What is he thinking?

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » Fri Dec 09, 2005 7:03 pm

SappySE107 wrote: "ok here goes. i guess it was just done racing, at 130k miles i guess it just didnt want to go to 7k anymore" - aaron on spinning his bearing

http://www.w-body.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5895

Read:

BEARING

The issue with my bearings has been taken care of on the new motor. The rods have been proven on seperate occasions to 400hp and 7500hp. I doubt 150 less horsepower and 500 more RPM is going to hurt them to the point of being a risk. And if so, then they break. And then I will know the block's limits and can set out on fixing them. No reason to fix what isn't broken. And considering I will only be running 7000rpm and a mostly stock DOHC to begin with, there is no reason for me to build the block to support mods I don't have done, and for parts that I don't think will break.

Series8217 · Post by **Series8217** » Fri Dec 09, 2005 7:31 pm

aaron wrote:The rods have been proven on seperate occasions to 400hp and 7500hp.

You mean 7500 rpm.

SappySE107 · Post by **SappySE107** » Fri Dec 09, 2005 7:52 pm

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » Fri Dec 09, 2005 8:52 pm

SappySE107 wrote:your intake setup is more likley for 9000+.

Then I'll add a few inches to the runners. Wow that was hard...

"I will still be building my independant throttle body setup, and I will dyno it on my red car, and then sell it. It is perfect in every respect, and the best intake that could EVER be put on a N/A engine"

Your point? It is true. Maybe not mine in peticular, but there is no beating the independent throttle body setup, whether you want high or low RPM. Or even boost.

I can't tune for shit, but i mean, you should buy my chips?
http://www.w-body.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=31447

"I have searched but...where can I buy a DOHC computer chip." - ChadZ34

"www.60degreev6.com/store

Very good investment." - aaron in july of 05

Again, your point? If he wants to buy a chip, your chip is the way to go. Although expensive, it offers the most performance gains, and you update it for free. Now I have proof that the factory A:F ratios up to 6000 are damn enar perfect, but after that, they do go rich, and power goes down. If someone wants a chip, your's is a good investment IMHO. Although I think you overrate your own work, burning these chips isn't very difficult, and there isn't much that nees to be done as far as fueling goes on a stock MPFI setup.

[quote
aaron trying to argue his intelligence with a shop owner with a dyno. The great debater at work! Notice all the incorrect shit he states, like "got 198 hp on a stock motor" or his thinking that the flow numbers mean everything when it comes to performance.
[/quote]

Sorry, he gained 20whp with an exhaust that doesn't help and a chip that didn't need to be done. And this is assuming his motor runs better than mine, and I have a brand new fucking crate engine. Sorry, I doubt it runs stronger than mine stock for stock.

And don't even deny you didn't doubt his claims. Wet flow is great, but there is only so much you can do. And the restriction isn't the heads when they flow 280cfm stock. The exhaust could use help, but I'm not seeing 80 wheel horsepower, from heads, exahust, and tuning. There is not that kind of power to be had from working on these heads. You know it as well as I do. If that were true my Fiero will dyno at more than 300whp, EASY. Bullshit. It won't crack 250, and I know it.

(This is with my ported/polished/reshaped heads, stock intake manifolds, stock exhaust manifolds, 13* retard, short 2.5" exhaust, EWP, no A/C, no P/S, and on top of all that, a MAF car. Bullshit I'll crack even 220. It isn't happening)

SappySE107 · Post by **SappySE107** » Sat Dec 10, 2005 1:12 am

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » Sat Dec 10, 2005 1:37 am

SappySE107 wrote:Despite what knowledge you claim to have on the stock AF ratios, the fact remains that I improve the the powerband and power in all those ranges you say are "perfect". Its a shame that people think "this AF is perfect" when in fact, there is no perfect AF ratio to tune to. You can guess from it but you still have to try richer and leaner to see what the engine wants. Not what aaron wants, but the actual engine that is doing the work.

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. And since the before ratio, and the ratio pretty much throughout the run is 13:1, you are saying you pull fuel and make the motor go even leaner than 13:1? It is quite obvious the engine doesn't want richer. Looking at my white car's dyno, it is very clear that with every lean spike (to 12.5:1), the power spiked abnormally. Then power would climb less dramatically, and surprise, the AF ratio was falling rich again. My white car's dyno made it very clear that the engine doesn't like a richer ratio.

You have much to learn on intake systems. IR setups are not "the best". They are for certain applications, but not all. How can you use the pulse from another runner to improve the next? You can't. How can you have low and and bottom end with a short, wait, long, wait, skinny, wait, fat runner. You can't. Prove me wrong. Please, do it now.

Sorry, best for maximum power or torque. You can use the pulse from each cylinder to bounce right back into its own runner, and of course tune this as usual. Not many formulas go into tuning one runner into helping the next.

