nice tta

[2QUICK2B6]

ya i dont under stand why the tta's dont bring the money the gn's do.i think this one will be on ebay for a long time but one would think a low milage tta would bring more money then a GN being they only made 1555 tta in 89.i think the window sticker on my tta was for 42k new.

im almst sure it wasnt 42k ... 31,500 max

 

[2QUICK2B6]

I have done a little reading on the SLP Firehawk. From what I read there were only 3 cars built with the 366 rodec engine. Was one of these cars used for track numbers? If this is correct how could this be considered a production car. Found this under 92firehawk.com.

Michael

I was about to say the same thing these were formulas with 2 sheets of options you could even order roll bars already in the car from SLP

 

[2QUICK2B6]

You have to sell 500 cars for it to be considered production car each year !

 

[tta1240]

im almst sure it wasnt 42k ... 31,500 max

my window sticker on my tta was 41k and some change.i also had the doc papers from the first owner and after intrest he paid over 60k

 

[2QUICK2B6]

my window sticker on my tta was 41k and some change.i also had the doc papers from the first owner and after intrest he paid over 60k

post a pic

 

[tta1240]

post a pic

i just looked and you were right,it was 31k not 41k.the first owner bought it at 18.2% intrest ouch.when i got it from him it was his first car he bought.

 

[1BADDAM]

Please tell me you are joking. How does any vehicle data get released to the public for that matter. The '92 Pontiac Firehawk w/T-Ram was tested by plenty of credible sources upon its' release back during the early 90's to the tune of 13.2 seconds in the 1/4 mile, with one source being able to click off a 12.9 second pass. 366 cubic inch aluminum block, forged crank, forged pink rods, four bolt mains, steel billet roller camshaft, SLP supension package, Dana 44 rear, and over 100 more horsepower than the TTA came with from the factory, it is undoubtedly the greatest and fastest 3rd gen ever to be released from the factory, period...

Third gen Hawks are not factory Pontiacs. They did NOT have a GM warranty and are essentially a "tuner" car from Ed Hamburger who started SLP.

 

[2QUIK6]

This was an entertaining read On the original list of those for sale, my old car is in there, now the price is marked down to $27,995 I see. And on the fire hawk, my old ttop car completely stock except for a Thrasher chip at the time and some 103 unleaded race gas ran a 13.33 at 101 with street tires on a very cool night. As far as tuning, the stock injectors can run well over 80% DC, its got a MAF so as long as its not maxed out, it can add more fuel, then when it is maxxed out, the Power Enrichment tables vs throttle position come into play so that talk about it wouldn't have any more fuel is BS. Too bad he doesn't have a Firehawk that was talked about or a TTA for that matter...

 

[Street Lethal]

As far as tuning, the stock injectors can run well over 80% DC, its got a MAF so as long as its not maxed out, it can add more fuel

.... truly you are lost. Running well over 80% duty cycle is irrelevant when it takes x amount of fuel to make x amount of horsepower with x amount of cylinders, and sorry, 28-lb injectors is not enough for 231 cubic inches. Have you ever even looked at a stock $31 mask? Any clue what the stock lookup tables command (here's a hint, it's 2-Bar related, despite being solely MAF)? Apparently not. Talk about the blind leading the blind lol. Will give you an E for effort though.

 

[2QUIK6]

.... truly you are lost. Running well over 80% duty cycle is irrelevant when it takes x amount of fuel to make x amount of horsepower with x amount of cylinders, and sorry, 28-lb injectors is not enough for 231 cubic inches. Have you ever even looked at a stock $31 mask? Any clue what the stock lookup tables command (here's a hint, it's 2-Bar related, despite being solely MAF)? Apparently not. Talk about the blind leading the blind lol. Will give you an E for effort though.

Sorry buddy, I have more chip burning software that you could dream about..there's plenty of stock appearing GN's going well into the 12's with stock injectors....You are clueless because the fp rises with boost so the DC becomes not as relavent...80% with 10# is a different amout than 80% at 16# so how do you calculate that?

