New 16G Dyno Numbers on C16

[red91gst]

In the end, my question is what do your theoretical calculations prove?

I don't understand how your sub par scientific process disproves what I have done at the track and on the dyno in a real world situation...

 

[JayRolla]

High compression 2.0l

Nice, cant wait to see what you guys do with the motor rebuild and e85. I want to get my brothers car on the dyno and see what she does, but being up in this high altitude I dont think he will break 400whp, but you never know. He's running 28psi and 26* timing by redline on e85 with his 16g, on a stock 6 bolt.

 

[dsm-onster]

Volumetric efficiency - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I already accounted for absolute manifold pressure, in the case I calculated, you can't have a VE multiplier of more than 100%.

Formula1... or any engine employing air ram, or helmholtz tuned intake and/or exhaust can exhibit over 100% VE naturally asperated.

One underlying theme keeps popping up. . .With respect to this system, my study of other setups were the turbo is pushed to the limit, the systems I've worked on, etc. ... Brake specific fuel comsumption.

I've been refuted by a mentor of mine. My inauspicious naiveté bit me again. danl would be tickled to read that . I can prove an evo3 16g cannot flow enough air for 450whp IF the the hp:lb/min ratio is 10.5:1. But of course, a different BSFE could change that. Clearly this is happening here. I overlooked it as if it is out of our control. When it is NOT.

Components that increase flow increase VE. VE is closely related to torque. So much so that the torque line follows nearly the same curvature. Therefore, increase VE anywhere in the rev range and you increase torque at that same point. But ALSO, the BSFC line over the rev range follows the same curvature. A higher VE encourages a lower BSFC which changes that 10.5 hp per lb/min to a higher number. This makes sence mathematically because hp is torque over time. And if you can increase torque by increasing VE then you can increase hp. Note that VE can increase though no more air is injested. This is where BSFC goes down or that horsepower per lb/min goes up.

Four things can primarily affect BSFC: compression, timing, a/f ratio, and pumping loss. Torque can be affected by compression, timing, a/f ratio, VE, and airflow. VE is a separate variable from airflow. So how can one increase torque with just an engines desire to flow air (VE) without being capable of actually flowing more air? VE is derivative the chaacteristic of pumping loss. It takes work to draw in aircharge, compress aircharge, and expel aircharge. The last is the reason why a turbo system commonly exhibits less favourable BSFC than a supercharged counterpart. There is terribly more backpressure to pump against.

Pumping loss is another rendering of VE. Though there can be not but so much air injested from a compressor, the air that is there "falls" into and out of the cylinder easier. There is less work needed to reciprocate the engine itself and more power is hense delivered to the crank shaft. I've always wondered why one who maxes out his turbo swaps to a SMIM and still gains maybe 10-15 more hp or perhaps a tenth better at the track. How could this be? There is less energy needed to draw the air in, so more goes to the crank. As mentioned frequently in this thread, an engine is a tuned system. So having the ram effect and better flow of a good intake, having an exhaust manifold that helps evacuate the cylinders through scavenging all work together -- the choice of components that match each other -- to yield much more VE. And this higher VE greatly contributes to less pumping lose; regardless of how much you intake. With more VE, the BSFC number is altered, and suddenly you have an engine that developes 11.5 hp per lb/min instd of 10.5 hp per lb/min. A penny saved is a penny earned

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

.

I apologize for frustrating . The evo3 16g can't flow more than 42 lbs/min. I know it can't, but 450whp is possible. Anyone with an evo3 16g looking at that dyno graph needs to ask him or herself: am I knowledgable enough to build a system that can make that power with that turbo?

 

[DSMunknown]

Formula1... or any engine employing air ram, or helmholtz tuned intake and/or exhaust can exhibit over 100% VE naturally asperated.

IIRC, the modern-day funny cars can see around 120%. Now that's something to smile about.

 

[red91gst]

IIRC, the modern-day funny cars can see around 120%. Now that's something to smile about.

Modern day funny cars run nitromethane and 60psi of boost with 55-65* of timing advance, which would be WELL over 120% I believe.

 

[red91gst]

I know it can't, but 450whp is possible. Anyone with an evo3 16g looking at that dyno graph needs to ask him or herself: am I knowledgable enough to build a system that can make that power with that turbo?

Finally

Thanks ;-)

 

[tstkl]

wow, you guys have a really confused definition of VE.

VE stands for Volumetric efficentcy. It is the efficentcy with which a motor is capable of completely filling its chamber with clean air, and dispersing with the used air from the previous combustion. This is why cams increase power, they directly effect VE because they effect how long the valve is open and how far it opens. If a motor disperses with 90% of the exhaust gases created by a combustion, it can only inhale 90% of its displacement worth of clean air. Any case where an N/A motor has over 100% "VE" really means that a scavanger effect is being used to create Absolute Manifold "pressure". I say "pressure" because the only means a N/A motor has of drawing in air is through suction, so any pressure created by it would actually be negative. All negative pressures are created by vacumes.

Now tell me, How exactly with a turbocharged car running 30 psi do you create a vacume? THATS RIGHT, YOU DON'T. Your measuring the manifold pressure of the car and therefore that represents the MOST pressure that can be forcing the air into the car. Your not creating energy out of thin air, because thats IMPOSSIBLE. So my "sub par" science is only "sub par" because it disagrees with what your saying.

The compressor housing limits the flow of air that goes through to the motor, and Im saying THAT compressor housing is too small to make that much pressure on a motor of this size. The reason I brought up the straw compairison and why it is a good demo in our case is because its a real life example. You are creating pressure by creating a vacume in your mouth. This vacume sucks the liquid into your mouth and you drink it. But why is it harder to get the same liquid out of a smaller straw? Lets look at the limit as the speed of the liquid approaches infinity. O wait, it can't because nothing can go faster than the speed of light, so theres limit number one, something we don't really have to worry about, but a fact I thought I would mention. So whats next? As more pressure is added to the liquid from behind, the volume flowing through the straw increases, so why can't you flow an insane amount through a small straw? In short, friction. Friction is a function of the surface area of the object you are moving your fluid through. In our case, that would be a straw. The surface area of a straw is 2 * PI * R * H (R being the radius and H being the height). So now we know the force preventing us from going as fast as light. Lets compair this to volume flow. The volume of a straw is Pi * R^2 * H. Hmmmm so the volume flow is multiplied by the radius squared. HMMMM I wonder what that would do? Could it possibly allow for the same total volume flow with less pressure forcing it due to the lower compairative friction created? And since friction increases with increased speed is it possible that this would therefore be an even greater factor after that is taken into account?

so who's science is sub par now? The man saying a fixed pipe can flow an infinate amount of air, or the guy who is simply using BASIC proven calculations to prove you wrong.

Sure you can use relativistic calculations to find how fast your going with X KE, but if your below your desired speed with the basic 1/2 MV^2 model, why would you bother using a function you know will give you a slightly lower number?

Basic Physics is the best because everyone tends to forget variables and other small details for things that don't even need it in the first place. And before you go calling me out on my science, you should probably take a course in general physics yourself. There is nothing wrong with computing the effective volume of a motor using the method I have used, in fact, with all the variables measured accurately, there isn't a more accurate way.

What is inaccurate is lbs/min, I really don't get why you guys insist on using them. That is what is dependent on temperature and such, and thats why I avoid using it in my calculations and such throughout my work.

if you think my science is so "sub par", CORRECT ME, I DARE YOU

 

[Mr Peepers]

Tstkl, since I can't reply to your last PM, the answer is inertia. Please read DSM-onster's posts, as he discusses Helmholtz resonance. He also talks about the flow limits of the compressor/housing and ways to more efficiently use the given airflow.

 

[delta448]

so who's science is sub par now? The man saying a fixed pipe can flow an infinate amount of air, or the guy who is simply using BASIC proven calculations to prove you wrong.

You've proven you're well educated, a step above average on intelligence and that your feelings were hurt because you can't really without-a-doubt prove anything and you feel as though you've been called out on it. I'm not trying to single you out, but the quoted post was the most flagrant I've seen in awhile. How do you disprove a dyno pull without being there? I guess you don't, you just accuse the OP of being a liar in a round-about way, which is really all you've done here.

