blubyu

iTrader: (1)

Nice numbers man, being I am also in Charlotte I'd like to check out the car sometime and maybe ride shotgun for a test ride lol.

Z1 Performance

iTrader: (564)

Andy - speechless man! Great job

I get a ride when we finally meet up, right?

mcduck

Fresh back from day 1 of the FoodLion AutoFair where Frankenstein was a BIG hit. It was pretty much a non-stop circus around my Brickyard baby... I'm so proud!

little_rod... yes, I have all of Crawfords current offering on my car + cams + UR pulleys (two of them) + Borla True Dual + magic pixie dust!!!

As for the other pulleys... I'm not sure. I swear I thought they were the same diameter as stock, just lighter. But I don't know how else I could be creating more boost than everyone else with the Vortech if not there. I'm having no issues at the 9.5 boost range so I see no reason to dial it back.

This can probably be worked out. I'm more than happy to meet at the Flying Saucer near UNCC. The deal is a pint (after the ride) for a ride in Frankenstein.

Sure, Adam. I'll see you at ZDayZ, right? Hopefully by then, I can show off the TS hood, too! We'll be working on that following this weekend's show.

Well, it's a beautiful Saturday and I have some roads to tear up.

greddy4777

Duck...you just made my day....as a future vortech owner....

very happy for you...please let us know more about ur drving impressions when u have a moment...

cheers

Turbo Ed

Guys. I cannot believe how many of you think this is a good result.
In reality, it is appalling!

Firstly, the power it is ACTUALLY making at the flywheel. Power loss as indicated by ANY chassis dyno is a relatively fixed number, NOT a percentage, so long as all the variables are maintained unaltered. ( tires/wheels, engine RPM operating range, gear used, etc., etc.). From what has been seen so far, across many Dynojets, with manual trans, this loss appears to be around 45-50 HP on the Z, all other things being equal. So, what we have here is around 480 flywheel HP. Not too shabby you say, even if not 500 HP? Hold on, I have not even started!

The "nice" power curve, is the N.A. baseline shown, which is presumably the stock engine plus all the "conventional" goodies which must have lifted the output originally from around 235-240 WHP stock to the 260 WHP shown. Why is that curve "nice"? Simply because the peak Torque and Peak RPM points are over 3,000 RPM apart. What's more, the torque curve is relatively flat, making a great strret car to drive. ( very flexible). However, even more important, unless the NA curve has had extreme "smoothing " applied to it, one can tell the engine is running well tuned, by the profile of the curve.

Now, by contrast, the blown curve.

Firstly, despite a "smoothing" setting of 3, the curve looks like the surface of the worst back road. Just compare it to the NA curve below it. Why is it showing that? Well, the most likely reason is the poor OE knock sensors frantically attempting to keep the ignition process under control! IE pulling timing and causing those momentary power losses which show up as 'dips in the road". Is this the only explanation? No, there are others, however if it was my engine, I sure as hell would want to know for sure.

Secondly, no meaningful improvement in torque below 4,000RPM. Now that is not the tuner's problem, ( unlike the ignition timing), however it cannot be ignored in a discussion about power curves.

Thirdly, peak torque is achieved effectively simultaneously with peak HP!! This fact is what caused my opening statement. This is TRUELY appalling, for any vehicle with pretensions as a quick street car. The ONLY place this car will show anything like its 480 flywheel HP, will be on a drag strip.

Fourthly, for 9.5 psi boost, the torque improvement is also appalling. At the blown torque peak ( over 6,000 RPM, I mean that is crazy, all by itself!!), there has been an increase of approximately 120 ft/lbs on an approx. 220 ft/lb base, at that RPM. IE just over 50%. There SHOULD have been an increase of over 65%, minimum !! In reality probably something like 75% would have been a fair result.

Fifthly, given the stock injectors will only feed 360 flywheel HP at a 12:1 A/F ratio at 3 Bar (43.5 psi) fuel pressure, something interesting has obviously been done to the delivery pressure. To run the indictated A/F ratio, through the stock injectors would take around 80 psi differential fuel pressure at the injector. At almost 10 psi boost, this means the pump has to work at 90 psi. I would be REAL curious to hear how that has been done, given the effect on fuel pump life, ( even if it has the fuel VOLUME capacity, at that pressure), which usually results.

The end conclusion? Even if you can get the tuning right, ( which on this engine is almost certainly not), it is extraordinarily difficult to match a centrifugal blower to a relatively small displacement, (compared to the 5-8 litres for which they were intended), high RPM( again compared to the 5,500 rpm stock V8s) engine.

With the exception of drag racing, the result is truely appalling!!

Ed

esemes

DITTO!!


do you have any links to the tuning software, or the r4 splitsecond unti altogether??

knowledge is power!

