My car went on a 140# diet which cost me less then $500...for u fat a$$es out there u may wanna invest in some slim fast shakes. j/king

Mark

 

It's not completely unbelievable but I will say this give me a Bone stock r6 in perfect working order and I'm going to pull on your EVO at least 7 car lengths. But I don't have any regard for personal safty on a bike so this guy must have been a bit scared going against a car.

A r1 bone stock runs 9s in the 140+ traps. I would say a r6 would be in the low 11s with a 120+ trap.

I had a 92 ZX750r with 138whp nothing on the road came close to catching me and I raced a few Vipers and modded Porsche turbos. The R6 is at least 110 to the wheel.

But anything could happen

 

You would hope she brings you a spare. If I blow I tire I know better not to call my wife because of all the crap I will catch from her about driving around with out a spare.

 

He's right. I got it on and can vouch for its performance.

 

do you have one for your EVO? Are they hard to install?

 

works throttle body?

Increased fuel pressure. Has anyone really tried increasing fuel pressure a bunch, that way you can occupy the port with more air due to the aid of a denser shot of fuel?

Work on keeping the air cooler between the exit of the ic & throttle body.

do you already have underdrive pullies?

 

I can't see it making much more power with the stock turbo even with a TB. They work well on NA cars but we have turbos so I would say it would fall flat on it's face.

 

Fuel delivery is not an issue (neither is the TB). Increasing FP will not work anyway, as the computer will compensate and simply lean the mixture.

I don't plan on getting UDP set, simply because I don't like the idea of running a solid crank pulley with no harmonic dampening ability. I don't mind slowing down the accessories, but I'm not going to give up vibration dampening to do it.

I have to agree with E. L., in that the only places I can get a bit more hp are in relieving any lingering exhaust restriction (eg. cat, manifold), H2O/MeOH injection, and maybe a better IC may give a few hp on a hot day.

Not much else...

 

I would love some Ohlins, but I need to hear more information on them. Also, wider tires would be nice like 265's but will they work with the ohlins and the lowered car height.

 

265's are on Vishnu's OLA car and they use off the shelf ohlins

 

I guess you are suggesting that Wurkz is making false claims about their t.b., let alone getting another tuner; who's integrity very questionable, praising this product? If you can show a power chart on the wurkz t.b. not making any more power, I would like to see it.

Have you ever conducted a fuel pressure study on an engine dyno? I have, I first observed this study on a 2v 3.0L v6 making 1200 reliable hp. The results are eye opening, especially when you have control over injection timing. I guess injection timing doesnt play into power as well, since the fuel is being squirted in there anyways That's a whole other topic which has never been broached within evom, let alone here.

As far as air temp goes, if you apply this correction factor towards reducing your inlet temp within the plenum, you will see a gain or loss: (base temp+273.15/new temp+273.15)0.6 power=x, multiply y* current eng power=new power with reduded inlet temp. I have seen this on our engine dyno, when we ran turbo chargered engines. We won a few races, check out honda's success within the cart series.

Besides, they were only suggestions, if you have personal proof or experienced contradicting these above mentioned claims, present them, that would be awesome!

That's what these forums are all about, learning, not flaming.

 

Regarding the Works "aperture", if one can show me the dyno data with A/F logging and pressure drop differential that proves the claimed difference is solely attributable to the TB, and I'll be satisfied. Until then, it's just another claim. Claims are easy to make...too easy.

As for fuel pressure studies, I've conducted quite a few over the past 10 years. Increasing the fuel pressure richens the mixture at all settings, including closed loop PT, upon which the computer detects the anomaly via the O2 sensors, and reduces the injector pulse accordingly to correct (read: lean) the mixture back to the original setting. If it cannot lean it enough, you get a constant CEL. This is why adjustable fuel pressure regulators are not a viable option for EVOs and other vehicles with similar engine management systems. But this is moot because it isn't necessary (not so in the old days). Furthermore, when the injector pressure varies greatly from the injector design pressure, atomization quality suffers.

As far as injector timing, yes it is important. On street cars, the injector is usually pulsed just short of the intake valve opening. The injector timing can be delayed slightly, which sometimes results in a bit of a torque increase, but the downside is firing an injector at an open valve can cause cylinder wash, which can compromise wear characteristics. I've played with this quite a bit.

As per dropping intake charge temp, I agree (so does Boyle) that it would be beneficial.

 

Statement 1: I agree with "claims are easy". It's difficult to get any type of comparison data, let alone are they accurate & not biased to some degree.

Statement 2: I disagree. if your controling your a/f to a target with a decent pid type controler, a/f should be in check. Doesnt the xede control a/f? are there defined limits & ranges within the software that doesnt allow wot closed loop control?

Statement 3: .................power is there to be made, there are compromises to any modification. I too play with inj timing, everytime we run a differnet spec engine. When we have had a desired spreay pattern, but running @ max duty cycle, increased fp helps. Unfortuneley were f.p. limited. So by getting a higher flowing inj w/similar spray characteistics, power is gained by shortening up the shot of fuel going in, thus allowing for tighter condensed squirt of fuel. Lets face it, inlet port area is prime realestate, lets not waste it with a poor air displacing shot of fuel. Hence the ereason for increased fp suggestion.

good luck with your decisions & keep us posted, as I know I will be looking forward to seeing them.

By the way, thanks again for posting your cam timing finds!

 

Yeah, but what other suporting suspension mods are necessary to keep the tire from rubbing?

 

The only way increasing FP can work with most modern systems is if it is increased only at WOT. Why is this? Simply because the computer makes WOT (open loop) fuel calculations based upon what it learns at PT (closed loop). If the pressure increase is evident at PT, the amount of fuel per pulse changes, the computer learns this, and makes the correction. If it cannot make the correction, you get a constant CEL light.

In any case, it's a non-issue for me. I have 650cc injectors and their efficiency is not compromised at this power level and fuel requirements.