Estimated Mod's Gains

[RaulM16 0]

Hi everybody:

 

After reading a lot of info here and in other websites i have done a matrix with a lot of possibilities of mod's and the gains each one would aprox obtain.

 

STAGE I Mod's

KW Mod's

84 xu9j4

93 xu9j4 + Stage I

96 xu9j4 + Stage I + CR 10,8

99 xu9j4 + Stage I + ECU

101 xu9j4 + Stage I + ECU + LS1

104 xu9j4 + Stage I + ECU + LS1 + CR 10,8

107 xu9j4 + Stage I + ECU + LS1 + CR 10,8 + 45mm TB

 

STAGE II Mod's

KW Mod's

84 xu9j4

98 xu9j4 + Stage II

101 xu9j4 + Stage II + CR 10,8

104 xu9j4 + Stage II + ECU

105 xu9j4 + Stage II + ECU + LS1

107 xu9j4 + Stage II + ECU + LS1 + CR 10,8

112 xu9j4 + Stage II + ECU + LS1 + CR 10,8 + 45mm TB

113 xu9j4 + Stage II + ECU + 45mm TB + Big Valves

115 xu9j4 + Stage II + ECU + LS1 + CR 10,8 + 45mm TB + Big Valves

 

Some of them are results from PeterT, other are estimated results, and now the question, is this matrix correct?

 

Please anyone add additional gains with different mod's to obtain a matrix in which we can focus, for example if someone wants 100 KW there are several ways to achieve that amount of wheels KW, each way has different cost associated and of course the KW curve is different.

 

To ilustrate this better if we compare this two Mod's:

A) 101 KW xu9j4 + Stage I + ECU + LS1

B 101 KW xu9j4 + Stage II + CR 10,8

 

Both have the same peak power, the A) option is more expensive and i think A) option is more powerfull at medium rpms...

 

This is only an idea to obtain finally a matrix with good info to focus in what we want. The different ways to obtain it, the asociated cost and torque at medium range, not only the peak power as we usually look.

 

Cheers

[cammmy 1]

So "115 xu9j4 + Stage II + ECU + LS1 + CR 10,8 + 45mm TB + Big Valves" would take an XU9J4 to approx 315hp? (if it adds 115kw) Is an XU9J4 not 120kw standard?

[Guest scottcmb]

So "115 xu9j4 + Stage II + ECU + LS1 + CR 10,8 + 45mm TB + Big Valves" would take an XU9J4 to approx 315hp? (if it adds 115kw) Is an XU9J4 not 120kw standard?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

i think he mentioned KW's at the wheels in his post

[Guest scottcmb]

Hi everybody:

 

After reading a lot of info here and in other websites i have done a matrix with a lot of possibilities of mod's and the gains each one would aprox obtain.

 

STAGE I    Mod's

KW  Mod's

84    xu9j4

93    xu9j4 + Stage I

96    xu9j4 + Stage I + CR 10,8

99    xu9j4 + Stage I + ECU

101  xu9j4 + Stage I + ECU + LS1

104  xu9j4 + Stage I + ECU + LS1 + CR 10,8

107  xu9j4 + Stage I + ECU + LS1 + CR 10,8 + 45mm TB

 

STAGE II    Mod's

KW  Mod's

84    xu9j4

98    xu9j4 + Stage II

101  xu9j4 + Stage II + CR 10,8

104  xu9j4 + Stage II + ECU

105  xu9j4 + Stage II + ECU + LS1

107  xu9j4 + Stage II + ECU + LS1 + CR 10,8

112  xu9j4 + Stage II + ECU + LS1 + CR 10,8 + 45mm TB

113  xu9j4 + Stage II + ECU + 45mm TB + Big Valves

115  xu9j4 + Stage II + ECU + LS1 + CR 10,8 + 45mm TB + Big Valves

 

Some of them are results from PeterT, other are estimated results, and now the question, is this matrix correct?

 

Please anyone add additional gains with different mod's to obtain a matrix in which we can focus, for example if someone wants 100 KW there are several ways to achieve that amount of wheels KW, each way has different cost associated and of course the KW curve is different.

