Notices
General Miata Chat A place to talk about anything Miata

AbsurdFlow + GT2871R + TiAL pornography

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Jul 26, 2009 | 04:15 PM
  #81  
SKMetalworks's Avatar
Elite Member
iTrader: (7)
 
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,731
Total Cats: 4
From: Renton Washington
Default

Ordering stainless pipe right now! lol
Old Jul 26, 2009 | 04:27 PM
  #82  
hustler's Avatar
Tour de Franzia
iTrader: (6)
 
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 29,085
Total Cats: 375
From: Republic of Dallas
Default

premier miata in the nation??? Getting there.
Old Jul 26, 2009 | 05:56 PM
  #83  
hustler's Avatar
Tour de Franzia
iTrader: (6)
 
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 29,085
Total Cats: 375
From: Republic of Dallas
Default


you suck


Wait...look at those maps...wtf? At 2BAR it looks like the GT2860rs is more efficient. WTF?

Last edited by hustler; Jul 26, 2009 at 06:32 PM.
Old Jul 26, 2009 | 09:15 PM
  #84  
emilio700's Avatar
Supporting Vendor
iTrader: (3)
 
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 7,626
Total Cats: 2,618
Default

Originally Posted by ThePass
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*
More that just a Rotrex going in

I must say though, Sav's manifold/turbing housing set up looks quite the business.
__________________


www.facebook.com/SuperMiata

949RACING.COM Home of the 6UL wheel

.33 SNR
Old Jul 26, 2009 | 09:28 PM
  #85  
y8s's Avatar
y8s
DEI liberal femininity
iTrader: (8)
 
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 19,338
Total Cats: 574
From: Fake Virginia
Default

Originally Posted by hustler
Wait...look at those maps...wtf? At 2BAR it looks like the GT2860rs is more efficient. WTF?
they both look to be around 75% at 30 lb/min... which point were you looking at?
Old Jul 26, 2009 | 09:53 PM
  #86  
ZX-Tex's Avatar
Elite Member
iTrader: (15)
 
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 4,847
Total Cats: 27
From: San Antonio, Texas
Default

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.
Old Jul 26, 2009 | 10:15 PM
  #87  
tkblazer's Avatar
Newb
 
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 8
Total Cats: 0
Default

dope manifold/dp setup, i hope he made a jig so he can make these any time
Old Jul 26, 2009 | 10:56 PM
  #88  
hustler's Avatar
Tour de Franzia
iTrader: (6)
 
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 29,085
Total Cats: 375
From: Republic of Dallas
Default

Originally Posted by y8s
they both look to be around 75% at 30 lb/min... which point were you looking at?
duh...sorry, at 25lb/min. Sav and I were comparing at 300whp/15psi.
Old Jul 26, 2009 | 10:59 PM
  #89  
hustler's Avatar
Tour de Franzia
iTrader: (6)
 
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 29,085
Total Cats: 375
From: Republic of Dallas
Default

Originally Posted by tkblazer
dope manifold/dp setup, i hope he made a jig so he can make these any time
the problem is intercooler piping. I'd have that **** right now if I could find someone to make 2 pipes for me but everyone in Dallas wants $500+. Its crazy how similar they are though.
Old Jul 26, 2009 | 11:00 PM
  #90  
y8s's Avatar
y8s
DEI liberal femininity
iTrader: (8)
 
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 19,338
Total Cats: 574
From: Fake Virginia
Default

then he better run more boost to prove he bought the right turbo.
Old Jul 27, 2009 | 03:08 AM
  #91  
Savington's Avatar
Thread Starter
Former Vendor
iTrader: (31)
 
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 15,442
Total Cats: 2,106
From: Sunnyvale, CA
Default

Wrong map fagglio. You posted the 48-trim map.

yourz:
Name:  739548-1comp_e.jpg
Views: 188
Size:  43.6 KB

minez:
Name:  472560-15comp_e.jpg
Views: 185
Size:  44.7 KB
Old Jul 27, 2009 | 04:42 AM
  #92  
Laur3ns's Avatar
Elite Member
 
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,054
Total Cats: 14
From: Enschede, NL
Default

Nice map. I expect to see at least 325hp at the flywheel at 20psi boost.
Old Jul 27, 2009 | 04:55 AM
  #93  
Savington's Avatar
Thread Starter
Former Vendor
iTrader: (31)
 
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 15,442
Total Cats: 2,106
From: Sunnyvale, CA
Default

Originally Posted by Spookyfish
Nice map. I expect to see at least 325hp at the flywheel at 20psi boost.
I expect to see that at 15psi. max.
Old Jul 27, 2009 | 05:17 AM
  #94  
Laur3ns's Avatar
Elite Member
 
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,054
Total Cats: 14
From: Enschede, NL
Default

Originally Posted by Savington
I expect to see that at 15psi. max.
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
Old Jul 27, 2009 | 05:32 AM
  #95  
Savington's Avatar
Thread Starter
Former Vendor
iTrader: (31)
 
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 15,442
Total Cats: 2,106
From: Sunnyvale, CA
Default

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.
Old Jul 27, 2009 | 05:43 AM
  #96  
Laur3ns's Avatar
Elite Member
 
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,054
Total Cats: 14
From: Enschede, NL
Default

Originally Posted by Savington
You do realize that turbocharged engines routinely eclipse 100% VE, right?
Sure, but in that formule, it's about the VE of the engine that is going to be charged, without the turbo that is.

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):
Attached Thumbnails AbsurdFlow + GT2871R + TiAL pornography-savturbogoal.png  
Old Jul 27, 2009 | 07:14 AM
  #97  
Savington's Avatar
Thread Starter
Former Vendor
iTrader: (31)
 
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 15,442
Total Cats: 2,106
From: Sunnyvale, CA
Default

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?
Old Jul 27, 2009 | 07:38 AM
  #98  
Laur3ns's Avatar
Elite Member
 
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,054
Total Cats: 14
From: Enschede, NL
Default

I kept thinking about Paul's 300whp on a 2560 while I was punching those numbers. Apparently there are many more variables involved.
Old Jul 27, 2009 | 07:48 AM
  #99  
Savington's Avatar
Thread Starter
Former Vendor
iTrader: (31)
 
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 15,442
Total Cats: 2,106
From: Sunnyvale, CA
Default

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.
Old Jul 27, 2009 | 07:56 AM
  #100  
hustler's Avatar
Tour de Franzia
iTrader: (6)
 
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 29,085
Total Cats: 375
From: Republic of Dallas
Default

Paul also did that on a dynojet, you're going to do it on a Mustang. I was on a DD.



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:49 AM.