Fastest possible pump gas set-up???

[coach]

Hello all, I am looking to do some small mods to my 87' GN. I am looking for some feedback on what I will need to do and what performance I could expect on 93 fuel. I don't want to have to run race gas because it is hard to get in my area and I already have a big HP blower motor in another car. I love my driveability and just want to get the absolute peak power out of 93. Any help would be great. I want to do this before I put the car away for winter.
Thanks, you guys are the best.
Coach

 

[marred4life]

cold air intake,cat back exhaust, and a rjc power plate. that should have the wheels chirping

 

[GNsnake]

Some dude just went 9.96@139.8mph on pump gas and alky. I think he's using a 6776RS turbo on the car. Thats's an awesome run on race gas even more on pump gas. Check the Alky threads, the posts are in there.

 

[ijames]

The short answer is to set an et goal and then use a race gas recipe that is supposed to get you about a second quicker. If you want to run 13.0 on 93 octane, use a 12.0 recipe. That is assuming no alcohol injection - if you do that then most tuners can get within say .1 or .3 of the race gas et, and some experts can get it all . I don't use alky (just don't want the hassle, however small it is) and run low 12's at 110 mph with 3 11.82-11.95 at 112 mph timeslips on a perfect day at 4060+ lbs going down the track on 93 octane, with a stock longblock (stock cam, untouched heads), ATR headers, power plate, V2 frontmount, PT6776 turbo, thdp, 72 lb injectors, drag radials, mediocre 1.8 60's, and lots of tuning. Calculates out to about 430 rwhp average. Those same parts with race gas, slicks, and an aggressive tuner should run low 11's (the heads are the big restriction now, but I'm trying to bolt on some ta heads to fix that if I ever get it finished ).

 

[TurboDave]

The short answer is to set an et goal and then use a race gas recipe that is supposed to get you about a second quicker. If you want to run 13.0 on 93 octane, use a 12.0 recipe. That is assuming no alcohol injection - if you do that then most tuners can get within say .1 or .3 of the race gas et, and some experts can get it all . I don't use alky (just don't want the hassle, however small it is) and run low 12's at 110 mph with 3 11.82-11.95 at 112 mph timeslips on a perfect day at 4060+ lbs going down the track on 93 octane, with a stock longblock (stock cam, untouched heads), ATR headers, power plate, V2 frontmount, PT6776 turbo, thdp, 72 lb injectors, drag radials, mediocre 1.8 60's, and lots of tuning. Calculates out to about 430 rwhp average. Those same parts with race gas, slicks, and an aggressive tuner should run low 11's (the heads are the big restriction now, but I'm trying to bolt on some ta heads to fix that if I ever get it finished ).

Wish I could say that (11.80's on 93) Carl!!
I see that a lot of your success has to do with getting as much turbo as the stock block/heads can handle.
On straight 93 (I also don't desire the alky) I've been able to keep it in the 12.50 or so range (8.0@86 in 1/8), and that's running on real street tires (not sticky's). But that's about all my little PT44 can muster. My MSD 50's aren't being stretched yet, so someday maybe a PT67 might be worth checking out.

 

[boostingbuick]

10.98 @ 128 on pump gas. But that is with a 4.1 and a 4 bolt turbo.

 

[SHADOWII]

Assuming ...

you are pure stock, a walbro 340 w/hot wire kit, for good insurance. The items mentioned by marred4life, and a TT chip, which offers some tuning ability of fuel and timing. Add alchy (w/the chip) along w/ a knock gage and you could raise the boost to a more serious level like 20-22#s You do realize, this never ends! You'll never be satisfied! Then it's bigger injectors, bigger turbo, bigger heads, bigger stall, trashed the tranny!!! It's an addiction!:biggrin:

 

[boostingbuick]

Thats how it all starts. Just one more thing to a mostly stock car and then you find yourself hidding money from the wife to buy a bigger this and that. Good luck and it wont stop. Just one more tenth.

 

[ijames]

The 11.80's were one magic cold day at Cecil Co last October at the North East Regionals (coming up again in a few weeks ). I went 12.57 with 40 lbers and a TE34, absolutely out of injector, and then 12.teens with a PT54 and the 72's. Didn't really pick up much going from the 54 to the 67, maybe .1 or .2 as a real average gain - the heads are really choking the flow and on 93 octane I can only run about 23 psi in 3rd gear with the 67 (about 1 psi more than with the 54). Race gas and another 5-6 psi and 6 degrees of timing and I'm sure I'd get real low 11's with either turbo but I don't plan to ever put lead in my fuel system.

