small 16g, big 16g, or evo 3 16g?

[91-gsx]

I have used just straight h2o and also h2o/isopropyl (65% h2o, 35% iso). I needed a larger jet when running the mix, but it is winterized. Isopropynol (rubbing alchohol) is cheap and sold at walmart, roses, walgreens, etc in 1 quart containers (4 quarts = 1 gal). And, it is usually sold tax free in states that charge a sales tax . The state thinks you're using it for medicinal purposes . It is usually in a 70/30 mix with water (30% water). 1 gal oF this and one gal or water makes a 65% h2o and 35% iso mix. Use distilled water as you may clog your nozzles.

Ran setups on my T-bird TC, my fathers hot air GN (no intercooler), my dsm and my wifes turbo 5s-fe camry (hella-sleeper).

that is really cool. i was thinking of running just rubbing alcohol, which is 91% isopropyl and 9% water. i think this would be really nice for temp drops and running isopropyl would raise my octane and it is easy to find, like you said.

I needed a larger jet when running the mix, but it is winterized.

what do you mean by winterized? how big was the injector when you ran just water?(in cc's please) and how big did you go with the rubbing alcohol in the mix?
thanks for the help, this is exactly what i like to find out.
later

 

[dsm-onster]

that is really cool. i was thinking of running just rubbing alcohol, which is 91% isopropyl and 9% water. i think this would be really nice for temp drops and running isopropyl would raise my octane and it is easy to find, like you said.

The rubbing alcohol breaks into finer particles than h2o when sprayed so it has more surface area to cool down the air charge quickly. But it has a lower specific heat than h2o. So it can't take as much heat out. Cooling the intake charge down is just a side benefit. The real benefit is in the combustion chamber where the h2o first cools the chamber to prevent hotspots and steam clean the carbon away, then slows down the burn as it completely vaporizes during the power stroke. Slowing the burn down is in effect raising the octane. By some calculations a proper setup can raise pump gas effective octane to 110+!!! No alcohol can disipate as much heat in the combustion chamber or slow the burn down this much when used like this. Besided rubbing alky has an octane rating of only 101.

what do you mean by winterized? how big was the injector when you ran just water?(in cc's please) and how big did you go with the rubbing alcohol in the mix?
thanks for the help, this is exactly what i like to find out.
later

By winterized I mean alky doesn't freeze at normal winter temps. I think the mix is good enough for 10* farenheit or something around there.

I was running approximately 450cc. I added a 100cc injector. This smaller injector also sprays out a finer mist making more surface area to absorb the heat from the aircharge even quicker. a number of smaller nozzles are better than one big one (but it's a head ache to plumb). Port injection seams to work the best in getting the mix into the cylinders evenly (another plumbing head ache).

My rule of thumb for water/alky mix: 80% of your injector size and don't go above that until you need larger injectors (over 80% injector dutycycle). This is the maximum you should get. Sureflow pums have a small adjustment allen screw on it so you can lower your pump psi (and consequently injection flow rate) to suit your particular tune.

 

[91-gsx]

did you notice any kind of performance increase when using some alcohol? i actually like rubbing alcohol because it comes with a certain amount of water in it, but the majority of it is alcohol. they usually say that you do not need much water to get the good effects of it, i am going off of that principle. but when it comes to alcohol, you can dump in about 3 times more of it then water, which in turn gives you 3 times the oppurtunity to cool down the air. i think of it that way, maybe it is too simple, but this is what i have gathered from readin tons of recipes, threads and how-to's on alcohol injection.
keep it going this is getting interesting.
later

 

[dsm-onster]

did you notice any kind of performance increase when using some alcohol? i actually like rubbing alcohol because it comes with a certain amount of water in it, but the majority of it is alcohol. they usually say that you do not need much water to get the good effects of it, i am going off of that principle. but when it comes to alcohol, you can dump in about 3 times more of it then water, which in turn gives you 3 times the oppurtunity to cool down the air. i think of it that way, maybe it is too simple, but this is what i have gathered from readin tons of recipes, threads and how-to's on alcohol injection.
keep it going this is getting interesting.
later

Cooling down the intake charge is not your primary concern. Guys with HUGE 100 cubic inch intercoolers still get knock on pump gas with high boost and high timing. Water injection raises your octane in your gas. It is like running 110 octane gas all the time. Cool air is denser air but the number of air particles does not go up as much because the air is displaced by water/alky. 50/50 or 60/40 water to alky mix has been proven to work best. And is cheaper.

I got horsepower increases because i was running with 5-7 counts of knock. I instantlywent to 0 knock and the ecu advanced timing like it should. So I got 1-2 degrees more timing and 1 degre of timing is approximatly equal to 10 horsepower. I was able to raise the bost after that 5 more psi however. This is where i truely got my power from.

If you really want to run straight alky, go with methanol. However that is an other beast entirely. If not done right Meth will detonate badly! You'll have to research this as i'm not up on this.

 

[NewB2dsm]

Thought i would throw this in.

I made 338awhp on the small 16g and ran the best of [email protected] and backed it up with a [email protected] The small 16g treated me very well and i loved it, but just couldnt seem to jump into that 11 second zone with it in a full weight 2g. So i picked up an evo 16g, upped the injectors to 650cc, ill tell you what. This turbo at 20psi feels like the small did at 25psi (on race gas) no compairison. It just hits harder and pulls better. Soon as the track season opens up ill have time differences between the two and soon as i get my external gate put on ill have some new dyno numbers as well.

 

[91-gsx]

Thought i would throw this in.

