200R4 Trans With Stage motor

4Times I am not about to argue with you.This will be my last reply on this thread you may believe what you want everyone does. The 20% loss wasnt invented by dynojet It has been excepted for many years before a Dynojet ever existed. Cars with automatics always lost more power than those with manuals. 20% like I stated above is an average. your car would certainly fit this average(slipping trans) and the info I provided was from Joe Lubrant, I suppose he has no clue on what hes saying about power figures. From the MANY years I have in Drag racing, 550 Gross HP will get you well into the 10s in a 3500# car.We were doing it with 427BB & 454s back in the 60s and 70s. Baldwin Motion Camaros with 500-550 GROSS HP(Dyno proven) ran mid 11s@125+ on street tires weighing 3700# with driver.Put a set of slicks on them they ran 10s FACT. They came with M22 4spd & T400s too. The Figures Joe L. provided are an average for that power & weight. yes it is possible to go quicker than 10.8s when running 126mph,but some can go slower and do.
As for power loss, when making more power you lose more in transfering it to the wheels. Look at the Fuel cars they have the most Exotic clutch set up in the world but yet only last 1 Run.The clutches and plates sometimes weld(fuse)together because of the intense heat. Ever wonder why John Force is so filthy after making a run? Its because of the extreme amounts of clutch dust under the body of his car.The Haze you see behind a Fuel rail car is clutch dust. Our transmissions are no exception more power we make the more the trans clutches will slip because more power is being applied to them.All the heavy hitters rebuild their trans every year sometimes more.lower power cars can go longer before a rebuild.As for Red so what if he ported the TA49, you missed the point! point was he was making no more than 550 GROSS hp and ran 10.80s. He has helped MANY people run fast in TRs and has no reason to lie.Same goes for Tim Stockwell which under Reds guidance ran 10.80s making 550 GROSS HP! Oh and dont let me forget Jim D'Alessandro back in 90 was making over 500 Gross HP running low 11s high 10s!! This guy was Super cool and was the fastest TR in the world during his fame. I have the specs on his Record setting 1st single turbo 7 sec TR and on it states:
Best time- 7.61@179.78
weight- 2390
Horsepower-1075@6800rpm AT THE REAR WHEELS & 1400+ AT THE MOTOR!!!!!!!!!!
Torque- 1000+lt/lb @5200
This was way back in 1994!!! But I guess He doesnt know what hes talking about either.
 
Just mt .02

I have been runing an aluminum driveshaft for 5 years, so far. Maybe I'm lucky.

I made 914 rwhp yesterday on a Mustang dyno using 634 lb/hour of fuel. We dynoed a Supra that made 747 hp, he has made over 800 on a Dynojet dyno.

Just adding fuel to the fire. Take it for what it's worth.
 
Originally posted by HighPSI
Just mt .02
I have been runing an aluminum driveshaft for 5 years, so far. Maybe I'm lucky.
I made 914 rwhp yesterday on a Mustang dyno using 634 lb/hour of fuel. We dynoed a Supra that made 747 hp, he has made over 800 on a Dynojet dyno.
Just adding fuel to the fire. Take it for what it's worth.
Click to expand...

I agree with Cal, I have run an aluminum drive shaft also for a number of years with no problems.

Happy Holidays
 
I too have been running a aluminum driveshaft (Inline driveshaft) for about 3 years with no problems. I also have a 200 R4 that was setup by Art Carr about 6 years ago. It has about 20,000 miles on it and it still shifts firm. My last run was 1.42 sixty (on the foot brake) with a 10.29 quarter mile.
Jeff
 
First, the 55's at 42 psi base fuel pressure are acting approximately like 55*sqrt(42/43.5)=54 lb/hr, assuming they were rated 55 lb/hr at 3 bar. The point of referencing the fuel pressure regulator to the manifold is to maintain a constant pressure drop across the injector so its flowrate doesn't change with boost. When your boost was at 25 psi and the rail was at 67 psi (for example, ignoring the bypass issue on the 307) which is your 42 psi base plus 25 psi, the difference across the injector is still just 42 psi.