Some of the posts in this thread are downright painful to read. You guys can have at it with your long-winded posts on advanced theories in this one, I'm staying out of it. Nate's word is enough for most of us reasonable people who have heard of his abilities and aren't obsessed with being number 1.

Please, can we take the incessant arguing elsewhere?

 

[ferruchnuts44]

You've proven you're well educated, a step above average on intelligence and that your feelings were hurt because you can't really without-a-doubt prove anything and you feel as though you've been called out on it. I'm not trying to single you out, but the quoted post was the most flagrant I've seen in awhile. How do you disprove a dyno pull without being there? I guess you don't, you just accuse the OP of being a liar in a round-about way, which is really all you've done here.

Some of the posts in this thread are downright painful to read. You guys can have at it with your long-winded posts on advanced theories in this one, I'm staying out of it. Nate's word is enough for most of us reasonable people who have heard of his abilities and aren't obsessed with being number 1.

Please, can we take the incessant arguing elsewhere?

Well said Don't worry about the naysayers Nate, I know I'm going to be there first hand when Curt takes that car down the track at Keystone and proves what the car is made of!

 

[tkelly27]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but VE would be calculated by (volume of air to enter cylinder/volume of clyinder) * 100. 500cc's of air is the same volume at 14.7psia as it is at 45psia, is it not? If the turbocharged engine took in 550cc's of air (at 5, 15, 45, 500psi) it would still have a VE of 110%, would it not? The comparison is made between STATIC, and dynamic conditions, not naturally aspirated conditions.

Again, with the straw issue. We're not talking about water, and we're just talking about velocity of fluid. We're talking about mass transfer. People use lb/min or kg/min because that's what you want in your engine, air mass. If you only cared about CFM, then electric superchargers would work. I believe you and DSM-onster when you say it won't flow more than X CFM or Lb/min, but the straws with an incompressable fluid is not the proper model to be working with. At the limits of the flow of the two pipes (V max * area) the total Q (volumetric flow rate) will be different. However, flow a fluid that is more dense through the small pipe (p*Q) and the overall mass transfer might be larger.

 

[DSMDirkah]

tstkl= Working on PHY 151 now but I hope to get to PHY 252 sometime in the distant future ;x

All in all this has been such an informative post for me. The knowledge that has been put out here is well worth people arguing. I hope that the info keeps on coming becuase this is starting to answer some of the blanks I have been wondering about.

 

[red91gst]

So your saying a turbocharged engine does NOT exceed 100% VE???

if you think my science is so "sub par", CORRECT ME, I DARE YOU

I already did...

Spend some time on the dyno, at the track, and actually building a race car; then MAYBE you will earn some respect. Your college freshman level (which is about the age your acting, Brian Tilley) calculations mean jack shit to me, especially when the fastest you have ever gone in a DSM is 14.0@ 92 mph.

 

[DSM90AWD]

Jezus.. wtf does all this science/bench dynoing have to do with REAL-WORLD anything and why are we up to 9 pages picking this subject apart?

In this game there are the scientists that live in a theoritical world bound by what is already known and written in books (my good friend is one of these and he has 1,000,000 sensors/gauges, excel spreadsheets..bla..bla yet cannot break 12s) and then there are the do-ers that have practical experience, try new things and end up breaking records.

Do you think John Force's team sits back and dwells on/is bound by textbook theories and what has already been done or actual R&D,Trial/Error they perform theirselves?

Several years ago I read the book Maximum Boost that was written not that long ago and took as gospal that the best intercoolers are top/bottom design with cores <3" wide. I called up Bell Intercoolers about a year later to spec out an intercooler and guess whom answered? Corky Bell (now that was pretty cool). I'd asked him about his theory on matching an intercooler to a turbo and his theory that the smaller top/bottom flowing cores were the best design. I was curious as to why all the top Import Drag Racers were running massive side-side cores to which he said, that his recommendation was based on proper turbo sizing and not for one that is being run "at the limits" (most drag classes are limited by turbo size so are run "at the limit") where the larger core could absorb/exchange more heat.

Nowadays a 4" wide core is more the norm (on street/strip cars) with 5" cores starting to become popular.

How's this (and I'm serious), whomever disbelieves that Curt's car has made this amount of power are you willing to put some money down? 1/4 Mile MPHs don't lie and are IMO a better indicator of a setups real-world performance potential than a dyno. Put up or shut up

 

[dsm-onster]

tstkl, there is a difference between total VE and engine VE. You're talking about one and Nate is talking about another.

Total VE of a turbocharged system is much over 100% VE when ever in boost. Our stock 4g63 engines displace about 287 cfm or 8124litres/min at 6000rpms. This can be confirmed with the maf. During on revolution that is 1.354 litres. Our cylinders sweep 1 litre every revolution because it is a 4-stroke. This is 135% VE.

Engine VE is a way of explaining your engines efficiency if it were not boosted. That 1.354 litres injested should be higher. 10 psi is 1.68 PR or about 1.51 times the flow after 75% compressor efficiecy of the 14b. There should be about 1.51 litres of air entering the maf not 1.35 litres. 1.35/1.51 comes to 90% engine VE. This is what your engine would flow if you removed the compressor from the intake (but kept the turbine).

Finally

Thanks ;-)

Don't rub it in, Nate . I always forget pumping loses because I don't push my turbos. But, now I'll look at what I have differently.

 

[pboglio]

Jezus.. wtf does all this science/bench dynoing have to do with REAL-WORLD anything and why are we up to 9 pages picking this subject apart?

In this game there are the scientists that live in a theoritical world bound by what is already known and written in books (my good friend is one of these and he has 1,000,000 sensors/gauges, excel spreadsheets..bla..bla yet cannot break 12s) and then there are the do-ers that have practical experience, try new things and end up breaking records.

Do you think John Force's team sits back and dwells on/is bound by textbook theories and what has already been done or actual R&D,Trial/Error they perform theirselves?

Several years ago I read the book Maximum Boost that was written not that long ago and took as gospal that the best intercoolers are top/bottom design with cores <3" wide. I called up Bell Intercoolers about a year later to spec out an intercooler and guess whom answered? Corky Bell (now that was pretty cool). I'd asked him about his theory on matching an intercooler to a turbo and his theory that the smaller top/bottom flowing cores were the best design. I was curious as to why all the top Import Drag Racers were running massive side-side cores to which he said, that his recommendation was based on proper turbo sizing and not for one that is being run "at the limits" (most drag classes are limited by turbo size so are run "at the limit") where the larger core could absorb/exchange more heat.

Nowadays a 4" wide core is more the norm (on street/strip cars) with 5" cores starting to become popular.

How's this (and I'm serious), whomever disbelieves that Curt's car has made this amount of power are you willing to put some money down? 1/4 Mile MPHs don't lie and are IMO a better indicator of a setups real-world performance potential than a dyno. Put up or shut up

Actually the scientists ARE the ones pushing the envelope as they are operating in an evironment without a huge amount constraints. These guys are the ultimate hands on tinkerers and tweakers, IMHO.

I work in New product development as an M.E., and there are 2 camps. There are the theoretical camp. Then we have our skunk works full have hands on guys. In the environment I work in, I usually prototype my designs first, make them work and tweak them as I go. THEN I lay down the theoretical analysis & predictive anlaysis tools (FEA, Mold flow, etc.) to cover my behind.

Whats funny is that they'll have a prototype sitting in front of them fully functioning. But they won't believe it works until you show them some Kinematic/Motion simulations & FEA & Six Sigma analysis reports. Strangest thing but thats how it is, I just deal with it. My 2 cents.

 

[Nvisabl]

Man my brain hurts now!! Can we go have a beer now I'll buy.

 

[red91gst]

Man my brain hurts now!! Can we go have a beer now I'll buy.

I'm game DJ!

 

[tstkl]

Tstkl, since I can't reply to your last PM, the answer is inertia. Please read DSM-onster's posts, as he discusses Helmholtz resonance. He also talks about the flow limits of the compressor/housing and ways to more efficiently use the given airflow.

since when did non rotting objects suddenly start having inertia? or are you talking about the eddie currents created by the air molecules rubbing against each other after they enter the cylinder and such?

i believe the word your looking for is momentum, and Work = Force * Distance, while momentum, P = MV. you never use momentum to calculate work or force

If the turbocharged engine took in 550cc's of air (at 5, 15, 45, 500psi) it would still have a VE of 110%, would it not?

Try and fill 550cc's of water in a 500 cc bottle the get back to me on how pressurized the system is. If you measure absolute pressure, you can calculate displacement. If you accout for absolute pressure, you can't have more than 100% VE

Again, with the straw issue. We're not talking about water, and we're just talking about velocity of fluid. We're talking about mass transfer. People use lb/min or kg/min because that's what you want in your engine, air mass. If you only cared about CFM, then electric superchargers would work. I believe you and DSM-onster when you say it won't flow more than X CFM or Lb/min, but the straws with an incompressable fluid is not the proper model to be working with. At the limits of the flow of the two pipes (V max * area) the total Q (volumetric flow rate) will be different. However, flow a fluid that is more dense through the small pipe (p*Q) and the overall mass transfer might be larger.

All I said is that a larger straw is going to have less friction compaired to the volume of air flowing through it, is that not true?

tstkl= Working on PHY 151 now but I hope to get to PHY 252 sometime in the distant future ;x

All in all this has been such an informative post for me. The knowledge that has been put out here is well worth people arguing. I hope that the info keeps on coming becuase this is starting to answer some of the blanks I have been wondering about.

I have no idea what those classes are, but its good to hear we are helping people and some people still care to learn.

So your saying a turbocharged engine does NOT exceed 100% VE???

if you think my science is so "sub par", CORRECT ME, I DARE YOU

I already did...

Spend some time on the dyno, at the track, and actually building a race car; then MAYBE you will earn some respect. Your college freshman level (which is about the age your acting, Brian Tilley) calculations mean jack shit to me, especially when the fastest you have ever gone in a DSM is 14.0@ 92 mph.

congradulations, you read this months ride of the month entries.

Im not saying a turbocharged engine does not exceed 100% ve, im saying quite the opposite. Im saying a turbocharged motors VE is a relation between a seperate percentage that Im calling VE for all simplicity, and multiplying it by the pressure ratio to find the real VE, since that will give you the same number. In that case, you can't have more than 100% because you are accounting for the pressure in a different sence.

ps: your using my room mates ecu curt bought off him, "OH NOES, WHAT WILL YOU EVER DO, I KNOW SOMETHING ABOUT YOUR PERSONAL LIFE"



get over the fact that a college freshman knows more about you than physics, you'd be surprised how much I know about these cars too, Im sure. I'll just let the car speak for itself in a couple years when I have time for it again, what with all these classes Im taking and being a track athlete training for 6 events. Sorry if I don't have time to throw all my money and resources into a car, you have your passion in life, I have mine.

How's this (and I'm serious), whomever disbelieves that Curt's car has made this amount of power are you willing to put some money down? 1/4 Mile MPHs don't lie and are IMO a better indicator of a setups real-world performance potential than a dyno. Put up or shut up

you do realize were dsm'ers, how much money are you honestly expecting to get from us?

plus, I've already said, I think that power was made, us with the aid of something other than solely an evo3 16g. Especially when the person making that power says it was a stock block, there was a shitty tune or whatever, and starts saying all this stuff about 500+ whp. Im mostly basing my disbelief on the fact that I've seen cars put down 450+/- whp and I know what a set up like that takes. Unless this is a high reading dyno, a 16g alone didn't do it. I know cars on our local dyno that have trapped 10's at 130 and made 450 whp, and thats with a gt35 at 32psi. A smaller turbo, with a smaller throttle body, less efficent exhaust manifold, etc makes more power? just doesn't seem right. Theres more restriction on the exhaust, theres more restriction on the intake, the motor isn't built, less boost was used, yet your making the same power? I want to say it comes down to the dyno, but he is claiming similar trap/et's so that wouldn't seem correct. (I say similar because we all know you have to account for the worm hole behind the wheel, curt . The car Im talking about actually runs very very very consistant 10.8's, while they are claiming 9's.)

iono, in the end, I'll believe the slips, I'll believe the traps, I'll believe the numbers, its just the turbo they say they are using that I don't believe. They could run 6's for all I care, I'd believe the slip, but when they told me it was on a 14b, thats when I'd start asking questions..

 

[red91gst]

get over the fact that a college freshman knows more about you than physics, you'd be surprised how much I know about these cars too, Im sure. I'll just let the car speak for itself in a couple years when I have time for it again, what with all these classes Im taking and being a track athlete training for 6 events. Sorry if I don't have time to throw all my money and resources into a car, you have your passion in life, I have mine.

You apparently don't know me, my background, or my education to talk so highly of yourself.

Your a 19 year old with a big mouth, grow up. Most of us are tired of your lengthy posts copied from your Physics 101 textbook. Your just one more know it all that can't handle the truth, join the club...

http://www.dsmtuners.com/forums/drag-strip/262203-new-evo-iii-16g-record-et-no-no2.html

http://www.dsmtuners.com/forums/drag-strip/226070-10-seconds-straight-pump-gas.html

http://www.dsmtuners.com/forums/hangout/241942-tpg-tuning-update-putting-end-slipping-clutch.html

http://www.dsmtuners.com/forums/drag-strip/236007-tpg-tuning-update-peter-we-have-traction.html

 

[Boo5t_Addict]

Tstkl, go back and read post #265 and you'll see that you're just not on the same page as everyone else. If you were really a brilliant student, you'd also realize that not only is wikipedia an extremely unreliable source (none of my professors will ever accept wikipedia as a cited source for any paper), but engines achieving 100%+ peak volumetric efficiency has been a common thing in racing for a few decades now. To put it quite simply, you're arrogant, and not quite right. I'd pat you on the back for your academic achievements, but passing an entry level physics class is not exactly difficult. I'm assuming that Pboglio abbreviated mechanical engineer into M.E. in his post, so if you really think you're a physics genius, then speak to him. A mechanical engineer's life revolves around calculus, and much harder physics than you've ever had.

 

[tstkl]

wikipedia loses its credibility because anyone can go in and enter whatever the hell they want, so yes, you must take what is written on there with caution. But for very basic things, like the definition of VE, its going to be somewhat accurate. As for post number 265, if you look at the two calculations made (mine and his), they are the exact inverse. Im calculating air volume in a cylinder using pressure, displacement, and effective ve, while hes using effective volume over theoretical volume to find the effecive ve. Im glad to see you can't tell the difference though.

Its already been brought to our attention that pboglio is a M.E., thats dandy. And fyi, I finished calculus junior year of high school. Don't care if you don't believe me or what, but my high school actually offered calculus based physics classes and I finished that my junior year as well. I've been doing this stuff for a while,...

good to see you haven't read the entire thread though, you might want to do that before you go calling people out.

 

[tstkl]

yeah, i've already seen all those threads, all I was getting at is that you for some reason have it stuck in your head that I have no idea how to tune one of these cars because of my age. Theres no question in my mind you've spent more time around these cars and you have a definate edge over me there, all Im saying is, Im no where near as ignorate about this stuff a you think.

"o yeah, you are the same guys who got a 52 lb/min compressor wheel to push 54 lb/min on pump gas, suuuuurrrrrrrreeeeee"

Everything that you guys do has a tendency to be right over the edge of believable. If the whole pump gas bs wasn't there, I'd probably have believed it. Or perhaps theres some serious meth behind both of these situations, all Im saying is theres got to be something behind the numbers, otherwise your walking on water imo.

and Im being just as arrogant as the OP, so why there is so much focus on me is beyond me.

btw, i could be wrong, but didn't you guys have an amazingly hard time getting andrews car into the 9's on a 3052 flowing "54 lbs/min"? Shit, what am I even worring about then, you guys proved yourself wrong.

 

[SBR Joe]

^^^


Joe

 

[red91gst]

for some reason have it stuck in your head that I have no idea how to tune one of these cars because of my age.

Age is just a number, your only as old as you act. Inturn, you must not know how old I am.

btw, i could be wrong, but didn't you guys have an amazingly hard time getting andrews car into the 9's on a 3052 flowing "54 lbs/min"? Shit, what am I even worring about then, you guys proved yourself wrong.

The car went 10.11 at 136mph when we decided to switch to the 37R, and to my knowledge is the fastest FP3052 car AND the quickest pump gas 4 cyl in the world.

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/nszA9Z4F0XE&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/nszA9Z4F0XE&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

Your correct, it was a long hard process to get the car into the low 10's on pump, but you know this, because you've done that already too right?