

333pg333

AW, I will try and peer through some of your continued baiting of M42 to see the light. You do tap dance very well yourself (touche) and at least from where I'm sitting, don't offer much in the way of explanation thus far on either subject except for this dyno graph which to my eyes doesn't state anything?? As for answering a question with another I dub thee as the chosen one. Now I know M42 can get a bit excited about certain aspects of our cars and in particular, the involvement that he's had with 'his expert'. To be precise so we all know who the expert is, we are talking about Neil Harvey of Performance Developments in SoCal. Now as to his credentials I can't list them all suffice to say that he worked side by side with a certain Gordon Murray and won a number of world F1 championships with Brabham BMW in the 80's with Piquet at the wheel. Since then he has been involved in many levels of Motor Racing from F1 down. Now as you would know, there is an echelon of professionals who would not play about on websites such as this and that's not speaking in an exclusionary or derogatory sense, more that these guys are just too busy dealing with stuff that I for one can't even comprehend. Anyway Neil would probably be embarrassed that his name is being brought up in such a churlish argument, however I felt it was necessary to add some credence to this discussion and therefore allow you to post your credentials which from all accounts are equally substantial.
Secondly if I at some stage posses some info that leads to any clarification for this and the CDI / Induction issue, I will post what I have. Equally I'd appreciate you doing likewise instead of bouncing the question back at M42 without ever answering him directly. The dyno chart was about the closest you've come, but it proves nothing unless you accompany it with a shred of explanation. Again, I am really not trying to take sides here. You could talk rings around me and I wouldn't even know they were there, but if everything we have all said thus far is laughable as you continue to prod and play, then please enlighten us. Your continued reluctance either sounds like you are speaking from too high above us or you don't know the answer. I am of the conviction that you do have utter faith in your beliefs and I'd like to know what they are. I'm just trying to learn from those above me in this cycle, just as I pass along the little I have at my disposal.
Thanks for you time.

Geneqco

Well, I have been watching this thread over the past few days... Let me start by saying i certainly do not profess to be an expert, so it's not without some reservations that I've decided to post, so here goes...

I would not presume to speak for A.Wayne, but perhaps the fault he finds with the original formula posted is not so much in the formula itself but the assumptions made wrt BSFC. Now, if that is the case (ie, that A.Wayne was only being critical of the BSFC assumption), is that a reasonable criticism?

Well, let's think about that for a moment... firstly, A.Wayne criticised the BSFC assumption for its implication that Turbocharged engines are less efficient in converting fuel to HP than their Supercharged counterparts. Well, given the parasitic losses experienced by Superchargers (they take hp from the engine to actually drive them), that seems like a reasonable criticism. If I'm reading his posts correctly, A.Wayne's other real criticism of the BSFC assumption is that it does not take into account where in the rpm band the desired peak HP is to occur. This seems to be the point that has led to the criticism against A.Wayne... I think he has implied in a post that he doesn't mind sharing his knowledge, but that people need to show a little respect in return... again, i think that is a fair approach.

A.Wayne suggested it could take a bigger injector to produce 500 hp @ 9,000 rpm than it would to produce 500 hp @ 6,000 rpm... he was criticised for this and the thread has gone a little off track since.

So, what about A.Wayne's statement and his criticism of BSFC... was it reasonable?

What about the criticism of A.Wayne, was that reasonable?

Now, please don't take this the wrong way, I'm by no means trying to adjudicate here, but I'm sure Patrick would like to get the thread back on track and for people to share their thoughts and experiences in a productive manner.

As to A.Wayne's statement... I would not have thought it would be too difficult really, and I am surprised that in this type of technical board it has created such an issue.

As I said, I'm no expert, but wouldn't you expect more internal losses in the conversion of fuel to hp at higher rpm than at lower rpm (all else being equal)? To put it simply, think about just driving on the road, you change down a gear to save fuel... still driving at the same speed, same conditions, the lower gear (lower rpm), within reason, will use less fuel. One of my other cars has an instantaneous fuel consumption gauge and on board computer... it may surprise you how much extra fuel it actually uses in a lower gear!

So, A.Wayne's comment and criticism of the BSFC assumption seems entirely reasonable to me... bearing in mind we are talking about a thread for a standalone ECU in a technical forum for cars whose owners do tend to push the envelope.

Now it may well be that there are other issues to which A.Wayne was alluding, which, if so, I hope he will share with us...

Geneqco

Sorry Patrick, I started the last post before yours and was interrupted...

I think A.Wayne may have posted the dyno chart in response to something said about maximum fuel at TQ peak (sorry if I'm wrong, I don't have time to read through the thread again...) It looks like TQ peak is at around 650 hp whereas peak hp is around 800 hp on this dyno. I'm guessing (whilst of course not speaking for A.Wayne) that he perhaps posted it to ridicule the suggestion that peak fuel is necessarily at peak TQ. He has asked the other poster to explain his dyno according to the statements made ny the other poster, but it seems this has not happened.

Anyway, I hope no one takes my posts the wrong way, I'm only using some of my admittedly limited understanding of this area to try to help the thread along it's merry way.

gt37vgt

well A while ago i saw a magazine articale putting CDI on japanese stuff and it seemed that on hot things (250hp/litre) that CDI did show some benifits . As a genraliszation I will say more of the engines I've seen with more than 280hp/litre tend to have CDI . but that does not convince me they make power I'd love to see some real data on this

Mikes3.0cabturbo

Wow, really interesting posts regardless of the emotions. Certainly made me think as I had in my head that 500hp injector was 500hp regardless of revs. I think that maybe needs a reset now after A.Waynes post, it just made me follow the cycle though in my head.

My 2c, as the revs rise the duration for the injection of fuel drops, so if you were to inject at fixed 85% of the available duration (just for the concept) the amount of fuel injected would become less and less as revs increase.

Hence an injector capable of supporting 500hp at 6000rpm would support less at 9000rpm because the available time to inject has substantially decreased. So the only option becomes use a bigger injector that can inject more fuel in less time...

The try to make this huge injector idle becomes the problem, then that supports the use of staged injectors as per Adams post.

rgds
mike

gt37vgt

well rember duty cycle means ....open time in real time ... not open time in 4 stroke cycle time ...... so a given injector at 85%duty cycle at a given pressure will give a given cc per minute of feul.
but we all prefer to run no more than 85 % duty we give our selves a 15% margin as this 15% is a very short measure of time at 9000rpm there for we are likely to only realy be able to run maybe maybe 75% duty cycle at 9000rpm becuase the 15% of time is perhaps not enough time for the injector to close and open .
the main issue is at big rpm it's difficult to control injectors . also good piont A.Wayne that "secquental" is compleatly invalid at much more than 60% duty ccle