Dynoed My Car

[1998gstspyder]

On Jan. 2 I dynoed my car at Church's Automotive. My goal with this turbo was 300whp/300torque and I got it on 96ish octane (101 mixed with 91) and 23 psi.

Numbers were:

317whp , 338 torque

some crank figures could be
assuming 12% drive train loss...360 hp
assuming 15% drive train loss...372 hp
assuming 17% drive train loss...381 hp

I have no intentions of drag racing (traction is an issue...fwd) or auto cross (too heavy and not modified for handling).

A very concise list of my performance mods are the following: MHI Evo III 16g turbo, apexi 3 inch turbo back, greddy profec spec s EBC, ported Evo III exhaust manifold/o2 housing, FIC 650cc injectors, Apexi SAFC 2, Walboro 190lph fuel pump, HKS 272/272 Cams, HKS SSQ BOV, Dejon Tool 3'' Intake, ACT 2100lb Clutch, Flywheel (12lbs), ETS Intercooler, Autometer gauges, AEM AFR guage.

You must be logged in to view this image or video.

 

[CTP]

I have to agree that a 16G is a TINY turbo, it is a damn small turbo, maybe not when you compare it to stock turbo's that came on these cars, but in general it is a small tiny turbo.

A straight T3 50trim i would still consider to be a small turbo.. but not TINY, and if the 16G is smaller then then 'small' 50trim it makes it tiny .

I must say, a 16G making 400whp on any fuel setup with any boost pressure is overworked. Just because it can do it, dosen't make it ideal or in any means practical to use, but we all know the 16G is loved by so much of the DSM community i will try not to bash it.. after all, i will be putting my big 16g up for sale shortly that i pulled off my talon that the previous owner used on the 'build'.. So we need to keep plenty of love flowing for this particular turbo, atleast until after i sell it Anyways...

I do believe that the original posters problem with his HP and TQ #'s falling is due to his improperly sized turbo. His turbo is running out of breath, simple as that, and look at his TQ curve, it drops so drastically after peak VE is reached at 5252, the engine becomes less efficient after that, but his VE shouldn't drop that fast IF AIRFLOW was not a problem, if anything the cams should increase VE, with enough airflow

Id be interested to see what his VE tables look like.

We must be like long lost brothers or something. We think so alike that I'm afraid someone is going to think it's the same person posting under two names.

I guess it just depends on who's looking at the turbo. I'm a valet and I drive a ton of turbo charged cars everyday, vw's, volvo's, saab's, and in comparison to those, a big 16g is definitely bigger, and considering dsm's come stock with smaller turbo's than a big 16g, it's not tiny to me, but I guess putting it next to a gt42r, it's a baby, but point being is I don't think he is overworking an E 3 16g that is putting just over 300hp to the wheels, yet. If he was putting 400hp to the wheels, then it's a different story. I just think there are more variables that play into this, because although a E 3 16G is not a typical 400hp turbo, there have been guys that have put over 400hp to the wheels on that turbo with stock motors + cams, so to say that his turbo is the only problem, is not the case when other guys have been able to put a lot more power down with that turbo. I'm not saying it's a slap on 400hp turbo, but it can make that power - overworking it or not- and it's been proven.

Turbo sizing isn't really a subjective activity. A 16g is too small for the power that so many DSMers try to make with them. Just look at the compressor map and then try to argue otherwise.

His torque curve tells the entire story. That's all you need to look at to see where someone's turbo is running out of steam or whether it's too big and spooling late. He hits full boost at ~3,500rpm and is able to sustain the powerband until about 4,400rpm, where it then proceeds to nose dive. By 5,500rpm his powerband is drilling straight for the center of the earth, which is exactly what you would expect with the turbo he's running.


Oh look, my E16g dyno chart is identical (22psi and stock cams). I hit full boost at the exact same RPM, I have the exact same dip between 4k-5k, and just like his, it's headed for China after 5,500. There is NOTHING surprising about this. The turbo is too small to hold power up that high. He has it even worse because he has the cams to flow some big power, but a turbo that simply can't do it. And, no, again, I don't care that other people have made 400hp.

This turbo is not properly sized for the powering being made (again, unless you're towing with the car):

You must be logged in to view this image or video.

Compared to T04E 50 trim chart (23psi and stock cams). This turbo is properly sized for the power being made:

You must be logged in to view this image or video.

As you can see, full boost comes about 500rpm later (mostly due to exhaust leaks at the time, it actually hits full boost at 3,600rpm), the torque curve is flat (climbing even) until ~6,000rpm where the stock cams decide to kill the fun.

Notice the difference between the gradual fall off due to cams as opposed to the massive peak/dive caused by an undersized turbo which is simultaneously blowing ultra-hot air and creating massive back pressure.

 

[DSMsOwnYourV8]

We must be like long lost brothers or something. We think so alike that I'm afraid someone is going to think it's the same person posting under two names.



Turbo sizing isn't really a subjective activity. A 16g is too small for the power that so many DSMers try to make with them. Just look at the compressor map and then try to argue otherwise.

His torque curve tells the entire story. That's all you need to look at to see where someone's turbo is running out of steam or whether it's too big and spooling late. He hits full boost at ~3,500rpm and is able to sustain the powerband until about 4,400rpm, where it then proceeds to nose dive. By 5,500rpm his powerband is drilling straight for the center of the earth, which is exactly what you would expect with the turbo he's running.


Oh look, my E16g dyno chart is identical (22psi and stock cams). I hit full boost at the exact same RPM, I have the exact same dip between 4k-5k, and just like his, it's headed for China after 5,500. There is NOTHING surprising about this. The turbo is too small to hold power up that high. He has it even worse because he has the cams to flow some big power, but a turbo that simply can't do it. And, no, again, I don't care that other people have made 400hp.

This turbo is not properly sized for the powering being made (again, unless you're towing with the car):

You must be logged in to view this image or video.

Compared to T04E 50 trim chart (23psi and stock cams). This turbo is properly sized for the power being made:

You must be logged in to view this image or video.

As you can see, full boost comes about 500rpm later (mostly due to exhaust leaks at the time, it actually hits full boost at 3,600rpm), the torque curve is flat (climbing even) until ~6,000rpm where the stock cams decide to kill the fun.

Notice the difference between the gradual fall off due to cams as opposed to the massive peak/dive caused by an undersized turbo which is simultaneously blowing ultra-hot air and creating massive back pressure.

Ctp we can sit here and argue all day about this, which I know you love to do, but the fact is people have gotten 400+WHP on an e 3 16g on the RIGHT setup and have dyno's to prove it, so to say the turbo is being overworked and that's why it is making just over 300hp to the wheels, is not the only reason for this. Am I going to buy a 16g if I want to make 400whp, probably not, but to say it's being overworked at 300whp when it has been proven to make 400whp, may not be the case. There are too many things going on to single out one thing. The only way to tell for sure would be a turbo swap followed by a dyno pull.

 

[CTP]

Ctp we can sit here and argue all day about this, which I know you love to do, but the fact is people have gotten 400+WHP on an e 3 16g on the RIGHT setup and have dyno's to prove it, so to say the turbo is being overworked and that's why it is making just over 300hp to the wheels, is not the only reason for this. Am I going to buy a 16g if I want to make 400whp, probably not, but to say it's being overworked at 300whp when it has been proven to make 400whp, may not be the case. There are too many things going on to single out one thing. The only way to tell for sure would be a turbo swap followed by a dyno pull.

Or you could just look at the compressor map. That one is pretty much unarguable.

People have gone 9's on T25's. Does that mean a T25 that's going 10.50's isn't even breaking a sweat?

There isn't even an argument here. It's just a matter of you re-examining your logic and looking at things correctly.

Just because someone DID make some amount of power with a turbo doesn't make it that turbo's new realistic max. A 16g is the main retricting point WAAAAAY before 400hp. Like I said, if you don't want to listen to me and slowgsr, go look up the compressor chart or call Garrett and ask what size turbine/turbine housing they recommend for 300whp and then if you still feel the same way, go tell physics it's wrong.

 

[Asimmons90GSX]

Why would Garrett recommend anything other than one of their turbo's? Of course they are gonna tell you to go with something else. The point is, a 16G has no problem making 300whp. It's not being overworked, it's not running out of air. The turbo flows 48 lbs/min. There are 1,000's of dsm's out there running 16G's and making over 300whp. It's not one of those "if one guy has done I think I can too" turbo's. It's not a struggle to make those numbers if you have the right setup. Tuning is personal preference and if you see good numbers, congrats and good job. Personally numbers on a dyno mean nothing if you can't show it on the track. That's what they call a dyno queen. If you make 1,000whp and run 10's I wouldn't be impressed at all.
This argument could go on forever because there are so many different people on this forum that have different opinions about this subject. I think a 16G is a good stepping stone to larger ball bearing turbo's. It's a good start that isn't hard to tune or maintane. It MAY be the most popular turbo upgrade path for dsm'ers. Don't go quoting me on that, I'm just saying that's what it seems to be.

 

[CTP]

Why would Garrett recommend anything other than one of their turbo's? Of course they are gonna tell you to go with something else.

I said to ask for a turbine and turbine housing size recommendation. I didn't say ask for a model of turbo.

The point is, a 16G has no problem making 300whp. It's not being overworked, it's not running out of air. The turbo flows 48 lbs/min.

48lbs/min? LAWL!! Are you being serious?

You must be logged in to view this image or video.

 

[DSMsOwnYourV8]

Or you could just look at the compressor map. That one is pretty much unarguable.

People have gone 9's on T25's. Does that mean a T25 that's going 10.50's isn't even breaking a sweat?

There isn't even an argument here. It's just a matter of you re-examining your logic and looking at things correctly.

Just because someone DID make some amount of power with a turbo doesn't make it that turbo's new realistic max. A 16g is the main retricting point WAAAAAY before 400hp. Like I said, if you don't want to listen to me and slowgsr, go look up the compressor chart or call Garrett and ask what size turbine/turbine housing they recommend for 300whp and then if you still feel the same way, go tell physics it's wrong.

Yeah people have gon 9's on a t25 WITH NITROUS. People have put over 400 to the wheels on a 16g with a stock motor + cams and no nitrous. There's a guy that lives down the street from me putting 380 to the wheels on a 16g with cams and e85 ethanol.

 

[dsm-onster]

Splitpi, 540cc injectors flow 540 cc at 43.5 pi at 100%idc. If you accept that then you've learned a little bit and can understand what I'm saying. If you don't then you can not see what I'm saying and question why so many others have put out much more horsepower with the same pump.

If it's industry standard, point me to a couple of links that state that at 80% idc is what injectors are rated. Show me where you've learned or experienced that injectors at 100% idc flowing much more than 80% idc.

Why look at BSFC when you can look over more tangible numbers, such as airflow?

Arguing over this does nothing to determine the capabilities of the OP's fuel system IMO. Just as airflow should be measured in mass-flow versus "boost", fuel flow should be measured in mass-flow versus volume-flow. The fact is at 100% IDC he flows a max of 540cc/min, which in mass-flow given the OP's mix is 3.5-3.7 lbs/min of fuel depending on the specific gravity of the 101 octane fuel he mixed in (VP's 101 octane fuels range from .72 to .80).

Given that his wideband was reading 11.5:1, his max supportable airflow is 40 lbs/min to 42.5 lbs/min.

Given that all of this is completely theoretical, and taking into account a "safety margin" of 10% then he'd be able to support 36 to 38 lbs/min of airflow.

If this were his peak airflow number then that would correlate very well with his dyno numbers, however there's the massive top end drop-off which could be a whole other thread in my opinion.

2gGSX, great point!!! You mentioned 40-42 lbs/min is possible at 11.5:1 and his fuel system. How much hp does 40 lbs/min yield? A great tune and a little attention to details would put you at 420 crank hp. Commonly, DSMs with a decent tune yield 10.5 hp per lb/min. Calculate hp potenial from lb/min airflow and we see that 11.5:1/f ratio and a walbro 190 is plenty o fuel for this hp level.

CTP, that is big16g compressor map not an evo316g compressor map. I use the evo8 compressor map and add a grain of salt because the evo8 compressor uses a larger a/r compressor housing. But I do agree that the evo3 16g cannot flow 48 lbs/min. Where did that information come from?. . . Let me guess.

 

[CTP]

CTP, that is big16g compressor map not an evo316g compressor map. I use the evo8 compressor map and add a grain of salt because the evo8 compressor uses a larger a/r compressor housing. But I do agree that the evo3 16g cannot flow 48 lbs/min. Where did that information come from?. . . Let me guess.

You're absolutely right. The reason I didn't use the 8 compressor map is due to the fact that housings can have a large effect on compressor performance (compare a 60-1 in an E cover and a B cover) and since no one actually has an Evo3 map, I just went with the next best thing (a 16g that DSMers actually use). I also don't like the fact that the most popular Evo8 map I've seen floating around is (for some unknown reason) in CFM, which makes it a totally worthless map.

But I'm glad you agree on the max flow of the turbo. Most T04E's don't even flow that much. A 50 trim just BARELY does 48lbs/min, a 57 trim only does 45lbs/min, and a 60 trim is right around 50lbs/min, hell, even a 30R is only slightly over 50lbs/min.

 

[dsm-onster]

I understand. The big 16 has the evo3 compressor cover. The evo8 16g has the evo3 compressor wheel. Somewhere between the two is the evo3 turbo . The evo3 16g was th most underrated turbo of the decade just a couple of years ago. Now it seams to be quite the opposite. Great turbo. Best bag for the buck out there. A true bolt on for a 1g. Looks stock. MHI reliability. Flows 41-42 lbs/min. You can't go wrong. Except think you're going to pull 20g airflow numbers with it.

