N/A Build! Need Assistance

yoshimitsuspeed
Club4AG MASTER
Posts: 2084
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2013 1:18 pm
Contact:

Re: N/A Build! Need Assistance

Postby yoshimitsuspeed » Mon Nov 17, 2014 12:19 pm

ogdougynutty wrote:From a point of view of just looking at the equation. You can use either idea, but just going off the power is inefficient.


It completely depends on the situation.
For example the N2 dyno. If you are looking for a rough idea of where VE lies as Jeff suggested you could do that using the provided torque graph.
On the other hand if you didn't have the power graph you would have to calculate engine torque by comparing the speed and RPM (this graph just happens to have both which is rare) to give you the gear ratio. Then you could use that to calculate torque for a given RPM and then you would be able to calculate how much work the motor can do.
Or since there is a power graph you can use power and RPM to calculate torque.
In this situation using anything other than power would be inefficient.
Which is best would totally depend on the situation and what information you have available. As long as you have two you can calculate for the third but in most situations wouldn't need to.

Disable adblock

This site is supported by ads and donations.
If you see this text you are blocking our ads.
Please consider a Donation to support the site.


ogdougynutty
Club4AG Enthusiast
Posts: 134
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2013 9:07 am

Re: N/A Build! Need Assistance

Postby ogdougynutty » Mon Nov 17, 2014 12:52 pm

But that sort of situation doesn't exist, (or if it does) shouldn't in my mind. You can't have a power graph without a torque graph plain a simple. So if you have the power you automatically have the the other. And when don't you do dyno pulls in a 1:1 gear ratio? Yes you still have a rear gear, but once again if you have a power graph you have to have a torque graph and everything calculated correctly.

But on the other hand you can have a torque graph without a power graph. It is better to check components of the whole rather than just the whole itself, that idea damn near applies to everything.

yoshimitsuspeed
Club4AG MASTER
Posts: 2084
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2013 1:18 pm
Contact:

Re: N/A Build! Need Assistance

Postby yoshimitsuspeed » Mon Nov 17, 2014 1:55 pm

ogdougynutty wrote:But that sort of situation doesn't exist, (or if it does) shouldn't in my mind. You can't have a power graph without a torque graph plain a simple. So if you have the power you automatically have the the other. And when don't you do dyno pulls in a 1:1 gear ratio?

The only time a dyno will be a 1:1 ratio is on an engine dyno with no gearbox.
A chassis dyno will most definitely not be 1:1. Even if it's close it will not be exact enough to count on because you have trans gear ratio, diff gear ratio and then tire diameter that are all effecting the ratio.
To calculate power from torque produced at the wheel you need to know the RPM of the wheel not the motor. If you have that info then it would work the same.
Once again we can return to the FA dyno.
At 5000 RPM it's making 400 NM at the wheels or 295 LB-ft.
One way we can solve for crank torque would be using power and RPM.

It makes 100 HP at 5000 RPM so it's making 105 lb ft of torque at the crank. Therefore the transmission (torque multiplier) is operating at a ratio of 295/105 = 2.8:1. This means the wheels are spinning 2.8 times slower than the engine so 2.8/5000 so the wheels are spinning at 1786 RPM.
1786 RPM and 295 lb ft torque make 100 HP.

burdickjp
Club4AG Expert
Posts: 343
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 6:39 pm
Location: Richmond, VA

Re: N/A Build! Need Assistance

Postby burdickjp » Mon Nov 17, 2014 1:58 pm

yoshimitsuspeed wrote:Sadly no I am not but I say that because the only people I don't get in this argument with are physicists and engineers. They either say "yup you are right".
Or "well duh, you don't need to be a physicist or engineer to realize that". But apparently you do.


I just checked. My resume still says "mechanical engineer".

Even in simple dynamics problems there are many ways to look at things:
You can look at position, velocity, and acceleration
You can look at momentum and impulse
You can look at conservation of energy and power

Your example was very poorly worded, but correct in its context. You've finally come around to being coherent. Congratulations. But you're still wrong about power.

There are cases where one is much more useful and easier to digest than the others. Collision examples lend themselves well to momentum and impulse, for example. While they can be solved with pos, vel, accel it is rather messy.

Torque is intuitive. It is proportional to VE and proportional to acceleration. Those are both very important things, and is what we're trying to maximize when tuning. Power is not proportional to VE or acceleration. It is USELESS when tuning. Power is useful when comparing engines which are otherwise very different, such as having very different operating RPM ranges, as in your example. It's useful when specifying electric motors for your mill, or driving a blower. There are many cases where it is useful, but it is not the end-game one-and-only answer to all things that you are purporting it to be. Power isn't Jesus.

yoshimitsuspeed wrote:One way we can solve for crank torque would be using power and RPM.

