Bad night.. Lots of oil and lots of smoke (carnage pics)

lol troubleshooting by pole responces like a boss

And a confession - I replaced my tensioner today. Whilst doing so I found another ground. There is a ground wire comes out of the bundle that goes to the ignition control module (ICM), and goes up behind a mounting bolt under the ICM. It's right by the block. I missed that one, I'm sorry.

Albert

Dumbass #1 wrote:

98riviera98 wrote:

Poll added... Take your votes...

Travis, I 'dinged' you for that one.

And on behalf of RIck and myself, sorry about jacking your thread to talk about grounds.

Anyway - when life gives lemons, make lemonade and sell produce. Thinking about it, this might be a good time to get a used SC engine and overhaul it then install it in your Riv. Just think... the engine that embodies all the wisdom, hints and tips for powering a Riv that is quicker than 13 sec in the 1/4 mile... since you're in for some work anyway...

maybe a local vocational school will do the work if you buy the parts..

Albertj

My motor is half way out at the moment.. And i have a L26 waiting to go in... Don't be knocking my skillz brah

Dumbass #2 wrote:

Just tear the friggin thing down and post your results instead of posting a juvenile poll.

You sir are retarded.. and I haven't given you a minus in about a month. i haven't gave anyone a + but AA a few times and Albertj(sp?) so go hide and fuck yourself pal....




Haven't taken the heads off my L67 so i can't tell you which piston ate the dust HOWEVER.. there were chunks of metal in the pan..

turtleman wrote:

lol troubleshooting by pole responces like a boss

You are a goofy some B17ch

98riviera98 wrote:

so go hide and fuck yourself pal....

BLOW ME< PUNK !!!!!!

Rickw wrote:

BLOW ME< PUNK !!!!!!

Nope Turtleman would get pissed... Cheating on him and all...

Stay the fuck outta my threads rick.. your a douche bag... I can joke sometimes.. but your a d bag... you no longer have access to that alldata account by the way..

OH, your hurting my feelings.

DDBag

why can't we all just get along

so what kind of fuel were you running? E10? E85? Pure? blend? Were you scanning at the time?

deekster_caddy wrote:

so what kind of fuel were you running? E10? E85? Pure? blend? Were you scanning at the time?

I was running E85 sir! full E85... I had tuned it 2 days previous WITH NO KR.. but it was 30* cooler that night.. and i was seeing upwards of 16 lbs of boost..and it felt ridiculously fast.. It was awesome.. k back to pulling my motor and heads and crap..

Rickw wrote:

OH, your hurting my feelings.

DDBag

shoulda made the poll with checkboxes instead of buttons so we could choose multiple...

deekster_caddy wrote:

shoulda made the poll with checkboxes instead of buttons so we could choose multiple...

Nice guess AA

98riviera98 wrote:

deekster_caddy wrote:

shoulda made the poll with checkboxes instead of buttons so we could choose multiple...

Nice guess AA

Hey I was the first one to vote #3 in the poll

L67 wrote:

Hey I was the first one to vote #3 in the poll

Dope! Your one smart cookie sir!

98riviera98 wrote:

L67 wrote:

Hey I was the first one to vote #3 in the poll

Dope! Your one smart cookie sir!

Thats what mah momma says.

Congrats to L67, but I didn't view results before voting! I think we both should get a prize!

This tells you something about what happened. #3 gets really hot, so pistons tend to frag from detonation. M90 blowers make really, really, hot air at 16 PSI, and contrary to popular belief, E85 can knock with too much compression.

If you find a hole through the piston, it could mean preignition from an ignition source inside the chamber. I would doubt it though.

AA wrote:

Congrats to L67, but I didn't view results before voting! I think we both should get a prize!

This tells you something about what happened. #3 gets really hot, so pistons tend to frag from detonation. M90 blowers make really, really, hot air at 16 PSI, and contrary to popular belief, E85 can knock with too much compression.

If you find a hole through the piston, it could mean preignition from an ignition source inside the chamber. I would doubt it though.

I didn't go to a high comp block because i thought that my low comp block didn't have enough compression. i went to it because i will be able to run a 3.4 pulley and make the same boost as a 3.1 or a 3.2 pulley... it was a no brainer for me!! IMO of course.. PLUS it makes 15whp more on the same boost level as before.. AS SO I HAVE HEARD.. and more TQ...


I have 1-2 more hours til the motors out.. but i work at a golf course all weekend.. UGHHHHHHHH...

98riviera98 wrote:

Stay the fuck outta my threads rick.. your a douche bag... I can joke sometimes.. but your a d bag

Travis, I'm not really posting in your thread, it's only your imagination.............But, what kind of knuckleheads are still golfing in their nickers in MN at this time of year.?????

DDBag

AA wrote:

Congrats to L67, but I didn't view results before voting! I think we both should get a prize!

Yeah travis what do we get??

You will be running less boost with the 9.4:1 build, not more.

When I said E85 can knock with too much compression, was referring to effective compression, not static. Static compression + boost = effective compression. For example 8.5:1 + 13 PSI boost = ~16:1 effective compression. Your set up was running near 18:1 effective compression. That's a lot without an intercooler. It's a recipe for destruction, even with E85.

If you build an engine with higher static compression, you don't need as much boost to get the same amount of power/torque, because your static compression gives effective compression a raise before boost. So with 9.4:1 static compression, you only need 13-14 PSI to get the same 18:1 effective compression. That means your engine could blow up with only 13 PSI instead of 16 PSI. It's something to think about.

The reason some folks like the idea of raising static compression on our engine is because 13 PSI is more inside the M90's efficiency band, so it won't heat the air charge as much. Makes sense, but for the time and effort required, I wouldn't do it. Opening up the motor & exhaust and/or Installing an intercooler makes more sense, imo. If you don't do these things, the 9.4:1 compression really just builds low end torque mostly. I don't understand why you'd want so much. We already make a ton at 8.5:1.

So be careful when you go 9.4:1static compression and then try running "same boost as a 3.1 or a 3.2 pulley", because if you do, your engine will do the same thing it did a few days ago - BOOM!

(I think you meant same effective compression as a 3.1 or 3.2" pulley, but that isn't what you said.)

AA makes a good point, and I think if you want to mess with the whole enchilada at it's core (higher static compression), you should only do it if you are going to include an intercooler in your rebuilld...

2 questions for the group:

-Has anyone tried water injection?
-Why is the #3 piston more prone to failure?

Water injection has been tried but it has been shown to eat away the epoxy coating on the rotors, lowering boost efficiency.

#3 is in between #1 and #5, making it hotter. #3 is also on the front bank, which on a stock engine has a more restrictive exhaust route. These factors make #3 more prone to detonation and piston failure. #4 (on the rear bank) is also at risk. It is for this reason DHP tunes the PCM program so #3 & #4 cylinders to receive a slightly higher amount of fuel compared to the other cylinders.

Rickw wrote:

98riviera98 wrote:

Stay the fuck outta my threads rick.. your a douche bag... I can joke sometimes.. but your a d bag

Travis, I'm not really posting in your thread, it's only your imagination.............But, what kind of knuckleheads are still golfing in their nickers in MN at this time of year.?????

DDBag

Lots of them... People in MN aren't pussy's just sayin

AA wrote:

Water injection has been tried but it has been shown to eat away the epoxy coating on the rotors, lowering boost efficiency.

#3 is in between #1 and #5, making it hotter. #3 is also on the front bank, which on a stock engine has a more restrictive exhaust route. These factors make #3 more prone to detonation and piston failure. #4 (on the rear bank) is also at risk. It is for this reason DHP tunes the PCM program so #3 & #4 cylinders to receive a slightly higher amount of fuel compared to the other cylinders.

Thank you, Aaron. I can't believe simple water hurts the damned coating!

I kinda' suspected that the front manifold may have been the kicker on #3, but I wasn't sure because I only learned about the difference between the two manifolds on here...