Javascript Disabled Detected

You currently have javascript disabled. Several functions may not work. Please re-enable javascript to access full functionality.

236 stoker exhaust

Started by ljmate , Dec 20 2008 08:30 PM

Prev

Please log in to reply

49 replies to this topic

#26 _PRO-192_

Guests

Posted 07 January 2009 - 12:32 PM

im asking you to trust me and put a 3/8 or 1/2 inch fuel line and electric fuel pump capable of at least 100gph, i believe its fuel supply is too small, make sure all fuel
lines and fittings to carbs are big enough also, ive seen plenty of strong 202s lay over by 6000rpm with the std 5/16 line and you have even more cubes

i remember my mate in his xu1 202 with a 44/71 cam and triple 175cd carbs dropped from 13.9 to 13.2sec when he fitted a 3/8 line and a holley blue.
it never misfired or stumbled it just layed overat 5800rpm after the new fuel system it ran to 6800rpm, big difference hey?

dude do you realise that 7 tenths on the track is like 70hp at the tyres?? i mean if the engine was "leaning out" to that extent and if it was a decent engine there wouldve been huge issues with melting the ends off plugs for starters, not to mention the massive risk of a melt down happening...

just out of curiousity... what engine/combo was this on??

micko

Back to top

#27 _1QUICK LJ_

Guests

Posted 07 January 2009 - 02:13 PM

yes i do realise, i am a performance engine builder. he only shifted at 5800 because it didnt make power
any higher we only did two passes hence no real damage, when it revved to 6800 thats when the times tumbled,
because it revved a 1000rpm higher it naturaly made more power. you dont have to be lean enough to melt parts before you loose alot of power ,i dont care if you dont believe it, it happened end of story.

Edited by 1QUICK LJ, 07 January 2009 - 02:17 PM.

Back to top

#28 _1QUICK LJ_

Guests

Posted 07 January 2009 - 02:26 PM

by the way while it didnt melt the plugs they did show signs of a very lean condition, i use a superflow 902 engine dyno to tune my engines, an engine can easiy make an extra 50-80hp easy when something is holding it back and when fixed extends its peak rpm another 1000rpm.

Back to top

#29 _1QUICK LJ_

Guests

Posted 07 January 2009 - 02:33 PM

put a engine on a dyno then pull the fuel back till it reduces the peak rpm by 1000rpm and if it survives see how much power it looses, i garrantee it wont be only 20hp. lol

Back to top

#30 _PRO-192_

Guests

Posted 07 January 2009 - 05:10 PM

dude its not me you have to convince here, i have been doing this for nearly 30 years, just because you rev an engine an extra 1000rpm doesnt necessarily mean that it will make more/if any power (most dont over that) as you would no doubt already know if you know your stuff... you would also know if you are a performance engine builder/tuner that lean is mean and all petrol based engines will make their peak output in this state of tune(if done correctly)... just out of curiousity... why did you even take it off the engine dyno to the track without getting it sorted first??... i mean... if i ran one of my engines or a customers with the compo rates of around 12.5:1 needed to make an n/a engine really make some grunt (ie: avgas/methanol) they would almost certainly have a severe meltdown whilst doing the warm up burnout or at the very least blow a head gasket or something...

in saying that i am not attacking you at all, and therefore agree with your original statement 100%... his engine should have a fuel system capable of sustaining his engines output safely... as should all engines...

i personally suspect his engine may possibly be valve bouncing as 6 cylinder holdens are notorious for(as well as most engines at the higher end of the rpm scale) have they been rattle tested?? and has nothing to do with the pipes at all...

micko

Back to top

#31 _82911_

Guests

Posted 07 January 2009 - 06:06 PM

Anecdotal..........
332cube/glide 9" in LJ.... 11.2@118mph.
Moved the fuel regulators to in front of the carbs (they were on the firewall previously)
Result... 10.89@122mph... no other changes were made....
Car previousy had no stumbles/plugs looked good and never registered a pressure drop through the top end....

Ahh........ the truth is out there!

I'm stickin' with y riginal diagnosis... VALVE SPRING PRESSURE and fuel volume/pressure(more volume than pressure)

Cheers Greg..

