HOW TO: Make Your Car Go Faster

[Classicrocjunkie]

All cars will react differently to mods. I don't go by Dyno sheets and what they say for other cars, because its highly unlikely you'll pull the exact same numbers.

[komeko]

Originally Posted by Classicrocjunkie

All cars will react differently to mods. I don't go by Dyno sheets and what they say for other cars, because its highly unlikely you'll pull the exact same numbers.

If you want to debate the validity of dyno testing or what can be learned from looking at the consistent results that show that 2 1/2 inch pipe is the minimum appropriate size for four cylinder engines as small as 1.8 or 1.6 liter, that might be the good start of another thread. You could throw in how you got the idea to put a turbocharger on your J-Body, since GM never put one on the car to begin with, and whoever built your turbo kit adapted technology learned from other vehicles to your specific car.

The original post accepts the validity of dyno testing, but claims that there is conflicting results from multiple sources. So far as can be found, there are two (2) total dyno tests for Cavalier (one by Magnaflow of their own product and one by Iperformance testing their own product and Magnaflow's product), both show consistent results, there is no disagreement, and the results show that 2 1/2 inch pipe makes more power than 2 1/4.

If there are multiple results, conflicting dyno results, or any other results at all, post them to support the claims. If not, this should not be a stickied thread and accurate information should be provided to replace the original post in this thread.

[Classicrocjunkie]

If you are poking directly at me, I'd suggest you not. I have 7 yrs experience working with these cars alone. Also many of the sticky's on here were transfered over from www.j-body.org and the few in which I did, I gave credit where it was due to the original posters. If you bring this argument over onto their forums, don't be surprised if you get flamed. But on here, things are a little more relaxed.


If you want to re-write something to be stickied, do so. Anybody on here is welcome to write up something useful and if it is deemed worthy, it can become a sticky. Submit it to me and I will send it to the person above me in moderating abilities to look it over and approve it. Or if you want, re-write this whole sticky which seems to be what you are after. I have no objections...

Also... GM DOES make a turbo kit (03-05 ecotec) and a super charger kit for our cars ( 00+ 2.4L & ecotec 03-05)

GM p/n - 17800003 Ecotec Intercooled Supercharger Kit For 2.2L (L61 Ecotec Engine) Engine Fits 2003-2005 Chevy Cavalier & Pontiac Sunfire

03+ Saab Aero 93 2.0t - Order the turbo manifold and turbo itself, oil lines, down pipe, and charge pipes which need a little modification and there is your kit. Direct bolt up.

[komeko]

Originally Posted by Classicrocjunkie

If you are poking directly at me, I'd suggest you not. I have 7 yrs experience working with these cars alone. Also many of the sticky's on here were transfered over from www.j-body.org and the few in which I did, I gave credit where it was due to the original posters. If you bring this argument over onto their forums, don't be surprised if you get flamed. But on here, things are a little more relaxed.


If you want to re-write something to be stickied, do so. Anybody on here is welcome to write up something useful and if it is deemed worthy, it can become a sticky. Submit it to me and I will send it to the person above me in moderating abilities to look it over and approve it. Or if you want, re-write this whole sticky which seems to be what you are after. I have no objections...

Also... GM DOES make a turbo kit (03-05 ecotec) and a super charger kit for our cars ( 00+ 2.4L & ecotec 03-05)

GM p/n - 17800003 Ecotec Intercooled Supercharger Kit For 2.2L (L61 Ecotec Engine) Engine Fits 2003-2005 Chevy Cavalier & Pontiac Sunfire

03+ Saab Aero 93 2.0t - Order the turbo manifold and turbo itself, oil lines, down pipe, and charge pipes which need a little modification and there is your kit. Direct bolt up.

You made a post with content that indicated you do not believe the science of dyno testing and doubt that anything can be learned from looking at the performance gains in other vehicles. I pointed out that your own signature, which cites forced induction modifications, contradicts your statement. GM did not invent turbochargers and turbochargers have been in existence before the year 2003 and the GM part numbers you provide:

The turbocharger was invented by Swiss engineer Alfred Büchi. His patent for a turbo charger was applied for use in 1905. (http://www.gizmag.com/go/4848/)

GM is late by 98 years.

The first Turbo-Diesel truck was produced by the "Schweizer Maschinenfabrik Saurer" (Swiss Machine Works Saurer) 1938 [1]. The turbocharger hit the automobile world in 1952 when Fred Agabashian qualified for pole position at the Indianapolis 500 and led for 100 miles (160 km) before tire shards disabled the blower.

That leads GM by 65 years.

The first functional supercharger can be attributed to German engineer Gottlieb Daimler who received a German patent for supercharging an internal combustion engine in 1885.

That’s a 118 year lead to Daimler, a manufacturer of other automobiles.

