Jump to content

Gen V 5.3l turbo build - 87 octane and AFM/DOD

BoomBoomBamaPhD
 Share

Recommended Posts

BoomBoomBamaPhD Enthusiast

BoomBoomBamaPhD

Posted
  • Author
Posted
1 hour ago, pokismoki said:

yes, college is where the youth go to waste thier parents money getting an degree in something outdated and obsolete

I'll try not to take this personally offensive, but my parents don't make enough money for that, everything I've spent on college has come from scholarships that I earned academically, and luckily only a couple of loans.

And I'm sorry you think that Engineering is outdated and obsolete. I'd love to see you design a production engine.

 

Sorry for the rant

  • Replies 63
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

lucas287
lucas287

100% doable with 87 octane. My wife's CX-9 has the 2.5 Skyactiv Turbo and it runs great on 87. Madza itself even claims that use of 91+ will give you 10% more HP but the torque down low stays the same

shakenfake
shakenfake

I promise you once you graduate everything you learned is getting tossed out the window.    Anyways I vote buy the turbo kit do a delete and the whole shebang. I'll even help if you live in

KARNUT
KARNUT

When the 14s first came out there was plenty of experimental tuners tinkering with the 5.3s. They were on this site. They all recommended using premium gas for maximum performance. KR was the reason.

BoomBoomBamaPhD Enthusiast

BoomBoomBamaPhD

Posted
  • Author
Posted

But so back to the ecoboost, so that is still saying that the engine is taking over 15psi of boost on 87?

I think that's pretty significant. Especially because normal tame tunes won't push beyond 10psi for sake of reliability.

And its the premise of the last bit of the article you have quoted, basically if you want more performance, just fill your tank with higher performing fuel.

pokismoki Senior Enthusiast

pokismoki

Posted
Posted
40 minutes ago, BoomBoomBamaPhD said:

I'll try not to take this personally offensive, but my parents don't make enough money for that, everything I've spent on college has come from scholarships that I earned academically, and luckily only a couple of loans.

And I'm sorry you think that Engineering is outdated and obsolete. I'd love to see you design a production engine.

 

Sorry for the rant

you'll get skooled kid...

  • Like 1
CrawlSlow Enthusiast

CrawlSlow

Posted
Posted

Lol 😆 @ this thread. 

 

The Fast and the Furious is a good source for this type of school project. 

 

Instead of trying to proves what you read on the internet.  You should take a moment and listen to those with hands-on experience.

  • Like 2
BoomBoomBamaPhD Enthusiast

BoomBoomBamaPhD

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Well when I mentioned the 10psi and reliability I guess I should have specified I was talking about boosted ls applications

 

Obviously when You add more components and a more complicated system, reliability will suffer. Although ford has to provide a warranty which I'm assuming is the typical 5year 60k miles. So there is something to be said about the reliability there.

 

And I doubt I would get "skooled," although I wasn't suggesting a competition.

 

I'll state this again for everyone who continues to view me as some naive and ignorant brat. I understand how to "properly" build a boosted engine, and how everyone has always done it. Not exact components, but fundamentally.

 

Yes, 87 in a boosted application is improper for maximum performance, I've stated that many times already. Everyone knows that, but it can be done, as shown more than once now.

 

This thread has turned into the pissing contest that I was trying to avoid. 

Thank you to the few of you that attempted to participate in an open-minded conversation while sharing your knowledge.

  • Like 1
lucas287 Enthusiast

lucas287

Posted
Posted
29 minutes ago, BoomBoomBamaPhD said:

Well when I mentioned the 10psi and reliability I guess I should have specified I was talking about boosted ls applications

 

Obviously when You add more components and a more complicated system, reliability will suffer. Although ford has to provide a warranty which I'm assuming is the typical 5year 60k miles. So there is something to be said about the reliability there.

 

And I doubt I would get "skooled," although I wasn't suggesting a competition.

 

I'll state this again for everyone who continues to view me as some naive and ignorant brat. I understand how to "properly" build a boosted engine, and how everyone has always done it. Not exact components, but fundamentally.

 

Yes, 87 in a boosted application is improper for maximum performance, I've stated that many times already. Everyone knows that, but it can be done, as shown more than once now.

 

This thread has turned into the pissing contest that I was trying to avoid. 

Thank you to the few of you that attempted to participate in an open-minded conversation while sharing your knowledge.

 

100% doable with 87 octane. My wife's CX-9 has the 2.5 Skyactiv Turbo and it runs great on 87. Madza itself even claims that use of 91+ will give you 10% more HP but the torque down low stays the same. Just a matter of how much resources can be put into the project. 

 

I think it's paramount to have full control over the intake and exhaust valves - independent of each other. That would be the best way to keep the chamber cool and prevent detonation. And that's never going to happen with our engines.

 

As I'm sure you're aware, you can adjust SOI (start of injection). It's a map that looks very similar to the timing tables where you tell it exactly when you want it to spray (in degrees relative to BDC, I believe). That would probably help a lot. In fact, the stock SOI tables are kind of a mess. I can get nearly the same fuel mileage as stock by disabling part throttle VVT and retarding (delaying) SOI a good bit. The result is a super responsive throttle and great torque production. 

 

Lastly, I apologize if it's been mentioned - but alcohol-based fuels are superior for boost. Their cooling properties alone are a game changer. I can run my 93 tune on E30 (e85 blended with 87 octane) with zero knock at all. 

  • Like 4
pokismoki Senior Enthusiast

pokismoki

Posted
Posted (edited)

I never been able to find SOI in HPtuners for the K2, are you using a different platform like EFI LIVE? I'll look it up.

 

I played with this feature before on a fuel injected dirtbike and wow throttle response was insane just by re-timing the firing of injector vs valve opening degrees

Edited by pokismoki
BoomBoomBamaPhD Enthusiast

BoomBoomBamaPhD

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I am sure i can find it elsewhere, but since we are leading to this topic here.

What all control can be had over the VVT for the 2015 5.3?

obviously with it only being a single cam it is limited for what vvt can accomplish, but tuning wise, what can be done?

 

And @lucas287, what mix do you use for e30?

lucas287 Enthusiast

lucas287

Posted
Posted
11 hours ago, BoomBoomBamaPhD said:

I am sure i can find it elsewhere, but since we are leading to this topic here.

What all control can be had over the VVT for the 2015 5.3?

obviously with it only being a single cam it is limited for what vvt can accomplish, but tuning wise, what can be done?

 

And @lucas287, what mix do you use for e30?


I’m not sure how the 5.3 is set up but I believe the 6.2 is advanced 8 degrees until the ECM says to ****** (I think this forum bleeps that word out lol). WOT it starts to reduce that advance at 3000 RPM and by 5000 RPM it’s retarding 8 degrees so it’s straight up. All of that is great. I have no issues with it. However, in the low load ranges .16-.56 g/cyl airmass is can ****** up to 23 degrees. Basically to introduce the EGR effect of cooling the chamber and reducing pumping losses. 
 

And yes SOI is in HPT, what I use. It’s under the spark tab I believe! 

lucas287 Enthusiast

lucas287

Posted
Posted

Didn’t fully finish my thoughts there. So you have the ability to reduce the ****** to 0 for any given rpm/airmass, but that’s it. You cannot advance beyond its parked position. Hope that helps!

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • Jus Cruisin
      2027 GMC Sierra: Official Discussion

      By Jus Cruisin · Posted

      I was the GM of a Lincoln Mercury dealership back in the 80's. The service lot was always full with "broken" ones. Plenty of transmissions, power windows and a/c repairs. The only one I'd consider owning would be the Marauder at this point and it certainly wouldn't be a daily driver.  My 2025 GMC Sierra 1500 Denali Ultimate is my "Lincoln Town Car" in my retirement. I want all the "stuff". Big infotainment screens, one touch power windows, Supercruise (I won't buy another vehicle without it), hands free pretty much everything. I'm going to swap my current truck for a 2027 Yukon Denali Ultimate so I can have the air suspension and surround vision recording along with all the other "stuff". 
    • Byrds8
      Ac not keeping up

      By Byrds8 · Posted

      Yep mine is on backorder also.
    • smit303
      2027 GMC Sierra: Official Discussion

      By smit303 · Posted

      The Denali Ultimate's grille is tinted, but the "regular' Denali has a bright chrome grille like the current models.
    • Jsdirt
      2027 GMC Sierra: Official Discussion

      By Jsdirt · Posted

      Because that is IDIOTIC, much like this question. They've already been forced to do it by past administrations - why would you roll that back when it's a GOOD thing?  WHO IS ARGUING FOR LOWER MILEAGE???? 😂  NOBODY IS!!   I'm certainly not! What I want is RELIABLE vehicles again that are worth the price paid!    I don't get your logic here ...   In 2003 I paid $2,200 for our '86 Grand Marquis. It's STILL running and I've never been inside the engine, aside for the timing cover since it was leaking, so I threw a new timing set in since that makes sense. Transmission is ORIGINAL. Electric pump in the gas tank is ORIGINAL. Rear end is ORIGINAL. I'd have to hit my head REAL hard to want to pay $60k or more for a car that still can't come close to the comfort, seating and storage space, or reliability of this one. Nothing is even in the ball park! Hundreds of thousands of brands and models have been built and sent to the crusher while this one keeps on going!   https://postimg.cc/Z9XRrCSg   I've got a whole fleet of cars, motorcycles, and a truck close to this age for summer and winter. No one could pay me enough to buy anything built this century. I have zero use for any it.
    • Jsdirt
      2027 GMC Sierra: Official Discussion

      By Jsdirt · Posted

      Since I'm the one who has to fix them when they break, I'll take vehicles over 30 years old all day, EVERY day, over ANY modern crap. Have you attempted any repairs on anything built after 2006? It's a friggin nightmare, and gets worse the newer the model year.    If I had the will or desire, I can make any car of any age outside of a Model T (I don't have THAT much will ...) just as powerful, comfortable, and have all the tech the new stuff does, and get pretty close in mileage, too. I prefer SIMPLICITY. The less the vehicle has, the less to fix WHEN it breaks, not IF.   I'm glad you snot-nosed punks don't like them. More for us, plus that keeps the prices from climbing more than they already have.👍

  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...