Back to top

#32 ljmate

Forum Participant

Members
38 posts

Location:Perth
Car:LJ Torana
Joined: 15-June 08

Posted 07 January 2009 - 10:58 PM

im asking you to trust me and put a 3/8 or 1/2 inch fuel line and electric fuel pump capable of at least 100gph, i believe its fuel supply is too small, make sure all fuel
lines and fittings to carbs are big enough also, ive seen plenty of strong 202s lay over by 6000rpm with the std 5/16 line and you have even more cubes

i remember my mate in his xu1 202 with a 44/71 cam and triple 175cd carbs dropped from 13.9 to 13.2sec when he fitted a 3/8 line and a holley blue.
it never misfired or stumbled it just layed overat 5800rpm after the new fuel system it ran to 6800rpm, big difference hey?

Thanks Mate .. i thought it would be more noticeable if it was running out of fuel.... ill upgrade it asap .

Back to top

#33 _1QUICK LJ_

Guests

Posted 08 January 2009 - 03:29 AM

what size fuel line and fuel pump are you running? also what valve spring pressures are you running open and closed?

like i said in the beginning fuel or springs

Edited by 1QUICK LJ, 08 January 2009 - 03:29 AM.

Back to top

#34 _1QUICK LJ_

Guests

Posted 08 January 2009 - 03:32 AM

dude its not me you have to convince here, i have been doing this for nearly 30 years, just because you rev an engine an extra 1000rpm doesnt necessarily mean that it will make more/if any power (most dont over that) as you would no doubt already know if you know your stuff... you would also know if you are a performance engine builder/tuner that lean is mean and all petrol based engines will make their peak output in this state of tune(if done correctly)... just out of curiousity... why did you even take it off the engine dyno to the track without getting it sorted first??... i mean... if i ran one of my engines or a customers with the compo rates of around 12.5:1 needed to make an n/a engine really make some grunt (ie: avgas/methanol) they would almost certainly have a severe meltdown whilst doing the warm up burnout or at the very least blow a head gasket or something...

in saying that i am not attacking you at all, and therefore agree with your original statement 100%... his engine should have a fuel system capable of sustaining his engines output safely... as should all engines...

i personally suspect his engine may possibly be valve bouncing as 6 cylinder holdens are notorious for(as well as most engines at the higher end of the rpm scale) have they been rattle tested?? and has nothing to do with the pipes at all...

micko

it was 19 years ago well before i had access to an engine dyno

Back to top

#35 _1QUICK LJ_

Guests

Posted 08 January 2009 - 03:37 AM

dude its not me you have to convince here, i have been doing this for nearly 30 years, just because you rev an engine an extra 1000rpm doesnt necessarily mean that it will make more/if any power

micko

depends on the combo

Back to top

#36 _1QUICK LJ_

Guests

Posted 08 January 2009 - 03:45 AM

Anecdotal..........
332cube/glide 9" in LJ.... 11.2@118mph.
Moved the fuel regulators to in front of the carbs (they were on the firewall previously)
Result... 10.89@122mph... no other changes were made....
Car previousy had no stumbles/plugs looked good and never registered a pressure drop through the top end....

Ahh........ the truth is out there!

I'm stickin' with y riginal diagnosis... VALVE SPRING PRESSURE and fuel volume/pressure(more volume than pressure)

Cheers Greg..

explain this then pro- 192?
it obviously cant possibly happen as far as your concerned, as far as 30 years? that dont mean that much, ive done it for 21 years who cares thats not really the point, i know people that have done for 10 years that are light years ahead of others that have done it for 40 years, if you dont have open mind you will stop learning.

im looking forward to your answer on this 332 lj senario?

Edited by 1QUICK LJ, 08 January 2009 - 03:46 AM.

Back to top

#37 _1QUICK LJ_

Guests

Posted 09 January 2009 - 03:33 PM

hmmm still no answer.

Back to top

#38 _scottya!_

Guests

Posted 09 January 2009 - 06:45 PM

Keep it going fellas, i don't mind reading an intelligent debate like this one. Everybody can always learn more from you guys that really know your stuff.

Back to top

#39 _PRO-192_

Guests

Posted 09 January 2009 - 09:18 PM

Anecdotal..........
332cube/glide 9" in LJ.... 11.2@118mph.
Moved the fuel regulators to in front of the carbs (they were on the firewall previously)
Result... 10.89@122mph... no other changes were made....
Car previousy had no stumbles/plugs looked good and never registered a pressure drop through the top end....

Ahh........ the truth is out there!

