I was more or less joking. However, it can handle 6 lbs on stock internals which is about 600-650 rwhp. The compression ratio is what keeps boost so low and causes the pistons to fail. 11.1 ratio.

 

I didn't even post that But since we are talking about it, what about a Z06 with a GT-R motor

 

All pony cars are muscle cars. It's a subcategory.

 

LOL.

Uncle.

 

No misconceptions here. Turbos must run higher AFRs and turbos also breathe harder and better. No surprises there.

I don't need to state that for a given amount of air drawn into the engine, a specific ratio of fuel must be supplied. In the case of turbos, the more power they make (usually more than atmos) the more fuel they need to keep the engine from detonating.

As a ROUGH guide:

AFRs @ WOT

amto: 12.5-13.0
turbo: 10.5-11.0

Therefore, turbos do use more fuel unless you drive them sedately.

 

Who says that they have to run richer? Point me to a rule, please

You're overly generalizing, especially for an engine that was designed to be turbocharged.

I disagree - at least if we're talking about a properly-designed stock engine (which is a way different situation than hanging your own turbo kit on a modified engine and then trying to fool a stock ECM into keeping everything happy... or at least alive). I think you'd be somewhat surprised if you saw the AFR of, say, the LNF at WOT.

And regardless, WOT fueling targets have minimal-to-no effect on EPA mileage estimates (and generally don't factor heavily into real-world driving unless someone is actively trying to lose their license).

 

I'd say it's common to see stock, boosted vehicles blowing black smoke at WOT, from generous "factory" fuel ratio's...they want to play it way safe.
But that's one area most tuners adress first, with programming or chips on older models, ofcourse in addition to that they add timing retarders and maybe alcohol injection to help keep detenation at bay.
But driven at anything under WOT, even with low boost levels, they run surprisingly clean and easy on gas.

 

My Grand National runs closed-loop at WOT.

It's not running a stock chip, but it's nothing fancy -- just a reflash for 93 octane.

 

Eric, in your statement earlier... you touched on "closed loop". There is no way I would run Closed Loop under WOT. Rule book or no rule book.

When it comes to performance, nobody *****-foots around in Closed Loop. Irrelevant point, therefore.

So what AFRs would you run boosted at WOT?

 

You won't (and neither will I, since I don't own anything with a wide-band O2 and a PCM that can use it). But what about the factory? Modern ECU hardware has come a long ways in the past few years.

Irrelevant to the task of tuning a 5-10 year old vehicle, yes; but very relevant to contemporary vehicles. Don't make the mistake of viewing everything from your (relatively narrow) frame of reference.

What's the application? If I'm trying to boost a relatively ancient engine with port injection, narrowband O2 (meaning that I have to run open-loop), a traditional wastegate, and poor control over spark advance, then it's going to be the same pig-rich fueling that you're surely thinking of. But that's not the way that the world works anymore.

 

Thanks for the complement.

We're talking GTR vs Z06 here, not ancient chariots. There would not be one point at the 'Ring where either a GTR or Z06 will be in closed loop. These cars are meant to be driven and under such scenarios, they would both chew down the fuel but the turbos generally have the bigger appetite irrespective of their capacity disadvantage. Turbos simply blow harder. Simple.

Which (non-race) cars these days run WO2 sensors? I'm not aware of any. Therefore, the only way to protect these engines would be to run them at consistent AFRs with charge temps cool enough to endure the heat stresses i.e. by suppyling more fuel. The ratios I provided are not far from being truly accurate in most cases (happy to be proven wrong).

The only way the turbo engines could be made to run reliably leaner (that I can think of) would be by adopting direct injection.

Anyway, sorry folks for digressing.

 

Hey, SSbaby, see post #55.

 

Yes and I ignored it for good reason.

 

The simple fact that you're not aware of any pretty much says everything. One example of a production LNF with a wideband O2 is the GM LNF:



There are several others. The first wideband O2 in a production vehicle was the Civic VX back in '95(?), so it's not exactly new or exotic technology.

There are several ways to decrease the charge temp - better intercooling, improved intake manifold design, less boost, more efficient turbocharging. You also can manage detonation by improving the combustion chamber efficiency.

My Impala runs a compression ratio of 11.7:1 on pump gas. 15 years ago, that'd be impossible - but the combination of EFI, decent (for the time) combustion-chamber design, aluminum heads, and reverse-flow cooling makes it possible. And now you've got production vehicles running north of 12:1!

Technology changes. Make sure that your frame of reference can, too.

There are several others (see above).

Once again - stop approaching this from the standpoint of throwing a big turbo on a vehicle that was never designed around forced induction, and stop thinking that the ability to do some minimal calibration on a 5-year-old hacked ECU using third-party software constitutes any sort of understanding on state-of-the-art engine management. That narrows your thinking too much.

I'm done.

 

I haven't seen that car in silver, the one I saw was red in some video. Silver really looks pretty sharp, but I don't think I would ever buy one. Performance is all there, but I will always stick to American Muscle