10:1 cr on 92 oct???

Reply Subscribe

Thread Tools

Search this Thread

Jan 10, 2011 | 08:02 PM

#16

saxon

Evolving Member

iTrader: (10)

Joined: Nov 2010

Posts: 267

Likes: 4

From: pa

wow it seems these motors dont handle it as well as other

i know in the Honda world you can make 600whp on 93 oct with a 2.0 K series

Jan 10, 2011 | 08:04 PM

#17

aka.ralliart15

Evolved Member

iTrader: (20)

Joined: Jul 2007

Posts: 1,453

Likes: 0

From: Gator Nation(UF)

Quote:

Originally Posted by saxon

wow it seems these motors dont handle it as well as other

i know in the Honda world you can make 600whp on 93 oct with a 2.0 K series

is that on a stock motor?

Jan 10, 2011 | 11:33 PM

#18

BLKCarbonEVO

Thread Starter

Evolved Member

iTrader: (2)

Joined: Nov 2008

Posts: 3,463

Likes: 4

From: VaBeach, VA

Quote:

Originally Posted by saxon

wow it seems these motors dont handle it as well as other

i know in the Honda world you can make 600whp on 93 oct with a 2.0 K series

Can't compare apples to oranges! The K series flow a lot better than the 4g63 head to start with! Can are also larger if I remember correctly.

Mikey

Jan 11, 2011 | 08:52 AM

#19

03whitegsr

Evolved Member

iTrader: (8)

Joined: Nov 2006

Posts: 4,001

Likes: 17

From: Utah

Quote:

Originally Posted by saxon

wow it seems these motors dont handle it as well as other

i know in the Honda world you can make 600whp on 93 oct with a 2.0 K series

What peak torque???

Hondas make that power simply because they make power at high revs. IMO, a 4G63 will make more peak torque at a given boost level on a given turbo almost every time. Torque is the issue when it comes to low octane fuel.

Jan 11, 2011 | 09:25 AM

#20

NickieBlaine

Evolved Member

iTrader: (9)

Joined: Jul 2009

Posts: 505

Likes: 0

From: INDIANA

Mikey my pump tune was on 92. I just wanted something safe, as I was planning on running e85 most the time. I just had it tuned for 25psi and called it a day. Ill see if I can find the graph for it.

Jan 11, 2011 | 09:41 AM

#21

RockmanX

Evolved Member

iTrader: (78)

Joined: Aug 2008

Posts: 6,623

Likes: 4

From: Louisiana

you got your car back nickie all issues resolved what did you end up laying down?

Jan 11, 2011 | 09:44 AM

#22

JohnBradley

Evolved Member

iTrader: (30)

Joined: Jan 2004

Posts: 11,406

Likes: 78

From: Northwest

Quote:

Originally Posted by saxon

wow it seems these motors dont handle it as well as other

i know in the Honda world you can make 600whp on 93 oct with a 2.0 K series

Quote:

Originally Posted by 03whitegsr

What peak torque???

Hondas make that power simply because they make power at high revs. IMO, a 4G63 will make more peak torque at a given boost level on a given turbo almost every time. Torque is the issue when it comes to low octane fuel.

What boost level and what turbo? A K series can make 550-600whp at 15psi using a 3586. That only further proves my point that 10:1 and HIGH boost don't cooperate.

aaron

Jan 11, 2011 | 10:26 AM

#23

BLKCarbonEVO

Thread Starter

Evolved Member

iTrader: (2)

Joined: Nov 2008

Posts: 3,463

Likes: 4

From: VaBeach, VA

Quote:

Originally Posted by NickieBlaine

Mikey my pump tune was on 92. I just wanted something safe, as I was planning on running e85 most the time. I just had it tuned for 25psi and called it a day. Ill see if I can find the graph for it.

Nick, holly ****. 25 on 10:1. Did Aaron do your tune? That seems like a lot of boost for 92.

