Stock shortblock + 11psi + novice tuner...results inside
07-29-2008, 04:41 PM
#24
Teching In
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm curious as to why too much fuel would cause broken ringlands? I was under the impression that either detonation or running lean would cause that kind of damage. Too much fuel would would run rich and cool the intake charge and is what most recommend when tuning. Am I missing something here?
08-03-2008, 06:41 PM
#25
BOSS APPROVED!
08-05-2008, 02:37 PM
#27
So what's the actual cause of #7 failure? Does it have to do with the stock intake?
I've seen guys moving injectors all around but still the #7 piston breaks. can't be fuel since the PCM controls all 8 the same. Maybe #7 receives the intake charge easier than
the rest causing a lean condition. Or maybe cam companies could grind in a little smaller
intake lobe just for cylinder 7 so it doesn't see as much boost as the other 7 cylinders...lol. But then the injector could still be firing after the intake valve closes...hmmm. Just an idea...or come up with cylinder to cylinder fuel tuning.
I've seen guys moving injectors all around but still the #7 piston breaks. can't be fuel since the PCM controls all 8 the same. Maybe #7 receives the intake charge easier than
the rest causing a lean condition. Or maybe cam companies could grind in a little smaller
intake lobe just for cylinder 7 so it doesn't see as much boost as the other 7 cylinders...lol. But then the injector could still be firing after the intake valve closes...hmmm. Just an idea...or come up with cylinder to cylinder fuel tuning.
08-05-2008, 03:13 PM
#29
Then it must be the way our manifolds are shaped inside. #7 must get a straighter
shot of incoming air. Hopefully the new Warrior intake will solve that. When it ever comes out. The intake runners are more trupet shaped so all 8 pistons should get an even amount of intake charge. FAST basically copies GM's design just with 20% larger runners.
shot of incoming air. Hopefully the new Warrior intake will solve that. When it ever comes out. The intake runners are more trupet shaped so all 8 pistons should get an even amount of intake charge. FAST basically copies GM's design just with 20% larger runners.
08-07-2008, 09:09 PM
#30
The air packs up on the back of the manifold. The #7 is the last runner in the manifold. It gets more air than any other cylinder. This is the number one reason people go with the single plane. Pure distribution.
If you look at actual fuel trims and AFRs from EACH primary, you would be sick.
If you look at actual fuel trims and AFRs from EACH primary, you would be sick.
08-07-2008, 09:22 PM
#31
TECH Enthusiast
Thread Starter
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The air packs up on the back of the manifold. The #7 is the last runner in the manifold. It gets more air than any other cylinder. This is the number one reason people go with the single plane. Pure distribution.
If you look at actual fuel trims and AFRs from EACH primary, you would be sick.
If you look at actual fuel trims and AFRs from EACH primary, you would be sick.
08-07-2008, 09:45 PM
#32
Keep the spark knock out of it, and make sure it has plenty of fuel. If you do a plug check, make sure you check #7.
Plenty of people go fast and stay safe with the stock style manifolds. Its those on kill with no margin of error that lose.
Make sure you have a cold plug in it too. If that thing is glowing, it makes it that much worse.
Plenty of people go fast and stay safe with the stock style manifolds. Its those on kill with no margin of error that lose.
Make sure you have a cold plug in it too. If that thing is glowing, it makes it that much worse.
08-08-2008, 12:18 AM
#33
the fix for #7 & #8 is to run extra fuel. Aim for an a/f between 10.8:1 and 11.2:1 and you won't have the fueling issues. I've tuned lots of cars on the dyno and the difference in RWHP i've seen from 10.5:1 to 11.5:1 was around 15 RWHP on a 500 rwhp car.
I ALWAYS have my car tuned on the safe side. I'd rather lose 30 RWHP than $3000 for a new short block.
I ALWAYS have my car tuned on the safe side. I'd rather lose 30 RWHP than $3000 for a new short block.
12-22-2008, 07:52 AM
#35
TECH Enthusiast
Thread Starter
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Were you refering to mine? The block looks fine in mine, all the pieces of the piston were still being held together by the rings. Nothing came apart and there are no scratches on the cylinder walls. Now some of the other engines pictured in this post surely got damaged.
12-22-2008, 09:38 AM
#36
the fix for #7 & #8 is to run extra fuel. Aim for an a/f between 10.8:1 and 11.2:1 and you won't have the fueling issues. I've tuned lots of cars on the dyno and the difference in RWHP i've seen from 10.5:1 to 11.5:1 was around 15 RWHP on a 500 rwhp car.
I ALWAYS have my car tuned on the safe side. I'd rather lose 30 RWHP than $3000 for a new short block.
I ALWAYS have my car tuned on the safe side. I'd rather lose 30 RWHP than $3000 for a new short block.
Ditto...as this is what I do. I am running quite a bit of meth and my afr's are deep into the 10's from tq peak up, doesn't seem to hurt power that much. BUT this still has me worried, I consistently run 11-12psi and have seen as high as 15 on very cold WOT pulls before.
12-22-2008, 12:51 PM
#37
TECH Addict
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: toronto ontario canada
Posts: 2,047
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Were you refering to mine? The block looks fine in mine, all the pieces of the piston were still being held together by the rings. Nothing came apart and there are no scratches on the cylinder walls. Now some of the other engines pictured in this post surely got damaged.
