![]() |
Originally Posted by Thucydides
(Post 314077)
At the same inlet temperature and pressure any given motor will make the same hp. That's a simple mass flow problem. What folks are failing to realize, and apparently you are too, is that the primary difference in why one turbo will make more or less hp at a given boost is inlet temperature; it's a very significant factor. You use a bigger turbo (within reason) to lower intake temperature at higher flows and pressures.
That's what you are missing. Boost is a function of restriction. Bigger turbo's have a less restrictive turbine and more volume of air for a given PSI. Boost is a measure of restriction, not a measure of total flow. Stop posting and read up my friend. |
Thucydides doesn't wants to play my guess the boost level game?
|
Drivetrain losses do go up almost linearly with HP. This is not B.S, this is fact. IE, you might have 17% drivetrain losses at a RPM X and 200 flyhweel HP, so you are at 166whp and you lost 34HP to drivetrain losses.
If you double your power to 400 flywheel HP at X RPM, you don't just subtract 34HP. Not hardly. Fact is the losses are pretty much linear. It might be 16% or it might be 18%, but it's still a percentage. Frictonal losses are proportional to the forces causing them (IE, two gears rubbing against each other). |
Originally Posted by Thucydides
(Post 314079)
So would I.
|
This has been very interesting, funny, and enlightening. I've definately learned quite a bit, and I've got a greater appreciation for what dyno's (good dyno's) can do.
I still believe some of claims out there should be questioned, but I was also off on my own calculations and suspected as such. I mentioned that to Ray when I pointed out there's a difference between SAE and DIN hp measurements; I've not definitively nailed that down but at one site I saw the number of 15% as the difference. If that's the case, and I correct for the way Mazda reports their hp ratings to the way U.S. dynometers report their ratings, most of the differences flat out disappear. Brain, when I run my slightly less simple numbers for your 1.6 (the ones which take into account intake losses) at 13 psi I get 234 hp. Now of course you're reporting RWHP so I'd add 17% and get 274 crank hp. Similarly, if I took the 234 hp calculated crank hp, and adjusted it for the different rating systems, I'd add say 15% and get 269 hp, for a difference of 1.8%. As little interested as you are in math I know you understand 1.8% isn't that much Brain. Frankly, I'm amazed things are that close. I'd have been satisfied to have been within 10%, but who am I to complain when things are better than I'd expected. Anyway, I've got to leave for work otherwise I'd check into things and tighten things up a bit. For those who have the time or inclination there's a good article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horsepower Regards, Jim |
Originally Posted by Braineack
(Post 314097)
Thucydides doesn't wants to play my guess the boost level game?
|
Originally Posted by patsmx5
(Post 314094)
WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
That's what you are missing. Boost is a function of restriction. Bigger turbo's have a less restrictive turbine and more volume of air for a given PSI. Boost is a measure of restriction, not a measure of total flow. Stop posting and read up my friend. But keep thinking about it Pat because you're only partially correct and I've given you that part above. The part about a given pressure/temperature in the intake manifold still holds true. The fuel and air available to burn and make hp is the same given the same conditions at the intake. There was a discussion about this some days ago; go have a look and see if you still hold your position. What I didn't mention, and that you've pointed out, is that losses after the exhaust valve opens also plays an important part. No need for me to stop posting and read up so long as you're keeping an eye on things. But for the rest of you, are Pat I the only ones here who can see both sides of the issue? Do I not only have to explain your mistakes, but mine as well. I'm way too easy on you guys. |
Originally Posted by Thucydides
(Post 314102)
Brain, when I run my slightly less simple numbers for your 1.6 (the ones which take into account intake losses) at 13 psi I get 234 hp. Now of course you're reporting RWHP so I'd add 17% and get 274 crank hp.