 

To ilustrate this better if we compare this two Mod's:

A) 101 KW  xu9j4 + Stage I + ECU + LS1

B  101 KW  xu9j4 + Stage II + CR 10,8

 

Both have the same peak power, the A) option is more expensive and i think A) option is more powerfull at medium rpms...

 

This is only an idea to obtain finally a matrix with good info to focus in what we want. The different ways to obtain it, the asociated cost and torque at medium range, not only the peak power as we usually look.

 

Cheers

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Dont you think you need to think about what is driveable on the road???......unless you are doing a "track car" which is a different story

[petert1345402284 0]

I think that's a valid matrix for power at the wheels, although there will always be variations between dynos, engine builders etc. All of those options are still very drivable on the road, as there is still a very flat torque curve. That's just the nature of the beast. Increasing the CR, improving the ignition, getting rid of the AFM, all increases low end torque.

[RaulM16 0]

Sorry, the matrix was wheels KW instead of gains KW

 

Dont you think you need to think about what is driveable on the road???......unless you are doing a "track car" which is a different story

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I think a 100KW Mi16, with 7500 redline will be driveable.

 

I don´t pretend to do a "track car", I just pretend to do a list with wheel KW with each mod to know different ways to achieve HP gains, the cost, .....

 

So, if someone wants a road car, probably he will select the "cheapest" increase of power. Fot example a Stage II with CR 10,8.

 

And if someone wants a track car, the most important is to obtain maximum HP, and some times the price of the last 3 or 4 KW of gain are more expensive than the first 20 Kw of gains.

[petert1345402284 0]

I think a 100KW Mi16, with 7500 redline will be driveable.

 

I can vouch for that. Here's my son's Mi16 - Stage I cam, 10.8:1 and my chip. Not quite 100kW but getting close.

Edited March 5, 2008 by petert

[RaulM16 0]

I think a 100KW Mi16, with 7500 redline will be driveable.

 

I can vouch for that. Here's my son's Mi16 - Stage I cam, 10.8:1 and my chip. Not quite 100kW but getting close.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Peter T, do yo have a similar Dyno but for the stock engine to compare torque and also other with Stage-II to compare torque too?

 

Thanks in advance.

 

Cheers

[petert1345402284 0]

Here's a 16V before and after 45mm throttle bodies. Cam was Stage II, 10.4:1. Not my engine though and different dyno.

Edited March 5, 2008 by petert

[RaulM16 0]

Thanks,

 

And an additional question is: Which method did you use to raise the CR of your car to the 10,8:1?

 

which is the quantity of metal in mm i have to cut? 0,5 mm?

 

Thanks again,

[Sejo 0]

I think a 100KW Mi16, with 7500 redline will be driveable.

 

I can vouch for that. Here's my son's Mi16 - Stage I cam, 10.8:1 and my chip. Not quite 100kW but getting close.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Just like my engine spec.

 

@Peter: chip hasn`t arrived yet

[petert1345402284 0]

Thanks,

 

And an additional question is: Which method did you use to raise the CR of your car to the 10,8:1?

 

which is the quantity of metal in mm i have to cut? 0,5 mm?

 

Thanks again,

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Approx. 1.4mm from the deck/liners of a DFW, or 0.4mm from a D6C.

 

Sejo, I posted it last week, so expect it very soon.

[RaulM16 0]

Thanks Peter,

 

In relation with the inlet cams:

 

I have seen differetn Stage I models, but for example regrind one and new one are different in lift.

 

Your 96,3 KW with chip, 10,8 and Stage I are with a regrind or new one?

 

I suposse the new one has a little more torque/power as it has more lift.

 

Thanks

[petert1345402284 0]

Your 96,3 KW with chip, 10,8 and Stage I are with a regrind or new one?

 

That's with a regrind.

[RaulM16 0]

Does the new stage I cam has any problem (interference) with the pistons rising the CR to 10,8 as it opens a little more the inlet valves?

 

Thanks

[petert1345402284 0]

No, not with the Stage I, there's ample room. With the Stage II however, you need to verify how much clearance you have however, as it's on the acceptable limit.