Sbr Evo III 16g, 400 Whp???

[NewB2dsm]

I said it before, and I will say it again. The fact that it is 2.3 liters is totally irrelevant. It takes the same airflow to make 400 whp on a 1 liter engine, as it takes on a 2 liter engine and a 4 liter engine.

This simply proves that the EvoIII is capable of 400 whp, it doesn't have anything to do with the engine. It might take a little more boost on a 2.0 liter, but that doesn't matter.

So your saying displacement has nothing to do with the fact? That means the evo16g could make 400whp on say a 1.8L? Or say a 5.0L? I really would like to hear your explaination i just cant see that displacement does not matter at all, like it seems like your saying.

 

[SpoolnTsi]

So your saying displacement has nothing to do with the fact? That means the evo16g could make 400whp on say a 1.8L? Or say a 5.0L? I really would like to hear your explaination i just cant see that displacement does not matter at all, like it seems like your saying.

I was thinking the same exact thing, but im not getting involved with this. This is between u 2 and not me. I like to stay open minded

 

[SpoolnTsi]

This is what caught my eye

Stock 1990 ECU
Stock intake manifold
Stock cam gears

But how much of a difference would we be talking if you had, cams, intake mani., and an upgraded ECU??? What kinda numbers do you think you would pull???

 

[NewB2dsm]

This is what caught my eye



But how much of a difference would we be talking if you had, cams, intake mani., and an upgraded ECU??? What kinda numbers do you think you would pull???

it has cams, just not GEARS which means the cams are not degreed.

I was thinking the same exact thing, but im not getting involved with this. This is between u 2 and not me. I like to stay open minded

Im staying open minded thats why i asked for an explanation.

 

[yhype]

So your saying displacement has nothing to do with the fact? That means the evo16g could make 400whp on say a 1.8L? Or say a 5.0L? I really would like to hear your explaination i just cant see that displacement does not matter at all, like it seems like your saying.

Yes this is right. If we were talking about NA....a 2.0l @ 9000rpm with be flowing as much as 383ci or 6.0l at 3000rpm. And then when you add the turbo or boost it forces air through even fast. A 2.0l @ 1bar @ 9000rpm will flow as much as a 383ci or 6.0l at 6000 rpm.

 

[Ronin17]

I thought displacement, in the end, will only affect spool up and the torque band, not the overall HP figures. I am no expert, but this was my understanding of it. The turbo can only flow so much air, I believe this is the same thing kpt4321 was talking about.

Anyway, excellent numbers SBR, keep up the good work.

 

[CanadianTSi]

The Motor doesn't really have anything to do with it... This just proves how much air the TURBO is capable of flowing.

 

[NewB2dsm]

Yes this is right. If we were talking about NA....a 2.0l @ 9000rpm with be flowing as much as 383ci or 6.0l at 3000rpm. And then when you add the turbo or boost it forces air through even fast. A 2.0l @ 1bar @ 9000rpm will flow as much as a 383ci or 6.0l at 6000 rpm.

ok im confused.

 

[Mattmeek_GST]

Way to go SBR!!!

 

[kpt4321]

So your saying displacement has nothing to do with the fact? That means the evo16g could make 400whp on say a 1.8L? Or say a 5.0L? I really would like to hear your explaination i just cant see that displacement does not matter at all, like it seems like your saying.

Let's nail down some facts here.

1. Every turbo has a maximum airflow it can flow, and therefore (since power is directly related to airflow) every turbo also has a maximum amount of power it can support.

2. At a set airflow (for example, if you are maxing out a turbo) you are making an amount of power directly related to that airflow. As such, the displacement is not relevant. If you're getting, say, 45 lb/min of airflow out of a turbo, it doesn't matter if you have 1.5 liter or 2.5 liters, assuming similar engine design (compression ratio, tuning, etc) the power production is going to be the same.

3. Due to this fact, the maximum amount of power a turbo can support is not related to the size of engine it is installed on. As such, the fact that this motor made 400 whp on the EvoIII 16g simply means that ANY motor in a reasonable size range (1.6l-2.5l, probably) can make this amount of power on the same turbo (again, assume similar compression ratios, tuning, etc.)

On something like a 5 liter engine, weird stuff starts to happenl in order to achieve 400 whp worth of airflow, you need to operate at a much lower PR than on a 2.X liter, and therefore you get into a different range of the compressor map, etc.

Not to mention a 5 liter motor might be able to make that kind of power, sans turbo.

 

[kpt4321]

But how much of a difference would we be talking if you had, cams, intake mani., and an upgraded ECU??? What kinda numbers do you think you would pull???

An upgraded ECU (or a better engine management system in general, or whatever) would likely have gained more power across the band simply because better tuning allows you to new more power per unit airflow.

The effect of cams or an intake manifold, however, may not be that clear cut. It's possible that SBR was maxing the turbo out at high engine speeds, based on the flat horsepower curve and just the fact that it was making pretty good power. If that's the case, no mods would have increased overall peak airflow, or at least not by much. However, it could move the powerband or make it wider.

 

[NewB2dsm]

Let's nail down some facts here.

1. Every turbo has a maximum airflow it can flow, and therefore (since power is directly related to airflow) every turbo also has a maximum amount of power it can support.

2. At a set airflow (for example, if you are maxing out a turbo) you are making an amount of power directly related to that airflow. As such, the displacement is not relevant. If you're getting, say, 45 lb/min of airflow out of a turbo, it doesn't matter if you have 1.5 liter or 2.5 liters, assuming similar engine design (compression ratio, tuning, etc) the power production is going to be the same.

3. Due to this fact, the maximum amount of power a turbo can support is not related to the size of engine it is installed on. As such, the fact that this motor made 400 whp on the EvoIII 16g simply means that ANY motor in a reasonable size range (1.6l-2.5l, probably) can make this amount of power on the same turbo (again, assume similar compression ratios, tuning, etc.)

On something like a 5 liter engine, weird stuff starts to happenl in order to achieve 400 whp worth of airflow, you need to operate at a much lower PR than on a 2.X liter, and therefore you get into a different range of the compressor map, etc.

Not to mention a 5 liter motor might be able to make that kind of power, sans turbo.

makes sence, i still dont quite understand i mean i do but displacement does help acheive HP i mean it has to or everyone would have 2.0's or somthing. But i guess more displacement allows for more airflow, So therfore a 2.0 could possibly only flow X amout of air and a 2.3 or somthing bigger might be able to flow more? Or somthing like this. Thanks for the post and good job SBR, lets see if someone else can duplicate this, nothing like seeing more than one car make 400whp on the evo16g

 

[Kevin Jewer]

Kyle is 100% correct. And to continue the thought, at the risk of hjacking SBRs post, more displacement means more airflow potential and therefor more power potential. You could move the same air on the smaller motor, but trying to spool the larger turbos on a 2 liter makes it more prohibitive. Also, moving more air at the same boost means less heat imparted on the charge air through the rules adiabatic compressoin which means lower knock propensity. On pump gas you'll be more likely to see the effects of this, since race gas is the all time "bandaid" mod... Really covers up inefficiencies.

Congrats to SBR. We've seen EVO16g turbos put out over 40 lbs/min of air, so its nice to see power numbers that coincide with that

 

[SpoolnTsi]

Let's nail down some facts here.

1. Every turbo has a maximum airflow it can flow, and therefore (since power is directly related to airflow) every turbo also has a maximum amount of power it can support.

2. At a set airflow (for example, if you are maxing out a turbo) you are making an amount of power directly related to that airflow. As such, the displacement is not relevant. If you're getting, say, 45 lb/min of airflow out of a turbo, it doesn't matter if you have 1.5 liter or 2.5 liters, assuming similar engine design (compression ratio, tuning, etc) the power production is going to be the same.

3. Due to this fact, the maximum amount of power a turbo can support is not related to the size of engine it is installed on. As such, the fact that this motor made 400 whp on the EvoIII 16g simply means that ANY motor in a reasonable size range (1.6l-2.5l, probably) can make this amount of power on the same turbo (again, assume similar compression ratios, tuning, etc.)

On something like a 5 liter engine, weird stuff starts to happenl in order to achieve 400 whp worth of airflow, you need to operate at a much lower PR than on a 2.X liter, and therefore you get into a different range of the compressor map, etc.

Not to mention a 5 liter motor might be able to make that kind of power, sans turbo.

I cant beleive i never realized this before. Gotta admit, i kinda feel stupid now. Pretty much just common sense

 

[kpt4321]

makes sence, i still dont quite understand i mean i do but displacement does help acheive HP i mean it has to or everyone would have 2.0's or somthing. But i guess more displacement allows for more airflow, So therfore a 2.0 could possibly only flow X amout of air and a 2.3 or somthing bigger might be able to flow more? Or somthing like this.

In the end, a larger motor can flow more air at the same pressure ratio, or to be more specific the same intake manifold air density.

However, the main point of this post (to reiterate) is the capabilities of THAT PARTICULAR TURBO, not the motor. The capabilities of the turbo are independant of the motor.

Thanks for the post and good job SBR, lets see if someone else can duplicate this, nothing like seeing more than one car make 400whp on the evo16g

My roommate is probably building a 4G63 to put in a different chassis, with an EvoIII. If he follows through with the project, I would expect to see similar numbers.

 

[badbu68]

Whats the turbo, and whats the chassi? Conquest?

 

[Malero5]

The reason you dont see people like Shepard running 2.3's is because of the issues with the crank. From my understanding *based on most machine shops i have been too* they say the 2.3 stroker is good for smaller turbos to help get boost up quicker. An aweomse setup for AutoX is a 2.3 with an evo III. ALthough they have the potential to move more air on a larger turbo they are plagued with broken cranks. Our local 650 WHP talon went trhough 4 cranks on quater mile passes in 2 months and decided to go back to the 2.0. It's all about your goals....... but it is true to say that a 2.0 and a 2.3 will achieve the same max HP on an evo III. You will just see different spool up characteristics.

 

[Stapl3]

That's not the reason.

You can get custom cranks.

 

[Stoner]

Since this thread was already brought back from the dead, what did the car run with the 16g on it?

 

[Matts95TSiAWD]

Indeed, Agreed.

more cylinder room (or more cylinders) = more air+more fuel = more power

otherwise we would all be running 2.0L gas savers making big power

 

[98spydert]

Indeed, Agreed.

more cylinder room (or more cylinders) = more air+more fuel = more power

otherwise we would all be running 2.0L gas savers making big power

True for N/A or a situation where the turbo isn't being maxed out but not in this case. Read the thread, it's already been pointed out that this turbo couldn't make more power on an engine with cyl or more displacement.

 

[beat90tsi]

So if I slap an evo3 on a new Viper, it will choke it back to 400hp?

I can't believe this argument has lasted this long.

Let me get this straight....displacement doesn't affect HP on a given turbo, unless it's a really really big motor, then it does??

I guess that means there is a distinct crossover point. All engines below 2.9l have the same max HP on an evo3, and all engines between 2.9 and 4.7 have the same max on the same turbo? Now it's all starting to make sense.....

 

[ian7321]

hmm. 2500lbs, 400whp and you only want 12.0x id say mid 11's to low 11's shouldnt be too much to as for. If this was a awd car? Mind tell us what the afr was? and timing advance? Im kinda curious.

It best be at least a mid 11, because a local dsmer here in Indianapolis, ran an 11.39 on a BIG 16g. Also the same guy is ordering a GT42R. So there will be another 9 second DSM in the US next season. YAY!

 

[larsrya8]

So if I slap an evo3 on a new Viper, it will choke it back to 400hp?

I can't believe this argument has lasted this long.

Let me get this straight....displacement doesn't affect HP on a given turbo, unless it's a really really big motor, then it does??

I guess that means there is a distinct crossover point. All engines below 2.9l have the same max HP on an evo3, and all engines between 2.9 and 4.7 have the same max on the same turbo? Now it's all starting to make sense.....

I think the Viper motor has a higher compression, so that helps it make more power. But also, if the motor in its N/A form can flow more air than the Evo3, it isn't going to be able to build any boost on that motor. Boost requires that there be extra air in the intake manifold, but if the motor is already sucking in all the air the Evo3 can flow in there...

As long as the turbo is able to maintain a boost level within its efficiency range it will work well on that motor. Because the Evo3 won't be able to maintain a boost level in its efficiency range, it won't work on the Viper motor.

That's all we're saying here. As long as the displacement of the motor the turbo is on allows that turbo to operate efficiently, the turbo is the only factor that will determine the maximum power potential of that setup. This is an oversimplification designed to help understand the principle.

 

[dsm-onster]

So if I slap an evo3 on a new Viper, it will choke it back to 400hp?

a viper motor flows more than 42 lbs/min (max flow at 20 psi for an evo3 16g at a decent efficiency). Therefore the turbo will have to spin at a speed outside of its efficiency range, heating up the air and even loosing boost.

I can't believe this argument has lasted this long.

Let me get this straight....displacement doesn't affect HP on a given turbo, unless it's a really really big motor, then it does??

An evo3 16g can only put in 42 lbs of air into the cylinders per minute and not beat the air into a heated frenzy. This is why a T2-small is too small. At the higher rpms on the 2.0 liter, it loses boost because it cant keep replacing the air in the eintake mani that the engine takes to maintain boost past 15 psi or so. If you upgrade cams/intake mani then the engine can take the air from the intake even faster and the t25 loses more boost earlier.

I guess that means there is a distinct crossover point. All engines below 2.9l have the same max HP on an evo3, and all engines between 2.9 and 4.7 have the same max on the same turbo? Now it's all starting to make sense.....

It is not about displacement, nor boost. As stated earlier it is about FLOW, i.e. volumetric efficiency. Boost can give you more flow and dispacement can give you more flow (flow = the movement of air from outside the engine to inside then back out again)

a 5.0L at 78% volumetric efficiency draws in 3.9L of air per intake stroke. A 2.0 can flow the same amount at 195% volumetric efficiency. 195% VE is easy on our 2.0 DOHC.

Sooooo, at viper engine may actually suck more air than an evo3 16g can give it at 20 psi. It may draw the boost down to 0psi. But even then, 0 psi is better than 18 inches in vacuum.