Also, low end doesn't matter. Need more power, downshift. In first? Clutch it up. Maybe for daily driving, but even then the 3.4 is plentiful on low end compared to most. And considering the ITB is race-bred and most commonly used in racing applications, the tuned power curve is where the engine stays. You will never get a plenum/dual runner setup to outperform a tuned ITB setup.

SappySE107 · Post by **SappySE107** » Sat Dec 10, 2005 1:49 am

p8ntman442 · Post by **p8ntman442** » Sat Dec 10, 2005 2:35 am

aaron 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.

so mister mathematical calculations boy, the derivitive of a constant is what?

Now that your memory is refreshed, how in the hell do you justify the above statement, by saying the world is flat and everything contained on this earth is a first order system. You cant start connecting the dots on a AF graph and have a linear system. I DARE YOU to find a graph where its a linear relationship throughout the graph. (those words mean straight line)

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » Sat Dec 10, 2005 2:42 am

p8ntman442 wrote:
aaron 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.

so mister mathematical calculations boy, the derivitive of a constant is what?

Now that your memory is refreshed, how in the hell do you justify the above statement, by saying the world is flat and everything contained on this earth is a first order system. You cant start connecting the dots on a AF graph and have a linear system. I DARE YOU to find a graph where its a linear relationship throughout the graph. (those words mean straight line)

0. How about the integral of a constant?

I never said throughout the graph. From 6500-7000 power continues to fall off. The A:F line is already on a downward course, and if we just continued it, it would hit 11:1. At any rate, it doesn't matter. We can talk only to 6500rpm now. It doesn't change much, Ben pulls fuel to get power up high. This is fine IMHO, although the factory made it go rich on the high end on purpose, and probably pulled timing as well. But if he is pulling fuel throughout the graph, he is putting every motor that has his chip in danger. I doubt he pulls very much fuel at all, at least I hope not, because in this case it could blow my motor that already passes 13:1 on a few occasions.

SappySE107 · Post by **SappySE107** » Sat Dec 10, 2005 9:01 am

p8ntman442 · Post by **p8ntman442** » Sat Dec 10, 2005 2:07 pm

aaron wrote: 0. How about the integral of a constant?

Dont ever think your gonna school me in calculus you little pissant. You also failed to specify limits or not, therefore i cant answer fully. Ax +c1

Your eductaion pales to mine, and your failure to conceede is only another blunder which you will have to overcome in the future.

Series8217 · Post by **Series8217** » Sun Dec 11, 2005 12:35 am

:lamer:

Don't I have the coolest avatar ever???

:lamer:

Series8217 · Post by **Series8217** » Sun Dec 11, 2005 1:42 am

In the land of Puzzlevania, aaron, Bob, and Charlie had an argument over which one of them was the greatest puzzle-solver of all time.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » Sun Dec 11, 2005 3:31 pm

p8ntman442 wrote:
aaron wrote: 0. How about the integral of a constant?

Dont ever think your gonna school me in calculus you little pissant. You also failed to specify limits or not, therefore i cant answer fully. Ax +c1

Your eductaion pales to mine, and your failure to conceede is only another blunder which you will have to overcome in the future.

I probably won't, but can I try?

How about (3-x^2)y''-3xy'-y=0 using power series expansions with the given conditions y(0)=0 and y'(0)=1?

You don't actually have to do this, but can you, honestly? Chances are you could, but have since forgotten, even though it isn't very difficult, just long.

OldschoolGP · Post by **OldschoolGP** » Mon Dec 12, 2005 10:01 am

Oh geez, now he's trying to math his way out of the hole he dug himself into. So you're reasoning for more stable power the higher you rev a 3.4 is to keep adding fuel? So at 8000 RPM, your ratio should be 10:1? At 9000 RPM, something more like 9:1? And let me guess, at 10000 RPM, 8:1? If that really is your theory, here's why it's total BS:

combustion

n 1: a process in which a substance reacts with oxygen to give heat and light

If even one thing you said were true, my motor would be making 250WHP right now, but it's not, because it is running rich. you don't make more power by having non-combusted fuel in your combustion chamber and exhaust system.

efÂ·fiÂ·cienÂ·cy (-fshn-s) n.

1. The production of the desired effects or results with minimum waste of time, effort, or skill.
2. A measure of effectiveness; specifically, the useful work output divided by the energy input in any system.

If you can't burn it all up, there's no point putting it in there. The less air you have, the less you have to react with the fuel and burn it all up. Maybe in aaron's world where the atmosphere is 33% oxygen this would work, but in the real world, it doesn't work that way.

Also, regarding your firm belief that a stock bottom end can take 8000 RPM:

balÂ·ance
n.
A state of equilibrium or parity characterized by cancellation of all forces by equal opposing forces.

There isn't a stock bottom end out there that is balanced well enough to hold together at 8000 RPM. You know why? Because GM didn't build the engine to handle 8000RPM, so they didn't care enough to balance it for 8000RPM. With an 84mm stroke, it's already hard enough to get a motor to wind that high and hold together. Look at a VTEC or any high performance japanese motor, and you won't see an 84mm stroke. So if you want a motor that can stay in the high revs all day and survive, you better have it balanced if nothing else. I built mine up for a couple reasons.

1) No one had tried the SB Chevy rods in a 3.4 before.

2) I didn't want to have to worry about it. And I don't have to worry about it, it alrerady survived an accidental 9000 RPM rev up. Let's see your stock bottom end survive that.

3) Originally, I had intended to put a supercharger on the motor. I couldn't afford that, so I stayed NA. Maybe someday I will put a supercharger on the motor, and I won't have to change anything to do it, nor worry about it, which relates back to point #2.

Stop trying to counter with logic. Go back to poorly thought out sentence fragments and bad hypothises. You're better at that.

p8ntman442 · Post by **p8ntman442** » Mon Dec 12, 2005 12:34 pm

aaron wrote: I probably won't, but can I try?

How about (3-x^2)y''-3xy'-y=0 using power series expansions with the given conditions y(0)=0 and y'(0)=1?

You don't actually have to do this, but can you, honestly? Chances are you could, but have since forgotten, even though it isn't very difficult, just long.

only a retard would use power series expansion rather than laplace to solve that. Good thing you have taken calc 2. That way you know how to solve problems the hard way.

sepearte the variables, laplace, algebra, inverse laplace, solve.

now back to how you explain the af ratio is linear?????

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » Mon Dec 12, 2005 6:16 pm

OldschoolGP wrote:Oh geez, now he's trying to math his way out of the hole he dug himself into. So you're reasoning for more stable power the higher you rev a 3.4 is to keep adding fuel? So at 8000 RPM, your ratio should be 10:1? At 9000 RPM, something more like 9:1? And let me guess, at 10000 RPM, 8:1? If that really is your theory, here's why it's total BS:

Wow you cannot comprehend worth a shit. That is totally untru and I didn't say it. I said that the FACTORY pulls fuel as RPM climbs, and they also pull timing, in an effort to make the engines last longer. They are thinking about the long run cars, who don't get plug changes often, get less than reccomended octane fuel, and get carbon buildup. Therefore running them rich and pulling timing at high RPM keeps them running.

But for a well-maintained motor, this isn't neccesary. Therefore Ben TAKES AWAY fuel as RPM goes up past 5500 (And I assume he adds timing as well, but am not sure). But not compared to the rest of the curve, he takes fuel away to bring it back up around 13:1. This in turn allows the motor not to go rich at high rpm, and you pick up power.

I never said richer means more power, you somehow deducted all that...

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » Mon Dec 12, 2005 6:20 pm

p8ntman442 wrote:
aaron wrote: I probably won't, but can I try?

How about (3-x^2)y''-3xy'-y=0 using power series expansions with the given conditions y(0)=0 and y'(0)=1?

You don't actually have to do this, but can you, honestly? Chances are you could, but have since forgotten, even though it isn't very difficult, just long.
only a retard would use power series expansion rather than laplace to solve that. Good thing you have taken calc 2. That way you know how to solve problems the hard way.

sepearte the variables, laplace, algebra, inverse laplace, solve.

now back to how you explain the af ratio is linear?????

I agree. We have been doing Laplace transforms for the past month or two, I know that is the preferred method, and I could do that problem without an issue. But my test told me to use Power Series Expansion...

Ok then let's just take the power curve up to 6500, not 7000. We clearly see that the A:F ratio falls off after 5500, and is running on the richer side of things by 6500. Power also falls. By picking this A:F curve back up to 13:1, we can keep power from falling so dramatically. It was a simple educated guess that the A:F would continue to fall rich instead of majically pulling back up.

SappySE107 · Post by **SappySE107** » Mon Dec 12, 2005 7:59 pm

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » Mon Dec 12, 2005 8:05 pm

SappySE107 wrote:aaron's pussy hurts so he has to come on here and cry about the world.

Again, speculate some more aaron. Try your best to THINK of what I am doing in the chip code. Keep thinking you know what AF ratio the motor wants. Keep telling people you know what you are talking about. No one here listens to you and you know what...thank god.

Then tell us what all of your tuning experience has shown. What A:F ratio does the 3.4 like best?

I guarantee you do not add more fuel to the mixture above 6000 for power's sake. You and I both know you pull fuel. And I am guessing you add in some timing as well, though I am not positive since I have no way to check that.