Second, basic physics says that for constant acceleration, hp=197*weight/et^3, where hp is the net rear wheel hp actually accelerating the car, 197 makes the units come out right, weight is the total weight going down the track in pounds, and the et is in seconds. You can argue that constant acceleration is not a good model for a drag car, but what that means is that part of the time the hp is over the average from this formula, and part of the time the hp is less, so as an average value it's not bad. Oh, this also ignores wind resistance which effectively makes the car "weigh" more as the speed increases, which makes the formula underestimate the true rwhp. From some postings here and some magazine articles I've checked about 5 different cars, and the et-mph matched the dyno rwhp to about 10%, but that's a pretty small sample size.

Third, I've seen several formulas to estimate et from mph and vice versa, of the form et=K/mph, with K ranging from 1370 to 1350. Doing the physics, assuming constant acceleration, gives something like 1450 (it's been a couple of years since I did the math, sorry) which is way off. I fit the 160 or so et-mph pairs from the gnttype reader's rides page that were 13.50 or quicker and came up with 1356, which predicts the et from mph plus or minus about 0.35 sec, or mph from et plus or minus about 2 mph (or about plus or minus 2-3%). My guess is that most of this error is from not taking into account the tires/60' time and converter lockup. Considering how variable the et is with traction, I like to use the mph and calculate an et, then use that et in the hp formula (that's how I got the 10.76 from the 126 mph). For other body styles I'm sure the constant changes some, since the TTA's, for example, seem to go 2-3 mph more than a TR at the same level of mods, et, and total weight.

Using the Baldwin Motion Camaro, 125 mph = 10.84 (ignoring the better aerodynamics which if anything would make the calculated et more like 11.0 and lower the subsequent hp estimate), consistent with "high 10's on slicks", and 10.84 and 3700 lbs gives rwhp=570 hp. For a manual transmission I've seen claims ranging from less than 5% to 1-2% hp loss from the flywheel effect. Using 2.5% that gives 585 gross hp at the engine, and 585 is only 11% greater than 525 hp (as an average of "500-550 hp") and 6.3% greater than 550 hp. To me that makes all this self-consistent to about 10% which a) seems pretty good to me, and b) is about all you can expect from this kind of estimate. I've read that it's tough to get better than within 2-3% on back-to-back dyno runs anyway (that's 8-12 hp at 400 hp), and I'm sure any published numbers are from the best runs. Any dyno operators care to give their experiences on reproducibility?
 
Likemy6, the chart you're keep reffering to and/or Moroso slide rule calculate RWHP in case you didn't know. There's no way to calculate engine HP with them. Why? Because some cars are auto some are stick, some have power robbing accessories some don't. And I like all the name dropping, Red, Stockwell, D'allesandro. Wasn't Jim busted for using oxygenated fuels? Yes Red's helped people but I seriously doubt he's helped anyone as much as he's helped himself. When you have a TR parts selling business it helps if everyone thinks you're the fastest guy around. So I'm sure he's done many a trick to be the fastest that he never let on to. I don't recall if it was Kenny Dutweiller or David Vizard who said that the only way to ever get the power out of your motor that's seen on the dyno, once the motor's been installed in a car, is to put your front bumper up to a brick wall and mash the gas. The biggest HP loss an engine experiences is not being subjected to the load that a dyno can provide. But I guess you never took that into account It's not all getting lost in the drivetrain. If you make 550 on the dyno you'll probably see 500 of those once the engine is merely installed in the car because you just can't load that motor hard enough to squeeze all the power out of it.

As for the Motion Camaro example, good ol honest Joel. If you race a powerful car on street tires it will have a higher mph due to tire spin. Once again, using ET to calculate HP is not the best method. MPH = HP. With ET there are way too many variables. With MPH you got air conditions, wind and to a degree traction. But you keep going back to ET to make your point. Look RED ran 10.80 with 550 HP so that's all you're making. In that case I must be making alot less because I ran 11.39, but that was at 126 mph. What was RED's mph? I bet around 121 or so. So I guess I made a bit more HP. And one more thing, don't you think that a ported ta49 will make a little bit more power than the 550 you keep touting? And if oxygenated gas is being used, wouldn't that HP be even higher? Remember, when all the guys you named were doing this was around the time when all the BS with the Oxygen rich gas was going on.


