1.6L 2560r record attempt
03-01-2013, 03:32 PM
#421
Supporting Vendor
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Lake Forest, CA
Posts: 7,947
Total Cats: 1,002
Good read. Dann did a great job of wringing some more power out of a small turbo.
BUT. (yes, but)...
He said that going to E85 should give him close to 350 whp.
18PSI (and savington, and krissetsfire...etc) said that wouldn't happen.
18PSI & clan were right. Dann was arguing that he would see the same increases going to E85 from 300 whp as he did from 250 whp
He was wrong. Likely most of his increases came from his other flow optimizations like the manifold, exhaust, etc.
Reply
0
0
03-01-2013, 05:11 PM
#422
Elite Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Newcastle, Australia
Posts: 2,826
Total Cats: 67
Lol at the thread
To Braineac directly,
Everyone knows that its a different car, different dyno, different day and that therefor there cannot be any official record. Also to answer your question I couldnt use my laptop because my girlfriend was at hospital sitting with her mum and she took it unannounced when she left. Yes the issue was finding one I could install java onto, and when I had done that I had to work out that my version of TS was too old. Without the net connected to the laptop and doing everything via USB transfer this took me a while.
To 18psi directly,
Mate, you are so easy to stir, I love you man
You complained I quoted you out of context, and then posted a dozen posts out of context, anyone want a laugh go hit the "begi vs fm2" thread. Found here:
https://www.miataturbo.net/prefabbed...-vs-fm2-69087/
I started pasting some quotes in context but realised Id have to quote the whole thread haha.
Anyway, my exact words have been, that I dont know, and that I thought 350 could be possible. I also said I hope 350 is possible. I then did the maths and said that 330whp would be achievable.
Then I said Id build it and post results.
And here we are.
On a 1.6L with a totally 110% stock cold side and a 2560 it made 325rwhp.
Im sure the extra 30hp was in hotside parts, of course it was, the old car was ALREADY running ALLOFIT on E85, the hotside parts are the only difference.
What I wanted to know is what would happen if Pauls 310whp car with everything this car has, and its 1.8L and an inlet manifold built for it with a much bigger throttle body than 55mm could do. I asked if 350 could be done and said I thought so.
Either way, it did make more than Pauls 1.8/IM combo, It makes it where its important for this car, and makes gobs of torque. I bet it makes more area under the curve (race car curve not granny shifting curve) than 95% of track miatas, and that was my goal. Hell it makes more area under the curve than an LS swap!
It overtakes the last setup 500rpm before the old setups peak torque and never stops.
I have NO idea why it spools slower than the log, I wonder if its the logs ability to hold the heat in, I will open another thread or continue discussion in here when I have the paper dyno sheet.
As to why I have been cocky and then humble, well I am just a young bloke who drives a $500 na6 with a stock engine who enjoys welding and learning about turbo systems, thats the humble part, the cocky part is when Im stirring people and trying to get everyone in on the thread so theres discussion and we can all learn.
And thanks for everyones input.
In the end the car has achieved the goals I wanted to achieve.
Even if it didnt hit 350-I mean 350 is a LOT- but I still wonder what you could get if you gave a 2560 and a BP to an F1 team, I bet 350 is doable.
How many HP does dynoing on 17s not daisy wheels cost you, for example, what do you pick up with a proper IM and a 1.8L, what do you pick up with a light flywheel?
All I know is that everyone said the 2560 is tapped out at 300, and that 310 was an anomoly and then I said Id try and I got 325. In the end basically no one was right, not yet anyway. I said I thought 350 was possible and everyone else said 300 'TAPPPPED OUT'. No one was right.
Was a great journey though
At the end we used 18 or 19* of timing, Ill post the whole tune up next week and we can discuss it.
Thanks,
Dann
To Braineac directly,
Everyone knows that its a different car, different dyno, different day and that therefor there cannot be any official record. Also to answer your question I couldnt use my laptop because my girlfriend was at hospital sitting with her mum and she took it unannounced when she left. Yes the issue was finding one I could install java onto, and when I had done that I had to work out that my version of TS was too old. Without the net connected to the laptop and doing everything via USB transfer this took me a while.
To 18psi directly,
Mate, you are so easy to stir, I love you man
You complained I quoted you out of context, and then posted a dozen posts out of context, anyone want a laugh go hit the "begi vs fm2" thread. Found here:
https://www.miataturbo.net/prefabbed...-vs-fm2-69087/
I started pasting some quotes in context but realised Id have to quote the whole thread haha.
Anyway, my exact words have been, that I dont know, and that I thought 350 could be possible. I also said I hope 350 is possible. I then did the maths and said that 330whp would be achievable.
Then I said Id build it and post results.
And here we are.
On a 1.6L with a totally 110% stock cold side and a 2560 it made 325rwhp.
Im sure the extra 30hp was in hotside parts, of course it was, the old car was ALREADY running ALLOFIT on E85, the hotside parts are the only difference.
What I wanted to know is what would happen if Pauls 310whp car with everything this car has, and its 1.8L and an inlet manifold built for it with a much bigger throttle body than 55mm could do. I asked if 350 could be done and said I thought so.
Either way, it did make more than Pauls 1.8/IM combo, It makes it where its important for this car, and makes gobs of torque. I bet it makes more area under the curve (race car curve not granny shifting curve) than 95% of track miatas, and that was my goal. Hell it makes more area under the curve than an LS swap!
It overtakes the last setup 500rpm before the old setups peak torque and never stops.
I have NO idea why it spools slower than the log, I wonder if its the logs ability to hold the heat in, I will open another thread or continue discussion in here when I have the paper dyno sheet.
As to why I have been cocky and then humble, well I am just a young bloke who drives a $500 na6 with a stock engine who enjoys welding and learning about turbo systems, thats the humble part, the cocky part is when Im stirring people and trying to get everyone in on the thread so theres discussion and we can all learn.
And thanks for everyones input.
In the end the car has achieved the goals I wanted to achieve.
Even if it didnt hit 350-I mean 350 is a LOT- but I still wonder what you could get if you gave a 2560 and a BP to an F1 team, I bet 350 is doable.
How many HP does dynoing on 17s not daisy wheels cost you, for example, what do you pick up with a proper IM and a 1.8L, what do you pick up with a light flywheel?
All I know is that everyone said the 2560 is tapped out at 300, and that 310 was an anomoly and then I said Id try and I got 325. In the end basically no one was right, not yet anyway. I said I thought 350 was possible and everyone else said 300 'TAPPPPED OUT'. No one was right.
Was a great journey though
At the end we used 18 or 19* of timing, Ill post the whole tune up next week and we can discuss it.
Thanks,
Dann
Last edited by nitrodann; 03-01-2013 at 05:28 PM.
Reply
-2
-2
03-01-2013, 05:18 PM
#423
No one is stirred up.
Just because I have the ability and the time, and (due to boredom) the will to articulate my thoughts thoroughly and in coherent sentences/paragraphs, doesn't mean I'm so stirred up I'm writing novels. This was beaten to death for like 5 years now, and anyone that still doesn't get it just won't ever get it.
As for the rest:
What the heck are you talking about "out of context"? Did you not see in my post where I specifically stated for people to find that thread for "comedy gold"?
You said big power is possible despite the turbo being tapped out. You stated that the 2560 is grossly underrated by people here. You quoted 350 multiple times. You said it was due to e85 and its energy properties (or something to that extent) and has nothing to do with the rest of the setup, turbo, or engine, that you'd be able to hit this 350 goal. You didn't hit 350. We said it is tapped out at 300 and that you won't gain much past that point. And guess what: you didn't.
Then not only did you change the whole setup, but didn't really hit your "target" either, making only 28hp more than on what you called a terrible setup.
Do we really need to keep repeating this? Come on now.
Or can we please move on and wait for your proper dyno plot so we can have something definite to go off?
Also regarding your 1st comment: are you saying this is a different dyno, using different cf? meaning not only are the numbers not comparable, but there's a good chance they're not even legitimate? Or did I misunderstand that?
Just because I have the ability and the time, and (due to boredom) the will to articulate my thoughts thoroughly and in coherent sentences/paragraphs, doesn't mean I'm so stirred up I'm writing novels. This was beaten to death for like 5 years now, and anyone that still doesn't get it just won't ever get it.
