PDA

View Full Version : Interesting tuning perspective from the Dark forums.



deathshead
07-26-2013, 02:33 PM
Tork seems to be making some great strides even within the current limitations of tuning the MA 1.4T.


http://www.dodge-dart.org/forum/tork-motorsports/2089-worlds-first-195-whp-dodge-dart-1-4-turbo-12.html




"1. The target AFR's for the stock programming are all jacked up, car runs super lean but doesn't build any EGT's (odd). We suspect that this has something to do with the multiair or super low timing levels keeping cylinder pressure low.
2. 250 WHP will be easy, we just need larger injectors. The timing tables are stupid and the torque limiters are playing a part when you start making more power. Not sure what the algorithm's are for the TQ limiters, but we do have access to those tables, so we just need to raise the TQ limits and we no longer have to fight the 99% load issues.
3. 28 psi was our stopping point but we made 198 WHP on 22 psi with it running super rich and stupid low timing levels. Fought the load and TQ limiters the whole time we were tuning.
4. We hooked up a labscope and confirmed the injector duty cycle with the FIC8. We are out of injector! More fuel pressure would be an option, but why put a band-aid on the problem when injectors are available.
5. 400 WHP is ambitious, but we specialize in building cars like this. Depending on turbo size we should still have good power delivery and daily manners from the car. Here is what I have in mind: GT28 or 30 with 048 AR, run 22 to 26 psi and raise the redline to 7400 to 7800 RPM. Peak power at redline with onset power at 3800 to 4000 RPM, peak TQ around 4200 to 4600 RPM. With the Darts current gearing it would give a very strong power band for 4000 to 3500 RPM and gear changes would land you in the fat of the TQ curve with nothing but climbing power after the shift. The car would have better than stock street manners and it would only get exciting when you mashed the gas pedal to the floor.

The multiair might be RPM limited, but the idea behind it is fantastic! I don't know how much adjust-ability we will get with the multiair solenoids but with proper tuning I would be able to pre-spool the turbo and start boost very early in the RPM band offering an even larger usable window of power. If I wanted to make it easy I would get a Motec V5, hardwire everything in and take full control of the multiair but who is going to pay $8K for a tuning solution and sensors while having every light in the dash glowing? I don't think the limits have been confirmed on the multiair RPM capacity but Dodge is pretty good at running conservative RPM limits, so figure 25% can be added to the current limit which gives us 7800 to 8000 RPM ceiling before things start to break. Only time will tell."

dylansi
07-26-2013, 02:41 PM
Sounds great. Been waiting for something to come out. I wish COBB would have worked on something for the 1.4 MA...maybe in time

Thanks for the post

trevc
07-26-2013, 02:50 PM
Not sure our gearbox can handle much more torque - time to fit the six speed?

LittleEvil
07-26-2013, 03:16 PM
these guys are awesome, keep a look out.

deathshead
07-26-2013, 03:25 PM
Not sure our gearbox can handle much more torque - time to fit the six speed?

I think ours might hold more power than the 6sp. I will have to dig up the specs again.

opiateESP
07-26-2013, 03:38 PM
These guys are great to deal with. I have their throttle body installed in mine. Quick to ship and great on the customer service side.

deathshead
07-26-2013, 03:44 PM
Anyone skeptical of some of the claims or?


they do seem like a good crew.
they are another one that claims to have bench flashed and have odb flash on the way.

Ryephile
07-26-2013, 04:07 PM
It demonstrates they don't understand why their previous experience doesn't apply to the new engine. Using phrasing like "all jacked up", and "the timing tables are stupid" is flippant and ignorant. Also this engine, like most boosted engines, operate in a load envelope beyond 100%, so them saying "...fight the 99% load issues..." is nonsensical.

I'll throw this out there: the combustion chamber is very tiny in this engine, especially compared to the 4B11T they're accustomed to working with. New-to-them levels of flame propagation speed and mechanical quench make significant differences in the BSFC and knock strategy philosophy. None of this can be easily CFD'd by an aftermarket tuner, they simply don't have the resources to model the combustion chamber and then build a fuel and timing strategy from there. If the tuner wants to go in there and simply crank up the timing to levels they're accustomed to on a very different engine, they're in for a surprise.

Also, the stock turbo can only flow so much air through the compressor and still be reasonably efficient. It's about 200HP before you're wasting your time and money. No, the public doesn't have easy access to the exact maps for the stock turbo, but the GT1548 is veeerrry similar *hint hint*.

If you want more than 200HP, a bigger turbo is in your future. FWIW, they're claiming 250wHP is "easy". It will be with a big turbo, smart tuning, bigger injectors, FMIC, free-flowing air-box, and exhaust. Hey it's only money. :jaded:

dart1.4t
07-26-2013, 04:28 PM
It demonstrates they don't understand why their previous experience doesn't apply to the new engine. Using phrasing like "all jacked up", and "the timing tables are stupid" is flippant and ignorant. Also this engine, like most boosted engines, operate in a load envelope beyond 100%, so them saying "...fight the 99% load issues..." is nonsensical.

I'll throw this out there: the combustion chamber is very tiny in this engine, especially compared to the 4B11T they're accustomed to working with. New-to-them levels of flame propagation speed and mechanical quench make significant differences in the BSFC and knock strategy philosophy. None of this can be easily CFD'd by an aftermarket tuner, they simply don't have the resources to model the combustion chamber and then build a fuel and timing strategy from there. If the tuner wants to go in there and simply crank up the timing to levels they're accustomed to on a very different engine, they're in for a surprise.

Also, the stock turbo can only flow so much air through the compressor and still be reasonably efficient. It's about 200HP before you're wasting your time and money. No, the public doesn't have easy access to the exact maps for the stock turbo, but the GT1548 is veeerrry similar *hint hint*.

If you want more than 200HP, a bigger turbo is in your future. FWIW, they're claiming 250wHP is "easy". It will be with a big turbo, smart tuning, bigger injectors, FMIC, free-flowing air-box, and exhaust. Hey it's only money. :jaded:

dude i posted the map the gt1446 is in that post you passed off, ther eare 4 pressure maps and one is the gt1446. also my screen name is "dan" over there.... 250 is not "easy" but there are reports that our bsfc is .32-.36 but i wish a fiat engineer could verify that because it sounds too low. i'd like to get a full map on that but it's hard to find. if you assume a .38 because he turbo is going to be very parisitic at these levels you wont get a .36 might not even get the .38 but i'm being liberal (i work in american units, sorry for anyone that only understands metric) and my conversion from kg/hr to lb/min is right if you hit just the right boost at just the right rpm and then let the boost drop sharply you can actually do 250hp but the air temps will be out of control (they did say a bigger intercooler, wonder why? i know why) but it may be possible at the crank and not easy. it would take careful planning and full control over the boost curve or you will over spool the turbo. my conversion on the maps i found suggest the 1446 may be better than a 1548.

i will say as much as i laugh at their understanding of things they are probably the best shot at a legit ecu tune. how good it will be? i wont get into that.

Ryephile
07-26-2013, 04:35 PM
Thanks dart1.4t, I just remembered that.

Here's the stock turbo compressor map. 0.15 kg/s approximates 160-200HP depending on BSFC. The "stars" are the turbo at full load in a lower-boost 120HP application.

Notice that no matter how much you turn up the boost, you can still only get 0.15 kg/s of airflow through the compressor even though it's spinning crazy fast. It's not magic, it's physics.

dart1.4t
07-26-2013, 04:45 PM
Thanks dart1.4t, I just remembered that.

Here's the stock turbo compressor map. 0.15 kg/s approximates 160-200HP depending on BSFC. The "stars" are the turbo at full load in a lower-boost 120HP application.

Notice that no matter how much you turn up the boost, you can still only get 0.15 kg/s of airflow through the compressor even though it's spinning crazy fast. It's not magic, it's physics.

and i would have said that's a 200 hp turbo but i converted bsfc to bsac assuming 12:1 mixture and 250 is a stretch but theoretically possible with that mass flow if the engine is as efficient as one person claimed on some other forum when i googled it. also with those figures that may be a 160hp plot on the map. again depends on bsac and tork got all upidy when i asked what they figured that number to be..

guys these guys build some fast car. i can't take that away but if they aren't savvy on engineering terms and tuning data like this what hope do they have of doing better than fiat on figuring out valve opening and closing angles and stratified injection not to mention the logic in the firmware without a real engine dyno cell and a few months to do extensive testing. a chassis dyno won't cut it. notice they can't figure out why the "lean" engine isn't making high egts? they don't understand the stratified injection and burn charicteristic like ryephile said. all they can do is try to mess with the boost curve and torque limiting features and maybe cato your turbo in the process.

deathshead
07-26-2013, 05:41 PM
Lots of uncharted waters here, until somebody gets into this ECU and starts doing some serious testing.
Until this happens legitimately, people can throw HP numbers around all they want.

Also, I'm not sure I follow the theory of utilizing multiair to "pre-spool" the turbo,
The INTAKE Valves are under ecu control, not the exhaust..

However, it will be interesting to see how well raising redline and playing with the Multiair tuning plays out.

In the end, you can only suck so much air thru that tiny turbo inlet, but again there has been good results with just piggy back boxes, etc.

Only time will tell, We could get full ODB ecu control and end up like Geraldo in Al capones vault. lol

redred
07-26-2013, 05:46 PM
we could get full odb ecu control and end up like geraldo in al capones vault. Lol

lol

shagghie
07-26-2013, 06:17 PM
without a bigger turbo and injectors, it makes me wonder why even go for an ECU tune if we are already able to ding 200 hp with the piggies.
Of course some people will want to mess with the canbus and other OBD-II settings, turn of seat belt warnings, yada yada yada, but right now, my MM piggy is very tractable and by the sounds of it, brings us pretty close to max efficiency range on this turbo already. I'm eager to get the ATM boost gauge to see how much boost I'm actually pushing at this point.

deathshead
07-26-2013, 07:52 PM
I'm confident and hoping for and easy and reliable 200whp on stock injectors and turbo with all supporting mods.

This includes all the other little perks,
*such as turning up the pedal signal, so no more pedal boxes,
other wacky junk that we dont NEED but is fun to play with, Such as
*yanking timing and dumping fuel on decel for more pops-crackles and shooting flames!
*ability to play with Stock vs "sport" mode..

Any other ideas?


Also, my thread title "Interesting tuning perspective from the Dark forums." - LOL DART, although that forum IS dark themed by default, :)

Mr. Man
07-26-2013, 09:13 PM
Hold mah beer, I'm gonna make this engine push 1000whp. I saw this guy on the interwebs do it

ScorpionSkins.com
07-27-2013, 01:53 AM
...
*yanking timing and dumping fuel on decel for more pops-crackles and shooting flames!
...


:clap: Yes, please.

dart1.4t
07-27-2013, 10:34 AM
Lots of uncharted waters here, until somebody gets into this ECU and starts doing some serious testing.
Until this happens legitimately, people can throw HP numbers around all they want.

Also, I'm not sure I follow the theory of utilizing multiair to "pre-spool" the turbo,
The INTAKE Valves are under ecu control, not the exhaust..

However, it will be interesting to see how well raising redline and playing with the Multiair tuning plays out.

In the end, you can only suck so much air thru that tiny turbo inlet, but again there has been good results with just piggy back boxes, etc.