Ijames, I know about the fuel pressure issue you brought up. But now let me ask you this, when the intake valve opens for a particular cylinder a huge pressure drop occurs as the air gets sucked in by the piston and it rushes past the valve and into the cylinder. At the same time the injector fires. So the relative pressure inside that intake runner when the valve opens up is lower than when it's closed. The injector is not seeing the 25 psi of boost you're talking about.
 
Artie,

The same people listed in the link above also have one for the TH-400.

HTH

Stay fast, young man!

:)
 
Originally posted by Two Lane
NJ,

Knowing you, I'd guess you're a "Bat"(Brake) kinda Kat!


:)
Click to expand...

Crank it up and let her rip, yea that is me:)

Art read above link the video is linked somehere in this thread.
 
Ijames, I know about the fuel pressure issue you brought up. But now let me ask you this, when the intake valve opens for a particular cylinder a huge pressure drop occurs as the air gets sucked in by the piston and it rushes past the valve and into the cylinder. At the same time the injector fires. So the relative pressure inside that intake runner when the valve opens up is lower than when it's closed. The injector is not seeing the 25 psi of boost you're talking about.
Click to expand...
You are right that there will be a pressure drop. However, the exhaust manifold pressure on typical TR turbo setups is 1.2-2 times the intake manifold pressure, and if there is any overlap between exhaust valve closing and intake opening, then for that period there is actually reverse flow from exhaust port to intake manifold. Even with no overlap the minimum cylinder pressure is probably greater than the intake manifold pressure so flow starts out backwards and then has to reverse to fill the cylinder. That reverse flow will give a localized pressure rise near the injector so for a brief period the injectors flow even less. Anyway, given the size of the intake runners, the intake port runner, and the valve region, the bulk of the pressure drop occurs near the valve seat so back up the intake runner where the injector is sitting the average pressure is pretty near the average manifold pressure that the boost gauge is reporting. How near I won't guess but my gut says it's pretty darn close (and the theoretical rise I mentioned earlier is pretty darn small :)), especially considering that typical injector duty cycles are 60-85% at WOT while the effective intake valve duty cycle is about 25%, and so over half of the time the injector is flowing the intake valve is closed anyway.

As for et-mph, the traction issues are exactly why I prefer to calculate an et from mph, and then use that in the hp formula to get average rwhp.
 
IJames, I'm curious to know how many milliseconds the intake valve stays open at 6000 rpm? I'm figuring that it stays open for the duration of the piston's travel down the cylinder during the intake stroke. Now, I'll quote a Bob Cunningham post from November:

Lets look at an example. At 6000 RPM, your engine is turning over 100 times per second. Each cylinder fires 50 times per second. The ECU fires each injector once per crankshaft revolution, so each injector will fire once every 10 milliseconds (0.010 seconds).

Assuming you are running at WOT, a typical car might have an injector pulsewidth of 7.5 milliseconds - in other words it is open for 7.5 milliseconds, then closed for 2.5 milliseconds. Therefore our injector pulsewidth is 7.5.

Also, because the injector is open for 75% of the time (7.5 out of 10 ms), we say that the injector duty cycle is 75%.


So, I don't understand your statement that for most of the injectors firing the intake valve is closed. How would the engine get enough fuel to operate properly? Why wouldn't the chip makers just reduce the pulse width of the injector instead of wasting all that fuel? Instead of a mist entering the cylinder it would be more like small droplets

As for the pressure drop being mostly around the valve seat area, then why is it that exhaust reversion can be seen up the intake runner and even the plenum on an engine with alot of overlap? The pressure drop I'm talking about is due to the valve opening and the piston's downward travel sucking the mixture into the cylinder. It's quite substantial otherwise the cylinder would never fill, irregardless if the engine is n/a or turbo aspirated. The reason why gases move is that they travel from an area of high pressure to an area of lower pressure. The pressure difference across the injector can't remain static during the intake phase.
 
