EricF

You likely have a clogged PCV and it went unnoticed for long enough that the positive crankcase pressure started to wreak havoc on some of your seals (i.e. turbo and oil cap)...

Clean the PCV, check crankcase pressure again as you did before, if it doesn't improve then your car is where mine is at! If you get crankcase vacuum instead of pressure, you just probably fixed the root problem. Run the car a little and see if the leaks stop, otherwise it is time to start picking up the pieces. Which may or may not be a difficult/expensive exercise.

so you're willing to risk your engine seizing just to see what it put outs...

Many Swedish 850s that are running faster only fill to the minimum line to reduce crankcase pressure. It is safe.

It's ok you don't understand why it works maybe you never will.

Yes waste your money on a chip, I’ll race you after you install it and we'll see who’s faster.

Of course it has no merit here, because you say so. An engine is an air pump the same principals apply form one application to another, but you already knew that. Are we ready to add useful information to this tread keyboard warrior?

Eric, I have "been there and done that" my volvo has been running with the wastegate line disconnected for the last year with NO PROBLEMS! It doesn't get anymore real then that.

I’ll say it again 13's IS possible with a 97mph trap. If you can’t cut the 60 foot it’s not the cars fault but the driver. I'll admit I haven't cut a 1.8 so far, I’ve only been to the track once with bald tires that i was wasting before I purchased my new snows. I know many people on wide variety of cars that cut 1.8's on radials. The people who will ET the best are always autos.

102MPH trap on a 3500LBS car is VERY close to 300WHP if not over that and you should know that.

Dyna packs read 15-20% lower then DynoJets, Manuals make more power then autos and this is all common knowledge. Now you are telling me that for an extra 5 PSI of boost you will not gain 35-50 WHP?

For all that time money and energy tuning I don’t see how they paid any dividends over my tuning ability so stop bashing it. You have more MPH simply because you are a 5 spd.

As a moderator of another internet forum I must say it’s sad that personal attacks made by other members on me have not been delt with.

I request that someone here discredit the infomation I have provided with PROOF and reasons WHY they won't work and where I have led someone astray.

As a side note Johann I hardly call this bolt ons. Call me when you have tuned an AEM EMS your self.

How much does it cost to run at your track? If you can go there and cut a 1.8 60 foot with your 97 mph trap S70 and run a 13 second 1/4 mile time, I will pay your entry. Put your money where your mouth is... Not everyone here with a 97 mph trap is a lousy driver or has no idea what's going on.

For the record, I ran my 855 turbo back in the day with the wastegate line disconnected. Big boost fade and then spike. I had a chip though, so more appropriate base timing and fuel maps.

5 psi, specifically the 5 psi jump from 15-20, will not get you much on a 16T, especially with stock intercooler and exhaust. You will be fading to approximately the same boost level both ways, just getting a higher and peakier torque curve when the boost spikes in the midrange. You will NEVER see 35-50 whp from just turning the boost from 15 to 20 psi on an otherwise stock car, again I will give you 5 dollars if you can somehow prove this is possible.

We're scoffing at what you say because you're not proving anything, just making bold generalizations. Disprove what? How? I've already pointed out that the collective experience of this board (and what I know of what they have done in Sweden which is far more vast than here) doesn't mesh with what you are suggesting. What more can be done to "disprove" what you're saying? What are you trying to prove exactly?

Eric why are you arguing with me only to agree in some way?

So again to recap 97MPH is a 13 sec E/T with traction. (especially with an auto boosting off the line) We aren't talking -about driving skill simply ET and MPH.

-Someone aperently did 297WHP on the 16T already.

I'm mean guys I know you are friends why not stop defending your friend for a second and really think about what I'm saying. I never set out to bash attack or belittle someone, instead I was the target of the flames as usual because I'm trying to share VALID points with new people to the board. Like it or not all the facts that I have stated are true, I'm have not lied to anyone and I've done this all form good will to try to help others. I gave warnings and tried to explain how and why my theories work. I dare you to post this whole thread on other car websites and see the type of responses you get.

I like my volvo but I will never take it to the level of my supra, but that won't stop me form helping someone that wants to get to that level. I realize it's NOT the best platform for big power but it is the best platform to meet my needs as a DD. Power, space, reliablity, conforts and finally cost

That's my only problem with your posts man, nothing personal. Just that you're giving advice to people without having been there and done that... I just tried to say that no one will find the traction with a 97 mph ET to run 13s. I will paypal 5 dollars to anyone who does.

You put forth theories, that are kind of patchy, and then say with certainty that they will work. You don't have any real life experience with these cars to back that up... What you've done is perfect for what you need your Volvo to do, and you have gotten good results by doing it. But that doesn't qualify you to say with certainty (nor does your Supra experience) what people should be doing to get their Volvos to a much higher level.

