nathanUK '81 930 G50

Ooops, sorry Colin.

Congratulations on winning the Speed Championship.

bogey1

Cobalt: I am with you (safely making 440rwhp on CIS??). I wonder what kind of dyno is being used? In my experience, the Mustang dyno's are much more conservative in terms of power than the DynoJets. My own car shows 391rwhp on the Mustang, and just over 430rwhp on the DynoJet. For some reason, the disparity in the torque was only a small figure (I would need to check it again), but the DynoJet actually showed the car with basically equal hp/torque, and the Mustang had the torque at 411 to the wheels. Not sure why? I have been told the Mustang is a more reliable number.
I personally had the Andial system, and the fuel head modification on my car for safety (andial turned down). Can't wait to get the EFI conversion completed! Those numbers have me thinking about ditching the KKK (HF2) for a GT35R turbo though......

NineMeister

I cannot comment on the ability of others to extract power from their conversions, but given that at 9m we definitely engineer packages in a "non-traditional" way from first principles I am not surprised that our results may cause a little doubt. I'm not going to attempt to defend dyno numbers since the subject has been done to death on a number of occasions, however if you take a look on the 993tt forum you will find an interesting thread about measuring the 60-130mph acceleration times in order to compare performance. I do not have a result for the 3.6 turbo yet, but a sister car to JBL's 9m header/ballrace/964cam/7i which weighed in at 1450kg posted a run of 10.18s which is pretty much in line (read faster) than your average "500hp" 993tt. In comparison my 1281kg 993RS CS posted a run of 10.21s, which should also be reasonable confirmation of my claim of 420hp from the 9m 3.8 litre n/a race engine. The 4.0 litre is on the way.....

The 3.6 turbo with our package is definitely faster than JBL's car (grip provided) but we have not had a chance to measure the acceleration yet.

NineMeister

No problem, thanks for the thumbs up.

maverick

I have had my B&B headers on since march 2004. I have driven about 9000 miles since then. I have not noticed, heard or smelt any problems so far.

cobalt

As Colin states there are many opinions on what works best. I have always been told the DynoJet was more accurate for these cars and the Mustangs read low. Same with opinions on the GT35R vs the HF. I can say I have had some runs against some 993TT's that were supposedly putting out 500bhp and I was surprised I had a slight advantage in the higher speed runs. I think it has something to do with the way the single turbos put down the power.

What I am confused about is the cams used in these cars. Everything points to the 94 3.6 Turbo already using 964 grind cams yet I have heard more than one person talk about switching cams to the 964 cams. So what advantages are gained if the grind is the same?

Colin,

I am not doubting although maybe questioning motivation behind using a 7th injector. I have seen several cars burn to the ground using this approach and have seen people use it for years without issue. I guess my biggest concern is having so much fuel in the intake and the eventual contamination buildup on the intake walls. I am looking for more power and weighing the pros and cons of the different methods used. 100 people asked can get you 100 different answers. I am intrigued by the numbers you state and your "non-traditional" methods, not saying its wrong just non-traditional and thats my reason for the questions.

underpsi

cobolt,

i think our 3.6Ts still uses the 930 cams and only the 3.6Turbo "S" model uses the more agressive 964 cam grind.

cobalt

From what I can gather by reviewing the PET and www.flachbau.com is the 964 n/a and the 964 turbo S use the similar cams. Both are part number 964.105.246.09 for one side the turbo S uses 964.105.247.08 for the other and the n/a uses 964.105.247.07. According to the PET the 94 turbo uses 964.105..247.21 for one side and 964.105.248.20 for the other as where the 3.3l uses 930.105.143.03 and 930.105.246.00. As you can see the numbers vary slightly and I was always told the last 2 digits show a revision to a previous part number but what the differences are?

This is what I am trying to find out, there doesn't seem to be enough document info that I can reliably say what is the truth. Are the grinds similar different or is it a component difference and has nothing to do with the grind?

Sorry for getting so off topic. I think I am going to start another thread.

NineMeister

I do not like the 7th injector either, but it is less of an evil than having somebody mess around with the K-Jet metering head and WUR and hoping that they get the numbers right, at least with the 7i kit (assuming that you are using a large enough injector) you can dial in the fuel as demanded by the engine to achieve the afr that you need.
In an ideal world we would all switch to EFI, but I am a realist and understand that many customers simply cannot afford the extra investment so until they come in for phase 2 the 7i kit does the job the most accurately.

With respect to "non-traditional" approaches, my goal is to tune our turbo engines for the flattest torque curve possible and extend the torque up to the redline, that way you get more power with lower cylinder pressures and hence maintain engine longevity. JBL's 3.3 and the 3.6 turbo mentioned demonstrate this approach and the key to the performance is having the right turbo for the job which delivers the right amount of air with the minimum of backpressure, and all I will say is that we have worked overtime to build a direct replacement for a K27 with the optimum bearing housing, turbine and compressor trim. It's not a HF since this did not suit our needs.

There are other aspects to our unconventional approach but we keep these in-house and customers would only find them by taking their engines apart and knowing what to look for.

Kevin

So here we have Colin telling us that we can mount a 7th injector in a CIS dry manifold and supply fuel to a engine where he will slap his new Garrett turbocharger on and have enough fuel.. And you can do this without having the customer dial in the fuel since "but it is less of an evil"

So, we mount a 7th injector and we let the fuel run to left and then at 4800 it starts running to the right side of the manifold and when you bolt your modified GT35R or other non KKK hybrid, your betting that low backpressure is going to keep your AFR's on track????

