1) you replied to a quote about the intake, not the head 2) cylinder head flow is limited by how much vacuum an engine makes which is a function of it's displacement and RPM. So, over-size your ports too much you'll actually reduce your torque because your air velocity will slow down... 3) if I port heads to flow 250/224 in/ex and the motor makes 140 hp, what good was all that flow?
if you have that much flow and that little power, your tune is **** , or something in your peripherals is way out of whack. and I highly doubt you'd get your heads anywhere near those numbers anyways.
quote
Originally posted by lou_dias: When are you going to realize that all you do is troll? Further more, La Fiera's CNC ported heads flow as much as stock aluminum heads and he removed the vane that balances the flow around the valve stem...which reduces flow on iron heads. My heads have already made as much torque as any V6/60 and considering I'm running a stock cam, that's pretty amazing. Once I throw the old intake on with the new DAWG mod, I expect more since my peak was at 3600 with the stock intake neck.
Would you like me to go troll your turbo 3500 build?
I really don't care what you do, it's your time. hell, you'd be doing me a favor by keeping the thread out of the archives. there is a link to the thread in my signature.
edit: I bet it eats you up that this will be the top post on your build thread for the next couple of months... ------------------ we're in desperate need of a little more religion to nurse your god-like point of view...
Originally posted by ericjon262: if you have that much flow and that little power, your tune is **** , or something in your peripherals is way out of whack. and I highly doubt you'd get your heads anywhere near those numbers anyways.
I love how you act like you haven't read any of my thread and keep making blind assumptions.
quote
I really don't care what you do, it's your time. hell, you'd be doing me a favor by keeping the thread out of the archives. there is a link to the thread in my signature.
edit: I bet it eats you up that this will be the top post on your build thread for the next couple of months...
Actually, I'll never post in your thread simply because I have no interest in your build and I'm not a troll. Only wish you'd do the same here.
I disregard my 187/249 dyno as much as my 149/167 dyno as much as SuperDave's 275/249 dyno.
quote
Originally posted by lou_dias:
Dyno #'s are the only thing that matter. I've already done 187/249 on a mustang dyno by maintaining a TPI effect. I don't need much more than that.
what does all this mean? dynos are just a number, they don't make a car fast or slow.
blind assumptions? is that because I said doubt instead of won't? I know they won't, not unless you subject them to a deeper vacuum on the flow bench, and even then, I'm not sure you could go that deep.
I have read most of your build, and I haven't acted otherwise. you posed a hypothetical situation about heads flowing 250 on the intake and not making power, and I countered to say the tune or peripherals must be wrong. your heads don't flow 250 on the intake, so that wouldn't have been me referencing your tuning issues, that would have been me making a factual statement regarding a hypothetical situation.
[This message has been edited by ericjon262 (edited 01-20-2014).]
Originally posted by ericjon262: what does all this mean? dynos are just a number, they don't make a car fast or slow.
blind assumptions? is that because I said doubt instead of won't? I know they won't, not unless you subject them to a deeper vacuum on the flow bench, and even then, I'm not sure you could go that deep.
I have read most of your build, and I haven't acted otherwise. you posed a hypothetical situation about heads flowing 250 on the intake and not making power, and I countered to say the tune or peripherals must be wrong. your heads don't flow 250 on the intake, so that wouldn't have been me referencing your tuning issues, that would have been me making a factual statement regarding a hypothetical situation.
But you ignore the blatant facts of my build:
1) when I made 187/249, I had a poor base tune on a stock Fiero ECM and an intake neck restriction... 2) when I switched to a higher flowing intake and a better tune and 7730 and DIS and L98 TB, I lost power 3) if I'm making more power than a stock 3400 and more power than a stock cammed 3400 with some mods, clearly HEADS are not a limiting factor in my build despite your constant ramblings...