 

[Street Lethal]

Sorry buddy, I have more chip burning software that you could dream about..there's plenty of stock appearing GN's going well into the 12's with stock injectors....

.... lmao, keep telling yourself that. 28-lb injectors on a V6 are only good for 340-FWHP at 100% duty cycle. Were you running "magical" injectors on your setup, perhaps? You think your the only one who used autoprom and TunerPro lol? Give me a break. Pictures of your cars, as well as what you own impresses me not. I asked you about the $31 mask, yet you avoided the question. Do you even know what $31 is, Mr. "chip burner" lol?

 

[2QUIK6]

LOL...I have the assembler code for it..tunerpro yeah right

 

[Street Lethal]

LOL...I have the assembler code for it..

.... LMAO! And? Have you compiled the source code? What exactly did you do with it lol...?

 

[2QUIK6]

.... LMAO! And? Have you compiled the source code? What exactly did you do with it lol...?

Here's a snippet..tell me what it says...lmao


***************************************************************************
** Error Check InjectorPW
** Check to see if calculated PW is too low (< min base PW)
** Use default for low calculated if it is
**
** On Entry, X == Calculated InjectorPW
**
3B00: 96 00 LDAA $00
3B02: 84 FD ANDA #$FD ; Clear Using Default InjectorPW for Low Calculated Flag
3B04: BC 34 38 CPX $3438 if (X <= MIN BASE PULSE WIDTH) [#$0020=0.49 mSec] (E = N / 65.536)
3B07: 22 05 BHI $3B0E {
3B09: 8A 02 ORAA #$02 ; Set Using Default InjectorPW for Low Calculated Flag
3B0B: FE 34 3A LDX $343A X = DEFAULT PW FOR LOW CALCULATED [#$0020=0.49 mSec] (E = N / 65.536)
}

3B0E: DF 83 STX $83 InjectorPW = X
3B10: 2A 05 BPL $3B17 if (X < 0) ' Limit PW to 500 mSec
{
3B12: CE 7F FF LDX #$7FFF X = #$7FFF
3B15: DF 83 STX $83 InjectorPW = X
}

3B17: 97 00 STAA $00
3B19: 7E 3F A1 JMP $3FA1 Goto $3FA1

************************************************************************
**
**
3B2C: D6 07 LDAB $07
3B2E: C5 02 BITB #$02 if (bit 1 of $07 is clear) /0702
3B30: 27 15 BEQ $3B47 goto $3B47
3B32: C5 20 BITB #$20 if (Engine Is Not Below Startup RPM) /0720
3B34: 27 11 BEQ $3B47 goto $3B47
3B36: 90 9B SUBA $9B A -= Delta LV8 AE Decay
3B38: 24 0B BCC $3B45 if (A >= 0)
goto $3B45 ; Add InjPW
3B3A: 20 08 BRA $3B44 goto $3B44

3B3C: 32 PULA Restore A from stack
3B3D: 97 08 STAA $08 $08 = A
3B3F: 32 PULA Restore A from stack
3B40: 8A 02 ORAA #$02 Enable DFCO /0B02
3B42: 97 0B STAA $0B
***
3B44: 4F CLRA A = 0
***
3B45: 97 95 STAA $95 Additional Injector PW = A
***
3B47: C4 DF ANDB #$DF ; Clear Engine Below Startup RPM /0720
3B49: CA 02 ORAB #$02 ; Set bit 1 of $07 /0702
3B4B: D7 07 STAB $07
3B4D: 4D TSTA if (A != 0)
3B4E: 26 0A BNE $3B5A goto $3B5A
3B50: DE 98 LDX $98 X = DFCO AE PW
3B52: 26 06 BNE $3B5A if (X != 0)

 

[Street Lethal]

Here's a snippet..tell me what it says...lmao

ROTFFLMFAO!!!!!! Now you want me to tell you what it says???? What did you cut and paste that from someone over on gnttype.org lmao? You are a joke. Again, I will give you an E for effort though...

