People who have ran both 7 & 8 blade hx35 in bolt on housing GTFIH

[bastarddsm]

I guess research from seeing what other people are posting here and on other forums! Not trying to cause an arguement just saying what I have learned from reading. It may be speculation so I will leave it at that!

Not arguing. Just making sure the speculations stay that. Speculations.

 

[JusMX141]

High boost efficiency comes from the compressors major diameter. Bigger is better. Which wheel would be better then?

Technically not always the case. Look at the Small 16G versus the Big 16G- the Small 16G was released later, much like the 7-blade 54mm/78mm HX35.

A Small 16G has nearly identical peak airflow potential to a Big 16G despite being much smaller with the exact same blade count and profile. Exducer spec is 2.36" vs. 2.68". The smaller wheel has less rotating mass, allowing a higher shaft speed to be achieved.

 

[bastarddsm]

Technically not always the case. Look at the Small 16G versus the Big 16G- the Small 16G was released later, much like the 7-blade 54mm/78mm HX35.

A Small 16G has nearly identical peak airflow potential to a Big 16G despite being much smaller with the exact same blade count and profile. Exducer spec is 2.36" vs. 2.68". The smaller wheel has less rotating mass, allowing a higher shaft speed to be achieved.

Your right it's not. But, that's not saying much for it's high boost efficiency, something we will never know because our air demands are too high to have it make that much. Also the mass has little to do with the speeds it can attain. The smaller exducer means it needs to spin faster to generate the same boost, and that might knock the turbine out of areas that are the most efficient. From papers I've read the turbine efficiency tends to take a dive as RPM comes up once you get up there. the That's the problem, we need to look at the whole package.

Realistically, I think that in both cases MHI and Holset designed the newer wheels with their focus toward response, more than airflow. Granted I don't think that the weight makes much of a difference.

Anyway from what I've seen with running both wheels, I don't think any dsm would ever know the difference, besides a slight spool increase on the 7 blade. But with a bolt on housing, would that even be noticeable? I think if you want more than the 8blad can give you, put a 60mm wheel in it. It will make more hosepressures!

 

[dsmcurse]

when people are posting "oh i saw 57 pounds of air flow", "im logging 55 pounds per minute", "54lbs / min" i dont ever take that $hit serious. the volumemetric effictency tables have to be so incredably spot on perfect for those numbers in DSMLINK to be accurate. the data logs help, but just because one guys laptop said X-amount of air flow dont even close to make it true. for all we know his speed density tables are all outa wack?

to me, imo, all that matters are dyno paper proof and 1/4mile timeslip proof.

3/4's of the claimed pounds per minute logs are not correct on here and are nothing more than BS from dudes tryin to get a internet pat on the back. that $hit aint accurate.

i trust what people have made on the dyno, and what people have blasted down the 1320. a few lil game-boy data logger palm pilot bull$hit isnt enough to really convince me...

 

[doesitonall4rs]

You do realize you can make a dyno read anything you want right?

Only number that doesnt lie is the 1320.

 

[LandSpeed-DSM]

when people are posting "oh i saw 57 pounds of air flow", "im logging 55 pounds per minute", "54lbs / min" i dont ever take that $hit serious. the volumemetric effictency tables have to be so incredably spot on perfect for those numbers in DSMLINK to be accurate. the data logs help, but just because one guys laptop said X-amount of air flow dont even close to make it true. for all we know his speed density tables are all outa wack?

to me, imo, all that matters are dyno paper proof and 1/4mile timeslip proof.

3/4's of the claimed pounds per minute logs are not correct on here and are nothing more than BS from dudes tryin to get a internet pat on the back. that $hit aint accurate.

i trust what people have made on the dyno, and what people have blasted down the 1320. a few lil game-boy data logger palm pilot bull$hit isnt enough to really convince me...

So you are making fun of airflow readings, and then touting dyno numbers

MAF comp dialed in will give accurate numbers, and its easy to do. Same goes for calibrating SD with a known good MAF.

My 70-90 and 80-100 times back up my airflow numbers.. whether it was a 14B, 18G, S200sx or a 4088R.

The only real way to gauge power then is trap speed vs. DA

Dyno's are a tuning tool, one of many, and not a definitive measure of power.

