390-400whp on most AWD Dynojets. Maybe 400-410whp some higher reading ones in CT

Shiv

PS. Ted's car is running a custom XEDEflash under his XEDE to accomodate his larger injectors. So his maps wont be appropriate for anyone else not doing the same.

 

Nice work

 

i just want to know what you did with the timing with the meth. is it stock timing like on 110?

and, do you ever advance timing on these things shiv? this would be for a drag application.

 

I haven't seen the maps yet, as it is only the next day and I haven't yet installed the software to read the V3 maps.

Also, I might point out that this setup is NOT intended to give best absolute peak power. The cam settings I chose will leave maybe 5-8whp on the table in favor of at least that figure in midrange torque. Had I set the cams at something like 0/-2 or -1/-3, there would be an increase in peak power at the expense of some torque. Where midrange torque is concerned however, it's all meat & potatoes as soon as the turbo spools!

 

brian...to give you an idea...on the dynojet you got your numbers from, my peak tq was 300ft lbs exactly....before shiv even touched my car (which is what it was like at ride revolution) i was right around 260 or so ft/lbs on the dynodynamics - i dont have the baseline chart so i cant verify the numbers exactly...if you want to get together another dyno day over the summer, i would be glad to participate again...then compare my DD numbers to their dynojet and you can see about how you compare to these vishnu guys...

or we can all caravan down to dyno4mance if you want

 

nice numbers.

 

HAHAHAHAHAHA

 

FWIW, just because the timing map is zero'd out doesn't mean that the timing is stock when running the race gas map. With the MAF table pulled back 10-20 points, actual timing is going to be advanced several degrees. I have used postive timing offsets before but prefer not too since MAF enleanments usually induces the desired effect on spark advance.

shiv

PS. The timing map in Ted's car is not zero'd out.

 

Ok. Thanks.

So, does the xede trick the maf sensor like the safc does and actually makes it think there is less air in the motor so it gives less fuel, thus tweaking the cars timing?

any idea how much advanced the timing may be with about a 12.0 a/f on 110?

 

sweet

 

??

 

Nice numbers, Ted.

Got a quick question. My knowledge on cams is somewhere along the lines of "cams 101", so forgive me if this sounds retarded, but ... why install 280 cams and then tune them for torque? It's my understanding that the more aggressive cams are meant to increase topend, not mid-range torque. Wouldn't 264 cams work better for what you are tuning for? Or are you looking for a compromise of torque/peak hp by getting a set of cams that is known to make great topend hp and detuning them so-to-speak?

l8r)

 

Great question! Ditto! Because I can't imagine the 280's being anything but Full Race cams! I think without the TME and ALKY, they wouldn't be as nice in the midrange.

 

Cams that offer more lift and/or duration will almost automatically offer increased top end power potential by virtue of the fact that they open the valves long enough to increase VE in rpm ranges that stress available airflow. However, to say that an aggressive cam profile only benefits a top-end power application is just plain false. With competent cam timing settings, one can take an aggressive cam set and make more low speed and midrange torque than a smaller cam set can hope to achieve. This however assumes the cylinder head flows well enough respond to the increased cam timing and maintains good port velocity. The EVO happens to have a very good cylinder head, which is obviously an important key to its power potential.

The nice thing about a DOHC engine is that we can take a set of 'aggressive' cams and adjust them both with respect to the crankshaft AND respect to each other in order to take that same top end power boost and apply it elsewhere in the rpm range. So long as the cylinder head is capable of delivering both adequate flow AND good port velocity with little reversion, we won't lose much...if anything at all.

In this case, I deliberately tightened the LSA to 106 deg, which is very aggressive for a turbo motor. This gives a lot of overlap, which gives better top-end performance at the expense of low speed tractability and torque. However, I countered the tight LSA by bringing the lobe centers to a slightly advanced setting. What this effectively does is takes that top end VE improvement and forces it downward in the rpm range...improving the idle and low speed tractability along with it. To say it's accomplished that is an understatement at this point.

So, instead of having the torque (VE) peak at 5000rpm as I did with the 272s set at -3/-3, the advanced setting of the 280s forces it down to 4400rpm. The longer overlap and tighter LSA gives a bigger torque peak, and better VE. These settings also affected the power peak as well, giving peak hp about 400rpm earlier. Because hp is a function of tq and rpm, if I changed the cam timing to give the same torque curve but 400rpm later, that works out to another 20whp in a 'perfect world'. However, the limitation of the 16G is the 'imperfection' here, so until I get my hands on a turbo that can keep up, I'll take the PHATT midrange and the confusion it will cause to many a V8 lover.

 

Great Numbers.

I am impressed with the gains of the 280's over the 272's between 3,800 - 5,600

Granted ther are other reason's for the power boost besides the cams, but you added an awesome increase where 99% of evo owners visit with regards to revs!

I geeked together an overlay between the 2 cams on 93 octane, hopefully it's viewable.

What are you going to do with the 272's? Are they sold yet?