AVOS said in another post "Once the ECU detects an issue with the TB, it will disable the throttle motor. Then the butterfly goes slightly more open in the relax state (increasing the RPM), and the ECU will control the engine RPM by cutting fueling (the misfiring), and next to that throw lots of codes (like the tracs)."



This is the first time that I am hating when you are right...

Yesterday: I had only ran it for a minute because I did not have coolant in it/was letting the JB weld dry, I did not touch the gas pedal at all yesterday-and it ran very smooth and nice.

This morning: I started up the car this morning after filling with coolant and it ran a little rough, so I let it do it's thing for 15-20 minutes as it went through it's diagnostics and was able to get the car running very smooth again.

Then...
I touched the gas pedal...
VrooomVrooom rev limiter..
Engine failsafe mode again

Would this mean the throttle position sensor is bad?

 

Did you the pedal reset thingy,

Turn the key to position 2 (not cranking) and press the gas pedal down twice or how every many times it is required?

 

It was not the throttle position sensor..

Luckily for me I have a "spare" 2002 (same year) xj8 to try parts from

I swapped the TPS from the xjr-> xj8, the XJ8 runs normally/no change
I swapped the TPS from the xj8->xjr, no change

When I put the key to the on position, the butterfly opens and closes, so the motor that drives that works at least during the system check.

I'm out of my depth at this point...

Helppppppp!

Is there no help for the car's son?

 

No worries, I respond for the benefit of the community, I know you are blind for my views ;-)

Anyway, I responded already in another thread you opened. One question though, XJR-220 has already done his some time ago, didn't he had any issues?

 

Heh,

I'm not actually blind to your views, I just wanted to learn more about your and other posters's motivations and thought processes about why/how they post...and I think I have found a way to get where I want to go (+100 wheel HP) while not spending too much money while still using the heaton.

I do listen very carefully to what you have said. It has always been my practice to throw ideas around that are high/low/left/right of where I want to go or to poke at people a little just to test people's motivations and learn the dynamics of their responses to learn more about them. Because you are biased toward your twin screw kit ( for reasons which are valid - it is far superior to the eaton ) I wanted to test/verify independently all your suggestions to see if they pass the "smell test" which they have.

Other than not believing there is a way to get an eaton powered car to gain 100-120 RWHP without spending more money per HP than the TS, I think everything you have posted has been 100% accurate. (And I have yet to demonstrate, but plan to in the coming months, via credible dyno and performance runs that my "unique" view of being able to get that 100-120 RWHP is possible, and even economical)

Since I am totally new to Jags and knew zilch about modifying them until only a few months ago I intentionally was posting about potential mods that were all over the place. As I acquired more info and understanding of these cars, you can see how my posts zero in on some issues.

For example, I was seeing how the faster cars Matt Moran (12.4 1/4 mile), etc were all running 17-18 psi boost so to test the assumption that upper and lower pulleys was the way to go I asked about running 18 psi, to which you responded explaining how the eaton's increasing power consumption becomes so inefficient, that at some point, it becomes counter productive from a parasitic drag and fuel consumption (maxing out the fuel delivery boundry) perspective. This info you gave was easily confirmed with little research. Since I have found ways (not yet revealed) to move much more air through the 4.0 than I think will be proven that anyone has done before, I will be hitting the fuel delivery boundary of the stock system becomes a big and potentially limiting issue.

By this I mean that I currently have a limited excess capacity (guessing 20ish%) of fuel delivery left, so I could use that up by spinning the blower faster and faster, but since it becomes self consuming at some point, and makes too much heat at some point, I now think I can get more safely closer to maxing out my fuel delivery by using the last precious capacity of fuel delivery by making the system much more efficient by less resistance through the entire system (much less vacuum on the intake, significantly cooling the intake air temps, enlarging and porting and polishing all pathways from the beginning to the end)

So, I am going to test my theory that I can more efficiently use the precious remaining fuel delivery capacity by not using it all up with the combination of upper and lower pulleys, but by only running a smaller upper pulley. I am also going to add an adjustable fuel pressure regulator to make sure I am not running at 95+% of capacity, just to have a little insurance not to melt anything. The dyno operator will be able to tell me the duty cycle of the injectors.

I am working on a new intake design that is pretty wild with some truly never "been done before" innovations that I think, if I can overcome some technical challenges, will very significantly provide gains well beyond the +30hpish gains that people have done before. When I have finished and tested this new and innovative design, I think you will be impressed and would agree that it qualifies as very "outside the box" thinking.

I have come across a few other "never been done before" mods that will also make reaching my goal of +100 RWHP possible and I will share some of those after I have proven they work too.

So, in closing of this magnus opus post, (heh), even though it appears that I do not listen to what you have said, I have, but I do think I can be the first to successfully succeed where others in the past have failed...to add, economically in $ per HP terms, 100 RWHP while retaining the eaton. I will walk my talk and provide my proof as dyno and actual performance when able.




p.s. I did not know that XJR-0220 had a maxbored TB, I think he has dissapeared again into the black hole of working in the oil fields for 2 weeks at a time with no internet access, so I'll send him a message. It usually takes a week or so for him to get back to me.

