agreed. before you even joined this site people came to paul. you rant about you guys hit this today, we went to the track and did this. whoopie doo. stop bragging. we know pauls car is a beast. ive been in it too many times not to stay that. whoopie doo your 2.4 kit made such and such power. who ****** cares. for you to come out and bash someone who builds there cobalt as a hobby and you do it for a living...wow. way to bring your business down to a all time low. i think after reading this thread..no zzp turbo kit..what a waste of my time.

paul has been here from day one and i won't even get into the stories. but u need to relax give the guy some credit and stop being a dick. /thread.

 

And the data supported backed up my statement, not Paul's.

Look at the TPS and injector duty cycle/pulse/rpm. It's clear exactly what rpm it went to and it was 8192. I can break it down if you need a technical explanation.

 

are you really that stupid. you can't read a datalog. do you see the amount of time the compute was held at 8192rpm? 149mph in 3rd gear (try and say fourth and your even dumber then you make yourself look). my 4th tops out at 163 at 8100 rpm. anyway.

you should learn how not to be a dick.

and yeah, I did this as a hobby, as was still one up on you until 2 weeks ago from day one. Try and discredit that. everything I've done has been posted on here. just go take a look

 

OMFG!! Preach it brother!!!!!!!

This is the exact bullshit that needs to stop, and it what is bringing this forum down. Because of a couple forum members having some kind of status rep, then ZZP as a proven and well known "company" shouldn't have the right to challenge the stuff that two "screen names" post? Give me a break guy, you and I are just screen names just like area47 and 06blackg85ss and 06black. ZZP is a COMPANY. There's a big difference.

 

I have no problem with them challenging things that are posted. But the the pompous ass bag way zoom zoom handles things is a travesty.
Data is asked for, I provide. I have nothing to hide, I don't play mind games, I try to show people what they can build in their driveway and I get torn apart for it. That is not a way to do business. Hell when I first started on my car I only ran ZZP parts, I've actually spoken on the phone with them many times in the past. This is not the way to treat customers. I don't care who you are or what your record is. I deal with people way out of my league on an almost daily basis, true pioneers of this car and many others. They have treated me with more respect than I could have ever hoped for. Then you come to ZZP who just talks down anything everyone has done that wasn't done by them because they think it's impossible.
Yet again I've stated many time I've never bashed this company (well up until now, because frankly I don't give a **** anymore). And I will continue to do so until they man up and stop acting like children.

 

you're the one swearing, cussing, calling names, bashing people, telling the forum you're taking your toys and going to play somewhere else cause your mad. I think it's clear who needs to "stop acting like children"

I am posting technical information and trying to change the mentality of this forum. yes it's hard because people want to believe things. then when I come in and tell them they did their math wrong, or they are looking at the wrong data, or what they are claiming isn't true, they get all upset and start name calling. That is what I'm trying to change.

In any forum with mature members who understand performance, you cannot make extraordinary claims and say "I don't know how it happened". You much provide extraordinary evidence to support these claims.

in this case Paul posted a data log. A log which shows a lot of information. Please do not insult my intelligence by thinking that I cannot read the RPM on the chart or use reason to determine that it hit 8192 on the log and kept climbing. I'm quite a bit smarter than that as displayed by the technical nature of my posts.

In speaking of being technical, I explained a few things that people want to ignore. Again cognitive bias. Everything that doesn't make sense Paul either ignores or says "i don't know", the posters here are doing the same thing. Everyone can read RPM, you don't need more than a 3 grade education for that. So we can all agree. What some of you don't realize is that the config file can be setup wrong to display the wrong rpm. And as I said, when something impossible happened, you don't decide it did and look for evidence to support your claim. You try and see if it did not. That is the scientific method. In this case there is a lot of evidence saying it did not that people want to ignore.

Notice how no one cared that the car was floored at 2k rpm even tho this went against Paul's statement? Doesn't any wonder why this was ignored?

Doesn't anyone wonder why on this dyno the car happened to spool much later in the RPM range than every other dyno done on the same car? The answer to me is clear. The car always spools at the same RPM but the display is off so it appears to spool later. Every RPM is displaying higher than actual.

You can look at the fueling and see that it stayed the same for the entire pull while under boost. This tells you that the PCM knew how much fuel to spray. This is important for this detective work. if you look at the injector duty cycle you can see that it rose as the pass was happening. Then look at the miliseconds the injectors were open for. This information tells you that the PCM knew what rpm the car was at the entire time and calculated the injector spray properly. When you do the math 10.5ms at the end of the pull at 8192rpm matches 72% IDC. This means that the car was in fact at 8192rpm where that white line is showing data points.

If it was not actually at 8192 and indeed at 9300 or something higher, then you would be saying that the scan tool doesn't know what the injector duty cycle was or the ms or how much fuel was going into the car. This wouldn't make sense on a few counts.
1. The fueling was correct so we should assume that the PCM was controlling it correctly.
2. The numbers are reading correctly at a data point BEFORE the rpm hits the top of the chart.
3. The numbers have an even slope to them the entire pull. It would be impossible for them to read correctly at the beginning and the end and travel on a linear line and be off in the middle.


Now I suspect that a lot of people will ignore that information or reply with "your an ******* and I'll never buy from you" as if those things somehow prove my point wrong...but I'm trying to change this forum into one where technical discussion takes place and people actually learn things. Because it's only then that the cars will get faster, false or mistaken claims will be weeded out and people will buy mods based on technical merits rather than popularity.

 

^I don't want to seem like a nutswinger here, in fact, the only ZZP part on my car is my flex pipe. But how can you not agree with that post.

 

Because it really is incorrect first off name calling didn't start until 2 days ago cause now I don't care.
Secondly if the is a way to show 2 data point where I can show you the length of time it showed an output of 8192 you'd retract that statement, thirdly dyno was read in rpm, not speed (the correct way rpm). Ill see if someone else has on video the screen clearly readin out to 9500 rpm

But anyway, who cares anymore I'm done with this car. You guys have fun with it and gl getting it to the 10s

 

Wow this **** is hilarious.

 

just throwing this out there. if the speed is calculated by RPM , wouldn't that be even more of a reason to believe that there was a error in the set up. If the rpm was reading higher than it actuly was , then the speed would actually read higer.

and looking at the data, the length of time the car was at 8000rpm cant be deternibd becasue the scale on the log stops at 7500rpm . the peak is clipped so we cant see the rise and fall.

 

speed was logged via hpt off the OBDII port. nothing to do with the dyno. and wow be strange out of the 20 cars we dyno'd that day only mine would have a problem.
either or lolz to you

 

speed was logged via hpt off the OBDII port. nothing to do with the dyno. and wow be strange out of the 20 cars we dyno'd that day only mine would have a problem.
either or lolz to you

scale on the log stops at 8192 there my friend, trust me I setup the config.
**** it I'm done arguing

 

Dude, it doesn't have to be an argument. I simply stated that it's unlikely. You yourself said you didn't know how it happened. If it were my car and I truly believed it did, then I would want to know how. That's what forums are for. you post info and a group of people can work on the problem and maybe someone can see something you didn't.

 

tru that...i have seen stranger things. could have been a fluke that casued it to rev out .

 

It had been like that after the dyno with no rev limiter, even my friends car started doing it. I think it had something to do with the new hpt beta. I didn't believe it either, I was standing there thinking "damn this is a long pull for 3rd gear" then I looked over at the dyno screen as it was passing 9300rpm. Went back and looked over the logs and they backed up my suspision. I'm at a loss as to how it happened, but the thing did scream out, even the shop owner was waiting for the limiter to kick in and it never did. Even stranger was I have a spark cut limiter on the wot box set at 8100 rpm and the stock limiter at 8192 just so I wouldn't hit fuel cut, maybe that had something to do with it. Also with everything falling off up top, car basically nose dived in power after 8500 rpm, why the IDC's dropped so low, maybe it was just from boost falling off from the turbo not being able to support that kind of rpm. but it did run out that high, **** 149mph in 3rd gear, just do the math with our gearing and it runs up to 9500rpm. But not that any of this matters anymore, car is out of commission and will be rebuilt with forged pistons, head studs, cometic gasket, m62 2.8 pulley, 60's and a 100 shot.

 

Ok sorry for bringing up a old thread with alottt of bad blood but I need questions answered since I just picked up a set of 80s recently.

Now from what I picked out that was the most useful post out of this whole thread was that it is POSSIBLE to just swap injectors if you are already tuned on 60s but it'll just be a hair out of touch? Would this mean I could drop the 80s in after running all the pump gas out and put in E85 start her up and I would be good to go?

I'm kind of confused because I emailed zzp after reading this "thread" and then this is what they sent back: "If you run 80s on a 60 tune you’ll ruin the cat and O2 sensor pretty quick. You’d want to switch to E85 right away.."

Would you guys be confused like myself after reading this and then recieving that?

*I AM NOT TRYING TO START DRAMA JUST NEED INPUT!* hah.

 

What about closed loop operation?

Wouldn't the PCM tuned for gas running 80s, be trying to trim the fuel to 14.7:1 ?

 

That response simply said not to run the 80s on gas with the 60s file. Put in the E85 right away.

 

It tries to trim to stoich, regardless of what afr that may be. The o2 sensor has no idea what fuel you are using or what the afr is. It can only tell you how close to a stoichiometric mix you have.

 

with a blow through maf setup at 350whp on 60's and pump gas, can this be attempted on the 80's and a stock fuel system without concern? or is it questionable and should just go to a return system?

 

ok sounds good the 80s just got here so I'm gonna drive around til I'm low then fill her with some E then see what happends.

 

Oh, Ok I get it,
Thanks

 

Well I'm on the E and it's running beautiful up until I do a WOT pull then after that it feels sluggish until I turn it off and let it rest for a little then it's good until I do another pull. It seems to be doing the things that happen when it hits the MAF fail frequency or w.e

 

just read 5 pages before I noticed this post was from 09!

even if this swap could be done, wouldn't it be pointless without some sort of timing increase?

 

Yes, or a pulley swap. The point of the original post was simply to point out that the car could be driven that way without much trouble or risk. It sort of got off track...