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

[1SloColt]

I've been told the same thing about the X grinds, that they weren't intended for high revving, but I'm totally skeptical about it. With all the lift and ramp rates of the 2x, you're gonna have to rev it out to take full advantage of the cam. The 415s and the 3x have close total lift values, the 3x having a little more being at .430" intake/.416" exhaust. I know some guys have to be running the 415s up past 8500, so reveal yourself if you are one of those guys.

 

[dsm-onster]

Matt(DSM-onster) I researched the cams. The HKS 272's have 213* duration at .050" lift with lift at the valves being .406"/.386". The Crowers I bought have 218*/216* duration and lifts are .425"/416". Lift helps across the rpm range while duration will change the rpm range to a different power band, in my case a bit higher, about 500rpm's.

Thank you for the actual cam specs. This will really help me

The Crowers are VERY streetable and drop straight in just like the HKS. Buschur does not degree cams for his Stage 3 motors which I have. He only uses HKS and the Crowers.
Compared to the 272's I lost 2" of vacuum. Now I have 10" of vacuum instead of the 12" I had with the HKS. Idle is a bit lumpier. Sometimes the 272's had very little lope. Now there is a mean idle! Off boost response is also great so I see no loss of torque. The Crowers do have a flat torque curve so to speak but it's not low, just not peaky and then falling off.

If I cannot reach my goal. I will hock my FP2Xs and seriously take a look at your setup... Your cams look tempting.

The FPx cams require dual springs. When I bought the Crowers I spoke to a guy at SBR who ran the FP4's I believe in his 2.0 and he said the idle was crappy. 220* duration and lifts around .400".

A higher duration than your Crower 415s. This would make sense. I am not too worried about idle. I just want a wide usable powerband. And the higher the power band is in the rev range the more theoretical flow you can achieve. I don't mind not coming on to the cam until 4500-5000 rpms. I just want there to be plenty of power there from that point to 9,500-10,000 rpms. . . that's 5,000 rpms in the powerband !

I use the JM SMIM. Bigger plenum than the Magnus and only $450. w/velocity stacks.

Actually I had been looking at the bulldog ebay one. Velocity stacks and the shape is identical to the Magnus. Anyone who has actually run one of these, has reported great results... I feel guilty but at 285 bones vs. over 600, I might have to reconsider.

The holset flows 70lbs/min. but I am not sure about the turbine as I have also heard about the .55a/r. Of course the a/r is just a ratio that means nothing between different turbine housings from different families. I do bring my 950cc inj's close to 90* IDC at 30psi and wonder what 35psi would do to that number. I may have to raise the base fuel pressure from it's current 40psi-hose off.
I would not have 10,000rpm the goal but the most HP I could make. Go to www.crower.com the Crower 414's in a Buschur 2.0 and I think a BR580 turbo put down 550WHP at between 7000 and 7500rpm's. Get the 415's and try the RS60T and see if you can make the 500whp goal you want. You may have to change the turbo but your goal is quite accomplishable with rpm's much less than 10,000 rpm's which is really pushing the motor to a shorter life. It was difficult for me to read the boost but I think they did the 550HP @ 28psi. Torque was around 425lbs/ft.
The Holset turbine wheel is 2.753 inducer and 2.364 exducer. I have in my notes that the RS60T has an inducer of 2.56 and exducer of 2.23 on the hot side. Not sure what the P-trim size is but WOULD LIKE TO KNOW! Knowing what I do now I would have gone full Garret, maybe the GT35R with a T3 or even a T4 turbine. Would have to research that. Maybe next season! Mark

Yea. I am making the assumption that i'll need to rev this high to max this turbo out. 500whp is my goal. I was hoping for a little more. He!! haven't stock 6-bolts gone that high without taking a poop? Maybe I won't go into my internals just yet...

PS: Started with the 14b, of course, then the EVO III which I thought would be my limit. Then I got hooked by the 50 trim craze and an RS49 from AGP, then the RS60T-looked to good to be true at $699.(?). That died soon after due to a cheap DNP knock off exhaust manifold(welding slag broke off and ruined the turbine wheel) and while waiting for the replacement from Turbonetics 1 year warranty I came across the Holset and here I am. 3 turbo's with the Bullseye turbine. It's a quality turbine and beefy(13lbs) but a larger size turbine housing would be a great option.

Tell me about it. I feel like I'm no longer in control anymore.

 

[1SloColt]

I just saw that Rizz is making 585whp and 450ft/lbs on a stock 1g bottom end on 32psi. He was running around 560whp all last racing season on the stock bottom end. He can't get the motor to blow so he's gonna swap in his built one that he's had for over year in the corner of his garage, .

 

[dsm-onster]

I've been told the same thing about the X grinds, that they weren't intended for high revving, but I'm totally skeptical about it. With all the lift and ramp rates of the 2x, you're gonna have to rev it out to take full advantage of the cam. The 415s and the 3x have close total lift values, the 3x having a little more being at .430" intake/.416" exhaust. I know some guys have to be running the 415s up past 8500, so reveal yourself if you are one of those guys.

Good points. I'm skeptical too. I really feel no drop in power by 8500 rpms. My current rev limit with the FP2Xs.

One reason why I'm so tempted to rev so high is that I'd like to not ahve to run 30 psi on pump gas... even w/ the water injection, I'd like to stay under 30 psi and still go to the limits of this 6-bolt internals. Becasue what if my water injection system fails. But, i'm thinking about wrist pins and am asking myself which "what if" scenerio is the lesser of the two evils. breaking a piston off because of the high rpms or melting a piston from a water injection kit failure.

Well who cares!? noone goes this far to b!tch and moan about what-if's, I guess.

. . . Oh, I think Im one of "those guys" .

 

[dsm-onster]

I just saw that Rizz is making 585whp and 450ft/lbs on a stock 1g bottom end on 32psi. He was running around 560whp all last racing season on the stock bottom end. He can't get the motor to blow so he's gonna swap in his built one that he's had for over year in the corner of his garage, .

HA! gotta love the 6-bolt. 560whp throughout the season? That's reliable enough for me...

 

[1SloColt]

That's what good tuning and some luck will do on a stock 6-bolt. I did some more research on the 415s, and like I said before, the power is good, but the peak torque isn't great, but the torque curve is almost dead flat, . All that topend torque is what's creating the nice hp on the topend.

 

[dsm-onster]

I did some more research on the 415s, and like I said before, the power is good, but the peak torque isn't great, but the torque curve is almost dead flat, . All that topend torque is what's creating the nice hp on the topend.

This is why I am suspecting the FP2Xs can be brought over 8500 rpms and they still be beneficial instead of shifting. I suspect they have a flat broad torque curve that doesn't drop off. Of course, this is all speculation. I just didn't want to take on this without getting a good foundation. And it lookes like the ball is in my court now to prove or disprove this...

Hopefully, 500whp will be the side benenfit

 

[1SloColt]

The FP2x cams are more aggressive than FP3s, so I don't think you'll have a problem with your cams, if anything your cams are one of your largest power sources to get you to the 500whp mark. I think on high boost you'll be able to do it with the right tune. If anything, just run more boost, at least thats my philosphy. My car will be seeing 30-32psi on a completely bone stock 90 longblock within the next week or so, as long as I have enough fuel, and as soon as I finish the front fabrication for my AWD swap.

 

[lazylaser]

The FP2x cams are more aggressive than FP3s

I'm curious about where you found this information. I've been torn between the 2x and the 3's for a while now and haven't been able to find anything stating that the 2x is more aggresive then the 3. All forced performance's site says is:

"FPCam2x
Dual valve springs recommended. This "x" version of the FPCam2 increases valve acceleration and valve dwell near max lift to increase torque and widen the power band. Similar to the FPCam3 but not specifically designed with 100mm stroke crankshafts in mind."

So I do not think its about about how much more 'aggresive' the cams are, but rather what the cams are made for. (FP3 for 2.3 stroker FP2X for the 2.0)

If this is incorrect let me know, because I'm also looking for the most bang-for-the-buck cam I can get!

 

[pneumo]

Stroker vs. revs: "It's better to make torque higher up in the rpm range because you can take advantage of gearing." I read that somewhere on rec.motorcycles.harley and it pans out mathematically, too.

To help your tranny shift at high rpm, use the lightest clutch disc you dare. The disc is like a flywheel for your tranny, lighten it and it will have less momentum and will be easier to change speed at each shift. Full face organic=heaviest, sprung puck discs are lighter, unsprung pucks are even lighter, and small diameter twin discs have the least momentum.

 

[sweet97]

My rev limiter is set for 9k rpm's and I have bounced off that many times in first gear due to the crazy quick reving in first gear. Crower stage 4's(415's). David Buschur said his motor would handle 10k rpm's but that I should get the car on a dyno to see where power drops to determine a shift point. 8500 rpm's is fine for this motor. I have read about Crower springs floating the valves at 9200+ rpm's. If I shift crisply I am not dropping revs much and I stay in the power band. I use a Scanmaster for my guide. Since it gets it's data from the diagnostic port and the ECU it's as accurate as any logger that gets it's data from the ECU. Best time is 11.68 and best trap is 122. I checked the times against those listed on www.dsmtimes.org and I am right on the money! I drive more than a full weight car and my 122mph time came with a friend in the car so the total weight was at least 3500#. My 11.68 was at 119mph by myself so the weight was about 3350+. I have added extra insulation under the rear seat and hatch area as well as sprayed undercoating in the wheel wells.
I am more interested in a quick 55mph to 85mph time than a 1/4 mile but the 1/4 is what I must use as the assessment tool.
Brian Crower is very accessable. The 415's are not listed on the site, the first page anyways for DSM cams since they sell the cams for the same price he had too many "kids" buying the big cams and not making the power they expected due to a lack of supporting mods.(The cam specs on the first page for DSM's are at the cam lobe but I believe they give the specs at the usual .050" lift on page 81 or there about)-(cam specs are not what it's all about either due to lobe shapes and I hear the FP's, especially the FP3's and 4's have what guys call "square lobes" due to their aggressive ramps) Brian Crower also has larger cams that he will grind for the DSM that are not listed but he would meet the expectations/goals a customer specified. I am flowing at least 3600Hz and I have an old conversion that says each 32hz=.51 lbs/min.(This puts my motor at 573 BHP) There is also a chart for calculating HP that I will find and post. Tuning with just the MAF-T and possibly ther Bullseye turbine are my restrictions that hold my power back. Mark
PS: Here is the place to find the HP calculator:
www.speedworldmotorplex.com about half way down on the home page there is a HP estimator you can click on that will bring up 2 ways to calculate HP.
Using 3350 for the weight and the 11.68 and the 122mph trap I get 520/441 using the speed and 490/416 using the 11.68et. Just rough guides that use an 18% drop due to drivetrain loss. Since I have an AWD the loss would be greater. What is considered the loss for AWD? 22-25%?
Using 25% I get 390 WHP for the first and 368 WHP with the et method. I think the loss is closer to 22% though.
back to the thread I again state that a 10k rpm goal is not necessary to make 500whp but the grade of fuel will be the limiting factor here. Usually 400 whp is considered a good HP on pump isn't it? Staying under 30psi and on pump will make 500whp darn tough to do IMHO! Best of luck though and it will be interesting to follow your quest! Mark

 

[Slippi84]

Me and my gt14 water/alky injection and future cams are gonna go 500whp hunting with pump gas. It's all about tuning. I think a wideband should be on everyones to do list cause it's the truth.

 

[dsm-onster]

I'm curious about where you found this information. I've been torn between the 2x and the 3's for a while now and haven't been able to find anything stating that the 2x is more aggresive then the 3. All forced performance's site says is:

"FPCam2x
Dual valve springs recommended. This "x" version of the FPCam2 increases valve acceleration and valve dwell near max lift to increase torque and widen the power band. Similar to the FPCam3 but not specifically designed with 100mm stroke crankshafts in mind."

So I do not think its about about how much more 'aggresive' the cams are, but rather what the cams are made for. (FP3 for 2.3 stroker FP2X for the 2.0)

If this is incorrect let me know, because I'm also looking for the most bang-for-the-buck cam I can get!

I think 1slocolt is referring specifically to the accelerated ramp rate and lift characteistics... If the FP3s have more duration then it's a tossup. But I don't think they have much more... But, I too have never heard specifically that the FP2Xs are more aggressive. No one but FP has actually compared 2xs w/ 3s. And they may not have done a direct test between the two on a 2.0 setup.

 

[dsm-onster]

Stroker vs. revs: "It's better to make torque higher up in the rpm range because you can take advantage of gearing." I read that somewhere on rec.motorcycles.harley and it pans out mathematically, too.

Thanx. Yet another reason to ditch the stroker build.

To help your tranny shift at high rpm, use the lightest clutch disc you dare. The disc is like a flywheel for your tranny, lighten it and it will have less momentum and will be easier to change speed at each shift. Full face organic=heaviest, sprung puck discs are lighter, unsprung pucks are even lighter, and small diameter twin discs have the least momentum.

My plans so far. Take the rev limit from the current setting of 8500 to 9000. Get a shep tranny. And see if there are positive results. Then get a fidanza FW, a FP bolt kit, race clutch (sbr 4000), TI dual springs and retainers, and lightened forged internals. And take 'er to 10,000 rpms. and look at the results.

I'll keep my boost low (18-20psi) so that I don't bleed down the 60-1 so much and scew the dyno results as I'm trying to see where the cams drop off at... If the cams don't drop off, Hello gt40r, who's your new pappy . Or at least i'm going to get a larger a/r turbine housing and a tubular exhaust mani. I may upgrade the exhaust nousing and mani first as we can get BB chras for so cheap now a days... So I don't know where I'm going with that just yet. but right now, I think it is more important to see if it will be worth it w/ these cams. And besides, I think it would be good to get a real good benchmark for these cams as they are relatively new.

 

[dsm-onster]

My rev limiter is set for 9k rpm's and I have bounced off that many times in first gear due to the crazy quick reving in first gear. Crower stage 4's(415's). David Buschur said his motor would handle 10k rpm's but that I should get the car on a dyno to see where power drops to determine a shift point. 8500 rpm's is fine for this motor. I have read about Crower springs floating the valves at 9200+ rpm's. If I shift crisply I am not dropping revs much and I stay in the power band. I use a Scanmaster for my guide. Since it gets it's data from the diagnostic port and the ECU it's as accurate as any logger that gets it's data from the ECU. Best time is 11.68 and best trap is 122. I checked the times against those listed on www.dsmtimes.org and I am right on the money! I drive more than a full weight car and my 122mph time came with a friend in the car so the total weight was at least 3500#. My 11.68 was at 119mph by myself so the weight was about 3350+. I have added extra insulation under the rear seat and hatch area as well as sprayed undercoating in the wheel wells.
I am more interested in a quick 55mph to 85mph time than a 1/4 mile but the 1/4 is what I must use as the assessment tool.
Brian Crower is very accessable. The 415's are not listed on the site, the first page anyways for DSM cams since they sell the cams for the same price he had too many "kids" buying the big cams and not making the power they expected due to a lack of supporting mods.(The cam specs on the first page for DSM's are at the cam lobe but I believe they give the specs at the usual .050" lift on page 81 or there about)-(cam specs are not what it's all about either due to lobe shapes and I hear the FP's, especially the FP3's and 4's have what guys call "square lobes" due to their aggressive ramps) Brian Crower also has larger cams that he will grind for the DSM that are not listed but he would meet the expectations/goals a customer specified. I am flowing at least 3600Hz and I have an old conversion that says each 32hz=.51 lbs/min.(This puts my motor at 573 BHP) There is also a chart for calculating HP that I will find and post. Tuning with just the MAF-T and possibly ther Bullseye turbine are my restrictions that hold my power back. Mark
PS: Here is the place to find the HP calculator:
www.speedworldmotorplex.com about half way down on the home page there is a HP estimator you can click on that will bring up 2 ways to calculate HP.
Using 3350 for the weight and the 11.68 and the 122mph trap I get 520/441 using the speed and 490/416 using the 11.68et. Just rough guides that use an 18% drop due to drivetrain loss. Since I have an AWD the loss would be greater. What is considered the loss for AWD? 22-25%?
Using 25% I get 390 WHP for the first and 368 WHP with the et method. I think the loss is closer to 22% though.
back to the thread I again state that a 10k rpm goal is not necessary to make 500whp but the grade of fuel will be the limiting factor here. Usually 400 whp is considered a good HP on pump isn't it? Staying under 30psi and on pump will make 500whp darn tough to do IMHO! Best of luck though and it will be interesting to follow your quest! Mark

Awesome! You've got room to grow and you're still pulling impressive numbers. Hey, never underestimate the power of transitional fuels. Water injection is not a crutch. It is a tripod to support some of the greatest cars that have ever run down the records. Shep + no intecooler + transitional fuel = fastest DSM in the world. Don't forget that you can run race gas and water injeciton too. Can you imagine the timing curve?!

Anyway, I probably will be modeling 90% of your setup... You're where I currently want to be and on the path to where I want to go.

 

[dsm-onster]

If anything, just run more boost, at least thats my philosphy. My car will be seeing 30-32psi on a completely bone stock 90 longblock within the next week or so, as long as I have enough fuel, and as soon as I finish the front fabrication for my AWD swap.

Good philosophy . I mean come on we're all turbocharged here. I should stop worrying so much about big boost and embrace it because we have the option.

I'm glad to see you're converting to awd. You've certainly needed it for a long time now. I'll be the only fool I know with a fwd and over 400whp . This is why I've got a budget now for a awd shell and shep tranny .

 

[dsm-onster]

BTW. Will a t350 wheel fit in my bullseye housing w/ the t3 stage 3 t31 wheel in it?

Or more importantly will this chra bolt onto my Bullesye housing?... I get confused w/ T-netics vs. Garrett nomenclature...

I don't understand. The RS60T comes w/ a stage 3 t3 (t31) and this Import Evolution Garrett comes w/ a stage 3 t3 (t350). Is the stage 3 t3 (t350) garrett wheel an upgrade to the t3 stage 3 (t31) t-netics wheel? Does T-netics call the garrett stage 3 t3 (t350) a "stage 5"?

I'm so utterly and completely confused!

 

[1SloColt]

The garrett/precision stage 3 turbine wheel is the 69 trim t350. Its on precision's site I believe. Yeah turbonetics has a whole different thing going with their stage 3 t31 wheel, so I'm not totally sure about the discrepancy there. Regarding the FP cams, FP2x cams have similar lobe profiles to FP3s, which the 3s are their square lobe cam. The FP2x has that similar profile, plus more lift, plus a faster ramp rate, that makes them more aggressive.

The reason you want to make a lot of torque higher up in your RPM range is because you'll make more power there. Hp = (torque x rpm)/5252, so if you raise the rpm where your peak torque is then you'll raise your peak power as well, but power under the curve is where its really at. Upgrades cams and SMIM are meant tp make more power under the curve, but they also raise the point where you make peak torque normally, which results in more peak power.

 

[mavisky]

who does head porting for 50-80$ ?

... a drunken, retarded, and one-armed monkey with a dremel tool.

 

[dsm-onster]

... a drunken, retarded, and one-armed monkey with a dremel tool.

HAHAHA! OK! OK!

 

[dsm-onster]

The garrett/precision stage 3 turbine wheel is the 69 trim t350. Its on precision's site I believe. Yeah turbonetics has a whole different thing going with their stage 3 t31 wheel, so I'm not totally sure about the discrepancy there. Regarding the FP cams, FP2x cams have similar lobe profiles to FP3s, which the 3s are their square lobe cam. The FP2x has that similar profile, plus more lift, plus a faster ramp rate, that makes them more aggressive.

Ok so I need to know if the Garrett stage 3 has the same footprint as the t-netics stage 3. Does anyone know?

The reason you want to make a lot of torque higher up in your RPM range is because you'll make more power there. Hp = (torque x rpm)/5252, so if you raise the rpm where your peak torque is then you'll raise your peak power as well, but power under the curve is where its really at. Upgrades cams and SMIM are meant tp make more power under the curve, but they also raise the point where you make peak torque normally, which results in more peak power.

This is my thoughts and why I'm thinking bigger turbine wheel or turbine a/r would be better for me w/ this particular build. It would be better to bring the overall VE up and as a side this will turn on the powerband of the RS60T a little later. I should ahve gone w/ a RS60 w/ a "stage 5" t350. But I wanted the warranty .

 

[1SloColt]

I would actually try making 450-475whp with the 60-1 you have now, its powerband should be pretty sick with those cams and a good SMIM. I think at 28-30psi, assuming a solid tune that should be had. And I seriously wouldn't worry about porting the head unless you have a spare. From my experience a ported 1g head just doesn't pick up the power it should. My friends cnc ported jackson racing head is only good for an extra 10-20hp and that car makes well over 450whp. Another buddy of mine actually got rid of his stage 3 BJ's head to go back to a stock head and gained 3mph in trap speed, from 139 to 142. Just a suggestion though, I mean you should definitely pick up some power with a ported head, just seems like all the effort to port it for the smallish amount of power you'll gain isn't worth it. I suppose that if you were gonna go with something like a stage 4 Polk head then you'd definitely see some solid increase in power output.

 

[nanokpsi]

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. You can make 600-700whp without turniong the rpms you want to turn. As far as the stroker debate, it really only adds the cost of the crank to the equation (2-300). 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.

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.

 

[sweet97]

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

 

[Dark_Horse]

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. You can make 600-700whp without turniong the rpms you want to turn. As far as the stroker debate, it really only adds the cost of the crank to the equation (2-300). 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.

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.

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.