Harley Davidson V-Rod Forum banner

61 - 80 of 117 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
186 Posts
May I suggest making an attempt at learning the definitions on your own? I hang on every word these guys say. They know, from experience what they are doing. Just hang in the shadows. Maybe try reading every piece of material you can find? I have. I certainly am no expert, but I know ppl who are. One of the things that irritates some of them is one who wants all their knowledge, but does not want to learn the hard way.
Just a thought......
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
574 Posts
Guys, How about a couple definitions from you experts for the rest of us ? CLB NB WBO TPS ( maybe define how the voltage is created & then how that is referenced in both the Delphi & piggyback systems) IAT ( same voltage references & possibly aftermarket replacement units ?) VE
Thanks
Thinking that would be better addressed in a separate thread or even an article of it's own. Heavy concepts when you dig into each one (or as a whole).

For anyone interested, start with reading up on VE (Volumetric Efficiency) and how it affects the fueling needs of an internal combustion engine. The history of how to calculate/determine VE table values is "neat" stuff in my opinion. We have essentially gone from slide rules to chalkboard notation display calculators at this time in history (and that's an awesome thing!).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,258 Posts
Thinking that would be better addressed in a separate thread or even an article of it's own. Heavy concepts when you dig into each one (or as a whole).

For anyone interested, start with reading up on VE (Volumetric Efficiency) and how it affects the fueling needs of an internal combustion engine. The history of how to calculate/determine VE table values is "neat" stuff in my opinion. We have essentially gone from slide rules to chalkboard notation display calculators at this time in history (and that's an awesome thing!).
I have a VE calculator but I have issues with the required MAF g/sec input in the formula. In order to come into the correct hp range it's only like about 95 g/second. Seems low. What are your findings?
Ron
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
574 Posts
I have a VE calculator but I have issues with the required MAF g/sec input in the formula. In order to come into the correct hp range it's only like about 95 g/second. Seems low. What are your findings?
Ron
Unfortunately (and sometimes fortunately) as you know we don't have a MAF sensor on our bikes. That being said, YES using the traditional formula requires you to input g/sec or lbs/min (as one of the many variables). Short of test equipment in a dyno cell I don't have those #s for a Revo engine.

With that in mind, if I were to hand roll the VE #s for a v-twin I would use a combination of Excel, tps%, rpm, and the fuel correction (ltft/stft) values to determine what load cell I am in while viewing a log and what corrections I should make to the VE for my first "swing".

For anyone with a PowerVision unit that cares (or is curious) you can type in PIN #: 924107 and see the correction values in real time (doesn't log last time I looked after I updated my personal PV unit....but then again I don't care as I fortunately don't have to use this method since TargetTune came out).


More random thoughts: I know that by determining fuel flow requirements (or rather what is needed at a given/known power level) X a specific afr you can determine mass airflow...this is a bit before my time and math skills though (I start going quiet and drooling when thermodynamics and physics in general enter conversations too heavily). <---Is that what you are asking Ron?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,258 Posts
Unfortunately (and sometimes fortunately) as you know we don't have a MAF sensor on our bikes. That being said, YES using the traditional formula requires you to input g/sec or lbs/min (as one of the many variables). Short of test equipment in a dyno cell I don't have those #s for a Revo engine.

With that in mind, if I were to hand roll the VE #s for a v-twin I would use a combination of Excel, tps%, rpm, and the fuel correction (ltft/stft) values to determine what load cell I am in while viewing a log and what corrections I should make to the VE for my first "swing".

For anyone with a PowerVision unit that cares (or is curious) you can type in PIN #: 924107 and see the correction values in real time (doesn't log last time I looked after I updated my personal PV unit....but then again I don't care as I fortunately don't have to use this method since TargetTune came out).


