Bridge port is over rated?
03-15-07, 05:37 PM
#201
If you look at Brian's turbo map and then look at his boost on the bridgeport dyno, you can see that he was over a 2.6 pr ratio. I don't care where you are on the map as far as flow goes, at that PR you are inefficient. He could have run far less boost as a result and still made the same power. His compressor wheel was not the same one that Steve used. They are very different in spite of what the names of each turbo may imply.
I know someone said that it should be able to flow about 90% of what a 60-1 can but this was never quantified at what boost level. Different turbos flow different amounts of air at different boost levels from others. You can have one turbo that flows a certain amount of air at 10 psi and another that needs to be at 15 psi to flow that same amount. Merely saying a turbo has 90% the capability isn't enough of the story to really judge anything from it.
What most impressed Brian, and this is something that a dyno doesn't show, is that when he first did the bridgeport, when he went out for a drive, the boost rose faster than it did with a streetport. Remember it is irrelevant what total boost he was shooting for at this point. It spooled up quicker. That leads to more midrange power and less lag. It may very well be possible that if both runs were at the same boost level that the bridgeport potentially might not have made any more absolute peak horsepower. That doesn't have to mean that it's a porting flaw though. That could merely mean that the turbo can't keep up with the engine's needs and in this case that would be true. It's not all about absolute peak power. It's average power that makes you faster.
I know someone said that it should be able to flow about 90% of what a 60-1 can but this was never quantified at what boost level. Different turbos flow different amounts of air at different boost levels from others. You can have one turbo that flows a certain amount of air at 10 psi and another that needs to be at 15 psi to flow that same amount. Merely saying a turbo has 90% the capability isn't enough of the story to really judge anything from it.
What most impressed Brian, and this is something that a dyno doesn't show, is that when he first did the bridgeport, when he went out for a drive, the boost rose faster than it did with a streetport. Remember it is irrelevant what total boost he was shooting for at this point. It spooled up quicker. That leads to more midrange power and less lag. It may very well be possible that if both runs were at the same boost level that the bridgeport potentially might not have made any more absolute peak horsepower. That doesn't have to mean that it's a porting flaw though. That could merely mean that the turbo can't keep up with the engine's needs and in this case that would be true. It's not all about absolute peak power. It's average power that makes you faster.
03-15-07, 06:21 PM
#202
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Louisville, Ky
Posts: 675
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by rotarygod
If you look at Brian's turbo map and then look at his boost on the bridgeport dyno, you can see that he was over a 2.6 pr ratio. I don't care where you are on the map as far as flow goes, at that PR you are inefficient. He could have run far less boost as a result and still made the same power. His compressor wheel was not the same one that Steve used. They are very different in spite of what the names of each turbo may imply.
I know someone said that it should be able to flow about 90% of what a 60-1 can but this was never quantified at what boost level. Different turbos flow different amounts of air at different boost levels from others. You can have one turbo that flows a certain amount of air at 10 psi and another that needs to be at 15 psi to flow that same amount. Merely saying a turbo has 90% the capability isn't enough of the story to really judge anything from it.
What most impressed Brian, and this is something that a dyno doesn't show, is that when he first did the bridgeport, when he went out for a drive, the boost rose faster than it did with a streetport. Remember it is irrelevant what total boost he was shooting for at this point. It spooled up quicker. That leads to more midrange power and less lag. It may very well be possible that if both runs were at the same boost level that the bridgeport potentially might not have made any more absolute peak horsepower. That doesn't have to mean that it's a porting flaw though. That could merely mean that the turbo can't keep up with the engine's needs and in this case that would be true. It's not all about absolute peak power. It's average power that makes you faster.
I know someone said that it should be able to flow about 90% of what a 60-1 can but this was never quantified at what boost level. Different turbos flow different amounts of air at different boost levels from others. You can have one turbo that flows a certain amount of air at 10 psi and another that needs to be at 15 psi to flow that same amount. Merely saying a turbo has 90% the capability isn't enough of the story to really judge anything from it.
What most impressed Brian, and this is something that a dyno doesn't show, is that when he first did the bridgeport, when he went out for a drive, the boost rose faster than it did with a streetport. Remember it is irrelevant what total boost he was shooting for at this point. It spooled up quicker. That leads to more midrange power and less lag. It may very well be possible that if both runs were at the same boost level that the bridgeport potentially might not have made any more absolute peak horsepower. That doesn't have to mean that it's a porting flaw though. That could merely mean that the turbo can't keep up with the engine's needs and in this case that would be true. It's not all about absolute peak power. It's average power that makes you faster.
On an off note, does anyone have any rough estimate for the amount of air required for an average bridgeport? (basically how much air does it eat) I kow this puts a generalization on things, but for simplicities sake, this will make it much easier in searching for a properly sized turbo.
Thanks guys.
-Maniac
03-16-07, 01:33 AM
#203
Rotary Freak
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: l.a.
Posts: 1,640
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Boostmaniac
Why in the love of god would I do that? What would possess you to think I would even remotely do that? I think I might not be the dense one here... If I do go bridgeport, I would build my entire system around it to support the increase in flow and overlap. Where did I ever say I would use a bridgeport on a purely stock setup?
whose opinions exactly have been mucking up this thread? it's been an informative and pretty entertaining debate imo.
03-16-07, 01:47 AM
#204
Rotary Freak
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: l.a.
Posts: 1,640
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by crispeed
Was basing that on the fact I thought you were planning on using the stock turbos and also not knowing exactly what your operating conditions were.
The way I see it go ahaead and try the BP. The only way to find out if it works for you. I personally have note done a BP with stock turbos so I cannot comment on it's performance. I hope you've allready tried a SP so in that way you can actually base your findings on the differences of both porting types. I hope it works for you.
