Gollum
-
Posts
3183 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
16
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Gallery
Downloads
Store
Posts posted by Gollum
-
-
52 minutes ago, area51 said:
My machinist says I should have no problem making 200hp to the tires. I have my doubts, but I am no expert. I would really like to hear everyone thoughts or predictions.
The overall car plan is for it to be a spirited weekend reliable driver.
Shouldn't be a problem at all. MOST people making 200whp on factory longblocks without issue. But you'll likely end up wanting to ditch the factory EFI. You've modified the top end enough that the factory curve won't work well at all, and most people don't have the patience/interest in learning how to hack the factory EFI and retune it. Once you've got a good tune, whatever your choice there, you should be able to make 200whp on about 8-10psi without issue considering the top end improvements.
As far as "limits", your limit will be detonation for a given boost/fuel/tune combo. A factory bottom end will hold 400hp all day as long as there's no overheating and/or detonation issues. So as long as the tune's good, the bottom end is pretty reliable. You might choose to just always fill with 110 octane and run a large radiator. You might choose to do some common cooling mods to improve rear cylinder temps. You might opt for a fancy ECU with per-cylinder trimming so you can keep detonation prone cylinders a bit softer.
Everyone always asks the famous "how do I make 300hp with a L28ET?", and the answer always boils down to "add boost, tune well". These things won't explode in a fit of rage because of a power/torque level though. It's generally large amounts of abuse on a bad tune, using pump gas and lots of boost, or revving the nuts off of it when you didn't build it for that, which generally do them in. Handle the tuning aspect, and you can make as much power as you venture into solving secondary issues for (which generally all boil down to heat management).
-
I'm one of those odd people that will likely never sell their S30, but I also didn't buy it because it was a dream car. I got into Z cars because they were cheap(er) and were as close to a blank canvas as you can get. Any engine fits, and they're small enough that they generally handle well unless you ruin them.
But if you held a gun to my head, I guess my ideal S30 would be some Frankenstein between a BRE 240Z and a Daytona Coupe. Ideally a modern spaceframe like the new FFR models, with tires for days. As fond as I am of the L motor, the Coyote has been my dream of a perfect V8 for 8+ years now, and it's only getting better with each passing iteration.
In reality, I'm actually far more likely to build a FFR Daytona than build that S30, mostly because of required time and tool investment. I'm not a chassis designer, and as much fun as that sounds, would likely get to the desired results faster by letting others do the heavy engineering lifting. Though I guess an idea I've had in the back of my mind for 15+ years now, would be to just plop a S30 body onto a FFR chassis... Which seems like a shame, because it's not like the Daytona is ugly. Maybe I'll order TWO kits....
-
Yeah, I bought my first S130 under the same hope/expectation. That all went up in flames, sadly. I really wish they'd go back to a rolling smog year, but this is at least something.
Back to your regularity scheduled sign-in thread.
-
Welcome! Keep and eye on this state bill, your car might be smog testing exempt soon.
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billStatusClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB210
-
Hmm, looking at the thread again, I think 8.5 @ +4 might be tough to fit up front on a S130. That 4.9" of backspace is going to get you extremely close to the strut tube up front. In the back, that much backspace would be fine, especially with more compact coil overs.
So if you're wanting 8.5" instead of 9" or 9.5" you might be better off with the -10, even though that's going to also need rolling if you're pushing a 245 wide tire onto it.
-
FricFrac went with 9.5 all around, but felt 255 was too tight up front, and went with 235 instead for the front, but still on 9.5 up front.
The one person who mentions issues in the thread is slownrusty (yasin) who says they're tough to fit on a really low car. On a mild lowering you're likely find, but if you're dropping it a lot then fitment gets really tight.
All this is to say that a 8.5" should fit in either a +4 or -10, but I'd err towards the +4 since inward fitment on the S130 wasn't really the tight spot. But let me dig through when Christ and I tested them on my S130 and verify the suspension clearance.
-
9.5 in back, and 9.0 in front, with 255/40 in back and 245/40 in front. Rolling performed.
-
17 x 9 -13 with 255/40/17 tires. Mild rolling performed.
-
13 minutes ago, error234 said:
also read one thread where it said the Rota rbr group buy wouldn't fit on the s130 (17x9 -13 offset). which i only found one guy saying that and that is close to the offset i'm looking at. so i've been getting alot of conflicting info. and just want to make sure before i buy.