More random thoughts: I know that by determining fuel flow requirements (or rather what is needed at a given/known power level) X a specific afr you can determine mass airflow...this is a bit before my time and math skills though (I start going quiet and drooling when thermodynamics and physics in general enter conversations too heavily). <---Is that what you are asking Ron?
Hmmm. Maybe. All I know is the MAF is unknown in the calculations and critical to determine hp. So armed with displacement, number of cyls, baro, iat temp and rpm, and knowing the claimed crank hp of a stock engine, the only way the hp works out is to use a figure of 95 g/sec. This gives an estimated ve of 87.2% and theoretical load of 87.1%
All interesting shit for sure but reaching my ability to grasp completely. I am after all just a back yard hobby tuner. LOL
Ron
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,943 Posts
Discussion Starter #66
At that VE you are assuming a normally aspirated engine, correct ? Most here are interested in trying to salvage the Ion sensing function from Delphi to use on forced induction, and if I understand, this gives a VE in excess of 100% ( which necessitates a piggyback tuner to retain the stock ECU). I'm not sophisticated enough to join the MAF arguement, but wouldn't the AFR function ( assuming sufficient fuel flow from the pump & injector duty cycle ) give sufficient info to create a useable map ?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
574 Posts
At that VE you are assuming a normally aspirated engine, correct ? Most here are interested in trying to salvage the Ion sensing function from Delphi to use on forced induction, and if I understand, this gives a VE in excess of 100% ( which necessitates a piggyback tuner to retain the stock ECU). I'm not sophisticated enough to join the MAF arguement, but wouldn't the AFR function ( assuming sufficient fuel flow from the pump & injector duty cycle ) give sufficient info to create a useable map ?

Yes, forced induction will result (in some load cells) a VE > 100.

A couple of things to note with the Delphi ECU:

You can have a VE value in a load cell up to 127.5.

Just because you are "limited" by that value doesn't mean you can't increase the engine displacement constant to a higher #. This plus judicious use of 127.5 (i.e. not usually wise to have that in low load cells) will help achieve what you are looking for with FI on the Revo (i.e. AFR increasing as boost level increases). Also....BIGGER injectors are must on this platform with boost. Calculating proper injector size (and verify via pulse width/injector duty cycle values during logging sessions) are a must. I've seen countless posters on this forum that assume they need the "Destroyer Injectors" on nothing more than a topless and piped Revo. Ask them what their IDC or IPW are. Blank looks usually.

The fueling part of the equation is fairly easy with the ECU. The main challenge (or at least the misunderstood and ignored concept) is ignition timing/spark advance and retard. I've see a few "Forced Induction" tunes using the Delphi ECU and the timing tables are just flat out stupid. Why on earth you would INCREASE timing in some load cells while under boost is beyond me (well unless you like two pretty ash trays for your desk).

Saw one tune recently that had random increases of timing and no logical reduction as boost increased. Kaboom city.

Repeat after me: Adjusting AFR values without considering timing values with forced induction on an engine is ignorant and dangerous. The #1 destroyer (pun not intended) of forced induction engines is detonation caused by either too lean, too much advance, or both. AFR affects how much timing you can get away with and timing affects what AFR values are required. They are symbiotic in terms of a relationship. How do you dial both in? Knock sensing and log reviews. I know I sound like a broken horse, but I have no idea how "tuners" are confidently tuning these engines with the aftermarket ECUs and forced induction. From what I have seen so far (i.e. looking at so called "good" tunes) they are getting lucky due to the low mileage most of these bikes see in conjunction with a fairly forgiving short block.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,258 Posts
Yes, forced induction will result (in some load cells) a VE > 100.

A couple of things to note with the Delphi ECU:

You can have a VE value in a load cell up to 127.5.

Just because you are "limited" by that value doesn't mean you can't increase the engine displacement constant to a higher #. This plus judicious use of 127.5 (i.e. not usually wise to have that in low load cells) will help achieve what you are looking for with FI on the Revo (i.e. AFR increasing as boost level increases). Also....BIGGER injectors are must on this platform with boost. Calculating proper injector size (and verify via pulse width/injector duty cycle values during logging sessions) are a must. I've seen countless posters on this forum that assume they need the "Destroyer Injectors" on nothing more than a topless and piped Revo. Ask them what their IDC or IPW are. Blank looks usually.

The fueling part of the equation is fairly easy with the ECU. The main challenge (or at least the misunderstood and ignored concept) is ignition timing/spark advance and retard. I've see a few "Forced Induction" tunes using the Delphi ECU and the timing tables are just flat out stupid. Why on earth you would INCREASE timing in some load cells while under boost is beyond me (well unless you like two pretty ash trays for your desk).

Saw one tune recently that had random increases of timing and no logical reduction as boost increased. Kaboom city.

