OK, i read the whole thread and still agree with what I said. Good luck in your efforts though. If the engine can get away with it and not blow up, its all proven wrong. When it does explode ill be the first to say 'told ya so'. Maybe it will run ok with normal driving, but still say it wont take much hammering. Ive been wrong before. Im no engine expert but I did put a blower on top of an old hi compression 460 V8 back in the day in my jet boat. Didnt take me but a few days to blow the sides out of 2 cylinders on the fresh long block.
Originally posted by Erik: Joseph, love the thread and your thinking outside the box
Thanks for the support. Roger above is mentioning risks in total disregard of the advances in metallurgy, and design since the time of the instance he speaks of, as well as the constants of physics. The smaller the bore with the same wall thickness, the less likely the cylinder wall is to fail under load. There is not very much comparison between the Multilayer steel gasket used on this engine and the composite found on nearly all of the old engines as well as the torque to yield bolts designed to maintain the same clamping force as the engine heat cycles, something that composite gaskets and standard bolts are at a disadvantage for.
Chances are there probably was no knock sensor on his boat motor and to drive the point home of how different and more durable the new is compared to the old, not to very long ago, 200 degree coolant temps was enough to destroy an engine, never mind the occasional 240 temp the modern day engine can reach safely.
I'm down to the time limit again. Hoping I can make some progress worthy of video taping before I leave again as at this point it's 50/50 I'll take it or leave it again.
Your right, nothing like a knock sensor existed back in the day of high compression big blocks I know of. Im far from an expert on boosted engines, most everything I ever did is old school engines with carbs. The turbos and superchargers I ever used myself were just bolt on kits. One thing I did on high compression old engines was use a quality racing head gasket and have the heads ' O' ringed for reliability. The turbo engine in my Ferrari kit was built with all the tricks by a Nascar Winston Cup engine builder. I just stuck in it ready to run. I know they built it with I think 8.5-1 compression, might have been 8-1. Yes, I agree I dont stay up to date with newer stuff because I really dont have much interest in it now, Im more of the cosmetic type. Id rather it perform decent but look awesome than vice versa. I actually even considered putting a slant 6, 225, 4 bbl in the Coronet before I found a good deal on a 413 BB.
Interesting thread. I'll be interested to see how it all works out.
When I built my turbo 3.2 motor for the Fiero, back in the early 90s, I had the pistons made to 8.5 compression, as I didn't want to try and stuff an intercooler in the tight Fiero (didn't want to lose the trunk, for instance). Limited boost to about 12 psi and it has worked well all these years.
My current Pontiac has run up to 30 psi into a 9.1 :1 compression engine, though it usually is limited to 25 psi which limist power to about 350 BHP, noty shabby out of a 2 litre (LNF). That's what direct injection, oil spray cooled piston crowns and 20 years of progress acheive. We'll see how much of that can be retrofitted to older tech engines.
The Fiero has excellent pull from low down. The Mistubishi engines ran just under 8:1 with more boost, but didn't have the same grunt when unboosted - it is all a compromise.
I see the new Mitsu Evo is claiming 400 BHP out of a 2 litre (doubt we'll see that engine here) but a major service interval that is pretty darned short And probably pretty darned expensive. Look forward to seeing that one on Top Gear!
Finally got the WBO2 controller and had a scare for a moment. I'm using the 2010 Zeitronix which has some improvements. I did a bench test and the data feed into the program was terrible with an intermittent transfer rate of about 1 update per 2 seconds and the tracings where bunched together like a spring. Turns out my battery charger was the culprit due to an intermittent contact in the amp level switch causing the controller to reset repeatedly producing an intermittent data flow.
With that out of the way, I have to say hats off to the Code59 and Autotune developers. Autotune takes your datalog and spits out a recommended tune. Code59 also has a cell follower so that you can see what cell the engine is in while logging.
So far I've performed 2 adjustments and the engine is running much better. I need to conduct a longer test drive to address more cells however it's getting late. Hopefully I'll accomplish enough to do a full throttle run for video before I leave tomorrow.
Finally got the WBO2 controller and had a scare for a moment. I'm using the 2010 Zeitronix which has some improvements. I did a bench test and the data feed into the program was terrible with an intermittent transfer rate of about 1 update per 2 seconds and the tracings where bunched together like a spring. Turns out my battery charger was the culprit due to an intermittent contact in the amp level switch causing the controller to reset repeatedly producing an intermittent data flow.
