Yet another SC Turbo conversion! :) - Page 2

scottrx7tt · 01-04-2016, 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tippy

I'd say you are very conservative.

But, one thing that jumps out to me is your low RPM high load cells. 35° is way too high.

In the 450 RPM/100kPa cell, I'd put 0°.

This is the cell where the engine is starting in. It'll help the starter to spin the motor and reduce kickback.

Once it fires off, the timing jumps up due to vacuum to help keep it running.

What Sal pointed out, too high of timing at low RPM makes for a situation where the piston is literally being pushed backwards, making for difficult running.

im not sure why he did the 35 degrees at that RPM, i guess i could take that back to 20 or so. What do you think would be a safe advance under boost?

Tippy · 01-04-2016, 02:00 PM

I'd think 5 across the boost areas would be fine and still conservative. You do have small bores, so it has a big impact.

Ideally, someone with a turbo'd 3.0 using J&S Safeguard could provide solid values.

patkeefe · 01-04-2016, 03:18 PM

How did you do an entire turbo conversion in a few weeks? That is amazing to me.

scottrx7tt · 01-04-2016, 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patkeefe

How did you do an entire turbo conversion in a few weeks? That is amazing to me.

The new parts, i ordered all at once, and installed things as they trickled in. The microsquirt and Ford EDIS took the most actual time. Just the ECU and ignition took a few days to get wired up. I could have got it done faster if the Christmas rush wouldn't have slowed my packages down. I had already installed the carrera intake a year or so ago, but it had to come back off to attach the oil supply line, and to make my custom fuel lines, etc. The actual exhaust part of the project was done in just a few hours. I did have a 3ldz turbo installed, then decided to go the K27 route, so i had to spend a little extra time swapping that out. Without the exhaust on, it probably took about 45 minutes to swap the actual turbo out. I noticed that most people remove the rear valance, and bumper to do the install, but i didn't have to do that.
I would estimate around 16 hours actual working time to complete it.

Tippy · 01-04-2016, 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scottrx7tt

The microsquirt and Ford EDIS took the most actual time. Just the ECU and ignition took a few days to get wired up.

Man, I wished anyone on the fence to convert to EFI would read this.

I can't say this enough, it's easy to wire one up. The planning takes the longest.

flat6pilot · flat6pilot's Garage

Quote:

Originally Posted by patkeefe

How did you do an entire turbo conversion in a few weeks? That is amazing to me.

Same here, from the time I pulled the N/A headers off and fired it up for the first time was about two weeks. I would have finished sooner had I had ALL the parts at once. It was just a waiting game for the small stuff to trickle in.

lite75 · lite75's Garage

Nice build, just keep a eye on your injector duty cycle with e85 and 60lb injectors. I'm running the flex fuel sensor with ms3x and it works very well.

scottrx7tt · 01-05-2016, 10:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lite75

Nice build, just keep a eye on your injector duty cycle with e85 and 60lb injectors. I'm running the flex fuel sensor with ms3x and it works very well.

Based on the fuel calculators I have used, I should be good for up to 450hp at 85% duty cycle on e85. I would not think I am making anywhere near that at the moment. It feels strong, but I have not dynoed it yet, so I really have no clue. When I first dreamed up this project, I was only figuring on making around 350-375 at the crank. It would suck to have to upgrade fuel injectors already!

scottrx7tt · 05-12-2016, 03:37 PM

dynoing the car tomorrow, will report the results!

Tippy · 05-12-2016, 05:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scottrx7tt

dynoing the car tomorrow, will report the results!

