3.5 CL- S Conversion
12-23-2003, 11:53 PM
#81
Senior Moderator
Originally posted by sgmotoring
No the A/C tensioner bolted right on.
No the A/C tensioner bolted right on.
12-24-2003, 12:10 AM
#83
Three Wheelin'
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: houston,tx
Posts: 1,348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Contact the guy name Austin519 .... I think he lurks around the "other" acura forum www (dot) acura w*o*r*l*d (dot) com -- ahem, take the "*" out .... he as TLS w/ 3.5L conversion, SC'ed, rebuilt tranny and all kinds of craps.....the amount of $$ he pumped into the car is almost insane!!! 
01-27-2004, 11:28 PM
#84
Bleed Honda Blue
Thread Starter
Originally posted by scalbert
Yes, it is perfectly normal and what we have witnessed.
Here is my take on why the knock is gone. The boost went up because the airflow ingested by the engine was reduced; there was more resistance to flow. What might have been occurring is that once the VTEC change over occurred there was an in rush of air lowering the boost and fuel pressure. But with more air entering and less fuel we went lean. Because more air was entering the motor the power potential was greater but was offset by the lean condition. With the IMRC disconnected there is lower airflow/more boost to keep the fuel pressure higher and keep it from going lean.
Just my hypothesis on the matter.
Yes, it is perfectly normal and what we have witnessed.
Here is my take on why the knock is gone. The boost went up because the airflow ingested by the engine was reduced; there was more resistance to flow. What might have been occurring is that once the VTEC change over occurred there was an in rush of air lowering the boost and fuel pressure. But with more air entering and less fuel we went lean. Because more air was entering the motor the power potential was greater but was offset by the lean condition. With the IMRC disconnected there is lower airflow/more boost to keep the fuel pressure higher and keep it from going lean.
Just my hypothesis on the matter.
thanks
01-28-2004, 06:11 AM
#86
Suzuka Master
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Woodstock, GA
Age: 53
Posts: 9,431
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by sgmotoring
So you think that my car is running lean.
Anyway anyone know how to retard the timing a little? Let say 5 degrees? thanks
So you think that my car is running lean.
Anyway anyone know how to retard the timing a little? Let say 5 degrees?
thanks
As for the timing, I can control mine +/- 20 degrees.
http://www.acura-cl.com/forums/showt...hreadid=118776
01-28-2004, 11:36 AM
#87
Bleed Honda Blue
Thread Starter
As for the timing, I can control mine +/- 20 degrees.
I was hoping that I can retard it without buying anything. I am now messing with the Air Temp sensor but I am not sure if that could retard my timing( I am going to tell my computer that the outside air temp is 180%
let see if that work). I have not read the whole post on e-managment because I didn't know that it can retard timing. I thought it was a piggy back ECU messing with fuel and vtec. I am talking to www.splitsec.com in Santa Ana. They have a nice timing retard unit that I can change the boost/timing in the car. I just want to know if it is the timing or the fuel that is leaving all those gravels in my exhaust before I go out and buy something.
I was hoping that I can retard it without buying anything. I am now messing with the Air Temp sensor but I am not sure if that could retard my timing( I am going to tell my computer that the outside air temp is 180%
let see if that work). I have not read the whole post on e-managment because I didn't know that it can retard timing. I thought it was a piggy back ECU messing with fuel and vtec. I am talking to www.splitsec.com in Santa Ana. They have a nice timing retard unit that I can change the boost/timing in the car. I just want to know if it is the timing or the fuel that is leaving all those gravels in my exhaust before I go out and buy something.
01-28-2004, 11:44 AM
#88
Suzuka Master
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Woodstock, GA
Age: 53
Posts: 9,431
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The e-Manage directly controls each ignition coil signal with 256 cell based on boost and RPM. It is direct control and not a trick to try and get the timing you desire.