I made 338awhp on the small 16g and ran the best of [email protected] and backed it up with a [email protected] The small 16g treated me very well and i loved it, but just couldnt seem to jump into that 11 second zone with it in a full weight 2g. So i picked up an evo 16g, upped the injectors to 650cc, ill tell you what. This turbo at 20psi feels like the small did at 25psi (on race gas) no compairison. It just hits harder and pulls better. Soon as the track season opens up ill have time differences between the two and soon as i get my external gate put on ill have some new dyno numbers as well.

those are very nice numbers, just the kind i wanted to see. good luck on hitting 11's, thats what i am shooting for, but 10's would be nice ... but that is farther down the line. and you did this on a full weight 2g, that is crazy too. i will definately go with the evo3 16g then, thanks for the personal experience.

Cooling down the intake charge is not your primary concern. Guys with HUGE 100 cubic inch intercoolers still get knock on pump gas with high boost and high timing. Water injection raises your octane in your gas. It is like running 110 octane gas all the time. Cool air is denser air but the number of air particles does not go up as much because the air is displaced by water/alky. 50/50 or 60/40 water to alky mix has been proven to work best. And is cheaper.

i see what your saying about the really large intercooler, but many have reported below ambient temps with alcohol, that is better then any intercooler can ever do. a 50/50 mix is the right mix for people that are not biased for one side or another. by the way, when you ran water, did you have to lean out the mixture, and by how much? and then did you have to lean out the mixture when you ran alcohol in the mix? and by how much?

If you really want to run straight alky, go with methanol. However that is an other beast entirely. If not done right Meth will detonate badly! You'll have to research this as i'm not up on this.

methanol is crazy when it comes to injection, drag cars do not use water they just use straight methanol, this tells me that alcohol is better conducter of heat because even john shepard does not run an intercooler anymore, that just tells me how good straight alcohol injection is. i have seen drag cars on tv with turbochargers, the driver was talking about how they use alcohol as there gas, and they use alcohol in their pipe that goes straight from the turbo to the throttle body. but they did say that they used 1600cc injectors because you have to use a lot more alcohol then normal race gas or pump gas. then there is the turbo buick crowd, they use straight methanol and that is were i have read about logs of below ambient intake temps. when they want more power they just substitute more alcohol for gas, and they turn the timing way up and up the boost more, it is just crazy, they freakin run 10's on pump gas!!!

lets keep this discussion going, it is still interesting.
later

 

[dsm-onster]

i see what your saying about the really large intercooler, but many have reported below ambient temps with alcohol, that is better then any intercooler can ever do.

Water injection does this. It has been proven to lower tems more than alky alone. Because it draws more hea out of the aircharge. I have ran just water and after a run the intake mani is ICE COLD. with the mix i had to up the injector nozzle size to get the same results... This is your choice. Most guys run alky for its energy relasing properties (fuel) not because it cools better. And meth has the best energy releasing properties of all the alcohols of which I know.

a 50/50 mix is the right mix for people that are not biased for one side or another.

A 50/50 mix is for those that have experimented and found that this works better than more of one or more of another. I say experiment and see what makes a difference. If there is no difference between more or less alky then just go with less alky as that will be a cheaper route.

by the way, when you ran water, did you have to lean out the mixture, and by how much? and then did you have to lean out the mixture when you ran alcohol in the mix? and by how much?

I didn't have to lean out the mix. I was allowed to lean out because of the higher final octane. Leaning out yields more power i run 11.5:1 on a very small front mount (the size of a side mount) and an 18g at 22+ psi on pump gas. I did not lean out more when i mixed alky. I had to add another water injector to maintain the same tune with out knock.

Man. we should start another post. This is so far off topic!! That's ok. no moderators have yelled at us yet...

 

[91-gsx]

Water injection does this. It has been proven to lower tems more than alky alone. Because it draws more hea out of the aircharge. I have ran just water and after a run the intake mani is ICE COLD. with the mix i had to up the injector nozzle size to get the same results... This is your choice. Most guys run alky for its energy relasing properties (fuel) not because it cools better. And meth has the best energy releasing properties of all the alcohols of which I know.

this is all very true, if you used the same sized nozzle for the watre as you did alcohol. say you used a 200cc injector for water, and on another trial you used the same 200cc injector for alcohol. you would be right in saying that for the same amount of liquid the water would cool down the air better. but with alcohol you can inject 3 times more, this is were the alcohol starts to really take over. you cannot inject as much water as you want because there is a limit, but with alcohol there is no limit. water injection is great for a moderate boost in power, and great for cleaning the engine and lowering combustion chamber temps. but if you want a lot of power, alcohol is the way to go, you can add way more timing because you have lean the mixture out because you will be running too rich with the alcohol and and regular amount of gas. the whole idea of leaning it out is that you get the air/fuel ratios right and you get more power from a leaner mixture, but what you are also doing is getting closer to running a car off of alcohol, which is what drag cars do. water is cheaper and always available, but rubbing alcohol is not too expensive either.

check this thread out:
http://dsmtuners.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1617479&postcount=34

check out what he has done and how fast he is, very cool stuff.
later

 

[dsm-onster]

this is all very true, if you used the same sized nozzle for the watre as you did alcohol. say you used a 200cc injector for water, and on another trial you used the same 200cc injector for alcohol. you would be right in saying that for the same amount of liquid the water would cool down the air better. but with alcohol you can inject 3 times more, this is were the alcohol starts to really take over. you cannot inject as much water as you want because there is a limit, but with alcohol there is no limit. water injection is great for a moderate boost in power, and great for cleaning the engine and lowering combustion chamber temps. but if you want a lot of power, alcohol is the way to go, you can add way more timing because you have lean the mixture out because you will be running too rich with the alcohol and and regular amount of gas. the whole idea of leaning it out is that you get the air/fuel ratios right and you get more power from a leaner mixture, but what you are also doing is getting closer to running a car off of alcohol, which is what drag cars do. water is cheaper and always available, but rubbing alcohol is not too expensive either.

check this thread out:
http://dsmtuners.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1617479&postcount=34

check out what he has done and how fast he is, very cool stuff.
later

This is a good point, but remember that Meth injection is a different animal than water/alky injection. It's like comparing a turbo to nitrous. Both very different ways to achieve the same result.

What I've noted so far. These point very well may be incorrect; jsut what I've noted so far. . .

Methanol Injection:

1. Meth injection is there to increase your fuel input to match your air input that your fuel supply system cannot match. Meth is a fuel. You have to lean out your fuel input in most situations as burning the meth AND the gas is too much fuel. Good thing about this is that you can push your current fuel delivery system farther.

2. Meth is a very effective way to increase power, as meth has an octane rating of 114 and releases more energy when ignited. Prepare to need new injector seals and other rubber parts replaced. With this addition of 114 octane fuel you'll need to inject just as much meth as you are injecting fuel to approach 104 octane (assuming you're using 93 octane pump gas). Meth does not slow the burn down. It just burns slower.

3. Injecting it directly in the air stream has the added benefit of cooling the charge down

4. Meth injection is more dangerous. But who cares? If you're going fast, you're in danger anyway, right?

Water/alky Injection:

1. Water/alky injection is not used to give you the fuel you need but lets you get away with the fuel you have. I.E., you can run alot leaner on water/alky injection than without. Good thing about this is that you can push your current fuel delivery system farther.

2. Water/alky injection is there to slow down burn and control the flame front. In effect this raises pump gas fuel octane rating to 110+ (much higher than meth injection can w/ pump gas).

3. Same advantage as meth injection when injected directly into the air stream as it lowers intake temps dramatically.

4. Water/alky is less dangerous to handle/use And you don't run the risk of poping your engine if you run too lean. But you do have a distict risk if the system fails (clogged nozzle, pump falure, injection control failure).


BTW, I achieved similar results as this guy. I ran my SMALL 16g at 22+ psi on stock 450s and stock (rewired) fuel pump and stock intercooler on tap water and also tapwater/isopropyl mix. I have no track times but I'm also FWD so I doubt the track results would be similar even when running the same as this guy you show as an example. Basically, though, the same results with similar boost and aggresive timing (i kept raising my base timing until I got to 10 degrees base, before i saw knock) and on a stock sidemount. I spent less money .

I don't know why guys run meth over water/alky. Maybe it lowers intake temps WAY more. I am deffinately going to do more research ito meth injection properties and how it should be controlled for best results and compare this to the massive research I've done with water injection.

Nevertheless, that was an excellent post you dug up there. Ca-ching, rep points. . . This is an excellent interchange, even if it is off topic. Do you have any more meth injection research on your end?

 

[girlieracr4g63]

I have been very pleased with the performance of my B16g. Personal best 11.8@113 in my awd and 12.1@114 in my fwd (slicks of course). I guess its all in what you make it. I set a goal with my turbo and succeeded, now mid to low 11s are the goal(hurry up spring...). Good luck to you all! Oh ,and Im actually switching back to my big16. I tried the Evo this past fall and had horrible luck. However Im a huge fan of making the most out of the smaller turbos. So props to anyone that goes that route.

PS in case you are wondering....No! Nitrous was not used either time.


Wendy

 

[91-gsx]

this is a very interesting thread because you have first hand experience and i have been reading about this for a while now, ever since i saw that thread i posted. not to many people use alcohol in the amount that they are supposed to when a lot of power is wanted. the nice thing about water is that you do not need as much of it and you can still make a lot more power, but when it comes to alcohol there is no limit to how much you can inject. if you look at the turbo regal forums, they talk a lot about alcohol, sure some have had great results with a 50/50 mix like this guy. (his results are at the bottom of the page if you want to get to the good part ) he used rubbing alcohol and water, which is what i plan on running because i cannot get my hands on a supplier with a constant supply of methanol. rubbing alcohol is great because it some mixed for you and it is no were near as dangerous.

the common consensous is that water works great alone especially if you want to turn the timing up a lot, and the boost moderately. you can also lean the mixture out because you can run leaner.

with water and alcohol(aka 50/50 mix) you can turn the timing up a lot and the boost up more then just water, due to the cooling rate and effects of alcohol. here you have to lean the mixture out due to the added fuel from the alcohol, but not too much because you are still limited to the amount of water that you can inject into the engine. most people go with this because you can use a bigger injector and it gives you the best of both worlds. you can also gain the advanced timing that you are looking for by using your safc or maft to and leaning out the mixture, which without water alcohol injection would usually make you knock. great benefit!

with rubbing alcohol, which is what i plan on using, you can get the bottles that come with 91% isopropyl and 9% water. i like this mix because i want to use 100% alcohol but still want the benefits of combustion chamber cleaning from water(which reduces carbon deposits that makes your engine more prone to knocking, and it also lower egts and combustion chamber temps, plus you dont need that much water to achieve these results.) now it comes time to manage that alcohol that you are injecting into the engine. the general idea behind alcohol is that you can inject so much more of it, 3 times more, and with this you have to lean out the mixture and use an injector that is 3 times bigger. what this does is also cool down the combustion chamber(not as much as water), it lower the intake temps extremely due to the greater amount of alcohol and increased contact with the air. alcohol absorbs the heat faster but it does not absorb as much heat as water before it turns into a gas. it turns into a gas faster so you can fit more of it in your engine and take out more crappy pump gas. alcohol is really good when you start pushing hot air into the engine, like when you are maxing out your turbo because it allows you to drop the intake temps below ambient. a lot of people also mention the octane rating of alcohol and how that increases your octane, sure it does this but i think the major benefit comes from the high drop in intake temps. you can have an intercooler drop your temps, but the intercooler can only drop them to ambient at most but that never happens either, and once you keep upping the boost it becomes even harder to drop temps. alcohol is really beneficial, when you want to push all the power out of your setup, which most of us dont get to do because of restrictions like pump gas and air temps. this is what i have gathered from my reading, and i have read a lot....
dsmonster those are some nice results, but if you want results you would have to run an injector about 3 times as big and just run 91% rubbing alcohol, or methanol if you can get your hands on it all the time. this is a great thread and thanks for the rep points, you definately deserve some too because your personal experiences are very informative, and helpful in deciding the right mixture.
later

 

[dsm-onster]

I see what you are saying now. With the proper amount of alcohol injected, the cooling in the intake temps becomes more than just a "side benefit". It bcomes a key benefit. As it may not increase your fuels effective octane as much as straight water, but you donot need as high a final octane number due to the supercooling of the pure alky... I think I saw an epesode of "Pinks" once where the carb was actually iced over from the meth injection! I never pieced it together until now .

I am ABSOLUTELY going out to test some different mixtures and different injection ratios this spring. I love to experiment.

What was this GN guy's results? My dad's stock hot air GN made wild jungle love on water/alky injection ! What was this guy's setup? What did his water/alky to fuel mixture end up being? It's really good to see some one else with good results with rubbing alky, as it is sooo inexpensive. Most guy's shy away because they say, "Why? It has an octane rating of 101. Meth is proven." But, at one point meth wasn't proven. A little pioneering goes along way. I plan on going back to my original pure water injector size and then tripling the flow and try straight isopropynol. Maybe I can keep my 650s with my 60-1 . . .

 

[91-gsx]

I see what you are saying now. With the proper amount of alcohol injected, the cooling in the intake temps becomes more than just a "side benefit". It bcomes a key benefit. As it may not increase your fuels effective octane as much as straight water, but you donot need as high a final octane number due to the supercooling of the pure alky... I think I saw an epesode of "Pinks" once where the carb was actually iced over from the meth injection! I never pieced it together until now .

I am ABSOLUTELY going out to test some different mixtures and different injection ratios this spring. I love to experiment.

What was this GN guy's results? My dad's stock hot air GN made wild jungle love on water/alky injection ! What was this guy's setup? What did his water/alky to fuel mixture end up being? It's really good to see some one else with good results with rubbing alky, as it is sooo inexpensive. Most guy's shy away because they say, "Why? It has an octane rating of 101. Meth is proven." But, at one point meth wasn't proven. A little pioneering goes along way. I plan on going back to my original pure water injector size and then tripling the flow and try straight isopropynol. Maybe I can keep my 650s with my 60-1 . . .

hey dude i hope it works for you and please report your findings back to me, and if you found anything else on the net, post it here so that we could pick it apart. and about those 650's being to support your 60-1, i dont see why not. when you go from a 450cc injector to a 550cc injector like most people do on these forums when they have a 16g or something small, you are only increasing 20% more fuel. you are basically doing the same thing because you are increasing your fuel by 20-30% with alcohol injection(ofcourse this depends on how much you are using) so it would be like you are running 750cc injectors, but the nice thing is you can run even leaner air/fuel ratios so you can push the injectors even farther.
talk to you later
later

 

[ShapeGSX]

I say this: The SMALL 16G will beat out the EVO at every boost level up to 25 psi. After that an 18g, 20g, or 50trim absolutely dominates it.

That's ridiculous. I've had both turbos on my car, and the Evo III destroys the small 16G in all aspects. Destroys, I say.

12.3@113mph with my small 16G completely maxed out. 11.82 and a best mph of 118.8mph with my Evo III. Same mods. Same car. Same weight.

The small "raw" 16G compressor map that is shown on Stealth316 uses a different x axis unit than the other Mitsubishi turbo compressor maps. But he didn't take that into account when converting to "CFM." And god knows why he did convert them to CFM.

That is why people think that the small 16G is so "efficient" compared to the Evo III and big 16Gs. It is complete bullshit, though. Once you convert the small 16G map over to the same units as the Evo III, it becomes very apparent which turbo flows more.

 

[dsm-onster]

Go to stealth316.com and get the compressor maps and do all these 'cfm conversions' and prove me wrong. The SMALL 16g flow as much as the EVO3 up to this point. SMALL 16g at 25 psi can flow at .27 kg/sec maintaining 70% efficiency, if demanded from the engine. EVO3 16g at 25 psi can flow at .26 kg/sec maintaining 70% efficiency, if demanded from the engine.

. . .

The small "raw" 16G compressor map that is shown on Stealth316 uses a different x axis unit than the other Mitsubishi turbo compressor maps. But he didn't take that into account when converting to "CFM." And god knows why he did convert them to CFM.

WTF I used a forced performance compressor map for the EVO3 which reports corrected airflow (x-axis) as kg/sec. And this is the exact same airflow unit used on the compressor map for the SMALL 16g that I used. Where did you get that trash? Same corrected airflow units, same x-axis variables. "He" did not nor did Forced Performance convert to CFM, and neither did anyone else. We're talking kg/sec here or mass airflow per unit time.

That's ridiculous. I've had both turbos on my car, and the Evo III destroys the small 16G in all aspects. Destroys, I say.

12.3@113mph with my small 16G completely maxed out. 11.82 and a best mph of 118.8mph with my Evo III. Same mods. Same car. Same weight.

I never once said that, if you swap a small 16g with an evo3 on your paricular car, you would not see a performance increase. I noticed you have HKS cams in your vehicle profile. Did you already have a cam upgrade before you compared turbos? DID you run higher boost with the EVO3? I'll bet you did. That is what I was saying. The evo3 is better than the small at higher boost levels.

I'll say this, not to flame you, but I question your or anyones ability to tune if you reach a point of impasse on a small 16g with stock cams, stock bore, stock stroke, stock intake mani, stock rev limit, running 20 psi or less. Sorry but this turbo is not maxed out at this level. I ran 22 psi daily with this turbo on a front mount that is 10-15% larger than the stock sidemount for over a year with no shaft play developing, no turbo wear, and no knock once i got the injectors i wanted.

That is why people think that the small 16G is so "efficient" compared to the Evo III and big 16Gs. It is complete bullshit, though. Once you convert the small 16G map over to the same units as the Evo III, it becomes very apparent which turbo flows more.

