The 16g Drag Race Discussion Thread

[turboglenn]

I stated the goal in earlier posts. but from what I saw, a single wally wasnt sufficient enough for Nate as he diagnosed his exploding cylinder as a lean condition in cylinder number 1 due to not enough fuel making it to the last injector.

sorry i didnt go back enough and see your total goals, I was just thinking you were talking way overkill for 16g fuel needs with the mechanical pump and all that.. Afterall dual wallys or a wally with a bosch 044 inline can support a lot of power, more than any 16g or 68HTA can produce anyway. I woldn't overspend on something that's not needed is all my point is when you can get away with something tried and true proven to work.. now failures of fuel pumps, injectors and more can cause catostrophic failures and stuff like that does happen but becuase it did to one person doesn'tmean it will certainly happen to you.

I wasn't trying to be offensive, just wrapping my head around things and making simple cost effective recomendations

A single Walbro on E85 can support up to around 450AWHP give or take a few HP depending on the type of dyno. A single walbro is a good match for 1000cc injectors, they max out at nearly the same limit, give or take depending on fuel pressure an if you use high flow fuel lines/filter or stock restrictive lines/filter.

A few of the really high HP guys in this thread need dual pumps for e85. I'm using a dual setup with 1450 injectors, seeing 65% duty cycle at 450AWHP on a Mustang dyno with the AFR's in the high 11's/ low 12's. The minimum injector size I'd need for the same power and same AFR would be 1200cc @ 85% DC.

Thanks for the break down.. I know one thing though.. bigger lines go a LONG way.. I thught i was maxing out my 1000's after buying them when i maxed my 720's, then i thought it was the pump maxed out so i went and added dual in tank walbros (255hp parrallel) and they supported all i could throw at them with what i had for a turbo and engine combo and it's air flow

but like i said when i did the AWD swap i was forced to at least temporarily use only one 255hp but still had the -6 feed and the OEM feed as a return and although i was scared at first they are actually holding great. like i said Ibroke the 500hp mark and backed out due to way past 100% IDC here recently on a free dyno pull, buit that was still on a single wally 255hp, -6 feed, FIC 1000's that are freshly cleaned and flow tested but are a couple years old. Now i think i'm at the limit of the 1000's and MAYBE the pump as well but somehave reported much more than 500 on a single wally so i think a LOT of it has to do with volts to the pump, and the line from the pump to the rail (as well as the line built into the hanger, as i replace mine with larger ID stuff and braze it in just to be consistant in my line size from start to finish.

I still want to add another 255 to the AWD tank i just haven't decided where, so i MIGHT put a 044 inline but that doesn't support as much as 2 of the 255'sin paarralel according to the data out there. I think i may have to get 3 pumps, have a stock one take the plce of the syphon tube's job, then put a FWD sending unit on the non-pump side of the AWD tank and have two 255's on the other side sorta like the full blown but without the starvation issues of the FB unit

I've been looking, thinking, designing and sketching up my new dual setup since doing the AWD swap and i hope to complete it here soon, i just need a spare AWD fuel pump hanger, or i'll have to get desperate and make my own i guess

My other idea is to put one pump on each side and add a "leveling tube" across the bottom of the two saddles, technically it would work, but i would like to have another baflle for the non pump side and then i'd be fighting fuel level snders being correct knowing my luck

 

[Mr4G]

I just happen to have all of these lines and pump and injectors off of a buddy's car we parted out. Pretty much got given the fuel setup for helping him out. I would really honestly like to switch to a fuel cell, like I said for weight purposes. The thing stopping me though has been the fact that I dont want to use such a big mechanical fuel pump. So my plan now is to install a fuel cell 100%, but these are the things up in the air with me, should I stick with my -8 feed line or go with a smaller feed? Is there any harm in using the -8, like overflowing the injectors or anything of that sort? As for a fuel pump, will the aeromotive unit or jay racing unit be sufficiant enough with e85? Or will I have to find a way to plumb in 2 pump with the fuel cell?

Another subject now is intake manifolds? Yes a stock 1g intake manifold can be good enough, but if your looking for every last bit of power, lets look into sheet metal intake manifolds. Will the 16g produce enough flow to work hand and hand with a good sized sheet metal intake manifold? What are all of your opinions on that?

 

[pneumo]

I just happen to have all of these lines and pump and injectors off of a buddy's car we parted out. Pretty much got given the fuel setup for helping him out. I would really honestly like to switch to a fuel cell, like I said for weight purposes. The thing stopping me though has been the fact that I dont want to use such a big mechanical fuel pump. So my plan now is to install a fuel cell 100%, but these are the things up in the air with me, should I stick with my -8 feed line or go with a smaller feed? Is there any harm in using the -8, like overflowing the injectors or anything of that sort? As for a fuel pump, will the aeromotive unit or jay racing unit be sufficiant enough with e85? Or will I have to find a way to plumb in 2 pump with the fuel cell?

Another subject now is intake manifolds? Yes a stock 1g intake manifold can be good enough, but if your looking for every last bit of power, lets look into sheet metal intake manifolds. Will the 16g produce enough flow to work hand and hand with a good sized sheet metal intake manifold? What are all of your opinions on that?

You'll have to do some research for fuel systems. Once you commit to a custom setup you have many options.

IMHO the EVO3 intake mani is a great match for the 16G, it has great mid range and top end power with decent low end.

 

[Mr4G]

Unfortunatly an evo 3 intake manifold does not mate up to a 1g head though.

 

[Nate Crisman]

Unfortunatly an evo 3 intake manifold does not mate up to a 1g head though.

Then logically, your using the wrong cyl head as well.

My advise is buy a stock 2g head and an evo3 intake manifold before pissing away $500+ on a sheet intake that will lose you most of the good bottom & midrange a 16g makes in order to "maybe" gain a tick of top end where a 16g sucks anyway.

 

[Kevin Jewer]

My car is a good example of what doesn't necessarily work very well with a 16g. Huge intake manifold, huge head, medium-large cams, a 2 speed trans, and a torque converter that stalls around 6500 rpm with this power level. Luckily it's still decently fast. The torque converter is the biggest problem IMO, the intake manifold second, the head and cams probably don't matter as much as people think, especially after tweaking the cam gears until they took another 4 tenths off the ET. All stuff worth considering though of course, I'm just babbling out loud.

 

[Mr4G]

Well Nate, unfortunatly my head is o ringed and my block is recessed to accept those orings so switching heads isnt as easy as you think. Also I have an AMS VSR intake manifold laying around. But I'm not asking for myself, I'm asking as part of the discussion. So we can all figure out what works well with a 16g. The questions I am asking is for everyones knowledge and discusion, not what I should do with my setup specifically.

Currently I am using an extrude honed 1g intake manifold. I noticed somebody earlier in the thread said they were going to use the fftec sheet metal intake manifold. That manifold is very similar in design to the AMS unit. Would you guys believe that would help in any aspect? You will deffinetly loose low end, but will you gain any top end? What are all of your beliefs on that?

 

[pneumo]

Well Nate, unfortunatly my head is o ringed and my block is recessed to accept those orings so switching heads isnt as easy as you think. Also I have an AMS VSR intake manifold laying around. But I'm not asking for myself, I'm asking as part of the discussion. So we can all figure out what works well with a 16g. The questions I am asking is for everyones knowledge and discusion, not what I should do with my setup specifically.

Currently I am using an extrude honed 1g intake manifold. I noticed somebody earlier in the thread said they were going to use the fftec sheet metal intake manifold. That manifold is very similar in design to the AMS unit. Would you guys believe that would help in any aspect? You will deffinetly loose low end, but will you gain any top end? What are all of your beliefs on that?

Your current setup with the VRS intake mani is an excellent combo for a high reving 700+HP car. I think it would help with a 16G if you were going all-out, but it would sacrifice low end power.

Back when I was pushing the 14b I used an original JMF smim on a 1G head and saw slight gains at the track. I was unsure if it would help since that mani was proven to loose power below 5500rpm which was mid way through the 14b powerband. I tried it and it helped, although it was not a perfect match. New style intake manifolds are much better. As we mentioned earlier, a 2G head with an EVO3 intake mani is nearly ideal for a 16G.

