GrandAmGT.com Forum
http://www.pfyc.com GrandAmGT.com Premium Memership Signup
MilzyMotorsports.com   

Go Back   GrandAmGT.com Forum > GAGT - Modifications - Sponsored by RedlineGoods.com > All Go (Performance modifications)

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-06-2017, 12:25 PM   #81
MilzyZ34
Fastest FWD GA
 
MilzyZ34's Avatar
 
AKA: Mike
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Dayton, OH
Age: 37
Posts: 921
Vehicle: 1999 Grand Am GT
MilzyZ34 Gettin' there
Send a message via AIM to MilzyZ34
Why do you resort to name calling every time you have a hard time rebutting what I say?

I have an actual degree in Mechanical Engineering from the University of Dayton. Why then would I choose to do this, and not sit behind a desk and get a decent sized paycheck. Maybe because I'm more concerned about doing something I love to do, even if it's less money than to work for someone and not get the same fulfillment of developing parts all the way through the process of conception to design to prototyping to testing to production, etc and actually get to be involved with every process until it's on the car. This is why I do what I do.

The main point I'm trying to get across to you about the issues you had is that it is isolated to your oil pump drive. No one else has ever had an issue. You are the only one. I don't know why that is, but that is the case. Did GM decide that your car was going to get a one-off iron gear when every other 3400 gets a melonized one, I doubt it, but I guess anything is technically possible. Was there a defect with your cam (and only your cam) where the teeth on the gears weren't de-burred or machined right or something and tore up the gear that way? Again anything is possible, but without the parts to inspect everything is just conjecture. I think we both agree that the headgasket issue has nothing to do with the camshaft/oil pump drive, nor does the engine bouncing off the rev limiter, yet each of these can also be a cause to the types of failures you had. We simply don't have the information we need to figure out what happened. There are many factors that would go into that like what oil you were using, did you put the right kind of lube (if any) on the cam when you installed it? What were the bearings like when you installed it? How much boost did you have when the h.g. blew? Same for air fuel ratio? What was the oil pressure when the engine failed? Water temp? Would the car have passed a coolant system pressure test before it blew up? (was there a leak you didn't know about). Was there something different with the geometry of your engine that caused a failure when no none else had one? Were the rocker arms installed and torqued correctly? Did the bouncing off the rev-limiter cause the valvetrain failure? The list goes on and on. We're never going to have the answers to all these questions.

Can you copy and paste where I said the sentence about tripling the power, so I can comment about it in context? I just don't feel like re-reading this whole thread.

If you don't want to believe that it's possible for modded cars to have equal or better fuel economy than stock cars, that's your decision. I'm not going to go out of my way to convince you. I've told you the results I have had over the years. You don't believe me. I don't have access to every car I've ever built in order to do testing on each one to prove it to you, nor do I have the time to do that for you. Tim just posted, why don't you PM him and ask him what his MPG is with that car, you know the one still running that billet cam and Stage 2 kit from 12 years ago.

Same goes for the PCV. I'm not sure how to prove to you that I've had only success with doing the breathers for 15+ years now. I again don't have access to every car I've ever done. I can tell you I have 19 cars at my shop right now, and 11 of them will be getting breathers. The ones that don't are either stock builds, or just mildly modded ones that don't require a breather. As I said, we put them on every turbo car we do regardless of engine, and we put them on 3800 supercharged setups where we've converted to Gen V Eaton M90's. I'm not sure what more convincing you need, but I venture to say it would take a substantial amount of time, time I don't have. This is why I said lets just agree to disagree.

As for the fact that we now have CNC'd cylinder heads. We offer CNC heads for the following engines: LX9 3500, LZ4 3500, L36 3800 Series II, L26 3800 Series III, L67 3800 Supercharged Series II, L32 3800 Supercharged Series III, 3900 LZ9, 5300 LS4, and many other LS engines which we are now expanding into. I have not had the time yet to add each of these to the website, nor have I updated the website mentioning they are now CNC machined yet. But if anyone orders Stage 2 or above heads for any of those engines, they will receive CNC'd heads. The only heads we are hand-porting are the 3100 heads, 3400 heads, and the Stage 1's of everything else. I'm not sure what proof you need? Pictures? As for flow numbers, I don't post flow numbers because they are subjective. They vary from one bench to another. To counter this, I always flow a head of known flow-rate as a baseline when I flow a cylinder head, regardless of this, my skeptics would still call B.S. when I post about how good the numbers are. I'd rather just let results that matter speak for themselves ... what the cars do on the dyno, or better yet at the track where there is no faking.
__________________
1999 Z34 - Was a Stage 3 3800 Supercharged, but not fast enough so I have some new plans for her.
1999 Grand Am GT Race Car - 12.1 sec ET, STOCK motor, 10 psi
http://www.milzymotorsports.com
MilzyZ34 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2017, 01:16 PM   #82
MilzyZ34
Fastest FWD GA
 
MilzyZ34's Avatar
 
AKA: Mike
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Dayton, OH
Age: 37
Posts: 921
Vehicle: 1999 Grand Am GT
MilzyZ34 Gettin' there
Send a message via AIM to MilzyZ34
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3400cavyhatch View Post
This kind of makes me want to toss the Milzy cam I have here on the shelf in an engine and see what happens!

