What have I done?? Good, OK, or Bad??

Thunderbolt

Well-Known Member
Kind of what i have read also, but never read any results, but then again it was a long time ago i read about ceramic coating inside the engine.
Is it really running hotter in lean burn mode at light cruise loads? Just curios because i have read both, hotter and cooler.
I have tried to run as lean as possible on E85 (with carb) and i have not seen signs of any more heat in normal driving, like hot glowing exhaust or over heated spark plugs or engine temperature.
Cant help wondering if a hotter combustion chamber is a good thing, at least when pushing it hard?
 

Indycars

Administrator
Staff member
Can you tell me the program your using??
Since I'm not sure which one you are referring to .....
I've used two, the most used is Excel spreadsheet that I made and it can compare 5 engines side-by-side. The other one is Dynomation 6, it's the big brother to DynoSim.


On that subject is the only remaining question is my having the pistons, , chamber and valves Ceramic thermal barrier coated.

I have had a couple people whom think this will increases the changes of knocking.

And one whom thinks Ceramic thermal barrier coating is a BAD idea.

Everything I have read said it is a great idea.

Thoughts?? Facts, personal uses??
I don't have any personal experience with ceramic coatings. I suspect that you are far enough away from detonation with the DCR of 7.57 that you don't have anything to worry about especially if you don't mind using 91 or 93 octane fuel, but I would confirm with Grumpy.

I say that because I have a DCR of 8.12 (Engine #2) and use 91 octane without detonation. I did have slight problem before I retarded the camshaft 2° from 4° advanced.

1651499496755.png

The next question is ECM:
Again, that's not something I have played with. Guess I'm just old school for the most part, other than I have data acquisition (AQ-1) I have in my TBucket.
 

Grumpy

The Grumpy Grease Monkey mechanical engineer.
Staff member
"Switching from a 4L60e to a 4L80e: Does this need a tune for the change?"
no! the engine used , or transmission used, won't have a major effect on either of the transmission's

sequential tends to get better mileage than batch fire.
use of e85 tends to reduce the burn/combustion temps
 

racprops

Well-Known Member
I have discovered I should retard my cam by 4 degrees, IF I did the Dyno Run correctly.

I hate to ask but I also hate to tare down the front timing cover and reset the cam timing gear to 4 degrees retarted as well...

Can someone run this and see if you get the same results??

From what I got I really should do this change, torque is higher and HP is higher and lasts to 4500/5000 better.

SO if I did the program correct I really need to reset the cam.

Also will I need to degree the cam or as I sis it all ready will it be good with just the change??


Cam timing at .050 Intake open .7BTDC close 33ABDC 45 BBDC Exhaust open 45 BBDC and Closes at -12 ATDC this is by the spec sheet. Below these is a hand written note: -18 1/2 Degree overlap @.050. Cam lobe lift is listed as .275 intake and .285 Exhaust. Lobe center line: Intake 110 and exhaust 118.

Then there is another set of numbers lobe Diameter intake 1.542 over 1.267 and Exhaust1.529/1.244.

Advertised duration at .006 265/270

1990 SBC OE Roller Block - 30 over bore

Not decked (checked and ruled straight, heads too)

.010" piston-to-deck clearance (I believe)

Machined 400 crank with 5.565" 400 rods Stroke 3.750

Older KB hyper D-dish pistons (M9890-30) KB102-030, -18cc dish.

Stock type rings…SEA 251K -.030 Ring Set (Premium) bought 2/12/2004

Total Seal second ring.

64cc (I think actually 65.3cc) Swirl port heads #14102193 1.94" / 1.5" valves


1.5 ratio roller-tipped rockers

1.6 Rockers considered would like to see what effect they could have.

Lift by 1.5 and 1.6 rockers. .413/.428 and 1.6 .424/.452


Head Gasket: A felpro gasket that came in a rebuild kit with a 0.045" compressed thickness

Cam is from Oregon Camshaft #806 roller cam:
Adv duration: 265/270 @.006 206/213 @ 0.050": lift: 413"/428", LSA: 114, ICL: 110
9.25:1 static CR

And you can check these rates as well as I am Running Rhoads V-Max roller lifters at 10% reduction so at low rpms she will be:


185.4/191.7 Lift 371.7/385.2 lobe sep. 114


Intake: Will be running an 87 Corvette TPI intake

Rich
 

Attachments

  • 4 degress retarted SM.png
    4 degress retarted SM.png
    272.2 KB · Views: 2
  • 4 Degress retarted whole grapht. SM.png
    4 Degress retarted whole grapht. SM.png
    331 KB · Views: 2

racprops

Well-Known Member
"Switching from a 4L60e to a 4L80e: Does this need a tune for the change?"
no! the engine used , or transmission used, won't have a major effect on either of the transmission's

sequential tends to get better mileage than batch fire.
use of e85 tends to reduce the burn/combustion temps

Sorry I may not been clear, I was told that for the ECM to operate the transmission correctly it needs to be tuned for it: as in the ECM running a 4l60 will not shift correctly if hooked to a 4L80.

