F40 LM Restoration

Id swap the injectors first. ASNU injectors are highly regarded. ASNU High Performance Injectors
Are fuelpressure dropping at the current power level?

 

Injector duty cycles may be the culprit or a single FPR may not be able to keep up with the requirements of two banks of cylinders? Just shooting in the dark.

 

lovely build, followed it from the single digit pages...
check back everyday for an update

On your fuelling issue, your tuner should be able to suggest all avenues for more fuel for your build.
Injectors shouldn't be taken beyond 85% duty cycle really... so aim for a larger injector to cope with that. Motec should be able to offer advice also.
As has already been said a higher rated fuel pressure regulator can fuel injector duty cycle limits. Say your car is running a 3bar reg, then you can increase it to 4bar for increased fuelling for example.
There is nothing magic about fuel injectors, there are loads that compatible with various cars which have larger capacities... just a case of finding one which is suitable.

HTH's

 

Hi
Could you please guide me which directions those gears turn?
I'm trying to make my model animated
so please help me m8

[WIP] Ferrari F40 - June 17 2014 - YouTube
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Tim,

You should probably look into a couple things on your car, first if it's actually 2.9l still. If it is in fact a 2.9l something is out of place. You may have an issue with the calibration of your map sensor or possibly the dyno is just set to read extremely high. I'm sure the car makes great power as you have some pretty good turbo's and a pretty well designed system however the posted numbers are well beyond what's physically possible on a 2.9l engine.

Two garret GTX3071r turbos running in their peak efficiency island of 77% (in reality the compressor map has them around 70%) running on a 110% volumetric efficient motor (possible but unlikely) with a 0psi intercooler pressure drop (physically impossible) would only make 545hp given the lowest brake specific fuel consumption ever recorded by a standard turbocharged IC engine (which it's obviously not).... The F40 has a great engine but it's not breaking any laws of physics.

If the map sensor is indeed calibrated incorrectly you could end up in a very dangerous situation when you go to turn the boost up. If it's just the dyno set to read extremely high there's really nothing to worry about but you won't be getting an accurate number.

For reference we have built a very similar setup with the only differences being slightly lower compression, bigger turbos, more effecient intercoolers, and better headers. We only see 655hp on 1.5bar. Just to put it in perspective if you were to turn the boost up to 1.7bar which wouldn't be out of the question you would be making 960hp which is obviously not the case.

I hope I don't come across as negative as I only want to help but if you do indeed have a calibration error that will be extremely dangerous for obvious reasons, if it's just high dyno numbers it really sets up some unrealistic expectations for other owners that might try similar setups.

No doubt your car makes awesome power and will only get better as you turn the boost up and sort out your fuel issue. You will actually be moving towards the peak efficiency of those turbos as the boost goes up.


On another note, simply AMAZING mold work, you really found a great body/resto shop over there! I'm always interested to see body work of that caliber being done as it is definitely outside of my realm. It would be really cool to have them pop out some lightweight carbon replica panels, imagine how much weight you could shave.

 

^^^^ Great post, insight and advice.

 

I was hoping someone would do the arithmetic, as 2.9 l displacement and 0.7 bar simply won't make 600 rwhp (over 700 at the flywheel), unless perhaps the engine is turning well over 8000 rpm. Yes, a stock F40 makes 500-ish hp, but that is not rear wheel hp and that is at about 1.5 bar.

The other troubling issue is that the injector duty cycle is "maxed," which surprises me, since I would have expected a basic calculation of expected power (here 750), fuel pressure, volumetric efficiency and brake specific fuel consumption. For example, this web site has a simple calculator:

RC Fuel Injection

running the basic calculator, and assuming .60 BSFC and 43.5 psi at the rails, tells me you want 8 injectors that will flow 71 lbs/hour or 750 cc/min. I want to say you ditched the 16 injector setup, since you are running MoTeC, but if for some reason you are running 16 injectors, you can reduce the size (I think back in the day 16 injectors were used since you could not get big injectors to run low enough duty cycle for decent idle and part throttle response off boost).

I run 750 cc/min injectors on one of my turbo race cars, and they are readily available and inexpensive, relatively speaking.

I really don't mean to be critical, but I have built, tuned and raced several turbo road race cars and the numbers bandied around are incorrect. I suspect it is a miscommunication along the line, as any good tuner will have a real good idea of turbocompressor map, expected boost levels, needed fuel pressure and flow rate, and injector size before the engine even fires.

