TxCMC22 Posted November 10, 2009 Share Posted November 10, 2009 put a data logger on it and give up some rate of accelleration info, then we can take a look. Glenn, Rate of Acceleration is governed by many variables. Some of those variables are impossible to control between our platforms. Just as Tq curves and HP curves can be deceiving on a graph. There is no way to get two different platforms to perform equally across all columns of road racing. The problem is we don't all remember the positives and negatives when discussing a specific platform, or for that matter when we discuss all platforms in general... Then there is the subject of driver skill, experience, talent, but I won't go there.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mitchntx1548534714 Posted November 10, 2009 Share Posted November 10, 2009 I like my answer best. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Al F. Posted November 10, 2009 Author Members Share Posted November 10, 2009 Hahaha gotta love Glenns style, or lack of it look, every single driver feels their hardware is what is keeping them out of the winners circle, perfectly natural. The fact that were trying so hard on the tpi cmc2 package doesn't mean everyone else is done, it just means this one gets the limited resources first. When that is finished we move on to the next one. So how is this for crazy...thanks Mith for adding that very rare but logical insight into race power vs peak power. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mitchntx1548534714 Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 So how is this for crazy...thanks Mith for adding that very rare but logical insight into race power vs peak power. Who's Mith? If you are talking about me, then I'll do my best to not let it happen again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Posted November 11, 2009 Share Posted November 11, 2009 put a data logger on it and give up some rate of accelleration info, then we can take a look. Glenn, Rate of Acceleration is governed by many variables. Some of those variables are impossible to control between our platforms. Just as Tq curves and HP curves can be deceiving on a graph. There is no way to get two different platforms to perform equally across all columns of road racing. The problem is we don't all remember the positives and negatives when discussing a specific platform, or for that matter when we discuss all platforms in general... Then there is the subject of driver skill, experience, talent, but I won't go there.... absolutly correct. add to that 3.55 gears vs 3.42's, comp ratio, OEM rev limit (EFI only), and many other variables. but w/ regards to rate of acceleration, even a bad driver can put the pedal all the way to the floor for the untwisty parts. if we look there first, we solve the big problems first. we work our way down the list. but to come in here and tell me your problem is bigger than another when it is the same "problem" that has been around for many years and wasnt really a problem at all. my Nationals Dyno numbers were 217hp/288tq if i recall. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GT4Point6 Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 The issues is that the 3rd gens are NOW getting help for CMC2 via parts and the main complaint was TQ. What help is the 4.6 going to get, 2V and 3V? Glenn, your numbers were CMC correct? This is discussing CMC2 numbers. And since we are putting money into one platform, the rest of the platforms are asking for help as well and justified. Once $$$ was put on the table to help one platform, you've got a box open for all to want a piece or it's seen as biased towards that platform and the other platforms will complain unless they make the numbers easily and are fat on TQ like the 5.7 motors. YMMV Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TxCMC22 Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 I'm very close to numbers 244/273 and would be happy to give you any information I have Kevin, I need to catch the dyno again, get a good air filter on it, and get a pully kit, but I'm pretty sure I can almost hit the numbers... I have some Ideas about how to hit the numbers almost right on, but I don't have the funds anymore to test my theories... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Schotz Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 IMO, My car is living proof... Torque means NOTHING on these cars... Ask anyone who has 'raced' beside it... the car isn't fast because of it's 'TQ' rating. When 'Gears' are 'FREE'... it's all about HP to Weight Ratio... that's it. I could care less if my car had 200 RWTQ... as long as it made the HP number. Why do you think Honda's & Miata's are so fast? It ain't the TQ! It's Gearing... and HP. I agree... whatever has to be done for any platform to get the HP number... is important. I don't have experience with the 4.6's to know what 'stronger' ones may make, vs. weaker ones... etc... Peace, Dave Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmc38camaro Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 can you post the dyno graph? Would like to see the curve. The smooth factor is set to 4 on this, but not to worry it only changes the numbers a tiny bit. The shape of the curves are the same. Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bsim Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 that there's a purdy graph... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TxCMC22 Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 can you put this motor in a 94-04 mustang? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmc38camaro Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 that there's a purdy graph... Other than the overly rich air/fuel mixture below 3500. The car is overly rich in closed loop mode and runs poorly at partial throttle. It runs well at WOT. I suspect the separation of the curves in the low RPM range is explained by varying time to clean up after being too rich. I'm not sure what the problem is, a bad O2 sensor or stock programming that can't handle the mods and gets upside down. I had a laptop plugged into the ALDL monitoring the sensors during the dyno runs and the O2 sensor was reporting a lean condition. The wide band disagreed. That will be the first thing I look into. Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmc38camaro Posted November 12, 2009 Share Posted November 12, 2009 IMO, My car is living proof... Torque means NOTHING on these cars... Ask anyone who has 'raced' beside it... the car isn't fast because of it's 'TQ' rating. When 'Gears' are 'FREE'... it's all about HP to Weight Ratio... that's it. snip I agree with Dave, the HP advantage I had walked all over his TQ advantage at race pace and in 2500 & 300 rolling acceleration runs. Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 The issues is that the 3rd gens are NOW getting help for CMC2 via parts and the main complaint was TQ. What help is the 4.6 going to get, 2V and 3V? Glenn, your numbers were CMC correct? This is discussing CMC2 numbers. And since we are putting money into one platform, the rest of the platforms are asking for help as well and justified. Once $$$ was put on the table to help one platform, you've got a box open for all to want a piece or it's seen as biased towards that platform and the other platforms will complain unless they make the numbers easily and are fat on TQ like the 5.7 motors. YMMV the issue w/ the 3rd gen was more than a TQ issue. as for my example of my CMC car, well.... it was just that, an example of a platform not making the max number for both HP and TQ and being told so what. at best i can hit one or the other, but not both. just because a platform is now having the same issue in CMC2 does not mean my example is not relevent. the reason we are all focused on the 3rd gen 305 is it is considerably father off than any other platform. the FOX is done. the LS1/LT1 is done. the 4.6 was done according to some, and it looks like it will need some help. but it in no way was as bad off as the GM 305 TPI. who says we are done now? instead of posting about how unfair it is, post about how you would fix it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 can you post the dyno graph? Would like to see the curve. The smooth factor is set to 4 on this, but not to worry it only changes the numbers a tiny bit. The shape of the curves are the same. Mike Mike, can you send me the dynojet file? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmc38camaro Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 Mike, can you send me the dynojet file? Glenn, I copied you on that file on Monday with the rest other directors. Are you still using the MSN address? Mike Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 Mike, can you send me the dynojet file? Glenn, I copied you on that file on Monday with the rest other directors. Are you still using the MSN address? Mike i wasnt looking for that, i want the file i can import to the dynojet software and look at it that way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmc38camaro Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 Mike, can you send me the dynojet file? Glenn, I copied you on that file on Monday with the rest other directors. Are you still using the MSN address? Mike i wasnt looking for that, i want the file i can import to the dynojet software and look at it that way. ok you got me on that one. The file sent on Monday is a data export file from the dynojet SW. Do you know the procedure for exporting the file type you are looking for? Or know the file extension? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glenn Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 yes. you have to go in thru the program files directory from the drive its stored on. this file will allow anyone w/ the software to open the graph. it will also allow nore than one graph to plot per veiw. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TxCMC22 Posted November 13, 2009 Share Posted November 13, 2009 instead of posting about how unfair it is, post about how you would fix it. Let me apologize first Glenn for what I'm about to say... We have made suggestions, face to face, in the Texas region. Please don't act like this post is the first time the subject has been brought up... There are people who have made suggestions to fix it only to be told "not gunna happen" including myself. If you don't believe what he has been telling you guys all along then go buy Sean Hylands "How to build a 4.6" book and read it for yourself! I took the time to study it. This car is going to become one of the most sought after cars in this series, the prices are dropping, it's about time you guys invested some time to get to know it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GT4Point6 Posted November 14, 2009 Share Posted November 14, 2009 Why do you think Honda's & Miata's are so fast? It ain't the TQ! It's Gearing... and HP. Peace, Dave Mabye because they only weight about 2k!!! You can carry a lot more speed out of the corner at 2000 pounds than you can at 3200. Since HP is simply a representation of TQ at a given RPM, the more TQ and flatter TQ curve you have the more HP you can make up top to a point or spin it to 8k like the S2000 if you don't have TQ. Since most shift in the mid 5k range, you need the TQ to make the HP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Schotz Posted November 15, 2009 Share Posted November 15, 2009 You may want to do some research h there Kevin. So by your logic my 350ftlb Tw Canaries should be able to make more horsepower than you 270 Tw car right? By definition what you share is accurate, but lets add 20" of runner length to your car, you'll get the Tq you're looking for, while reducing not only your HP but your overrall useable rpm range too. Those Honda's and Mazda's aren't just fast because of 2000 lbs, in those cases they are often Running sizes of about 225's, and I wasn't trying to indicate cornering speed, I meant just trying to pass one with 125hp! Its gearing and rpm my friend. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmc38camaro Posted October 6, 2010 Share Posted October 6, 2010 I have been asked to publish an update to my experience with a 305 TPI in CMC2 trim. Here goes: Parts List: Intake - Edel 3817 - 469.95 from Summit Heads - 12558060 - 309.95ea - 619.90 from Summit Head bolts - QES72856 - 23.95ea - 47.90 - Fel-Pro - Summit Head Gaskets - Fel-Pro 1094 - 21.88ea - 43.76 from Summit TPI Base to Runner Gaskets Edel 3866 - 33.95 - Summit Intake gaskets - QMS93318 - FelPro - 29.95 - Summit Thermo gasket - 1.25 - FelPro - Summit Rockers – Used Crane Gold $175 – CMC bulletin Board Header Locks - 8911 - 41.95 - Stage 8 - Summit Header reducer - 11035 - Hooker - 9.95 - Amazon Headers – 2460HKR - Hooker - 165.95 - Summit Exhaust tubing –$39.00 Motion Motorsports EGR Block off Plate – home made Dyno Results: The car has been on the dyno 4 times since being modified and the best numbers produced are 272 HP and 325 TQ. Removing timing has proven to be the most effective way to restrict power. My sea level dyno shows 251/308 at TDC. We did 12 pulls at sea level playing with timing, fuel pressure and throttle bodies restriction. Fuel pressure changes had a small impact, but not enough to enact the needed changes. Restricting at the throttle body didn’t have much impact either. My conclusion is that the runners are the primary bottleneck and they are the limiting factor in airflow. My Nationals dyno showed something like 257/315 at 2 degrees retarded. The car runs a bit erratic when the timing gets below 2 degrees BTDC. On Track Results: The car runs well at idle and at WOT. The car runs lean at partial throttle and routinely backfires through the exhaust. Removing vacuum from the fuel pressure regulator helped a little. Removing the vacuum allows for higher fuel pressure in partial throttle scenarios. The car was worse at altitude than at sea level and gets progressively worse as engine temperature climbs. It runs ok during warm up, so I’m going to experiment some this weekend and lie to the ECM about water temp and see how it reacts. At the end of the day I believe the modifications have exceeded the stock programming’s ability to compensate. I have a speed density system and they simply are not as adaptive to change as a MAF system is. Bigger injectors may be another way to address the problem. I can make the 19# stock injectors spray enough fuel for WOT, but they are operating beyond their rated limits. In any case I plan to do some experimentation over the next two events in search of a solution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KiMifan Posted October 6, 2010 Share Posted October 6, 2010 Sounds like a strong case for a carburetor, Mike! Good luck with the testing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Ginsberg Posted October 7, 2010 Share Posted October 7, 2010 Sounds like a strong case for a carburetor, Mike! Good luck with the testing. Carbs are good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.