Finally: GTM Stage 5 + E-85 + G35 = Awesome
Nice analysis of the cams Terry. str8dum1, would you be willing to share those Excel files either via an attachment or via PM or e-mail? I'd like to overlay my dyno data (I have charts from Forged, Injected, and a local DJ). 
(I recognize that not all dynos are the same, even all DD dynos, which can be run in shootout mode, with atmospheric corrections, etc).
(I recognize that not all dynos are the same, even all DD dynos, which can be run in shootout mode, with atmospheric corrections, etc).
Last edited by rcdash; Oct 6, 2009 at 09:22 AM.
Ya, the big picture here is that you have your car done.
It just odd that with 105 octane and 22psi, you are mid 600s. Hal did the tune and he said thats all he could get without risking detonation, or lower HP when turning up the boost?
Now the swing is on XKR to corroborate GTM's claims of easy 1000 hp (800+ on DD). His gt35 compressor wheels (57.5/80 vs 61.4/82) arent much bigger (the turbine side is bigger 54/60 vs 62/68) than yours and they are predicting 200hp more.
It just odd that with 105 octane and 22psi, you are mid 600s. Hal did the tune and he said thats all he could get without risking detonation, or lower HP when turning up the boost?
Now the swing is on XKR to corroborate GTM's claims of easy 1000 hp (800+ on DD). His gt35 compressor wheels (57.5/80 vs 61.4/82) arent much bigger (the turbine side is bigger 54/60 vs 62/68) than yours and they are predicting 200hp more.
Registered User
iTrader: (1)
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,256
Likes: 0
From: Texas, Arizona,Cayman Island
what to sayYa, the big picture here is that you have your car done.
It just odd that with 105 octane and 22psi, you are mid 600s. Hal did the tune and he said thats all he could get without risking detonation, or lower HP when turning up the boost?
Now the swing is on XKR to corroborate GTM's claims of easy 1000 hp (800+ on DD). His gt35 compressor wheels (57.5/80 vs 61.4/82) arent much bigger (the turbine side is bigger 54/60 vs 62/68) than yours and they are predicting 200hp more.
It just odd that with 105 octane and 22psi, you are mid 600s. Hal did the tune and he said thats all he could get without risking detonation, or lower HP when turning up the boost?
Now the swing is on XKR to corroborate GTM's claims of easy 1000 hp (800+ on DD). His gt35 compressor wheels (57.5/80 vs 61.4/82) arent much bigger (the turbine side is bigger 54/60 vs 62/68) than yours and they are predicting 200hp more.
Its obvious that something is going on with the OP's car. His APS is about the same as my 850BB....I made over 700 on DD. The OP is making less (640) with a bigger setup.....With what the OP has...I am sure he will make over 700 on DD.
Last edited by XKR; Oct 6, 2009 at 10:40 AM.
Mike,
To clarify, the new motor is 4.0L. But the motor that you made over 800 whp with the same turbos as the OP's was a 3.5L, correct? Also, was that 800 whp on a DD or on a DynoJet?
I think his electrical problems are screwing up his cam phasing. Again, we saw a 40-50 hp change when we had a problem with cam phasing on only one side of the motor. We had done some re-wiring when we added the Cosworth plenum and did the heat wrapping, turbo blankets, etc. Specifically, we were providing a dummy voltage to the ECU to mimic the MAF sensor. If I remember correctly, that was the wire that was accidentally attached to the cam phasing control wire. It was the same color wire and the same number of pins in from the end when the end when the connector was upside down. We got on the dyno and the power was just not where it should have been. So we pulled the connector to double check the wires. As soon as we moved the wire to the correct location, I gained the hp immediately, and the mid-band torque came way up.
The OP already indicated he has electrical issues, and his mid-band rpm torque is low. This leads to my suspicion that the electrical issue is adversely affecting the cam phasing.
To clarify, the new motor is 4.0L. But the motor that you made over 800 whp with the same turbos as the OP's was a 3.5L, correct? Also, was that 800 whp on a DD or on a DynoJet?
I think his electrical problems are screwing up his cam phasing. Again, we saw a 40-50 hp change when we had a problem with cam phasing on only one side of the motor. We had done some re-wiring when we added the Cosworth plenum and did the heat wrapping, turbo blankets, etc. Specifically, we were providing a dummy voltage to the ECU to mimic the MAF sensor. If I remember correctly, that was the wire that was accidentally attached to the cam phasing control wire. It was the same color wire and the same number of pins in from the end when the end when the connector was upside down. We got on the dyno and the power was just not where it should have been. So we pulled the connector to double check the wires. As soon as we moved the wire to the correct location, I gained the hp immediately, and the mid-band torque came way up.
The OP already indicated he has electrical issues, and his mid-band rpm torque is low. This leads to my suspicion that the electrical issue is adversely affecting the cam phasing.
Last edited by ttg35fort; Oct 6, 2009 at 11:03 AM.
Registered User
iTrader: (1)
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,256
Likes: 0
From: Texas, Arizona,Cayman Island
Mike,
To clarify, the new motor is 4.0L. But the motor that you made over 800 whp with the same turbos as the OP's was a 3.5L, correct? Also, was that 800 whp on a DD or on a DynoJet?
I think his electrical problems are screwing up his cam phasing. Again, we saw a 40-50 hp change when we had a problem with cam phasing on only one side of the motor. We had done some re-wiring when we added the Cosworth plenum and did the heat wrapping, turbo blankets, etc. Specifically, we were providing a dummy voltage to the ECU to mimic the MAF sensor. If I remember correctly, that was the wire that was accidentally attached to the cam phasing control wire. It was the same color wire and the same number of pins in from the end when the end when the connector was upside down. We got on the dyno and the power was just not where it should have been. So we pulled the connector to double check the wires. As soon as we moved the wire to the correct location, I gained the hp immediately, and the mid-band torque came way up.
The OP already indicated he has electrical issues, and his mid-band rpm torque is low. This leads to my suspicion that the electrical issue is adversely affecting the cam phasing.
To clarify, the new motor is 4.0L. But the motor that you made over 800 whp with the same turbos as the OP's was a 3.5L, correct? Also, was that 800 whp on a DD or on a DynoJet?
I think his electrical problems are screwing up his cam phasing. Again, we saw a 40-50 hp change when we had a problem with cam phasing on only one side of the motor. We had done some re-wiring when we added the Cosworth plenum and did the heat wrapping, turbo blankets, etc. Specifically, we were providing a dummy voltage to the ECU to mimic the MAF sensor. If I remember correctly, that was the wire that was accidentally attached to the cam phasing control wire. It was the same color wire and the same number of pins in from the end when the end when the connector was upside down. We got on the dyno and the power was just not where it should have been. So we pulled the connector to double check the wires. As soon as we moved the wire to the correct location, I gained the hp immediately, and the mid-band torque came way up.
The OP already indicated he has electrical issues, and his mid-band rpm torque is low. This leads to my suspicion that the electrical issue is adversely affecting the cam phasing.
I agree...the OP is losing alot of HP somewhere. When I went from the 700bb to 850bb....we started having timing issues.....I was missing 100whp somewhere. Sharif found the problem...then it started to make big powa. Just the fact that he said he is making less powa with the bigger setup tells the story. With cams and heads he will be able to spin those turbo's.
Also Terry.....The GTM turbo's that the OP now has is bigger than the 850bb's I use to have. So he will make way more than I did on my old setup
Last edited by XKR; Oct 6, 2009 at 11:56 AM.
XKR can u tell me what was the timing issue ????
low spark ??? or what ???
u guys didnt talk about a timing issue befor and now ppl how try to make big hp having electrical and timing issues ??
i maybe having this issue guys so plz share info
low spark ??? or what ???
u guys didnt talk about a timing issue befor and now ppl how try to make big hp having electrical and timing issues ??
i maybe having this issue guys so plz share info
Mikes cams were the JWT C2s. They are 264 dur, 11.68 mm lift, 26 degrees advanced overlap (when the valves first start to open/close), and about -10 degrees overlap at 0.050" (assuming the cam lobes are symetrical, which they might not be, I don't know).
The OP's cams are GTM stage 1's, 256 intake dur/264 exhaust with 10.75 mm lift. GTM's website states 18 degree overlap at 0.045" lift, but also indicates it is less than stock. This does not seem right, so I think the 18 degrees overlap is the advanced overlap and there is a typo. Perhaps it is 18 degrees overlap at 0.0045" lift, or maybe the overlap is -18 degrees at 0.045"?. I think the latter is probably more likely. Perhaps Sam or George can confirm this for us.
The lower intake duration and overlap (assuming there is a typo on GTM's website) should help the OPs low rpm torque. EDIT: I just scratched where I said the performance should be similar to Mike's. I missed that Mike said they were bigger than the 850's.
At the upper rpms, the intake cams are pulled back toward 0 degrees of advance, so the lower overlap, lower duration and less lift of the GTM Stage 1 cams will have an adverse impact.
Last edited by ttg35fort; Oct 6, 2009 at 02:42 PM.
^^^^
I think the GTM Stage 1 cams are for mild builds where stock idle and low rpm drivability are desired. For that type of application, imo they are good cams.
Still, I would expect more mid rpm torque out of the OP's build. If the cams are not advancing when they should, this will adversely impact that area of the torque curve. Combine that with his statement that he is having electrical issues, and that leaves cam phasing problems as a potential issue.
We will have more insight into this if we can compare his torque curve to another motor that has the same displacement and that is using the same turbos. EDIT: Scratch the comparison to Mike's turbos.
If it turns out that cam phasing is not an issue, then the mid rpm torque is what it is. If the OP ever gets around to increasing his fuel injector flow, getting bigger cams, and perhaps getting a billet girdle, that is when his turbos will start to really show their stuff in the higher rpm range. Until then, the turbos are too large for his build.
I think the GTM Stage 1 cams are for mild builds where stock idle and low rpm drivability are desired. For that type of application, imo they are good cams.
Still, I would expect more mid rpm torque out of the OP's build. If the cams are not advancing when they should, this will adversely impact that area of the torque curve. Combine that with his statement that he is having electrical issues, and that leaves cam phasing problems as a potential issue.
We will have more insight into this if we can compare his torque curve to another motor that has the same displacement and that is using the same turbos. EDIT: Scratch the comparison to Mike's turbos.
If it turns out that cam phasing is not an issue, then the mid rpm torque is what it is. If the OP ever gets around to increasing his fuel injector flow, getting bigger cams, and perhaps getting a billet girdle, that is when his turbos will start to really show their stuff in the higher rpm range. Until then, the turbos are too large for his build.
Last edited by ttg35fort; Oct 6, 2009 at 01:11 PM.
Mike old 850BB setup uses smaller turbos than the OP. THe op has 3082's while the 850BB is some sort of 3071. Well the compressor side is different, but the turbine wheels are the same (but maybe the housings are different as well???). There has not been anyone else on the forums that has used those 3082's
Either way, the car left Injected Performance with Hal or whoever tuned it seal of approval, and one would hope, the best #'s that were obtainable on that day.
One would assuming any VTC issue were resolved given that the car was in the shop there for at least a month.
Still a lot of HP regardless, and doesnt seem any laggier than Cass007's setup (dyno based anyhow).
Either way, the car left Injected Performance with Hal or whoever tuned it seal of approval, and one would hope, the best #'s that were obtainable on that day.
One would assuming any VTC issue were resolved given that the car was in the shop there for at least a month.
Still a lot of HP regardless, and doesnt seem any laggier than Cass007's setup (dyno based anyhow).
Last edited by str8dum1; Oct 6, 2009 at 12:33 PM.
Registered User
iTrader: (1)
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,256
Likes: 0
From: Texas, Arizona,Cayman Island
Mike old 850BB setup uses smaller turbos than the OP. THe op has 3082's while the 850BB is some sort of 3071. Well the compressor side is different, but the turbine wheels are the same (but maybe the housings are different as well???). There has not been anyone else on the forums that has used those 3082's
Either way, the car left Injected Performance with Hal or whoever tuned it seal of approval, and one would hope, the best #'s that were obtainable on that day.
One would assuming any VTC issue were resolved given that the car was in the shop there for at least a month.
Still a lot of HP regardless, and doesnt seem any laggier than Cass007's setup (dyno based anyhow).
Either way, the car left Injected Performance with Hal or whoever tuned it seal of approval, and one would hope, the best #'s that were obtainable on that day.
One would assuming any VTC issue were resolved given that the car was in the shop there for at least a month.
Still a lot of HP regardless, and doesnt seem any laggier than Cass007's setup (dyno based anyhow).
Last edited by XKR; Oct 6, 2009 at 02:40 PM.
im running sound performances triple fuel pump (255's) and rc 1200cc's. if your at 95% at 640whp, i wonder what mine would cut out at? i assumed that 1200cc + 3 255's would be big enough to support 900+whp on e85. then again im running a complete different turbo setup than you are. im on greddy kit w/fp 60-1 swap
EDIT: The OP's peak torque is at 6250 rpm. Is this normal for the 3082 turbos? I just re-checked the Garret website and I don't see them listed, nor are the 3040 turbos listed.
EDIT EDIT: I see - The GT3082 turbos are using the GT3076 turbine and the GT3582 compressor, I assume.
OP, just so you know, I'm most certainly not trying to bash your build. I see a LOT of untapped potential and I'm just trying to provide any insight I can.
Last edited by ttg35fort; Oct 6, 2009 at 01:16 PM.
Registered User
iTrader: (1)
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,256
Likes: 0
From: Texas, Arizona,Cayman Island
Based on your plots, there is about a 50 ft-lb difference from 4250 rpm up to 5000 rpm. That looks awfully similar to the difference I saw in my build when we know we had a cam phasing issue. But then again, maybe the compressor housing alone is enough to create such a difference...
OP, just so you know, I'm most certainly not trying to bash your build. I see a LOT of untapped potential and I'm just trying to provide any insight I can.
OP, just so you know, I'm most certainly not trying to bash your build. I see a LOT of untapped potential and I'm just trying to provide any insight I can.
Last edited by XKR; Oct 6, 2009 at 01:36 PM.
Thread Starter
Registered User
iTrader: (19)
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 963
Likes: 0
From: Indianapolis
I appreciate all the input and don't consider it bashing at all. The motor was built back when my power goals were much more conservative hence the baby cams. I wil change the solenoids and wiring harness first to see if that solves anything and then probably rebuild the motor at the end of 2010. At that point it would have close to 25k miles on it
I appreciate all the input and don't consider it bashing at all. The motor was built back when my power goals were much more conservative hence the baby cams. I wil change the solenoids and wiring harness first to see if that solves anything and then probably rebuild the motor at the end of 2010. At that point it would have close to 25k miles on it
Also, sometimes electrical connections oxidize over time. It might be worth a shot to unplug and plug-in your ECU and Haltech conectors a few times. The friction on the terminals can help to remove some of the oxidation and improve the electrical pathway.