Accelerated Performance 2013 BRZ - FRS Turbo Kit Designing

[wcbjr]

Not to argue the point, just trying to get information...

What about oil return? I assume you need to scavenge when placing the turbo behind the engine. If you mount up front, can you place the turbo high enough to have a gravity-fed return?

[jedibow]

Originally Posted by yuli8466

Yes, I think many people prefer the 3rd as you would like to.
I just wonder will this method make the intake pipe too long? may be affect the throttle response.

Is it possible to open a cool hole of the bonnet for the intercool(near the firewall) like STI does ?

Actually having the water to air intercooler, both the cold side, and hot side piping would be the shortest route because it would be a rear mount turbo, and a rear mount intercooler (located by the firewall). The longest piping would be in the traditional front mount setup, next longest v-mount front mount, next top mount, and last water to air.

G

[ft86-UAE]

can you please get us info on boost level vs Hp.

3 PSI = Hp
5 PSI = HP
8 PSI = HP this i think is max on this engine.

and is fuel injector is good for the job or we will need bigger injectors.

thanks,

[Don@Accelerated]

The only viable option is the front mount. Air to liquid is very pricey when done right. Top mount is not an option solely because there is no way to get airflow across it.

[Don@Accelerated]

We'll be scavaging both front and rear. There is not a real great spot to feed oil into that will well suited gravity fed.

Originally Posted by wcbjr

Not to argue the point, just trying to get information...

What about oil return? I assume you need to scavenge when placing the turbo behind the engine. If you mount up front, can you place the turbo high enough to have a gravity-fed return?

[Don@Accelerated]

Originally Posted by ft86-UAE

can you please get us info on boost level vs Hp.

3 PSI = Hp
5 PSI = HP
8 PSI = HP this i think is max on this engine.

and is fuel injector is good for the job or we will need bigger injectors.

thanks,

I don't have that specific info quite yet.

-Don

[b.e]

I'm only interested in enough boost to make my car drive up a mountain road with the same power it would have at sea level. 4 to 5 PSI.

[jedibow]

Originally Posted by Don@Accelerated

The only viable option is the front mount. Air to liquid is very pricey when done right. Top mount is not an option solely because there is no way to get airflow across it.

I know Yuli was asking yesterday about an "ALL OUT" fully built bottom end project, so I imagined he had the money HaHa.

[wcbjr]

Originally Posted by ft86-UAE

can you please get us info on boost level vs Hp.

3 PSI = Hp
5 PSI = HP
8 PSI = HP this i think is max on this engine.

and is fuel injector is good for the job or we will need bigger injectors.

thanks,

Well, the motor already has 200 crank horsepower at 14.7 psi absolute. So that equals 13.6 crank horsepower per psi. That is best case and if they keep the compression ratio at 12.5:1.

[serialk11r]

Originally Posted by wcbjr

Well, the motor already has 200 crank horsepower at 14.7 psi absolute. So that equals 13.6 crank horsepower per psi. That is best case and if they keep the compression ratio at 12.5:1.

Err psi != air mass. At room temperature you can do that, but compressing the air increases its temperature.

[jedibow]

Originally Posted by serialk11r

Err psi != air mass. At room temperature you can do that, but compressing the air increases its temperature.

Correct Serial, P=nRT is your best friend!

Remember turbos do not create pressure for free, the maximum effieciency on the turbo that Don chose is 86% which is very good aslong as you are running the turbo in this effiecency island, so AT Best you will see a drop of 14% in pressure due to the increase in air temperature from created by the compression of the turbo.

This is exactly why I state earlier that a BW EFR turbo would not be a viable option in our car UNTIL you build the bottom end.

[serialk11r]

Not only that, adiabatic compression itself increases temperature. If the turbo were 100% efficient, and you had no intercooling, 8psi would correspond to about (14.7+8/14.7)^(1/1.4)=1.36 times the original air mass, despite being a 54% increase in pressure. That's why some cars can run like ~30psi boost without the engine melting from heat, you may be increasing pressure by 3 times but the amount of air and fuel you're putting in is only ~2 times greater. Okay that wasn't totally accurate about the engine heat, but anyways.

[jedibow]

Originally Posted by serialk11r

Not only that, adiabatic compression itself increases temperature. If the turbo were 100% efficient, and you had no intercooling, 8psi would correspond to about (14.7+8/14.7)^(1/1.4)=1.36 times the original air mass, despite being a 54% increase in pressure. That's why some cars can run like ~30psi boost without the engine melting from heat, you may be increasing pressure by 3 times but the amount of air and fuel you're putting in is only ~2 times greater. Okay that wasn't totally accurate about the engine heat, but anyways.

If you keep it up I will bring down "Corky Bell" on your butt!!!!

HaHa

Seriously, anybody not familiar with forced induction systems should read "maximum boost" by Corky Bell, it does a fantastic job of explaining the dynamics, and theory behind turbochargers and turbo systems.

G

[slow_frs]

Originally Posted by jedibow

One problem, when you decrease airflow into the engine the ECU doesn't retard timing, it actually advances timing because it "thinks" that you are driving in a lower load condition than you actually are, and advancing timing beyond what is allowable in forced induction vehicle ends very badly...

Holes in your pistons, holes in you block, and holes in your wallet

Good catch I meant to say advances ugh