Setup:

B18C1 block stock sleeves 82mm
USDM ITR pistons
stock crank/rods
ACL bearings
B16A head milled .020
Skunk2 Stage 2 cams, Skunk2 cam gears
Supertech VS/retainers, stock valves
AEBS IM ported to ITR TB w/Hondata gasket
Profab header to 2.5" straight crush bent piping
3" intake w/BPi flow stack
chipped P28 with VAFC2. (yeah yeah I know ,)
shaved GSR crank pulley
stock injectors/fuel pump, B&M FPR
93 Octane



Thoughts?


Modified by SkoundrelUSA at 9:15 PM 10/8/2006

 

numbers look about right for that setup

 

torque is a bit low but that's due to your knife edged crank...what's your AF ratio look like?

 

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by acydphryck &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">torque is a bit low but that's due to your knife edged crank...what's your AF ratio look like?</TD></TR></TABLE>

Why does knifeedging the crank reduce the torque? Less inertia because of less mass?

 

what profab header do you have tri-y or other?

tuner say anything about it

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by The_Head &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

Why does knifeedging the crank reduce the torque? Less inertia because of less mass?</TD></TR></TABLE> I would like to know also. I thought TQ was a measure of work, not inertia.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by DonF &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote"> I would like to know also. I thought TQ was a measure of work, not inertia.</TD></TR></TABLE>

true that torque is just force times distance. it has nothing to do with the mass.

edit: where does he say the crank was knife edged anyway?

 

200 is only different cams away, looks like you made peak power really early though....

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by dohcMONSTER &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">200 is only different cams away, looks like you made peak power really early though....</TD></TR></TABLE>

I agree....S2S2's peaking at 7,500??

 

I wouldn't doubt if the injectors are super maxed out. Try some bigger and re-tune. See what happens.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by clean rice &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I agree....S2S2's peaking at 7,500??</TD></TR></TABLE>
i see a graph in MPH not RPM...

 

Yes, id like to hear an explanation of how the knife edged crank reduced BMEP.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Combustion Contraption &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Yes, id like to hear an explanation of how the knife edged crank reduced BMEP.</TD></TR></TABLE>

Yea so would I

 

Numbers look good to me.

 

By his post count, looks like he posts more than he reads.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by acydphryck &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">torque is a bit low but that's due to your knife edged crank...what's your AF ratio look like?</TD></TR></TABLE>

I forget if my crank was knife edged or not. I never said it though lol.

I don't have a graph of the a/f

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by crawlin &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">what profab header do you have tri-y or other?

tuner say anything about it</TD></TR></TABLE>

Yeah the Tri-Y. He didn't say anything.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by dohcMONSTER &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">200 is only different cams away, looks like you made peak power really early though....</TD></TR></TABLE>

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by clean rice &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

I agree....S2S2's peaking at 7,500??</TD></TR></TABLE>

I think I'm still good with my S2S2s. It is possible that the injectors were maxing out. But my tuner didn't mention anything about them. Plus I forgot to bring my 310s with me just in case on me.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by GSRCRXsi &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
i see a graph in MPH not RPM...</TD></TR></TABLE>

yeah that too

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by D-Rob &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Numbers look good to me. </TD></TR></TABLE>

I'm a little sad lol Just wanted the fact that its 200whp, oh well.

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by theyoungone &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">By his post count, looks like he posts more than he reads. </TD></TR></TABLE>

Me? What I say?

 

OT; Is this gonna be ur daily driver?

Nice motor.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by RIP Indian Larry &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">OT; Is this gonna be ur daily driver?

Nice motor. </TD></TR></TABLE>

Yeah. Why do you ask?

 

haha not you. The one who thinks light cranks = low torque.

 

i love how people can say that 130 is low TQ for a 1.8L on a uncorrectoed dynosheet with all those dyno hickups.... im supprised someone didnt say OMG 160tq is awsome from a 1.8!!

i wouldnt make any comparisons off that graph without fixing a few things, HP x RPM for one, change the scale, and make it SAE corrected and eliminate the runs with the "hickups".

not hating the OP's graph, just the people bench racing off of it

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by JCushing &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">i love how people can say that 130 is low TQ for a 1.8L on a uncorrectoed dynosheet with all those dyno hickups.... im supprised someone didnt say OMG 160tq is awsome from a 1.8!!</TD></TR></TABLE>

138 actually Which still isn't horrible IMO either. When that 160 spike came up my face went hahaha

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by JCushing &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
i wouldnt make any comparisons off that graph without fixing a few things, HP x RPM for one, change the scale, and make it SAE corrected and eliminate the runs with the "hickups".

not hating the OP's graph, just the people bench racing off of it</TD></TR></TABLE>

Yeah I would've changed the graph but I didn't know how to change everything (tuner was away from computer and left it up to me) plus I think he wanted me out of there. I was a pain in the ***

 

138 is still not right cause it was on one of the "hickups". although looking at the trend of the graph looks to be around 130-135. not bad IMO. about normal if you ask me.

 

let me put it this way normally i just say look at the dynochart not the peak numbers but this time its the opposite.... the only thing worth lookin at is the peak power number...

 

some race gas would of put you at 200 whp.