home register FAQ memberlist calendar

Go Back   Turbobricks Forums > Mechanical > projects & restorations

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-17-2019, 12:04 PM   #76
Harlard
80/20 speed parts club
 
Harlard's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: PDX
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hiperfauto View Post
Eh, getting a more kinked bar should not be the worst thing ever if it's made burly enough.
__________________


Herr Harlard am Erstens

1979 242 DL

Quote:
Originally Posted by t8fanning View Post
My knob has a big chunk of steel on it
Harlard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2019, 12:21 PM   #77
klr142
Turbo, what?
 
klr142's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: OR
Default

I'm looking for some help on an unstable idle AFR and some dyno tuning information:
http://forums.turbobricks.com/showthread.php?t=349780

UPDATE: Idle AFR issue and instability was a vacuum leak through the throttle body's shaft. All ok after replacing the seals!

Last edited by klr142; 09-25-2019 at 11:38 AM.. Reason: Unstable idle was indeed a vacuum leak!
klr142 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2019, 01:14 PM   #78
Harlard
80/20 speed parts club
 
Harlard's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: PDX
Default

Tuning LH is for development and tinkering. If you want s reliable car that makes the power it should consistently, ditch LH and get a proper engine management solution.
Harlard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2019, 01:29 PM   #79
Stiggy Pop
Board Member
 
Stiggy Pop's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Granville, MA
Default

I am also running no idle valve currently, and run an idle speed right around 1k rpm. I get AFR swings and some bouncing if the idle is on the lean side, it really wants to idle around 13.8:1 to be happiest. This is just conversation as we have completely different setups, but if you can get LH2.4 to richen up the idle cells it may help.
__________________
'79 242
943 pickup
Stiggy Pop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2019, 01:30 PM   #80
klr142
Turbo, what?
 
klr142's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: OR
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Harlard View Post
Tuning LH is for development and tinkering. If you want s reliable car that makes the power it should consistently, ditch LH and get a proper engine management solution.
That's been your experience with a turbo car. That has not been our experience with a non-turbo car. A variance of <.5 AFR from desired is just fine for us and it consistently runs within that(better, actually) when it's set up.

I know a modern system will be better, but it's not REQUIRED for good results on our car. One day we will change, but this summer is not the time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stiggy Pop View Post
I am also running no idle valve currently, and run an idle speed right around 1k rpm. I get AFR swings and some bouncing if the idle is on the lean side, it really wants to idle around 13.8:1 to be happiest. This is just conversation as we have completely different setups, but if you can get LH2.4 to richen up the idle cells it may help.
Yes, the idle dips when our system goes lean but it idles fine enough at 14:1 and even 15:1, but for some reason it won't hold that once it's at operating temperature.
klr142 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2019, 01:50 PM   #81
Harlard
80/20 speed parts club
 
Harlard's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: PDX
Default

You literally touched a table and it won't idle now.
Harlard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2019, 02:10 PM   #82
culberro
Ronald Culberbone III
 
culberro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Portland, OR
Default

I could get a running microsquirt setup on your car in a day. That would be the best $500 you could spend on the General. Ditch the dizzy and go LS coils or VW 4-pack coil for even more simplicity. There's a reason it's what we do on the rally car. When switching out the 16v NA engine to the 8V turbo, I just changed the injector size and MAP sensor curves, and it fired up on the 1st crank and ran. It took about an hour of on road tuning to get it to where I was happy enough to let it race all weekend.

Just saying....
__________________
Cult Person. Pissing in your Kool-Aid.
culberro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2019, 02:41 PM   #83
klr142
Turbo, what?
 
klr142's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: OR
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Harlard View Post
You literally touched a table and it won't idle now.
You are 100% incorrect. We literally swapped engines, changed intake manifolds, changed injectors, changed mass air flow sensors, changed throttle bodies and throttle body mounting positions(in addition to adding a possible vacuum leak).