I'm a big fan of the new FFtec V2 SMIM. It's designed to maintain some low end power, keep a strong mid range and make big power up top. I got to try one back to back with an EVO3 intake mani. With the EVO3 intake mani on a 2G head I went 127mph on the 16G. With the FFtec V2 SMIM I went 130mph, and that's with the same head, same cams, same everything. I was hitting 38psi at 4k rpm on the dyno, so spoolup and midrange power were still extremely good! Yes I really like the new FFtec V2 SMIM. It's only available for the 2G and EVO heads, no love for the 1G head.

 

[Mr4G]

How were you running 38psi out of a 16g?

 

[pneumo]

How were you running 38psi out of a 16g?

That was just an uncontrolled spike on the dyno. I backed off before it could get any higher.

On a typical tuning pull or drag run I'll see 33psi at 5k rpm and it tapers down to 23psi at 8k rpm. Actually the boost levels off around 7500rpm and stays at 23psi up to 8500 rpm.

 

[Phil1320]

Then logically, your using the wrong cyl head as well.

Seriously? C'mon. A friend of mine ran 11.5@117 on a small 16g with 1G head/extrudehoned 1G intake in a street car, on street tires, back in 1999 or so. "wrong cylinder head" .... I don't think so. Maybe not as good as the 2G/E3 combo, but hardly the wrong set up.

Here we are 13-14 years later and guys are running what, a second, second and a half quicker in full out race cars with EVO 3 16gs and 68hta's......

As with E85......I'm not sold on the 2G head/E3 intake mani either.

This should be evidenced already in that you are only a couple ticks quicker than me with the 14b, and I'm shifting a manual transmission. To me, you have no gain currently over me.

 

[rhamlinii]

Seriously? C'mon. A friend of mine ran 11.5@117 on a small 16g with 1G head/extrudehoned 1G intake in a street car, on street tires, back in 1999 or so. "wrong cylinder head" .... I don't think so. Maybe not as good as the 2G/E3 combo, but hardly the wrong set up.

Here we are 13-14 years later and guys are running what, a second, second and a half quicker in full out race cars with EVO 3 16gs and 68hta's......

As with E85......I'm not sold on the 2G head/E3 intake mani either.

This should be evidenced already in that you are only a couple ticks quicker than me with the 14b, and I'm shifting a manual transmission. To me, you have no gain currently over me.

I was thinking the same thing back when everyone was saying that. I just brushed it off. Ever since Curt Brown said what he said about him prefering the smaller port head. It seems a lot of people have been going that route. What's funny is that You, Curt, and Joe all used the 1g head to make the record. I believe Nate's the only one to use the 2g head and put up better numbers.

 

[forcefed86]

I believe Lucas English also ran an extrude honed 1g intake and 1g head. He had some great 16g times. One of the main reasons I didnt bother swapping over.

 

[Nate Crisman]

Seriously? C'mon. A friend of mine ran 11.5@117 on a small 16g with 1G head/extrudehoned 1G intake in a street car, on street tires, back in 1999 or so. "wrong cylinder head" .... I don't think so. Maybe not as good as the 2G/E3 combo, but hardly the wrong set up.

Here we are 13-14 years later and guys are running what, a second, second and a half quicker in full out race cars with EVO 3 16gs and 68hta's......

As with E85......I'm not sold on the 2G head/E3 intake mani either.

This should be evidenced already in that you are only a couple ticks quicker than me with the 14b, and I'm shifting a manual transmission. To me, you have no gain currently over me.

Im not saying the 2G head is far and away better than the 1g head. but they are so cheap, and the Evo3 intake manifold is very likely to be the BEST intake manifold you can put on a small turbo car regardless of price...it just seems pointless to run a 1g head and SMIM costing $500+. Supposedly the 2g head has better structure for head gasket stability with should be a plus. Regardless, the real reason I specifically run a 2g head was to facilitate the E3 intake manifold fitment. IMHO the intake manifold is the more important piece of the top end puzzle. THAT is why I said "wrong" cyl head. IMHO it would be foolish to build a setup around the 1g head and spend $500 on a SMIM rather than spend $150 on an Evo3 IM.

I do think the E3 manifold w/ 2g head on an identical otherwise car is worth a good tenth and 1mph over an extruded 1g manifold & 1G head. Especially for an auto car that has to make very strong bottom end to 60' well.