Stop right now! Go back and read my previous posts. I said the EVO3 flows more at every boost level above 25 psi. But that has nothing to do with how much air your engine has been tuned/designed to accept. A particular setup may not need all that the evo can throw at it. Just because the evo flows 44 lbs/min at 28 psi doesn't mean your set up will flow 44 lbs/min when you turn the boost up to 28 psi. All that means is that the turbo can SUPPLY that much if it is demanded. . . . But that is immaterial and obvious if you please stop talking about and believing this 'converting units' garbage. Do you really think I would compare compressor maps without comparing unit measurements. THEY BOTH SHOW kg/sec CORRECTED AIR FLOW ON THE X-AXIS. I am being emphatic, not yelling. I really don't want to come accross as flaming. The SMALL 16g flows more kg/sec at 25 psi than the EVO3 maintaining 70% efficiency.

 

[ShapeGSX]

WTF I used a forced performance compressor map for the EVO3 which reports corrected airflow (x-axis) as kg/sec. And this is the exact same airflow unit used on the compressor map for the SMALL 16g that I used. Where did you get that trash? Same corrected airflow units, same x-axis variables. "He" did not nor did Forced Performance convert to CFM, and neither did anyone else. We're talking kg/sec here or mass airflow per unit time.

I'll address the other stuff later.

That Evo 16G map doesn't say kg/sec anywhere on it, now does it? The units LOOK similar in size, but they aren't similar in units. I'll give you a hint. Does the small 16G map require you to know the inlet temperature? No, it isn't listed anywhere on the map. Does the Evo 16G map require you to know the inlet temperature? Yes! It is at the very top of the map! 20 degrees celcius.

Now why would that be?

It is because the small 16G map has an x axis of kg/sec and the Evo 16G map has an x axis of m^3/sec (volume/sec). With a volume per second measurement you have to know temperature and pressure to make it useful. Well, pressure is the y-axis, so that is taken care of. And inlet temperature was held steady at 20 degrees Celcius, as shown at the top of the map. With a mass flow per second measurement, you don't need to know the temperature.

I worked out ages ago how to convert between the two units ages ago. There is a nice conversion factor when you use a constant temperature (I used 20 deg C, of course). And it has the affect of scaling the small 16G kg/sec map down in the x axis. Then everything starts to make sense.

 

[ShapeGSX]

Go to stealth316.com and get the compressor maps and do all these 'cfm conversions' and prove me wrong. The SMALL 16g flow as much as the EVO3 up to this point. SMALL 16g at 25 psi can flow at .27 kg/sec maintaining 70% efficiency, if demanded from the engine. EVO3 16g at 25 psi can flow at .26 kg/sec maintaining 70% efficiency, if demanded from the engine.

Like I said in the previous post, the Evo 16G map x axis is in m^3/sec, not kg/sec.

I believe the conversion factor is to multiply the small 16G numbers by 0.86 to get numbers in m^3/sec. Or, the other way around, multiply the Evo numbers by 1.165 to get numbers in kg/sec. Though I may have gotten the conversion factor incorrect.

Assuming I am right, that is 0.26kg/sec * 1.165 = 0.30kg/sec at 25psi for the Evo3.

0.30kg/sec is 40.07lb/min
0.27kg/sec is 35.72lb/min

And that makes sense, given what I have seen with these two turbos on my car. My small 16G maxed out at 36lb/min, and my Evo III 16G maxed out at around 44lb/min on a very cold day.

It is nice when the real world validates the math.

I never once said that, if you swap a small 16g with an evo3 on your paricular car, you would not see a performance increase. I noticed you have HKS cams in your vehicle profile. Did you already have a cam upgrade before you compared turbos? DID you run higher boost with the EVO3? I'll bet you did. That is what I was saying. The evo3 is better than the small at higher boost levels.

Yes, I had HKS 264/264s with both turbos. I have also tried HKS 264/272 and HKS 272/264 with the Evo III 16G. They were all about the same with my setup.

Yes, of course I ran higher boost with the Evo III 16G. The fact is thatwith the Evo III 16G, I was finally ABLE to run higher boost! With the small 16G, I always had issues running more than about 24psi at peak. And at 7500RPM, I'd be down to about 20psi. With the Evo III, I can turn it up to 30psi at peak. Actually, it will go quite a bit higher than that. I've probably hit 34psi peak before. At 7500RPM, boost will fall down to around 25psi.

Of course, I did have a 34mm flapper on my small 16G, which could have led to the lower boost.

Have you actually run 25psi with a small 16G?

I'll say this, not to flame you, but I question your or anyones ability to tune if you reach a point of impasse on a small 16g with stock cams, stock bore, stock stroke, stock intake mani, stock rev limit, running 20 psi or less. Sorry but this turbo is not maxed out at this level. I ran 22 psi daily with this turbo on a front mount that is 10-15% larger than the stock sidemount for over a year with no shaft play developing, no turbo wear, and no knock once i got the injectors i wanted.

I was running a 24psi spike with boost falling to around 20psi for years with the small 16G on race gas. Trust me, I maxed it out.

The Evo III 16G is a VERY different turbo than a small 16G.

Stop right now! Go back and read my previous posts. I said the EVO3 flows more at every boost level above 25 psi. But that has nothing to do with how much air your engine has been tuned/designed to accept. A particular setup may not need all that the evo can throw at it. Just because the evo flows 44 lbs/min at 28 psi doesn't mean your set up will flow 44 lbs/min when you turn the boost up to 28 psi. All that means is that the turbo can SUPPLY that much if it is demanded. . . . But that is immaterial and obvious if you please stop talking about and believing this 'converting units' garbage. Do you really think I would compare compressor maps without comparing unit measurements.

Yes, because obviously you did.

THEY BOTH SHOW kg/sec CORRECTED AIR FLOW ON THE X-AXIS. I am being emphatic, not yelling. I really don't want to come accross as flaming. The SMALL 16g flows more kg/sec at 25 psi than the EVO3 maintaining 70% efficiency.

