Notices
Engine Performance This section is for discussion on all engine building related questions.
Sponsored by:
Sponsored by: KPower

1990 NA6 Kraken Turbo - Less power than expected

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Jul 1, 2023 | 08:17 PM
  #1  
pingas's Avatar
Thread Starter
Newb
 
Joined: Jul 2023
Posts: 19
Total Cats: 2
From: Dublin, CA
Default 1990 NA6 Kraken Turbo - Less power than expected

Hi everyone, first post here. I recently went turbo on my 1990 SNC NA6 with a Kraken 2560 kit. Running 6 PSI on CA 91octane fuel, I’m a bit underwhelmed by the power numbers. The torque graph isn’t zeroed properly, but the power graph is accurate. I’m a bit confused as to why I didn’t make more power. I expected roughly 150 whp.




Setup at time of dyno was:
  • SpeedyEFI ECU
  • Kraken top mount manifold
  • GT2560R
  • Kraken 3” Turboback exhaust w straight resonator and muffler
  • 7” Intercooler w 2” hot side piping, 2.5” cool side piping
  • Turbosmart Kompact BOV
  • 700cc Bosch Injectors from Kraken
  • ACT Stage 1 Clutch and Lightweight Flywheel
  • 6 Speed from NB2 (pulls done in 5th gear)
  • 4.3 Torsen
  • AEM X-Series Wideband
  • Stock internals
  • Stock PCV w hot side port vented to atm
  • Stock cooling system
  • 6 psi wastegate actuator, no boost control
  • NGK BKR7E gapped to .030”

My tune is attached.
​​​​​
My tuner, Jei at Blacktrax, mentioned issues with heat, so I think the spark map may be conservative? I am not sure though since I am new to tuning. We weren’t getting any misfiring or spark blowout. Jei suspected excessive exhaust back pressure or crank case pressure. What do you guys think my problem could be?

I recently installed:
  • dual catch cans
  • 323GTX PCV valve
  • MAC boost solenoid
  • Supermiata radiator and coolant reroute

I’m planning to go to the dyno again on 7/6 to turn up the boost. Anything else I should do to ensure max power? Thanks in advance!

Attached Files
File Type: msq
RUSSELL STREET 1.0.msq (73.4 KB, 26 views)
Old Jul 1, 2023 | 08:23 PM
  #2  
pingas's Avatar
Thread Starter
Newb
 
Joined: Jul 2023
Posts: 19
Total Cats: 2
From: Dublin, CA
Default


Maybe this sharp bend at the compressor outlet is too restrictive?

Also, I forgot to mention, compression test results were 150/140/140/150. Leakdown test results were 10/15/15/10. I was hearing leakage from the tailpipe on cylinders 2 and 3.
Old Jul 1, 2023 | 10:00 PM
  #3  
Ted75zcar's Avatar
Tweaking Enginerd
iTrader: (2)
 
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,870
Total Cats: 383
From: Boulder, CO
Default

Looks about right. 100 x (14.7+6)/14.7 ~= 140.

If you want more you need to turn it up.
Old Jul 1, 2023 | 10:18 PM
  #4  
pingas's Avatar
Thread Starter
Newb
 
Joined: Jul 2023
Posts: 19
Total Cats: 2
From: Dublin, CA
Default

Originally Posted by Ted75zcar
Looks about right. 100 x (14.7+6)/14.7 ~= 140.

If you want more you need to turn it up.
That makes sense… what about the weak top end? Does the torque taper at high RPM look normal?
Old Jul 1, 2023 | 10:21 PM
  #5  
Ted75zcar's Avatar
Tweaking Enginerd
iTrader: (2)
 
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,870
Total Cats: 383
From: Boulder, CO
Default

Move the WG reference to the outlet of the intercooler.

Hard to say about "normal"... it does appear to be ... not great.
Old Jul 1, 2023 | 10:24 PM
  #6  
Lokiel's Avatar
All-round "Good Guy"
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,035
Total Cats: 266
From: Brisbane, AUSTRALIA
Default

Consider replacing the 135* Si elbow with a 90* one - the 135* elbow looks like it's kinked.
Old Jul 1, 2023 | 10:32 PM
  #7  
pingas's Avatar
Thread Starter
Newb
 
Joined: Jul 2023
Posts: 19
Total Cats: 2
From: Dublin, CA
Default

Originally Posted by Ted75zcar
Move the WG reference to the outlet of the intercooler.

Hard to say about "normal"... it does appear to be ... not great.
I have been meaning to do this. I should expect WG opening later from this, right?
Old Jul 1, 2023 | 10:42 PM
  #8  
pingas's Avatar
Thread Starter
Newb
 
Joined: Jul 2023
Posts: 19
Total Cats: 2
From: Dublin, CA
Default

Originally Posted by Lokiel
Consider replacing the 135* Si elbow with a 90* one - the 135* elbow looks like it's kinked.
It was originally a 90* elbow actually. I had to cut it to turn it into a 135* because the hood would not close.

The 3-bolt compressor housing outlet and adapter make the silicone elbow sit too high. The only solution I had was to cut it. I think even with it cut, it still gets smushed by the hood a bit…

I think anybody with an NA who orders a kraken kit needs to specifically request the circular compressor outlet to avoid this issue. I didn’t know.

So you think the intake tubing is too restrictive there? I was hoping that wasn’t it because fixing it would be laborious.
Old Jul 1, 2023 | 10:44 PM
  #9  
Ted75zcar's Avatar
Tweaking Enginerd
iTrader: (2)
 
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,870
Total Cats: 383
From: Boulder, CO
Default

Originally Posted by pingas
I have been meaning to do this. I should expect WG opening later from this, right?
Not really, but it should compensate for pressure losses caused by restrictions between the turbo and the outlet of the intercooler, like that less than optimal bend you got there.
Old Jul 1, 2023 | 10:59 PM
  #10  
SpartanSV's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: Apr 2017
Posts: 1,232
Total Cats: 169
From: Greeley, CO
Default

Where's the log from the dyno pull? It's all guessing without it
Old Jul 1, 2023 | 11:02 PM
  #11  
pingas's Avatar
Thread Starter
Newb
 
Joined: Jul 2023
Posts: 19
Total Cats: 2
From: Dublin, CA
Default

Originally Posted by Ted75zcar
Not really, but it should compensate for pressure losses caused by restrictions between the turbo and the outlet of the intercooler, like that less than optimal bend you got there.
Once I get my boost solenoid going, pressure loss between turbo and manifold should not matter right? The ECU will be controlling the solenoid and wastegate based on manifold pressure.
Old Jul 1, 2023 | 11:57 PM
  #12  
pingas's Avatar
Thread Starter
Newb
 
Joined: Jul 2023
Posts: 19
Total Cats: 2
From: Dublin, CA
Default

Originally Posted by SpartanSV
Where's the log from the dyno pull? It's all guessing without it
I don’t have it unfortunately. I can ask for it
Old Jul 1, 2023 | 11:59 PM
  #13  
pingas's Avatar
Thread Starter
Newb
 
Joined: Jul 2023
Posts: 19
Total Cats: 2
From: Dublin, CA
Default

Originally Posted by SpartanSV
Where's the log from the dyno pull? It's all guessing without it
I do remember though that we were getting overboost above 6k rpm, rising up to 8 psi. Torque went down despite the increased boost.
Old Jul 2, 2023 | 04:13 PM
  #14  
icemang17's Avatar
Newb
 
Joined: Jun 2023
Posts: 10
Total Cats: 0
Default

The kink in intake doesn’t help……I also wonder what the afr was.
Old Jul 2, 2023 | 06:23 PM
  #15  
pingas's Avatar
Thread Starter
Newb
 
Joined: Jul 2023
Posts: 19
Total Cats: 2
From: Dublin, CA
Default

Originally Posted by icemang17
The kink in intake doesn’t help……I also wonder what the afr was.
AFR was 11.5 from 3k onward
Old Jul 2, 2023 | 08:22 PM
  #16  
pingas's Avatar
Thread Starter
Newb
 
Joined: Jul 2023
Posts: 19
Total Cats: 2
From: Dublin, CA
Default

I went out and did some pulls. Here are the logs for anyone curious
Attached Files
File Type: mlg
pulls1.0.mlg (60.7 KB, 34 views)
File Type: mlg
pulls1.2.mlg (74.2 KB, 39 views)
File Type: mlg
pulls1.1.mlg (69.7 KB, 33 views)
Old Jul 2, 2023 | 09:45 PM
  #17  
Ted75zcar's Avatar
Tweaking Enginerd
iTrader: (2)
 
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 1,870
Total Cats: 383
From: Boulder, CO
Default

Post a screen shot of a pull from roughly 2krpm to 7krpm with MAP, RPM, spark advance, AFR, and injector pulse width. Put the cursor at ~5500rpm
Old Jul 4, 2023 | 05:56 AM
  #18  
Mr Plow's Avatar
Junior Member
 
Joined: Feb 2020
Posts: 211
Total Cats: 97
Default

Originally Posted by Ted75zcar
Looks about right. 100 x (14.7+6)/14.7 ~= 140.

If you want more you need to turn it up.
This ahead of anything else. 140hp at hubs as a pressure ratio back calculation may even be considered high.

Edit - re-looked at figures. Say 136hp@ hubs = estimated c.152bhp at fly. 152/(14.5+6)*14.5 = c.108 hp fly NA equivalent. Don't know what yours would book at standard. Potentially a little low.

Last edited by Mr Plow; Jul 4, 2023 at 06:28 AM.
Old Jul 4, 2023 | 01:03 PM
  #19  
emilio700's Avatar
Supporting Vendor
iTrader: (3)
 
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 7,622
Total Cats: 2,619
Default

Originally Posted by pingas
Also, I forgot to mention, compression test results were 150/140/140/150. Leakdown test results were 10/15/15/10. I was hearing leakage from the tailpipe on cylinders 2 and 3.
Motor is toast. I'm not of the opinion that throwing boost at a worn out motor is a good idea. Do a basic OEM rebuild and the power will appear.
__________________


www.facebook.com/SuperMiata

949RACING.COM Home of the 6UL wheel

.33 SNR
Old Jul 4, 2023 | 03:07 PM
  #20  
Arca_ex's Avatar
Elite Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,634
Total Cats: 431
From: Chandler, AZ
Default

Compression and leakdown indicates the engine is tired so it kind of makes sense that it's struggling. Also not good that the exhaust valves in cylinders 2 and 3 don't seal very well.
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
ogasman
DIY Turbo Discussion
19
Sep 1, 2020 05:05 PM
fpscolin
DIY Turbo Discussion
14
Jul 20, 2017 09:15 AM
mntech
Build Threads
0
May 24, 2017 05:57 PM
bdohaney
DIY Turbo Discussion
7
Apr 17, 2011 02:18 AM
F20turbo
DIY Turbo Discussion
21
Dec 15, 2006 01:14 PM




All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:33 AM.