Huh? Lots of people ran the group buy wheels on the S130. It's not ideal, as the S130 can stand a bit more backspacing than the S30 stock for stock, but it works fine. You can't maximize the tire though, and need to stay 245 to be safe, but I've seen a few guys pushing 255 on the group buy wheels on the S130.
Also, I know rims are always sold in offset figures, but start posting and thinking in backspace measurements. That said, a 17x8.5 +4 is 4.9" of backspace, which should fit quite nicely. You might have some rubbing under full lock, but I'd have to bust out measurement tools be to sure. If you step up to a -10 on a 8.5" wheel that's going to push backspacing down to 4.4" of backspacing, which is LESS than the group buy wheels, which means while it should clear suspension with ease, you're going to be that much more limited on tire size before needing to roll the fender.
All this said, the S130 can fit HUGE tires without cutting/rolling if the fitment is right. 275 in the rear isn't unreasonable if done right.
-
Since it seems the FAQ section can't be posted to, the Map sharing thread is effectively dead to new data. So I guess I'll just keep a running thread log of my tune and config as it changes.
I started my tune by taking the "example config" tables, and then adjusting to "ballpark" from what I was seeing in other people's threads. Not many people were running a setup like mine, so it was difficult to get close, so I tried to err on the side of safety for most of my maps and I've slowly been edging them closer. My ignition map was far too aggressive to start with, and in some areas still is, but I've been pretty happy with the performance thus far on this combo, despite everyone's warnings of compression, detonation, and not being "good for boost".
My setup:
F54 turbo bottom (dish pistons)
MN47 Head (factory through and through for now)
Factory T3 (likely the first thing getting replaced) running on factory wastegate (6-7 psi depending on how it feels today)
NON-Intercooled (one of my defining self-limitations, I'm keeping it this way)
Non-EGR N42 Intake manifold
DIY Autotune Dizzy Trigger Wheel
Bosch Blue 260cc o-ring injectors (Ford T-Bird and others) running sequentially
Pallnet Fuel Rail
Factory fuel pump
Factory fuel regulator
Factory fuel filter
Factory fuel damper still in place
Tuning on CA Pump 91
Flex fuel sensor installed, showing my pump gas indeed is between 9-11% ethanol
D585 LS Coils running COP
Now, Configs:
(I'm only posting windows of which I've altered settings)
Basic/Load Settings
Fuel Settings
Ignition Settings
Startup/Idle (I don't think I've changed much here other than WUE)
Accel Enrich (lot of work to do here still)
Advanced Engine
I've also attached my tune file:
And the last tuning run logs:
NOTE: The above tune file and tables have been updated since that last log, so if viewing in MegaLogViewer the table data won't align properly.
I'll likely be updating this regularly over the next few months as I'm making changes often. In no way do I recommend just copy/pasting any of these settings/values without understanding the risks. I make no guarantees for the validity of this data or lack of harm to your engine.
-
I feel like we've got three or so of these threads rolling around, but this one at least has semi-recent postings.
I only trust the scale +/- 20lbs, but my last weigh in was 2280.
1975 280Z
Gutted doors (no glass, factory bracing still)
No interior other than OEM seats
No dash
No spare
No bumpers
MSA Type 1 fiberglass air dam
L28ET (no oil cooler)
S130 5 speed, I think an '81
R200 diff
3" exhaust, no cat, straight through muffler
No AC
No HVAC/Blower/anything
Hey, I still have wipers!
I have another 100lbs easy to remove too, I think. Going to replace the rear glass with plastic eventually, and my whole front end is still steel. Will replace hood eventually, and since I deleted the HVAC I need to get a smooth cowl panel, and might save a few ounces there. I'm also running a common group 53 lead acid battery, so there's 15-20lbs of weight savings there if I wanted to spend the money.
-
I weighed my car this morning and updated my post to reflect that, and also clarified the data source.
-
49 minutes ago, NewZed said:
You should have noted all of that in your first post, and you should have gotten correct weight, I think. Especially the weight, since the software depends on it. You showed 200 HP and a curve with a description that sounded like a mechanical dyno.
It all makes sense, but just like differentiating between the dyno machines, you should do the same with a software "dyno". The basic premise is not really like a mechanical dyno, it depends on many more variables. Each variable can introduce error. Even something simple like the wrong speedo gear, I assume. The software must use speed to calculate acceleration. Have you had your speedo calibrated?