Only time will tell, We could get full ODB ecu control and end up like Geraldo in Al capones vault. lol

i don't think that's what they meant. they were either talking about an external device or causing misfires that dump the fuel into the exhaust. rally and touring cars do this. but my argument was that a big turbo would surge if they kept the onset of boost low. though thta can be avoided if you can command the bypass valve to blow off air while it's boosting at low speed (but you'd need the prespool feature as well) or use a turbo with anti-surge ports in it to move the surge line to the left. but instead they claim what they will actually do with a larger turbo is have a high onset of boost. maybe ok on a 500 or punto but on a dart it would be like driving a 500 pop with 4 fat guys in it in addition to the driver to account for the 800lb weight difference untill you got the engine revving. the dart NEEDS!!! that low onset of boost which means you have to be extremely careful with turbo selection.

lbowroom
07-29-2013, 08:32 PM
without a bigger turbo and injectors, it makes me wonder why even go for an ECU tune if we are already able to ding 200 hp with the piggies.
Of course some people will want to mess with the canbus and other OBD-II settings, turn of seat belt warnings, yada yada yada, but right now, my MM piggy is very tractable and by the sounds of it, brings us pretty close to max efficiency range on this turbo already. I'm eager to get the ATM boost gauge to see how much boost I'm actually pushing at this point.

A custom map will likely give you a new level of tractable that the piggies can't do. At $495 it will give you smoother map, turn off torque limiters, and eliminate the need for a GoPedal. No extra harnessing or boxes to install. That's a lot more performance for less money.

TorkMe
07-31-2013, 06:02 PM
It demonstrates they don't understand why their previous experience doesn't apply to the new engine. Using phrasing like "all jacked up", and "the timing tables are stupid" is flippant and ignorant. Also this engine, like most boosted engines, operate in a load envelope beyond 100%, so them saying "...fight the 99% load issues..." is nonsensical.

I'll throw this out there: the combustion chamber is very tiny in this engine, especially compared to the 4B11T they're accustomed to working with. New-to-them levels of flame propagation speed and mechanical quench make significant differences in the BSFC and knock strategy philosophy. None of this can be easily CFD'd by an aftermarket tuner, they simply don't have the resources to model the combustion chamber and then build a fuel and timing strategy from there. If the tuner wants to go in there and simply crank up the timing to levels they're accustomed to on a very different engine, they're in for a surprise.

Also, the stock turbo can only flow so much air through the compressor and still be reasonably efficient. It's about 200HP before you're wasting your time and money. No, the public doesn't have easy access to the exact maps for the stock turbo, but the GT1548 is veeerrry similar *hint hint*.

If you want more than 200HP, a bigger turbo is in your future. FWIW, they're claiming 250wHP is "easy". It will be with a big turbo, smart tuning, bigger injectors, FMIC, free-flowing air-box, and exhaust. Hey it's only money. :jaded:

The timing tables are stupid in comparison to other turbo applications we have tuned. Better word use would have been conservative and designed for 87 octane, but I do this to have fun so I am pretty easy going.

The 99% load value is a calculated target range inside the ECU. We have yet to identify the algorithm's inside the ECU that set the target load but we are getting close. Right now we can raise the load limits of the Dart ECU with a bench flash and it helps with timing targets and throttle close but more work needs to be done with getting power from the ECU.

Tuning will be a trial and error learning for us and if we pop an engine in the process it only helps us determine what is and what is not safe. We are not "only" accustomed to working with the 4B series of engines. We work and tune on all engine makes and models. We currently hold the World Record for GDI MazdaSpeed 3 at 708 WHP. Our CNC'ed and modeled combustion chamber for that platform is the only reason we were able to make that much power with reliability. It took several revisions to get the combustion chamber model done so we could eliminate knock propagation, but in the end... we set a record that no one has been able to touch.

Correct, the turbo is limited our determination is the limits are set around 240 to 260 WHP at 28 psi. 28 psi is pushing the efficiency of the stock turbo but the multiair combined with the very high port velocity of the smaller runners, we don't feel that getting 250 WHP will be a problem. We are talking hypothetical numbers and only time will tell when we actually start tuning with out ECU limits impeding our progress.

We have already managed 211 WHP with a FIC8 at 24/26 psi with very conservative timing. The FIC will not allow you to add timing only remove it, so we were limited with the FIC and what was possible. The injectors will need to be upgraded at 205 to 210 WHP due to the IDC reaching +90% at those power levels. We are working on a big turbo upgrade as well, but the 500 and Dart have very different under hood room available for an upgrade.

I hope this helps clear up some of the details we have posted over on the Dart forums.

Thanks,

John

TorkMe
07-31-2013, 06:17 PM
I really appreciate the input and knowledge on this site. One of the most important things I have noticed with it comes to tuning cars is you have to "try". We can all sit around and argue math or numbers but its not until you start working with the car, running the car, trying different things with the car that you eventually figure out what does and doesn't work. The assumptions of the turbo being "xxx" or injectors being "xxx" can limit the potential of what is possible in real testing. The interpretation of a vehicle platform is not what it actually does when you put in on a dyno and start trying things. If I would have listened to all the people who said 600 WHP was impossible with the DISI engine in the MazdaSpeed we would never had made it to 700 WHP. When we set that record some of our sponsors asked us "HOW" and "we were told that was impossible"... I guess what people are told and what people actually do can be different.

We are making head way with the Dart 1.4 turbo and normally when I set a goal to achieve... I achieve it.

TorkMe
07-31-2013, 06:25 PM
and i would have said that's a 200 hp turbo but i converted bsfc to bsac assuming 12:1 mixture and 250 is a stretch but theoretically possible with that mass flow if the engine is as efficient as one person claimed on some other forum when i googled it. also with those figures that may be a 160hp plot on the map. again depends on bsac and tork got all upidy when i asked what they figured that number to be..

guys these guys build some fast car. i can't take that away but if they aren't savvy on engineering terms and tuning data like this what hope do they have of doing better than fiat on figuring out valve opening and closing angles and stratified injection not to mention the logic in the firmware without a real engine dyno cell and a few months to do extensive testing. a chassis dyno won't cut it. notice they can't figure out why the "lean" engine isn't making high egts? they don't understand the stratified injection and burn charicteristic like ryephile said. all they can do is try to mess with the boost curve and torque limiting features and maybe cato your turbo in the process.

I apologize for getting "upidy" on the Dart forums but I prefer to do vs talk about it. I do understand stratified injection and the flame front of the engine, we just need to unlock the ECU so we can remove the limiters to move forward with making more power. The current programming in the ECU is really hurting power production. We will be messing with much more than the boost curve, timing and torque limits. The Dart ECU has several tables we have never seen on other platforms that I can only assume have to do with the multiair. Only real world testing will show the lmits of the engine.

dart1.4t
07-31-2013, 07:10 PM
I apologize for getting "upidy" on the Dart forums but I prefer to do vs talk about it. I do understand stratified injection and the flame front of the engine, we just need to unlock the ECU so we can remove the limiters to move forward with making more power. The current programming in the ECU is really hurting power production. We will be messing with much more than the boost curve, timing and torque limits. The Dart ECU has several tables we have never seen on other platforms that I can only assume have to do with the multiair. Only real world testing will show the lmits of the engine.

i got booted from your vendor section over there and it's probably a good thing. there too many people talking blindly in defense of you guys for me to ignore, i have a personality disorder, sue me! :P. but i'm done fighting. here is what i will say.

the ecu work you guys are doing is great! the average nerd with some html and java experience couldn't do any of that. it's rather impressive to see people that can still take these devices and do things like that with them. i have a neighbor that was an engineer and for fun he extracted the firmware from a buick ecu and wrote a reverse asembler for it so he had the programming in assembly code!!! that's fascinating to me! this was back in the 80's when european cars mostly had L-jetronic systems which were analog as far as i understand so computers in cars were a big deal and he told a gm engineer friend who get a little bent out of shape about someone reverse engineering company secrets...

what i will also say is i used to build racing engines semi-professionally with a friend. and when you have a set of rules that govern the parts that are responsible for air flow the first thing you do is find the choke points. that can be a turbo, a small cross section area of a port, whatever. for ports there are formulas based on velocity that have been tuned and proven over decades of people building extreme engines, you can tell the highest rpm an engine should be tuned for hp peak by this and this knowledge is how people get 580hp out of a more or less stock chevy 350, you can also predict horsepower to a lesser extent with the port flow data. with a turbo you have a mass flow reading which is much more valuable than volumetric flow at a given pressure drop. on the pressure map and you can see where the choke line is, that doesn't tell rpm directly but it will tell how much hp you can make with it, the rpm can be reverse calculated if you have an idea of intake temps and a guess for psi loss in the system but it is somewhat flexible you can chose to use more or less rpm but that will mean less or more boost to compensate but if you go over the choke line on a turbo you lose any control over it's rpm and bad things can potentially happen.. as long as you can get a .38-.39 bsfc at 12:1 your 250hp goal is possible, and maybe some more, if you are leaner the bsfc may get better but the bsac will get worse and you will have some trouble because that is actaully what's dictating the limits since you are using the turbo as your limiting factor. i don't know how much the tiny turbine exducer and inefficiency will keep you from making that bsfc but as mean pressure goes up in general the bsfc also goes down (lower is better) so the boost may cancel the parasitic losses in efficienct to an extent. still .38 is a very!! good number, it is pretty tricky to do better than that. engineers have been trying for decades and many still consider old aviation engines that could do .35-.36 through the use of turbos and turbine helpers that turn the crank to be the best ever. did fiat match that? i wish i could verify that beyond some guy on some forum somewhere that didn't site his numbers.

choke lines on turbo maps dictate the full potential flow. the map for our turbo i found doesn't have smooth lines, there aren't enough data points so it's hard to see but i've never seen a map where the top rpm line didn't do a dive bomb as it meets the choke line. at this point no matter how fast the turbo spins it doesn't want to move more air. i can site the garrett site, and just about every reputable book on turbos that says at this point the rpm lines would all converge onto the this line if you spin it faster. could our turbo have an unusual efficiency curve? maybe but i doubt it.

bsfc is well studied and remarkably consistent, the range for an unrestricted well adjusted engine is normally very small, different kinds of engines may be in a different range but even then things are pretty close. knowing where the bsfc should/could be will tell you if something is wrong with a tune. if a bsfc number is below .38 that is really note worthy. bsac is a really good tool for double checking fuel mixture, or checking for lost air against the fuel mixture, it can indicate valve float problems and help you figure if you are reaching the choke line. these are numbers that engine builders who operate their own engine dynos know. chassis dynos are very useful to figure out how fast the car will go, but they can't compare to an engine dyno for isolating variables and collecting data. if you invest in one it would make you a better tuner.

this was never about "doing" vs "figureing" or whatever you'd like to say i was doing, because if you "do" and study what you "did" you find it is an accomplishment to meet what i "figured." so to use the word "easy" to describe your goal bothered be because it would be an accomplishment. without checking with the numbers it's more of a intuitive guess. (i actually guessed the same number a while back, it's on the dart forum somewhere, then i started to doubt it)

the owner/moderator of this site is a friend of mine and i wouldn't want things to get ugly here. i'd leave before i beat my point to death here, and i didn't want to really do that over there either but i guess people didn't like my tone and i don't take poeple saying i'm wrong and not why very well.

edit: BTW i think your 400hp goal for a big turbo is actually conservative. i don't know when the rods are all gonna fold in half or the block split but 500-600 has been done on similarly sized engines well before any of us were born... (formula 1 is cool) i was looking at some maps and you can't really get the surge line as far to the left as the stock turbo but once you go with a gt25 you can go well into the gt30 series before the surge line gets worse, some of the gt30 turbos have ports that reduce surge. if you only want 400 some of the gt30 series may be in the efficiency island while a gt25 might be near the choke. may as well go big on that even if you don't want to make crazy numbers because it may keep the intake temps down. the biggest thing is finding out if we can get the engine to rev without valve control issues. (i still wouldn't drive it though, but i have a crazy idea i always wanted to try to make it so you could get low speed boost without surging the turbo)