By altering the IAT signal you may get less timing but you have also changed the calculated load value and would lean out the mixture. The IAT accounts for about 20% - 30% of the load calculation. You could also fool the ECT and achieve the same thing but again with consequences. By changing either the IAT or ECT you will also alter fueling which may or may not be much of an impact. But cold start issues will show up and be problematic.
The best bet is the e-Manage especially when you are doing what you are. It would give you complete control over the fueling and timing. I know and have used SplitSecond's products in the past, they are good. But in this case the e-Manage is the better bet.
By altering the IAT signal you may get less timing but you have also changed the calculated load value and would lean out the mixture. The IAT accounts for about 20% - 30% of the load calculation. You could also fool the ECT and achieve the same thing but again with consequences. By changing either the IAT or ECT you will also alter fueling which may or may not be much of an impact. But cold start issues will show up and be problematic.
The best bet is the e-Manage especially when you are doing what you are. It would give you complete control over the fueling and timing. I know and have used SplitSecond's products in the past, they are good. But in this case the e-Manage is the better bet.
01-28-2004, 12:00 PM
#89
aka gimmesomesugar
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Posts: 908
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by randomwalk101
Contact the guy name Austin519 .... I think he lurks around the "other" acura forum www (dot) acura w*o*r*l*d (dot) com -- ahem, take the "*" out .... he as TLS w/ 3.5L conversion, SC'ed, rebuilt tranny and all kinds of craps.....the amount of $$ he pumped into the car is almost insane!!!
Contact the guy name Austin519 .... I think he lurks around the "other" acura forum www (dot) acura w*o*r*l*d (dot) com -- ahem, take the "*" out .... he as TLS w/ 3.5L conversion, SC'ed, rebuilt tranny and all kinds of craps.....the amount of $$ he pumped into the car is almost insane!!!
He never installed the s/c...it is for sale.
01-28-2004, 08:30 PM
#90
Bleed Honda Blue
Thread Starter
Just got my car dyno. You can see it on 6spdmanual post. OK, how much for the E-Managment with plug and play? The guy at dyno said he guarantee my car is running rich. He like me didn't believe that just by unplugging the IMRC will make the pinging go away. But I showed him that he was wrong . I have some question on the dyno result, I will ask it there.
. I have some question on the dyno result, I will ask it there.
01-28-2004, 08:33 PM
#91
Pro
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: So Cal, CA
Posts: 597
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by sgmotoring
Just got my car dyno. You can see it on 6spdmanual post. OK, how much for the E-Managment with plug and play? The guy at dyno said he guarantee my car is running rich. He like me didn't believe that just by unplugging the IMRC will make the pinging go away. But I showed him that he was wrong . I have some question on the dyno result, I will ask it there.
Just got my car dyno. You can see it on 6spdmanual post. OK, how much for the E-Managment with plug and play? The guy at dyno said he guarantee my car is running rich. He like me didn't believe that just by unplugging the IMRC will make the pinging go away. But I showed him that he was wrong
. I have some question on the dyno result, I will ask it there.
01-28-2004, 08:34 PM
#92
Suzuka Master
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Woodstock, GA
Age: 53
Posts: 9,431
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by sgmotoring
OK, how much for the E-Managment with plug and play?
OK, how much for the E-Managment with plug and play?
01-28-2004, 08:44 PM
#94
Audi S4 driver
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Forked River NJ
Age: 39
Posts: 2,064
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
friend of mine with a whipple s\c uses an MSD ignition with boost timing master to retard timing .. for every lb of boost it sees, it retards the timing a set amount of degrees .. whatever you choose on the dial. from 0-3 for each lb of boost. I dont know if that would help.
