Finally! BNR Stage 3 high boost dyno results
09-12-05, 10:31 PM
#102
Furious Ass-Monkey
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Palo Alto, CA
Posts: 207
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TWINS FOR TEH WIN!!!!1!!ONE!
i've been sending my good vibes to BNR ever since they released the stage 3's, it seems like they are fairing very nicely, i don't know why but i hate singles[sorry]. can't wait till my turbo's crap out, wait what am i saying! i hope that when they crap out i go for the stage 3's.
i've been sending my good vibes to BNR ever since they released the stage 3's, it seems like they are fairing very nicely, i don't know why but i hate singles[sorry]. can't wait till my turbo's crap out, wait what am i saying! i hope that when they crap out i go for the stage 3's.
10-20-05, 03:16 PM
#103
Original Gangster/Rotary!
Thread Starter
iTrader: (213)
Originally Posted by Snotcycle
TWINS FOR TEH WIN!!!!1!!ONE!
i've been sending my good vibes to BNR ever since they released the stage 3's, it seems like they are fairing very nicely, i don't know why but i hate singles[sorry]. can't wait till my turbo's crap out, wait what am i saying! i hope that when they crap out i go for the stage 3's.
i've been sending my good vibes to BNR ever since they released the stage 3's, it seems like they are fairing very nicely, i don't know why but i hate singles[sorry]. can't wait till my turbo's crap out, wait what am i saying! i hope that when they crap out i go for the stage 3's.
10-20-05, 05:38 PM
#104
Front Range Express
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Colorado Springs
Posts: 571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Goodfella-
I've been on an EGT kick lately, trying to gain understanding of their importance to our conversations on this forum. I haven't learned all that much, so I may be wrong (and honestly hope I am), but I think your EGTs are too high. What have you gained in terms of reliability if you've added some in the turbo area, but taken some away from your engine? You reported 1400c EGTs! All the knowledge I've gained has suggested that number is insanely high and will have a marked affect on the wear of your engine. Post #49 of this thread said something about high backpressure, and I wonder if that's what you got causing such high EGTs. I hope people some of the "old pros" chime in here and tell me 1400 is nothing to be alarmed about, and I'll be happy to apologize for being wrong. The way I see it, if you think you've gained in increase in reliability with these turbos at this tune level, you're not looking at the engine life. Please, someone back me up or prove me wrong. My intention is not to diminish your accomplishments. I am trying to gain understanding of what EGTs tell us, and add to the discussion in a positive manner. BTW, on a T-62 with 440rwhp, my EGTs were around 950c and afrs were in the 10s; and on my new T61 with more hp and leaner afrs, they are around 875c. THe T-61 has greater flow. You and I have a 500c difference in EGTs.
-3genX
I've been on an EGT kick lately, trying to gain understanding of their importance to our conversations on this forum. I haven't learned all that much, so I may be wrong (and honestly hope I am), but I think your EGTs are too high. What have you gained in terms of reliability if you've added some in the turbo area, but taken some away from your engine? You reported 1400c EGTs! All the knowledge I've gained has suggested that number is insanely high and will have a marked affect on the wear of your engine. Post #49 of this thread said something about high backpressure, and I wonder if that's what you got causing such high EGTs. I hope people some of the "old pros" chime in here and tell me 1400 is nothing to be alarmed about, and I'll be happy to apologize for being wrong. The way I see it, if you think you've gained in increase in reliability with these turbos at this tune level, you're not looking at the engine life. Please, someone back me up or prove me wrong. My intention is not to diminish your accomplishments. I am trying to gain understanding of what EGTs tell us, and add to the discussion in a positive manner. BTW, on a T-62 with 440rwhp, my EGTs were around 950c and afrs were in the 10s; and on my new T61 with more hp and leaner afrs, they are around 875c. THe T-61 has greater flow. You and I have a 500c difference in EGTs.
-3genX
10-20-05, 06:38 PM
#105
Rotary Freak
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: fort worth, tx, usa
Posts: 1,926
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think someone must have either read it wrong and/or provided wrong info. 1400 is usually a Farienhiet number which translate to around 700C. F=1.8xC+32. I seriously doubt anything would have survived 1400C.
Originally Posted by III Gen X
Goodfella-
I've been on an EGT kick lately, trying to gain understanding of their importance to our conversations on this forum. I haven't learned all that much, so I may be wrong (and honestly hope I am), but I think your EGTs are too high. What have you gained in terms of reliability if you've added some in the turbo area, but taken some away from your engine? You reported 1400c EGTs! All the knowledge I've gained has suggested that number is insanely high and will have a marked affect on the wear of your engine. Post #49 of this thread said something about high backpressure, and I wonder if that's what you got causing such high EGTs. I hope people some of the "old pros" chime in here and tell me 1400 is nothing to be alarmed about, and I'll be happy to apologize for being wrong. The way I see it, if you think you've gained in increase in reliability with these turbos at this tune level, you're not looking at the engine life. Please, someone back me up or prove me wrong. My intention is not to diminish your accomplishments. I am trying to gain understanding of what EGTs tell us, and add to the discussion in a positive manner. BTW, on a T-62 with 440rwhp, my EGTs were around 950c and afrs were in the 10s; and on my new T61 with more hp and leaner afrs, they are around 875c. THe T-61 has greater flow. You and I have a 500c difference in EGTs.
-3genX
I've been on an EGT kick lately, trying to gain understanding of their importance to our conversations on this forum. I haven't learned all that much, so I may be wrong (and honestly hope I am), but I think your EGTs are too high. What have you gained in terms of reliability if you've added some in the turbo area, but taken some away from your engine? You reported 1400c EGTs! All the knowledge I've gained has suggested that number is insanely high and will have a marked affect on the wear of your engine. Post #49 of this thread said something about high backpressure, and I wonder if that's what you got causing such high EGTs. I hope people some of the "old pros" chime in here and tell me 1400 is nothing to be alarmed about, and I'll be happy to apologize for being wrong. The way I see it, if you think you've gained in increase in reliability with these turbos at this tune level, you're not looking at the engine life. Please, someone back me up or prove me wrong. My intention is not to diminish your accomplishments. I am trying to gain understanding of what EGTs tell us, and add to the discussion in a positive manner. BTW, on a T-62 with 440rwhp, my EGTs were around 950c and afrs were in the 10s; and on my new T61 with more hp and leaner afrs, they are around 875c. THe T-61 has greater flow. You and I have a 500c difference in EGTs.
-3genX
10-20-05, 08:01 PM
#106
Original Gangster/Rotary!
Thread Starter
iTrader: (213)
Howdy,
genghis (pluto) up above is correct. my Defi EGT gauge measures in degrees F
.
Rich
genghis (pluto) up above is correct. my Defi EGT gauge measures in degrees F
.Rich
Originally Posted by III Gen X
Goodfella-
I've been on an EGT kick lately, trying to gain understanding of their importance to our conversations on this forum. I haven't learned all that much, so I may be wrong (and honestly hope I am), but I think your EGTs are too high. What have you gained in terms of reliability if you've added some in the turbo area, but taken some away from your engine? You reported 1400c EGTs! All the knowledge I've gained has suggested that number is insanely high and will have a marked affect on the wear of your engine. Post #49 of this thread said something about high backpressure, and I wonder if that's what you got causing such high EGTs. I hope people some of the "old pros" chime in here and tell me 1400 is nothing to be alarmed about, and I'll be happy to apologize for being wrong. The way I see it, if you think you've gained in increase in reliability with these turbos at this tune level, you're not looking at the engine life. Please, someone back me up or prove me wrong. My intention is not to diminish your accomplishments. I am trying to gain understanding of what EGTs tell us, and add to the discussion in a positive manner. BTW, on a T-62 with 440rwhp, my EGTs were around 950c and afrs were in the 10s; and on my new T61 with more hp and leaner afrs, they are around 875c. THe T-61 has greater flow. You and I have a 500c difference in EGTs.
-3genX
I've been on an EGT kick lately, trying to gain understanding of their importance to our conversations on this forum. I haven't learned all that much, so I may be wrong (and honestly hope I am), but I think your EGTs are too high. What have you gained in terms of reliability if you've added some in the turbo area, but taken some away from your engine? You reported 1400c EGTs! All the knowledge I've gained has suggested that number is insanely high and will have a marked affect on the wear of your engine. Post #49 of this thread said something about high backpressure, and I wonder if that's what you got causing such high EGTs. I hope people some of the "old pros" chime in here and tell me 1400 is nothing to be alarmed about, and I'll be happy to apologize for being wrong. The way I see it, if you think you've gained in increase in reliability with these turbos at this tune level, you're not looking at the engine life. Please, someone back me up or prove me wrong. My intention is not to diminish your accomplishments. I am trying to gain understanding of what EGTs tell us, and add to the discussion in a positive manner. BTW, on a T-62 with 440rwhp, my EGTs were around 950c and afrs were in the 10s; and on my new T61 with more hp and leaner afrs, they are around 875c. THe T-61 has greater flow. You and I have a 500c difference in EGTs.
