rob82

Their ve tuning is a lot shite compared to the autronic so I would just tune it like a normal dumb ecu. For some reason tps is a variable in their ve equation which is fine if you have a table to tune but when you don't it makes it really hard to tune. As far as control systems go the autronic is a lot more adaptable and has more oem like functions although the haltech does come in a pretty box.....

Can't say that I've ever come across an issue with spark plugs being bad out of the box. The majority of case I've seen is usually due to improper installation - not saying that's the issue here I've just never seen it myself and when you've changed thousands of plugs on high performance engines I would think that's a pretty good sample.

Can you inclusively say that it's the spitfires? Have you tried swapping the spitfires for oem coils?

I can't recall running those coils in wasted spark configuration. But Holden seem to run a single coil v8 to 6200rpm no problem with a coil that takes simulate dwell =2.5 ms. At 4000 rpm in wasted spark with 2.5ms dwell time your only at 16% duty as in on time of 2.5 off time off time 12.5ms - hardly working a coil IMO. My bet is still the haltech.

There is something seriously wrong there. On a shite engine with a BSFC of say 0.55, ID2000, 43psi fuel pressure and 71% duty you should be able to make 1600hp on pump fuel. Factor in that E85 uses say 30-40% more fuel then your should have at least 0.6*1600 = 960hp. Say you have the worlds worst dyno or converter so take another 200hp to get wheel hp you should be in the vacinity of 760rwhp which leaves you about 130rwkw short of where you should be with that type of fuel usage. If the AFR's are what you said then you should fire your engine builder becasue that is a really poor conversion of fuel/air mix into hp! The majority of engines that I've tuned have all come in around 28% extra fuelling required when converting to e85 from pump. Mind you theses engine are all knock limited which will make a substantial difference.

Seen the exact same issue with aeromotive pumps when they heat up too.

As far as an inductive ignition system goes the ls2 coils are very good and cheap too - they are not obviously not coil on plug though. The other option is the ford xr6t coils which are also very good and cheap. I've run 1mm plug gap with a 2jz and 2.3bar boost with the xr6t coils.

I would also look at switching the secondary pump. There is no use sending more flow to the front than what is needed. You will only end up heating the pumps and reducing the flow when you need it.

I'm surprised they didn't lose any hp in the top end due to the smaller bore/stroke ratio. I would say there head was flowing quiet well! The rb34 bore/stroke ratio is less than an xr6t and those things just don't like to rev over 6500.

Try turning of all acceleration enrichment as well. Have you check that you have proper timing control throughout the entire rev range. Set the timing at 20deg check it all the way to 7000 on a static rev and make sure it's rock solid then do the same with 40degrees. Ps isn't the r34 signal a 360deg signal and a 654321 narrowing signal? I'm not aware of any differences between r32 to r34 in terms of signals it's just the wiring at the cas is reversed.

I've never had any issues bleeding an rb using the bleed screws. Had plenty of issues bleeding ej's though.

Is the engine currently knock limited on pump fuel? If so then yes you will gain power just by putting the fuel in and adding timing. Its hard to predict gains without seeing the tune.

Got a scope?

Sounds like a typical haltech issue. Which one is it?

Your not listening - if you inject water in the most precise manner you will still lose hp power due to the effect that water has on lowing the flame progegation speed. And as for lean burn engines, slowing the flame front and adding another non combustable vapor is the exact opposite to what you want. I've worked with combustion engineers that have had petrol engine running as lean as lambda 2 and I've never heard of water or steam injection as a theory to help lean burn conditions. Do you realize that chamber temps decrease either side of stoic.

I understand the thermodynamics of what your trying to say but it doesn't make sense in reality. If water increased the dynamic comp then why don't you add it all the time? Surely you will gain hp everywhere? I'm not bagging water injection as a way of quenching chamber temps and slowing flame propagation rates but all the hype about it disassociating the hydrogen and oxygen and the water turns to steam which creates greater dynamic comp is a load of.

Not sure on how it increases the dynamic compression ratio - most water injection systems will loose power if nothing is changed in the tune. I think the claims that are made with some of these system are a little ambiguous. How can they compare charge temps before and after water is added as most IAT sensor are located within the manifold. Unless your engine is severly knock limited then your really not going to gain that much hp - its the same as using higher octane fuel in non knock limited engines.

No gear ratio will only change the tractive effort or the actual load through the load cell. In a perfect world the gear ratio shouldn't make a difference in measured hp or only be slightly different due to the differing thrust loading through the gearbox. In reality even the good dynos show a slight difference between say 3rd and 4th gear probly due to unaccounted for acceleration rates. The ramp rate is really the only thing that should influence how a turbocharged cars power delivery is plotted. Slower ramp rate gives the turbocharger longer to spool hence moving the graph to the left.

Aren't they just ev1 injector plugs?

If you've ever plotted exhaust back pressure vs intake pressure you would see what I mean. Exhaust back pressure isn't directly related to intake pressure. And if you slightly restrict your exhaust system the losses will only be above the rpm where the growth in exhaust back pressure starts to become substantial NOT throughout the entire rpm range.

In this situation nothing has change on the intake side and the boost pressure is the same before and after. That means exhaust back pressure is only a function of flow through the turbine. As the flow through the turbine increases with rpm the back pressure increase exponentially meaning that if you port the manifold and make it flow better the gains will only be noticeable at high higher rpm. The other thing I havnt mentioned is the effect of gas velocity on turbine efficiency.

Was it run in on a 2wd dyno or 4wd. I fully understand how difficult it is to get reliable data even at lower horsepower levels I've been tuning cars for years now and there is a lot of work to get reliable dyno readings - to me that's what makes a good dyno operator. It's an art in itself. That aside results like this have got to make you wonder if the dyno techniques were consistent for the two runs. Anyways the mph should tell the story because if the dyno results are indicative of the power gain then your probably looking at another 3-5mph gain. It's funny that there is one thread with tubular manifold that look to have been quiet well designed that shows no gain in hp power and then there is this thread which says the opposite.

I'm not saying there isn't gains to be had from porting but ryans's car has increased volumetric effciency throughout the entire rev range. I've never witnessed this on any port job I've seen, there are always trade offs.

That's a very dubious result - I'm very skeptical that there would be gains throughout the entire rev range. Making things flow better usually decreases hp at low velocities and increases hp at higher velocities. My bet it was a different shootout mode or strapping technique or some kind of dyno technique.

Good work dude - pity no power gains to be had. Shows how good the factory manifolds are at this power level. I think the transient response is most likely due to the smaller core though.