The F119 power modification thread

That's what I was talking about in your other thread. As parts become more scarce, things like standalone ECUs may end up being cheaper than trying to find new MAFs and spark plug wires (as an example) and creating an entirely new harness may very well be cheaper than fixing the existing harness. 3D printing has come a long way and being able to design and have a new intake plenum created may not be that difficult. It might just be having a new top portion of the manifold redesigned and having the runners honed.

 

1000 fewer RPM.

 

Competioniti in Gathersburg. Thery are great.

 

I think most people who know anything about these five valve engine will agree they were dropped because cams, var val timing, straighter intakes, injectors, etc were all cheaper to gain power than a five valve design.
Motorcycles dropped the five valve design before ferrari introduced it because of the reasons above.
The breathing might be a big help but I also suspect the 355 gains by internal rotating mass and diff cam timing to accomodate the higher revs, diff combustion design, and of course a better intake help to get the extra ponies.

If you carried the torque curve pf the 348 to the 355 higher rpm limit i bet it would be a lot closer.

Ps if you had time it would be interesting to see those better injectors vs stock. I ofain wondered if changing in my 355 would help enough to notice.

 

True Grant. Dropped because the 5-valve technology became irrelevant due to alternatives. It was a temporary solution until they learned how to get to the same result without them.

@vjlax18. There are already plenum designed we can adapt. The 360 and 430, to name a couple. Imagine those babies with longer tube runners crisscrossed. Or just drop 4 pairs of dual throttle bodies in there.

 

Very important points and there are other constraints we are not hot rodding for like smog compliance, durability, or fuel economy to name 3. Power adding is very cool but not as easy as it looks on paper.

 

Yuuup talk is cheap


I almost never say what I do, If I do say 90% its not what I did.
Racers call it intellectual intercourse.
35 years DEEP in the auto industry, 60 hours a week gains some sweet insight.




Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Very true. Given the technology they were working with, Ferrari engineers did an awesome job on our engines. I didn't realize how awesome until I ran those numbers-- I had no idea that my own car has a better specific output that a stock 512M!

Again, very true. I've been modding cars for more decades than I'd care to admit, and well before we had the interwebZ on which to exchange ideas and info. The school of hard knocks is pretty unforgiving and it's never as easy as it looks. Engineers employed by the top car makers aren't dumb, and companies like Ferrari (especially) have all the incentive in the world to get the most out of their cars. Sure, we can do better, but without increasing displacement, either physically or through forced induction, the gains are often hard won, expensive to achieve, and come with their own set of drawbacks.

Which is certainly not to say that I'm not excited about this thread. I'm looking to achieve 100hp/l by optimizing what the factory gave us (albeit with exhaust upgrades) so I like seeing what has and has not worked for folks. Plus, it's just plain fun to talk and think about.

 

Anybody know how much pressure is in the intake at, say 120mph?

 

My best guess it sucks harder then a hunts point hooker

 

So eat that Ldm...the 348 was better before you made a 355 out of it!

 

I think it's just cars from before 1975 for California. I don't think it moves up (i.e. 25 year or older cars). Maybe the 25 year rule you're thinking about is the Federal import one?

 

Oooooh yeah!

 

Your absolutely right, technically it should *not* be exempt, but I have read some people with post 75' model year cars still not getting the notice after 3 years with the plates

http://www.mye28.com/viewtopic.php?t=122801

Not sure what to believe...

Cheers

 

These are, as noted, incredible constraints. The engineering staff was not stupid, despite what at times apprears to be poor decision making to the layperson. Another facet that influenced the final product is that the engineering staff was also forced to keep the bean counters happy as well, even at Ferrari!

They could not and never would run an ECU solution that allowed for the trickery that I am suggesting (allowing one ECU to believe it was in charge when in reality another was running the show).

The parallel ECU idea is essentially cooking the books as far as engine management goes, allowing you to have one set of books that you show the government and another one with the real numbers.

In some respects, you can have your cake and eat it too. Examples of that include two of the tricks I am using to reduce parasitic drag on the motor. Now, the 348 cannot benefit as easily from the tricks I am using, but there is a tangible benefit to running only the alternator off the engine pulley and migrating to electric pumps for things like power steering and coolant circulation, these are simply more efficient strategies with the secondary benefit of reducing emissions, fuel consumption, while increasing total power available at the flywheel under WOT conditions at high RPM.

Finally, modern ECU's allow for other digital trickery, like E85 and alternative fuels, which potentially allows you to push the envelope with regard to the timing curve. Even dry progressive nitrous systems utilizing larger than stock fuel injectors become a very real possibility, including down low in the RPM band where at 2625 rpm a 25hp shot of Nitrous is 50 ft/lbs of very real usable torque... let that sink in a bit. Especially if you remember that at 5250 rpm a 50 ft/lb increase in torque is 50 hp, and at 7500 rpm a 50ft/lb shot of nitrous is 75hp, or a gentle nudge by nitrous standards. However across the full power band its huge! All without being unduly harsh on the engine.

Making power is far easier today than ever, hiding it is easier than ever, and it's not because the engineering staff could not have done better. They had constraints and technology limitations that we simply don't. The power is there waiting for us to unlock it. Hot rodding continues to evolve, just as we continue to see amazing cars produced today. Who thought we would see 700 hp production vehicles under $100k running the streets? I know I did not think that would ever occur in the early to late 80's and 90's, did you?

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

 

Maybe we should check with VW. They may be able to give us some in site into how to do this.

 

They could not and never would run an ECU solution that allowed for the trickery that I am suggesting (allowing one ECU to believe it was in charge when in reality another was running the show).

The parallel ECU idea is essentially cooking the books as far as engine management goes, allowing you to have one set of books that you show the government and another one with the real numbers.





Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk[/QUOTE]

 

I forgot to ask for a reasonably simple explaination of who this is accopmlished and what is needed

 

Basically sharing some signals with the stock ecu, such as crank sensor/cam position, coolant temp, anything you want it to output on a data stream to make it appear to be functional.

Works best when you have access to tuning the stock pcm to take care of the readiness monitors otherwise you still need to have in place emissions equipment or trick the pcm into thinking it's there in order to pass.

 

For 80% of the folks that want a little more and don't want to go non ferrari parts I think we can squeeze enough out of the motronic for them with a few matched parts.
For the lunatic fringe that like to R&D we need data mining for sure.

After this project my next goal is OBD 2 emulation to pass emission with IM reddiness. This should be quite possible in 12 months