 

I merely said that the 120 rwhp you expected from the mods you listed was not realistic, and I guess you are already realizing that, as you are already looking for more mods.

Also I never thought you would go for TS (which doesn’t matter), there is a place for the Eaton and the power you can get out of it. As you can see I am even supporting you and others with information on how you can get the most out of it. If you want modest mods, stick with the Eaton, if you want serious power gains the TS I the way to go.

Just so it’s clear, I don’t mind you are not going the TS way nor do I want to convince you, but that should already be obvious as I am helping you and others already on how you can get more out of the Eaton setup.

PS Early June xjr-0220 mentioned it do it, when he also said he would post soon his dyno results of his new intake, but didn’t want to show them at that time.

 

PS Early June xjr-0220 mentioned it do it, when he also said he would post soon his dyno results of his new intake, but didn’t want to show them at that time.

I think he is still out looking for my missing supercharger that he sent back to me a year ago . If you end up needing another throttle I am pretty sure I have a good used one that was on my car at one point. I purchased a used one while my original polished one was out for repair as they told me 4-6 weeks to fix.

 

Please see attached picture. The TB on the left is has the arms that the throttle cable moves, was installed 180 off, and that must be the source of the problem. The TB on the right has the correct orientation and worked fine.

I was able to put the two side by side and thought I had better investigate further so I took of the throttle cable assemblies to see if something like this had happened.

Success! I emailed to Maxbore who of course said mail it back to him and it will be corrected asap. I don't think anyone else has to worry, I sincerely doubt he would make that mistake again.

So it is good to know that I can work on these cars and bounce out of a pit of a problem via the boards help and my own investigations.

Now it's time for a

p.s. JgaXkr, thank you for the offer, but fortunately I figured it out

 

[QUOTE=avos;590259]I merely said that the 120 rwhp you expected from the mods you listed was not realistic, and I guess you are already realizing that, as you are already looking for more mods.


Wow, so this whole time I was mistaken in thinking your position was that an eaton powered R could not economically add 100-120 RWHP, but all this time you meant if I was limited to the list of mods I had at that time...ooops, my bad I think I may owe you an apology...I thought you were taking a less defensible position.

Well, it is true that no one has successfully done it before, and many have tried. I still am quite confident that I will get there, and be the first to do so as I have myself found or been told ways to get more power than others have done before. As soon as I get my TB back, I'm going to start working on my intake prototype (these will not be for sale, way too complicated) but I would not be offended if people were crazy enough to duplicate it if it works as well as I hope. I expect more than a 40 HP gain over stock (dynos will be forthcoming)

 

To answer the quesion I need to know what you find economical to reach 100-120rwhp. So far I have not seen anyone getting to 100rwhp with the eaton, let alone economicaly getting close...

PS good that its solved with the TB

 

Let's say 1/2 the total installed cost for the twin screw.

 

Here is another incentive for you; I’m afraid you need more, as you can't overcome the limitations of the Eaton without enlarging the engine capacity, you need to change much more to get to 100rwhp extra (let alone 120rwhp), and as you know those last bits are always the most expensive (and noisy, so loosing the sleeper value)...

Have fun!

 

Sir, I accept your challenge

I hope to have reached my goal of +100 RWHP by December 1, 2012.

Do you accept the 267 RWHP from my baseline dyno as posted before as my baseline/before dyno? I will use the same machine and operator.

And if I succeed?

I wouldn't mind having the WaterDragon sound like a fire breathing dragon for a while, I could always add a quieting xpipe/muffler to tame the thunder later.

 

Nope, for the reasons I mentioned in the thread where you asked it before.

Exhaust noise would indeed be one, the noise from the overly fast spinning Eaton is the other one.

As you can’t overcome the inefficiencies of the Eaton, you are building a system that requires super cooling all the time (which creates a dependency on correct workings, and it isn’t uncommon for water/meth systems to fail), noisy as said before, very un-efficient as the Eaton will consume much more power from the engine (so you might indeed need better fueling system and airflow adjustments), risk with crank damage due to lower larger pulleys that affect harmonic balancing, and a short life for the Eaton unit itself due to the fact it spins outside of the allowed limits to name a few.

These are some of the reasons I didn't pursue the Eaton road, so not sure if I can congratulate then.

But of course I can for innovative ideas which would be great, but there has already been so much done and suggested...

 

I have to admire your willingness to try & push the envelope with an Eaton. I went the full route you are going so far. With me it was just wanting the most possible power. My only way to judge an increase was seat of the pants & my boost gauge as I never put the car on a dyno. That will happen when my last few mods are done. The one thing I did notice was how hot the charge temp gets when you increase boost. Keep us posted.

 

So then how do I get a baseline that would be acceptable? Since the car appears to have had a tune in the past (given the higher air/fuel ratios), I don't think there is that much room to increase HP by leaning out the mixture much more....do you? It runs down to a 12.1 with the meth, and I think I want to target no leaner than a 12.7, just to be on the safer side, so I don't think it could be claimed that I sandbagged the baseline based on air/fuel ratios.

