anyone have a near stock zr-1 with the secondaries removed?

[gmonsen]

smmy... Please don't misunderstand me. When you increase the amount of air fuel running through the motor, you make more power. Since these cars still use proms rather than aftermarket EMS, your tuner has access to changing the basics of timing and fuel injector duty cycle. So what your friend did was to reset the injector duty cycles such that the air fuel ratio was adjusted upward -- for the added air flow -- back to wherever the motor likes it, but somewhere around 13-13.5:1, I would guess. That would make more power pretty much everywhere except the high end where the secondaries had come on before. The reason I suggested that the low end would suffer -- relatively -- is that there's a lot of air now down low and the secondary runners were not designed for velocity there, so there would be a lot of volume, but less velocity. The only way you could see this effect would be the shape of the torque curves before and after. However, it sounds as though the overall change is much for the better, though I would be curious to see the duty cycles for the injectors.

Just noodling about it, I wonder about keeping the primary-secondary setup and just have the secondaries come on earlier -- lower rpm or load -- rather than have them both open all the time, and increasing the size of the plenum, since the larger plenum would cause more air to go through both the primaries and secondaries.

However, running both all the time will certainly get you more power and its easy and doesn't cost anything, but the reasons for using variable valve timing go further than raw power or Honda would just run the upper end lobs all the time... And, despite the notes about passing various tests using "normal" versus power settings, that should not have been the primary reason for the design.

Gordon

[Paul Workman]

Originally Posted by gmonsen

I don't know what types of injectors are used and what their flow rates are, but there could well be problems with this approach, because the secondary injectors should have more flow than the primaries and some injectors don't work well when the duty cycles are very low, which they would need to be down low in the rpm range. The whole premise of the motor was to make a lot of torque down low and yet have the air flow and fuel to make max power at the high end of the rev band. The approach you are thinking about will probably reduce torque at the bottom end and might add some to the mid-range. The top won't change at all. I would think trying to open up the secondaries a little sooner and retune would be a better approach.

Gordon

Hello and welcome!

Moving from hypothetical to empirical LT5 (secondary facts and characteristics), I found these departures from the "textbook" as you may soon discover (hopefully):

1. Both injectors are 21# ers.
2. Short PW issues (apparently) become more prevalent with higher flowing injectors and or fuel pressures. I, and many others running sans secondaries can put to rest any concerns about these injectors able to operate at low PW under low throttle demands.
3. In short, the secondaries open along an inverse, exponential curve (not a straight line) according to rpm and throttle position, e.g, just off idle (1500ish) at 70% throttle will trigger the secondaries, but as rpm increases, the amount of throttle demand resulting in the secondaries opening drops dramatically. Furthermore, once opened, they are programmed to remain open over a wide range of operating conditions until throttle and rpm levels drop below a much lower threshold curve than was required to open them.
4. Practically speaking, unless the power switch is turned off, mid range power comparisons with or without the secondaries installed is somewhat moot due to the fact that under loads where mid range torque was needed, the secondaries are already open!
5. Ah, the plenum...AND runner length, & the velocity vs. volume thing; bring Helmholtz into the picture, and things get really interesting, huh? To each his own, but build me a system that will give me a flat torque curve from just off idle all the way to the rpm limit of the motor...and the more (torque) the better, of course, and you have my attention. But, if peak torque or hp is of ultimate necessity, then usually one or the other has to suffer somewhere. I hope you are willing to share the "Holy Grail", should you find it.

I'm gonna guess and say that most that have eliminated the secondary throttle plates for one reason or another probably have other flow mods in place. Such is the case w/ me. So, the two graphs below are "apples to oranges", far as comparing goes, but one is with my stock engine, and the other is after being fully ported, optimized exhaust, and tune.

I don't know what significant information can be gleaned from the results of these drastically different motors, but in the context of the general discussion, I thought they'd be interesting in their respective right, no?

My stock LT5 (note the leaning was due to the secondary fuel pump failing)



This is the same motor after being fully ported according to "FBI" models that demonstrate proven characteristics I particularly like.



