2.0L LSJ Performance Tech 205hp Supercharged SS tuner version. 200 lb-ft of torque.

Brfps

Old Jul 19, 2010 | 11:13 PM
  #26  
csementuh's Avatar
Senior Member
iTrader: (18)
 
Joined: 12-20-07
Posts: 3,055
Likes: 0
From: Jeannette, PA
That RLF post is outstanding. Moarrr discussion here please!
Reply
Old Jul 19, 2010 | 11:17 PM
  #27  
roderick's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: 05-07-08
Posts: 910
Likes: 0
From: North Vancouver BC
Originally Posted by skatin_boarding
I think im going to try it and if I dont like it just buy the extra fuel line and make it into a return style. Its not like I am going to need tons more of fuel. Im in the same boat as you. I just want to run a 2.7 or 2.75" and be able to rev to 7200.
Does your car go super lean in 4th gear?
Reply
Old Jul 20, 2010 | 08:30 AM
  #28  
skatin_boarding's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: 06-26-09
Posts: 609
Likes: 0
From: Rochester, MN
Originally Posted by roderick
Does your car go super lean in 4th gear?
I havent gotten it that high many times. I did do a couple pulls to 6500ish in 4th and I still had fuel. I dont really like going that fast. I think once I free up my exhaust I will start running out of fuel.
Reply
Old Jul 20, 2010 | 09:44 AM
  #29  
JapEatr's Avatar
South Central *********
iTrader: (9)
 
Joined: 05-14-05
Posts: 6,148
Likes: 48
From: Texas
Originally Posted by skatin_boarding
I havent gotten it that high many times. I did do a couple pulls to 6500ish in 4th and I still had fuel. I dont really like going that fast. I think once I free up my exhaust I will start running out of fuel.
TVS/E85/80#s/and 2.9 with full exhaust

maxed out 80s at top of third on E...granted im a little rich cuz i needs the help with the fuel trims




Return style is a must...will be the only thing allowing me to pulley down or even install my ported head on this fuel
Reply
Old Jul 20, 2010 | 09:53 AM
  #30  
skatin_boarding's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: 06-26-09
Posts: 609
Likes: 0
From: Rochester, MN
where is the timing? I think my stockish exhaust is keeping me within the injector limits.
Reply
Old Jul 20, 2010 | 09:59 AM
  #31  
csementuh's Avatar
Senior Member
iTrader: (18)
 
Joined: 12-20-07
Posts: 3,055
Likes: 0
From: Jeannette, PA
Originally Posted by skatin_boarding
where is the timing? I think my stockish exhaust is keeping me within the injector limits.
The HPT chart shows 17*...
Reply
Old Jul 20, 2010 | 10:19 AM
  #32  
JapEatr's Avatar
South Central *********
iTrader: (9)
 
Joined: 05-14-05
Posts: 6,148
Likes: 48
From: Texas
skatin...i would love to see your tune file man...i am totally new to the e85 tuning...send me an email if you wouldnt mind

vwatson@peerlessmfg.com
Reply
Old Jul 20, 2010 | 10:20 PM
  #33  
skatin_boarding's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: 06-26-09
Posts: 609
Likes: 0
From: Rochester, MN
Originally Posted by csementuh
The HPT chart shows 17*...
I was giving him crap. Ramp it up to 25*. No need to stay on gas timing with ethanol in your tank. Thats the reason we use it.
Reply
Old Jul 21, 2010 | 09:41 AM
  #34  
JapEatr's Avatar
South Central *********
iTrader: (9)
 
Joined: 05-14-05
Posts: 6,148
Likes: 48
From: Texas
care to give me a hand...?
Reply
Old Jul 21, 2010 | 09:47 AM
  #35  
csementuh's Avatar
Senior Member
iTrader: (18)
 
Joined: 12-20-07
Posts: 3,055
Likes: 0
From: Jeannette, PA
Originally Posted by skatin_boarding
I was giving him crap. Ramp it up to 25*. No need to stay on gas timing with ethanol in your tank. Thats the reason we use it.
Ya I misread your post, I thought you were asking how much lol.

Vaughn, bump that baby up to 25!

Must be nice to have E85 around. The low octane is killing my TVS fun lol. I have E85 about 20 miles away (the opposite way of where I work and regularly go as well), but that's a long way just to drive for gas...
Reply
Old Jul 21, 2010 | 11:17 PM
  #36  
csementuh's Avatar
Senior Member
iTrader: (18)
 
Joined: 12-20-07
Posts: 3,055
Likes: 0
From: Jeannette, PA
Is this BRFPS functionally equivalent to a return style system minus the return style part?
Reply
Old Jul 22, 2010 | 09:13 AM
  #37  
coopercharge's Avatar
Senior Member
iTrader: (4)
 
Joined: 01-27-10
Posts: 1,233
Likes: 0
From: Omaha, Nebraska
nope return style keeps the pressure at a set amount as the boost referenced actually raises the pressure as you get up past 17.5# of boost.
Reply
Old Jul 22, 2010 | 09:15 AM
  #38  
csementuh's Avatar
Senior Member
iTrader: (18)
 
Joined: 12-20-07
Posts: 3,055
Likes: 0
From: Jeannette, PA
So can you explain in which circumstance which is used, and which is better for what? Thanks!
Reply
Old Jul 22, 2010 | 09:39 AM
  #39  
coopercharge's Avatar
Senior Member
iTrader: (4)
 
Joined: 01-27-10
Posts: 1,233
Likes: 0
From: Omaha, Nebraska
They both have thier strong point and both decent system, I have no experience with the fuel system changes as Im still stage 3 pushing out less than 17.5# pounds of boost.
Reply
Old Jul 22, 2010 | 10:04 AM
  #40  
csementuh's Avatar
Senior Member
iTrader: (18)
 
Joined: 12-20-07
Posts: 3,055
Likes: 0
From: Jeannette, PA
Originally Posted by coopercharge
They both have thier strong point and both decent system, I have no experience with the fuel system changes as Im still stage 3 pushing out less than 17.5# pounds of boost.
Well thanks. I'm still trying to figure out what each's stong point is, and what is a better application for which type of setup. I'm going to likely need it so I can run my 2.8" TVS on E85.
Reply
Old Jul 22, 2010 | 10:05 AM
  #41  
coopercharge's Avatar
Senior Member
iTrader: (4)
 
Joined: 01-27-10
Posts: 1,233
Likes: 0
From: Omaha, Nebraska
If you want to run e85 from what I have read on the forum go with the return style so that you dont starve the number 4 cylinder thats what I have read and I dont know how Viable the source is.
Reply
Old Jul 22, 2010 | 10:08 AM
  #42  
csementuh's Avatar
Senior Member
iTrader: (18)
 
Joined: 12-20-07
Posts: 3,055
Likes: 0
From: Jeannette, PA
Ya, I'll have to research it some more and then decide. It won't be for awhile anyways.
Reply
Old Jul 22, 2010 | 10:25 AM
  #43  
ebristol's Avatar
Senior Member
iTrader: (4)
 
Joined: 04-15-07
Posts: 5,457
Likes: 3
From: WI
Originally Posted by csementuh
Well thanks. I'm still trying to figure out what each's stong point is, and what is a better application for which type of setup. I'm going to likely need it so I can run my 2.8" TVS on E85.
It mainly depends on how far you want to push your fuel system.

The ZZP BRFPS should be plenty to run a 2.8" pulley on a TVS with E85. But it may not be enough to run a 2.6".

That is what I would base my purchase on if I where you.

Originally Posted by coopercharge
If you want to run e85 from what I have read on the forum go with the return style so that you dont starve the number 4 cylinder thats what I have read and I dont know how Viable the source is.
No one has proved that the failure of #4 is because of fuel starvation. That is a forum rumor.

Most people think it has to do with the cooling pockets around the #4 cylinder. That is the reason GM increased the cooling capacity of the Gen II ecotec block by .5L.

Last edited by ebristol; Jul 22, 2010 at 10:25 AM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
Reply
Old Jul 22, 2010 | 11:09 AM
  #44  
coopercharge's Avatar
Senior Member
iTrader: (4)
 
Joined: 01-27-10
Posts: 1,233
Likes: 0
From: Omaha, Nebraska
Originally Posted by ebristol
No one has proved that the failure of #4 is because of fuel starvation. That is a forum rumor.

Most people think it has to do with the cooling pockets around the #4 cylinder. That is the reason GM increased the cooling capacity of the Gen II ecotec block by .5L.
Good to know that's why I said I didnt know how viable the information was thanks for the input!
Reply
Old Jul 22, 2010 | 11:11 AM
  #45  
csementuh's Avatar
Senior Member
iTrader: (18)
 
Joined: 12-20-07
Posts: 3,055
Likes: 0
From: Jeannette, PA
Originally Posted by ebristol
It mainly depends on how far you want to push your fuel system.

The ZZP BRFPS should be plenty to run a 2.8" pulley on a TVS with E85. But it may not be enough to run a 2.6".

That is what I would base my purchase on if I where you.



No one has proved that the failure of #4 is because of fuel starvation. That is a forum rumor.

Most people think it has to do with the cooling pockets around the #4 cylinder. That is the reason GM increased the cooling capacity of the Gen II ecotec block by .5L.
Thanks for the insight. Can you explain how each system works? What their intended application is? Tuning issues with both? How about boost reference with return style?

So if common sense reads right from your post, the return style will flow a whole lot more? Two pulley sizes doesn't seem like a lot...

Is the LSJ block a Gen II block? (Over the Cavalier Ecotecs?)
Reply
Old Jul 22, 2010 | 12:07 PM
  #46  
ebristol's Avatar
Senior Member
iTrader: (4)
 
Joined: 04-15-07
Posts: 5,457
Likes: 3
From: WI
Originally Posted by csementuh
Thanks for the insight. Can you explain how each system works? What their intended application is? Tuning issues with both? How about boost reference with return style?

So if common sense reads right from your post, the return style will flow a whole lot more? Two pulley sizes doesn't seem like a lot...
Your going to have to do your own research for that.

Originally Posted by csementuh
Is the LSJ block a Gen II block? (Over the Cavalier Ecotecs?)
LSJ, L61, LK9 are Gen I.
LNF, LE5, LAF, LAP, LE9, LAT are all Gen II.
Reply
Old Jul 22, 2010 | 12:43 PM
  #47  
csementuh's Avatar
Senior Member
iTrader: (18)
 
Joined: 12-20-07
Posts: 3,055
Likes: 0
From: Jeannette, PA
Originally Posted by ebristol
Your going to have to do your own research for that.
Thats kinda rude coming from the guy that demands proof of cars that have cracked 300whp, when many have done it years ago... Sorry, reading css.net jibberish is not 'research'... I'm not asking for you to write me a book, but some links or other info are helpful to myself as well as thousands of others on this website. I guess that's why this place is .nub and Cobalts are still slow...

Nobody wants to share anything to advance our cars.
Reply
Old Jul 22, 2010 | 12:48 PM
  #48  
ebristol's Avatar
Senior Member
iTrader: (4)
 
Joined: 04-15-07
Posts: 5,457
Likes: 3
From: WI
Originally Posted by csementuh
Thats kinda rude coming from the guy that demands proof of cars that have cracked 300whp, when many have done it years ago... Sorry, reading css.net jibberish is not 'research'... I'm not asking for you to write me a book, but some links or other info are helpful to myself as well as thousands of others on this website. I guess that's why this place is .nub and Cobalts are still slow...

Nobody wants to share anything to advance our cars.
lmao!

Kids...

I am not demanding anything. I asked who has broke 300 and let people throw out all the names. Then I did my research to find the truth. w/e

I have provided more information in this thread then everyone else combined. And your going to call me out? lol

Reply
Old Jul 22, 2010 | 12:54 PM
  #49  
csementuh's Avatar
Senior Member
iTrader: (18)
 
Joined: 12-20-07
Posts: 3,055
Likes: 0
From: Jeannette, PA
Originally Posted by ebristol
lmao!

Kids...

I am not demanding anything. I asked who has broke 300 and let people throw out all the names. Then I did my research to find the truth. w/e

I have provided more information in this thread then everyone else combined. And your going to call me out? lol

I don't e-fight, sorry, so I won't respond to another thing you say.

</threadjack>

How about some fuel system tech talk!

Last edited by csementuh; Jul 22, 2010 at 02:00 PM.
Reply
Old Jul 22, 2010 | 04:42 PM
  #50  
Stiner's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: 11-06-06
Posts: 992
Likes: 0
From: Pontypool, Ontario
You're on the wrong site for tech info.....
Reply

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:46 AM.