We have decided to call it the SVS 3 Phase Air to Water Intercooling System.
We are now going to increase the Peltier cooling surface area by 300% and incorporate this into a newly designed 2nd phase of the system for a supercharged Viper we are currently building.
The Motec EMS is wired and in place. We are going to finish the fuel system and start tuning next week. It will be interesting to see the cooling results on a supercharged system.
The amps it takes to run the additional surface area have already been taken in to account. No worries mate. Reliability is also attractive as the life expectancy of the heat sync is 50,000 hours. So if you ran the system 24 hours a day, you have about 6 years of lifespan. Not bad.
I'll keep ya posted once we start testing.
Thanks again Barry. [img]/images/graemlins/smiles[/img]
I was just reading this little thread you have going and I am interested in this “Peltier” cooler system you mention. You mentioned that this same “chip” is found in an electric cooler. I must ask you if this is the same cooler that you must leave plugged in over night to reduce the temperature of a pop can from “ambient” to “chilled”?
I found that this idea reminds me of an idea I once had for a similar application. I was so intrigued by this idea that I decided to fully research it and determined that due to the high power consumption vs. output of all current available chips is unacceptably high. This would be a fantastic system if we were talking about was a static system where the air was never being heated once it was cooled and then you could continue to reduce the temperature of that already cool air. But you must keep in mind that you are talking about a dynamic application where heat is constantly being produced. It is doubtful you will see any real difference in charge temp. Under normal operating conditions due to the simple fact that the heat is constantly being created. The absolute minimum, to produce any noticeable results would be a chip capable of dissipating in excess of 1000 watts of energy (even at that wattage you might not notice a difference). If we can recall our basic physics class, you will recall that energy cannot be created or destroyed it simply changes forms. To move that much heat from one point to another is going to require energy (a lot of it). I found a web site that you might find useful in assisting you to fully understand the “Peltier” chip and how much energy it actually takes to move the amount of heat we are talking about. From my calculations to dissipate the minimum “1000 watts”, given a vehicles 12-volt charging system, it will require a constant draw in excess of 50 amps. That might not sound like much until you put it into perspective and consider that the electric cooling fan in a GTS only draws around 30 amps when it is on HI (it is not on all the time and is far more efficient at dissipating heat energy). Also note that most welding done on “16 ga 321 exhaust tubing” is done at around 20-30 amps (more than enough to melt the high temperature stainless steel together). You also make reference to the fans being on in a earlier post and it had no affect on the electrical system. Did you switch the fan from the hydraulic to an electric one, putting an even greater draw on the system? I am not trying to poke holes in your system. I am simply asking how you guys did it with the currently available technology. I am also including a link to the site I mentioned earlier. I hope you will find it useful.
Just curious, but are there ANY SVS owners on the alley with a S/C or turbo car? I have yet to see one. Am I the only one that owns an SVS car on here? My car is NA though.
I ask because I always see SVS coming out with new stuff, but I never see a customer that has a car from them. Weird, isn't it?
Just wait for the newly created SVS SRT-10 to get home to its owner. Then we'll get some hands on posts w/r/t how it feels and screams! Any time new technology rolls out its going to be met with curiousity and pessimism. I for one would like to see this particular thread grow with technical discussion as Jr. introduced something that is going to be "cool" (yess pun intended!)
Jr. Thanks for posting the dyno runs with the AF ratios. It looks pretty manageable and should make for a very drivable street car. Only a bit faster than stock. Nice progressive power which should be easy on the rest of the drivetrain.
The one thing I did notice was right at 2800-3700 the torque takes a serious dip, which corresponds to the AF ratio taking a dip from the 12:1 toward 11:1 or so. The same thing is happening again at the 4500 - 5800. I myself run quite conservative AF ratios of 12:1-11.5:1 at 15 PSI. Was the added richness necessary to quench detonation or was this still untuned? I'd think you can lean it back to 12:1 or so and help boost up those weak areas to boost the performance, without risking reliability, after all at 10.5 psi I wouldn't expect you to need any more than 12:1 You speak so highly of the Motec data logging capabilities, but the information is worthless unless you use it wisely. My Link system and the AEM both have to capability of hitting AF targets based on load where they would automatically adjust these AF ratio to a target defined by the user. This works quite well when tied into a wideband O2 sensor. Does Motec offer this? If they don't you just need to use the dyno to point you in the right direction. You'll get the same results, only with a little more work.
Congratulations on your first customer Twin Turbo System. The world needs more turbos.