TorkMe
07-31-2013, 10:00 PM
i got booted from your vendor section over there and it's probably a good thing. there too many people talking blindly in defense of you guys for me to ignore, i have a personality disorder, sue me! :P. but i'm done fighting. here is what i will say.

the ecu work you guys are doing is great! the average nerd with some html and java experience couldn't do any of that. it's rather impressive to see people that can still take these devices and do things like that with them. i have a neighbor that was an engineer and for fun he extracted the firmware from a buick ecu and wrote a reverse asembler for it so he had the programming in assembly code!!! that's fascinating to me! this was back in the 80's when european cars mostly had L-jetronic systems which were analog as far as i understand so computers in cars were a big deal and he told a gm engineer friend who get a little bent out of shape about someone reverse engineering company secrets...

what i will also say is i used to build racing engines semi-professionally with a friend. and when you have a set of rules that govern the parts that are responsible for air flow the first thing you do is find the choke points. that can be a turbo, a small cross section area of a port, whatever. for ports there are formulas based on velocity that have been tuned and proven over decades of people building extreme engines, you can tell the highest rpm an engine should be tuned for hp peak by this and this knowledge is how people get 580hp out of a more or less stock chevy 350, you can also predict horsepower to a lesser extent with the port flow data. with a turbo you have a mass flow reading which is much more valuable than volumetric flow at a given pressure drop. on the pressure map and you can see where the choke line is, that doesn't tell rpm directly but it will tell how much hp you can make with it, the rpm can be reverse calculated if you have an idea of intake temps and a guess for psi loss in the system but it is somewhat flexible you can chose to use more or less rpm but that will mean less or more boost to compensate but if you go over the choke line on a turbo you lose any control over it's rpm and bad things can potentially happen.. as long as you can get a .38-.39 bsfc at 12:1 your 250hp goal is possible, and maybe some more, if you are leaner the bsfc may get better but the bsac will get worse and you will have some trouble because that is actaully what's dictating the limits since you are using the turbo as your limiting factor. i don't know how much the tiny turbine exducer and inefficiency will keep you from making that bsfc but as mean pressure goes up in general the bsfc also goes down (lower is better) so the boost may cancel the parasitic losses in efficienct to an extent. still .38 is a very!! good number, it is pretty tricky to do better than that. engineers have been trying for decades and many still consider old aviation engines that could do .35-.36 through the use of turbos and turbine helpers that turn the crank to be the best ever. did fiat match that? i wish i could verify that beyond some guy on some forum somewhere that didn't site his numbers.

choke lines on turbo maps dictate the full potential flow. the map for our turbo i found doesn't have smooth lines, there aren't enough data points so it's hard to see but i've never seen a map where the top rpm line didn't do a dive bomb as it meets the choke line. at this point no matter how fast the turbo spins it doesn't want to move more air. i can site the garrett site, and just about every reputable book on turbos that says at this point the rpm lines would all converge onto the this line if you spin it faster. could our turbo have an unusual efficiency curve? maybe but i doubt it.

bsfc is well studied and remarkably consistent, the range for an unrestricted well adjusted engine is normally very small, different kinds of engines may be in a different range but even then things are pretty close. knowing where the bsfc should/could be will tell you if something is wrong with a tune. if a bsfc number is below .38 that is really note worthy. bsac is a really good tool for double checking fuel mixture, or checking for lost air against the fuel mixture, it can indicate valve float problems and help you figure if you are reaching the choke line. these are numbers that engine builders who operate their own engine dynos know. chassis dynos are very useful to figure out how fast the car will go, but they can't compare to an engine dyno for isolating variables and collecting data. if you invest in one it would make you a better tuner.

this was never about "doing" vs "figureing" or whatever you'd like to say i was doing, because if you "do" and study what you "did" you find it is an accomplishment to meet what i "figured." so to use the word "easy" to describe your goal bothered be because it would be an accomplishment. without checking with the numbers it's more of a intuitive guess. (i actually guessed the same number a while back, it's on the dart forum somewhere, then i started to doubt it)

the owner/moderator of this site is a friend of mine and i wouldn't want things to get ugly here. i'd leave before i beat my point to death here, and i didn't want to really do that over there either but i guess people didn't like my tone and i take take poeple saying i'm wrong and not why it is so very well.

You are correct, but like I stated in my previous comments... we have been able to accomplish things that no other company in the world has been able to do and what others stated was impossible. You are however so painfully correct that a turbo does have a choke point, what it says on paper has never equaled what happens in the real world (well most of the time). I remember when the compressor map was release for the Dodge SRT4 Neon, max it would ever make is 280 WHP with a 18% loss in drive-train. We have managed 333 WHP and 444 WTQ from that same turbo on that same car.

We made 211 WHP with the Dodge Dart 1.4t, this was with no real tuning solution and running out of injector. If we had more injector, control over the timing (direct control) and a way to tune the Multiair solenoids, I feel that 250 WHP would be a safe and relative easy number to hit. Now, easy being 3 to 4 days on the dyno sorting through the ECU values and finding what does and what doesn't make power.

You can "figure" that your numbers are close to what we have made so far, but remember that we were tune limited with no knock ever showing up even when we ran 30 + psi of boost. We are all entitled to our opinions or free to post our data... I prefer to post my results vs taking the time to show people what is and is not possible on paper.

dart1.4t
07-31-2013, 10:14 PM
You are correct, but like I stated in my previous comments... we have been able to accomplish things that no other company in the world has been able to do and what others stated was impossible. You are however so painfully correct that a turbo does have a choke point, what it says on paper has never equaled what happens in the real world (well most of the time). I remember when the compressor map was release for the Dodge SRT4 Neon, max it would ever make is 280 WHP with a 18% loss in drive-train. We have managed 333 WHP and 444 WTQ from that same turbo on that same car.

We made 211 WHP with the Dodge Dart 1.4t, this was with no real tuning solution and running out of injector. If we had more injector, control over the timing (direct control) and a way to tune the Multiair solenoids, I feel that 250 WHP would be a safe and relative easy number to hit. Now, easy being 3 to 4 days on the dyno sorting through the ECU values and finding what does and what doesn't make power.

You can "figure" that your numbers are close to what we have made so far, but remember that we were tune limited with no knock ever showing up even when we ran 30 + psi of boost. We are all entitled to our opinions or free to post our data... I prefer to post my results vs taking the time to show people what is and is not possible on paper.

can you pm me a map for a stock srt4? i'd like to look at that too. we'll see what that number indicates with the same factors i'm using here.

TorkMe
07-31-2013, 10:42 PM
can you pm me a map for a stock srt4? i'd like to look at that too. we'll see what that number indicates with the same factors i'm using here.

I wish I still had it, LOL. I am sure you can find it on the forums or one of the turbo websites that published upgrades for the stock turbo.

dart1.4t
07-31-2013, 10:53 PM
I wish I still had it, LOL. I am sure you can find it on the forums or one of the turbo websites that published upgrades for the stock turbo.

i'll get it tomorrow. i keep gettign aftermarket upgrades. i'm really not trying to tear down what you are doing, you might even find more power in that srt tune... who knows....

TorkMe
08-01-2013, 02:09 PM
i'll get it tomorrow. i keep gettign aftermarket upgrades. i'm really not trying to tear down what you are doing, you might even find more power in that srt tune... who knows....

There is very little left in the SRT4 turbo, we have custom tuned that car for 7 years now and have threw everything at it. I am still trying to make 340 WHP with the stock turbo on the MazdaSpeed 3. Again... that was another "impossible" goal to achieve from what all the experts said. We have made 333.1 WHP with it so far and still have a few upgrades to add to the car. 340 WHP would be a feat to achieve with the Mazda stock turbo!

dart1.4t
08-01-2013, 04:55 PM
There is very little left in the SRT4 turbo, we have custom tuned that car for 7 years now and have threw everything at it. I am still trying to make 340 WHP with the stock turbo on the MazdaSpeed 3. Again... that was another "impossible" goal to achieve from what all the experts said. We have made 333.1 WHP with it so far and still have a few upgrades to add to the car. 340 WHP would be a feat to achieve with the Mazda stock turbo!

this is the closest to i could find to the srt4 part number...

http://www.stealth316.com/images/td04h-16t-raw.gif

i figure that converts to 32lb/min. using the same optimistic efficiency i used for the dart it would be 421hp..just to let you know how liberal i'm being with the efficiencies. the problem isn't the flow numbers. the problem is the people that use them are stuck in the 1930's and still think .5lb/hp-hr is a good number. so you can generally add 25% over what other people claim is "possible." but i'm not other people. so if you are losing 18% the crank hp is 406 which if i didn't mess up puts you at .395 bsfc (assuming 12:1) so yeah i'd say the math kinda works.peoples ability to apply it? well i wont get into that...

deathshead
08-01-2013, 04:58 PM
Stock turbo on the SRT-4 runs out of its efficiency range @ around 300hp.
Some have squeezed a bit more but the turbo starts to turn into a heatgun.
lol So Torks 333hp numbers are absolutely doable,

most owners get 300hp out of them I have seen on srtforums.com

sfhpawel
08-01-2013, 05:01 PM
i don't think that's what they meant. they were either talking about an external device or causing misfires that dump the fuel into the exhaust. rally and touring cars do this. but my argument was that a big turbo would surge if they kept the onset of boost low. though thta can be avoided if you can command the bypass valve to blow off air while it's boosting at low speed (but you'd need the prespool feature as well) or use a turbo with anti-surge ports in it to move the surge line to the left. but instead they claim what they will actually do with a larger turbo is have a high onset of boost. maybe ok on a 500 or punto but on a dart it would be like driving a 500 pop with 4 fat guys in it in addition to the driver to account for the 800lb weight difference untill you got the engine revving. the dart NEEDS!!! that low onset of boost which means you have to be extremely careful with turbo selection.

the device you speak of is called anti-lag, which is used for rally cars and keeps the turbo spooled up :)

not recomended for noobs , for one can end up having to wear an arc reactor like iron man :p




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oiaOX9iM_UA


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhbuQM-bRuU

deathshead
08-01-2013, 05:05 PM
the device you speak of is called anti-lag, which is used for rally cars and keeps the turbo spooled up :)

not recomended for noobs , for one can end up having to wear an arc reactor like iron man :p




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oiaOX9iM_UA


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhbuQM-bRuU


Or Just buy one of these for $199 !
No lifting the gas when you shift for huge bangs and fireballs,
2 step set to any rpm at stop lights, :)
even launch - boost control options.
http://www.npcompleteperformance.com/wotbox

TorkMe
08-01-2013, 05:18 PM
this is the closest to i could find to the srt4 part number...

http://www.stealth316.com/images/td04h-16t-raw.gif

i figure that converts to 32lb/min. using the same optimistic efficiency i used for the dart it would be 421hp..just to let you know how liberal i'm being with the efficiencies. the problem isn't the flow numbers. the problem is the people that use them are stuck in the 1930's and still think .5lb/hp-hr is a good number. so you can generally add 25% over what other people claim is "possible." but i'm not other people. so if you are losing 18% the crank hp is 406 which if i didn't mess up puts you at .395 bsfc (assuming 12:1) so yeah i'd say the math kinda works.peoples ability to apply it? well i wont get into that...

Wow, the turbo in the SRT4 is no where capable of that. Also, the turbo you found is more like the Stage 3 upgrade that was offered by Mopar, not the stock turbo. I think the stock turbo compressor runs out at around 26lb/min.

There is no way you could make that much power with the stock turbo on a SRT4. We have ran 50 psi spikes on that turbo with the WGA flapper wired shut and no matter where we started the pull, we were never able to get more than 338 WHP. We did however see a torque spike of 488 ft lbs of TQ, LOL.

