TVT Design, Project C43
02-28-2009, 06:12 PM
#51
Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Remember that there are two different shades of green. One for the 17lbs inj and a darker green for the 42lb injectors. The ones in your 280 sound like the ones that come with the E36 325i 2.5l 93 to 95 including the 1995 3.0l E36 M3. Trust me I went thru all this inj stuff when I dropped my 3.2L motor in my 325i and when my 5.5l motor was plcd in my C43. If anything my C43 runs pig rich even with the 5.5L motor.
no what i was saying projectc55 is i have changed my injectors to the 42lb green injectors in my car.
they were sourced from ebay and i got 8 of them as they were off a mustang v8, but i only needed 6 so i have two spare.
and like said i had to do a bit of filing so the standard fuel rail clip fitted them.
02-28-2009, 07:10 PM
#52
MBWorld Fanatic!
02-28-2009, 07:11 PM
#53
MBWorld Fanatic!
man what a late response to this comment i have made, my bad.
no what i was saying projectc55 is i have changed my injectors to the 42lb green injectors in my car.
they were sourced from ebay and i got 8 of them as they were off a mustang v8, but i only needed 6 so i have two spare.
and like said i had to do a bit of filing so the standard fuel rail clip fitted them.
no what i was saying projectc55 is i have changed my injectors to the 42lb green injectors in my car.
they were sourced from ebay and i got 8 of them as they were off a mustang v8, but i only needed 6 so i have two spare.
and like said i had to do a bit of filing so the standard fuel rail clip fitted them.
02-28-2009, 09:16 PM
#57
MBWorld Fanatic!
No.Dave's car (Black C43 w 4.3L) made 238whp b4 mods,My car (Silver C43 w 5.4L) made 325whp 349wtq with mods untuned for the headers and exh. So now my car needs to be tuned,but I will do that in the future sometime this spring. As of now my car has only been tuned for the 5.4l motor but since I've added my WHOLE exh system,I have never had the car re-tuned. LET says my car needs more timing and some fuel trimming.
Last edited by ProjectC55; 02-28-2009 at 10:55 PM.
03-02-2009, 05:05 PM
#58
Former Vendor of MBWorld
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Dunellen, NJ
Posts: 717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chrysler Crossfire
No.Dave's car (Black C43 w 4.3L) made 238whp b4 mods,My car (Silver C43 w 5.4L) made 325whp 349wtq with mods untuned for the headers and exh. So now my car needs to be tuned,but I will do that in the future sometime this spring. As of now my car has only been tuned for the 5.4l motor but since I've added my WHOLE exh system,I have never had the car re-tuned. LET says my car needs more timing and some fuel trimming.
Once we fix the MAF and dial this combo in I think we will be right near our goal.
We're at about 322 HP at the crank.
If you use the same DT loss for ProjectC55 he is putting out 377 HP at the crank. (9% difference in RWHP dyno readings and using a 22% DT loss based on stock numbers.)
Last edited by TVT_DESIGN; 03-02-2009 at 05:08 PM.
03-02-2009, 10:58 PM
#59
MBWorld Fanatic!
You're just quoted because you remembered the before mod numbers. The after mod numbers were 252-254 RWHP, untuned.
Once we fix the MAF and dial this combo in I think we will be right near our goal.
We're at about 322 HP at the crank.
If you use the same DT loss for ProjectC55 he is putting out 377 HP at the crank. (9% difference in RWHP dyno readings and using a 22% DT loss based on stock numbers.)
Once we fix the MAF and dial this combo in I think we will be right near our goal.
We're at about 322 HP at the crank.
If you use the same DT loss for ProjectC55 he is putting out 377 HP at the crank. (9% difference in RWHP dyno readings and using a 22% DT loss based on stock numbers.)
Dave's car was 212 or so at the wheel before your cleaning, and 238 after. i think you are mixing cars?
03-03-2009, 06:25 AM
#60
MBWorld Fanatic!
03-03-2009, 06:36 AM
#61
Former Vendor of MBWorld
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Dunellen, NJ
Posts: 717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chrysler Crossfire
I like the way your numbers sound better, but I can't fudge the numbers to show a false gain.
Once I get back there and fet the sheets I'll have the exact ones.
03-03-2009, 08:09 AM
#63
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: May 2005
Location: REHOBOTH BEACH DE
Posts: 2,494
Likes: 0
Received 16 Likes
on
16 Posts
88-300CE TWIN TURBO, 99-C43, 05-G55K, 71-280SL, 94-E320 CAB, 08 CLK63 BLACK SERIES
You're just quoted because you remembered the before mod numbers. The after mod numbers were 252-254 RWHP, untuned.
Once we fix the MAF and dial this combo in I think we will be right near our goal.
We're at about 322 HP at the crank.
If you use the same DT loss for ProjectC55 he is putting out 377 HP at the crank. (9% difference in RWHP dyno readings and using a 22% DT loss based on stock numbers.)
Once we fix the MAF and dial this combo in I think we will be right near our goal.
We're at about 322 HP at the crank.
If you use the same DT loss for ProjectC55 he is putting out 377 HP at the crank. (9% difference in RWHP dyno readings and using a 22% DT loss based on stock numbers.)
The only tangible is the RWP from the dyno pull.
And that number must be determined on each future pull by at least using the same type dyno be it load or inertia.
All else is just a wild guess, unless of course you pull the engine from the chassis and dyno on a test stand.
03-03-2009, 01:42 PM
#64
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Portsmouth, NH
Posts: 1,559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
none
I'm dying to see what comes of this. Did you put the MAF screens back in or are you keeping them out?