01-28-2004, 09:19 PM
#95
Three Wheelin'
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Grand Rapids, Michigan
Posts: 1,796
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by blader
friend of mine with a whipple s\c uses an MSD ignition with boost timing master to retard timing .. for every lb of boost it sees, it retards the timing a set amount of degrees .. whatever you choose on the dial. from 0-3 for each lb of boost. I dont know if that would help.
friend of mine with a whipple s\c uses an MSD ignition with boost timing master to retard timing .. for every lb of boost it sees, it retards the timing a set amount of degrees .. whatever you choose on the dial. from 0-3 for each lb of boost. I dont know if that would help.
01-28-2004, 10:53 PM
#98
aka gimmesomesugar
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Posts: 908
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by ModAddict
why not
why not
<edit> Oh, the s/c is in perfect condition...don't want anybody getting the wrong idea. I think it's more of a personal nature. So, somebody help him out...BUY THE SUPERCHARGER!!!
01-29-2004, 05:44 AM
#99
Suzuka Master
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Woodstock, GA
Age: 53
Posts: 9,431
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by blader
friend of mine with a whipple s\c uses an MSD ignition with boost timing master to retard timing .. for every lb of boost it sees, it retards the timing a set amount of degrees .. whatever you choose on the dial. from 0-3 for each lb of boost. I dont know if that would help.
friend of mine with a whipple s\c uses an MSD ignition with boost timing master to retard timing .. for every lb of boost it sees, it retards the timing a set amount of degrees .. whatever you choose on the dial. from 0-3 for each lb of boost. I dont know if that would help.
01-30-2004, 08:34 PM
#101
Bleed Honda Blue
Thread Starter
Originally posted by scalbert
That torque curve is wrong, or rather, not what it should be. That is not just fuel issues.
That torque curve is wrong, or rather, not what it should be. That is not just fuel issues.
).Pulling the supercharge and get a base run is the last option. I am too lazy
01-30-2004, 08:45 PM
#102
Senior Moderator
Originally posted by scalbert
That torque curve is wrong, or rather, not what it should be. That is not just fuel issues.
That torque curve is wrong, or rather, not what it should be. That is not just fuel issues.
01-30-2004, 08:54 PM
#103
Bleed Honda Blue
Thread Starter
Originally posted by typeR
you know when i had issues after my install which turned out to be a bent throttle plate on the TB...one of the things doug wanted to look at was the placement of the head gaskets...he said it would be easy to put them on backwards
you know when i had issues after my install which turned out to be a bent throttle plate on the TB...one of the things doug wanted to look at was the placement of the head gaskets...he said it would be easy to put them on backwards
I don't think I installed the head gasket backwards. What would happen if it was installed backwards? I would think you will have some kind of leak. I have put about 1000 miles on the engine, no leak or overheat symptoms.
01-30-2004, 10:00 PM
#104
Suzuka Master
Originally posted by sgmotoring
Why do you think that the torque curve is wrong? I don't understand the dyno chart enough to diagnose the problem just by looking at it. I have a base run chart with the old 3.2L supercharge and IMRC connected. This engine makes more HP and Torque until the Vtec kick in which is about 4800 rpm. Then from 5000-6000rpm it made similar hp and torque. Somehow I have a spike at 6000 rpm and that seem to drop 10 hp instantly. Does anyone know what that spike is? I think it is from closing the IMRC. I knew a few of you have dyno your car with the IMRC disconneted, so how many hp and torque did you lose? Could it be that my trans is slipping?(don't feel it ).
Pulling the supercharge and get a base run is the last option. I am too lazy
Why do you think that the torque curve is wrong? I don't understand the dyno chart enough to diagnose the problem just by looking at it. I have a base run chart with the old 3.2L supercharge and IMRC connected. This engine makes more HP and Torque until the Vtec kick in which is about 4800 rpm. Then from 5000-6000rpm it made similar hp and torque. Somehow I have a spike at 6000 rpm and that seem to drop 10 hp instantly. Does anyone know what that spike is? I think it is from closing the IMRC. I knew a few of you have dyno your car with the IMRC disconneted, so how many hp and torque did you lose? Could it be that my trans is slipping?(don't feel it
).Pulling the supercharge and get a base run is the last option. I am too lazy
I really wonder what your compression ratio in your MDX block is. When I did the calcs based on certain assumptions, I came up with 11.26. (Type-S heads with 3.5 bottom end). I wonder if your timing is getting retarded BIG TIME.
