What people are forgetting is that this kit is for the budget concious. To get a twin turbo installed on a GTV6 is going to cost you a whole lot more than $3299 US for Gregs supercharger kit.For a twin turbo set up you`d have to spend at least $20000AUSwhich roughly translates to around $16000US. Gregs kit seems like a good deal for what it offers.
Posted: Thu Feb 03, 2005 6:31 am
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"why supercharger then? "
From what I can see, a key factor to this kit is being off a totally stock and therefore "smog" legal engine with a kit which should be easily put on and off for those times when it needs to be, hah. Plus giving nice power,
I do have a question Im building a new 3.0 12v for my gtv6, i want to stay strictly naturally aspirated, high compression, S cams, mild port and polish, Cat, and Bigger Exhaust, can anyone tell me how far theyve gone and still passing emissions in CA? Could i put bigger valves in, and the previous mods would be okay too? Im not looking for a bunch of upgrading the fuel management system, yada yada, stuff ive never seen done here yet, just the old school mods but want some nice power and be okay on the emission side? thanks
sorry to say paulcc but it goes right back to the same thing. engine management.
a porsche turbo makes allot more power then our alfas, but its managed to pass EPA.
you can try twiddle with the standard fuel and timing setup to pass, then set it back for best power.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"why supercharger then? "
From what I can see, a key factor to this kit is being off a totally stock and therefore "smog" legal engine with a kit which should be easily put on and off for those times when it needs to be, hah. Plus giving nice power,
I do have a question Im building a new 3.0 12v for my gtv6, i want to stay strictly naturally aspirated, high compression, S cams, mild port and polish, Cat, and Bigger Exhaust, can anyone tell me how far theyve gone and still passing emissions in CA? Could i put bigger valves in, and the previous mods would be okay too? Im not looking for a bunch of upgrading the fuel management system, yada yada, stuff ive never seen done here yet, just the old school mods but want some nice power and be okay on the emission side? thanks
sorry to say paulcc but it goes right back to the same thing. engine management.
a porsche turbo makes allot more power then our alfas, but its managed to pass EPA.
you can try twiddle with the standard fuel and timing setup to pass, then set it back for best power.
The CA smog test is more than just emissions testing - then it would be no problem to do all kinds of things. However, CA smog test includes a visual check that practically everything is stock...
I don't think anyone is arguing that a properly tuned modern aftermarket EMS is capable of running cleaner than L-Jet.
Jes
I don't think anyone is arguing that a properly tuned modern aftermarket EMS is capable of running cleaner than L-Jet.
Jes
87 Milano Verde - daily driver - Juliet
87 Milano 3.0 Motronic - budget race car - Roxanne
87 Milano 3.7 24v - race car
(Repeat or do as I say at your own risk - be critical)
87 Milano 3.0 Motronic - budget race car - Roxanne
87 Milano 3.7 24v - race car
(Repeat or do as I say at your own risk - be critical)
Please people, start a new thread if you wanna discuss other things then Gregs dyno results.
Maybe we could try to at least TRY to stay on topic on this new GTV6 board
Maybe we could try to at least TRY to stay on topic on this new GTV6 board
Mats Strandberg
-Scuderia Rosso- Now burned to the ground...
-onemanracing.com-
-Strandberg.photography-
GTV 2000 -77 - Died in the fire.
155 V6 Sport -96 - Sold!
-Scuderia Rosso- Now burned to the ground...
-onemanracing.com-
-Strandberg.photography-
GTV 2000 -77 - Died in the fire.
155 V6 Sport -96 - Sold!
-
Greg Gordon
- Verde
- Posts: 1552
- Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2004 7:06 pm
I am glad so many people understand what I am trying to do here. There are too many posts for me to respond to all of them but I do read them all and I will try to respond to any specific questions.
I think a major point that has been missed by some people is that my kit AND modern engine management are compatible. I clearly explain that on my website, I describe the advantages, and offer a stripped down version of the kit for people that want to go that route. Just because I am using L-Jet and some others will too doesn't mean I am saying it's the only way to go.