As for the rest:
What the heck are you talking about "out of context"? Did you not see in my post where I specifically stated for people to find that thread for "comedy gold"?
You said big power is possible despite the turbo being tapped out. You stated that the 2560 is grossly underrated by people here. You quoted 350 multiple times. You said it was due to e85 and its energy properties (or something to that extent) and has nothing to do with the rest of the setup, turbo, or engine, that you'd be able to hit this 350 goal. You didn't hit 350. We said it is tapped out at 300 and that you won't gain much past that point. And guess what: you didn't.
Then not only did you change the whole setup, but didn't really hit your "target" either, making only 28hp more than on what you called a terrible setup.
Do we really need to keep repeating this? Come on now.
Or can we please move on and wait for your proper dyno plot so we can have something definite to go off?
Also regarding your 1st comment: are you saying this is a different dyno, using different cf? meaning not only are the numbers not comparable, but there's a good chance they're not even legitimate? Or did I misunderstand that?
Reply
0
0
03-01-2013, 05:41 PM
#424
Elite Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Newcastle, Australia
Posts: 2,826
Total Cats: 67
Its exactly the same dyno, hes a local who deals with a lot of old MGs and stuff, we just called him asked for a day and showed up.
Look man, everyone was wrong. I said I think 350 is possible a bunch of times, I guarantee it is on Nitromethane. I still think 80s F1 engineers could do it on E85 and a BP.
Look at the lists and do the maths.
Everything on the other car is better or the same except one thing.
Dann
Look man, everyone was wrong. I said I think 350 is possible a bunch of times, I guarantee it is on Nitromethane. I still think 80s F1 engineers could do it on E85 and a BP.
Look at the lists and do the maths.
Everything on the other car is better or the same except one thing.
Dann
Reply
-3
-3
03-01-2013, 06:01 PM
#425
Bannisheded
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Alberta, Canada
Posts: 135
Total Cats: -23
I think 18psi and clan said the 2560 was tapped at 300hp, arguably both were wrong
I would like to applaud Dann's efforts, no if's ands or but's about it. he designed and built his own manifold, going outside the box to do so (smaller runners in an attempt to help spool) and has achieved a remarkable result. maybe he didn't get to where he hoped, but he did exceed what he was told was possible.
I say good job Dann!!
Jim
Edit:
I probably shouldn't add this, but I will. GrassRoots Motorsports recently did a fuel comparison. They used a........NA (94 I think) Miata with built motor and vvt head and a Megasquirt, they use used e10 93 octane, e10 85 octane, e85, Shell 105 octane race gas, methanol and non ethanol enhanced 93 octane pump gas. All testing and tuning was done at DIYPNP's facility and by there staff.
Anyone want to guess the results? If anyone's interested I'll post results later, the magazine is at home. What I will say now is that Methanol kicked butt, E85 made more horsepower than the 105 octane shell race gas. The exact horsepower and torque numbers were published in the article.
I would like to applaud Dann's efforts, no if's ands or but's about it. he designed and built his own manifold, going outside the box to do so (smaller runners in an attempt to help spool) and has achieved a remarkable result. maybe he didn't get to where he hoped, but he did exceed what he was told was possible.
I say good job Dann!!
Jim
Edit:
I probably shouldn't add this, but I will. GrassRoots Motorsports recently did a fuel comparison. They used a........NA (94 I think) Miata with built motor and vvt head and a Megasquirt, they use used e10 93 octane, e10 85 octane, e85, Shell 105 octane race gas, methanol and non ethanol enhanced 93 octane pump gas. All testing and tuning was done at DIYPNP's facility and by there staff.
Anyone want to guess the results? If anyone's interested I'll post results later, the magazine is at home. What I will say now is that Methanol kicked butt, E85 made more horsepower than the 105 octane shell race gas. The exact horsepower and torque numbers were published in the article.
Last edited by jimj64; 03-01-2013 at 06:25 PM.
Reply
0
0
03-01-2013, 06:18 PM
#426
Its exactly the same dyno, hes a local who deals with a lot of old MGs and stuff, we just called him asked for a day and showed up.
Look man, everyone was wrong. I said I think 350 is possible a bunch of times, I guarantee it is on Nitromethane. I still think 80s F1 engineers could do it on E85 and a BP.
[IMG]https://www.miataturbo.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=68914&dateline=1362177 673[IMG]
Look at the lists and do the maths.
Everything on the other car is better or the same except one thing.
Dann
Look man, everyone was wrong. I said I think 350 is possible a bunch of times, I guarantee it is on Nitromethane. I still think 80s F1 engineers could do it on E85 and a BP.
[IMG]https://www.miataturbo.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=68914&dateline=1362177 673[IMG]
Look at the lists and do the maths.
Everything on the other car is better or the same except one thing.
Dann
F1 engineers wouldn't make more power with this setup. You know why? Cause they're too smart to work on a 1.6 b6t
Reply
1
1
03-01-2013, 07:22 PM
#430
Elite Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 2,799
Total Cats: 179
In a more civilized, but boring, world...
Dann: "Hey guys, here's the dyno results: We made over 300 WHP which some thought couldn't be done on this turbo! Not quite as high as I was hoping on the optimistic end, but pretty proud of the results!" [sans any calling out or digs or boasts]
18psi: "Good job, Dann." [sans any and all qualifications]
Dann: "Hey guys, here's the dyno results: We made over 300 WHP which some thought couldn't be done on this turbo! Not quite as high as I was hoping on the optimistic end, but pretty proud of the results!" [sans any calling out or digs or boasts]
18psi: "Good job, Dann." [sans any and all qualifications]
Reply
2
2
03-01-2013, 07:42 PM
#432
The thread just keeps getting dumber.For the last time people: we're talking about EXCEEDING maximum flow. Yes it allows more timing, less knock, cooler combustion, etc. All WITHIN normal/optimum setup flow, ie: under maximum flow.
The turbo is a pump
The engine is a pump
IF either of said pumps are maxed out, or if you reach mbt, no amount of cool AIT's or ignition advance will allow the setup to flow any more, and therefore make any more power.
This isn't rocket science.
Reply
3
3
03-01-2013, 07:57 PM
#433
Bannisheded
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Alberta, Canada
Posts: 135
Total Cats: -23
Jim
Reply
1
1
03-01-2013, 08:08 PM
#435
ROFL, it certainly doesn't when you bring different fuels into the equation. that's why I brought up the article testing different fuels. where you were correct about E85, is that it will make more horsepower on a "tapped out", (i.e. max airflow reached) motor. You were off a little on how much more but you had the science, and the facts, correct.
Jim
Jim
This bickering is getting redundant.
We said he wouldn't make much more than 300, he didn't.
By your logic if he would have made 301hp, HE WOULD HAVE DEFIED LOGIC!!!!
Reply
0
0
03-01-2013, 09:15 PM
#436
Elite Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 5,155
Total Cats: 406
Cliffnotes:
E85 and spinning a turbo beyond its recomended operational limit makes more power.
WHO WOULD HAVE THUNK IT!?
DSMfags push little 14B turbos to 300hp, and that turbo is normally considered "tapped out" about 100hp below that. Theyre just spinning the **** out of it and to hell with efficiency and longevity.
I dont know what the **** you guys are continuing to talk about.
E85 and spinning a turbo beyond its recomended operational limit makes more power.
WHO WOULD HAVE THUNK IT!?
DSMfags push little 14B turbos to 300hp, and that turbo is normally considered "tapped out" about 100hp below that. Theyre just spinning the **** out of it and to hell with efficiency and longevity.
I dont know what the **** you guys are continuing to talk about.
Reply
2
2
03-02-2013, 01:48 AM
#439
Elite Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Newcastle, Australia
Posts: 2,826
Total Cats: 67
We learned that even if you have a 1.6 with stock inlet side if you run e85 you can go harder than a 1.8 car with custom plenum and TB on the same small turbo.
Dann
Dann
Reply
2
2
03-02-2013, 08:55 AM
#440
we also knew the 1.6 is capable of that power. We knew the 1.6 spools later than a 1.8. Cool story though and entertaining. Got to see a **** show. Someone has fun car to drive.
edit: removed a dumb ignorant statement about the IM. carry on. Brain will expose me next page.
edit: removed a dumb ignorant statement about the IM. carry on. Brain will expose me next page.
Last edited by krissetsfire; 03-02-2013 at 09:54 AM.
Reply
1
1