If the efficiency you are using for the Dart is the same as you are using for the SRT4, then the math would suggest that the Dart turbo is only good for 180 WHP (calculating BSFC and drivetrain loss). We have already made 211 WHP and 242 WTQ with that turbo. So it might be safe to say that the multiair in the Dart is playing a part with the efficiency of the engine vs the 20 year old design of the SRT4 engine. Everything has to be taken into account, just saying that every engine uses this bsfc and has this "basic" efficiency of x is not a fair representation of what is possible. Compressor maps are a great start for showing what is "possible", but making blanket statements that say "its improbable" or "impossible" because of a piece of paper is not real world testing. This is why I constantly refer back to doing it vs talking about it. I couldn't tell you the number of times I have seen people say "impossible" to turnaround and make the so called "impossible" happen.

There are good principals and justification in doing the homework first, then attempting to do the impossible. We would never had said "300 WHP will be a snap" with the small turbo on the 1.4 turbo, because we did get a good look at the compressor wheel and measured it. We were able to make 211 WHP with that turbo at 26 psi with a horrible tuning solution. With proper tuning and additional fuel, I still believe that making 250 WHP will be possible. Will it be easy... well only time will tell.

TorkMe
08-01-2013, 05:21 PM
Or Just buy one of these for $199 !
No lifting the gas when you shift for huge bangs and fireballs,
2 step set to any rpm at stop lights, :)
even launch - boost control options.
http://www.npcompleteperformance.com/wotbox


Really not the same thing, but it gives the 2 step "boom".

TorkMe
08-01-2013, 05:23 PM
Stock turbo on the SRT-4 runs out of its efficiency range @ around 300hp.
Some have squeezed a bit more but the turbo starts to turn into a heatgun.
lol So Torks 333hp numbers are absolutely doable,

most owners get 300hp out of them I have seen on srtforums.com

Just tuned one two days ago, 295 WHP and 357 WTQ on pump gas with a car that has mostly ebay bolt on's and upgraded injectors.

dart1.4t
08-01-2013, 05:45 PM
Wow, the turbo in the SRT4 is no where capable of that. Also, the turbo you found is more like the Stage 3 upgrade that was offered by Mopar, not the stock turbo. I think the stock turbo compressor runs out at around 26lb/min.

There is no way you could make that much power with the stock turbo on a SRT4. We have ran 50 psi spikes on that turbo with the WGA flapper wired shut and no matter where we started the pull, we were never able to get more than 338 WHP. We did however see a torque spike of 488 ft lbs of TQ, LOL.

If the efficiency you are using for the Dart is the same as you are using for the SRT4, then the math would suggest that the Dart turbo is only good for 180 WHP (calculating BSFC and drivetrain loss). We have already made 211 WHP and 242 WTQ with that turbo. So it might be safe to say that the multiair in the Dart is playing a part with the efficiency of the engine vs the 20 year old design of the SRT4 engine. Everything has to be taken into account, just saying that every engine uses this bsfc and has this "basic" efficiency of x is not a fair representation of what is possible. Compressor maps are a great start for showing what is "possible", but making blanket statements that say "its improbable" or "impossible" because of a piece of paper is not real world testing. This is why I constantly refer back to doing it vs talking about it. I couldn't tell you the number of times I have seen people say "impossible" to turnaround and make the so called "impossible" happen.

There are good principals and justification in doing the homework first, then attempting to do the impossible. We would never had said "300 WHP will be a snap" with the small turbo on the 1.4 turbo, because we did get a good look at the compressor wheel and measured it. We were able to make 211 WHP with that turbo at 26 psi with a horrible tuning solution. With proper tuning and additional fuel, I still believe that making 250 WHP will be possible. Will it be easy... well only time will tell.

i don't know how much you think the dart is losing to power train but i don't know where you got 180hp. if you assume the same 18% from 250 it's 205. from the actual 263 number if figured it's 216whp, maybe a little more because i ididn't acutally count pixels on the map or anything. if you think you will get 250whp i wish you luck but i'm not so optimistic.

if you think the mass flow is more than the choke line suggests and it sometimes just doesn't work out that way, well i can't prove you're not getting more any more than you can prove you are. unless of coarse you hook up a calibrated flow meter to the intake. (like you'd have on an engine dyno :P)

good luck!

TorkMe
08-01-2013, 07:23 PM
i don't know how much you think the dart is losing to power train but i don't know where you got 180hp. if you assume the same 18% from 250 it's 205. from the actual 263 number if figured it's 216whp, maybe a little more because i ididn't acutally count pixels on the map or anything. if you think you will get 250whp i wish you luck but i'm not so optimistic.

if you think the mass flow is more than the choke line suggests and it sometimes just doesn't work out that way, well i can't prove you're not getting more any more than you can prove you are. unless of coarse you hook up a calibrated flow meter to the intake. (like you'd have on an engine dyno :P)

good luck!

I was using your numbers for calculation off the Dart forums.

That is the great thing about what I do, we get to try and make those numbers. We get to run it on the dyno, get to see what works and what doesn't. I get to load a tune with 2 degrees additional timing (when we have timing control) and see what it does. Like I stated previous, we have already made 211 WHP with our shop Dart on a very limited tuning system. With 2 degrees of limited timing adjustment we were able to pull that remaining 15 WHP from the car. We have a total of 8 peak degrees of timing advance falling to 4 or 5 degrees near red line. If we had lets say... 14 degrees total advance and had it fall to 10 degrees at red line, I could assume we would see peak pressure's climb and with that so would the HP and TQ. We monitor knock very close on all our cars/tunes and even with 30 + psi being pushed through the Dart 1.4T we never saw any knock. There is room for timing adjustment and that timing adjustment will add power.

deathshead
08-01-2013, 08:16 PM
Really not the same thing, but it gives the 2 step "boom".

The differences are an antilag system can and will destroy your turbine wheel, exhaust, etc and are very pricey.

The wot box, people have been running on pretty much all platforms out there on daily driven
Cars with no real issues.

TorkMe
08-01-2013, 08:59 PM
The differences are an antilag system can and will destroy your turbine wheel, exhaust, etc and are very pricey.

The wot box, people have been running on pretty much all platforms out there on daily driven
Cars with no real issues.

I know what an antilag system is, LOL. Before I had my own shop I built Rally Cars with a friend of mine. Every car we built had anti-lag and launch control built into the tuning software. End of each day we had to swap out turbos due to the damage it caused to them, anti-lag systems are brutal on the turbine wheels.

dart1.4t
08-02-2013, 01:08 AM
I was using your numbers for calculation off the Dart forums.

That is the great thing about what I do, we get to try and make those numbers. We get to run it on the dyno, get to see what works and what doesn't. I get to load a tune with 2 degrees additional timing (when we have timing control) and see what it does. Like I stated previous, we have already made 211 WHP with our shop Dart on a very limited tuning system. With 2 degrees of limited timing adjustment we were able to pull that remaining 15 WHP from the car. We have a total of 8 peak degrees of timing advance falling to 4 or 5 degrees near red line. If we had lets say... 14 degrees total advance and had it fall to 10 degrees at red line, I could assume we would see peak pressure's climb and with that so would the HP and TQ. We monitor knock very close on all our cars/tunes and even with 30 + psi being pushed through the Dart 1.4T we never saw any knock. There is room for timing adjustment and that timing adjustment will add power.

why not do the timing one degree at a time? my first experience with a dyno was an engine we built for a customer and we took it down to PRP http://www.prpracingproducts.com/ had some good conversations with the owner too. the owners son was the dyno operator and once we got the rings to set we made a run. upper 700hp range. but there were problems with the carb. luckily the customer had 2 carbs so we swapped them, re-jetted it and made another pull. 801hp, the operator said the numbers look pretty good, read the spark plugs and dialed in 1 more degree of timing because he knew it was that close. 1 pull later and it made 810hp! the operator insisted it was done, i said how much could it hurt to go 1 more degree? he agreed and next pull the power was right back down to 801. sure that's barely over 1% but every hp counts. no signs of knock or anything but sometimes when the engine burns fast or with certain fuels the advance it till it knocks thing doesn't actually work. that was a 540 chevy, race gas, no power adders what so ever. the dyno operator knew exactly what was needed. he had a certain intuition for it and a lot of time and training from his dad and maybe warren johnson who is a friend of the owner. we latter rebuilt that engine as a 555 (customer thought he knew better than the dyno, things broke, you know) with a similar cam and a better valve job it made 890hp if i remember right. but that's pretty easy with an engine that big. big blocks aren't even fair.

FredS
08-02-2013, 09:57 AM
You guys are like a couple of peacocks strutting around!
Why not switch to emailing each other?

TorkMe
08-02-2013, 02:09 PM
why not do the timing one degree at a time? my first experience with a dyno was an engine we built for a customer and we took it down to PRP http://www.prpracingproducts.com/ had some good conversations with the owner too. the owners son was the dyno operator and once we got the rings to set we made a run. upper 700hp range. but there were problems with the carb. luckily the customer had 2 carbs so we swapped them, re-jetted it and made another pull. 801hp, the operator said the numbers look pretty good, read the spark plugs and dialed in 1 more degree of timing because he knew it was that close. 1 pull later and it made 810hp! the operator insisted it was done, i said how much could it hurt to go 1 more degree? he agreed and next pull the power was right back down to 801. sure that's barely over 1% but every hp counts. no signs of knock or anything but sometimes when the engine burns fast or with certain fuels the advance it till it knocks thing doesn't actually work. that was a 540 chevy, race gas, no power adders what so ever. the dyno operator knew exactly what was needed. he had a certain intuition for it and a lot of time and training from his dad and maybe warren johnson who is a friend of the owner. we latter rebuilt that engine as a 555 (customer thought he knew better than the dyno, things broke, you know) with a similar cam and a better valve job it made 890hp if i remember right. but that's pretty easy with an engine that big. big blocks aren't even fair.

We could do 1 degree increments, hell I could do .5 degree increments but from our history of tuning we have seen many OEM tunes that require 10 to 15 degrees of additional advance to get peak gains. Normally we will make a 4 degree change on the initial tune to see if it makes any difference. If we see huge gains, we make another 4 degree change and check again. If you make 1 degree changes with every tune change then you are wasting time and causing excessive wear and tear on the engine, clutch, trans, axles, ect. When we start to see power loss or knock, we start to dial back the timing until we see the knock go away or the power come back.

As you stated... the dyno operator knew what is needed because he knows those engines, knows them because he has dynoed 100's? of them. There is a variable between knock, timing and power made. Some cars will report knock in the PCM and pull timing yet still make better numbers on the dyno. Other engines will never see any knock and you eventually think that the knock sensor is broken because you have never pushed the timing advance this high and stop because its not making any more power. I have seen several cars that pre-detonate (dyno charts shows it) yet the knock sensor never records it. This is why we "do" dyno testing, this is why we push the limits of our set ups on our personal cars so we can find the breaking point, then the safe point. I have no problems with popping an engine to see where that "weak" link is and replacing that engine afterwards. This way we can build a safe tune knowing that xxx WHP and xxx WTQ is the breaking point of the platform we are tuning for.

I understand that you want to know what we do, you want to question why we do what we do. We do it our way because it works for us. It has worked for us for many years and we have had huge success with doing it "this way". Now, we may not be the fastest, may not be the cheapest, but we always pride our work on being the most reliable and user friendly in the market.

TorkMe
08-02-2013, 02:13 PM
You guys are like a couple of peacocks strutting around!
Why not switch to emailing each other?

LOL, that is a great idea.

tech@damnfastdd.com

lbowroom
08-03-2013, 09:51 PM
LOL, that is a great idea.

tech@damnfastdd.com

No, I enjoy reading this thread.