I will believe 297 whp when it's on a dyno I know or know of (no offense to some people on this board, but not all dynos are created or operated equally), or when I see a timeslip with a trap speed that would indicate that power level... Jake's car has gone very fast, I think 103 is close to that. Deafdano and Joseph are probably next in line with 16T cars, having trapped 102 with chip/exhaust/mbc setups. Behind that, I don't think there is anyone trapping 100 or higher.

I'm not trying to bash you, but just realize how much experience and knowledge really is on this board, and when people who have been here for years and years with a ton of posts and hold moderator positions make simple statements, they are usually based off of the experience that has been shared on this forum over the years, coupled with their own.

I'm just trying to keep benchracing out of informational threads, and 13s at 97 in a FWD Volvo is just such an example of that... No one should think they will run that in their chipped or boost controlled Volvo

You have sound ideas, but they don't mesh with the experience of those here who have been there and done that repeatedly... And presenting ideas as facts can get confusing to noobs, just trying to illustrate that there is a difference for those who can't discern it themselves.

Carry on, I'm in need of sleep.

You know Eric it, you are one of the people who I actually respect on this forum because you make INTELLGENT posts. However I disagree with you on some points here.

-I have a problem with the Volvo community recommending and ECU upgrade which is not needed (unnecessary money spent for anyone who has a little DIY in them)

-My Volvo is my DD hence why I do not heavily mod it.

-97MPH IS good for a 13 second trap 1.8 60 foot and it would probably be a 13.7 (I had 2.4 60 foot)

-Just because it’s a supra doesn’t mean general rules don’t apply over platforms.

-Joseph could well have made power up to that point but it doesn’t change the fact that he hasn’t contributed anything useful in his last slew of posts.

-No one is saying I’m a know it all, I AM SAYING that 300WHP IS possible on a 16T, however, in a attempt to BACK UP MY CLAIMS I simply get bashed.

I think people need to step back here and think of what others are doing in terms of performance upgrades.

by the way My AC does work and I’m very glad for that, and no sadly it doesn’t on my supra.

If someone could post intelligently on WHY my methods wouldn’t work maybe I could accept that however, I’ve followed this method on other cars with pleasing results. If it was such a bad thing my car should have blown up years ago but she’s still boosting and getting me form a to b reliably and that’s what counts.

1.8 60 foot won't happen without slicks. I'm not a bad driver and have put a lot of time in at the track, along with a few others, and my best 60' on street tires with the manual transmission is 2.2 (after which I spun first and second gear just rolling into the powerband, killing my trap anyway), and most people don't get better than a 2.1 in any of their runs.

I have talked to one person who has run 1.8 60 foot on a mildly modified turbo Volvo, but other than that have only seen the likes of 2.1-2.2 from the faster drivers here. It sucks, but they are heavy cars with peaky torque bands being pulled by one front wheel...

I like your reasoning on the 60 foot though, gives me a mid-12 second car but oh well (13.3 at 107 with a 2.2 60 foot.. was decent launch, no bogging and a tiny bit of spin, then perfect traction for the rest of the run)

Back to the issue at hand, I would love to see someone make 300whp on a credible dyno with a 16T, or report trap speeds that would indicate such power. However, lots of people have modified their cars rather heavily with that turbo and they all fall way short. I would be pleased to be making 250-260 whp on that turbo... And that's about where most people here stop gaining much :)

Any car with high boost will PULL timing, it’s a fact of life.

Do you know anything at ALL about tuning??

Timing pull is when knock is detected by the knock sensors in the engine, and Motronic cannot alleviate the issue by enriching the mixture so pulls the stock timing values at that RPM and boost level WAY back. Many modern engine management systems (if not all) do this.

Yes, every car running boost will have the timing "pulled" back at peak torque, but this is in the base ignition map, not a reactive measure by the ECU. You have a base timing setting at idle (low rpm and high vacuum), the timing value increases linearly with RPM and is reduced in correlation with torque level (on boosted cars can be simplified to boost level usually). That's the basic idea behind an ignition timing map. at 12 degrees BTDC base timing, you may be running 30 degrees timing at peak power (higher rpm well past the torque peak). If your car knocks, Motronic will pull the timing back into the single digits (which, really, it may be at already around the torque peak but should go way up after that), sometimes into the negative, and will kill the power you are making.

This is basic ignition tuning theory, and a large aspect of why your "spin the turbo into the ground and run as much boost you can" blanket advice holds no water.

Is it still making power? Isnt' that the goal even if it pulls timing? Yes I can physically feel power loss if I drive on 91. Hence why I use 94, it stock ecu's will ALWAYS pull timing when boost gets high, afterall it's not expecting or programmed for the change. You can poke holes in my credibility all you want. I know that I've got dyno sheets showing 244WHP and time slips in the low 14's with a MPH good for 13's all done at a fraction of the cost it's taken you. My engine has 248000KM on it, and my turbo is original. So poke away, I know I haven't blown any t5 engines, I know that I'm faster then may of the people on this board and I also know I spent LESS then 1000$ doing it.

by the way if 500WHP is so easy on a 1jz making 300 on a Volvo should be a walk in the park and guess what IT IS!