I propose we use stock numbers? So about 307 RWHP for stock? I think it would be unreasonable to demand a higher baseline that that, because that assumes all is as it was new from the factory, if anything, that could put me at a slight dis-advantage. But, understand that using the 307 number also frees me up to use a dynojet for my final dyno numbers. What type of dyno did you use for your highest 534 rwhp dyno where you were using race fuel?

I am going to use the meth kit, since I already have it, but seeing the gains per $ so far with the meth, if I had to do it over again, I would skip the meth. As to using the meth, since it was lowering the A/F ratio with a 51/49 mix, I am going to try less meth and more water to see if I can still get the cooling with less effect on the A/F ratio. I do NOT want to rely on the meth for required additional fuel. I agree that would be inviting engine failure at some point. Significant improvements in cooling the intake charge temps are a big part of my planned gains and a few muppet mods are to that end. I will be watching those temps closely and will report as the mods happen

I am not going to use a lower pulley, just the upper pulley. I do, however, expect to get some additional free boost from a larger ram air assist, which is part of my new intake I am designing. I am hoping that I may see up to an additional 1.5 to 2 lbs of boost, or more air quantity equivilant because of significantly lowering the vacuum on the intake side and lowering the pressure on the exhaust side, and by larger intake diameters, the smallest diameter on my intake up to the supercharger inlet will be the surface area equivalent of a 82.5mm circle. As I have come to understand, the eaton does a decent job of moving air, just not so good at compressing it. So, to clarify, I will not be doing both pulleys, just the upper only. I will be spinning the supercharger a little bit faster to get boost quicker, but I don't think just the upper pulley would put too much stress to shorten the life of the blower too much. I think using only an upper pulley keeps the trade off in the acceptable range (the Buddhist "middle way".) My gains will come from making it easier for the blower to move more air, and will not rely on the blower to compress more air. My gains will come from making the engine more efficient from beginning to end, not by simply blowing harder.

I like to hear the supercharger roar. Once a race competitor hears the blower, it is too late. If it is not at revs and on boost, I don't think the sc will make any more noise than stock, so it will still be a sleeper


JgaXkr, thank you for the advice, I will be closely watching the temps.

if I was intending on going for max power, I think the TS is required and is the best option, but I'm trying to make mine significantly faster than stock, but not so much that I would be afraid of breaking u joints, rear ends, etc. I am only hoping to end up close to or just under 500 BHP or just over 400 rwhp. Getting that additional 100 hp or so to climb into your territory I think would cost a lot more since I would have to go the twin screw route and add fuel delivery, etc. So far, other than my meth kit, everything else is not costing me much at all. The porting and polishing is just labor, and I used maybe $20-$40 in abrasives, maxbore was only $150, and most of my other mods are hand me downs parts from parting out cars and help from people behind the scenes from this board The few really innovative mods I'm working on will take lots of labor to R&D, but shouldn't be cost prohibitive in a cash sense.

If I do want to have a really fast car, I am thinking about getting a little lotus starting at about 1900 lbs and a reliable 260 HP, before any crazy mods. That is a good starting point for a track fun car. My XJR is my daily cruiser, so I want it to be cushy comfortable, but to be able to surprise people when I want to.

 

It is not about demanding to see a number; it’s about confidence that the numbers are trustworthy and consistent, to exclude any anomalies being the cause for a lower or higher number, invalidating the results.

Had also runs of 506 and 512 rwhp on normal fuel, but that's about max. You need either a water/meth kit or race fuel to go higher.

The dyno used is not a dynojet, but has a single drum per wheel, and eddy current to apply extra load (we use 40% extra load) to mimic better to road conditions. So a run in 4th takes about as long as if on the street.

 

In that case I will use the baseline I posted under "new and credible baseline" as my baseline, not as a hard number, but as a general starting point. And I will use the one without the meth, since that clearly is a mod. With that dyno (which reads low) the operator said to multiply by 1.22 to get the numbers the more "optomistic" dynos, like a dynojet would read. That dyno is a heartbreaker for people seeking high numbers because it is known to read low.

But the point of it is it is reliable and consistent, and I already have a baseline that was not sandbagged. If my air fuel changes we will see that and can take it into consideration.

Let the games begin!

 

I wouldn't say they roar. Whine like a b****, more like it.

Not really a fan of the whine. Good thing I have a loud, manly exhaust to cover for it.

 

I don't know this dyno, and why it is showing lower numbers, have you asked what the reason is?

What you could do as double check, do a new run and see if that at least gives about the same numbers that will raise confidence in the sense that you can get consistent numbers.

You’re a/f ratio is very off; if that would be from the tune it was a dangerous tune to start with. You might want to double check if you do have a tune, the leaner mixture could also be caused by something else.

Not sure why you read so low in boost, don't think its low from the coatings but would be #1 to find out, #2 lean mixture, solve it/or know why its off, you may even find new power there, once done do a new baseline.

This is all my opinion, there is no need to follow it!