Members 1/4 times from Willowbank - Page 2

Sox · 02-01-2005, 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Racecraft

hmm perplexing... as Sylox stated he launches at 1750rpm as the tyres will smoke at 1800rpm, it can't be that torque deprived... can it? A static burnout at 1800rpm is good, if the torque curve was that outta wack surely it would just bog down??

Just thinking aloud here

Well, he said 'wheelspin' occurs at 1800rpm, a small amount of wheel spin whilst stalling it up is normal, it's just a product of the convertors 'stall speed'.

Achieving 'some' wheelspin and doing a smoking burnout are two different things.

My folks stock standard AU I6 wagon will wheel spin at around those revs when stalling it up.

Rick.

Racecraft · 02-01-2005, 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sox

Well, he said 'wheelspin' occurs at 1800rpm, a small amount of wheels spin whilst stalling it up is normal.

Achieving 'some' wheelspin and doing a big burnout are two different things.

My folks stock standard AU I6 wagon will wheel spin at around those revs when stalling it up.

Rick.

that is sorta the arguement i am trying to make, if a stock i6 with 357nm@3000 rpm can do it, wouldn't that also mean Syloxs' torque must be atleast comparable to that? A significant amount of nm under that and it wouldn't be capable of any spin, would it not? If it was that poor, wouldn't the engine just labour and bog down?

Sox · 02-01-2005, 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Racecraft

that is sorta the arguement i am trying to make, if a stock i6 with 357nm@3000 rpm can do it, wouldn't that also mean Syloxs' torque must be atleast comparable to that?

Probably not even as high, considering the 3.9 gears.

Rick.

**Stav** · 02-01-2005, 04:25 PM

Are you running iridium spark plugs? Did a 3.9 ratio definatley go in?]

Sylox · 02-01-2005, 10:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by useless

Are you running iridium spark plugs? Did a 3.9 ratio definatley go in?]

yep denso iridium plugs. And yes the 3.9's definately went in.

Casper · 02-01-2005, 03:30 PM

Couldnt be so stupid as the brakes dragging a bit? That would kill the start real well.

Racecraft · 02-01-2005, 03:37 PM

Casper, i was thinking along the same lines...
Start with the obvious things first
This is more TQE stuff, but are you getting WOT? i know the i6 loves to stretch the accel cable but i thought that was more from age than anything???

Sylox · 02-01-2005, 11:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Racecraft

Casper, i was thinking along the same lines...
Start with the obvious things first
This is more TQE stuff, but are you getting WOT? i know the i6 loves to stretch the accel cable but i thought that was more from age than anything???

Yep definately getting WOT checked that one first off

Racecraft · 02-01-2005, 04:33 PM

I am curious to see what the issue/s are when he gets it sorted,
The chip and 3.9s/tailshaft SHOULD of produced alot better bang for buck...
Well it only emphasis the arguement that a dyno chart is only good for tuning and not much to brag over..

AUIIIXR8 · 02-01-2005, 07:33 PM

With your future plans you will grow into those big paceys. They will be costing you some torque now but a cam upgrade will have them agreeing more. Stall and cam. My ute runs a 2500-2800 stall. Look at your dyno graph and find peak torque and launch from just below it and see if the 60ft improves. 2 tenths from a chip is a reasonable gain.
We know that a 14.4 or less is highly likley with a cam and stall change. The 3.9's will be much better when the engine isn't running out of puff after 4500 rpm.
And i'm looking at a couple upgrades before the turbo. When the heads come off for decomp i'll get the inlet ported to match the heads. I'll get the spacer for the manifold (this will yeald a small torque increase for you and help keep the upper cool). I'm also contemplating a 70mm T/B.

AUIIIXR8 · 02-01-2005, 07:45 PM

Can't get accurate dyno reading with an auto before the torque converter locks up properly. So dyno readings from 1200 rpm are no good esp for torque sadly.
the 5-600 bucks can be spent better elsewhere in your case Andrew. This is only my 2 cents. But small primaries will hold you back later on.

Sorry i had forgotten to put Chip in my sig fixing that now!!!

oops i might have spoken too soon. I just checked my extractors and they're
4-2-1. Yes they're paceys. What does AUGHIAV8 run? He's run a 14.3. with cam and 3.23 diff the only differences.

yobboford · 02-01-2005, 09:19 PM

hey all,

well you got me scratching my head, but i would be very interested to find out what the problem end's up being.

i am hoping to throw some 3.9's and extractors in mine soon, do you know what revs you were pulling over the finish line?

i have an eb xr8 auto, running 15.10 @ 92.75mph, also hoping to crack the 14's soon. that is with au manifold and tb and maf and injectors, ported e7's, 1.72 roller rockers, std cam, std headers, shift kitted auto, 3.27 diff, 2.5 single exhaust.

03-01-2005, 03:30 AM

I am not sure that I can be of much help here.

I'd caution against a 3.9 diff in a car that isn't going to rev too hard. I've seen cars slow down considerably from going to a diff that is too short. Most Falcons would run better times on 3.45 or 3.7 diff ratios, rather than anything shorter. If you have the right cam and can rev to 7000+rpm then a 3.9 is ok. Otherwise you would find that the car would be reaching top speed well before the finish line and therefore hurting your ET.

We have just built a new combo for the dragster and had our first outing last Monday. We are now discussing a diff change. The reason being that we hit top speed by 1000' doing 125mph on 5800rpm and sit at 125mph for the rest of the track.

Just my 2c.

Sox · 03-01-2005, 09:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Epitome

I am not sure that I can be of much help here.

I'd caution against a 3.9 diff in a car that isn't going to rev too hard. I've seen cars slow down considerably from going to a diff that is too short. Most Falcons would run better times on 3.45 or 3.7 diff ratios, rather than anything shorter. If you have the right cam and can rev to 7000+rpm then a 3.9 is ok. Otherwise you would find that the car would be reaching top speed well before the finish line and therefore hurting your ET.

We have just built a new combo for the dragster and had our first outing last Monday. We are now discussing a diff change. The reason being that we hit top speed by 1000' doing 125mph on 5800rpm and sit at 125mph for the rest of the track.

Just my 2c.

He wouldn't even be close to top speed with the 3.9's, 4th gear is around 0.68 in those things. It would still manage 200kph at 6000rpm, and he's only achieving around 150kph. My bet is that he's just about redlining 3rd gear across the line.

In any case, even if he was running out of puff in the top end, his 60' times still should have been much better than the standad gearing.

Rick.

Sylox · 03-01-2005, 11:16 AM

Your right Sox cross the line at 149kph and still have a bit more I could push to in 3rd.
So I'm not losing time by having to go to 4th 50m short of the line either. But none of that is relevant to the 60ft times.
Tom your suggestion of going through the power band to quickly is valid however. My times havent decreased but rather the 60ft has stayed the same and the 1/4 is a little quicker due to the better tune.

AUIIIXR8 · 03-01-2005, 12:46 PM

What are your plans over the next 1 year with the Ute and it's engine?

Sylox · 03-01-2005, 01:55 PM

Possibility of a cam but not for certian...

The final goal is T56 - Crate motor (if a 351 sportsman block will go) if not 347 stroker with alloy heads etc - superchager.
But thats still 2 - 3 yrs off eventuating which is why I want to get things running right now

AUIIIXR8 · 04-01-2005, 12:18 PM

Well that'll make it go! I'd only change ONE thing..... Turbo not S/c ;).

I should have taken you for a burl in mine so you could feel what the tranny feels like. Trans shift kit, stall and cam = low 14's! Most likley lower than mine with that diff and such. 2030 or bigger if manners at idle aren't as much of an issue anymore. The engine will be a nice one and will keep you happier until you get the crate going. If not you could even put the T or S/c on it. Boost will open up the power and torque curves plenty so that the 3.9's have lots of room to play with.

Your Ute is just a weapon in the making mate. All the steps you've taken WILL pay off once you complete the couple of steps left that make the combo work.

Sylox · 04-01-2005, 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AU2XLSV8

Well that'll make it go! I'd only change ONE thing..... Turbo not S/c ;). we'll see what happens :p

I should have taken you for a burl in mine so you could feel what the tranny feels like. Trans shift kit, stall and cam = low 14's! Most likley lower than mine with that diff and such. 2030 or bigger if manners at idle aren't as much of an issue anymore. The engine will be a nice one and will keep you happier until you get the crate going. I'll take you up on that offer I should be up your way in the next few weeks I'll give you a Call when I know exactly what weekend it will be...
If not you could even put the T or S/c on it. Boost will open up the power and torque curves plenty so that the 3.9's have lots of room to play with.
Nope going to reserve the Boost untill the engine work is all done and bedded in.

Your Ute is just a weapon in the making mate. All the steps you've taken WILL pay off once you complete the couple of steps left that make the combo work.

It's all about the $$$$$$'s I'm getting there slowly mateused:

Sylox · 04-01-2005, 07:06 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

After an indepth Chat with Lachlan From Chiptorque today he got the impression that this problem was a 80% chance of being Aggressive Torque reduction maping. He said he has seen the same thing in auto gen3 commo's but not before in an Au.
Never the less he said he is going to dig into the Au they have there and a document that he recently recieved. And translate the codes for Torque reduction. Then give me a call in a couple of weeks for me to come up so he can hook his ecu tools up to the ecu and take my ute for a drive to read what the ecu is doing. Then its back into the Dyno room to shut the Torque reduction maps off completely through the J3 chip i already have installed and re-test drive it to see if the problem is gone.
He said hands down with 3.9's you should have major traction issues when you stand on it. And there is some thing majorly wrong for my times to of stayed the same like they are. At the least they should of been around 1-2 tenths lower....

Its a slow process but hopefully i can get this gremlin killed asap. And get back to the track....

Also my brakes are booked in to come off and be re-fitted on saturday to erase that posibility also.

Casper · 04-01-2005, 07:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sylox

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

After an indepth Chat with Lachlan From Chiptorque today he got the impression that this problem was a 80% chance of being Aggressive Torque reduction maping. He said he has seen the same thing in auto gen3 commo's but not before in an Au.
Never the less he said he is going to dig into the Au they have there and a document that he recently recieved. And translate the codes for Torque reduction. Then give me a call in a couple of weeks for me to come up so he can hook his ecu tools up to the ecu and take my ute for a drive to read what the ecu is doing. Then its back into the Dyno room to shut the Torque reduction maps off completely through the J3 chip i already have installed and re-test drive it to see if the problem is gone.
He said hands down with 3.9's you should have major traction issues when you stand on it. And there is some thing majorly wrong for my times to of stayed the same like they are. At the least they should of been around 1-2 tenths lower....

Its a slow process but hopefully i can get this gremlin killed asap. And get back to the track....

Also my brakes are booked in to come off and be re-fitted on saturday to erase that posibility also.

EXCELLENT.

* Casper waits for the testing to be done before posting back his J3 chip for similar modifications.

I may not need it but I'm only 10rwkw behind so I'm betting its affecting mine too!

Racecraft · 04-01-2005, 07:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sylox

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

After an indepth Chat with Lachlan From Chiptorque today he got the impression that this problem was a 80% chance of being Aggressive Torque reduction maping. He said he has seen the same thing in auto gen3 commo's but not before in an Au.
Never the less he said he is going to dig into the Au they have there and a document that he recently recieved. And translate the codes for Torque reduction. Then give me a call in a couple of weeks for me to come up so he can hook his ecu tools up to the ecu and take my ute for a drive to read what the ecu is doing. Then its back into the Dyno room to shut the Torque reduction maps off completely through the J3 chip i already have installed and re-test drive it to see if the problem is gone.
He said hands down with 3.9's you should have major traction issues when you stand on it. And there is some thing majorly wrong for my times to of stayed the same like they are. At the least they should of been around 1-2 tenths lower....

Its a slow process but hopefully i can get this gremlin killed asap. And get back to the track....

Also my brakes are booked in to come off and be re-fitted on saturday to erase that posibility also.

Thats good news, good to see a business that is actually inerested in fixing the problem, out of curisoty what was the fuel consumption like pre- and post chip?

EFFalcon · 04-01-2005, 07:26 PM

isnt the torque reduction only a V8 thing?

Sylox · 04-01-2005, 07:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EFFalcon

isnt the torque reduction only a V8 thing?

No its in 6's and 8's manual and auto. BUT in the V8 autos its agressivley mapped.....:(

Quote:

Originally Posted by Racecraft

Thats good news, good to see a business that is actually inerested in fixing the problem, out of curisoty what was the fuel consumption like pre- and post chip?

Improved it a bit but I dont usually watch the fuel gauge. The 3.9's improved it a heap believe it or not....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Casper

EXCELLENT.

* Casper waits for the testing to be done before posting back his J3 chip for similar modifications.

I may not need it but I'm only 7rwkw behind so I'm betting its affecting mine too!

I actually used you as an example Casper as you can just stand on it an be in smoke city. Lachlan found that pretty interesting. I'll let you know as soon as I find out.

Grunter I see you there mate stop stressing have a beer matey your beast will have enough power and torque to tell the ecu to F off dont worry about that....

Racecraft · 04-01-2005, 07:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sylox

Improved it a bit but I dont usually watch the fuel gauge. The 3.9's improved it a heap believe it or not....

That what i was wondering, maybe the fuel consumption improved because the tuning on the J3chip in a way 'crippled' the engine... Did you do the chip and 3.9s in a very short timeframe?

Casper · 04-01-2005, 07:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EFFalcon

isnt the torque reduction only a V8 thing?

Well, the AU auto was never ment to have it at all but the document mentioned said it definatly does. As its the same auto in the V8 and I6 its a good chance it is in both.
Lachlan will certainly find out.

Sylox · 04-01-2005, 08:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Racecraft

That what i was wondering, maybe the fuel consumption improved because the tuning on the J3chip in a way 'crippled' the engine... Did you do the chip and 3.9s in a very short timeframe?

Yeah chip and diff gears were done within about 3 weeks of each other.

The diff gears 3.9's definately helped a lot to decrease fuel consumption on their own.

The chip Improved it a little more again on top of that. And is quicker up top when the torque reduction (if thats the problem) isnt playing Rob the windsor.

AUIIIXR8 · 04-01-2005, 08:09 PM

Sweet! Let me know how it goes. What rpm does the torque reduction operate to? I have a manual computer in mine. But if theres more in the 1500+ rpm range to be had then lets have it!

Tom wait eagerly to hear more...

Sylox · 04-01-2005, 08:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AU2XLSV8

Sweet! Let me know how it goes. What rpm does the torque reduction operate to? I have a manual computer in mine. But if theres more in the 1500+ rpm range to be had then lets have it!

Tom wait eagerly to hear more...

yours would have bugger all reduction in it I would think Tom due to the Manual ecu and the non electronic auto. But who knows. Time will tell

AUIIIXR8 · 04-01-2005, 08:37 PM

I wouldn't think there was a heap of reduction in there. However whilst i turn the tires by stamping on it i don't create a plume of smoke like some? Not that i want to. I suppose i don't need to reduce any reduction as when boost is on i'll only have to increase it again... Can Lachlan increase the reduction in say 1st gear???