3.8L Build Started

Reply Subscribe

Thread Tools

Rate Thread

Jul 11, 2013 | 02:02 PM

#91

TTdude

Thread Starter

Registered User

Joined: Oct 2008

Posts: 2,321

From: Fastlane USA

Rep Power: 246

No fitment issues. Bolted right up. No problems. Engine Guy had aftermarket headers, turbos, so that could throw things off.

Quote:

Originally Posted by total_noob

Were there any fitment issues for the Protomotive X-pipe during installation? There is another review in the 996tt forum in which the X-pipe took a fair amount of fidgeting to get it to fit properly.

Jul 11, 2013 | 02:12 PM

#92

uaeturbo

Registered User

Joined: Jul 2009

Posts: 177

From: uae

Rep Power: 25

Nice build.
At what RPM u hit full boost?

Jul 11, 2013 | 02:36 PM

#93

TTdude

Thread Starter

Registered User

Joined: Oct 2008

Posts: 2,321

From: Fastlane USA

Rep Power: 246

Quote:

Originally Posted by uaeturbo

Nice build.
At what RPM u hit full boost?

Thanks bro. With 3.6, it was around 4300-4400. I still need to check with 3.8 but probably earlier.

Attached Images

Aug 10, 2013 | 01:03 PM

#94

TTdude

Thread Starter

Registered User

Joined: Oct 2008

Posts: 2,321

From: Fastlane USA

Rep Power: 246

Collecting some preliminary data and calibrating Greddy: 63.5 mm VTGs (race gas) vs 3.8L A3076 (E85). At 1.3 bar, A3076 produces load value of 233 whereas my previous VTG set-up produced 188. That's basically a 24% increase in torque at 1.3 bar! I can't imagine what it's going to feel like at 2 bar. Totally ridiculous.

Greddy seems to be fairly accurate, definitely within 0.1 bar vs Durametric reading.

Attached Images

Aug 10, 2013 | 02:45 PM

#95

Chkmgnt59

Registered User

Joined: Feb 2011

Posts: 357

From: DFW

Rep Power: 40

Assuming you're running speed density (no MAFs) then load is no longer useful. It's a calculated value and by removing the maf from the equation, it no longer can calculate properly. So while very cool - you're not actually showing anything on the charts. Obviously its making much more power/tq, but you'll need a dyno to really demonstrate the change.

Aug 10, 2013 | 03:07 PM

#96

TTdude

Thread Starter

Registered User

Joined: Oct 2008

Posts: 2,321

From: Fastlane USA

Rep Power: 246

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chkmgnt59

Interesting comment. It has been dynoed and results are comparable but please elaborate on your commment that load is no longer useful by removing the maf sensor and that it can no longer calculate it correctly, whatever correct means. Please tell us how does the ECU calculates load with maf values, i.e. what is the exact equation? With the maf removed, it still outputs a load value. It is obviously derived from somewhere. How is it determined then when the maf sensor is removed? For that matter, how does the car run with the maf sensor removed?

Aug 11, 2013 | 07:36 PM

#97

Chkmgnt59

Registered User

Joined: Feb 2011

Posts: 357

From: DFW

Rep Power: 40

Direct quote from Todd when I was asking him about load values my car should show w/ the 67mm turbos vs stock vtgs:

First, since we’re running mafless, the load numbers are being CALCULATED, not actual. So, we can make very large changes, even if we went 3.8 or 4.0, the load would look the same. It is based on the boost vs. rpm vs. throttle position, so if we’re getting any boost increase, it’ll show an increase in load.
Also, a larger turbo can make more power at the same boost pressure. For instance, on the 996t’s, a k16 at 1.2 bar might be lucky to hit 400whp, where a gt3586hta can make 700whp at the same boost. The ecu would be dumb to that fact and show the same load values for each.

So I wasn't exactly correct saying its calculated and removing MAF ruins it, but based on the factors as Todd laid out - load isn't valuable once you're swapping out turbos for comparison purposes.

