Notices
Evo Dyno Tuning / Results Discuss vendor and member dyno tuning techniques, results and graphs.

Buschur Racing's first 2.4 L engine build, results inside.

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Jan 9, 2010 | 05:36 PM
  #91  
R/TErnie's Avatar
Evolved Member
iTrader: (32)
 
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 5,380
Likes: 6
From: WAR EAGLE!
Since we have a lot of 100mm stroker guys in this thread I figured you might be able to give me some input here... Thanks!

https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/ev...reat-idea.html
Reply
Old Jan 9, 2010 | 07:46 PM
  #92  
epooh1's Avatar
Evolving Member
 
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 110
Likes: 0
From: Miami, FL.
Originally Posted by scheides
You guys clamoring for results on big turbos are fools. 2.4 + A nice bolt-on turbo = mountains of torque. 400wqt by ~3700rpm is so much damn fun on the street. If you have never experienced this (or something like this) then STFU and let the guy enjoy his car
I'd probably take offense to the "You guys...fools" comment, but I've been reading this thread since day 1 and I know what this torque feels like. Have you read the original title? If you want people to STFU then you shouldn't read forums. Otherwise post in peace. Congrats again xRoguex.
Reply
Old Jan 9, 2010 | 09:48 PM
  #93  
JohnBradley's Avatar
Evolved Member
Shutterbug
Liked
Loved
Community Favorite
iTrader: (30)
 
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 11,406
Likes: 78
From: Northwest
Not to interrupt but there is one interesting thing we learned in Johnny's car that we didnt know in mine even until later. The MIVEC feed bolt has a restrictor in it which our line kit did not have. Replacing it allowed full MIVEC control so the car is actually spooling faster now than it was in those dyno sheets. It probably needs a retune again to be truthful.
Reply
Old Jan 9, 2010 | 10:24 PM
  #94  
Kracka's Avatar
Evolved Member
iTrader: (49)
 
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 8,970
Likes: 17
From: Prosper, TX
*delete b/c I am a dumbass*

Last edited by Kracka; Jan 9, 2010 at 10:26 PM.
Reply
Old Jan 10, 2010 | 12:33 AM
  #95  
JohnnyTSi's Avatar
Evolving Member
iTrader: (3)
 
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 375
Likes: 9
From: Everett, WA
Originally Posted by JohnBradley
Not to interrupt but there is one interesting thing we learned in Johnny's car that we didnt know in mine even until later. The MIVEC feed bolt has a restrictor in it which our line kit did not have. Replacing it allowed full MIVEC control so the car is actually spooling faster now than it was in those dyno sheets. It probably needs a retune again to be truthful.
The MIVEC oil feed banjo bolt is a check valve as well as a restrictor, the car runs much smoother with it installed in the ER 4g64 MIVEC oil feed system:
Attached Thumbnails Buschur Racing's first 2.4 L engine build, results inside.-mitsuasa.jpg  

Last edited by JohnnyTSi; Jan 10, 2010 at 09:46 AM.
Reply
Old Jan 10, 2010 | 09:33 AM
  #96  
shunderwunder's Avatar
Evolved Member
iTrader: (41)
 
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 911
Likes: 0
From: Alpharetta GA
Hmmm. I wonder if possibly I mixed up my banjo bolts when I did my build. I've been getting a P1021 code & havent been able to figure it out. I wonder if not having the right bolt with that check valve could cause it. Guess I'll have to check. And if so then I wonder where the hell I installed it & if it's could cause an issue where ever it is.
Reply
Old Jan 10, 2010 | 10:32 AM
  #97  
JohnnyTSi's Avatar
Evolving Member
iTrader: (3)
 
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 375
Likes: 9
From: Everett, WA
Originally Posted by shunderwunder
Hmmm. I wonder if possibly I mixed up my banjo bolts when I did my build. I've been getting a P1021 code & havent been able to figure it out. I wonder if not having the right bolt with that check valve could cause it. Guess I'll have to check. And if so then I wonder where the hell I installed it & if it's could cause an issue where ever it is.
At first glance the banjo bolt looks just like a normal part, you actually have to look into the end to notice the check valve components.

It is possible to reach it with one hand without dissasembling anything (at least on my setup). Trying to get everything to line up and assembled with one hand was a serious PITA.

John-
Reply
Old Jan 10, 2010 | 11:20 AM
  #98  
Levar's Avatar
Evolved Member
Veteran: Army
iTrader: (85)
 
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,438
Likes: 6
From: Central Texas
Originally Posted by dsm25psi
MAP intake and exhaust manifold???
I believe we are talking about the MAP ported/coated exhaust manifold and Rev3 intake manifold, right?

