VINCE

iTrader: (1)

Thanks Black. SS00Blue I think when you are going for REAL horsepower. It does make a difference..

2001TurboWs6

I have never had any overheating issues and I have driven my car in 90+ degrees with the air on also. I am pretty sure that 534 hp and 687 tq at the wheels is real power. Warbird, I think that you are blaming your isolated problems on the kit and not looking at the other kits that are not having problems. My turbo is located in the same place as all of the other QMP kits and I do not have any smoking issues. I have read the whole thread and you really should be dealing with ARE on your problems. Good luck on sorting out your problems.

SS00Blue

OWWWwwich! That smarts Vince. I'm tuned for 9lbs on the pump with an SMC alky kit now, instead of the lame tune I had with the numbers in the sig. Maybe that'll gimme some REAL power. I'll scan my first ten second time slip fer ya!


SC-

MIGHTYMOUSE

iTrader: (59)

ok, open to anybody now.. who knows?

SS00Blue

Suppose you call Rob and ask. Or is that something that scares you?

Let us know what Rob says (like I don't already know)

SC-

Rob Raymer

When we made 707rwhp, we had moved my wastegate to the front of the engine where the one is on our kit now. The Deltagate in the TT position was doing a pitiful job of contolling boost. At the same time, we upgraded to a Racegate.

Mightymouse, I saw on the other board that you are contemplating moving your WG location to the TT location??? Why in world would you do that? What sense does it make to release pressure substantially more from one side of the engine, as the TT kit does?? You ALWAYS want to release pressure equally from all 8 cylinders.

Another problem you may have (after I just read that you still have a stock MAF), is the stock MAF. Our kit was designed to use the GM 85mm MAF, as we discussed when you ordered your kit. There is a BIG difference in flow at the boost level you are at. I had no idea you still had a stock MAF.

MIGHTYMOUSE

iTrader: (59)

SS, where are the new dyno numbers? timeslips? please make something of your perfect running machine instead of it going to waste.. why the wait?
ROB,
i was thinking about it for the same reason that it was brought up on the post you read. it is just something i have the means to try for free, as always i am completely open to suggestions... the more affordable the better.

i bought an 85mm maf in preparation to use it.. upon setting up a tune for it i found out that it only flows 347grams/second on 98 computers instead of the 439 grams/second that the stock one does.. it is more restrictive but any wide open tuning at all would max the maf. on 99+ cars that 85mm maf can go up to 439grams/second but just as well on 99+ cars with a stock maf can read to 511grams/second i asked you about this and have never gotten with ed wright as i'm sure he is not willing to divulge tuning information... if you could get it for me, well that would be greatly appreciated

cablebandit for instance used the stock maf with no flow restriction problems to 600rwhp on his turbotechnology kit moving a lot more air than i am right now. he helped me with my base turbo tune and i'm not doing anything different with the maf than he.

next time i dyno i plan on a pull without the filter to see how it affects the graph.. may tell me something good/bad about the maf set up, but for now a stock maf is really my only avenue since i am not ed wright... but neither is cablebandit and it worked fine for him

also, is there anything that strikes you about the graph?? you didnt mention looking at it.. im looking for anything to go on here since you are the man.

lastly, again, what is the highest outputting built motor car so far with the production kit other than your car, what are the numbers, boost level and c.i. please.

cablebandit

iTrader: (37)

MM don't do the wastegate thing yet. Listen to Rob. None of us have run 9s...Rob has and I'm sure tried everything he could to get his setup as efficient as possible with the given hardware. What are you cam specs? I'm thinking you need to get with Rob and go over your setup. The 85mm maf sounds like a good idea. Even if it maxes...you can increase a/f in ls1edit after it maxes. What intake are you using? Does it mate properly port to port? do you have the tb hose plugged(not the pcv)? I didn't for awhile, if I remeber correctly, and it was blowing boost out of that port. I just looked at my dynos....my hp peaked at 5000 rpm.....my 01 ls6 cam was advanced 6 degrees which was prolly way wrong to do but i wanted to see how it made the bottom end feel with the 8.5:1 compression. At 6000 rpms, I still had 525 rwhp down from a peak of 573. I'm wondering if you got a cam problem..... Swallow your pride...call Rob and see if he will help you figure this out. It's almost like you got a tiny cam...cam ground wrong...advanced too much or something. Harlans first 600rwhp numbers were on stock heads/cam...certainly ARE heads are flowing at least stock numbers. Call Rob....His hp/tq numbers were pretty flat....I don't think he just lucked up on that combo.

KHShapiro

iTrader: (10)

good to see the thread go in a some what positive direction..
Black LS1 T/A you have done a great job on getting this back on track

Black LS1 T/A

...tanks...

