The Project Pad

Good to know

Looking at injector flow charts, if you want 400hp on 5 injectors, you will need between 600-630cc injector flow. The 42lbs are 440cc@43.5 psi. Crank that up to 4 bar and you get right at 500cc/min. Use a cis pump to crank the pressure up to 80 psi and you get 597cc/min.. however, I don't know what that does to the duty cycle of the injector..i do know i have been runnin my 42lbers with a cis pump for 2 years now and the A/F's are good. Haven't smoked an injector so far, let me find some wood to tap on LOL..The 200 20v pump is fine for 300-350hp but I have seen them fail after continued high pressure use when you turn up the fpr..of course those are normally pumps with 150k+ miles on them :-D
I like the CIS pump because barring a mechanical failure, it won't be the weak link in the system..

cuatrokoop wrote:Yes they are Cary, they were for my 20vt mutt motor, which I now have the PT to play with...

PT? hmmm whatchoo doin with a PT

nuugen wrote:Looking at injector flow charts, if you want 400hp on 5 injectors, you will need between 600-630cc injector flow. The 42lbs are 440cc@43.5 psi. Crank that up to 4 bar and you get right at 500cc/min. Use a cis pump to crank the pressure up to 80 psi and you get 597cc/min.. however, I don't know what that does to the duty cycle of the injector..i do know i have been runnin my 42lbers with a cis pump for 2 years now and the A/F's are good. Haven't smoked an injector so far, let me find some wood to tap on LOL..The 200 20v pump is fine for 300-350hp but I have seen them fail after continued high pressure use when you turn up the fpr..of course those are normally pumps with 150k+ miles on them :-D
I like the CIS pump because barring a mechanical failure, it won't be the weak link in the system..

Hmm ok. Those flow charts seem a little funky though.

I made roughly 370bhp in my last car with 430cc injectors and it was a 4 cyl...on 3 bar. Seems like 5 440's should do alright at 400bhp.

Again, I'm just speculating here. Glad I have a really good tuner who can tell me what is going on if we start to get short on fuel.

Also consider how we make 280-300bhp on stock 2xx cc injectors

I dunno how you made 370bhp on 4x 430cc injectors.

http://www.rceng.com/technical.aspx

I know, I am also confused by that and whether it is dead on in the real world...
http://www.witchhunter.com/injectorcalc1.php4

but I calculated what an RS2 would do, it has 380cc injectors and at 4 bar they run 441cc/min, which is almost exactly what the chart shows for 317bhp with 5 injectors at .60 BSFC..
Go figure..

Justin517 wrote:I dunno how you made 370bhp on 4x 430cc injectors.

http://www.rceng.com/technical.aspx

Yes, according to the chart you would have to run four 430cc injectors at 85psi and 95-100% duty cycle to do 370bhp..
What was the full setup of that motor?

It was a 50 trim on a 1.8t at 22psi or so. Stock AWD head, built bottom end stock compression ratio, 3 bar stock FPR. All I know is that it worked lol.

I just talked to my buddy who tunes the hondas because I wanted to see what his take on this was. First of all I need to make a correction. Everytime I've been using bhp I mean to put flywheel hp...guess I use the two terms too loosely.

Anyway, he said he consistently makes 340-345 whp on 440's on hondas. Which supports my claim of 370 (fw)hp

He said he thinks we should be able to get 400 whp out of these on 3 bar. I don't know whats wrong with that calculator thing you guys are looking at but it seems like a classic example of real world just isn't equivalent to whats on paper.

maybe its 3 bar above atmospheric, which is actually 4 bar? kinda like the audi boost gauge reading 1.8bar @ 12 psi??

Right, 4 bar absolute compared to 4 bar gauge. Not sure if thats true or not, but oh well. I guess we will see what she makes lol. You can't even really go by duty cycle either. Sometimes you can see over 100% duty cycle on logs which is impossible. Every single tuning program is crappy that way apparently, so we tune by turning up the boost and when it leans out and adding fuel doesn't do anything, just back it off a bit.

well an injector cant go over 100% staying open is staying open, that is probably just the ECU wanting more than 100%?

yeah thats why I said its impossible.

Almost all logging programs will tell you a completely wrong duty cycle.

:stupid: Its amazing how many chip tunes out there push injectors to 90+%. Highly discouraged, for good reason. If small environmental changes occur requiring more fuel, the ecu is not capable of delivering it. thats bad....

yeah, I'm afraid to know what my dahlback tune would hit in my old A4. The lil K03 sport would spike to like 21psi. None of that could have been good for anything, lol.

lol yep, I hit 26 or 27psi once on my k03. That was definitely not good haha.

loxxrider wrote:The rocco is sweet.

So there is a hole in your top plate big enough to fit the top perch and spring through? Also a hole like that in the spacers?

Also, where exactly is the bearing in yours? All I know is that the spring has to be able to rotate freely with respect to the upper mount plate.

On that ground control upper mount, does it act as the upper spring perch too? I could draw what I'm talking about if its not clear.

scratch that ^^^ I have a new design. I want to make it on the computer so I can explain better. BUT if I did the bearing in the spacer/strut mount, but slotted the mounting plate, I could still have camber adjustment no?

See the pics, the coilover upper spring perch will fit through the opening of the OEM audi mount plate with room to spare..It fits right ino the OEM upper strut mount, and will work with out a bearing, but a couple thousand miles and it will chew through that rubber mount. So, either you put a thrust bearing between the perch and the strut mount, or you cut the rubber out of the upper strut mount and weld a thrust bearing mount into the plate. By doing that you gain another inch of travel, due to the thickness of the rubber/steel sleeve attached to the upper mount.
A simple aluminum spacer plate and some longer studs will complete the kit..And maybe some experimentation with those Mustang camber plates..

Attachment ( 19836 ) : GEDC0026.JPG


Attachment ( 19835 ) : GEDC0027.JPG


Attachment ( 19834 ) : GEDC0028.JPG


Attachment ( 19833 ) : GEDC0029.JPG


Attachment ( 19832 ) : GEDC0030.JPG

Ok, so your top hat sits on the rubber part? Where is your bearing?

What you described is basically what I had in mind. BUT, I feel like taking the rubber out and using a thrust bearing will not allow proper suspension movement. Thats why a spherical bearing should be used (or at least thats what I was thinking).

I'm assuming the best way to get contact between the bearing and the top hat is to just use a washer between the two?

kinda started modeling stuff on SW

is there enough room for the hood to shut?

Well probably not lol...

That was just a quick mock up using a 1" thick spacer. Nuugen said there is about an inch to spare I think. I really dont know if this design would work or not yet because I cant tell if the top hat would fit through it towards the outside bolt on that thing. I'd have to have the car apart to be able to tell.

Also I am still thinking that it would be cool to louver the hood right where the strut thing comes up just to allow more clearance (or cut some metal from the underside of the hood).

Again, I'd have to have the car apart to tell.

I'd really like to have one of those bearings in my hands so I could see how it would meet up with the top hat and where the top hat would sit with respect to the inside of that spacer. I'd really like to just be able to bolt the bearing to the top of the spacer plate.

is that hole big enough for the spring hat to pass through?

Yeah, its more than big enough. Its the location of it that I'm concerned with. Like I said, I'd have to have the car apart to really tell.

loxxrider wrote:Ok, so your top hat sits on the rubber part? Where is your bearing?

What you described is basically what I had in mind. BUT, I feel like taking the rubber out and using a thrust bearing will not allow proper suspension movement. Thats why a spherical bearing should be used (or at least thats what I was thinking).

Yes SKF makes a spherical thrust bearing, if you look back a page or two I posted links to those. Also, the parts I took pics of are simply for mock-up, I am still running coilovers with the OEM plates and strut bearings in one 200 and the suspension is out of the other one. So I am in the R&D stage right there with you LOL...
I like the drawing you made--since you made the plate slotted you could forego the junky-looking oem top strut bushing/mount plate, make a round plate for the spherical bearing and weld it to your plate, or get one of those that are already in a mount and weld that to your spacer. With the slots you can adjust camber simply by moving the spacer plate..
Page 49 wow watta thread... :bump: