Login Register Sign up for the GRM e-newsletter

Login to post Forums » Grassroots Motorsports » Track Rat not GRM?
  • jstein77

    March 8, 2010 6:30 p.m. jstein77 HalfDork

    I just reread the Track Rat article, and there was something that bothered me about it. I counted up almost $2300 in parts, not even including some unlisted used parts such as the ECU, and for all that, you gained 3 hp? It seems to me that the old GRM we know and love could have accomplished better results with a resistor, a reflash and some Home Depot PVC for a total of $50. At the minimum, a $300 Megasquirt would have been more appropriate in a car you bought for 3K. Plus, the little dip in the torque curve at 5200 rpm turned into a huge hole in the power zone. The whole deal smacked of "let's just keep throwing parts at it until the miss goes away."

    I don't know - Am I wrong? The method and results just didn't seem GRM to me.

  • Keith

    March 8, 2010 6:46 p.m. Keith SuperDork

    Well, sometimes you learn from what didn't happen as much as you learn from what did. GRM isn't always about the cheapest way to do things.

  • Appleseed

    March 8, 2010 7:00 p.m. Appleseed Dork

    I think they just told us what not to do. They spent the time and money not making large gains so we don't have to. Still valuable in my book.

  • speedblind

    March 8, 2010 7:01 p.m. speedblind Reader

    I noticed the dip in the curve as well - seems to me there's problem there.

    As for whether something's GRM based on price, well, there are threads dedicated to that. I'm certain I have nothing new to offer to the discussion.

  • John Brown

    March 8, 2010 7:03 p.m. John Brown SuperDork

    Years ago there was a Muscle Mustangs and Fast Fords article written by Richald Holdener displaying his awesome abilities as a boosted engine builder where he blew the snot out of a 15K dollar stroker SBF. The moral of his story was that his theory was sound but his application left to be desired.

    The tone of the article was great and it was one of the most memorable I have ever read (Although Vinnie Kung kept me reading that mag more than anything, Thanks again Vin)

  • MCarp22

    March 8, 2010 7:33 p.m. MCarp22 Reader

    Keith wrote:

    GRM isn't always about the cheapest way to do things.

    Done in one post.

  • TJ

    March 8, 2010 8:18 p.m. TJ Dork

    I actually haven't read that article yet other than to skim it to learn that the speed limiter was a hinderance on the track and then a lot of money and time were spent to make the speed limiter go away. I'll get around to it eventually, but on the initial look it seemed too honda specific for me to really care about the details not having a honda to play with.

    I've read some of the other articles several times - this one will get read eventually.

  • 93celicaGT2

    March 8, 2010 9:12 p.m. 93celicaGT2 SuperDork

    For the record, that torque curve issue is an easy fix. The tuning around the Vtec engagement is a little strange, and it's easily rectified.

  • 96DXCivic

    March 8, 2010 9:13 p.m. 96DXCivic HalfDork

    ^ Yup it is really easy dump VTEC.

  • 93celicaGT2

    March 8, 2010 9:50 p.m. 93celicaGT2 SuperDork

    Hahaha, no... it's a B16. Terrible idea. But i don't think the crossover is in the right place.

  • gamby

    March 9, 2010 12:19 a.m. gamby SuperDork

    93celicaGT2 wrote:

    Hahaha, no... it's a B16. Terrible idea. But i don't think the crossover is in the right place.

    Haven't read the article, but from personal experience, wringing 3hp out of an n/a b16a is a decent accomplishment.

    Back in the day, with cam gear tuning and fuel tuning, Sonic wrung an extra 8 or so hp out of spots of my powerband. Flattened the torque curve out with almost no VTEC dip (crossover at 5300 IIRC).

    However, you do all that stuff and you'd better be prepared to run an OBD1 conversion, because it just won't run on an OBD2 ECU.

  • 93celicaGT2

    March 9, 2010 6:16 a.m. 93celicaGT2 SuperDork

    gamby wrote:

    93celicaGT2 wrote:

    Hahaha, no... it's a B16. Terrible idea. But i don't think the crossover is in the right place.

    Haven't read the article, but from personal experience, wringing 3hp out of an n/a b16a is a decent accomplishment.

    Back in the day, with cam gear tuning and fuel tuning, Sonic wrung an extra 8 or so hp out of spots of my powerband. Flattened the torque curve out with almost no VTEC dip (crossover at 5300 IIRC).

    However, you do all that stuff and you'd better be prepared to run an OBD1 conversion, because it just won't run on an OBD2 ECU.

    True.. i don't remember exactly what all they did, though.

    I imagine if the tune was corrected the gain beneath the curve would be far more important than the 3hp peak gain. There's a lot of room to be gained overall on a B16.

  • John Brown

    March 9, 2010 6:38 a.m. John Brown SuperDork

    But if there isn't a dip before the VTAK YO!!!! does the VTEC really "kick in"?

  • 93celicaGT2

    March 9, 2010 6:46 a.m. 93celicaGT2 SuperDork

    Unfortunately, this thread has me thinking that i need a Honda again. B-series are delicious.

  • David S. Wallens

    March 9, 2010 9:37 a.m. David S. Wallens Editorial Director

    Okay, guess I should chime in. Our biggest goal wasn't making more power, it was removing the speed limiter and fixing some weird ECU conditions. After our first runs, we also discovered the overly lean conditions. The Hondata is a popular move with Hondas, so I figured it was time to check it out. Unfortunately, to do so we had to swap from OBD-O to OBD-1, which involves changing the distributor and related components since they're all tied together. On the plus side, everything was a plug and play operation, and the dyno tuning didn't take long at all. (Don't forget, dyno time costs something, too.)

 
Tire Rack- Revolutionizing Tire Buying

You'll need to log in to post.