400 real whp from a VG33ET @ 15psi boost

[Gollum]

Ah, so now we have a turbo we can look into, thanks.

 

The GTX3585R (not the 82R eh?), if my assumption is right, based off of Garrett nomenclature, that's a 54 trim versus the 56 trim they have specs for on their site (GTX3582R).

 

If that's the case, then that turbo should just be STARTING to come alive at 400-425 crank HP, and be able to flow a good 650-700 crank HP worth of air. But the crux, it's efficiency map (based off of the very similar 82R), means it'll happily make 400HP at around 13psi, but in order to push 600HP it wants to be up around 40 PSI... 

 

Basically, at your PSI level desires, this turbo might be a tad small. The reason the DET is making so much more HP is due to a couple of factors (by my best guess, based off of quite a bit of turbo swapping and seeing various turbos in radically different situations)

 

1. The DET is probably making peak power closer to 6500 or beyond, not the 5500 of the ET. That alone is worth a 77hp difference if the torque of both engines was 400lbs at HP peak.

 

2. The ET just barely makes it into the usable range of this turbo, and turning up the boost just pushes you further away, as the heads just aren't allowing enough flow/pressure ratio.

--a. This is an indication of how well the heads flow. If all other factors are equal, like the intake, exhaust, turbo etc are all equal, then the only other factor is the heads

--b. The easiest way to overcome this is to either improve the heads, or change the parameters, which might require other subsequent changes.

-----Some Examples:

-----1.Run fuel that allows more torque per RPM, like race gas or E85. Odds are you're timing limited and getting around that limitation will get you into the BSFC you need to reach

-----2.Cool the intake air more, maybe using water injection or an air/water intercooler

 

 

As some food for thought, let's consider the turbos that people that ARE getting 400+ HP from the ET, and compare their size and pressure levels to achieve that level of HP.

 

Note: Your turbo by my calculation is a 54 trim compressor, which is one of the most consistent measurements in knowing the overall size of the compressor. A lower trim can certainly outflow a higher trim, and I'm not going to get into nitty gritty details, as all the info is out there for those curious to research.

 

1. Rick Hausman

439 WHP @ 5500

Turbo: T64e

Inducer: 66mm

PSI: Unknown

 

2.Michael Bresette

394 WHP

Turbo: GT3582R

Inducer: 61.4mm

PSI: Unknown (but I bet it's HIGH considering it's even smaller than your turbo and has a tiny map by comparison)

 

3. Rick Hernandez

423 WHP

Turbo: T4/T04e 60-1 Trim

Inducer: Unknown, could be anything, but the thing is still a pretty good trim, so it can flow some air

PSI: 23 (403hp at 20psi)

 

4. Kyle Ellis

399.5 WHP @ 5,000rpm

Turbo: T3/T4 57 Trim

Inducer: Unknown

PSI: Unknown

 

5. Steve Sebes

440 WHP

Turbo: T3/TO4R

Inducer: 66.5mm

PSI: Unknown

 

6. Jason Butts

453 WHP

Turbo: T3/TO4S 60-1 Trim

Inducer: Unknown, but can see the build of it on his site

PSI: 21

 

7. Ken Hogg

450 WHP @ 6,000

Turbo: T3/TO4e 60 trim

Inducer: Unknown

PSI: Unknown

 

8. 1sickZ

530 WHP @ 5,800 (this is the torque curve you're wanting I bet, best high RPM torque I've seen on a ET motor that's not a professional race car like the IMSA engine)

http://www.redz31.net/turbofaq/dynographs/1Sickzdyno.jpg

Turbo: T4

Inducer: Unknown

PSI 24

 

9. BLOZ UP

390 WHP @ 5,000-5,200

Turbo: T3/TO4e 57 trim

Inducer: Unknown, but ask him, he's in your thread...

PSI: 18

 

 

So that's 9 examples of people past, near, or right at where you want to be. Some things that stand out: 1. Most are running HIGHER trim turbos, but they're older turbos, and many times running in a hybrid setup on a T3 turbine. Your "smaller" turbo should keep up with most of these just fine. 2. Of the ones we have PSI levels for, they're all significantly higher than 15 lbs. 3. The ones we have graphs for usually show a similar HP peak and torque curve to yours.

 

The most important conclusion I think this should bring you to, is that there's power left in your turbo, but it's going to require more boost on your current heads. The other part of the conclusion is that whoever said that there's no point in going past 15psi is either full of bull crap, or he was referencing another limitation that hasn't been presented, like maybe a fuel requirement, lack of injector size, or maybe something else.

[260DET]

S**t, you went to all that trouble after I hit a wrong key, sorry. Yeh, GTX3582R it is, a dream turbo on the DET with virtually no lag and inlet temps hardly more than ambient. Have to knock the boost back to 5psi on the street otherwise it spins wheels and attracts unwanted attention.

 

As to the maximum boost of 15 psi used on the ET, we did try more boost but it resulted in very little more power and significantly increased inlet temps. Given the good work done on it the obvious conclusion was that the heads objected to pushing more airflow. In the circumstances I find it very hard to believe that others with less or no more apparent overall development put out more power than mine. See previous info on bigger inlet valves and higher lift cam required to get to 400 whp, that advice from a proven independent pro source too.

[Gollum]

Power will ALWAYS increase in a linear fashion per PSI on ANY engine.

 

The variable that keeps that absolute from ACTUALLY happening is HEAT. You even just noted that you guys raised the boost, and the inlet temps went up and power was rolling off...

 

...that turbo should have room left to grow on that setup. I almost wonder if something was wrong. Maybe something was throwing the tune off, like maybe the timing the ECU was showing was off from reality? Maybe you're getting weak spark at those HP levels?

 

I'd sooner blame the details then the turbo or heads at that point... And the fact it is the GTX3582R, you made about 400-420 CRANK HP at 15PSI, which means you're not way out of efficiency with that turbo, and it should take to 3 bar just fine. You'll be building boost out of efficiency, but MAX HP should definitely be nearing happy territory for that compressor, which means more PSI shouldn't create THAT much more heat.

 

If that motor is still together in the exact state it was dyno'ed I'd do a pressure test on the whole system and then go down the checklist to make sure every system was working as it should. Verify EVERYTHING.

 

At the end of the day, you made 400+ crank HP at 15psi, which means it's well capable of making 200+ crank HP without the turbo, possibly around 225 by my guess (if you had NA cams, a NA tune, etc). That's put around 190 to the wheels and you simply don't see many VG3XE's out there doing that. Hell, I've seen L28ET's make less than that at 10PSI... So whoever has done your engine work, certainly hasn't done anything wrong when it comes to getting the heads to flow. They're not lazy heads, that's for sure.

 

And some food for thought, even the 965HP VG30ET that Electromotive built still had it's torque peak at 5,500 RPM...

 

Notice how once the boost hits it's final/top level that the boost reaches it's peak and slowly falls off all the way to redline. The fact it falls off so slowly is quite amazing, but it's still showing the serious lack of top end flow ability the SOHC motors were limited to.

 

Meanwhile it seems like there's a plethora of backyard tuning shops that have reached similar numbers on the DETT motors...

[260DET]

Thanks for taking the time to look at this G, but honestly I cannot see how a VG30ET using stock heads and valves can make more power than the subject VG33ET irrespective of what turbo was used. A turbo will only flow what the engine allows so I can't see how more boost can overcome engine flow limitations to any significant degree. Sure it may be possible to spike a high power figure on a dyno, I've seen this happen myself, but we are talking sustainable power for the real world. Plus the GTX3582R is a great turbo, as proven on the DET engine, and very likely a better and cooler performer than any older turbos used in the past.

 

The testing that was done with the 33 involved using all the bolt on parts and systems that have been proven previously and since to produce more power and be reliable with the DET engine. Even the intake system was the same up to the plenum which itself was a similar custom made job. Then we have the power outputs of the GTR and 997 engines mentioned previously which work out between them at 115 hp per liter atw assuming a 20% power loss. To get just 400 hp atw from a ET requires 133 hp per liter. Can we seriously say that a VG30ET engine using stock heads and valves produces a lot more power per liter than two of the best modern high performance turbo engines in the world?

 

Then we have the pro advice I have, as previously mentioned, which basically says to get 400 whp out of the 33 will require bigger valves and a significantly higher lift cam than the present items. Which all accords with the results so far. Wish this was not so but no point in flogging a dead horse

[Gollum]

Can we seriously say that a VG30ET engine using stock heads and valves produces a lot more power per liter than two of the best modern high performance turbo engines in the world?

 

Then we have the pro advice I have, as previously mentioned, which basically says to get 400 whp out of the 33 will require bigger valves and a significantly higher lift cam than the present items. Which all accords with the results so far. Wish this was not so but no point in flogging a dead horse

 

And this is exactly why it's NOT a head horse.

 

The two other engines mentioned, the GTR and the 997...

 

The GTR pushes 11psi and spikes to about 14 in certain conditions.

 

The 997 has a computer controller wastegate and at peak power is normally only around 12PSI (but will be higher in short gears where RPM's aren't held. The ECU lowers boost in a long 4th or 5th gear pull at peak HP, probably for protection)

 

So really, why are we comparing these?

