Injected Performance bringing in the first four digit dyno number: 1016rwhp DD
07-24-2007, 06:03 AM
#141
Registered User
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: miami
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by kwame@z1
I find that odd that someone even knows the answer to this question. Since I don't think there are that many people who have achieved these levels of power.
07-24-2007, 08:20 AM
#143
New Member
iTrader: (13)
Originally Posted by r@mon
I said that because i see transmissions dying with little power. My concern really isn't why they are failing. Whether it's the gearset or the synchros or the shift forks, i wouldn't want a transmission that i'd have to granny shift. You could pop in much weaker transmissions and as long as you just roll onto the throttle and take a half hour tea and crumpet brake between shifts, they'll probably hold up to the power that 99% of the cars on this forum make.
07-24-2007, 09:18 AM
#144
Originally Posted by SoundPerformance
The turbo that you select is going to be the limiting factor for HP on any motor. A GT47 turbo can only support X amount of airflow which equals X amount HP whether it is on a 2.0L DSM or a 4.2L stroked VQ or a 450+ cu inch big block chevy. If you put the GT47 on all three motors the resulting maximum RWHP will be roughly the same on all three if the turbo is pushed to its limits. The larger motor will make slightly more HP and a ton more torque of course. The HP difference due to the turbo being in a more efficient range of the map and back pressure being less. Obviously the TQ is greater because the extra displacement gets the turbo spooled quicker at a lower RPM. Therefore a supra with a GT47 and a Z with one will ultimately make about the same HP..... Z making more TQ and I believe it is a bit lighter of a car?? correct?? So the Z should win 
Now to the question of how much HP the 6 spd Z tranny can handle?? I know the supra one can take 1500. Anyone know the limits of the Z manual tranny??
Now to the question of how much HP the 6 spd Z tranny can handle?? I know the supra one can take 1500. Anyone know the limits of the Z manual tranny??
That's a gross oversimplification. A given engine can only push the turbo so much. Yes you can run higher boost on all three engines, which will push the flow into higher PR ratio areas of the map, but what about the flow part of the map?
This is what I am tlaking about, turbos need to be sized properly for every engine, putting just a big turbo because others "felt small" (quoting the OP here) is next to plain stupid.
Look at the compressor diagram that i put up, this turbo is already TOOO big... and your example of putting this turbo on a smaller engine and it producing power is a huge piece of misinformation.
07-24-2007, 09:22 AM
#145
New Member
iTrader: (13)
Originally Posted by GurgenPB
That's a gross oversimplification. A given engine can only push the turbo so much. Yes you can run higher boost on all three engines, which will push the flow into higher PR ratio areas of the map, but what about the flow part of the map?
This is what I am tlaking about, turbos need to be sized properly for every engine, putting just a big turbo because others "felt small" (quoting the OP here) is next to plain stupid.
Look at the compressor diagram that i put up, this turbo is already TOOO big... and your example of putting this turbo on a smaller engine and it producing power is a huge piece of misinformation.
This is what I am tlaking about, turbos need to be sized properly for every engine, putting just a big turbo because others "felt small" (quoting the OP here) is next to plain stupid.
Look at the compressor diagram that i put up, this turbo is already TOOO big... and your example of putting this turbo on a smaller engine and it producing power is a huge piece of misinformation.
while you posted a lot of knowledgable re: sizing the right turbo, stuff that may or may not translate the same way in practice...here i agree better with what joeshmoe suggested RE the torque converter rather than the turbo being the issue here.....
but explain plz why "...and your example of putting this turbo on a smaller engine and it producing power is a huge piece of misinformation" that is a miss information... 2jz - smaller displacement - can put more whp(with the appropriate boost) with same size turbo.
REGARLESS IT DOESNT AWAY ANYTHING FROM THIS ACCOMPLISHMENT OF A1000WHP Z
Last edited by IIQuickSilverII; 07-24-2007 at 09:31 AM.
07-24-2007, 09:24 AM
#146
Originally Posted by GurgenPB
That's a gross oversimplification. A given engine can only push the turbo so much. Yes you can run higher boost on all three engines, which will push the flow into higher PR ratio areas of the map, but what about the flow part of the map?
This is what I am tlaking about, turbos need to be sized properly for every engine, putting just a big turbo because others "felt small" (quoting the OP here) is next to plain stupid.
Look at the compressor diagram that i put up, this turbo is already TOOO big... and your example of putting this turbo on a smaller engine and it producing power is a huge piece of misinformation.
This is what I am tlaking about, turbos need to be sized properly for every engine, putting just a big turbo because others "felt small" (quoting the OP here) is next to plain stupid.
Look at the compressor diagram that i put up, this turbo is already TOOO big... and your example of putting this turbo on a smaller engine and it producing power is a huge piece of misinformation.
07-24-2007, 09:32 AM
#147
Originally Posted by IIQuickSilverII
while you posted a lot of knowledgable re: sizing the right turbo, stuff that may or may not translate the same way in practice...here i agree better with what joeshmoe suggested RE the torque converter rather than the turbo being the issue here.....
REGARLESS IT DOESNT AWAY ANYTHING FROM THIS ACCOMPLISHMENT OF A1000WHP Z
REGARLESS IT DOESNT AWAY ANYTHING FROM THIS ACCOMPLISHMENT OF A1000WHP Z
And yes, you CAN do almost everything my equations...this is how this stuff was invented... it's just that your equations have to be VERY VERY precise, and in this case they are, I assure you.
In IP's case, OF COURSE there are other things in play...but I assure you, that the compressor sizing DOES have a bit to do with it too.
07-24-2007, 09:45 AM
#148
Originally Posted by IIQuickSilverII
while you posted a lot of knowledgable re: sizing the right turbo, stuff that may or may not translate the same way in practice...here i agree better with what joeshmoe suggested RE the torque converter rather than the turbo being the issue here.....
but explain plz why "...and your example of putting this turbo on a smaller engine and it producing power is a huge piece of misinformation" that is a miss information... 2jz - smaller displacement - can put more whp(with the appropriate boost) with same size turbo.
REGARLESS IT DOESNT AWAY ANYTHING FROM THIS ACCOMPLISHMENT OF A1000WHP Z
but explain plz why "...and your example of putting this turbo on a smaller engine and it producing power is a huge piece of misinformation" that is a miss information... 2jz - smaller displacement - can put more whp(with the appropriate boost) with same size turbo.
REGARLESS IT DOESNT AWAY ANYTHING FROM THIS ACCOMPLISHMENT OF A1000WHP Z
There is a very simple explanation to this.
As long as you are working inside the compressor map boundaries...you will make power.. You want to be as efficient as possible, though. And if you are not, then you crank up the boost more and makeup for it. But, everything else being equal, you need to spin the compressor in it's most optimalsite...period.
Now, some will then say, that smaller turbos won't make power.... Here is what no one understands... a smaller compressor that is properly sizedWILL MAKE MORE POWER, but when you crank up the boost without changing the displacement or the redline (the determinants of the inherent volumetric flow of the engine), the effective flow increases through the turbine housing and it becomes a backpressure bottleneck, not allowing the engine to beath...kinda likeputting a small piping exhaust on a car...no different.
So, whenyou go for very high boost situations, to do it right, you still need to pick an appropriate (almost always: SMALLER) compressor housing, but upgrade to a higher A/R (and/or larger exducer diameter/trim) turbine housing. This is why Garrett gives you 2-5 options for A/Rs for any given compressor. And this is where there are NO good equations, and it's somewhat trial and error. Well, actually there is a way to monitor this very objecgtively and that's EMAP(exhaust MAP), but noone really goes this route for reasons of 1) complexity/cost, and 2) they don't know how to interpret EMAP numbers.
Last edited by GurgenPB; 07-24-2007 at 10:02 AM.
07-24-2007, 09:48 AM
#149
Originally Posted by IIQuickSilverII
while you posted a lot of knowledgable re: sizing the right turbo, stuff that may or may not translate the same way in practice...here i agree better with what joeshmoe suggested RE the torque converter rather than the turbo being the issue here.....
but explain plz why "...and your example of putting this turbo on a smaller engine and it producing power is a huge piece of misinformation" that is a miss information... 2jz - smaller displacement - can put more whp(with the appropriate boost) with same size turbo.
REGARLESS IT DOESNT AWAY ANYTHING FROM THIS ACCOMPLISHMENT OF A1000WHP Z
but explain plz why "...and your example of putting this turbo on a smaller engine and it producing power is a huge piece of misinformation" that is a miss information... 2jz - smaller displacement - can put more whp(with the appropriate boost) with same size turbo.
REGARLESS IT DOESNT AWAY ANYTHING FROM THIS ACCOMPLISHMENT OF A1000WHP Z
Last edited by GurgenPB; 07-24-2007 at 09:52 AM.
07-24-2007, 11:31 AM
#151
WOw...
My math is DEAD ON.
First, look at the dyno...You can actually tell where the power starts a steep climb upwards... so the engine's boost threshold is right before that, at around 5000rpm.
Now, look at my compressor map, with chandler, AZ elevation of 1240' and about 85 degree temp (a reasonable estimate). THose engines also have high VE's, and I was even conservative and gave it about 2-3% above our engine's VEs with cams. Assume minimal 0.05psi per psi boost piping drop, 1" pressure drop across the intake filter and an above average-high 85% IC effiiency.
This is what I come up with.
See how the map predicts that right around 5000rpm s when you are going ot start making boost?
Overall, you see that since they are at the edge of the map, at around 60-65% efficieny, by going with a small compressor housing and a larger than normal/average turbine housing, it would put closer to the middle of the map, where efficiency for the 5000-7500 rpm range would be between 69-76%, and they would gain literally that much more power.
That's my point in all of this.
My math is DEAD ON.
First, look at the dyno...You can actually tell where the power starts a steep climb upwards... so the engine's boost threshold is right before that, at around 5000rpm.
Now, look at my compressor map, with chandler, AZ elevation of 1240' and about 85 degree temp (a reasonable estimate). THose engines also have high VE's, and I was even conservative and gave it about 2-3% above our engine's VEs with cams. Assume minimal 0.05psi per psi boost piping drop, 1" pressure drop across the intake filter and an above average-high 85% IC effiiency.
This is what I come up with.
See how the map predicts that right around 5000rpm s when you are going ot start making boost?
Overall, you see that since they are at the edge of the map, at around 60-65% efficieny, by going with a small compressor housing and a larger than normal/average turbine housing, it would put closer to the middle of the map, where efficiency for the 5000-7500 rpm range would be between 69-76%, and they would gain literally that much more power.
That's my point in all of this.
07-24-2007, 11:58 AM
#153
Originally Posted by o snap its eric
off topic.... GB your a freaking math wizz, can i pay you to go take my math classes?
It all got started by thinking hard about my PE1420 setup and the notion that it's too small. So, it made me go to the drawing board and really read up on teh subject and make a tool that would allow to evaluate turbos objetively and accurately. This was the end result.
07-24-2007, 12:01 PM
#154
OK...was gonna post this earlier..
IP promised to post a full dyno of RPM and torque. where is it?
Again, it's obvious that no one in their right mind would put that turbo on a street car and expect to have a satisfying setup....it's a dragster per IP own admission.
But to really know how well the system is setup, I am sure that all of us want to see an actual, complete dyno plot, with torque, power, RPM, AFR, and possible boost.
No?
IP promised to post a full dyno of RPM and torque. where is it?
Again, it's obvious that no one in their right mind would put that turbo on a street car and expect to have a satisfying setup....it's a dragster per IP own admission.
But to really know how well the system is setup, I am sure that all of us want to see an actual, complete dyno plot, with torque, power, RPM, AFR, and possible boost.
No?
07-24-2007, 12:06 PM
#155
Sponsor
Sound Performance
Sound Performance
Originally Posted by GurgenPB
That's a gross oversimplification. A given engine can only push the turbo so much. Yes you can run higher boost on all three engines, which will push the flow into higher PR ratio areas of the map, but what about the flow part of the map?
This is what I am tlaking about, turbos need to be sized properly for every engine, putting just a big turbo because others "felt small" (quoting the OP here) is next to plain stupid.
Look at the compressor diagram that i put up, this turbo is already TOOO big... and your example of putting this turbo on a smaller engine and it producing power is a huge piece of misinformation.
This is what I am tlaking about, turbos need to be sized properly for every engine, putting just a big turbo because others "felt small" (quoting the OP here) is next to plain stupid.
Look at the compressor diagram that i put up, this turbo is already TOOO big... and your example of putting this turbo on a smaller engine and it producing power is a huge piece of misinformation.
What turbo would you suggest for 1500 crank HP then? Whether it be a 2.0L or 8L motor?
07-24-2007, 12:57 PM
#158
Z + Rear Seat
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: St.Pete,FL
Posts: 1,642
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by GurgenPB
OK...was gonna post this earlier..
IP promised to post a full dyno of RPM and torque. where is it?
Again, it's obvious that no one in their right mind would put that turbo on a street car and expect to have a satisfying setup....it's a dragster per IP own admission.
But to really know how well the system is setup, I am sure that all of us want to see an actual, complete dyno plot, with torque, power, RPM, AFR, and possible boost.
No?
IP promised to post a full dyno of RPM and torque. where is it?
Again, it's obvious that no one in their right mind would put that turbo on a street car and expect to have a satisfying setup....it's a dragster per IP own admission.
But to really know how well the system is setup, I am sure that all of us want to see an actual, complete dyno plot, with torque, power, RPM, AFR, and possible boost.
No?
We want to see it run down the quarter mile!