All the data was there in my first post, though looking at it again I see I could have been more clear. The graph itself states "virtual dyno" right on the top, and I published ALL my data points to show with others what I used.
The speedo data isn't used at all by the HP calculation. It's RPM over time. If you know the rate of change, and you know the load, that's all you need. In theory, you could do the same over MPH, but that's now how Virtual Dyno works, that's how GPS based phone app dynos work, and hence their phone-gps-accuracy-dependency that I feel I've just about killed the topic on here. And by the way, I have no speedo in use. Purely using GPS speedo in my car for MPH reference for myself.
IMO, the data I posted could have just as easily come from a mechanical dyno, and people would want just as much of an explanation of numbers. In fact, we've done that here more than once... 🙄
I'd expect other veterans here to know from my history that I strive for meaningful, accurate data. And I shared what I have, and what I knew, and have been honest and open about caveats. I've in no way intended to mislead, and feel I've shown that in every post thus far. And at the end of the day let's be honest.... 186whp@5184 is actually damn close to MOST stock L28ET dynos we see.... If I'd had to guess a number ahead of time, I'd have thought it'd be 170-175, about where most L28ET's come in... I mean shoot, drax made 211whp on stock wastegate pressure...
Edit:
Re weight:
I agree, meaningful weight data is important to virtual dyno. But a 200lb reduction that would put me WAY under where I think I am would net me a whopping 10hp loss in the calc. I stated in my first post I plan to weigh my car soon, and would update the data once I had more concrete numbers. For now, I assumed 2400 lbs (car last weighed in at 2540lbs and I've removed a lot since) and my own weight at 230 (which might be more like 235-240 once I take into account all my clothing, jacket, hat, pocket knife, phone, steel toe boots, etc). But Even if we look at how much potentially difference there COULD be... it's less of a HP swing than running dynos back to back on a heat soaked engine.
-
Ahh, to correct myself, the three log pieces virtual Dyno needs is TPS, TIME (not map) and RPM. Everything else is just bonus (like MAP and AFR if you have it).
A dynometer only requires the same info. Only the TPS is normally an operator triggering the start of the run manually. The dynometer records its own RPM and time, and only needs vehicle RPM input for axis translation.
-
A bit of looking around and you'll see that it's definitely the most popular software Dyno out there, buy I also admit that's far from a testimony of safety or validity. What does speak to it's validity is the number of tuners who own dynos that admit to using it and finding it useful.
The basic premise is no different than any Dyno. Only, a chassis Dyno has a known load on the dynometer side, while virtual Dyno needs you to give it accurate data for the opposite end, the vehicle side. The only logs it needs is TPS(tells it where the WOT run is to log off), MAP/Boost, and RPM. By giving it gear and tire size it knows your MPH and by giving it aero data it can calculate the wind resistance curve. With this data in can you simply plot the power it takes for acelleration at the logged rate, and you have power.
This isn't much different than the phone app dynos, except those rely on good GPS data, which honestly is never fast enough. A 10hz GPS is required, though by 2025 that'll be a thing in most phones I think with the new GPS system rolling out. So phone apps might actually end up being more accurate soon anyway.
I've had friends with a Dyno that only bought a Dyno to have a fancy paper for certain customers. Thier high end race customers who were competitive didn't care. Results are results. And how did they Dyno? Excel. They used their own custom estimator they built that would generate curves from logs, same as virtual Dyno. And guess what? When they got thier fancy AWD Dyno in the shop, the results were almost identical. They still preferred road dynoing thohgi. Know why? Becuase the results were more realistic to track conditions because it more accurately took into account aero effects on intake, cooling, and intercooling.
Just some food for thought.
-
In case anyone needs a small push down the reading/research rabbit hole: https://forums.nasioc.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2278352
and: https://innovativetuning.wordpress.com/our-experiments-with-virtual-dyno/
-
47 minutes ago, NewZed said:
Are you using one of those accelerometer iphone apps? They're neat but not sure that they really count for much. No offense. Lots of potential error. Probably good for maximizing a tune but the power numbers will be suspect.
No, I'm using VirtualDyno with the source being megasquirt logs. I actually trust the reality of the numbers LESS than a good GPS and accelerometer based solution, but this has some serious known consistency going for it. I could get MS logs from someone else and as long as I know their vehicle data get very comparable numbers. Arguably more comparable than dynos of the same make/model in different locations.
