There's a thread on e90 that someone sent me a link to last night about a BBQ dyno shootout between Vishnu's ST kit and Vargas' TT kit. Guess what, thread was derailed and is now littered with unfounded bs thanks to Laguna Seca Blue and Shiv. I guess our preliminary 91 octane testing manages to upset them to the point that makes them go so low as to lie, bicker with others and provide so much unfounded information its sad.
I can't respond there but let me walk you through what was said there for those interested..
Butt hurt much Shiv? Just wow, where do you get the energy for this stuff man?
Quick few points after so much misinformation:
1) About me going through stock frame turbos due to EGTs or what have you...SHIV tuned the FIRST set of RBs I had on the Procede, here, locally. They went 2 weeks later and were sent back to Rob for inspection. Let's just leave that one at that!
2) About EGTs being exceedingly high that they are/will melt internals - I was the first and probably only dude around these boards to mount EGT probes and gathered data for this platform. Here's a thread a while back:
http://www.bimmerboost.com/showthrea...l-in-the-works
Given I've done that on my own car I felt it would be interesting to datalog them on Tony's VTT car as well. I actually asked Shiv a long time ago what EGTs he was seeing with his single and no data or response was ever provided. He didn't and still doesn't have EGT probes on his manifolds LOL
Regardless of what Shiv is doing or not, at least a month ago (and Tony can confirm this), well before the first dyno day with Tony I've asked him to add EGT probes to his manifolds and get an AEM AQ-1 datalogger so we can monitor them throughout our tuning. He's already got one and we'll be using it and have actual EGT data that can be analyzed for our tuning. All I'll say at this time is it'll be VERY interesting to see what the data shows and how it compares to data on RBs that I've already had a chance to gather in the thread linked above. At least I have data to compare with and look who's talking and blaming me for turbo failures related to EGTs :)
3) Shiv says he made 500whp on a Mustang on 91 octane - You know you can't just say things around forums without backing it up. Where is your EGT data? What temps did you see? What was the difference between 91 only and 91+meth? Post hard data, not BS that you ALWAYS serve to the masses when you're this butt hurt.
4) Laguna Seca Blue - you're surprised the thread degenerated the way it did? YOU were the catalyst to the derailment. Look back at your first post. Or are you sorry it backfired a bit at Shiv's own baseless allegations of melted internals and broken turbos?
5) For the same boost, same octane, same AFRs, same VANOS setup, same compression, but dropping ignition advance WILL no doubt produce "relatively" higher EGTs. There is NO mystery in this matter. I say "relatively" as there needs to be a point of reference. It is purposely misconstrued by Shiv saying EGTs are already capable of melting internals and damaging turbos with the amount of timing advance that we're running. Shiv, you have no reference to begin with or a way to use your equations to calculate just how much hotter exactly we, or you for that matter, are running. You don't even know what our timing curve looks like given you said we're running 2-6deg LOL Shiv, why? You want a "friendly" BBQ? hahaha
6) Just like I've done with RBs on my own car measuring and gathering data on EGTs we'll be doing the same with the VTT setup. We'll be using this data to "LEARN" about the running environment and how different tuning approaches look in terms of EGTs. Shiv, I suggest you do the same so we can both make our tuning better haha
7) Shiv, have you looked at your stock and RB turbo aggressive maps? Why did you change them to run more boost down low tapering towards redline after Cobb released their OTS? What did the EGTs look like there that ALLOWED for even more boost with the same base timing curve than what you had before Cobb released their OTS maps? Given your vast knowledge you should have just had the tuning done the 'right' way from the getgo instead of weekly sometimes daily tinkering with boost and having your beta testers tell you what happened.
8) Shiv, I advise you to stick to DATA and provide what you can before arguing and even flat out lying. Once tuning is complete on the VTT test car we'll happily disclose all data that we have. VTTs are coming strong, get ready for some butt kicking LOL
9) There have already been many runs on the 91 octane tune we did. Not a single issue just good times and we intend to keep it that way.