Similarly, if I took the 234 hp calculated crank hp, and adjusted it for the different rating systems, I'd add say 15% and get 269 hp, for a difference of 1.8%. As little interested as you are in math I know you understand 1.8% isn't that much Brain. Frankly, I'm amazed things are that close. I'd have been satisfied to have been within 10%, but who am I to complain when things are better than I'd expected. |
Originally Posted by Braineack
(Post 314097)
Thucydides doesn't wants to play my guess the boost level game?
|
Originally Posted by Thucydides
(Post 314102)
Brain, when I run my slightly less simple numbers for your 1.6 (the ones which take into account intake losses) at 13 psi I get 234 hp. Now of course you're reporting RWHP so I'd add 17% and get 274 crank hp.
why did I only make 190rwhp at 12psi on the other run shown? |
Originally Posted by ray_sir_6
(Post 314103)
Those are dyno graphs...they are NEVER right.
|
Originally Posted by patsmx5
(Post 314099)
Drivetrain losses do go up almost linearly with HP. This is not B.S, this is fact. IE, you might have 17% drivetrain losses at a RPM X and 200 flyhweel HP, so you are at 166whp and you lost 34HP to drivetrain losses.
If you double your power to 400 flywheel HP at X RPM, you don't just subtract 34HP. Not hardly. Fact is the losses are pretty much linear. It might be 16% or it might be 18%, but it's still a percentage. Frictonal losses are proportional to the forces causing them (IE, two gears rubbing against each other). |
Originally Posted by Thucydides
(Post 314113)
Of course not; manufactures only post them to confuse us.
|
Originally Posted by Braineack
(Post 314112)
why did I only make 190rwhp at 12psi on the other run shown?
|
Originally Posted by Thucydides
(Post 314120)
Because something was fucked up. Right?
nope. ran perfectly well. Unless by fucked up, you of course mean too much back pressure, not an ideal AFR, and less than ideal spark timing. |
Originally Posted by patsmx5
(Post 314099)
Drivetrain losses do go up almost linearly with HP. This is not B.S, this is fact. IE, you might have 17% drivetrain losses at a RPM X and 200 flyhweel HP, so you are at 166whp and you lost 34HP to drivetrain losses.
If you double your power to 400 flywheel HP at X RPM, you don't just subtract 34HP. Not hardly. Fact is the losses are pretty much linear. It might be 16% or it might be 18%, but it's still a percentage. Frictonal losses are proportional to the forces causing them (IE, two gears rubbing against each other). poor attempt at humor; trying to dig up an old thread where this claim was made before... |
Originally Posted by Thucydides
(Post 314013)
Ray, how can you not know the difference between compressible and non-compressible fluids, using the properties of one to illustrate the other, and still want to be involved in this thread. But beyond that, Ray, don't you know that flow through an orifice is related to pressure and cross sectional area (plus a bunch of not so unimportant entrance and exit losses), and that the reason a fire hose flows more than a water hose at 10 psi is because it's got a larger orifice. Your intake's throttle plate is a variable orifice, and manifold pressure is measured beyond the plate; figure the rest out on your own.
Yup, it's so simple it is funny, though I still don't think I've made it simple enough for you. Let me work on that a bit and I'll get back to you. Ummm, Ray, the y-axis of the chart is pressure ratio, not pressure in bars. Perhaps that's where your confusion comes from, and why your numbers never come out correct. And ray, are you saying an normally aspirated Evo, that makes 280 HP stock, will only gain 20 more HP at 18 psi? Fuck those Evo's and their lame ass engines. Here I agree with you, if the dyno's properly designed, built, and operated. I agree here 100 percent also, and this is the primary point of my argument. Not that dyno's are bad, or that they are inherently inaccurate, because they're neither. But don't kid yourself; Garrett either owns or has access to the best engine test equipment available, and that includes dynomoters. The difference between them and your local dyno shop is that Garrett has a vested interested in accuracy; not so much for Joe's dyno's. So far you've not done a very good job correcting anything. All's I've seen is a basic lack of understanding of even the most simple principals combined with the usual number of stupid errors. |
Originally Posted by Braineack
(Post 314084)
I'm not very interested because I don't care about math on paper. But since you are playing....how much boost were these two 1.8Ls run at:
Plot 1: 246.52 / 212.45 & Plot 2: 268.12 / 223.62 I'll play I guess. Boost power = ((boost + atmospheric)/atmospheric))*stock HP car in plot 1 made 116rwhp stock. I believe if i did the algebra correctly, that comes out to 16.5psi? 246 = (x + 14.7 / 14.7) * 116 2.121 = (x + 14.7) / 14.7 31.2 = x + 14.7 16.47 = x correct? or how about the hard way... MAPreq = Wa * R * (460 + Tm) / VE * N/2 * Vd (30.7 * 639.6 * 560) / (.95 * 3500 * 109.8) *this assumes 100*F in the manifold and 95% VE. 10996003.2 / 365085 = 30.12psia - 14.7 = 15.42psig or the really simple way... (new HP / stock HP) -1 x 14.7 = 16.47psi again |
Did the formulas from Garrett Turbo 103.
