400 real whp from a VG33ET @ 15psi boost

[BLOZ UP]

OK lets look at a couple of modern multi valve highly developed turbo engines in high performance cars. The GTR with a 3.8 liter engine manages around 540 hp while the Porsche 3.6 liter 997 does around 520hp. Knock off say 20 percent for driveline etc losses on a wheel dyno and we have 436 and 416 hp ATW. So the claim is that the single cam two valve VG engine with a lot less displacement and OE heads will do better than the Nissan and Porsche efforts?

 

C'mon, get real.

 

Mmmm that depends on your definition of "do better". I'm willing to bet the GTR and Porsche have a lot more area under the curve. See random pic from web:

 

[Gollum]

V8 anyone ? Don't get me wrong , I like Nissan motors except for my Z32 ( a pain in the a** to work on ) . An LS motor will get your HP goal with ease and it's lighter too . As for the cost , if you do it right you can have it for far less than 6K .

 

Ummm, how about saving about 100lbs, and putting the weight even FURTHER back compared to the stock L6... Plenty of reasons to go with the VG, even if it's not what you'd do.

 

I, myself, like the VQ engines. Unboosted the VQs pull in around 300 horses +/- depending on model just stock. That's nothing to complain about.  I've heard of TT applications pushing 500HP on low boost. 

 

Yea but that's not really the topic here... Nothing wrong with the VQ imo, I'm just saying that the topic is in regard to the VG, and there's nothing "wrong" with that.

 

not much point going above 15psi according to the tuner because the power gains there were poor.

 

There's VERY limited reasons power will stop increasing linearly per PSI. #1 reason is heat. Turbos out of their pressure ratio/flow optimization will start creating too much heat to be worth it. #2. Pressure ratio in relation to boost versus backpressure can start to really reduce power increases. There's PLENTY of examples showing real world setups that actually produce MORE pressure in the exhaust than the intake, and they're "just fine" by many standards. But when you start to reach 3, or even 4 bar of pressure to make 2 bar in the intake... well power per PSI will be down.

 

Put the RIGHT turbo on, for the power goals, and you'll find a much easier task of reaching those goals.

 

 

And to complete the story here is the VG33ET dyno sheet showing that characteristic single cam VG power dip.

 

You know.... Add E85 to that dyno and I'd say you're damn close to your goals already...

 

OK lets look at a couple of modern multi valve highly developed turbo engines in high performance cars. The GTR with a 3.8 liter engine manages around 540 hp while the Porsche 3.6 liter 997 does around 520hp. Knock off say 20 percent for driveline etc losses on a wheel dyno and we have 436 and 416 hp ATW. So the claim is that the single cam two valve VG engine with a lot less displacement and OE heads will do better than the Nissan and Porsche efforts?

 

C'mon, get real.

 

I don't think he was saying that. Those engines also don't run 15psi to make those power levels and the VG is simply going to require more than 15psi to get there on OE heads. But let's look at this a different way...

 

Power on boost will be DIRECTLY influenced by what power the engine makes NA. A 3 liter VG makes roughly similar power levels as the L when bored/stroked to 3 liters. The L engine's main advantage is RPM. It's not rocket science to make a L engine rev to 8k or beyond, and even make peak power at 6k or above. The VG is extremely hard to make peak power levels up there, and do it well. But if you compare a VG and a L engine that both peak at 5k, then you'll see they make very similar HP & Torque for a given level of build.

 

What's my point in all this? Without serious headwork, few make it to 400hp in a L engine for very long. It takes high PSI, which means high heat, which means hard to manage tuning. Do some headwork, and cam it so it makes power higher up and all of the sudden you find quite a few examples making 400+hp. There's plenty of examples of VG's making 400+hp, and the ones that have nice power bands have headwork done and other supporting mods.

 

It sounds to me like you want Jason's highest dyno figure posted, but he required 20-21psi to get there. But his head work + cams certainly paid off as he made peak HP at about 5600, with a peak power of 450, with 400+ HP range from 4300-6300rpm. Not too shabby... The kicker is that even he DID NOT have a huge torque band, and shows a similar torque curve as most restrictive head dynos I've seen... But that's also what gives the motor it's very BROAD HP curve, which I personally find a desirable trait for some applications.

 

If you want something that makes peak torque from full boost till redline you want something with REALLY good heads, which the VG will never be. Example:

 

 

What's this 450hp mystery engine? Just a wee litle 1.6 liter running 20psi... Yes, that's right, a 1.6 liter... HALF the size of Jason's VG engine, make the SAME HP at the SAME PSI level... 

 

It's a Honda B16.

 

But at least Jason's engine made that power for a FAR larger RPM band, and would thus propel a car to much faster times at the 1/4 mile.

