Hellstrom Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 (edited) Well at what boost pressure did he achive the power he got? If life was perfect, we could fill the cylinders completely with air. If we had 17 psi boost in the intake manifold, we would open the intake valve and get 17 psi in the cylinder before the intake valve closed. Unfortunately, this doesn't usually happen. With some exhaust remaining in the cylinder and the restriction offered by the intake ports and valves the actual amount of air that flows into the cylinder is somewhat less than ideal. The amount that does flow divided by the ideal amount is called the volumetric efficiency. For your basic stock small block chevy, I think this number is around 0.85 (or 85%). Things like big valves, big cams, ported heads, tunnel rams, etc... get this number closer to 1.0 (or 100%). With tunnel rams some normally aspirated cars can get over 100% at certain rpms due to the ram effect. http://www.gnttype.org/techarea/turbo/turboflow.html Edited September 21, 2011 by Hellstrom (see edit history) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 32psi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hellstrom Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 (edited) 360ish 120bhp/litre thats if its not stroked. if it would be stroked to 3.4l it would be 105/litre aprox. this is wheel hp since i dont know how much % in loss they calcultated with getting the engine hp number Edited September 21, 2011 by Hellstrom (see edit history) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lee P Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 If it helps explain, in RWHP my Dyno plot gives me the following:- At 4000 rpm I'm producing 150 RWHP At 5500 rpm I'm producing 650 RWHP At 6993 rpm I'm producing 778 RWHP which equates to 914 BHP if you add 17% for transfer from flywheel to hubs. Not that it makes alot of difference but we have been using 15% to roughly work out the flywheel figures. Just so we are all using the same for comparrison Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 360ish 120bhp/litre thats if its not stroked. if it would be stroked to 3.4l it would be 105/litre aprox. this is wheel hp since i dont know how much % in loss they calcultated with getting the engine hp number Now can't you see how ridiculous that is? 360hp ATW of an N/A Supra? Every single high powered supra you run through that calculation is going to spew out ridiculous N/A figures. The reason why, and I haven't actually looked into the background of the equations you have put up, is that I don't see density mentioned anywhere. The more dense the air, the bigger the bang and the more power you will get. That is simple physics. A small turbo blowing hot air at 1.0bar will make far less power than a big turbo blowing cold air at 1.0bar. The assumptions and guesses in the equation are most likely the critical missing pieces to get a true understanding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hellstrom Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 So if a turbo builder like garret states that you cant get more then 100% /1bar that is not enough for you? yeah i do indeed think it sounds way of however i don't really know. i was told long ago that the thumb rule is 100%/1bar (in the best of worlds). it has nothing to do with the turbo charger. just that a smaller one would only reach maybe 70% due to heat etc. the more efficient a turbo is the closer to 100% it is. thats what ive learnt and as far as i can see this is someting that garret also states. along with the other site i posted. iam just saying getting more then 100% of VE with 1bar boost is not verry likely. i cant judge how much JP car would make at 8500rpm as a N/A Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 So if a turbo builder like garret states that you cant get more then 100% /1bar that is not enough for you? yeah i do indeed think it sounds way of however i don't really know. i was told long ago that the thumb rule is 100%/1bar (in the best of worlds). it has nothing to do with the turbo charger. just that a smaller one would only reach maybe 70% due to heat etc. the more efficient a turbo is the closer to 100% it is. thats what ive learnt and as far as i can see this is somting that garret also states. along with the other site i posted. iam just saying getting more then 100% of VE with 1bar boost is not verry likely. i cant judge how much JP car would make at 8500rpm as a N/A But you know you get more than 100% from a stock TT so how can you not think it very likely? A TT supra without the turbos will hit 180hp as it has a lower CR than the actual N/A supra. Take the crappy stock turbos at 1.0bar and you will get to around 380hp... already more than 100% increase. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hellstrom Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 But you know you get more than 100% from a stock TT so how can you not think it very likely? A TT supra without the turbos will hit 180hp as it has a lower CR than the actual N/A supra. Take the crappy stock turbos at 1.0bar and you will get to around 380hp... already more than 100% increase. Well has anyone actually mesured how much a stock 2jzgte will put out without turbos? you say 180 but that is just an asumption or is this a fact? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 Well has anyone actually mesured how much a stock 2jzgte will put out without turbos? you say 180 but that is just an asumption or is this a fact? I don't know it as a fact, I just know I read about it somewhere. In fact it might even have been less than 180 HP. It's a fact that the GTE will put out less HP than the GE though, guaranteed due to the lower CR. There are cars on this forum getting over 600hp at 1.2bar on bigger turbos and there are cars on this forum getting 430hp at 1.2bar on stock turbos. Do you not accept this? Do you think everyone in the world puts larger turbo's on their cars and lies about the figures when they are actually making the same power as stock only with more lag? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hellstrom Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 Well it might sound stupid but i will still claim that getting more then 100% VE /1 bar is not going to happend. ive read plenty about it. i cant really say how much a 2jzgte would put out as a NA, diffrent intake might be loads of other diffrent things. the fact that the intake dont go over the hotside. i dont honestly think it would be to out of the line that JPs car could do something like 360bhp as a NA with thoose modifications. his engine is hand built and its not made for production (emissions etc). who knows i guess the discussion ends here. as i cba trying to convince anymore. i still think i have provided evidence regarding this matter. iam really not trying to take anything away from Hodge i really love his build. And scott iam not calling anyone a lier. 778rwhp is with a 15% loss 894 (910 using 17%) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 Wait a minute, you're talking about volumetric efficiency now. I thought earlier you mentioned the %age of power increase. I think we've got wires crossed now. I don't understand the VE argument from your side. Earlier I thought you said that you can't get more than 100% of a power increase from a 1.0bar increase. That's to say that a 200hp N/A with 1.0bar of boost would hit 400hp. Or is that what you are saying? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hellstrom Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 VE=volymetric efficiency Lets say you have a car putting out 100hp N/A, at 1bar/ 100% VE it would get 200bhp the size of turbo dont really matter. unless 1is utter crap and the other is spot on.. you would get 99% VE aka 199hp. (still in the best of worlds but yeah) thats how it work. turbos are getting better and better. they can reach from what ive read somthing like 105% max that would make the car put out 205hp. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hodge Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 Wish I never updated this thread now. TBH wether it's 600hp, 900hp or 1500hp it totally pulls my face off on boost so it doesn't matter really does it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suprab Posted September 21, 2011 Share Posted September 21, 2011 im confused now by all this is one 044 pump ok for aprox 750bhp flywheel?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hodge Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 im confused now by all this is one 044 pump ok for aprox 750bhp flywheel?? Nope, where've you been lol. I made 900 BHP on 1 Bosch 044. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 VE=volymetric efficiency Lets say you have a car putting out 100hp N/A, at 1bar/ 100% VE it would get 200bhp the size of turbo dont really matter. unless 1is utter crap and the other is spot on.. you would get 99% VE aka 199hp. (still in the best of worlds but yeah) thats how it work. turbos are getting better and better. they can reach from what ive read somthing like 105% max that would make the car put out 205hp. Ok well my argument stands then. I think you must be skewing information from Garrett as there is no way they would ever say that 1.0bar of boost from their bigger turbos wouldn't give more than a 200hp gain on a straight 6. I'm bored of the discussion now as there is just no reasoning with you at all, even though the evidence is all around you in the Supra community. Can you not see that your argument would mean high power cars would need to be running 6+ bar of boost pressure? Your argument states that at 1.2bar a car will make the same power regardless of turbo. To be honest I'm mental for trying to explain it to you as that alone is just crazy. If you have a look all over the world you will see the same car making wildly varying figures from the same boost pressure due to the density of the air, which in turn is down to the efficiency of the turbo. Anyway, well done John. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hellstrom Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 You have not read what ive said iam saying you cant get more then 100% more hp @ 1 bar the turbo that is best suited for the car is going to be closest to 100% it dont matter if Its a 6 cyl or 100 cyl its still not going to make mord then 100%. If the engine have 400hp as n/a it Will be close to 800hp at 1 bar as you are adding 100% stop talking about what turbo etc Will the job best it Will never produce more then 100% --- I am here: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=57.740792,11.946083 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hellstrom Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 Iam not stateing anything about different turbos producing same at same Boost lvl you are just nog reading it right Example na power is 200bhp Turbo 1 300bhp at 1 bar makes it 50% effective Turbo 2 400bhp at 1 bar 100% effective But in turbo 3 aka scotts turbo The 200 na machine gets 600bhp at 1 bar Making it 200% effective? Turbo 3 does not exist. Any if there would be 200% effective. The rules are that it the same condition on both tests --- I am here: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=57.738730,11.949294 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 Iam not stateing anything about different turbos producing same at same Boost lvl you are just nog reading it right Example na power is 200bhp Turbo 1 300bhp at 1 bar makes it 50% effective Turbo 2 400bhp at 1 bar 100% effective But in turbo 3 aka scotts turbo The 200 na machine gets 600bhp at 1 bar Making it 200% effective? Turbo 3 does not exist. Any if there would be 200% effective. The rules are that it the same condition on both tests --- I am here: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=57.738730,11.949294 Trust me, I know what you're saying. I just don't agree with your take on it. As I said, I give up. You win. All the high power Supras are clearly 500hp N/A base cars. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Soiled Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 It would be nice to know how much power that 3.0l engine will produce with 8.5 compression N/A. Compare again to BMW engines old 3.0l 12valve engine 1988 M30B30 Kat straight 6 2986cm3 188hp@5800 260nm@4000, compression 9.0:1 I think supra engine will go way better than this alone 24v head + better design than old BMW engine. I must do test next summer to first dyno engine without boost and after with boost. I probably use mainly stock parts so it will be something to compare stock supras. Hodge, what head gasket did you use? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 It would be nice to know how much power that 3.0l engine will produce with 8.5 compression N/A. Compare again to BMW engines old 3.0l 12valve engine 1988 M30B30 Kat straight 6 2986cm3 188hp@5800 260nm@4000, compression 9.0:1 I think supra engine will go way better than this alone 24v head + better design than old BMW engine. I must do test next summer to first dyno engine without boost and after with boost. I probably use mainly stock parts so it will be something to compare stock supras. Hodge, what head gasket did you use? Well the N/A gives a good indication of the power it will make. N/A at stock compression when new is 220hp. Not sure on the compression ratio off the top of my head but I'm pretty sure you could get a reasonably accurate guess from the difference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ricky49 Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 I'm bored of the discussion now as there is just no reasoning with you at all, Anyway, well done John. Now you know how we all feel 900hp on one Bosch John, at what VE was that at Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamesy Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dive_popo Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 It would be nice to know how much power that 3.0l engine will produce with 8.5 compression N/A. Compare again to BMW engines old 3.0l 12valve engine 1988 M30B30 Kat straight 6 2986cm3 188hp@5800 260nm@4000, compression 9.0:1 I think supra engine will go way better than this alone 24v head + better design than old BMW engine. I must do test next summer to first dyno engine without boost and after with boost. I probably use mainly stock parts so it will be something to compare stock supras. Hodge, what head gasket did you use? Yes, but this is on a BMW, this is a Supra world.... you can't understand LOL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Soiled Posted September 22, 2011 Share Posted September 22, 2011 Yes, but this is on a BMW, this is a Supra world.... you can't understand LOL Yes, that's why I assume that supra engine is more powerful than BMW's. What point did you not get? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.