TorkMe
08-05-2013, 01:26 PM
No, I enjoy reading this thread.

LOL, I agree!

Ryephile
08-05-2013, 05:24 PM
We could do 1 degree increments, hell I could do .5 degree increments but from our history of tuning we have seen many OEM tunes that require 10 to 15 degrees of additional advance to get peak gains. Normally we will make a 4 degree change on the initial tune to see if it makes any difference. If we see huge gains, we make another 4 degree change and check again. If you make 1 degree changes with every tune change then you are wasting time and causing excessive wear and tear on the engine, clutch, trans, axles, ect. When we start to see power loss or knock, we start to dial back the timing until we see the knock go away or the power come back.....

This engine has very high flame propagation speed, so your usual strategy will need to be severely attenuated. This isn't one of those typical engines that thrives on huge ignition advance. You'll find that you can only advance a couple of degrees on 91 octane before running into knock. You'll be able to run a couple more degrees with additional chemical quench like 100 octane unleaded, meth, or water injection, but there is a seemingly modest timing limit as you cannot get around the very fast flame propagation.

Don't ask my how I know this because I can't tell you.

shagghie
08-05-2013, 05:53 PM
No, I enjoy reading this thread.
Yeah, don't stop!!

dart1.4t
08-05-2013, 08:46 PM
This engine has very high flame propagation speed, so your usual strategy will need to be severely attenuated. This isn't one of those typical engines that thrives on huge ignition advance. You'll find that you can only advance a couple of degrees on 91 octane before running into knock. You'll be able to run a couple more degrees with additional chemical quench like 100 octane unleaded, meth, or water injection, but there is a seemingly modest timing limit as you cannot get around the very fast flame propagation.

Don't ask my how I know this because I can't tell you.

i don't know what ryephiles background is but even on old tech you can see very big differences in flame propagation. i've seen 2 engines almost identical but with different budget aftermarket heads. one took 32degrees total timing, the other 40, both in the same racing class and with the same fuel both tested on my friends superflow 901 dyno. but the fast flame propagation is part of how you can get those low bsfc figures. less nagative work, less heat in the exhaust... all works to the advantage of your goal being feasable or atleast what has made your current numbers even possible.

Eurowned
08-06-2013, 12:22 AM
Sounds like the budget aftermarket heads had stock and not so stock messed up chamber. The head that took 32 sounds like a untouched stock chamber and the head that took 40 sounds like someone screwed up the chamber made it less efficient. Then since Ryephile pointed out that the Mutli-air motor has a really nice chamber which allows for lower timing advance which keeps cylinder pressure down and in turn keeps detonation pretty well controlled.

lbowroom
08-06-2013, 04:29 PM
This engine has very high flame propagation speed, so your usual strategy will need to be severely attenuated. This isn't one of those typical engines that thrives on huge ignition advance. You'll find that you can only advance a couple of degrees on 91 octane before running into knock. You'll be able to run a couple more degrees with additional chemical quench like 100 octane unleaded, meth, or water injection, but there is a seemingly modest timing limit as you cannot get around the very fast flame propagation.

Don't ask my how I know this because I can't tell you.

Would it be accurate to say you know that Fiat did a better job on the fuel and timing maps than they did with the evap purge system.... ;-)

dart1.4t
08-07-2013, 08:31 AM
Sounds like the budget aftermarket heads had stock and not so stock messed up chamber. The head that took 32 sounds like a untouched stock chamber and the head that took 40 sounds like someone screwed up the chamber made it less efficient. Then since Ryephile pointed out that the Mutli-air motor has a really nice chamber which allows for lower timing advance which keeps cylinder pressure down and in turn keeps detonation pretty well controlled.

depends on what you consider "stock" american engines kept the same architecture for 50 years but they did a lot of experimenting with open vs closed chambers, spark plug locations, flow patterns number of squish pads ect.... but neither combustion chamber was decidedly "stock." anyway i usually get slightly more than 32 degrees from "stock" heads but 40 is a lot.. these were large displacement big blocks running VP C15 gasoline which has a motor octane number of 115 and detonation was not a factor in the timing. when the flame travels fast enough suddenly negative work becomes more of a factor in timing than knock resistance. i can't know if fiat has the timing dialed in or if they left a big safety margin or were required to retard the timing for emissions reasons. i'm not gonna pretend to know what the engine will need. but i think when you say 250 wheel hp you miss the fact that you already had 210 and that's great but 40hp is 19% and that's a significant amount of extra power. if you hit 225whp i'll be surprised but i like the attitude that you don't care what people say you can and can't do. it's hard to get anywhere without that.

dart1.4t
08-07-2013, 08:39 AM
Would it be accurate to say you know that Fiat did a better job on the fuel and timing maps than they did with the evap purge system.... ;-)

i think that remains to be decided or proven. i think all he is saying is the window for timing is small. not that it is optimal but that it won't take a big jump if any at all. but about the free hp mod, it should be worth 2hp to a tune that leaves no headroom in the turbo so that's something to keep in mind while tuning. that and any other potential leak points.

Ryephile
08-07-2013, 11:35 AM
Would it be accurate to say you know that Fiat did a better job on the fuel and timing maps than they did with the evap purge system.... ;-)

Indeed, a much better job. :encouragement:


i think that remains to be decided or proven. i think all he is saying is the window for timing is small. not that it is optimal but that it won't take a big jump if any at all. but about the free hp mod, it should be worth 2hp to a tune that leaves no headroom in the turbo so that's something to keep in mind while tuning. that and any other potential leak points.

In this circumstance it's actually rather corollary. If you're within the timing window, it's inherently close to optimal. As such, the stock timing mapping is very good for 91 octane. The more that a particular tuner learns about various combustion event speeds among various engines, the more they'll realize they can't take a hard-and-fast line about fuel and spark strategies.

*This engine needs to run relatively retarded timing, as the combustion event is short. Over-advancing the timing will result in the bulk of the event happening before TDC, which would be bad LOL
*Since the combustion speed is quick, EGTs are inherently low. This means AFR's don't need to be "pig rich" to obtain OEM-levels of durability [i.e. 24 hour full-power WOT Redline glowing-pink everything]
*From all of that, AFR's can be targeted closer to peak torque at WOT, and tailored to tune EPA emission test cycles
*Boost can be reduced to achieve the BMEP needed for the project torque curve goals.

lbowroom
08-07-2013, 08:06 PM
Indeed, a much better job. :encouragement:



In this circumstance it's actually rather corollary. If you're within the timing window, it's inherently close to optimal. As such, the stock timing mapping is very good for 91 octane. The more that a particular tuner learns about various combustion event speeds among various engines, the more they'll realize they can't take a hard-and-fast line about fuel and spark strategies.

*This engine needs to run relatively retarded timing, as the combustion event is short. Over-advancing the timing will result in the bulk of the event happening before TDC, which would be bad LOL
*Since the combustion speed is quick, EGTs are inherently low. This means AFR's don't need to be "pig rich" to obtain OEM-levels of durability [i.e. 24 hour full-power WOT Redline glowing-pink everything]
*From all of that, AFR's can be targeted closer to peak torque at WOT, and tailored to tune EPA emission test cycles
*Boost can be reduced to achieve the BMEP needed for the project torque curve goals.

You just coincidentally reside in Detroit....?

Chico Valdez
08-08-2013, 02:12 AM
*This engine needs to run relatively retarded timing, as the combustion event is short. Over-advancing the timing will result in the bulk of the event happening before TDC, which would be bad LOL
*Since the combustion speed is quick, EGTs are inherently low. This means AFR's don't need to be "pig rich" to obtain OEM-levels of durability...

Sounds a little like Larry Widmer. Jocko Johnson used to talk about the loss of power due to starting the fire so early, burning so much fuel before the the rod 'levered over' to take advantage of a favorable crank-angle.
Both men discussed chamber design, flame propagation and crank angle as the keys to producing power. Larry believes, as did JJ, that the power is in the fuel, and we harness it inefficiently.
I take it this quick combustion doesn't require 'excess' heat to be carried away by the cooling system, or is it just due to less fuel being used per combustion event?

dart1.4t
08-08-2013, 10:32 AM
Sounds a little like Larry Widmer. Jocko Johnson used to talk about the loss of power due to starting the fire so early, burning so much fuel before the the rod 'levered over' to take advantage of a favorable crank-angle.
Both men discussed chamber design, flame propagation and crank angle as the keys to producing power. Larry believes, as did JJ, that the power is in the fuel, and we harness it inefficiently.
I take it this quick combustion doesn't require 'excess' heat to be carried away by the cooling system, or is it just due to less fuel being used per combustion event?

just about everyone who ever built engine professionally has talked about this to some extent. not just the negative work that is created when the flame tries to reverse the crank rotation, but think about how that effects the pressure and temperature causing knock. think about how much more compression an engine could be built with if it had fast flame travel and later timing because the temperature is not being raised past the flash point by compression, radiation, and conduction from the slow moving flame... if the event takes less time you should be able to increase compression which makes the engine more efficient. the longer the fuel is burning in the chamber the more time the parts have to absorb that heat as well and that's heat that can be moving the pistons. if you can get a fast burn you should need less cooling and you can get extreme power density in an engine.

Ryephile
08-08-2013, 11:01 AM
You just coincidentally reside in Detroit....?

Not a coincidence. I work in the industry but my profession is a small facet of my involvement.

TorkMe
08-13-2013, 01:57 PM
This engine has very high flame propagation speed, so your usual strategy will need to be severely attenuated. This isn't one of those typical engines that thrives on huge ignition advance. You'll find that you can only advance a couple of degrees on 91 octane before running into knock. You'll be able to run a couple more degrees with additional chemical quench like 100 octane unleaded, meth, or water injection, but there is a seemingly modest timing limit as you cannot get around the very fast flame propagation.

Don't ask my how I know this because I can't tell you.

Understood, but why were we able to net 25 WHP gains and 40 WTQ with 3 more psi and a very poor tuning system?

I understand the properties of this engine and I also know how to make power with it, we just need access to the PCM so we can show people what we can really do with the 1.4 turbo.

I respect what you do, I respect your knowledge, but we currently hold the stock WHP record and WTQ for the Dart platform. We didn't get lucky in doing this, it was knowledge, determination and proper application of parts and tuning that made that possible. There are going to be limiting factors with this engine, but if we are not trying different things and just rely on that of what people tell us to do... we would never break into new territories for WHP and WTQ. If flame propagation becomes a problem, we will CNC the combustion chamber and try, then try again.

I was told for 2 years that making 500 WHP with the Mazdaspeed 3 would be impossible, when we made 500 I was told 600 would be impossible, when we made 600 I was told 700 would be impossible, when we made 700 WHP... people quit challenging me and said they wouldn't want a daily driven 700 WHP car, LOL! When I set a goal I don't care what it takes, we will figure out how to make it happen!

TorkMe
08-13-2013, 02:09 PM
Indeed, a much better job. :encouragement:



In this circumstance it's actually rather corollary. If you're within the timing window, it's inherently close to optimal. As such, the stock timing mapping is very good for 91 octane. The more that a particular tuner learns about various combustion event speeds among various engines, the more they'll realize they can't take a hard-and-fast line about fuel and spark strategies.

*This engine needs to run relatively retarded timing, as the combustion event is short. Over-advancing the timing will result in the bulk of the event happening before TDC, which would be bad LOL
*Since the combustion speed is quick, EGTs are inherently low. This means AFR's don't need to be "pig rich" to obtain OEM-levels of durability [i.e. 24 hour full-power WOT Redline glowing-pink everything]
*From all of that, AFR's can be targeted closer to peak torque at WOT, and tailored to tune EPA emission test cycles
*Boost can be reduced to achieve the BMEP needed for the project torque curve goals.

