Wisemen and knowledgable tumers , 14000 rpm cfm? [Merged 7-7] STUPID high

[nanokpsi]

The FP2x cams are more aggressive than FP3s, so I don't think you'll have a problem with your cams,

This is incorrect, please don't report misimformation. The 3x is the most aggressive cam they sell, followed by the fp4, then fp3. This is what Robert told me via email.

 

[lazylaser]

This is incorrect, please don't report misimformation. The 3x is the most aggressive cam they sell, followed by the fp4, then fp3. This is what Robert told me via email.

Thank you for clearing that up.

 

[dsm-onster]

It doesn't matter what you can rev to, it's were it makes the power. A bolt on turbo housing and unported or very lightly ported head don't have business revving that high since the power won't be there.

I was suggesting in my previous posts that I would need a better exhaust mani and turbine housing.

I don't doubt your knowledge about 4G63 headflow... Can you please shoot me some links or other proof that backs this? I'd like to compare perhaps flow vs. rev charts or dyno charts. Of course a stock intake mani wll scew these results as I would be using a SMIM. So it will have to be a setup that includes a SMIM. This would put this to rest once and for all...

You can make 600-700whp without turniong the rpms you want to turn.

This is reassuring. I think I can take my Manley singls to 9K just fine. I'll just get a set of lightened retainers for insurance. Although they've done great to 8500 rpms so far .

As far as the stroker debate, it really only adds the cost of the crank to the equation (2-300).

I can only get a cut crank for $300.

You also need to think about more cam. Fp3s,4s or 3x would be good with some nice Crane cams coming in as the best stuff.

Definately. I think I'll take these FP2Xs as far as I can. Perhaps even after I get another turbo upgrade. When I find that I have to up my boost over 30 psi or so, then I'll be looking at cams for sure. Not that 30 psi is bad. It's just that, I still want to do this on pump gas... W/ water/alky injection of course.

When you really think about it, when you have the head/motor to turn the rpms, you need a 75 lb/min + turbo in a big turbine housing to make it worth a damn. Otherwise your just lower the boost you're runnig to max out the smaller compressor.

I didn't think revving to over 9,000 rpms would do that much to airflow. I knew it would help. I don't mind getting another turbo. I just want evidence that the 1g head flows poorly at that rpm. I want to see if it is similar to the 1g intake mani in the sense that there is actually a 5-6 lb/min drop off in airflow... the stipulation, of course, is that plenty of cam will be there, a SMIM will be there, and a turbo that flows enough on both ends will be there.

Thanx for the advice. I really don't have a horsepower goal. the sky's the limit for the most part.

 

[dsm-onster]

I have a Bullseye turbine and that could be my limiting factor doe maximum boost. I will be finding it's max flow soon when I get a 4 X Karman chip from keydiver so I can check the boost at which the turbine flows the most or begins to have diminished returns for the added boost. I will start in the low 20's and add 2 psi and do 3rd gear pulls and record the maximum airflow reached. Once I max it out I will back it off 2 psi and tune from there. Personally I shift at 8500 and don't see the need to go any higher. This upcoming test will tell as I will rev a bit higher to see if flow increases. I doubt it but revving a bit higher might keep the revs up between shifts which would be an advantage. I'll post the results here after I get the chip. Jeff(Keydiver) is quick getting the chips out. Mark

Please keep us updated. I think i'll just eventually go Holset for cost effective flow...

 

[dsm-onster]

Exactly what I was trying to say. With a 60-1, it should spool by 4,000rpm. No way it'll still be pulling at 10,000rpm. No turbo/dyno sheet I've seen has a 6,000rpm power band. By the time you hit 10,000rpm, you should have shifted 2,000rpm ago to stay in the middle of the fat power band.

If it spools before 5,000rpm it will run out of steam way before 10,000rpm.

Ok, to hit your goal of 500WHP even figured conservitively is 550 crank HP you'll need to run ~56lbs/min. Figured by taking HP desired*AFR*BSFC/60
For your equation I used 11:1 AFR & ..55 BSFC...Since you said pump gas.
Wa = 550*11:1*(.55/60) = ~56lbs/min

Plugging Wa into another equation you find you need to run 42psi manifold pressure, subtract 14.7psi to get ~27psi boost needed at 9,000rpm (figuring this turbo will make 500whp at 9,000rpm, probably more like 8,000rpm) to get 500whp.

