Just another 450whp Turbo FT86 -- and NOW 530hp

[EAGLE5]

I think shaft speed would be fun to discuss. @peterNorth

[Jaden]

Originally Posted by Spartarus

Did you? Let's examine the statement.



I'm going to offer some advice. Present statements beyond your experiential understanding as questions, not assertions, because they're a lot easier to eat when you're wrong.

I'm not going to pick apart every detail exhaustively, because even if anybody bothers to read it, it won't be informative. If people want the real equations, I'll post them separately.

Your mass flow to Volumetric flow equation is wrong, and lacks units. Air density at ISA is .765 Pounds per Cubic foot, not ".69...god knows what units".

Don't throw out numbers without units. It makes them meaningless.

Calculating horsepower from Volumetric flow by multiplying by a constant is not correct, not even as a "rule of thumb." It's missing too many variables to be accurate in any situation. To get anywhere close to HP from airflow we need to discuss Specific Fuel Consumption and how tuning affects that number.

"boost ratio" equation is only good at sea level. You can not simply look up flow rate for a given pressure ratio on a compressor map. It's a whole other axis. You need both points (pressure ratio and flow) to plot a point on a compressor map. It involves a lot more math.

Flow rate is NOT a really good indicator of HP. Period.

Your 48% argument assumes that Volumetric Efficiency does not change with turbocharging. This is perhaps one of the most interesting aspects of turbocharging, especially in the last few years as turbos have become efficient enough to where manifold absolute pressure is higher than turbine inlet pressure in certain cases..

We are not even ready to discuss altitude and shaft speed yet.

There is a lot more to tuning than the basic numbers.

Here's a thought to chew on. I used to own a 4-banger motorbike that made 205.1 Horsepower per liter.

Guess how much boost? ...The hell with it, it'll spoil the fun. It was naturally aspirated. And bone stock.

More thought-experiment material. Upsizing the valves on this car actually costs NA horsepower, but add a turbo and suddenly +1mm valves are enough to carry the powerband all the way to to 9000 RPM.



Of course 500 HP is possible on 7 PSI. Whether it's possible on the bone-stock engine is ... Going to be interesting.

"Big turbos" are my job. Except mine don't have a silly reciprocating engine shoe-horned in between the compressor and the turbine.

What I said was, you are not going to get 500 hp at 7 psi without some other oxygen enrichment unless the engine N/A is capable of 300 hp. Are you saying that isn't true? at 7 psi without some type of oxygen enrichment, you think that 500hp is possible on an engine that makes no more than 230hp N/A?

THAT'S WHAT I said...and there is a finite amount of air that can fit in a 2.0l engine. If you aren't adding oxygen in some other way, you will not be able to generate past a certain limit at a given boost... otherwise, where are the 350hp 2.0l engines at 5 psi?

Sure, if you completely rebuild the engine with titanium everything and run 14:1 compression at 7 psi of boost, you just might get a 2.0l engine making 500hp... with gigantic valves, etc...

That's not the argument though.

I didn't say that the math I gave was comprehensive, but it should've done the job at showing the finite-ness of displacement.

That's great about your 1 litre motorcycle engine making 200hp N/A...

I'd be willing to bet dollars to donuts that if you turbo that bike at 7 psi, you won't get 400hp out of it either...don't care how big the turbo is, not without additional oxygen enrichment.

Jaden

[Spartarus]

Originally Posted by Jaden

What I said was, you are not going to get 500 hp at 7 psi without some other oxygen enrichment unless the engine N/A is capable of 300 hp. Are you saying that isn't true? at 7 psi without some type of oxygen enrichment, you think that 500hp is possible on an engine that makes no more than 230hp N/A?

THAT'S WHAT I said...and there is a finite amount of air that can fit in a 2.0l engine. If you aren't adding oxygen in some other way, you will not be able to generate past a certain limit at a given boost... otherwise, where are the 350hp 2.0l engines at 5 psi?

Sure, if you completely rebuild the engine with titanium everything and run 14:1 compression at 7 psi of boost, you just might get a 2.0l engine making 500hp... with gigantic valves, etc...

That's not the argument though.

I didn't say that the math I gave was comprehensive, but it should've done the job at showing the finite-ness of displacement.

That's great about your 1 litre motorcycle engine making 200hp N/A...