So tune it like a diesel... gotcha :)

I agree on some points but disagree on others. We found that adding fuel down low gave a huge bump in TQ. Giving we were only able to adjust 2 to 3 degrees of timing -/+ I doubt that played a part in the TQ gains (I know it didn't because we left timing alone for the most part until we were done with the fueling). We never, ever saw any signs of knock or registered any knock during our testing even with running 30 + psi on 92 octane. I do agree with you on the combustion speed, the Multiair timing and size of the combustion chambers really surprised us. This is why we are looking into CNC'ing the combustion chambers. A little here and there (hint hint) should go a long way into meeting our goals of a 400 WHP Dodge Dart 1.4 turbo.

TorkMe
08-13-2013, 02:24 PM
just about everyone who ever built engine professionally has talked about this to some extent. not just the negative work that is created when the flame tries to reverse the crank rotation, but think about how that effects the pressure and temperature causing knock. think about how much more compression an engine could be built with if it had fast flame travel and later timing because the temperature is not being raised past the flash point by compression, radiation, and conduction from the slow moving flame... if the event takes less time you should be able to increase compression which makes the engine more efficient. the longer the fuel is burning in the chamber the more time the parts have to absorb that heat as well and that's heat that can be moving the pistons. if you can get a fast burn you should need less cooling and you can get extreme power density in an engine.

There is so much that goes into this it could be debated for days if not months. If you could simply vapor the fuel to burn only the hydrocarbons it would be great also... LOL! There is only so much you can do before the stock configuration no longer works and you have to look outside the box and look for solutions. On paper it all sounds good but when the real world testing starts, well that is when the real work get done. This is how we run, this is how we advance a platform. Will it cost us an engine or two, or three? Maybe, but if I keep pushing I can find the weak link address them and move forward. It might be the old school way of doing things, but that is how I like it.

dart1.4t
08-16-2013, 10:48 AM
There is so much that goes into this it could be debated for days if not months. If you could simply vapor the fuel to burn only the hydrocarbons it would be great also... LOL! There is only so much you can do before the stock configuration no longer works and you have to look outside the box and look for solutions. On paper it all sounds good but when the real world testing starts, well that is when the real work get done. This is how we run, this is how we advance a platform. Will it cost us an engine or two, or three? Maybe, but if I keep pushing I can find the weak link address them and move forward. It might be the old school way of doing things, but that is how I like it.

way off topic but... the vapor thing has been done. claims are it works but if it was so simple why doesn't everyone do it? it's one of those things that pops up, gets a few articles written then dissapears probably because it doesn't work as well as is claimed or at all like pogue 300mpg vapor carburators. one of he issues is how much space a vapor takes up so performance is limited. claims are always that the engineers are just to stupid to accept the truth, blah blah.... look up the Henry "Smokey" Yunick hot vapor cycle engine. it's nothing that any mechanic can't reproduce. he gives some details why it was supposed to work in his autobiography and the parts he leaves out can kinda be extrapolated from rumors on the internet from people that claim to have been around for the development of the engine. so if these things worked then why don't people build them today even as a mad science experiment? but it does have magazine reviews and test drive of a prototype engine in a fiero and rumors of several examples being built and supposedly the guys daughter drove one of these cars in florida for years. who knows???

GileraWarren
08-16-2013, 09:25 PM
Hold mah beer, I'm gonna make this engine push 1000whp. I saw this guy on the interwebs do it

LOL good stuff always happens after that "hold my beer" statement. sorry to clutter up a good thread but I was laughing so loud I couldn't resist

TorkMe
08-30-2013, 06:55 AM
7637

Well, look at what we have here!

91 octane tune running stock boost levels on a bone stock car. Throttle control is a little off (very aggressive) so we have some work ahead of us. Across the board, 20 + WTQ and WHP. Near redline, over 30 WHP and WTQ.

We will be tuning all week long and if the admin are OK with me posting our results, I will try to update this thread as we continue our tuning and start adding bolt-on's to the car.

Thanks,

John

dart1.4t
08-30-2013, 08:31 AM
very nice.

Ryephile
08-30-2013, 10:39 AM
Interesting, great results! If I may, please don't get stupid with the throttle mapping. I use my car daily and don't need obnoxious amateur-hour throttle response. A linear torque request vs. pedal position proportion is ideal.

That boost curve is atrocious, I had no idea the Dart's boost curve was 1) that erratic and 2) that much higher than the Abarth. That would explain the advertised torque bump in the Dart vs. Abarth. Have you fixed the boost leak yet to determine whether the boost curve is erratic because of that, or is it poor damping in the PID?

So, just fueling changed or did you crank up the timing too?

deathshead
08-30-2013, 11:04 AM
7637

Well, look at what we have here!

91 octane tune running stock boost levels on a bone stock car. Throttle control is a little off (very aggressive) so we have some work ahead of us. Across the board, 20 + WTQ and WHP. Near redline, over 30 WHP and WTQ.

We will be tuning all week long and if the admin are OK with me posting our results, I will try to update this thread as we continue our tuning and start adding bolt-on's to the car.

Thanks,

John


http://media.giphy.com/media/Jf4FBs6JZhvKU/200.gif

Awesome !
Im still working on getting a car to your shop for downpipe-midpipe fitment.
We will make this happen!


http://media3.giphy.com/media/rl0FOxdz7CcxO/200.gif

NORCAL SS
08-30-2013, 11:52 AM
finally a shop that puts up dyno numbers!!! road race hopefully will do the same now.

john i emailed you im ready to get your tune as soon as it comes out. is there a option to upload a race gas map?

trevc
08-30-2013, 01:25 PM
OBD port tuneable?

shagghie
08-30-2013, 03:03 PM
http://i3.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/599/654/b74.gif

dart1.4t
08-30-2013, 04:47 PM
Interesting, great results! If I may, please don't get stupid with the throttle mapping. I use my car daily and don't need obnoxious amateur-hour throttle response. A linear torque request vs. pedal position proportion is ideal.

That boost curve is atrocious, I had no idea the Dart's boost curve was 1) that erratic and 2) that much higher than the Abarth. That would explain the advertised torque bump in the Dart vs. Abarth. Have you fixed the boost leak yet to determine whether the boost curve is erratic because of that, or is it poor damping in the PID?

So, just fueling changed or did you crank up the timing too?

yeah the dart has a LOT of boost. and you can feel it. it's not subtle when it comes in so the car "feels" fast despite being kinda slow.

for those that don't know what a "PID" is I assume ryephile is refering to the feedback loop for the boost control. though i'm not sure the car uses a full PID calculation or if it does it might not have the best strategy to utilize it. a pid loop can be predicitve and make corrections at the same time. reading current error, acumulated error and predicting future error. it is how a cnc machine can coordinate multiple axises weighing many hundred of lbs into position stopping on point from sometimes 1000 inches per minute to a presision of .0001" without overshoot because acceleration is predicted and error is measured and used to alter the acceleration curve but inertia is also much easier to predict than turbine responce hooked ot an engine with changing conditions. if fiat could predict the turbo spool rate and tuned the PID there should be no reason for jerky response or resonating in the system because a well tuned pid wouldn't overshoot the ideal settings to make much further corrections knowing that the effects take some time. it's obvious from driving the car that it could use some tuning. whether the values to tune it are in some table that can be altered or not is another story.

redred
08-30-2013, 06:36 PM
Can anyone explain to me why the "tuned" HP & Torque curves fall off so much after 4,250 RPM? I understand that having the power delivery happening at the lower RPM range is a really good thing, but why doesn't it flat line and continue past there like it does for the "stock" curves?

shagghie
08-30-2013, 06:57 PM
Can anyone explain to me why the "tuned" HP & Torque curves fall off so much after 4,250 RPM? I understand that having the power delivery happening at the lower RPM range is a really good thing, but why doesn't it flat line and continue past there like it does for the "stock" curves?

I don't know the 'why' of it, but IIRC, this is exactly what the HG guys were being challenged with too in their first tune attempt. Something about the way the valving works in the multiair, and the challenges there at higher RPMs.

Ryephile
08-30-2013, 09:37 PM
There's two easy reasons; the engine's volumetric efficiency [VE] is falling off at higher RPM, and the turbo compressor is starting to choke. If you want to amuse yourself with turbo choke, take a look at the dyno graphs on goapr.com and you'll see how pushing the turbo to its max results in a HP shelf at the upper RPM region on every VW/Audi engine they tune.

dart1.4t
08-30-2013, 09:38 PM
Can anyone explain to me why the "tuned" HP & Torque curves fall off so much after 4,250 RPM? I understand that having the power delivery happening at the lower RPM range is a really good thing, but why doesn't it flat line and continue past there like it does for the "stock" curves?

edit: for less wordyness

i'm not sure what you mean. the tuned curve doesn't look "that" different from the stock one. but there is more of a shelf. but as far as holing the power up higher, it seems the stock tune pulls boost with rpm probably to not only save the turbo from damage (not likely a problem unless you try some top speed runs where you spend a lot of time at full power and the turbo is choked) but to leave headroom for altitude compensation and also because they met the power goals at such a low speed.

there are other factor with VE and intake/exhaust tuning which are combinations of pendulum effects and organ pipe effects that can give a VE bump down there. fiat seems to have gone for efficiency over driveability so the bumps aren't tuned out like some other cars. different head/intake porting or camshaft could change the VE curve and the multiair "could" prevent any VE loss at low speeds that were a result of a camshaft change if you could control the parameters.

in the case of a full tune with more boost you will get the same effect as the stock tune anyway as the turbo chokes, air density will have to decrease as the engine moves more air but the turbo can't, which either means less boost or more intake heat. but it's not quite at that point right now, it's more designed into the boost curve right now.

Abarth Phreak
08-30-2013, 11:29 PM
The FIAT economy is about to get BOOSTED!!! :applause:

Thanks for keeping to the challenge guys...can't wait for it to come quick enough. (That's what she said...)

TorkMe
08-31-2013, 02:43 AM
Can anyone explain to me why the "tuned" HP & Torque curves fall off so much after 4,250 RPM? I understand that having the power delivery happening at the lower RPM range is a really good thing, but why doesn't it flat line and continue past there like it does for the "stock" curves?


You mean something like this?

7644

The first chart was what we were working on, this is the final dyno chart for a bone stock 91 octane tune. Car has zero mods on it.

TorkMe
08-31-2013, 02:44 AM
edit: for less wordyness

i'm not sure what you mean. the tuned curve doesn't look "that" different from the stock one. but there is more of a shelf. but as far as holing the power up higher, it seems the stock tune pulls boost with rpm probably to not only save the turbo from damage (not likely a problem unless you try some top speed runs where you spend a lot of time at full power and the turbo is choked) but to leave headroom for altitude compensation and also because they met the power goals at such a low speed.

there are other factor with VE and intake/exhaust tuning which are combinations of pendulum effects and organ pipe effects that can give a VE bump down there. fiat seems to have gone for efficiency over driveability so the bumps aren't tuned out like some other cars. different head/intake porting or camshaft could change the VE curve and the multiair "could" prevent any VE loss at low speeds that were a result of a camshaft change if you could control the parameters.

in the case of a full tune with more boost you will get the same effect as the stock tune anyway as the turbo chokes, air density will have to decrease as the engine moves more air but the turbo can't, which either means less boost or more intake heat. but it's not quite at that point right now, it's more designed into the boost curve right now.

See post above this.

TorkMe
08-31-2013, 02:47 AM
There's two easy reasons; the engine's volumetric efficiency [VE] is falling off at higher RPM, and the turbo compressor is starting to choke. If you want to amuse yourself with turbo choke, take a look at the dyno graphs on goapr.com and you'll see how pushing the turbo to its max results in a HP shelf at the upper RPM region on every VW/Audi engine they tune.

