New 16G Dyno Numbers on C16

[SBR Joe]

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



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.

Before you dig your grave the whole way to China, i would . Nate would not LIE about anything. Lets say he did, and someone came to him and was like "hey, i saw your post about Curt's 16g car, i want you to make 400hp on my car with a 16g." For arguments sake well say this is all bullshit (which its not but im trying to make a point for Meatball) and then Nate goes to build/tune this kids car and it barely squeeks 360hp. That kid would be all ove the friggin net whorin it up saying TPG SUCKS, they LIE etc etc!! From a business standpoint Nate would not lie about anything that hes done. And as a friend of nate i can tell you he hasnt. Ixnay on your arguments, they dont prove anything. Theories vs. results, results will take the podium. Capish?





Joe

 

[red91gst]

Shameless plug: If anyone wants a 400+hp pump gas 16g street car, pm me...

 

[h8r]

^ 'd at that one.....

PM SENT!

 

[92lzerNA]

Shameless plug: If anyone wants a 400+hp pump gas 16g street car, pm me...

I want over 400hp on pump gas DD out of a fp-green and was going to go to you.

 

[Black_Bullet]

Shameless plug: If anyone wants a 400+hp pump gas 16g street car, pm me...

Thats a pretty bold statement considering most dsmers are broke with relevantly shitty running cars ....

 

[delta448]

Nate, how about a tune on my soon to be finished 4G64? Finshing my 8th year of secondary education in June... I'm hoping to make it to PRP to finally meet up with you guys before Andrew gets into the 8s.

Maybe we could manage about 200whp with my built 2.4L, meth injection, C16 and Andrew's 37R after he's done with it... -then we could fake a video of it on the dragstrip, go fudge a run on the dyno and post it all on this site to piss people off and prove our e-peens are ginormous. That'll show everyone how awesome we are.

 

[red91gst]

Thats a pretty bold statement considering most dsmers are broke with relevantly shitty running cars ....

Hey now, I didn't list a price!

 

[DSMunknown]

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.

Yeah, but testing things in perfect (or near perfect) conditions doesn't make much sense either. Otherwise, it kind of defeats the purpose of testing and trying to compare/apply the results to real world experience.

 

[DSMunknown]

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.

We should probably save this particular discussion for this thread, but I am still very surprised that companies still haven't utilized flow dividers. Very disappointing. Which is why I'll have to do some custom work to satisfy my picky needs.

Top-to-bottom FMICs with flow dividers FTW.

 

[tstkl]

Before you dig your grave the whole way to China, i would . Nate would not LIE about anything. Lets say he did, and someone came to him and was like "hey, i saw your post about Curt's 16g car, i want you to make 400hp on my car with a 16g." For arguments sake well say this is all bullshit (which its not but im trying to make a point for Meatball) and then Nate goes to build/tune this kids car and it barely squeeks 360hp. That kid would be all ove the friggin net whorin it up saying TPG SUCKS, they LIE etc etc!! From a business standpoint Nate would not lie about anything that hes done. And as a friend of nate i can tell you he hasnt. Ixnay on your arguments, they dont prove anything. Theories vs. results, results will take the podium. Capish?


Joe

slander over the internet doesn't seem to stop you, why would it stop him? Its hard for one person to really put a dent in a big companies reputation, even when a major forum denounces your vendor status, people still don't really take notice.

Im sure if nate were to follow my post with a post admitting to lying, people would still take their car to him and not really take notice. We both know that wouldn't do shit in the long run. Once you get big, you don't really need to take very good care of your customers, because there will be others, RIGHT JOE?

 

[dsm-onster]

Shameless plug: If anyone wants a 400+hp pump gas 16g street car, pm me...

What? That will spoil all the fun.



Tstkl, refering to Mr. Peepers post, I was discussing Newton's first law, general inertia. Rotational inertia to which you alluded does not relate. So that is likely why you are confused. If you allow the air to fulfill what it wants to do--not stop, then there is less energy needed to make it flow where you want. You can do this by creating paths to the cylinder that follow what the air wants to do. You can do this by incorporating resonation, since air medium is "rubbery" because it has directional inertia. You can do this by timing pulses. Vacuum in the exhaust is wasted energy that can be used and converted to crank torque and is a product of the general inertia of air particles. General inertia is a tool that minimizes pumping losses. Energy saved is energy that can be used regardless of mass air entering the cylinder. . . Much like the results of using a lightweight flywheel.