FWIW my car made 235ish whp stock with new filters and plugs/wires.
FWIW my car made 235ish whp stock with new filters and plugs/wires.
03-03-2009, 03:34 PM
#65
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Rochester, MN
Posts: 1,100
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
sounds like airplane
With all due respect as a tuner you should know that to use "estimated at the crank" numbers is pure folly.
The only tangible is the RWP from the dyno pull.
And that number must be determined on each future pull by at least using the same type dyno be it load or inertia.
All else is just a wild guess, unless of course you pull the engine from the chassis and dyno on a test stand.
The only tangible is the RWP from the dyno pull.
And that number must be determined on each future pull by at least using the same type dyno be it load or inertia.
All else is just a wild guess, unless of course you pull the engine from the chassis and dyno on a test stand.
but those are the numbers that sell parts!
03-03-2009, 04:25 PM
#66
Former Vendor of MBWorld
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Dunellen, NJ
Posts: 717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chrysler Crossfire
03-03-2009, 06:23 PM
#68
Former Vendor of MBWorld
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Dunellen, NJ
Posts: 717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chrysler Crossfire
We're way faster then that. We didn't even start to figure in losses from age, oil viscosity, wind drag on the wheels, luck, or the fact that the shop is on the top of a hill. This car may have close to 350 RWHP when we really start playing with numbers!
03-03-2009, 09:18 PM
#69
MBWorld Fanatic!
03-03-2009, 10:28 PM
#70
Former Vendor of MBWorld
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Dunellen, NJ
Posts: 717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chrysler Crossfire
MAF is on, but I'm not going to waste a day at the dyno for just that. With the MAF I noticed zero difference in drivability, throttle response, anything at all. I have a portable wideband I'll be hooking up to it and getting before and after AFR tests on the street.
And even though its winter we are pretty busy. The project will be finished ASAP, but I can't neglect the other customers while I'm at it.
And even though its winter we are pretty busy. The project will be finished ASAP, but I can't neglect the other customers while I'm at it.
03-03-2009, 11:19 PM
#71
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: May 2005
Location: REHOBOTH BEACH DE
Posts: 2,494
Likes: 0
Received 16 Likes
on
16 Posts
88-300CE TWIN TURBO, 99-C43, 05-G55K, 71-280SL, 94-E320 CAB, 08 CLK63 BLACK SERIES
Easy additional 100HP with a lightweight pulley.....
03-04-2009, 07:03 AM
#72
MBWorld Fanatic!
Two guys I know with 5.5l motors have done the same Intake mani mods plus have the same exhaust mods,NO TUNE, and NEITHER of their dynos have shown the lean conditions that Dave's car now shows on your dyno. My car ,5.5l motor bigger motor installed,went as rich as 12.6 at 6k plus RPM's without a tune at WOT. We saw that with our own eyes.
Last edited by ProjectC55; 03-04-2009 at 07:06 AM.
03-04-2009, 04:09 PM
#73
Former Vendor of MBWorld
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Dunellen, NJ
Posts: 717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chrysler Crossfire
Did you reset the ECU or disconnect the battery after you installed the MAF?
Two guys I know with 5.5l motors have done the same Intake mani mods plus have the same exhaust mods,NO TUNE, and NEITHER of their dynos have shown the lean conditions that Dave's car now shows on your dyno. My car ,5.5l motor bigger motor installed,went as rich as 12.6 at 6k plus RPM's without a tune at WOT. We saw that with our own eyes.
Two guys I know with 5.5l motors have done the same Intake mani mods plus have the same exhaust mods,NO TUNE, and NEITHER of their dynos have shown the lean conditions that Dave's car now shows on your dyno. My car ,5.5l motor bigger motor installed,went as rich as 12.6 at 6k plus RPM's without a tune at WOT. We saw that with our own eyes.
Which intake and exhaust mods are you talking about? Do you have the dyno graphs? I would like to compare to ours.
C55 did you ge the O2 sensor issue fixed with the CEL? A bad O2 sensor can give a rich condition just as easily as a bad MAF can give a lean one.
Bottom line is we are testing everything on one car and each variable independantly. Not every car is going to behave the same.
03-05-2009, 12:03 PM
#74
MBWorld Fanatic!
Yes battery was disconnected for 30 mins prior to run. Our AFR for the "lean" condition was about a 13.7 at the engine, don't get all scared over an optimal AFR.
Which intake and exhaust mods are you talking about? Do you have the dyno graphs? I would like to compare to ours.
C55 did you ge the O2 sensor issue fixed with the CEL? A bad O2 sensor can give a rich condition just as easily as a bad MAF can give a lean one.
Bottom line is we are testing everything on one car and each variable independantly. Not every car is going to behave the same.
Which intake and exhaust mods are you talking about? Do you have the dyno graphs? I would like to compare to ours.
C55 did you ge the O2 sensor issue fixed with the CEL? A bad O2 sensor can give a rich condition just as easily as a bad MAF can give a lean one.
Bottom line is we are testing everything on one car and each variable independantly. Not every car is going to behave the same.
By the way TWO members here(Mbenzman and Speedybenz) have done the same exact Intake mani mods to their cars with NONE reporting lean conditions. Mbenzman has a Longggg thread on this. He did both his ML55 and his CLK55 cabrio. SpeedyBenz did his C43 5.5L. Neither have tunes on their cars and SpeedyBenz has a more aggressive exh setup and intake setup than I have.
l
