When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
I was only talking about combustion chamber pressure and temperature, it's a closed system
Originally Posted by Narfle
Oh good we can stop worrying the turbos, cause they're not in the combustion chamber
By the way it's still not that simple. CCP maps to more than pv=nrt. Or maybe timing a fueling suddenly don't matter too. You'd think a 'tuner' would know that though.
Just having fun highlighting the fact that Skeese and RIGHTBrain are in here bullshitting because they have beef and not for any productive intentions or valid math.
No one is actually showing any math, nor is anyone going to. And even if someone did, it wouldn't be correct (unless they are actually an engineer that has experience modeling all aspects of this. And even so, any math should then be validated with an experiment.
Thats why I've offered a turbo for testing several times. No takers on either side. No one cares enough, or has time, to actually do the work and post all the details on the forum.
Just having fun highlighting the fact that Skeese and RIGHTBrain are in here bullshitting because they have beef and not for any productive intentions or valid math.
I'm just having fun laughing at you squirm. Not for any productive intentions? Says the guy who posts GIFs vs. the guy who's posting datasheet comparison of an online software, replying helping people troubleshoot cars every day, tuning cars for members on the forum that others can't figure out, etc. You're a trip dude. Maybe retirement is in order for your admin rights.
By the way it's still not that simple. CCP maps to more than pv=nrt. Or maybe timing a fueling suddenly don't matter too. You'd think a 'tuner' would know that though.
Just having fun highlighting the fact that Skeese and RIGHTBrain are in here bullshitting because they have beef and not for any productive intentions or valid math.
So you've now moved on to modifying my wording in my posts replacing all technical significance with your choice of wording making me appear dumb then listing them as quotes by me. Not to mention using your mod power to sensor me everywhere else when you dont agree.
When you guys mind your manners, I stay away. It's like magic.
You just got done deleting a post I made with an example of when a fuel pump fails and a picture of a log that explains Fuel Pressure Sensor data mapped against Pressure and RPM.
Whatever your agenda is, it's not helping what's left of this forum. Your lack of professionalism this weekend really hit home and I wish you the best.
I would love to identify who you all are in real life as to further avoid you as I leave here. That's my promise to you. I'll leave once I know.
PS. Thanks Dave.
Last edited by RGHTBrainDesign; Oct 14, 2019 at 04:19 AM.
The post where you advertised your tuning business (AGAIN) without paying vendor dues despite being warned a million times and threatening to pay dues in another thread where you kicked off your business but never followed through?
The post where you advertised your tuning business (AGAIN) without paying vendor dues despite being warned a million times and threatening to pay dues in another thread where you kicked off your business but never followed through?
EGT data from these guys I follow on Facebook. They are comparing the widely accepted "rotary safe" 8374 vs the 9280.
This proves BW's engineering and the combination of the larger compressor on an 80mm turbine is in reality more efficient than not only the turbo in this comparison with EGT data, but will in every case, be more efficient and have lower EGT's than the 9180.
Wow... awesome results thus far. Doesn't surprise me that a major turbo builder would create a superior turbo than internet trolls would give them credit for... looking forward to continued game changing results
That's an interesting comparison in a jump from an EFR8374 to a 9280.
There are a few things that stand out to me.
1. They mention a different intercooler. Cooler air=more power in the simplest of terms
2. Bigger turbos and changing around housings can influence EMAP, EGT, and power levels as we've all seen from data spread around on this site.
3. Here's the big one. The engine is running a semi-p port which from my understanding is too big for an 8374 simply due to the higher VE. Thus pushing it out of it's efficiency range in the top end.
It seems the dominant dissenting opinions have left this thread for good, so i might be asking this question in an echo chamber (not a judgement on the validity of any answer that might be given) but does it really make reasonable sense to be making emap predictions based off of a compressor map? The only shared info is the shaft speed and without the corresponding turbine map to show you turbine efficiency & flow info, all you've really got is A/R, wheel size, housing size and wastegate (and those don't change in this BW example).
Take for example the compressor map of the 8474 - it's clear that the 8474 is the better choice (over the 8374) if you were looking to flow 80lbs at a 2.6 pressure ratio (I don't think anyone was disputing that). But on the surface that doesn't really tell you much about what is now happening with the turbine, does it? But something we do know is that BW didn't change the turbine side at all from the 8374(wheel, A/R, housing or wastgate(IWG)). So I guess my point is that it seems reasonable to me to think emap would increase if you're now flowing 80lbs at a shaft speed (104k) that used to be flowing 72lbs. It could only be otherwise if the compressor-to-turbine wheel relationship was already poorly skewed for the application, right? And when you consider that (rule of thumb) having the compressor-to-turbine wheel size ratio being closer to one another is better for overall turbo efficiency then it seems improbable to consider that moving away from that principle (such as is the case in the 8374 to 8474) would result in a more harmonic outcome for the highest number of applications. None of which should be interpreted as any kind of a judgement call against BW regarding the 8474. They're not making their turbos for us, anyway.
But perhaps somebody can illuminate some manner in which I am not thinking about the scenario correctly.
Lastly, I don't think anyone that participated in this thread would have been surprised by the results offered by Cliff Clayson; myself included.
Just the ones to follow, yes, see my posts above. What they don't have is all of the compressor maps, so you have to do some estimation on top of the already estimated rotary engine airflow for various flowing port designs. It's a clusterfuck of estimation.
There have been some comments if the Skyline Au forum from people who've logged emap and compared the black series EFR, particularly the 8374 and 8474 and saw no emap increase.
I can't find any info on what the lowest boost anyone is able to run with the 8474. Is it higher then the 8374?
I bought the Turblown kit a year ago but just now getting ready to build the car
As far as boost creep on the IWG, the lowest boost you can run is really determined by how restrictive your exhaust, intake and IC are.
If you want IWG 8474 and low boost I recommend using exhaust restriction and only at the very end of the echaust.
This will allow for the great spool up in the low end fro. Unrestricted intake, IC and downpipe volume- but will limit exhaust total volume flow so the boost creep is kept in heck i the hogher RPMs.
Exhaust restriction can be something as simple as gasket with undersize hole.
who is winning?
