2.0L LNF Performance Tech 260hp and 260 lb-ft of torque Turbocharged tuner version.

Trifecta gets it done: Fuel tables unlocked

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Nov 6, 2009 | 06:21 PM
  #26  
MaxVQ35DE's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: 08-17-08
Posts: 1,605
Likes: 0
From: Illinois
Vince is the real deal holyfield... nice work
Reply
Old Nov 6, 2009 | 06:35 PM
  #27  
krispy's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: 03-26-08
Posts: 3,420
Likes: 3
From: Somewhere, MI
Originally Posted by VinceTrifecta
Yeah - that is a very big concern. Fuel getting loose under the hood at 2176+ psi would be VERY bad
Its not as bad as you might think, I worked as an engineer in diesel fuel systems for GM for ~2 yrs and while fuel leaks were always a concern, if there was a leak it would either be a very small leak or the leak increase flow by so much that the high pressures weren't possible. On the diesel every high pressure connection is an inverted flare fitting which seems to be the same connection as what is from the pump to the rail on the LNF (which would mean the connection would be good for above 25-30k psi). The only thing that's an unknown to me is how strong the connection between the rail and injectors on the LNF is. What usually caused the leaks on the diesel was reusing the high pressure pipes after service (technically they are one time use, can be re-used but there is a much greater potential for leaks).

In terms of components that will be seeing increased pressure/force affecting long term wear that I can think of:

Cam
Cam bearings
Pump tappet
Pump spring
Metering valve and pump piston seals

I think the pump outlet and rail inlet seals won't have much of an issue as mentioned above. Rail to injector seal and injector internals not sure about. Only other thought I can add here is that the injector solenoid will have to contend with a higher pressure, could delay the start of injection and close the needle sooner.
Reply
Old Nov 6, 2009 | 06:40 PM
  #28  
stenguyen1's Avatar
Senior Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Joined: 06-03-08
Posts: 1,962
Likes: 1
From: Spring, Texas
sub'd

this is a long time coming i'm glad you finallly got it unlocked vince.
Reply
Old Nov 6, 2009 | 06:43 PM
  #29  
VinceTrifecta's Avatar
Thread Starter
Member
 
Joined: 04-09-08
Posts: 377
Likes: 0
From: Seattle, WA
Originally Posted by krispy
Its not as bad as you might think, I worked as an engineer in diesel fuel systems for GM for ~2 yrs and while fuel leaks were always a concern, if there was a leak it would either be a very small leak or the leak increase flow by so much that the high pressures weren't possible. On the diesel every high pressure connection is an inverted flare fitting which seems to be the same connection as what is from the pump to the rail on the LNF (which would mean the connection would be good for above 25-30k psi). The only thing that's an unknown to me is how strong the connection between the rail and injectors on the LNF is. What usually caused the leaks on the diesel was reusing the high pressure pipes after service (technically they are one time use, can be re-used but there is a much greater potential for leaks).

In terms of components that will be seeing increased pressure/force affecting long term wear that I can think of:

Cam
Cam bearings
Pump tappet
Pump spring
Metering valve and pump piston seals

I think the pump outlet and rail inlet seals won't have much of an issue as mentioned above. Rail to injector seal and injector internals not sure about. Only other thought I can add here is that the injector solenoid will have to contend with a higher pressure, could delay the start of injection and close the needle sooner.
Good information, thanks for sharing.
Reply
Old Nov 6, 2009 | 06:49 PM
  #30  
slowbalt84's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: 10-03-09
Posts: 2,649
Likes: 0
From: Warrenton, MO
all hail the king

i have a couple questions
1) Are you trying to say this is why our cars crap out at over 6,000 rpms? So does that mean we can extend it to 7000 rpms and still carry till redline?
2) Will this make a difference on stock turbo
3) will this make a difference on stock turbo with compressor wheel upgrade?
4) how high do you THINK we can go on a gt30 turbo now that we won't hit the 400hp fuel problem?