Nope, and nope.

The turbo is starting to get a little choked off but there is more left in her. We need some mods on the car in order to get the air in and the air out, the current car we are using for testing has no upgrades on it. When full exhaust, intake and intercooler are installed we expect that the power in the upper RPM band will benefit. The shelfs near redline are normally caused by the soft hit rev limiter on most non performance cars on the market.

dart1.4t
08-31-2013, 02:48 AM
See post above this.

looks better.

TorkMe
08-31-2013, 02:48 AM
We worked the bugs out of the tune from last night and got a very flat power curve with close to 40 WHP gained at redline. So far we are very happy with the results and we know that our Dart 1.4T customers are going to be happy as well.

Thanks,

John

TorkMe
08-31-2013, 02:50 AM
looks better.

Wow, that has to be the shortest post I have seen you make, LOL. Looks better? For it being a bone stock car with 7500 miles on it... I think it looks fantastic!

Safer AFR's, only a a little over factory boost, 91 octane fuel and did I mention that the car was "stock" as in zero upgrade on it?

We are very surprised that we were able to get this much power from a stock car, not only that but this tune is still very conservative. Tomorrow we will be adding several bolt on upgrades tuning the 91 octane all the way out to S2. If all goes well, 200 WHP will be possible on S2 with 91 octane. Then we start over, take the car back to stock and start tuning the 93 octane. Its a lot of work, but will pay off with offering the most complete list of tunes for the customers needs.

dart1.4t
08-31-2013, 02:53 AM
Wow, that has to be the shortest post I have seen you make, LOL. Looks better? For it being a bone stock car with 7500 miles on it... I think it looks fantastic!

the last one looked great. this one looks better. so fantasitc is fair.

dart1.4t
08-31-2013, 03:03 AM
Wow, that has to be the shortest post I have seen you make, LOL. Looks better? For it being a bone stock car with 7500 miles on it... I think it looks fantastic!

Safer AFR's, only a a little over factory boost, 91 octane fuel and did I mention that the car was "stock" as in zero upgrade on it?

We are very surprised that we were able to get this much power from a stock car, not only that but this tune is still very conservative. Tomorrow we will be adding several bolt on upgrades tuning the 91 octane all the way out to S2. If all goes well, 200 WHP will be possible on S2 with 91 octane. Then we start over, take the car back to stock and start tuning the 93 octane. Its a lot of work, but will pay off with offering the most complete list of tunes for the customers needs.

S2?

TorkMe
08-31-2013, 03:11 AM
S2?

Yes, we have a S2 tune planned. This will be a tune designed for full bolt-on cars. Cars that have intercooler, throttle body, down pipe, full exhaust, ect. This tune will max out the stock injectors and should yield 210 to 215 WHP. Then we have a high boost S3 tune that we hope to hit our magic number of 250 WHP with. It will come with new injectors that have been rescalled inside the tune. When we are done with those... we have intentions of building a big turbo kit that comes with a tuned PCM, upgraded in tank fuel pump and even larger injectors. I can only assume that if we are seeing HP numbers increase like this with the stock turbo, just imagine what 16 or 18 psi on a GT2871 would look like!

dart1.4t
08-31-2013, 03:30 AM
Yes, we have a S2 tune planned. This will be a tune designed for full bolt-on cars. Cars that have intercooler, throttle body, down pipe, full exhaust, ect. This tune will max out the stock injectors and should yield 210 to 215 WHP. Then we have a high boost S3 tune that we hope to hit our magic number of 250 WHP with. It will come with new injectors that have been rescalled inside the tune. When we are done with those... we have intentions of building a big turbo kit that comes with a tuned PCM, upgraded in tank fuel pump and even larger injectors. I can only assume that if we are seeing HP numbers increase like this with the stock turbo, just imagine what 16 or 18 psi on a GT2871 would look like!

it's getting too late to think but it sounds like 400whp, or better, but when i go to estimate the rpm my brain is stalling.... meh.. i just hope the surge line doesn't prevent it from making good drivable low end. but it would be fun as hell in an abarth... i'm sure some of these guys would appreciate it... btw i happen to have a pair of turbos very similar is size to those (well they more resemble 3271s because they have a divided exhaust) but the impellers have a bigger exducer diameter. they are garrett turbos for a perkins turbo diesel and i can't locate a map for them but they should be fun to attach to a small block chevy....

Ryephile
09-02-2013, 04:49 PM
Nope, and nope.

The turbo is starting to get a little choked off but there is more left in her. We need some mods on the car in order to get the air in and the air out, the current car we are using for testing has no upgrades on it. ......

Don't tell me "nope" and then prove my point by saying the engine needs to breathe more.

It doesn't look like you're ready for stage 2 yet, you have to finish stage 1. Fix that fuelling and get some control over the boost level. For most of the RPM band you can tune for peak torque with this combustion chamber. I'm not seeing that yet on your graphs.

from the dark forum:

Forgot to mention that we are bringing the boost on a little slower to eliminate any possibility of peak cylinder pressures getting out of control. You will still have the power, but will not have to sacrifice engine longevity for increased output.

Whut? Peak BMEP is peak BMEP, no matter where it is in the RPM band. The only thing that would be out of control would be the tune. I am not impressed by this quote, it's chock full of ignorance.

TorkMe
09-05-2013, 09:41 PM
Don't tell me "nope" and then prove my point by saying the engine needs to breathe more.

It doesn't look like you're ready for stage 2 yet, you have to finish stage 1. Fix that fuelling and get some control over the boost level. For most of the RPM band you can tune for peak torque with this combustion chamber. I'm not seeing that yet on your graphs.

from the dark forum:
[/COLOR]

Whut? Peak BMEP is peak BMEP, no matter where it is in the RPM band. The only thing that would be out of control would be the tune. I am not impressed by this quote, it's chock full of ignorance.

Did you get upset, I am so sorry.

It was a "stock car", no mods so yes it needs to breath more... duh. After we put on all the bolt on parts it breathed so well that we ran out of injector.

Fix that fueling? What is wrong with the fueling, looks like a pretty dead flat air fuel curve to me! Get some control over boost? You mean that the wave from the factory tune is not optimal? I thought that the factory always did it "right"? With the S1 tune with mods we have a much better boost curve but had to turn the boost down a considerable amount due to the injectors being ran over 100%. The stock parts on the stock car really are not going to give any better boost curve, and lets not mention the $3 boost control solenoid that comes on these cars from the factory.

We are not tuning for peak torque because we are not interested in running the edge of the tune all the time. We have given a smoother curve than factory, we have give a even gain across the curve with even greater gains at redline. This tune is light years ahead of what anyone else has been able to offer and this is on a "stock" car.

You are not easy to impress because I might be the one person that doesn't cave when you speak. We have our way of doing things... what have you done? Where is your tune? Where are your results? Not to sound like a dick, but having nothing to show and then turning around and claiming me as ignorant is kind of like calling the kettle black. I am sure you could be a huge benefit to this community if you were not so eager to judge and stoop to name calling right from the start. Your first comments in this thread were condescending, and now you are just being a dick. I have nothing to gain on this forum, I am not involved with the Fiat community. I was simply asked to come over here and share my results and in return I get you crawling up my ass?

With that said, keep your sheep in order and don't bother chasing this one down. I have always been labeled the ignorant black sheep of the group, but I have always posted results that couldn't be matched by any other shop!

MAZ
09-06-2013, 09:02 AM
GT2871
Yes please.

dart1.4t
09-06-2013, 09:05 AM
Did you get upset, I am so sorry.

It was a "stock car", no mods so yes it needs to breath more... duh. After we put on all the bolt on parts it breathed so well that we ran out of injector.

Fix that fueling? What is wrong with the fueling, looks like a pretty dead flat air fuel curve to me! Get some control over boost? You mean that the wave from the factory tune is not optimal? I thought that the factory always did it "right"? With the S1 tune with mods we have a much better boost curve but had to turn the boost down a considerable amount due to the injectors being ran over 100%. The stock parts on the stock car really are not going to give any better boost curve, and lets not mention the $3 boost control solenoid that comes on these cars from the factory.

We are not tuning for peak torque because we are not interested in running the edge of the tune all the time. We have given a smoother curve than factory, we have give a even gain across the curve with even greater gains at redline. This tune is light years ahead of what anyone else has been able to offer and this is on a "stock" car.

You are not easy to impress because I might be the one person that doesn't cave when you speak. We have our way of doing things... what have you done? Where is your tune? Where are your results? Not to sound like a dick, but having nothing to show and then turning around and claiming me as ignorant is kind of like calling the kettle black. I am sure you could be a huge benefit to this community if you were not so eager to judge and stoop to name calling right from the start. Your first comments in this thread were condescending, and now you are just being a dick. I have nothing to gain on this forum, I am not involved with the Fiat community. I was simply asked to come over here and share my results and in return I get you crawling up my ass?

With that said, keep your sheep in order and don't bother chasing this one down. I have always been labeled the ignorant black sheep of the group, but I have always posted results that couldn't be matched by any other shop!

forgive me for pointing this out, but your baselines are ~20hp better than some other shops... i'm not calling foul play, actually i think you have a better style dyno than some others. is this an eddy current, or other brake style dyno? others may use an inertia dyno which make the advertise numbers look more conservative so it's important to look at the deltas rather than the numbers. but that can be part of the whole "doing what others can't do" thing.... just saying. gotta consider everything.

i know i've also been up your ass, i was more testing you guys. sometimes i leave room for an argument to test the understanding of how the testing and numbers really work. i know, slightly manipulative. also the dart forum makes me very short tempered, maybe it's the theme, i don't know, but i kinda feel embarassed over my own reactions to things over there. that's not normal for me.

i still feel the 250hp goal at the wheels is liberal as hell, but if the combustion chambers are as good as it looks like with low egts and all who knows. you may get there. you may need to port the turbine housing but eh, the bsac number you need is "possible" depending on how parasitic the exhaust becomes. as far as the choke line, well that's the choke line "under the testing conditions" which is with a length of tube and a radiused end. it's a pretty good testing condition but that doesn't mean ideal. i don't think there is a lot of room for more flow but there may be a little with some testing of different intake designs. also the mass flow is dependent on the density of the charge before the turbo. i forget the exact testing conditions but maybe i can do some googling because i can't find the book i think it was in. there is a specific diameter and length of the tube as well as temperature and pressure of the air. if you can get some pressure at the turbo inlet or cool air even before the turbo that is how you can get more than the advertised chok flow. a precooled intake charge might seem weird but it could work.

whatever i think about what you guy know or what you should know, i have to congradulate you on being the first american company to tune a multi-air. and you are getting results close to a tunning box without altering boost proving there is a some left. dynocomp claims they have, but they also said once that the abarth has a bosch ecu... [rolleyes] whatever that's about.

