XKR Super G... Going for Mach 1
12-07-2009, 09:38 AM
#2264
I think at this point it is safe to say that the T2.5 flanges have proven themselves well for up to at least 820 hp on a DD (hopefully this will make 1000 hp on the DJ).
It would be interesting to compare Mike's torque curve to a 4.0L motor with GTM cams and a 4.0L motor with BC cams (with similar sized turbos). Rich, do you have data on any such motors to use for comparison? It would be a great resource so that everyone could compare the torque curves of the different cams before making a buying decision.
It would be interesting to compare Mike's torque curve to a 4.0L motor with GTM cams and a 4.0L motor with BC cams (with similar sized turbos). Rich, do you have data on any such motors to use for comparison? It would be a great resource so that everyone could compare the torque curves of the different cams before making a buying decision.
12-07-2009, 09:44 AM
#2265
Registered User
iTrader: (16)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 2,939
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think at this point it is safe to say that the T2.5 flanges have proven themselves well for up to at least 820 hp on a DD (hopefully this will make 1000 hp on the DJ).
It would be interesting to compare Mike's torque curve to a 4.0L motor with GTM cams and a 4.0L motor with BC cams (with similar sized turbos). Rich, do you have data on any such motors to use for comparison? It would be a great resource so that everyone could compare the torque curves of the different cams before making a buying decision.
It would be interesting to compare Mike's torque curve to a 4.0L motor with GTM cams and a 4.0L motor with BC cams (with similar sized turbos). Rich, do you have data on any such motors to use for comparison? It would be a great resource so that everyone could compare the torque curves of the different cams before making a buying decision.
https://my350z.com/forum/shop-builds...ly-driver.html
12-07-2009, 09:49 AM
#2266
Not apples to apples, but still might in an interesting comparison.
https://my350z.com/forum/shop-builds...ly-driver.html
https://my350z.com/forum/shop-builds...ly-driver.html
Rich, can you plug this in with Mike's numbers. It will give us a comparison of BC Stage 2 cams in a 4.2L build to JWT C8 cams in a 4.0L build. The turbos are different, though. Still, it is better than having nothing to compare.
EDIT: In the first post Hal also indicates that they were having trouble with the Carbonetics tripple disk slipping above 750 whp. I guess that will be the limits of where I will get with my build.
Last edited by ttg35fort; 12-07-2009 at 10:19 AM.
12-07-2009, 10:06 AM
#2267
Registered User
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Shreveport, Louisiana
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shreveport LA to ZDayZ NA = 10hrs
Shreveport LA to ZDayZ FI = 3hrs
Either way....I'll be there this year! My car was under the knife at Forged last year for ZDayz.
12-07-2009, 11:29 AM
#2268
I know I have that dyno in my charts, but might have not posted a comparison.
To be fair, that IP build was at low boost. I heard that a 900+whp car on high boost as well, but no public dyno's exist.
I'll post more info when I get home.
There was also that 4.2L greddy build. The trq almost overlayed to 6500, but I dont know what cams were used in that build.
To be fair, that IP build was at low boost. I heard that a 900+whp car on high boost as well, but no public dyno's exist.
I'll post more info when I get home.
There was also that 4.2L greddy build. The trq almost overlayed to 6500, but I dont know what cams were used in that build.
Thank you thawk! That car also has a very nice torque curve. He is also getting a lot of torque in the mid rpm range. The torque appears to be falling off a little quicker, but that is to be expected with a shorter duration/lift cam (264 deg./10.82 lift vs 272 deg/12.01 mm lift). One other note, the dyno posted by Hal was at 19 psi vs 26 psi for Mike's. That seems just about right given the extra displacement and their respective peak hp numbers. The build posted by Hal appears to be running around 29% total energy conversion efficiency, where Mike's appears to be running around 28%. Please note that these are SWAG's since I don't have the actual AFR readings. Some of this will depend on how conservative the tune is. Sharif may have been playing it on the safe side running at peak hp.
Rich, can you plug this in with Mike's numbers. It will give us a comparison of BC Stage 2 cams in a 4.2L build to JWT C8 cams in a 4.0L build. The turbos are different, though. Still, it is better than having nothing to compare.
EDIT: In the first post Hal also indicates that they were having trouble with the Carbonetics tripple disk slipping above 750 whp. I guess that will be the limits of where I will get with my build.
Rich, can you plug this in with Mike's numbers. It will give us a comparison of BC Stage 2 cams in a 4.2L build to JWT C8 cams in a 4.0L build. The turbos are different, though. Still, it is better than having nothing to compare.
EDIT: In the first post Hal also indicates that they were having trouble with the Carbonetics tripple disk slipping above 750 whp. I guess that will be the limits of where I will get with my build.
12-07-2009, 12:05 PM
#2270
It would be really nice to have BC and GTM stage 3 cams on equivantly sized motors/boost levels to compare as well. One issue with all of this, though, is the differences among the turbo kits. Until we get identical blocks with identical turbo kits, it will be hard to get a clear picture.
I think I remember that Greddy build. It has wicked torque down to 3800 rpm or so if I remember correctly.
Last edited by ttg35fort; 12-07-2009 at 12:09 PM.
12-07-2009, 02:03 PM
#2271
Registered User
iTrader: (19)
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 963
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know I have that dyno in my charts, but might have not posted a comparison.
To be fair, that IP build was at low boost. I heard that a 900+whp car on high boost as well, but no public dyno's exist.
I'll post more info when I get home.
There was also that 4.2L greddy build. The trq almost overlayed to 6500, but I dont know what cams were used in that build.
To be fair, that IP build was at low boost. I heard that a 900+whp car on high boost as well, but no public dyno's exist.
I'll post more info when I get home.
There was also that 4.2L greddy build. The trq almost overlayed to 6500, but I dont know what cams were used in that build.
12-07-2009, 02:19 PM
#2272
as i have only collected data up to 6500 rpms, its hard to interpolate the typical 7500 rpm rev limit on most builds.
Here's one
XKR 4.0L 18psi c16 gas vs 3.5L SP kit 5557 with tomei 264 cams also at 18psi but on pump gas
DD vs mustang (which seem to be pretty close). The Trq up to 4500 is the same. Then the cam difference, bigger turbos, higher octane gas, and more displacement cloud the interpretation
Here's the comparison you were looking for
again same XKR 18psi c16 vs the IP 4.2L SFR 67mm at 19psi with BC264 on pump gas.
the graphs basically intertwine.
NO difference out at 6500 rpm, with another 1000 rpms still to go i dont think you'd expect there to much difference either
I'd personally rather go without that trq spike at 5000 seen on XKR's as thats right where you blow your tires off (street or dyno) and lose the race
no reason to think that the IP setup wouldnt follow the same or better HP at 26psi due to it bigger turbos. Wongy would prolly beat mike in hwy roll at full out boost
Same comparison but this time with XKRs 26psi pull
Here's one
XKR 4.0L 18psi c16 gas vs 3.5L SP kit 5557 with tomei 264 cams also at 18psi but on pump gas
DD vs mustang (which seem to be pretty close). The Trq up to 4500 is the same. Then the cam difference, bigger turbos, higher octane gas, and more displacement cloud the interpretation
Here's the comparison you were looking for
again same XKR 18psi c16 vs the IP 4.2L SFR 67mm at 19psi with BC264 on pump gas.
the graphs basically intertwine.
NO difference out at 6500 rpm, with another 1000 rpms still to go i dont think you'd expect there to much difference either
I'd personally rather go without that trq spike at 5000 seen on XKR's as thats right where you blow your tires off (street or dyno) and lose the race
no reason to think that the IP setup wouldnt follow the same or better HP at 26psi due to it bigger turbos. Wongy would prolly beat mike in hwy roll at full out boost
Same comparison but this time with XKRs 26psi pull
Last edited by str8dum1; 12-07-2009 at 02:29 PM.
12-07-2009, 02:50 PM
#2274
Registered User
I just wanted to toss this up there btw!!!!!!! Terry and I were pretty close
Tom
Tom
/\ Assuming the motor makes 300rwhp, so the turbo setup needs to cover 700rwhp and the heads/cams/intake flow.....we'll say 26rwhp/psi of boost.....so thats 26.9psi of boost
so thats my guess knowing very little and assuming it cracks the 4 digit numero
C'mon mike....give us the low boost stuff already
tom
so thats my guess knowing very little and assuming it cracks the 4 digit numero
C'mon mike....give us the low boost stuff already
tom
12-07-2009, 03:09 PM
#2276
Thank you, Rich!!! These graphs make interpreting the data much easier.
Were the first two plots from the dyno made when the clutch was slipping? That might explains the sharp peak at 5k rpm.
The Tomei 264 cams in the first plot are doing a really good job at holding torque to 6500 rpm. These might be worth looking into. Per IPP's website, the 264 duration cams have 10.5mm lift and sell for $1275. They should rev very high too. I have heard of Tomei springs breaking, though, so that aspect should be looked into before jumping.
The SFR kit is spooling up very quickly, especially for the size of the turbos. The shorter duration cams and extra displacement should be helping, but there is probably something else going on too. I would expect to see the header style manifolds help in the top end, but I don't think they are responsible for the incredible torque at 3k rpm. Perhaps the load settings that were used on the dynos is different? Nonetheless, the low rpm torque is huge for our motors. The SFR kit/BC Stage 2 combination is working well and would be a lot of fun to drive. The BC Stage 3 cams should hold the torque a litte better in the upper rpm range, but may sacrifice some of the low-mid rpm torque.
I think the torque dip in Mike's curve between 5500 and 6250 was due to the tires slipping. The torque at 6250 and 6500 rpm normally would not be higher. Still, the torque is holding nicely. It is only down roughly 30 ft-lbs at 6500 rpm in comparison to 5250 rpm, and almost equal to the torque at 5000 rpm.
Were the first two plots from the dyno made when the clutch was slipping? That might explains the sharp peak at 5k rpm.
The Tomei 264 cams in the first plot are doing a really good job at holding torque to 6500 rpm. These might be worth looking into. Per IPP's website, the 264 duration cams have 10.5mm lift and sell for $1275. They should rev very high too. I have heard of Tomei springs breaking, though, so that aspect should be looked into before jumping.
The SFR kit is spooling up very quickly, especially for the size of the turbos. The shorter duration cams and extra displacement should be helping, but there is probably something else going on too. I would expect to see the header style manifolds help in the top end, but I don't think they are responsible for the incredible torque at 3k rpm. Perhaps the load settings that were used on the dynos is different? Nonetheless, the low rpm torque is huge for our motors. The SFR kit/BC Stage 2 combination is working well and would be a lot of fun to drive. The BC Stage 3 cams should hold the torque a litte better in the upper rpm range, but may sacrifice some of the low-mid rpm torque.
I think the torque dip in Mike's curve between 5500 and 6250 was due to the tires slipping. The torque at 6250 and 6500 rpm normally would not be higher. Still, the torque is holding nicely. It is only down roughly 30 ft-lbs at 6500 rpm in comparison to 5250 rpm, and almost equal to the torque at 5000 rpm.
Last edited by ttg35fort; 12-07-2009 at 03:23 PM.
12-07-2009, 03:32 PM
#2278
another thing to throw is in XKRs cosworth heads vs the stock head with cams on Wongy's car
Ya XKRs tire slipped on the dyno, but that same peak at 5-5200 rpms is there on both 18 and 26psi charts. Just more pronounced the more boost you have. Thats where he was burning up his clutch as well.
regardless, cant wait for some solid driving vids and also a shorter runway at Zdayz to help the rest of us on hi boost compete with XKR's low boost
Ya XKRs tire slipped on the dyno, but that same peak at 5-5200 rpms is there on both 18 and 26psi charts. Just more pronounced the more boost you have. Thats where he was burning up his clutch as well.
regardless, cant wait for some solid driving vids and also a shorter runway at Zdayz to help the rest of us on hi boost compete with XKR's low boost
Thank you, Rich!!! These graphs make interpreting the data much easier.
Were the first two plots from the dyno made when the clutch was slipping? That might explains the sharp peak at 5k rpm.
The Tomei 264 cams in the first plot are doing a really good job at holding torque to 6500 rpm. These might be worth looking into. Per IPP's website, the 264 duration cams have 10.5mm lift and sell for $1275. They should rev very high too. I have heard of Tomei springs breaking, though, so that aspect should be looked into before jumping.
The SFR kit is spooling up very quickly, especially for the size of the turbos. The shorter duration cams and extra displacement should be helping, but there is probably something else going on too. I would expect to see the header style manifolds help in the top end, but I don't think they are responsible for the incredible torque at 3k rpm. Perhaps the load settings that were used on the dynos is different? Nonetheless, the low rpm torque is huge for our motors. The SFR kit/BC Stage 2 combination is working well and would be a lot of fun to drive. The BC Stage 3 cams should hold the torque a litte better in the upper rpm range, but may sacrifice some of the low-mid rpm torque.
I think the torque dip in Mike's curve between 5500 and 6250 was due to the tires slipping. The torque at 6250 and 6500 rpm normally would not be higher. Still, the torque is holding nicely. It is only down roughly 30 ft-lbs at 6500 rpm in comparison to 5250 rpm, and almost equal to the torque at 5000 rpm.
Were the first two plots from the dyno made when the clutch was slipping? That might explains the sharp peak at 5k rpm.
The Tomei 264 cams in the first plot are doing a really good job at holding torque to 6500 rpm. These might be worth looking into. Per IPP's website, the 264 duration cams have 10.5mm lift and sell for $1275. They should rev very high too. I have heard of Tomei springs breaking, though, so that aspect should be looked into before jumping.
The SFR kit is spooling up very quickly, especially for the size of the turbos. The shorter duration cams and extra displacement should be helping, but there is probably something else going on too. I would expect to see the header style manifolds help in the top end, but I don't think they are responsible for the incredible torque at 3k rpm. Perhaps the load settings that were used on the dynos is different? Nonetheless, the low rpm torque is huge for our motors. The SFR kit/BC Stage 2 combination is working well and would be a lot of fun to drive. The BC Stage 3 cams should hold the torque a litte better in the upper rpm range, but may sacrifice some of the low-mid rpm torque.
I think the torque dip in Mike's curve between 5500 and 6250 was due to the tires slipping. The torque at 6250 and 6500 rpm normally would not be higher. Still, the torque is holding nicely. It is only down roughly 30 ft-lbs at 6500 rpm in comparison to 5250 rpm, and almost equal to the torque at 5000 rpm.
12-07-2009, 03:43 PM
#2279
I had forgotten about the heads. With the larger intakes, Mikes heads will have lower intake velocity, which will take away some of the low-mid rpm torque. On the upside, the larger ports will have better flow capacity at the higher rpm, which in all likelyhood is a significant factor helping to maintain the torque in the higher rpm range.