I'm stickin' with y riginal diagnosis... VALVE SPRING PRESSURE and fuel volume/pressure(more volume than pressure)

Cheers Greg..

yeah it never ceases to amaze me constantly seeing the same thing time and time again, they do all the right things except bolt the fuel reg to the firewall or even way over on an inner skirt leaving 2 or 3 feet of fuel line between reg and carbie(s).

micko

Back to top

#40 _PRO-192_

Guests

Posted 09 January 2009 - 09:35 PM

explain this then pro- 192?
it obviously cant possibly happen as far as your concerned, as far as 30 years? that dont mean that much, ive done it for 21 years who cares thats not really the point, i know people that have done for 10 years that are light years ahead of others that have done it for 40 years, if you dont have open mind you will stop learning.

im looking forward to your answer on this 332 lj senario?

wow!! when a mate rang me today telling me i had upset someone good and preper on here i tought he was bullshitting me/shit stirring but seems like i owe him an apology.

i dont see why you are taking the question i asked as a personal attack nor why you feel you need to prove yourself to me as i have said previously, its not me you have to convince here... i must say tho i have noticed you seem to have a "knack" for leaving out key bits of information or change the story as it goes...

what am i explaing again?? lol... i'm not sure i should even justify you with a response to all this but i will try to entertain... the fact that an engine with a rated output of lets say 400hp for arguements sake found an extra 10% is alot easier tablet to swallow than an assumedly "sorted" engine you take to the track finding almost half its total hp rating... i mean, you found an extra 70hp on an engine that has approx 200 total give or take...

you said you tune all your engines on a superflow 902 then say you didnt tune this one on it when confronted with a legitimate question/statement... i mean one can only read what is placed infront of them and go from there... you made the statements dude, i just read them and asked a question...

maybe you need to get laid or take a valium or something, because i am not one of your customers whingeing that my engine has had a meltdown after you have tuned it/built it... lol kidding

im sure you really do know what you are doing and know what you are talking about and i just cant read properly but in saying that i will keep building and tuning my own engines if its all the same...

smile and be good

micko

Back to top

#41 _82911_

Guests

Posted 09 January 2009 - 11:44 PM

Just wanted to add....
Moved the regs from the firewall to the front engine plate...
Around the same distance from the carb as when they were on the firewall....
So what did I do wrong the first time Micko????

Cheers Greg..

Back to top

#42 _1QUICK LJ_

Guests

Posted 10 January 2009 - 06:14 PM

wow!! when a mate rang me today telling me i had upset someone good and preper on here i tought he was bullshitting me/shit stirring but seems like i owe him an apology.

i dont see why you are taking the question i asked as a personal attack nor why you feel you need to prove yourself to me as i have said previously, its not me you have to convince here... i must say tho i have noticed you seem to have a "knack" for leaving out key bits of information or change the story as it goes...

what am i explaing again?? lol... i'm not sure i should even justify you with a response to all this but i will try to entertain... the fact that an engine with a rated output of lets say 400hp for arguements sake found an extra 10% is alot easier tablet to swallow than an assumedly "sorted" engine you take to the track finding almost half its total hp rating... i mean, you found an extra 70hp on an engine that has approx 200 total give or take...

you said you tune all your engines on a superflow 902 then say you didnt tune this one on it when confronted with a legitimate question/statement... i mean one can only read what is placed infront of them and go from there... you made the statements dude, i just read them and asked a question...

maybe you need to get laid or take a valium or something, because i am not one of your customers whingeing that my engine has had a meltdown after you have tuned it/built it... lol kidding

im sure you really do know what you are doing and know what you are talking about and i just cant read properly but in saying that i will keep building and tuning my own engines if its all the same...

smile and be good

micko

im not looking for an apology, what happened with my mates engine really happened, like i said i dont care if you dont believe it. it happened.
i was merely giving a real life example, while this might be an extreme case, it happened. im not into bullshitting fullstop. think what you want to think. this thread isnt about me either, im just rying to help the guy end of story.
i would still like you to explain what happenend to the 332 LJ if you believe im wrong. workout how much power it gained by those time differences. seeing as it takes more and more power to get a drop in et the lower the et gets.?

Back to top

#43 _1QUICK LJ_

Guests

Posted 10 January 2009 - 06:26 PM

besides adding in some extra datails where did i change my story as you say?

Back to top

#44 _PRO-192_

Guests

Posted 10 January 2009 - 07:50 PM

Just wanted to add....
Moved the regs from the firewall to the front engine plate...
Around the same distance from the carb as when they were on the firewall....
So what did I do wrong the first time Micko????

