| Hey guys - I'm making some progress on the data that was collected on Dee Ridgeway's TT (Slowninja, AKA: Devil's Z) comparing the OEM 2" piping and Stillen SMICs vs. 2.5" piping and my new SMICs. I will be working to sort through all the datalogging information we collected and provide information on the following: RPM
Theoretical Pulsewidth
Ignition Timing Advance
Injector Pulsewidth
Injector Duty Cycle
MAS Voltage
T1 = Turbo Compressor Discharge Temp
P1 = Turbo Compressor Discharge Pressure
T2 = Intercooler Discharge Temp
P2 = Intercooler Discharge Pressure
Turbocharger Compressor Efficiency
Intercooler Efficiency From this data, we should also be able to calculate a few other interesting points of data, namely the engine volumetric efficiency for Dee's car. There is quite a bit of number crunching to be done and spreadsheets will be generated to handle this task. We are shooting to put together an excel spreadsheet template combined with the GT28RS compressor flow map so that we can plot out exactly where we are falling in the use of the compressor. We will also be generating an intercooler efficiency map as well. Here are the new intercoolers, piping, and some comparison photos of items: 
Piping comparison:
 
Comparison pics to Stillen SMICs:
 
Install Pic: (Stillen air guides were installed)
 
I have compiled all of the dynocharts to compare the differences in power output at various boost levels to show the differences between the setups. The car was tuned with the ZEM in its original setup with the 2" OEM piping and Stillen SMICs. Once the tune was perfected with this setup and all of the runs were made, the only thing that was changed was the intercoolers and piping. The exact same programs were used in the second test as was used in the first (there were three different programs created along the way to handle pumpfuel, racefuel, and maximum boost). 1.2bar:
 1.3bar:
 1.4bar:
 1.5bar:
 1.6bar:
 1.7bar:
 1.8bar:
 After looking through the data to see where the differences were in the other datalogged pieces of information, it is obvious to see that the engine is simply breathing more air, especially down low with the larger piping/intercoolers. The A/F is a bit different between the runs on the bottom end simply because it is using a different part of the fuel table as a result of the additional airflow. More air = more fuel delivered = richer mixture. On the top-end of things, the A/F is slightly different as well and it will account for some of the improved power. I did not want to change the programming that was used as I felt that this would lead to possible suspicion by some folks. If I had adjusted the program to make the A/F the same, the difference in numbers would have been even more dramatic through the bottom end up to midrange, showing greater improvement in bottom end, and with a slight detriment to top end power as it seems to want to run a tad bit leaner with the new setup, albeit a rather marginal difference though. It would be even nicer to see the difference if Dee's car had 60mm throttlebodies, which are essentially the same size as the 2.5" piping we installed. Even despite this limitation, it was apparent that the piping and intercoolers contributed quite a bit on their own. I believe we were really tapping out though on the benefit of the piping/intercoolers as the power was increased on the top end because of the limitation of the throttlebody. At this peak power level (650RWHP), there is a tremendous amount of air flowing through each throttlebody and I believe the 2.0" OEM throttlebodies started to become our bottleneck. So, this is the preliminary dynochart data and qualitative review of what I see so far and as soon as I get everything together in the quantitative analysis department, I will be more than happy to share it all.
[ ashspecz.com ]
[ agpowers@bellsouth.net ] Enthusiasts soon understand each other. --W. Irving.
Are you an enthusiast? If you are out to describe the truth, leave elegance to the tailor.
Albert Einstein
|
AshSPEC MASSIVE SMIC & 2.5" Piping results (PT1) - 