I don't see rendering a map in cfm or m^3/sec as worthless. To me, it seams to be a better indicator of a compressor's work envelope. Someone in denver in the summer is going to get drastically different airflow than someone at sea level in Maine during the winter; both at the same boost, same mods, same everything. But, a turbo always displaces a certain volume at a certain pressure ratio at a certain compressor speed. Having a target cfm, knowing the environment YOU are in, will allow you to guarantee not using a compressor that is needlessly large or incapable of meeting your goal. MHI kg/sec maps show massflow at 20*C (68*F) and the altitude is never stated. My intake temps may be 68* in the winter. But, thay are far different in the summer.

That's just my opinion, of course.

 

[CTP]

I don't see rendering a map in cfm or m^3/sec as worthless. To me, it seams to be a better indicator of a compressor's work envelope. Someone in denver in the summer is going to get drastically different airflow than someone at sea level in Maine during the winter; both at the same boost, same mods, same everything. But, a turbo always displaces a certain volume at a certain pressure ratio at a certain compressor speed. Having a target cfm, knowing the environment YOU are in, will allow you to guarantee not using a compressor that is needlessly large or incapable of meeting your goal. MHI kg/sec maps show massflow at 20*C (68*F) and the altitude is never stated. My intake temps may be 68* in the winter. But, thay are far different in the summer.

That's just my opinion, of course.

The issue you run into is the fact that any given volumetric flow rate contains different amounts of air at different pressure ratios. This is when people run into the issue of, "Z!!! THE E16G FLOWS 550CFM!!!!" Ok... sweet... no one cares. Is that 550CFM at 0psi (which isn't much air) or is that 550CFM at 30psi (which is ton of air)? Or it could be anywhere in between. CFM is only telling you how much air volume you're flowing, not the air mass you're flowing which is what actually determines how much power you're going to make. So it's misleading to have a compressor chart that is supposedly "rescaled" to CFM because it was more than likely rescaled at atmospheric pressure, which you obviously aren't going to be dealing with in a turbo engine. This makes the compressor efficiency map itself useless because the plot points no longer have any relevance to it due to the fact that the CFM number you're referencing at the bottom only applies at the bottom (atmospheric pressure) and is no longer correct as pressure ratios increase up the Y-axis.

Mass flow, on the other hand, already takes pressure and temperature into account. 40lbs/min @ 50psi and 20*F contains the same amount of air molecules as 40lbs/min @ 2psi and 200*F. The only thing that changes is the volume because that lighly compressed, hot air was a lot less dense than that highly compressed, cold air and, therefore, took up more room. This is where compressor efficiency comes in because some turbos are better at flowing large volume at less pressure and others are better at flowing less volume, but at a higher pressure (or anywhere in between). This leads to an infinite mix of volumes/pressures adding up to the mass flow rates you see on the charts. Different amounts of volume/pressure can add up to the same mass flow, the difference is in their delivery.
I think you were overlooking this when comparing Colorado and Maine. 35lbs/min on a mountain in Denver on a 100*F day contains the same air mass as 35lbs/min on a Maine beach in the winter. That's why the compressor maps hold true no matter where you're using the turbo. The drop or rise in ambient pressure is taken into account when calculating the PR. It has no effect on the mass flow rate. 40lbs/min will always be 40lbs/min. The difference is in how much volume it displaces.

CFM fails to take these things into account, which leaves you to factor them in and do the math to get a mass flow number, and makes the "rescaled" compressor map itself unuseable. When trying to talk about CFM in a turbo system what you're doing is essentially trying to measure the mass of an object with a ruler. It simply doesn't work.

 

[dsm-onster]

Volume flow, or cfm, on a compressor map is measured at the compressor inlet. If you know your compressor inlet pressure (altitude) and your compressor inlet temperature (intake air temp), then you can always calculate the massflow from the boost-cfm points on a cfm map. And you will know what the turbo can do for you.

Not everyone lives at the same altitude as where a compressor was tested, or operates their car at the same intake temperature everytime. A massflow compressor map has to be rescaled to your location just as well, to show you what it will do for you. Which adds another set of calculations for you to do. The 50 trim doesn't flow 49 lbs/min wrung out when in the Rockies. Though, the compressor map shows 49 lbs/min as it's max flow potential. But if you had the inlet cfm potential and knowwhere you live and what your intake temps are you would already know how much mass the 50-trim actually can flow for you.

But, of course, speed density and maf translator blowthrough guys will have a hard time finding out their intake temps, unless they have an intake airtemp sensor at the filter. Or if they simply have a cold air intake that brings in air at a temp very close to ambient.



Wow, this is way off topic . 1998gstspyder, there is definately more in that turbo. But, you've reached your goal. So that's great to hear. I am a little confused though. Because I've seen the same horsepower at lower boost extracted from this turbo with 272s and the other mods you've listed. Your timing should be pretty aggresive since your running an SAFC with 650s. You're not running THAT rich. Even the ETS street intecooler is enough to handle way more than what you have put down. I'm wondering why you have to run so much boost to get only 320whp. ???