To recap, they don't both show kg/sec on the x axis. Only the small 16G map does.

The Evo III flows about 11% more than the small 16G at 25psi while maintaining 70% efficiency.

However, I don't have an efficiency controller on my car. I have a boost controller. I just turn it up and say "screw efficiency."

In fact, this is a plot of pressure ratio vs m^3/sec from 3rd gear on one of my 118mph runs. The line going from the 73% island up to the 70% island is the turbo spooling up to about 30psi. The wiggly line going down between the 70% island and the 68% island is the turbo's boost falling to 25.5psi as the engine revs from abput 5100RPM up to about 7300RPM.

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

So, are you still questioning my tuning ability? I did that plot once because I thought it was pretty cool. But I haven't done it in a while because in the end, it really didn't make my car go any faster. I suppose I can see that I still had some head room in terms of pressure ratio, but that's about it.

People are generally surprised when they see that plot because that isn't the shape they expect, nor is the turbo working in the region they would expect. I suppose that everyone should do it once just to have their preconceived notions thrown out the window.

 

[RiceKiller_TSi]

However, I don't have an efficiency controller on my car. I have a boost controller. I just turn it up and say "screw efficiency."

Great post!

 

[dsm-onster]

Like I said in the previous post, the Evo 16G map x axis is in m^3/sec, not kg/sec.

I believe the conversion factor is to multiply the small 16G numbers by 0.86 to get numbers in m^3/sec. Or, the other way around, multiply the Evo numbers by 1.165 to get numbers in kg/sec. Though I may have gotten the conversion factor incorrect.

Assuming I am right, that is 0.26kg/sec * 1.165 = 0.30kg/sec at 25psi for the Evo3.

0.30kg/sec is 40.07lb/min
0.27kg/sec is 35.72lb/min

I stand corrected on the unit measurements.

And that makes sense, given what I have seen with these two turbos on my car. My small 16G maxed out at 36lb/min, and my Evo III 16G maxed out at around 44lb/min on a very cold day.

It is nice when the real world validates the math.



Yes, I had HKS 264/264s with both turbos. I have also tried HKS 264/272 and HKS 272/264 with the Evo III 16G. They were all about the same with my setup.

Yes, of course I ran higher boost with the Evo III 16G. The fact is thatwith the Evo III 16G, I was finally ABLE to run higher boost! With the small 16G, I always had issues running more than about 24psi at peak. And at 7500RPM, I'd be down to about 20psi. With the Evo III, I can turn it up to 30psi at peak. Actually, it will go quite a bit higher than that. I've probably hit 34psi peak before. At 7500RPM, boost will fall down to around 25psi.

Of course, I did have a 34mm flapper on my small 16G, which could have led to the lower boost.

I will still have to go with my original belief that the small 16g is not maxed at 25 psi when you are running stock cams, stock bore & stroke, stock intake mani. You will not see 44 lbs/min with no upgrades to these aspects. As i said before the EVO3 is more versatile but the 20g performes better at the level you are running it with said cams and running above 25 psi.

I am sure your flapper was blowing open. It happens so often. 7cm^2 housing, a TD05H wheel and pressures in the exhaust mani approaching 2.5 times more than 25 psi leads to this.

Have you actually run 25psi with a small 16G?

Yes.

The Evo III 16G is a VERY different turbo than a small 16G.

The Evo III flows about 11% more than the small 16G at 25psi while maintaining 70% efficiency.

About 11% different. If you're running a small 16g and your on stock longblock there's no use to go to the evo as the only way you get more flow is by raising the pressure and other turbos are way more efficient at these pressures than the evo at the pressure you're running your EVO right now. If you're running hoter cams or otherthings that either increase volume flow or volumetric efficiency and your only pushing 11% more than stock potential volume flow, get the evo 3 then. As I said, if you upgrade cams and you don't want to run over 25 psi the evo is right for you. If you're not going to use this turbo on upgraded cams or you're going over 25 psi then it is a waste as the small is absolutely perfect for the nonmodded long block and the 18g/20g is much more efficient at pressures above 25 psi.

So the evo3 can get the job done at level you're running it but it is not very good at it. But it is much more affordable. You get what you pay for. So to answer the original posters question:

Of the three 16g variants the EVO3 is best at the higher boost levels. But the EVO3 is not very efficient when compared to the 18g or the 20g at this level; and both of these turbos spool nearly as quick. My 18g spools within 100 rpms of my small 16g. Don't buy a 16g for running over 25 psi. Buy whatever 16g is most efficient for whatever flow you're suspecting you'll achieve under 25 psi. If you're cammed, longer stroke, etc. get the EVO3. This is where the 11% more flow can be felt​

Thanx for clearing up the unit measurements. This is going to really help people who are on the fence about which 16g they want.

 

[ShapeGSX]

I will still have to go with my original belief that the small 16g is not maxed at 25 psi when you are running stock cams, stock bore & stroke, stock intake mani. You will not see 44 lbs/min with no upgrades to these aspects. As i said before the EVO3 is more versatile but the 20g performes better at the level you are running it with said cams and running above 25 psi.

The 20G isn't a bolt-on turbo. Nor is it a factory turbo. I know that turbo builders these days can do a great job. But there is something to be said for running a turbo straight from the factory in terms of reliability.

The Evo is actually pretty close to the 18G due to the smaller shank that it uses on the compressor.

I am sure your flapper was blowing open. It happens so often. 7cm^2 housing, a TD05H wheel and pressures in the exhaust mani approaching 2.5 times more than 25 psi leads to this.

I'm sure it was, too. Especially since at that boost level, the small 16G has to spin a lot faster than the Evo III 16G. This means that you end up with more pressure in the exhaust manifold, and less power, even if the compressor is efficient at that level.

Yes.

That was in reference to running 25psi on a small 16G. At what RPM were you able to maintain 25psi? What engine mods did you have? Did you see boost fluctuation?

What was your best 1/4mi time with the small 16G? How about the 18G?

About 11% different. If you're running a small 16g and your on stock longblock there's no use to go to the evo as the only way you get more flow is by raising the pressure and other turbos are way more efficient at these pressures than the evo at the pressure you're running your EVO right now. If you're running hoter cams or otherthings that either increase volume flow or volumetric efficiency and your only pushing 11% more than stock potential volume flow, get the evo 3 then. As I said, if you upgrade cams and you don't want to run over 25 psi the evo is right for you. If you're not going to use this turbo on upgraded cams or you're going over 25 psi then it is a waste as the small is absolutely perfect for the nonmodded long block and the 18g/20g is much more efficient at pressures above 25 psi.

Yes, airflow will be about 11% better at 25psi with the Evo III 16G. That is roughly 30hp. That is not a small number!

However, you can't really just equate compressor flow with horsepower in this case because the small 16G will be spinning much faster than the Evo III 16G at 25psi. Because of this, the exhaust manifold pressure will be higher and engine efficiency will decrease. So, the difference between the Evo and small 16Gs could be even larger due to the increased exhaust manifold pressure of the small.

Of the three 16g variants the EVO3 is best at the higher boost levels. But the EVO3 is not very efficient when compared to the 18g or the 20g at this level; and both of these turbos spool nearly as quick. My 18g spools within 100 rpms of my small 16g. Don't buy a 16g for running over 25 psi. Buy whatever 16g is most efficient for whatever flow you're suspecting you'll achieve under 25 psi. If you're cammed, longer stroke, etc. get the EVO3. This is where the 11% more flow can be felt

Actually, between the 18G and the Evo III 16G, I'd get the Evo III, assuming they both use the TD05H exhaust wheel. The compressors are very close in terms of flow due to the smaller shank and thinner blades of the Evo III 16G.

 

[dsm-onster]

The 20G isn't a bolt-on turbo. Nor is it a factory turbo. I know that turbo builders these days can do a great job. But there is something to be said for running a turbo straight from the factory in terms of reliability.

I was referring to the TD05H 20G. Are you implying that such a turbo is unreliable or that such a turbo is not bolt-onWTF

The Evo is actually pretty close to the 18G due to the smaller shank that it uses on the compressor.

What compressor map have you used to deduce this? Run your evo3 to 30 psi for 6 months with my fp2Xs and take a picture of your centerhousing guts and tell me if the EVO3 16G is close to the 18g.

I'm sure it was, too. Especially since at that boost level, the small 16G has to spin a lot faster than the Evo III 16G. This means that you end up with more pressure in the exhaust manifold, and less power, even if the compressor is efficient at that level.

Very, very good point.

That was in reference to running 25psi on a small 16G. At what RPM were you able to maintain 25psi? What engine mods did you have? Did you see boost fluctuation?

25 psi to redline, with stock longblock.

What was your best 1/4mi time with the small 16G? How about the 18G?

That's not fair . You're AWD.

Yes, airflow will be about 11% better at 25psi with the Evo III 16G. That is roughly 30hp. That is not a small number!

Bottemline the SMLL 16g will flow 41 lbs/min at 25 psi and maintain 70% efficiency. The EVO3 can only do better or worse. Probably better. But who here wants this out of a turbo and uses either of these.

However, you can't really just equate compressor flow with horsepower in this case because the small 16G will be spinning much faster than the Evo III 16G at 25psi. Because of this, the exhaust manifold pressure will be higher and engine efficiency will decrease. So, the difference between the Evo and small 16Gs could be even larger due to the increased exhaust manifold pressure of the small.

VE will not decrease because the faster spinning blade will allow MORE gasses to pass it. However, turbo longevity will come into play. I previously mentioned that the SMALL 16g will suffer from premature failure if pushed beyond 25 psi.

Actually, between the 18G and the Evo III 16G, I'd get the Evo III, assuming they both use the TD05H exhaust wheel. The compressors are very close in terms of flow due to the smaller shank and thinner blades of the Evo III 16G.

another . The 18g has a exducer diameter that is 90 thousanths larger than the evo3, lending to its higher efficiency at higher boost levels. Again, lets run your turbo at 30 psi for 6 months plus. and run my 18g 6 months plus at 30 psi. And come back and tell me if you have seal leaks or shaft play. Especially with your cams or even my FP2Xs (which are quite a bit more aggressive than a pair of 272s).

 

[ShapeGSX]

I was referring to the TD05H 20G. Are you implying that such a turbo is unreliable or that such a turbo is not bolt-onWTF

All I know is that I've seen a lot of non-factory turbos kick the bucket, but factory turbos seem to last a lot longer. It is just an observation from someone who has been heavily involved in the DSM community since 1997.

What compressor map have you used to deduce this? Run your evo3 to 30 psi for 6 months with my fp2Xs and take a picture of your centerhousing guts and tell me if the EVO3 16G is close to the 18g.

I haven't found an 18G compressor map. What compressor map have you used for the 18G to deduce the fact that the 18G and Evo III 16G aren't similar?

The fact is that due to the thicker shank of the 18G's compressor wheel, the inducers of the two turbos have very similar area.

That's not fair . You're AWD.

So, how about mph? That's fair, right?

Bottemline the SMLL 16g will flow 41 lbs/min at 25 psi and maintain 70% efficiency. The EVO3 can only do better or worse. Probably better. But who here wants this out of a turbo and uses either of these.

I've never seen a small 16G flow 41lb/min. Please post your datalog. Preferably one with a 2G MAF. Even Forced Performance calls the small 16G a 36lb/min turbo.

VE will not decrease because the faster spinning blade will allow MORE gasses to pass it. However, turbo longevity will come into play. I previously mentioned that the SMALL 16g will suffer from premature failure if pushed beyond 25 psi.

