best way to 500hp?
08-12-2008, 08:07 PM
#41
Part of the Furniture
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
09-12-2008, 08:20 AM
#42
A GT3076R on a 0.63 a/r and a 0.82 a/r only managed 500bhp on Harvey's engine dyno on Paul Ripley's engine at 32psi. The only difference was that the smaller turbine had huge back-pressure at high rpm and a lower boost threshold at low rpm.
Obviously this was on pump fuel, so you could add another 40-50bhp on race fuel
.
Obviously this was on pump fuel, so you could add another 40-50bhp on race fuel
.
09-12-2008, 08:29 AM
#44
If you have 3.9 gearing and use the car a lot on track, then I would advise using the larger turbine, as it will put less strain on the engine at high rpm with the resultant decrease in back-pressure.
If you want to see all the different figures etc, then this is all on Paul Ripley's thread in the photo section.
09-12-2008, 08:49 AM
#45
Wahay!! I've lost my Virginity!!
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Depends what gearing you have on the car. If you have standard gearing and aren't planning to always be high up the rev range / don't do many track days, then the smaller turbine wheel makes a better road car.
If you have 3.9 gearing and use the car a lot on track, then I would advise using the larger turbine, as it will put less strain on the engine at high rpm with the resultant decrease in back-pressure.
If you want to see all the different figures etc, then this is all on Paul Ripley's thread in the photo section.
If you have 3.9 gearing and use the car a lot on track, then I would advise using the larger turbine, as it will put less strain on the engine at high rpm with the resultant decrease in back-pressure.
If you want to see all the different figures etc, then this is all on Paul Ripley's thread in the photo section.
Last edited by Clikettman; 09-12-2008 at 09:10 AM.
09-12-2008, 09:14 AM
#47
Wahay!! I've lost my Virginity!!
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
11-12-2008, 12:21 PM
#49
Norris Motorsport
Mike,
Paul ripley's turbo must have been the 52 trim version. If you had used the 56 trim version with the A/R70 compressor housing you would have seen nearer 550bhp.
Paul ripley's turbo must have been the 52 trim version. If you had used the 56 trim version with the A/R70 compressor housing you would have seen nearer 550bhp.
11-12-2008, 12:47 PM
#50
No, Paul's was the 56 trim A/R 70 compressor in both 0.63 a/r and 0.82 a/r turbine. There was only a few bhp difference recorded (the figures are on Paul's thread), but a big difference in back-pressure (the 0.63 a/r giving 70psi at high rpm at 32psi of boost
).A GT30 with a 52 trim wheel was also tested, but that only made 475bhp on Harvey's own engine that is currently in his car.
11-12-2008, 01:22 PM
#51
Norris Motorsport
Hi Mike,
Well at least that show's Harvey's dyno does not over inflate figures!
What I find strange about harveys results is that the conventional RS500 T4 has a compressor flow of less than 50lb's (Even a 60 trim only just breaks 50lb) where as the GT3076r 56 trim is a 55lb compressor.
This would indicate that harvey's lower power figures are caused by exhaust stage inefficiencies, something I have found NOT to be the case when comparing a 56 trim Gt30 to a 57 trim T4E, especially with the 0.82 exhaust housing!
Still life would be boring if we all had the same results!
Well at least that show's Harvey's dyno does not over inflate figures!
What I find strange about harveys results is that the conventional RS500 T4 has a compressor flow of less than 50lb's (Even a 60 trim only just breaks 50lb) where as the GT3076r 56 trim is a 55lb compressor.
This would indicate that harvey's lower power figures are caused by exhaust stage inefficiencies, something I have found NOT to be the case when comparing a 56 trim Gt30 to a 57 trim T4E, especially with the 0.82 exhaust housing!
Still life would be boring if we all had the same results!
11-12-2008, 01:58 PM
#52
Hi Mike,
Well at least that show's Harvey's dyno does not over inflate figures!
What I find strange about harveys results is that the conventional RS500 T4 has a compressor flow of less than 50lb's (Even a 60 trim only just breaks 50lb) where as the GT3076r 56 trim is a 55lb compressor.
This would indicate that harvey's lower power figures are caused by exhaust stage inefficiencies, something I have found NOT to be the case when comparing a 56 trim Gt30 to a 57 trim T4E, especially with the 0.82 exhaust housing!
Still life would be boring if we all had the same results!
Well at least that show's Harvey's dyno does not over inflate figures!
What I find strange about harveys results is that the conventional RS500 T4 has a compressor flow of less than 50lb's (Even a 60 trim only just breaks 50lb) where as the GT3076r 56 trim is a 55lb compressor.
This would indicate that harvey's lower power figures are caused by exhaust stage inefficiencies, something I have found NOT to be the case when comparing a 56 trim Gt30 to a 57 trim T4E, especially with the 0.82 exhaust housing!
Still life would be boring if we all had the same results!
http://www.turbobygarrett.com/turbob..._700382_12.htm
And Garrett only rate it at 525bhp (according to above) - it made 501bhp on Paul's engine with a standard YBP inlet manifold. It may have made a bit more with something else, as this is really the limit of this inlet.
0.82 a/r turbine housing
RPM Bst BP Torque BHP
3000 08 04 199.7 116.9
3500 28 15 360.5 242.7
4000 32 20 386.3 293.1
4500 32 21 404.9 348.7
5000 32 24 394.9 374.7
5500 32 26 394.4 414.7
6000 32 28 395.1 450.7
6500 32 32 389.6 483.7
7000 32 35 376.3 501.5
7500 32 40 341.3 485.4
0.63 a/r turbine housing
RPM Bst BP Torque BHP
3000 13 10 238.8 138.1
3500 32 24 389.4 259.2
4000 32 27 388.3 297.5
4500 32 31 404.1 345.0
5000 32 34 397.0 379.7
5500 32 37 393.0 413.2
6000 32 39 398.7 457.9
6500 32 44 382.7 474.4
7000 32 56 370.8 495.6
7500 32 65 340.3 485.3
11-12-2008, 02:07 PM
#53
Norris Motorsport
Hi Mike,
The problem will using the YBP inlet is that you are not giving the turbo it's maximum ability to create power, and hence even you must agree your argument is flawed about it having only a 500bhp capability, if the engine you tested it on clearly has "other" flow restriction. I think also a lot of people do not realise that exhaust back pressure is influenced by intake efficiency (i.e. total energy consumed in the process of compressing the intake charge and forcing it through the entire intake system, through the head ports/valves and into the cylinder.)
The problem will using the YBP inlet is that you are not giving the turbo it's maximum ability to create power, and hence even you must agree your argument is flawed about it having only a 500bhp capability, if the engine you tested it on clearly has "other" flow restriction. I think also a lot of people do not realise that exhaust back pressure is influenced by intake efficiency (i.e. total energy consumed in the process of compressing the intake charge and forcing it through the entire intake system, through the head ports/valves and into the cylinder.)
11-12-2008, 02:19 PM
#54
PassionFord Regular
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 375
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can I ask a question? If there is huge back pressure pre-turbine, would it not be possible to bleed the excess off using an external wastegate set-up, but leaving enough gas to keep it at max boost?
11-12-2008, 02:21 PM
#55
Hi Mike,
The problem will using the YBP inlet is that you are not giving the turbo it's maximum ability to create power, and hence even you must agree your argument is flawed about it having only a 500bhp capability, if the engine you tested it on clearly has "other" flow restriction. I think also a lot of people do not realise that exhaust back pressure is influenced by intake efficiency (i.e. total energy consumed in the process of compressing the intake charge and forcing it through the entire intake system, through the head ports/valves and into the cylinder.)
The problem will using the YBP inlet is that you are not giving the turbo it's maximum ability to create power, and hence even you must agree your argument is flawed about it having only a 500bhp capability, if the engine you tested it on clearly has "other" flow restriction. I think also a lot of people do not realise that exhaust back pressure is influenced by intake efficiency (i.e. total energy consumed in the process of compressing the intake charge and forcing it through the entire intake system, through the head ports/valves and into the cylinder.)
, but I still don't think that this turbo is quite a 550bhp one, as the 52 trim turbo that you mentioned that "should" make 500bhp (but only did 475bhp) was tested on an engine with no flow restrictions (well only 620bhp ones - the limit of the Mountune roller-barell ). Also, the back-pressure readings jumped astronomically with the smaller rear turbine housing (virtually doubling), but only lost 5bhp....
I would be interested in knowing where you get your comparative figures from?
I suppose the true test of the turbo would be to stick on an engine with no flow restrictions on the dyno
.
Last edited by Mike Rainbird; 11-12-2008 at 02:22 PM.
11-12-2008, 02:40 PM
#56
Norris Motorsport
Hi Mike,
All my figures are based on mapping data logging. This includes, individial EGT's, pre turbo back pressure, post turbo back pressure, intake system pressure tappings in turbo inlet hose, turbo outlet, intercooler outlet and inlet manifold pressure.
I then map the engine at numerous boost levels, paying particular note to AFR and injector pulse width. This is also backed up by real time performance analysis, which allows me to analyse any aspect of the vehcile performance. For example I can see exaclty how long the engine takes to accelerate from say 4000rpm to 8000rpm, or any resolution for that matter.
As such when I do research on different turbos on the same engine it is VERY clear what the results are, both from direct comparison of fuel consumption and of course real time acceleration data.
It does take me many hours to comprehensively analyse every setup, but I now have an extremely extensive data base of what virtually every main stream turbo can do on different spec YB's (AND CVH!!).
I mean who on earth would have believed I could manage 173mph on a CVH ERST running the stock exhaust manifold, which once was believed to be good for only 300bhp! The latest engine performance suggests we are well on for exceeding 180mph! Not bad for a 1.7CVH!
All my figures are based on mapping data logging. This includes, individial EGT's, pre turbo back pressure, post turbo back pressure, intake system pressure tappings in turbo inlet hose, turbo outlet, intercooler outlet and inlet manifold pressure.
I then map the engine at numerous boost levels, paying particular note to AFR and injector pulse width. This is also backed up by real time performance analysis, which allows me to analyse any aspect of the vehcile performance. For example I can see exaclty how long the engine takes to accelerate from say 4000rpm to 8000rpm, or any resolution for that matter.
As such when I do research on different turbos on the same engine it is VERY clear what the results are, both from direct comparison of fuel consumption and of course real time acceleration data.
It does take me many hours to comprehensively analyse every setup, but I now have an extremely extensive data base of what virtually every main stream turbo can do on different spec YB's (AND CVH!!).
I mean who on earth would have believed I could manage 173mph on a CVH ERST running the stock exhaust manifold, which once was believed to be good for only 300bhp! The latest engine performance suggests we are well on for exceeding 180mph! Not bad for a 1.7CVH!
11-12-2008, 02:45 PM
#58
Norris Motorsport
YBP is fine for up to 500bhp, but I would'nt suggest using it beyond that!
One thing for sure is DON'T use a swedish style plenum, they do not give equal EGT's on boost. I have been harping on about this for years but no one listens!! I have dozens of engine data running these plenums and all are down right dangerous on cylinder number 3/4 EGT's!
This problem arises from the fact we have to map via average AFR (i.e.the AFR of all 4 cylinders), and in order to maintain no more than 920DegC on cylinder 4 on a swedish plenum requires AFR's in the 10's! By comparison cylinder number 1 is usually up to 150DegC cooler!
Hence now all swedish plenum'ed cars are banned from my workshop IF in for mapping, as I refuse to lose an engine from poor inlet manifold design!
One thing for sure is DON'T use a swedish style plenum, they do not give equal EGT's on boost. I have been harping on about this for years but no one listens!! I have dozens of engine data running these plenums and all are down right dangerous on cylinder number 3/4 EGT's!
This problem arises from the fact we have to map via average AFR (i.e.the AFR of all 4 cylinders), and in order to maintain no more than 920DegC on cylinder 4 on a swedish plenum requires AFR's in the 10's! By comparison cylinder number 1 is usually up to 150DegC cooler!
Hence now all swedish plenum'ed cars are banned from my workshop IF in for mapping, as I refuse to lose an engine from poor inlet manifold design!
Last edited by Karl; 11-12-2008 at 02:52 PM.
11-12-2008, 02:50 PM
#59
Cossie Paranoia
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Cold Norwegian Garage...Brr..
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
YBP is fine for up to 500bhp, but I would'nt suggest using it beyond that!
One thing for sure is DON'T use a swedish style plenum, they do not give equal EGT's on boost. I have been harping on about this for years but no one listens!! I have dozens of engine data running these plenums and all are down right dangerous on cylinder number 3/4 EGT's!
One thing for sure is DON'T use a swedish style plenum, they do not give equal EGT's on boost. I have been harping on about this for years but no one listens!! I have dozens of engine data running these plenums and all are down right dangerous on cylinder number 3/4 EGT's!
no use in a spacer on a ybp then?
11-12-2008, 02:52 PM
#60
10K+ Poster!!
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: May 2004
Location: birmingham west mids
Posts: 11,919
Likes: 0
Received 11 Likes
on
9 Posts
YBP is fine for up to 500bhp, but I would'nt suggest using it beyond that!
One thing for sure is DON'T use a swedish style plenum, they do not give equal EGT's on boost. I have been harping on about this for years but no one listens!! I have dozens of engine data running these plenums and all are down right dangerous on cylinder number 3/4 EGT's!
This problem arises from the fact we have to map via average AFR (i.e.the AFR of all 4 cylinders), and in order to maintain no more than 920DegC on cylinder 4 on a swedish plenum requires AFR's in the 10's! By comparison cylinder number 1 is usually up to 150DegC cooler!
Hence now all swedish plenum'ed cars are banned form my workshop IF in for mapping, as I refuse to keep lose an engine from poor inlet manifold design!
One thing for sure is DON'T use a swedish style plenum, they do not give equal EGT's on boost. I have been harping on about this for years but no one listens!! I have dozens of engine data running these plenums and all are down right dangerous on cylinder number 3/4 EGT's!
This problem arises from the fact we have to map via average AFR (i.e.the AFR of all 4 cylinders), and in order to maintain no more than 920DegC on cylinder 4 on a swedish plenum requires AFR's in the 10's! By comparison cylinder number 1 is usually up to 150DegC cooler!
Hence now all swedish plenum'ed cars are banned form my workshop IF in for mapping, as I refuse to keep lose an engine from poor inlet manifold design!
Also Did you see Altratz's question above?
11-12-2008, 03:00 PM
#62
Norris Motorsport
YBP with plenum spacer is ok for around 520bhp and suits the GT3076 turbo well.
Beyond 500 bhp I design and manufacture my own intakes, all centre entry and all with virtual 100% equal EGT's on full boost!
In answer to altraz's question above all std garrett GT30's are external wastegate, I would'nt use any of the modded internal gated items for anything other than an ornament!
Beyond 500 bhp I design and manufacture my own intakes, all centre entry and all with virtual 100% equal EGT's on full boost!
In answer to altraz's question above all std garrett GT30's are external wastegate, I would'nt use any of the modded internal gated items for anything other than an ornament!
Last edited by Karl; 11-12-2008 at 03:02 PM.
11-12-2008, 03:13 PM
#63
Cossie Paranoia
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Cold Norwegian Garage...Brr..
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One question Karl when you're around ().
I'm Doing this as a low comp(7.2) engine on solid lifters. Any suggestions on cam choice? And can you map for a longer powerband on solids or do the turbo run out after 7,5k like on Ripleys?
). I'm Doing this as a low comp(7.2) engine on solid lifters. Any suggestions on cam choice? And can you map for a longer powerband on solids or do the turbo run out after 7,5k like on Ripleys?
11-12-2008, 03:16 PM
#64
Karl,
You shouldn't tar all these plenums with same brush, as the true Swedish ones have been dyno tested in the same way as you have described and have no more than 2% disparity between EGTs per cylinder.
This is why I harp on about people buying cheap untested / unproven copies (most of which either blow to pieces due to being made of insufficient gauge or are as you describe, with un-even flow distribution)
.
You shouldn't tar all these plenums with same brush, as the true Swedish ones have been dyno tested in the same way as you have described and have no more than 2% disparity between EGTs per cylinder.
This is why I harp on about people buying cheap untested / unproven copies (most of which either blow to pieces due to being made of insufficient gauge or are as you describe, with un-even flow distribution)
.
11-12-2008, 03:22 PM
#65
Norris Motorsport
Solid lifter cams are far superior to hyraulics in every way. If you anticipate revs over 7500rpm then go solid lifter!
Regarding power band, our sunbeam race car usually runs with a 8800 rpm limit using gT3076R. Peak torque is around 6500 - 7000rpm but holds on well to the 8800 limit!
It's pointless me quoting you figures are there are too many variables. Speak to your engine builder regarding your required power band and spec the engine appropriately.
For the record I love revs, so am quite happy to lose 500rpm low down for an extra 1000rpm top end, but as always its horses for courses!
Regarding power band, our sunbeam race car usually runs with a 8800 rpm limit using gT3076R. Peak torque is around 6500 - 7000rpm but holds on well to the 8800 limit!
It's pointless me quoting you figures are there are too many variables. Speak to your engine builder regarding your required power band and spec the engine appropriately.
For the record I love revs, so am quite happy to lose 500rpm low down for an extra 1000rpm top end, but as always its horses for courses!
. But you're learning
11-12-2008, 07:16 PM
#73
DANISH cosworth abuser
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Holbćk, denmark
Posts: 1,467
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi karl.
As mike says, the genuine sweedish plenums ARE working as it should.
They are tested on a dynobench and are having just about 2-3 deg diff from cyl 1 thru 4 on full boost, but only the latest one counts, and NOT the ones that are on ebay with the angled throttlebody.
My engine has the latest one and we have monitored the egt on all 4 and they diff arr 10 dg on my engine, but that can be many things.
Only prob with theese inlets are when on vacum, then the 1. and 2. cyl get to much air, so have to correct for that.
As mike says, the genuine sweedish plenums ARE working as it should.
They are tested on a dynobench and are having just about 2-3 deg diff from cyl 1 thru 4 on full boost, but only the latest one counts, and NOT the ones that are on ebay with the angled throttlebody.
My engine has the latest one and we have monitored the egt on all 4 and they diff arr 10 dg on my engine, but that can be many things.
Only prob with theese inlets are when on vacum, then the 1. and 2. cyl get to much air, so have to correct for that.
11-12-2008, 08:05 PM
#76
I have 437 ATW and guess around 470 at the fly. Not up to what you are asking I know. This is with BD14 and 15, lots of porting and low comp. Original T4. I am only running 4 greys so that is the limitation really.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=HoHp0sZ3zjg
Just for comparisons
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=HoHp0sZ3zjg
Just for comparisons
Last edited by AndyPen; 11-12-2008 at 08:10 PM. Reason: didn't read p2 first!!
16-12-2008, 03:42 AM
#77
Franco
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Raunds, Northants
Posts: 3,451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think you are the master of understatement!
A truck load of money and a lot of blood sweat and tears would be more apt!
Mine is built around:
AVA engine (similar to Neil A and Euan)
Roller bearing T4.
1000cc injectors.
Custom fuel pump set up.
Omex 700 ECU.
(Mapped by AVA)
Currently at 370 ATW (400 ish ATF) but I've got a Swedish plenum to go on and then I'm after a new gearbox so a bit more grunt can be thrown at it!
A truck load of money and a lot of blood sweat and tears would be more apt!
Mine is built around:
AVA engine (similar to Neil A and Euan)
Roller bearing T4.
1000cc injectors.
Custom fuel pump set up.
Omex 700 ECU.
(Mapped by AVA)
Currently at 370 ATW (400 ish ATF) but I've got a Swedish plenum to go on and then I'm after a new gearbox so a bit more grunt can be thrown at it!
.mike would i be better off with solid lifters on my car .