Last edited by slowbalt84; Nov 6, 2009 at 06:49 PM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
Reply
Old Nov 6, 2009 | 06:51 PM
  #31  
ei3dag3's Avatar
Senior Member
iTrader: (5)
 
Joined: 04-23-08
Posts: 4,218
Likes: 0
i knew you'd get it done soon!
damn but not this soon. we barely talked about this a while ago, and now its done lol.
good job vince!
still waiting to buy my lnf, then i'll be getting a tune through you and probably cj again.

-haza
Reply
Old Nov 6, 2009 | 06:53 PM
  #32  
VinceTrifecta's Avatar
Thread Starter
Member
 
Joined: 04-09-08
Posts: 377
Likes: 0
From: Seattle, WA
Originally Posted by slowbalt84
all hail the king

i have a couple questions
1) Are you trying to say this is why our cars crap out at over 6,000 rpms? So does that mean we can extend it to 7000 rpms and still carry till redline?
2) Will this make a difference on stock turbo
3) will this make a difference on stock turbo with compressor wheel upgrade?
4) how high do you THINK we can go on a gt30 turbo now that we won't hit the 400hp fuel problem?
1) Maybe. It could also simply mean that GM figured out that the engine never needs 2176psi worth of fuel past 6000 RPM because the airflow is done by then.

2/3) Maybe. I'll try to get to the dyno in the next few weeks and experiment with this. Even fuel atomization changes due to pressure changes might affect the power potential.

4) Well, it sounds like there might be some other torque management related stuff that needs to be worked out. From what I've been told about the ZZP turbo project they are having problems with the ECM closing the throttle at their power level.
Reply
Old Nov 6, 2009 | 06:55 PM
  #33  
ei3dag3's Avatar
Senior Member
iTrader: (5)
 
Joined: 04-23-08
Posts: 4,218
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by VinceTrifecta
1) Maybe. It could also simply mean that GM figured out that the engine never needs 2176psi worth of fuel past 6000 RPM because the airflow is done by then.

2/3) Maybe. I'll try to get to the dyno in the next few weeks and experiment with this. Even fuel atomization changes due to pressure changes might affect the power potential.

4) Well, it sounds like there might be some other torque management related stuff that needs to be worked out. From what I've been told about the ZZP turbo project they are having problems with the ECM closing the throttle at their power level.
let us know when you have it tested on your hhr ss.
Reply
Old Nov 6, 2009 | 06:55 PM
  #34  
mkriebs's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: 01-12-09
Posts: 4,220
Likes: 0
From: Illinois
1) The reason our cars crap out over 6k is the stock turbo.
2) It will gain minimal power on the stock turbo.
3) On the compressor wheel it could be useful north of 5500 rpms since it will flow up to a bit higher rpm, but not much more, I think it stops flowing well around 7k.
4) Vince can answer that one... I don't have enough experience with big turbos on these cars.
Reply
Old Nov 6, 2009 | 07:02 PM
  #35  
peachpuff's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: 05-14-08
Posts: 1,023
Likes: 1
From: around the world
Vince so when are you releasing this software? I'll dump hptuners asap.
Reply
Old Nov 6, 2009 | 07:05 PM
  #36  
bowtie32's Avatar
Senior Member
iTrader: (3)
 
Joined: 03-19-07
Posts: 866
Likes: 0
From: Tri-Cities,WA
Vince, you da man!! im glad im only 3 hrs away, from you and have an hhr ss too. if you have it ready soon let me know, so when Dan puts on my boost tubing, you can retune the car!
Reply
Old Nov 6, 2009 | 07:09 PM
  #37  
ralliartist's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: 10-06-05
Posts: 10,944
Likes: 2
From: Seneca, South Carolina
Originally Posted by 1badBlueberrySC
Yeah.... that is what I was hoping someone would notice!

