TimZ

Agreed, but what I've observed from the build threads linked above is that it's likely true that the statement ...is likely a true statement for the population of people that are doing the builds. They seem far more interested in creating the awesome looking bundle of snakes (and the fab work does look cool) than in how it actually performs. If it works at all they declare awesome success. Sorry, but 600hp from 47 psi on a modern 4-valve 2.0 liter with a reasonable CR is not impressive.

I was thinking of the electrically operated diverter valve mainly because I can't visualize how to plumb a "normal" pneumatically operated valve to open during the boost build region, where you are typically at WOT and don't get a pressure differential for it to work with. I was thinking perhaps using the electrically operated valve in this region to bleed some flow and move to the right a bit on the compressor map. If I'm reading your post correctly I think it might be possible to achieve something workable (probably not ideal but maybe pretty good) for the "boost build" region using a PWM duty cycle vs RPM and MAP table. I don't think this would work as well for things like going to part throttle under boost but I was hoping to use the standard BOV for this part. I'm mainly trying to figure out how to use a function that my engine controller already has in order to avoid having yet another auxiliary controller. Whaddya think, Tony - am I full of sh1t, or am I on to something? One question mark for the electric valve is how much boost it will hold without popping open - I've read through a bunch of forum posts (which was painful at times ) and a couple of people claim that it's working for them at 24psi or so, but I haven't seen anything higher than that.

On this note, I've had the idea for a while that perhaps an OEM solenoid operated diverter valve (like this, with an adapter like this), used in parallel with a conventional BOV might work reasonably well for bleeding off some airflow to prevent surge, and then the conventional BOV could handle the higher flow required for dropping throttle at full boost. I don't know whether these are PWM-able, but since they are relatively small to begin with, a simple on-off map for RPM and MAP might suffice to get the turbo past the surge range without bleeding off too much. If you could make it work, this would be much simpler than implementing a PID controller... Thoughts?

Well, it was my original point of contention: ...to which I responded: I think I was pretty clear on this point, but then had to elaborate further (see Tony's "Ibid" post). I pointed out that in your run a week later, we don't know what else changed to cause the engine to stage better. I pointed out a couple of things (meant as examples, not an exhaustive list) that do have an effect on this that could easily have changed from week to week. It's also entirely possible that the (albeit only ~6%) power increase at the crank from the increased CR would have caused the torque converter to stall at a different RPM, putting you on a different point on the engine's VE curve. While this would qualify as a secondary effect of the CR increase, it's more of an issue of torque converter selection than being I don't need any additional data points to show this just like I don't need to do extensive research to show that putting magnets around the fuel lines won't double the fuel economy - it simply doesn't work that way. I'm sorry if this was a thread-jack, but I don't like to see blanket statements made that aren't supported by basic physics. Just to be clear, I'm not saying you are a liar or that your experince didn't happen. But I am saying that your experience in this case does not support the assertion that you made in the above quote. ...and btw, that's a much more polite response than you are likely to get from Tony, seeing as how you did just call him a liar.

What does adding 10-psi boost have to do with this at all?

Yes, compressing a gas will increase it's temperature, but that's not what we are talking about here. Increasing the compression ratio will increase combustion efficiency, which by definition means that more of the energy from combustion goes into work at the crank and less goes out the exhaust. All else equal, you will see lower EGTs with increased compression. In your example there are several unstated and uncontrolled variables that could have caused the results you stated - was the ambient air pressure and temperature exactly the same on that run a week later? Did you have to change ignition timing to stay below the knock limit with the increased CR? Did you use different fuel to accommodate the increased CR? You don't have to take my word for it - it's pretty well established thermodynamic rules. Here's a link to a paper from Stanford University that covers the subject nicely: http://rescomp.stanford.edu/~efroeh/papers/RDH_Engine_Performance.pdf

Sorry, I'm not buying this. Compression ratio has very little to do with ability to spool. If anything the lower efficiency of a lower compression ratio means more energy sent unused to the exhaust, which would result in a _faster_ spool. And I'm dubious as to whether even this effect is measurable.

Yep. Fill it slowly until the dipstick says "full", and you're done.

There is no correct way to answer this. What do you consider "better"? _Very_ generally speaking retarding the cam moves your torque peak a bit higher in the rev range, advancing it moves it lower. Which is better depends on what you want - higher torque peak generally means more power, but less response on the bottom end. You also need to match your turbo sizing. Also, maybe I'm not very smart, but I'm having trouble understanding the significance of your lash measurements with respect to your cam timing. How is that supposed to work?