Ask yourself why DeathStarr/SuperDave sold his ITM intake? Same reason I'm switching back to the stock one with an extra mod - there is such a thing as TOO MUCH FLOW. When you have too much flow, you have to spin the motor too fast to stabilize the system and lose your idle/streetability. With the stock 3400 cam, there is no reason to shift past 5500 rpm. My heads don't need to outflow stock GEN3 aluminum heads and as demonstrated, ported iron heads can flow as much as stock GEN3 heads. So again, why are you trying to prove?
Once again: when I have a cam that peaks at 6000+ rpm, I might give a crap about the flow of my heads...and would switch back to the higher flowing intake and TB...
[This message has been edited by lou_dias (edited 01-20-2014).]
When you oversize your intake compared to your exhaust, the pressure difference during cam overlap can push exhaust back into the cylinder head. This has been the source of the detonation I've been having since going to the Trueleo intake. It's robbed my of 20% of my torque and given me drivability issues.
I got to dig up the stock vacuum tubes before I can drop the car off to get the intake (now DAWG-modded) swapped back. However, in the process of a house and I'm scaling back my spending until March.
If I ever REBUILD this motor, I'm going to go a little larger on the exhaust ports and go with an aftermarket cam and switch back to the Trueleo setup. I just doesn't make sense for my configuration right now.
1) when I made 187/249, I had a poor base tune on a stock Fiero ECM and an intake neck restriction... 2) when I switched to a higher flowing intake and a better tune and 7730 and DIS and L98 TB, I lost power 3) if I'm making more power than a stock 3400 and more power than a stock cammed 3400 with some mods, clearly HEADS are not a limiting factor in my build despite your constant ramblings...
Ask yourself why DeathStarr/SuperDave sold his ITM intake? Same reason I'm switching back to the stock one with an extra mod - there is such a thing as TOO MUCH FLOW. When you have too much flow, you have to spin the motor too fast to stabilize the system and lose your idle/streetability. With the stock 3400 cam, there is no reason to shift past 5500 rpm. My heads don't need to outflow stock GEN3 aluminum heads and as demonstrated, ported iron heads can flow as much as stock GEN3 heads. So again, why are you trying to prove?
Once again: when I have a cam that peaks at 6000+ rpm, I might give a crap about the flow of my heads...and would switch back to the higher flowing intake and TB...
you take your engine, which is far from stock by any stretch of the word, and claim it's better because you're almost matching the power of a stock 3500 without the same area under the curve???
I can't say for sure why superdave got rid of the ITB setup, I can say that ITB's are notoriously a ***** to tune, and that he had been working on the tune for quite a long time.
reversion? really? now we're just grabbing at straws.
you take your engine, which is far from stock by any stretch of the word, and claim it's better because you're almost matching the power of a stock 3500 without the same area under the curve???
I can't say for sure why superdave got rid of the ITB setup, I can say that ITB's are notoriously a ***** to tune, and that he had been working on the tune for quite a long time.
reversion? really? now we're just grabbing at straws.
It's really hilarious to watch you compare my motor with a stock 3400 cam to a 3500 with a custom cam with .102" more lift. Then you guys claim I'm the crazy one. You might as well compare an L98 to a LT5. If you compare 3400's with a stock cam, I'm making more power than stock ones and as much as others with some mods. Not as much as others with more mods...
A 3400 has a larger intake than a 3.4 swapped Fiero with higher flowing heads. All I did was attempt to match that and shocker the power is in the same ball park and not infinite amount more like you AL worshippers like to claim. If you want to justify all the effort you did to swap your motor - great. For people who want to look as close to stock as possible with as little rework, there is this way...so quit trolling about it.
[This message has been edited by lou_dias (edited 01-21-2014).]
Originally posted by lou_dias: For people who want to look as close to stock as possible with as little rework, there is this way...so quit trolling about it.
If your ported heads are the equal of stock aluminum heads and your making basically stock 3400 power with a stock 3400 cam, then you're going to continue to get stock 3400 results. So if looks really are that important to you, great. Just remember at Sekonk that you go there to look good (or stock or... something), while someone else goes there to WIN.