With that out of the way, I have to say hats off to the Code59 and Autotune developers. Autotune takes your datalog and spits out a recommended tune. Code59 also has a cell follower so that you can see what cell the engine is in while logging.
So far I've performed 2 adjustments and the engine is running much better. I need to conduct a longer test drive to address more cells however it's getting late. Hopefully I'll accomplish enough to do a full throttle run for video before I leave tomorrow.
Hell yeah man! I'm about to switch over to code59 or my car. Just waiting on my parts to arrive and time to do it.
I don't know why people are giving you a hard time about the SCR. Should work great and net high effiency. I know my 3500 is 9.8:1 and is perfectly happy with 7.2psi and no intercooling. Good luck with it. Don't forget to get some vids.
Yet you KNOW FOR A FACT that this motor will not work? Que?
I didnt say that. I SAID from everything Ive personally done in the past and was told in the past, you couldnt use boost on a high compression motor..... If you can these days with new tech, so be it. I only state stuff from my own experiences....like I said Im no mechanic expert. I do body and paint work. Im sure the engines in top fueler and funny car dragsters are probably hi compression and there blown. Theyre also $100,000 engines that are rebuilt after every 7 second run. They also blow up big time.
I didnt say that. I SAID from everything Ive personally done in the past and was told in the past, you couldnt use boost on a high compression motor..... If you can these days with new tech, so be it. I only state stuff from my own experiences....like I said Im no mechanic expert. I do body and paint work. Im sure the engines in top fueler and funny car dragsters are probably hi compression and there blown. Theyre also $100,000 engines that are rebuilt after every 7 second run. They also blow up big time.
I can tell you right now there is not a 7 second car out there that rebuilds after every run.. I hang out with a few guys that run 7 second cars, and they do not have any problems for a few seasons. They are also nowhere near $100,000.
I dont know what you are trying to argue here, you are just wrong on everything you say?
Ive been at National Trails Dragway during Nationals. The top fuel and funny cars tear an engine down after every run. Ive stood in the pits and watched them, and they do it fast because they have to have it ready by next run or they forfiet. Yes they cost $100,000. Some of the heads are $10,000. My plain old Nascar stock car engine cost $30,000 15 years ago. Guarantee a top running fueler or funny car costs more to build (5 or more times the hp) than a Sprint Cup car and theyre over 1/4 million a copy ready to race. The engine is the highest part of the cost. I dont know much about drag cars but I do know round track cars...I built and raced them for years when they were on stock cars, not the completely handmade ones they have now that cost far more. Call any Nascar team you want and ask them how much theyll sell you a ready to run car for.... Call John Force and ask for a price of an engine he'll sell you ? Hell I had $6,000 in the 6 cyl, 3.1 turbo in my Fiero kitcar I drove everyday on the street. I priced a street 426 Hemi for my Coronet last summer....crate price was $24,000. I might not be up on all the newest tech stuff, but I know about it before. What top fuel or funny car drivers do you hang out with ? Just because your buddies have a 7 or 8 second car dont mean theyre top fuel drivers....a lot of cars go that fast these days. I havent seen a funny car or fueler driving down my street lately. Maybe Im thinking about 4/ 5 second cars, I really dont know how quick they go now- im not a fan, but I know there over 300 mph. I have a lot of buddies with fast cars too, and none of them go near 300.
Im done, I dont want to be running Joes thread off track with my opinions vs others that dont know what there talking about. He seems to know a lot more about todays engines than I do and Ill let him continue his own thread.
[This message has been edited by rogergarrison (edited 11-20-2010).]
Joseph, I'm glad it's working out so far, I look forward to some video if you have/had the time.
Would you be willing to send me some of your recent datalogs? I have no 'real' need for them but I love studying the numbers, it fills up my brain with more almost semi-mildly useful knowledge.
(Edit: new sig test) ------------------ '88 Fiero GT - Project MIDTRBO 2010 Camaro LT/RS There's no replacement for turbo placement
[This message has been edited by ALLTRBO (edited 11-21-2010).]
Originally posted by ALLTRBO: LOL at some of this thread. Anyway...
Joseph, I'm glad it's working out so far, I look forward to some video if you have/had the time.
Would you be willing to send me some of your recent datalogs? I have no 'real' need for them but I love studying the numbers, it fills up my brain with more almost semi-mildly useful knowledge.