MightyMouse, I tend to agree with CableBandit... don't just blow off Rob's suggestions. PErhaps you should discuss your question about MAF freq range a little deeper with him. He may even agree with you concerning the MAF you have. But, try to arrive at a consensus.

Can't an 85mm extended range MAF help you?
My 422 max's out my stock MAF at about 4800 RPMs.

My extended MAF max's at about 5500 to 5600 RPMs.
(That is from memory, for comparision... but, it should be close to accurate numbers.)

But a larger MAF should definitely flow more air, right?

MIGHTYMOUSE

iTrader: (59)

im not blowing anyone off? when did that happen? i have called rob as recent as last week to discuss things

my cam is definitely a bottom end cam at but NA it still peaked at 5600rpm sitting the same way it is right now. 224 226 .510 .523 115* i do have my old cam 218 216 .534 .531 114* i could try though
my point is that once i can hold xpsi through the rev range and the hp is still peaking too early.. then i will change the cam, but i cant. the boost stops at 4krpm so obviously so does the hp.

cable i have everything plugged up using an ls6 intake

black ls1, my stock maf max's out at 3600rpm so i suppose having it max at 2800 really isnt much different. the larger maf can obviously fit more air through it, but the frequency it reports to the computer is the problem, maybe chris b can clarify?

did you send your 85mm away to get recalibrated or something? because there is just no way otherwise that you can get it to accurately report more air to the stock computer than a stock meter.

Black LS1 T/A

It was electronically calibrated to read up to 511.99 based on a smooth curve on other FBodies, and the vendor dialed it in further by analysing my logs and having me make further MAF table adjustments for my vehicle based on logged values and them knowing the elec cal.

That's how I understand it.

Black LS1 T/A

When Rob tells you not to do something and you say you are anyway, sorry... it sounds like you are blowing him off. But, that's just from seeing your discussion here. We don't know (until you tell us) that you have further discussions with him about it.

Hope it works out, man.

MIGHTYMOUSE

iTrader: (59)

right, i was thinking about doing it, havent done anything yet until the turbo is out end of this week.

so you sent out an 01 ls6 meter and had it recalibrated and sent back with it was a new maf flow sheet to input into edit correct? and that was from JS for around $200 correct?

RICE ETR

iTrader: (3)

Here is my theory on subject.... if anyone cares...... hopefully it makes sense.

He said his maf freq flat lines as the boost goes down...so since the rpm's are going up, air intake remains the same... hp goes down.. ok so that's obvious.

Now we have to decide if (as mentiooned before by someone) if it is a restriction on the intake side of the turbo keeping the turbo from spooling up any more or if it is something on the exhaust side of the turbo.

The intake side... people have made more power with the stock maf before and if it flat lines at 523rwhp... then going up to the 85mm would not support 707 rwhp.. do the math, it doesn't add up. So that rules the maf as being a restriction.

Now on to the exhaust. True the 63 will support 750fwhp... but maybe not with the QMP around it. Now follow me before you get angry. Rob made the 707 with the 74 turbo... which has a larger exhaust turbine(and area) than the 63... so the 74 is less restrictive on the exhaust side.
I think due to the log style manifold and the fact that now all of the gases are going through the log regardless if they are being used for the turbo or spent out the wastegate.... so with this kit the log has to flow more.
So by putting a larger turbo on there, as Rob did, with a larger/less restrictive exhaust side, the back pressure in the manifold doesn't cause a problem until a higher HP# is reached..... at which the same scenario happens again.

The TTi kit had the same problem but because both the 60 and the 76 share the same sized exhaust turbine, it showed up sooner (well the 76 was limited more than the 60).... which is one of the reasons the QMP kit is making more power.
I also think i am going to force MM into trying TTi's wastegate location (if i have to fabricate/weld the stuff up myself;-). You can't think of the flow as if vehicles in traffic or whatever.... we are talking about a fluid. On the TTi set-up, as soon as the wastegate opens and say reduces the pressure by 5psi, well instantly every piece of the pre-turbo (exhaust side) is reduced by 5psi.... from the passenger side exhaust ports to right infront of the turbine blades... it has too, simple physics (so it seems to me). The benefit of this is the log has to flow less and so has less of a backpressure build up problem.

And concerning the cam.... i could see the hp figures dropping, making bad flowing heads show up... but the boost should hold regardless. If his cam was that bad for a turbo, he wouldn't make any boost... or would have a serious lag problem, which he doesn't.

The point is, something is limiting the rpm's of the impeller of the turbo.... and my money's on the exhaust manifold having too much back pressure.

.....ok... i am done rambling...