Originally posted by Will: If your ported heads are the equal of stock aluminum heads and your making basically stock 3400 power with a stock 3400 cam, then you're going to continue to get stock 3400 results. So if looks really are that important to you, great. Just remember at Sekonk that you go there to look good (or stock or... something), while someone else goes there to WIN.
Seekonk's oval track competition isn't won simply on engine power. If it was, I would have never won 2nd place 8 months ago. This thread is about the car I have a 3400 roller cam block engine in. I have a different thread for my 4.9 car. My stock Formula car has no thread.
It's really hilarious to watch you compare my motor with a stock 3400 cam to a 3500 with a custom cam with .102" more lift. Then you guys claim I'm the crazy one. You might as well compare an L98 to a LT5. If you compare 3400's with a stock cam, I'm making more power than stock ones and as much as others with some mods. Not as much as others with more mods...
A 3400 has a larger intake than a 3.4 swapped Fiero with higher flowing heads. All I did was attempt to match that and shocker the power is in the same ball park and not infinite amount more like you AL worshippers like to claim. If you want to justify all the effort you did to swap your motor - great. For people who want to look as close to stock as possible with as little rework, there is this way...so quit trolling about it.
I wasn't comparing your engine to a modded 3500, I was comparing it to a stock 3500. I did say that, and you quoted it. again, look at area under the curve (average power), a stock 3400 or 3500 blows you out of the water.
Originally posted by ericjon262: I wasn't comparing your engine to a modded 3500, I was comparing it to a stock 3500. I did say that, and you quoted it. again, look at area under the curve (average power), a stock 3400 or 3500 blows you out of the water.
What "stock" 3400/3500 dyno are you looking at? Apparently you're hallucinating...
With the Trueleo intake: 171.24 rwhp @ 4600 / 214.29 ft*lbs @ 3850 With Fiero ported intake with neck restriction 187 rwhp @ 4150 / 249 ft*lbs @ 3600...which was making ~170rwhp @ 4900 still
A stock 3400 dynos at 150-155 rwhp with NO MODS on an auto. Add 5hp for the sticks they never came with.
What "stock" 3400/3500 dyno are you looking at? Apparently you're hallucinating...
With the Trueleo intake: 171.24 rwhp @ 4600 / 214.29 ft*lbs @ 3850 With Fiero ported intake with neck restriction 187 rwhp @ 4150 / 249 ft*lbs @ 3600...which was making ~170rwhp @ 4900 still
A stock 3400 dynos at 150-155 rwhp with NO MODS on an auto. Add 5hp for the sticks they never came with.
there you go again putting words in my mouth, I said stock 3500, not 3400/3500.
heres a good one: stock 3500 in a Manual transmission Fiero
206 hp, and looks like 245 or so ftlbs with way more area under the curve then you.
[This message has been edited by ericjon262 (edited 01-25-2014).]
there you go again putting words in my mouth, I said stock 3500, not 3400/3500.
heres a good one: stock 3500 in a Manual transmission Fiero
206 hp, and looks like 235 or so ftlbs with way more area under the curve then you.
I don't know what you're trying to prove here. A stock 3500 makes about 20 more HP than a stock 3400. This "stock" 3500 had to get a custom exhaust, so the definition of "stock" is in question. An exhaust mod is a mod. I am exhaust modded and this 3500 is also and made about 20 more HP which is what it should make. Your area under the curve depends where you measure from and where you cut it off.
My torque curve came down sooner because I has an intake neck restriction. I switched to a high flow intake that prevented me from using the stock air filter housing since the TB is right infront of the hinge and the shorter and larger-port intake system reduced my intake pressure stream and I lost power. This is why I had my old intake DAWG modded and it will be installed in a couple of months after I move ao please be patient for another dyno in a few months. Is that too much to ask?
I don't know what you're trying to prove here. A stock 3500 makes about 20 more HP than a stock 3400. This "stock" 3500 had to get a custom exhaust, so the definition of "stock" is in question. An exhaust mod is a mod. I am exhaust modded and this 3500 is also and made about 20 more HP which is what it should make. Your area under the curve depends where you measure from and where you cut it off.
My torque curve came down sooner because I has an intake neck restriction. I switched to a high flow intake that prevented me from using the stock air filter housing since the TB is right infront of the hinge and the shorter and larger-port intake system reduced my intake pressure stream and I lost power. This is why I had my old intake DAWG modded and it will be installed in a couple of months after I move ao please be patient for another dyno in a few months. Is that too much to ask?
you measure area under the curve(get this) UNDER THE CURVE! curve stops, the area stops! I know, my mind is blown too. and the exhaust was crush bent tubing, not even mandrel bent breathing through stock manifolds, not even headers. the engine is stock. and let's be blunt, it's a hell of a lot more stock then your engine.
Originally posted by ericjon262: you measure area under the curve(get this) UNDER THE CURVE! curve stops, the area stops! I know, my mind is blown too. and the exhaust was crush bent tubing, not even mandrel bent breathing through stock manifolds, not even headers. the engine is stock. and let's be blunt, it's a hell of a lot more stock then your engine.
You can claim anything you want about the exhaust. It's not stock and is probably better than stock since we all know stock exhausts generally suck.
As for "area under the curve", again, it depends how you measure. The dyno operator on my graph gunned it at just over 2000rpm so my tip-in was bad but I was still flat close to 249 ft*lbs from 2000rpm to 3600 rpm which is higher than this 3500. That configuration just got a base tune from Ryan and as you can see it's pretty rich never going above 12:1 and dipping as the RPM go up, so it definitely had some power left on the table. In fact we are making about the same HP at my peak of 4100ish. My graph cuts off at 5200. It seems I am higher for ~2000rpm and the 3500 is higher for 1200 rpm. You'd have to really plot it out on excel but the "area under the curve" difference is minimal at best either way and my intake had a documented/well-known restriction. For daily street driving, my engine - back then, would feel stronger.
Again, please wait a couple of months until I can get the old intake back on, now with the DAWG mod done to it instead of continuing this "war of attrition". I've always been open about my mods and will continue to do so...even when it has shown that I lost power (like when I switched intakes). I'm not here to hide anything. If I can squeeze more power out of my setup, then everyone can copy it if they choose and benefit from it.
[This message has been edited by lou_dias (edited 01-21-2014).]
Seekonk's oval track competition isn't won simply on engine power. If it was, I would have never won 2nd place 8 months ago. This thread is about the car I have a 3400 roller cam block engine in. I have a different thread for my 4.9 car. My stock Formula car has no thread.
I understand that it's not drag racing. But more power will help make you quicker... and you seem to be turning down the options for making more power. You say you don't want more cam because that would put your powerband out of reach on the track, but you don't want more final gear either, which would both give your current powerband better acceleration and allow you to use 10% more RPM... That's a head scratcher for me.
Originally posted by Will: I understand that it's not drag racing. But more power will help make you quicker... and you seem to be turning down the options for making more power. You say you don't want more cam because that would put your powerband out of reach on the track, but you don't want more final gear either, which would both give your current powerband better acceleration and allow you to use 10% more RPM... That's a head scratcher for me.
Here's the long and short of it: I was expecting to get my Trueleo intake setup to outperform my Fiero intake setup. It didn't, probably because I can't run a proper CAI in fact I run open at the TB so I lost intake pressure. I'm going back the the Fiero intake, now DAWG-modded so that I can hook up the rest of the Fiero intake system (airbox, air filter) and hopefully restore or exceed the 20% torque I lost. Considering my a/f ratio on that old setup averages 11.5:1, it should be easy and the DAWG mod should get me past the 4100ish rpm peak I had (as well as some tuning). Remember, I never actually raced that setup because I snapped an axle 2 years in a row then just switch to Trueleo+7730+DIS...hence my tuning nightmare.