"sequential tends to get better mileage than batch fire."

Can you suggest a good sequential ECM? And how to make the "Opti-Spark Control", which has an optical sensor which counts light pulses through a perforated disc in the distributor. WORK??

I have had to replace the 4 wire module under the cap in my 93 so often I carry two spares. I was hoping to get rid of that weak point and add the 94 and up LT1 is a sequential port fuel injection system.

I have read and heard there was a lot of problems with the Opti-Spark Control, but I believe that was with the one on either the crankshaft or cam shaft, not the one in the distributor.

ANY chance I am right about this?

Rich
 

Indycars

Administrator
Staff member
Keep in mind that the bigger 4L80E is going to have a bigger parasitic power lose than the 4L60E. Also weighs another 35-40 lbs.

BTW, the 4L60 is the same as the 700-R4 and does not require any electronic controls.

 

racprops

Well-Known Member
Sorry again both are E transmissions, as in 4l60e and 4L80e

And I am aware of that: the bigger 4L80E is going to have a bigger parasitic power lose than the 4L60E. Also weighs another 35-40 lbs.

But I can be fairly sure it and my Dual Range OD will be able to tow with much less likelihood of failure.

I have a few chores I make willing: parasitic power loses: The 4l80e (which I am told as being a much newer is made with lower friction systems, an improved TH400) as well as what I may lose with the US Gear Dual Range Over Drive. Plus its added weight.

Weight seems to only really hurt in acceleration and mountain climbing, which I figure all bets are off. Once rolling I do not see how it matters.

And with my powerful 383 and its high torque my power to weight ratio should be fairly good.

I also chose to run higher traction tires on 18 inch wheels as I gladly lose one or two MPG for improved traction for turns and stops.

I want more MPG but I am not nuts.

Rich

PS And I usually get on people about being accurate...I must engage accurate mode.
 
Last edited:

Indycars

Administrator
Staff member
Sounds like you have done your homework and know what your goals are and what your willing to accept ..... proceed !
 

racprops

Well-Known Member
Thanks I have done as much as I can.

Still asking for help with the cam, straight or 4 degrees retarded?? Big big question...

What is a good sequential ECM? And how to make the "Opti-Spark Control", which has an optical sensor which counts light pulses through a perforated disc in the distributor. Work??

And on the coatings.

Which is why these deep questions....

Rich
 

Indycars

Administrator
Staff member
Still asking for help with the cam, straight or 4 degrees retarded?? Big big question...
Why would you want to retard the cam if detonation is not a problem? Wouldn't 4° advanced keep you closer to the sweet spot on the torque curve when cruising on the highway? Although to know for sure we would need to know the rear tire diameter to calculated RPM at your intended cruising speed with the 3.43 rear gear. Also will you be using a lock-up torque converter?

Any coating that retains heat in the combustion chamber is theoretically going to increase torque/horsepower. Will it be worth the cost, probably not, but we don't always do things just because of the cost. We do them because it gives us a warm fuzzy feeling inside and we like that !

Speaking of ignition systems, have you considered the Progression Ignition Distributor ?
 

racprops

Well-Known Member
Because it seems a -4 gives MORE torque and HP and keeps it in a power curve higher: As in first picture and to answer the second question is pic 2. And yes 4L80e with lock up Torque convertor.

Coatings for more power and torque and to protect engine from lean burn cruising.

Rich
 

Attachments

  • 4 degress retarted SM.png
    4 degress retarted SM.png
    272.2 KB · Views: 1
  • Van with 4L80 3.42 B.jpg
    Van with 4L80 3.42 B.jpg
    148.1 KB · Views: 1

racprops

Well-Known Member
Called Progression Ignition Distributor

They do not interface with the cars ECM/PCM so no timing control and NO KNOCK CONTROL.

Thanks anyway.

Rich
 
Last edited:

Indycars

Administrator
Staff member
I had to make some assumptions. I don't have EFI, so I used Dual Plane manifold with 600 CFM flow. For the heads I used a generic set, but I do show the flow numbers below. I can do coatings and it has two options: 1) piston or chamber coated, 2) both piston and chamber coated. I used Both coated. Not shown is the exhaust category, but that is stock with mufflers and cats.