Repeat after me: Adjusting AFR values without considering timing values with forced induction on an engine is ignorant and dangerous. The #1 destroyer (pun not intended) of forced induction engines is detonation caused by either too lean, too much advance, or both. AFR affects how much timing you can get away with and timing affects what AFR values are required. They are symbiotic in terms of a relationship. How do you dial both in? Knock sensing and log reviews. I know I sound like a broken horse, but I have no idea how "tuners" are confidently tuning these engines with the aftermarket ECUs and forced induction. From what I have seen so far (i.e. looking at so called "good" tunes) they are getting lucky due to the low mileage most of these bikes see in conjunction with a fairly forgiving short block.
These guys must be relying on the adaptive knock saving the day but it has limitations also. LOL I know, it's dumb. I've seen cals in NA tunes with extreme timing at high load also. No way these didn't detonate but nobody clearly looked in the logs to see where and how much is being pulled. The assumption of max timing capable offers the most hp. This is not always the case, actually seldom the case but people get into a mental rut on this idea.
Ron
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,943 Posts
Discussion Starter #69
I would believe that inadequate fuel delivery ( pump & injectors) is the root of most detonation induced engine damage. This is completely overlooked in typical boosted applications. Once this is addressed, I understand that building an advance curve relative to boost offers worthwhile performance gains. This is generally done utilizing an eddy current dyno ( substantial time /cost ). Guys that do this, in most cases all out drag or LSR vehicles have an understanding of the level they can push to before cratering a motor. IE; how many guys in Pro Mod or unlimited at Bonneville do you think have a knock sensor in place ? BTW Tmax does give you at least an IDC readout. With a turbo & Destroyer injectors I was at 100% duty cycle before I hit 6500 rpm
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
574 Posts
I would believe that inadequate fuel delivery ( pump & injectors) is the root of most detonation induced engine damage. This is completely overlooked in typical boosted applications. Once this is addressed, I understand that building an advance curve relative to boost offers worthwhile performance gains. This is generally done utilizing an eddy current dyno ( substantial time /cost ). Guys that do this, in most cases all out drag or LSR vehicles have an understanding of the level they can push to before cratering a motor. IE; how many guys in Pro Mod or unlimited at Bonneville do you think have a knock sensor in place ? BTW Tmax does give you at least an IDC readout. With a turbo & Destroyer injectors I was at 100% duty cycle before I hit 6500 rpm
Ok,

First the "root" of detonation is a result of either incorrect AFR or timing advance. They also are not mutually exclusive by any means. To ignore that will result in catastrophe at a certain level (or duration). What I have seen first hand is great attention to AFR, but very little attention to ignition timing values (and knowledge) when it comes to forced induction engine tuning. This also goes hand in hand with poor to no knowledge of knock detection methods and/or systems (which as you know me by now know what I really mean by that: most people who don't understand knock detection tend to underplay the importance and/or flat out invent falsehoods about what it is and what it does).

As for drag and LSR projects: Completely different world. Those engines are quite often a single run/single purpose situation. I've stood in pits at drag races watching top fuel crews rebuild an entire engine in an hour under a pop up awning. The point? Longevity is not the premium, pure unadulterated power output is. Detonation is like smoking....it doesn't always show symptoms until down the road (caveat: within reason and platform, but you get the point). Also, rest assured in those applications they ARE either employing pre-ignition/detonation detection systems or even simply "reading the spark plugs" (not so much anymore with big race budgets...but it's valid in race applications where you change plugs each run).

As for turbo and Destroyer injectors: If you were at 100% IDC you either were too rich or you were undersized with your injector sizing. I wouldn't go past 80% IDC if given a choice (the flow rates are not predictable beyond that typically and the margin of safety per say is too narrow at that point). Tons of calculators out there to help determine proper injector flow rates/etc. FYI: My original comment about Destroyer injectors was in reference to people using them in essentially stock Revo engines. Pointless.

For reference (and to assure others I'm not speaking out of my rear...), read this article in it's entirety...people smarter and older than me stating what I have been speaking about here: https://www.boefab.com/blogs/tech/72880323-knock-knock-ping
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
186 Posts
VERY interesting article. Added to my favorites, as I will need to read a dozen times or so to soak it in. Thank you. ?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
574 Posts
VERY interesting article. Added to my favorites, as I will need to read a dozen times or so to soak it in. Thank you. ?
Last post for the day as I really need to finish coding....

When reading that article pay attention to the hp/in3 (cubic inches, wish I could type a superscript value..) ratio quoted in relation to sensitivity/windows of safety to detonation. You'll quickly realize this is a VERY real concern with our relatively high output engines (even stock!).