I thought that the OEMs where making more power and getting better fuel economy already? Think that is why they put 250-300 hp 4 cylinders in larger / heavier vehicles these days...
The cams in question in the bulk of this thread are the billet ones we made back in the day roughly from 2005-2008, I can't remember the exact date we ran out. When I first started selling cams of the first batch, I asked how much they would be and they said $300, plus shipping to me. So I sold them for $350. Giving me a profit of roughly $30-40 depending on payment method by the customer. I wasn't greedy. Then they raised the price to $380 plus shipping each, so I lost about $40-50 per camshaft on the ones that were pre-sold, which I think was 10-15 Then I ended up raising the price to $425 each to compensate, which left me $20-35 worth of profit, but I didn't think they would sell any higher. People were not happy about having to pay $425 for a cam at that point. Then the cam company ran out of cores, to make another batch, they wanted me to buy 50 at once at 480 each, or they wouldn't make any more. So I declined because I didn't see anyone paying $550 or something for a camshaft. Anyways since then, we have been doing solid cast cores instead of billets, so any cam you got from us anytime since then will not be a billet cam, and is not one of the ones Aaron is talking about in this thread.

As for the modern cars and power, automotive companies are doing everything they can to increase fuel economy. Some good, some bad, some just annoying. Good things they're doing are engines that are more efficient at making power, turbocharging vehicles which increases this efficiency, etc. Bad things in my opinion are when they run thinner oil in order to cut down on friction to save a little mpg, but end up wearing components quicker. For all the 3100/3400/3500/3800/etc V6's we do, I always run 10w30 because the thicker oil helps things last longer, and I could care less about .5 or less mpg. Annoying things would be making the engine shut off when you're at a stop light for a few seconds. I don't see this being that beneficial. Then you have things like Displacement on Demand, which I find to be both bad and annoying as it ends up causing the effected lifters to wear at different rates than the non DOD lifters.

The bottom line is when you buy a car designed for really high fuel economy, and you want to achieve that fuel economy, you have to drive it very conservatively. There's an episode from Top Gear that comes to mind, where they take an economy car, something like a Prius or something like that, and race it around their track at full throttle. Then they have a BMW M3 with much much more horsepower tailing the car, running around the track at exactly the same time, and because the Prius or whetever it was had to try so hard, and the BMW didn't, the M3 got better gas mileage.
__________________
1999 Z34 - Was a Stage 3 3800 Supercharged, but not fast enough so I have some new plans for her.
1999 Grand Am GT Race Car - 12.1 sec ET, STOCK motor, 10 psi
http://www.milzymotorsports.com
MilzyZ34 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2017, 06:33 PM   #83
O1GAGT
GAGT - Senior Member
 
AKA: Phil
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Fort Wayne, IN
Age: 33
Posts: 1,091
Vehicle: 2001 Grand Am GT Coupe
O1GAGT Gettin' there
I don't doubt the 30+ mpg claim.
Back when I did my 3500 top end swap, 65mm TB, TOG headers, Borla exhaust and a not so perfect DIY tune with DHP I pulled 33.2 mpg. Looking back there were probably ways I could have gotten even better mileage.

I have read numerous guys getting 30-35mpg highway with LS engines.

So why can't car makers get better mileage?
Time, Cost, Reliability under a variety of conditions, ect.
__________________
"The world's best cam combined with a poor set of heads will produce an engine that's a dog. But bolt on a set of great heads even with a poor cam, and that engine will still make great power." ~John Lingenfelter
O1GAGT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2017, 06:52 PM   #84
Vegeta
WOT-Tech
 
Vegeta's Avatar
 
AKA: Ben
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Indiana
Age: 38
Posts: 1,055
Vehicle: 92 Grand Prix "GTP"
Vegeta Gettin' there
Send a message via AIM to Vegeta
Quote:
Originally Posted by MilzyZ34 View Post
As for flow numbers, I don't post flow numbers because they are subjective. They vary from one bench to another.
You have no problem emailing your flow numbers though. Just posting them on your website is subjective I guess. The variance between benches has a solution, but you are far better off with secrecy and key words for advertising than to acknowledge a comparison.
Vegeta is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-06-2017, 08:14 PM   #85
MMGT1
GAGT - Member
 
MMGT1's Avatar
 
AKA: Paul
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Canada
Age: 45
Posts: 347
Vehicle: 2000 Firebird TA WS6
MMGT1 Gettin' there
Mizzys cam has been powering my 3400 since 2004. I've broken a few valve springs along the way as I liked to really push it too far on a regular basis. 48k when he built it, 250k on it now. it has endured a 125 shot for two years, then 14 psi for another 3. It is NA again right now but the blower may go back on real soon, hahaha But nothing of what I read here happened with me dealing with Mike. To me, GM tuning is exactly as Mike described. Although many vehicles today do not have an EGR as the grind of the cam is such that it acts like and EGR and the external ones are no longer required.
Riddle me this... here is a 2008 Z06 that I worked on. Pinnacle vehicle in the GM line up, and here is what they gave their customers followed by my work on a street tune that the customer took to a dyno to get a fancy sheet from to show his friends... No way the engineers had the vehicle set up like this, stood back and said; "Dam guys, we got something here!:"... Anyway, GM tuning is usually pretty crap because of what is done by the R and D guys, not the engineers. I've found that the engineers actually do a very good job, then the R and D takes it and completely screws it up. Then guys like me fix it...and if anyone doesn't understand that making more HP will result in better MPG I have one word as an answer and it says everything anyone needs to know; "Efficiency". Lets take a street cam for example, something with some thump, but nothing I cannot make pass an emission test here. First thing you do in tuning is lower the VE, or Volumeritic Efficiency in the idle range of the vehicle. *To make power up high, you relinquish efficiency down low. It the nature of the beast. But, at some point, usually around 2krpm the efficiency of the cam surpasses the stock one, where you now must increase the VE values of the engine as the better design of the cam comes into effect. Yes, efficency is lost a tiny, tiny bit at idle but tuned properly is very low. The increased efficiency of the engine under load will surpass the MPG of the stock cam by such a margin it does indeed increase MPG overall. My LS1 went from 21 to 27MPG with a GM Hot Cam, bit of head work and my tuning. It has a dead nasty idle and I kick the crap out of the stock set up in efficiency. That Z06 saw an increase of 4MPG along with those results. And if the 4MPG seems small, compare the stock dyno to the tuned one and see how much more this vehicle is actually making everywhere. It is a manual so where I usually gain a couple from tuning the auto transmissions isn't there. The reason Im using the Vette here is to stress this is the best they make guys...the very best. I just finished a build on a 3.7L Mustang making over 700hp and MPG went from 29 to 33. More than double the stock HP but I'm trying to stick to GM here, just making a point. Gm has their reasons for doing stuff like this, and its not always what you think. I've never tuned a vehicle that didn't see an increase in MPG, modded or not. Now, if you want to drive it like you stole it, well then that's your axe to grind... There is no MPG discussion to be had when your beating on it...I hope
Attached Images
File Type: jpg 2008_Z06_Stock_Dyno.jpg (39.9 KB, 6 views)
File Type: jpg 2008_Stock_Z06_WhisperTuning_Street_Tune.jpg (53.7 KB, 5 views)
MMGT1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-07-2017, 07:25 AM   #86
3400cavyhatch
GAGT - Member
 
AKA: Scott
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Onatrio, Canada
Posts: 65
Vehicle: 84 Cavalier Type 10
3400cavyhatch Gettin' there
The cam I have sitting in the garage is a billet one. I bought it used a few years ago. Any chance you can give me specs on it? The # on it is x2221-2271-10

Any time I have done a 3500 swap or a ported set of heads it has resulted in more power and better milage.
__________________
1993 Chevy C1500 3100v6 turbo
2004 Alero 3400 bone stock with a cheap muffler 15.32 @ 88.69
99 Alero 3500 swap running(from 2.4). ported and polished heads. totaled by a honda
2002 GAGT 3500 swap
3400cavyhatch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2017, 12:17 PM   #87
MilzyZ34
Fastest FWD GA
 
MilzyZ34's Avatar
 
AKA: Mike
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Dayton, OH
Age: 37
Posts: 921
Vehicle: 1999 Grand Am GT
MilzyZ34 Gettin' there
Send a message via AIM to MilzyZ34
Quote:
Originally Posted by 3400cavyhatch View Post
The cam I have sitting in the garage is a billet one. I bought it used a few years ago. Any chance you can give me specs on it? The # on it is x2221-2271-10

Any time I have done a 3500 swap or a ported set of heads it has resulted in more power and better milage.
Send me an e-mail, and I'll help you figure out exactly what you have there. If you have a set of calipers that would also help so we can check measurements.
__________________
1999 Z34 - Was a Stage 3 3800 Supercharged, but not fast enough so I have some new plans for her.
1999 Grand Am GT Race Car - 12.1 sec ET, STOCK motor, 10 psi
http://www.milzymotorsports.com
MilzyZ34 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2017, 01:03 PM   #88
AaronGTR
BlingWithBallz
 
AaronGTR's Avatar
 
AKA: Aaron
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Detroit area, MI
Age: 39
Posts: 12,220
Vehicle: 2000 Grand Am GT1 2dr
AaronGTR has made plenty of valid pointsAaronGTR has made plenty of valid points
Quote:
Originally Posted by MilzyZ34 View Post
Why do you resort to name calling every time you have a hard time rebutting what I say?
Why can't you ever show any proof of anything instead of continually spouting off bullsh!t theories. Also, show me where I called you a name. I'll wait...

Quote:
I have an actual degree in Mechanical Engineering from the University of Dayton.
... which you've still never shown, and doesn't mean you know anything...
Quote:
Why then would I choose to do this, and not sit behind a desk and get a decent sized paycheck. Maybe because I'm more concerned about doing something I love to do, even if it's less money than to work for someone and not get the same fulfillment of developing parts all the way through the process of conception to design to prototyping to testing to production, etc and actually get to be involved with every process until it's on the car. This is why I do what I do.
Or... because you just don't know as much about engines as you think you do. That's the difference between you, someone who runs a hack tuner shop, and someone who actually designs engines for a living.

We get people with a BSME who start at GM all the time and don't know squat about cars. They learn that stuff on the job, by working with other more experienced engineers, by designing and actually testing parts (which you don't do, not really anyway). I work with people who have actually taken classes specific to engines. People with masters and PhD's in multiple engineering disciplines. People who actually teach engine design classes at GM. That's how you get that experience and knowledge.