I ran two sims, one with the cam installed dot-to-dot or 4° advanced and then again with the cam retarded 4° or 0° advanced. Dynomation does start the simulation as low as 1000 rpm.

Sim01_vs_Sim02.jpg

SimParametersPage01.jpgSimParametersPage02.jpg
SimParametersPage03.jpg
 

racprops

Well-Known Member
Thanks for so much effort.

Sadly it seems that not being able to set for two features can make a small but important difference.

One is the GM193TBI heads and the other is for Tunedport Injection manifold.

On DYNO 2003 these settings do seem to make a difference.

Other settings that seem off is Vaporization at 80%, my understanding is a ICE is barely 20/30%?

Yet your set up does allow computing for coated piston and chamber.

And Timing advance at mechanical were these systems are ECM controled.

It is very interesting how much or how little these things effect the readouts.

And how much is missing in these programs.

So at best these sims are a very good guess....

Rich
 
Last edited:

racprops

Well-Known Member
OK my charts on DYNO2003 are much closer to yours.

As I feared I was making a couple of errors that seemed to show a MUCH bigger change between Cam at 0 and CAM at-4.

I don't think there is enough change to be worth all the time and effort to gain only 2HP@4.5K and 5HP@5K.

I don't think I could ever feel the change.

There is still the low RPM rates to be added in....

Rich
 

Attachments

  • Side by Side.png
    Side by Side.png
    421.7 KB · Views: 1
  • Change.png
    Change.png
    39.7 KB · Views: 1
  • Cam -4.png
    Cam -4.png
    372.9 KB · Views: 1
  • Final Cam =0.png
    Final Cam =0.png
    342.3 KB · Views: 1

Indycars

Administrator
Staff member
It's not so much about the absolute value of the number, but the relative value or difference in the two curves showing how the change in cam timing effects the them. Everything else was held constant.

I was surprised at how much the curve moved up with the coating, I wonder what an actual dyno would show.
 

racprops

Well-Known Member
Sorry i was unable to see that change, your saying that the coatings made a big change all by themselves??

Please share.

Rich
 

racprops

Well-Known Member
And again I am seeing large differences between the power curves when I change only the cams duration and life based on a 10% reduction as by the Rhords Lifters.

These numbers are duration: 185.4/191.7 Lift .371/385.2

Running them show by DYNO2003 a jump of torque nearly 60Ft. Pd.s at 2000RPMs. And a HP jump of 20HP.

Does that compute??

Rich

Pictures:
 

Attachments

  • Final Cam =0.png
    Final Cam =0.png
    342.3 KB · Views: 1
  • Rhords Lifters SM.png
    Rhords Lifters SM.png
    222 KB · Views: 1

racprops

Well-Known Member
Here is my projected combo of both graphs:
 

Attachments

  • Projected Power curves with Rhoads Lifters SM.png
    Projected Power curves with Rhoads Lifters SM.png
    247.9 KB · Views: 3

Indycars

Administrator
Staff member
With the coating on both surfaces the HP/TQ at 2000 rpm is 156/409 and without the coatings it's 153/401. It's not as much as I thought when I checked the table for actual values.

Sim01_vs_Sim03_Table_CoatingComparison.jpg
Sim01_vs_Sim03_CoatingComparison.jpg

You cannot just reduce the the lift and duration by 10%, at least with Dynomation. The lifter acceleration rate went up considerably from 2.37 in Sim01 to 2.78 in Sim04. The lift curve would have to be a straight line for this to work. If you go up to my post #33, you will find in the Camshaft category the "Cam Accel Rating" of 2.37.

PER THE DYNOMATION MANUAL:
Use the following guidelines to evaluate Acceleration Rates:
1.00 Very Low Acceleration
2.00 Stock Production, OEM Camshafts, Long Valvetrain Life
3.00 Performance OEM and Aftermarket Performance, Good Life
4.00 Mild Racing & Performance, Limited Street Application
5.00 Racing, Valvetrain Loads Require Use Of Optimum Components
6.00 Racing, Reduced Valvetrain Life With Best Components
7.00 High Valvetrain Loads, Requires Regular Valvetrain Maintenance
8.00 + Extreme Acceleration And Loads, Limited Valvetrain Life


There's a term called "Hydraulic Intensity" and that's the difference between the Adv Dur - .050 Dur. It helps you determine just how fast the cam is opening the valve. A street cam is going to be much slower than race cam.
HI of Sim01 = 265 - 206 = 59°
HI of Sim03 = 238.5 - 185.4 = 53.1°

Therefore the graph below in NOT A VALID GRAPH.

Sim01_vs_Sim04_RhoadsLifters.jpg
.
 
Top