We need those controls... so we can get rid of the high RPM lean condition. Especially at 7000+ rpm
you shouldnt be revving that high with the stock turbo anyways, it doesnt make **** for power that high.
Reply
Old Nov 6, 2009 | 07:10 PM
  #38  
mkriebs's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: 01-12-09
Posts: 4,220
Likes: 0
From: Illinois
Originally Posted by ralliartist
you shouldnt be revving that high with the stock turbo anyways, it doesnt make **** for power that high.
But, it saves a helluva lot of time than shifting through the traps.
Reply
Old Nov 6, 2009 | 07:58 PM
  #39  
FutureEcotecOwner's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: 06-28-08
Posts: 2,585
Likes: 0
From: Clarksville
This is great news!! Cant wait to see dyno #'s, and upgraded turbo #'s with this unlocked.
Reply
Old Nov 6, 2009 | 08:00 PM
  #40  
1badBlueberrySC's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: 09-23-08
Posts: 6,621
Likes: 0
From: Raleigh, NC
Originally Posted by ralliartist
you shouldnt be revving that high with the stock turbo anyways, it doesnt make **** for power that high.
I'm still making 320+ ft/lbs at 7000 rpm. but yes it keeps me in 3rd gear through the traps at 116ish MPH! that is the one and ONLY times I have every shifted over 6500 or so!
Reply
Old Nov 6, 2009 | 08:02 PM
  #41  
mkriebs's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: 01-12-09
Posts: 4,220
Likes: 0
From: Illinois
You're trapping 116 at what rpm?! ****. I trap 111 at like 7200...
Reply
Old Nov 6, 2009 | 08:05 PM
  #42  
1badBlueberrySC's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: 09-23-08
Posts: 6,621
Likes: 0
From: Raleigh, NC
Originally Posted by mkriebs
You're trapping 116 at what rpm?! ****. I trap 111 at like 7200...
I crossed the traps at 7000ish or so... did a NLS from 3-4 right at the traps. Well actually it was 115.7
Reply
Old Nov 6, 2009 | 08:06 PM
  #43  
mkriebs's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: 01-12-09
Posts: 4,220
Likes: 0
From: Illinois
WTF. Why is it so different? I had the limit set to 7k and bounced it at 110, raised it to 7250 and trapped at 111, and bounced it shortly after the traps (so I had to be close at the trap)...
Reply
Old Nov 6, 2009 | 08:07 PM
  #44  
1badBlueberrySC's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: 09-23-08
Posts: 6,621
Likes: 0
From: Raleigh, NC
I must make a bit more power than you!
Reply
Old Nov 6, 2009 | 08:08 PM
  #45  
mkriebs's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: 01-12-09
Posts: 4,220
Likes: 0
From: Illinois
Oh duh. I feel tarded now. Lol. What time did you run?
Reply
Old Nov 6, 2009 | 08:10 PM
  #46  
1badBlueberrySC's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: 09-23-08
Posts: 6,621
Likes: 0
From: Raleigh, NC
12.95

Anywho enough with the sidebar... LOL
Reply
Old Nov 6, 2009 | 08:10 PM
  #47  
mkriebs's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: 01-12-09
Posts: 4,220
Likes: 0
From: Illinois
Ho ****... .05 seconds faster than me, with 5 more mph...

Hmm.
Reply
Old Nov 6, 2009 | 09:22 PM
  #48  
damien's Avatar
Senior Member
iTrader: (3)
 
Joined: 04-12-09
Posts: 1,739
Likes: 0
From: NJ
116...nice dub
Reply
Old Nov 6, 2009 | 09:28 PM
  #49  
Projekt's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: 06-03-07
Posts: 24,270
Likes: 1
From: Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Originally Posted by 1badBlueberrySC
I'm still making 320+ ft/lbs at 7000 rpm. but yes it keeps me in 3rd gear through the traps at 116ish MPH! that is the one and ONLY times I have every shifted over 6500 or so!
Exactly. That shift from 3rd to 4th on stock redline is killer.
Reply
Old Nov 6, 2009 | 10:46 PM
  #50  
1badBlueberrySC's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: 09-23-08
Posts: 6,621
Likes: 0
From: Raleigh, NC
stock redline even at power levels nets about 100-104 traps. **** that
Reply



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:33 PM.