I saw that too, very interesting...
89' 3.3L 10.6:1 dyno
- Thread starter adidas_kn
- Start date
Disclaimer: Links on this page pointing to Amazon, eBay and other sites may include affiliate code. If you click them and make a purchase, we may earn a small commission.
I saw that too, very interesting...
SeanMc
NoMoSHO
I made 194/190 through the auto on 5 cylinders (yes, 1 injector was not firing due to a bad wiring harness, had an o2 also getting no juice). I've since got mine running on all 6, added BBBs, p'n'p intake, UDPs. So Jeremi, you are FTL 
!!!! I'm thinking it's more cam than the exhaust, but who knows 
.
!!!! I'm thinking it's more cam than the exhaust, but who knows .
Last edited:
SHOspazz92
Banned
Have you checked your Mr. Fusion? My SHO was running terribly on Tomato Juice and Moldy carrots for a while. I later found that my Mr. Fusion was having troubles with Vegetable oil's and causing the car to lean out. I've sinced fixed it by getting a new Tune from Doc'.
On a serious note, The TQ. Numbers are there. I think with a more thurough tune you should be back on track. I base that statement on absolutely nothing.
-Sam
On a serious note, The TQ. Numbers are there. I think with a more thurough tune you should be back on track. I base that statement on absolutely nothing.
-Sam
If the curves used the same vertical scale then they would intersect at 5250 on the graph. Look at the y values of each curve at 5250, they are the same; ~ 185.
The different scales just appear to make the crossover point move to a different rpm because the horse power curve is moved up from where it would be if the same scales were used to plot this graph. And because the HP curve is higher on the plot, it appears that the X-over point is moved left on the rpm scale.
I hate it when dyno operators do this, makes the dyno results appear wacky. I think they like to do it because it makes one of the curves, in this case HP, appear fatter than it really is.
adidas_kn
LOWSHO
oh yeah not sure if this had anything to do with it but instead of welding a seperate bung in the y-pipe for the a/f pickup sensor on the dyno they simply removed my front O2 and put the pick up in there.
You guys think I need more cam to feed this thing? Shouldn't the stock 3.0L cams be good enough to make north of 210whp with this size engine?
You guys think I need more cam to feed this thing? Shouldn't the stock 3.0L cams be good enough to make north of 210whp with this size engine?
SHOtime2511
CGP
cams and exhaust isnt the problem here,your not even putting down 200whp.
i expect more than that is coming out of my 3.2L. **** i saw a 3.2L MTX running a stock Y that put down numbers right at what yours did. i guess a fuel problem AND OR tuning problem,check your pressure at the rails.
X2
Last edited:
adidas_kn
LOWSHO
oh forgot to mention this also. It has a 155Lph pump in the tank. I'll try checking the fuel pressure this week.
sho_sc
New Member
Maybe I've noticed something here .... with 10.6:1 CR , you must run 92-93 octane and even with that it still can knock. Once the knock sensor pulls timing out, unless you have someway to adjust it (TwEECer), it will stay out for "nearly" for a dyno pull. i.e. sees knock event at 3K RPM, pulls 0.5 degree: sees knock event again at 3050 RPM pulls 2 degrees, sees it a third time at 3100 pulls 5 degrees. The minus 5 degrees will stay there for several seconds, and then it only returns a degree or two at a time, by then you are nearly at the end of your run. Just a few degress of timing can make a BIG difference in power.
BTW, A N/A SHO should make the most power in the 12.5:1 to 13.0:1 AFR.
BTW, A N/A SHO should make the most power in the 12.5:1 to 13.0:1 AFR.
Last edited:
I would rerun it with higher octane fuel... What did your timing look like (are you data logging with a TwEECer)?
How much smoothing is applied to that graph. I can still see some jagged lines, but like Ransom said, it looks like you may have been consistantly backed off timing the entire run. Also, was it lean before 2,500 RPM?
I also shoot for 12.5:1 - 13:1 on an NA SHO... 12:1-12.5:1 on boosted SHO's.
How much smoothing is applied to that graph. I can still see some jagged lines, but like Ransom said, it looks like you may have been consistantly backed off timing the entire run. Also, was it lean before 2,500 RPM?
I also shoot for 12.5:1 - 13:1 on an NA SHO... 12:1-12.5:1 on boosted SHO's.
sho_sc
New Member
Jason, you're right about your comments. I think he is not using a TwEECer. What I have seen tunning my own SHO is a knock event in the 2900-3100 range that pulls timing back for the entire run, shows a big hit on power. Oddly, enough my knock events are either caused by cam noise or blower noise. No matter what my timing is in that RPM range, it happens sometimes and sometimes it doesn't.
Last edited:
SinisterSHO
Rust free
Pretty positive he is not using a TwEECer for any of this. Did you miss the part about Doug Lewis doing the tuning?
SinisterSHO
Rust free
Cause it wasn't in the first sentance of his post..
Okay smart-ass... Word comprehension here.... I asked if he was using the TwEECer. You said that he probably didn't as Doug from FPS was tuning, then asked me if I missed that [Doug]. I then said I don't keep up with other people specifics.
With your remark you assumed that I knew that Doug doesn't use the TwEECer or the OP didn't already have one. I was replying to the fact that I don't know what who uses anymore.
Just because he said he went to Doug in his first sentence doesn't tell me a flippin' thing about the TwEECer. He said he had it dyno tuned, but still never mentioned anything that said whether or not he used a TwEECer :shakehead
With your remark you assumed that I knew that Doug doesn't use the TwEECer or the OP didn't already have one. I was replying to the fact that I don't know what who uses anymore.
Just because he said he went to Doug in his first sentence doesn't tell me a flippin' thing about the TwEECer. He said he had it dyno tuned, but still never mentioned anything that said whether or not he used a TwEECer :shakehead
Last edited:
You definitly need 93 octane in that high of a compression engine. I'd stop at a Sonoco and add some 100 octane as well to get the full beneifts of that compression ratio. I only run a minimum of 100 octane in the GTS and it is 10.75:1- most times I pick up jet fuel 
Higher octane, a redyno and probably a retune will most likely get you where you want to be.
Higher octane, a redyno and probably a retune will most likely get you where you want to be.
twr
whoohoo
No, but the line Custom dyno tuned SCT chip by Doug Lewis 2/3rds the way through his mod list should have been a dead give way
sho_sc
New Member
SeanMc
NoMoSHO
You definitly need 93 octane in that high of a compression engine. I'd stop at a Sonoco and add some 100 octane as well to get the full beneifts of that compression ratio. I only run a minimum of 100 octane in the GTS and it is 10.75:1- most times I pick up jet fuel
Higher octane, a redyno and probably a retune will most likely get you where you want to be.
Dude, just shut up. Seriously.
SHOtime2511
CGP
dident catch the part about the 87 octane. knock could be the issue here.
what are the specifics of the tune your using?
what are the specifics of the tune your using?