The IMRC trick is getting rid of your ping issue (thanks to Scalbert’s (aka Steve's pioneering work). However, is there a trade-off when you hit the dyno that has not been documented to date? In a way, the curve seems to look like what one would expect if the IMRC was broken.
The other issue is related to the rod ratio and longer stroke of the 3.5L vs. 3.2L.
The longer stroke boosts the intake velocity of the intake charge and what may be a "practical fix" for a 3.2L with S/C may not be ok for a 3.5L with S/C. The 3.5L is going to pulling a lot more air through the whole RPM range and as you've seen from Type-R's dyno, the midrange is what gets the big boost -- there is finally some restriction in the intake or exhaust that limits the gas flow of the N/A engine (this is typical of strokers). If you are already reaching high intake charge velocities that boost the mid range, while only increasing the peak HP @ 6K+ RPM by a small amount WITHOUT a S/C, what does that say if you kill the gas flow with the IMRC being closed?
So, in one case you’re possibly getting rid of some timing issues, but in another you’re possibly cutting off air flow and completely negating the whole reason of using a 3.5L block.
I'm making a lot of assumptions here and just tossing out some "food for thought."
While I was looking at the curves over on the Comptech site, I was struck by the complete reversal of TQ curve slope!
How brutal would it be to make a dyno run with the IMRC valve normally operating?
Have you contacted Comptech?
Who did you get the 3.5L short block from -- and is it dead stock (no replacement rods and/or pistons).
01-30-2004, 11:51 PM
#105
Senior Moderator
Originally posted by EricL
AT one point, Syncivic (MR. 3.5L conversion) said a non-functioning IMRC would drop high-end HP by around 15-20 HP. You are about 20 HP.
I really wonder what your compression ratio in your MDX block is. When I did the calcs based on certain assumptions, I came up with 11.26. (Type-S heads with 3.5 bottom end). I wonder if your timing is getting retarded BIG TIME.
The IMRC trick is getting rid of your ping issue (thanks to Scalbert’s (aka Steve's pioneering work). However, is there a trade-off when you hit the dyno that has not been documented to date? In a way, the curve seems to look like what one would expect if the IMRC was broken.
The other issue is related to the rod ratio and longer stroke of the 3.5L vs. 3.2L.
The longer stroke boosts the intake velocity of the intake charge and what may be a "practical fix" for a 3.2L with S/C may not be ok for a 3.5L with S/C. The 3.5L is going to pulling a lot more air through the whole RPM range and as you've seen from Type-R's dyno, the midrange is what gets the big boost -- there is finally some restriction in the intake or exhaust that limits the gas flow of the N/A engine (this is typical of strokers). If you are already reaching high intake charge velocities that boost the mid range, while only increasing the peak HP @ 6K+ RPM by a small amount WITHOUT a S/C, what does that say if you kill the gas flow with the IMRC being closed?
So, in one case you’re possibly getting rid of some timing issues, but in another you’re possibly cutting off air flow and completely negating the whole reason of using a 3.5L block.
I'm making a lot of assumptions here and just tossing out some "food for thought."
While I was looking at the curves over on the Comptech site, I was struck by the complete reversal of TQ curve slope!
How brutal would it be to make a dyno run with the IMRC valve normally operating?
Have you contacted Comptech?
Who did you get the 3.5L short block from -- and is it dead stock (no replacement rods and/or pistons).
AT one point, Syncivic (MR. 3.5L conversion) said a non-functioning IMRC would drop high-end HP by around 15-20 HP. You are about 20 HP.