Will do that when I get a break hear shortly. I wrapped up the project and headed back. I'm going to stop saying when I'll have it finished. So many little things cropped up that at least 10 days of productivity was lost to machine shop visits not to mention the rotating assembly sitting at the shop for 4 days after it was balanced because the machinist finished it that much earlier than he told me he would and nobody called me and the flywheel spent an extra day at the shop I took it to because the machinist misunderstood one of the abbreviations they wrote regarding the specs and got the dimensions wrong and then there were the finished rods at least I thought that needed the pin end openned a little. Timing ran in sequence instead of concurrently and that held up the process.
I nearly took it anyway but it was too risky with the tune and the value of the property I would have been transporting. I'll try to get some screen shots of Autotune and Tunerpro posted at least to show how it works.
The straight through mufflers have to go. I think they look great and sound good but that drone is too much especially after driving the Honda that's barely loud enough to keep you from bumping the starter over a second time after the engine starts running.
I recently fabbed an exhaust system for a customer with a supercharged CTS-V with the same issue, loved the sound of the exhaust in short bursts but found the drone hard to live with. It had two Warlock bypass mufflers with electric cutouts as selectors for loud or not so loud.
[This message has been edited by mender (edited 11-21-2010).]
Below are a few snapshots of fuel table adjustments recommended by the Autotune spread sheet used to analyze code59 datalogs. The bin file I started with was from a running 3400. Note the percentage off at the top of each fuel map and how it started to improve as recommended changes were made. The knock retard recorded appears to be the total amount of deg retarded over the run, not the max experienced as when the datalogs were played back in Tunerpro I never saw a single incident of retard by that much. I also noted that much of the knock retard noted occured during throttle release as rpm was going down along with the Kpa value indicating some low range values are a little high as opposed to wide open throttle values. Unfortunately the wideband controller showed up too late for me to finish the job.
The fuel table can be improved greatly in addition to input from Autotune once I get the hang of smoothing on the graph
[This message has been edited by Joseph Upson (edited 11-23-2010).]
Here is my fuel table for my 3800 series III , I am running full sequential on stock 33# injectors . I know your running a different beast of an engine , But the basic shape of our tables should be fairly close. Hope this is helpful.
Am I understanding your fuel table correctly , for the AFR avg. its the avg of that load column ?
[This message has been edited by Kemp3 (edited 11-24-2010).]
Average per column should be correct. Some of the graph associated tables look strange in their dimensional appearance on screen. The fuel table I've figured out by having to isolate the areas in the low range that are not visible due to being behind the mid range peaks by temporarily subtracting about 40 points from the high areas so that what's behind them is visible.
The engine is calling for a lot more fuel than the 3400 the bin was based on and i'm sure that has to do with the reground camshaft, crankshaft and the mild port work.
You should have seen my 3d map when I first started , I found quickly if you have miss at all it really messes with any kind of auto-tune software. Misses read lean on a WBO2 as the sensor cant read unburned fuel.
Couple of things you may already know so no offense intended . Spark plug gap has to be less than stock because of the high compression and boost scenario. In my case the stock 3800 gaps its plugs to .060 which is huge i am amazed 6 psi doesn't blow that spark out. Well i am down to .045 and still blowing spark out , so my next move is .040 . This is a 9.5:1 compression ratio running 10 psi that may help if you start blowing out your spark. All and all looks like your going down a similar road as I did with starting from scratch. My fuel table was fairly easy to get close , but i quickly found out that dialing in my spark table effects fuel. I really need to find a load dyno so I can fine tune my spark table then fine tune my fuel table. Car is very drivable and quite fun now , i cant even imagine what yours will be like ...... hold on tight if your riding bish in that car.
May need your passengers to sign disclaimer before they go for rides with you enjoying your thread keep up the good work.
-Kemp
[This message has been edited by Kemp3 (edited 11-24-2010).]
My fuel table was fairly easy to get close , but i quickly found out that dialing in my spark table effects fuel.
I've experienced the opposite effect on my SBC in my van. I found that after I did all my fuel trims with a terrible spark table (TBI table on a Vortec engine), that just dropping in a new "Vortec" spark table changed the motor from a sluggish wet turd, into a excellent performing machine, all the while the fueling was still spot on after the radical spark table change was made. This was the exact moment that I learned that ignition timing is where the power is made, You just have to have the right amount of fuel for the air processed, and extra if temperature control is required. (IE, Power enrich).