That's not crank torque. It's not accounting for any losses between the crank and the wheels. It is about the closest you're going to get in the situation. The same conclusion can be achieved through gear ratio calculations and wheel torque. You don't need power to get there.
Pursuing the ideal

Disable adblock

This site is supported by ads and donations.
If you see this text you are blocking our ads.
Please consider a Donation to support the site.


ogdougynutty
Club4AG Enthusiast
Posts: 134
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2013 9:07 am

Re: N/A Build! Need Assistance

Postby ogdougynutty » Mon Nov 17, 2014 2:11 pm

^ Hey same here, except I'm an Computer Engineering Major and have already completed all my physics and math courses lol.

But if you are taking the power from the chassis dyno and calculating the torque from that,then you are getting the torque at the WHEELS.

Power is calculated not measure. Torque is measured and where ever you measure the torque, that is the power. So if the torque is multiplied by what ever so will the power at the same point on measurement. Be it wheels or crank.

yoshimitsuspeed
Club4AG MASTER
Posts: 2084
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2013 1:18 pm
Contact:

Re: N/A Build! Need Assistance

Postby yoshimitsuspeed » Mon Nov 17, 2014 2:25 pm

burdickjp wrote:
yoshimitsuspeed wrote:Sadly no I am not but I say that because the only people I don't get in this argument with are physicists and engineers. They either say "yup you are right".
Or "well duh, you don't need to be a physicist or engineer to realize that". But apparently you do.


I just checked. My resume still says "mechanical engineer".

Even in simple dynamics problems there are many ways to look at things:
You can look at position, velocity, and acceleration
You can look at momentum and impulse
You can look at conservation of energy and power

Your example was very poorly worded, but correct in its context. You've finally come around to being coherent. Congratulations. But you're still wrong about power.

There are cases where one is much more useful and easier to digest than the others. Collision examples lend themselves well to momentum and impulse, for example. While they can be solved with pos, vel, accel it is rather messy.

Torque is intuitive. It is proportional to VE and proportional to acceleration. Those are both very important things, and is what we're trying to maximize when tuning. Power is not proportional to VE or acceleration. It is USELESS when tuning. Power is useful when comparing engines which are otherwise very different, such as having very different operating RPM ranges, as in your example. It's useful when specifying electric motors for your mill, or driving a blower. There are many cases where it is useful, but it is not the end-game one-and-only answer to all things that you are purporting it to be. Power isn't Jesus.


This whole debate started with me showing that the three motors produced similar power, output, ability to do work over time.
You argued that the torque was different so something had to be wrong.
When it comes to determining how fast a car will accelerate power is Jesus. You can say that it's not. You can say that all you need is torque and RPM but that is power.
I don't understand how you can come close to wrapping your mind around all this but still seem confused that the torque on the FA dyno is different. More importantly I'm not sure where you got your calculation of it making less torque down low when on the graph it's making 2.8 times more torque than the other two. Yes I realize that doesn't mean anything in it's self because it's wheel torque but it's the only other place I can assume you got it. Otherwise you can just use power and RPM to figure out how much torque it's making at the crank. And yes this doesn't factor for the drivetrain loss but nothing does. Like you said it's as close as you are going to get without an engine dyno.
So yes if you like to use torque to tune that's fine. As long as you understand that torque means nothing as far as calculating work until an RPM is applied. Once that happens you have power.
The problem with this and the reason I focus on power is because most people don't understand these things.
They think that a truck can pull a lot of weight or accelerate really fast because it makes 1200 lb ft of torque. They don't understand that if it's making that at 100 RPM it's not doing $#! for work. They don't understand that 1200 lb ft at 100 RPM is not the same thing as 1200 lb ft at 1000 RPM or that a motor making 120 lb ft at 1000 RPM is capable of doing the same amount of work as a motor that makes 1200 lb ft at 100 RPM.

If you prefer to look at the torque chart that's fine but if you are trying to compare the capability of different motors (even if they aren't all that different) you need torque and RPM AKA power to know what either is actually capable of or to compare that capability.

User avatar
oldeskewltoy
Club4AG MASTER
Posts: 2028
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 4:44 pm
Location: Portland, Oregon

Re: N/A Build! Need Assistance

Postby oldeskewltoy » Mon Nov 17, 2014 2:32 pm

yoshimitsuspeed wrote:Once again we can return to the FA dyno.
At 5000 RPM it's making 400 NM at the wheels or 295 LB-ft.
One way we can solve for crank torque would be using power and RPM.

