Had engine mapped on scs dyno
05-03-2012, 01:59 PM
#122
10K+ Poster!!
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: wolverhampton/ australia
Posts: 10,753
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
I cant see him changing his opinion on what level
There safe and lasting etc hes just stating facts and figures.
Intresting topic.
Iv had a couple engines done by Mr Gibbs and been very happy with the results.
There safe and lasting etc hes just stating facts and figures.
Intresting topic.
Iv had a couple engines done by Mr Gibbs and been very happy with the results.
05-03-2012, 02:39 PM
#123
I think you're getting confused 
.
That's the 0.63 a/r ones - as I said, when I went from the 385bhp engine (which was abused and just took it) to the 419bhp one (which just ate turbine wheels), I was replacing turbos like they were a consumable item.
My take on this (and it is just a personal opinion based on experience) is that the 0.48 a/r turbo encourages you to change gear far earlier in the rpm range due to the obvious drop off in power as the rpm climbs, yet the 0.63 a/r one moves the power band 500rpm high (check out where the peak power is on both versions from the dyno plots
) and encourages you to rev the engine harder, which is where I personally think you get issues with the turbos over-speeding, hence why I would cap a 0.63 a/r one to 370bhp.
.That's the 0.63 a/r ones - as I said, when I went from the 385bhp engine (which was abused and just took it) to the 419bhp one (which just ate turbine wheels), I was replacing turbos like they were a consumable item.
My take on this (and it is just a personal opinion based on experience) is that the 0.48 a/r turbo encourages you to change gear far earlier in the rpm range due to the obvious drop off in power as the rpm climbs, yet the 0.63 a/r one moves the power band 500rpm high (check out where the peak power is on both versions from the dyno plots
) and encourages you to rev the engine harder, which is where I personally think you get issues with the turbos over-speeding, hence why I would cap a 0.63 a/r one to 370bhp.
05-03-2012, 02:56 PM
#124
Seems more like you confused TBH Mike.
So you think that the .48 housing is safe at 385 and the .63 (with its lower EGTs etc) is safe at 370?
Thats some pretty abstract thinking even for you mike.
If you sit down and work it out, the .63 one is doing LESS rpm (the thing you say will kill it) at 385bhp than the .48 one is by the way, so make sure you think about that before you rush into a reply
So you think that the .48 housing is safe at 385 and the .63 (with its lower EGTs etc) is safe at 370?
Thats some pretty abstract thinking even for you mike.
If you sit down and work it out, the .63 one is doing LESS rpm (the thing you say will kill it) at 385bhp than the .48 one is by the way, so make sure you think about that before you rush into a reply
Last edited by Chip; 05-03-2012 at 03:04 PM.
05-03-2012, 03:23 PM
#126
So you're telling me that the gas flow from a Cosworth engine is the same at 6500rpm compared to 7000+rpm? 
It's not the power that it makes at the rpm points, its the fact that revving the engine that much higher overspeeds the turbo when you have the peak power of 400+ at 6500 with the 0.63 a/r, as you tend to rev it to 7000+ (500rpm after peak power).
On the 0.48 housing, you don't go beyond 6500 (again 500rpm past peak power).
If you rev limited the 0.63 to the same natural rpm as the 0.48 a/r, I imagine that the turbo would last equally, but you have lost 500rpm of the usable power-band, which some-what negates the reason for using the bigger turbine in the first place.
Alternatively, you could always map the wastegate to open at high rpm to slow the turbo down, but again this is defeating the point of the bigger turbo, so capping the peak power to 370bhp should slow it down at all rpm points.
It's not the power that it makes at the rpm points, its the fact that revving the engine that much higher overspeeds the turbo when you have the peak power of 400+ at 6500 with the 0.63 a/r, as you tend to rev it to 7000+ (500rpm after peak power).
On the 0.48 housing, you don't go beyond 6500 (again 500rpm past peak power).
If you rev limited the 0.63 to the same natural rpm as the 0.48 a/r, I imagine that the turbo would last equally, but you have lost 500rpm of the usable power-band, which some-what negates the reason for using the bigger turbine in the first place.
