My NEW 5" thick FMIC mounted... PE TT 6MT Sedan
07-02-2007, 07:57 PM
#26
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Missouri
Posts: 4,318
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by GurgenPB
Abyss, AWD G35 sedan with a 6MT swap would be amazing.....
(sorry for OTing)
07-02-2007, 08:39 PM
#29
Originally Posted by abyss
Indeed it would. If any of you shop owners know if/think this can be done lemme know. I would much rather go this route for a unique build than a subie. (sorry for OTing)
(sorry for OTing)The main one being the behavior of the AWD system controller in the absence of CAN commands from the TCM (which most definitely are used for front to rear drive bias control).
Something like that is really impossible to overcome without AWD system programming...which really is not gonna happen.
07-02-2007, 08:46 PM
#31
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Missouri
Posts: 4,318
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by GurgenPB
There are a few hurdles to be overcome to get this done...aside from fitting a turbochargerr on the system.
The main one being the behavior of the AWD system controller in the absence of CAN commands from the TCM (which most definitely are used for front to rear drive bias control).
Something like that is really impossible to overcome without AWD system programming...which really is not gonna happen.
The main one being the behavior of the AWD system controller in the absence of CAN commands from the TCM (which most definitely are used for front to rear drive bias control).
Something like that is really impossible to overcome without AWD system programming...which really is not gonna happen.
07-02-2007, 08:52 PM
#32
Originally Posted by abyss
I was actually thinking more along the lines of buying a new AWD Sedan and dropping in the older VQ that already has been through its R&D phases rather than swapping the AWD system to an older G. Think it would be the same outcome though.
But that doesn't solve the problem of having your AWD system NOT being actively driven by it'scomputer, because that computer doesn't receive the CAN stream it's expecting, in turn because the TCM/ECU have been swapped out for 6MT variety.
Anyway...I'll PM you my number... I have lots of experience at this (from my own 6MT swap), if you need to, call me.
07-02-2007, 09:09 PM
#34
Originally Posted by Hydrazine
Yeahuuu! Right on Gurgen. It looks great.
BTW did you do pre/post plenum pressure measurements? I wonder what the pressure recovery was?
BTW did you do pre/post plenum pressure measurements? I wonder what the pressure recovery was?
I never got to do it on the old IC. With this one, I do not expect any pressure drop, but do intend to measure efficiency with this one.
Hope Willow Springs was fun.
07-02-2007, 09:43 PM
#36
I am not sure if it's possible to do an apples to apples comparison int his case. Here is my thinking:
the boost is controlled from the the pressure of the pre-IC charge pipe. If I had a pressure back up in the IC before due to pressure drop, that would keep my post-IC boost at, say, level "A".
Now, if that IC backup is absent and the airflow is maintained, hence pre-IC and post-IC pressure being near-identical, the relative pressure at hte pre-IC charge pipe whcih regulated the wastegate is now lower at a given compressor wheel RPM. This would lead to the wastegate opening later than it did before until the previous pre-IC pressure is reached, but this leads to higher final post-IC boost pressures. So, by my thinking, without knowing the pre-IC, post-IC pressures, it's impossible to know if the boost increase is due the described varied regulation, or is it truly due to lower pressure drop.
Also, higher IC efficience will have higher DR (density ratio) recovery, hence dropping post-IC boost. So that gets into the equation too...
Tony, is my thinking correct?
the boost is controlled from the the pressure of the pre-IC charge pipe. If I had a pressure back up in the IC before due to pressure drop, that would keep my post-IC boost at, say, level "A".
Now, if that IC backup is absent and the airflow is maintained, hence pre-IC and post-IC pressure being near-identical, the relative pressure at hte pre-IC charge pipe whcih regulated the wastegate is now lower at a given compressor wheel RPM. This would lead to the wastegate opening later than it did before until the previous pre-IC pressure is reached, but this leads to higher final post-IC boost pressures. So, by my thinking, without knowing the pre-IC, post-IC pressures, it's impossible to know if the boost increase is due the described varied regulation, or is it truly due to lower pressure drop.
Also, higher IC efficience will have higher DR (density ratio) recovery, hence dropping post-IC boost. So that gets into the equation too...
Tony, is my thinking correct?
07-03-2007, 03:38 AM
#37
I dont know if this applies to what your talking about . But when I went to the much larger IC with my SC . I reached 13 psi 500 rpms sooner 5900rpm in stead of 6400rpm's and I assume cooler intake temps also . I didnt notice any lag what so ever . In fact it seem to respond sooner
07-03-2007, 06:21 AM
#38
Looks good Gurgen...
Having experience with the standard PE kit, I'm still of the opinion that the small IHI PE turbos are your current gating item and the main reason for high intake temps past 15psi... The larger intercooler is going to help, but it's masking the root case...
I'll be back on the dyno next week and cranking up the boost on my car on race fuel and I'll let you know how the standard PE intercooler holds up - it's certainly going to become the gating item at some point - it should be interesting to see how much HP it'll support with better sized turbos...
Having experience with the standard PE kit, I'm still of the opinion that the small IHI PE turbos are your current gating item and the main reason for high intake temps past 15psi... The larger intercooler is going to help, but it's masking the root case...
I'll be back on the dyno next week and cranking up the boost on my car on race fuel and I'll let you know how the standard PE intercooler holds up - it's certainly going to become the gating item at some point - it should be interesting to see how much HP it'll support with better sized turbos...
Last edited by Philthy; 07-03-2007 at 06:32 AM.
07-03-2007, 07:09 AM
#39
Originally Posted by GurgenPB
the boost is controlled from the the pressure of the pre-IC charge pipe.
If the sensor regulates (hypothetically) to a maximum of 13 PSIG, and the new IC drops 0.5 PSID less than the old IC, this should result in a 0.5 PSI gain at the plenum.
This is only pressure. It does not say anything about the new density delta which is also likely to have improved too.
07-03-2007, 08:26 AM
#40
Originally Posted by Philthy
Looks good Gurgen...
Having experience with the standard PE kit, I'm still of the opinion that the small IHI PE turbos are your current gating item and the main reason for high intake temps past 15psi... The larger intercooler is going to help, but it's masking the root case...
I'll be back on the dyno next week and cranking up the boost on my car on race fuel and I'll let you know how the standard PE intercooler holds up - it's certainly going to become the gating item at some point - it should be interesting to see how much HP it'll support with better sized turbos...
Having experience with the standard PE kit, I'm still of the opinion that the small IHI PE turbos are your current gating item and the main reason for high intake temps past 15psi... The larger intercooler is going to help, but it's masking the root case...
I'll be back on the dyno next week and cranking up the boost on my car on race fuel and I'll let you know how the standard PE intercooler holds up - it's certainly going to become the gating item at some point - it should be interesting to see how much HP it'll support with better sized turbos...
I know we discussed it ad nauseam over the phone... but since I spent some time constructing what amount to a completely comprehensive and customized compressor flow diagram for the car, and am 99.9% positive that the compressors are NOT too small. Now, it's still a possibility that the turbines are too small instead, creating backpressure, but that doesn't appear to be the case at all, as my torque/hp curve are pretty square (in terms of number 460/460 and 495/482) and do not exhibit the classic signs of being too small. They are certainly smaller than yours, but I just do think they are "TOO SMALL". Waiting on more data.