It makes 100 HP at 5000 RPM so it's making 105 lb ft of torque at the crank. Therefore the transmission (torque multiplier) is operating at a ratio of 295/105 = 2.8:1. This means the wheels are spinning 2.8 times slower than the engine so 2.8/5000 so the wheels are spinning at 1786 RPM.
1786 RPM and 295 lb ft torque make 100 HP.


Image


I assume you are mixing F/A and N2???

Also... I'm going to tell ALL of you... there isn't a standard stroke N/A 4A engine ANYWHERE that plants 295#/ft NO WHERE IN THE WORLD!! Breaking 170#/ft at the crank is phenomenal!!
OST Cyl head porting, - viewtopic.php?f=22&t=300

Building a great engine takes knowing the end... before you begin :ugeek:

Enjoy Life... its the only one you get!

yoshimitsuspeed
Club4AG MASTER
Posts: 2084
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2013 1:18 pm
Contact:

Re: N/A Build! Need Assistance

Postby yoshimitsuspeed » Tue Nov 18, 2014 7:22 am

oldeskewltoy wrote:
yoshimitsuspeed wrote:
I assume you are mixing F/A and N2???

Also... I'm going to tell ALL of you... there isn't a standard stroke N/A 4A engine ANYWHERE that plants 295#/ft NO WHERE IN THE WORLD!! Breaking 170#/ft at the crank is phenomenal!!

On the website they say it's an N2 spec car with an FA motor so I never know what to call it.
http://www.linkecu.com/newsfromlink/trd ... a-g4-storm

And again for like the dozenth time that torque is at the wheels. That number is the crank torque being multiplied by the drivetrain.

burdickjp
Club4AG Expert
Posts: 343
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 6:39 pm
Location: Richmond, VA

Re: N/A Build! Need Assistance

Postby burdickjp » Tue Nov 18, 2014 7:58 am

yoshimitsuspeed wrote:On the website they say it's an N2 spec car with an FA motor so I never know what to call it.


Call it an unreliable source.
Pursuing the ideal

User avatar
oldeskewltoy
Club4AG MASTER
Posts: 2028
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 4:44 pm
Location: Portland, Oregon

Re: N/A Build! Need Assistance

Postby oldeskewltoy » Tue Nov 18, 2014 9:24 am

yoshimitsuspeed wrote:And again for like the dozenth time that torque is at the wheels. That number is the crank torque being multiplied by the drivetrain.



Hmmmm interesting... so you are saying that there is a drivetrain multiplier... not drivetrain loss? That his engine is producing less #/ftt, but do to the transmission and drivetrain, it multiplies the reading??? Do you really want to stand by that statement?


The dyno should show a loss... not a gain.




OP.... viewtopic.php?f=16&t=13921 - $500 is CHEAP
OST Cyl head porting, - viewtopic.php?f=22&t=300

Building a great engine takes knowing the end... before you begin :ugeek:

Enjoy Life... its the only one you get!

burdickjp
Club4AG Expert
Posts: 343
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 6:39 pm
Location: Richmond, VA

Re: N/A Build! Need Assistance

Postby burdickjp » Tue Nov 18, 2014 11:15 am

oldeskewltoy wrote:The dyno should show a loss... not a gain.


The dyno is recording torque at the wheels. The drivetrain multiplies torque depending on the chosen gear. That is why you accelerate faster in lower gears. It's torque multiplication.
A properly set up dyno will know the engine speed to roller speed ratio and compensate appropriately.
Last edited by burdickjp on Tue Nov 18, 2014 11:17 am, edited 1 time in total.
Pursuing the ideal

yoshimitsuspeed
Club4AG MASTER
Posts: 2084
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2013 1:18 pm
Contact:

Re: N/A Build! Need Assistance

Postby yoshimitsuspeed » Tue Nov 18, 2014 11:15 am

oldeskewltoy wrote:
yoshimitsuspeed wrote:And again for like the dozenth time that torque is at the wheels. That number is the crank torque being multiplied by the drivetrain.



Hmmmm interesting... so you are saying that there is a drivetrain multiplier... not drivetrain loss? That his engine is producing less #/ftt, but do to the transmission and drivetrain, it multiplies the reading??? Do you really want to stand by that statement?


The dyno should show a loss... not a gain.


