mph?

[talstar]

I'm wondering what my mph should be with my 67bb turbo on pump gas, no alky. I was at 111mph with the 44 and since have added a 210/215 roller and a 70mm throttle body.

[bison]

Originally Posted by talstar

I'm wondering what my mph should be with my 67bb turbo on pump gas, no alky. I was at 111mph with the 44 and since have added a 210/215 roller and a 70mm throttle body.

It will be the same unless you are revving the engine higher and/or increasing the boost. The 44 has been in the mid 120's and the 6776 has been over 130mph. Running a 6776 on pump gas without another anti-detonant is a waste $. I would have bought alky injection first and been guaranteed to make 50-80hp more at higher boost levels with the 44. The 70 mm TB was a waste of $ at your level also. A 62mm TB will work without restriction on a 231ci up to 6000 rpm and maybe a little more. Stock is not a problem up to 5600 and ive rarely seen a need for larger than stock on a stock headed engine.

[talstar]

Going from a stock turbo(106mph) to the 44(111mph) was a gain on pump gas. I thought bigger turbos make more power and less heat at the same boost level. I was running 16lbs of boost on the stock and 44 turbo. Also, I have GN1 heads and ported intake. The stock throttle body was the last restriction I had as everything else (intercooler, dp etc. is at least 3inches).

[talstar]

Anyone have a guess on the mph I should be around?

[bison]

Originally Posted by talstar

Going from a stock turbo(106mph) to the 44(111mph) was a gain on pump gas. I thought bigger turbos make more power and less heat at the same boost level. I was running 16lbs of boost on the stock and 44 turbo. Also, I have GN1 heads and ported intake. The stock throttle body was the last restriction I had as everything else (intercooler, dp etc. is at least 3inches).

Bigger turbos can make more power at less boost but that isnt guaranteed. Putting a 70 mm compressor on a car with a 2200 stall and 231ci engine will surge like a bitch if you can get it to spool. If its surging its not making cooler boost. The point of a larger compressor is to be able to increase the mass flow through the engine in the proper operating window. The window is based on the combo. If you are outside the window it wont help power and will hurt driveability. I assumed you still had stock heads. You should be at a much higher mph than you are if you have GN1 heads and a matching intake. Even at 16 psi id guess you would be in the 118 mph range at the strip on a decent tune. The stock TB is not even close to being a restriction unless you are revving to over 5700 rpm. At that point you would be going in the mid 120's. I dont have any legitimate numbers for those low boost numbers but i ran 122 mph on the street with a G-tech with black car in my sig and 17 psi. I had a TE44 and stock TB on it at that time. The actual mph would have been in the 117-118mph range at the strip. It went 117mph G-teched at 14 psi on the same day( would have been in the 113-114mph range at the strip). A/f was 11.1-11.3:1 on both runs and 24 degrees advance on both. I could have added at least 6 degrees advance if i wanted to squeeze more out of it at those low boost levels but i planned on tuning up to 24 psi so i left the timing alone. Your next best move would be a wideband tuner or EGT gauge or both.

[talstar]

Bison,I have a 3200 stall from CK performance and trans so that should help. The 111mph was with no knock from the scanmaster 2.1 with the 44 turbo on 93 octane 16lbs of booost with 19 degree timing on the translater and the champion heads.. When I added the GN1s that was a huge difference even with the stock turbo on pump gas. My new engine is beening put together now. I am adding a 210/215 comp roller cam, 6776bb turbo, 70mm throttle body and plenum, pts radiator, rjc pulleys, girdle, bigger oil pan with crank scraper, power plate, wire and harness from caspers, double pumper, new gas tank and a few other goodies. I have a SMC alky kit if I decide to put it on. I already have Champion GN1 aluminum heads, ported intake, 60 pound injectors and a 3"thdp hooked to a atr exhaust and ported matched stock headers. When you ran the 117 was that with alky? I am hoping to run around 120mph on pump gas/no alky then add the alky later. I want to know what my car will do with the upgrades as I have improved mph with every turbo upgarde on pump gas. Then I will add race gas and get a time, the I might put the alky kit back on. I ran a 12.3 with the stock heads and the 44 with the alky a few years ago.