Quote:
The main point I'm trying to get across to you about the issues you had is that it is isolated to your oil pump drive. No one else has ever had an issue.
Pretty sure I'm not the only one... could have sworn I heard about a couple more on the 60v6 board that did too... but it was a long time ago. I don't recall for certain and don't care at this point. Why did the cam fail the gear? Was it due to the design, or due to a defect?We'll never know. What we do know, is that you didn't fully research it to make sure it was going to be okay. If you have a BSME, you should have had a metallurgy class, so you should have known to do that.

Quote:
...There are many factors that would go into that like what oil you were using, did you put the right kind of lube (if any) on the cam when you installed it? What were the bearings like when you installed it? How much boost did you have when the h.g. blew? Same for air fuel ratio? What was the oil pressure when the engine failed? Water temp? Would the car have passed a coolant system pressure test before it blew up? (was there a leak you didn't know about). Was there something different with the geometry of your engine that caused a failure when no none else had one? Were the rocker arms installed and torqued correctly? Did the bouncing off the rev-limiter cause the valvetrain failure? The list goes on and on. We're never going to have the answers to all these questions.
I can answer some of them.... but the point is that they would not be related to the cam eating the oil pump drive gear.

Quote:
Can you copy and paste where I said the sentence about tripling the power, so I can comment about it in context? I just don't feel like re-reading this whole thread.
I'm not going to go back and reread all your posts either. You said it, I quoted it. If you don't feel like finding it, then it stands un-refuted.

Quote:
If you don't want to believe that it's possible for modded cars to have equal or better fuel economy than stock cars, that's your decision. I'm not going to go out of my way to convince you.
...Because you can't prove it...
Quote:
I've told you the results I have had over the years. You don't believe me. I don't have access to every car I've ever built in order to do testing on each one to prove it to you, nor do I have the time to do that for you. Tim just posted, why don't you PM him and ask him what his MPG is with that car, you know the one still running that billet cam and Stage 2 kit from 12 years ago.
Anecdotes and opinions aren't hard numbers or scientific evidence.

Quote:
Same goes for the PCV. I'm not sure how to prove to you that I've had only success with doing the breathers for 15+ years now. I again don't have access to every car I've ever done. I can tell you I have 19 cars at my shop right now, and 11 of them will be getting breathers. The ones that don't are either stock builds, or just mildly modded ones that don't require a breather. As I said, we put them on every turbo car we do regardless of engine, and we put them on 3800 supercharged setups where we've converted to Gen V Eaton M90's. I'm not sure what more convincing you need, but I venture to say it would take a substantial amount of time, time I don't have. This is why I said lets just agree to disagree.
Lets see... how could you prove it? Maybe by doing some instrumented testing to show that it's actually needed to put a breather on ANY car. That would be a start. If you can't do that, then I stand by my statement that it's a stupid idea and a waste of time, and you are stupid for doing it. (there, there's your name calling if you want it so bad)

Quote:
...I'm not sure what proof you need? Pictures? As for flow numbers, I don't post flow numbers because they are subjective. They vary from one bench to another. To counter this, I always flow a head of known flow-rate as a baseline when I flow a cylinder head, regardless of this, my skeptics would still call B.S. when I post about how good the numbers are. I'd rather just let results that matter speak for themselves ... what the cars do on the dyno, or better yet at the track where there is no faking.
What proof do I need? All of that would help... you haven't provided any of it. No pictures. No flow numbers, subjective or otherwise. And none of your dyno numbers OR track times are that impressive, or top of the list for that matter. Like I said and will say again. You talk a big game. The results aren't there to justify the claims and the money spent.
__________________
The few, the proud, the boosted!
13.788 @ 103.73 mph (3/2011) 320 whp and 300 ft/lbs torque. (3/2011)
See it here. the total package.
AaronGTR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2017, 02:16 PM   #89
01OhioAlero
GAGT - Newbie
 
AKA: Tyler
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Ohio
Posts: 8
Vehicle: 2001 Alero
01OhioAlero Gettin' there
Quote:
Originally Posted by AaronGTR View Post
Yep, like I said, a dense idiot.
Wow look within first sentence called a dense idiot. Maybe your to dense to remember what you said.
I find it funny how MMGT went 13.9 N/A with Milzy parts and you went 13.78 boosted and still say its not impressive.
Just seems like you hate the guy and have nothing better to do then be petty and call him names online.
His track times and dyno runs are out there and they are pretty impressive for what they are
01OhioAlero is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-10-2017, 08:21 PM   #90
AaronGTR
BlingWithBallz
 
AaronGTR's Avatar
 
AKA: Aaron
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Detroit area, MI
Age: 39
Posts: 12,220
Vehicle: 2000 Grand Am GT1 2dr
AaronGTR has made plenty of valid pointsAaronGTR has made plenty of valid points
Quote:
Originally Posted by 01OhioAlero View Post
Wow look within first sentence called a dense idiot. Maybe your to dense to remember what you said.
I find it funny how MMGT went 13.9 N/A with Milzy parts and you went 13.78 boosted and still say its not impressive.
Just seems like you hate the guy and have nothing better to do then be petty and call him names online.
His track times and dyno runs are out there and they are pretty impressive for what they are

Okay, yeah.... sorry for calling him out for saying I said something I didn't say. Way to go back 5 posts and find it. You're willing to work harder than he is to find proof.