The engines power passes through a transmission and diff. Also known as a torque multiplier. It then passes that power to the wheels which change the ratio again depending on their diameter.
To simplify the equation I am going to eliminate all those variables except for one gear ratio.
Let's say we have a three speed transmission hooked straight to an engine dyno.
First gear is a 2:1 ratio meaning the motor spins two times for the trans output and dyno spinning once.
Second gear is a 1:1 ratio so the motor turns once and the dyno spins once.
Third gear is a 1:2 ratio so the motor spins once the dyno spins twice.
For this I am not going to include drivetrain loss. Just the basic numbers of torque and ratios.
Now let's say the motor makes 100 lb ft at 1000 RPM. I like simple round numbers.
That equates to 19 hp.
In first gear the transmission is spinning once for the motors every two so it's spinning 500 RPM. The gear reduction causes a torque multiplication.
So now the dyno is seeing 200 lb ft at 500 RPM.
This equates to 19 HP.

In second gear the motor spins once the dyno spins once. Now the dyno is seeing 100 lb ft at 1000 RPM.
Again this is 19 hp.

In third gear the motor spins once and the dyno spins twice. The dyno is now seeing 50 lb ft at 2000 RPM.
This is also 19 HP.

The motor is doing the same amount of work. The transmission is changing the ratio of force and speed.
This is exactly why torque doesn't mean $#! till you add RPMs and can quantify power. If you have enough power you can multiply it to get whatever torque and RPM you want on the output. If you don't have enough power you will never get enough done. You can multiply torque but it will apply greater force more slowly.

Now in real world there would be drivetrain loss from the transmission so it would not read exactly the same.
If the motor produced 100 lb ft at 1000 RPM the dyno may read 90 lb ft at 1000 RPM. That would be your drivetrain loss.

Am I willing to stand behind this?

http://www.hotrod.com/how-to/transmissi ... ear-works/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gear_ratio
http://www.calcunation.com/calculators/ ... reaser.php

User avatar
oldeskewltoy
Club4AG MASTER
Posts: 2028
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 4:44 pm
Location: Portland, Oregon

Re: N/A Build! Need Assistance

Postby oldeskewltoy » Tue Nov 18, 2014 2:55 pm

I understand about mechanical advantage....

What doesn't make sense to me... is the dyno is supposed to calculate that into the equation... there is little reason to post the gear calculated torque... because it changes with gears......

as an example.... my car...

3rd gear pull - http://vimeo.com/37280876 - 110#/ft
4th gear pull - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3nNBXLOvc8 - 108#/ft

The dyno corrects for the gearing and the 2 #s are very similar....



Also... the HP figure since it uses torque to calculate it, is it correct, or also "gear adjusted"?

The point I'm trying to make with the dyno sheet... is it seems to have unreliable information... none of it can be backed up
OST Cyl head porting, - viewtopic.php?f=22&t=300

Building a great engine takes knowing the end... before you begin :ugeek:

Enjoy Life... its the only one you get!

yoshimitsuspeed
Club4AG MASTER
Posts: 2084
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2013 1:18 pm
Contact:

Re: N/A Build! Need Assistance

Postby yoshimitsuspeed » Tue Nov 18, 2014 3:48 pm

I completely agree that putting wheel torque on a dyno graph is idiotic and useless. It is done all the time though. Just as frustrating is when they only put MPH and not RPM. These units are useless to us but the fact is that these are much closer to the inputs that the dyno is seeing. A chassis dyno doesn't get to see how much torque the engine is making. A load type dyno will see the force the wheels are applying to the dyno or wheel torque. It then takes wheel torque and RPM to calculate power. If it has an input to monitor engine RPM it can compare engine RPM to drum RPM and can then calculate crank torque.
In your dynos this is what happened. The computer is taking all the data and then calculating what engine torque would be. An inertia dyno will take the known mass and acceleration to determine the force being applied to the drum and then will take RPM to calculate the power. Again it will then calculate the torque at the crank based off that info. So to display crank torque on a chassis dyno graph does take extra steps and calculations.

As I showed in my examples above the power figure will be correct as long as the calculations are made off the correct components.

As an example let's take a dyno snapshot and say that the dyno sees 100 lb ft of torque with the rollers spinning 1000 RPM. At that moment the tach input is reading 2000 RPM. So now the dyno program knows the motor is spinning twice as fast as the rollers.
Option 1. is for the dyno to graph 100 lb ft at 1000 RPM. Or it can do the extra calculation and graph the motors RPM which is double (2000) and graph the motors torque which is half (50). The power being produced at both locations is the same (minus drivetrain loss) so the calculation of power will be correct as long as the dyno is comparing torque at the roller vs RPM at the roller. In a situation like the FA/N2 dyno where the dyno graphed the torque it is seeing at the rollers we can calculate torque if it's important to know. Or in some cases just to show people that their NA 1.6 liter isn't in fact making the 400 lb ft of torque that they believe it is because the dyno says so.

User avatar
jondee86
Moderator
Posts: 2654
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2013 10:21 pm
Location: Wellington, New Zealand

Re: N/A Build! Need Assistance

Postby jondee86 » Tue Nov 18, 2014 4:00 pm

While talking to the operator of a Dynapack hub dynomometer yesterday,
he confirmed that the dyno measures torque and rpm at the hub/s. The runs are
always done in 4th gear (1:1 ratio) and once the diff ratio is entered, the dyno
outputs the wheel torque and wheel power graphs.

Image

The Dynapack eliminates any variations due to tire pressure, wheel diameter or
slippage, and gives an accurate measurement of torque/power delivered to the
wheel at the hub. There is no BS back calculation of engine power by guessing at
transmission losses.

Not sure where this thread is going or why it takes so many pages to establish that...
YES... Power is proportional to torque times rpm

Being that most of us live in some kind of democracy, and each person is entitled to
their own opinion, I'm not sure that it is necessary to expend this much time and
energy on attempting to prove that "my opinion is bigger than yours" :roll:

My apologies for interrupting... please carry on :lol:

Cheers... jondee86

PS: This thread needs more pictures !!!
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress
depends on the unreasonable man.

User avatar
oldeskewltoy
Club4AG MASTER
Posts: 2028
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 4:44 pm
Location: Portland, Oregon

Re: N/A Build! Need Assistance

Postby oldeskewltoy » Tue Nov 18, 2014 5:27 pm

jondee86 wrote:Being that most of us live in some kind of democracy, and each person is entitled to
their own opinion, I'm not sure that it is necessary to expend this much time and
energy on attempting to prove that "my opinion is bigger than yours" :roll:

My apologies for interrupting... please carry on :lol:

Cheers... jondee86

PS: This thread needs more pictures !!!



:lol: :lol: :lol:

I was just about to come back to this thread and apologize to the OP for getting sucked into the yoshi, and burdickjp show... I tried to stay out of it... but it was just too much of a lure.... to the OP... my apologies for contributing to abuse of opinion
OST Cyl head porting, - viewtopic.php?f=22&t=300

Building a great engine takes knowing the end... before you begin :ugeek:

Enjoy Life... its the only one you get!

yoshimitsuspeed
Club4AG MASTER
Posts: 2084
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2013 1:18 pm
Contact:

Re: N/A Build! Need Assistance

Postby yoshimitsuspeed » Tue Nov 18, 2014 7:04 pm

jondee86 wrote:
Being that most of us live in some kind of democracy, and each person is entitled to
their own opinion, I'm not sure that it is necessary to expend this much time and
energy on attempting to prove that "my opinion is bigger than yours" :roll:


oldeskewltoy wrote:
I was just about to come back to this thread and apologize to the OP for getting sucked into the yoshi, and burdickjp show... I tried to stay out of it... but it was just too much of a lure.... to the OP... my apologies for contributing to abuse of opinion


It has nothing to do with the opinions. Everyone can gave their own.
For me it's about the science and the understanding of it. The better we all understand the science behind what is going on the better we can help the OP and future members. The more we talk about it the better we all start to understand it and how others in the community see it.

To be quite honest in this thread I'm not really sure how things got so carried away. At first it seemed to me ogdougynutty and burdickjp didn't have a grasp of what I was trying to say when they obviously know the math and theory. Maybe just a misunderstanding? I'm not sure.
Whatever the case I have to give props to both of them for trying to continue an intelligent conversation trying to use facts, math, science and sources. I am a little rusty because usually when this topic comes up I am trying to have a discussion with
My daddy taute me that torque is more important than power and there aint nothin you can do to convince me otherwise because I know 100% with all my heart that you are wrong


I hope the sidetrack hasn't taken anything away from the direction the OP wanted the thread to go but I consider this to be vital information when it comes to any build so it seems relevant to me.

burdickjp
Club4AG Expert
Posts: 343
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 6:39 pm
Location: Richmond, VA

Re: N/A Build! Need Assistance

Postby burdickjp » Tue Nov 18, 2014 8:00 pm

I'll have to concur.

I think it's been a somewhat productive, if meandering, conversation.
While I don't think it's been good for this specific thread, it may be productive overall.