On a side note, why does your car have a harelip?

 

[dsmcurse]

Most shops (reputable shops) can calibrate the filter mode on a dyno to a pretty rasonable amount and give a much more accurate number than a "air-flow" reading off of a palm-pilot.

What's a "harelip"? I don't understand....?

Yes, I understand calibration, I rund speed density, it was set up using a 3.5" GM. My car is well well over 550 awhp, easy closing in on that 600AWHP mark. I'd like to think I know a little bit....I'm quite sure I'm up there fairly high ranked in terms of power around here, yes I know, there's a lot of people in the 600 and 700 HP zone with brand new mustang dyno papers to back it up, there's a few big dogs ahead of me, but ill be there one day.

I absolutley stand by what I said when I earlier mentioned most people don't have their shit accuratley calibrated in LINK settings and there "air-flow" numbers don't mean jack-$hit.

Not trying to start a war, but come on! Who's calibration is gonna be more accurate? The professional tuner that calibrated filter mode on the dyno before hand, or the 19 year old dude livin outa mommas basement that finnaly saved the coin for link and now walks around claimin his HX35 logged 63pounds... Give me a f#cken break...

Harelip? I still not understand, all I do understand is a sense of dick-ish smartas$y talkin S

I admire the guys that lay down there 1/4 slip or dyno slip not young buck with incorect air flow values. Duh

Harelip? Hmmm? Still not understand? That make me slow or somethin? Last time I check 550-600AWHP in a 3000 pound 4WD was still fast...

I'd wager my harelip is as nice as your ride, I wouldn't be scared to throw down the freeway fight, I know my hairlip is quick, I'm sure at 35PSI on a 62mm HX40 batmowheel my airflow is 60pounds but I wouldn't dare mention that cause its not entirley accurate.

My car is tuned to the tits man, runs in the sweet spot just as good as anyone else. I'd like to think I'm one of the few that do have it calibrated correctly.

If your truly a smart guy than you would relize what I'm sayin is correct, if your still talkin S than your probably that 19year old straight outa mommas basement...

 

[LandSpeed-DSM]

First, as many times as you've used it in sarcasm.. you could've just googled it and realized I was making fun of your hacked bumper.

Second, what the hell does this mean:

My car is well well over 550 awhp, easy closing in on that 600AWHP mark. I'd like to think I know a little bit....I'm quite sure I'm up there fairly high ranked in terms of power around here

Where are you getting this 550-600awhp number that you keep throwing out?

That is bench racing plain and simple unless you have something to back it up, and makes you every bit as bad as the "19 year old" you are bagging on.

And as someone who has moved 67lbs/min @ 38psi boost with a BW 59mm T4 turbo on a custom big cam turning 9250.. my airflow and weight/gearing vs acceleration confirms I was moving that much air and making nearly 700whp, which makes me one of those "big dogs ahead of you" and that was back in 2010 when I was on a turbo with a smaller cast wheel compressor to boot.

Now the car has a completely different setup with a Billet 71mm with plans to move to at minimum a 75mm S400.

How old are you to call folks "young bucks?" Because you sound like a teenager. Learn to spell, it will go a long way for your credibility.

Before talkin "S" you may want to try and take something away from what I was telling you. Dyno's are just a tool, that is all. If you are only making 60lbs/min @ 35psi through a 2.0L on a modern 62mm Billet wheel you are doing something wrong or you have a considerable restriction somewhere. You would know that if you didn't have to rely on shops to do the math for you.

What turbine housing? Cam? Sounds like you are leaving a good deal of power on the table in there somewhere. If your profile is accurate than you should ditch that BEP bolt on housing for a factory Holset divided housing and sell the junk BC cams for a proper set of GSCs or Kelfords with an advertised 280*

Tuned to the tits, huh? What AFR and peak timing? What fuel? Do you even know?

You didn't tune your car did you?

 

[dsmcurse]

im almost 30 years old, sorry im replying via blackberry cell phone, so grammer is a bi*** off of a 3'' screen. i fully understand that you are a big-dog ahead of me. your a bigger fish in the pond than i am. i will admit that, but i aint to far behind you guy. i have HX52 in near future. wainting for funds so i can have a turbo header built from my best friend to properly set the 52 in my bay. i also run a compound fuel pump set up and i wanna upgrade my inline wally to a inline 044.

i didnt say 60 pounds off my hx40 was correct. did i? i said i wouldnt even bother to mention it. you indeed sound like a smart cookie (bit of a smart-ass) but i like that. i got a friend that is the champion smart-ass of the world so i enjoy that.

lets agree, most people do not have their settings correct. my first post i said 3/4's of the dudes dont have it calibrated correctly. this is true. i have a 500+ AWHP dyno sheet posted on here somewhere. im not "bench racing" i drove my car 6 hours to portland and hit their brand new mustang dyno at Cobb Tuning Surgline and the guy short changed me 1000RPM. i told him do not let off till 8grand, he lifted at 7. this was in september of 2011 and it made 505awhp at 29 psi.

ive done so much to the car since then, i can feel way way more power since that day at cobb. ill be back in spring and will take home that 600hp sheet (wish me luck) im by no means tryin to start a argument guy, the big dogs ahead of me i look up to and respect and listen to what they say. i havent come this far by doin it all myself. even you had to learn from some one and start somewhere.

why not just agree that the tables have to be super duper spot on to have those air flow numbers be correct? how many people on here have link? uh, like 75%. how many people on here have their $hit dialed in to give a real world accurate number? uh, not 75%. not every one has that stuff dialed in to the tee. there for the airflow is not correct.

my car is tuned for 92 non ethanol pump gas, it has direct port water/meth injection (a 300cc nozzle in each intake manni runner) big hx40, 280* cams that have been degreed, 8.5-1 Ross pistons custom intake manni, custom turbo header, my mods are current on my profile i think. and i have a couple recent engine bay pics. look at my engine and tell me im a poser.

my car has NEVER been to a shop with the exception of alignment rack and dyno machine. %90 of what you see in my car is all done by me. my friend alex (boostdriven) built both my manni's and tuned my ECU.

ill admit first hand that i do not know enough to really claim to be a "tuner" but i am learning, and i would like to have a full understanding of everything DSMLINK has to offer, but untill that day i'll have to look up to the bigger fish in the pond for some help. nothing wrong with that at all.

i still stand by what i said tho, at least over HALF the claimed airflow values are NOT correct. i see lil joe-shmo on here postin big 'ol claimed airflow values that you know for a fact a mafu#ken 16g turbo CAN NOT produce. we see it all the time man. just agree that not every one is dialed in to have that correct value.

your saying that every member on here has correct airflow logs? way way laugh out loud. that is so far from the truth. im not a young punk talkin internet bull$hit, im a educated car guy just like yourself, sorry if my first post pist ya off, just sayin man, you cant trust every ones "claimed air flow" only the bigger dogs that know a thing or two would i trust.

oh and a edit, my cars boost controller is set to hit a max boost of 33psi, pretty stable wastegate/MBC set up so the creepage is minimal, in 4th gear it might see 34-35 pounds at redline. at 35 pounds of boost my E-map (exhaust pressure gauge) will see a max of about 22-23 psi back-pressure. peak timing clocks in at 19* on the top end

 

[LandSpeed-DSM]

In full disclosure.. I am not a big fish by any means, I just turned your phrasing for effect. In this community or others. This will be fully demonstrated by the 1600+ awhp GTRs and the like that will be leaving me in the dust at the Half-Mile Shootout in June

As for your response.. that I can appreciate, and we don't fully disagree. My contention was dismissing airflow.

And not everyone has fully dialed in, no illusions there.. but if they post a log its easy enough to see in most cases that they are off and usually about how far off they are provided there are no mechanical issues. More than a few people are close enough on their tune that it does have meaning.

But, take notice that sometimes you can push more mass flow than a turbo is necessarily advertised for. Converse also being true of course, but we see that all the time.

In early 2009 during the winter while I was on a 14B just for sh!ts between setups I was regularly logging between 33-35lbs/min when the weather was real cold, spiking boost as high as 25psi. This was confirmed with two different known good 1G MAS and an Evo 8 MAS. Fuel trims were lined up in closed loop and everything.

Turbos work on fluid volume, fluid density is a function of atmosphere. So you can run greater mass values than is advertised at the test conditions they made the compressor maps under (usually 60-70*F) when you live in a place near sea level like I do, where temperatures go subzero.

Context is everything, and its why I ask for a log and other pertinent details.

 

[Boostdriven]

There is no point in arguing and talking sh!t, it don't teach anything to anyone. I have tuned several dsm on SD with v3 and each car was different to tune in its way.
Few years ago I ran v3 with a 3"GM MAF, did all my tuning on the highway, at 31 psi I was logging 60-62 lbs/min by red line. When I took it to a dyno (mustang) the first pull made 577 awhp, I didn't plan on running more boost so after few minor corrections car made 580 at 31 psi. Since then I've switched to SD but now my lbs/min is not 60-62 at 31 psi but somewhere around 57-59 at 34 psi and at 31 its even less. This was with hx40 6 blade bep .70, 8.5 compression, kelford 272s, 92 octane with water/meth.
From what I've seen lbs/min is somewhat directly related to estimated boost which is related to VE table, if your estimated boost is higher then actual boost then lbs/min will be higher then actual, if its lower then lbs/min will be lower.
From my understanding ecmlink was built around a somewhat stock engine, changing things like bigger cams, bigger valves, higher compression pistons, intake manifold, 3" exhaust, basically the usual things we do to our cars, that makes it harder to set the base values at initial setup like airflow/rev which is also related to the VE table, you lower VE value and airflow/rev goes down and vice a versa. If the estimated boost line follows the actual boost line right on then the lbs/min should be close to being accurate if your engine is stock.
After tuning several dsms with SD I've seen different results with the same turbo but different engine setup, like smaller cams or a different intake manifold, so same turbo will give you different lbs/min depending on your engine setup.

Each car is different and we all tune our cars a little different, for example I like to have my estimated air/fuel in open loop to read what my desired air/fuel ratio is, my values in direct access in maxoctane at lets say 5500 rpms full boost is 11.5 so when my ecu uses that cell it displays estimated air/fuel ratio of 11.5 then all I have to do is look at my log and see if my actual air/fuel overlap the estimated air/fuel ratio if not then I adjust accordingly with VE table. With this method it makes my VE table less them 100% which makes my lbs/min less then accurate.

The same concept but the other way around goes if choose to set your VE to 100% or your MAF calibration to match the actual boost you will have to either use the fuel sliders in live access or change the values in direct access under maxoctane which will make your estimated air/fuel ratios off. It's all about how you want to tune and what works best for you.

 

[dsmcurse]

LandSpeed-DSM, thank you for a professional response. Layin down that kinda power off of a 20year old car makes you plenty big dog in my opinion. Those 1000+HP GTR guys have super deep pockets so that $hit don't even bother me. Those kind of cars are only good for day dreaming about. as 99% of us will never even be lucky enough to go on a ride in a GTR.

I respect what you have acomplished with your DSM. Tip my hat to you man. I love DSM and 240's and civics and what not because its not a "day-dream about it" kinda car. The smaller sport compacts from the 90's are beleivable in the sense that the average guy can afford one and create his own "race-car" at a relistic budget.

One of your post's said, "you did not tune your car did you?" No I didn't, at least I admit what I can and can not do. Plenty people come fresh outa English Racing or Kaizen Speed after payin big bucks for their tune, then go around claimin "look at how good I tuned it"

This post above me, BoostDriven is my best friend Alex. He is a big-dog in my book. He has the nicest fasted DSM its unreal. This guy tuned my ECU several times on the highway, and each time I was right there trying my best to learn everything that I can.

Alex is VERY VERY smart. I ne hundred percent trust this guy with my cars life not to mention my own life. He's my teacher that I'm learning from, he has explained to me (in a scientific way that I can't re-produce) how those air flow numbers work.

I know for a fact that table calibration is everything and not every body has that. But it does seem like "everyones" got a claimed airflow number to brag about. I'm glad you agree that set-up has to be spot on for those numbers to mean anything. That's all I was gettin at.

Can't go off a random pounds per minute post and believe it like the bible. That's all.

And as far as my "hacked bumper" my cut job has been cleaned up and looks a lil better . I'd like to get a 97-99 eclipse front bumper, 95-96 talon side skirts and keep the 95-96 eclipse rear bumper. But that all comes with time. Car looks good enough to me so I spend all my coin under my hood

I took the hacked bumper thing with a grain of salt. I don't care I do respect your acomplishments thus far landspeeddsm so thanks for your respectfull response.

On a side note, can you give me your opinion of my mod list and my engine bay pics? If you get a extra 5-10 mins take a peak at my profile mod list and a few of my photos, your opinion would be cool to hear. Thanks agin man.

 

[LandSpeed-DSM]

I'm glad we could wind this down amicably.

Alex does know what he is talking about, its evident from his post in here and others of his I have read in the past. I would like to highlight that because he knows what to look for in the logs, that he understands certain approaches can inflate or deflate the mass flow numbers which is how I am able interpret logs as well.

Sounds like we are basically all on the same page, which was my only aim. I could have gone about it better, I'll grant you that! But I don't really parse words Most people seem to appreciate that particular quality more in person than on-line

The bumper comment was uncalled for on my part.

As far as your setup.. the only things I would change would be the cams and turbine housing really. There is potentially a lot of power sitting there in those two bits alone. Shift VE to the right some more, wind out a bit higher and you'll probably net a ton more area under the curve.

If you can make the same amount of torque at a higher rpm you will make considerably larger whp figure.

 

[dsmcurse]

Cool man, thanks agin, and sorry to sorta get off on the wrong foot but were all adults and figured it out the right way which boost's a lot of respect points in my book. I still have a lot to learn and Alex is a damn good teacher, I'm lucky to have a good buddy that can be the scientist and not have a huge head about it. He's very humble and goes out of his way to help others. Thanks agin for your response and I truly hope to break 600ponies on a HX40 here come march/spring time. Ill keep you posted on that chris.

Chris right? My names Tristen, so good to meet you (in a internet sorta way)

Oh, and quick edit, my HX40 hot housing isn't the standard .55 that is usually the norm. Mine is BEP brand but its the T3 in 3"v-band out .70a/r turbine housing. My compressor cover is ported anti-serg ports but my turbine housing was not ported. I'd like to pull that sucker apart and port the turbine housing some befor my next dyno trip.

The 280 cams are 2* retard on intake and 3* retard on exhaust. I'm sure every engine is differant and how many times head gasket surfaces have been done and what not will effect this. My prior cams were Crower 272s and now they are Brian Crower 280's

The price was right on upgrading from 272 to 280 but I did notice boost became a bit slower to hit. But top-end-ness seemed to be improved by enough that the pro's out weighed the cons.

If I were to go with a differat set of cams what size and what brand would you recomend to work best for my set-up? Kelford? HKS?

 

[Boostdriven]

I just emailed Thomas Dorris at ecmlink and asked this question.

"Hi, I have a question. How does ecmlink calculate lbs/min with SD? I know that estimated boost is effected by VE table and the lower the estimated boost is the lower lbs/min you get. Let's say my boost estimate is the same as actual boost, how does ecmlink calculate lbs/min when you run same boost (let's say 20 psi) on two different size turbos like a 16g and gt35? Thanks, Alex"

This is what he wrote back.

"You are kind of asking a "chicken or egg" question. Which came first? Boost or airflow? Airflow or boost? Which is used to calculate the other?

In the case of SD, boost is used to calculate airflow. So 20psi at 90% VE will always produce the same airflow (lb/min) number using SD regardless of which turbo you're running. If you change turbos, you're likely also affecting the VE rating of your system and you need to adjust your VE table accordingly. That adjustment will change the airflow calculation that the ECU does.

This page might help explain SD operation better.

sd101 [ECMTuning - wiki]

Thomas Dorris ECMTuning, Inc."

What I gather from this is that if you can get your 16g to hold 35 psi to 8500 rpms while maintaining good air temperature you should get the same lbs/min as you would with hx40 assuming VE table values don't change. Just some food for thought.

 

[LandSpeed-DSM]

Well, yea.. because its a function of charge density. SD operates on the "Ideal Gas Law" principle of Pv= NRT, basically.

If you can move the same volume at the same pressure and temperature.. its going to be the same. So if a 16G could do that, nobody would ever upgrade to a 4202R. They'd just up the boost on the 16G.

So its something of an "if my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle" situation.

If you change turbos, you're likely also affecting the VE rating of your system and you need to adjust your VE table accordingly. That adjustment will change the airflow calculation that the ECU does.

This states it more eloquently.

A 60mm compressor attached to a 64mm turbine is going to allow more in and out than a TD05H-16G.. which is where the difference in power and flow comes from. It's also going to process it more efficiently.

 

[Boostdriven]

I'm not talking about power a turbo will make, I'm talking about lbs/min calculation will not change if you don't change your VE values. Assuming 100% VE values with both 16g and a hx40 running 20psi will produce the same lbs/min according to ecmlink calculation but hx40 will make more power. It's like using an air gun at 100psi with a 3 gallon tank or a 30 gallon tank. 30 gallon tank will deliver more drive to the gun at the same pressure.
You can tune a car with VE values set to 100% in all the cells but you will have to compensate with your fuel sliders or maxoctane in direct access to get the right air/fuel ratios.

I have a friend that's running hx52 on his 2.0L dsm with all the supporting mods. If I remember correctly he said he sees about 69 lbs/min at about 40 psi. His VE table is right at 100% and he uses maxoctane table to adjust his air/fuel ratios.
You said that you've seen 67 lbs/min at 38 psi with a 59mm turbo, so 67 at 38psi would roughly equal 69 at 40psi. Wouldn't you say that a 66mm/98mm wheel would flow more and make more power then a 59mm/88mm wheel? I would say so cause its been proven.

I'm not trying to argue here by any means, I'm just saying that looking at the way ecmlink calculates lbs/min I don't think you can be sure that's what a turbo is flowing. Lbs/min is just a calculation of boost pressure in relation to your engine displacement.

 

[LandSpeed-DSM]

I'm not talking about power a turbo will make, I'm talking about lbs/min calculation will not change if you don't change your VE values. Assuming 100% VE values with both 16g and a hx40 running 20psi will produce the same lbs/min according to ecmlink calculation but hx40 will make more power. It's like using an air gun at 100psi with a 3 gallon tank or a 30 gallon tank. 30 gallon tank will deliver more drive to the gun at the same pressure.
You can tune a car with VE values set to 100% in all the cells but you will have to compensate with your fuel sliders or maxoctane in direct access to get the right air/fuel ratios.

I have a friend that's running hx52 on his 2.0L dsm with all the supporting mods. If I remember correctly he said he sees about 69 lbs/min at about 40 psi. His VE table is right at 100% and he uses maxoctane table to adjust his air/fuel ratios.
You said that you've seen 67 lbs/min at 38 psi with a 59mm turbo, so 67 at 38psi would roughly equal 69 at 40psi. Wouldn't you say that a 66mm/98mm wheel would flow more and make more power then a 59mm/88mm wheel? I would say so cause its been proven.

I'm not trying to argue here by any means, I'm just saying that looking at the way ecmlink calculates lbs/min I don't think you can be sure that's what a turbo is flowing. Lbs/min is just a calculation of boost pressure in relation to your engine displacement.

Even better it was a 59/81 comp with a 74/64 turbine

No, and I agree but the way I tune lends to that.

I don't touch the fuel sliders, they stay zero'd out. I set my target AFRs, start with conservative timing and I work the VE cells till I see my logged AFRs line up with what I have in the table.

Then as I feed in timing and boost .. I adjust again. This keeps my airflow in line.

But like I tried to point out, if you are keen on that and how different approaches can affect it you will know if it is in the ball park or not.

There is another 2.0L HX52 car here that made 815whp @ 36psi, that was on a stock intake manifold too. After a few changes it put down low 700s at 30psi

Swifteagles HX52 2.0L pulled 400whp @ 15psi, and 580 @ 23

Now on a 1.5L @ 40psi and ~9k rpm or less, depending on actual VE.. I could see only 69lbs/min.

But you'd be in a pretty nice spot on the 52's comp map!