PPE Engineering LongTube Headers
#151
12-20-2011, 11:34 AM
check out the dyno of their 370z headers that has the step in almost the same location as SG. The drop is in almost the same area as those SG dynos.
notice the step location on the 370z headers and SG compared to mine. Actually their 370z headers are designed similair to the SG the step and merge location is different compared to mine.
http://my350z.com/forum/intake-exhau...longtubes.html
www.ppeengineering.com (search under 370z in products)
I think with our car the further back the step the later the drop occurs due to the distance the wave has to travel. SG found the right location for our car. http://thehorsepowerjunkies.com/gene...epped-headers/
Everyone of those SG setups are different, but the drop occurs between 2-3k in all of them while mine starts at 3k.
notice the step location on the 370z headers and SG compared to mine. Actually their 370z headers are designed similair to the SG the step and merge location is different compared to mine.
http://my350z.com/forum/intake-exhau...longtubes.html
www.ppeengineering.com (search under 370z in products)
I think with our car the further back the step the later the drop occurs due to the distance the wave has to travel. SG found the right location for our car. http://thehorsepowerjunkies.com/gene...epped-headers/
Everyone of those SG setups are different, but the drop occurs between 2-3k in all of them while mine starts at 3k.
Last edited by Dsskyline; 12-20-2011 at 03:18 PM.
#152
12-21-2011, 09:26 AM
Sure. He is the intercooler I am going to be using for my car.
This is the bottom mounted sc location for the rotrex.
Other then the sc itself I am also going to be running direct port water infection. can't wait for this thing to be done. Hopefully early January.
I was gonna post some pics of the sam but looks like you found some pics already.
This is the bottom mounted sc location for the rotrex.
Other then the sc itself I am also going to be running direct port water infection. can't wait for this thing to be done. Hopefully early January.
I was gonna post some pics of the sam but looks like you found some pics already.
The following users liked this post:
Dsskyline (12-21-2011)
#153
12-21-2011, 10:08 AM
#154
12-21-2011, 10:15 AM
#155
12-21-2011, 10:31 AM
#156
12-21-2011, 09:41 PM
The reason for the bottom mount is to get rid of the jackshaft system found on both the HKS and Vortech kit.
I have no doubt in my mind that it will be much quieter then any of the vortech blowers. A few other platforms uses this blower and have reported excellent operation quietness.
I'll contact GTM again to see if they have some more eyecandy for us
#157
12-22-2011, 10:33 AM
GTM is making the supercharger for me, hopefully us.
The reason for the bottom mount is to get rid of the jackshaft system found on both the HKS and Vortech kit.
I have no doubt in my mind that it will be much quieter then any of the vortech blowers. A few other platforms uses this blower and have reported excellent operation quietness.
Once I get it back with the SC, which is hopefully soon, i will surely let everyone know about the results and outcome. I don't expect it to be wimpy
I'm thinking on at least 9psi but it all depends on how my car takes the boost with the water, so I won't know for sure until GTM puts the car thru its pace. My overall expectation is to gain a good chunk of power everywhere while still having the car drivable on the street.
I'll contact GTM again to see if they have some more eyecandy for us
The reason for the bottom mount is to get rid of the jackshaft system found on both the HKS and Vortech kit.
I have no doubt in my mind that it will be much quieter then any of the vortech blowers. A few other platforms uses this blower and have reported excellent operation quietness.
Once I get it back with the SC, which is hopefully soon, i will surely let everyone know about the results and outcome. I don't expect it to be wimpy
I'm thinking on at least 9psi but it all depends on how my car takes the boost with the water, so I won't know for sure until GTM puts the car thru its pace. My overall expectation is to gain a good chunk of power everywhere while still having the car drivable on the street.
I'll contact GTM again to see if they have some more eyecandy for us
#158
12-23-2011, 12:50 AM
I'm thinking on at least 9psi but it all depends on how my car takes the boost with the water, so I won't know for sure until GTM puts the car thru its pace. My overall expectation is to gain a good chunk of power everywhere while still having the car drivable on the street.
#159
12-28-2011, 05:19 PM
#160
12-28-2011, 07:55 PM
#164
01-07-2012, 01:09 PM
#165
01-17-2012, 09:30 PM
I can't say for sure, but I don't think its the voltage.
Here is why.
1) 0.1V out of 5V is much too small to make that kind of a change on the curve. That's only a 2% variation of voltage.
2) The power curve delta is more than 2%.
3) Even if the TB is 2% closed, a 2% closure won't create any appreciable pressure drop across the TB valve unless the RPM's are high. But the RPM's were low.
4) The TB voltage goes to 5V at a different RPM than where the power curve shows recovery. If the power curve recovery RPM coincided with the voltage recovery RPM then it would suggest a correlation, but they don't. RPM of each event is different.
5) If you changed the TB and still get the same results, its not the TB.
Did you monitor the spark advance during the testing? If for some reason the knock sensor picked up some kind of noise it could pull back timing.
But for some reason, and I've seen the same type of effect before during my ART pipe experimentation, when I look at your power curve, it seems like its simply a signature of the acoustic resonance tuning. I did the same thing in the early stages of tuning the ART pipes. Some of my early ART pipe testing was actually much worse.
The only way to really know why you have a loss of low end TQ is to put it all back to the pre-test condition.... but I fully understand this is not something anyone would want to do unless they have lots of time and $$$ to burn.
Here is why.
1) 0.1V out of 5V is much too small to make that kind of a change on the curve. That's only a 2% variation of voltage.
2) The power curve delta is more than 2%.
3) Even if the TB is 2% closed, a 2% closure won't create any appreciable pressure drop across the TB valve unless the RPM's are high. But the RPM's were low.
4) The TB voltage goes to 5V at a different RPM than where the power curve shows recovery. If the power curve recovery RPM coincided with the voltage recovery RPM then it would suggest a correlation, but they don't. RPM of each event is different.
5) If you changed the TB and still get the same results, its not the TB.
Did you monitor the spark advance during the testing? If for some reason the knock sensor picked up some kind of noise it could pull back timing.
But for some reason, and I've seen the same type of effect before during my ART pipe experimentation, when I look at your power curve, it seems like its simply a signature of the acoustic resonance tuning. I did the same thing in the early stages of tuning the ART pipes. Some of my early ART pipe testing was actually much worse.
The only way to really know why you have a loss of low end TQ is to put it all back to the pre-test condition.... but I fully understand this is not something anyone would want to do unless they have lots of time and $$$ to burn.