To get back on track; there is something which above 16v PonCam dyno shows which I find very appealing, and that's a relatively flat torque curve for a broad RPM range. This is something the 4A-G seems to do well, especially compared to similar 1.6L engines, such as the Honda B16.
It's something I strive for, and am going to lengths to achieve. Beyond the obvious compression and cam combination, I'm looking at testing staggered intake runners and staggered exhaust runners. Rather than stacking all of the VE adders together, producing more peak torque at one point, this will produce a wider and flatter torque curve. This makes for more linear power delivery, and more predictable throttle response.
I don't think this is the solution for everybody, as extreme VE differences between cylinders requires individual cylinder trim, which is rather time consuming, but I'm looking forward to this testing and seeing how it affects performance.
Pursuing the ideal

AE Harold.
Club4AG Regular
Posts: 33
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2014 5:56 pm

Re: N/A Build! Need Assistance

Postby AE Harold. » Fri Nov 21, 2014 12:37 pm

oldeskewltoy wrote:
AE Harold. wrote:

THIS is important.... ***IF*** you want to be anywhere near clean... you need to chose VERY carefully... The more duration you add, the less chance of passing emissions. The 193B will likely never pass... this is primarily because most emissions based states require a maximum idle speed... the overlap on the 193b, will never be clean at typical emissions based maximum idle speeds. In other words... the 193B is not likely to idle smooth enough @ under 1200 rpm that it will be clean for a sniffer.

One of my head builds using 264 type cams did pass Cally emissions with a tiny bit of ignition adjustment. My engine (uses 264 type cams) passes Oregon emissions with a dual stage cat and some ignition trickery - I have aftermarket engine managment. I don't remember if yoshi's customers engine passed... but I'm sure he can tell us.

If you are currently using a completely stock 4AGE in your AE86, and you love it... you don't NEED radical.... you just want more....

Another P.O.V.
correctly ported largeport head, OEM high comp pistons w/light weight wrist pins, blacktop, or aftermarket rods, a 256 type camshaft, and all the careful build info we can offer... This should get you a nice bump* in power, while maintaining idle quality, and emissions. All while retaining all the stock management

How much of a bump? Over what you currently have... a used 30 year old stock engine... a minimum of 25%.... over a brand new stock 4AGE, 15%, or more. All while maintaining emissions compliance. yes it is a conservative build.... but that doesn't mean it will be dull.


Oh... it will also work on the track....

Image


Sorry for the long reply. Been working and real busy.
So the poncams would be best for what I want. A really good rebuild with pistons, cams, and some head work should be a success to what I want.
Once again I do would like to install itbs to my 16v. Im hoping that won't be a problem correct? I know I will have to run an aftermarket engine management system in order to run the itbs efficiently and run a good vacuum distribution.

burdickjp
Club4AG Expert
Posts: 343
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 6:39 pm
Location: Richmond, VA

Re: N/A Build! Need Assistance

Postby burdickjp » Fri Nov 21, 2014 8:04 pm

Dan is normally in favor of attaching the entire 20v intake manifold to the 16V head with some form of an adapter.
That I understand it, the perceived advantages for this are that it is all-inclusive.

I am not a fan of the 20v intake manifold for a number of reasons:
- It uses side feed injectors, making the sourcing of newer, better injectors more difficult
- The included vacuum rail is goofy
- it does not entirely solve external vacuum routing

I suggest getting a manifold for the throttles themselves and grabbing a vacuum block. Mount it on the manifold if you'd like. Use it for your vacuum reference. Attach your brake booster. Attach your idle air control valve, if you want to use one.

You can get vacuum blocks from industrial supply warehouses for not a lot of money, and they're not ugly.

For tuning I'd grab a megasquirt 3 and use table blending to blend from a MAP load table to a TPS load table, or a megasquirt 2 (or microsquirt) and table switching. ITB load mode is just glorified and unnecessarily complicated table switching. In my opinion table blending is more effective, but unavailable on MS2, so table switching is simpler.
Pursuing the ideal

yoshimitsuspeed
Club4AG MASTER
Posts: 2084
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2013 1:18 pm
Contact:

Re: N/A Build! Need Assistance

Postby yoshimitsuspeed » Sat Nov 22, 2014 9:20 am

AE Harold. wrote:
Sorry for the long reply. Been working and real busy.
So the poncams would be best for what I want. A really good rebuild with pistons, cams, and some head work should be a success to what I want.
Once again I do would like to install itbs to my 16v. Im hoping that won't be a problem correct? I know I will have to run an aftermarket engine management system in order to run the itbs efficiently and run a good vacuum distribution.


Personally I don't feel like it would be worth stepping up to engine management with the poncams. Yes being able to tune it would give you the opportunity to grab a little more power but enough to be worth the time and effort? Generally IMO, no.
Same with ITBs. At that power level they are purely a glam mod. The time and money it would take to Add both engine management and ITBs would be very great while the gains would not.
Others may feel differently but personally if I was going to take the time to do engine management and ITBs I would do an internal build that at least started to take advantage of that. If you will be happy with poncams I think you would be happy with them on the stock ECU and a lot more money left in your pocket.

yoshimitsuspeed
Club4AG MASTER
Posts: 2084
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2013 1:18 pm
Contact:

Re: N/A Build! Need Assistance

Postby yoshimitsuspeed » Sat Nov 22, 2014 9:23 am

burdickjp wrote:Dan is normally in favor of attaching the entire 20v intake manifold to the 16V head with some form of an adapter.
That I understand it, the perceived advantages for this are that it is all-inclusive.

I am not a fan of the 20v intake manifold for a number of reasons:
- It uses side feed injectors, making the sourcing of newer, better injectors more difficult
- The included vacuum rail is goofy
- it does not entirely solve external vacuum routing


There are a ton of options for side feeds from OEM replacements like 380 and 440 all the way up to aftermarket in the 1000cc range.

What do you mean about external vacuum routing?

burdickjp
Club4AG Expert
Posts: 343
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 6:39 pm
Location: Richmond, VA

Re: N/A Build! Need Assistance

Postby burdickjp » Sat Nov 22, 2014 11:30 am

yoshimitsuspeed wrote:There are a ton of options for side feeds from OEM replacements like 380 and 440 all the way up to aftermarket in the 1000cc range.

What do you mean about external vacuum routing?


380cc injectors are rather large for an N/A 4A-G, and with larger than necessary injectors comes disadvantages with injector timing, fuel atomization, etc.

The mess of tubes and lines under the ITBs. That vacuum crap.
Pursuing the ideal

yoshimitsuspeed
Club4AG MASTER
Posts: 2084
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2013 1:18 pm
Contact:

Re: N/A Build! Need Assistance

Postby yoshimitsuspeed » Sat Nov 22, 2014 2:18 pm

burdickjp wrote:
yoshimitsuspeed wrote:There are a ton of options for side feeds from OEM replacements like 380 and 440 all the way up to aftermarket in the 1000cc range.

What do you mean about external vacuum routing?


380cc injectors are rather large for an N/A 4A-G, and with larger than necessary injectors comes disadvantages with injector timing, fuel atomization, etc.


There are plenty of other sizes available I was just pointing out sizes that were commonly used and readily available. They are also small enough to not have any issues with idling or atomization.

User avatar
oldeskewltoy
Club4AG MASTER
Posts: 2028
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 4:44 pm
Location: Portland, Oregon

Re: N/A Build! Need Assistance

Postby oldeskewltoy » Sat Nov 22, 2014 4:24 pm

The Pon cams do not need ITBs, or an aftermarket ECU... As yoshi points out they will add a LOT of expense with little or no... or possibly negative gains. Negative gains... incomplete tuning, ITB's improperly installed, or set....
OST Cyl head porting, - viewtopic.php?f=22&t=300

Building a great engine takes knowing the end... before you begin :ugeek:

Enjoy Life... its the only one you get!

burdickjp
Club4AG Expert
Posts: 343
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 6:39 pm
Location: Richmond, VA

Re: N/A Build! Need Assistance

Postby burdickjp » Sat Nov 22, 2014 5:39 pm

yoshimitsuspeed wrote:There are plenty of other sizes available I was just pointing out sizes that were commonly used and readily available. They are also small enough to not have any issues with idling or atomization.


Why bother when the 16v 4A head is provisioned for top feed injectors and there are bunches upon bunches of superior top-feed injectors available for them? I'm a firm believer in running the smallest injectors you can get away with for your performance goal unless there are exceptional injectors available which warrant consideration. There are no truly exceptional side-feed injectors.

oldeskewltoy wrote:The Pon cams do not need ITBs, or an aftermarket ECU... As yoshi points out they will add a LOT of expense with little or no... or possibly negative gains. Negative gains... incomplete tuning, ITB's improperly installed, or set....


The FIRST thing I do to my cars is install an ECU. It has many, many benefits, the foremost of which is datalogging.
Having datalogs is the first step toward quantifying changes.
PonCams and a good bump in compression will definitely benefit from an aftermarket ECU.
Adjusting ITBs is not difficult, nor is tuning them. While I wouldn't jump straight into them, I would not completely discount them. Building an engine and keeping the bigport manifold with the intention of swapping out for ITBs would be a good stepping-stone path.
Pursuing the ideal

User avatar
oldeskewltoy
Club4AG MASTER
Posts: 2028
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 4:44 pm
Location: Portland, Oregon

Re: N/A Build! Need Assistance

Postby oldeskewltoy » Sat Nov 22, 2014 8:36 pm

depending on what emission standards Fla has... the OEM management may be required.....

And yes... **IF** the ITBs are set correctly they wont be a problem.... but the real issue is the thoroughness of the tune... I've yet to see ANY aftermarket ECU tuned for 100% of the conditions the factory unit can handle...
OST Cyl head porting, - viewtopic.php?f=22&t=300

Building a great engine takes knowing the end... before you begin :ugeek:

Enjoy Life... its the only one you get!