The way I see it go ahaead and try the BP. The only way to find out if it works for you. I personally have note done a BP with stock turbos so I cannot comment on it's performance. I hope you've allready tried a SP so in that way you can actually base your findings on the differences of both porting types. I hope it works for you.
if we're going to debate the rationale of why some of the of the top racers go w/ extreme porting styles, e.g. the puerto ricans, while others like dee, scheepers, abel, and adam have decided to use sp's, then let's do that. we'd all like to know the train of thought behinds these guys' methods. but in this instance there is no debate, this guy's dreamed up an idiotic setup that is neither practical nor effective for the type of racing hes' chosen.
Last edited by fdracer; 03-16-07 at 02:01 AM.
03-16-07, 02:01 AM
#205
Rotary Freak
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: l.a.
Posts: 1,640
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by rotarygod
If you look at Brian's turbo map and then look at his boost on the bridgeport dyno, you can see that he was over a 2.6 pr ratio. I don't care where you are on the map as far as flow goes, at that PR you are inefficient. He could have run far less boost as a result and still made the same power. His compressor wheel was not the same one that Steve used. They are very different in spite of what the names of each turbo may imply.
I know someone said that it should be able to flow about 90% of what a 60-1 can but this was never quantified at what boost level. Different turbos flow different amounts of air at different boost levels from others. You can have one turbo that flows a certain amount of air at 10 psi and another that needs to be at 15 psi to flow that same amount. Merely saying a turbo has 90% the capability isn't enough of the story to really judge anything from it.
What most impressed Brian, and this is something that a dyno doesn't show, is that when he first did the bridgeport, when he went out for a drive, the boost rose faster than it did with a streetport. Remember it is irrelevant what total boost he was shooting for at this point. It spooled up quicker. That leads to more midrange power and less lag. It may very well be possible that if both runs were at the same boost level that the bridgeport potentially might not have made any more absolute peak horsepower. That doesn't have to mean that it's a porting flaw though. That could merely mean that the turbo can't keep up with the engine's needs and in this case that would be true. It's not all about absolute peak power. It's average power that makes you faster.
I know someone said that it should be able to flow about 90% of what a 60-1 can but this was never quantified at what boost level. Different turbos flow different amounts of air at different boost levels from others. You can have one turbo that flows a certain amount of air at 10 psi and another that needs to be at 15 psi to flow that same amount. Merely saying a turbo has 90% the capability isn't enough of the story to really judge anything from it.
What most impressed Brian, and this is something that a dyno doesn't show, is that when he first did the bridgeport, when he went out for a drive, the boost rose faster than it did with a streetport. Remember it is irrelevant what total boost he was shooting for at this point. It spooled up quicker. That leads to more midrange power and less lag. It may very well be possible that if both runs were at the same boost level that the bridgeport potentially might not have made any more absolute peak horsepower. That doesn't have to mean that it's a porting flaw though. That could merely mean that the turbo can't keep up with the engine's needs and in this case that would be true. It's not all about absolute peak power. It's average power that makes you faster.
03-16-07, 05:13 AM
#206
Originally Posted by fdracer
no respectable engine builder in this country is going to build let alone suggest a bp/gt42r setup for an autox car.
03-16-07, 06:08 AM
#207
Stay tuned...
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Jul 1997
Location: West Islip, Long Island NY
Posts: 2,917
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Maniac,
I think your attitude ruined this thread. Some of the things you wrote were really rude. Why anyone would still want to post here after your comments is beyond me. You should try to show some respect to the guys that spent time on here sharing and writing and debating....
Anthony
I think your attitude ruined this thread. Some of the things you wrote were really rude. Why anyone would still want to post here after your comments is beyond me. You should try to show some respect to the guys that spent time on here sharing and writing and debating....
Anthony
03-16-07, 07:16 AM
#208
Lives on the Forum
Originally Posted by BDC
More fuel consumption -- Admittedly, at lower RPM's (I'd say under 3krpm), there is an increase in consumption, but alot of it can honestly be tuned out. Speaking of fuel consumption, did I ever tell you what kind of tank mileage I got on a tank once driving from here to New Orleans, 80mph in 5th gear? Series 4 Turbo tank -- 300 miles.
That's a significant difference.
-Ted
03-16-07, 07:38 AM
#209
I think when people start going with large turbos and hbp or full bp then gas mileage should really be the last thing on thier minds even though 300 miles to a tank on a hbp is pretty damn good! I should be getting my hbp from brian today or monday and can't wait to see them and start the engine rebuild. I've got no doubt in my mind, after talking to people that have this done and have proven thier results, that this engine will be a beast and will spool a t70 faster than any standard streetport could without having to go with a rediculously small hotside. Will let you guys know the results as soon as I get it built and tuned. Great thread so far! But I've already made my mind up based on the results I've seen from other people hbp setups.
03-16-07, 09:53 AM
#210
Lives on the Forum
Like I said before we lost those replies from the system crash...
I build my car and most of my customers' cars for primary street use.
This means performance at low RPM's is pretty important.
We are not debating if the BP makes more power.
It's a moot point that it does.
I'm arguing about the claim that BP's make "superior" power at lower RPM's.
Right now, I've never seen a dyno graph that proves this.
To prove my point...
Tony Farkas 499rwhp to someone's FD 13B-REW street port from Wargasm's old dyno database...
Tony Farkas 499rwhp to kahren's FC 13BT street port...
Tony Farkas 499rwnp to my puny T5/T6 compressor upgrade street port...
Look at the areas under 4kRPM...
Sorry if I'm a wimp, but most of my street driving is 99% under 4,000 RPM.
This makes me look at the real low RPM power performance.
