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

[dsm-onster]

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

I was directly quoting my calculations from th DSM_Tuning_Sheet_v2.1 found elsewere on this site.

The use it to test theories.

My wife brought the laptop home from her work last night... Let mo go export my 16g and 18g logs....

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.

[email protected] --5 mph faster (only 3050 lbs)
[email protected] --10 mph faster (3700 lbs)

What do you consider earthshattering. I say the 18g performs a little closer to the 20g side but still about in the middle... That may not seam like alot but you had considered 30 horsepower a significant amount. Does that still hold true? What math have you used to get a rough estimate of horsepower based on airflow. I have been using about 10.5 hp per 1 lb/min. I think you were doing about the same. I just want to confirm before I try to export these files. You may very well be correct. And I don't want to waste my time posting a lof that just reiterates your thoughts and results. I'll just say that I got similar results as you.

In a little bit...

 

[ShapeGSX]

I usually use 10hp per 1lb/min. It is a rough calculation, so no need to try and be exact.

 

[dsm-onster]

All my 16g logs are tunerstein logs. And i was peaking out and bouncing around 1600 hz running 70 degree intake temps and with a hacked maf (should be about 5% airfow correction)... My baro output on my scanmaster was right at 98%. My math based on this thread and other research gave me around 32 lbs/min. 1G MAF overrun was a real b!tch then. So I havn't proven anything so far .

What's that, about 335 horsepower at the crank? Keep in mind that this is with stock longblock (stock cams, intake mani, stock size valves, etc.)

On to the 18g, the logs are only showing 310 g/sec. or .31 kg/sec. Whats that, about 41 lbs/min? So we're at 430 horsepower here (at the crank). This is at 28 psi BOOSTEST and running stock cams as well. This turbo has a hell of a midrange! I need to log now that I have my FP2Xs. I have done no tuning at all since my block broke .

I still think running [email protected] in a 3700 lb car is earthshatteringly faster especially considering the weight...(just had to deal a potshot there . Not trying to discredit you or anything.)

 

[dsm-onster]

You know. I really think the 18g wheel should be most advantagious with an 8 cm^2 housing or with a 7cm^2 housing and backed by a TD06H turbine wheel. Just as a true 20G works best like this. Not that the MHI hybrids don't perform well. Wheel matching becomes increasingly important at this level.

BTW, you get rep points for clearing up the unit measurements issue. . .

 

[the_jester]

wow matt, i didnt know you were such an egghead. but after reading this i definitly think im gonna get a evo 3 . and off course those fpx's you have. then im gonna show brian my taillights.

 

[dsm-onster]

wow matt, i didnt know you were such an egghead. but after reading this i definitly think im gonna get a evo 3 . and off course those fpx's you have. then im gonna show brian my taillights.

Hey slow turd JK. You called while I had guests so I didn't answer. You got that GSX? GO evo since you're camming and you want to stay around 20 psi.

 

[dsm-onster]

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.

BTW, you do know of a SMALL 16g that can flow 41 lbs/min: the one from which MHI generated the compressor map. As those numbers do infact intersect on the compressor map at 70% efficiency.

And it is relatively easy to build a long block that can receive that kind of flow at 25 psi where I said the SMALL 16G is still at 70% efficiency. What? a pair of 272s/FP2s and a good hard run to the stock rev limit, no?

 

[ShapeGSX]

BTW, you do know of a SMALL 16g that can flow 41 lbs/min: the one from which MHI generated the compressor map. As those numbers do infact intersect on the compressor map at 70% efficiency.

No it doesn't. Enter .26 into this calculator:
http://www.processassociates.com/process/convert/cf_flm.htm

.26kg/sec = 34.3lb/min

Here's another calculator if you don't believe that one:
http://www.futek.com/conversion.asp?Convert=Flow+(mass)

Why do you think .26kg/sec = 41lb/min?

And it is relatively easy to build a long block that can receive that kind of flow at 25 psi where I said the SMALL 16G is still at 70% efficiency. What? a pair of 272s/FP2s and a good hard run to the stock rev limit, no?

No.

Sorry, even the compressor map agrees with me. No small 16G is going to flow 41lb/min. My datalogs also agree with me. And it seems yours do, too.

It is never gonna happen.

 

[dsmsucks]

This is what Im talkin about!!!! Great job guys, no fighting. Keep the facts and positive replys coming!!

 

[dsm-onster]

I have been multiplying kg/se by 154.66 as a conversion factor that I found elsewere on the web... It is probably wrong then.

 

[dsm-onster]

No.

So you're saying that a 20g/50 trim at 25 psi and running 272s/fp2s to redline and you'll not get 40 lbs/min airflow?

 

[ShapeGSX]

So you're saying that a 20g/50 trim at 25 psi and running 272s/fp2s to redline and you'll not get 40 lbs/min airflow?

No, I said that with a small 16G at 25psi you will never get to 40lb/min airflow. I never said anything about a 20G or 50 trim.

 

[ShapeGSX]

Incidentally, you do realize that 25psi has a pressure ratio of 2.7, right?

(14.7+25)/14.7 = 2.7

Find 2.7 on the small 16G map. Draw a horizontal line across the map at 2.7PR. Note how high up on the map you are.

 

[dsm-onster]

No, I said that with a small 16G at 25psi you will never get to 40lb/min airflow. I never said anything about a 20G or 50 trim.

I just said that I was probably wrong about the conversion factor... I was clerifying your opinion on what a cammed engine can flow with a bigger turbo at 25 psi.

 

[ShapeGSX]

I just said that I was probably wrong about the conversion factor... I was clerifying your opinion on what a cammed engine can flow with a bigger turbo at 25 psi.

My car with HKS 264/272 cams flowed 44lb/min at 25psi with an Evo III 16G at around 7200RPM. Stock 1G head, 6-bolt block with big rods and 2G pistons.

So 41lb/min at 25psi is definitely possible with a turbo larger than a small 16G. It just isn't possible with a small 16G.

 

[the_jester]

hey, its a TALON tsi awd. thank you. i am definitly goin evo3. its perfect for my goals. which would be to kick YOUR butt

 

[91-gsx]

hey dsmonster, did you get around to getting those injectors for the alcohol injection? i would really like to see your results.
later

 

[gy2005]

I still think running [email protected] in a 3700 lb car is earthshatteringly faster especially considering the weight...(just had to deal a potshot there . Not trying to discredit you or anything.)

Isn't that the talon with two engines that had a video of it going around on the internet a few years back. I mean everything on his mod list is plural and it would explain the heavy weight

 

[Caithness]

You beat me to it. I'm pretty sure that's the car, and not a very good comparison to a car with only ONE engine to get it down the track.

*edit*http://www.dsmtuners.com/forums/showpost.php?p=576589&postcount=27

 

[dsm-onster]

[email protected]

over a half a second faster and over 5 mph faster. This time differences gets exceedingly difficult to achieve as you get into the 11.XX range or less.

 

[ShapeGSX]

[email protected]

over a half a second faster and over 5 mph faster. This time differences gets exceedingly difficult to achieve as you get into the 11.XX range or less.

300lbs lighter than my car, too. And it doesn't say if that 18G has a TD05 or a TD06 turbine.

There are other guys who have gone faster than I have with the Evo III 16G, or even just a big 16G. My car is not the pinnacle of 16G performance (I daily drive my car), I was just the first guy to get into the 11s with an Evo III 16G.

 

[dsm-onster]

300lbs lighter than my car, too. And it doesn't say if that 18G has a TD05 or a TD06 turbine.

There are other guys who have gone faster than I have with the Evo III 16G, or even just a big 16G. My car is not the pinnacle of 16G performance (I daily drive my car), I was just the first guy to get into the 11s with an Evo III 16G.

Neither is the car i mentioned the pinnacle of performance for the 18G. And there are several 18G powered DSMs that have not posted their times here that have done better than this and drive their car everyday. Congrats on being the first with the E3 16G. Just because you were the first doesn't make it as good as the 18G.

300 lbs. So take away up to 3 tenths as .1 sec= approx. 100lbs/10hp. Still quicker?

 

[Steve93Talon]

300lbs lighter than my car, too. And it doesn't say if that 18G has a TD05 or a TD06 turbine.

There are other guys who have gone faster than I have with the Evo III 16G, or even just a big 16G. My car is not the pinnacle of 16G performance (I daily drive my car), I was just the first guy to get into the 11s with an Evo III 16G.

Who has gone faster (not "quicker") on any flavor of 16g than you? Your 118 mph trap is the fastest I've seen anywhere.

That link to the 18g above trapping 123 is using a TD06 comp. cover, which kinda skews things with regard to this thread. I believe it does use the 5H turbine wheel though.

Also, a 20g with an 06H wheel spools every bit as fast, faster in fact, than a clipped 5H version (and I've never seen a 20g-5h that wasn't clipped). This information is from a dyno test done with an FP20g-5h and a 6h back to back on a 2 liter WRX. I can't find the original thread, but I remember the boost threshold on the 6H version was impressive and definitely put to rest the fears about lag with the 6h. I'd like to see an 18g or even EVO3 16g with a 6H wheel for kicks...

 

[ShapeGSX]

Neither is the car i mentioned the pinnacle of performance for the 18G. And there are several 18G powered DSMs that have not posted their times here that have done better than this and drive their car everyday. Congrats on being the first with the E3 16G. Just because you were the first doesn't make it as good as the 18G.

I didn't say that me being first in the 11s with an Evo III 16G made it as good as an 18G. Why would anyone say that? WTF

In fact, I'm certain that the 18G flows more than an Evo III 16G. I just don't think it is a large difference.

300 lbs. So take away up to 3 tenths as .1 sec= approx. 100lbs/10hp. Still quicker?

Is it a TD06? And who knows what the real difference in weight is between the two cars.

Anyway, like I said, obviously the 18G flows more than an Evo III 16G. It just isn't a huge difference. The two turbos are pretty damn close.

Anyway, keep searching. It isn't going to change my mind on this, though.

 

[ShapeGSX]

Who has gone faster (not "quicker") on any flavor of 16g than you? Your 118 mph trap is the fastest I've seen anywhere.

http://www.dsmtimes.org/times.php?Header_Type=Type_1g&Page=2

Matt Thomas (#110) is a friend of mine who is local to me. He has run [email protected] with an Evo III 16G.

http://www.dsmtimes.org/times.php?Header_Type=GVR4&Page=1
Tom Noonen ran [email protected] in his Galant VR4.

I'd like to see an ... EVO3 16g with a 6H wheel for kicks...

I would too. On my car.