I really wonder what your compression ratio in your MDX block is. When I did the calcs based on certain assumptions, I came up with 11.26. (Type-S heads with 3.5 bottom end). I wonder if your timing is getting retarded BIG TIME.
The IMRC trick is getting rid of your ping issue (thanks to Scalbert’s (aka Steve's pioneering work). However, is there a trade-off when you hit the dyno that has not been documented to date? In a way, the curve seems to look like what one would expect if the IMRC was broken.
The other issue is related to the rod ratio and longer stroke of the 3.5L vs. 3.2L.
The longer stroke boosts the intake velocity of the intake charge and what may be a "practical fix" for a 3.2L with S/C may not be ok for a 3.5L with S/C. The 3.5L is going to pulling a lot more air through the whole RPM range and as you've seen from Type-R's dyno, the midrange is what gets the big boost -- there is finally some restriction in the intake or exhaust that limits the gas flow of the N/A engine (this is typical of strokers). If you are already reaching high intake charge velocities that boost the mid range, while only increasing the peak HP @ 6K+ RPM by a small amount WITHOUT a S/C, what does that say if you kill the gas flow with the IMRC being closed?
So, in one case you’re possibly getting rid of some timing issues, but in another you’re possibly cutting off air flow and completely negating the whole reason of using a 3.5L block.
I'm making a lot of assumptions here and just tossing out some "food for thought."
While I was looking at the curves over on the Comptech site, I was struck by the complete reversal of TQ curve slope!
How brutal would it be to make a dyno run with the IMRC valve normally operating?
Have you contacted Comptech?
Who did you get the 3.5L short block from -- and is it dead stock (no replacement rods and/or pistons).
http://www.tamparacing.com/forums/a...p;postid=842780
01-30-2004, 11:59 PM
#106
Bleed Honda Blue
Thread Starter
Thanks for your input eric. It is a brand new stock short block from Acura. Uhh... No I haven't contact Comptech, I don't know how they will react when I tell them that I have a 3.5L with a aftermarket pulley. (maybe void my warranty? ) But my next step is to reinstall the original pulley and open up the IMRC. I would like to see if the pinging is still there and go from there. I think the easy fix will be lowering the boost for now. Is anyone willing to share their upgrade supercharge pulley diameter from the groove? thanks
) But my next step is to reinstall the original pulley and open up the IMRC. I would like to see if the pinging is still there and go from there. I think the easy fix will be lowering the boost for now. Is anyone willing to share their upgrade supercharge pulley diameter from the groove? thanks
01-31-2004, 12:31 AM
#107
Suzuka Master
Originally posted by typeR
ericL the thing i'd like to add is if i remember right, he (sgmotoring)made a comment when the 3.5 was first done ,before the imrc that the mid range torque was much improved (according to the butt dyno) but the top end was lacking...looking at the dyno i was supplied with my conversion,and my matching butt dyno ,this is where my car pulls hardest
http://www.tamparacing.com/forums/a...p;postid=842780
ericL the thing i'd like to add is if i remember right, he (sgmotoring)made a comment when the 3.5 was first done ,before the imrc that the mid range torque was much improved (according to the butt dyno) but the top end was lacking...looking at the dyno i was supplied with my conversion,and my matching butt dyno ,this is where my car pulls hardest
http://www.tamparacing.com/forums/a...p;postid=842780
Yes, the torque (and accel does peak around 5K).
01-31-2004, 12:39 AM
#108
Suzuka Master
Originally posted by sgmotoring
Thanks for your input eric. It is a brand new stock short block from Acura. Uhh... No I haven't contact Comptech, I don't know how they will react when I tell them that I have a 3.5L with a aftermarket pulley. (maybe void my warranty? ) But my next step is to reinstall the original pulley and open up the IMRC. I would like to see if the pinging is still there and go from there. I think the easy fix will be lowering the boost for now. Is anyone willing to share their upgrade supercharge pulley diameter from the groove? thanks
Thanks for your input eric. It is a brand new stock short block from Acura. Uhh... No I haven't contact Comptech, I don't know how they will react when I tell them that I have a 3.5L with a aftermarket pulley. (maybe void my warranty?