Furthermore the fact that I got this much power RELIABLY with L-Jet, stock size injectors and no intercooler should be thought of as a bonus. It clearly shows that more power is possible for the people who want it.
I think a major point that has been missed by some people is that my kit AND modern engine management are compatible. I clearly explain that on my website, I describe the advantages, and offer a stripped down version of the kit for people that want to go that route. Just because I am using L-Jet and some others will too doesn't mean I am saying it's the only way to go.
Furthermore the fact that I got this much power RELIABLY with L-Jet, stock size injectors and no intercooler should be thought of as a bonus. It clearly shows that more power is possible for the people who want it.
-
Greg Gordon
- Verde
- Posts: 1552
- Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2004 7:06 pm
-
Greg Gordon
- Verde
- Posts: 1552
- Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2004 7:06 pm
Here is quick explanation of horsepower ratings. In the U.S. we use SAE (society of automotive engineers) horsepower ratings. There have to do with how much weight in pounds can be raised a certain distance in feet in a certain amount of time. Now in most other places they don't lift pounds a certain number of feet, because of the Metric system. They raise kilos or something up a distance measured in meters or whatever. The common european horsepower rating is called DIN. SAE numbers are normally a little lower then DIN numbers for the same amount of power but they are darn close. The GTV6 was originally rated at 154 SAE NET horsepower.
To further add to the confusion the SAE testing procedures have changed a number of time so that all SAE ratings are not all comparable. We now use SAE NET and have since 1972. SAE NET measure power at the flywheel with the full exhaust, alternator, water pump, etc. The previous version SAE GROSS measured power without the accessories and resulted in a horsepower number quite a bit higher.
But wait there is more! To further add to the confusion there are many different forms of SAE net. They all have to do with simulating different atmospheric conditions. Which conditions are the offcial ones to be used keeps changing. In other words SAE NET effectively changed a number of times after 1972. To make matters worse the conditions are not published on any official SAE site. I think they want you have to buy the nearly $400 SAE manual which weighs about 30 pounds to get the official testing conditions.
The values I corrected the atmosphere to are published on my site and are commonly accepted conditions for testing. With all the variations over time in SAE testing they are certainly not the only possible values. That's why I provided all the data, so anyone can see just what I did. Anyone who wants to correct the power level for a 4000 foot elevation on a 80F day in DIN can do so.
To further add to the confusion the SAE testing procedures have changed a number of time so that all SAE ratings are not all comparable. We now use SAE NET and have since 1972. SAE NET measure power at the flywheel with the full exhaust, alternator, water pump, etc. The previous version SAE GROSS measured power without the accessories and resulted in a horsepower number quite a bit higher.
But wait there is more! To further add to the confusion there are many different forms of SAE net. They all have to do with simulating different atmospheric conditions. Which conditions are the offcial ones to be used keeps changing. In other words SAE NET effectively changed a number of times after 1972. To make matters worse the conditions are not published on any official SAE site. I think they want you have to buy the nearly $400 SAE manual which weighs about 30 pounds to get the official testing conditions.
The values I corrected the atmosphere to are published on my site and are commonly accepted conditions for testing. With all the variations over time in SAE testing they are certainly not the only possible values. That's why I provided all the data, so anyone can see just what I did. Anyone who wants to correct the power level for a 4000 foot elevation on a 80F day in DIN can do so.
-
Terry Johnston
- Gold
- Posts: 56
- Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2004 2:34 pm
- Location: Utah
)-60?
Greg,
Have you measured or calculated the 0-60 of the supercharged car? I suspect there is a significant improvement! Terry
Have you measured or calculated the 0-60 of the supercharged car? I suspect there is a significant improvement! Terry
Terry
-
Greg Gordon
- Verde
- Posts: 1552
- Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2004 7:06 pm
I don't plan to publish a 0-60 time because there are just too many variables and potential for controversy.
