Page 8 of 25

Ed's 1991 CQ. Injection is nice but I'd rather be blown.

Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2011 6:25 am
by Mcstiff
VWAudi4Life wrote:Hmm.. Do stacked head gaskets and ARP head studs, then go for the rod limit :)


I'm not really going for a high number in the right half of the curve. Ideally the peak <4500 and pretty flat ;) 10.3:1 should help with this.

The real point is just that avoiding pulling the head saves time and some money for the next few weeks or so (if the HG holds).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ed's 1991 CQ. Injection is nice but I'd rather be blown.

Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2011 12:58 pm
by Mcstiff
Well, I'm going to start installing VEMS tomorrow night and see where I'm at Monday am :lol:


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Re: Ed's 1991 CQ. Injection is nice but I'd rather be blown.

Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2011 1:12 pm
by jbrentd
Good luck, I hope it all comes together for you.

Re: Ed's 1991 CQ. Injection is nice but I'd rather be blown.

Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2011 1:22 pm
by loxxrider
definitely good luck. Should take you all of 20 mins if its plug and play version (presumably not?)

Ed's 1991 CQ. Injection is nice but I'd rather be blown.

Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2011 1:35 pm
by Mcstiff
loxxrider wrote:definitely good luck. Should take you all of 20 mins if its plug and play version (presumably not?)


That only works with cars that came with 55 pin Bosch connectors ;)

I could have done the S2 harness but for about the cost of the PnP VEMS I got the econoseal VEMS, LS2 coils & plug wires, and VEMS harness. I figure that swapping to the S2 harness and installing this harness will be about the same time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Re: Ed's 1991 CQ. Injection is nice but I'd rather be blown.

Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2011 2:16 pm
by loxxrider
Gotcha, so you have an adapter harness between your stock one and the econoseal?

Ed's 1991 CQ. Injection is nice but I'd rather be blown.

Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2011 2:30 pm
by Mcstiff
loxxrider wrote:Gotcha, so you have an adapter harness between your stock one and the econoseal?


I actually went with the full I6 'universal' harness. It is partially flying lead I can trim it to use more or less or the stock harness' sensor leads but it has a nice relay an injector sub-harness.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Re: Ed's 1991 CQ, H1C, SEMS, work work work!

Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2011 3:51 pm
by SEStone
Mcstiff wrote:No AC comments eh?

Anyway, Thinking about compression numbers...

12psi+6psi=18*10.3=185.4psi
185.4psi/9.3=19.3-12=6.3psi

7a stock sea level cyl pressures are like 151psi and the stock 3b is about 244psi.

Would it really be dumb to bolt this to the stock 7a longblock? :bashtard:

If not, the worst thing to do would be the oil feed and return (the wiring is time consuming but fairly clean and quiet).

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


The difference between 10.3:1 and 9.3:1 is something like 10hp at that displacement/air pressure, which equates to something like 1-2psi boost needed to make up the power loss. That said, peak cylinder pressures under load are hundreds of psi lower, reducing the knock risk.

Pavel's car is fast as shit for what it is, I think you'd have a lot more trouble getting there reliably with stock compression. 9.3:1 is really not that low, but so much more friendly to boost on pump gas. It's nicer to your rods, too.

Sam

Ed's 1991 CQ. Injection is nice but I'd rather be blown.

Posted: Thu Sep 15, 2011 5:24 pm
by Mcstiff
My intent is E85 all the time and minimal boost on the stock rods.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Re: Ed's 1991 CQ. Injection is nice but I'd rather be blown.

Posted: Fri Sep 16, 2011 9:01 am
by PRA4WX
You know my vote on AC AND bolting it (turbo) on. ;-)

Re: Ed's 1991 CQ. Injection is nice but I'd rather be blown.

Posted: Fri Sep 16, 2011 9:52 am
by SEStone
Mcstiff wrote:My intent is E85 all the time and minimal boost on the stock rods.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Why minimal boost? Pavel's been running almost 20psi (read: pretty damn fast) for almost a year now without any issues. That's on 93 octane.

Sam

Ed's 1991 CQ. Injection is nice but I'd rather be blown.

Posted: Fri Sep 16, 2011 10:31 am
by Mcstiff
I have about 20 working hours between tonight and Monday AM :lol:

Need to sort out the oil lines but I think I have most everything else to bolt it on. I may have to run the 034 7a injectors for now so no E85.

I can do everything but the turbo with the parts I have right now.

Does anyone recall the size of the oil pressure sensor threads? I'll tee in there for the turbo.

SeStone wrote:Why minimal boost? Pavel's been running almost 20psi (read: pretty damn fast) for almost a year now without any issues. That's on 93 octane.

Sam


We'll just see how it goes :D

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Re: Ed's 1991 CQ. Injection is nice but I'd rather be blown.

Posted: Fri Sep 16, 2011 10:40 am
by Dave
SeStone wrote:Why minimal boost? Pavel's been running almost 20psi (read: pretty damn fast) for almost a year now without any issues. That's on 93 octane.

Sam



20psi on a k24 does not equal 20 psi on a holset. Depending on the size of the holset you could see the same WHP at 10 psi with the holset as you would with the k24 at 20psi.

Re: Ed's 1991 CQ. Injection is nice but I'd rather be blown.

Posted: Fri Sep 16, 2011 10:53 am
by loxxrider
They are both running Holsets, thats why the comparison was made. Pavels is an HY35 which has a slightly smaller comp inducer than the H1C that Ed has now. The holset at 10 doesn't make anywhere near the torque of a k24 at 20. Power might be similar, but it comes on too linearly to get a good idea of it.

Re: Ed's 1991 CQ. Injection is nice but I'd rather be blown.

Posted: Fri Sep 16, 2011 11:00 am
by Dave
ahh sorry, didn't realize he too had a holset, haven't seen his thread in quite some time.

Ed's 1991 CQ. Injection is nice but I'd rather be blown.

Posted: Fri Sep 16, 2011 11:16 am
by Mcstiff
Hybrid_Hatch wrote:
SeStone wrote:Why minimal boost? Pavel's been running almost 20psi (read: pretty damn fast) for almost a year now without any issues. That's on 93 octane.

Sam



20psi on a k24 does not equal 20 psi on a holset. Depending on the size of the holset you could see the same WHP at 10 psi with the holset as you would with the k24 at 20psi.


This is part of my conservatism. Pavel's HY35 is a bit smaller than my H1C and his CR is a bit lower.

The T3-60 and T3/4 were fun at ~8psi boost!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Re: Ed's 1991 CQ. Injection is nice but I'd rather be blown.

Posted: Fri Sep 16, 2011 9:08 pm
by Mcstiff
About to pass the point of no return on the VEMS install :D

Trying to decide where to breach the firewall and how much of the 7a harness I need/what chassis stuff uses something I could otherwise remove.

FTR:

Image

Re: Ed's 1991 CQ. Injection is nice but I'd rather be blown.

Posted: Sat Sep 17, 2011 8:44 am
by Mcstiff
Dare I pull the whole 7a harness? Not sure I want to pull the dash this weekend....

...if I had the heater box out it would be a good time to deal with the AC :badideas:

Re: Ed's 1991 CQ. Injection is nice but I'd rather be blown.

Posted: Sat Sep 17, 2011 9:03 am
by PRA4WX
Mcstiff wrote:Dare I pull the whole 7a harness? Not sure I want to pull the dash this weekend....

...if I had the heater box out it would be a good time to deal with the AC :badideas:

Yes, but not before the trip.

Ed's 1991 CQ. Injection is nice but I'd rather be blown.

Posted: Sat Sep 17, 2011 9:18 am
by Mcstiff
Seems silly not to run the new harness in the existing hole.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Re: Ed's 1991 CQ. Injection is nice but I'd rather be blown.

Posted: Sat Sep 17, 2011 9:49 am
by SteveJ In Texas
Okay, I admit I am an old school dinosaur, but when I read the thread title 'Injection is nice but I'd rather be blown', I immediately thought of this old t-shirt from way back in the 70's:

Image

Now back to your regularly scheduled automotive madness.

Re: Ed's 1991 CQ. Injection is nice but I'd rather be blown.

Posted: Sun Sep 18, 2011 3:20 pm
by jbrentd
Any updates? Tick Tock

Re: Ed's 1991 CQ. Injection is nice but I'd rather be blown.

Posted: Sun Sep 18, 2011 6:48 pm
by Mcstiff
I'm sorry, :lol:, to say that I decided to save the drama (and stress) for another weekend. Friday night I was eliminating what would not be carried over (cruise, etc) and got to the point where I needed to start cutting/pulling the 7a harness (should have harvested connectors them I could have been less intrusive) around 11pm. Decided to regroup Saturday with an alert brain, at which point I decided that the idea of rushing though pulling the harness was not good.

Oh well, aside from the valve seals the car runs good and traction is at a surplus :lol:

I'll be in Vegas Fri afternoon and will nto be killing myself this week trying to wrap up a project.

Re: Ed's 1991 CQ. Injection is nice but I'd rather be blown.

Posted: Sun Sep 18, 2011 7:10 pm
by Audilard
BOOOOOO!!! :wink:

Glad you'll make it at least!

Ed's 1991 CQ. Injection is nice but I'd rather be blown.

Posted: Sun Sep 18, 2011 7:12 pm
by Mcstiff
If I had a second car, I would have had the harness pulled and ready. Oh well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk