BLitzed33

haha, its all good man, take it easy, drink a few for me

RICE RACING

I did not start out saying your on purpose misleading. I only posted firstly my congratulations and then my experience of generating/seeing exactly the same boost curve while also stating myself (X made blah rwhp on only X psi *quoted at power peak* because its what I believed at the time) you can read about it all in the AI thread.

I later learned the hard way that this is not the case and those power levels cannot be replicated when holding the peak rwhp point boost as a flat line (v's one thats substaintialy higher that drops off to the lower level quoted). The reason I atribute it too is the lag time between the effect of the higher boost in the revs preceeding the power peak and it adds up to quite a substantial effect when you test it on a dyno.

Higher boost earlier in the revs generates more TQ which follows through despite the boost droping down and all the numbers adding up in the equations, what you find is that if you keep a flat boost even boost line you wont generate the same TQ and thus rwhp and it will confuse the crap out of you and also makes for some interesting theories and explinations to customers when they ask you WTF is going on and why it does not pull the same numbers despite all other tuning variables being as near equal to have little effect.

Its a heads up for people who have not experienced this phenomenon rather than a derogatory pissing match as its been interpreted thus far

RICE RACING

Of all the dynos I have had the pleasure of using the most benificial are ones where (when set to this mode) equilibrium state can be set and you can see exactly what the engine will *hold* at certain set figures for boost pressure, AFR, charge temperature, and advance setting ...... especialy on a turbo engine.

On one engine dyno session I set up a table and manualy held the engine at 500rpm for 5 seconds per cell to gain a true power setting from 5k to 12.5k (bike engine) nedless to say to have evrything at same levels of heat and testing base condition meant it was not a quick exercise, it was however very accurate.

The ONLY reason I mention this is that if a steady state condition could be set up to reach equilibrium on the cars we test and tune then maybe you could equate out that X rwhp at X psi (falling curve or flat line boost) would be the same, in practise its no where near that and you not only notice this on the dyno in a dynamic test but you also see it on the road as well in anything but 4th gear or higher.

I hope that helps you all who have jumped the gun to call me ahter to let you understand what my intentions are and why I mentioned it in this thread, its an interesting topic once you experience it yourself.

crispeed

Peter.
The problem I've seen by doing what you've suggested (steady state loading) is that it generally leads to false power and torque figures mainly in the lower rpm ranges when turbochargers are used for force induction. Yes it will result in the best tune but in reality the car would not be able to generate for example full/higher boost levels at much lower rpms. Also depending on the power output the dyno might not be able to hold the motor/vechicle at that power level especially when wheel dynos are involved. The laws of physics takes over because you are limited to the actual power the tires can hold against the drum.
I understand your point about the power/torque carrying over due to running higher boost levels earlier in the run. From what I've experienced that does not generally happen for all applications. I've seen it happened mainly when some type of auxillary cooling media is added to the mix. Setups that use nitrous for boost spooling in the lower rpms always results in higher peak power although they are running the same boost levels without the aid of the nitrous but the cooling effects of using it earlier in the run carries over to redline. That I've seen happened all the time. It's probably the same for water/alcohol injection but I've never tested it so I can't comment on what the results might be.
What it boils down too is actual testing of the said application. You can't base what you've experienced on another application to be the same for all.

RICE RACING

Exactly the reason behind my post, I personlay have not seen equal power figures on a boost figure stated at max power (when it started out higher) to one thats held constant from TQ peak to HP peak.

I think if you try what I am saying you will find out the same thing.

Generaly it can be 5+% lower, and what I have seen that if the boost is flat lined it will need to be set higher by a couple of psi (in the levels discussed here) to equal the output of the high to low boost curve.

Anyway its a point of interest of mine and I thought I would share it casue one day i'm sure people will strike the situation as we did and will be stumped to find a logical answer for the obvious questions that will be asked "why is the power lower if the boost is the same".

mr2foryou

That's all fine and well RICE, but I really wish that you could've started your own thread about this. I was not posting this up to deceive people in any way. Although you've made it out like I have.

Sorry everyone, I was actually in the wrong by saying my car made 604/479 @ 23PSI. Like crispeed said, "it did not". It made 601.86/429.51 @23.55 PSI.

Sorry that I was trying to convince everyone otherwise.

Dee E.

crispeed

I hope you know that was meant to be a joke.

In the end it's a 600hp car. No if's or but's about that.

Now back on topic. Dee what's your opinion of the BP vs the SP motor?
Everyone's tolerance of a BP motor are different.
Too bad you don't have the right size turbo on there to take advantage of the porting. Ask Ernie to borrow his 42.

mr2foryou

Yes, I know you were joking bro.

I love the BP, it has it's own unique sound and is much louder than my SP was. And I like it loud. It idles higher, but that doesn't bother me. I also never had long to experience my SP motor running correctly because the thrust washer was messed up when the motor was put together originally(NOT by Ray @ PFS). As far as the turbo, I wish I did have the 42R, but I did not get the clearancing done to my engine, so Ray said 600-620rwhp was about my limit on that motor. So, I'm fine with what I have. Maybe next time, I'll do the extra clearancing and go with a larger turbo like Ernie's. I was even thinking of going the 45R route then.

Either way, the car is a load of fun. I went to my Dad's house monday to show him and my 2 brothers the car. One brother rode first and was immediately in love, then my Dad(mind you he had a 700rwhp '69 Chevelle when he was my age) and he was scared, then my other brother rode and was in love as well. They then stood by the road because they wanted to see me go by fast.

I'll be getting some more video of it very soon and I'll get it up on a site for everyone to check out.

Dee E.

ErnieT

iTrader: (2)

Dee,
Congrats your new found power. Can't wait to see how it does on the track. Congratulations to you and Ray. My "brap brap" should be done very soon as well....

Asleep

Dee,

If it was me...I wouldn't say "I made XXX at 23.YY psi" like above your avatar.

That IS misleading. You peaked at 27.ZZ and trickled down, after all.

I think just having the XXX number is good enough. Like Ernie's impressive 711. Anything in the 5XX on up is damn good.

Cheers.
Tony

ErnieT

iTrader: (2)

I suppose we'll know friday.... Ray should have my new cams done by then...

Marcel Burkett

Ah boy! like somebody goin' BRIDGE or what ?

crispeed

Yeh I had to take my old set out to do some testing. Mines are in allready in a certain FD. It sounds just like it did before. Only time will tell if the profile works with the said combination. If not then I'll just have to get a new set reground for experimenting basis. I missed that beautifull idle.

t-von

iTrader: (8)

Personally I think most of the confusion is coming from the fact that someone actually used a turbo that spooled fast enough (which provided such great mid range power) and was still able to make over 600rwhp. I've been waiting for a long time for someone to make the most out of a smaller turbo instead of the more laggy set-ups (Gt42r) that are all over the forum. Though I completely understand every ones point of view (RICE you included) there's no denying that this is a really nice power band for a 2 rotor regardless of the boost level.


Peace!

crispeed

There is no confusion. That's how it was done before the big turbos came into the picture.
I have made 648hp with 560tq with an old school by today's standards T-70/ 1.0 P-trim turbo. It would make peak torque around 5500 rpm where the boost would peak around 35psi also and then drop to about 27psi by redline. That was a really nice setup. Broad flat torque band.
There's no need for a large frame tubo on any car that's running below 30 psi in my opinion especially if it's a daily driver. I see people in here using GT-42's at 15 to 20 psi making no more useable power than you can with probably a 60-1.

hondahater

iTrader: (2)

damn! Nice numbers on that t70 setup. Was that a full bridge, half bridge, street port? Gives me inspiration

crispeed

Half bridge.
I'm going to be testing that motor shortly with a turbo that has less back pressure.

indio84

iTrader: (7)

holy crap, tell me your joking? cause I have a half bridge and it idle around 1800 rpm barely and i have 550/1680 with afr @15.

damn I still need more time behind the laptop

neit_jnf

iTrader: (17)

holy threadsurrection! full bridge =/= half bridge