Dyno graphs don't lie no matter how much these pro-BP owners like to claim how much more power they have at lower RPM's.
There is little to no advantage of the BP at these low RPM ranges, period.
BTW, 499 was the most power I've heard any of BDC's motors made, so if this number has been surpassed, I'd be interested to see any new dyno graphs anyone has laying around.
-Ted
I build my car and most of my customers' cars for primary street use.
This means performance at low RPM's is pretty important.
We are not debating if the BP makes more power.
It's a moot point that it does.
I'm arguing about the claim that BP's make "superior" power at lower RPM's.
Right now, I've never seen a dyno graph that proves this.
To prove my point...
Tony Farkas 499rwhp to someone's FD 13B-REW street port from Wargasm's old dyno database...
Tony Farkas 499rwhp to kahren's FC 13BT street port...
Tony Farkas 499rwnp to my puny T5/T6 compressor upgrade street port...
Look at the areas under 4kRPM...
Sorry if I'm a wimp, but most of my street driving is 99% under 4,000 RPM.
This makes me look at the real low RPM power performance.
Dyno graphs don't lie no matter how much these pro-BP owners like to claim how much more power they have at lower RPM's.
There is little to no advantage of the BP at these low RPM ranges, period.
BTW, 499 was the most power I've heard any of BDC's motors made, so if this number has been surpassed, I'd be interested to see any new dyno graphs anyone has laying around.
-Ted
03-16-07, 10:32 AM
#211
BDC Motorsports
Originally Posted by Boostmaniac
So BDC, in regards to that dyno, why do you honestly think it took so much more boost to make those numbers? Did you ever get to dyno the motor with a different turbo or setup?
I just want to put this argument to rest once and for all.
As for your post earlier, have you had a chance to speak to your past customers that had a bridge or half bridge? Do you have any feedback whatsoever in this department?
Thanks guys and keep the good info coming.
-Maniac
I just want to put this argument to rest once and for all.
As for your post earlier, have you had a chance to speak to your past customers that had a bridge or half bridge? Do you have any feedback whatsoever in this department?
Thanks guys and keep the good info coming.
-Maniac
A second factor is at the time I was also running an air-to-water intercooler that was frozen over. I did that for every dyno run of my car in 2000. My runs just recently in late '06 were done with 30% methanol on a stock top mounted IC and while the IAT's were pretty low, I am not bonafiably sure that it equaled the capability of the A2W unit from '00.
A third thing to consider is the difference between a 60-1 and a 60-1 HIFI. Same wheel, considerably smaller compressor housing. Even though Fred and I and others are plotting off of the 60-1 compressor map, it might not be truly indicative of what the capability of that HIFI compressor actually is. I suspect it really isn't. I've read as well about the 5-10% difference (mainly from Turbonetics), but who knows? I tried hunting for the HIFI map yesterday w/o any success. Until then the numbers we're using from the 60-1 map are liberal and at the very best slightly inflated.
But, like Fred said, staying in step with your original question, is peak horsepower really the only number worth merit to analyze? My argument is no, and it's surprising to me to see some other guys posting in this thread, that've honestly been in the sport and hobby longer than I, that'd suggest by way of argumentation that it is. I think it's about the width of a powerband, the torque it produces (how much, how aggressively, and where), as well as the power it can sustain at ever-increasingly higher RPM's. Rhetorically speaking, what's the point in having a million horsepower when it's only in the very upper RPM band? Why don't people look at the big picture here and come to appreciate the entire power band instead of some large, triple-digit number that looks great in bold, italics, and is underlined, on the cover of some "tuner" magazine? Take a very close look at my old vs. new dyno graphs -- look at the points where certain torque and horsepower figures were achieved, comparably speaking. Do the same on Crispeed's older graph. You'll see a glaring similarity. See, those the finer points that most people aren't looking at. A car, racing another one of the same kind, with 100 less HP yet 50 lbs torque less that builds up 2500rpm later with power that sustains itself in the higher RPM ranges is going to scoot down the track more quickly than the latter. See what I mean?
When I drove my car onto the rollers in Dec '06, I had no idea that the compressor would be out-paced by the engine. Not only was I overconfident in the entire tune, which proved to be fatal for the front iron housing, I was overconfident of the power of that compressor. I had no idea I was on the edge of overspinning it while I was trying to run 25-26psi of boost because the car _felt_ so much quicker in the midrange. Little did I know that my two dinky bridgeport cuts would raise the engine's VE so much, effectively rendering that 60-1 HIFI as being "too small" in the higher RPM band. The turbo bridgeport caveat -- it produced such an early and aggressive boost thresshold. Had I had a better turbo setup on it, I bet it would've made much more peak HP and continued on as RPM's rose.
Hope this answers your question.
B
03-16-07, 10:51 AM
#213
BDC Motorsports
Originally Posted by RETed
Like I said before we lost those replies from the system crash...
I build my car and most of my customers' cars for primary street use.
This means performance at low RPM's is pretty important.
We are not debating if the BP makes more power.
It's a moot point that it does.
I'm arguing about the claim that BP's make "superior" power at lower RPM's.
Right now, I've never seen a dyno graph that proves this.
To prove my point...
<snip>
Look at the areas under 4kRPM...
Sorry if I'm a wimp, but most of my street driving is 99% under 4,000 RPM.
This makes me look at the real low RPM power performance.
Dyno graphs don't lie no matter how much these pro-BP owners like to claim how much more power they have at lower RPM's.
There is little to no advantage of the BP at these low RPM ranges, period.
BTW, 499 was the most power I've heard any of BDC's motors made, so if this number has been surpassed, I'd be interested to see any new dyno graphs anyone has laying around.
-Ted
I build my car and most of my customers' cars for primary street use.