) But my next step is to reinstall the original pulley and open up the IMRC. I would like to see if the pinging is still there and go from there. I think the easy fix will be lowering the boost for now. Is anyone willing to share their upgrade supercharge pulley diameter from the groove? thanks
The other steps you have mentioned seem reasonable places to go from here. (open IMRC, lower boost).
Wish I had magic bullet, but...
01-31-2004, 07:01 AM
#109
Suzuka Master
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Woodstock, GA
Age: 53
Posts: 9,431
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are quite a few conceptual aspects here. Based on Brad's dyno, unplugging the IMRC made little difference in the mid range or top end power. But this was on a blown 3.2L. With increased displacement other variables are brought into play which those of us also running under boost do not have.
It is far too easy to plug the connector back in and see what the new results are. But IMO, this is not the source of the problem. Even on an NA vehicle with a faulty IMRC there was a slight recovery at the end. However, this is boosted and once again, aspects are unknown. Testing would be the easiest route to gain the needed knowledge.
Just as an aside, I will be running my car with and without the IMRC next Saturday on the dyno. I'll be running it on factory tuning and then with the e-Manage tuned. This may not lend any information for this situation as I am running a 3.2L engine.
It is far too easy to plug the connector back in and see what the new results are. But IMO, this is not the source of the problem. Even on an NA vehicle with a faulty IMRC there was a slight recovery at the end. However, this is boosted and once again, aspects are unknown. Testing would be the easiest route to gain the needed knowledge.
Just as an aside, I will be running my car with and without the IMRC next Saturday on the dyno. I'll be running it on factory tuning and then with the e-Manage tuned. This may not lend any information for this situation as I am running a 3.2L engine.
01-31-2004, 07:04 AM
#110
Suzuka Master
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Woodstock, GA
Age: 53
Posts: 9,431
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by EricL
The longer stroke boosts the intake velocity of the intake charge and what may be a "practical fix" for a 3.2L with S/C may not be ok for a 3.5L with S/C. The 3.5L is going to pulling a lot more air through the whole RPM range
The longer stroke boosts the intake velocity of the intake charge and what may be a "practical fix" for a 3.2L with S/C may not be ok for a 3.5L with S/C. The 3.5L is going to pulling a lot more air through the whole RPM range
01-31-2004, 09:34 AM
#111
Senior Moderator
last thing ill add here is...i was also told it would be faily easy to put the cams in wrong...something like have the front of the cam in right but the rear one tooth off?
01-31-2004, 09:37 PM
#112
Suzuka Master
Originally posted by scalbert
There are quite a few conceptual aspects here. Based on Brad's dyno, unplugging the IMRC made little difference in the mid range or top end power. But this was on a blown 3.2L. With increased displacement other variables are brought into play which those of us also running under boost do not have.
It is far too easy to plug the connector back in and see what the new results are. But IMO, this is not the source of the problem. Even on an NA vehicle with a faulty IMRC there was a slight recovery at the end. However, this is boosted and once again, aspects are unknown. Testing would be the easiest route to gain the needed knowledge.
Just as an aside, I will be running my car with and without the IMRC next Saturday on the dyno. I'll be running it on factory tuning and then with the e-Manage tuned. This may not lend any information for this situation as I am running a 3.2L engine.
There are quite a few conceptual aspects here. Based on Brad's dyno, unplugging the IMRC made little difference in the mid range or top end power. But this was on a blown 3.2L. With increased displacement other variables are brought into play which those of us also running under boost do not have.
It is far too easy to plug the connector back in and see what the new results are. But IMO, this is not the source of the problem. Even on an NA vehicle with a faulty IMRC there was a slight recovery at the end. However, this is boosted and once again, aspects are unknown. Testing would be the easiest route to gain the needed knowledge.