Also, never seen any proof of MMGT's time. Never heard of him going that fast NA. Fastest NA time I know of, guy later jumped his timing chain from having his rev limiter set too high and destroyed his engine iirc. Another guy was using a manual trans I believe. etc etc. Apples to oranges. I ran that time with the wrong shift points programmed and bouncing off my rev limiter on the 1-2 and 2-3 shifts... and still ran a 13.7... all still with a 3400 and a 4T45E. Not a 3800/4T65 swap, etc etc.
__________________
The few, the proud, the boosted!
13.788 @ 103.73 mph (3/2011) 320 whp and 300 ft/lbs torque. (3/2011)
See it here. the total package.

Last edited by AaronGTR; 12-10-2017 at 08:27 PM.
AaronGTR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-11-2017, 01:05 PM   #91
xonelith
All Motor
 
xonelith's Avatar
 
AKA: Tim
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Whitby, Ontario
Age: 44
Posts: 400
Vehicle: 2001 Grand Am GT1 Coup
xonelith Gettin' there
Send a message via MSN to xonelith
Quote:
Originally Posted by AaronGTR View Post
Also, never seen any proof of MMGT's time. Never heard of him going that fast NA. Fastest NA time I know of, guy later jumped his timing chain from having his rev limiter set too high and destroyed his engine iirc. Another guy was using a manual trans I believe. etc etc. Apples to oranges. I ran that time with the wrong shift points programmed and bouncing off my rev limiter on the 1-2 and 2-3 shifts... and still ran a 13.7... all still with a 3400 and a 4T45E. Not a 3800/4T65 swap, etc etc.
Well, it was my time actually, and you updated the listing!. At the time it was posted on this forum, the slip was also required (Top 1/4 mile times <new and improved>). I never destroyed the engine either in fact still running fine. Also running stock weight and tires and auto transmission (stock as well).

Anyway, as I mentioned before, I only popped in to say hi and support Mike since I'm over 240k km's (100k? on Milzy parts??) with no issues; maybe mine is an anomaly, but a few others have posted positive results as well.
__________________

All Motor 2001 GA GT1
Best 1/8 - 9.104 @ 79.36 MPH
Best 1/4 - 13.991 @ 99.13 MPH


Last edited by xonelith; 12-11-2017 at 01:15 PM.
xonelith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-11-2017, 01:46 PM   #92
MilzyZ34
Fastest FWD GA
 
MilzyZ34's Avatar
 
AKA: Mike
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Dayton, OH
Age: 37
Posts: 921
Vehicle: 1999 Grand Am GT
MilzyZ34 Gettin' there
Send a message via AIM to MilzyZ34
As 01OhioAlero just said, you were calling me names when you called me "dense" or a "dense idiot" or when you said I was "f***ing stupid", stuff like that.

I have forgotten more about cars than you will ever know. I am one of the most knowledgeable people in the world about the engines and vehicles I work on. I know all the torque specs, I can tell you the thread pitch and length of each bolt, I know what vehicles take which service number pcm, I decode VIN numbers in my head when I have to buy more pcm cores to ensure I get a useable pcm, the list goes on and on. I even have in my head at any given moment the precise mod list of every car here at the shop or that will be delivered soon (which is about 30 cars), and can usually remember the parts I put on any car I've worked on over the years. I didn't set out to memorize these things, it just happens when it's your job day in and day out for 15 years. As I said, I am involved with every step of the process of the parts we make. Nothing we make and sell on the website is made overseas. It's all made here, in America, most of it right here in Dayton Ohio.

I have a degree in ME as I said. I haven't had time to dig through all my old boxes from college to find that piece of paper for you. Sorry. As I said, feel free to look it up online, I'm sure it's public record. In earning that degree, I was required to take many classes like Calculus 1,2,3,4 and Differential Equations, Physics 1,2,3, Strength of Materials, Thermodynamics, Electronics, Computational Fluid Dynamics, Manufacturing Processes, Engineering Analysis, and many many others. I chose to take classes like Mechanical Design, Mechanical Design 2, Internal Combustion Engines, Vehicle Performance Analysis, etc. My senior year I also worked directly with Delphi working on designing a new prototype e-brake mechanism using shape memory alloys (we were working with a metal that responds/changes shape when applied with electronic current, which would be the active part in the e-brake mechanism). I also worked with Procter and Gamble another local company to design a prototype specialty fork-lift to fit in the narrow corridors of their diaper manufacturing facility in Lebanon OH.

So I gained a lot of knowledge from my education, but I also have all the knowledge and love of cars because it is my passion. One of the benefits of running your own business is that you get to do the thing you love to do for a living, and for me that is working with cars, and designing parts for them.

I started this business in college, 2 years before I graduated. I also worked at a shop back then specializing in turbocharging vehicles, way back in 2002, before anyone else was doing it. I absorb knowledge everywhere I go, and my whole life atleast since high school, has been all about cars. So it's kind of insulting to me when you say I don't know anything about them.