I'd be willing to bet dollars to donuts that if you turbo that bike at 7 psi, you won't get 400hp out of it either...don't care how big the turbo is, not without additional oxygen enrichment.

Jaden

You are correct. I am saying that is not true.

I am saying that NA horsepower is not a consistent indicator of how an engine will perform when turbocharged.

I am not disputing that a fixed amount of air can enter a 2 Liter engine. That is true.

I am saying, throw out the NA rules when you turbo the car. If you could take the car and run it (naturally aspirated) in big chamber where the ambient pressure was Sea Level ISA + 7 PSI (21.7 Absolute), and you took the same car and turbocharged it at sea level to 21.7 PSI Manifold Absolute Pressure, you would get different horsepower numbers. You would also get different Manifold pressure numbers. Intake and exhaust port velocities would not match. IAT's would not match.

That was why I tossed in the comment about valves. The guys over at Element make power all the way to 9K RPM. How? The powerband levels off and starts to suffer after 7K. Upsized valves. That's it. Turns out, +1mm intake and exhaust actually cost NA horsepower, but can help maintain high volumetric efficiency on a turbocharged engine more than 2000 RPM after VE peaks NA.

NA flow, and thus HP, does not correlate consistently to turbocharged Flow, and thus HP.

Yes, you are right, there is only so much air you can pack in to 2 Liters and thus, only so much fuel you can burn and so much energy you can extract. There is a ceiling on power. That ceiling does not begin and end with "Boost" 7 PSI isn't always the same 7 PSI. There are reasonable limits on this as well.

But perhaps most Interestingly, your argument hinges on the idea that airflow is the sole determinant of horsepower. Airflow is actually a rather minor variable. Ask the people who run 2:1 stoichiometric on nitromethane. Airflow determines only how much fuel you can burn. That's it. How much fuel you burn per horsepower generated is called Specific Fuel Consumption. If you can lower the SFC, (this is where the fun, and the tuning, starts) you can make more HP on less boost. If you can maintain the same SFC as you enrich the mixture, you can make even more.

This is why Ethanol makes this argument so interesting ......And not just because I'm drinking on a day off.

And for sh*ts and giggles, no, the bike wouldn't make 400 HP on 7 PSI. It didn't even displace 1 liter. It displaced 636 cc's or .636 liters, and made 130.5 HP. (Math says 130.5 hp / 0.636 L = 205.1 HP/L ) Do I look like the kind of douchebag who would drive a liter bike? Don't answer that. Or do... Hell with it.

[Jaden]

Originally Posted by Spartarus

You are correct. I am saying that is not true.

I am saying that NA horsepower is not a consistent indicator of how an engine will perform when turbocharged.

I am not disputing that a fixed amount of air can enter a 2 Liter engine. That is true.

I am saying, throw out the NA rules when you turbo the car. If you could take the car and run it (naturally aspirated) in big chamber where the ambient pressure was Sea Level ISA + 7 PSI (21.7 Absolute), and you took the same car and turbocharged it at sea level to 21.7 PSI Manifold Absolute Pressure, you would get different horsepower numbers. You would also get different Manifold pressure numbers. Intake and exhaust port velocities would not match. IAT's would not match.

That was why I tossed in the comment about valves. The guys over at Element make power all the way to 9K RPM. How? The powerband levels off and starts to suffer after 7K. Upsized valves. That's it. Turns out, +1mm intake and exhaust actually cost NA horsepower, but can help maintain high volumetric efficiency on a turbocharged engine more than 2000 RPM after VE peaks NA.

NA flow, and thus HP, does not correlate consistently to turbocharged Flow, and thus HP.

Yes, you are right, there is only so much air you can pack in to 2 Liters and thus, only so much fuel you can burn and so much energy you can extract. There is a ceiling on power. That ceiling does not begin and end with "Boost" 7 PSI isn't always the same 7 PSI. There are reasonable limits on this as well.

But perhaps most Interestingly, your argument hinges on the idea that airflow is the sole determinant of horsepower. Airflow is actually a rather minor variable. Ask the people who run 2:1 stoichiometric on nitromethane. Airflow determines only how much fuel you can burn. That's it. How much fuel you burn per horsepower generated is called Specific Fuel Consumption. If you can lower the SFC, (this is where the fun, and the tuning, starts) you can make more HP on less boost. If you can maintain the same SFC as you enrich the mixture, you can make even more.

This is why Ethanol makes this argument so interesting ......And not just because I'm drinking on a day off.

And for sh*ts and giggles, no, the bike wouldn't make 400 HP on 7 PSI. It didn't even displace 1 liter. It displaced 636 cc's or .636 liters, and made 130.5 HP. (Math says 130.5 hp / 0.636 L = 205.1 HP/L ) Do I look like the kind of douchebag who would drive a liter bike? Don't answer that. Or do... Hell with it.

No, you don't seem like a douchebag at all.

I said the exact opposite of 7 psi being 7 psi in multiple threads and multiple times (including this one, BTW).

I also KNOW that you can't use N/A at sea level to accurately assess what the car will do at a given F/I boost level, but you CAN use N/A at whatever to get a good damned idea as to what the MAX you're going to get at 7 psi is though.

I will stick by my offer for anyone to show me a car that makes more than 65% of the power it makes at ambient air pressure at 7 psi of boost with any turbo and no changes to valving(valve sizing not VVT, I don't care what they do with VVT), other oxygen enrichment, etc...

The argument that started this WHOLE thing was someone asking what if they told me that they could pop a big turbo on a twin and make 500 hp at 7 psi... My response was that I said it would be impossible.

I still stand by that. I don't care how big of a turbo you pop on a twin, you will not make 500 hp at 7 psi of boost without some other type of oxygen enrichment...or completely building the engine to specifically allow a ton more airflow.

Jaden

[Spartarus]

Originally Posted by Jaden

No, you don't seem like a douchebag at all.

I said the exact opposite of 7 psi being 7 psi in multiple threads and multiple times (including this one, BTW).

I also KNOW that you can't use N/A at sea level to accurately assess what the car will do at a given F/I boost level, but you CAN use N/A at whatever to get a good damned idea as to what the MAX you're going to get at 7 psi is though.

I will stick by my offer for anyone to show me a car that makes more than 65% of the power it makes at ambient air pressure at 7 psi of boost with any turbo and no changes to valving(valve sizing not VVT, I don't care what they do with VVT), other oxygen enrichment, etc...

The argument that started this WHOLE thing was someone asking what if they told me that they could pop a big turbo on a twin and make 500 hp at 7 psi... My response was that I said it would be impossible.

I still stand by that. I don't care how big of a turbo you pop on a twin, you will not make 500 hp at 7 psi of boost without some other type of oxygen enrichment...or completely building the engine to specifically allow a ton more airflow.

Jaden

OK. I understand what you're saying and why you're defending it. You are, again, saying that you can use an airflow-based rule of thumb to approximate the maximum HP at a given "boost."

I am saying you can't. You can guess a median power figure, but that is a coincidence only, and is due to the logic most companies use to size the turbos for their kits... And it's becoming less true as technology moves on. It's like guessing top speed based on OEM tire width. A linear correlation may even exist! But if it does, it's a coincidence.

I used the upsized valving as an example to illustrate just exactly why you can't use NA HP as a "max" figure. Changing nothing else about the engine, the two "maximum potential" numbers diverge. The OEM car wan't shipped with perfect sized valves and runners for performance, what if they had been upsized or downsized from the factory?

"Show me a car" Ok then, Just off the top of my head, Dustin at Dynosty with the 3SGE BEAMS swap. Unopened stock engine, 11.5:1 compression, no direct injection. Stock makes 197 BHP, about 159 WHP. They made 330 WHP on pump gas at 8 PSI, at the stock rev limit, and published the numbers.

The NA WHP is about 48% of the turbocharged WHP. Far shot better than 65%.

Chris at Speed by Design made 277 WHP on an FRS that baselined at 163 WHP. That'd make the NA HP 58% of the turbo HP. Again, pump gas.

See here's the thing.

I understand you stand by your statement with reagard to making 500 HP @7 PSI. You may be right, you may be wrong. Regardless, my point is whether or not you are, it's an unsubstantiated guess, not grounded in any sound mathematical principles. You're gambling.

Once again, if you want to learn, I have time to type. I can make the math work for 500 HP at 7 PSI. will the fuel, engine, and turbo keep up? Dunno, that's what experimentation is for. That's why tuners make money.

I know my turbo won't make 500 on 7 PSI, but it's little, and it's old, and it's not very efficient, but it'll kill the 65% guess dead dead dead.

To address your last point, upsizing the valves can be done accurately in a garage with a Grizzly Mill and some carbide cutters, that cost less than your turbo kit. It does not constitute completely building the engine, it's a relatively minor modification. That's why I selected it as an example... And the Griz because it's what I use.

[VitViper]

Originally Posted by Jaden

If you are talking about boost being the only oxygen adder, then no 500hp is not possible at 7psi.my response was in regards to a bigger turbo allowing an fa20 to make 500hp on 7psi.

Sure you can make 500na if you use nitro methane, but that wasn't what was stated. It was stated what if I told you I could throw a72mm turbo and make 500hp at 7si and I said id say that wasn't possible because just throwing a72mm or even a90mm turbo won't let you make 500hp on a2l motor at 7psi.there's just not enough displacement.

The only way to make that much power on a 2l motor is by adding more oxygen content than you can fit in the engine at 7psi.

I mean then I had someone come in and day they were making 490 at 10 psi,well that's not 500,and that's not 7 psi.

10 psi is more than 15-20 percent more oxygen than 7 psi.so duh you're going to make more power.

Jaden

500hp on 7psi is possible on a 2L engine.

Regardless of how much you want to continue arguing this point, you still went completely off topic and out of context with my original post -- seems like a situation of "nothing else to see here so let's steer the ship somewhere else".

[VitViper]

Originally Posted by Spartarus

You are correct. I am saying that is not true.

I am saying that NA horsepower is not a consistent indicator of how an engine will perform when turbocharged.

I am not disputing that a fixed amount of air can enter a 2 Liter engine. That is true.

I am saying, throw out the NA rules when you turbo the car. If you could take the car and run it (naturally aspirated) in big chamber where the ambient pressure was Sea Level ISA + 7 PSI (21.7 Absolute), and you took the same car and turbocharged it at sea level to 21.7 PSI Manifold Absolute Pressure, you would get different horsepower numbers. You would also get different Manifold pressure numbers. Intake and exhaust port velocities would not match. IAT's would not match.

That was why I tossed in the comment about valves. The guys over at Element make power all the way to 9K RPM. How? The powerband levels off and starts to suffer after 7K. Upsized valves. That's it. Turns out, +1mm intake and exhaust actually cost NA horsepower, but can help maintain high volumetric efficiency on a turbocharged engine more than 2000 RPM after VE peaks NA.

NA flow, and thus HP, does not correlate consistently to turbocharged Flow, and thus HP.

Yes, you are right, there is only so much air you can pack in to 2 Liters and thus, only so much fuel you can burn and so much energy you can extract. There is a ceiling on power. That ceiling does not begin and end with "Boost" 7 PSI isn't always the same 7 PSI. There are reasonable limits on this as well.

But perhaps most Interestingly, your argument hinges on the idea that airflow is the sole determinant of horsepower. Airflow is actually a rather minor variable. Ask the people who run 2:1 stoichiometric on nitromethane. Airflow determines only how much fuel you can burn. That's it. How much fuel you burn per horsepower generated is called Specific Fuel Consumption. If you can lower the SFC, (this is where the fun, and the tuning, starts) you can make more HP on less boost. If you can maintain the same SFC as you enrich the mixture, you can make even more.

This is why Ethanol makes this argument so interesting ......And not just because I'm drinking on a day off.

And for sh*ts and giggles, no, the bike wouldn't make 400 HP on 7 PSI. It didn't even displace 1 liter. It displaced 636 cc's or .636 liters, and made 130.5 HP. (Math says 130.5 hp / 0.636 L = 205.1 HP/L ) Do I look like the kind of douchebag who would drive a liter bike? Don't answer that. Or do... Hell with it.

I think I just fell in love all over again.









No homo.

[kcam86]

Originally Posted by VitViper

I think I just fell in love all over again.









No homo.

It's kinda scary how stupid smart people (thats kind of an oxymoron lol) just seem to pop out of the bushes and start giving a class on random topics in such detail. I love it!

[Jaden]

Originally Posted by Spartarus

OK. I understand what you're saying and why you're defending it. You are, again, saying that you can use an airflow-based rule of thumb to approximate the maximum HP at a given "boost."

I am saying you can't. You can guess a median power figure, but that is a coincidence only, and is due to the logic most companies use to size the turbos for their kits... And it's becoming less true as technology moves on. It's like guessing top speed based on OEM tire width. A linear correlation may even exist! But if it does, it's a coincidence.

I used the upsized valving as an example to illustrate just exactly why you can't use NA HP as a "max" figure. Changing nothing else about the engine, the two "maximum potential" numbers diverge. The OEM car wan't shipped with perfect sized valves and runners for performance, what if they had been upsized or downsized from the factory?

"Show me a car" Ok then, Just off the top of my head, Dustin at Dynosty with the 3SGE BEAMS swap. Unopened stock engine, 11.5:1 compression, no direct injection. Stock makes 197 BHP, about 159 WHP. They made 330 WHP on pump gas at 8 PSI, at the stock rev limit, and published the numbers.

The NA WHP is about 48% of the turbocharged WHP. Far shot better than 65%.

Chris at Speed by Design made 277 WHP on an FRS that baselined at 163 WHP. That'd make the NA HP 58% of the turbo HP. Again, pump gas.

See here's the thing.

I understand you stand by your statement with reagard to making 500 HP @7 PSI. You may be right, you may be wrong. Regardless, my point is whether or not you are, it's an unsubstantiated guess, not grounded in any sound mathematical principles. You're gambling.

Once again, if you want to learn, I have time to type. I can make the math work for 500 HP at 7 PSI. will the fuel, engine, and turbo keep up? Dunno, that's what experimentation is for. That's why tuners make money.

I know my turbo won't make 500 on 7 PSI, but it's little, and it's old, and it's not very efficient, but it'll kill the 65% guess dead dead dead.

To address your last point, upsizing the valves can be done accurately in a garage with a Grizzly Mill and some carbide cutters, that cost less than your turbo kit. It does not constitute completely building the engine, it's a relatively minor modification. That's why I selected it as an example... And the Griz because it's what I use.

I said without valving because he gave a blanket statement that a bigger turbo will make 500hp on 7psi. I called Bullshit not without changing the way the engine takes in air.

Just throwing a bigger turbo on the car and calling it a day is not going to make more than 65% more power. The whole point yeah I mean you can bring up examples of people that made a huge major breathing modifications to the cars and produced more than 65% more power and that still doesn't negate my argument which is that just throwing a bigger turbo on it will not let you make a bunch more power unless you have the ability for the engine to breathe that much more air.

[VitViper]

Originally Posted by Jaden

I said without valving because he gave a blanket statement that a bigger turbo will make 500hp on 7psi. I called Bullshit not without changing the way the engine takes in air.

Just throwing a bigger turbo on the car and calling it a day is not going to make more than 65% more power. The whole point yeah I mean you can bring up examples of people that made a huge major breathing modifications to the cars and produced more than 65% more power and that still doesn't negate my argument which is that just throwing a bigger turbo on it will not let you make a bunch more power unless you have the ability for the engine to breathe that much more air.

Read this statement again. And again, and again, and again. Because you are arguing semantics for the sake of arguing.

Originally Posted by VitViper

What if I told you... boost is irrelevant?

I can drop a 72mm turbo on the car and make 500hp on 7psi.

What then?

See how general the statement about 500hp at 7psi is? Your argument of whether it is possible or not is not relevant to the original discussion that lead to this statement. Whether you're making 7psi or 20psi to get 500hp, if the motor breaks at 500hp, then it breaks at 500hp. What's the relevance of the boost level then?

Not sure if I can use plainer English to make this statement?

[Jaden]

Originally Posted by VitViper

Read this statement again. And again, and again, and again. Because you are arguing semantics for the sake of arguing.



See how general the statement about 500hp at 7psi is? Your argument of whether it is possible or not is not relevant to the original discussion that lead to this statement. Whether you're making 7psi or 20psi to get 500hp, if the motor breaks at 500hp, then it breaks at 500hp. What's the relevance of the boost level then?

Not sure if I can use plainer English to make this statement?

I unequivocally agree with you on that point, it doesn't matter if the engine can't take the stress of 500whp...




Jaden

[EAGLE5]

Meanwhile, I believe some people are running around with 500whp and stock internals. Just saying. maybe they're not running forever, but they're running!

[VitViper]

Originally Posted by jsimon7777

Meanwhile, I believe some people are running around with 500whp and stock internals. Just saying. maybe they're not running forever, but they're running!

Nothing lasts forever.

[EAGLE5]

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Jtpf8N5IDE"]Queen - Who Wants To Live Forever (Official Video) - YouTube[/ame]