2.7i shut down by dyno

[whitebulat22]

I took my car to a dynapack today, stock 2.7i, electric fan, eta exhaust with glasspack muffler, in 3rd gear:



122 whp and 128 wtq. Bottom chart was baseline, gained 9 whp by swapping 2.5 to 3.0 fpr and putting in a stock airbox over my KAmotors intake (was very surprised by that part, it was a solid 5 whp). I will still keep it around in case I do a Volvo maf conversion.

SSsquid tune was positive 9 ish whp, not shown here. However both that and stock ecu ran very lean, close to 15:1 afr at some points. Rarely dipped below 14.5. I'm working with rebuilt m50 injectors, new o2, strong ignition, everything fuel related new besides pumps.

I knew the eta piston 885 head thing wasn't ideal, but jeeez. It runs very smoothly all the time, so I'm wondering why I'm not at at least stock b25 level. The head I bought was shiny if nothing else with quiet recently adjusted valves. Only things I can think of to help is to have my tuner buddy add some fueling and 2.5 inch single pipe catback (this is the most I can probably get away with in California, and I need to keep my awesome cat).

128 wtq also seems almost unrealistically low for a 2.7. What do you guys think?

[digger]

seems about right, lower compression, less mixture motion, less effective breathing (peaks at 5200rpm) . its all about the whole package.

a custom tune would bring out its best, i bet the ignition timing is off in addition to the fueling.... the different burn rate due to different compression and turbulent mixing requires a different spark timing probably more advance as the burn would be slower as a guess

[whitebulat22]

I bought the squid's tune for the exact setup I have with the right injectors, so I'm wondering if maybe there's a communication error somewhere with the computer, or if the afr's and timing are as intended. It was a great gain over stock tune, besides the 9 whp peak the dyno also showed a huge torque jump from 2000-2500 for highway cruising.


Edit-

Been reading up here. Gonna tune to mid to high 12s afr for wot, add my stock I headers which this thread verifies to be bigger, and go from there. Would you say the volvo maf deal is worth throwing in along the carbon fiber shielded k&n I have, even though it didn't quite work nice with the stock afm?

[Kershaw]

I've never seen a 2.7i swap hit b25 numbers. They're all around 150hp, so 122whp sounds about right. 150hp is a good increase over stock b27 numbers, so feel good about that. If you wanted more hp, you should have just swapped in a b25. Or even better, swap in an m50 or m52, really. VANOS is such an amazing upgrade for daily driving duties.

[digger]

I bought the squid's tune for the exact setup I have with the right injectors, so I'm wondering if maybe there's a communication error somewhere with the computer, or if the afr's and timing are as intended. It was a great gain over stock tune, besides the 9 whp peak the dyno also showed a huge torque jump from 2000-2500 for highway cruising.


Edit-

Been reading up here. Gonna tune to mid to high 12s afr for wot, add my stock I headers which this thread verifies to be bigger, and go from there. Would you say the volvo maf deal is worth throwing in along the carbon fiber shielded k&n I have, even though it didn't quite work nice with the stock afm?

forget about povo MAF swaps and use all the stuff from the I and a nice tune and call it a day

[whitebulat22]

forget about povo MAF swaps and use all the stuff from the I and a nice tune and call it a day

Will do, sounds good to keep it simple. Theoretically, should meeting or exceeding I levels be as simple as all I parts and then super eta pistons? Not that I'm gonna go tearing this thing down anytime soon.

I've never seen a 2.7i swap hit b25 numbers. They're all around 150hp, so 122whp sounds about right. 150hp is a good increase over stock b27 numbers, so feel good about that. If you wanted more hp, you should have just swapped in a b25. Or even better, swap in an m50 or m52, really. VANOS is such an amazing upgrade for daily driving duties.

I'm happy with 150 hp if it's untuned, but the torque worries me. It was like 113/120 on stock tune. It feels like it torques harder than any stock eta I've been in so if it was more 120/140 untuned it would be easier to believe. At least as much torque as an I. ForcedFirebird got 134/140, here's a 138/143, even a 152/164, 1st is completely stock and untuned and made good gains with exhaust / tune.

So I'm on the hunt for what's dragging me down, because 113/120 untuned seems pretty far under. Gonna also try unplugging the o2 sensor and test the tps, because it's probably not meant to be that lean after already being tuned. It might not know I'm flooring it.

[Aikmanson]

Will do, sounds good to keep it simple. Theoretically, should meeting or exceeding I levels be as simple as all I parts and then super eta pistons? Not that I'm gonna go tearing this thing down anytime soon.



I'm happy with 150 hp if it's untuned, but the torque worries me. It was like 113/120 on stock tune. It feels like it torques harder than any stock eta I've been in so if it was more 120/140 untuned it would be easier to believe. At least as much torque as an I. ForcedFirebird got 134/140, here's a 138/143, even a 152/164, 1st is completely stock and untuned and made good gains with exhaust / tune.

So I'm on the hunt for what's dragging me down, because 113/120 untuned seems pretty far under. Gonna also try unplugging the o2 sensor and test the tps, because it's probably not meant to be that lean after already being tuned. It might not know I'm flooring it.

I agree your torque numbers seem a little low, HP numbers sound about right though from what I have seen. What catalytic converter are you running, stock eta? Miles on that? I am grasping at straws here, 15.0 AFR is obviously not ideal, coupled with lower compression as well. What cam are you running, stock I or eta?

[digger]

If you want to compare numbers to a dyno jet I suggest doing a run on one to see what you make on a dyno jet rather than guessing....

[whitebulat22]

I agree your torque numbers seem a little low, HP numbers sound about right though from what I have seen. What catalytic converter are you running, stock eta? Miles on that? I am grasping at straws here, 15.0 AFR is obviously not ideal, coupled with lower compression as well. What cam are you running, stock I or eta?

It's 165k on bottom and New 2.25 inch eta cat. Honestly i don't know what's in the head, I'd be surprised if it wasn't a stock i cam though. It torques with my friends mark D chipped eta just fine, so I feel like the reading has to be low but I'm obviously biased.