Faster spinning turbine blades don't allow more gasses to pass through the turbine.

another . The 18g has a exducer diameter that is 90 thousanths larger than the evo3, lending to its higher efficiency at higher boost levels. Again, lets run your turbo at 30 psi for 6 months plus. and run my 18g 6 months plus at 30 psi. And come back and tell me if you have seal leaks or shaft play. Especially with your cams or even my FP2Xs (which are quite a bit more aggressive than a pair of 272s).

The exducer diameters of the Big 16G, Evo III big 16G, 18G and 20G are all identical at 2.680".

It is the inducer diameters that vary. And it is the inducer that determines the flow of a compressor. You can only fit so many air molecules through a compressor inlet.

Ignoring the thinner blades of the Evo III 16G, which will up its numbers a little, here are the inducer areas of:
Big 16G: 2.437in^2
Evo 16G: 2.575in^2
18G: 2.661in^2
20G: 2.924in^2

As you can see, the Evo 16G's inducer area is 0.138in^2 larger than the big 16G's, and the 18G is 0.086in^2 larger than the Evo. Then factor in the thinner blades, which I may do someday. The Evo 16G is a lot closer to the 18G than it is to the original big 16G. They aren't that far apart. Yet the compressor wheel is a hell of a lot lighter than an 18G's. The Evo III is a good package.

But the real proof is in datalogs and track times, of course.

So, what have you run for mph with the 18G?

As for running at 30psi, I run over 30psi whenever I am at the track. And I go fairly often. I've had this same turbo since August 2003. That's 2.5 years. I drive the car to work every day with the boost set at 20psi with 93 octane. I could go higher, but I'd rather not put the extra strain on the car and my nerves.

Are you saying that you run 30psi every day with your 18G? Have you run 30psi with your 18G?

 

[Stoner]

Glad to see you join the thread Josh, I knew something was a little off but I am no good with numbers and compressor maps. But I do know what I have seen and read and I have to agree with everything you are saying.

 

[dsm-onster]

All I know is that I've seen a lot of non-factory turbos kick the bucket, but factory turbos seem to last a lot longer. It is just an observation from someone who has been heavily involved in the DSM community since 1997.

Well. I have not and I have been in the DSM community since 1999. So unless all those failures occured from 1997-1999, then I don't see any evidence that a TDO5H 20G is less reliable than an EVO3 16G. I have seen the contrary. But I attribute that to guys running too much boost for too long with this turbo.

I've never seen a small 16G flow 41lb/min. Please post your datalog. Preferably one with a 2G MAF. Even Forced Performance calls the small 16G a 36lb/min turbo.

Is the compressor map wrong?

Forced performance also states that the 18g is a 600 cfm compressor. This is approximately 48-49 lbs/min.

I haven't found an 18G compressor map. What compressor map have you used for the 18G to deduce the fact that the 18G and Evo III 16G aren't similar?

The fact is that due to the thicker shank of the 18G's compressor wheel, the inducers of the two turbos have very similar area.

I have bsed this off of other's experiences with the 18G and On the fact that All last summer I ran this turbo to just under 27 psi. I had to keep it down because I kept blowing off intercooler piping.

So, how about mph? That's fair, right?

I didn't even go to the track. What's the use? But I will get some logs from my DSMLink as soo as I repair the broken ear on my block.

The exducer diameters of the Big 16G, Evo III big 16G, 18G and 20G are all identical at 2.680".

It is the inducer diameters that vary. And it is the inducer that determines the flow of a compressor. You can only fit so many air molecules through a compressor inlet.

Ignoring the thinner blades of the Evo III 16G, which will up its numbers a little, here are the inducer areas of:
Big 16G: 2.437in^2
Evo 16G: 2.575in^2
18G: 2.661in^2
20G: 2.924in^2

As you can see, the Evo 16G's inducer area is 0.138in^2 larger than the big 16G's, and the 18G is 0.086in^2 larger than the Evo. Then factor in the thinner blades, which I may do someday. The Evo 16G is a lot closer to the 18G than it is to the original big 16G. They aren't that far apart. Yet the compressor wheel is a hell of a lot lighter than an 18G's. The Evo III is a good package.

Sorry. i meant inducer. Thanx for clearing that up...

Please don't give others the misconception that the 18G and the EVO3 16g is within 30 or so horsepower of each other in potential... It seams like you are doing this when you say that they "arn't that far apart". You'll have to get your proof just like I will. That's only fair.

But the real proof is in datalogs and track times, of course.

So, what have you run for mph with the 18G?

As for running at 30psi, I run over 30psi whenever I am at the track. And I go fairly often. I've had this same turbo since August 2003. That's 2.5 years. I drive the car to work every day with the boost set at 20psi with 93 octane. I could go higher, but I'd rather not put the extra strain on the car and my nerves.

Are you saying that you run 30psi every day with your 18G? Have you run 30psi with your 18G?

See above...

 

[ShapeGSX]

Is the compressor map wrong?

Forced performance also states that the 18g is a 600 cfm compressor. This is approximately 48-49 lbs/min.

Actually, 600CFM is about 41.6lb/min. 1lb/min is roughly 14.4CFM

I have bsed this off of other's experiences with the 18G and On the fact that All last summer I ran this turbo to just under 27 psi. I had to keep it down because I kept blowing off intercooler piping.

I didn't even go to the track. What's the use? But I will get some logs from my DSMLink as soo as I repair the broken ear on my block.

The use it to test theories.

Please don't give others the misconception that the 18G and the EVO3 16g is within 30 or so horsepower of each other in potential... It seams like you are doing this when you say that they "arn't that far apart". You'll have to get your proof just like I will. That's only fair.

How far apart do you think they are? My car is running 118.8mph in the 1/4 with a very small front mount (18" Griffen from RRE) in a heavy, 3315lb car. The best 18G time on dsmtimes.org is 118mph. Not that people haven't run faster with the 18G, but not earth-shatteringly faster.