I just found that interesting that your practical experience told you the opposite of my experiences. Strange how that goes.
I'm not running any boost on this engine as of yet because it is not tuned and more sensitive to detonation. I'm not sure blowing out spark is the proper term either as it is actually increased resistance from more air molecules being compressed that reduces the ability of the spark to jump the gap (increased air density). That's all relative to the energy produced by the ignition system. I learned this as a teenager fooling around with a lawnmower engine and discovering that if you increased the gap too much it would cause fowling of the spark plug and the spark would turn yellow from the usual light blue, indicating a weaker ignition spark. Later in college physics I used an equation that calculated the expected energy or increased resistance relative to the amount of air molecules present. I doubt that I have reached that point but I'm glad that you've mentioned it because I forgot to address the spark plug gap which for the stock 3900 maybe in the .060 range.
I did have a shining moment using the TGP code which had a better tune at the time and the car launched without boost quicker than the previous engine with boost. Once I get the fuel map ironed out then I'll start returning the timing a degree at a time in the 100 Kpa column and then moving back from there because my knock retard points are occuring during off throttle deceleration.
I've experienced the opposite effect on my SBC in my van. I found that after I did all my fuel trims with a terrible spark table (TBI table on a Vortec engine), that just dropping in a new "Vortec" spark table changed the motor from a sluggish wet turd, into a excellent performing machine, all the while the fueling was still spot on after the radical spark table change was made. This was the exact moment that I learned that ignition timing is where the power is made, You just have to have the right amount of fuel for the air processed, and extra if temperature control is required. (IE, Power enrich).
I just found that interesting that your practical experience told you the opposite of my experiences. Strange how that goes.
When you tuned your SBC did you tune via WBO2 ? , thats the only place a saw a difference . I may have been running 14's a certain KPA range then ended up in the 13's after some advance. I will post my spark table that scares the crap out of me since its much higher than i thought it would be.
Joseph, it will work. Just have to take your time and address one issue at a time. I've read of a BMW racing bike with 11:1 comp on 20+ psi of boost and never broke. The F1 from the 80's were boosting in the 50+ psi range and 60psi during qualifying. Let me mention that these F1 engines where 1.5 liters and they were pumping 1200-1500hp @ 11,000rpm before they were banned. The BMW bike and the 80's turbo F1 had one thing in common; water/meth (Autocourse "Formula 1 The Turbo Era"). I had a Dodge Spirit 2.5 SOHC. These heads don't flow very well so I had to compensate with boost. I had a knocking problem at 20psi regardless of the gas used: 100, 105 and 116 octane could not get that knocking. I built the bottom end with the best available at that time, forged JE 7:1 pistons and forged stock rods with ARP and Cryo treated crank and balanced the whole assembly. 250whp was my max at 17psi. I couln't settle for that. Installed a water/meth kit from Snow Performance and in the 1st try the knocking was gone with pump gas! I kept cranking the boost and timing up and the final numbers? 377whp and 404wlbs/ft at 30psi, no knocking and 97 octane gas. Installed a custom turbo for high pressure efficiency and at 35psi it went to 425whp and 488w torque with pump gas. At this time my spark plug gap was .020 and a had a colder plug. I settled for 45psi and the torque was intoxicating but always used 105 octane at that boost. Never had a chance to dyno it at this level. This was not a drag car, it was a track day car (road racing) so repeatedly on and off the throttle at that boost level for 30 minutes times 3 times a day and then drive back home was enough testing. My gap at this time was .012, anything bigger and it would miss under high boost. I had a MSD 7ALD-2 with its matching coil. It took me 5 years, lots of trial and error test, money, dyno sessions and research to get to this level. The engine NEVER broke. Just take your time and research, don't let anybody tell u different. My $.0000000001 cents.
Wish you the best!
Rei Moloon
[This message has been edited by La fiera (edited 11-25-2010).]
Joseph, it will work. Just have to take your time and address one issue at a time. I've read of a BMW racing bike with 11:1 comp on 20+ psi of boost and never broke. The F1 from the 80's were boosting in the 50+ psi range and 60psi during qualifying. Let me mention that these F1 engines where 1.5 liters and they were pumping 1200-1500hp @ 11,000rpm before they were banned. The BMW bike and the 80's turbo F1 had one thing in common; water/meth (Autocourse "Formula 1 The Turbo Era"). I had a Dodge Spirit 2.5 SOHC. These heads don't flow very well so I had to compensate with boost. I had a knocking problem at 20psi regardless of the gas used: 100, 105 and 116 octane could not get that knocking. I built the bottom end with the best available at that time, forged JE 7:1 pistons and forged stock rods with ARP and Cryo treated crank and balanced the whole assembly. 250whp was my max at 17psi. I couln't settle for that. Installed a water/meth kit from Snow Performance and in the 1st try the knocking was gone with pump gas! I kept cranking the boost and timing up and the final numbers? 377whp and 404wlbs/ft at 30psi, no knocking and 97 octane gas. Installed a custom turbo for high pressure efficiency and at 35psi it went to 425whp and 488w torque with pump gas. At this time my spark plug gap was .020 and a had a colder plug. I settled for 45psi and the torque was intoxicating but always used 105 octane at that boost. Never had a chance to dyno it at this level. This was not a drag car, it was a track day car (road racing) so repeatedly on and off the throttle at that boost level for 30 minutes times 3 times a day and then drive back home was enough testing. My gap at this time was .012, anything bigger and it would miss under high boost. I had a MSD 7ALD-2 with its matching coil. It took me 5 years, lots of trial and error test, money, dyno sessions and research to get to this level. The engine NEVER broke. Just take your time and research, don't let anybody tell u different. My $.0000000001 cents.
Wish you the best!
Rei Moloon
Thanks for the encouragement. I'll be taking my time whether I want to or not but now that the car is near complete with the engine installed and believe it or not, no leaks I want to try and get back to it before too long.
From what I've gathered at this point through a little research on spark plugs, I should be running at least 2 heat ranges colder than what I am currently. One heat range cooler for each full compression point increase which in my case is very close to two. Add in boost and at least one to two more heat ranges lower is in order. My problem now is identifying the heat range on the stock plug which I've confirmed has a .060 gap which I'll bring down to .030.
It appears the stock plug is relatively hot given the long thin appearing porcelain insulator.So far what I've gathered from the Delco plug I.D. link below:
Stock PN# 12591131 41-100 41= spark plug line, 100-199 = irridium. IZTR4All : I- irridium Z- special gap (wide) T- tapered seat shell design R- resistor 4- 14 mm thread A- clip gap ll- ?
From what I've gathered at this point through a little research on spark plugs, I should be running at least 2 heat ranges colder than what I am currently. One heat range cooler for each full compression point increase which in my case is very close to two. Add in boost and at least one to two more heat ranges lower is in order. My problem now is identifying the heat range on the stock plug which I've confirmed has a .060 gap which I'll bring down to .030.
It appears the stock plug is relatively hot given the long thin appearing porcelain insulator.So far what I've gathered from the Delco plug I.D. link below:
Stock PN# 12591131 41-100 41= spark plug line, 100-199 = irridium. IZTR4All : I- irridium Z- special gap (wide) T- tapered seat shell design R- resistor 4- 14 mm thread A- clip gap ll- ?
From all of my research , the consensus is stay away from the rare metal plugs ..... Iridium or Platinum . I will do some looking but I believe that plug has a heat range of 6 , which is actually more like a 6.5 because iridium plugs create hot spots . Hope that helps for a start .
well the best I could do was turn that AcDelco plug into a Autolite XP606 . Which is a heat range 6 plug , I recommended the NGK TR5's you could even go to a TR6 which is one colder . NGK is opposite higher number colder plug , these are 2$ plugs and seem to work the best . There is a TR55 that is gaped to .055 where as the TR5 is gaped to about .035ish and once again the TR6 is colder. I dont know if the TR6 is to cold for your setup or not, if it is the only thing you have to do is floor it a few times while driving as they will foul up quicker.
I'm finishing up the tuning of a twin turbo 4.3 Chev V-6 on an engine dyno and used Autolite 23s, seemed to work just fine despite having a shorter reach than the TR5s. Autolite 25s are the equivalent so the 23s are two steps colder.
Thanks for the input guys. I still want to find out for sure what the OE plug heat range is so that I can be more exact on my setting choice. I'll give NGK a buzz. I pulled a good bit of timing from the low and midrange spark timing but tuning would allow some of that to be added back. After slowing scrolling over the datalog I received confirmation that 99% of the spark retard is coming in at off throttle input down around 50 Kpa and below. Wide open throttle so far has been trouble free and interestingly the timing in that range has not required as much reduction as mid range and therefore still has to be adjusted up more toward optimum. I'm tuning on premium fuel and once that's complete I'll start stepping down in fuel grade one level at a time to identify when I have to start pulling a little timing to stay out of detonation.
I have the water/meth injection but as I mentioned earlier I want it to serve more of a supportive role than a requirement so that I'm able to run the minimum intended boost level without it.
I had to pull fuel when the water/meth activates as it makes the mixture super rich, around 10:1 for me. Are you going to have separate tunes for meth/no meth. premium/regular, etc?
Originally posted by Hudini: I had to pull fuel when the water/meth activates as it makes the mixture super rich, around 10:1 for me. Are you going to have separate tunes for meth/no meth. premium/regular, etc?
I'll probably tune without meth and setup a safety circuit dependent upon line pressure to run higher boost than pump gas will allow so that if the pump fails to operate the wastegate solenoid will remain in the default position which is closed for sensing boost pressure and open the wastegate at the set spring pressure. That's the way the stock Turbo Grand Prix was wired, if power was cut to the wastegate solenoid or it failed it would not divert boost pressure from the wastegate and boost would be limited to the wastegate pressure rating. This way if the pump failed under load boost pressure would drop immediately. I may even wire in a circuit that will cut ignition timing as well for added safety. It doesn't take a $200 piece of ready to install equipment from any of the alcohol kit suppliers to do.
HIGH COMPRESSION BOOST u have guts wooo!! hats off to ya Joseph... lol I think you have covered the basics in terms of hardware, I honestly think octane will be ur nemesis...complicated with a shrunken tuning window. I know it is doable, good luck man.
I have a car tuning turbo kit on the way for my ls4 install. This is a high compression engine and there are over 300 monte carlos on the road with this turbo kit. He has dynoed at 499 whp and estimated 640 hp at the crank with 12 lbs boost and estimated 22% drivetrain loss. It normally runs at 8-9 lbs with an intercooler and meth water injection. I too always believed that low compression was neccessary for a boosted engine. Now I'm betting on the new systems too and hope that all the boosted 5.3s are showing a new way to go. Since I'm staying with a stock 4t65ehd I plan on a dynoe pull and a couple of 1/4 mile runs before I revert to driving it in a sane manner. The car tuning turbo kit runs on 91 octane and is supposed to give an extra 2-3 mpg. I think joseph and I are on the same track except for my extra two cylinders and a stock 20,000 mile engine.
[This message has been edited by dratts (edited 11-30-2010).]
I would like to see one of these people that thinks this idea is so "crazy" try to explain why me running 24psi on 8.6:1 is safer than running 10psi on 9.5:1.
Originally posted by dratts: I have a car tuning turbo kit on the way for my ls4 install. This is a high compression engine and there are over 300 monte carlos on the road with this turbo kit. He has dynoed at 499 whp and estimated 640 hp at the crank with 12 lbs boost and estimated 22% drivetrain loss. It normally runs at 8-9 lbs with an intercooler and meth water injection. I too always believed that low compression was neccessary for a boosted engine. Now I'm betting on the new systems too and hope that all the boosted 5.3s are showing a new way to go. Since I'm staying with a stock 4t65ehd I plan on a dynoe pull and a couple of 1/4 mile runs before I revert to driving it in a sane manner. The car tuning turbo kit runs on 91 octane and is supposed to give an extra 2-3 mpg. I think joseph and I are on the same track except for my extra two cylinders and a stock 20,000 mile engine.
I have high hopes for fuel economy also and it's a very important part of the overall performance as I want to "have my cake and eat it to". I'm hoping for better than 30 mpg. So far with the timing I've pulled over mid and low range over the spark table my exhaust temps are not showing the high levels of an overly retarded engine and timing reduction has been least in the 100 Kpa column which is good for all out performance. I've since learned how to manipulate the graph feature in Tunerpro and can't believe I'm just now getting around to use it. The current MAP is much, much, much better than the one posted above which I'm surprised even ran the engine well enough to drive on the interstate.
I don't see why you can't get 30mpg+. The ls4 fiero that I'm aware of gets 30 mpg on the highway without babying the gas peddle. If I can get another 2-3 mpg with the turbo kit it will just about offset having to pay an extra 30 cents a gallon for the 91 octane over 87.
enjoying your thread keep up the good work. 
