Interesting turbo/dyno test tonight= bigger isnt always better
- Thread starter Otto J
- Start date
What did you run for mph and race weight when you came to this conclusion? Do you have some data logs of this or dyno sheets? Id think it would take a lot more rpm and boost to show a gain over the 65 if the comparison was on a 3.8. The big wheel version would be at about 600whp @21psi on a 3.8 if the parts were selected properly. Fwiw wouldnt buy an s trim and target boost that low on a 3.8 if i was spending the $ looking for more power.
You can not create cfm without revving the engine higher or adding ci. The problem that most dont understand is that you can not get a higher mass flow with a larger turbo if the one you had was enough for the engine. More boost would make power faster than switching heads believe it or not. Charge air temps were plenty acceptable in the mid 80's through the pulls even at the highest boost pressures i saw with the 61.
Thanks. We will have to wait till i have an engine with better heads to test the GTK. Im going to set up a seperate fuel system that can be used on any car just for dyno testing purposes that way i dont have to think about whether or not what the car has is adequate and i can switch fuels easily and thoroughly. I would not be afraid to test the GN1 headed engine i have at 32-33psi if i had a fuel system to support it. That engine in 4 bolt config @32-33 with the GTK would do in the high 700's on a dynojet.
No problem Brian, let me know when your ready for testing. The reason I am holding onto the 4-bolt .96 housing for the s-trim wheel Is to do a test with the 71hpq 3-bolt .85 vs the 4-bolt housing with the billet wheel. The GTK-850 ran out of steam on my combo at 25-26#. Cal was working the tune and said I was pretty much done. Maybe the exhaust was holding me back? I am running a dual 3" magnaflow cottons wish I could have uncapped the dump for a pull. Cal did say that my setup was one of the best he had tuned for drivability with a TSM setup. Thanks for taking the time to do the testing, bigger is definitely not always better...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
How did it run out of steam? It wouldnt make any more boost? The late t netics s trim and the hpq start as the same wheel but may be slightly different by the time they are part of an assembly. I tried a 4 bolt 80 trim housing on a t netics 70 S and it wouldnt fit the wheel. I dont see the 71 gaining you any unless the boost goes higher or you go tang 4 bolt.
What did you run for mph and race weight when you came to this conclusion? Do you have some data logs of this or dyno sheets? Id think it would take a lot more rpm and boost to show a gain over the 65 if the comparison was on a 3.8. The big wheel version would be at about 600whp @21psi on a 3.8 if the parts were selected properly. Fwiw wouldnt buy an s trim and target boost that low on a 3.8 if i was spending the $ looking for more power.
__________________
nothing high teck im afraid.basically the strim required more fuel to run 24lbs and recored higher g forces.motor has 9to1 compression.on a 30inch drag radial the 62/65 with a very tight t.63 on it recorded .97 on a launch .87 up top at 25psi of boost once the larger exhaust .82 was on gforces dropped.i have seen over a g with the strim at 24psi.
__________________
nothing high teck im afraid.basically the strim required more fuel to run 24lbs and recored higher g forces.motor has 9to1 compression.on a 30inch drag radial the 62/65 with a very tight t.63 on it recorded .97 on a launch .87 up top at 25psi of boost once the larger exhaust .82 was on gforces dropped.i have seen over a g with the strim at 24psi.
Boostdeznuts
TURBO PART WHORE
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2008
44 turbo
Bison I also have a 44 turbo if you wanna do a test on that too. I told Otto's that its a 72. I guess he thought I said 76. I lov boob thanks for the turbo
Bison I also have a 44 turbo if you wanna do a test on that too. I told Otto's that its a 72. I guess he thought I said 76. I lov boob thanks for the turbo
You would have to know the mph where the g force occured to compare. Ive hit over 1g with a stock turbo. Ive hit .8 @90+mph with my black car anmd the 66S/GTQ when i sprayed it on top of 26psi. It actually went to 28psi. 88% duty cycle on six 83 lb/hr injectors and 30gph alky flowing at the same time.
TurboTnZ06
Go on red!
- Joined
- May 7, 2002
Cool test- similar combo to mine back in the day. I think the stock heads with only a good bowl port can make plenty of power.
For years I ran a .033 over bore, 210/210 roller with stock 8445's with only bowl porting and stock size valves. Unported lower intake, stock throttle body, stock headers etc, but it put down 595rwhp with a V4 and TE45a P trim and a JayC race chip (guessing 22+ degrees or more) on 116 race gas with probably 27 psi boost (old gauge only went to 25 psi). I took it to 6400 rpm on a 17psi dyno run on 100 octane (403 hp 545 tq) and the hp curve was pretty flat from 3000-6400, but the tq would still fall linearly from a peak at 3000 rpm.
And these heads are sitting in the garage if you want me to clean them up and ship them to you for testing, they've been milled some too, so there may be a little more compression there too over a stock head.
For years I ran a .033 over bore, 210/210 roller with stock 8445's with only bowl porting and stock size valves. Unported lower intake, stock throttle body, stock headers etc, but it put down 595rwhp with a V4 and TE45a P trim and a JayC race chip (guessing 22+ degrees or more) on 116 race gas with probably 27 psi boost (old gauge only went to 25 psi). I took it to 6400 rpm on a 17psi dyno run on 100 octane (403 hp 545 tq) and the hp curve was pretty flat from 3000-6400, but the tq would still fall linearly from a peak at 3000 rpm.
And these heads are sitting in the garage if you want me to clean them up and ship them to you for testing, they've been milled some too, so there may be a little more compression there too over a stock head.
Those are some good numbers for just a bowl clean up with stock valves. Did you grind the short side at all? Mine are as cast in those areas and this engine would need at least 35psi to make 590whp.
TurboTnZ06
Go on red!
- Joined
- May 7, 2002
The runners are as cast. I can't tell how good the bowl porting is. I let some mustang shop port the bowls back in 2001
The heads were milled so much over a couple times (mofos didn't listen to me as I was switching to a mls gasket requirement) and the lower manifold ports were higher than the head intake ports You can see them here as they sit in my garage:
pontiac69fb
Member
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2004
Subscribed for the results. Also if you could post up the dyno sheets that would be great
SCOOBY DOO
BASED CANADIAN PATRIOT!!
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2007
Subscribed
BLACK MAGIC RACING
formerly turbo_canuck
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2001
Here's an interesting side note: Last year my buddy's car had a stock block, stock stroke, 212-212 hyd roller, stock ported intake, precision plenum, accufab 70mm tb, ported irons, good fuel system, t-66 single bb. etc.. pulled 515hp at the wheels @ 26lbs. fast forward to two weeks ago, shortblock is now a stroker with a 224-224 cam, and a gtk 850. made 618hp with 645tq. @ 24lbs. oddly enough, when we took the car to the track, it ran only a tenth faster, and almost the same MPH as last year. :redface:
jasjamz
THS Racer
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2004
supramantrm
Member
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2003
great info
This is fun reading ,thanks alot for the info.
Buickmike you and i have very similar set ups so you should get what you are after with your current setup.My 11.4 was a foot brake 1.6 60 on 275 mickeys.Oh,and i only run 19 lbs of boost on pump &alky,for now, want e-85 BADLY.
This is fun reading ,thanks alot for the info.
Buickmike you and i have very similar set ups so you should get what you are after with your current setup.My 11.4 was a foot brake 1.6 60 on 275 mickeys.Oh,and i only run 19 lbs of boost on pump &alky,for now, want e-85 BADLY.