There is a big difference in 1000rpms as I am learning from this thread... The difference between 8000 and 9000 rpms is definately worth going to stronger internal bolts, rods, wrist pins, etc., right? What equation did you use to determine the need for 9K and 42 psi MAP for 500whp?

I've been using the DSM_Tuning_Sheet_v2.1.xls. At 70% compressor efficiency (this turbo should be at least here) and 90% VE and 27 psi. I'm calculating only 48 lbs/min at 9000 rpms. I know this compressor will peak out at 60 lbs/min based on the results that I've researched.

Assuming that I can get a set of cams that will maintain 90% VE at 10,000 rpms, then if the compressor efficiency stays at around 68-70%, then I'm looking at 56.5 lbs/min at 30 psi. This is not outflowing the compressor. But for sure to maintain the 90% VE, I'll need a better flowing hot side... i.e. larger a/r housing and tubular exhaust mani.

 

[Dark_Horse]

I used this equation to get manifold pressure.

MAPreq= Wa*R*(460+Tm)/VE*N/2*Vd

Wa = lb/min
R = Gas Constant = 639.6
Tm = Intake Manifold Temp (I used 130 degrees)
VE = Volumetric Efficiency
N = Engine Speed
Vd = Engine Displacement 2.0l = 122Cubic inches

In the equation I just used N = 9,000rpm since you said you wanted to run 10,000rpm. I figured peak power for 500whp at 9,000rpm to make reving to 10,000rpm worth while. I can make it any RPM you want though. The lower the RPM, the higher the psi you have to run though.

Equation = 56*639.6*590/.9*4500*122 = 42.7psi.

Subtracting atmospheric pressure of 14.7 from 42.7 = 28psi. (Whoops, I was off by 1psi )



I plotted it on the compressor map. It's way outside the efficiency range. I can give you the formula for this also. You can plot where you'll be under the map with any turbo, any set of variables.

That dot WAY at the top, that's where you are at 9,000rpm and 56lbs/min if you can maintain 28psi and 90% VE.

By the way, thanks for the link to the tuning sheet. I'll have to take a look at that when I get home. Work gets mad when I save stuff from the net to the computer.

 

[out there]

i don't know... some holset turbos from bullseye are friggin' huge; apparently the housing and wheel are very efficient, i've heard of an hx35 spooling by 4200. with a model or two higher, it doesn't seem unrealistic to expect to be able to run up to 9500+ before shifting, effectively giving him a huge power band

 

[dsm-onster]

I used this equation to get manifold pressure.

MAPreq= Wa*R*(460+Tm)/VE*N/2*Vd

Wa = lb/min
R = Gas Constant = 639.6
Tm = Intake Manifold Temp (I used 130 degrees)
VE = Volumetric Efficiency
N = Engine Speed
Vd = Engine Displacement 2.0l = 122Cubic inches

In the equation I just used N = 9,000rpm since you said you wanted to run 10,000rpm. I figured peak power for 500whp at 9,000rpm to make reving to 10,000rpm worth while. I can make it any RPM you want though. The lower the RPM, the higher the psi you have to run though.

Equation = 56*639.6*590/.9*4500*122 = 42.7psi.

Subtracting atmospheric pressure of 14.7 from 42.7 = 28psi. (Whoops, I was off by 1psi )



I plotted it on the compressor map. It's way outside the efficiency range. I can give you the formula for this also. You can plot where you'll be under the map with any turbo, any set of variables.

That dot WAY at the top, that's where you are at 9,000rpm and 56lbs/min if you can maintain 28psi and 90% VE.

By the way, thanks for the link to the tuning sheet. I'll have to take a look at that when I get home. Work gets mad when I save stuff from the net to the computer.

Excellent post. Makes total sense. But TOTALLY different results... Your plot throws the 60-1 WAY off efficiency.. . . I'll have to look tat the spreadsheet to see where the calculations differ.

You do know that you are showiht a 3.3 PR on the compressor map. And to calculate PR you do the following:

(boost + 14.67)/14.67 = PR

(28psi + 14.67)/14.67 = 2.9 PR
I know theres a pressure drop from the turbo to mani but that is on the order of 1 psi or less w/ a good intecooler.

And compressor maps have been known to be wrong. I. E. people running 30 + psi w/ the 60-1 and having great results. a 60-1 compressor map looks worse than a 50 trim map!!! It is a common concept that the 60-1 begines to pull better than the 50-trim after 25 psi. But thecompressor map shows that anything over 28 psi is very inefficient. Also the EVO3 16G compressor map seams to be wrong with respect to the results obtained. And also the 20G. Based on results though, it is reasonable to suggest that the 60-1 compressor wheel can flow enough to support 60 lbs/min. And Kyle Tarry calculates that at 10K and 90% VE and 28 psi I should be flowing only 54 lbs/min w/ resonable intecooler efficiency and IATs.

 

[pneumo]

Compressor maps
The 60-1 comp map was produced using a T04B housing, that's why it looks like @$$. Using a T04E housing will improve flow and efficiency. Some like the 60-1 in a T04S housing.

The 20G map stopped at 130k rpm. A good indicator of how fast a wheel can spin is it's outer diameter- there won't be much gain if the exducer is going faster than the speed of sound. The big 16G has the same exducer as the 20G and the map show the 16G spinning up to 145k rpm, but the 20G map doesn't show that area. They also stop the 20G map at 68% efficiency. If they took the map out to 65% or 60% like most other turbo maps there would be much more area above and to the right of the existing map.

Same thing with the 60-1. The 50trim has the same exducer as the 60-1 and the 50trim map goes up to 126k rpm, while the 60-1 stops at 120k. Put on a bigger compressor housing and spin it up higher and the map starts to match the real-world power output.
A better map of the 60-1 www.hexfiles.com/resources/compressor_maps/T04B-60-1.jpg
Big 16G in the regular TD05 housing vs. TD06 housing
www.stealth316.com/images/td05h-16glarge-cfm.gif
www.stealth316.com/images/td06-16g-raw.gif

 

[Dark_Horse]

Even when I input the variables into the .xls spreadsheet you linked, I still came up with just about the same #'s I gave. My formulas don't take turbo efficiency into account either, so the results I posted were lower PR than the spreadsheet you linked said.

To calculate PR add 42.7+2 = 44.7. I used 2 in the equation, but based on the .xls file you posted, I should have only used one.
Subtract 1 from 14.7 to get 13.7
Take 44.7/13.7 = 3.26

If you sub 1 in the formula, you get PR = 3.19

You are totally correct though, the 60-1 has been pushed beyond 30psi and it still puts down the power. All our bench racing will count for cr@p once you hit the dyno. I say give it a try, worst that can happen is you'll need a larger turbo.

 

[dsm-onster]

Even when I input the variables into the .xls spreadsheet you linked, I still came up with just about the same #'s I gave. My formulas don't take turbo efficiency into account either, so the results I posted were lower PR than the spreadsheet you linked said.

To calculate PR add 42.7+2 = 44.7. I used 2 in the equation, but based on the .xls file you posted, I should have only used one.
Subtract 1 from 14.7 to get 13.7
Take 44.7/13.7 = 3.26

If you sub 1 in the formula, you get PR = 3.19

You are totally correct though, the 60-1 has been pushed beyond 30psi and it still puts down the power. All our bench racing will count for cr@p once you hit the dyno. I say give it a try, worst that can happen is you'll need a larger turbo.

Am I doing something wrong? pardon the camma deliminated jumble, if you can even sift through it.



Enter Base Data
Boost Pressure (psi) Turbo to Mani Pres. Drop Compressor Efficiency
30 1 70%

Intake Temp (*F) Intercooler Efficiency Drivetrain Loss, %
70 65% 18%

Enter Engine Criterium
Engine Speed (RPM) Volumetric Efficiency Displacement
9000 90% 2

Calculated Values
PR CI Displaced MAP (psi)
3.264285714 122 44.7

Charge Temp (*F) CFM Airflow (at STP) Lb/min Airflow
174.0681433 630.9847833 50.47878267

Approx. Horsepower (crank) Approx. Horsepower (wheel)
530.027218 437.2724548

 

[dsm-onster]

Compressor maps
The 60-1 comp map was produced using a T04B housing, that's why it looks like @$$. Using a T04E housing will improve flow and efficiency. Some like the 60-1 in a T04S housing.

The 20G map stopped at 130k rpm. A good indicator of how fast a wheel can spin is it's outer diameter- there won't be much gain if the exducer is going faster than the speed of sound. The big 16G has the same exducer as the 20G and the map show the 16G spinning up to 145k rpm, but the 20G map doesn't show that area. They also stop the 20G map at 68% efficiency. If they took the map out to 65% or 60% like most other turbo maps there would be much more area above and to the right of the existing map.

Same thing with the 60-1. The 50trim has the same exducer as the 60-1 and the 50trim map goes up to 126k rpm, while the 60-1 stops at 120k. Put on a bigger compressor housing and spin it up higher and the map starts to match the real-world power output.
A better map of the 60-1 www.hexfiles.com/resources/compressor_maps/T04B-60-1.jpg
Big 16G in the regular TD05 housing vs. TD06 housing
www.stealth316.com/images/td05h-16glarge-cfm.gif
www.stealth316.com/images/td06-16g-raw.gif

Excellent info. The compressor cover does make a difference. I have an E cover. Of course.

That map is definately what I've been seeing on the track around here and on the forum recently... God save forced induction and the E compressor cover!

P.S. that is a compressor map of a b cover 60-1 though

 

[dsm-onster]

I say give it a try, worst that can happen is you'll need a larger turbo.

BTW, I like your philosophy !

 

[pneumo]

P.S. that is a compressor map of a b cover 60-1 though

Yeah, what I'm saying is if you use an E or S cover it only gets better!
I haven't found a map of the 60-1 with the E or S cover, so we'll just have to guesstimate. That's why I also posted the links of the 16G with a small vs big cover, so you can get an idea of how it changes the map.

 

[Dark_Horse]

Am I doing something wrong? pardon the camma deliminated jumble, if you can even sift through it.



Enter Base Data
Boost Pressure (psi) Turbo to Mani Pres. Drop Compressor Efficiency
30 1 70%

Intake Temp (*F) Intercooler Efficiency Drivetrain Loss, %
70 65% 18%

Enter Engine Criterium
Engine Speed (RPM) Volumetric Efficiency Displacement
9000 90% 2

Calculated Values
PR CI Displaced MAP (psi)
3.264285714 122 44.7

Charge Temp (*F) CFM Airflow (at STP) Lb/min Airflow
174.0681433 630.9847833 50.47878267

Approx. Horsepower (crank) Approx. Horsepower (wheel)
530.027218 437.2724548

I thought you were shooting for 500whp so that's where I came up with the high PR. We were looking for different #'s then. We're both right. Woohoo!

 

[dsm-onster]

Yeah, what I'm saying is if you use an E or S cover it only gets better!
I haven't found a map of the 60-1 with the E or S cover, so we'll just have to guesstimate. That's why I also posted the links of the 16G with a small vs big cover, so you can get an idea of how it changes the map.

I'm a turd . I'm not normally this stupid. DUH! Yea. The point is duely noted.

 

[dsm-onster]

I thought you were shooting for 500whp so that's where I came up with the high PR. We were looking for different #'s then. We're both right. Woohoo!

530 crank horsepower is enough for now... But I surely will want more turbo for more. You do know that the percent drivetrain loss goes down as you go up in horsepower. It does not take any more horsepower to push the stock drivetrain at 1000 hp than it does at 200 hp.

For a stock 1G FWD, there is about 15% drivetrain loss. so that's about 30 hp to overcome the drivetrain losses. At 500whp we still have only a 30hp drivetrain loss. 530 crank hp will yield 500whp.

 

[1SloColt]

This is incorrect, please don't report misimformation. The 3x is the most aggressive cam they sell, followed by the fp4, then fp3. This is what Robert told me via email.

2x cams have a more accelerated ramp rate and more total lift than Fp3s, this in my eyes makes them more aggressive. In terms of holding the valve open longer the FP3s win due to their more square lobe design, although the profile on the 2x is somewhat similar to fp3s. Please do not tell me I am incorrect when you at least consider the information I'm basing my claim on.

 

[Dark_Horse]

You do know that the percent drivetrain loss goes down as you go up in horsepower. It does not take any more horsepower to push the stock drivetrain at 1000 hp than it does at 200 hp.

For a stock 1G FWD, there is about 15% drivetrain loss. so that's about 30 hp to overcome the drivetrain losses. At 500whp we still have only a 30hp drivetrain loss. 530 crank hp will yield 500whp.

That's only one theory on drivetrain loss and I don't know if I believe it. You've got loss due to heat, pumping effect among others. I agree that the loss due to rotating mass (wheels, drive shaft etc) & wind resistance stay the same, but the other variables, I don't know. But this goes into another debate entirely.

I still am hoping you dyno it. I'd like to see where your power levels drop off since we've got the same cams and both have SMIM etc. As luck would have it, I'm in the market for a new turbo too.

 

[dsm-onster]

2x cams have a more accelerated ramp rate and more total lift than Fp3s, this in my eyes makes them more aggressive. In terms of holding the valve open longer the FP3s win due to their more square lobe design, although the profile on the 2x is somewhat similar to fp3s. Please do not tell me I am incorrect when you at least consider the information I'm basing my claim on.

Yup! There's alot more to cams than duration!!!

 

[dsm-onster]

That's only one theory on drivetrain loss and I don't know if I believe it. You've got loss due to heat, pumping effect among others. I agree that the loss due to rotating mass (wheels, drive shaft etc) & wind resistance stay the same, but the other variables, I don't know. But this goes into another debate entirely.

I still am hoping you dyno it. I'd like to see where your power levels drop off since we've got the same cams and both have SMIM etc. As luck would have it, I'm in the market for a new turbo too.

Good point!

I will post dyno results w/ this setup as soon as I get them... It's real exciting discussing the potential of this setup. It's like flirting w/ Halle Berry!

 

[sweet97]

i don't know... some holset turbos from bullseye are friggin' huge; apparently the housing and wheel are very efficient, i've heard of an hx35 spooling by 4200. with a model or two higher, it doesn't seem unrealistic to expect to be able to run up to 9500+ before shifting, effectively giving him a huge power band

My Bullseye Holset is the HX-35/40. 40 series compressor housing capable of flowing 70lbs./min. and a 35 series turbine wheel but it's in the Bullseye turbine which I hear has an ar of .55 and with no thher Bullseye turbine there is nothing to compare it to but it is considered to be the restriction of the set-up. The 35 series have much beefier shafts compared to the HX40's I am told but ehe HX 35/40 is expensive and most just get the straight 40 because of cost. I start to hit 20psi at about 4400psi, that was last year and I am still pulling hard when i shift at 8500rpm's because I am not quite sure of the Crower springs as I have read they have floated valves at 9200. I would think that any rpm over 8750 should have a dual spring. I will be testing the max airflow boost of my turbo within a week when my new quad X Karnan optioned chip arrives as I max out the 2X Karman at 7000rpm's in 3rd gear, that's 3212Hz. I believe from what I have read that translates to 51 lbs/min. I have seen 900 on my quad chip which would be 3600Hz abd make the flow 57lbs/min but I never tried for the maximum flow and will report what that amount of boost is. mark

 

[the_jester]

matt, you gotta put the car back together before you can dyno it, and we gotta get mine together, so we gotta get movin, it'll be getting warm soon we need cars to cruise in and whupp up on unsuspecting supercharged mustangs

 

[dsm-onster]

My Bullseye Holset is the HX-35/40. 40 series compressor housing capable of flowing 70lbs./min. and a 35 series turbine wheel but it's in the Bullseye turbine which I hear has an ar of .55 and with no thher Bullseye turbine there is nothing to compare it to but it is considered to be the restriction of the set-up. The 35 series have much beefier shafts compared to the HX40's I am told but ehe HX 35/40 is expensive and most just get the straight 40 because of cost. I start to hit 20psi at about 4400psi, that was last year and I am still pulling hard when i shift at 8500rpm's because I am not quite sure of the Crower springs as I have read they have floated valves at 9200. I would think that any rpm over 8750 should have a dual spring. I will be testing the max airflow boost of my turbo within a week when my new quad X Karnan optioned chip arrives as I max out the 2X Karman at 7000rpm's in 3rd gear, that's 3212Hz. I believe from what I have read that translates to 51 lbs/min. I have seen 900 on my quad chip which would be 3600Hz abd make the flow 57lbs/min but I never tried for the maximum flow and will report what that amount of boost is. mark

(drooling....)

 

[nanokpsi]

2x cams have a more accelerated ramp rate and more total lift than Fp3s, this in my eyes makes them more aggressive. In terms of holding the valve open longer the FP3s win due to their more square lobe design, although the profile on the 2x is somewhat similar to fp3s. Please do not tell me I am incorrect when you at least consider the information I'm basing my claim on.

If the 2xs had a greater accleration rate than the fp3s, then they would be more square The fast accleration is what makes them appear more square. The lifts are similar, but the "x" denotes it has a faster ramp rate the the fp2. I didn't mean to sound rude, but I was trying to pass on info from Robert @ FP.