 

[boostingbuick]

A set of good irons will get you much farther along. I ran the above time on my champion irons. Have not had a chance to see my gain with the gn1 heads. But I think most of my gain is cause of the 4..1

 

[scottyb]

alcohol

 

[strikeeagle]

Carl,

Wouldn't a bigger turbo on stock heads produce more heat (i.e. lower efficiency)? I was told a 63E would completely use up the stock heads.

What is the logic behind having huge injectors? Are they not running very low duty cycles? Or do you run super rich to mitigate detonation?

That is amazing performance for 93, no alcohol, and stock heads, but I have to say I don't understand your reluctance to go alky. I've found the new Alky Control kit to be relatively easy to install and the stock tune Julio provides works just fine on my car - I didn't touch a thing.

strike

 

[J-B Racing]

I once ran 11.18 on Pump Gas ONLY...122 MPH

 

[Blazer406]

Some dude just went 9.96@139.8mph on pump gas and alky. I think he's using a 6776RS turbo on the car. Thats's an awesome run on race gas even more on pump gas. Check the Alky threads, the posts are in there.

Who, what, where, when, how, and why?

witnesses?

 

[johnnyttype]

The 11.80's were one magic cold day at Cecil Co last October at the North East Regionals (coming up again in a few weeks ). I went 12.57 with 40 lbers and a TE34, absolutely out of injector, and then 12.teens with a PT54 and the 72's. Didn't really pick up much going from the 54 to the 67, maybe .1 or .2 as a real average gain - the heads are really choking the flow and on 93 octane I can only run about 23 psi in 3rd gear with the 67 (about 1 psi more than with the 54). Race gas and another 5-6 psi and 6 degrees of timing and I'm sure I'd get real low 11's with either turbo but I don't plan to ever put lead in my fuel system.

23psi on 93 octane? am i reading all this right? how...i must know! what kind of timing?

 

[ijames]

Carl,

Wouldn't a bigger turbo on stock heads produce more heat (i.e. lower efficiency)? I was told a 63E would completely use up the stock heads.

What is the logic behind having huge injectors? Are they not running very low duty cycles? Or do you run super rich to mitigate detonation?

That is amazing performance for 93, no alcohol, and stock heads, but I have to say I don't understand your reluctance to go alky. I've found the new Alky Control kit to be relatively easy to install and the stock tune Julio provides works just fine on my car - I didn't touch a thing.

strike

The bigger the turbo at constant boost the better the efficiency, assuming you are over about 15 psi boost for turbos like we run, so the less heat in the intake air. A 63E flows about what the 67 does, so I agree that it is more than enough turbo for stock unported heads. I doubt I would pick up any more hp going to a 70 with the stock heads.

What I've learned over the years, tuning at the edge of detonation with 93, is that if you use the standard calculation for injector size you won't have enough injector by about 20%. Most online calculators and Joe Lubrant's spreadsheet at gnttype.org assume a bsfc of .5, which is fine for race gas, but you need extra fuel to make up for the lower octane. I'm only running about a 70-72% duty cycle but I needed to make a chip for the 72's for a friend who goes much faster, and I wanted to prove to myself that I could run them on the street, and I would have been maxed out already on 50's (and 60's weren't available back then) so I went up to the 72's from the 40's. I run rich, but not super rich . AFR by LM1 is about 10.7-11. I've pretty thoroughly explored the tuning space of richer/more boost, leaner/less boost in that area and my car seems to like that best. I used to run 20 deg of timing but finally tried 18 last year, and another psi or so, and it may have picked up .1 sec, but maybe not. Even with 20 deg I was running 23-23.5 psi in 1st and 2nd, and 22 to maybe 23 in 3rd, but I didn't start the tune there . You don't want to know how many hours and chips as I tweaked and experimented and worked my way up. I think one thing that many people don't appreciate is how important the spoolup and transition fueling is - any knock there and it will take the motor a few seconds to recover and put extra heat in that ultimately limits what you can run in 3rd, for example.

Believe me, I understand the benefits of water and/or alcohol injection in the combustion process. I just don't want to deal with having to remember to buy it, worrying about how low it is, worrying if a nozzle is going to plug or a pump or fitting fail, or whatever. Most people that really push for max hp on alky are really running a hybrid fueled vehicle with anywhere from 10-30% of the fueling coming from the alky. At that level of performance you are so far past what 93 octane will support that if anything goes wrong with the alky system I don't think you could detect it and get off the gas fast enough to not hurt something, and that is more risk than I want to take. If you are only using it bump up the boost 1-2 psi, well, that's a lot of expense and hassle for a minimal gain. I don't claim my position is for everyone, it's just mine .

 

[strikeeagle]

The bigger the turbo at constant boost the better the efficiency, assuming you are over about 15 psi boost for turbos like we run, so the less heat in the intake air. A 63E flows about what the 67 does, so I agree that it is more than enough turbo for stock unported heads. I doubt I would pick up any more hp going to a 70 with the stock heads.

