Hope to have the final dyno visit soon since the spark blowout has been resolved. Unfortunately a deer took my intercooler/heat exchanger off the car this morning, it was a hell of an impact although it was already layed flat in the road from a few moments earlier. I thought I hit a large piece of metal after seemingly flying through the air but returned to the scene to meet the person who hit and killed it with his new truck and help drag it out of the road. It was a pretty shocking surprise at 55 mph considering all I saw was a brief flash of a man out the corner of my right eye waving his hands just as I took flight. So far I need another exchanger and possibly another heavy duty radiator as I saw a small drip of radiator fluid. The exchanger hit the condenser as it was ripped from the car but did not puncture it. I guess it could have been worse, I could have been the first person to hit it at o-dark thirty in the morning.
[This message has been edited by Joseph Upson (edited 09-25-2014).]
Wow luckily it did not wreck the front end! Awesome build I hope you get it on the dyno again soon with some smoother curves. Do you have any heatsoak issues with your W2A setup/what are you seeing for pre and post IC temps?
Originally posted by zkhennings: Wow luckily it did not wreck the front end! Awesome build I hope you get it on the dyno again soon with some smoother curves. Do you have any heatsoak issues with your W2A setup/what are you seeing for pre and post IC temps?
The water to air setup works outstandingly except for the moment since the accident which removed the exchanger. Although the bumper cleared the deer, the exchanger did not and was slammed into the condenser and actually bent the radiator framework back about 2" on the driverside as I discovered upon attempting to reattach the air dam. It also caused a radiator leak in the HD radiator which so far has pretty much been resolved with a heater core friendly leak sealer.
I can tell the difference without it, normally temps run within 10 deg of ambient climbing slowly under high boost ~10 psi and up and quickly coming back down. At the moment 15 psi will produce 130 deg temps at around 85 deg ambient temps and higher if I hold the boost longer than 4 sec. I have some temp examples in datalogs posted somewhere on the forum.
Ouch well good thing you could save the radiator... With the 84 front end a cone ripped out the grate and punctured completely through my radiator in a very similar situation (cresting a hill, idiots had cones in the middle of the road)...
Yea I have seen them before a while back but I could not remember/did not know how much those numbers have changed since then.
Have you ever logged when pushing the car hard? AKA hitting full boost multiple times in relatively quick succession? I got a WRX recently (why I haven't been on the forum in a bit, I'll get back to my Fiero soon) and everyone talks about how bad W2A heatsoaks if you are pushing it, and I would like to know how legitimate that is. Maybe it takes an hour until temps actually get significantly higher, maybe it's 10 minutes. Just wondering if you have any data to discuss on that subject.
Ouch well good thing you could save the radiator... With the 84 front end a cone ripped out the grate and punctured completely through my radiator in a very similar situation (cresting a hill, idiots had cones in the middle of the road)...
Yea I have seen them before a while back but I could not remember/did not know how much those numbers have changed since then.
Have you ever logged when pushing the car hard? AKA hitting full boost multiple times in relatively quick succession? I got a WRX recently (why I haven't been on the forum in a bit, I'll get back to my Fiero soon) and everyone talks about how bad W2A heatsoaks if you are pushing it, and I would like to know how legitimate that is. Maybe it takes an hour until temps actually get significantly higher, maybe it's 10 minutes. Just wondering if you have any data to discuss on that subject.
As long as the system is built to support your power level there shouldn't be a problem. There is no location or speed limit in the area that I live that can support severely heat soaking the system without driving at speeds you can go to jail for. You need a good heat exchanger and intercooler along with a reasonable amount of water volume to contain the heat. Without the system my cruise inlet temps ran about 35-45 degrees higher than ambient once the turbo warmed up, so a baseline of 10 deg above ambient and a slow increase made the system well worth it as the cooler temps allowed me to run more boost. Without the system I was hitting temps as high as 170 deg on about half as much boost.
[This message has been edited by Joseph Upson (edited 10-01-2014).]
The ricer community hates w/a intercoolers for no real reason. Reality is they are more weight, space per power efficient. Period.
If you run track racing a air air might work better due to its size but you could just mount an equally huge heat exchanger for 30 minute race sessions.
The ricer community hates w/a intercoolers for no real reason. Reality is they are more weight, space per power efficient. Period.
If you run track racing a air air might work better due to its size but you could just mount an equally huge heat exchanger for 30 minute race sessions.
Yea I figured with a large enough heat exchanger then there should be no issues with removing the heat from the coolant fast enough. I am planning an air to air personally because I am trying to simplify everything and do not want to add another system to the car.
Originally posted by zkhennings: Yea I figured with a large enough heat exchanger then there should be no issues with removing the heat from the coolant fast enough. I am planning an air to air personally because I am trying to simplify everything and do not want to add another system to the car.
I have yet to see data as proof that an air to air is worth the effort on a fiero as packaging and difficulty with obtaining adequate airflow in the rear is what makes water to air so attractive on a Fiero.
with any rear-engine vehicle, i can see that being a significant concern unless you're willing to start relocating stuff to stick the intercooler(s) above the deck lid. that's a bit extreme for anything other than a track-only car though.
Yea I figured with a large enough heat exchanger then there should be no issues with removing the heat from the coolant fast enough. I am planning an air to air personally because I am trying to simplify everything and do not want to add another system to the car.
I've never had an issue with my w/a in 5 years and its pieced together junkyard stuff. w/a beats a/a in efficiency all day long.
The ricer community hates w/a intercoolers for no real reason. Reality is they are more weight, space per power efficient. Period.
Not for no reason. On a front-engine turbocharged car there is almost no reason to do anything else - you don't save real weight or plumbing going W:A, and you end up with a system that you have to maintain. On a supercharged car, where there is plumbing to be saved W:A is often used. On a Fiero - or any mid- or rear-engined car I can't think of a good reason to do anything other than W:A.
Not for no reason. On a front-engine turbocharged car there is almost no reason to do anything else - you don't save real weight or plumbing going W:A, and you end up with a system that you have to maintain. On a supercharged car, where there is plumbing to be saved W:A is often used. On a Fiero - or any mid- or rear-engined car I can't think of a good reason to do anything other than W:A.
Uh? Its significantly smaller, lighter, and no more or less maintianace required than your cooling system(7 years 100,000 miles if you want to follow the by the book service interval of any OEM water/air coolant system). The fact that you will often bypass of complex air charge plumbing is enough reason to at least consider it. (im looking at you subaru wrx)
for you know the max advance/retard for the 3900 cam phaser?
Thanks-
Eric
I don't but it should be available through search on the 60 degree V6 forum as I remember it being posted in the thread on the first tear down of the motor. I have a reground camshaft and degreed it in using the cam specs. I do know that full retard will result in a no start if you lock it in that way.
[This message has been edited by Joseph Upson (edited 11-15-2014).]
I don't but it should be available through search on the 60 degree V6 forum as I remember it being posted in the thread on the first tear down of the motor. I have a reground camshaft and degreed it in using the cam specs. I do know that full advance will result in a no start if you lock it in that way.
10-4, I'm trying to figure out the total travel of the phaser, I'm wondering how much performance GM left on the table to improve emissions.
10-4, I'm trying to figure out the total travel of the phaser, I'm wondering how much performance GM left on the table to improve emissions.
Correction, that should have read locking the cam in the fully retarded position will result in a no start, probably because of reduced cylinder pressure.
i was going to say.... it not starting fully advanced wouldn't make a lot of sense. low RPM cylinder filling should be best at full advance.
anyways, from what i remember, no signal going to the cam phaser will cause the phaser to be in the full advance position(i seem to remember it being able to "lock" in that position until oil pressure exceeds whatever pressure needed to unlock it? not sure if that is a software or hardware effect though), feed a PWM signal to it in relation to how much you want it to retard, up to the ~40* of retard it is capable of. that's somewhat of an open-loop control scheme, you would need to track the cam signal for closed-loop control. you could probably find some good trends in seeing how oil temperature and pressure effects the phaser operation and build a good open-loop control scheme(or at least assist the closed-loop control).
Originally posted by RobertISaar: open-loop control scheme(or at least assist the closed-loop control).