Other interesting tidbit/term: Detonation induced pre-ignition. BIIIIINNNGGO. I've seen a few aerated piston pictures on this forum that had exactly this phenomenon happen.

Now to be fair, detonation does NOT always = immediate destruction (and the article states this quite clearly as well). I will however argue that detonation is not something that should be ignored (or at least detected either via ion-sensing, reading plugs, the "tin-ear" method in the article, space alien probes...whatever) as proper tuning involves a balance of detonation avoidance and mitigation vs power output. You can't have your cake and eat it too when it comes to engine longevity. Toss in forced induction and the risk factor increases exponentially. Physics always wins in the end.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,258 Posts
Last post for the day as I really need to finish coding....

When reading that article pay attention to the hp/in3 (cubic inches, wish I could type a superscript value..) ratio quoted in relation to sensitivity/windows of safety to detonation. You'll quickly realize this is a VERY real concern with our relatively high output engines (even stock!).

Other interesting tidbit/term: Detonation induced pre-ignition. BIIIIINNNGGO. I've seen a few aerated piston pictures on this forum that had exactly this phenomenon happen.

Now to be fair, detonation does NOT always = immediate destruction (and the article states this quite clearly as well). I will however argue that detonation is not something that should be ignored (or at least detected either via ion-sensing, reading plugs, the "tin-ear" method in the article, space alien probes...whatever) as proper tuning involves a balance of detonation avoidance and mitigation vs power output. You can't have your cake and eat it too when it comes to engine longevity. Toss in forced induction and the risk factor increases exponentially. Physics always wins in the end.
Yes, good article . Finally an explanation dealing with the difference between detonation and pre igniton. I really got sick of reading those terms like pre detonation and shit. Technically if there was such a thing as pre detonation, there's nothing to worry about as it would be a case before detonation. Not a fan of the term spark knock either.
Ron
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,258 Posts
Ron.....
Wouldnt the term predetioation better be said by the term diesel??????
Or am I just being a wiseguy?
Us old people call it dieseling or run on. Pre anything is before the fact so let's just say it's pre spark plug. In the case of dieseling on a shutdow with carb, its usually too low an octane for the heat and compression in the chamber at that point. Carbon glowing along with this reduced octane effect from heat and compression likely fires the fuel off, much like compression fires the fuel off in an actual diesel. Amplified by engines that have been run rich in afr or have sight oil burn. Oil will reduce the fuels octane also. You don't see this with injected engines because fuel is stopped at key off, much like carbs prior to EFI in the 70s when they started adding idle cut offs in the cards to stop fuel from being sucked in.
So, if your SG ever experiences two or three revolutions of run on and I've seen a couple do this, look for a defective injector, allowing pressure bleed off with fuel entering the chamber after the key is turned off.
Ron
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
186 Posts
Very nice article, but I do not know if the Delphi ecm used on our bikes is capable of utilizing this up to date MAP sensing technology. Someone a bit more knowledgeable about the capabilities of our ecm's will need to chime in. But, for us NA guys the stock components should be fine, no? BUT if there is a plug and play 1 bar MAP sensor that provides a better resolution, then I see that as a win/win.
This is where I bow out, and the the smart guys get their 2 cents in.
John
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,943 Posts
Discussion Starter #78

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,677 Posts
Oil related knock reducer ?

Great Video swampboogiedoug ! Yea, the Toyota stratified system would probably get more heat in the exhaust for the Turbo during warm up or off idle but you would still have to spool up the engine speed and load the engine some as well to increase the exhaust volume and get the impeller at the Turbo spinning up really good - so maybe it would help but that would be quite an expensive redesign of the Revo engine to add a D.I. port and sounds like a full race, exotic level of difficulty and expense. Very interesting stuff ! As for the video's valve cleanliness/oil separation discussion I spoke to JLT Performance, Inc. they build a very nice $ 139 3 Oz. Billet canister oil separator kit - the 3.0 BASE Kit is a universal fit with two brackets, straight and 90 degree fittings looks like it would fit better in the V Rod airbox or engine area due to it's smaller size (2" x 3.5") than some of the 9 Oz. Mishimoto or even 4 Oz. Trick Flow cans. Got any experience on these Doug ? Anyone ? Looks like a great oil related knock reducer for these Revo engines. :blahblah::D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,943 Posts
Discussion Starter #80
On my build I ran a crankcase evacuation line to the exhaust outlet from the turbo. There are pictures & details on the Forum somewhere.
 
61 - 80 of 117 Posts
Top