What I've learned over the years, tuning at the edge of detonation with 93, is that if you use the standard calculation for injector size you won't have enough injector by about 20%. Most online calculators and Joe Lubrant's spreadsheet at gnttype.org assume a bsfc of .5, which is fine for race gas, but you need extra fuel to make up for the lower octane. I'm only running about a 70-72% duty cycle but I needed to make a chip for the 72's for a friend who goes much faster, and I wanted to prove to myself that I could run them on the street, and I would have been maxed out already on 50's (and 60's weren't available back then) so I went up to the 72's from the 40's. I run rich, but not super rich . AFR by LM1 is about 10.7-11. I've pretty thoroughly explored the tuning space of richer/more boost, leaner/less boost in that area and my car seems to like that best. I used to run 20 deg of timing but finally tried 18 last year, and another psi or so, and it may have picked up .1 sec, but maybe not. Even with 20 deg I was running 23-23.5 psi in 1st and 2nd, and 22 to maybe 23 in 3rd, but I didn't start the tune there . You don't want to know how many hours and chips as I tweaked and experimented and worked my way up. I think one thing that many people don't appreciate is how important the spoolup and transition fueling is - any knock there and it will take the motor a few seconds to recover and put extra heat in that ultimately limits what you can run in 3rd, for example.

Believe me, I understand the benefits of water and/or alcohol injection in the combustion process. I just don't want to deal with having to remember to buy it, worrying about how low it is, worrying if a nozzle is going to plug or a pump or fitting fail, or whatever. Most people that really push for max hp on alky are really running a hybrid fueled vehicle with anywhere from 10-30% of the fueling coming from the alky. At that level of performance you are so far past what 93 octane will support that if anything goes wrong with the alky system I don't think you could detect it and get off the gas fast enough to not hurt something, and that is more risk than I want to take. If you are only using it bump up the boost 1-2 psi, well, that's a lot of expense and hassle for a minimal gain. I don't claim my position is for everyone, it's just mine .

OK, if a bigger turbo is more efficient then why shouldn't everybody buy a 108 from the get-go and save the cost associated with going up in steps? I *think* the answer is you can't spool it with a reasonable stall? What made you settle on your particular turbo? The newer turbos were not available when I bought my 63E, but I suppose I could benefit from better wheels and ball bearings?

On the topic of alcohol, just for the sake of argument I'd contend that what you've done is much more complicated and "risky" than a good alcohol kit brings to the party. Not necessarily for you because you've paid the price to learn what you know and are an expert, but certainly for the average Joe. As far as being able to get out of a car on a pass when things gone awry is concerned, can anyone really do that? 1,000,00 head haskets say no...

strike

 

[TurboDave]

<snip>

Believe me, I understand the benefits of water and/or alcohol injection in the combustion process. I just don't want to deal with having to remember to buy it, worrying about how low it is, worrying if a nozzle is going to plug or a pump or fitting fail, or whatever. Most people that really push for max hp on alky are really running a hybrid fueled vehicle with anywhere from 10-30% of the fueling coming from the alky. At that level of performance you are so far past what 93 octane will support that if anything goes wrong with the alky system I don't think you could detect it and get off the gas fast enough to not hurt something, and that is more risk than I want to take. If you are only using it bump up the boost 1-2 psi, well, that's a lot of expense and hassle for a minimal gain. I don't claim my position is for everyone, it's just mine .

And mine.
You're not alone in your beliefs. I couldn't have put my feeling much better either.
Like you said, nothing wrong with alky, or those that run it. But there's all those little nagging things that "might" go wrong, or something I "might" forget or whatever. But running so close to the ragged edge....

Mine is perfectly comfortable running 20# of boost on straight 93 with no knock, keeping the WOT timing within reasonable limits. Since I don't do any street racing, I really am perfectly happy with this level of performance. I mean, burning the tires off whether it's at 20# or 25# is still burning the tires off. And garners way too much attention anyway.
And in this trim I'm perfectly happy with 8.0's and 12.5's at the track.
Must be signs of getting old.

 

[strikeeagle]

And mine.
You're not alone in your beliefs. I couldn't have put my feeling much better either.
Like you said, nothing wrong with alky, or those that run it. But there's all those little nagging things that "might" go wrong, or something I "might" forget or whatever. But running so close to the ragged edge....

You guys are dinosaurs - lol!

Actually, I know where you're coming from. I'm old school well when it comes to most things. Hell, I'll never own a hybrid golf club, even if they are better. I don't like the look of 'em. I mean, they're chick clubs, right? But I will own a driver with a 460 cc head. Huh?

