View Poll Results: Would you get the BEGi S3 or FM2 system
BEGi S3
29
31.52%
FM2
63
68.48%
Voters: 92. You may not vote on this poll
BEGi S3 vs FM2
10-26-2012, 12:00 AM
#62
I do challenge you and will build it in the coming month or 2.
It doesnt matter what the turbo will make on one fuel if another fuel has a higher energy output. Flow maps are in airflow, not horsepower, and without knowing the efficiency of the cumbustion chamber (lol, rubbish) and the specific energy output of the fuel theres no way to convert flow to power which is what you are trying to do.
Dann
It doesnt matter what the turbo will make on one fuel if another fuel has a higher energy output. Flow maps are in airflow, not horsepower, and without knowing the efficiency of the cumbustion chamber (lol, rubbish) and the specific energy output of the fuel theres no way to convert flow to power which is what you are trying to do.
Dann
and this for posterity
Reply
1
1
10-26-2012, 02:30 PM
#64
Junior Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Oregon
Posts: 301
Total Cats: 4
question for you: do you have a log starting at 2k rpm in 4th or 5th gear showing your boost curve?
I have this same turbo and have seen so many different dyno plots that I don't even know when it spools anymore. I've seen full boost anywhere from 3300 to 3800 on this thing. And in FM's case it was something silly like 4200 (but they're at high elevation so maybe that's why).
250whp on a basic log setup on a 2560
So basically FM 250whp = REAL WORLD 200whp
There is no way in hell you're getting 300whp out of an FM2 2560 setup unless you push it to the very limit, like 18-20psi.
I have this same turbo and have seen so many different dyno plots that I don't even know when it spools anymore. I've seen full boost anywhere from 3300 to 3800 on this thing. And in FM's case it was something silly like 4200 (but they're at high elevation so maybe that's why).
250whp on a basic log setup on a 2560
So basically FM 250whp = REAL WORLD 200whp
There is no way in hell you're getting 300whp out of an FM2 2560 setup unless you push it to the very limit, like 18-20psi.
Had trouble with spark bleed on the tach lead, so no rpm info, but it is a typical 6speed trans; 80mph is approx 4k rpms).
Last edited by gtred; 10-26-2012 at 02:40 PM.
Reply
0
0
10-30-2012, 09:01 PM
#65
Newb
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: powell ohio
Posts: 16
Total Cats: -19
i wanted to just do the rebuild kit to play it safe until i do have the money (probably a year)
Reply
-1
-1
10-30-2012, 09:09 PM
#66
Newb
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: powell ohio
Posts: 16
Total Cats: -19
question for you: do you have a log starting at 2k rpm in 4th or 5th gear showing your boost curve?
I have this same turbo and have seen so many different dyno plots that I don't even know when it spools anymore. I've seen full boost anywhere from 3300 to 3800 on this thing. And in FM's case it was something silly like 4200 (but they're at high elevation so maybe that's why).
250whp on a basic log setup on a 2560
So basically FM 250whp = REAL WORLD 200whp
There is no way in hell you're getting 300whp out of an FM2 2560 setup unless you push it to the very limit, like 18-20psi.
I have this same turbo and have seen so many different dyno plots that I don't even know when it spools anymore. I've seen full boost anywhere from 3300 to 3800 on this thing. And in FM's case it was something silly like 4200 (but they're at high elevation so maybe that's why).
250whp on a basic log setup on a 2560
So basically FM 250whp = REAL WORLD 200whp
There is no way in hell you're getting 300whp out of an FM2 2560 setup unless you push it to the very limit, like 18-20psi.
ok i see what your saying and it makes sense. but im not looking for 300 at the wheels. i clearly understand that would kill the engine really fast, as FM told me the same thing. im looking for something in the area of 260whp.(doesnt have to be exactly 260) So is this still not a feasible number? What if i tuned to the setup the kit comes with then put on a tubular manifold and bumped up to the 2860 size down the road? or are these numbers just not going to happen on stock internals?
Reply
-1
-1
10-30-2012, 11:12 PM
#68
Newb
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: powell ohio
Posts: 16
Total Cats: -19
Well if this is a dumb idea, then why? im learning. im 18 and dont have a lot of experience with turbo'd engines yet. I just want to able to safely boost my stock engine and get decent power from it with out screwing it up. As i previously said in my last post, 300 flywheel hp would be my goal. if thats not a safe goal well looks like im just gonna have to wait or come up with a different plan.
Reply
-3
-3
10-31-2012, 08:40 AM
#71
Well if this is a dumb idea, then why? im learning. im 18 and dont have a lot of experience with turbo'd engines yet. I just want to able to safely boost my stock engine and get decent power from it with out screwing it up. As i previously said in my last post, 300 flywheel hp would be my goal. if thats not a safe goal well looks like im just gonna have to wait or come up with a different plan.
See where I'm going with this?
I'll be nice to you since you seem to genuinely be looking for information:
read the faq's.
read through the build threads
pick either of the kits discussed here or put together one of your own using proven/commonly used parts on here
if 300 to the crank is all you need, that's about 225whp or so. That is realistic.
good luck
Reply
1
1
10-31-2012, 08:47 AM
#72
I asked stupid questions when I joined too. But then I read every thread in the first 10 pages of the "build thread" section (after that the pictures usually stop working so they are not as useful). Now I am a trubo expert.
Also, learn how to drive with stock power before you turbo.
And no, if you are 18, you don't know how to drive.
Also, learn how to drive with stock power before you turbo.
And no, if you are 18, you don't know how to drive.
Reply
0
0
10-31-2012, 09:18 AM
#74
I usually factor in a 25% loss because I'm not a bench racer and would rather be pleasantly surprised at the dyno then sorely disappointed.
Talking about crank power is stupid anyway, so I guess we shouldn't even confuse OP and teach him the right way to look at power figures from the get go.
aim for 225whp. go from there.
Talking about crank power is stupid anyway, so I guess we shouldn't even confuse OP and teach him the right way to look at power figures from the get go.
aim for 225whp. go from there.
Reply
1
1
10-31-2012, 09:53 AM
#77
Boost Czar
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,493
Total Cats: 4,080
26whp is closer to 25whp than 25% hp.
Plus the idea that you lose more power to drivetrain losses as the power output increases doesnt quite make any sense.
you really think that your differential cares if you're outputting 200 vs 400 HP through it?
You think it cares so much that's there's a 100hp loss when there's more power trying to spin it? But only a 50hp loss when there's not quite so much power turning it?
Honestly, that doesnt make sense. Loss is loss, it's not a percentage of the power output.
You're suggesting that Soviet's motor makes 535BHP and it only can't produce that much to the wheels because his drivetrain is overwhelmed. His car must be hella hot when he drives it; the transmission and differential is probably glowing red from outputting 135HP as heat energy.
Plus the idea that you lose more power to drivetrain losses as the power output increases doesnt quite make any sense.
you really think that your differential cares if you're outputting 200 vs 400 HP through it?
You think it cares so much that's there's a 100hp loss when there's more power trying to spin it? But only a 50hp loss when there's not quite so much power turning it?
Honestly, that doesnt make sense. Loss is loss, it's not a percentage of the power output.
You're suggesting that Soviet's motor makes 535BHP and it only can't produce that much to the wheels because his drivetrain is overwhelmed. His car must be hella hot when he drives it; the transmission and differential is probably glowing red from outputting 135HP as heat energy.
Last edited by Braineack; 10-31-2012 at 10:24 AM.
Reply
2
2
10-31-2012, 10:13 AM
#79
Newb
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: powell ohio
Posts: 16
Total Cats: -19
You go from 300whp, to 260whp, to now 300chp. That's a huge swing, and already says you dunno wtf you're wanting. Then you say you're 18, and have little to no experience turbocharging n/a engines, and that confirms that you know next to nothing about this. Then you ask questions that are not only in the stickies, but can all be answered with a basic search or just by reading a few of the hundreds of threads we have here on power goals, etc.
See where I'm going with this?
I'll be nice to you since you seem to genuinely be looking for information:
read the faq's.
read through the build threads
pick either of the kits discussed here or put together one of your own using proven/commonly used parts on here
if 300 to the crank is all you need, that's about 225whp or so. That is realistic.
good luck
See where I'm going with this?
I'll be nice to you since you seem to genuinely be looking for information:
read the faq's.
read through the build threads
pick either of the kits discussed here or put together one of your own using proven/commonly used parts on here
if 300 to the crank is all you need, that's about 225whp or so. That is realistic.
good luck
Reply
-1
-1