NORCAL SS
09-06-2013, 10:09 AM
does the dart use the same turbo as the abarth?

i think the dart comes with more boost from factory right?

trevc
09-06-2013, 10:11 AM
I have to say I was very skeptical at first but this is sounding more and more interesting every time you post. Would love to be able to test the tune on the track!

dart1.4t
09-06-2013, 11:10 AM
does the dart use the same turbo as the abarth?

i think the dart comes with more boost from factory right?

fiat or garrett changed the turbo in 2013. all the turbos are garrett gt1446 models but the newer castings have a .48 a/r ratio on the intake while the older ones have a .46 a/r ratio. this is not an indication of a change in performance necessarily but it could be, it means the area of the outlet of the compressor may be slightly larger, but the inlet is probably more important to the choke line which determines the potential. a/r ratio is more important to the exhaust than the intake. the only pressure map available was found in some obscure paper is of the older gt1446 not the one on the dart and the newer abarths but there should not be much difference. i kinda wonder what the results would be with the gt1444 mentioned in the same paper that has the map. the choke line of the 1444 was very near the 1446 and the turbo had a variable geometry exhaust which should have more flow than the wastegated exhaust on the gt1446. you might make up for any lost flow with better bsac/bsfc numbers becuase the exhaust would be opened up. you might also get a better response from the turbo...

the power difference of the dart to the abarth is because the abarth has a 5-speed that is only rated for 170lb-ft. the guilietta and punto evo have the same torque as the dart and the guillietta has 10 more hp and both have 6-speed gear boxes like the dart. bassically the abarth is de-tuned because they don't want to warranty the trans for more torque. maybe a future abarth will come with a 6-speed, but not yet.

millers500x
09-06-2013, 12:10 PM
Why didn't the Abarth come with a 6 speed? I hate cruising at 80 mph and the tachometer is around 3000 rpm's.

trevc
09-06-2013, 12:41 PM
It would not fit with the additional bracing they needed to pass US crash tests at the level they wanted.
I wish somebody would come up with a conversion to fit the Euro-spec 6 speed.

Why didn't the Abarth come with a 6 speed? I hate cruising at 80 mph and the tachometer is around 3000 rpm's.

lbowroom
09-06-2013, 06:24 PM
Why didn't the Abarth come with a 6 speed? I hate cruising at 80 mph and the tachometer is around 3000 rpm's.

Its only 200 rpm lower at 80 with the 6 speed on the Dart.

jguerdat
09-07-2013, 08:55 AM
Isn't this car supposed to be a performance car? It's certainly not a luxury car. I want to have performance on tap over engine noise. Besides, road/tire and exhaust noise pretty much swamps it.

That said, I'd like a 6-speed for the purpose of shortening the gaps between gears. It's all performance-related...

dart1.4t
09-07-2013, 09:14 AM
Isn't this car supposed to be a performance car? It's certainly not a luxury car. I want to have performance on tap over engine noise. Besides, road/tire and exhaust noise pretty much swamps it.

That said, I'd like a 6-speed for the purpose of shortening the gaps between gears. It's all performance-related...

the 6 speed has a wide spread. sounds weird, but it's probably a completely different strategy from the 5-speed. some transmissions (like the 6speed in the dart seems to be) are wide ratio but get progressively narrower to give a low first gear but as the car gets harder to accelerate at speed they move things closer together to keep it in the power curve. other transmissions have more or less a set of gears for driving that keep you in the power band and feel sporty then 1 highway gear with a lot of overdrive. unless it's a true performance car that is purpose built then it may have an even narrow spread. a 6-speed might only make a difference on a long track where speeds were high enough for the 4-5 shift to make a real difference, and the 6-speed that is specifically in the dart might even feel less sporty but could work because the horsepower is so flat from 4300 to 6500, when you hit the next gear the torque increases just as much as the gear ratio, the changes in acceleration happen within the gear, not on gear changes so a wide spread really works on this particular engine, atleast for drag racing because a narrow spread would not increase the horsepower under the curve, only increase the frequency of shifting. but this thread was more about engine tuning, transmissions are a bit off topic, the only reason they made it into the conversation is someone asked if the dart has a different turbo...

trevc
09-07-2013, 12:34 PM
but this thread was more about engine tuning, transmissions are a bit off topic, the only reason they made it into the conversation is someone asked if the dart has a different turbo...
So what? You own the thread?

dart1.4t
09-07-2013, 04:29 PM
So what? You own the thread?

nope. just saying. i mean i rally didn't mean anything by it. but if i'm ever off topic (i do it all the time) you can be the first to say so...

deathshead
09-09-2013, 09:31 AM
Idk, Transmissions is going a bit off topic I guess and has been gone over a bunch.

The 6=speed WILL fit as it does in the Assetto Corse Cars, but they needed to Massage the Passenger side frame rail with a BFG a little for it to clean.


Tork is getting some criticism here, But these guys are the only ones actually posting REAL Progress on a REAL tune and all the numbers to back it up unlike any other vendors, They have been more Dart oriented but pretty much everything carries over to the Abarth as well, they are also the only vendor who actually "sees the light" and has logic as to a downpipe-midpipe solution that is a true base to make big power and bolt right in without any restrictions.

While the current after market downpipes make a significant different in power, but the Albatross will always be the midpipe.
get a better flowing midpipe in there? well you still have that restrictive flange where the dp and midpipe meets.

Torks downpipe is the only downpipe (im not even going to count the supersprint since the cost is rediculous) that flows.

n00dle
09-09-2013, 01:13 PM
Just wanted to chime in that I've been following this thread and like it's progress. After all, I feel much of this work will eventually translate to offerings for others with the 1.4L Multi-Air Turbo, like the 500L. There's so much potential for Tork and other aftermarket tuning solutions, because the 1.4L Multi-Air Turbo is designated to be used on other platforms.

Ryephile
09-09-2013, 01:23 PM
...
Tork is getting some criticism here, But these guys are the only ones actually posting REAL Progress on a REAL tune and all the numbers to back it up unlike any other vendors, ...

And rightly so. A cocky tuner is a sloppy tuner. When I look at a tune, the torque number ends up being a product of the ingredients, it's hardly the most important thing. From what they've shown, they've improved fueling some places, but gone too far in others. They also haven't shown or even commented on any ignition or EGT information, so they could be compromising longevity and using an over-rich strategy to hide overly aggressive ignition timing. The boost doesn't look any smoother than stock, though from their [needlessly defensive] exclamation it sounds like boost control is a lightly used term with the factory programming [even more so than the Abarth] so there's little room for improvement/stabilization.

The major criticism I have towards Tork is their arrogance towards a platform they admittedly know little about. If they choose to further open their ears and eyes, their product will likely be significantly better.

lbowroom
09-09-2013, 07:59 PM
And rightly so. A cocky tuner is a sloppy tuner. When I look at a tune, the torque number ends up being a product of the ingredients, it's hardly the most important thing. From what they've shown, they've improved fueling some places, but gone too far in others. They also haven't shown or even commented on any ignition or EGT information, so they could be compromising longevity and using an over-rich strategy to hide overly aggressive ignition timing. The boost doesn't look any smoother than stock, though from their [needlessly defensive] exclamation it sounds like boost control is a lightly used term with the factory programming [even more so than the Abarth] so there's little room for improvement/stabilization.

The major criticism I have towards Tork is their arrogance towards a platform they admittedly know little about. If they choose to further open their ears and eyes, their product will likely be significantly better.

Honestly, short of printing the timing and fuel tables or putting them into Excel and attaching them to a post, I don't think you'd be satisfied. What tuner would share that? They did say, as you predicted, that at the factory AFR target, they ran into knock with a timing advances with no power gain. They say that richening up fixed that and provided much more power. Your response is that they are "hiding" aggressive timing.

As far as arrogance goes, you are all over anyone's ass who is slightly less versed on anything you think you have down pat.

However, you didn't know the Dart ran a higher boost than your Abarth. That's pretty basic info for someone who knows everything about this engine. I wonder if you keep you eyes and ears open if you'd learn anything else too.

TorkMe
09-09-2013, 09:50 PM
And rightly so. A cocky tuner is a sloppy tuner. When I look at a tune, the torque number ends up being a product of the ingredients, it's hardly the most important thing. From what they've shown, they've improved fueling some places, but gone too far in others. They also haven't shown or even commented on any ignition or EGT information, so they could be compromising longevity and using an over-rich strategy to hide overly aggressive ignition timing. The boost doesn't look any smoother than stock, though from their [needlessly defensive] exclamation it sounds like boost control is a lightly used term with the factory programming [even more so than the Abarth] so there's little room for improvement/stabilization.

The major criticism I have towards Tork is their arrogance towards a platform they admittedly know little about. If they choose to further open their ears and eyes, their product will likely be significantly better.

So I should comment on ignition and EGT and give away all the details of my tune?

What is over-rich? What is overly aggressive ignition timing? Should the boost look smoother than stock?

You have several comments about our tune yet have nothing to offer in rebuttal. You are guessing... you have no idea what target AFR's should be, you have no idea what target ignition should be, yet you make accusations about my tune being to rich or overly timed? WTF? You made a comment about the boost, then turnaround and retract your comment because I had to inform you about the poor boost control on the car.

If you are going to make comments about the control systems, the tune or anything else... please for the love of god inform yourself before you post again.

Your criticism towards me is un-founded, speculative and full of "****". If I choose? Only an arrogant prick would make a comment like that!

When you have something to offer I might reply to one of your comments. When I see a dyno chart, a tune sheet, anything that shows you can do better, I will applaud you. Until then, you are even more so "arrogant" towards this platform because you have offered "ZERO" to it. You have benefited no one other than your ego making condescending comments and arrogant "my **** doesn't stink" claims. You are just another fan boy internet know it all that has nothing to back up your claims.

I will not enjoy putting you on my ignore list!

frank283
09-12-2013, 07:47 AM
So I should comment on ignition and EGT and give away all the details of my tune?

What is over-rich? What is overly aggressive ignition timing? Should the boost look smoother than stock?

You have several comments about our tune yet have nothing to offer in rebuttal. You are guessing... you have no idea what target AFR's should be, you have no idea what target ignition should be, yet you make accusations about my tune being to rich or overly timed? WTF? You made a comment about the boost, then turnaround and retract your comment because I had to inform you about the poor boost control on the car.

If you are going to make comments about the control systems, the tune or anything else... please for the love of god inform yourself before you post again.

Your criticism towards me is un-founded, speculative and full of "****". If I choose? Only an arrogant prick would make a comment like that!

When you have something to offer I might reply to one of your comments. When I see a dyno chart, a tune sheet, anything that shows you can do better, I will applaud you. Until then, you are even more so "arrogant" towards this platform because you have offered "ZERO" to it. You have benefited no one other than your ego making condescending comments and arrogant "my **** doesn't stink" claims. You are just another fan boy internet know it all that has nothing to back up your claims.

I will not enjoy putting you on my ignore list!



Lol keep up the good work brother some of us are actually looking forward to see what you can do. I think some folks just need a snickers.

007 Abarth
10-02-2013, 09:50 AM
Quick question: will the $33 boost leak booma check valve mod (aka free mod) help address/fix the wildly fluctuating boost issue? In theory it should smoothen that out correct?

lbowroom
10-07-2013, 01:38 PM
Quick question: will the $33 boost leak booma check valve mod (aka free mod) help address/fix the wildly fluctuating boost issue? In theory it should smoothen that out correct?

Blocking off or placing a check valve on the assisted purge line smooths out inconsistent boost at low RPM and low boost levels. The boost fluctuation observed at peak boost is more likely caused by the low quality boost solenoid and won't be cured by a boost leak plug.

TorkMe
10-14-2013, 11:43 AM
Well... we make some great gains and its just about ready!

8138

NORCAL SS
10-14-2013, 03:47 PM
curious what the downpipe and intake add.

TorkMe
10-14-2013, 05:09 PM
curious what the downpipe and intake add.

I will see your 187 WHP and add another 15!

TorkMe
10-14-2013, 05:10 PM
What is funny... if you go to the start of this thread you can see that there are some people that are really skeptical about this. Sure it took some time, but look what patience will bring you!

lbowroom
10-18-2013, 02:28 PM
How different is the code and the tuning from the Dart?

TorkMe
10-23-2013, 03:19 AM
How different is the code and the tuning from the Dart?

Huge yet similar at the same time.

Problem being from the Dart over to the 500... Sport Mode, OMG that was such a pain in the ass.