Great discussion, gentlemen!

Very illuminating & highly edifying!
___________________________

Please continue! :)
 
The quote from Bob C. was for a batch fire system, which showed you that half the total pulsewidth is injecting every revolution. On a 4 stroke engine, that means that fuel has to be injecting when the intake valve is closed. That is normal. The factory buick chip ran the injectors static at wot, they are injecting all the time, intake stroke, compression stroke, power stroke, exhaust stroke...all the time.

If you're going to mention a pressure drop when the intake opens, why not mention the pressure rise that occurs when the intake closes and velocity comes to a screeching halt. The pressure will become higher than boost at that point. :) Like Carl said, it all averages out.

Regards,
Eric
 
The injector's duty cycle in SFI is only during the intake stroke of the engine as I understand it. That's the purpose of the cam sensor. Thus just because an injector is at 100% duty cycle doesn't mean that it stays open during all 4 strokes. I only quoted him because I didn't want to sit and write all he wrote all over again. If you want the injector to fire on every downward stroke then disconect the cam sensor and you have batchfire.

If at 6000 rpm it takes 10 ms to complete 1 revolution then let's look at the intake side of the 4 stroke. Piston reaches TDC, rests there for a bit and then starts going down. The intake valve opens and the injector fires, then the piston reaches BDC. 5 ms have just elapsed. If in batch fire the duty cycle of the injector is 7.5 ms then in sequential fire it's half that, 3.75 ms.

Could someone please post the WOT pulse width of an injector in a totally stock TR? I think it's like 3.5 ms, but Im' not sure.

As for the pressure drop, when the intake valve on one cylinder closes another intake valve opens. So once again there is a pressure drop within the plenum. But it wouldn't affect the first injector because it's not firing, but the pressure rise you mentioned would drop due to the other valve opening. This doesn't occur on an intake that doesn't have a plenum, like those for Weber carbs. Then again the carb isn't dumping fuel when the intake valve is closed because there is no air moving past the venturies.
 
You've misunderstood what SFI is. It does not mean that it only injects during the intake stroke. It just means that it is timed (or begins) by the intake stroke. 100% dc means the injector is on all the time like a hose.

The commanded wot pulsewidth of a stock tr at 5000rpm is approx. 25-30ms. (static)

Since the injector is firing at closed valve much of the time, the pressure drop/rise or whatever is pretty much moot.
 
Originally posted by Eric Stage I

You've misunderstood what SFI is.

>>100% dc means the injector is on all the time like a hose.<<
Click to expand...
_______________________________________________

That doesn't seem to be widely known...or accepted?

Great discussion!

:)
 
Originally posted by Eric Stage I
You've misunderstood what SFI is. It does not mean that it only injects during the intake stroke. It just means that it is timed (or begins) by the intake stroke. 100% dc means the injector is on all the time like a hose.
Click to expand...

I didn't know that!! Thanks.
 
Unless I have a problem with my hearing, I beg to differ with your SFI statement. When you unplug the cam sensor with the engine running there is an audible change in the way the injectors sound. They are now firing in batch fire mode, once on every downward stroke of the crank. I don't think I'm the only one who's ever noticed this.

Going by an Accel/DFI chart for maximum injector opening time before static operation, at 5000 rmp the injector has an 11.2 ms max opening time before going static. With a 25-30 ms being the commanded WOT pulse width, then even a stock injector on a stock car is static at that point even if it's firing in batch fire mode once every crank rotation (22.4 ms total time). So how is it possible for the chip makers out there to program more fuel into the chip at WOT as they all claim? If it's static, then there's no more room to grow unless you raise the fuel pressure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

8
Gear choices
Replies
2
Views
570
Mr.Spool
M
H
Best Non Lock-up Torque Convertor Brands
Replies
15
Views
1K
V6sleeper
V6sleeper
T
6 speed Manual Swap
Replies
7
Views
1K
GNTIM
G
O
200R4 Transmission Core for Sale
Replies
2
Views
1K
Oscar Pichardo
O
C
Engine Durability: Power or RPM
Replies
11
Views
1K
CTX-SLPR
C
Top