Will see how the 2g head & E3 IM work out for me in 2012. Hopefully this year I'll get to actually tune the car and work on fine tuning the setup. That 11.3@116 pass was still in shakedown mode after slapping a home-machined cyl head back on and trying to just go make passes. I haven't optimized anything yet..traction, tune, power, weight ect. But as usual, budget is going to make more of a difference than anything else. I don't have the cash for the intercooler upgrade nor to build a good bottom end. Looks like Im simply going to deck the old block and re-assemble with the dinky frozen boost intercooler again. Car will be lighter by a few hundred I think.

Besides, you of anyone should know, when it comes to 14b racing, there is nothing other than "a few ticks" gain with ANY mods. At the mid 11 second range with this small turbo, there is NOTHING that makes a drastic difference anymore. It's a fight to save a hundredth here and a hundredth there. Gas vs E85 Air/Air vs Air/Water 1G head vs 2G head SMIM vs Stockers 7.8:1 vs 10:1 none of this major changes ever amount to a drastic change in performance, it's again, a few ticks here and there. One needs to add up all those little ticks to come up with anything significantly higher performing because that's simply the nature of the game.

Besides...Im pushing a low power engine through a slush box. Had I been on the stick trans, I think my [email protected] would have been a more Pnuemo like 11.5@119. That's nature of the auto: give up mph in exchange for a little bit of ET (and a significant weight penalty). And I don't have a ton left on the 60' because there simply isn't enough power to push the car any harder. Im leaving at max RPM/Boost on the converter.

 

[GDNF2ET]

The best low end, all around manifold on the planet is made for a 1g head...The Magnus v3 Cast manifold..
I know its an expensive manifold, but there's no theory to it.Its the best in every category and its for a 1g head...
The Hawver intake is another option that I'm sure is better than the 2g head/evoIII intake option, at almost half the price as the Magnus, but thats my opinion..The Hawver has been used with a 16g with very good results..

 

[Nate Crisman]

The best low end, all around manifold on the planet is made for a 1g head...The Magnus v3 Cast manifold..
I know its an expensive manifold, but there's no theory to it.Its the best in every category and its for a 1g head...
The Hawver intake is another option that I'm sure is better than the 2g head/evoIII intake option, at almost half the price as the Magnus, but thats my opinion..The Hawver has been used with a 16g with very good results..

The Magnus V3 being better than the E3 manifold as per area under the curve with a 14b turbo in the rpm range of 3500-6000rpm is debatable. I haven't seen anyone test it or even run with the Magnus on a small turbo car let alone any kind of back to back comparison so saying the V3 manifold is "best in every category" is a pretty wild statement.

It's a short runner/big plenum intake, I highly doubt it's going to make more torque and bottom end than any of the stock long runner intakes. I have doubts that the magnus would make more area under the curve with a 14b in my case, and Id guestimate it might even be a wash with a 16g within a few whp.

And $700

I have the same opinion about the hawver: short runner/big plenum is going to lose far more bottom end than it gains up top with regard to 14b/16g use. It's a mismatch for the total airflow capability and rpm range that turbo size works in.

 

[GDNF2ET]

Just switching from a stock intake to a Hawver netted a 32 max torque gain...This is with a Evo16g turbo...
http://hawvermotorsports.com/images/dyno/hawver_dynosheet.jpg

 

[Nate Crisman]

Just switching from a stock intake to a Hawver netted a 32 max torque gain...This is with a Evo16g turbo...
http://hawvermotorsports.com/images/dyno/hawver_dynosheet.jpg

No boost curve on the plot Logs of both runs? Timing curves, AF ratio, fuel type, and knock sensor activity? The blue plot is nice and perfect smooth, while the red plot is jagged and peaky (possibly ecu pulling timing). I suspect there are other variables at play beyond the intake manifold simply due to the shape of the torque curve & huge torque gain, possibly boost level. You can see where the red torque curve starts to roll over at about 3700rpm, yet the blue torque curve doesn't change pitch till about 4200rpm. A stock intake manifold 16g car "shouldn't" start nosing over that early or abruptly.

I'm not convinced either the magnus nor the hawker is be-all-end-all for small turbo from one random dyno plot directly from the manufacturer of said part. (I don't trust manufacturer's test data pretty much universally) I'v been doing small turbo setups for a long long time and I'v not personally seen great results with short runner/big plenum intake manifolds on puny turbo cars that don't rev out. Certainly not for the cost of these custom cast manifolds.

 

[GDNF2ET]

I'm not convinced either the magnus nor the hawker is be-all-end-all for small turbo from one random dyno plot directly from the manufacturer of said part.

The dyno sheet is from one of our board members,H82LOSE91/Greg Hernandez

http://www.dsmtuners.com/forums/nit...01567-e316g-sidemount-w-methanol-results.html

 

[Nate Crisman]

The dyno sheet is from one of our board members,H82LOSE91/Greg Hernandez

http://www.dsmtuners.com/forums/nit...01567-e316g-sidemount-w-methanol-results.html

I read that thread and while it's cool that he saw some gains on his specific setup, I don't take it as proof of the intake manifold being superior. In order to know which intake manifold makes the absolute best power band in respect to "record setting" small turbo performance, the back to back test really needs to be done in similar conditions.

• Greg had a stock side mount intercooler plugging up the airflow
• He was running pump gas w/ a meth injection
• Boost level was likely nowhere near what "record setting" requires
• the overall power level is quite shy of full tilt.

Greg's specific situation, seeing that he was running pump gasoline w/ a meth squirt, doesn't allow him to completely max out a 16g? I would expect a dyno plot of a "record car" to show WAY more torque than max hp, as one would expect from running a boost spike past 35psi at 4000rpm but only being able to hold 25-26psi at the rpm of peak hp. Greg's dyno where HP and TQ are roughly equal suggests a pretty flat boost curve and is not taking advantage of all the turbo can do at low rpm.

And what correctly running 16g car makes more HP than torque? 372hp / 356 tq

To make 372whp, I would expect a small turbo/stock intake car to make in excess of 385-390ftlb when using the waste gate to limit boost to a relatively flat curve. When running with no waste gate at the absolute max output of the turbocharger, I would expect a 16g/stock intake manifold car to make in excess of 450ftlb if it made 372whp. (assuming a 35psi boost spike, alky fuel, max timing, reasonable AIT, and no airflow restrictions). What Im getting at is something isn't right on the red curve.

After reading that these pulls were done at high AIT with a side mount, pump gas, and a methanol squirt, Im even more inclined to believe the stock intake manifold runs were pulling timing due to knock sensor activity. The lines are all jagged, which can be indicative of the ECU jacking around with the timing. coming up on peak torque is where the ecu will always pull timing the most, gradually adding timing back in with rpm...you get exactly what the dyno shows: reasonable/typical top end, but lack of peak torque. My guestimate is that changing the intake manifold also changed something fundamental to the tune that benefited the hawker plot. Knock, timing, fueling, timing curve.

It just seems to me the red stock intake is artificially limited and way down on torque/power making the hawker look better than it really is on this specific car.

 

[H82lose91]

I dont have time at the moment to fully address all the questions about my dyno comparison. But the car was not setup to max the turbo out. The setup was conservative on the dyno to purposely show back to back when swapping intake manifolds. I will have to dig up logs if you really need them but that was from some time ago. The turbo was on a MBC and maftpro setup with a Jestr eprom at the time. I believe boost was around 24psi, also if i remember correctly and again this was quite some time ago, boot dropped up top and i believe afr leaned out a bit. The Hawver was night and day over my old magnus. And I dont want this turning into a pissing match with Marco, but if you look at his new manifold and the reported gains guysare seeing they are "similar" to what I personally saw. The manifolds also share some similarities in design as well which probably contributes to the similar results.

Marcos new intake is a very nice piece. Will it out perform the Hawver, I dont know. No one has back to back tested them as far I as know. Im sure the Hawver guys are as curious as some of you to see where it stacks up.

Nate, if your wanting to test one i can see about getting the Hawver guys to shoot one out your way and put all this to bed. Let me know. Im easily reached on the other dsm forum. I dont check this one too often.

 

[Nate Crisman]

I dont have time at the moment to fully address all the questions about my dyno comparison. But the car was not setup to max the turbo out. The setup was conservative on the dyno to purposely show back to back when swapping intake manifolds. I will have to dig up logs if you really need them but that was from some time ago. The turbo was on a MBC and maftpro setup with a Jestr eprom at the time. I believe boost was around 24psi, also if i remember correctly and again this was quite some time ago, boot dropped up top and i believe afr leaned out a bit. The Hawver was night and day over my old magnus. And I dont want this turning into a pissing match with Marco, but if you look at his new manifold and the reported gains guysare seeing they are "similar" to what I personally saw. The manifolds also share some similarities in design as well which probably contributes to the similar results.

Marcos new intake is a very nice piece. Will it out perform the Hawver, I dont know. No one has back to back tested them as far I as know. Im sure the Hawver guys are as curious as some of you to see where it stacks up.

Nate, if your wanting to test one i can see about getting the Hawver guys to shoot one out your way and put all this to bed. Let me know. Im easily reached on the other dsm forum. I dont check this one too often.

All taken in stride, Im not intending to make this any kind of pissing match at all.

What Im trying to express is that there are dynamics at play when a turbocharger is absolutely maxed out that are different when boost is regulated and there is some additional airflow capability to spare.

My example of this being big turbo vs little turbo:. Say we have a car that has no restrictions in tune, fuel, or airflow. Say a typical 1g awd stick with a GT35R that's waste gated to 25psi on E85 making about 400whp. Nowhere near maximum output from the turbocharger. When you change the intake manifold, cams, head or any of the engine hardware that affects VE...it shows up as real power gained on the dyno. Upgrading the engine parts allowed an increase in airflow. Say it picks up 50-60whp all over due to the airflow increase from a magnus intake & big cams.

Now take for example the same car with a T25 turbo. It's a little more extreme example than a 14b or 16g. It is maxed out at about 275hp (just rough guess). It doesn't matter what you set the boost controller to, with stock intake, head, cams it only makes 275hp once the boost starts falling off. you can set the torque amount by setting the boost to spike higher, but you can't get any more power out of it up top.

Now if we stick a ported head, big cams, and hawver/magnus intake manifold on it:

Is the T25 car going to now make 325whp? or is the head/cams/intake manifold going to be negligible and still make 275hp +,- IMHO when the turbo is running flat out, items that increase engine base VE have a negligible affect.

Granted, it's possible the bigger top end pieces are a detriment to overall power if it shifts the engine's natural RPM tuning to the right into a range that the turbo can't keep up with, especially if it loses some bottom end power.

 

[forcefed86]

The best low end, all around manifold on the planet is made for a 1g head...The Magnus v3 Cast manifold..

Man am I tired of broad sweeping BS statements like these. If you had even the slightest knowledge of how an intake manifold works, common sense would tell you the magnus intake is not well suited for this application. Unless you have actual before and after track data of the 2 manifolds/heads being debated, why join in a drag racing discussion? I believe there is a “Dyno Queen” section of the forum for these types of discussions.

 

[H82lose91]

Nate,
Your last statement pretty much summed up my setup. My setup was not a stock 1g motor with a 16g slapped on it. So yes in my case the intake manifold was the restriction (SMIC aside). 9:1 compression, ported head, 1mm over valves, S2 cams, FP Race mani. Everything was paired together to move air. We knew we would see a gain up top with the intake, what we didnt expect to see was the gains down low. And i think thats where this discussion was kinda at. I didnt believe it either but you could definitely feel it in the car and then the dyno proved it. This was pretty much unheard of in the dsm community in relation to intakes up until this point. Marcos new intake show the same sort of gains and on larger turbo cars.

Ill have to try and dig up those logs, i had back to back excel graphs showing boost, afr, and timing for both runs as I knew back then the results would need to be qualified since the results were what they were.

And hey lets be honest, tuning and parts selection has everything to do with achieving great numbers for a given setup. I was big into drag racing back then, now being up in Va hitting the twisties in the mountains is way more fun. Although the Tq makes things a little sketchy sometimes!

 

[91stocker]

From the dyno sheets, it appears to have completely taken away the 16g's infamous "hit". Lost alot of low and midrange for more peak.

Isnt that what any big smim would do?