I have timed it and it's times seem comparable to the WRX (not the STI
) , RX8, Cobalt SS, and other cars at the quicker end of the sport compact crowd. It will easily clobber a Mini Cooper S, Tiburon V6 and other cars at the slower end of that crowd.
I have timed it and it's times seem comparable to the WRX (not the STI
) , RX8, Cobalt SS, and other cars at the quicker end of the sport compact crowd. It will easily clobber a Mini Cooper S, Tiburon V6 and other cars at the slower end of that crowd.
More than likely, the dyno used was a dynojet 248C. This will read higher than others like the dynapack, mustang or maha.
Most of the dynos used in US car magazine are dynojets.
Actually the correction factor values are given on his website. So you can perform the math yourself according to SAE J1349 JUN90.
Most of the dynos used in US car magazine are dynojets.
Actually the correction factor values are given on his website. So you can perform the math yourself according to SAE J1349 JUN90.
-
Greg Gordon
- Verde
- Posts: 1552
- Joined: Mon Nov 29, 2004 7:06 pm
GTV6GPTT: As Zamani said, the data is on my website so you can convert the numbers to whatever you want. I am not going to figure out the numbers according to every method and SAE standard possible. I figure raw data and a correction to the most commonly used standard I know of should be good enough.
I posted the boost level for the test here the last time you asked. Of course all pounds of boost are not equal so I don't really see the value of that information. It's all about how many air molecules I can shove in and at at what cost, not boost.
I hope you are not trying to suck me into an argument over the validity of one horsepower standard over another. I am trying to aviod that by sticking to the facts.
I posted the boost level for the test here the last time you asked. Of course all pounds of boost are not equal so I don't really see the value of that information. It's all about how many air molecules I can shove in and at at what cost, not boost.
I hope you are not trying to suck me into an argument over the validity of one horsepower standard over another. I am trying to aviod that by sticking to the facts.
Hi Greg. Well done on your kit. I think its an excellent route to go without having to rebuild your car to suite this conversion. As you know I barely comment anymore as I prefer to read what every one is up to unless I can contribute some positive feedback. But now I have to view a small opinion.
Patso and GTV6tt have missed this plot totally. Hey, i had my 3.0TT on this site four years ago and driven it another two years before that continuosly upgrading from the Ljet to the haltec. The car was dynamite along with its fuel consumption but after stripping 3rd gear, 5th gear, crown wheel it was a total waste of time unless you forked out big and put the gearbox in front. You could never apply the power in first gear so any chance of drag racing was out of the question. It was only at .7bar boost. The point im getting to is that this supercharge kit is perfect without having to break the bank balance and you are not going to destroy your car.
Please patso, dont behave like another arrogant .......p. Compare apples with apples only.
Cheers Kevin
Other Alfas in my garage( I got a big family and force them to drive Alfas except for the GTV's)
1985 gtv 3.0l carb
1984 gtv 3.0l injection
1983 gtv 24v GTA 3.2
1982 gtv 24v 3.3
1984 159 v6
1997 164 3.0l
1996 164 3.0l
1998 155 16v.
Patso and GTV6tt have missed this plot totally. Hey, i had my 3.0TT on this site four years ago and driven it another two years before that continuosly upgrading from the Ljet to the haltec. The car was dynamite along with its fuel consumption but after stripping 3rd gear, 5th gear, crown wheel it was a total waste of time unless you forked out big and put the gearbox in front. You could never apply the power in first gear so any chance of drag racing was out of the question. It was only at .7bar boost. The point im getting to is that this supercharge kit is perfect without having to break the bank balance and you are not going to destroy your car.
Please patso, dont behave like another arrogant .......p. Compare apples with apples only.
Cheers Kevin
Other Alfas in my garage( I got a big family and force them to drive Alfas except for the GTV's)
1985 gtv 3.0l carb
1984 gtv 3.0l injection
1983 gtv 24v GTA 3.2
1982 gtv 24v 3.3
1984 159 v6
1997 164 3.0l
1996 164 3.0l
1998 155 16v.