I can't respond there but let me walk you through what was said there for those interested..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Laguna Seca Blue
With all due respect, all we've seen of the Vargas kit is a couple of glory dyno pulls where the DME was tuned to retard timing and ramp up boost to 25 psi. From what little I know, that is not a consistent and safe way to make power as your exhaust temps are going to go through the roof.
The Vargas kit is unproven at this stage. For the sake of fairness, at least treat it with the same tempered skepticism as you did Vishnu's kit while it was in the process of proving itself.
Stating kit A is better than B when there is no data to back it up is just asking for a thread lock![Click here to enlarge]()
. Lets wait and see what happens!
The Vargas kit is unproven at this stage. For the sake of fairness, at least treat it with the same tempered skepticism as you did Vishnu's kit while it was in the process of proving itself.
Stating kit A is better than B when there is no data to back it up is just asking for a thread lock
. Lets wait and see what happens!Quote:
Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu
During in-house testing, we have made well over 500whp on a mustang dyno with our single turbo cars on 91oct (no methanol). That's nearly 600whp on a Dynojet. The problem with running that much boost (24+psi) with such little ignition advance (2-6deg) is that exhaust gas temps get too hot for sustained racing conditions. Dyno glory runs are fine but we don't live on a dyno. These are some of the things you learn during the long term testing process because customers will put their car through things which are much more stressful than anything you can replicate on the dyno when trying to make glory numbers (hot lapping for instance). But if you are just after numbers to claim some sort of pump gas record, that's fine. But any experience tuner knows that you are just tuning poorly to impressed the uninformed masses. There is a reason why some beginner tuners go through turbos like rolls of toiler paper while others, with more experience (esp in motorsport) don't.
That said, we are always down for some friendly competition. But let's give the other team so more time to go through the testing/tuning phase. Because a lot will be learned in the process. And it will benefit everyone.
That said, we are always down for some friendly competition. But let's give the other team so more time to go through the testing/tuning phase. Because a lot will be learned in the process. And it will benefit everyone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu
I think it is you who doesn't understand what was said. Take a breather and try to understand the relationship between effective compression ratio, octane, ignition advance and thermal efficiency. When you do, things will make more sense. There is a reason why experienced tuners don't run high boost on low octane fuel. It is not because they can't, it is because you are trading a whole lot of thermal efficiency for a little extra power. The "lost" power has to go somewhere. It does into the exhaust and cooling system in the form of heat. Ok for dyno. Not ok for actual driving/hard use.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu
What Laguna said wasn't biased and was perfectly true. Running 25psi of boost on 91oct requires very low ignition advance. Which will result in very high EGTs. This is fact.
Running 25psi of boost on a single 62mm or twin GTXs should make ~675whp on a well tuned engine. If you are making 100whp less at the same boost pressure, where do you think that all that extra combustion energy is going? It's not pushing the crown of the piston downwards (into kinetic energy). Instead, it escapes in the form of heat that is then passed into the cooling system and into the exhaust. And 100whp worth of heat A LOT. Engines don't like this. This is why experienced tuners carefully find the balancing point between thermal efficiency and power given a fixed octane restraint.
Running 25psi of boost on a single 62mm or twin GTXs should make ~675whp on a well tuned engine. If you are making 100whp less at the same boost pressure, where do you think that all that extra combustion energy is going? It's not pushing the crown of the piston downwards (into kinetic energy). Instead, it escapes in the form of heat that is then passed into the cooling system and into the exhaust. And 100whp worth of heat A LOT. Engines don't like this. This is why experienced tuners carefully find the balancing point between thermal efficiency and power given a fixed octane restraint.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu
I'd say they also broke the record for high EGT. And if that car was run hard for any extended period of time, it would also likely break the record for shortest distanced traveled before turbo/engine failure. Unless I'm mistaken, the tuner also broke the record for how many turbos his personal car has gone through. Think about it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu
Not understanding much in the way of engine tuning/theory does help when it comes to being confident about engine tuning. Please re-read my previous post with regards to the relationship between thermal efficiency and EGT. In layman's terns: If an engine is running high boost and making relatively low power, it isn't running efficiently. Which means that it's generating a lot of heat. This is fact. I cannot change that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu
It's likely that the tuner that went through all those stock frame turbos did it because he doesn't/hasn't quite understand/understood the relationship between thermal efficiency and EGT. This has nothing to do with having stock or larger frame turbos (although larger frame turbos do have the benefit from seeing lower exhaust back-pressure levels all other things equal.) It's about knowing the medium-to-long term consequences/trade-offs of different tuning approaches. Some "work" on the dyno when subjected to 12 seconds of load at a time while still failing miserably during extended real world testing.
And let's be honest, no one is going to post EGT values at this stage of the game. But I will bent you pink slips that making 675whp (91oct+methanol, suitable ignition advance, 24-25psi of boost) generates MUCH lower EGTs than making just 575whp by running the same boost, on 91oct only, with insufficient ignition advance. You don't need to be Sherlock Holmes to deduce this. All one needs is a very basic, but sound, understanding of engine theory.
And let's be honest, no one is going to post EGT values at this stage of the game. But I will bent you pink slips that making 675whp (91oct+methanol, suitable ignition advance, 24-25psi of boost) generates MUCH lower EGTs than making just 575whp by running the same boost, on 91oct only, with insufficient ignition advance. You don't need to be Sherlock Holmes to deduce this. All one needs is a very basic, but sound, understanding of engine theory.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu
According to the tuner, they ran 24-25psi on 91oct for that disclosed dyno run. From my experience, EGTs get uncomfortably hot when tuning for more than 20-21psi (on suitably sized turbos) on 91oct. On 93, maybe 21-22psi. Running sufficient ignition advance at 24-25psi requires something along the lines of race gas (98 MON and up). Again, you can run higher boost on lower octane but things get ugly in the real world in such scenarios.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu
Part of being a profession is sometimes speaking up when there is a lack of understanding. Similarly, someone's a lack of understand makes it difficult for some folks to recognize this. This whole moral play is old and usually stems from people unable or unwilling up to follow the technical aspects of a thread. If this applies to anyone in particular, perhaps the best approach would be for them to ignore this thread rather than trying to contribute to it. Just a thought.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu
Please don't pretend for a moment to be unbiased. Your post history shoots that notion out of the water. You may feel that my comments are "unprofessional" for whatever reason you believe to be valid. That's fine. Some will agree with you while others won't. You certainly make a habit of holding me to standards you hold no one else to. And our company name was also mentioned in the subject of this thread. So I assumed I was invited/expected to participate thank you very much.
That said, I don't believe I have said anything incorrect or untrue in this thread. If you believe otherwise, please point it out. Until then, you calling me "unprofessional" is disingenuous. But like you, I'm entitled to my own opinions.
We can waste our time talking feelings. Or we can discuss tech. It is my experience that those who are unable or unwilling to discuss tech would rather talk about their feelings and encourage others to feel the same way as them. I'm here to discuss tech. If you don't like it, please ignore.
That said, I don't believe I have said anything incorrect or untrue in this thread. If you believe otherwise, please point it out. Until then, you calling me "unprofessional" is disingenuous. But like you, I'm entitled to my own opinions.
We can waste our time talking feelings. Or we can discuss tech. It is my experience that those who are unable or unwilling to discuss tech would rather talk about their feelings and encourage others to feel the same way as them. I'm here to discuss tech. If you don't like it, please ignore.
Quote:
Originally Posted by shiv@vishnu
It's very convenient to suggest that my offending posts have been deleted. Or it could just be that I don't do what you are accusing me of. Or you could just stick to what is going on here and now and stay on topic. That said, this discussion has now become less of a tech discussion and more of something else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Laguna Seca Blue
It really is a crying shame that this thread degenerated the way it did. I honestly feel terrible for Shiv. He has been tuning professionally for 20 years and has dedicated the last 6 years of his career to the N54 platform. Here he is trying to educate someone whose biased ignorance is quite frankly reprehensible and the swarm of bees from the other forum descend on him. Give the guy a break. You guys are polluting e90post with all your hate.
Quick few points after so much misinformation:
1) About me going through stock frame turbos due to EGTs or what have you...SHIV tuned the FIRST set of RBs I had on the Procede, here, locally. They went 2 weeks later and were sent back to Rob for inspection. Let's just leave that one at that!
2) About EGTs being exceedingly high that they are/will melt internals - I was the first and probably only dude around these boards to mount EGT probes and gathered data for this platform. Here's a thread a while back:
http://www.bimmerboost.com/showthrea...l-in-the-works
Given I've done that on my own car I felt it would be interesting to datalog them on Tony's VTT car as well. I actually asked Shiv a long time ago what EGTs he was seeing with his single and no data or response was ever provided. He didn't and still doesn't have EGT probes on his manifolds LOL
Regardless of what Shiv is doing or not, at least a month ago (and Tony can confirm this), well before the first dyno day with Tony I've asked him to add EGT probes to his manifolds and get an AEM AQ-1 datalogger so we can monitor them throughout our tuning. He's already got one and we'll be using it and have actual EGT data that can be analyzed for our tuning. All I'll say at this time is it'll be VERY interesting to see what the data shows and how it compares to data on RBs that I've already had a chance to gather in the thread linked above. At least I have data to compare with and look who's talking and blaming me for turbo failures related to EGTs :)
3) Shiv says he made 500whp on a Mustang on 91 octane - You know you can't just say things around forums without backing it up. Where is your EGT data? What temps did you see? What was the difference between 91 only and 91+meth? Post hard data, not BS that you ALWAYS serve to the masses when you're this butt hurt.
4) Laguna Seca Blue - you're surprised the thread degenerated the way it did? YOU were the catalyst to the derailment. Look back at your first post. Or are you sorry it backfired a bit at Shiv's own baseless allegations of melted internals and broken turbos?
5) For the same boost, same octane, same AFRs, same VANOS setup, same compression, but dropping ignition advance WILL no doubt produce "relatively" higher EGTs. There is NO mystery in this matter. I say "relatively" as there needs to be a point of reference. It is purposely misconstrued by Shiv saying EGTs are already capable of melting internals and damaging turbos with the amount of timing advance that we're running. Shiv, you have no reference to begin with or a way to use your equations to calculate just how much hotter exactly we, or you for that matter, are running. You don't even know what our timing curve looks like given you said we're running 2-6deg LOL Shiv, why? You want a "friendly" BBQ? hahaha
6) Just like I've done with RBs on my own car measuring and gathering data on EGTs we'll be doing the same with the VTT setup. We'll be using this data to "LEARN" about the running environment and how different tuning approaches look in terms of EGTs. Shiv, I suggest you do the same so we can both make our tuning better haha
7) Shiv, have you looked at your stock and RB turbo aggressive maps? Why did you change them to run more boost down low tapering towards redline after Cobb released their OTS? What did the EGTs look like there that ALLOWED for even more boost with the same base timing curve than what you had before Cobb released their OTS maps? Given your vast knowledge you should have just had the tuning done the 'right' way from the getgo instead of weekly sometimes daily tinkering with boost and having your beta testers tell you what happened.
8) Shiv, I advise you to stick to DATA and provide what you can before arguing and even flat out lying. Once tuning is complete on the VTT test car we'll happily disclose all data that we have. VTTs are coming strong, get ready for some butt kicking LOL
9) There have already been many runs on the 91 octane tune we did. Not a single issue just good times and we intend to keep it that way.