There's no way I can change gears or tire sizes enough to get out of shifting into 3rd, so I might as well maximize my torque since 3rd gear will never see >5000 rpm because I run out of track. 2nd gear is wasted on the first set of curves. I hope you get it now.
[This message has been edited by lou_dias (edited 01-22-2014).]
There's no way I can change gears or tire sizes enough to get out of shifting into 3rd, so I might as well maximize my torque since 3rd gear will never see >5000 rpm because I run out of track. 2nd gear is wasted on the first set of curves. I hope you get it now.
If you swap to 3.94 gears, then you can run to ~5500 RPM in 3rd at the same road speed. In addition, you'll see a greater speed at the end of the straight due to 10% better acceleration from the same torque.
[This message has been edited by Will (edited 01-22-2014).]
Originally posted by Will: If you swap to 3.94 gears, then you can run to ~5500 RPM in 3rd at the same road speed. In addition, you'll see a greater speed at the end of the straight due to 10% better acceleration from the same torque.
So there are gear-sets for the F40? If there are, I'd also like to replace 1st gear if the final is going that high...as well as space out 4-5-6 more to get some economy back...
Here's the long and short of it: I was expecting to get my Trueleo intake setup to outperform my Fiero intake setup. It didn't...
Been there, done that. My old 2.8 V6 started out with a ported stock intake and stock throttle body. When I replaced it with the Trueleo intake and a Buick GN throttle body (59mm), I gained about 2 HP. Whoopty-freaking-doo.
The problem? I don't think the rest of the engine was able to make use of the better intake. Sound familiar? IMO, the solution is not to put a crappy intake back on, but rather improve the rest of the engine so it can use the better intake. That starts with the camshaft. And since your heads are already aggressively ported, they should respond pretty well to a camshaft upgrade.
Not to be rude, but I think you're knee-capping your engine by keeping the "grocery getter" camshaft in it.
You can claim anything you want about the exhaust. It's not stock and is probably better than stock since we all know stock exhausts generally suck.
As for "area under the curve", again, it depends how you measure.
this is like you can measure the area of a rectangle 2 different ways and get 2 different results, it doesn't work that way... area under the curve is area under the curve, I don't understand how this is a hard concept.
quote
Originally posted by lou_dias: The dyno operator on my graph gunned it at just over 2000rpm so my tip-in was bad but I was still flat close to 249 ft*lbs from 2000rpm to 3600 rpm which is higher than this 3500. That configuration just got a base tune from Ryan and as you can see it's pretty rich never going above 12:1 and dipping as the RPM go up, so it definitely had some power left on the table. In fact we are making about the same HP at my peak of 4100ish. My graph cuts off at 5200. It seems I am higher for ~2000rpm and the 3500 is higher for 1200 rpm. You'd have to really plot it out on excel but the "area under the curve" difference is minimal at best either way and my intake had a documented/well-known restriction. For daily street driving, my engine - back then, would feel stronger.
Again, please wait a couple of months until I can get the old intake back on, now with the DAWG mod done to it instead of continuing this "war of attrition". I've always been open about my mods and will continue to do so...even when it has shown that I lost power (like when I switched intakes). I'm not here to hide anything. If I can squeeze more power out of my setup, then everyone can copy it if they choose and benefit from it.
why do you always blame someone else when your engine doesn't perform? first you blame Ryan, now you blame the dyno operator, who next? me?
I'd rather my engine be stronger then just feel stonger.
Originally posted by ericjon262: why do you always blame someone else when your engine doesn't perform? first you blame Ryan, now you blame the dyno operator, who next? me? I'd rather my engine be stronger then just feel stonger.
Where do I blame Ryan? He sent me a base tune for my mods. With the stock chip it was running even richer because of the Ford injectors. I never asked for more tuning on the Fiero ECM setup because I moved to the Trueleo + '7730 + DIS. Who's putting words in who's mouth now?
