Gollum

Ewww, have a look at the crank side to make sure it's all a-o-kay?

You have no idea how much this keeps me awake at night...

I think the turbo will work fine. But I also am slightly concerned about surge before you do any headwork. From what I can find on the new GTX it seems that it can hit 400whp easily enough worth of flow. I just hope you don't need 30psi to get there, because it's not going to like it. I'd say shoot for a 20-25psi build and what you end up with is what you end up with and just be happy.

Let me be clear in that I agree with Tony and plan to build accordingly. That said, some people don't mind venturing into the 25+ psi levels and dealing with all that comes with it. I don't tell those people not to do it, only to know what they're going to be up against. Also, there's a big difference between mild head work and serious head work. Some people will only see a measely 10-20% increase in horsepower after headwork, while others can see a solid doubling in horsepower. It all depends on how radical you want to go and how many RPM you want to run to reach peak HP.

I'd look into the BorgWarner turbos. They tend to be VERY high boost application turbos. I'd consider the S256, which though maxing out around 550hp doesn't give up much efficiency in that HP range when running high boost levels. It's NOT a low boost 550hp turbo like you'd put on a V8, it's much happier on a smaller displacement Honda, or mid-efficiency mid-displacement engine like our 2.8. Here's my projected overlay of what you'd most likely end up with, provided it spools as slow as I hope it would, which is a tough thing to predict from my chair here. http://www.squirrelpf.com/turbocalc/index.php?version=4&target_peak_power=500&pr_ref=14.696&engine_disp=2.8&engine_disp_factor=0&target_af=12&bfsc=0.55&max_ic_loss=1.7&rpm_redline=7000&rpm_peak_power=6500&rpm_max_boost=3500&rpm_min_boost=2500&vol_1=74&vol_2=80&vol_3=81&vol_4=79&vol_1=74&vol_2=80&vol_3=81&vol_4=79&intake_temp_1=90&intake_temp_2=120&intake_temp_3=135&intake_temp_4=140&turbo_n=1&map_sel0=178 And that's assuming you've got about a 200 crank HP engine that peaks around 6500RPM, which I think is relatively accurate for what you say you're building. And that's also based on an assumption of having about 80% NA torque available by 2,000 RPM. For my calculations I've got VE of 82% at peak HP, 86% at peak TQ, and 72% at min boost. Oh, and the other vital data is assuming BSFC of around .55 That calculator is set to graph for 450 crank hp, but my gut tells me you'd make more crank HP then that at those PSI levels. I say that just from experience and from what I've see others achieve. I could be wrong, but I'm at least being honest.

For the sake of record, here's the CORRECT overlay: There's certainly more flow area way up there at the 3.5 pressure ratio range, but if you look at the efficiency it's maximum at that pressure ratio is 71%, versus it's peak island area of 78% that only goes as high as about 2.45 pressure ratio. Again, I hope you see that my goal is ONLY to educate, not tell you what to do or how to do it. I just like to make sure that people are thinking for themselves which tends to lead to more correct choices. And when you DO make a bad choice, you know what happened and how to fix it.