Quote:
Originally Posted by culberro View Post
I could get a running microsquirt setup on your car in a day. That would be the best $500 you could spend on the General. Ditch the dizzy and go LS coils or VW 4-pack coil for even more simplicity. There's a reason it's what we do on the rally car. When switching out the 16v NA engine to the 8V turbo, I just changed the injector size and MAP sensor curves, and it fired up on the 1st crank and ran. It took about an hour of on road tuning to get it to where I was happy enough to let it race all weekend.

Just saying....
Lol. The same goes for this setup, basically. Was your rally car ever LH2.4? I should see it sometime. Even if we go Microsquirt, we'll need to get a knock sensor add on because I want that safety package to be there!
klr142 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2019, 03:03 PM   #84
culberro
Ronald Culberbone III
 
culberro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Portland, OR
Default

It was never lh2.4. I had enough of lh shortcomings with my old turbo car. LH is fine, but it’s lacking once you start to go away from a stock.
Of note, I don’t own the rally car. I just end up doing all of the work on the car, and co-drive at rallies.
culberro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2019, 08:14 PM   #85
klr142
Turbo, what?
 
klr142's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: OR
Default

UPDATE! 157whp and 160wlb-ft!

From my dyno tuning thread:

Here's a massively long post in true Kyle fashion.

First off, the varying idle speed and AFR was fixed by installing a 850 non-turbo throttle body with new seals on the engine. We smoke tested the intake and found a little bit of leakage out of the throttle shaft of the 960 throttle body. The 850 throttle body required re-using the 960's throttle shaft to have the notch for the throttle position switch be in the right place. When we swapped shafts, we replaced the o-ring for the throttle switch and also the one on the throttle shaft beneath the return spring(used a valve stem husher!). The idle is now stable and the AFRs at idle are now stable. The wedge on one side of the NA 850's throttle plate made it so we can actually hold 1200-1300rpm with just barely cracking the throttle instead of it instantly wanting to be over 2500rpm! That made a HUGE improvement in the ability to drive this thing around at low throttle openings(parking, pits, etc.). WAY BETTER! Who knows how much of that improvement was due to the wedge instead of just fixing the vacuum leaks. I'm not going to bother finding out any time soon.


Here's what we did on the dyno:


1. We started the dyno time by playing with Injector Constants 1(IC1) and 4 to try and make sure the car is using all of the load map. I ended up settling on a mixture of both being adjusted, instead of one or the other being adjusted. It's not perfect and could be dialed in more, but it's better than before and the trace is in at least the second from the top or top load cell most/all of the time at WOT from 2500rpm up. We called that good and moved on.

2. Started dialing in the fuel mixture by leaning out(lowering) IC1 then fine tuning on the main fuel map from there. I had to take a "ton" of fuel out of the main fuel map above 5500rpm and tweaking a few other areas to try and smooth out the curve.

3. The car had a significant lean spot around 5200rpm(as seen in the "2nd" run below on the dyno graph picture), so I started changing the RPM Scale for the main map to give me a column there that would allow me to fine tune it better. I got more resolution at higher rpm and less resolution at lower rpm, especially around low rpm/idle where the car doesn't really need much adjustment. I think I want to go back and give it even more resolution in our 2500-7000rpm range that we normally race in so I can get it even closer dialed in. NOTE: At this point I had forgotten that I had some WOT fuel add turned on still and I did not go back to zero it all out. I don't know if it actually works, but once we get the wideband working again(or replaced) I'd like to turn it off and fine tune the main fuel map more. If I am not satisfied with that, then I'll try adding the WOT fuel again.

4. Once we were satisfied enough with the fuel side of things, we moved onto the ignition. Step one was take the top three load rows and drop them all 2° to see how the power changed. It didn't change! That suggests that we had more timing than we needed and there were no losses by retarding the ignition timing. We then took out another 2° and found the power drop everywhere so we added that last 2° back in and verified we were back where we started. We did not get around to trying smaller amounts than that or going into adjusting any of the lower load areas of the map. Maybe another day, or maybe another day with different, modern engine management system...

