sorry, by lower meant short block
Exactly, I’m a little burned out on it for now though. I held on to my 149 intake so I’ll give a brand new KB168 a shot next spring.Mental note, 2011 GT500 computers hate big TBs
My car never has had issues with the KB168 or Whipple 170.
Glad to hear you got it running right.
Big street power, can turn up big time with small changes
-J
I'm running a 3" upper with a 10% lower. Only seeing a max of 15.3 lbs boost around 4K RPMs, and it fell to 13.6 lbs at 7K. Alex would not let me drop another pulley size after looking at the logs. Said I'm right on the verge of maxing out the MAF on the JLT 123 and he would not tune for any more power regardless with my load being so high at 2.4.
I’ve got a lot of boost lowering mods....cams, ported lower intake, etc. The cams, in particular, bleed off a lot of boost up top.I might be missing something, but none of this makes any sense to me. Why is your boost level dropping at higher rpms? All of the Gen3 boost graphs I have seen show boost increasing with rpm. My stock 2.3 TVS is flatter than that. What boost gauge were you using?
I have never heard of anyone maxing out a 123 mm MAF at 15 psi of boost. Also an engine load of 2.4 would equate closer to 20.58 psi not 15, 2.4 = (14.7 + Boost)/14.7, boost = 20.58. I'm using the definition for load below which calculates the ratio of measured air mass to the maximums at standard temperature and pressure.
Either something is wrong with my thinking or your numbers are wrong. Can you post the log file you sent to Alex?
As defined in SAE 1979:
LOAD_ABS = [air mass (g / intake stroke)] / [1.184 (g / litre) * cylinder displacement (litres / intake stroke)] NOTE At engine off and ignition on the LOAD_ABS = 0 %.
Derivation:
- air mass (g / intake stroke) = [total engine air mass (g/sec)] / [rpm (revs/min)* (1 min / 60 sec) * (1/2 # of cylinders (intake strokes / rev)];
- LOAD_ABS = [air mass (g)/intake stroke] / [maximum air mass (g)/intake stroke at WOT@STP at 100 % volumetric efficiency] * 100 %.
Where:
- STP = Standard Temperature and Pressure = 25 °C, 29.92 in Hg (101.3 kPa) BARO, WOT = wide open throttle.
- The quantity (maximum air mass (g)/intake stroke at WOT@STP at 100 % volumetric efficiency) is a constant for a given cylinder swept volume. The constant is 1.184 (g/litre) * cylinder displacement (litres/intake stroke) based on air density at STP.
Characteristics of LOAD_ABS:
- ranges from 0 % to approximately 95 % for naturally aspirated engines, 0 % to 400 % for boosted engines;
- linearly correlated with engine indicated and brake torque;
- often used to schedule spark and EGR rates;
- peak value of LOAD_ABS correlates with volumetric efficiency at WOT;
- indicates the pumping efficiency of the engine for diagnostic purposes.
Spark-ignition engine are required to support PID $43. Compression-ignition (diesel) engines are not required to support this PID.
Mental note, 2011 GT500 computers hate big TBs
My car never has had issues with the KB168 or Whipple 170.
Glad to hear you got it running right.
Big street power, can turn up big time with small changes
-J
Boost is nothing more than a measure of restriction, so my engine is just flowing that much better than a more stock-like configuration. Full list of what I have done that will lower boost - JDM SS cams, ported lower intake manifold/KB Bigun, ported heads, long tubes/no cats.I'm not knocking your setup or anything. It sounds like a beast to me. I'm just trying to understand why you have such a high engine load and so little boost. I guess your engine 's volumetric efficiency is just that much better. I know when I had long tubes my boost dropped 2 psi until I added a 10% crank to it, but I never paid any attention to the load. Incidentally, your current pulley ratio is nearly equal to what the stock 2.3 came with, but you have a blower that is 15% bigger and an engine that breathes much better. So, 15 psi does make sense. I guess that equates to an engine load that is 20% bigger too somehow. Sorry, I'm just thinking out load and getting off topic.
Monoblade definitely worthwhile upgrade here but he’s got over 900rwhp and happy so I’m pretty sure he’s not missing the 30-50rwhp he’s giving up.
Definitely not on those street 20s.
I had no issues with driveability with a Whipple 170 but the BPS twin 72 had issues after it was warm.
The real question is where are the TBs designed for the Gen 3.....
I doubt it’ll get there but I’ll be trying to push 1100rwhp with the Gen 3 upgrade.
I really think it’ll need porting to get there but 965rwhp Gen2R swapping only Gen3 will move to 1xxxrwhp?
At this point it looks like I’m keeping the Whipple 170 with an adapter.
-J