[Domzs]

Where did you come up with that number ? All I know is that , both of my Zs sat higher after I did the conversions . That tells me , the LS motor/trans combo is lighter . I don't think the VG is more than 100 lbs. lighter than the L6 . IMO , the LS is lighter due to the use of aluminum and plastic .

[Gollum]

The V8 isn't lighter than the L motor. Your front end went upwards because the weight was so much further back...

 

The L engine weights are well documented here on this site, as well as LS weights. And the VG in non turbo form is WELL under 400 lbs, even lighter than the LS. Maybe not 100lbs, but between engine and trans? Maybe. I was making the point that there's OTHER FACTORS than HP. The packaging of a V6 is about as good as good gets if that's your goal. The VG30ET might be about the same weight as a LS, but it's also got cast manifolds and a heavy turbo. If we were comparing NA versus NA, I wouldn't be surprised to see a 75+ lb difference.

 

Since it only took 5 seconds to find... http://forums.hybridz.org/topic/59086-enginetrans-weights-definitive/

Edited September 8, 2013 by Gollum

[78zstyle]

 

I'd have to disagree. Put a proper modern turbo on a VG30E(T) or VG33E and you will see plenty of power. A proper turbo and aftermarket cams and valve springs and you can see a nice improvement to the powerband and plenty of power. 

 

My brothers Z is still on a bone stock bottom end with a 1/4 of a million miles. He's replaced the cams and is running a billet PT6262 turbo, front facing tubular manifolds, NISTUNE and E85. Were expecting a solid 500+WHP and similar torque on high boost...already been for a few pulls and it pulls good   .

 

 

SHORT vid i took of a quick 2nd gear pull:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X93SP7586mg&feature=em-upload_owner

 

 

 

...thats 500 HP?

 

Hm...

[78zstyle]

This is 421 WHP? I'm a little confused.

 

[Domzs]

The V8 isn't lighter than the L motor. Your front end went upwards because the weight was so much further back...

 

The L engine weights are well documented here on this site, as well as LS weights. And the VG in non turbo form is WELL under 400 lbs, even lighter than the LS. Maybe not 100lbs, but between engine and trans? Maybe. I was making the point that there's OTHER FACTORS than HP. The packaging of a V6 is about as good as good gets if that's your goal. The VG30ET might be about the same weight as a LS, but it's also got cast manifolds and a heavy turbo. If we were comparing NA versus NA, I wouldn't be surprised to see a 75+ lb difference.

 

Since it only took 5 seconds to find... http://forums.hybridz.org/topic/59086-enginetrans-weights-definitive/

On my 83 ZXT , I had to lowered front and rear to bring it back down to some what fact ( before conversion ) ride height . It had turbo w/ T5 and converted to LS w/ T56 . And my 78 , the front end was higher and the rear was about the same . It had 5 spd and converted to LS w/ auto . Of course , the auto is much heavier than the 5 spd and so is the T56 . Search found that a full dressed LS is about 400 lbs. Trust me , I was very surprised when I first saw the front end after I removed the engine hoist . I threw everything I could think of like oil , coolant , etc. on top of the motor and the result was about the same .

[Domzs]

 

I'd have to disagree. Put a proper modern turbo on a VG30E(T) or VG33E and you will see plenty of power. A proper turbo and aftermarket cams and valve springs and you can see a nice improvement to the powerband and plenty of power. 

 

My brothers Z is still on a bone stock bottom end with a 1/4 of a million miles. He's replaced the cams and is running a billet PT6262 turbo, front facing tubular manifolds, NISTUNE and E85. Were expecting a solid 500+WHP and similar torque on high boost...already been for a few pulls and it pulls good   .

 

 

SHORT vid i took of a quick 2nd gear pull:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X93SP7586mg&feature=em-upload_owner

 

 

I like your brother's setup , looks good . Where did he get forward facing headers ? I might do something like with my 84 turbo .

[Gollum]

On my 83 ZXT , I had to lowered front and rear to bring it back down to some what fact ( before conversion ) ride height . It had turbo w/ T5 and converted to LS w/ T56 . And my 78 , the front end was higher and the rear was about the same . It had 5 spd and converted to LS w/ auto . Of course , the auto is much heavier than the 5 spd and so is the T56 . Search found that a full dressed LS is about 400 lbs. Trust me , I was very surprised when I first saw the front end after I removed the engine hoist . I threw everything I could think of like oil , coolant , etc. on top of the motor and the result was about the same .

 

I know i'm just splitting hairs here, and I don't doubt your experience..

 

But in the 1st example, that's a turbo engine... which I guarantee is a SOLID 50lbs heavier than the NA configuration. The T5 is also about 20lbs heavier than the NA transmission too (I've had them side by side more than once).