The point that was made, that you missed, is that even the maker of our cars looks at what works on other vehicles made by other manufacturers and uses that knowledge to make our cars. To say that nothing can be learned from looking at the consistent body of knowledge in the performance tuning world, all of which says 2 ¼ inch pipe is too small for engines even smaller than 2 liters in displacement, is hypocritical.


I did not point this out before, but will now. You link to a company website: http://www.rdfabs.com/
They proudly claim:

“The addition of a RDFabs Short Ram Intake to a 2006 BMW 530xi proven to increase horsepower output by 6 HP and increase fuel mileage by 3 mpg.”

But there is no dyno sheet to be found on their website. You’ve already said you doubt the science of dyno testing. So did RDFab dyno test their product and just not post the results? Did they stand next to the car and guess based on the engine sound? Or are they just making another unverified statement that no one can verify, just like OBX and probably also Thermal R&D, Mantapart, Borla, four other “reputable” companies who no longer have their domain names, and the group of people claiming that there is some dyno, somewhere, by someone, who proved that smaller pipe makes more power, but no one quite knows where that evidence is and everyone conveniently lost the link?

I have simply pointed out the contradictions you put into the box in your reply in the thread. If you want to make it a personal insult war and compare years of experience and education level, that is your prerogative, but not why I pointed out that the stickied original post contains information that is completely and totally false and should either be defended by the writer and poster or removed in the face of the overwhelming evidence against it.

I will gladly rewrite the exhaust section of the original post, correct the inaccuracies, and paste the revised file into this thread so that you can take it to the powers that be for approval and posting.

[Classicrocjunkie]

I don't think you originally got my intended point. I do not object to dyno usage for tuning a vehicle, But Let me break it down for you what I was trying to get at...

Lets use this situation for example.

X company says, "my product will gain you X amount of HP with X mod." Therefore it is valid to conclude that from what this company says you will gain X amount of HP when you add X as a mod. In theory.... Is this done on a completely stock car, are there other mods done, what are the air temps, elevation, Is the car running rich/ lean, etc? I've never seen that thorough of information disclosed on any company's website who provides dyno numbers with their products.

Someone in Colorado buys a K&N intake, and installed it on their j-body K&N claims it will give you X HP. Due to the elevation, it made 3hp LESS than K&N claimed, while another person in Jersey installed the same intake on an identical mustang and made 2 HP MORE than what they claimed. There are too many variables which throw off these numbers, even if they average the mean from a few runs.


Now here is my case....

Now here is this. My old motor 2.2l OHV had a CAI, long tube 4-1 header and a flowed out 2.5" exhaust, upgraded ignition. Howell automotive claimed you should expect a gain of at least 8hp with the Crane roller rockers.

http://www.howellautomotive.com/inde...WPROD&ProdID=7

Before I installed these, I dyno'd 105whp/ 134 tq.
After I pulled 117hp/142tq
I gained 12whp, and 7ftlbs tq.

My friend Chris, mod for mod except he was running a 4-2-1 header.
Before 107whp/135tq
After - 113whp/147tq

I will dig up the dyno sheets if they are still on our work computer. I'll have to check with Cherie as the computer was just upgraded to Vista. (POS IMO) Both cars were run under the same conditions, same Dyno jet, mine was a 99 and his was a 00 sunfire.

.... and this is my point I was trying to make...

Originally Posted by Classicrocjunkie

All cars will react differently to mods. I don't go by Dyno sheets and what they say for other cars, because its highly unlikely you'll pull the exact same numbers.

So X company can say I will gain X with their mod, I don't believe it because all cars will react differently, and other mods will also cause a change in potential outcomes. Thus, I refuse to acknowledge these claimed Gains.

... and as far as the BMW goes, A customer dyno'd his own car afterwards, and thats what he reported back to us. I can see if he has a dyno sheet or if I can acquire one from the speed/tuning shop we tune our cars at.

and honestly, no one who really would benefit from this knowledge about dynos, is going to even read all this. No one even uses the damn search button on here, let alone read the stickies.

I am done arguing over this, because it's just going to be a me vs. you and I have no need to become hated even if its over a web forum. If you want to re-write something still feel free, and I'll send it over to Tim.

[komeko]

Originally Posted by Classicrocjunkie

I don't think you originally got my intended point. I do not object to dyno usage for tuning a vehicle, But Let me break it down for you what I was trying to get at...

Lets use this situation for example.

X company says, "my product will gain you X amount of HP with X mod." Therefore it is valid to conclude that from what this company says you will gain X amount of HP when you add X as a mod. In theory.... Is this done on a completely stock car, are there other mods done, what are the air temps, elevation, Is the car running rich/ lean, etc? I've never seen that thorough of information disclosed on any company's website who provides dyno numbers with their products.

Well, somebody did disclose that information:

http://www.iperformance.biz/dyno/exhaust01.html

We were lucky enough to find a volunteer locally, Lenny Kean of Wentzville, Missouri, who graciously donated the use of his 2001 Chevrolet Cavalier Z24 car for the testing. Lenny's car is basically stock, the only modifications being a fiberglass hood, Eibach lowering springs, and a polished stainless steel straight through type muffler spliced onto the stock piping in place of the original equipment chambered muffler. We would return the car to the stock pipe with the stock muffler for the baseline numbers…

That’s the list of modifications to the car you mentioned.

The machinery measures the air temperature, humidity, and barometric pressure, so that it can correct the results for the atmospheric conditions. This corrects the results to SAE, which is what we have used in all of our comparisons.

Converting the results over to SAE negates the variables of temperature, humidity, barometric pressure, and altitude.

But, just for the sake of argument, a Google search:
http://www.epodunk.com/cgi-bin/genIn...locIndex=20359

Elevation is 922 feet.

Another Google search using the zip code cited as the dyno location at the bottom of the page:
http://www.wunderground.com/history/...ename=Missouri

November 9, 2001, 5:54 PM – 42 degrees, 76% relative humidity, 30.34 inches of mercury

http://www.wunderground.com/history/...q_statename=NA

November 13, 2001, 5:54 PM – 60 degrees, 49% relative humidity, 30.15 inches of mercury

http://www.wunderground.com/history/...q_statename=NA

November 14, 2001, 5:54 PM – 63 degrees, 65% relative humidity, 30.15 inches of mercury

The Magnaflow test contains no information of date, place, etc.

The one company providing any comparison testing seems to have also fulfilled your qualifications of details needed to scrutinize the test, and with the help of a few quick google searches, you have elevation, temperature, humidity, and barometric pressure, even though the explanation of the test says the results have been converted to SAE to take those variables out. And the original stickied post basically attacks the only company providing all of that information so that you can scrutinize their test.

[Mangoamerican]

i agree with both points. standardized testing is accurate.. but no two engines are the same

[komeko]

Originally Posted by Mangoamerican

i agree with both points. standardized testing is accurate.. but no two engines are the same

The 2.2 OHV engine is 134 CID and maximum engine speed is 6000 RPM. Each cylinder fires every other rotation. Ignoring expansion from heat, at maximum engine speed, the engine is pushing 402000 cubic inches of exhaust per minute. That’s 232.6 cubic feet of exhaust per minute.

Is it easier to push 232.6 cubic feet of air per minute through a 2 ¼ inch hole, or a 2 ½ inch hole?

What law of physics says that it is easier to push 232.6 cubic feet of air per minute through a smaller hole?

Is there a dyno sheet anywhere that shows any engine of or near 2.2 liter displacement produces more power with a smaller and more restrictive exhaust pipe?

What law of physics states that the Chevrolet 2.2 liter OHV engine violates the same laws that govern every other engine?

Engines are air pumps. All air pumps perform in a predictable and similar way. All air pumps of similar size and volume flow as the Chevrolet 2.2 liter OHV engine will and do perform and react to changes in air flow similarly and predictably. If 2 ¼ inch pipe provides a 4% power output improvement over 2 inch pipe, and 2 ½ inch pipe provides a 6% improvement over 2 inch, those ratios will remain constant, similar, and predictable for engines of the same or similar size and flow volume.

[Classicrocjunkie]

Are you an engineer or something?

[Jacfourteen]

Whoa, someone has too much time on their hands!

[lamehonda]

I guess it was either Masturabating for 2 hours or posting here. He was probably out of lube.

[Classicrocjunkie]

Originally Posted by Jacfourteen

Whoa, someone has too much time on their hands!

Or extremely thorough on their researching before they buy something.

[Mangoamerican]

its not that you "cant" accept more output from a larger pipe, it just wont have the same force.. you would need more mass trying to get out in order to utilize a larger pipe (larger combustion chamber with more air in it)

[Mangoamerican]

oh, and the formula is force=mass X acceleration

[komeko]

Originally Posted by Mangoamerican

its not that you "cant" accept more output from a larger pipe, it just wont have the same force.. you would need more mass trying to get out in order to utilize a larger pipe (larger combustion chamber with more air in it)

No, it's the fact that the exhaust flow is being restricted and limited by the 2 1/4 inch diameter pipe.

My calculation of 402000 cubic inches per minute also ignores the change in volume when the intake air is changed from air with a spray of gasoline into carbon dioxide and water vapor. That's the explosion that propels the piston down and the exhaust gas volume is several times larger than 402000 cubic inches per minute, which is the volume of the intake charge.

The example still illustrates the obscenely large amount of exhaust gas that is being pushed down the exhaust pipe.

It is totally erroneous to claim "engines need backpressure" and the false statement that "engines loose torque when the exhaust pipe is too big". If this were true, there would be a bell curve where the engine output peaked with one pipe and began loosing power with each progressive step larger.

But there is no bell curve. In fact, all of the dyno testing done shows exactly the opposite, that the lower the backpressure and the larger the pipe, the more power the engine makes, because less power is wasted pushing the exhaust down the pipe and out behind the rear bumper.