That won't work. The duty cycle of the control signal doesn't control amount of advance/retard... it controls RATE of advance/retard. It's somewhat like an IAC, except that the phaser is analog rather than digital. The ECM never (well... except for first start) knows where the IAC is, just which direction it's moving. The ECM knows how many steps it has commanded and "knows" that the IAC won't move unless it commands steps. The same assertion can not be made regarding the phaser. It's an analog system, so even if the ECM outputs a perfect 50% driving signal, imperfections in the phaser itself and variance in fluid flows might cause it to slowly move under a constant 50% signal. This is why the ECM needs the position sensor to properly control the phaser.
I'm not sure I would use the term rate here.... it is true that the phaser will wander a bit and closed-loop control via the 3 or 4(can't remember) pulse cam reluctor is the only way you're truly going to know where it is actually retarding the cam to.
I guess a better phrasing of my previous statement would be: depending on what kind of margin of error you're willing to deal with..... you might be able to control it open-loop well enough once you establish a "profile" on how much correction is needed to the basic "0% DC = full advance, 100% DC = full retard, with linear operation in-between" scheme.
Originally posted by Joseph Upson: Forged LS1 pistons, forged H-beam small journal 5.7" rods narrowed (stock rods are 5.827" for my engine in case anyone is wondering about the modification)
Did you ever find or run across the length of an LZ4 3500 connecting rod?
The part numbers for the LZ4 3500 and LZ9 3900 pistons are the same, so if the 3900 rod is 5.827, then the 3500 rod has to be at least 5.984. I suspect it's a bit longer than that in order to put the piston less in the hole at TDC, thereby keeping compression up.
What's the compression height of the 3500/3900 piston?
[This message has been edited by Will (edited 11-17-2014).]
I'm not sure I would use the term rate here.... it is true that the phaser will wander a bit and closed-loop control via the 3 or 4(can't remember) pulse cam reluctor is the only way you're truly going to know where it is actually retarding the cam to.
I guess a better phrasing of my previous statement would be: depending on what kind of margin of error you're willing to deal with..... you might be able to control it open-loop well enough once you establish a "profile" on how much correction is needed to the basic "0% DC = full advance, 100% DC = full retard, with linear operation in-between" scheme.
The phaser doesn't control position... it controls movement.
51% and 100% duty cycle will both result in a fully retarded cam position... it's just a matter of how quickly the cam gets there... Similarly for 0% and 49% going to fully advanced.
Where's the split? 49.9%? 50.1%? 50.023%? No way to tell without a cam position sensor.
The phaser doesn't control position... it controls movement.
51% and 100% duty cycle will both result in a fully retarded cam position... it's just a matter of how quickly the cam gets there... Similarly for 0% and 49% going to fully advanced.
Where's the split? 49.9%? 50.1%? 50.023%? No way to tell without a cam position sensor.
how was this confirmed? going off of the documentation GM released, I was operating under the knowledge that the cam is in its fully advanced position until the PCM starts giving the cam phaser solenoid a PWM signal to retard out of the home position.
I understand how the method you describe can work, but it doesn't sound that way going off of how GM described its function in the factory service manuals and press releases. they have mislead before, but I've never found definitive evidence of either one being correct.
10-4, I'm trying to figure out the total travel of the phaser, I'm wondering how much performance GM left on the table to improve emissions.
quote
Variable valve timing delivers new flexibility The new 3900 V-6 also boasts GM¡¦s first use of variable valve timing for an OHV V-6 engine. The variable valve timing system uses an electronically controlled hydraulic gear-driven camshaft phaser to alter the relationship of the camshaft as much as 40 degrees overall (25 degrees retard and 15 degrees advance) relative to the crankshaft.
So, not a whole lot of movement on the 3.9 it looks like, though you can still do a lot with 40 degrees of movement.
Originally posted by RobertISaar: how was this confirmed? going off of the documentation GM released, I was operating under the knowledge that the cam is in its fully advanced position until the PCM starts giving the cam phaser solenoid a PWM signal to retard out of the home position.
I understand how the method you describe can work, but it doesn't sound that way going off of how GM described its function in the factory service manuals and press releases. they have mislead before, but I've never found definitive evidence of either one being correct.