 

And though I agree with you on the LS1 weight. An all aluminum LS will weight in right over 400 lbs... but that's usually without accessories, and most people with readings sub 400lbs turn out to not have a flywheel on it... The problem is that you can get a LS1 weight anywhere from 385-440lbs depending on how you trim it. It's the same story with any motor. The stock NA L series you replaced probably had the stock cast manifold that's a boat anchor. It probably also had the stone age AC compressor that weighs about 30lbs. There's all sorts of accessories that add up, and things that can be changed. The reality is that a BARE longblock, complete only from oil pan to valve cover, DRY is only around 400lbs, right in the same range as the LS...

 

..but my point wasn't about the LS versus the L28, it was the LS versus the VG. It's pretty well documented that the VG30E is WELL under 400lbs, possibly as low as 320lbs depending on how it's dressed.

 

At any rate, even the turbo variant will be light than a LS, and even if it's "close" then the weight is still much further back, which is desirable for some, and a valid reason to want to go with that platform.

 

Once again, to reiterate, I'm not against LS swaps. I'm just saying have an open mind about why someone might want to go with a particular platform, that's all. There is no best.

[FlawleZ]

I don't mean to insult anyone personally, but this thread is absolutely RAMPANT with IGNORANCE. It's simply appalling to me that someone could consider themselves "obsessed" yet know so little and assume so much. 

 

Let me educate you:

 

Back in 2008 I made 364 RWHP and 480 RWTQ on an internally bone stock VG30ET. The motor at the time had ~200K miles. This is a 3.0 with 7.8:1 compression. I used a small 50 Trim T3/T4 @ 24 lbs hence the large amount of torque.

 

You can see my dyno here:

 

http://web.archive.org/web/20110717195602/http://www.vg30et.com/members/mattwiedower.html

 

If you look here:

 

http://web.archive.org/web/20120220074716/http://www.vg30et.com/members.html

 

You'll see a number of people who have achieved over 350 RWHP on the SOHC VG30. Almost all have done this on stock OE short blocks. As you can see, several have achieved and surpassed even 450 RWHP. Almost all of these were done on old, inefficient, inferior turbos to what's available today.

 

As of right now, I'm currently running a Precision Bill 6262 using THE SAME bottom end I made 364 rwhp back in 2008, now combined with very lightly ported heads and Schneider 274 Cams. I expect to dyno within the next ~30 days and I won't be driving off the dyno with less than 500 RWHP. 

 

Another prime example is Rick88SS who put down 525 RWHP on a bone stock NA VG30E simply with a 6262 Turbo and Isky cams. His dyno is here:

 

 

There are a number of people who have FAR surpassed Rick's numbers, I only posted this to show how easy and simple it was to break 500 RWHP. I can post dynos and cars of up to 700+ RWHP on VG30E SOHC Z31's.

 

The biggest factor in determining the desired power goals will ALWAYS be exactly which turbo you use. Using old, inefficient, and often times undersized turbos will always limit the power regardless of how well any engine or set of heads flow. 

 

*EDIT* Please excuse the links, the main site has been down for a long time and looks like Web Archive is recently down. I'll update with my own hosted images and information.

Edited September 11, 2013 by FlawleZ

[FlawleZ]

Here's a link to my dynograph from 2008:

 

 

 

 

Oh and my car is the car RedBeauty84zx posted.

[BLOZ UP]

Ha, Lethal Performance. I used to work there. They should know better than to print out a graph with unaligned axis.

 

The point of this thread, I think, isn't weather you can break 300 or 400hp, it's whether you can get a nice, non-peaky, torque curve that spans 3000 RPM. If you convert your MPH to RPM, does you graph show that?

[RedBeauty84ZX]

OK lets look at a couple of modern multi valve highly developed turbo engines in high performance cars. The GTR with a 3.8 liter engine manages around 540 hp while the Porsche 3.6 liter 997 does around 520hp. Knock off say 20 percent for driveline etc losses on a wheel dyno and we have 436 and 416 hp ATW. So the claim is that the single cam two valve VG engine with a lot less displacement and OE heads will do better than the Nissan and Porsche efforts?

 

C'mon, get real.

 

Better in what way? Your not going to make up for the decades of technology and improvements that have been made on the newer GTR or Porsche turbo engines, those engines will always be more advanced and more efficient at making power. But that doesn't mean you can't "better" them in power with the right configuration. It's really not hard or expensive to make 500+HP in an old VG, been done numerous times on junk yard engines with a good turbo setup. 

 

Not sure why you were so stuck on the 15PSI limit with your engine. You would of broke 400WHP if you ran more boost.