The 7th injector approach fails... If you are producing enough air and delivering 1 bar and over, you cannot risk having the fuel pour into on bank and lean out another. Or typically in this situation you have more air/fuel flowing to 2 and 5 and those two cylinders on each bank run lean..

Folks Colin is flat out saying that the proven Fuel head mod is more evil vs using the "less of a evil" so buy his 7i injector system which he has on how many engines??? If we are over 400HP to the wheels with mods, I am telling everyone to check there AFR's install a wideband and monitor your fuel.. Regardless of what you are running. Installing a 7th injector is CRAP.. You risk ruining your engine because you leave the fuel delivery to CHANCE..

As Anthony wrote...

"I am not doubting although maybe questioning motivation behind using a 7th injector. I have seen several cars burn to the ground using this approach and have seen people use it for years without issue. I guess my biggest concern is having so much fuel in the intake and the eventual contamination buildup on the intake walls"

And since he poking a stick at my HyFlow, Colin you can send your turbocharger that you are building over to the States and I will gladly test it for you.. It's easy to grab a Garrett and slap it on a 930, and pray that it will survive. If they are ball-bearing the lifespan goes down the toilet. If they fail how are you going to rebuild it?? Do you build anything in house?? Where is your equipment to balance the turbocharger? Post that picture for me in your shop?? The fact is these engine are tracked and run often way past the limit of being torn down and rebuilt. FOD damage occurs at a torrid pace. What is your inhouse solution for rebuilding a failed turbine wheel.. Where is 9M's turbo department.. Can I ring them up on the tele..

And while I am making a comments on this thread, why didn't you come up with a entirely different exhaust system instead of copying the B & B system down to the Heat exhanger enclosures??? Same layout, same design. Basically you have knocked off there design and charged double the price.. You words were, it was made better, we used better material, we welded it better.. Yes, better, after you had a proven product that you just copied and charged double for.. I am sure that I can call Billy Boat and ask him to build his original design out of 321 and he sell it for double the price.. It's not the design, you have proven that with your knock off.. It is the material used. And in the US Market people buy on price. There wallet says that they will buy a $2,000 exhaust and complain when it cracks.. They will pull it off and sell it on EBAY.. And complain as they buy another one.. Very few folks will buy a Bob Holcolme $4,500 system, or a Marco designed header system. Which by the way aren't B & B knock offs.. They don't even look close to the B & B system..

38D

I know that for me, having a rebuildable turbo is huge (not that I really had a choice in a stock class). Anyone that races is going to want their turbo inspected often. Kevin rebuilt my 7200 for under $700 including shipping back to me. That seems like a pretty good deal vs. having to junk an entire $2500 turbo. I know that norm g struggled greatly with longevity of his BB turbos, having basically to junk them every couple of races (and his was a twin turbo setup). I do think there is a big difference between what work on the street and what is good for the track. On the street, most solutions will work fine. But run your car in a 90 minute race, and the weaknesses of certain products become apparent real fast.

I don't know much, but I do know that basically every aircooled shop in the US that I know of uses Kevin for their turbo work. He does the stuff himself, so has the firsthand knowledge of the pro/cons of each design.

As for headers, Kevin is right. They all will crack, it is just a question of when. Holcomb/Menzie inconel headers are a work of art and will last, but at $6k/set, it is hard for most people to justify (and 1/2 the time you can't get them to return you calls...I know...I have tried!).

PorschePhD

You have to be kidding with this statement right? There is no hoping and their is no guessing. You add max flow with the fuel head mod and one can take it or leave it with the WUR mod. The WUR is primarily done to move the curve around and eliminate the CIS dump. If one has a problem with dialing in the CIS system it is lack of understanding or experience in working with it. Even if you use your 7th injector you are going to still suffer the CIS dump that you would even with the injector in place. The 7th injector is a theory that we all played with 15 years ago that failed time and time again. Companies that will go unnamed in this thread would often run a 7th injector and squeeze the motor by the short and shinnies. The end result is ALWAYS a burned piston normally on one of the outer runners.

The car uses a very inefficient intake and one can see flow difference as much as 33% between runners. That is with air. You add fuel and now have inserted a denser flow that will in turn pool and not run the same route as the air. The end result is 2 and 5 are flooded because you are looking for an ideal AFR and pumping fuel and the outer cylinders lean out. It is not if, but when you burn a hole in something. There will be those that say I have done this for 5 years! Well my bet is they are driving 2K miles a year. Try doing this at 15K miles a year. You won’t make it.

The choice has to be made, if you want more than 420ish RWHP and you want it safe you will have to move to EFI. If not then a real 420ish RWHP can live with the fuel head mod. The typical drop in AFR is nearly 1.2 points on the meter. Most cars will run low 12s and on conservative timing will live a normal life. No the curve will not be like the EFI and the choice comes down to the owner, budget, need and the customers best interest in mind.

kleinbbc2

Well here is my update email from B&B to fix the header
Mark,

We have examined your header and it will cost $475.00 to repair.
Please
let me know if you want to proceed and I will need a credit card to
write up your repair order.

Thanks,

Gary Friedl
Billy Boat Performance Exhaust
623-581-7600
888-228-7435
623-581-5640 Fax
gary@bbexhaust.com
www.bbexhaust.com

underpsi

I encountered the same thing a couple years ago; i guess there is really no gaurantee/waranty on their work. Since i'm a little bit more knowledgable now, why did they even use 304 ss for turbo headers anyways?? Our turbo exhaust temps goes beyond the heat range of 304 ss.

Boeing 717

Man thats a far cry from the 50 dollars GHL quoted me???