Supercharging Discussion: Boost Pressure vs. Altitude

[MilehighM3]

As others have stated, AFRs can be fine it's the ignition targets/corrections you should be concerned with. Though the guys at AR probably don't think that way.

[sales@ESSTuning]

Originally Posted by Bmw135er

As others have stated, AFRs can be fine it's the ignition targets/corrections you should be concerned with. Though the guys at AR probably don't think that way.

Correct, You have to lower timing as you add boost. Adding higher boost to a lower boost tune can result in bad things happening.

[Skooterbrah]

Originally Posted by Bmw135er

As others have stated, AFRs can be fine it's the ignition targets/corrections you should be concerned with. Though the guys at AR probably don't think that way.

The DME pulls/adds ignition accordingly, so I don't see how this would be an issue......

[Skooterbrah]

And here is an overlapped dyno of the ESS 625 "factory" 3.8 vs 3.6 vs 3.2 pullies

A solid 89hp and 51tq jump from 3psi increase.

[MilehighM3]

If the DME is always pulling timing, that means there is always knock occurring. Even if it is slight knocking, at the stress level your car is going through its life will be short. Since you have no way to monitor ignition values on your car, be prepared to build sooner than later. Since you have experience with 1 ESS M3 and Roman has who knows how many, I would recommend you take his advise. Invest in a vbox and take some logs for experts to see. Otherwise sometimes you'll learn that if you play with fire, you're bound to get burned.

[Skooterbrah]

Originally Posted by Bmw135er

If the DME is always pulling timing, that means there is always knock occurring. Even if it is slight knocking, at the stress level your car is going through its life will be short. Since you have no way to monitor ignition values on your car, be prepared to build sooner than later. Since you have experience with 1 ESS M3 and Roman has who knows how many, I would recommend you take his advise. Invest in a vbox and take some logs for experts to see. Otherwise sometimes you'll learn that if you play with fire, you're bound to get burned.

I have a tool to log data, which we plan on doing tonight or tomorrow. Andrew will go through logs and we will throw info down when finished.

[ar design]

Originally Posted by Bmw135er

As others have stated, AFRs can be fine it's the ignition targets/corrections you should be concerned with. Though the guys at AR probably don't think that way.

Thank you for speaking for us.

With the proper belt size car has ZERO slip. Boost curve is perfect. Dyno shows zero evidence of a timing issue. Matheo will be running a log to show timing. You can see right away if timing is pulled or if there is an issue.

I am curious as to how many non vendors in this thread have actual experience with what they are talking about, and how many are just regurgitating what they have heard.

[sales@ESSTuning]

Originally Posted by Skooterbrah

The DME pulls/adds ignition accordingly, so I don't see how this would be an issue......

The DME is limited on how much timing it can pull. You do not have unlimited range when it comes to ignition retarding. Because of this you can put the DME in a position where it has pulled as much timing as it can and you can still be exceeding what it should be running. The ignition map you are running is not designed for 9 psi. If you see how much power you have made with just a few psi you can clearly see that 1-2 psi makes a big difference on this motor and is not something that should be taken lightly.

My advice would be to be very careful putting 9+ psi on this motor and to expect the worst and hope for the best if you are set on running it this way.

[Skooterbrah]

Originally Posted by Roman@ESS

The DME is limited on how much timing it can pull. You do not have unlimited range when it comes to ignition retarding. Because of this you can put the DME in a position where it has pulled as much timing as it can and you can still be exceeding what it should be running. The ignition map you are running is not designed for 9 psi. If you see how much power you have made with just a few psi you can clearly see that 1-2 psi makes a big difference on this motor and is not something that should be taken lightly.

My advice would be to be very careful putting 9+ psi on this motor and to expect the worst and hope for the best if you are set on running it this way.

Understandable. My question rather, or should I say, what im curious about, is how this would stress my engine more vs someone at sea level. Right now i'm making i believe 494 uncorrected with less static compression at 6k elevation. Guys at sea level with 12:1 (no loss of compression due to altitude) on 7psi are making 550-600 on the 625 uncorrected. I'm not an engineering major, but because to compression changes due to altitude, and the reduction of actual cylinder stress, I can't see how this would impact reliability or put more stress on my engine since its actually seeing less load then anyone running a 585 kit at sea level.... I would love to get someone with a physics or engineering background in here to actually throw some info down how this would correlate to practical real world application.

[Bob MG]

Originally Posted by Skooterbrah

Understandable. My question rather, or should I say, what im curious about, is how this would stress my engine more vs someone at sea level. Right now i'm making i believe 494 uncorrected with less static compression at 6k elevation. Guys at sea level with 12:1 (no loss of compression due to altitude) on 7psi are making 550-600 on the 625 uncorrected. I'm not an engineering major, but because to compression changes due to altitude, and the reduction of actual cylinder stress, I can't see how this would impact reliability or put more stress on my engine since its actually seeing less load then anyone running a 585 kit at sea level.... I would love to get someone with a physics or engineering background in here to actually throw some info down how this would correlate to practical real world application.

Dude

You are making over 600 whp on a VT2 625 kit. This is well above the designed power for that kit.

If you want higher boost I would run a 650 map at the very least and I totally disagree with your 82mm pulley theory. I had slip issues on 88 sometimes. Its more intelligent to run the 650 crank and larger pulley.

I would say that Roman knows what he is talking about since its his companies product you have.

Why you want to experiment with a kit that ESS has logged mountains of their own data and experience is silly. Have a talk with ESS and have a private discussion with how you want to customize what you have safely

[1MOREMOD]

ah now i see.