[Gollum]

Not sure why you were so stuck on the 15PSI limit with your engine. You would of broke 400WHP if you ran more boost.

 

But he was told there isn't much power past that PSI level....  

[260DET]

This is 421 WHP? I'm a little confused.

 

 

That's with the VG30DET engine, not the VG33ET donk.

[260DET]

Unbelievable, some of the usual VG30ET wishful thinking power posts here. Go back and read my original post plus the modern hi-po engine HP details and then comment, mine was no half arsed engine project eg MoTec M600 ECU, M&W CD ignition with a crank trigger, all dyno tuned by a V8 Supercar experienced operator. I wasted a few thousand on R&D but who cares, internet opinion and power figures are always right.

[260DET]

Some more facts not claims, this time concerning the ability of the VG33ET to breathe and so make power, compared with a VG30DET which is presently in the Z. Both using similar or the same systems, like exhaust, turbo, IC and so on.

 

VG33ET - inlet valve area 907sq mm, 358whp @ 15psi boost

 

VG30DET - total inlet valve area 1385sq mm, 421whp @ 15psi boost.

 

Further, on the same dyno with the same operator, the DET continued to make good power well past 15psi boost while the ET did not. An indicator of this was the high inlet temps being generated by the ET and not by the DET.

 

The simple fact of the matter, as illustrated above, is that the stock ET heads will not flow sufficiently to make more power without the inlet valve and cam work mentioned previously. I wish I was wrong as this little exercise has cost me $.

[Gollum]

260ET, let's think about this... what creates heat in the inlet temps? I mean, the REAL root cause... not a side factor.

 

You say that the engines had a comparable turbo setup, but what does that mean? What exact turbo(s) on each engine?

 

And on some level I extremely agree with you. The ET heads suck compared to the DET. The L engine P90, or any other L head for that matter, suck compared to a KA, RB, 2JZ, etc head. But we have to deal with that if we want to continue pursuit of using that engine.

 

But there's two things you seem married to.

 

1. A broad flat torque curve.

 

2. A boost level of 15psi.

 

For the 1st point, I want to say that you'll only make a flat torque curve if you've got a VERY efficient head setup, which I just see as being very hard to do on the VG ET heads. Even the IMSA engine didn't have a "flat" torque curve, and instead dropped with RPM just like all the VG dyno's I've seen. The exception is that they were also running a staged boost setup which kept the torque building as RPM's would rise. I think you can achieve a nice "power band" but that's not torque, which is what you've stated.

 

To the 2nd point, there's TONS of dyno's out there, some of which belong to people I've met and trust, of people making 400+ to the wheels on the VG3XET. ALL of them are well beyond 15psi. That's just a fact of life unless you want to invest $20k in the heads to have a race motor build that will be completely unusable in most street driving scenarios.

 

To fix your inlet temp issue, you need the right turbo for your setup, which it sounds like you don't have. One turbo might have nice temps at 15psi flowing 400hp worth of fuel, while the same turbo might be terrible at making cool air flow at 15psi at 300hp worth of air.

 

If I knew your turbo specs for each motor I could at least plot where on the compressor map you were at dyno'ed HP levels you stated, at 15psi and figure out where you were in it's efficiency, and about what RPM range it was running at. Knowing that will go a LONG way to figuring out if that turbo should have more power in it for that setup or not. Just because a turbo can make 500hp on one engine, doesn't mean it can even make 300hp on another. On of the big reasons I don't exactly like using the Holset turbos on the L engine is that most of them are made for diesel engines and are designed for REALLY high PSI levels, which means that's where the efficiency is. Run that turbo at 10-20psi and odds are you'll never extract it's full potential.

 

Just some food for thought. I'm not trying to bash you or what you want, just help you find your way in the dark.

[260DET]

Same turbo G, GTX3585R, thought I'd made that clear, sorry. As can be seen from the dyno sheet the 33 spooled up like a boss, how could the turbo in that situation be responsible for anything negative as far as inlet temps go is beyond me. Incidentially both engines use/used their original turbo manifolds, very similar dumps into the same exhaust system. Why the differences seem so obvious to me is because we have a comparison betwwen two different yet comparable engines using as far as practical the same systems, as mentioned previously.

 

A better word/phrase for 'flat' when describing torque curves would have been 'useable in a race situation' over a 3000rpm range. Fifteen PSI boost was used as a practical comparison for a road/track car, a compramise between power and engine life/reliability. A few horsepower here and there do not matter much, driveability is everything for a amateur racer when trying to hold it all together in a time compressed scenario. Over to you

Edited September 20, 2013 by 260DET

[BLOZ UP]

I think keeping at or under ~20psi has been shown pretty reliable on the VG30E.