You can bash me all you like the fact of the matter is I'VE MADE POWER MY SELF and YOU HAVE NOT. Grow up and act like a moderator, OPEN your eyes to new ideas and LEARN instead of thinking you are king SHIZ.

Everyone is jealous of your S70 with a boost controller, that is probably correct. I know I am, it still has A/C and everything probably works

14.4 is hardly low 14s, and if you would observe how fast people trap for their 1/4 times in these cars, 97 is NOT good for high 13s.

Joseph is one of the few active members on this board who has modified a car himself into the 13s, and Johann has two of the faster cars on the board as well. My car is pretty sorry right now but has been very fast in both the tune that I purchased it in, as well as the block-up build and engine swap I did myself in my driveway. Do I see a trend developing here? People who have actually put work into their cars (Volvos) themselves and made them fast rolling their eyes at you?

Just because you have a fast Supra does not mean your Volvo is anything to be especially proud of. You are doing things with it, getting it on the dyno and going to the track, as well as sharing your results... For that I am grateful. However, acting as though a boost controller install makes you the know-it-all go-to guy for Volvo performance modification is pretty far out there man

For the record, I believe Joseph has trapped higher than 97 in his 1998 S70 which also only has a boost controller. He has also done it at lower boost levels (15-16?) because he had his car on a dyno and progressively turned the boost up from stock until it stopped making more power (although his AFR's were still good). If you need explanations as to why Johann should be respected you are ignorant or read nothing on this board (why bother posting then?).

We all appreciate your contributions, but Jesus Christ man wake up and look around you. There are people here who know more about these cars than you do and have more real world experience, which might come as a shock, but saying you have a 500 whp Supra in every post you make doesn't make you an authority.

Also, how many threads have we had which have deteriorated into zazzn telling us all that we just need a boost controller because his supra makes 500 whp? Too many? :rolleyes:

Damn Pat... Best wishes man, and if you need to talk about anything I'm around.

Things will work out.

6 cm2 = 0.41 A/R

7 cm2 = 0.49 A/R

8 cm2 = 0.57 A/R

9 cm2 = 0.65 A/R

10 cm2 = 0.73 A/R

11 cm2 = 0.81 A/R

12 cm2 = 0.89 A/R

I thought they were 6 cm 2 housing ?

I always thought they were 7... The TD04HL have bigger turbine exducer than regular TD04/TD04H also.

http://www.melett.com/newPDFs/MHI/TD04.pdf...sing%20A%2FR%22

That's a list that mentions all of the FWD Volvos (except some 2.0 liter versions and for some reason the 1998 S70?) as 7 cm2 housings. Go figure...

You are right on Joe.Take for instance the .41 A/R housing (stock volvo). Changing turbine A/R has many effects. By going to a larger turbine A/R, the turbo comes up on boost at a higher engine speed, the flow capacity of the turbine is increased and less flow is wastegated, there is less engine backpressure, and engine volumetric efficiency is increased resulting in more overall power. The .41 A/R is able to create the pressure differential at a much lower engine rpm, giving the compressor ability to make its maximum rpm speed sooner, why the 15G and all others spool very quickly. As the engine rpm climbs, the pressure differential is lowered due to the physical volume of the housing size becoming a restriction on the post turbine side - volvo turbine housing suck !. As the housing size is increased, it take greater engine rpm speed (greater exhaust energy) to spool up the turbine, but the pressure differential is less effected by the physical volume of the housing. If you are after maximum midrange gains smaller housings are essentially (15G,16T,18T), if top end gains are essential larger housing are essential(16G,20G,3071R, 28R).

Just as a note, they're .49 A/R. And though they're small, the housings have a great design, integrated wastegate which joins the exhaust stream on the downside of the turbine at a good angle, and on the straight and especially angle-outlet housings, the outlet itself flows very well. With some porting the inlet of the turbine housing will also flow well.

You would have a ton of trouble finding a comparably sized turbine housing from another manufacturer that flows as well (though, these turbine housings are in desperate need of porting... overall design is nice though).

lol are you serious? You have one of the ghettoest and most powerful cars in FL, doubt it cost you close to 4K. You did it closer to right..

When all was said and done, probably 2500+ or so for my hybrid turbo setup, and that's doing everything myself including all the exhaust work and all fabrication. A 19T setup when finished will probably have similar costs unless you are buying someone else's setup used. Neither of those costs factor in intercooler upgrade.