5. Next up, camshaft timing! We started with the gear set at 3° advanced which is where RSI had it in the past and ran the last race with no complaints about the power curve at all. At this setting, the timing mark for the cam was basically straight at the stock TDC mark on the timing cover. We tried retarding the cam 3° first and lost torque everywhere except at high rpm. It lost 7/8wlb-ft from 2500-4500rpm and the losses started shrinking gradually to where there were no losses at 6200rpm and above that it climbed up to the retarded setting having barely 1wlb-ft more at 6500-fuel cut around 6900rpm. We then instead tried advancing the cam 3°(6° advanced from previous setting) and our torque went up 1-3wlb-ft from the initial numbers below 4500rpm, then matched torque until 5200rpm where it crossed and started dropping. At 5600rpm it was down 2wlb-ft, at 5900 it was down 3, at 6300 it was down 4, at 6500 it was down 6 and at 6700 it was down 7. Not huge differences, but definitely there! We're in the ballpark for sure with our initial setting and did a final pull with it set back to "zero" at 3° advanced on the gear. That was our final run for the day and the 3rd run on the posted graph.

Lengthy cam timing side note: I never paid much attention to people saying you need to adjust the cam timing by X amount for each Y amount the cam is brought closer to the crank. On my street car and every iteration of the General Leif's 8V engines, I just set the cam gear as close to the stock timing mark as I could and ran it. When the cam gear was adjustable, I would play with it to see where I liked the power curve best(or to meet my needs at the time; be it fun on the track or daily driving on the street). Usually that would be somewhere around "straight up" to 4° advanced(my street car had .040" off the head with a .040" headgasket at one point which is about .047" closer cam/crank relationship). With this 405 head shaved around .080" on a 2.6L B23 and ENEM C2 copy camshaft, 3° advanced on the gear made the best power with RSI's setup at the time(running E85 and a fancy header). They made somewhere around 178whp if I remember correctly. We ran that on pump gas with the same setup and it was really quick, but we never got really good testing on it as the motor was having some issues from the get go and blew up in the qualifying session for the first race with it in the car(maybe from running too much ignition timing, as we definitely were). Our current setup which has another .040" shaved off(.123"/3mm total) so I didn't think it would necessarily be optimal but obviously would work to start with. I think people have said something like it's 1° retarded for each .010" closer the cam is to the crank, so if you take .080"/2mm off the head, just set the camshaft to the stock timing marks and you'll actually have advanced it a tooth from where it was previously and all will be happy. Us having another .040" off the head and needing about 3° advance on the cam gear is pretty close to that suggestion(who knows where the cam centerlines actually are, though!).

From our Facebook Page:

Quote:
"Thanks again to Kris at KO Racing for letting us come play on the dyno! He was awesome! Very helpful and easy to work with. No pain, just gain! Well, we didn’t gain a huge amount but we verified where we were was good with the ignition(actually reduced timing with no torque loss) and camshaft timing. I still need to work on the fuel to smooth and lean it out some more, but it was good enough to call it quits while paying for dyno time. The car ran great with no issues, though!

The first run was our baseline run but the power numbers are probably skewed down more than actual because the oil wasn’t up to operating temperature yet. It may have been similar to how it was at Pacific earlier this month though because then it was running even richer! And our wideband is now not working. Maybe just a new sensor is needed??

The second run pictured was our best for the day and the third was our last run with the fueling a little more dialed in(but not done yet!). 157whp around 5,500rpm and 160wtrq around 4,600rpm with a nice, wide powerband that doesn't lose too much for those times when we need to rev it higher than we should.

Can’t wait for PIR in less than two weeks time!

Ps. Thanks The V Shop for letting me sneak out for a good portion of the day to play race car. �� Thanks Moates, Tunerpro, my friends at Jetronic.info/Turbobricks.com for making tuning Volvo’s old engine management possible!"
And thanks to Mr. Culberro here for the dyno shop referral!