Eventually I'll have a 10htz gps in my car and I'll also have power logs from tunerstudio. The power logs I'm currently getting from shadowdash are.... iffy.... GPS stability is certainly a problem.
-
2 hours ago, supernova_6969 said:
Hey Gollum, NewZed.
Thanks for this; just a few days ago, i was thinking the same but refrain from bumping my own thread....
So Gollum, seems that your numbers are similar to stock, but with about 30hp and 30 torques more than stock....
The block, turbo and head are stock, and the boost you're running is low (Stock low, or even less, i think stock is 7psi)..
You've got better jnjectors but that doesnt add power in these circumstances, and same-ish for ignition (some hp, but not 30!)..
So my question is where is he extra power comimg from? Is it the MN47 heads matched with the block and piston that give you more compression?
And with the nice injectors and nice ignition set up, are you planning on giving it more boost eventually? Seems like your set up csn easily grt to 250-300 whp...
Seb
First rule of dyno numbers: Don't compare different engines on different dynos.
That said, I did go through the painful work of validating all my data as much as possible for a reason. I even did my own flow testing of the injectors in my garage because I wanted to know that I was giving megasquirt valid data and that my VE numbers would have some similarity if I switched to another ECU or injector.
I think 30hp/tq is well within the realm of error factor. For example, if I overestimated the weight, and my curb is actually closer to 2200 lbs, then that would put me at 177 peak.
But let's consider some reasons my engine MIGHT make more power than a stock L28ET, which many might think I have no reason to be far above and I wouldn't disagree/argue with said person.
1) I'm running much hotter spark than factory
On that note, I'm also running slightly larger than stock gap, but there just isn't really a comparison here.
2) I'm using an NA cam with the MN47 head.
This might not mean much, especially since my torque is still peaking at 3k. But it's something worth noting.
3) I'm at the ragged edge of detonation on CA premium 91 octane E10.
As I stated. I need to pull timing still and I'm going in and out of detonation in that range. You won't find an OEM tune anywhere as close to so agressive.
4) The OEM tune is pig rich.
Most OEM ECUs are going to land in the 11's during a pull. Nissan ran these engines so pig rich it's rediculous. User stupid_fast was amazed how much more responsive his engine became just taking fuel out.
5) Everything about my combo is minimal.
I have minimal vacuum lines/accessories, I have no power steering, no AC. Anything that can be pulled off, has been. Might be worth a few ponies?
6) Sequential fixes all the things!
That's a lie. I doubt it adds any power. But the engine happily idles and cruises at 14.7:1
I do plan to add more boost eventually, but I'm getting my tune solid first. But I'm also NOT planning on adding an intercooler. I have a flex fuel sense setup already, so when I get my 91 pump gas tune down, I'll switch to tuning E85. I plan to alcohol-proof my fuel system next winter so I can run E85 for longer periods than just tuning sessions, but I do plan to find out what the limit is for this combo without an intercooler and on E85. I suspect reaching the limits of the turbo are well within reason, and eventually I'll upgrade the turbo. In fact, this one leaks a good amount of oil so I've been debating tossing a cheap ebay T3/T4 on there until I spend the money on a nice turbo. Also, if I happen upon one, I'll buy a F54 flat top bottom end to stick under this head, but I also want to get some basic work done to the head as well. I want to fit it with larger valves long with cleaning up the chamber, and blending the bowl area. If all this aligns before I blow something up, I hope to make more power non-intercooled than I've seen anyone else run. But a number/goal isn't really important, it's about the journey and having done something. Hence my lack of desire to argue about above numbers. It could have been 150 and I wouln't care.
-
We need more activity in this thread, so I'll post my current status as I get my VE table sorted.
I need to pull some timing from 3-5k still so power will drop in that region, but hopefully I can get some power back as I clean up the high rpm VE which was obviously off. Just following the rules, force it rich with your assumptions and base maps and sneak up on valid data from the rich end of things.
Also, for those curious, the above vehicle data:
Weight: 2400 (might be off, hope to get to scales this weekend and update with known valid data)
Drag Coefficient: .48 (pulled from windtunnel test data)
Frontal Area: 18.5 (pulled from windtunnel test data)
Tire Diameter: 23.69 (running 205/60/14's)
Gear: 3rd (1.308)
Final Gear: 3.545
Dyno Correction Factor: 1 (not emulating dynojet or mustang)
SAE Factors:
(looked up using local weather data online, might not be exact but should be ballpark of accurate)
Barometric Pressure: 30.1 in/hg
Air Temp: 48 (I feel like I should use my IAT readings I was getting under cruise since my turbo inlet is in the engine bay, but meh)
Oh, I guess I should include:
Engine details:
Turbo Block untouched (F54 w/dish pistons)
MN47 head untouched
Stock T3 Turbo
Wastegate pressure (6psi)
MS3X running sequential and D585 LS coils (full sequential, not wasted spark)
Bosch Ford Blue 26lb injectors
Factory Manifold
Factory turbo elbow
Edit:
First off, let me apologize. Apparently I wasn't clear that this is a software dyno, based on megasquirt logs using "VirtualDyno" found here:
https://barnhill.bitbucket.io/
If you frequent EFI tuner boards you'll find it used regularly, and like all dynos, it's best used as a run-to-run comparison tool, not a bragging right.
Edit2:
I got my car weighed, and I came in at 2280lbs. Probably light enough to cause as much debate as any dyno graph, but my car is gutted. No door glass, no dash, etc. I can probably get sub 2200 once I go with a fiberglass hood and plexi rear glass. And an AGM battery wouldn't hurt.
So here's the same graph as above, but in 4th gear, along with timing and fueling tweaks. I pulled out of it early due to heavy detonation still present after 4k, which is likely also the source of the power loss seen. And as much as I'm thrilled to see the extra power... it's telling me I have work to do, as my target AFR is 12.5 at all RPM under boost. Back to the VE table...
-
But really, there are countless of people pushing 400+ on factory motors. Many of them indeed put on a 2mm headgasket to lower the compression, and run them like that just fine. Those types of builds I regularly see people street driving 450+whp on 91 octane pump gas (no water/meth, truly just pump fuel). There ARE people running factory compression on pump gas over 400whp. I'd imagine they're probably a bit knock limited in lower RPMs, so your tuning has to be perfect, but that's life with a high tolerance motor.
But my guess is that a completely factory unopened motor running E85 could push 600whp forever as long as the tune was good.
-
Those transmissions have done wheel stands in stock form. It'll be fine.
-
While the K is enticing, it's not cheap to build for RWD application. Going F20/2C would save a good chunk of change, and the only benefit of substance the K has over the F is displacement, which again means you're adding costs to the K argument because you're talking about building a Frankenstein engine with a K20 head with a K24 bottom. The S2000 transmission is just fine, and the stock internals will do 400whp well within any stress margins (I've seen much higher than that on factory internals). But due to the relatively high compression ratio, you won't be running cheap pump gas at those power levels. But that's the same as any motor.
The F motor would likely cost a bit more to build than a SR, but it should make for a vastly superior race motor since it'll make considerably more power per psi of boost. Would be an ideal use case for the new garrett G660 in my opinion. Spools like a T28, but has enough flow to shame any T3/T4 you've ever seen. Would easily keep up with the F motor up to 400whp, and likely be making minimum boost bellow 3k in any gear.
-
Beauty can go have her love fest without me, because I seem sworn to forsake all sense of revel in the goddess's embrace.
-
F54 block, stock turbo bottom end (dish pistons)
MN47 head (high compression penut chamber)
Non-intercooled
Factory T3
D585 LS coils
MS3X
Ford 260cc injectors
DIYautotune in-dizzy Nissan trigger disk
Factory fuel pump
Pallnet rail
Factory FPR
Any other details feel free to ask
Gollum's MS3X Configs, Maps, and even Logs
in MegaSquirt
Posted · Edited by Gollum
Drove about 30 miles today. About 8 miles of freeway and lots of various back roads, all the while auto tuning. While I was about 7-8 miles from home still I heard a new and obvious noise during a higher RPM pull. My immediate concern was oil pressure loss and cam damage. I drove easier on it the rest of the way back and the closer I got to home the more I suspected the fan clutch.
Get home, pull hood... Clutch fan is noticably difficult to spin. Eh, oh well.
The resulting map has some obvious holes, and there's some holes actually MADE by auto tune, so I'm a bit curious about that. We'll see what more long term results say. That said, the under boost region is WAY better and stays very close to target AFR now.
I'll likely end up smoothing based off of this and then seeing if the holes reappear. I'll post logs and the new tune file in a bit.