|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 283
CEG\'er
|
OP
CEG\'er
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 283 |
Originally posted by zm830101: you guys mention an intake obstruction, but what about exhaust? A stock y pipe would definetly limit hi rpm breathing
What is being referred to is changes that were made between the two dyno runs. The exhaust has remained unchanged between runs so, even if it were a restriction, it shouldn't reduce the readings, only reduce the gain or if it were at it's flow limit there could be no gain.
If you look at Ronan's signature you'll see that he has a high-flow exhaust already installed, MSDS headers, P&P'd heads, etc., so the exhaust shouldn't be a limiting factor.
The EGR mod doesn't "restrict" the intake, it blocks off exhaust gases being recirculated into the intake. The reason this creates a problem is that the ECU is expecting to see a certain % of exhaust gas coming into the intake stream. When the computer fails to get that reading it won't advance the timing because under normal conditions, this would lead to spark knock and drastically shorten the engines life .
As has been stated earlier there haven't been any demonstrated benefits to doing this modification and there can be problems created by doing it, so the conventional wisdom is to avoid it.
Certainly, one can't get valid dyno numbers if this mod has been done and something else was also changed (UIM in this case). I suspect/hope that the UIM actually made some gains for Ronan and the EGR Mod wiped them out.
Regards, Alan
03 Volvo S60 2.5T AWD
98 Mystique 2.5 MTX
99 SVT - Inheriting Lil Monster's parts
98 SVT - Lil Monster (RIP) 183.7 whp
Quaife/Fidanza/UR UD Clutch
AFE/MSDS/SHO-Y/Bassani/MagnaCore
GC/Koni/22mmR/EndLinks/ES/
KVR Slotted/1144's/SS Lines/MASItaly
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 534
Veteran CEG\'er
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 534 |
Quote:
I've dyno'd my car with and without an SVT uppper intake, and in both cases I got power plummeting after 6000 rpms.
I was referring specifically to this post. my fault. he mentions exhaust & mystery mod but if he is still using an unmodded y it would more than likely be the source of restriction and cause the choking of power from 6000 up
2000 csvt #1553
Black/Tan
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 283
CEG\'er
|
OP
CEG\'er
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 283 |
Originally posted by zm830101: Quote:
I've dyno'd my car with and without an SVT uppper intake, and in both cases I got power plummeting after 6000 rpms.
I was referring specifically to this post. my fault. he mentions exhaust & mystery mod but if he is still using an unmodded y it would more than likely be the source of restriction and cause the choking of power from 6000 up
I missed that too, but I still think it's not likely the Y-Pipe. I don't know that it's not, just think it's not. 
I know that when I dyno'd my Mystique (KKM, SVT TB) it ran strong right to the rev limiter (I'll try to find the time to pull the graph).
The exhaust Ronan has should help not hinder and there is plenty of reason to believe the "mystery mod" blocking the EGR would cause the problem as it likely is not allowing the timing to advance.
The stock Y-pipe is definitely a restriction, but the cars still run strong right to the limit just not as strong as they could.
Regards, Alan
03 Volvo S60 2.5T AWD
98 Mystique 2.5 MTX
99 SVT - Inheriting Lil Monster's parts
98 SVT - Lil Monster (RIP) 183.7 whp
Quaife/Fidanza/UR UD Clutch
AFE/MSDS/SHO-Y/Bassani/MagnaCore
GC/Koni/22mmR/EndLinks/ES/
KVR Slotted/1144's/SS Lines/MASItaly
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 347
CEG\'er
|
CEG\'er
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 347 |
Ok, I think I will give it a last shot with the EGR mod removed. Due to the fact that I was using a SVT UIM from a 98 model (single honed) and have now replaced it with a standard UIM which has been max honed (and retains the stock primary ports, however, the secondary ports have been opened to nearly 34mm) should I even expect this modded UIM to outperform the 98 SVT UIM?
Are the plenums actually enlarged during the EH process, or merely smoothened out? If they are not enlarged, then would a factory SVT UIM still outperform a modded standard UIM cause the internal diameters of the runners are larger on the SVT one?
Sorry if this is getting confusing, I am trying to figure out what I should be expecting!
I would just also like to add, that I contacted Rick Miller from EH about this, and he seems quite helpful in his responses. Its nice to deal with people who care!
Last edited by Ronan; 07/15/04 09:09 PM.
1996 Mondeo 24v 4-door
twin janspeed stainless pipe
cat by-pass
Phase 2 RS bodykit
16" cosworth alloys
K&N RU3530
SVT TB/UIM/LIM
poly bushings
konis/bat springs/bar
Pioneer
MSDS
Indiglos
P&P heads
2005 Mondeo Zetec Tdci
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 283
CEG\'er
|
OP
CEG\'er
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 283 |
Originally posted by Ronan: ...should I even expect this modded UIM to outperform the 98 SVT UIM? Are the plenums actually enlarged during the EH process, or merely smoothened out? If they are not enlarged, then would a factory SVT UIM still outperform a modded standard UIM cause the internal diameters of the runners are larger on the SVT one? Sorry if this is getting confusing, I am trying to figure out what I should be expecting! ...