http://www.turbobygarrett.com/turbob...3/formula3.jpg HP = 218 flywheel hp A/F = 11 BSFC = .5 Therefore WA = 19.98 lb/min http://www.turbobygarrett.com/turbob...3/formula8.jpg WA = 19.98 R = 639.6 Tm = 106 (datalogged) VE = .97 N = 7500 Vd = 97.632 You come up with 7233031.728 divided by 355136. That equals 20.3669, but you have to subract atmosphere, which is 14.7 So that equals 5.6669 psi. Well, viewed the logs, boost sits between .39 and .43 BAR. So that is approx. 5.7psi to 6.2 psi. That was WG only. We have now hooked up the boost solenoid, and are running .061 BAR (8.8psi). |
I was looking at two greddy plots I have here, both around 7psi. If they didnt drop boost, everything before 5252RPM looks very close to yours.
can you send me the .drf file of your runs so i can compare? |
Originally Posted by Thucydides
(Post 314013)
I agree here 100 percent also, and this is the primary point of my argument. Not that dyno's are bad, or that they are inherently inaccurate, because they're neither. But don't kid yourself; Garrett either owns or has access to the best engine test equipment available, and that includes dynomoters. The difference between them and your local dyno shop is that Garrett has a vested interested in accuracy; not so much for Joe's dyno's.
I'm pretty sure Garrett doesn't have a room full of dynos and motors it tests these turbos on. They have specialized test equipment that tests the turbo itself, not what it does on a motor. They use sponsored drivers for their real world testing. You should see the data sheets they ask their drivers to fill out after every race. |
1 Attachment(s)
I haven't had time to read this entire post yet, but here is a datalog in case anyone cares. The turbo is a ball bearing, GT2860rs. Full boost seems to be about 4200rpm. This dyno is really bad, but does seem to give a good ball park. And you can see immediate changes while having a safe place to tune. My friends and I are really the only ones who use it. Its $80 per car, no real time limit.
As for me, the car hauls ass and I am totally thrilled. Anytime a miata is out destroying "compensating" cars is good for all of us. Attachment 210822 |
Looking at Ray's plot against a couple other Greddy setups, I say it's feasble at 6.2psi.
I'm pretty sure both these plots were at 7psi or so. This is that7guy's setup, like i said, I believe 7psi, but an obvious drop in boost after 5K like most greddy wastegates. On the stock ECU. Spool-up is identical. Looks like that same power could have been had if boost held. http://www.boostedmiata.com/dynos/sevan_vs_ray.jpg This is Mach929's plot. EMB piggy. Again very close here...and IIRC 7-8psi http://www.boostedmiata.com/dynos/phil_vs_ray.jpg |
This is one long thread. I'm up for dynoing my car on a free day. The map I am using is so off. I have cruise in pretty good. But as soon as I hit boost, 10afr's. I had it better until I used megalogviewer. It sent everything way rich.
I think the only thing I learned in this whole thread was the explanation of why different turbo's make different hp on the same boost. That helped me alot. I was brain storming on that. But other than that. it ran together into la la la la LAAAAAA! LOL I need booby's after that. |
Sorry, won't be free. It is a business, and I don't own it. We could do 3 pulls with A/F for $40.