 

Will be a hoot on the country lanes around your homestead.

 

I must be one of the few that doesn't think the HP figure is impossible with the information Traveller gave us.

In the UK, this figure is not unheard of with engines of similar size and turbos and boost levels.

Considering the engine was used as a race engine before, it's not impossible that it has some very aggressive cams and timing etc on there. Things like low altitude, air temperature and even correct fan setup can have a big effect on the numbers.

On top of that, in the UK it's very easy to find 99 RON at the pump (just about any petrol station). In the States, where 93 is normally the highest, which is equivalent to ~97 octane in Europe.

There's a couple of incredible engine mappers in the UK (and to be fair, the few that I know are the only ones that I'd let touch my mapping, plenty of cowboys around).

 

2 litre 4 cylinder turbocharged ford cosworth road car engines here in the UK are topping 600 bhp easily these days, some built by the likes of Julian Godfrey for rallycross cars are nearing 1000 bhp and lasting a whole season, so Tims figures don't seem out of the ordinary in a higher capacity twin turbo engine.

 

The questions came up when a boost level of only 0.7 bar was mentioned. Those cars you speak of (along with the BMW 1.5 turbo F1 car which ran 4.0 bar in 1987) run WAY WAY higher boost levels than that.

Not sure if you guys have ever seen the 1.5l turbo F1 engine in person but the turbo is about the same size as the engine with an intercooler that dwarfs them both. I took this photo at BMW in SC.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

The BMW M12/13 displayed at BMW Welt in Munich. Won Piquet the WDC in 1983 and was doing 1400-hp in qualifying trim by 1985/86, all from 1.5 liters. Needed trick fuel to do that.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Those engines themselves where tiny.

The turbos from the 80s F1 where around the same size, GT3076 equivalent, but with a tiny A/R. The engines ran with Tolouene mix capped at 102RON (so a bit more than the standard 99ron available anywhere in the UK).

So it wasn't like they strapped two GT60's to the side and put 116 octane in there.

 

For the single turbos they where running ~GT40 size turbos.

Both where running with a crap load of boost (up to 5.5 bar) to get the massive quali numbers.

 

...... and 11,000 to 13,000 rpm too!

 

You have to look at boost pressures in your volumetric calculations here, displacement means nothing without knowing charge pressure. No doubt your motor or even a smaller motor can make more power just not at boost levels that low. I have personally built multiple 1000hp+ 2.0l engines but they run drastically higher boost.

If you look at my post I already assumed better than possible numbers for volumetric efficiency, turbo efficiency, and BSFC which would require more than radical cams, it would require record breaking engineering on almost every component.

Again you're looking solely at displacement rather than boost pressure. If you take Tim's engine as an example this is how the math works. He is running .7bar of boost which is actually 1.7bar total (atmospheric pressure is 1 bar) 604hp/1.7= 355hp

This means Tim's engine should make 355hp with no turbos on it (actually more since bsfc would go down for an NA application). That would be 122WHP per liter. For comparison the Honda S2000 engine which is the highest hp/liter production engine ever produced barely makes 100WHP per liter and it has 11.7:1 compression, drastically better cylinder head design, camshafts with OVER 300 degrees duration, and revs to 9000rpm.

Sure the old F1 engines made tons of power on 1.5 liters but they also ran pre-heated toluene for fuel, revved to 13000+ rpm, ran 4+ bar, and were pure race bread by the greatest engineers of their time.

No doubt Tim's tuner is a good tuner or he wouldn't be working with such caliber cars and I'm not trying to take away from anything being done here but wide open throttle tuning is extremely simple. The mark of a good tuner is throttle response, transient tuning, part throttle drivability, fuel economy, etc. Wide open throttle tuning is by far the easiest part and no tuning black magic is going to break any laws of physics.

I feel bad for bringing any of this up because I didn't want to start something like this in such an awesome thread and I know every dyno reads different but unrealistic dyno numbers are a big pet peeve of mine. Here in the states we have lots of shops putting out crazy numbers taking business away from the honest guys and putting unrealistic expectations in customers heads. At the end of the day I sell track results not dyno numbers and my customers are always happy but on the internet people see these amazing numbers and assume that there is some mythical tuning god responsible that can extract 30% more power than anyone else. It's simply not the case.

I'll leave it with that as the math is posted and I want to see this thread get back on track, I apologize for derailing it.