And, rules and theories and empirical data that apply to 2-valve motors struggle to apply absolutely to 4-valve, dual intake runner motors - or at least to the LT5's design. For comparison, look at the characteristics of a stock(?) LS7, the torque and power curves in particular, compared to the (350 ci) LT5.



For a comparison of an LT5 a bit closer to the LS7's cid, there is this: a 415 cid (stroked and sleeved) LT5:



I've rambled too much (as I tend to do..)

P.

[gmonsen]

Paul... Thanks much for the data. Haven't really done the math, but my gut take is that its pretty much as I expected, though the scaling of the first 2 graphs is a bit different. From looking at the shape of the curves, the modified motor has a lot more midrange torque and relatively less torque at the bottom end. The base motor seems to make about 280 ft lbs at 2000 and peaks at 330 or so, which is 16% higher. The modified motor starts at about 300 ft lbs and peaks at 377, which is 26% higher.

As to the injectors, I have to look up the model number you mentioned. I am used to thinking of injectors in terms of how many cc's they flow, like 850cc Bosch's or 1600 cc Bosch's or whatever. When I use a larger flowing injector that I want to work down low at lower pulse widths, I like Injector Dynamics modified Bosch's, because the take the pinhole and run it out through 6 channels, like the spokes of an umbrella, so the fuel is better atomized, which helps at low rpm and low duty cycles.

I'm not an engineer, but read a lot and talk to motor builders a lot over time, so I can't quote Helmhotz. But, I have empirically tried differing sized plenums, different length runners, tappered versus non-tappered, and a lot of work on header diameters and lengths, as well as trying exhausts with multiple pipes controlled by cutouts to increase flow velocity. For instance, I found that cylinder temperatures varied from front to back on some motors and that differences of an inch in header lengths would improve flow and pulsing because of better equalized velocities, since heat changes velocity.

Most of my better experiments have been done with an E30 M3 piston engine and 2 and 3 rotor rotaries, all NA motors. Definitely spent more than a college engineering degree on my learning process! I agree about getting a flat torque curve, though I'll say that my old Ferrari 512 had more torque up high than down low and it really gave it a bike-like kick!

Sorry for all this talk, since I don't even have a car yet, but, honestly, this motor is just such an exciting design that I can't help thinking about it.

Gordon

Gordon

[XfireZ51]

Gordon,

What the hell are you waiting for?

[Paul Workman]

Originally Posted by gmonsen

Sorry for all this talk, since I don't even have a car yet, but, honestly, this motor is just such an exciting design that I can't help thinking about it.

Gordon

Gordon

Well, join the club. We love to hear about experiments and to compare notes. I'm still on the steep side of the learning curve of this motor, with no leveling in site. There are sooo many nuances and epiphanies associated with this motor that pushrod motors, for me, seem almost boring!

Ya might as well get off the sidelines and get your feet wet. Oh, and bring some cream for that permagrin you're gonna get!

P.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by gmonsen

And, despite the notes about passing various tests using "normal" versus power settings, that should not have been the primary reason for the design.

Gordon

clearly you don't understand how gm worked in the 80's....What part of the state are you from? when I get mine back up and running I'll be happy to give ya a ride pre and post secondary mod

[gmonsen]

Hey, Kevin. I'm near Bethlehem on the east side of the state. I'd really appreciate a ride in the car. You're going to Carlisle, right? Maybe I'll see you there? Where are you located?

Gordon

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by gmonsen

Hey, Kevin. I'm near Bethlehem on the east side of the state. I'd really appreciate a ride in the car. You're going to Carlisle, right? Maybe I'll see you there? Where are you located?

Gordon

Pittsburgh, I actually need to upgrade my profile here. I'll be at carlisle but I don't know if my car will be.

[gmonsen]

I'll be there, but driving something else as well. I did just make an offer on an 8000 mile ZR1 that is pristine. Should have it by the end of the month with any luck.

Gordon

[ZZZZZR1]

Originally Posted by gmonsen

I'll be there, but driving something else as well. I did just make an offer on an 8000 mile ZR1 that is pristine. Should have it by the end of the month with any luck.

Gordon

Gordon,

Congrats! Let us know when you get it.

Will you bring it to Carlisle??



David