...So either you have a Flemish spellchecker, or this type of BOV only works in Belgium.

You might find these helpful... http://forums.hybridz.org/topic/51138-has-anyone-installed-the-modern-motorsports-6-bolt-axle-end-stops-on-the-outboard/?hl=end+stops http://forums.hybridz.org/topic/25809-r230-conversion-shafts/?hl=end+stops&do=findComment&comment=199781 http://forums.hybridz.org/topic/20323-r230-q45-cv-axles-where-did-you-get-them-shortened/?hl=end+stops&do=findComment&comment=204853 http://forums.hybridz.org/topic/56198-q45-diff-swap-axle-problem/?hl=end+stops&do=findComment&comment=511199 http://forums.hybridz.org/topic/75896-axle-stop-mm-q45-diff-problem/?hl=end+stops&do=findComment&comment=722446

Didn't you say that the sound did _not_ get louder when you lifted the valve cover?

Did the noise get louder or did it stay the same?

Another possibility: It's not uncommon to have an exhaust leak at the exhaust manifold gasket, which will make a loud ticking sound at idle and elsewhere.

There are already drop-in replacement bulbs available - no voltage dropping devices required, but you will need new turn signal and hazard light flasher relays that don't change speed when a bulb is missing. Take a look here: http://www.superbrightleds.com/cat/led-vehicle-replacement-bulbs/ ..there are plenty of suppliers on ebay as well. Try searching "LED replacement" along with the incandescent bulb's part number (1156 for example). One great advantage of the LED bulbs is that they require much less current and remain very bright even with our 30+ year old harness wiring.

Great! Now I'll know where to send them the next time a request comes up!

No problem, and I'm glad it was useful to you! I don't mind helping out at all in most cases, but I guess I don't like the requests for the "list of parts", as though that was the big secret. Like Tony said, there is no big secret, just a lot of work. If its clear that you are going to use the info I'm glad to share, but this can often take a long time and a lot of effort to convey so I'm not so keen on sharing for bench racing purposes, if you know what I mean...

LOL, I remember one point when I was making several changes and trying to document some of it because I thought people might find it interesting. Somebody wanted me to make one change at a time and dyno test each change so that _they_ could know which changes were most effective. Do I look like the f-ing Underwriters Labratories?? That, or like Tony's nephew, people wanting to know exhausting details on "my setup" when there's no way in hell they are ever going to use any of the info, except maybe to mis-quote it later. I'm dubious on the idea of requiring posting some sort of resume before people are allowed to post, though. As others pointed out some will lie about their experience, and others will simply have an inflated notion of what they know (present company excluded of course! ). Also I'm not real keen about using what I do for a living as a reason that people should listen to me. If I can't put together a logical premise and defend it then that will come across quickly enough. I don't pay close attention to Tony or John or Peter at PMC (to name a few) just because of what they've put in their profile - I pay attention to them because of the hundreds (or thousands) of well thought out and informative posts that they've made. You don't have to watch for long to understand who is who.

THANK YOU! I brought up re-torqueing the head some time ago and got swiftly drowned out by a chorus "it's unnecessary" and "you'll ruin the head gasket" statements, all in a thread where somebody was trying to figure out why their head gasket was leaking. I've always treated this as standard procedure. It's not even difficult to do - takes abut 10 minutes!

That's where I saw that manifold before - thanks for jogging my memory. The injector angle on the secondaries looks fine to me - right at ~45deg to the airflow and pretty much pointing at the intake port. What angle did your guy think it should be at? As was already mentioned you'll only be using the secondaries at high flow conditions anyway, so this should be the best of both worlds. Being able to run stock or near-stock sized primaries does wonders for driveability - that's a really good find! Now you just need to convert it to o-ring injectors...

Just saw this. Yes - yes it can. Some updated pics:

Agreed that hey should have checked this - do you know what thickness your lash pads are?

Not a huge deal, but I'm finding that the second level of the quick links at the top of each post, like the one that says HybridZ → General → Site Support at the top of this post doesn't work. In other words, the link to the levels called "Technical", "General", etc appear to be broken. I've seen this in Chrome and IE9 under Win7

Sorry for the late reply - I think this is what you were looking for...

I was just trying to understand what I was looking at, and how to interpret the columns showing the pressure for each measurement. Your answer above implies that the CFM numbers are already corrected to 28", and the pressure readings are not relevant - is that correct?