Interesting turbo/dyno test tonight= bigger isnt always better

[JP112_89]

Bison,

I have a similar head work on my TTA... that you have been testing... valve job, bowl blend, back cut on the valves and short side radius work. Comp 941 spring & 210/210 roller, 1.6 Harland Sharp. Heads are a little different as you know on the TTA.

I am running 93/alky.. journal 6262 w/pte .63 , 9/11 2800-3000 and it feels great! It feels like I made a good choice. lol

Bison, my question is , based on the dyno results and your opinion, do you think a Turbonetics 66 BB (6665) would have a noticeable increase in HP or Spool Up at 25-27psi with my current setup over the 6262 journal?

Joe

 

[bison]

Bison,

I have a similar head work on my TTA... that you have been testing... valve job, bowl blend, back cut on the valves and short side radius work. Comp 941 spring & 210/210 roller, 1.6 Harland Sharp. Heads are a little different as you know on the TTA.

I am running 93/alky.. journal 6262 w/pte .63 , 9/11 2800-3000 and it feels great! It feels like I made a good choice. lol

Bison, my question is , based on the dyno results and your opinion, do you think a Turbonetics 66 BB (6665) would have a noticeable increase in HP or Spool Up at 25-27psi with my current setup over the 6262 journal?

Joe

I doubt there would be an increase in spoolup if any it would be very little and i doubt there would be more power unless your already trapping over 130. Short radius on mine are untouched. Get some time slips and post them in another thread.

 

[usetaboost]

When you guys are finished playing with the turbos, are you gonna do any other types of tests? I wouldn't mind seeing someone do a new IC test, maybe it would be better controlled on a dyno???

It would be cool to see a e85 vs. alky injection test on the dyno also

 

[bison]

When you guys are finished playing with the turbos, are you gonna do any other types of tests? I wouldn't mind seeing someone do a new IC test, maybe it would be better controlled on a dyno???

It would be cool to see a e85 vs. alky injection test on the dyno also

Ill test anything but things that are complicated like intercoolers where variables need to be controlled more closely i would need to get paid for my time. I would need multiple MAP sensors and temp sensors to get any accuracy as to what is better since they wont be run to their limit. Most replacement intercoolers (sold by vendors on here) from what ive seen will flow more air than the engine will ever use and cause almost zero pressure drop under 6000rpm. Dynos are terrible for analyzing intercoolers since the airflow over the core cant be easily duplicated and the time under power in a quarter pass likely wont be duplicated making it hard to see which units do better than others. Alky injection would need to be disabled for accuracy. It buffers poorer performing intercoolers way too much for accurate comparisons. An intercooler that is really good on a 5700rpm/600hp engine may be a pile of crap on an engine that can rev to 7000rpm and make 900hp. This does not make it junk. In reality you want the minimum intercooler that will get it done. It will be lighter, cheaper and more ergonomic than the largest best flowing one. We dont have commercial E85 here in CT yet but you would need to have someone donate an engine to find the detonation limit of 93/alky since it will be significantly less than a E85 application. Not too many would be up for that. Unless you were just looking for the difference at a certain boost level or something like that but to me thats kind of a waste since you would be doing several things different on a build if you were using e85 and looking to maximize the performance. These things would make a noticeable difference in power if they were applied but would limit an alky/93 combo from making peak power reliably. Its easier to prove what doesnt matter on a certain combo power wise with a dyno than what is better for everyone on their specific applications. If you look at this thread the turbos tested were run harder than most would run them (especially on 93/alky) that post here run them so the results will likely be similar but not exact in their applications. There is very little to be gained for power with larger than needed turbos. You just wind up with a slower spooling setup and a lighter wallet. Its a lot easier and usually more cost effective to run what you have and crank it up.

 

[ADJMART]

You say there is little to be gained by larger than needed turbos.So my question is,has there ever been a list put together of what is too big of a turbo or the just right size for an application? Like what is the largest turbo you could use on a stock long block with stock unported heads?and than how much bigger could you start to go when you start opening up the heads and such?

 

[bison]

You say there is little to be gained by larger than needed turbos.So my question is,has there ever been a list put together of what is too big of a turbo or the just right size for an application? Like what is the largest turbo you could use on a stock long block with stock unported heads?and than how much bigger could you start to go when you start opening up the heads and such?

Its easiest to look at what has already been done then deviate slowly from that and see if it works or not. As far as too big just look at most of the sigs on this board. Most are very far from the potential with the turbo they have yet they think replacing it will help. Compressor maps are valuable for analyzing compressors but unfortunately they are rarely talked about. The general public is too stupid to interpret them anyway so just as well.

 

[usetaboost]

You say there is little to be gained by larger than needed turbos.So my question is,has there ever been a list put together of what is too big of a turbo or the just right size for an application? Like what is the largest turbo you could use on a stock long block with stock unported heads?and than how much bigger could you start to go when you start opening up the heads and such?

What's rule of thumb for max power on a stock bottom end and heads?? I've read it was 550-600hp, although I could be wrong. Some people got $1000+ turbos under the hood and don't run even close. There's people that are selling their small turbo (44and49) for something bigger because for some reason they think they can't go faster than a high to mid 11 with it. By doing a lot of searches in the turbo forum I've seen quite a few people running low 11s and even 1 person breaking off a 10 second pass with a ta49 and a front mount. I havent heard of anyone getting a 10 with a te44 but I'm sure it's possible. I'm sure TONYSMACH or whats his screen name is may be one to do it with 422 at the wheels on a te44. He also has some bowl work on his heads so I'm sure he would benefit with a larger turbo...but does he NEED IT?

There should be some info on what the stock heads flow. I would think someone could make some estimations based on the info in those threads.

 

[usetaboost]

Ill test anything but things that are complicated like intercoolers where variables need to be controlled more closely i would need to get paid for my time. I would need multiple MAP sensors and temp sensors to get any accuracy as to what is better since they wont be run to their limit. Most replacement intercoolers (sold by vendors on here) from what ive seen will flow more air than the engine will ever use and cause almost zero pressure drop under 6000rpm. Dynos are terrible for analyzing intercoolers since the airflow over the core cant be easily duplicated and the time under power in a quarter pass likely wont be duplicated making it hard to see which units do better than others. Alky injection would need to be disabled for accuracy. It buffers poorer performing intercoolers way too much for accurate comparisons. An intercooler that is really good on a 5700rpm/600hp engine may be a pile of crap on an engine that can rev to 7000rpm and make 900hp. This does not make it junk. In reality you want the minimum intercooler that will get it done. It will be lighter, cheaper and more ergonomic than the largest best flowing one. We dont have commercial E85 here in CT yet but you would need to have someone donate an engine to find the detonation limit of 93/alky since it will be significantly less than a E85 application. Not too many would be up for that. Unless you were just looking for the difference at a certain boost level or something like that but to me thats kind of a waste since you would be doing several things different on a build if you were using e85 and looking to maximize the performance. These things would make a noticeable difference in power if they were applied but would limit an alky/93 combo from making peak power reliably. Its easier to prove what doesnt matter on a certain combo power wise with a dyno than what is better for everyone on their specific applications. If you look at this thread the turbos tested were run harder than most would run them (especially on 93/alky) that post here run them so the results will likely be similar but not exact in their applications. There is very little to be gained for power with larger than needed turbos. You just wind up with a slower spooling setup and a lighter wallet. Its a lot easier and usually more cost effective to run what you have and crank it up.

But even with these tests you guys have been doing, these power figures would pretty much be based on an alky injection car right? Since with e85 there is no cooling effect in the intake? If I'm wrong on this please correct me. I'm one of those people that still believe there is more power in alky than e85 due to the cooling effect, especially with stock location ICs and crappy stock ICs.

 

[bison]

But even with these tests you guys have been doing, these power figures would pretty much be based on an alky injection car right? Since with e85 there is no cooling effect in the intake? If I'm wrong on this please correct me. I'm one of those people that still believe there is more power in alky than e85 due to the cooling effect, especially with stock location ICs and crappy stock ICs.

These numbers were all gained on an alky/93 application. E85 has a lot more cooling effect than a 15gph nozzle spraying in the intake. If you take E85 (even though it is usually a lot less than 85% alky) and calculated the injected fuels latent heat of vaporization you would see that there is a lot more cooling going on when it boils. You wont see it in intake temp but its still there in the cylinder where it really matters. The cooling effect and the high detonation limit of e85 make it very effective for high cylinder pressure. You are also taking the distribution issue out of the picture by port injecting the e85 vs a nozzle or two up stream. There is no doubt e85 will make more power than 93/alky but simply switching out the fuels, targeting stoic for power, and running the same timing the difference is likely neglible. If you ran e85 boost and timing would be higher everywhere and you would likely be running higher compression ratios and larger turbos to better take advantage of the fuel. If e85 becomes available here ill challenge anyone to make more power with alky/93. The power difference on an 8:1 engine at 25-30psi vs similar build with 9:1 or higher CR and 35+psi with a better flowing hot side will be tremendous.

 

[bison]

What's rule of thumb for max power on a stock bottom end and heads?? I've read it was 550-600hp, although I could be wrong. Some people got $1000+ turbos under the hood and don't run even close. There's people that are selling their small turbo (44and49) for something bigger because for some reason they think they can't go faster than a high to mid 11 with it. By doing a lot of searches in the turbo forum I've seen quite a few people running low 11s and even 1 person breaking off a 10 second pass with a ta49 and a front mount. I havent heard of anyone getting a 10 with a te44 but I'm sure it's possible. I'm sure TONYSMACH or whats his screen name is may be one to do it with 422 at the wheels on a te44. He also has some bowl work on his heads so I'm sure he would benefit with a larger turbo...but does he NEED IT?

There should be some info on what the stock heads flow. I would think someone could make some estimations based on the info in those threads.

I ran the stock bottom end over 700hp for 3 months before the #1 piston failed. Stock heads flow around 155-160cfm intake and 105-110cfm ex. Peak whp numbers dont tell you much either. Average road hp tells you much more about the potential.

 

[pontiac69fb]

These numbers were all gained on an alky/93 application. E85 has a lot more cooling effect than a 15gph nozzle spraying in the intake. If you take E85 (even though it is usually a lot less than 85% alky) and calculated the injected fuels latent heat of vaporization you would see that there is a lot more cooling going on when it boils. You wont see it in intake temp but its still there in the cylinder where it really matters. The cooling effect and the high detonation limit of e85 make it very effective for high cylinder pressure. You are also taking the distribution issue out of the picture by port injecting the e85 vs a nozzle or two up stream. There is no doubt e85 will make more power than 93/alky but simply switching out the fuels, targeting stoic for power, and running the same timing the difference is likely neglible. If you ran e85 boost and timing would be higher everywhere and you would likely be running higher compression ratios and larger turbos to better take advantage of the fuel. If e85 becomes available here ill challenge anyone to make more power with alky/93. The power difference on an 8:1 engine at 25-30psi vs similar build with 9:1 or higher CR and 35+psi with a better flowing hot side will be tremendous.

I agree with this statement 100%. I've seen cars pick up drastic hp going from 93/alky to E-85, I think it would take around 103/alky to equal the power output of e-85.

Here is my personal experience. My car is flex fueled (can run e-85 and regular gas) and I ran 112 octane purple at 28 degrees timing and 23 lbs and trapped 111.6, next time at the track on e-85 20 psi and 23 degrees timing I trapped 110.8 and the car spooled much quicker with the e-85 and my 60 fts were better. Needless to say I'm sticking with e-85 from here on out, and will only run race gas if it somehow becomes cheaper than e-85 which is not likely to happen.

My car dyno'd 360hp @ 16psi on e-85. I guess if there is enough interest I could redyno my car with 93 and 110 octane; however I practically need to take out a loan for race gas these days the way the gas prices are going.

 

[WFO]

Since with e85 there is no cooling effect in the intake? If I'm wrong on this please correct me. I'm one of those people that still believe there is more power in alky than e85 due to the cooling effect, especially with stock location ICs and crappy stock ICs.

FWIW I'm running E85 with an ATR 7th injector. This should provide a similar cooling effect to methanol injection as it sprays E85 into the air stream from the vacuum block. It's also progressive since the 7th runs off the injector pulse of the #5 injector.

I only got to run it once but the results were promising. Hopefully get some issues ironed out this winter and get some dyno tuning time in before the track opens.

 

[pontiac69fb]

Not that anyone seriously races with it anymore, but have you tried dynoing with the stock turbo to see how it measures up with the rest?

 

[bison]

It's also progressive since the 7th runs off the injector pulse of the #5 injector.

So one gulp of air has more fuel than another pulsing the upstream injector? Im not for that in any way.

 

[bison]

Not that anyone seriously races with it anymore, but have you tried dynoing with the stock turbo to see how it measures up with the rest?

If i had a stock or small custom cammed car id try it. Not worth it on here though. Id be looking for increases in torque vs. road speed. This cam peaks around 5100 rpm. Way beyond the stock turbos abilities.

 

[WFO]

It's also progressive since the 7th runs off the injector pulse of the #5 injector.

So one gulp of air has more fuel than another pulsing the upstream injector? Im not for that in any way.

Well I thought about that initially and crunched some #s.

At 3000 RPM each cylinder is firing 500 times per minute. This eqates to just over 8 pulses per second(8.3) which is gonna be a fairly decent fog of fuel.

Take the RPM to 5000 and the # increases to just under 14 pulses per second(13.8) which if I had to guess would look like a basically solid stream of fuel.

This isn't taking increasing pulse widths into account as RPMs rise. I don't really know much about how chips increase fueling as RPMS/load increases.

I can start a new thread if we wanna keep talking about it.

 

[UncleDave]

This isn't taking increasing pulse widths into account as RPMs rise. I don't really know much about how chips increase fueling as RPMS/load increases.

This is something I'd want to know about if I were to use a system like this (which I wouldn't, but that's just me). Now if there was a way to independently control PW of the 7th injector, it would be the E85 equivalent to tweaking the alky knob (sort of)...

OK, we all want Otto and Bison to move into more 'scientific' testing of a wider variety of systems (IC's, cams, heads, etc). So, how can we help provide funding to expand the scope?

 

[bison]

It's also progressive since the 7th runs off the injector pulse of the #5 injector.



Well I thought about that initially and crunched some #s.

At 3000 RPM each cylinder is firing 500 times per minute. This eqates to just over 8 pulses per second(8.3) which is gonna be a fairly decent fog of fuel.

Take the RPM to 5000 and the # increases to just under 14 pulses per second(13.8) which if I had to guess would look like a basically solid stream of fuel.

This isn't taking increasing pulse widths into account as RPMs rise. I don't really know much about how chips increase fueling as RPMS/load increases.

I can start a new thread if we wanna keep talking about it.

As engine speed increases the airflow through the engine increases in speed also. If i were running a setup like this id want the injectors at nearly 100% dc. Why not just run the ground side of the injector through a relay that is on or off and have it come on at a set manifold pressure? The transition is so fast if the turbo/converter/combo is right that being progressive doesnt matter.

 

[WFO]

It's a TT E85 chip burned for 60# injectors so I'm guessing it's pretty close to 100% DC most of the time.

I'm currently running a 60# in the 7th also. Gonna put the wideband on it and see how far the 60 gets me then I'll start swapping in bigger injectors.

Anybody got any big single injectors kicking around the toolbox?

 

[TurboBob]

At 28-29psi they all made within 1% of each other. The 6262 made well over 30psi on the first pull. Boost was likely around 34-35psi. The turbos with Precision ex housings dont drop boost as rpm increases. A lot less back pressure at this level. The 6262BB spooled slightly faster than the 6176.

I wonder how a 6262 would run with a Garrett turbine housing..... either BB or non..


Bob