Hey Tiago

[MachPerformance]

Please read this on a professional level

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Tiago:
hey I never said I KNEW I was running 100+ psi, but theoretically it should. If base FP is 40 psi and a 6:1 ratio FMU is used at 10 psi , thats 100 psi already, now what kind of fp I was actually running I have no idea.<hr></blockquote>

From the previous post I thought you actually knew or had a FP gauge on it at some point.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Tiago:
as for the A/F ratio, I did not do a wideband on the dyno. I know the a/f ratio bacause my scanner, btw its a hand held called AUTO-XRAY, says teh A/F ratio. it said 11.6 but that is considering the stock injectors, which are 17 on the 3.4, I was just guessing that with the 24s it should be considerably richer, no way to tell really. How accurate is this reading? hell I don't know. Even 11.6 is too rich for my blood.<hr></blockquote>

Actually Auto X-Ray, which is carried by most Pep-Boys and Autozone's, is just a diagnostic scanner and has no idea what injector the engine has. If you make a minor injector size change the PCM can alter the shortterm fuel trim. Anything larger than that then you will need to reflash to change the injector constant in the fuel tables. AutoXray reads the O2 millivolts and attempts to translate that into a A/F ratio. Like I said before the stock 0-1 Volt O2 sensors read well from 15:1 to 13.5:1 A/F after that they do not have the resolution nor the accuracy to be used for solid measurements in A/F ratio.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Tiago:
You have to understand I do not have a big sucessfull shop where I work from or fabricate all this or gives me a budget for this project. Everything accomplished comes out of my personal or the prototype's owner's pocket. This makes all this kinda complicated. I simply do not have the resources you do, I just do the best I can with what I can. I have good friends in the right places that can help me get what I need done, that is how I can produce these kits.<hr></blockquote>


We didn't have a big budget for this project either. Most of this project came out of mine and Ryan's wallet. So I can sympathize with you that cash is the short coming of all projects.


<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Tiago:
At the dyno Im not wasting time at 7-8 psi, if it only ran that on mine and and radcat's first dyno, it was because we both had problems. We both had 3 inch long rips on some intake pipe connectors that owned the boost to only 7-8.0 I always plan on running big boost numbers cause Im going all the way to get everything I can out of it, thats why I usually go ready with 100+ octane. Why settle for any less, I can display what my kits are capable of. Now I can tell you radcat has ran 14 psi on 93 pump gas on the street before without incidents. But at the track or at the dyno, why settle for less then full performance? race gas and up the boost, and let it rip, tahts what its all about. Common practice by all GN, TTAs, and pretty much any turbo car out there. Now does this mean that you can't run pump gas? hell no. I run pump gas everyday on the street as does the other prototype cars at 7-10psi, but if Im gonna get numbers I will go all out and squeeze all I can out of it being as safe as I can. on 7 lbs I can run 105 mph trap speeds and I can do that on pump gas, that indicates quite a bit of power. But as I Said Im always lookinf for more out of it.<hr></blockquote>

Now this is where I have the problem,

You post these dyno numbers and everyone thinks that's the way the kit's going to come. You yet to produce any solid A/F Ratio charts and/or Dyno sheets. You haven't spoken about the mods to your supposed all stock engine.(At least the people that call me think your car is bone stock with just the turbo). You fail to mention until after the fact that CO2 was used as a secondary cooling medium for the dyno testing. Also that you had race gas and 16 psi on one run, sure it didn't make power beyond 10 psi that, but that's the turbo running out of air.

It's good and all to see the full potential of a S/C or T/C kit, but don't you think that the use of all the above items to get a miraculous dyno number on the rollers is a little bit misleading to the public that reads on this message board. 90+% of the readers on here only see the numbers posted and nothing else and make comparisons of forced induction kits based on the number they see. After all, the majority that are on here may not realize what you have done to get those numbers. Oh sure you have a 3.4L, but that's only 21 cubic inches smaller than the 3.8L and the fact you have ported heads and intake(if done properly) will outweigh the cubic inch difference.

You have to remember that the majority of the people out there use their car for double duty and are probably more interested in daily usable HP rather than the all out track stuff HP that will be used maybe once a month, maybe twice. Posting your peak number without test specifics, dyno & A/F Ratio graphs is misleading to the many followers you have that are interested in the turbo setup you have.

The reason I'm asking is not to be an *******, but because these are the questions people from this board are asking me when they call my shop. They are comparing, which is normal, but I can't answer their questions when you can't either. I am in business to make sure I do the right thing and make safe kits. I do, when asked or see a need, make race versions of my kits. Right now, this is the first step of the 3.8L S/C kit and others are in the works. As everyone has known...Ryan's car was less than the perfect choice for a test vehicle.

Again, this is not to be taken as being mean or an a**h0le, but everyone needs answers as to the specifics and hard facts to your kit. They all know mine and I can answer them. The only questions unanswered are those which have not yet been tested.

[ July 06, 2003: Message edited by: MachPerformance ]</p>

[hou-tex-six]

I dont mean to put words in Tiagos mouth, cause I very well could be wrong, but the way I see it his kit (the one on his car) is a kit specifically designed for his car to his specifications. From what I remember from talking with him, you get what you want if you buy a kit produced by him. If you want a mild setup, no prob, but you wouldent expect it to put out the same numbers. I dont think there is a single "kit", but then again I might be wrong. He is not hiding his mods, everybody knows what they are.

As for dyno and track numbers I dont see the problem with spraying the IC and running race gas for safety. Do you run this everyday? No, but you dont run drag radials, weight reduction, low tire pressure, etc every day either and this is prefectly acceptable when you go to the track isnt it?

I wont pretend to know about the AFR's and exact fuel pressures etc, so I wont comment on that.

Cp

[ July 06, 2003: Message edited by: hou-tex-six ]</p>

[Tiago]

Bill, you are comparing apples to oranges, you have a ATI approved project, not to mention a supercharger, its hard for people to alter that kit and make more power out of it. On a turbo people will always be playing with the boost, there is no way around it so I cannot say how much each person is gonna run. For that reason and others Im not selling a kit on how many psi you can run or how much u have to spend on it. But rather Im selling a kit that you can customize to your needs and you can run as much boost as you want on your car, make as much hp as you want, its up to you, I can provide teh parts for you to go as far as you want. Im just trying to show what its capable of. Boost controllers make it so easy.

My A/F ratio graphs would be useless as like I said boost woudl always be changing person to person, but I really have not run A/F ratios on a dyno yet on my car, I dynoed on dyno day at MTI, 35 bucks 2 pulls no wideband.

BTW I daily drive my car, its my only mode of transportation, as is radcats, as is Speed's Lt1. Its not like I have a race cars here.


Now me hiding mods? since when? how? Everyone knows exactly what I run, its on my webpage, its on posts throughout this board. Completely stock bottom end, STOCK CAM, ported heads, intake, and boost is what was on the motor for that dyno. On the video you can SEE the spray on the intercooler, how can I hide it? [img]tongue.gif[/img] I have a post showing hte sprayer, how can I hide having it? I still think it didn't work that great but I did use it.

a 3.4L maybe only a few CI smaller then a 3.8 but a typical 3.4 dynos 125 rwhp and 160 rwtq, where a typical 3.8 is in the 165rwhp and 210 rwtq range. Talking stock here. There is quite a bit of difference in performance.

once again there is no one set kit, the owners will be responsible for how much boost they run on their own. Even at a lowly 7psi I rip 105 mph traps, still quite a bit of performance upgrade I Think I went from 87 mph traps to 105 with 7 lbs. nothign else changed on the car. so even if they run low boost, there is alot of performance gain to be had, and if you want more turn the little knob and hold on. I provide potential.

I know my heads specially make me gain more hp/lb of boost then normal motors, but you can't argue with radcats, its completely stock. If 3.4L people want heads and custom intake manifold for their car I can provide that too. Then they should get similar results.

[ July 06, 2003: Message edited by: Tiago ]</p>

[Forgotten]

also RadCat is basically stock. what mods does RadCat have?

[Radcat]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Forgotten:
also RadCat is basically stock. what mods does RadCat have?<hr></blockquote>

Turbo and an intercooler. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[fred slawson]

Radcat I apologize for asking but what where your dyno numbers again?

[Forgotten]

if i didn't have to fork over the 3g to fix my car i would be all over that damn setup.

[Radcat]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by fred slawson:
Radcat I apologize for asking but what where your dyno numbers again?<hr></blockquote>

Here ya go http://www.camarov6.com/cgi-bin/ulti...c&f=4&t=000966

[fred slawson]

Thanks Radcat.