kreionic

iTrader: (14)

very impressive Aaron. Seems like your vacation did you well Hit me up when you get a chance

AWD Motorsports

iTrader: (211)

that is just SICK power.. congrats!!!

nonschlont

iTrader: (3)

sick!

Creamo3

iTrader: (48)

Nice power!! Why is there negative timing from 4500-5000rpm?

goldtooth

nice and linear band

JohnBradley

iTrader: (30)

Correct, it needed more timing but believe it or not I am not interested in pushing it on gas (even though the boost is really pretty low). the negative timing was too see if the knock was phantom or not and if I should turn the knock control from stock to something a little more numb. I had actually pulled 4* out of that area to see what it was doing. It is false so I am going to add it back in.

Those but primarily the ignition timing, I think more the ignition ramp.

I put it was 25.5 just because it would look funny if I post,"hey I did it wrong and made 584 at 22.7psi". I typically always count the spike even if its not really what the boost is at peak power. I wanted to avoid the inevitable comments about it being a dynojet or uncorrected, though for the most part those days seem to be behind us.

If I were going to leave it on pump (it goes on booze tomorrow) I think there is plenty left to find. The 3586, the cams, the intake, the headport, Everything is working together extremely well to make excellent power at low boost and timing. Having made similar power on 3 other engines (2 of them being mine previous to this) at varying boost levels, I dont think its "just" the 2.4. The 2.2 made the same power or close at the same boost level. The completely stock bottom end with just the cams and springs made 496. So far the progression has gone-

23psi at peak power

2.0 (3586, Magnus, and S2s) 496/337

2.2 (same, 10:1, and headporting) 579/446

2.4 (same, 9:1, new GSC cams, less timing) 584/429

Then we have other cars that have made 580ish on pump

2.0 (mine)- 29psi 574/397 and one 32psi never published.

2.0 (Big Jesse's)- 30psi 596/425

project_skyline

iTrader: (30)

Bad ***. I know the 2.4 and HTA86 would be a winner.

Good job aaron, thing looks killer even for 92 octane.

JohnBradley

iTrader: (30)

I'm half tempted to put it on the dyno tonight just to see if I can make the magic number with just pump. The thing is I live on the dyno as it is, so taking a night off, putting good fuel in it, and jumping on it tomorrow is probably a better strategery.

Drifto

iTrader: (6)

You make this look too easy!!! 23psi??!?!?

Turbojunkie

iTrader: (21)

U r like neo in the matrix with da_mn laptop and stock ecu .

JohnBradley

iTrader: (30)

Drifto, check the other board as well. Its all the turbo I swear . I have made clones of my stock 2.0L and they all do exactly the same thing. Now I am playing with the bigger motors to see what makes them tick.

Billy, get on it son

General-

I have a theory about "adjusted airflow". Boost is just backpressure in the intake manifold. To get the equivalent airflow level on a 2.0L requires (assuming VE is constant) 20% more boost (2.0 to the 2.4 difference). The 23 becomes 27.6psi. I made 574 on a stock head and smaller cams at 28.8 so in general it seems to hold true. I have had many years of experience to draw from in my automotive education, so while it is tempting to take credit for it, I will say I was taught by some of the best, I work with some of the best everyday, and I race with some of the best.

What I do is only as cool as I those that help me

jid2

iTrader: (62)

Don't put the car back on the dyno on pump gas. Wait until tomorrow on e85. Take a night off and eat a cheeseburger!

JohnBradley

iTrader: (30)

Cheeseburger has done been ett.

JC evo1

Nice Aaron! How does the 2.4 drive compared to the 2.2 with higher comp? Also what happened to you're 2.2 did it die?

JohnBradley

iTrader: (30)

I changed my goals with the car and decided to part the 2.2 out and do something a little different and what is currently interesting. The rods might go in a 2.1, the crank and cams sold. I kept the head, pan, intake, hardware, etc. Pistons were kinda slappy so those went back to JE to get inspected. To be honest they drive about the same since they make the same naturally aspirated power. The 2.2 might have had a little edge and definitely wasnt quite as thirsty on the highway.

Basically it didnt have the power curve I was after and I didnt want to go up in turbo size. So the option is if its going to make peak power sub 8000 I may as well go larger displacement. This happened to work very well as you can see the peak power is 7750. Almost identical to the 2.2, but everything is off the shelf