Originally Posted by davidbuschur
This was the first 2.4 build and we'll see how it goes. I am impressed with the torque and how the engine feels. Everyone gets hung up on RPM and "how high can I rev it?" Fact is most guys are running their car past where they should be in the first place and that's why many of them turn crappy track times.
This is by far one of the leading quotes of 2010 thus far. I've recently had a thrown rod and is now in the process of doing a 2.3L build. Wanting to stick with a stock-framed turbo for the interim, I'm concerned about the additional torque the higher displacement will bring. I was previously tuned to 394wtq with E85 on 30PSI. I've read thread after thread about either 2.3L builds and now a few on 2.4L builds but I haven't seen (read) anything about how to properly strengthen the transmission. What do you fellahs recommend at a minimum?

Originally Posted by JohnnyTSi
Aaron's right, on my 4g64 build the FPBlack falls off in airflow after about 7500; from my experiance, there would be no advantage to reving it out that far. A larger turbo is needed to keep the 2.4 supplied at higher rpms.
My plans are to run a ported stock IX turbo on E85 with my 2.3L build. I'm wondering where the power will start to drop off.

Originally Posted by batty200
20 miles, that's it? The benefits of e85 are so huge I would easily drive 20 miles one way to get it. Just take a couple gas cans with you and get an extra tanks worth each trip. E85 super fuel is worth the effort. It certainly can save a motor rather than running 93 to the edge and worrying about a bad tank of gas.
This is some very good advice. The benefits of running E85 are tremendous and you'd be amazed at how alive your car will be afterwards (not to mention that E85 sure does burn sweet).
Reply
Old Jan 11, 2010 | 05:37 PM
  #99  
David Buschur's Avatar
Thread Starter
Evolved Member
iTrader: (53)
 
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 14,622
Likes: 32
The car was put back on the dyno today. Numbers are basically the same with pure 93 octane in the car. I ran the car out to 8,000 rpm, power as can be seen in the first post was starting to fall by 7500 rpm and that trend continued on and doesn't make for an impressive looking dyno sheet.

This car was knock prone on the original 2 liter. The engine did end up spinning a rod bearing BUT I can usually pick up on that type of noise and even with listening to the engine a few times during the orignal tuning session I never heard anything.

The knock activity is still there and it's aggravating. Considerable time was spent today and it's as sorted as I can get it. 25 psi seems to be about the peak boost for 93 octane.

There are many things that can cause knock and I'd love to go into great detail here about my thoughts on this but it's not for here. Post are taken down and it pisses me off, so I'll leave the better tech for elsewhere.

Rogue, I'll try to give you a call tomorrow.
Reply
Old Jan 11, 2010 | 05:48 PM
  #100  
b16a95eg's Avatar
Evolved Member
iTrader: (12)
 
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 517
Likes: 0
From: Minnesota
the 2.4 just spun a rod bearing? if so that sucks!
Reply
Old Jan 11, 2010 | 06:02 PM
  #101  
tscompusa2's Avatar
Former Sponsor
iTrader: (22)
 
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 5,375
Likes: 10
From: pa
Originally Posted by b16a95eg
the 2.4 just spun a rod bearing? if so that sucks!
he was referring to the 2.0 ........ which is why he said

The knock activity is still there and it's aggravating. Considerable time was spent today and it's as sorted as I can get it. 25 psi seems to be about the peak boost for 93 octane.

AFTER he stated the 2.0 spun a rod bearing.
Reply
Old Jan 11, 2010 | 07:44 PM
  #102  
penthouse's Avatar
Account Disabled
 
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 356
Likes: 0
From: on the street
strong power for pump gas david. This thing probably would make around 500 on dynojet. It also might run high 10s too. This engine setup sound like it's ready for future e85, race gas tuned with 35+ psi.
Reply
Old Jan 11, 2010 | 08:52 PM
  #103  
batty200's Avatar
Evolved Member
iTrader: (3)
 
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,203
Likes: 5
Originally Posted by davidbuschur
This car was knock prone on the original 2 liter. The engine did end up spinning a rod bearing BUT I can usually pick up on that type of noise and even with listening to the engine a few times during the orignal tuning session I never heard anything.
The original engine.
Reply
Old Jan 11, 2010 | 08:53 PM
  #104  
batty200's Avatar
Evolved Member
iTrader: (3)
 
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,203
Likes: 5
Originally Posted by tscompusa
he was referring to the 2.0 ........ which is why he said

The knock activity is still there and it's aggravating. Considerable time was spent today and it's as sorted as I can get it. 25 psi seems to be about the peak boost for 93 octane.

AFTER he stated the 2.0 spun a rod bearing.
You beat me to it. Call me wed morning and we can talk about SD!
Reply
Old Jan 12, 2010 | 09:49 AM
  #105  
b16a95eg's Avatar
Evolved Member
iTrader: (12)
 
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 517
Likes: 0
From: Minnesota
Originally Posted by tscompusa
he was referring to the 2.0 ........ which is why he said

The knock activity is still there and it's aggravating. Considerable time was spent today and it's as sorted as I can get it. 25 psi seems to be about the peak boost for 93 octane.

AFTER he stated the 2.0 spun a rod bearing.
ohhh reading owns me sometimes, I guess saying he had to call rogue tomorrow threw me off a little bit
Reply



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:47 PM.