[This message has been edited by lou_dias (edited 01-23-2014).]
Been there, done that. My old 2.8 V6 started out with a ported stock intake and stock throttle body. When I replaced it with the Trueleo intake and a Buick GN throttle body (59mm), I gained about 2 HP. Whoopty-freaking-doo.
The problem? I don't think the rest of the engine was able to make use of the better intake. Sound familiar? IMO, the solution is not to put a crappy intake back on, but rather improve the rest of the engine so it can use the better intake. That starts with the camshaft. And since your heads are already aggressively ported, they should respond pretty well to a camshaft upgrade.
Not to be rude, but I think you're knee-capping your engine by keeping the "grocery getter" camshaft in it.
I understand that but I'm not going to remove a running engine. So to get and exceed power, I'm doing a simple intake swap with the added DAWG-mod. I actually need to get the S neck redesigned into an L on the Trueleo setup so that I can actually put on an intake tube and air filter on that setup. Right now the TB sits infront of the hinge which prevents me from running a proper CAI system...
The Fiero intake with DAWG-mod has been shown to flow in excess of 375 cfm which in plenty for any 3.4L NA motor to ~6000rpm...and my ports are larger than the one flow-tested...
[This message has been edited by lou_dias (edited 01-23-2014).]
So there are gear-sets for the F40? If there are, I'd also like to replace 1st gear if the final is going that high...as well as space out 4-5-6 more to get some economy back...
There's an older 3.91 set available for the F40, as well as modern 3.73's and maybe one in the 4's. I assume you have teh 3.55. The '06 and older transmissions had taller 3rd-6th gears, while the '07 and newer units had shorter 3rd-6th. The 3.79 first you likely have now is the tallest first made for that transmission... you won't do better than that without going custom.
Originally posted by Will: There's an older 3.91 set available for the F40, as well as modern 3.73's and maybe one in the 4's. I assume you have teh 3.55. The '06 and older transmissions had taller 3rd-6th gears, while the '07 and newer units had shorter 3rd-6th. The 3.79 first you likely have now is the tallest first made for that transmission... you won't do better than that without going custom.
Yeah, this car is the Archie 2.8 F40 prototype so it's an '05 transmission installed in March 2006. So I'm running the 3.55 ... thanks for the info.
Where do I blame Ryan? He sent me a base tune for my mods. With the stock chip it was running even richer because of the Ford injectors. I never asked for more tuning on the Fiero ECM setup because I moved to the Trueleo + '7730 + DIS. Who's putting words in who's mouth now?
you did it either on here or RFT, I remember Ryan dropping in to set the record straight after you bashed his mail order chip without sending him datalogs. I'm not about to go digging it up, you know you did, I know you did.
quote
Originally posted by lou_dias: The Fiero intake with DAWG-mod has been shown to flow in excess of 375 cfm which in plenty for any 3.4L NA motor to ~6000rpm...and my ports are larger than the one flow-tested...
now you're throwing flow numbers out there... so why is it when someone posts a flow number of a head, it doesn't matter, but you post the flow of an intake and it's magically supposed to matter?
Originally posted by ericjon262: you did it either on here or RFT, I remember Ryan dropping in to set the record straight after you bashed his mail order chip without sending him datalogs. I'm not about to go digging it up, you know you did, I know you did.