When I put the wagon together, I'll probably have a slightly higher cost, but I will hopefully be putting in a different intercooler and fixing a couple of issues with the sedan's current setup...

Rob, is this on ME4.x or ME7? What car specifically?

Rob did that on his C70 with ME7.

Probably cost over $4K to make that 300whp lol.

Jared you should just make 300 whp already so you can make posts based off of experience like Rob's...

Until then, your mocking people who do things right and actually get results doesn't really amount to much

To the original poster, it's been well covered here (and there is at least one similar thread here on the first page of the forum now where I've weighed in more heavily (My Planned Upgrades or something). But basically, a 19T with good exhaust, larger injectors (blue 395cc would probably be most preferable), and good tuning will get you what you want. Upgraded intercooler makes it much easier to do so... But not absolutely necessary for 300whp. I would fully recommend it if funds for it are available.

Bump for picture.s.. This is ridiculous guys come on!

A word of wisdom to everyone looking to buy this or to do a manual swap... MUCH easier and cheaper to pull the head and fix a guide (or even to get a valve job) than it is to do a manual swap. Sweet opportunity here!

Bump for pictures.

yea eric that meet was krazY fun, i'd love to see that 242 running soon too, im also in the process of hosting the bazillion pics i took.... thanks for having me it was a blast --i think it sets a standard for all volvo meets

Link em up when you get them hosted man! Working on that video stuff now, but my on-board graphics can't really keep up all that well. I have the raw files compressed to reasonable size, but still have to rip the stuff off of my camera.

Thanks to everyone who came, especially to those who helped pay for beer/food/etc as it wasn't cheap!

I really enjoyed this meet, and it was great meeting a bunch of new faces this time around. Hopefully you guys got your interest piqued on the older cars, as they can be very rewarding in different ways than the newer ones (everyone should have one of each)

It really makes me want to plan another one sometime, where we won't have to focus on building the GT so much as thrashing on it (and fixing everyone else's cars that break) and doing other fun things.

Speaking of the car, I'm hopefully going to find a clutch for it tomorrow in between cleaning up the house and garage, then it is go time for the rest of the build (seats arrive Tuesday or Wednesday). Hoping to have the car running this week, as there really is not much left to do aside from wiring (and dropping engine/tranny in, which is rather simple).

Again thanks and hope you all had safe journeys home B)

Meet is AMAZING so far.. As usual. Call if you're stopping by, which if it is logistically possible is what you ought to be doing right now.

No pants, helmet if they don't like you and you're under 13.5 I think. Don't *ask* them though, they will tell you something ridiculous that isn't even in NHRA rules.

I've made 3 runs under 13.5 in a night without a helmet, just told them it was in the back seat.

Btw...

IT HAS BEGUNNNNN!!

(danadanadanadanadada danadanadanadanadada MORTAL KOMBAT!!)

Hey Tripp, bring that thing out to the track man! It opens at 6, we're usually a little late there anyway.

Otherwise, we'll probably be done there around 10-10:30 or when it starts raining :ph34r:

I am working Friday night until around 10...are you guys going to still be up after that?

Also, what time is everything going on Saturday? I work sometime in the evening, so i would like to come out and eat with yall and whatever in the morning/afternoon depending on what time everythings going on.

Eric, where in Orlando are you at? Im right next to UCF on Alafaya.

We'll probably be heading back from the track around 10... People usually start dying off around 1 or 2 depending on what all's going on at that point.

Saturday the BBQ will probably start happening around 1-2 p.m., in the morning we'll probably go grab breakfast depending on how deep in the GT we are when it's time to eat.

I'm back off Lockwood in Oviedo... About 6 min from campus, just past SCC.

Well, I for one, am going to arrive at around 10ish, I'll call Jesus while I'm 1 hour away to see where he's at. If busy, then I'll hang at Starbucks and wait till he gets home.

That's my plan in a nutshell. I'll be crashing at his place both nights, returning on Sunday.

See you tomorrow or Sat, Matt.

Sounds good man, we'll probably get started pretty early in the morning (I'm in college now though, so beware of what "early" may be)... Have to pull the old engine out, run some things to the machine shop, and start with lots of the prep work.

Hopefully this is still on, right? I'll be leaving straight for Orlando after work tomorrow evening.

Yes sir..

Everyone give me a call when they leave or are en route to let me know when they will be arriving, and so I can tell them where we will be at that time and how to get there.

954-629-5913

Gonna be awesome! Old engine comes out tomorrow morning, take the flywheel and head and ATP wastegate to the shop to get some final machining done, hopefully get them back before we go to the track or sometime Saturday

Meanwhile the rest of the car will be taken care of...

If it rains...

At least I KNOW everyone has 10 or 15 dollars (depending if they plan on running or not) to put towards drinks :lol:

www.csmonitor.com

Mainly where I go for the news these days... Actually educated and almost as objective as I've been able to find.