Alternatively, you could always map the wastegate to open at high rpm to slow the turbo down, but again this is defeating the point of the bigger turbo, so capping the peak power to 370bhp should slow it down at all rpm points.
05-03-2012, 03:33 PM
#128
My old T34.48 made 370bhp 420lb/ft on a mild ported head, std cams, 7.5:1CR on Dyno Dynamics rollers
That was with the turbo flat out peaking at around 35psi tailing as rpm climb as the engine consumes everything it can make.
Was an off the shelf map, so ive no doubt a bit more power could be picked up with Live mapping,
Turbo lasted over 3 years and 75k miles at that! And was such a fun road car, i wish i never changed spec really because it all went down hill from there
That was with the turbo flat out peaking at around 35psi tailing as rpm climb as the engine consumes everything it can make.
Was an off the shelf map, so ive no doubt a bit more power could be picked up with Live mapping,
Turbo lasted over 3 years and 75k miles at that! And was such a fun road car, i wish i never changed spec really because it all went down hill from there
Last edited by James @ M Developments.; 05-03-2012 at 03:35 PM.
05-03-2012, 03:36 PM
#129
Where have I said that that?
A .63 housing is actually capable of hitting 385bhp at the same or lower engine rpm that a .48 is capable of doing it on the same engine.
It's not the power that it makes at the rpm points, its the fact that revving the engine that much higher overspeeds the turbo when you have the peak power of 400+ at 6500 with the 0.63 a/r, as you tend to rev it to 7000+ (500rpm after peak power).
On the 0.48 housing, you don't go beyond 6500 (again 500rpm past peak power).
If you rev limited the 0.63 to the same natural rpm as the 0.48 a/r, I imagine that the turbo would last equally, but you have lost 500rpm of the usable power-band, which some-what negates the reason for using the bigger turbine in the first place.
If you rev limited the 0.63 to the same natural rpm as the 0.48 a/r, I imagine that the turbo would last equally, but you have lost 500rpm of the usable power-band, which some-what negates the reason for using the bigger turbine in the first place.
Alternatively, you could always map the wastegate to open at high rpm to slow the turbo down, but again this is defeating the point of the bigger turbo, so capping the peak power to 370bhp should slow it down at all rpm points.
If a .48 is safe at 385, then the .63 is safe to slightly beyond 385 by definition as it will flow the same power with less turbo rpm at the same engine rpm on the same turbo.
Sorry Mike, but what you are saying is just nonsensical about a .63 needing capping to less power than a .48, the key thing is the speed of the turbo, and that speed will be slightly lower than the .48 for the same power, not higher like you are implying.
Your own .63 housing turbo YB for example, was making 385bhp at 5700rpm, do you really think that if you drove around short shifting at 5700rpm everywhere at 385bhp that the turbo would die soon as a result?
Even at 6K where it was making almost 400, I bet the turbo wasnt speeding anymore than than your 385bhp .48 engine was in fact!
Last edited by Chip; 05-03-2012 at 03:42 PM.
05-03-2012, 03:39 PM
#130
300+
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: May 2004
Location: either at work or on way :)
Posts: 27,262
Received 585 Likes
on
517 Posts
My old T34.48 made 370bhp 420lb/ft on a mild ported head, std cams, 7.5:1CR on Dyno Dynamics rollers
That was with the turbo flat out peaking at around 35psi tailing as rpm climb as the engine consumes everything it can make.
Was an off the shelf map, so ive no doubt a bit more power could be picked up with Live mapping,
Turbo lasted over 3 years and 75k miles at that! And was such a fun road car, i wish i never changed spec really because it all went down hill from there
That was with the turbo flat out peaking at around 35psi tailing as rpm climb as the engine consumes everything it can make.
Was an off the shelf map, so ive no doubt a bit more power could be picked up with Live mapping,
Turbo lasted over 3 years and 75k miles at that! And was such a fun road car, i wish i never changed spec really because it all went down hill from there
This has me written all over it.....
05-03-2012, 05:13 PM
#134
.I'm not saying it is the power, I'm saying it is the rpm of that you use the engine to with the bigger turbo causing it to overspeed - the power is just a by-product. By having the 0.48 a/r, you change gear naturally at 6500rpm (500 rpm after peak power), the power dies so suddenly that there is no need to rev it beyond this. IMO, it is this that saves the the small turbos. Not the power they are making, but the speed they are running at, as both wastegates are full shut at these rpms.
Sorry, thats just daft, to say that you can only have 370bhp on that turbo, but can have 385 on the .48 version makes no sense, why the lower number on the .63?
If a .48 is safe at 385, then the .63 is safe to slightly beyond 385 by definition as it will flow the same power with less turbo rpm at the same engine rpm on the same turbo.
If a .48 is safe at 385, then the .63 is safe to slightly beyond 385 by definition as it will flow the same power with less turbo rpm at the same engine rpm on the same turbo.
..Your own .63 housing turbo YB for example, was making 385bhp at 5700rpm, do you really think that if you drove around short shifting at 5700rpm everywhere at 385bhp that the turbo would die soon as a result?
Even at 6K where it was making almost 400, I bet the turbo wasnt speeding anymore than than your 385bhp .48 engine was in fact!
Even at 6K where it was making almost 400, I bet the turbo wasnt speeding anymore than than your 385bhp .48 engine was in fact!
OBVIOUSLY if you capped the boost on the 0.63 a/r to make the same power everywhere compared to the smaller one, then it would be far more reliable, but we're talking about two turbos pushed to their absolute limit power wise (wastegate fully shut). But because the larger one is being revved higher, it is working harder and spinning faster for longer periods.
05-03-2012, 05:23 PM
#135
Yes I am, but you arent making much sense with the vast majority of what you are saying.
Stop all this waffle about engine rpm, that is only one of MANY factors which effect turbo rpm, you are talking like its the only one, it isnt (boost being an equally massive effect, not to mention cams, head porting etc) so your points based around comparing only rpm are all utter nonsense unless the car is mapped by an idiot who takes none of this into account when managing turbo speed.
Hoorah, at last he finally gets it!
So like I said in the very beginning, if you consider the .48 safe to 385, then the .63 is clearly safe for MORE than that if mapped correctly, and your figure of 370 therefore makes NO sense at all!
Really simple Mike
Safe BHP for .63 >> IS GREATER THAN >> Safe BHP for .48
So we can see your original claim of:
470 (mike .63 safe) >> 485 (mike .48 safe)
Is nonsense.
Glad you finally seem to have caught up in the end
Hopefully now people reading the thread wont go away thinking that a 385bhp .63 housing T34 is more at risk of blowing up than a .48 housing one at the same power, which is how it read on previous pages!
Stop all this waffle about engine rpm, that is only one of MANY factors which effect turbo rpm, you are talking like its the only one, it isnt (boost being an equally massive effect, not to mention cams, head porting etc) so your points based around comparing only rpm are all utter nonsense unless the car is mapped by an idiot who takes none of this into account when managing turbo speed.
So like I said in the very beginning, if you consider the .48 safe to 385, then the .63 is clearly safe for MORE than that if mapped correctly, and your figure of 370 therefore makes NO sense at all!
Really simple Mike
Safe BHP for .63 >> IS GREATER THAN >> Safe BHP for .48
So we can see your original claim of:
470 (mike .63 safe) >> 485 (mike .48 safe)
Is nonsense.
Glad you finally seem to have caught up in the end
Hopefully now people reading the thread wont go away thinking that a 385bhp .63 housing T34 is more at risk of blowing up than a .48 housing one at the same power, which is how it read on previous pages!
Last edited by Chip; 05-03-2012 at 05:29 PM.
N/A FTW
05-03-2012, 07:14 PM
#142
On the whole mike/chip thing, I agree with what mike is saying. The .63 engines revving past 7k seem to munch the turbos yet a .48 turbo dosnt.
But the 370/.63 thing I don't agree with, it's because your trying to maintain over 400bhp on e .63 and turbo speed is so much higher than a .48 doing 380s.
On a .48 380 engine you need to hold 26psi where a .63 400 engine you really have to hold 27/8 at the top to keep the 400+ bhp
That's my take on it, I'm sure it will be multi quoted to death lol!
05-03-2012, 07:30 PM
#143
05-03-2012, 07:34 PM
#144
We run 32 tailing to 26 and gives 390/380-385 with a inlet cam.
I do think a inlet cam helps, worth it for the small outlay fella.
If you run that boost you should be seeing over 400lbft and 380s as the .48 hits the brick wall on standard head and cams there.
Or if you don't want to beleive me as the figures are all lies, 380lbft and 360bhp
I do think a inlet cam helps, worth it for the small outlay fella.
If you run that boost you should be seeing over 400lbft and 380s as the .48 hits the brick wall on standard head and cams there.
Or if you don't want to beleive me as the figures are all lies, 380lbft and 360bhp
05-03-2012, 07:40 PM
#146
300+
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: May 2004
Location: either at work or on way :)
Posts: 27,262
Received 585 Likes
on
517 Posts
We run 32 tailing to 26 and gives 390/380-385 with a inlet cam.
I do think a inlet cam helps, worth it for the small outlay fella.
If you run that boost you should be seeing over 400lbft and 380s as the .48 hits the brick wall on standard head and cams there.
Or if you don't want to beleive me as the figures are all lies, 380lbft and 360bhp
I do think a inlet cam helps, worth it for the small outlay fella.
If you run that boost you should be seeing over 400lbft and 380s as the .48 hits the brick wall on standard head and cams there.
Or if you don't want to beleive me as the figures are all lies, 380lbft and 360bhp
Yup I'll get ready for it ... ROFL....
05-03-2012, 08:12 PM
#147
and the search for a .63 starts!!
steve
Last edited by The Youth.; 05-03-2012 at 08:14 PM.
05-03-2012, 11:33 PM
#153
Just because the turbo can physically flow it doesnt mean you HAVE to use it and sod reliability.
The .48 is basically more idiotproof, it simply doesnt allow you to overspin it, but if you arent an idiot, you dont need that mechanical protection because you can simply map it in instead.
But the 370/.63 thing I don't agree with, it's because your trying to maintain over 400bhp on e .63 and turbo speed is so much higher than a .48 doing 380s.
It just doesnt make ANY sense at all, not even a little tiny bit.
On a .48 380 engine you need to hold 26psi where a .63 400 engine you really have to hold 27/8 at the top to keep the 400+ bhp
That's my take on it, I'm sure it will be multi quoted to death lol!
06-03-2012, 09:26 AM
#158
Advanced PassionFord User
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kent
Posts: 2,253
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I seem to remember the Paul Hills saga of getting 480bhp out of greys.....he was mocked to high heaven...although upping the fuel pressure could make greys run higher bhp...but here we have a t34.48 std engine on a bd10 inlet producing a figure that the turbo could never deliver.
06-03-2012, 09:34 AM
#159
unless you came up against an NMS car in which case you loose big style!
06-03-2012, 11:54 AM
#160
Advanced PassionFord User
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Kent
Posts: 2,253
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mike Rainbird, you have now changed your whole tune on the BD10, when i was running stage 3's i would always be running a bd10 inlet or both by the advice of BSW but you said to me then...bin them you are LOOSING POWER BOTTOM END what you gain top end is not worth the bottom end loss, only fit for the bin or richpons arse hole....now they are the magic cam for stage 3's
I came onto this site along time ago and said hi compression, bd10's, ARP's etc etc is the way forward...i was mocked also....oh look at the scene now!!!! and the fact i am a complete CUNT makes you lot worse
Chip, an NMS car is just different to any other off the shelf mapped car i have run, i dont know what he does but its perfection, he is a GENIUS, even though i dont agree on a few points like using std head bolts over WRC long stud etc etc but you cannot deny his talent.
I came onto this site along time ago and said hi compression, bd10's, ARP's etc etc is the way forward...i was mocked also....oh look at the scene now!!!! and the fact i am a complete CUNT makes you lot worse
Chip, an NMS car is just different to any other off the shelf mapped car i have run, i dont know what he does but its perfection, he is a GENIUS, even though i dont agree on a few points like using std head bolts over WRC long stud etc etc but you cannot deny his talent.