-eS

mcduck

Nice post, Ed... mr. knowitall shows up to enter his one post. For all your hot air saying how this cannot happen, I've got a very happy dyno that shows that it can. I'll be happy to meet you up at Tail of the Dragon on May 21-23 and show how the additional power can be used on a twisty road.

NEWSFLASH... on a curvy road, the engine is already spinning... much easier to downshift into the supercharger's sweet spot than it is to get the car moving from a dead stop. Bottom line, the power is more usable on a road course, already rolling than it is down a 1/4 mile. It's not shabby in either instance... definitely a HUGE improvement over stock.

Man... we need a troll filter on this site something fierce.

mcduck

Not yet... hoping to get that sorted out in two weeks. If I can hook up with someone with the R4 software, I'll share my settings with the board. I sure as hell paid enough for the tuning... best to see as many people make use of it as possible.

mcduck

Firstly... which is not even a word I might add... I went back to the original dynos. When I remove the smoothing factor all together (set it to 0), guess what happens to the FI curve... nothing. It wavers back and forth (matching where the increased fuel feed comes on for the Vortech). On the other hand, the normal curve changes to look like a lie detector... erratically moving back and forth quickly. Unfortunately I cannot post a full resolution picture to show this easily, but I have attached a section.

Just want the masses to see that there is not inherent detenation danger when the car is tuned properly. Note the section of the dyno I have zoomed in on shows the correction factor now set to 0. Note the FI lines in blue and the non-FI lines in red.


Hmmm... at 3500 rpm the non-FI torque was around 225ftlbs and with boost it is more like 265ftlbs... yeah, 40 ftlbs is not that big a difference. I wonder if "Ed" even understands what he is reading... Hey, Ed... the red lines are the stock numbers and the blue lines are the FI numbers.

God I'm bored to even be responding to this...

Turbo Ed

mcduck,

1) I did NOT say you did not achieve what you posted, ( woops, double neg. however I am sure you get the idea). What I said was, what YOU said you DID achieve, was an appalling forced induction result. What's more, after working on and looking at dyno curves for over thirty five years as an automotive powertrain development engineer, I know potentially dangerous ones when I see them. (please note, potentially. I did say there were other possible explanations apart from the knock sensors working overtime, but if you were on 93 octane, or less, that remains the most likely cause)

2) Yes I do consider 40 ft lbs "improvement" at 3,500 RPM appalling. Which is why I made the comment. REAL forced induction, well tuned, would have provided 100 ft/lbs minimum, at that RPM.

3) The TRUE test of a "nice" street power curve is what is known in the industry, as "tip-in". This involves driving along at normal RPM, say anywhere between 2,000 and 3,500 RPM, in the Z's case, in 5th or 6th gear, and then accelerating at various throttle openings, over say 1500 RPM, ( eg 2,500 to 4,000 RPM, or 2,000 to 3,500 RPM, that sort of thing), WITHOUT CHANGING GEAR. You obviously measure the time taken. I would be prepared to bet that if this was done accurately, this vehicle would be only very mildly quicker than the vehicle without the blower.

Again, my original point being,( apart from the tuning warning and curiosity about what must be a fairly interesting fuel supply system), centrifugal blowers do not belong on engines like the Z's.

I provided the one exception to the rule, ( engineering ALWAYS has the one exception), drag racing and frankly your example is only an extension of that exception. What amounts to semi continuous operation between 4,500 RPM and 6,500 RPM. IE just like a drag strip. Not exactly how any one drives their vehicle most of the time.

Spend this sort of money and I would want the potential benefit whenever I needed it. Not just between 4,500 and 6,500 RPM, following a one, or even two gear downchange. Heck, most day to day "acceleration contests" would be over, before you even completed the downshift!!

Ed

PS No troll here. I admit I only joined last week, however I have attempted to fully absorb the forced induction section, before posting. You can rely on me continuing to point out poor engineering and or tuning into the future, so long as sufficient data is provided to do so.
To your credit, you did at least partly that. Now, if you would like to explain your fuel system and I can analyse that also! Just a word of warning. Dynojets are a notoriously unreliable method of gauging adequate fuel VOLUME supply.

Sharif@Forged

iTrader: (92)

Ed, did you forget this is a supercharger and not a Turbo??? SC's always have a disadvantage in the torque department, due to their parisitic nature, and their linear and progressive building of boost. This is an EXCELLENT dyno for a supercharger application...no questions.... An SC only makes peak boost near redline, whereas a turbo makes peak boost much earlier.

fluidz

I think ED is a ***** driving a YUGO wishing he had McDuck's Ride.........

PhoenixINX

Ed...

Sounds like you're trying to sell a point... What concerns me is if you happen to know SO MUCH about this, and obviously enough to down talk sometone... why aren't you doing this for a living? ATI, Vortech, Paxton... I'm SURE they'd love to have you.

Honestly, sounds like you're a typical inet know it all who HAS to spout of their theory is the correct one. If you must know, much of McDuck's project has the knowledge of a 25 year Nissan builder backing it. So before the charade continues, I would reconsider your position.

Turbo Ed

gq_model_626,
how could ANYONE miss it is a centrifugal supercharger? THAT is precisely my point! Apart from my professional concern about what is going on in his combustion chamber, together with my admitted curiosity about the fuel supply/metering system; for the THIRD time,
this install is a perfect example of why centrifugals do NOT belong on Z's. ( or any other relatively small displacement/ high RPM engines, either.)

PhoenixINX,
your first phrase is absolutely correct and the above three lines ARE the point. After three go's, I would not have thought that to be any secret.
As for where I have worked over the past thirty plus years, any one of the four companies in question could have bought and sold the operations you mention, without ever noticing. The engineering budgets alone would have been in excess of the entire turnover of all those relatively small aftermarket companies, put together!

What's the problem with you guys? Cannot take straight engineering analysis? Your only answer is abuse? Very mature,


Ed

Sharif@Forged

iTrader: (92)

Ed, I guess it's just your tone that comes across very bombastic and pompous(sp). The way you phrase your points demonstrates that you have no respect for other people's opinions.

It's not what you are saying...it is HOW you are saying it.

Turbo Ed

gq_model_626, good point! After thirty plus years in engineering and having to listen to smooth talking marketing VP's in meetings for much of that time, I actually thought I could come into this environment and tell it like it really is, for a change. Obviously my mistake! Please go over to the compression ratio/ boost thread and see if my post there is more to your liking, thanks,

Ed

Sharif@Forged

iTrader: (92)

Your other post was terrific Maybe the smooth talking resonates with me since I am a sales/marketing executive.

mcduck

Turbo Ed...

Look, I'm not trying to start a war here. If you genuinely have the background you claim, then your contributions on this board )going forward) will likely be welcome.

But you did come off as pompous. I think your problem here is you are not terribly clear on the history of this car since you have only been on this board only a week. Basically, we're talking about a car that peaks stock around 235rwhp at 5500rpms or so (on average) and 225 ftlbs of torque that peaks around 4500-5000rpm. My mods have improved that to 420rwhp and 340ftlbs of torque. Number are up across the entire curve so area under the curve is much better. These are vast improvements over stock.

Yes, the peak numbers are at redline, but the 350Z is more a true sports car, not a dragster, so typically you will already be rolling when you need the power.

As for everyday driving... I have no problem with this as an every day driver. I typically don't have to launch it hard and when I need the power it comes up very quickly. At this point, I have no doubt I'm 0-60 in the low 4s.

As for this one, you can run tell that to the Viper, BMW M5, and Neon SRT4 owners I have already flat embarrassed. Acceration contests... McDuck=3, others=0. And I'd be happy to go out into the curves with any of these guys. There, the only one I give a chance to beat me is the Viper owner.

edit: guess it's a good thing I'm not "too lazy" to downshift when I need to accelerate...

Later, guys... back to the AutoFair with me!

zimbo

iTrader: (4)

TurboEd... If turbo kits were as inexpensive and easy to install on this car as superchargers then I'm sure a certain percentage of SC owners would have gone the turbo route.

That said, the Z is not a muscle car. It's a track car. At the track it's not uncommon to stay well within the 5000-6500 rpm range a whole lot of the time.

Lastly, you question the apparent lack of smoothness of the HP graph. This is inherent in the way fuel delivery works with the Vortech kit. First, the kit includes an inline fuel pump. Second, it includes a programmable device that allows you to adjust fuel delivery--but only at 500 rpm increments. So what you'll see if you look at nearly every Vortech install is that the A/F ratio creeps up in between the 500 rpm increments but is "pulled back down" at those points. The fact that there is a lower A/F ratio at even RPM increments means you see a sinusoidal wiggle in the A/F ratio that translates to a sinusoidal wiggle in HP. This wiggle can be reduced by installing an Apexi S-AFC II which allows you to manipulate fuel at 250 rpm increments to "touch up" the in between points. I hope that makes sense.

Also, as I'm sure you know with your 30+ years experience, to be safe under FI the VQ engine must have timing taken out at higher RPMs under boost to prevent detonation. With the Vortech kits, the timing retard is also programmable at 500 rpm increments. I don't know about mcduck's timing map, but I can tell you that SplitSecond recommends that the timing retard setting from one cell (i.e. a 500 rpm increment) to another should be very smooth/subtle. As I recall, Vortech's stock programming isn't particularly smooth. Rather than jump from 3 degrees retard in one cell to 5 degrees retard in the next adjacent cell, it would be better, IMO, to do 3.5 and 4.5 so that the transition is smoother.

The point is that the slight wiggle is due to fuel and timing programming and NOT pre-detonation or knock.

--Steve

damen

so ed, you say that centrifugal s/c shouldn't go on the z. what's your take on roots style s/c stillen or dream workes for that matter even though there not out yet?