I went the alcohol route a few years ago. I bought an SMC kit, couldn't bring myself to install it, had it upgraded more than once as Steve re-thought things, then sold it off for 50 cents on the dollar before it ever made it onto my car. And I must say I'm glad I did based on what I've seen and read, including tossing a buddy's similiar (installed, but admittedly completely unmaintained) kit in the garbage this Spring.

Later I bought Razor's kit, then discovered it had quit pumping this Spring, at which point I purchased an improved pump as well as some additional bells and whistles from Razor as he also re-thought things. That kit is now on my car. I run about 22 PSI.

My GN *detests* 93, so as far as I'm concerned alky is a lifesaver. I have never had to play with any of Razor's initial settings, nor experienced any problems other than the original pump presumably crapping out for reasons understandable to and fixable by at least Razor, so that overall positive experience certainly colors my feelings about alky.

I do not run around at 30 PSI on alky like some do. Hell, any unopened TR is a ticking timebomb at that boost level, detonation or not. Nor do I stay in the car if I see KR on the Scanmaster and/or suspect an alky or other problem.

strike

 

[ijames]

OK, if a bigger turbo is more efficient then why shouldn't everybody buy a 108 from the get-go and save the cost associated with going up in steps? I *think* the answer is you can't spool it with a reasonable stall? What made you settle on your particular turbo? The newer turbos were not available when I bought my 63E, but I suppose I could benefit from better wheels and ball bearings?

On the topic of alcohol, just for the sake of argument I'd contend that what you've done is much more complicated and "risky" than a good alcohol kit brings to the party. Not necessarily for you because you've paid the price to learn what you know and are an expert, but certainly for the average Joe. As far as being able to get out of a car on a pass when things gone awry is concerned, can anyone really do that? 1,000,00 head haskets say no...

strike

Dinosaurs???? Why, hand me my spectacles so I can find my cane and I'll show you who's a dinosaur, harrumph, harrumph . Yeah, pretty much.

Yes, eveyone doesn't just get a 108 turbo because most couldn't spool it this year. The 63E has a T66 compressor so it is about the same as the GT67; actually makes more power at high boosts over maybe 25 or 27 psi, and a little less down under 25 psi. I don't remember what the turbine is in that turbo so I can't compare that to my P trim for sure but I think it is the same, so we are actually running almost the same turbos. Yes, double ball bearings are nice and cut the stall requirement maybe 200 rpm but I didn't want to pay for them . Knowing that I run 93 I wanted to emphasize the "under 25 psi" range, and the GT67 is available in a small shaft so it was cheaper, same price as my PT54, and I knew that it was more than big enough for my stock heads and probably big enough for my ta heads on pump gas since I don't want a 4000 stall converter.

As far as my tune being risky, yes I tend to keep it turned up as far as possible but I could back down 1-2 psi and not touch anything for months. I usually keep an eye on it whenever I drive, but that's because I think of direct scan as a video game; I really don't tweak things very often. The last time I moved myself with a u-haul trailer I didn't touch the tune, I just went light on the gas pedal and never saw any knock retard in 450 miles of towing a fully loaded big single axle trailer (think needing 1 psi boost to hold 70 mph; I mostly ran 60 or so). My "thing" is that I don't want to do lots of work at the track, and I like to know how it runs in daily driver trim. I'm not a hardcore racer. That's why I like a front mount - it never runs out and it gives you 5 mph in the 1/4 forever at only about twice the cost of the alky system, without buying any alky . I have a few friends who let me make chips for them, and they run in the 10's and 11's and 12's, so I get a lot of pleasure vicariously through them - that's a big part of why I wanted to learn how to make chips. Course, the all-consuming need to know "how something works" and what happens if I change "that over there" was a big part of it, too.

Anyway, I think we've gotten pretty far afield of the original poster's question. Biggest thing to know is what I said in my first post - traction is everything and to run 12's on pump gas build a car that will run 11's on race gas, or use alky and build a car that will run 12's on race gas without the alky, then switch to 93 octane and the alky. Get either direct scan or the new powerlogger, a laptop, and learn to tune. Yes, a scanmaster is nice but you really need either ds or pl for detailed, serious tuning (in my maybe not-so-humble opinion, anyway ). If you don't want to do your own tuning your only safe choice is to have someone tune it up, then back it off 2-3 psi of boost so you KNOW it is safe. And most of all, don't ever let anyone tell you "it's just false knock" until you have upped the octane at least 5 points and it is still there, exactly the same. Either put 2-3 gallons of xylene in a 1/4 tank of 93 octane, or run it almost empty and put in at least 10 gallons of 100 octane unleaded - either method will get the tank octane up over 98. Then, if it is still there, maybe start to believe that it could be false knock. I know too many people who have blown headgaskets because of that silly little phrase.

Welcome to the dark side!