[Brer Rabbit]

2 years ago with a 62 mm TB, T63E, Weber Racing ported irons and that same cam ur going to run, I went 11.07 at 122mph on 19lbs of boost. Dont remember the timing, but I have to say my 67BB thats on the car now barely out performs the old T63E that I had. Now I was running a lil 110 just to be safe that day and it was in mid November so my thinking is U should be able to get away with at least 17lbs of boost and go at least 120mph and low 11 second passes as long as U 60 ft. the car. That 11.07 pass was with a 1.54 60 ft. All the passes in 07 were with the 67 BB were on Alky and hi boost so those numbers wont help u. Hope I didn't confuse U with my Gibber jabber!

[Brer Rabbit]

U seem to be wanting to live on the edge just to get a baseline number on ur car. My suggestion is either tune on race gas or tune on 93 with Alky. Nobody will think any less of U if U cant tell them how fast U can go on 93 alone. Ur 67 BB really starts to swing at 26lbs. (trust me on that) which is why my car was always on full kill in the 27-28 range. Be safe its no fun breaking down a motor to replace headgaskets.

[talstar]

With my luck something will go wrong sooner or later. The last engine lasted 5,000 miles as it wiped a cam an I had metal everywhere. How much safer would a tune be using 93 octane with the fast system versus the stock ecm and a translater? I'm asking because I may go with it later.

[bison]

Originally Posted by talstar

Bison,I have a 3200 stall from CK performance and trans so that should help. The 111mph was with no knock from the scanmaster 2.1 with the 44 turbo on 93 octane 16lbs of booost with 19 degree timing on the translater and the champion heads.. When I added the GN1s that was a huge difference even with the stock turbo on pump gas. My new engine is beening put together now. I am adding a 210/215 comp roller cam, 6776bb turbo, 70mm throttle body and plenum, pts radiator, rjc pulleys, girdle, bigger oil pan with crank scraper, power plate, wire and harness from caspers, double pumper, new gas tank and a few other goodies. I have a SMC alky kit if I decide to put it on. I already have Champion GN1 aluminum heads, ported intake, 60 pound injectors and a 3"thdp hooked to a atr exhaust and ported matched stock headers. When you ran the 117 was that with alky? I am hoping to run around 120mph on pump gas/no alky then add the alky later. I want to know what my car will do with the upgrades as I have improved mph with every turbo upgarde on pump gas. Then I will add race gas and get a time, the I might put the alky kit back on. I ran a 12.3 with the stock heads and the 44 with the alky a few years ago.

I replied to your PM about the alky/no alky race fuel/no race fuel. You should be able to tune it to 120 mph on pump gas but you will need to rev it a little. You could remove some weight to make it easier. You really need a better tuning tool than a Scanmaster. An EGT or Wideband with data logging will make tuning much more consistent. I would not wait to install the kit. It will easily allow you to run 25 psi and make a lot more power.

[BlackBandit]

Originally Posted by talstar

With my luck something will go wrong sooner or later. The last engine lasted 5,000 miles as it wiped a cam an I had metal everywhere. How much safer would a tune be using 93 octane with the fast system versus the stock ecm and a translater? I'm asking because I may go with it later.

I don't think fast will make it safer. IMO with the upgrades available for the stock ECM like the trans pro the advantage of going to FAST is minimal and really only shows up in the user interface department. So we're clear I've never used FAST but it doesn't look like it can do anything significantly better than the stock ECM with some piggyback options. That's my .02. james

[bison]

Originally Posted by BlackBandit

I don't think fast will make it safer. IMO with the upgrades available for the stock ECM like the trans pro the advantage of going to FAST is minimal and really only shows up in the user interface department. So we're clear I've never used FAST but it doesn't look like it can do anything significantly better than the stock ECM with some piggyback options. That's my .02. james

You havent even touched on the capabilities of FAST then. Especially the black boxes with traction control. Id like to see a piggy backed stock ecm do that. FAst will make any car more reliable than a stock ecm car if the person tuning knows what there doing. This isnt to say that the the stock ecm wont work. its just much easier to get from point a to point b with a FAST. The play back and tuning ability are not eclipsed unless you spend thousands more and buy a Motec.