This means performance at low RPM's is pretty important.
We are not debating if the BP makes more power.
It's a moot point that it does.
I'm arguing about the claim that BP's make "superior" power at lower RPM's.
Right now, I've never seen a dyno graph that proves this.
To prove my point...
<snip>
Look at the areas under 4kRPM...
Sorry if I'm a wimp, but most of my street driving is 99% under 4,000 RPM.
This makes me look at the real low RPM power performance.
Dyno graphs don't lie no matter how much these pro-BP owners like to claim how much more power they have at lower RPM's.
There is little to no advantage of the BP at these low RPM ranges, period.
BTW, 499 was the most power I've heard any of BDC's motors made, so if this number has been surpassed, I'd be interested to see any new dyno graphs anyone has laying around.
-Ted
What turbos were on each of those respective setups? If the turbo isn't the same, and I know for fact that they weren't on any of those comparisons, it's a moot point. It's an apples to oranges comparison. Infact, if anything, your attempt to prove the BP inferior has actually backfired. I'll show why below.
Here's pictures of the S300 that was put on Tony's car in mid '03:
http://bdc.cyberosity.com/v/ProjectC...orgWarnerS300/
In that gallery, there's a few pictures where the S300 is parked up against another turbo. That turbo is a TO4E 57-trim w/ a P-Trim 0.96 A/R turbine setup. That will give the readers a visual idea as to how large the S300 (dimensionally-speakling) is. That's what Tony's half-bridgeport 13BT is driving.
Even though the turbine housing was changed from the 1.15 A/R w/ huge doglegs to a 0.83 A/R off of a John Deere S300 derivative (enter one of the sources of the AF61R debacle), the rest remained unchanged on Tony's setup.
A few turbine wheel specs for those taking a closer look at Ted's graphs:
P-Trim 2.542" 2.920"
Q-Trim 2.695" 3.110"
BW S300 2.785" 3.100"
Again, that's what Tony's half-bridgeport 13BT is driving. Look at the size of that turbine wheel.
One thing I think that's funny, and this is where you've cut your own legs off, is that Tony's miserably-done half-bridgeport with a turbo that could swallow your stock turbo, was able to stay almost nearly dead-along with you and then out-pace you just prior to 4000rpm. The turbine wheel on that turbo is humongous compared to a stock turbo, yet it was able to keep up. Mysterious! I'll also mention it's a large-shaft turbo. It has every disadvantage at producing torque and power early on compared to yours, yet it was still able to win.
You know what you've done in the fervor of your attempt to prove the inferiority of the BP by way of these graphs, Ted? You've done the opposite. Well done.
B
03-16-07, 10:52 AM
#214
BDC Motorsports
Originally Posted by ducktape
BDC, How do you think a 62-1 with a 1.0 A/R divided exhaust housing would fare on mild half-bridge as compared to your 60-1?
/Just looking for your opinion.
/Just looking for your opinion.
B
03-16-07, 11:05 AM
#215
Lives on the Forum
Originally Posted by BDC
Nice work on the graphs, but let me ask you a question:
What turbos were on each of those respective setups? If the turbo isn't the same, and I know for fact that they weren't on any of those comparisons, it's a moot point. It's an apples to oranges comparison. Infact, if anything, your attempt to prove the BP inferior has actually backfired. I'll show why below.
What turbos were on each of those respective setups? If the turbo isn't the same, and I know for fact that they weren't on any of those comparisons, it's a moot point. It's an apples to oranges comparison. Infact, if anything, your attempt to prove the BP inferior has actually backfired. I'll show why below.
The graphs clearly show that your BP is not superior in any way on the low end of the RPM scale, period.
Any one with half a mind can see that clearly.
I really don't care what the turbos are.
The turbo applications range from really tiny (my compressor upgrade) to a typical T4 application on all the street ported motors.
Are you going to really argue on the street that you lost cause your turbo wasn't sized properly?
That's a really lame excuse.
One thing I think that's funny, and this is where you've cut your own legs off, is that Tony's miserably-done half-bridgeport with a turbo that could swallow your stock turbo, was able to stay almost nearly dead-along with you and then out-pace you just prior to 4000rpm. The turbine wheel on that turbo is humongous compared to a stock turbo, yet it was able to keep up. Mysterious! I'll also mention it's a large-shaft turbo. It has every disadvantage at producing torque and power early on compared to yours, yet it was still able to win.
I think you're smoking crack.
Your huge-*** aftermarket turbo builds with your porting shows no real advantage in power on the low end, period.
The graphs clearly show this.
All I hear is excuse, excuses, excuses...wrong turbo, wrong port, wrong tuning.
Welp, you were the tuner / builder...it just shows how bad your builds are?
Personally, I think there is nothing wrong with the turbo size / turbine size.
I see nothing wrong running a Q-trim on a 13B even with humongous A/R's over 1.00...
You can deduce where the deficiency is on your own, since both of our conclusions are on opposite sides of the fence.
Still waiting to see any of the later works with dyno graphs with an RPM scale...
-Ted
03-16-07, 11:21 AM
#216
BDC Motorsports
Originally Posted by RETed
Then I think you're smoking crack...
The graphs clearly show that your BP is not superior in any way on the low end of the RPM scale, period.
Any one with half a mind can see that clearly.
I really don't care what the turbos are.
The turbo applications range from really tiny (my compressor upgrade) to a typical T4 application on all the street ported motors.
Are you going to really argue on the street that you lost cause your turbo wasn't sized properly?
That's a really lame excuse.
See, that's the funny thing...
I think you're smoking crack.
Your huge-*** aftermarket turbo builds with your porting shows no real advantage in power on the low end, period.
The graphs clearly show this.