 

[2QUIK6]

All the talk about DC is flawed in your text book equations. DC is computed and the value is not used in fueling from any of the fueling tables and calculations. DC can be well over 100% depending on how long the inj pulsewidths are vs rpm...it's not optimal by any means but it can and does happen when your PE multipliers get high...Just try it out with your $31 mask editor making the PE multiplier some awefully high value, DC % is a factor of how long the intake valve is open, more than 100% will cause puddling but is still none the less more fuel than what your equation can predict. The Thrasher chip can command more than 100%. I've seen many times where way more than 100% DC was commanded.
The other flaw in the equation is that NA engines are given a factor of .5, while turbo engines are given a factor of .6...why is that?? It's basically an average for power adder applications given many other variables, could be .56 or .64 more realistically...Only true life testing can prove out any equation, all engines will be different, the text book only gets you in the ball park. Those 2 variations alone put a +-40% difference in the outcome or computed hp estimate.

Didn't think you could interpret the code..lots can be be done with the source code or manipulating the machine code. If you are only familar with the $31 mask for your editor, then its of no value, your $31 mask wasn't worth mentioning as it is only useful for an off the shelf editor program as those you mention, it tells the software where the various tables are located in the addressable memory and what their layout is for the software. If you can edit the hex code directly with a hex editor there is lots more that can be changed. This is how the Extender series chips, Turbo Tweaks chips, and Thrasher chips were created, try using your $31 mask to edit them...

The only joke I see is that a car with a non-production motor that they made 3 of can be consider a production car...later

 

[2QUICK2B6]

many more TTA's are faster than the one of 3rd gen firehawk .... remember this ! My brother has a 96 GS callaway #1 of 3 my stock motor top to bottom built in 87 gn would cut its nuts out but the car is a callaway and yes its not a production car either but its worth alot more than a third gen firehawk if u want to talk apples to oranges an im sure it would gap your firehawk stock from slp like his is stock from callaway! and yes it has red interior .. u could call callaway up but they wont tell u any specs unless ur an owner.

 

[JP112_89]

Check my avatar. 3 Firehawks

Both cars are great. I like the TTA.

I would have cheated to Ratfink. Back then, some good gas, 26* Pitbull chip and more boost. lol

 

[2QUICK2B6]

nothing aginst fire hawks i love the third gen hawks too but u cant compare a production car to a one off

 

[Street Lethal]

Listen, I appreciate the late response, but lets just say that you jumped into this argument when it wasn't even an argument from my perspective to begin with, and I'm not going to waste my time on this anymore. Deciphering code on my part to prove to you that I "could" is pointless and it completely deters us from the conversation because the limitation of the injector being used to begin with is a constant, so me going back and forth with someone discussing relocateable code through usage of labels gets us absolutely nowhere. Can the TTA, modded, take on a Firehawk? Of course it could, but we're not talking modded, we were talking bone stock. Can more fuel be squeezed out of a 28-lb injector when it reaches its' limit without touching the chip? Of course it could, but only by force, eg; FMU with a ratio higher than 1:1, but even then that is a "mod", and we're talking bone stock. It takes "x" amount of fuel to satisfy a particular amount of horsepower, and if you can factually prove that a V6 running a 28-lb injector in a bone stock TTA can exceed and supply the engine with enough fuel to satisfy the same horsepower of a Firehawk, then prove it, don't give me speculation and theory, prove it. Heck, slap it on a dyno, and you can even burn your own chip with all of the wonderful hex editing programs that you use to control fuel pressure, MAF scaling, etc, if you'd like, just film the wideband readings, throw up a dyno-vid with corresponding dyno-graph, and prove it...

All the talk about DC is flawed in your text book equations.