[BlackBandit]

Like I said I haven't used FAST. I think bruce (RIP) had traction control with the stock ECM so it is possible. I think you reaffirmed what I said in that it's just easier to get from point a to point b with an aftermarket ECU. You can still get to point b with the factory stuff though. As for reliability I've seen more posts about 2 month old aftermarket ECU's losing a driver or something and costing an engine than I have about 20 year old ECU's costing an engine so IMO the reliability thing is up in the air. Don't get me wrong, I think the aftermarket ECU's are great, I just think they're a little over hyped and that most people that go to them probably don't need to. Notice I said need. If someone wants to go FAST for the interface then it's there money and if you've got it I say spend it cause' it's no fun if you die with it! But, (and this is really a question because I haven't used FAST) is FAST going to do anything to keep an engine safe that you can't do with a stock ecu and some piggybacks?

[bison]

Originally Posted by BlackBandit

Like I said I haven't used FAST. I think bruce (RIP) had traction control with the stock ECM so it is possible. I think you reaffirmed what I said in that it's just easier to get from point a to point b with an aftermarket ECU. You can still get to point b with the factory stuff though. As for reliability I've seen more posts about 2 month old aftermarket ECU's losing a driver or something and costing an engine than I have about 20 year old ECU's costing an engine so IMO the reliability thing is up in the air. Don't get me wrong, I think the aftermarket ECU's are great, I just think they're a little over hyped and that most people that go to them probably don't need to. Notice I said need. If someone wants to go FAST for the interface then it's there money and if you've got it I say spend it cause' it's no fun if you die with it! But, (and this is really a question because I haven't used FAST) is FAST going to do anything to keep an engine safe that you can't do with a stock ecu and some piggybacks?

You wouldnt understand unless you used one. It will add fuel instantly to prevent a lean out and there are a lot of cells to program. The cells can be shifted sot hat the user has more programability where the engine spends most of its time. If the stock ecm was more reliable then there is no doubt the really fast guys would be all over it. The stock ecm rev limit cant even be raised over 6375 without removing it totally.

[BlackBandit]

Originally Posted by bison

You wouldnt understand unless you used one. It will add fuel instantly to prevent a lean out and there are a lot of cells to program. The cells can be shifted sot hat the user has more programability where the engine spends most of its time. If the stock ecm was more reliable then there is no doubt the really fast guys would be all over it. The stock ecm rev limit cant even be raised over 6375 without removing it totally.

I don't think it's true that I need to use it to understand. The transpro and stock ECU give plenty of programmability and will also at fuel instantly to prevent a lean out. I think the stock ECU has proven itself reliable over time and I don't believe that looking at the guys that are going fast is necessarily the end all of measuring a systems merits. I know FAST is easier to use. I wouldn't argue that and lets face it, allot of guys just want to race cars without getting into the programming/electronic aspect of it. I see nothing wrong with that but IMO it doesn't say anything about the merits of one system over another except for ease of use. As far as the rev limit goes I had forgotten about that. You're right, the stock ECU isn't fast enough to process at the higher RPM's. That would be one area when changing the ECU would be necessary. One could argue that there are other factory ECU's that could be made to work in that situation (which is true) but my original statement referenced the factory Buick ECU and you are absolutely correct that that is a shortfall of it. The OP asked if a FAST system would make his car safer than a stock system with a trans. I don't see how it would especially at his power level. I appologize to the OP as I should have tailored my comments to be more specific to avoid off topic discussion. james