What is he thinking?

OldschoolGP · Post by **OldschoolGP** » Mon Dec 12, 2005 8:07 pm

Well the stock A:F ratio falls from 13:1 to 12:1 from 6000-6500rpm. Using this rate, we can predict it will fall to 11:1 at 7000rpm. Now the power increases on the higher end are not denyable. It makes the 3.4 have less of a fall off. So since the power curve falls linerally with the A:F, we can assume you pull fuel to hold the power better.

Straight from your own post, fucktard. You're making assumptions on what the stock programming will do and you have no idea what you're talking about. Phrases like "we can predict that it will fall to 11:1 at 7000RPM." It doesn't, numbnuts. And you're the one that said it. You deduce, in your own words, that an AF ratio going richer leads to less of a fall off in a 3.4. That's not true, you're just guessing because you have no idea how to tune. You say the power curve is linear, and then you deny it when someone calls your bluff. You assume pulling fuel is the answer, you don't know, and you're wrong as usual. It all depends on the engine and how it is set up. Something you wouldn't know anything abouot because you don't know how to make a refined engine, you just know how to throw some homebrew parts on and engine and get your jones by peaking out your power in one spot. Congrats, dufus. You made a spike of power that you still hold over everyone's head. And everyone, even the current owner of the car, realizes how useless it is.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » Mon Dec 12, 2005 8:19 pm

OldschoolGP wrote:
Well the stock A:F ratio falls from 13:1 to 12:1 from 6000-6500rpm. Using this rate, we can predict it will fall to 11:1 at 7000rpm. Now the power increases on the higher end are not denyable. It makes the 3.4 have less of a fall off. So since the power curve falls linerally with the A:F, we can assume you pull fuel to hold the power better.
Straight from your own post, fucktard. You're making assumptions on what the stock programming will do and you have no idea what you're talking about. Phrases like "we can predict that it will fall to 11:1 at 7000RPM." It doesn't, numbnuts. And you're the one that said it. You deduce, in your own words, that an AF ratio going richer leads to less of a fall off in a 3.4. That's not true, you're just guessing because you have no idea how to tune. You say the power curve is linear, and then you deny it when someone calls your bluff. You assume pulling fuel is the answer, you don't know, and you're wrong as usual. It all depends on the engine and how it is set up. Something you wouldn't know anything abouot because you don't know how to make a refined engine, you just know how to throw some homebrew parts on and engine and get your jones by peaking out your power in one spot. Congrats, dufus. You made a spike of power that you still hold over everyone's head. And everyone, even the current owner of the car, realizes how useless it is.

You suck at reading comprehension HARDCORE.

"Now the power increases on the higher end are not denyable. It makes the 3.4 have less of a fall off"

This was referring to Ben's chip. The high end power increases are not denyable, they are very noticable. It makes the 3.4 have a less violent drop in power after 5500.

"So since the power curve falls linerally with the A:F, we can assume you pull fuel to hold the power better."

I never said the 3.4 power curve is linear. I said that the 3.4's A:F curve is linear best we can see after 6000rpm, which it is. And since it probably goes rich for a reason (Which it does), we can expect it to continue on its course without a significant change in slope to 7000rpm. But technically speaking, I do not know that the A:F line will continue down to 11:1, that was a prediction based upon the linear slope of the line from 6000-6500rpm. You say it doesn't fall to 11:1 by 7000rpm? Prove it. Show me a stock dyno where the A:F doesn't fall to 7000rpm.

Furthermore, the car of which I am quoting didn't have a single "homebrew" part on it. It had a brand new GM crate engine with a GM test car trannsmission. And it even had an automatic motor, so it has the lower compression. Other than that, it was set up like every other 3.4 from the factory.

Well my horsepower "spike" as you call it is above the stock level as tested on my red car from the start of the tes to the finish. And yes, my car is a bit peaky on the top end. Amazing what a huge ass throttle body, short header primaries, and stock cam timing will give you. Every one of my bolt ons was made and installed with 4500-8000rpm in mind. And having not dealt with the cams yet, and having a shitty chip, yes, the majority of my car did come in on the high side, and continued to fall off quickly. In the same respects, SRT4s must cuzk because their power spikes. SS Cobalts are slower than shit because their power spikes. Your car must be terrible because your power spikes.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » Mon Dec 12, 2005 8:23 pm

I will lay money down that if somebody tunes Tony's car, and he plays with cam timing with respect to the high end, that once power comes in at 4000, that it will hold this level well past 7000rpm. Now is 3000rpm of good, usable power still a spike? I don't think so considering the factory 284 will keep the car well within its optimal powerband even shifting at 7000, let alone 7500.

OldschoolGP · Post by **OldschoolGP** » Mon Dec 12, 2005 8:42 pm

Here's some more of the genius that is Aaron. Is this where Aaron got the idea to put pinhole leaks in his headers where he welded them to the flanges?

http://www.netphetamine.com/joshherrell ... header.mp3

Engine Fucked Indeed!

SappySE107 · Post by **SappySE107** » Mon Dec 12, 2005 8:56 pm

OldschoolGP · Post by **OldschoolGP** » Mon Dec 12, 2005 9:08 pm

I will lay money down that if somebody tunes Tony's car

As long as that somebody isn't Ben, right?

and he plays with cam timing with respect to the high end, that once power comes in at 4000, that it will hold this level well past 7000rpm

So if Tony does what you couldn't do, right? Continue...

Now is 3000rpm of good, usable power still a spike?

As long as he still has consistent and usuable power up to redline, then it's fine. If his dyno still looks like a candy corn like yours did, then no.

I don't think so considering the factory 284 will keep the car well within its optimal powerband even shifting at 7000, let alone 7500.

Well, you're right about that, but I bet you heard someone else say it first.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » Mon Dec 12, 2005 9:18 pm

I said somebody, and Ben included. So long as the A:F lines are stable and at or near 13:1, and the cam timing is done to benefit the power curve, I will bet your $20 that it will have at least 4000rpm curve above 200whp.

Damn strait I never got around to it. I was/am new to cam timing, it had/has the 92 cogs, and I have since figured out that a FWD 3500lb Lumina will never be a good platform to run 11s in, and 11s were/are my goal. Quite simply, I saw through the piece of shit stamped steel when a Fiero with a bone stock 3.4 beat my 1/4mi time by over a second.

A power spike is when a motor falls off to redline? So LT1s have horrible spike problems, as do TPIs, etc. Look, even though it fell off, after holding the power longer than a stock mtoor might I add, doesn't mean that it is totally unusable. The motor never dropped below stock whp numbers in a racing situation. A peak isn't a problem when your car has the gears to not let it harm you. With an automatic, I'll be the first to admit this motor wouldn't have been much fun. Falling to 4000rpm after each shift would hurt, bad. But with the closely geared 284, it is not really an issue. However that was one of my considerations to decide to use the 94-95 MAF system, it will adjust itself to my mods better so that before tuning I am not so hurt by the 282s longer ratios.

SappySE107 · Post by **SappySE107** » Mon Dec 12, 2005 10:03 pm

SappySE107 · Post by **SappySE107** » Mon Dec 12, 2005 10:05 pm

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » Mon Dec 12, 2005 10:34 pm

SappySE107 wrote:Oh, and keep believing the MAF setup will adjust itself to your mods. Josh, i need napoleon dynamite saying 'idiot!"

I didn't say it would adjust to every one of my mods, but it will do so a lot better than MAP. And I don't expect it to handle the ITBs, headers, and eventually cams. But head work and cam timing I think it is capable of.

Series8217 · Post by **Series8217** » Tue Dec 13, 2005 12:02 am

aaron vs. Ben.. round two... FIGHT!

Blue Shift · Post by **Blue Shift** » Tue Dec 13, 2005 12:03 am

Shao Khan voice: FINISH HIM!

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » Tue Dec 13, 2005 12:06 am

Blue Shift wrote:Shao Khan voice: FINISH HIM!

You want your own tool shoved up your ass?

If not it better be in the mail by Friday.

Series8217 · Post by **Series8217** » Tue Dec 13, 2005 12:06 am

Don't let a-hole use your tool! It might get marinated with some sauce you don't like.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » Tue Dec 13, 2005 12:15 am

Series8217 wrote:Don't let a-hole use your tool! It might get marinated with some sauce you don't like.

Nahhh, my gears are all clean, remember, they're fresh.

Blue Shift · Post by **Blue Shift** » Tue Dec 13, 2005 12:23 am

aaron wrote:
Blue Shift wrote:Shao Khan voice: FINISH HIM!
You want your own tool shoved up your ass?

If not it better be in the mail by Friday.

You'll need a big fuckin tool to leverage my foot outta your ass in a sec!

I'd prefer not to have to subject the (TIMING) tool to gamma, UV, chlorine bleach, alchol, hydrogen peroxide, and more gamma just to kill everything biological on it, thank you.

[Edit: to fix something that sounded sorta gay]