All I hear is excuse, excuses, excuses...wrong turbo, wrong port, wrong tuning.
Welp, you were the tuner / builder...it just shows how bad your builds are?
Personally, I think there is nothing wrong with the turbo size / turbine size.
I see nothing wrong running a Q-trim on a 13B even with humongous A/R's over 1.00...
You can deduce where the deficiency is on your own, since both of our conclusions are on opposite sides of the fence.
Still waiting to see any of the later works with dyno graphs with an RPM scale...
-Ted
The graphs clearly show that your BP is not superior in any way on the low end of the RPM scale, period.
Any one with half a mind can see that clearly.
I really don't care what the turbos are.
The turbo applications range from really tiny (my compressor upgrade) to a typical T4 application on all the street ported motors.
Are you going to really argue on the street that you lost cause your turbo wasn't sized properly?
That's a really lame excuse.
See, that's the funny thing...
I think you're smoking crack.
Your huge-*** aftermarket turbo builds with your porting shows no real advantage in power on the low end, period.
The graphs clearly show this.
All I hear is excuse, excuses, excuses...wrong turbo, wrong port, wrong tuning.
Welp, you were the tuner / builder...it just shows how bad your builds are?
Personally, I think there is nothing wrong with the turbo size / turbine size.
I see nothing wrong running a Q-trim on a 13B even with humongous A/R's over 1.00...
You can deduce where the deficiency is on your own, since both of our conclusions are on opposite sides of the fence.
Still waiting to see any of the later works with dyno graphs with an RPM scale...
-Ted
Still waiting for you to actually do something instead of being the Evil Forum's Resident (Virtual) Ball Buster with 23,000 Posts Yet Zero Experience... Before you come off to me or anyone else like some junkyard dog infested with fleas, barking up a storm about what I or we do, making all sorts of insults, why don't you step up to the plate and do something on your own? You inexperienced joke.
B
03-16-07, 11:41 AM
#217
Rotary Freak
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: fort worth, tx, usa
Posts: 1,926
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the pic you showed clearly said HT-18 on it which is not the standard T04E snell. I don't think you can use that pic for comparison.
As for the S300 turbo, I think you have said that the turbo was too small for tony's car at one point and that was the reason why it wouldn't go above 500rwhp. Isn't this the same turbo that johnrxt2 made 430rwhp in a SP engine at 15psi and gets full boost by 3500rpm?
As for the S300 turbo, I think you have said that the turbo was too small for tony's car at one point and that was the reason why it wouldn't go above 500rwhp. Isn't this the same turbo that johnrxt2 made 430rwhp in a SP engine at 15psi and gets full boost by 3500rpm?
Originally Posted by BDC
Nice work on the graphs, but let me ask you a question:
What turbos were on each of those respective setups? If the turbo isn't the same, and I know for fact that they weren't on any of those comparisons, it's a moot point. It's an apples to oranges comparison. Infact, if anything, your attempt to prove the BP inferior has actually backfired. I'll show why below.
Here's pictures of the S300 that was put on Tony's car in mid '03:
http://bdc.cyberosity.com/v/ProjectC...orgWarnerS300/
In that gallery, there's a few pictures where the S300 is parked up against another turbo. That turbo is a TO4E 57-trim w/ a P-Trim 0.96 A/R turbine setup. That will give the readers a visual idea as to how large the S300 (dimensionally-speakling) is. That's what Tony's half-bridgeport 13BT is driving.
Even though the turbine housing was changed from the 1.15 A/R w/ huge doglegs to a 0.83 A/R off of a John Deere S300 derivative (enter one of the sources of the AF61R debacle), the rest remained unchanged on Tony's setup.
A few turbine wheel specs for those taking a closer look at Ted's graphs:
P-Trim 2.542" 2.920"
Q-Trim 2.695" 3.110"
BW S300 2.785" 3.100"
Again, that's what Tony's half-bridgeport 13BT is driving. Look at the size of that turbine wheel.
One thing I think that's funny, and this is where you've cut your own legs off, is that Tony's miserably-done half-bridgeport with a turbo that could swallow your stock turbo, was able to stay almost nearly dead-along with you and then out-pace you just prior to 4000rpm. The turbine wheel on that turbo is humongous compared to a stock turbo, yet it was able to keep up. Mysterious! I'll also mention it's a large-shaft turbo. It has every disadvantage at producing torque and power early on compared to yours, yet it was still able to win.
You know what you've done in the fervor of your attempt to prove the inferiority of the BP by way of these graphs, Ted? You've done the opposite. Well done.
B
What turbos were on each of those respective setups? If the turbo isn't the same, and I know for fact that they weren't on any of those comparisons, it's a moot point. It's an apples to oranges comparison. Infact, if anything, your attempt to prove the BP inferior has actually backfired. I'll show why below.
Here's pictures of the S300 that was put on Tony's car in mid '03:
http://bdc.cyberosity.com/v/ProjectC...orgWarnerS300/
In that gallery, there's a few pictures where the S300 is parked up against another turbo. That turbo is a TO4E 57-trim w/ a P-Trim 0.96 A/R turbine setup. That will give the readers a visual idea as to how large the S300 (dimensionally-speakling) is. That's what Tony's half-bridgeport 13BT is driving.
Even though the turbine housing was changed from the 1.15 A/R w/ huge doglegs to a 0.83 A/R off of a John Deere S300 derivative (enter one of the sources of the AF61R debacle), the rest remained unchanged on Tony's setup.
A few turbine wheel specs for those taking a closer look at Ted's graphs:
P-Trim 2.542" 2.920"
Q-Trim 2.695" 3.110"
BW S300 2.785" 3.100"
Again, that's what Tony's half-bridgeport 13BT is driving. Look at the size of that turbine wheel.
One thing I think that's funny, and this is where you've cut your own legs off, is that Tony's miserably-done half-bridgeport with a turbo that could swallow your stock turbo, was able to stay almost nearly dead-along with you and then out-pace you just prior to 4000rpm. The turbine wheel on that turbo is humongous compared to a stock turbo, yet it was able to keep up. Mysterious! I'll also mention it's a large-shaft turbo. It has every disadvantage at producing torque and power early on compared to yours, yet it was still able to win.
You know what you've done in the fervor of your attempt to prove the inferiority of the BP by way of these graphs, Ted? You've done the opposite. Well done.
B
03-16-07, 12:04 PM
#218
Lives on the Forum
Originally Posted by BDC
*Baloney*, Ted. The BP with that gigantic turbo creating the same power, and a bit more, prior to 4000rpm, compared to your stock turbo, stock port shows exactly what you're arguing against. Just what do you think would be the case if you were to put that same S300 on your stock turbo motor? Do you think it'd produce the same torque and horsepower at exactly the same spot? Afterall, isn't it common knowledge that when someone goes from a stock turbo to a larger, aftermarket unit, that there's a "lag" concern with the heavier and larger unit? Of course there is.
Thus, it's safe to say that the stock Hitachi HT-18 is sized too small for the 13B.
Thus, the 13B can spool a full T4 with no problem, barring some extreme turbine A/R.
I really don't need to be telling you this, right?
Thus, an appropriate sized T4 should make better power all across the RPM band.
So why is yours so similar to my compressor upgrade?
That implies your turbo is choking as bad as the stock Hitachi HT-18, which is an insane assumption.
Or, the turbo sized incorrectly...or the set-up wasn't built efficiently...or the tuning isn't good.
All of which implies your skills as a tuner are suspect.
You're trying to brag how well your "big" turbo spools just as nicely as my stock Hitachi HT-18 with a teeny compressor upgrade?
You gotta be kidding me...
Get a full T4 on the street port, and it'll blow the doors off that dyno graph at lower RPM's.
In fact, that's exactly what the first graph shows...there are areas where the street port is making ~50hp more than your BP at lower RPM's - 50hp might not sound like much, but if you look at that referenced to the total power made, you're looking at almost DOUBLE the amount of power you're making with your BP.
Again, the dyno graphs don't lie.
Still waiting for you to actually do something instead of being the Evil Forum's Resident (Virtual) Ball Buster with 23,000 Posts Yet Zero Experience... Before you come off to me or anyone else like some junkyard dog infested with fleas, barking up a storm about what I or we do, making all sorts of insults, why don't you step up to the plate and do something on your own? You inexperienced joke.
The insults are getting old.
You really need to drop the immature rants and put your money where your mouth is.
Still waiting for those dyno graphs...
-Ted
03-16-07, 12:42 PM
#219
BDC Motorsports
Originally Posted by pluto
the pic you showed clearly said HT-18 on it which is not the standard T04E snell. I don't think you can use that pic for comparison.
Originally Posted by pluto
As for the S300 turbo, I think you have said that the turbo was too small for tony's car at one point and that was the reason why it wouldn't go above 500rwhp. Isn't this the same turbo that johnrxt2 made 430rwhp in a SP engine at 15psi and gets full boost by 3500rpm?
B
03-16-07, 12:58 PM
#220
Rotary Enthusiast
Man o man .............. i would love to see all you guys in a room , then throw in a couple of knives and guns ......see what happens !!!!.......
On a more serious note , i had a friends car blow an engine on the dyno due to some issue with the fuel pump , the car had to be in a race the next day so they spend all night changing the engine , problem was , first engine had a BP , spare engine was agressive SP ....there are supposed to be dynos of both engines , exact setups , same turbo was used same intercooler same everything (with exeption of a new pump)
If i can get these dyno sheets would this help you guys??
Funny thing i (not shure though) they where running 26psi ....but i think the SP made more power then the BP ........
On a more serious note , i had a friends car blow an engine on the dyno due to some issue with the fuel pump , the car had to be in a race the next day so they spend all night changing the engine , problem was , first engine had a BP , spare engine was agressive SP ....there are supposed to be dynos of both engines , exact setups , same turbo was used same intercooler same everything (with exeption of a new pump)
If i can get these dyno sheets would this help you guys??
Funny thing i (not shure though) they where running 26psi ....but i think the SP made more power then the BP ........
03-16-07, 01:33 PM
#221
Originally Posted by RETed
*sigh*
The insults are getting old.
The insults are getting old.
Originally Posted by RETed
I'm not the idiot who makes such dubious claims...
03-16-07, 02:22 PM
#222
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Louisville, Ky
Posts: 675
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by AnthonyNYC
Maniac,
I think your attitude ruined this thread. Some of the things you wrote were really rude. Why anyone would still want to post here after your comments is beyond me. You should try to show some respect to the guys that spent time on here sharing and writing and debating....
Anthony
I think your attitude ruined this thread. Some of the things you wrote were really rude. Why anyone would still want to post here after your comments is beyond me. You should try to show some respect to the guys that spent time on here sharing and writing and debating....
Anthony
This is directed at FDracer, please re-read my post and pull your head out of your ***. I was contemplating a 42R because I am worried I might possibly run something like a 35R out of juice. Before you start tossing retard nomenclatures around on ideas people have, stop and ask why they would do that. As for you, I am done and I will continue with the others on this thread.
That is all.