I said I'm done with them because I accept they'll never be perfect and I bought the hardware to do it myself. With the Fiero intake, the motor ran normal but when I snapped an axle the 2nd time, I had the ECM and intake switch done. So no performance tuning was done on the Fiero ECM. Ryan then sent me a chip for the 7730 setup. So I had paid Ryan twice now, iirc. When I switched to '7730+dis+Trueleo: I spent more time just trying to get the motor running normal-ish that by the time it came to do performance tuning, the contracted tuning year was up and we had done no tuning. It was during this time I figured out I could use the 2000PPM output on the 7730 as an extra divisor for running the speedo with the F40 without a Dakota Digital unit. So when I looked at the costs, it was cheaper to buy the hardware and start learning how to do it myself. That's not a bash, that's simple economics. If Ryan 'set the record straight' on RFT, I'm sure you can count on one hand how many times I look at RFT.
quote
Originally posted by ericjon262: now you're throwing flow numbers out there... so why is it when someone posts a flow number of a head, it doesn't matter, but you post the flow of an intake and it's magically supposed to matter?
Someone here posted flow #'s to show the intake neck restriction which you like to pretend I didn't have when the motor made 187/249. If 165 cfm ported heads has made 205rwhp and we know 185 cfm CNC ported iron heads exist, why do you still insist that the HEADS are the main restriction in iron head motors? The intake is the restriction - PERIOD...and also an unported exhaust system... Because I can't stick a long intake tube with an air filter infront of my Trueleo, I couldn't build a pressure stream to create the TPI effect. It's the same problem individual throttle body intakes have at low rpm because you have to spin those engines to ridiculous rpm to mask the problem. With the current Trueleo intake setup I have, my motor is a dog until about 3000 rpm. With the old setup it felt as torque-y as my 4.9 and a dyno has proven as such that the trade-off was 12 more rwhp with 16 less rwTq compared to the 4.9.
[This message has been edited by lou_dias (edited 01-25-2014).]
Someone here posted flow #'s to show the intake neck restriction which you like to pretend I didn't have when the motor made 187/249. If 165 cfm ported heads has made 205rwhp and we know 185 cfm CNC ported iron heads exist, why do you still insist that the HEADS are the main restriction in iron head motors? The intake is the restriction - PERIOD...and also an unported exhaust system... Because I can't stick a long intake tube with an air filter infront of my Trueleo, I couldn't build a pressure stream to create the TPI effect. It's the same problem individual throttle body intakes have at low rpm because you have to spin those engines to ridiculous rpm to mask the problem. With the current Trueleo intake setup I have, my motor is a dog until about 3000 rpm. With the old setup it felt as torque-y as my 4.9 and a dyno has proven as such that the trade-off was 12 more rwhp with 16 less rwTq compared to the 4.9.
ATQA.
why do intake flow numbers matter but cylinder head flow numbers don't?
please, show me where I said the intake manifold wasn't a restriction? All I've said is that the heads are also a restriction.
why do intake flow numbers matter but cylinder head flow numbers don't?
please, show me where I said the intake manifold wasn't a restriction? All I've said is that the heads are also a restriction.
You blast my 187/249 dyno left and right for lack of "area" under the curve but refuse to accept it didn't make more at a higher rpm because of an intake restriction. My head flow #'s don't matter because they are not what's holding me back. Show me where you're not a troll?
You blast my 187/249 dyno left and right for lack of "area" under the curve but refuse to accept it didn't make more at a higher rpm because of an intake restriction. My head flow #'s don't matter because they are not what's holding me back. Show me where you're not a troll?
you've attempted to dodge the question again, why does the intake flow matter and the cylinder head flow not matter? flow is flow, you've called me a troll over and over because I have said the 3x00 heads outflow your iron heads and thus, are capable of supporting more power, to which you respond that cylinder head flow numbers don't mean anything. now you're posting intake manifold flow numbers and claiming validity to airflow numbers. which is it? do flow numbers matter or not? it's hypocritical to say that one matters and the other doesn't.
Originally posted by lou_dias: Because I can't stick a long intake tube with an air filter infront of my Trueleo, I couldn't build a pressure stream to create the TPI effect.
It's the same problem individual throttle body intakes have at low rpm because you have to spin those engines to ridiculous rpm to mask the problem.