Just as an aside, I will be running my car with and without the IMRC next Saturday on the dyno. I'll be running it on factory tuning and then with the e-Manage tuned. This may not lend any information for this situation as I am running a 3.2L engine.
Well, I did see one graph dated 1-31-04 with and without the IMRC and the HP/TQ looked pretty close on a 3.2L with S/C.
01-31-2004, 10:07 PM
#113
Suzuka Master
Originally posted by typeR
last thing ill add here is...i was also told it would be faily easy to put the cams in wrong...something like have the front of the cam in right but the rear one tooth off?
last thing ill add here is...i was also told it would be faily easy to put the cams in wrong...something like have the front of the cam in right but the rear one tooth off?
There is just something very strange about that 6k bump and TQ rolloff.
01-31-2004, 11:41 PM
#114
Bleed Honda Blue
Thread Starter
Originally posted by typeR
last thing ill add here is...i was also told it would be faily easy to put the cams in wrong...something like have the front of the cam in right but the rear one tooth off?
last thing ill add here is...i was also told it would be faily easy to put the cams in wrong...something like have the front of the cam in right but the rear one tooth off?
01-31-2004, 11:46 PM
#115
Suzuka Master
Originally posted by sgmotoring
I don't think I missed time the cams timming. I assembled the complete engine before dropping it in the car. When the engine is on a stand, it is pretty easy to installed the T-belt. But I will check. Scalbert, I do see that I am loosing a little boost pressure at higher rpm. I think the boost pressure drop when Vtec engaged. Wow EricL, that 3.5L without a blower made more hp than mine with S/C. I need to get my car fixed!
I don't think I missed time the cams timming. I assembled the complete engine before dropping it in the car. When the engine is on a stand, it is pretty easy to installed the T-belt. But I will check. Scalbert, I do see that I am loosing a little boost pressure at higher rpm. I think the boost pressure drop when Vtec engaged. Wow EricL, that 3.5L without a blower made more hp than mine with S/C. I need to get my car fixed!
With your stuff sorted out, you should be making crazy HP (even with the slushbox).
02-01-2004, 09:10 AM
#117
Suzuka Master
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Woodstock, GA
Age: 53
Posts: 9,431
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by EricL
Well, I did see one graph dated 1-31-04 with and without the IMRC and the HP/TQ looked pretty close on a 3.2L with S/C.
Well, I did see one graph dated 1-31-04 with and without the IMRC and the HP/TQ looked pretty close on a 3.2L with S/C.
02-02-2004, 08:16 PM
#118
Bleed Honda Blue
Thread Starter
I could hardly see the different in HP and TQ with the IMRC close or open. He did not make to much HP either. I was just wondering why 6spdmanual got a 15hp increases just by opening the IMRC?
02-02-2004, 08:24 PM
#119
Bleed Honda Blue
Thread Starter
Originally posted by EricL
I really wonder what your compression ratio in your MDX block is. When I did the calcs based on certain assumptions, I came up with 11.26. (Type-S heads with 3.5 bottom end). I wonder if your timing is getting retarded BIG TIME.
.
I really wonder what your compression ratio in your MDX block is. When I did the calcs based on certain assumptions, I came up with 11.26. (Type-S heads with 3.5 bottom end). I wonder if your timing is getting retarded BIG TIME.
.
02-02-2004, 09:13 PM
#120
Three Wheelin'
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Grand Rapids, Michigan
Posts: 1,796
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by sgmotoring
I could hardly see the different in HP and TQ with the IMRC close or open. He did not make to much HP either. I was just wondering why 6spdmanual got a 15hp increases just by opening the IMRC?
I could hardly see the different in HP and TQ with the IMRC close or open. He did not make to much HP either. I was just wondering why 6spdmanual got a 15hp increases just by opening the IMRC?