I get cars shipped here from all over the country. We've had cars shipped here from over 27 of the states. I have a few customers who have shipped me multiple of their cars. One customer from Florida has brought me 5 cars to work on. Why do people pay to ship their cars here instead of having someone local do the work? Because I know what I'm doing, and because I am the best at what I do.

So 01OhioAlero there brings up a good point, although it was Tim Kaczun's car, not Paul Whalen's (Paul's went 14.1 if I recall). It's extremely funny to me that you with your supercharged grand am making supposedly 320whp/300wtq only managed to run a 13.788 at 103 when a Stage 2 NA car I built years and years ago, went 13.9. You say apples and oranges, but that car was a grand am, with a 3400, not a 3800 or a 3500 or anything else. It still had the 3.29 geared 4t45e it came from the factory with. It had my Stage 2 heads, cam, pushrods, pcm, injectors, ported intakes, 65mm throttle body, and TOG headers (which don't flow as much as our headers, but we didn't make them back then). His car ran this time before we brought it back here for that tear-down I mentioned earlier in this thread. He dyno'd it at 203.4whp/193.8wtq. When we put it on the dyno before we worked on it a Dynotune Motorsports in Columbus in late 2007, it made 203.4whp/202.6wtq before we changed anything on the car. It went 13.991 at 99.13, and this way way back in 2005 if I recall. It's funny you don't recall anything about it, when it's at the top of the 1/4 mile list that YOU posted here ... Top 1/4 mile times <new and improved>

So how did you only manage a 13.788 when the "unimpressive" cars I build seem to be much much faster. My grand am with a weight 400lb lighter than stock made 330whp, and ran 12.1 at 112mph. I know you're going to say "it's because of my crappy 2.3xx 60ft", but why then is your trap speed so low? A car that is truly making 320 whp should be trapping around 110, not 103.

So if the car that ran 13.991 was "unimpressive", what does that say about yours?
__________________
1999 Z34 - Was a Stage 3 3800 Supercharged, but not fast enough so I have some new plans for her.
1999 Grand Am GT Race Car - 12.1 sec ET, STOCK motor, 10 psi
http://www.milzymotorsports.com

Last edited by MilzyZ34; 12-11-2017 at 03:22 PM.
MilzyZ34 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-11-2017, 02:02 PM   #93
MilzyZ34
Fastest FWD GA
 
MilzyZ34's Avatar
 
AKA: Mike
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Dayton, OH
Age: 37
Posts: 921
Vehicle: 1999 Grand Am GT
MilzyZ34 Gettin' there
Send a message via AIM to MilzyZ34
by the way, that 330whp was a stock 3400 with stockcam, stock heads, (I didn't even take them off the engine to replace headgaskets), stock valvesprings, ported 3400 upper and lower, and 65 throttle body. T67 ball-bearing turbo, 10 psi - 330whp
__________________
1999 Z34 - Was a Stage 3 3800 Supercharged, but not fast enough so I have some new plans for her.
1999 Grand Am GT Race Car - 12.1 sec ET, STOCK motor, 10 psi
http://www.milzymotorsports.com
MilzyZ34 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-11-2017, 03:51 PM   #94
AaronGTR
BlingWithBallz
 
AaronGTR's Avatar
 
AKA: Aaron
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Detroit area, MI
Age: 39
Posts: 12,220
Vehicle: 2000 Grand Am GT1 2dr
AaronGTR has made plenty of valid pointsAaronGTR has made plenty of valid points
Quote:
Originally Posted by MilzyZ34 View Post
Because I know what I'm doing, and because I am the best at what I do.
Says the guy who deletes PCV systems with NO F*CKING PROOF or data that it's necessary.

Quote:
So 01OhioAlero there brings up a good point, although it was Tim Kaczun's car, not Paul Whalen's (Paul's went 14.1 if I recall). It's extremely funny to me that you with your supercharged grand am making supposedly 320whp/300wtq only managed to run a 13.788 at 103 when a Stage 2 NA car I built years and years ago, went 13.9. You say apples and oranges, but that car was a grand am, with a 3400, not a 3800 or a 3500 or anything else. It still had the 3.29 geared 4t45e it came from the factory with. It had my Stage 2 heads, cam, pushrods, pcm, injectors, ported intakes, 65mm throttle body, and TOG headers (which don't flow as much as our headers, but we didn't make them back then). His car ran this time before we brought it back here for that tear-down I mentioned earlier in this thread. He dyno'd it at 203.4whp/193.8wtq. When we put it on the dyno before we worked on it a Dynotune Motorsports in Columbus in late 2007, it made 203.4whp/202.6wtq before we changed anything on the car. It went 13.991 at 99.13, and this way way back in 2005 if I recall. It's funny you don't recall anything about it, when it's at the top of the 1/4 mile list that YOU posted here ... Top 1/4 mile times <new and improved>

So how did you only manage a 13.788 when the "unimpressive" cars I build seem to be much much faster. My grand am with a weight 400lb lighter than stock made 330whp, and ran 12.1 at 112mph. I know you're going to say "it's because of my crappy 2.3xx 60ft", but why then is your trap speed so low? A car that is truly making 320 whp should be trapping around 110, not 103.

So if the car that ran 13.991 was "unimpressive", what does that say about yours?
Wow, you truly are dense aren't you? I said I didn't recall the time.... BECAUSE HE SAID A DIFFERENT F*CKING PERSONS NAME!!! Get a life, get a clue already.