The intake tube doesn't do anything for "TPI effect". That's entirely in the runners. The velocity in the intake tube is too low. However, the combination of the plenum volume and the mass of air in the intake tube *CAN* be tuned to be a helmholtz resonator, but that's a zero sum game as the helmholtz effect helps at one RPM and hurts at a different RPM. It's best used to smooth out an otherwise lumpy torque curve which happens to have lumps and dips at the right places. I strongly suspect that the Fiero plenum is too small to use in this way.
There's nothing inherent in the throttle per cylinder setup that costs low RPM torque. In fact, throttle per cylinder intakes GAIN low RPM torque over common plenum intakes, as they reduce lope and firing order charge cannibalism. A prime example is BMW's S62 V8 from the E39 M5. It has throttle per cylinder, strong low RPM torque AND great top end power... and a HUGE plenum as well.
Throttle per cylinder is used to civilize extremely cammed up engines, so they typically gain torque vs. a common plenum, BUT they still won't be stump pullers.
you've attempted to dodge the question again, why does the intake flow matter and the cylinder head flow not matter? flow is flow, you've called me a troll over and over because I have said the 3x00 heads outflow your iron heads and thus, are capable of supporting more power, to which you respond that cylinder head flow numbers don't mean anything. now you're posting intake manifold flow numbers and claiming validity to airflow numbers. which is it? do flow numbers matter or not? it's hypocritical to say that one matters and the other doesn't.
Actually its you that keeps dodging facts. You don't know what my heads flow yet I've made as much power as 3X00 engines. So what does it matter what my heads flow if I have a know restriction in my intake?
The intake tube doesn't do anything for "TPI effect". That's entirely in the runners. The velocity in the intake tube is too low. However, the combination of the plenum volume and the mass of air in the intake tube *CAN* be tuned to be a helmholtz resonator, but that's a zero sum game as the helmholtz effect helps at one RPM and hurts at a different RPM. It's best used to smooth out an otherwise lumpy torque curve which happens to have lumps and dips at the right places. I strongly suspect that the Fiero plenum is too small to use in this way.
There's nothing inherent in the throttle per cylinder setup that costs low RPM torque. In fact, throttle per cylinder intakes GAIN low RPM torque over common plenum intakes, as they reduce lope and firing order charge cannibalism. A prime example is BMW's S62 V8 from the E39 M5. It has throttle per cylinder, strong low RPM torque AND great top end power... and a HUGE plenum as well.
Throttle per cylinder is used to civilize extremely cammed up engines, so they typically gain torque vs. a common plenum, BUT they still won't be stump pullers.
Run an open throttle body on a stock cammed motor and let me know how that works out for you. That's the issue I have with where my TB sits.
Actually its you that keeps dodging facts. You don't know what my heads flow yet I've made as much power as 3X00 engines. So what does it matter what my heads flow if I have a know restriction in my intake?
last I checked, 206>187... so no you haven't produce more power. also, there's the area under the curve, again, the 3x00 engines blow you out of the water.
Originally posted by ericjon262: last I checked, 206>187... so no you haven't produce more power. also, there's the area under the curve, again, the 3x00 engines blow you out of the water.
Every time I check, you're in denial of my intake restriction.
Originally posted by lou_dias: Every time I check, you're in denial of my intake restriction.
have I said the stock Fiero neck wasn't a restriction? I've basically been saying the whole Fiero heads and intake assembly sucks this entire time. please feel free to quote me where I have said otherwise.
------------------ we're in desperate need of a little more religion to nurse your god-like point of view...
Originally posted by ericjon262: have I said the stock Fiero neck wasn't a restriction? I've basically been saying the whole Fiero heads and intake assembly sucks this entire time. please feel free to quote me where I have said otherwise.
What you do is go in circles. You compare my dyno to another dyno like everything is apples to apples. You're just here to troll. What someone else's motor dynos at is irrelevant to my motor because all I care about is making my motor perform to my expectations, not yours. I'm not going to switch cams, transmissions or heads. If you have nothing contructive to say STFU and go troll somewhere else.
