More Power

Thought I'd pass this along. Regarding running forced induction with 350Z auto trannys. Vinny Ten, one of the most famous import engine builders in the U.S., said to absolutely NOT raise the 350Z rev limiter at all. If you are running stock engine internals. He said most of the engine failures running forced induction on stock engine internals 350Zs are from running higher than stock RPMs and the fuel system inadequacies I posted about above. He said there is no reason to run higher RPMs and it is the quickest way to a blown engine on our stock 350Z engine internals. Vinny Ten is famous for building some of the most fire breathing Supras of all time, but he has converted over to our 350Zs now. He built the engine for the 1300 plus wheel horse power 8 sec. for the qtr. mile at 176 mph stock bodied 350Z for which I posted a video on this website several months back.

2JZfan

you'd be pretty hard pressed to do that with these turbos...

take the GT35R, for example... the compressor map shows it maxing out at around 62-63lb/min of airflow... a simple translation would be around 650hp at the flywheel max on an "average" motor (of course the multiplier to change lb/min into hp will be governed by the BSFC of the motor)...

however, no turbo can make it's peak power potential at all boost levels... the GT35R will only do this power level around 23psi of boost... if you are running the turbo at, say, 14psi, the max power it can make is only around 580hp at the flywheel...

because of that, it's to your advantage to run higher boost if you can... we have made 700hp on an efficient 2.0L with this turbo, but you won't be able to do that on a 3.5L because the same airflow (in lb/min) will equate to far less boost, and this will drop the compressor out of its efficiency range and you'll hit the choke line...

to realistically make 600-700 rwhp on this size of motor I think you'd need a 67-70 mm turbo...

Jeff

More Power

But does the Turbonetics setup include a true fuel return/recirculation system? Which many 350Z engine builders have noted as being crucial to a consistently adequate and cooler temperature fuel supply. And crucial to long term reliability.

I'd like to hear about this specific aspect of the fuel system from the Turbonetics tech guys. Thanks.

Brandon@Forged

I was told the T60-1 can produce 650rwhp at 18-22psi...

So you don't believe it's possible to produce over 600rwhp (or maybe even less) with a single turbo kit? (the one's available that have turbo's that fit in the engine bay)

Brandon@Forged

It has just what I listed, so no I don't believe so.

More Power

Thanks. I think both Turbonetics and APS single turbos will both put out real good power. But what good is real good power unless you have a robust fuel system for long term reliability. The APS fuel system including the fuel return/recirculation system is one of the reasons I lean toward APS. Of course you can upgrade any of the kits with a separate fuel return system, but I prefer to get a real complete kit from the git go. Just my 2 cents.

2JZfan

I'd be pretty shocked to see that... at 18-20psi, a Garrett 61mm turbo makes about 500rwhp on a (3.0L) Supra... at 28psi or so you can get upper 500's but it's pretty much out of breath... even if you don't factor in the turbo efficiency itself, doing a directly "ideal" scaling of 18-20psi on a 3.0L making 500rwhp up to 18-20psi on a 3.5L it would make about 585rwhp...

I don't know what's inside this "new" 60-1, is there a compressor map available? The Turbonetics catalog that I have shows the 60-1 maxing out around 60lb/min, which would be lucky to do 650hp, not 650rwhp...

as far as what can fit in the engine bay, keep in mind that the external dimensions on a 67GTQ that can do 800hp are identical to a 61P that can only do 650hp... I'm assuming this Turbonetics setup is a T4 exhaust housing and that the compressor cover is an "S" cover (4" inlet, 2.5" outlet) or something very near it... I can't imagine why they'd use a T3 exhaust housing on a 3.5L... a 61mm T4 turbo makes 8psi by 2700rpms on a 3.0L and 18psi by 3400rpms... on a 3.5L it would be even better so there would be no justification for choking things with a tiny T3 housing...

if they are in fact using a T4 platform, you could go to much higher power producing turbos and still stay within the packaging requirements...

but back to the power potential, a compressor map of this 60-1 would take a lot of the conjecture out of this discussion!

Brandon@Forged

https://my350z.com/forum/showthread....ap#post1244944

https://my350z.com/forum/showthread....ap#post1059484

https://my350z.com/forum/showthread....ap#post1058454

https://my350z.com/forum/showpost.ph...3&postcount=62

2JZfan

I'm not about to read that whole post, there would be a whole new generation of turbos released before I finished!! I quickly scrolled through those pages you linked looking for images of maps and the only compressor map posted was even worse than what's in my catalog... it appeared to max out around 50lb/min of air...

MIAPLAYA

iTrader: (3)

The 60-1 in the Turbonetics kit utilizes a T04 turbine wheel but uses a bigger compressor housing and wheel then the standard T04 of course. According to Brad and Jahme from Turbonetics 600-650 is very possible with 18-22 PSI on this compressor wheel. I'm not sure what the efficiency would be at that point as I am waiting to get the compressor map from Brad. This was a new wheel they designed for this app and doesn't match anything they currently have maps for. FOr BIG power a 62-1 is physically almost identical to the 60-1 and could be EASILY substituted. A T66 should also fit but has not been tested in that location. According to Turbonetics the 62-1 should flow a good 10% more then the 60-1 so for those wanting to make some VERY nice numbers that turbo could be substituted when you order the kit. Turbonetics has made it VERY clear they are MORE then happy to make any kind of custom setup you want. They would of course need to know what you are shooting for and they would then design and customize a 62-1 or T66 to fit with their kit for your needs. Again I can't stress enough that Turbonetics is all about one off kits and is More then happy to customize your kit.


As for fuel: The Turbonetics kit uses a Walbro 255 LPH pump, 380 CC drop in injectors, a ECU reflash, and a customized stock Fuel Pressure regulator to maintain the AFRs. With the customized FPR they are able to keep a 53 PSI fuel pressure off boost for a good idle and cruise tune. The ECU flash controls the injectors to add more fuel when needed. They have tested a 550 CC setup and flash that should be working soon now that Technosquare has the ability to flash for larger injectors so in reality you could order your kit with a 62-1 or T66 and have the fuel management to match it.

2JZfan

if you do get those compressor maps, please post them... the Turbonetics catalog shows the 60-1 at 57lb/min and the 62-1 at 60lb/min...

another variable here is the dyno type... if we're talking about a dynojet, then sure, a million hp is possible... I was quoting real world hp, not imaginary dynojet numbers... and before anybody takes offense to that, it is widely documented that a dynojet reads a full 12-15% higher than true load bearing dyno (eg. mustang, superflow, dynapack, etc.) so that right there more or less cancels out the drivetrain losses on a 6MT car... in fact, when going back through standalone ECU data logs and looking at injector pulsewidths, rpm and AFR data from the wideband (to calculate the actual lbs/hour of fuel burned), i've found that the dynojet is actually a pretty good "engine dyno" when it comes to high HP cars...

Until somebody brings an APS single kit over here and throws it on a dynojet (preferably one that also dynoed a Turbonetics kit) it's all a bunch of guesswork as to how the two really compare... In my own eyes, if the Turbonetics numbers aren't at least 10% higher than the APS numbers, I'll consider the APS kit to be making more power...

Jeff

MIAPLAYA

iTrader: (3)

All the numbers i'm referring to on the Turbonetics kit are RWHP on a Dynapack not Dynojet. For reference the last dyno i have pre-turbo on a Dynojet was 240 WHp. My car made 200 RWHP on Turbonetics Dynapack pre-turbo. Post turbo my car made 386 RWHP at 11:1 AFR 8 PSI with 91 fuel. At 8.5 PSI with 11:1 AFR on 91 fuel the kit made 409 RWHP again on the same Dynapack

MIAPLAYA

iTrader: (3)

And yes i will post the compressor maps as soon as i get them.

2JZfan

sounds like you confirmed the dynojet numbers being inflated with your own car...

was the ignition timing different between your two tests? an extra 23rwhp with the only change being 0.5psi more boost is a little hard to swallow!

maybe this was addressed elsewhere, but what's with the dyno test in Turbo magazine (April '05) of the Turbonetics 350Z kit? Looks like the same test conditions you are talking about (8psi, 11:1 AFR, pump gas)... and yet even on a dynojet it only did 365rwhp... taking those numbers and working backwards (considering that your car pre-turbo read 20% higher on a dynojet than a dynapack) that would look like only ~ 305rwhp or so on the dynapack...

that same article also refers to the turbo as being a T3/T4 hybrid... could you please confirm or deny that the TURBINE side of this turbo is in fact a T4 housing? If this actually is a T3/T4 hybrid kit that will seriously limit the power potential of the turbos that can be bolted on... To look at it another way, the twin turbo kits use TWO T3 turbines, so this setup would be essentially twice as much of a bottleneck... that's what makes me believe that "Turbo" is on crack and it must actually be a T4 turbo... that and the fact that nobody uses a single T3 on even a 3.0L motor, much less a 3.5L...

thanks
Jeff

MIAPLAYA

iTrader: (3)

Turbo Mag is on crack and its not the first time either, i'm not sure what test was done or how or what conditions but those numbers are MUCH lower then whats on the Dynapack graph i saw. As for the turbine section it is ABSOLUTELY a T4 turbine section. I don't think i've ever seen a 60-1 using a T3 turbine section. I seriously doubt they even make one. The 60-1 has always used the T4 turbine side and is no different in this app. The car they tested was not mine and from what i remember that test was done right after they added the Walbro 255 LPH pump to the kit. It was not originally part of the design or kit and I believe that the test was done right after they installed it. When they first installed it they were seeing AFRs of as low as 9.5:1 to 10:1 at its most lean. Not sure if Turbo tested AFR during the dyno but that may be the reason. Again I cannot speak to the testing parameters in that review as it was not my car and i was not involved. But I do recall Brad saying something about doing a mag test right after the Walbro install and the AFR was as low as 9.5:1 during the test. Thats when he explained how the were going to include a modified stock FPR to help keep the fuel pressure normal off boost and how they needed to re-tune after the pump. I can tell you that with pump the last dyno chart I saw was 386 RWHP at 8 PSI 11:1 AFR w/ 91 fuel on a Dynapack at Turbonetics.

MIAPLAYA

iTrader: (3)

As for the timing I am not sure what was done with that. I know that Turbonetics has spent months playing with the flash to get the most power at each pressure level while maintaining a very conservative tune.

2JZfan

the chart in the magazine shows a nice looking AFR curve actually, it's 11:1 across the board... and considering that the boost was the same (8psi) I couldnt' really figure why the power would be so far off other than timing... they made two pulls and the rwhp and AFR were almost identical between them... so who knows what the deal is with the numbers...

as far as the T3/T4 thing, a 60mm turbo is in no way "big" for a T4, in fact it's basically the smallest available in the T4 family... they go all the way up to 88mm in the T4 lineup... and they go up to 67mm in the T3 lineup... my only point is that when I read it I certainly didn't think "that's impossible for that turbo to be a T3/T4" I thought "Why the F would they use THAT turbo on this application?"

If you can, find out what the A/R is on the turbine housing ...

Thanks,
Jeff

MIAPLAYA

iTrader: (3)

Trust me they are NOT using any form of T3 in this app. I'll see what kind of info I can get from Brad. I did leave him a voicemail today about some other stuff. He may come on here and post exactly what the specs are himself actually. But I'll see what I can do..

More Power

That explains what Turbonetics has in their fuel system. It does not explain why Turbonetics did not include a fuel return/recirculation system in their kit. A fuel return/recirculation system that many of the top import engine builders say is absolutely needed with our 350Zs with forced induction. For just one example, read the article in Sport Z Magazine (that I mentioned in an earlier post) in which the Performance Nissan 350Z Grand Am team crew chief says that specifically. So again why no fuel recirculation system? I am willing to entertain the possibility that I am wrong when I say our 350Zs absolutely need this for forced induction. As many top engine builders have told me. Can the Turbonetics tech guys explain to me why I am wrong?

I believe most of the forced induction kits for our 350Zs withheld the fuel recirculation system from their kits to hold down costs and therefore kit prices. Marketing reasons rather than engineering reasons. I can understand that, but they should then tell the kit buyers that they are buying an incomplete kit with a marginal fuel system at best and dangerous at worst. Long term. That is if I am right about all this. If I am wrong, why can the Turbonetics techs not explain to me that I am wrong and why our 350Zs do not need a fuel return system?

Naturally if there is any doubt, I am going to buy a kit with a fuel recirculation system such as APS. For an optimally engineered set up. What good is More Power if you are playing Russian Roulette with your engine long term.

Brandon@Forged

Same reason GReddy doesn't include any fuel supply equipment...leaving it for someone else to do (leaving it for the consumer to buy for himself).