Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Your dyno graphs on the previous page.. the run where you dropped the cat.. looks like it was going on to make a fair bit more power than the runs with the cat still attached...........

  • Replies 42
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Your dyno graphs on the previous page.. the run where you dropped the cat.. looks like it was going on to make a fair bit more power than the runs with the cat still attached...........

I remember now the test was to verify whether the cat was causing a loss in response, so once that was ruled out, Trent abandoned the run.

I will get another run done without the cat but it doesnt look like a lot more does it?? I supposed hard to say where it will end up.

back to back dyno runs with different sets of cams can give some idea of how a certain cam may/will behave but i would not rely to much on the dyno results.

on road or track testing will provide more accurate data imo.

sure if you have two pretty close sets of cam shafts but one set has longer duration then sure.. it may make some more power up high.. BUT many other factors will effect how it performs in real life applications.

lobe profile. ramp rate. small/large throttle inputs. initial rpm/initial boost at point when WOT is applied. load (higher gear/uphill)

as a rough rule of thumb.. bigger duration will offer more top end power but will come at the price of low down response. so then you can play with lift as well. in my case i didnt go to crazy on duration but opted for huge lift. all this was done in the quest to keep the car snappy on the throttle if the rpm's get a little lower but we still needed the thing to breath and bigger lift obviously helps with this also. As far as i can tell.. big lift usually offers wins across the board but comes at the cost of needing to grind some meat out of your head and needing different valve springs.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



  • Latest Posts

    • Yup. You can get creative and make a sort of "bracket" with cable ties. Put 2 around the sender with a third passing underneath them strapped down against the sender. Then that third one is able to be passed through some hole at right angles to the orientation of the sender. Or some variation on the theme. Yes.... ummm, with caveats? I mean, the sender is BSP and you would likely have AN stuff on the hose, so yes, there would be the adapter you mention. But the block end will either be 1/8 NPT if that thread is still OK in there, or you can drill and tap it out to 1/4 BSP or NPT and use appropriate adapter there. As it stands, your mention of 1/8 BSPT male seems... wrong for the 1/8 NPT female it has to go into. The hose will be better, because even with the bush, the mass of the sender will be "hanging" off a hard threaded connection and will add some stress/strain to that. It might fail in the future. The hose eliminates almost all such risk - but adds in several more threaded connections to leak from! It really should be tapered, but it looks very long in that photo with no taper visible. If you have it in hand you should be able to see if it tapered or not. There technically is no possibility of a mechanical seal with a parallel male in a parallel female, so it is hard to believe that it is parallel male, but weirder things have happened. Maybe it's meant to seat on some surface when screwed in on the original installation? Anyway, at that thread size, parallel in parallel, with tape and goop, will seal just fine.
    • How do you propose I cable tie this: To something securely? Is it really just a case of finding a couple of holes and ziptying it there so it never goes flying or starts dangling around, more or less? Then run a 1/8 BSP Female to [hose adapter of choice?/AN?] and then the opposing fitting at the bush-into-oil-block end? being the hose-into-realistically likely a 1/8 BSPT male) Is this going to provide any real benefit over using a stainless/steel 1/4 to 1/8 BSPT reducing bush? I am making the assumption the OEM sender is BSPT not BSPP/BSP
    • I fashioned a ramp out of a couple of pieces of 140x35 lumber, to get the bumper up slightly, and then one of these is what I use
    • I wouldn't worry about dissimilar metal corrosion, should you just buy/make a steel replacement. There will be thread tape and sealant compound between the metals. The few little spots where they touch each other will be deep inside the joint, unable to get wet. And the alloy block is much much larger than a small steel fitting, so there is plenty of "sacrificial" capacity there. Any bush you put in there will be dissimilar anyway. Either steel or brass. Maybe stainless. All of them are different to the other parts in the chain. But what I said above still applies.
    • You are all good then, I didn't realise the port was in a part you can (have!) remove. Just pull the broken part out, clean it and the threads should be fine. Yes, the whole point about remote mounting is it takes almost all of the vibration out via the flexible hose. You just need a convenient chassis point and a cable tie or 3.
×
×
  • Create New...