Jr. Thanks for posting the dyno runs with the AF ratios. It looks pretty manageable and should make for a very drivable street car. Only a bit faster than stock. Nice progressive power which should be easy on the rest of the drivetrain.
The one thing I did notice was right at 2800-3700 the torque takes a serious dip, which corresponds to the AF ratio taking a dip from the 12:1 toward 11:1 or so. The same thing is happening again at the 4500 - 5800. I myself run quite conservative AF ratios of 12:1-11.5:1 at 15 PSI. Was the added richness necessary to quench detonation or was this still untuned? I'd think you can lean it back to 12:1 or so and help boost up those weak areas to boost the performance, without risking reliability, after all at 10.5 psi I wouldn't expect you to need any more than 12:1 You speak so highly of the Motec data logging capabilities, but the information is worthless unless you use it wisely. My Link system and the AEM both have to capability of hitting AF targets based on load where they would automatically adjust these AF ratio to a target defined by the user. This works quite well when tied into a wideband O2 sensor. Does Motec offer this? If they don't you just need to use the dyno to point you in the right direction. You'll get the same results, only with a little more work.
Congratulations on your first customer Twin Turbo System. The world needs more turbos.
The car was originally tuned on a load bearing dyno. We made sweeps up to a specified rpm in a specified gear. The wide band o2's gave us our lambda readings and the map was adjusted accordingly to meet our target lambda. At the time that the dynosheet that is on this post was run, we were adjusting the map with the fuel trim by different percentages. This dynosheet shows an added fuel trim percentage that is added to the overall map. Adding the fuel trim percentage was something that we were testing to see the differences between the trim percentages and the lambda readings. I rely more on the readings from our wideband o2's connected to the Motec, than I do on the air/fuel readings from the dynojets meters. The widebands were air calibrated and I did see variances between the Motec and the dynojets air/fuel meter. Possibly because the widebands are placed closer to the turbo's exit in the exhaust and the dynojets meters are placed at the exit of the exhaust.
We made changes after this dynosheet and the owner didn't receive the SRT based on what you see on this dynosheet. We ran the car on a different dyno 2 days later and pulled 800rwhp and 880rwtq. Their dynojet meter readings also varied from our wide band o2 readings.
Take a look at how the car was run on the dyno. I started it at just over 1500rpm, held it there and punched it. If you go and look at just about every dynosheet you can find you will see that they all start at around 2800rpm and above. I should have run the car starting off a little higher in the rpm and built some boost first.
Maybe somebody can chime in here and discuss what they think might happen if I spooled the car up by starting higher in the rpm and then punch it? Would there be a difference? houstonT are you out there?
My point is that I should have taken off the air/fuel readings when I scanned this sheet because we don't base our tune off of the dynojet air/fuel meter. We didn't tune the car by running it on a dynojet and basically you can say that this dynosheet in this post is a reference.
The SRT TT system doesn't have boost control incorporated into the Motec, YET.
The owner is going to send the car back over the winter and we are going to install it and test. On the 02 TT we are working on now we are going to incorporate boost control run by Motec and are planning to get more creative utilizing the boost parameters in the software. Once we tune the 02 RT-10 TT and test the parameters of boost control, I will post the findings.
Just curious about what you meant by "Only a bit faster than stock"? [img]/images/graemlins/laughing.gif[/img]
All I meant by faster than stock was that it didn't hit real hard like the Heffner cars. They have that wicked torque jump from the GT series turbos and then it settles down. Yours didn't seem to jump up as fast, and feels more progressive like a stock car, only a LOT faster. It's easier to drive with it smoother transition and less likely to smoke the tires when you lay into it since the car has a bit more time to weight transfer toward the rear. However the seat of the pants feel will be lower too. It's just a difference in the characteristics of the turbos.
All I meant by faster than stock was that it didn't hit real hard like the Heffner cars. They have that wicked torque jump from the GT series turbos and then it settles down. Yours didn't seem to jump up as fast, and feels more progressive like a stock car, only a LOT faster. It's easier to drive with it smoother transition and less likely to smoke the tires when you lay into it since the car has a bit more time to weight transfer toward the rear. However the seat of the pants feel will be lower too. It's just a difference in the characteristics of the turbos.
Do you think that if I ran the car on the dyno starting from around 2800rpm and then hit it, then you would see a slightly different curve?
All the Heffner dynosheets I looked at start higher in the rpm range.
I think it would be different, but I seriously dont know.
I looked at dyno sheets from our turbo car and we started at around 3000rpm.
As you can see, the spike on the torque is much greater and the hit must spin the drums when starting from a higher rpm with some boost starting to build up.
This is a dyno sheet from around 99 or 2000. I think the boost was somewhere around 12 psi. I can tell you that the turbo's in our Stryker TT flow way less cfm than the ones in the SRT TT.
The car was originally tuned on a load bearing dyno. We made sweeps up to a specified rpm in a specified gear. The wide band o2's gave us our lambda readings and the map was adjusted accordingly to meet our target lambda. At the time that the dynosheet that is on this post was run, we were adjusting the map with the fuel trim by different percentages. This dynosheet shows an added fuel trim percentage that is added to the overall map. Adding the fuel trim percentage was something that we were testing to see the differences between the trim percentages and the lambda readings. I rely more on the readings from our wideband o2's connected to the Motec, than I do on the air/fuel readings from the dynojets meters. The widebands were air calibrated and I did see variances between the Motec and the dynojets air/fuel meter. Possibly because the widebands are placed closer to the turbo's exit in the exhaust and the dynojets meters are placed at the exit of the exhaust.
Jr., please note that the “Wideband Lambda” sensor used by “Dynojet” on their dynamometers is the exact same one as used on the Motec M-800 ECU (I am assuming that is what you used) and can also be “air calibrated”.
You stated that this was a “street” application so I am assuming that the catalysts are in place on this car. Otherwise you would not be producing an accurate representation of what the car would make in the real world as far as power and drivability. If that is the case, you will see that lambda sensors placed after the turbo exit will read significantly RICHER than the one at the tailpipe (dynamometer sensor) due to the simple fact that they are before the catalyst. So according to the dynamometer run that you posted, the car is actually running MUCH RICHER than that A/F plot from the dynamometer suggests.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SVS Turbo
We made changes after this dynosheet and the owner didn't receive the SRT based on what you see on this dynosheet. We ran the car on a different dyno 2 days later and pulled 800rwhp and 880rwtq. Their dynojet meter readings also varied from our wide band o2 readings.
When are you going to post the “final” dynamometer sheet with the hp and torque numbers along with the dynamometer A/F plot?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SVS Turbo
Take a look at how the car was run on the dyno. I started it at just over 1500rpm, held it there and punched it. If you go and look at just about every dynosheet you can find you will see that they all start at around 2800rpm and above. I should have run the car starting off a little higher in the rpm and built some boost first.
Maybe somebody can chime in here and discuss what they think might happen if I spooled the car up by starting higher in the rpm and then punch it? Would there be a difference? houstonT are you out there?
My point is that I should have taken off the air/fuel readings when I scanned this sheet because we don't base our tune off of the dynojet air/fuel meter. We didn't tune the car by running it on a dynojet and basically you can say that this dynosheet in this post is a reference.
The SRT TT system doesn't have boost control incorporated into the Motec, YET.
The owner is going to send the car back over the winter and we are going to install it and test. On the 02 TT we are working on now we are going to incorporate boost control run by Motec and are planning to get more creative utilizing the boost parameters in the software. Once we tune the 02 RT-10 TT and test the parameters of boost control, I will post the findings.
Congrats on the nice job over all with this car and good luck with the RT-10 TT project, I look forward to hearing more about it in the future.
What ever happened to that first forced induction RT-10 that you guys did a Motec on? The red one that you finished last fall, how is it running? I am asking because the customers never seem to come online and post about them. So I decided to go straight to the tuner himself and ask… lol … I didn’t know if that Owner would be bringing his car out to any events this year or not. I think it would be great to have a kind of “mini shoot out” between some of the “major” tuner cars at a track this summer. Kind of a “Bolt-On Shootout” all stock motor cars with street tires, etc. Let me know how the car is doing and if you think the owner might be interested.
Why are you always posting on my threads with insinuations, derrogatory comments and misguided information that has nothing but harm in mind?
WOW! Sorry if I have come across that way. You actually made me reread that post several times and all that I can come up with of is that you took me totally the wrong way. I only was trying to help you understand the discrepancy in your data between the dynamometer and the Motec lambda sensors. I am sorry if you took that the wrong way and got somehow offended by it. I would ask if you could help understand exactly where I might be so “misguided” with my information.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SVS Turbo
Whatever you talk about on my posts has no bearing on anything and your comments are really way off on what we are doing.