Cheers Greg..

for 'twas not i that suggested nor implied you nor anyone else here did anything wrong... as you say... anecdotal (one of the definitions being "hearsay")

cheers
micko

Back to top

#45 _82911_

Guests

Posted 10 January 2009 - 09:40 PM

what the^

Back to top

#46 _1QUICK LJ_

Guests

Posted 11 January 2009 - 12:24 AM

dude its not me you have to convince here, i have been doing this for nearly 30 years,

micko

been doing it 30 years really? so youve been doing this since you were 7 years old, seeing as you are 37 yeah righto.lol

Back to top

#47 _NZ Toranaman_

Guests

Posted 12 January 2009 - 02:24 PM

G, day fellas , I would really appreciate some advice on which direction to go with on the exhaust system in my LJ . its got a186- 236 stroker engine M 21 box 3.55 diff ,the head is a yella terra cast 12 port [cast iron] with extensive port work apparently flowing 120 cfm and the biggest valves that can be fitted. This is feed by a set off triple Webbers . the cam is a hydraulic roller cam with 580 lift and 330 adv duration . currently this is attached to a set of 20 yr old genie extractors 1,1/2 inch not mandrel bent 6 into 2 into 1 then into a 2,1/2 inch system .on the dyno the rear wheel hp at 5600 rpm reachs 230 but then run out of puff the torque is 1250 lb . the thinking at the moment is to go 1,3/4 primarys 6 into 1 collector then to a 3 inch system , would it work better with 6 into 2? 1,5/6 or 1,3/4 ? thanks in advance for any advice, especially a calculation for the lenth of the primarys. cheers

Hi I have come into this pretty late and I may have missed a bit in skimming through all the discussions but the first thing I noticed in the specs rang alarm bells at trying to achieve horsepower in the upper rev range.
You are still running Hydraulic Cam even though its roller.
The second is you say "apparently flowing"
Question: Why do you not run solid lifters so you limit valve bounce in high revs?
Question: Do you have the valve spring rates correct from the camshaft manufacturer?
Question: How good is your spark for these revs?
Comment: Big valves doesn't mean big flow and can slow the flow in fact.

It sounds like valve train issues or head flow issues.
Yes they will run harder than this but they need to be matched to the other parts.

BTW I know of way more cam than this running huge revs but they have slightly different specs

Back to top

#48 _PRO-192_

Guests

Posted 14 January 2009 - 08:40 PM

been doing it 30 years really? so youve been doing this since you were 7 years old, seeing as you are 37 yeah righto.lol

[/url]dude its not me you have to convince here, i have been doing this for nearly 30 years,

micko

its ok mate... i understand dyslexia... my brother is the same (reads 1 thing and interprets something else entirely different) after all the OP was asking for comments on his EXHAUST and you come along and ramble on about other things but besides the point...

for the record not that i need to justify myself to you nor any of the other tossers here, nor do i give 2 shits about your views and opinions after reading your original comment

i built my first engine (1275 cooper s with my old man clipping me under the ear) when i was 10(thats ten for 1quickLJ) thats 1 more than nine and one less than 11 so if you use your scientific calculator and do the maths that way you will come up with an approximate of 27 years total... which in my book is nearly 30 years give or take... as i said

oh and i am dissapointed you didnt sign my guestbook when you were perving at my page hahaha you sweet boy you...

micko

Back to top

#49 Tiny

Oh My, Don't you post alot

Administrators
10,018 posts

Name:Tiny
Location:Sydney
Joined: 04-February 07

Posted 15 January 2009 - 03:07 PM

Ok guys,

There is obviously a disagreement of opinions here, let's not get personal!

I'm sure you both have had your experiences and you are both trying to help the original poster solve a problem he has.

Youve both given some good advise backed up by your experiences and let's leave it at that. I dont think there is any need to bag out each other and your histories.

I'd like to leave the thread open to discuss the topic further if needed, so please... agree to disagree and lets move forward!

Back to top

#50 _PRO-192_

Guests

Posted 15 January 2009 - 11:50 PM

Ok guys,

There is obviously a disagreement of opinions here, let's not get personal!

I'm sure you both have had your experiences and you are both trying to help the original poster solve a problem he has.

Youve both given some good advise backed up by your experiences and let's leave it at that. I dont think there is any need to bag out each other and your histories.

I'd like to leave the thread open to discuss the topic further if needed, so please... agree to disagree and lets move forward!

+1

micko