You still up for a run? |
thats a good price lol
|
Originally Posted by ray_sir_6
(Post 314212)
Sorry, won't be free. It is a business, and I don't own it. We could do 3 pulls with A/F for $40.
You still up for a run? As far as the pulls, thats cool, but I need to get the tune in better before I dyno. I'm about to go oustide and reflash my firware and try to work toward brains spark map he sent me. |
Originally Posted by Toddcod
(Post 314256)
Yea, thats cool.
As far as the pulls, thats cool, but I need to get the tune in better before I dyno. I'm about to go oustide and reflash my firware and try to work toward brains spark map he sent me. |
It was brutal out there, and I had to do a bunch of off road driving and get paid a lot for it, but I'm back.
Originally Posted by Braineack
(Post 314121)
Unless by fucked up, you of course mean too much back pressure, not an ideal AFR, and less than ideal spark timing.
But about your game and your equation. You forgot to make the correction from DIN to SAE, so your formula should look like this: 246 = (x + 14.7 / 14.7) * 116 * 1.15 1.844 = (x + 14.7) / 14.7 27.1 = x + 14.7 12.4 = x Correct? |
Originally Posted by ray_sir_6
(Post 314171)
Did the formulas from Garrett Turbo 103.
http://www.turbobygarrett.com/turbob...3/formula3.jpg HP = 218 flywheel hp A/F = 11 BSFC = .5 Therefore WA = 19.98 lb/min http://www.turbobygarrett.com/turbob...3/formula8.jpg WA = 19.98 R = 639.6 Tm = 106 (datalogged) VE = .97 N = 7500 Vd = 97.632 You come up with 7233031.728 divided by 355136. That equals 20.3669, but you have to subract atmosphere, which is 14.7 So that equals 5.6669 psi. So the math says my dyno is right. Airflow Required Input Parameter Units Value Notes H.P. Target 218 Air/Fuel Ratio 11 Brake Specific Fuel Consumption lb/(H.P.*hr) 0.5 Use 0.5 to 0.6 (or higher) Output Parameter Flow Rate lb/min 20.0 Manifold Pressure Required (Absolute) Input Flow Rate 19.98333333 Gas Constant - R 639.6 Intake Manifold Temperature Degrees F 106 Volumetric Efficiency 0.97 Use 0.95 to 0.99 for modern four-valve heads Engine RPM - N 7500 Engine Displacement (Vd) Liters 1.6 Muliplied by 61.02 in final formula to convert to cubic in. Output Parameter Manifold Pressure (Absolute) PSI 20.4 Boost Pressure Required Input Manifold Pressure (Absolute) PSI 20.4 Atmospheric Pressure PSI 14.7 Output Boost Pressure Required (gauge) PSI 5.7 So, Ray, you are absolutely right and I do believe your numbers are correct. I therefore retract all of the bad things I said about you; you have my sincere apologies. On the other hand you've more than completely proved the value of a good and thoughtful analysis for helping spec a turbo charger. And while this might be completely unimportant to you, me, the brain, and everyone else who has completed their first turbo motor build, there are lots of folks who come on line and ask, "which turbo should I pick and how should I pick it". I think the best answer to this question is study the books, study Garrett's website, run a calculation or two of your own, and then come on over to the site and ask what results others have had with similar goals to yours. Obviously, and as you've just proven, the closer the variables are to real life the closer your results will be to real life. In my case, and because I didn't want any unreasonable expectations for my own system, I repeatedly chose conservative input parameters. This gave me a conservative view of output that was below what was reasonable for a carefully designed and built motor. For my purposes that was fine; but it did cause me to not fully understand what your motor was capable of. But hey, it was great fun and I learned a lot from a bunch of folks. Hopefully there are others who learned as well. Regards, Jim |
Originally Posted by Braineack
(Post 314193)
... I say it's feasble at 6.2psi.
|
any more pics of your setup?
|
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:28 PM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands