rapidcossie

Not sure what housing Ade is running or what modsif any Mark has carried out the turbo but here are things you can do modify the turbo to improve the max power etc

Miller 3

iTrader: (4)

Yes it was Fecking huge

Got me thinking

cossiemanden

Jep i know, but am curius cause am using the same turbo on mine

rapidcossie

Race fuel helps the figs too

cossiemanden

Could be yes, am gonna test mine with etanol, hope it works

Alg1k

iTrader: (2)

The figures that garrett quote are it running within its comp map and it should do this power all day long u can overspool a turbo and run it out of its comp map (choke line) and make more power with deminishing returns but how long will it last
Who knows
Im sue Mark will tell us its well within its limits
And some have different wheels in
Mine made 640@fly at a low 1,6 bar in car
I now run a bit more boost
So am intriqued to know what power it is
600+ rolling road day ?
There must be a few that would like to prove it on the same day on the same rollers
Not everyone wants to run there car flat out on a runway so this should
cater for everyone ????

foreigneRS

i guess because not many rollling roads have adequate cooling air flow for 600bhp+

AlexD

iTrader: (3)

Nice.....

Deleted by Request

...i think high compression combined with race fuel made that 700bhp.

...just a guess though.

cossiemanden

If this turbo makes 640@fly on your engine at 1,6bar then it has nothing to do with the max power at 2,5bar, that just shows how well your engine uses the air at 1,6bar, but u still have an limit on the turbo bhp wise.
I can understand that people get more bhp from the turbo`s by using race fuel, then the effeciensy goes way up on the fuel, but the limit on the turboes still stands.(the turbo can`t flow more air thru it)
Mark shurly has pressured it to it`s limits witch is super, but am still interested if the turbo is stock or "modified"

rapidcossie

AVA can do 600+ cars no probs.

I can book a few power runs if people wan to make the trip

Mike Rainbird

iTrader: (3)

That's not strictly true, as can seen by the rising correction figures, the problems with maintaining the cooling of the dyno cell. However, take this into account and you're only going to get disparities of 20-30bhp compared to a properly cooled dyno cell - certainly nothing to get upset / abusive about (and Mark has even been kind enough to explain by PM the reason they have trouble with maintaining a consistant cell temperature ).

If Mark put his engine on the Mountune dyno, this is all I would expect the shortfall to be (although I'm not sure how the correction figures affect the torque). It's still HUGELY impressive (and although I still don't like the amount of boost run, as it will be outside the turbo's efficiency range, you can't argue with the torque this produces), and Mark / Ade should be very proud of what they should be able to achieve at Brunters with this engine in November .

I look forward to being one of the first to congratulate Ade on his 200mph run .

foreigneRS

what kind of dyno is it? usually an engine dyno only measures torque, and calculates power from that and the engine speed.

if you know how temperature affects power, you also know exactly how it's affecting torque

that is assuming that only the cell temperature is affected, and not the inlet air temperature after intercooling?

Mike Rainbird

iTrader: (3)

It seems to do something funny with the torque figues, but the brake horse power only ever deviates by a smaller amount with the correction - although I may be getting confused with the barometric pressure affects on torque .

However, the uncorrected figures show the potential of the engine, so it's only splitting hairs, and I doubt anyone could detect the gain or loss of 20-30bhp when it comes to a 700bhp engine anyway .

I was just correcting Simon, as his statement is incorrect and even Mark is aware of the issue with the reason for the correction figure's inconsistancy, as he very kindly took time out to explain after I asked him via PM .

Disabled Account

Blimey...................Is Kofi Annan using Mike R's log-in?

Mike Rainbird

iTrader: (3)

I have realised that petty bickering is pointless - we're all Cosworth addicts and share the same passion afterall . What harm does it do if we all have our different favoured tuners? NONE. Dave and Ade will always use Mark and rightly so, he looks after them . Same reason I will always use Harvey, it doesn't make any of us better or worse than anyone else who uses X, Y, or Z.

The only thing I will say, is the sooner OTHERS realise this, then there would be better harmony on the BB - group hug everyone!

Ian M500COS

Well said

Good luck to Ade in his quest for 200mph. It'll be one over on the Jap fraternity if he succeeds.

And this level power (or even 97% of it) out of a 4 cylinder 2-litre "plus a bit" engine designed 23 years ago is truly an engineering feat in itself

Alg1k

iTrader: (2)

Theres enough around now that can cool a 600 hp cos the very few seconds it needs to make its power !.

Mark Shead

Mark shurly has pressured it to it`s limits witch is super, but am still interested if the turbo is stock or "modified" [/quote]

The Turbo is a Totaly stock GT35r with a .82ar exhaust housing the rest of the bits are the trick bits ,
The engine has 8mm longer rods which on a WRC engine are worth 8hp at least, The engine also has a pretty trick head/cams/ and a awsome exhaust manifold and a pretty good mapper , The comp map for the turbo shows 63lb min and Garret rate 1lb per 10hp as a min so thats a 630hp and add the longer rods you can see how 640hp uncorrected could be achived,
As you can see it has corrected upwards 5% this is why we showed the uncorrected figs due to cell temp correcting it, This was because on the power run it creaped up 15c over outside temp which isnt to bad but still you want to achive a 0% increase but this would be very hard,
If you look at the race fuel correction this only corrects upward 3 to 4% as we waited till the cell temp dropped to keep the correction as low as we could,
So I am happy for everyone to think it made 640hp over 677hp as even thats a superb fig anyway rather than a awsome 677hp ,
I will be running another engine on the dyno soon that runs the same exept stock lenght rods but higher comp ratio so we will have another to compare with and I am sure Norris will make some more changes to the cell to reduce temps.

Mark

Mark Shead

He could be Mike asked me via pm about the graphs and the output nicely so I explained all the details so he understood why/what/and how about the correction factors, As it is easy to come across wrong by asking the simplest questions by wording it slightly wrong, So Mike thanks for the pm .

Mark

Rod-Tarry

Im so glad this thread has calmed down, ive appologised to Dave for my OTT comment, but he really did upset me & I flipped as I was there & knew no fiddling went on.
I trust when my own figures are produced that we dont have this all over again. Ade, Dave & myself will all prove our Power on the Tarmac where it counts. To do 200mph at Brunters you must have over 700bhp in the car so Ade will find it tough.

Dan

Congrats guy's, hope it does what you want it to Ade!

awesome figure's Mark!

ECU Monitor Enthusiast

iTrader: (1)

Mike,

With respect what have I said that was wrong, I cant see how your reply
has anything to do with my post. ???
Please point out to me what you mean.
I fully understand how correction works and the only thing I think you
may possibly be referring to is the cell temperatures. ??????

From my experiences, after seeing the sizes of cooling fans in both dyno
facilities, the correction would be more in Peterborough

No diss to anyone intended

cossiemanden

wow, that much on an .82 exhousing
Why on this instead of the 1.06?
Because of lag?

Mark Shead

Mark[/quote]

wow, that much on an .82 exhousing
Why on this instead of the 1.06?
Because of lag?[/quote]

There is no reason to run a 1.06 on a Cossie, We have no problems with Surge or back pressure so you always use the smallest housing you can get away with.

Mark

Mike Rainbird

iTrader: (3)

Mark,
Also now that you have advised the air flow of the turbo, I don't see 670bhp being out of the ball park either. I concur with the 1lb of air equalling 10bhp, and with a really efficient engine, you can usually do that figure + 30-40bhp (hence why a T4 at 48lb of air will flow enogh air to achieve 510-520bhp with the correct porting and cams etc) .

Simon,
It clearly is not the case with regard to the cooling, as the cell temperatures of Harvey's dyno are maintained consistantly and never deviate by any more than 3°C maximum (and this is only when the engine gets near max rpm). If you stood in Harvey's dyno cell with the extraction fans running, you'd go deaf . As Mark has kindly explained, the Norris one was climbing by some 15°C .

ECU Monitor Enthusiast

iTrader: (1)

Mike,

I understand what you are saying.
I must admit I havent been to Norris Designs since it moved but the set
up before was more than adequate cooling wise so it would seem there
maybe installation issues after the move !

Chip

iTrader: (3)

Torque and BHP will be effected by the same tiny amount (% wise), as one is a function of the other.

Mike Rainbird

iTrader: (3)

On the temp correction I believe that to be true, but I'm pretty sure that with barometric correction, it does something strange to the torque figure.

GARETH T

mike you cant effect one, without affecting the other

Chip

iTrader: (3)

Its impossible for it to effect the toque figure at any point in the rev range by a different percentage to the BHP figure.

BHP = Torque * RPM / 5252


So if you add 10% to the torque at any point, the BHP will go up by 10% as well, it HAS to.

Mike Rainbird

iTrader: (3)

Mark / Rod will back me up on this I hope, but I'm sure changing the barometric pressure does something wierd to the torque. However, this is all going from memory.

Chip

iTrader: (3)

Well if it does something weird to the torque at any point, then at that point it will do the same something weird to the BHP.

ECU Monitor Enthusiast

iTrader: (1)

Mike,

Barometric pressurehas the effect of changing the composition of the
amount of oxygen available in the air (as a ratio)

At higher alttudes you have less air so will have less power.


The correction for this is logarithmic.

The whole correction bollox is applied to make uniform readings for
everyone when they compare them down the pub etc....

GARETH T

totally agree with you mate, uncorrected is what it actually produced! corrected is what it SHOULD produce when all factors are the same!

Chip

iTrader: (3)

I believe that hving this calculation on the dyno is a requirement for TUV approval of a dyno too, and hence ALL dyno's which are TUV approved, and most other dynos, will do this.

* EDIT * I agree though that I prefer to see the uncorrected figures, but of course then you can fire mega dense cold air into the dyno and the uncorrected figure will be higher than the corrected one, and you will get slagged off for that too, so people will always bitch either way, especially if they dont understand why the correction factor is there in the first place, it aims to do exactly that *CORRECT* the figure to be more uniform despite varying dyno conditions

cossiemanden

Now i am not trying to do anything here, but i cant find anything ewerywhere that state that an gt35 .082 can produce enough airflow to give 700bhp, have found 600 at max.
And 670 bhp with an 1.06 exhaust.
I know that this is on the effiency maps at garret, but anyway, that is about 100bhp more then garret state?

Chip

iTrader: (3)

What configuration GT35R compressor wheel is it?

Common one is the 56 trim 0.7 A/R one, garrett claim this to be good for around 63lbs of air, which if you can extract just over 10.5bhp per lb (which you can on hotter fuel) will give you the 670bhp

Christian and Beccy

iTrader: (14)

We'd hold a big power RR day. I would suggest ONLY using power at the wheels figures for this, not even discussing estimated flywheel figures.

I can also plot Tractive effort, which is the raw power value that the dyno measures to derive Torque.

Additionally, I can provide and graph to prove conclusively that the car didn't wheelspin.