[Skooterbrah]

Originally Posted by Bob MG

Dude

You are making over 600 whp on a VT2 625 kit. This is well above the designed power for that kit.

If you want higher boost I would run a 650 map at the very least and I totally disagree with your 82mm pulley theory. I had slip issues on 88 sometimes. Its more intelligent to run the 650 crank and larger pulley.

I would say that Roman knows what he is talking about since its his companies product you have.

Why you want to experiment with a kit that ESS has logged mountains of their own data and experience is silly. Have a talk with ESS and have a private discussion with how you want to customize what you have safely

I understand what you're saying, but we have ran logs and looked at everything from a safety point of view. Timing is fine and safe under WOT, the static compression is lower up here, the belt (we installed a slightly smaller belt) and 82mm (3.2) pulley fit perfect with zero slip. Hell even the 585 injectors I have are flowing enough fuel. The DME has proven its self to auto compensate fuel and timing with the raised boost levels. Everything is safe (proven via logs) So now pray tel why would i spend $3250 for something that I can have for $200? Everyone keep in mind though that this is at 6k elevation, which is why we are able to get away with alot of this and still be within a safe margin. I don't recommend swapping stuff out at sea level.

[M&M]

Hey Bob, if you change the crank pulley, don't you have to change all the other pullies? won't they all be overdriven?

[VCP]

AA is running 12-13 psi on a stock test car just to see what the motor can take. Good luck with the part swapping keep posting

[Skooterbrah]

Originally Posted by VCMperformance

AA is running 12-13 psi on a stock test car just to see what the motor can take. Good luck with the part swapping keep posting

Holy hell, at sea level?!?! How much power have they pushed on the stock bottom so far?!?!?!

[Longboarder]

Originally Posted by Bob MG

Dude

You are making over 600 whp on a VT2 625 kit. This is well above the designed power for that kit.

If you want higher boost I would run a 650 map at the very least and I totally disagree with your 82mm pulley theory. I had slip issues on 88 sometimes. Its more intelligent to run the 650 crank and larger pulley.

I would say that Roman knows what he is talking about since its his companies product you have.

Why you want to experiment with a kit that ESS has logged mountains of their own data and experience is silly. Have a talk with ESS and have a private discussion with how you want to customize what you have safely

He's making less than 500 RWHP. 613 is just the correction from dyno'ing at like 8,000+ FT density altitude.

Regardless, I would personally hire a specialst such as an aeronautics engineer specializing in turbo prop or other FI airplane internal combustion engines to work directly with ESS before I did anything like this BECAUSE OF altitude. Maybe AR Design has such training.

[VCP]

Ya sea level not sure on specs karl keeps things pretty tight over there. They are playing with a lc motor and ysi blower too. I think some info is coming out soonish on that we can only hope.

Originally Posted by Skooterbrah

Holy hell, at sea level?!?! How much power have they pushed on the stock bottom so far?!?!?!

[Skooterbrah]

Originally Posted by VCMperformance

Ya sea level not sure on specs karl keeps things pretty tight over there. They are playing with a lc motor and ysi blower too. I think some info is coming out soonish on that we can only hope.

Yea, I just spoke with Andrew @ Active and discussed a few things and he passed some great insight my way.

[Sales@Evolve]

Originally Posted by Roman@ESS

The DME is limited on how much timing it can pull. You do not have unlimited range when it comes to ignition retarding. Because of this you can put the DME in a position where it has pulled as much timing as it can and you can still be exceeding what it should be running. The ignition map you are running is not designed for 9 psi. If you see how much power you have made with just a few psi you can clearly see that 1-2 psi makes a big difference on this motor and is not something that should be taken lightly.

My advice would be to be very careful putting 9+ psi on this motor and to expect the worst and hope for the best if you are set on running it this way.

Excellent thread which I have been reading since it's beginning.

Not really posted here for obvious reasons but this really warrants a little back up from another company which supercharges multiple platforms.

I would take what Roman is saying very very seriously here.

[ar design]

The car is putting out a little over 500whp uncorrected. I still don't see what all the fuss is about. It runs perfectly, no issues, whatsoever - and it is run HARD.

Regardless, we are about to do a custom re-tune for E85. So it will be a moot point. I'll do another pull on pump gas and post it up so people can see.

As for the smaller pulley, with the correctly sized belt, we are seeing zero slippage.

Would there be any interest in an upgraded fueling/E85 tune/supercharger pulley package?

[Soorena]

Originally Posted by ar design

The car is putting out a little over 500whp uncorrected. I still don't see what all the fuss is about. It runs perfectly, no issues, whatsoever - and it is run HARD.

Regardless, we are about to do a custom re-tune for E85. So it will be a moot point. I'll do another pull on pump gas and post it up so people can see.

As for the smaller pulley, with the correctly sized belt, we are seeing zero slippage.

Would there be any interest in an upgraded fueling/E85 tune/supercharger pulley package?

What's the current injector duty cycle?

[Bob MG]

Originally Posted by Longboarder

He's making less than 500 RWHP. 613 is just the correction from dyno'ing at like 8,000+ FT density altitude.

Regardless, I would personally hire a specialist such as an aeronautics engineer specializing in turbo prop or other FI airplane internal combustion engines to work directly with ESS before I did anything like this BECAUSE OF altitude. Maybe AR Design has such training.

LOL

I personally don't think its fair to use corrected for density altitude on a FI car at altitude since the SC compensates for that in absolute boost.

I missed that it was compensated at a quick glance. personally 500 wp is not great for 9psi actual boost. I was running well over 540 uncorrected with 7, 8psi on my custom crank and pulley set up at 5500 ft

Something isn't right