WOW! (again) What comment did I make here that was so way off? I think every comment I have made is accurate and correct to the best of my knowledge. If I am wrong can you please help me to better understand? Please enlighten me. How am I so “way off”?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SVS Turbo
You try to create doubt and questions that have nothing to do with the information that I post about. Are you motivated by resentment?
Ok, is it just me? Or is this post basically the same statement reworded over and over again? I was motivated only by a desire to help people better understand lambda sensors. Your post made it seem as if you were implying that the lambda sensor on a dynamometer was somehow inaccurate for tuning a vehicle with. I just wanted to make it clear that this was not the case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SVS Turbo
Your comments are very deviant in nature, do you wish bad things against my family or SVS? Do you have a problem?
Why are you doing this?
Please leave me alone and get over whatever is bothering you.
Man, relax, I simply asked you about a past car that you had “tuned” and how it was working. I only asked that because, (like I stated earlier) most of SVSi’s customers don’t seem to post much on the board. I even asked if you would be interested in an “all stock motor shoot-out”. I would have asked to bring a bad ass turbo car but I don’t think there are that many other cars out there (yet) to get enough turn out to make it worthwhile. I know that there are several other Viper tuners that have done numerous stock motor supercharged cars. With SVSi claiming to be the best and most experienced when it comes to tuning forced induction Vipers, I think it would be a perfect opportunity for you to flex your muscle and show everyone else how it is really done. Think about it, everything else would be equal as far as motor and it would just come down to which package would be the best for the price, Motec vs. piggy back, air vs. water vs. no intercooler, etc. I think a good head to head competition would be great and determine exactly who builds the best system. I could easily make this happen at a local Chicago track to make it easy for you and/or your customers to attend. This will be an official track that will have approved timing equipment so that any times will not be called into question. I know that I am dreaming here, you will probably be too busy preparing for other events where there is no direct “Viper tuner” competition such as Bonneville and this will probably never happen, but think about it. I know that I think it would be great for your business! What do you have to lose? If SVSi is the best at this, it almost will be unfair to everyone else. Stand up and show us what you got. [img]/images/graemlins/drive[/img] So what do you say? How is that car running? And if it is good then what date should I set up this event? Let me know, and also cut out the caffeine and try to relax a little more. [img]/images/graemlins/bigsmile[/img]
Hey JR from what I can see Blah Blah meant you no harm. Just cool down a little.
He did ask some genuine questions. Maybe you could answer them??
WTF? 95% of the posts Blah Blah has made are centered around SVS.
Maybe now you can see why I don't answer the questions from somebody who isn't able to stand up and act as who they really are or what their real intentions are.
Hey JR from what I can see Blah Blah meant you no harm. Just cool down a little.
He did ask some genuine questions. Maybe you could answer them??
Well, since the ALTER EGO Blah Blah is actually coming from Paolo Castellano and Scott Sutker (Toofast) computers, I must ask again the same questions I asked above.
WTF? 95% of the posts Blah Blah has made are centered around SVS. How many other AE's are these guys acting as?
Maybe now you can see why I don't answer the questions from somebody who isn't able to stand up and act as who they really are or what their real intentions are.
Totally Lame.
Hey Jr., GO FUCK YOURSELF! You had better watch who you accuse of doing what.
Untrue accusations could be construed as slander!
I have never posted on any other screen name besides my own.
That's all I am going to say on this matter!
I wonder what gives the Jr. the right to find out such things.....
Let me get this straight, so now because I use a computer that I am working on, I am somehow that persons “alter ego”. I am sure that you don’t use the same computer every time that you post online. So does that make you the “alter ego” for whoever’s computer that you happen to be on?
Why do you avoid my questions when I am trying to extend an open invitation to you and your customers to simply attend a friendly competition this summer? You turn around and attempt to tear me down and portray me as someone that I am not. Are you just trying to decline my invitation (without looking like you are backing out)? Or is the car unavailable? What are you trying to do here? I did not attack you at all in this post; I simply asked you if you would be interested in attending a race to determine who the best Viper tuner is. You turn it around on me and try to imply that I some how am an “alter ego” because I borrowed a computer a few times? Wow!!
Well… I will still ask you, will you be willing to face the ultimate test and accept my offer for a race or not? As I stated before I will be willing to hold the event at a local Chicago track. That way you guys will not have to worry about travel expenses and such. This is a win-win situation for you guys. You claim you are the BEST Viper tuners around and I have no reason to doubt that, so will you be willing to prove it at the track with competition?
Let me know how the car is doing and if you think the owner might be interested.