Ronan, according to the flow #'s from Derek in the EH Group Buy forum the EH'd SE UIM should flow 285.3 cfm vs 266.3 cfm for a stock SVT:
Originally posted by Derk2000: I've been moving , but here's a quick update from Rick:
Derek, I finished airflow on Friday. The SVT intake airflow avg. before is 266.3 cfm. After Extrude hone processing the avg. airflow is 288.9. The stock intake airflow avg. before is 251.7 after the airflow avg. is 285.3. We used a SVT lower intake for airflow
It don't know that the plenums are enlarged, but would think they have to be to see that increase in flow. Rick at EH would be the one to ask.
The EH'd SE UIM should outperform the stock SVT due to the 7% increase in cfm flow. The difference may not be fully noticed (only partially) until you install the SVT cams, as I don't know if the non-SVT cams are looking for more air or not. It's been shown the the SVT cams can certainly make good power with more air.
Regards, Alan
03 Volvo S60 2.5T AWD
98 Mystique 2.5 MTX
99 SVT - Inheriting Lil Monster's parts
98 SVT - Lil Monster (RIP) 183.7 whp
Quaife/Fidanza/UR UD Clutch
AFE/MSDS/SHO-Y/Bassani/MagnaCore
GC/Koni/22mmR/EndLinks/ES/
KVR Slotted/1144's/SS Lines/MASItaly
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 7,117
Hard-core CEG'er
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 7,117 |
Originally posted by Alan Coles: It's been shown the the SVT cams can certainly make good power with more air.
(adding in To-Do list: Install SVT heads w/cams sitting on work bench)
Must be that jumbly-wumbly thing happening again.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,779
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 2,779 |
Extrude honing is a sort of "port and polish" that forces a "putty" through the passages that cuts and smooths out the walls slightly. Its main advantage is that since it is a liquid with cutting particles and such in it, it floiws like air, therefore giving the passages more laminar(sp?) flow. So technically it does open up the plenums more, but the focus on using extrude honing is rising the flow without extremely opening up the passages, especially in difficult manifolds like ours.
99 SVTC, T-Red, #652/2760-12.8.1998
Mother#@%@!* did I sound abstract?
I hope it sounded more confusin than that!
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 208
CEG\'er
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 208 |
FWIW, I experienced a similar phenomenum with an LS1 motor and porting the intake. I actually dynoed the two back to back (stock LS6 vs. ported LS6 intake) and lost power on the ported intake...the reason is that even though airflow was increased my runner speed was diminished and this apparently was a stronger effect than the increased airflow. The porting consisted of opening up runners slightly, open up throttle inlet slightly, and smoothing all the runners. copy and paste this link if you want to see, its the third graph down. We did three pulls with each intake and the results showed the same loss of power on each pull. http://www24.brinkster.com/ezerner/b1camdyno.htm (copy and paste to browser, direct clicking doesnt usually work)
00 SVT Contour: SHM LT headers, LSD, Spec Stg 3...dyno:190.3whp sold 02/04
04 Subaru Baja Turbo 5-spd
00 Camaro SS 393cid: 510rwhp/469rwtq, 11.16 @ 124.95(hit 1-2 limiter)
www.erikz.org
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 4,713
Hard-core CEG'er
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 4,713 |
ez - I could see how slowed air charge would lower hp, but aren't we measuring speed by using "cfm" ??? If our cfms are higher in the EH manifolds, wouldn't that mean the air flows faster?
Derek
Scion xB 5-spd
Previous: 2000 Silver Frost SVT
Please share the road with cyclists.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 208
CEG\'er
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 208 |
Originally posted by Derk2000: ez - I could see how slowed air charge would lower hp, but aren't we measuring speed by using "cfm" ??? If our cfms are higher in the EH manifolds, wouldn't that mean the air flows faster?
They supposedly actually flowed it and it flowed higher than what a stock one does (like 12-15cfm, although I never did see that data myself). Im not sure it actually flowed higher once it was on the engine, maybe the existing engine combo could not pull the air through it as fast as its potential was. It did seem to be more effective once I had a larger displacement engine, but Im just speculating at this point because I never did a back to back dyno after that.
00 SVT Contour: SHM LT headers, LSD, Spec Stg 3...dyno:190.3whp sold 02/04
04 Subaru Baja Turbo 5-spd
00 Camaro SS 393cid: 510rwhp/469rwtq, 11.16 @ 124.95(hit 1-2 limiter)
www.erikz.org
|
|
|
|
|