Also I guess you completely missed the point of the transmission programming issue with my car. If it had been shifting properly, it would have run a faster time with a higher trap speed. Pretty easy to understand if you're paying any attention what so ever.

The shift points got fixed but I haven't been back to the track since then. I've got higher priorities right now than racing a 13 y.o. fwd econo box for bragging rights...
__________________
The few, the proud, the boosted!
13.788 @ 103.73 mph (3/2011) 320 whp and 300 ft/lbs torque. (3/2011)
See it here. the total package.

Last edited by AaronGTR; Yesterday at 09:35 AM.
AaronGTR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 01:10 AM   #95
Vegeta
WOT-Tech
 
Vegeta's Avatar
 
AKA: Ben
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Indiana
Age: 38
Posts: 1,055
Vehicle: 92 Grand Prix "GTP"
Vegeta Gettin' there
Send a message via AIM to Vegeta
Quote:
Originally Posted by MilzyZ34 View Post

I have forgotten more about cars than you will ever know. I am one of the most knowledgeable people in the world about the engines and vehicles I work on.
10 psi stock 3400 = 330 whp.
21 psi built race 3400(3500?) = 400 whp.
9 psi twin turbo 4.2l = 370 whp.

Id say something has happened as time went on, and you may have hit the nail on the head.
Vegeta is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 09:44 AM   #96
AaronGTR
BlingWithBallz
 
AaronGTR's Avatar
 
AKA: Aaron
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Detroit area, MI
Age: 39
Posts: 12,220
Vehicle: 2000 Grand Am GT1 2dr
AaronGTR has made plenty of valid pointsAaronGTR has made plenty of valid points
And he knocks my car for "only' running a 103 mph trap speed with a 13.7 ET, but his dedicated, stripped out drag car running a turbo, slicks, and a 4T65E-HD trans swap that ran a 12.3 ET only ran a 110 mph trap speed. What's the matter Mike? With that ET you should be running a higher trap shouldn't you?


Quote:
Because I know what I'm doing, and because I am the best at what I do.
Quote:
I have forgotten more about cars than you will ever know. I am one of the most knowledgeable people in the world about the engines and vehicles I work on.


AaronGTR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 12:19 PM   #97
MilzyZ34
Fastest FWD GA
 
MilzyZ34's Avatar
 
AKA: Mike
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Dayton, OH
Age: 37
Posts: 921
Vehicle: 1999 Grand Am GT
MilzyZ34 Gettin' there
Send a message via AIM to MilzyZ34
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vegeta View Post
10 psi stock 3400 = 330 whp.
21 psi built race 3400(3500?) = 400 whp.
9 psi twin turbo 4.2l = 370 whp.

Id say something has happened as time went on, and you may have hit the nail on the head.
horsepower on a turbo car depends not only on boost, but turbo size, compression, and timing.

My 330whp was stock compression (9.5), 10psi, T67, and 16 degrees of timing

Randy's blue turbo car was 8.5:1 compression, 21psi, T60, and 14-16 degrees of timing. I did have some excuses on his run due the to fact that it was the first one we did, and I didn't have enough air filter on the car. We changed this, and also added an exhaust cut-out before it left, but didn't dyno again.

The Cutlass was 8.5 compression, two GT-2871R's, 9psi, and 9 degrees of timing. Anyone who knows what they're doing at tuning knows that timing advance can make a world of difference in the horsepower a car makes. Back in the day, when we first started doing Stage 2 3400's, and HP Tuners had not yet unlocked the torque management tables, every once in a while on the dyno, we would be hit by this false KR, of the max which is 15 degrees. This then makes the pcm flip from the high octane table to the low octane table, and then subtract 15 degrees of timing from that, resulting in 5 degrees of timing advance. On an NA car, this difference would take a car making roughly 210whp down to around 100. On a turbo car, the effect of timing is even more amplified. Going from the measly 9 degrees on this car to 16 could add a HUGE amount of power to this car. Guessing on the conservative side, I bet it would pick up at a minimum 8-10whp per degree of timing, which would be a difference of about 63whp, and that estimate is so conservative, it's possible it may be more like 15whp per. The only way to know for sure would be to add timing and dyno again.
__________________
1999 Z34 - Was a Stage 3 3800 Supercharged, but not fast enough so I have some new plans for her.
1999 Grand Am GT Race Car - 12.1 sec ET, STOCK motor, 10 psi
http://www.milzymotorsports.com
MilzyZ34 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 01:33 PM   #98
MilzyZ34
Fastest FWD GA
 
MilzyZ34's Avatar
 
AKA: Mike
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Dayton, OH
Age: 37
Posts: 921
Vehicle: 1999 Grand Am GT
MilzyZ34 Gettin' there
Send a message via AIM to MilzyZ34
Quote:
Originally Posted by AaronGTR View Post
And he knocks my car for "only' running a 103 mph trap speed with a 13.7 ET, but his dedicated, stripped out drag car running a turbo, slicks, and a 4T65E-HD trans swap that ran a 12.3 ET only ran a 110 mph trap speed. What's the matter Mike? With that ET you should be running a higher trap shouldn't you?