Aug 11, 2013 | 10:37 PM

#98

TTdude

Thread Starter

Registered User

Joined: Oct 2008

Posts: 2,321

From: Fastlane USA

Rep Power: 246

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chkmgnt59

<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:TrackMoves/> <w:TrackFormatting/> <w:PunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w

oNotPromoteQF/> <w:LidThemeOther>EN-US</w:LidThemeOther> <w:LidThemeAsian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian> <w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w

ontGrowAutofit/> <w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/> <w

ontVertAlignCellWithSp/> <w

ontBreakConstrainedForcedTables/> <w

ontVertAlignInTxbx/> <w:Word11KerningPairs/> <w:CachedColBalance/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> <m:mathPr> <m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math"/> <m:brkBin m:val="before"/> <m:brkBinSub m:val="--"/> <m:smallFrac m:val="off"/> <m:dispDef/> <m:lMargin m:val="0"/> <m:rMargin m:val="0"/> <m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"/> <m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/> <m:intLim m:val="subSup"/> <m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/> </m:mathPr></w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--> Thanks for your feedback. I think either Todd has been breathing in too much exhaust or smokin’ somethin’ good.

If you are making more power, you got to be making more tq at the same RPM. I don’t exactly know how load is determined by the ECU which is why I asked the question. Even using MAF readings, load is a calculated value but I suspect more direct and less derived. It’s obviously calculated differently when mafless but I don’t think load as determined by maf or map are that far apart. It would be interesting to check with and without maf if someone wants to try it.

Anyhow, I look at load this way – if you load a dyno by a certain amount and turbo A makes it spin at a certain speed and then you put on turbo B which turns out to be more efficient, you would have to increase the load on the dyno to keep it rotating at the same speed. Thus turbo B should produce bigger load.

I don’t know Chk. From the data I’ve seen – bigger load equates to more tq, faster 60-130 times when AUC is maximized during the run. I was more concerned about comparing 3.8 vs 3.6 without maf sensor but if it’s just boost/rpm/throttle, then the comparison should be OK imo. It's fun to play around and discuss.

Aug 12, 2013 | 06:59 AM

#99

Chkmgnt59

Registered User

Joined: Feb 2011

Posts: 357

From: DFW

Rep Power: 40

I honestly don't know any more than what Todd told me. 60-130 or a before/after dyno is really the best way to tell the change that I know of :-)

Aug 12, 2013 | 09:30 AM

#100

TTdude

Thread Starter

Registered User

Joined: Oct 2008

Posts: 2,321

From: Fastlane USA

Rep Power: 246

I could be comparing apples to oranges here. We'll find out. I'll datalog at 1.5 bar and see what I get.

Aug 12, 2013 | 09:46 AM

#101

Tom@Champion

Former Vendor

Joined: Apr 2009

Posts: 4,320

From: Pompano Beach, FL

Rep Power: 0

I might have missed it somewhere but what kind of whp are you expecting with this setup Dave?

I ask because we'll be starting a nearly identical build in the next few weeks...

BTW I'm glad to see her up and running..it's been a long road for you!

Aug 12, 2013 | 10:15 AM

#102

TTdude

Thread Starter

Registered User

Joined: Oct 2008

Posts: 2,321

From: Fastlane USA

Rep Power: 246

Tom, When it was on the Dynapack at Proto, stock motor produced about 980 whp (I know, some will say it's a Dyanapack and blah, blah, blah about the absolute number). You obviously know this but if you tune to A3076 E85 to the max, stock rods will not be happy. Maybe one can dial in the tq later but what fun is that? I'm slowly ramping up - measuring everything, fuel trims, mult correction, etc... Last thing I want to do is crank it up all the way and have something not work right. It did take a long time but I had some unrelated issues with PCNA that involved legal action. Before I could put my motor back together that needed to be resolved. They lost the lawsuit but then they appealed. I couldn't believe it. They just wanted to drag it out. It was just me flying solo (I'm not an attorney) against the regional PCNA tech rep plus a PCNA lawyer wearing a cheap sear sucker pinstripe suit. They really tried to pull some shinanigans on me during the appeal. It took about 7 months to resolve due to court scheduling, but in the end, I took home the bacon. It was worth the wait.

Aug 12, 2013 | 05:15 PM

#103

K24F

Registered User

Joined: Nov 2008

Posts: 833

From: France

Rep Power: 85

Quote:

Originally Posted by TTdude

Greddy seems to be fairly accurate, definitely within 0.1 bar vs Durametric reading.

I don't know how to analyse it too Dave:
I checked my logs: my engine reaches 188 load at 3700rpm by 1,06 Bar and 233 at 4700rpm by 1,33bar with pumpgas, 3,6liter and 3071s...

I believe too we can compare the loads at the same rpm ranges to estimate the torque, but not at the only same boost ranges.

Ps: your boost curve seems very close to mine; 3.8, real freeflow exhaust and E85 might help the spool.

P.