Rootin' fer ya! Break a dyno, er leg!

scottrx7tt · 05-13-2016, 07:50 AM

Dyno #s are in 402hp 361 tq
I will post the chart when I get home. Pretty happy with the results...

lite75 · lite75's Garage

Running E85?
Nice numbers!!

scottrx7tt · 05-13-2016, 08:11 AM

Yessir

Quote:

Originally Posted by lite75

Running E85?
Nice numbers!!

scottrx7tt · 05-13-2016, 10:35 AM

Air/fuel ratio was in the mid 11s. Their gauge was not working correctly, so they did not put the air/fuel info on the sheet. Kind of wish they put RPM instead of Speed... Maybe i can get another printout next time i am in the area.

scottrx7tt · 05-13-2016, 10:45 AM

Here is another dyno pull that looks a little cleaner, not sure why the other one is so jumpy.

flat6pilot · flat6pilot's Garage

Damn! nice build! That has to feel scary on the street. Is that still on a 915 gearbox? Did you shift into 5th at the end or something???

jpnovak · 11:00 AM

Nice result. I am sure its a blast to drive.

Did you datalog your run from the laptop?

btw, you asked a question previously about timing. Yes, I also think this is conservative. though you are running high static compression so it probably works well. That is not a problem.

However, Please do yourself a favor and scale your timing (and presumably fuel) tables where you will use them. Your timing curve shows peak pressure at 250kPa indicting 1.5bar boost pressure. I think you are only running up to 0.8bar boost. If so, you are not getting anywhere close to the top three rows of timing. This is just wasted resolution for you. Your max row should be somewhere around 180kPa maybe slightly higher depending on actual readout numbers from your MAP sensor. Then rescale the load values to fill in the gaps.

You also need to scale your rpm bins. Your last column jumps from 5400 to 7500 rpm. I doubt you are spinning so fast. Notice that dip in your curve from 105 to 120 mph? That is your car wanting more timing. You can see the output pick up as you transition from 14 to 17 deg timing coming closer to the last cell. You can back calculate your rpm from the speed assuming you know which gear you were in. I would guess 4th based on the speed. This will help you determine where you need to adjust timing.

carry on.

scottrx7tt · 05-13-2016, 11:09 AM

Thanks for the feedback, I did not think to datalog any of my runs(would have been helpful) I have modified my timing table since then, I will see if i can post an updated table. but yeah, i see the jump from 5400 to 7500, that cant be good. I still have up to 250Kpa, so i guess i should probably dial that back a bit. I have a weird hesitation around 3k RPMs, and that happens to be an area where the timing jumps pretty drastically. This was just a tune that i conjured up from the autotune function, and the Spark table was modified from someone else's 3.0 build. I am thinking one day i will spend the $ to have someone custom tune the car.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jpnovak

Nice result. I am sure its a blast to drive.

Did you datalog your run from the laptop?

btw, you asked a question previously about timing. Yes, I also think this is conservative. though you are running high static compression so it probably works well. That is not a problem.

However, Please do yourself a favor and scale your timing (and presumably fuel) tables where you will use them. Your timing curve shows peak pressure at 250kPa indicting 1.5bar boost pressure. I think you are only running up to 0.8bar boost. If so, you are not getting anywhere close to the top three rows of timing. This is just wasted resolution for you. Your max row should be somewhere around 180kPa maybe slightly higher depending on actual readout numbers from your MAP sensor. Then rescale the load values to fill in the gaps.

You also need to scale your rpm bins. Your last column jumps from 5400 to 7500 rpm. I doubt you are spinning so fast. Notice that dip in your curve from 105 to 120 mph? That is your car wanting more timing. You can see the output pick up as you transition from 14 to 17 deg timing coming closer to the last cell. You can back calculate your rpm from the speed assuming you know which gear you were in. I would guess 4th based on the speed. This will help you determine where you need to adjust timing.

carry on.

Tippy · 05-13-2016, 11:14 AM

Hot damn! Those are some big numbers! E85 is where it's at for sure.

Congrats on the #'s!

scottrx7tt · 05-13-2016, 11:15 AM

Still the stock 915. We ran it all the way up to redline, that was most likely the fuel cut.
The car feels crazy fast in 3rd and 4th gear on the interstate. I really didn't know what to expect with this bastardized motor, but it seems to be pretty happy with the turbo. If i were not running E85, i would be really scared to pop this engine with the 9.5:1 compression ratio.

Quote:

Originally Posted by flat6pilot

Damn! nice build! That has to feel scary on the street. Is that still on a 915 gearbox? Did you shift into 5th at the end or something???