12.1 at 112 actually. 12.3 was the first day I ran it. I then took it to Ben's meet in KY a month later. 20 guys including Ben is a witness of what it ran that day. I also ran without wheelie bars that day, and scaled the car to eliminate accusations that the car was severely gutted. It was 2850 with me in it if I recall, which makes the car about 400lb lighter than factory.

I did have some excuses on even the 12.1 pass, which I think is probably related to the low-impedence injectors I was running in it. If I race the car again, I'll change those out for the high impedence ones that are available now. but in spite of that, 12.1 seems pretty respectable to me, especially with stock cam, stock heads, etc, and my trap speeds are pretty much exactly where they should be. I actually launch my car properly, so low 60 ft's mean fast ET's with the same trap as a run with bad 60ft. I'm sure that doesn't make sense to you, so just look it up on the internet, I don't have hours and hours to explain it to you Aaron.
__________________
1999 Z34 - Was a Stage 3 3800 Supercharged, but not fast enough so I have some new plans for her.
1999 Grand Am GT Race Car - 12.1 sec ET, STOCK motor, 10 psi
http://www.milzymotorsports.com
MilzyZ34 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Yesterday, 07:14 PM   #99
Vegeta
WOT-Tech
 
Vegeta's Avatar
 
AKA: Ben
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Indiana
Age: 38
Posts: 1,055
Vehicle: 92 Grand Prix "GTP"
Vegeta Gettin' there
Send a message via AIM to Vegeta
Quote:
Originally Posted by MilzyZ34 View Post
horsepower on a turbo car depends not only on boost, but turbo size, compression, and timing.

My 330whp was stock compression (9.5), 10psi, T67, and 16 degrees of timing

Randy's blue turbo car was 8.5:1 compression, 21psi, T60, and 14-16 degrees of timing. I did have some excuses on his run due the to fact that it was the first one we did, and I didn't have enough air filter on the car. We changed this, and also added an exhaust cut-out before it left, but didn't dyno again.

The Cutlass was 8.5 compression, two GT-2871R's, 9psi, and 9 degrees of timing. Anyone who knows what they're doing at tuning knows that timing advance can make a world of difference in the horsepower a car makes. Back in the day, when we first started doing Stage 2 3400's, and HP Tuners had not yet unlocked the torque management tables, every once in a while on the dyno, we would be hit by this false KR, of the max which is 15 degrees. This then makes the pcm flip from the high octane table to the low octane table, and then subtract 15 degrees of timing from that, resulting in 5 degrees of timing advance. On an NA car, this difference would take a car making roughly 210whp down to around 100. On a turbo car, the effect of timing is even more amplified. Going from the measly 9 degrees on this car to 16 could add a HUGE amount of power to this car. Guessing on the conservative side, I bet it would pick up at a minimum 8-10whp per degree of timing, which would be a difference of about 63whp, and that estimate is so conservative, it's possible it may be more like 15whp per. The only way to know for sure would be to add timing and dyno again.
All are MMS designed and built.

Last edited by Vegeta; Yesterday at 07:26 PM.
Vegeta is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Today, 10:03 AM   #100
AaronGTR
BlingWithBallz
 
AaronGTR's Avatar
 
AKA: Aaron
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Detroit area, MI
Age: 39
Posts: 12,220
Vehicle: 2000 Grand Am GT1 2dr
AaronGTR has made plenty of valid pointsAaronGTR has made plenty of valid points
Quote:
Originally Posted by MilzyZ34 View Post
12.1 at 112 actually. 12.3 was the first day I ran it. I then took it to Ben's meet in KY a month later. 20 guys including Ben is a witness of what it ran that day. I also ran without wheelie bars that day, and scaled the car to eliminate accusations that the car was severely gutted. It was 2850 with me in it if I recall, which makes the car about 400lb lighter than factory.
I didn't know they counted the weight of the person when weighing a car?
And even so, 400 lbs is huge. I'd call that gutted. You also forget, I've seen your car in person.

Quote:
I did have some excuses on even the 12.1 pass, which I think is probably related to the low-impedence injectors I was running in it. If I race the car again, I'll change those out for the high impedence ones that are available now. but in spite of that, 12.1 seems pretty respectable to me, especially with stock cam, stock heads, etc, and my trap speeds are pretty much exactly where they should be. I actually launch my car properly, so low 60 ft's mean fast ET's with the same trap as a run with bad 60ft. I'm sure that doesn't make sense to you, so just look it up on the internet, I don't have hours and hours to explain it to you Aaron.
I know what a low 60 ft time does to the ET you f*cking dolt. It doesn't change the fact that your trap time isn't that high for the HP level you claim. And after you tried making fun of my trap speed. And I like how your car suddenly becomes stock heads, cam, block etc.... when it wasn't before according to you? Funny thing, that.

Also, I ran a 2.3 60' on 225 series street tires. Not really surprising there. "knowing how to launch" really doesn't have anything to do with it. I guess knowing how to put drag slicks on your car somehow makes you a genius and more skilled and knowledgeable about how to launch a car then me huh?
__________________
The few, the proud, the boosted!
13.788 @ 103.73 mph (3/2011) 320 whp and 300 ft/lbs torque. (3/2011)
See it here. the total package.

Last edited by AaronGTR; Today at 10:07 AM.
AaronGTR is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:10 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2011 GrandAmGT.com
MilzyMotorsports.com