-3genX
10-20-05, 09:02 PM
#107
Front Range Express
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Colorado Springs
Posts: 571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, hey, "cool" set-up and tune! On your low boost setting that's a 690c EGT. I've got a race ported engine, high flowin turbo and 3.5" exhaust and that's about what my EGTs are at 2.5" from the ports while cruising 75 mph (not boosting) down the highway. I'm trying to make sense of all this, and first question I have is where is your thermocouple? Before or after the turbo? I wonder if my gauge is reading high or if your's is reading low. Please don't interpret this questioning as me calling BS; I'm trying become an expert on this stuff and right now have more questions than answers Given what I know (or don't know, more like it) your 690c seems impossibly low if measured at the same place mine is.
Given what I know (or don't know, more like it) your 690c seems impossibly low if measured at the same place mine is.
10-20-05, 11:00 PM
#108
Original Gangster/Rotary!
Thread Starter
iTrader: (213)
Originally Posted by III Gen X
Well, hey, "cool" set-up and tune! On your low boost setting that's a 690c EGT. I've got a race ported engine, high flowin turbo and 3.5" exhaust and that's about what my EGTs are at 2.5" from the ports while cruising 75 mph (not boosting) down the highway. I'm trying to make sense of all this, and first question I have is where is your thermocouple? Before or after the turbo? I wonder if my gauge is reading high or if your's is reading low. Please don't interpret this questioning as me calling BS; I'm trying become an expert on this stuff and right now have more questions than answers Given what I know (or don't know, more like it) your 690c seems impossibly low if measured at the same place mine is.
Given what I know (or don't know, more like it) your 690c seems impossibly low if measured at the same place mine is.
11-04-05, 05:33 AM
#109
Banned. I got OWNED!!!
Thats a great power figure on a dynapack.
To give you an idea many years ago in my first gen RX7 with S5 motor and 60-1 turbo running at 19.9psi boost pressure 13.7:1 AFR and water injection I put down two runs back to back at 472rwhp. That car was an absolute animal to drive, so that FD with only 50 rear hub HP less would be a hell of a car
My new FD will have a set of BNR3's on it very soon and I hope to replicate what I did with my first gen, will run no sequential as I am not a fan of the instant boost @ 2k rpm personaly.
We have a brand new dynapack at my work for our SAE team so will do dyno runs on it and post up once I get it all together will be a good comparison albeit from the other side of the world !
I told Brian I will be running daily 20 psi boost, as this is my minimum I am interested in on pump fuel
To give you an idea many years ago in my first gen RX7 with S5 motor and 60-1 turbo running at 19.9psi boost pressure 13.7:1 AFR and water injection I put down two runs back to back at 472rwhp. That car was an absolute animal to drive, so that FD with only 50 rear hub HP less would be a hell of a car
My new FD will have a set of BNR3's on it very soon and I hope to replicate what I did with my first gen, will run no sequential as I am not a fan of the instant boost @ 2k rpm personaly.
We have a brand new dynapack at my work for our SAE team so will do dyno runs on it and post up once I get it all together will be a good comparison albeit from the other side of the world !
I told Brian I will be running daily 20 psi boost, as this is my minimum I am interested in on pump fuel
11-06-05, 07:46 AM
#111
Full Member
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd suggest traction, I found it is easier to put down 350+rwhp non-seq than it was to put down 300 seq. If you drive the car no matter what the weather this is a plus (no traction in the wet loses it's appeal here as it rains practically all the time).
FWIW I should have figures for the BNRs maxed out (on race fuel) by the end of the month. I'm not quite as brave as RR so will only be running around 18psi on my daily map, but the car is being setup to run the highest boost the turbos can take (plus a 75 shot) for 1/4 use. I'm hoping for a bit over 400rwhp on the daily map and another hundred on the straight line setup (Dyno Dynamics bhp). Will be interesting to see how the figures compare around the world
FWIW I should have figures for the BNRs maxed out (on race fuel) by the end of the month. I'm not quite as brave as RR so will only be running around 18psi on my daily map, but the car is being setup to run the highest boost the turbos can take (plus a 75 shot) for 1/4 use. I'm hoping for a bit over 400rwhp on the daily map and another hundred on the straight line setup (Dyno Dynamics bhp). Will be interesting to see how the figures compare around the world
11-20-05, 12:48 PM
#112
Full Member
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rich, did you guys have any probs running high boost? We can't get them to hold more than a bar of boost. Will go up to 1.2bar mid-range, but just tails off and we are stumped.
The car has spent a huge amount of time on the dyno, tried different plugs, leads, intercooler, exhaust, and just can't get it to hold boost
FWIW we are making 377rwhp at a bar, but well short of the 420 I was looking for at 1.2-1.3bar on pump fuel - no point in even running race fuel at the moment as we can't get the boost to warrant it.
Street port (peak power at 7.5k rpm)
MSD 6a
Aquamist WI
Profec B Spec II
HKS downpipe, various midpipe & backboxes
Trust SMIC
Non-seq conv
At the moment it just seems we have maxed out the flow of the exhaust manifold when running an intercooler. It may be we have to run a chargecooler to get more power, but that doesn't make sense when you've managed to get quite a lot more out of approximately the same setup.
The car has spent a huge amount of time on the dyno, tried different plugs, leads, intercooler, exhaust, and just can't get it to hold boost
FWIW we are making 377rwhp at a bar, but well short of the 420 I was looking for at 1.2-1.3bar on pump fuel - no point in even running race fuel at the moment as we can't get the boost to warrant it.
Street port (peak power at 7.5k rpm)
MSD 6a
Aquamist WI
Profec B Spec II
HKS downpipe, various midpipe & backboxes
Trust SMIC
Non-seq conv
At the moment it just seems we have maxed out the flow of the exhaust manifold when running an intercooler. It may be we have to run a chargecooler to get more power, but that doesn't make sense when you've managed to get quite a lot more out of approximately the same setup.
11-22-05, 11:04 PM
#114
Original Gangster/Rotary!
Thread Starter
iTrader: (213)
Originally Posted by cloud9
my friend had trouble building boost with his bnr's as well
11-23-05, 07:12 AM
#115
Eats, Sleeps, Dreams Rotary
Originally Posted by GoodfellaFD3S
I doubt it was the turbos. I have held as high as 19 psi to redline.
11-23-05, 08:50 AM
#117
Original Gangster/Rotary!
Thread Starter
iTrader: (213)
Originally Posted by matty
dude...have u taken your car to the track yet? i am certainly not doubting your dyno graph but i would love to see some traps to back it up.
I did drive her this past weekend at 16 psi, and she pulls like a raped ape
12-03-05, 12:51 PM
#118
Full Member
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well the problem was finally resolved with the 3rd wastegate actuator, we had the same problem with 2 different actuators, which is what threw us off-track.
The car is now making 400rwhp at 1.1bar, and at 1.2bar and with a 50 shot of nitrous - guess that's us on the flow limit then. If we run more boost we just hit 400rwhp earlier in the rev range. When I manage to scrape together enough cash I'll replace the intercooler with one that has lower pressure drop, but for the moment I'm glad we've finally got it running properly
The car is now making 400rwhp at 1.1bar, and at 1.2bar and with a 50 shot of nitrous - guess that's us on the flow limit then. If we run more boost we just hit 400rwhp earlier in the rev range. When I manage to scrape together enough cash I'll replace the intercooler with one that has lower pressure drop, but for the moment I'm glad we've finally got it running properly
12-23-05, 07:00 PM
#119
silver ghost
iTrader: (11)
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Home of the Rolex 24
Posts: 3,061
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes
on
5 Posts
Originally Posted by Robertio
Well the problem was finally resolved with the 3rd wastegate actuator, we had the same problem with 2 different actuators, which is what threw us off-track.
The car is now making 400rwhp at 1.1bar, and at 1.2bar and with a 50 shot of nitrous - guess that's us on the flow limit then. If we run more boost we just hit 400rwhp earlier in the rev range. When I manage to scrape together enough cash I'll replace the intercooler with one that has lower pressure drop, but for the moment I'm glad we've finally got it running properly
The car is now making 400rwhp at 1.1bar, and at 1.2bar and with a 50 shot of nitrous - guess that's us on the flow limit then. If we run more boost we just hit 400rwhp earlier in the rev range. When I manage to scrape together enough cash I'll replace the intercooler with one that has lower pressure drop, but for the moment I'm glad we've finally got it running properly
12-23-05, 09:03 PM
#120
Rotary Freak
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: nyc+li, ny
Posts: 2,690
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Robertio
Rich, did you guys have any probs running high boost? We can't get them to hold more than a bar of boost. Will go up to 1.2bar mid-range, but just tails off and we are stumped.
The car has spent a huge amount of time on the dyno, tried different plugs, leads, intercooler, exhaust, and just can't get it to hold boost
FWIW we are making 377rwhp at a bar, but well short of the 420 I was looking for at 1.2-1.3bar on pump fuel - no point in even running race fuel at the moment as we can't get the boost to warrant it.
Street port (peak power at 7.5k rpm)
MSD 6a
Aquamist WI
Profec B Spec II
HKS downpipe, various midpipe & backboxes
Trust SMIC
Non-seq conv
At the moment it just seems we have maxed out the flow of the exhaust manifold when running an intercooler. It may be we have to run a chargecooler to get more power, but that doesn't make sense when you've managed to get quite a lot more out of approximately the same setup.
The car has spent a huge amount of time on the dyno, tried different plugs, leads, intercooler, exhaust, and just can't get it to hold boost
FWIW we are making 377rwhp at a bar, but well short of the 420 I was looking for at 1.2-1.3bar on pump fuel - no point in even running race fuel at the moment as we can't get the boost to warrant it.
Street port (peak power at 7.5k rpm)
MSD 6a
Aquamist WI
Profec B Spec II
HKS downpipe, various midpipe & backboxes
Trust SMIC
Non-seq conv
At the moment it just seems we have maxed out the flow of the exhaust manifold when running an intercooler. It may be we have to run a chargecooler to get more power, but that doesn't make sense when you've managed to get quite a lot more out of approximately the same setup.
12-26-05, 10:57 AM
#121
Full Member
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Scotland
Posts: 158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by alberto_mg
what MAP sensor are you using?
The intercooler is showing a 0.3bar presure drop across it, so the plan is to change it for something else. Assuming we can halve the pressure drop we should be up from 404rwhp to 420 or so, which ties in with what Rich is seeing. Part-exchanged my nitrous kit for a required suspension upgrade, so will be a couple of months before I can afford the intercooler upgrade.
Is feeling fairly quick for now - is OK until 5k rpm then it really starts pulling (and pulls cleanly through to beyond 8k rpm). Am visiting my parents for Christmas so took my dad out in it and in his opinion the acceleration is on a par with a quick bike
01-07-06, 10:35 AM
#122
silver ghost
iTrader: (11)
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Home of the Rolex 24
Posts: 3,061
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes
on
5 Posts
Originally Posted by Robertio
GM 3 Bar.
The intercooler is showing a 0.3bar presure drop across it, so the plan is to change it for something else. Assuming we can halve the pressure drop we should be up from 404rwhp to 420 or so, which ties in with what Rich is seeing. Part-exchanged my nitrous kit for a required suspension upgrade, so will be a couple of months before I can afford the intercooler upgrade.
Is feeling fairly quick for now - is OK until 5k rpm then it really starts pulling (and pulls cleanly through to beyond 8k rpm). Am visiting my parents for Christmas so took my dad out in it and in his opinion the acceleration is on a par with a quick bike
The intercooler is showing a 0.3bar presure drop across it, so the plan is to change it for something else. Assuming we can halve the pressure drop we should be up from 404rwhp to 420 or so, which ties in with what Rich is seeing. Part-exchanged my nitrous kit for a required suspension upgrade, so will be a couple of months before I can afford the intercooler upgrade.
Is feeling fairly quick for now - is OK until 5k rpm then it really starts pulling (and pulls cleanly through to beyond 8k rpm). Am visiting my parents for Christmas so took my dad out in it and in his opinion the acceleration is on a par with a quick bike
01-07-06, 03:31 PM
#125
Rotary Enthusiast
Rich my boy!
Just wanted to say hello ( been forever ) and nice *** numbers =D. I'm still on that same old motor that I used to drive down to texas with, (98kmiles) and shes still pullin strong! Your numbers have made me consider going this route once my motor finally hits the can.
Hope everything is well in NJ!
Just wanted to say hello ( been forever ) and nice *** numbers =D. I'm still on that same old motor that I used to drive down to texas with, (98kmiles) and shes still pullin strong! Your numbers have made me consider going this route once my motor finally hits the can.
Hope everything is well in NJ!