03-16-07, 02:24 PM
#223
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Louisville, Ky
Posts: 675
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by BDC
Fair question. I think there's a couple of things to consider: One, when I did the first dynoing in early 2000, I was between 15-17psi from what I recall. I don't have a datalog of the last few runs where I began to peek over 420hp so I'm not entirely certain what boost was run where. It could be at the time that I was already closer to the tail end of the real efficiency of the compressor without even knowing it. I've owned this turbo for almost 10 years, and it was owned by a previous gentleman for a bit himself and had 10,000mi on it then. It's had some abuse put on it in that time and is definitely no spring chicken.
A second factor is at the time I was also running an air-to-water intercooler that was frozen over. I did that for every dyno run of my car in 2000. My runs just recently in late '06 were done with 30% methanol on a stock top mounted IC and while the IAT's were pretty low, I am not bonafiably sure that it equaled the capability of the A2W unit from '00.
A third thing to consider is the difference between a 60-1 and a 60-1 HIFI. Same wheel, considerably smaller compressor housing. Even though Fred and I and others are plotting off of the 60-1 compressor map, it might not be truly indicative of what the capability of that HIFI compressor actually is. I suspect it really isn't. I've read as well about the 5-10% difference (mainly from Turbonetics), but who knows? I tried hunting for the HIFI map yesterday w/o any success. Until then the numbers we're using from the 60-1 map are liberal and at the very best slightly inflated.
But, like Fred said, staying in step with your original question, is peak horsepower really the only number worth merit to analyze? My argument is no, and it's surprising to me to see some other guys posting in this thread, that've honestly been in the sport and hobby longer than I, that'd suggest by way of argumentation that it is. I think it's about the width of a powerband, the torque it produces (how much, how aggressively, and where), as well as the power it can sustain at ever-increasingly higher RPM's. Rhetorically speaking, what's the point in having a million horsepower when it's only in the very upper RPM band? Why don't people look at the big picture here and come to appreciate the entire power band instead of some large, triple-digit number that looks great in bold, italics, and is underlined, on the cover of some "tuner" magazine? Take a very close look at my old vs. new dyno graphs -- look at the points where certain torque and horsepower figures were achieved, comparably speaking. Do the same on Crispeed's older graph. You'll see a glaring similarity. See, those the finer points that most people aren't looking at. A car, racing another one of the same kind, with 100 less HP yet 50 lbs torque less that builds up 2500rpm later with power that sustains itself in the higher RPM ranges is going to scoot down the track more quickly than the latter. See what I mean?
When I drove my car onto the rollers in Dec '06, I had no idea that the compressor would be out-paced by the engine. Not only was I overconfident in the entire tune, which proved to be fatal for the front iron housing, I was overconfident of the power of that compressor. I had no idea I was on the edge of overspinning it while I was trying to run 25-26psi of boost because the car _felt_ so much quicker in the midrange. Little did I know that my two dinky bridgeport cuts would raise the engine's VE so much, effectively rendering that 60-1 HIFI as being "too small" in the higher RPM band. The turbo bridgeport caveat -- it produced such an early and aggressive boost thresshold. Had I had a better turbo setup on it, I bet it would've made much more peak HP and continued on as RPM's rose.
Hope this answers your question.
B
A second factor is at the time I was also running an air-to-water intercooler that was frozen over. I did that for every dyno run of my car in 2000. My runs just recently in late '06 were done with 30% methanol on a stock top mounted IC and while the IAT's were pretty low, I am not bonafiably sure that it equaled the capability of the A2W unit from '00.
A third thing to consider is the difference between a 60-1 and a 60-1 HIFI. Same wheel, considerably smaller compressor housing. Even though Fred and I and others are plotting off of the 60-1 compressor map, it might not be truly indicative of what the capability of that HIFI compressor actually is. I suspect it really isn't. I've read as well about the 5-10% difference (mainly from Turbonetics), but who knows? I tried hunting for the HIFI map yesterday w/o any success. Until then the numbers we're using from the 60-1 map are liberal and at the very best slightly inflated.
But, like Fred said, staying in step with your original question, is peak horsepower really the only number worth merit to analyze? My argument is no, and it's surprising to me to see some other guys posting in this thread, that've honestly been in the sport and hobby longer than I, that'd suggest by way of argumentation that it is. I think it's about the width of a powerband, the torque it produces (how much, how aggressively, and where), as well as the power it can sustain at ever-increasingly higher RPM's. Rhetorically speaking, what's the point in having a million horsepower when it's only in the very upper RPM band? Why don't people look at the big picture here and come to appreciate the entire power band instead of some large, triple-digit number that looks great in bold, italics, and is underlined, on the cover of some "tuner" magazine? Take a very close look at my old vs. new dyno graphs -- look at the points where certain torque and horsepower figures were achieved, comparably speaking. Do the same on Crispeed's older graph. You'll see a glaring similarity. See, those the finer points that most people aren't looking at. A car, racing another one of the same kind, with 100 less HP yet 50 lbs torque less that builds up 2500rpm later with power that sustains itself in the higher RPM ranges is going to scoot down the track more quickly than the latter. See what I mean?
When I drove my car onto the rollers in Dec '06, I had no idea that the compressor would be out-paced by the engine. Not only was I overconfident in the entire tune, which proved to be fatal for the front iron housing, I was overconfident of the power of that compressor. I had no idea I was on the edge of overspinning it while I was trying to run 25-26psi of boost because the car _felt_ so much quicker in the midrange. Little did I know that my two dinky bridgeport cuts would raise the engine's VE so much, effectively rendering that 60-1 HIFI as being "too small" in the higher RPM band. The turbo bridgeport caveat -- it produced such an early and aggressive boost thresshold. Had I had a better turbo setup on it, I bet it would've made much more peak HP and continued on as RPM's rose.
Hope this answers your question.