Further, minimizing pumping losses in a 7500rpm 4-cylinder makes much more of a difference than many larger-frame engine builders are used to seeing. Pumping losses are directly related to engine rpm. The faster the piston, the higher the pumping loss. Considering that we have a 4 cylinder and need higher rpms for volume displacement over time, helmhotz resonation (air inertia), or anything, that reduce pumping loss has a much more drastic affect on power generation. If you keep the power generated after exploding the fuel instead of using lots of it to induce the next cycle, then you put more power to the crank to do work. It's all about flow, whether or not airmass is there.

The evo3 16g can only flow but so much air. Yet, you can get more done with that airflow mass if the engine spends less energy inducing and exhausting that airflow mass.

It seams that you are attempting to predict and save the time of trial-and-error. It's possible and admirable. But, one has to have a complete understanding of the particular concepts at play to forecast a complex and sometimes baffling sytem like an engine. Step away from the key pad for a moment like I had to. . . And think about how this COULD be possible. Question your perception. Don't choose a side and defend it because it is correct in your perception. That would be what a lawyer is trained to do, not a scientist.

 

[tkelly27]

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

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?

Pretty sure water will turn into ice at that pressure, but I'm too tired to dig out my thermo books. You haven't had any sort of fluids or thermo class yet, have you? You're stuck in an incompressible world dude.

If we say Q is the flow rate (in length units cubed divided by time) as long as Q multiplied by the time the valve is open is greater than V of the piston, then you will have greater than 100% VE. There is no pressure in that equation, and there is no reason to include it. Naturally aspirated engines with individual throttle bodies undergo super filling, there is only a negative pressure, and the volume of air entering the engine is greater than that of the volume of the cylinder. No resonance chamber, no boost, just vacuum. That is, the pressure in the chamber must go up during this, but the pressure outside the valve is still atmospheric.

Stuffing 550cc's of air into a 500cc bottle is a piece of cake!

It is true, but not necessarily relevant. The friction causes pressure loss, and that's based on the length of the segment that is at that area. The longer the restriction, the higher the pressure losses. delta p = f (lpV^2)/(D*2) the l in that equation is length. When both straws are 2" in length compared to 10 feet of 2.5/3.0" pipe directly after it, the restriction may or may not become negateable.

 

[pboglio]

Guys are looking for secrets? "Slowboy" already listed his FULL mods list, testing procedure, A/F ratios, boost curves, dyno curves, timing values, etc. on the "Internally gated turbos" thread which is posted in the tech section of THIS website. Yet guys are going to "Wikipedia" for answersWTF

Common mods between "Slowboy" and "Red91gst" were: HKS 272 cams, Removed MAF or MAFT blowthru, Sheetmetal Intake Manifold, FP race exhaust manifold, EVOIII 16g, and a honking ~30 psi in the midrange. Again, what secrets?

You can have EVERY single bolt on in the planet. Without cranking the boost it will do you squat. Look at the boost they are running? Its a foregone conclusion that the EVOIII 16g can support it airflow wise.

I'm not saying I could lay done 460 w.h.p. on an EVOIII 16g, but the recipe for +400 w.h.p. has been gift wrapped to members, if they would just do a simple search

 

[firefightermdc]

the video speaks for itself...good build. kudos to a killer dsm. i live in Texas, but I know where I'm going to build my evo when I get it this year..my dad's family lives back east..maybe i can stay with them...

 

[tstkl]

If you allow the air to fulfill what it wants to do--not stop, then there is less energy needed to make it flow where you want. You can do this by creating paths to the cylinder that follow what the air wants to do. You can do this by incorporating resonation, since air medium is "rubbery" because it has directional inertia. .

you wouldn't by chance be talking about momentum, would you? ### that what directional inertia is. Thats what I brought up in my post replying to peepers. When you have a set pressure acting behind something that is much much greater than the momentum of the object, momentum gets neglected effectively. This is because what your talking about will never happen. The air does have an easier time getting into the motor if its a straight shot or something, but since the pressure acting on the air is so great, you never really get areas of low pressure that suck in the following air to a great extent. Plus, We are talking about a magnus intake manifold, the runners make a 90 degree intersection with the throttle body and the valves make another ~60 degree intersection with the runners.

Conservation of momentum + brick wall = jack shit

Don't choose a side and defend it because it is correct in your perception. That would be what a lawyer is trained to do, not a scientist.

Im more or less over it. I mean were not talking about anything ground breaking here, so why would he all the sudden put down such good numbers? its a magnus intake manifold, which MANY MANY people have used before, with an evo 3 16g, on a stock motor just running a really high amount of boost. I mean for god's sake I even have all the parts he used sitting in my garage at home,

 

[dsm-onster]

Inertia is a characteistic of mass. Momentum is a vector quantity that characteistic yields.

Conservation of momentum + brick wall = jack shit

Either you clearly have not enough background in fluid dynamics, or we shoud all go back to stock duration cams.

 

[tstkl]

Either you clearly have not enough background in fluid dynamics, or we shoud all go back to stock duration cams.

if a flat hard surfaced 90 degree bend didn't kill momentum, why do you use mendral bent piping in your exhaust? Why do people by velocity stacks? Why does dvdt build a front mount with CAD designed endtanks that gradually direct the airflow to the charge pipes? Why does greddy and other companies make things like this?

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

And what does that have to do with cam duration? With pressure forcing air in, the longer you can afford to keep the valves open, the closer you get to an equal pressure distribution

 

[dsm-onster]

. . . I almost was going to type a long response .

 

[rrussell]

I was wondering what you guys use for a formula for figuring out hp, airflow, fuel flow etc.

This is the one I use that was taught in EFI 101

Using this engine as example.
Inputs;
122 cubic inch
5800rpm
1.0 ve
30psi
80 degrees F intake temp
11.0 air fuel
.43bsfc
20% loss in drive train
14.37 elevation pressure standard based off of 600 ft


(122CI*5800rpm*0.5*1.0 VE) / 1728 = 204.74cfm

2.7*(14.37elevation psi+30psi) / (460r + 80IAT) = 0.22185 lbs/cubic ft

0.22185 lbs/cubic ft*204.74cfm = 45.42 lbs/min of air flow

45.42 lbs/min air flow/11.0 a/f ratio = 4.12 fuel lbs/min

4.12 fuel lbs/min*60 = 247 fuel lbs/hr

247 fuel lbs/hr / .43bsfc = 576 flywheel hp

576 flywheel hp * 20% = 115.2 hp

576-115.2 = 460whp

Now as you notice moving the VE up increases the air flow. So the turbo would have to flow more air. So in this case it could of been running a lower then .43bsfc number if the turbos max is 42lbs/min. Or the drive train loss is less then 20%. Or the turbo does flow more then 42 lbs. Man!!! I don't know but it sure is cool.

Food for thought.

 

[dsm-onster]

Yep, those that can alter bsfc significantly can make it happen.

I use the same formula. The *common*, stockish bsfc for a turbo engine is 0.6-.65 from what I've been taught. I believe the above BSFC of 0.43 you cam up with is possible for a turbo engine with a set of well chosen components and of course a better-than-stock tune. 0.43 is in the range of a stockish N/A system. See the bottem of RC fuel injection technical notes.

By stockish, I mean manifold tuning has been minimally engineered at best. Timing and fuel maps are set to prevent warranty claims. Port design is terrible. And, cam profiles are emissions safe.

Lower bsfc (or a higher number than 10.5 hp per lb/min) and some drivetrain work could do this. I've been trying into explain how one can lower BSFC by minimizing pumping loss. I hope a few get it.

 

[tkelly27]

if a flat hard surfaced 90 degree bend didn't kill momentum, why do you use mendral bent piping in your exhaust? Why do people by velocity stacks? Why does dvdt build a front mount with CAD designed endtanks that gradually direct the airflow to the charge pipes? Why does greddy and other companies make things like this?

And what does that have to do with cam duration? With pressure forcing air in, the longer you can afford to keep the valves open, the closer you get to an equal pressure distribution

Water hammer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's a common occurrence in household piping. Plenty of 90 degree turns there.

Those are built the way they are to maximize airflow distribution to the different cylinders/across the entire IC core, not to maintain straight lines. Losses in bends are due to separated flow (the air has to flow faster in the inside of the pipe and slower on the outside... or vice versa, I forgot) and can nearly be negated with guide vanes to help direct the air around them. Mandrel bends retain the diameter all the way through the bend, crush bends do not. Velocity stacks are used to guide the air into where it's going, like a duct. None of those examples really have any relevance to momentum around a bend.

That's what he's trying to explain. Once the pressure has equalized, at higher RPMs, there is enough momentum to continue forcing air into the cylinder chamber. It becomes pressurized above atmospheric/manifold pressure INSIDE the cylinder just before the valve closes. Cam timing directly affects this. The longer that valve is open, the faster the air will have to be moving to continue to force it down. This is why big cams have poor idle characteristics.

 

[rrussell]

By stockish, I mean manifold tuning has been minimally engineered at best. Timing and fuel maps are set to prevent warranty claims. Port design is terrible. And, cam profiles are emissions safe.

Lower bsfc (or a higher number than 10.5 hp per lb/min) and some drivetrain work could do this. I've been trying into explain how one can lower BSFC by minimizing pumping loss. I hope a few get it.

Got it!!!

I have truly enjoyed this thread. Lots of good info we can learn from.

I agree on the low bsfc numbers your talking about. This is where the fast burn combustion chambers really show there stuff. Plus all the manifold tuning you have already touch on.

I believe a lot of the .60 to .65 turbo numbers we have seen and here about are used for bad design purposes and to use the fuel as a thermal cooling tool and for controlled flame speed.

 

[dsm-onster]

I know it would be against our DSM religion, but we should take a look at some good honda liturature. Those boy can achieve rediculous BSFC numbers.

Water hammer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's a common occurrence in household piping. Plenty of 90 degree turns there. . .

. . . None of those examples really have any relevance to momentum around a bend.

That's what he's trying to explain. Once the pressure has equalized, at higher RPMs, there is enough momentum to continue forcing air into the cylinder chamber. It becomes pressurized above atmospheric/manifold pressure INSIDE the cylinder just before the valve closes. Cam timing directly affects this. The longer that valve is open, the faster the air will have to be moving to continue to force it down. This is why big cams have poor idle characteristics.

Thank you so much! everyone knows I like spouting off equations. I've been trying not to. It can be difficult for someone like me to illustrate a principle.

 

[SBR Joe]

slander over the internet doesn't seem to stop you, why would it stop him? Its hard for one person to really put a dent in a big companies reputation, even when a major forum denounces your vendor status, people still don't really take notice.

Im sure if nate were to follow my post with a post admitting to lying, people would still take their car to him and not really take notice. We both know that wouldn't do shit in the long run. Once you get big, you don't really need to take very good care of your customers, because there will be others, RIGHT JOE?

I dont need to argue with you, ill just turn around in my chair and bi*** at my wall, ill get the same results. You're just one of those kind of people, and im fine with that. And theres no real reason to take a stab at me or Slowboy, is there anything that happend to you personally to make that comment or are you just jumping on the bandwagon? And as far as taking care of my customers, i do very well take care of all of them, so i cant agree with you the slighest bit with your comment. Once you blow up in the industry and sell 5.6 million worth of business in a bad year, maybe youll see you cant make everyone happy, but you can damn sure try. Im sure you can find many very satisfied customers of mine on here, or maybe they are ALL just the "others" that you are talking about.





Joe

 

[tkelly27]

Hot damn... Honda kids... the only words I have for all this would get blanked out by the filter : D

Endyn Fabricated Manifolds

"One point of interest is that when equipped with the CF manifold, we were able to reduce total spark timing to 24 degrees for best power. With the fabricated manifold, we were able to make more power with less fuel and less air, with total spark timing reduced to 17 degrees, demonstrating that the combustion event was considerably more efficient."

I honestly didn't believe 460whp was possible at first either, however, keeping an open mind about everything in life is very important to me. I honestly thought it was trickery in the dyno, rotating assembly, axles, and like I mentioned earlier, gears. I believe that a lot less now. I also don't hold SBR in high regard either for personal reasons, but that's a personal preference that everyone must make. That's not what's important here, that's just a distraction from the fact that this IS entirely possible, and it's the furthest thing from a scientific argument to support an opposition against it being possible.

The above link raises some questions for me. If I read it right, it says to me that there may not be 40hp left in the that combination. If the lower spark advance was giving them better power with higher BSFC, maybe fuel that's less likely to detonate won't matter, because extra timing won't matter? I'm not sure, this is starting to get really interesting for me now.

In the future when I'm not a poor college kid, one thing I'd like to make is a modular intake manifold setup with AL plates. Add a plate and it will add either runner length, or plenum volume. Seeing the kind of effect the intake system can have on something like this makes it worth testing to find the "sweet spot". Obviously you can do calculations to get close, but this is clearly an example of a "who knew?!" situation.

*edit* if you're smart, you'll read through the tech sections on that guys page. He's probably forgotten more about fluid dynamics than I'll ever be able to comprehend. That's coming from someone who took calc and physics in HS, and has passed fluid dynamics and thermodynamics, for whatever that's worth to ya. : D Skipped my HW to read the paper on a top fuel engines.