Rob Raymer

Short and sweet now....the manifold is larger than than the manifold I had on my car when I made 707rwhp. My HP NEVER dropped off, all the way to redline. PLUS, I only had a 2 1/2" downpipe, a 2" ID manifold log, and a 2" crossover at that time. MM's downpipe is 3", his manifold log is 2 3/8" ID, and his crossover is 2 1/4". How could it be too restrictive?? My car also was using the 85mm MAF at that time.

We still don't know A/F numbers on MM's car. Maybe it's his tuning?? Maybe not. But I know one thing FOR SURE...it's not the location of the Wastegate. Move it if you want (since it sounds like you are going to force him to move it anyway). Just don't call me when one side of the motor pops from going too lean while running 20lbs of boost.

CHRISPY

I dont think MM has tuned his car on a dyno with a real wideband has he? I am not sure, but I thought he was doing it from ATAP? I could be wrong of course but if that is the case I am sure he will gain a lot from proper tuning. (especially on a Eddy Current/Mustang dyno)

Cheers,
Chris

Chris

RICE ETR

iTrader: (3)

it's the log design itself... just like going from stock manifolds to tubular headers, if it wasn't a power increase... nobody would spend $$$$ to do it.
The way it is designed... you have four holes drilled in the log SMALLER than the ID of the primaries... much smaller... so there is a 1.4" lip or so(now the ID of the primaries is cut down by 1/2" in dia.) that the air has to be forced around before then making 90 degree turn meeting the oncoming exhaust from the passenger side. It just doesn't promote flow.

As i said long before in another post... if you must go with the log style design (which of course is the easiest/cheapest design which allows enough room for everything) then cut a hole in the log slightly LARGER (say .010" to be safe) than the OD of the primaries(which are cut to match the contour of the OD of the log..like a rollbar set-up)... this way the primaries are not restricted.

yes i see that.... but you also had the larger turbo.. which the reasoning is explained above.

So you must have had the old TT manifold with a modified crossover on then....RIGHT?
If not... then why would you have custom made another turbo manifold and made everything smaller than what you were planning on putting in the production kit?
Don't you think you should have tested these design changes on a built engine before continuing to full production?
Run out to the car and snap some pics of everything... i still have yet to find any pics of the manifold, the oil return, the passenger header/manifold, crossover, etc... anything other than the top of your engine and that monster intercooler.

And his tuning.... true he has not been on a wideband, but he is getting very little if any KR, i have been in the car when he was a-tapping... i think the O2's were 930 or so... which is right where i would want to be for a safe pump gas tune.
Still... i could see his tuning not making the power he wanted up top.... if it was really messed up (there is almost always room for more aggressive tuning for more power) but not holding boost from tuning... i just don't see it.

Either it's the manifold or he has a huge boost leak somewhere

MIGHTYMOUSE

iTrader: (59)

auto tap log of third pull

RPM,Timing,Air Temp,LTrim1,LTrim2,MassAirHz,Coolant,Knock,O21mV,O 22mV
1932,22, 90,0,0,6605, 183,1.5,895,935
2023,25.5,90,0,0,6859.9, 183,1.4,910,940
2133,26, 88,0,0,7167.5, 183,1.3,920,950
2233,26.5,88,0,0,7431.2, 183,1.3,925,945
2361,26.5,90,0,0,7789.6, 183,1.2,930,945
2492,25.5,90,0,0,8267.6, 183,1.1,935,955
2638,24.5,90,0,0,8652.8, 183,1.3,935,950
2808,23.5,88,0,0,9154.3, 183,1.2,935,950
2992,22, 88,0,0,9786.6, 183,1.1,935,960
3214,20.5,88,0,0,10598.1,183,1.1,930,940
3503,19.5,88,0,0,11164.6,183,2, 915,915
3799,18, 88,0,0,11317.4,183,2.9,910,925
4080,19.5,88,0,0,11431.2,183,2.3,935,940
4338,20.5,88,0,0,11528.8,183,1.8,935,940
4556,21.5,88,0,0,11593.3,185,1.6,935,935
4766,22, 88,0,0,11630.9,185,1.5,935,940
4972,23, 90,0,0,11611.3,185,1.9,935,945
5151,23, 90,0,0,11655.8,185,1.7,935,940
5337,23.5,90,0,0,11680.2,185,1.5,935,940
5483,24, 90,0,0,11688, 185,1.3,935,935
5644,24.5,90,0,0,11722.7,185,1.1,935,935
5789,25, 90,0,0,11717.8,185,1.1,935,935
5919,25.5,90,0,0,11717.8,185,0.9,935,935
6063,26, 90,0,0,11688, 185,0.8,935,655
</pre><hr />

Black LS1 T/A

That may be too rich. You need to check it with a wideband at a dyno. With the stock o2's, you just can't know.