In response to Billy seeing our AFR jump at 5200rpm for the 2nd run:
Quote:
"Billy, that was on our best run and the final run doesn’t have it nearly as bad because we did tune it out. That run, with the lean surge at 5200, had the highest power numbers of the day. Compared with our final run(of 23!), it averaged about 2wtrq more across the board, even in places where the AFR was the same. That being said, at 5200rpm where there is over a point of difference in the AFR(12.7 vs 13.8:1), the leaner mixture made 3.5wtrq more! So, it wants to be leaner for peak power.

I will actually try and lean everywhere else out a bit more to get it closer to 13.2:1 across the board. Our final run fluctuated between 12.1-13. I was moving the rpm range of the cells to get them closer to the spots that needed attention and reduced the resolution, per say, of the lower/idle rpm area that the stock computers prioritize."
In response to Jonathan saying that's pretty good power out of the setup:
Quote:
"Thanks! Factory exhaust manifold(with your downpipe and merge that flares to 3”) and ENEM’s mild K13 camshaft. Our Dynomax super turbo muffler isn’t straight through, either, so there’s more power to be had if we made something custom and went larger on the cam. I like the powerband though where it is as that’s the rpm range and power range we want to be in!

We weren’t ignition timing limited, we actually retarded it from where I had it and didn’t lose any power. Next time the head comes off we’ll get some tighter squish with a thinner headgasket and bump the compression another .7:1 or so by doing that."
In response to Jens suggesting getting rid of the grocery getter camshaft:
Quote:
"For our final run, the AFR varied between 12.1:1 to 13.0:1. I want to flatten it out all closer to 13.0-13.3:1 for better efficiency and it seemed like it made a tiny bit more power as well.

We could go to a more aggressive camshaft in the future, but right now we like how much torque it has at 3000rpm because sometimes we need to drive around at that low of rpm to conserve fuel and in tight corners. It's an endurance race car and we should be performing towards the front of our class with this much power after we dial the rest of the car in more along with a solid set of drivers. If we picked up another 10-20hp with a larger camshaft and a larger exhaust(it's still just a factory exhaust manifold with a dual downpipe going into a custom merge that flares up to 3"), we would go through more fuel and be put into a higher class where we would not be competitive. It would be fun, though, for sure!

For all we know, there could be some other restrictions above 5500rpm because after that the required fuel dropped quite a bit to keep the AFR from going too rich."
Attached Images
File Type: jpg June 2019 General Leif dyno pulls.jpg (105.7 KB, 1 views)

Last edited by klr142; Yesterday at 02:56 PM.. Reason: Picture went away, hosted on TB.
klr142 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2019, 01:12 PM   #86
Old Iron
I Roll
 
Old Iron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Dela-Where?
Default

Rad project, probably the best Tbricks project name.
__________________
Turbobricked
Old Iron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2019, 01:32 PM   #87
klr142
Turbo, what?
 
klr142's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: OR
Default

Haha, thanks sir!

Good timing, by the way. We have a race this weekend at PIR! Free to watch and hang out as always, if you’re around you should come play!!
klr142 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2019, 10:09 PM   #88
redblockpowered
Board Member
 
redblockpowered's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Swampscott, MA
Default

Good luck!

LH gets a lot of undue hate around here, likely because stock engine management systems for non-performance applications tend to be poorly documented re: tuning and guys here are likely more familiar with another EMS. As long as you can easily and simply tune your AFRs and ignition advance it doesn't matter what you're using. My experience with LH 2.4 has been almost completely trouble free in a performance N/A application, but it's also what I learned on so my experience is probably skewed in favor of it versus someone who has been tuning cars on MS or Haltech or whatever.
__________________
1993 944 B230FT/M90 thread here: http://forums.turbobricks.com/showthread.php?t=345277
1991 245 B230FNA/M47 no thread: secret LeMons car technology abounds
1991 245 B230F/M47 no thread: very boring (320k!)
redblockpowered is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:56 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.