B
-Maniac
03-16-07, 02:39 PM
#224
In reference to anyone making comments about BDC’s building and tuning skills being sub-par, or inferior, based on the numbers he was putting down with his half bridge and a 60-1 HIFI….
First off, what’s wrong with using the equipment that is ALREADY ON THE CAR for testing purposes? I’m sure that BDC had a strong hunch (at least) that the 60-1 HIFI would be a little on the small side for the H~bp.
Also, in regards to the 60-1 HIFI….and it NOT being too small for the H~bp….
Ok, even though I disagree, let’s roll with that for a minute…what about the stock TB elbow with an inlet ID of 47mm? What’s its capability in terms of CFM compared to the turbo, the TB, and the engine?
Overall, BDC’s numbers with a 60-1 HIFI, stock intercooler, and stock TB elbow are pretty impressive.
I think this thread has gotten out of whack in other regards as well….
One of the main areas of discussion was the streetability of the H~bp, was it not?
Why is everyone comparing horsepower numbers for NORMAL driving? All these figures are for full throttle only…and have NOTHING to do with NORMAL street driving.
Street racing? Is that what is in question? If so…then here is what I have to say:
One of the main points of argument here is “What port makes more low end (below 3800-4000rpm)”?
Well, regardless of the answer…Even **IF** a street port turbo engine with any given setup made 25-50 more hp below 4000rpm…the H~bp turbo car with 100+ more horsepower up top, will walk away from the street port turbo car after the first gear shift…period.
This is mainly aimed at REted….Do you really think that your car would stand a chance vs. Tony’s car…in a straight line race or a road race?
Boostmaniac…
During autoXing, what percentage of time do you spend below 4krpm, compared to the amount of time that you spend above 4000rpm? If you want to build a fast autoX car, answering this question will help you determine what type of setup you should utilize.
First off, what’s wrong with using the equipment that is ALREADY ON THE CAR for testing purposes? I’m sure that BDC had a strong hunch (at least) that the 60-1 HIFI would be a little on the small side for the H~bp.
Also, in regards to the 60-1 HIFI….and it NOT being too small for the H~bp….
Ok, even though I disagree, let’s roll with that for a minute…what about the stock TB elbow with an inlet ID of 47mm? What’s its capability in terms of CFM compared to the turbo, the TB, and the engine?
Overall, BDC’s numbers with a 60-1 HIFI, stock intercooler, and stock TB elbow are pretty impressive.
I think this thread has gotten out of whack in other regards as well….
One of the main areas of discussion was the streetability of the H~bp, was it not?
Why is everyone comparing horsepower numbers for NORMAL driving? All these figures are for full throttle only…and have NOTHING to do with NORMAL street driving.
Street racing? Is that what is in question? If so…then here is what I have to say:
One of the main points of argument here is “What port makes more low end (below 3800-4000rpm)”?
Well, regardless of the answer…Even **IF** a street port turbo engine with any given setup made 25-50 more hp below 4000rpm…the H~bp turbo car with 100+ more horsepower up top, will walk away from the street port turbo car after the first gear shift…period.
This is mainly aimed at REted….Do you really think that your car would stand a chance vs. Tony’s car…in a straight line race or a road race?
Boostmaniac…
During autoXing, what percentage of time do you spend below 4krpm, compared to the amount of time that you spend above 4000rpm? If you want to build a fast autoX car, answering this question will help you determine what type of setup you should utilize.
Last edited by Bob; 03-16-07 at 02:45 PM. Reason: Correction
03-16-07, 02:42 PM
#225
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Louisville, Ky
Posts: 675
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by RETed
Like I said before we lost those replies from the system crash...
I build my car and most of my customers' cars for primary street use.
This means performance at low RPM's is pretty important.
We are not debating if the BP makes more power.
It's a moot point that it does.
I'm arguing about the claim that BP's make "superior" power at lower RPM's.
Right now, I've never seen a dyno graph that proves this.
To prove my point...
Tony Farkas 499rwhp to someone's FD 13B-REW street port from Wargasm's old dyno database...
Tony Farkas 499rwhp to kahren's FC 13BT street port...
Tony Farkas 499rwnp to my puny T5/T6 compressor upgrade street port...
Look at the areas under 4kRPM...
Sorry if I'm a wimp, but most of my street driving is 99% under 4,000 RPM.
This makes me look at the real low RPM power performance.
Dyno graphs don't lie no matter how much these pro-BP owners like to claim how much more power they have at lower RPM's.
There is little to no advantage of the BP at these low RPM ranges, period.
BTW, 499 was the most power I've heard any of BDC's motors made, so if this number has been surpassed, I'd be interested to see any new dyno graphs anyone has laying around.
-Ted
I build my car and most of my customers' cars for primary street use.
This means performance at low RPM's is pretty important.
We are not debating if the BP makes more power.
It's a moot point that it does.
I'm arguing about the claim that BP's make "superior" power at lower RPM's.
Right now, I've never seen a dyno graph that proves this.
To prove my point...
Tony Farkas 499rwhp to someone's FD 13B-REW street port from Wargasm's old dyno database...
Tony Farkas 499rwhp to kahren's FC 13BT street port...
Tony Farkas 499rwnp to my puny T5/T6 compressor upgrade street port...
Look at the areas under 4kRPM...
Sorry if I'm a wimp, but most of my street driving is 99% under 4,000 RPM.
This makes me look at the real low RPM power performance.
Dyno graphs don't lie no matter how much these pro-BP owners like to claim how much more power they have at lower RPM's.
There is little to no advantage of the BP at these low RPM ranges, period.
BTW, 499 was the most power I've heard any of BDC's motors made, so if this number has been surpassed, I'd be interested to see any new dyno graphs anyone has laying around.
-Ted
Unless I completely missed something.
-Maniac