Mikey

Jan 11, 2011 | 11:05 AM

#24

saxon

Evolving Member

iTrader: (10)

Joined: Nov 2010

Posts: 267

Likes: 4

From: pa

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnBradley

What boost level and what turbo? A K series can make 550-600whp at 15psi using a 3586. That only further proves my point that 10:1 and HIGH boost don't cooperate.

aaron

absolutely high boost + high dynamic compression is a no go

alot of people do not realize that the bigger cam you have the more compression you blead off which effectively lowers your dynamic compression

its all about efficiency and what fuel you want to use for the car

id rather build a high"er" compression engine that is very efficient for a pump gas street car and make sure i have a good tuner that way i have good off-boost response and make awesome power at lower boost levels

Jan 11, 2011 | 11:06 AM

#25

awdboosted

Evolved Member

iTrader: (30)

Joined: Aug 2006

Posts: 812

Likes: 9

From: NW Illinois

I remember hearing somewhere that stoker motors aka 2.3 and 2.4 don't like timing?? I don’t know if this is true or not because I've never tuned one.

Jan 11, 2011 | 11:07 AM

#26

Erik@MIL.SPEC

Former Sponsor

iTrader: (94)

Joined: Dec 2001

Posts: 5,695

Likes: 24

From: Los Angeles

Quote:

Originally Posted by 03whitegsr

I've done 10:1 on 91 octane with a T67. Anything over about 18-20 psi was a problem.

If I did a 2.3, I've got some 9.5:1 MIL.SPEC pistons here I could throw in. What do you think would be the boost differences between 9.5:1 and 10:1 on 91 octane for an FP Black?

Jan 11, 2011 | 11:17 AM

#27

BLKCarbonEVO

Thread Starter

Evolved Member

iTrader: (2)

Joined: Nov 2008

Posts: 3,463

Likes: 4

From: VaBeach, VA

Quote:

Originally Posted by awdboosted

I remember hearing somewhere that stoker motors aka 2.3 and 2.4 don't like timing?? I don’t know if this is true or not because I've never tuned one.

See I was always told larger bore motors could take more timing before starting to knock than a smaller bore motor... I'm sure Aaron can clarify for us.

Mikey

Jan 11, 2011 | 11:18 AM

#28

JohnBradley

Evolved Member

iTrader: (30)

Joined: Jan 2004

Posts: 11,406

Likes: 78

From: Northwest

Quote:

Originally Posted by awdboosted

I remember hearing somewhere that stoker motors aka 2.3 and 2.4 don't like timing?? I don’t know if this is true or not because I've never tuned one.

2.4 is about the same as a 2.0L, 2.3s seem to go back and forth between wanting more timing than normal (2-3*) and sometimes wanting less. That describes almost all of them though, some are happier different than others. The bore difference we are operating in is not enough to make a drastic difference one way or another. Jump 10mm and it seems 5* or so more is needed.

Seems to me this thread can be summed up in one more sentence-

Trust your tuner and dont second guess him unless there are obvious reasons to do so.

Jan 11, 2011 | 11:22 AM

#29

BLKCarbonEVO

Thread Starter

Evolved Member

iTrader: (2)

Joined: Nov 2008

Posts: 3,463

Likes: 4

From: VaBeach, VA

Quote:

Originally Posted by saxon

alot of people do not realize that the bigger cam you have the more compression you blead off which effectively lowers your dynamic compression

That is exactly correct! A lot of people don't even know the difference between static compression and dynamic compression. The one that maters is dynamic

I don't have the calculations in front of me put I think my car is a dyn of 9.3:1.

Mikey

Jan 11, 2011 | 11:44 AM

#30

4doorbullit

Newbie

iTrader: (2)

Joined: Aug 2006

Posts: 68

Likes: 1

From: jax,fl

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnBradley

Its amazing the difference 92 to 93 makes though. To put it into perspective, 91 to 92 tuning can be as much as 5* of timing in spots and almost always 3* less. From what I have seen I would be completely surprised if 92 to 92 was any different. I have ran 32psi on 9:1 motors on 92 here without any meth or additives. I ran 30psi on my 10:1 2.2 but it became apparent it didnt really like it on the street (vs the dyno).

It would be interesting to know what timing you are running at 34psi on 93 and a 10:1 motor and if its AEM or stock computer. The other thing (minor detail) depending on pistons the compression of a 10:1 Wiseco or JE is actually 9.7:1 and can vary with HG thickness a little as well. I think Wiseco has actually taken to calling it just a 9.7:1 these days.

Aaron

I tuned the car. Im pretty sure he has wiseco in the car. As for the timing on the car its 8 degrees at the very top end on 32 psi. The car runs very strong and its on a .63 housing.

Reply Share

First
Prev
2 / 4
Next
Last