According to GM's documentation there is still 15 degrees advance beyond the installed position for the phaser on the 3.9.
yes, but afterwards, the two control schemes are extremely different in how they would achieve the same result. I'm curious to know how/where the information of the cam phaser using a 50% PWM signal to maintain and proportional changes in either direction to change phasing vs the scheme of a PWM signal with the solenoid's duty cycle determining phasing in a more or less linear fashion.
I'm not really finding evidence of either being correct via searches unless I'm getting keywords wrong.
Just thought I'd stop by and give an update considering I don't frequent the site much anymore. The car is still up and running although I haven't replaced the heat exchanger to the water to air intercooler system since it was ripped off the car by a deer I ran over more than a year ago. The water methanol injection system is still in place and sufficient so I haven't thought much about it. The spark misfire (blowout) under boost returned at around 10-12 psi and did not improve with new plugs which lead me to suspect the wires given an intermittent low accel misfire. They've been replaced and so far it appears that was the culprit although I still have to push the engine up to 15 psi to be sure. If the problem is resolved I'll try to get back to the dyno in an effort to get a completed test through the entire rpm range without the misfire limitation that plagued the first attempt.
I also wanted to make mention of how GM is following my lead with high compression and boost as well as fitting the combination with water to air intercooled systems, two subjects that were hotly debated here over the past several years for and against.
The results have been phenomenal for production engines. Their boosted 3.0L DOHC Caddi motor is rated 400+ horsepower and torque, the two turbo 3.6L options even higher and only the 3.0L at 9.8:1 compression sports a compression ratio less than 10:1 with boost, the 3.6L and LZ4 Vette motor are all 10.2:1.
Originally posted by Joseph Upson: I also wanted to make mention of how GM is following my lead with high compression and boost as well as fitting the combination with water to air intercooled systems, two subjects that were hotly debated here over the past several years for and against.
The results have been phenomenal for production engines. Their boosted 3.0L DOHC Caddi motor is rated 400+ horsepower and torque, the two turbo 3.6L options even higher and only the 3.0L at 9.8:1 compression sports a compression ratio less than 10:1 with boost, the 3.6L and LZ4 Vette motor are all 10.2:1.
All of those production engines have something which helps to keep the compression ratio higher; SIDI. Direct injection keeps the fuel out of the cylinder until much later in the compression cycle, which greatly reduces the possibility of knock. If you think the current compression ratios are high though, just wait. I expect we might see HCCI coming into production engines within the next year or two, from GM. They've been working on it for quite a while now. A 16:1 CR boosted 2.0 liter engine seems very probable.
Originally posted by dobey: All of those production engines have something which helps to keep the compression ratio higher; SIDI. Direct injection keeps the fuel out of the cylinder until much later in the compression cycle, which greatly reduces the possibility of knock. If you think the current compression ratios are high though, just wait. I expect we might see HCCI coming into production engines within the next year or two, from GM. They've been working on it for quite a while now. A 16:1 CR boosted 2.0 liter engine seems very probable.
That certainly helps but was implemented for reasons that precede boost given how long its been in use and considering what I was able to achieve it isn't necessary for what they've done but definitely a plus. I'm pretty confident they could go one compression point higher and leave all else the same for a bit more easily measurable efficiency and torque. There's probably plenty of room for improvement on the O.E. water/air intercooler system to. They're likely concerned about transmission durability, something the Nissan GTR ran into problems with at least in the manual cars.
[This message has been edited by Joseph Upson (edited 03-07-2016).]
Just thought I'd stop by and give an update considering I don't frequent the site much anymore. The car is still up and running although I haven't replaced the heat exchanger to the water to air intercooler system since it was ripped off the car by a deer I ran over more than a year ago. The water methanol injection system is still in place and sufficient so I haven't thought much about it. The spark misfire (blowout) under boost returned at around 10-12 psi and did not improve with new plugs which lead me to suspect the wires given an intermittent low accel misfire. They've been replaced and so far it appears that was the culprit although I still have to push the engine up to 15 psi to be sure. If the problem is resolved I'll try to get back to the dyno in an effort to get a completed test through the entire rpm range without the misfire limitation that plagued the first attempt.
I also wanted to make mention of how GM is following my lead with high compression and boost as well as fitting the combination with water to air intercooled systems, two subjects that were hotly debated here over the past several years for and against.
The results have been phenomenal for production engines. Their boosted 3.0L DOHC Caddi motor is rated 400+ horsepower and torque, the two turbo 3.6L options even higher and only the 3.0L at 9.8:1 compression sports a compression ratio less than 10:1 with boost, the 3.6L and LZ4 Vette motor are all 10.2:1.
I believe my next build when I have the time will be in a Cadillac.
This is a great build!! I hope I'm not too late. I'm absolutely sure your spark blow out is due to the spark plug gap. I did a lot of R&D for Snow Performance when he was making the kits in his house and he had a secular job. I had a Turbo Dodge 2.5 liter turbo and started with 22psi of boost and it was knocking bad. It made 250WHP @ 19PSI on race gas. I then found about Snow by mistake on a Mustang 5.0 Magazine. I purchased a kit from him but he warned me it was not designed for my application. He gave me a very good deal on it, almost free but he only asked to keep him updated on my progress or short comings. Back in 1990's I read a book on the F1 Turbo engines from the 80's and one things all of them used was water injection and also read that WWII supercharged planes used on take offs from a carrier to run maximum boost and increase power. I installed the kit and the knock was gone. Then I started to increase boost and timing but at 35psi it was blowing the spark out. I started to experiment with spark plug gap and to make a story short I ended up with a .012 gap @ 50psi of boost and netted 420whp @ 4700rpm and 468lbs/ft of torque at the wheels (of course with a T61 hybrid custom turbo), no blow out and no hick ups. You may have to use 2 injector nozzles like a did, one right after the intercooler and another one right in front of the TB. The further nozzle was bigger and the closest one to the TB was smaller, it was trial and error but I got it right. My car was not a drag car, it was a road course car and it never missed a beat on the road course at that level of power. It took me about 5 years of trial and error and daily drived the car but the engine I never took it appart from day one becasue I used the right components like you did.
Joseph, you've gone to great lengths to show us your build for you to just move on to a different platform because you didn't get what you expected. BMW GP bikes were running 11:1 comp ratios turbocharged, so your approach is the right one.
Don't give up, your built is a stout engine design the to make power and stay together, you got all the right parts. I believe it can make 500+whp if tuned properly. I hope I'm not to late because I'd like to see it meeting your expectations!
Here are a couple of pictures of RattleSnake @ Summit Point Raceway West Virginia 2003
Originally posted by La fiera: This is a great build!! I hope I'm not too late. I'm absolutely sure your spark blow out is due to the spark plug gap. I did a lot of R&D for Snow Performance when he was making the kits in his house and he had a secular job. I had a Turbo Dodge 2.5 liter turbo and started with 22psi of boost and it was knocking bad. It made 250WHP @ 19PSI on race gas. I then found about Snow by mistake on a Mustang 5.0 Magazine. I purchased a kit from him but he warned me it was not designed for my application. He gave me a very good deal on it, almost free but he only asked to keep him updated on my progress or short comings. Back in 1990's I read a book on the F1 Turbo engines from the 80's and one things all of them used was water injection and also read that WWII supercharged planes used on take offs from a carrier to run maximum boost and increase power. I installed the kit and the knock was gone. Then I started to increase boost and timing but at 35psi it was blowing the spark out. I started to experiment with spark plug gap and to make a story short I ended up with a .012 gap @ 50psi of boost and netted 420whp @ 4700rpm and 468lbs/ft of torque at the wheels (of course with a T61 hybrid custom turbo), no blow out and no hick ups. You may have to use 2 injector nozzles like a did, one right after the intercooler and another one right in front of the TB. The further nozzle was bigger and the closest one to the TB was smaller, it was trial and error but I got it right. My car was not a drag car, it was a road course car and it never missed a beat on the road course at that level of power. It took me about 5 years of trial and error and daily drived the car but the engine I never took it appart from day one becasue I used the right components like you did.
Joseph, you've gone to great lengths to show us your build for you to just move on to a different platform because you didn't get what you expected. BMW GP bikes were running 11:1 comp ratios turbocharged, so your approach is the right one.
Don't give up, your built is a stout engine design the to make power and stay together, you got all the right parts. I believe it can make 500+whp if tuned properly. I hope I'm not to late because I'd like to see it meeting your expectations!
Here are a couple of pictures of RattleSnake @ Summit Point Raceway West Virginia 2003
Good luck my friend!
Thanks for the info all of which I can relate to and I looked at the Dodge stuff a good while ago for ideas. First, to all those who see water/meth injection as a band-aid, keep thinking that. I resolved the spark blow out problem which initially turned out to be too much water as for a while I was running straight water since that's where most of the spark control benefit was. After that was corrected along with going back to 50/50 mix, I addressed the spark plug gap, taking it down to about .015 to get me dependably past 10 psi. After that it turned out to be the MSD wires.
In my experience, which also spanned about 5 yrs of fiddling with it before finally getting it fixed for good partly due to the uniqueness of my build, the best ignition parts on the market in my experience and opinion are the original equipment parts. Darth told me as much before I wasted my time with MSD, which really requires the complete outfit to benefit from its name Multiple Spark Discharge. I took the MSD "fanfare" off the motor which included coils and dropped in a set of used AC Delco coils and a brand new set of premium BOSCH plug wires for one of the early Bonneville SC motors and it was a wrap. I just never got the car back to the dyno for a complete pull after resolving the spark blowout/misfire issue. Although I only managed a little over 300/300 to the wheels at 13 psi and a spark limited 4200 rpm before break up, I knew there was a heck of a lot more than that available because multiple times with the variable water/meth injection working in the absence of spark trouble, the boost gauge went north of 20 psi without so much as a speck of spark knock on the datalogs.
I sold the car last year to a member who is still enjoying it and picked up a very nice Gen II, 08 Cadillac CTS DI 3.6L. You can't get me back in a Fiero now and I'm not joking. Love the car and the performance and when I have time in the future, it or a backup will get the same treatment with a simplified approach using stronger rods and custom pistons to achieve ~13:1 compression which I'm confident the DI motor can handle along with a 6 nozzle water/meth system. It's rated for 87 octane at ~11.2:1 compression but I run premium.
Unlike the previous path, I plan on managing all additional fueling for boost externally as the newer powertrain control systems are VERY complicated, fastidious and expensive if you screw something up. The goal is 600 hp and 30 mpg hwy minimum. The Camaro guys have already met the hp level in an 3.6L LFX motor which they showed is the breaking point (rods).
I still check in here once in a while to see what's going on, but am looking forward to showing the Cadillac owners with few options aside from buying a CTS-V some tricks.
Some of the new BMW "M" series cars come with water meth injection from the factory. If your water meth tank runs dry, the ECM turns down the boost till you fill it up.
[This message has been edited by wftb (edited 02-19-2018).]
I could not find the magazine article that called it water/meth injection but I found a video on Jalopnik that indeed only described it as water injection.The model is the M4 GTS. The water tank is in the trunk and they did not explain how they stop it from freezing. I can see putting water/meth in to solve the freezing problem and I doubt that the performance difference would be noticeable. Who knows, maybe there is a small electric heater in the tank.
I could not find the magazine article that called it water/meth injection but I found a video on Jalopnik that indeed only described it as water injection.The model is the M4 GTS. The water tank is in the trunk and they did not explain how they stop it from freezing. I can see putting water/meth in to solve the freezing problem and I doubt that the performance difference would be noticeable. Who knows, maybe there is a small electric heater in the tank.
If the object of the system is to counter a low fuel tank, water alone is not sufficient as it is not flammable. More importantly, who buys an M4 and lets it run out of gas. It would be much simpler to have the PCM shut boost capability off altogether once the tank drops below a certain fuel level. Sounds to me the system is actually for performance purposes and is being misrepresented as a low fuel safety mechanism.
I edited my original post to clarify things. The water injection system is strictly a power adder. As long as the water tank has water in it, the computer dials up more boost. When the tank is empty the boost gets dialed back and the engine loses 40 HP. Sorry for the confusion.