Which shows that you're already way ahead of the game compared to some others. I have a feeling trying to reach 400whp with that turbo on a stock longblock will be a real challenge. I think it's much more realistic to expect 300-350whp on a stock head, and then shoot for 400 after some mild headwork. This is why I say this: If you're in the typical 130-150 wheel torque @ peak HP of 5000-5500 without the turbo then you're asking for a BIG increase. You're asking to go from 130ish whp to 400whp. That's THREE TIMES the stock HP level. In a perfect world that means shoot for 3 BAR (pressure ratio, 2 BAR boost), but you'll likely need more like 3.4 BAR (again, P/R) due to heat management power losses. That GTX won't like running that high, period. Let me put up the GT versus GTX map for reference: The map goes up to 3.5 BAR just fine, but it's area starts to get pretty thin, and efficiency will be out the window. This is NOT a turbo to use to reach 35+ psi. But if you do the supporting mods to bring off-turbo power up to around 170whp @ 6,000 RPM, your expected pressure ratio goes down to about 2.8-9 or around 29psi. Now that's MUCH more manageable with this turbo, and doesn't really take THAT much work. We're talking a decent intake (which you have planned), along with mild port work, a cam, and low restriction exhaust. By contrast, if you look at a turbo like the T61, it has a much more vertical map that's intended for high boost applications, as it's PEAK efficiency goes way up to 3 bar pressure ratio, and the map i shows the turbo will reach 3.8 bar just fine. But that turbo also doesn't want to flow past 55 lb/min, while there are other turbos of similar size that will reach much higher flow numbers at lower pressure ratios. All that to say that turbo choice is never an easy subject if you only look into what is in a catalog or what other big box companies use. Also, last note of mine: 300hp for a L engine isn't THAT high. 400hp is attainable for the extremists out there, and the main thing even those 300hp engines have that most of us don't is called RPMs. You'd be amazed how easy detonation can be to control on some of these 250+ hp beasts when built and managed correctly. Detonation is most prominent at high load and lower RPMs, which is hardly a concern if your redline is 10k... Does it cost money? yes, of course. But my point in bringing that up is that getting to 200+ whp NA isn't THAT hard to do and would go a LONG way to reaching your 400whp goal on boost, and likely REDUCE how prone to detonation the engine is...

Ridiculously large is a relative statement though. Is a T72 small? Some diesel applications will use a T72 as a SMALL turbo to spool a larger one... Now, if we want to talk about engine displacement that still doesn't exactly hold true. A ford 5.0 (more like 4.9 in all reality) won't handle twin T3 turbos very well without some mild flow modifications. Half that 5 liter and we're looking at each turbo having roughly 2.4/5 liters to work with. Put a T3 on a Honda K20A (civic type R 07+) and it's going to run out of breath. So displacement can't really tell us what turbo to run either. If we go by just HP in NA trim, we won't be far off from most guess when picking a turbo. In the above example, the ford engine makes a conservative 225hp, and let's just ASSuME that it's making 250. Heck, maybe someone put a cam in it. That's still a whopping 125hp worth of air per turbo. That's not even a stock B16... Hell, many honda D engines do better... The K20A in question makes well over 200hp stock, 222 to be exact. So here's an engine that's about the same overall airflow as the 302 is stock. Hmm... So in that light putting two T3's on a stock ford 302 is kind of like putting two T3's on a stock Honda Civic Type R. People would call that stupid on a honda, yet nobody is going to ask the mustang owner with two T3's "hey, what mods do you have to support the added airflow of those turbos?" See where I'm going with this? A stock L28 isn't going to handle a GT40xxR A stock L28 might not even like a GT35xxR much A stock L28ET longblock tends to make peak HP between 5,000 and 5,500 Most people won't push their L28ET past 7500rpm Now, a stock L28E, which is basically a turbo motor, minus the turbo, with added compression makes a whopping 143hp. That's not much air. Now, how many here have 200+ hp NA L engines? How many here make 250+? How many make 300+? If you're running a 300 crank HP NA L engine, you can effectively be running TWICE the turbo as a stock L28ET.... hmmmmm All of the sudden even a GT45 doesn't seem that big...

the gtX35r will spool about as early as the gt30r, but with the flow more like the gt35r. The gtX30r will spool more like a gt28/5r. Each generation of turbo generally spools faster for a given flow amount. Obviously that's a large generalization, but when you compare a turbo from the 70's as found on some turbo production cars from the era, the difference is quite obvious. Today's modern ball bearing turbos share very little in common from their older brethren. Different turbine designs with better exit flow paths, better compressor wheels with computer modeled wheels, anti-surge porting, etc. The down side is mainly that the newest turbos cost more. Also consider that just because a newer turbo might be "better" that doesn't make it "right" for any application in it's power range. It's always about a properly designed system. I plan to run something more like a T72, but that's because I'm cheap and I also don't exactly want it to spool instantly at lower RPM.

Which is HILARIOUS when you consider how many Honda D builds out there are thrilled to reach MIN boost at 3,000 with a redline of 7500ish.

Ditto:

I've had plenty of success using the Innovative widebands with E85. Regarding injector swapping, I think that's fine, BUT (there's that nasty word) injector flow modeling affects EVERYTHING in a tune so as much as you end up off on your first set of injectors you need to model off on the next which leaves you shooting after a moving target. One of the most important things in having a SOLID tune is knowing EXACTLY what your inputs and outputs are. If your IAT is off a touch, you need to know. If your MAP isn't exact, you need to know. You also need to know EXACTLY what your outputs do under static controlled conditions. This is why just plain flow charts for injectors don't impress me. When I buy injectors I also want to know (proven via scope) their open and close times, and I also want to know their flow compensation by voltage. Not all injectors lose flow the same as voltage drops, one more thing that can bite you while tuning. For more info on the topic check this article, it's written by Greg Banish who writes my now favorite book on the subject because it's clear, concise, and to the point. His OEM background also means he's very methodical. He runs the website that hosts the file so you can check there for other info as well: http://www.calibratedsuccess.com/Assets/Documentation/Fuel%20Injector%20Article.pdf

Tim ~ what are you using for your spark again? Stock STI coils seem to withstand 6.5:1 pretty well, but they DO like to run pretty rich, even with the gasoline. I have a feeling your BSFC is quite a bit higher than most STI combinations (think about it, stock they'll put out a measly 165HP with 2.5 liters and HIGHER compression than the turbo variants... I bet your motor without a turbo would easily see 250+ at the crank, if not wheels...) And yes, you're right. At 50-60 degrees it's not so bad starting cold. But even in the bay area nights dip well into the 30's at times, which makes starting the car before or near sunrise a challenge. Where I'm at now in Vacaville sub-freezing overnight temps are a normal occurrence, not a once in a while event. And regarding the smoke, alcohol just about always burns visibly clean, with near zero soot, so the black smoke I've seen multiple STIs spew has got to be large amounts of gasoline in the mix finally igniting. And you'd be surprised how low on ethanol the mixes get even in the bay area. It's actually quite hard to find real E85 in the dead of winter, making those handy GM sensors nearly mandatory. I'd love to chat about your experience with the TEC3 as I'm getting slightly more versed with the world outside of MS, but I won't clutter up this thread. Overall I think we're doing a decent job of giving the OP good on point info.

By the way, for my E85 install I plan to run a dual injection setup, running pump gas off boost and E85 on boost. This makes things slightly MORE complicated in some ways, but it simplifies others. More complicated: Need extra injector bosses, fuel rail, tank, pump, etc. Two totally different fuels to tune (but not any different than having a dedicated race fuel table set) Double expense on many parts, like injectors Your ECU needs to support it decently well (I'll be running MS3X) Less Complicated: No need to be worried about cold start issues Because the engine shuts down on pump gas there's no chance of corrosive alcohol being left in the cylinders that might by chance start corrosion E85 tank can be smaller with a simpler mounting arrangement This also has the added benefit that if you're on a trip and you run out of E85 you can just force the wastegate open and drive easy on it and make it home on pump gas.

Considering you're running wasted spark and not sequential spark, I'd get a crank trigger on that sucker! EDIS isn't a bad option, but really all you need is the ignitors, as MS can control the rest. Floating around the msextra forums I've seen quite a few different methods to tackling the same mountain. But this has certainly happened to more than a few people, and you've gotten some good advice already as to how to keep it from happening in the future.

If you're considering E85 you can pretty much consider that a solid 20%, if not more, increase in power potential from a given setup. This is given the assumption you've stopped raising boost due to heat. PSI for PSI you'll probably only see a net increase of about 3-5%, but with slightly faster spool times, increasing mid range HP. The downsides? It doesn't like to start a cold engine, and if you're running the turbo longlock 7.4:1 getting it to cold start will be fun to say the least. Most STI's @ a 8:1 compression spew a black cloud once they finally start on E85 since it takes such a huge amount to get it started. Why? Because alcohol needs HEAT to burn with significant energy. That's why we like it. It's heat requirement is exactly related to the heat it REMOVES from your combustion charge, another reason timing gets PULLED with E85, because the burn is slower due to the lower temps. So getting E85 started on a cold morning is actually relying on the gasoline content of roughly 15%, which takes a LOT to near your E10 variety of fuels. Another serious downside is that if you need to USE it, or STORE it! If it absorbs as much as 2% water (which it will sitting open to atmosphere) then it starts becoming extremely corrosive. Even aluminum will start to pit if you let this happen. If you plan to keep things open to atmosphere for any significant time you need to have stainless EVERYTHING, and pray it doesn't eat your injectors. The solution is to have an airtight system with valve going to the vacuum lines so you can seal it up when left to sit. If you're worried about temperature expansion/contraction you an install a large pressure relief plate that's just a diaphragm with a spring allowing changes in volume to act against the spring instead of warping your tank. Injectors need to be large. I mean LARGE. You need to be ready to run down to 6:1 AFR (yes the damn fuel will still run down there and make power, even those stoich is 9.7. That's lambda .62 at which point gasoline would be at a mere 9.1:1! That also puts you at nearly twice the injector size requirement. For 400 whp I would recommend not even considering going anywhere less than a 1000cc injector. Gasoline injector requirements would be around 600cc give or take depending on BSFC and fuel pressure, and if you wanted to run "similar" lambda numbers then you only need about a 800cc E85 injector... but why do that? The point of E85 is that it doesn't misfire when you go rich, and it doesn't foul plugs. So you add extra fuel as a cooling agent, which helps stabilize the burn and prevent detonation. That is why you need huge injectors. Don't be afraid to tune that sucker RICH under boost. Now, regarding turbo choice. I think the GTX3076 is a wonderful choice, especially on E85. That combination should get to your goals with relative ease. If running pump gas I think it'd make it, but I'd want a larger turbo if I was running it under boost for long periods, like at a HPDE event. If drag racing? No worries. Street car? No worries. But that turbo will be getting quite hot over time at those levels. At 400 whp you're approximating 475hp, or roughly 45-55 lb/min worth of air, depending on VE. If this is a relatively stock head I'd bet closer to the 55 lb/min end of that guess. You're also going to be around... 30-32psi with a stock head. Maybe higher actually. Look at that area of the GTX3076R's map... You're starting to get pretty high, and due to the compressor's size you might be flirting with surge depending on how soon it spools on you. But, you're going to be running the new whiz-bang senza intake (did I spell that right? Sorry if I didn't). If you're doing some BASIC head work to match, and making sure to do the appropriate port work on the exhaust manifold side, then things start to change. Are you running flat top pistons? If so that starts to change some things too. Moving the peak HP up just 500rpm makes a WORLD of difference. Now you're only expecting about 26-27psi which gets you that much closer to and ideal match with this turbo. If we assume that a stock 7.4:1 untouched chamber is about a .55 BSFC and an unshrouded and polished chamber with a 8.3:1 is just a mere 2 point imporovement to .53 BSFC that drops you down to around 25psi for expected boost levels. Now we're getting somewhere. See, there's a butt ton of variables at play here, and unless you have a very good idea of what your VE curve looks like, and roughly what BSFC you'll be expecting, along with what fuel you're using and such, then it's extremely difficult to plot your engine against a compressor map. But all that said, I certainly think the GTX3076 is large enough for your goals, because if you needed a larger turbo then you probably have some work to do on your head. At any rate is that 45-50 lb/min range you should be looking at on a compressor map, because that's about how much air you're going to need regardless of the pressure ratio. And in that sense, you're in the ballpark, and considering that you're on the further end of it's map it should spool nicely for all things considered (especially being a GTX series).

There's SOOO much information in there for those willing to see the forrest through all the trees. Example 1. Notice the graph that shows HP to boost pressure. Notice each engine is PERFECTLY linear? Hmmm... More than that, notice how the engine designed with stricter boost regulations has a STEEPER but STILL perfectly linear line? Hmm... There's a lesson in there for anyone willing to pay attention, and that's just scratcing the surface of the wonderful information in there.

^ all good info that came out of Tony surprisingly easy. For more info and lots of amazing graphs to get you thinking (but not to live by without your own testing) check out the Honda SAE paper: http://www.scribd.com/doc/123732288/SAE-Honda-RA168E-Engine With their fuel mixture they saw as much as a 2% variance of BSFC accross the useable range of the fuel temperature. 2% of extra fuel per mile on part throttle parts of a course can be just enough fuel savings to make a race.

Yea, that's kind what I figured/feared. I'll shoot a PM and see if he doesn't mind digging through old pictures.

Also, if you're looking for a bit more permanent solution you can use a heat exchanger, but unless you add a secondary water source with pump, and instead use your engine coolant then there's a good chance you'll be HEATING your fuel. These guys can be fairly affordable though, and used in many fields where temperature control is crucial. A good example is in brewing where you want to extract your mash at a very controlled temp as it transfers to the fermentor as just a few degrees can dramatically change the flavor. By putting a valve on either your mash to fermentor or your coolant (usually tap water) then you can control the temp perfectly. Either way you use a valve on the outlet to prevent exchanger cavitation. I'm pretty sure when Honda was using exchangers to HEAT their fuel they were using a simlar setup, and most likely with a PID controller of some sort and a way to bypass it under WOT. Oh, and for those asking "why" they'd do that... Think economy... Oh, and a link to a cheap exchanger that'll do the job just fine: http://www.dudadiesel.com/choose_item.php?id=HX1210&gclid=CNbY4pSemroCFSiCQgodSBoA8A

Oh I hate you! That's my kind of sexy. Keep a tab on the cost and keep people like me informed. I LOVE LOVE LOVE how much that screams "Yes, I'm DIY, and yes, I'm awesome".

Not hard at all. If you want to get really fancy take AC evaporator (cleaned inside and out of course) and hook it up to your fuel return line. Then for added awesomeness get a ice chest full of ice water and dump the evaporator into the ice chest. How many of us have spare evaporators around? I know I've got several.... Just make sure to do it with the return for two reasons. 1. It's low pressure, versus high pressure, and 2. You don't want to cool the fuel down TOO much as it could skew your tune significantly as cooler fuel WILL cool the chambers more, meaning it will advance your optimal timing settings since a cooler charge takes longer to burn, leaving you overly aggressive once you remove the cooler from the lines.

Does anyone (monzter included) know if there's a way to find all these pictures still? Every time I click on one of his pictures in this thread I get an "invalid IPB path" error.

I said relatively for a reason. Obviously you don't need 50k to do it, but what I've dubbed the "big phil" approach is far to common (no offense Phil, I respect you in the highest). Too often the approach of "fix as it breaks" is taken and people wonder why they're not getting to their goals. They put on a whiz-bang intake and are curious why there isn't a huge power gain, or think they need a fancy exhaust manifold they can't afford and blame that on their power. If you really read that interview you should be left with what most of us say: 1. Sort the head out. 2. Build it as a SYSTEM 3. TUNE TUNE TUNE Funny! I blame the heads as to why they didn't make MORE! But yea, when I originally read that way back I thought "oh, that's how they got around all those pesky issues with the VG block..." Oh, and for an interesting point, go find 2JZ motors making 1,100+ to the wheels, and try to find out what boost pressure they're running. Most I've seen are running 50+. In other words... even today you still need the same boost pressures to reach the same HP levels for a given head flow ability. The difference between the 2JZ and the L is that the 2JZ makes that power to the wheels instead of the fly on that much boost, oh and the 2JZ can easily reach more displacement. The difference today is how available the recipe is to get there. Many shops can do it if you just show up with a check book in hand, while back in the day most would have just laughed and shown you the door.

I'm willing to bet that with today's access to quality control systems, paired with no restrictions to fuel and such, those eletromotive numbers could be beat by someone with decently deep pockets too.