User avatar
Rogue-AE95
Club4AG Expert
Posts: 468
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2013 4:03 pm
Location: Tampa Bay, FL

Re: N/A Build! Need Assistance

Postby Rogue-AE95 » Sun Nov 23, 2014 6:33 am

oldeskewltoy wrote:depending on what emission standards Fla has... the OEM management may be required.....


FL has no emissions. At least I've never had to get any of my cars inspected in 18 years.

And yes... **IF** the ITBs are set correctly they wont be a problem.... but the real issue is the thoroughness of the tune... I've yet to see ANY aftermarket ECU tuned for 100% of the conditions the factory unit can handle...


If you mean aftermarket ECUs in general, then what about a chipped Honda ECU? I know I bring it up a lot, but that's mostly because I'm seriously re-thinking about going that route for my 4A-GE.
'88 Corolla All-Trac

burdickjp
Club4AG Expert
Posts: 343
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 6:39 pm
Location: Richmond, VA

Re: N/A Build! Need Assistance

Postby burdickjp » Sun Nov 23, 2014 8:08 am

Rogue-AE95 wrote:If you mean aftermarket ECUs in general, then what about a chipped Honda ECU? I know I bring it up a lot, but that's mostly because I'm seriously re-thinking about going that route for my 4A-GE.


My introduction to tuning was with Hondas and I am a Neptune dealer. While going the OBD-1 Honda route will get you probably a third of the way to a properly tuned car, and general tuning will get you that next third, I believe the limitations of the hardware will stop you there.
I'm not a big fan of OBD-1 Honda tuning software. Crome doesn't do bad. ECTune is probably better. I'm really not a big fan of MOST tuning software.

There's really no reason NOT to go megasquirt on a 4A-G. It handles everything a 4A is capable of just fine, and there's a whole gift basket of hardware depending on what your budget and involvement level is.

If you're not in the mood to do any assembly, there's the MegaSquirtPNP. You unplug your stock ECU and plug the MSPNP into your factory harness.
If you are comfortable with some assembly, or know someone who is, the DIYPNP is a good option. Directions are straight-forward. I can assemble them in an afternoon. At the end of assembly you have a PNP which plugs straight into your factory harness. An advantage of a DIYPNP over an MSPNP is flexibility and expandability in the future.
If for some reason you want new wiring, then you may want to look at doing a microsquirt. This was my introduction to MegaSquirt hardware. They're well packaged, capable, and inexpensive. A good stepping stone here may be a microsquirt and breakout box with the intention of doing a full rewiring down the road to ditch the breakout box, which is the method I used for my second 20v swap, as it came with a nice harness.
A similar option to the microsquirt would be the MS3-Pro, but the difference in price I don't feel warrants the difference in features with MS2-based hardware like the microsquirt. The MS3-Pro runs on MS3 hardware, which is VERY capable. I wouldn't dive straight into MS3 hardware, though, unless you have a tuner who's familiar with them.

If you are comfortable with both wiring and assembly you can go full megasquirt. I'm currently running a MegaSquirt 3 with MS3X on my Corolla, and have been steward to an MS3-Pro on the Southern Illinois University FSAE team's racecar. There are some easy ways to do some pretty cool things with MegaSquirt which would be both difficult and expensive with other hardware. I've been doing a lot of cool CAN Bus projects recently using Arduinos.
Pursuing the ideal

AE Harold.
Club4AG Regular
Posts: 33
Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2014 5:56 pm

Re: N/A Build! Need Assistance

Postby AE Harold. » Sun Nov 23, 2014 4:59 pm

I would like to run the itbs because in my opinion they sound awesome and give the engine bay a bit more style to it. But ill probably put on hold for now, maybe later on in the future if I go for a more serious track build.

NOW! Ive got some great information. This friday that passed I decided to perform a dry compression test on my current 16V 4Age to see whats up. Ive read that good compression on the 16v should be around 170-180psi. Amazingly all four cylinders pushed out 180psi! I know when I bought the car 2 years ago the seller told me he rebuilt it but never gave my any specs or info on it. All he said was that he was going to put a 20v head on it but never had the chance to. The only modification that I can see that the previous owner has done is that he swapped in a 20v TPMS.
Since my current 4age has great compression all across. Can I install the poncams, perform a good head job, and maybe a ted head gasket to bump up compression?

Disable adblock

This site is supported by ads and donations.
If you see this text you are blocking our ads.
Please consider a Donation to support the site.



Return to “TECH: 4A-GE ENGINE”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests