AbsurdFlow + GT2871R + TiAL pornography
Bravo Andrew. Bravo.
Emilio: "damn it, even with my amazing grip Savington is faster than the OGK... I need boost!"
*Emilio installs Rotrex, enter 200+ whp in OGK*
Savington: "Oh I was just getting started..."
*Built motor + GT2871R = Emilio takes his place in Savington's rearview mirror again*
Emilio: "damn it, even with my amazing grip Savington is faster than the OGK... I need boost!"
*Emilio installs Rotrex, enter 200+ whp in OGK*
Savington: "Oh I was just getting started..."
*Built motor + GT2871R = Emilio takes his place in Savington's rearview mirror again*

I must say though, Sav's manifold/turbing housing set up looks quite the business.
__________________
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 19,338
Total Cats: 574
From: Fake Virginia
If you are looking at the efficiency at the center efficiency island, or the 'sweet spot', the 2860 is at 77% and the 2781 is at 76%. But if you look over at the right side of the map, the 2871 holds its efficiency longer; looking at 2.25 pressure ratio @ 35 lb/min of flow, the 2871 is at 72% and the 2860 is at 68% (and falling fast). The 2860 is also spinning about 25K RPM faster.
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 29,085
Total Cats: 375
From: Republic of Dallas
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 29,085
Total Cats: 375
From: Republic of Dallas
Care to share some data? I just went through some calculations. For 325hp with 11.5AFR and a BSFC of 0.55lbs/hr you need around 35lb/min flow.
Add a 95F MAT and 7200rpm redline. You'd need 99% volumetric efficiency to produce 325hp at 15psi on 1860cc. A standard 1.6 engine has a 88% VE. A 99 head means it's from 1999, not that it's 99% VE
Add a 95F MAT and 7200rpm redline. You'd need 99% volumetric efficiency to produce 325hp at 15psi on 1860cc. A standard 1.6 engine has a 88% VE. A 99 head means it's from 1999, not that it's 99% VE
Thread Starter
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 15,442
Total Cats: 2,106
From: Sunnyvale, CA
You do realize that turbocharged engines routinely eclipse 100% VE, right? I'm basing my power goals mostly on what Hustler saw in his car. 262 on a Dyno Dynamics on pump gas at 15psi. You said flywheel horses, so factoring in 15% losses, that puts his car at 301.3bhp. I am running a larger turbo and 100 octane.
Source:
TurboByGarrett.com - Turbo Tech103
88% VE:
Mazda Miata performance handbook - Google Boeken
If you drop the AFR to 10.8, you'd get there if your head is 95% VE (99 head, valvejob):
Thread Starter
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 15,442
Total Cats: 2,106
From: Sunnyvale, CA
No offense, but I ******* hate horsepower formulas. Every single one of them is pure, unadulterated bullshit. Paul made 300whp at 14psi on a 2560R. I've seen a guy make 275whp at 14psi on a 2871R, a '94 head, and a fucked bottom end (bolt went through it). Matt makes 257whp at 9.5psi. Can you honestly tell me that the formulas you use can validate all of those cases?
Thread Starter
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 15,442
Total Cats: 2,106
From: Sunnyvale, CA
VE is so hard to approximate. You would think that when you drop compression, for instance, VE would decrease, but a drop in compression will normally ADD torque (and thus power) to a turbo car.
I despise formulas that calculate horsepower for that reason - they are never detailed enough.
I despise formulas that calculate horsepower for that reason - they are never detailed enough.












