free hit
karmavore's Content - Page 9 - The Lotus Forums Jump to content


Basic Account
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by karmavore

  1. Here's a link to a FS file with S4S code where the WG DC hits 100 after dipping down in the mid-RPM range: Here's a bunch of my old runs for comparison: I really gotta update the site!
  2. Good question, Jon. I'm embarrassed to say, but I don't know exactly what chip is in the car, though I'd bet money its the S4S code. My peak boost on that run was probably 1.25. Anyway, I wasn't paying attention to the WG DC becuse it's not a factor for me any longer, but now I'm really curious about the chip... let me do some looking around. Awww, now don't sulk. I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings before. Come 'ere... let's hug it out.
  3. That's not something I've ever noticed in Freescan, but I hear you've been messing with the code so I'll defer to you on this. Regardless, what the code is supposed to do and what happens on the dyno sure seem like two different things. Here's a snap shop from a recent dyno run. Notice the knock, the timing pull, and the waste gate DC remaining at 100.
  4. I can't believe no one has commented on the estimated drivetrain loss of only ~30HP. That's not bad all all! Thanks for that Dave, Troy.
  5. One other thing about low RPM boost.... ..until the MAP hits the pressure of the waste gate spring there's nothing that can be done to alter boost. I don't know the spring pressure of the OEM waste gate, nor do I know at what RPM that pressure is reached, I'm just sayin'.
  6. I don't believe that's true, but I can not prove it.
  7. ...with the initials JW. :-) This doesn't make sense to me. I've never heard of anyone saying they want their turbo to spool more slowly. I could understand this if traction is a problem, but otherwise.... unless some other system (or the turbo itself) is woefully inadequate for the job at hand, let’s get on that boost ASAP. Incidentally, the same person you referred to above ENCOURAGED me to be a boost controller... said they worked great with the S4S code. The OEM solenoid is still attached and the ECU can tell it do whatever it wants. The new boost controller has its own solenoid which does the actual work. If the ECU was smarter maybe this would cause an issue ("Hey, why is the MAP still increasing??") but I dunno. It does work, honest. Lucas .
  8. Yes, BUT .... as I understand it the code for this is run very infrequently, especially at higher RPMs. I guess that theoretically after many, many, miles of driving the DC will eventually be soreted out, but once you disconnect the battery its gone. This is the main reason I went with a standalone. After I got my new turbo and put a THOUSAND miles on the clock the ECU still couldn't control boost accurately. Same way it does for boost, I think, slowly and inefficiently. I'm not sure you understand how this works... they all mess with the solenoid . That's how things get done. It's quite simple and elegant, actually.
  9. Humm.... I never thought about it but is the wasted fuel being injected at during the exhaust stroke responsible for increased burbling and backfiring?
  10. I've never measured mine, but I drive it hard and I always have to top it up after each ride. The harder I drive, the more I top up. Again, I'm running a lot of boost on 46K miles rings. That said, when a compression test and leak down were done last year she was at factory specs. Unbelievable, actually.
  11. Great pics! Thanks for sharing.
  12. Just to play devils advocate, not to fight... The 180R also didnt have to last that long, relatively. We all could boost the hell out of our motors for a while. Also, I'd b surprised if the power they were putting out much exceeded that of any of our motors with bigger, more modern, turbos. Incidentally, during the 180r's revival a few years back they performed like shit.
  13. riiiiight... but what they did it with isn't relevant anymore. Dave's motor is way more built that the 180s were then or now. Jus' sayin.
  14. I don't understand the fascination with the X-180Rs. When Jamie et. al. were racing them a few years ago they'd been fully updated with modern tech from John and others. What they raced with in the early 90s was completely tossed out, was it not?
  15. No offense man - and feel free to tell the ladies whatever - but yours doesn't look that big to me.... Seriously, your turbine looks smaller than Michael's (although his is covered up with a blanket) and he seems to have an external waste gate. Did I guess right?
  16. Ummm, yeah... right here. :-) I'd love to try one out and do before and afters. How much?
  17. Considering the relative cost of V8 cars vs. modifying 4-pots it's hard to justify... unless you're really obsessed like some of us.
  18. Yes, you'll probably have to run the hose into the cabin. There may be some units with senders, but you'd still have to run the wires. I really like my new controller. Works great, removes the guesswork. Does you car have a boost solenoid or does it just run off the waste gate?
  19. Dave: I don't think it's been said enough, so here goes: your engine bay is stunning. Just beautiful. I love the matte silver finish and the blue water hoses. Excellent job.
  20. Missed that, thanks Artie. 800 is big. I wonder how the delco would idle with primaries that big.
  21. I really have no idea why and where I came across as obnoxious, except in my response to GKP, who stared it with his silly criticism. To my mind establishing how the 412 number was derived is critical to understand what it really "means". Anyway, I'm afraid we'll never get to the bottom of what really got Dave to 412. My hunch is 80% of it is the boost. Heck, I got 330 HP on a Mustang Dyno running at 20psi, just as Dave. I'd say that puts me within 20-30HP of Dave's 412, assuming a drive line loss of 50hp. What I want to know now is what size injectors Dave is running, and how many -- 4 or 6? The other key the the turbo size and spec. But yeah, thanks for putting up with us Dave! I'd call Artie and I "skeptical but hopeful". We want it to be true, but we're scientists and it's our job to challenge results!
  22. No. First off, with out my prodding this discussion would exclusively contain messages of "cool" and "wow". Even your message is, essentially, empty. If you have question, ask it. Otherwise enjoy the ride. Secondly, the horsepower claims here are quite fantastic and I'd like to understand how they were achieved, beyond "careful engineering". Geesh!
  23. Perhaps, but my real beef is with the correction factor stuff. Which number did you get Jon, the corrected number of the real one? Of course, I'm just trying to figure out how ~412HP is achievable from the 910.
  • Create New...