 

I'll say it again. ALL ENGINES will produce MORE POWER in a LINEAR fashion per PSI. If you engine creates MORE horsepower than another at X PSI, it will produce similarly MORE at a raised boost level, if all things are equal (in other words if the engines stay identical from 10 psi to 20 psi and motor 2 has 20 more HP than motor 1 at 10 psi, then it will have 40 more HP than motor 1 at 20 psi), then the only variable is the turbo/force induction being used.

 

I've seen Mitsubishi Evo's put down 500+hp TO THE WHEELS on PUMP GAS, on a STOCK LONGBLOCK. Stock cams, stock head, no porting, etc. That's over 600 at the crank with AW Drivetrain losses. And that means it's putting out about 300hp per liter!

 

"A turbo will only flow what the engine allows so I can't see how more boost can overcome engine flow limitations to any significant degree."

 

This is where you're understanding force induction all wrong. Diesel applications regularly run boost levels WELL over 50psi, on the same turbos that people are afraid to run 25 PSI with on the L28ET. In those diesel applications those turbos are running against much more restrictive heads, but of course usually much higher displacement.

 

Let's inspect the map of the TURBO YOU HAVE, for educational purposes.

 

 

Enlarge that and open it in a new window so you can reference it as you read.

 

The center "island" of that map is where that compressor (the cold side of the turbo) is most efficient. This means that's the range at which the least amount of excess heat is generated (when you compress air it creates heat no matter what, but if a turbo were at "100% efficiency" it would be creating zero heat in and of itself, with the only heat being added being from the act of compression alone, required by physics).

 

Notice that the TOP of that island is at/around 2.8 BAR, which is around 40PSI. This means that if your engine was ingesting about 55-58 lbs of air per minute while the turbo was at around 105000 RPM, then 40PSI (or so) would be created and the turbo would be very near it's peak efficiency.

 

Sounds to me like this turbo could handle "more PSI" just fine, given it was on the right engine, flowing the right amount for it's efficiency range.

 

The wonderful aspect of a turbo is that it works on thermodynamics as well as aerodynamics. This means that a turbo is a heat device as much as an air device. Let's make up an example real quick to illustrate. 

 

Our example engine will be 1 liter for simple calculations.

 

At 1,000RPM ,if the engine were 100% volumetrically efficient  it would be taking in about 17.65 cubic feet of air per minute, or CFM. BUT!!! We can't convert that to pounds a minute like on our compressor map unless we know the temperature the air is when it goes into the engine. This is because a cubic foot of air might weigh more or less. At lower temperatures air is dense, and heavier. At high temperatures the air expands and becomes lighter per volume.

 

What happens inside of an engine??? Air gets HOT HOT HOT!!!

 

The weight of the air coming out of the engine will be roughly the same as it was going in, but it will want a higher volume of space to occupy because it's now much hotter and thus has expanded. This creates pressure, which is a form of energy.

 

So the air coming out of the air is larger than the air going in... get that? So we use this expanded air to push a turbine wheel, which is also connected to a compressor wheel. As air pushes the turbine the compressor wheel spins and we get an asymmetrical airflow system going on. This means that MORE AIR IS COMING INTO THE ENGINE THAN THERE WAS BEFORE. This is because we took the energy from the expanded air and transferred it into a rotational energy that's bringing in cooler air. If an engine spit out air at exactly the same temperature as it was going in, then a turbo would work on aerodynamics alone, and wouldn't work very well.

 

Now, the next key to think about in all this, is that when your boost controller hits a target pressure at the intake manifold, excess air is diverted around the turbine in order to keep the RPM on the turbo from increasing, thus stabilizing the boost pressure. So if you're VG33ET is hitting a set boost level and actually maintaining it... guess what? You've got excess energy you're bleeding off (aka excess exhaust gasses).

 

The only time I'd consider "the turbo only flowing what the engine can allow" would be in a setup with NO WASTEGATE!!!! Usually setups like this are seen only in drag racing where every piece of the system is perfectly matched and you tune and build it to keep it from blowing up as long as possible, and otherwise you want AS MUCH horsepower as possible out of it.

 

 

Now, that VG30ET that electromive built was running over 50psi, but let's see if we can figure out at least the window of volumetric efficiency it had at peak torque, so we can guess how well those heads were ACTUALLY flowing...

 

I don't know what fuel they were running, but assuming they were still making power at a very rich 12:1, and assuming a BSFC of around .50 then:

 

at 107% volumetric efficiency at 5,500 RPM to create 800 hp as shown the intake air would be around 145 degrees F

 

at 97% volumetric efficiency at 5,500 RPM to create 800 hp as shown the intake air would be around 90 degrees F.

 

Of those two examples I'd guess actual inlet temps would be around 120-130, which puts volumetric efficiency around 104%

 

 

Those might sound high, but you'd be amazed how many engines reach 100 or near 100% efficiency on not too radical of setups. It's more about what RPM they reached it at and such that starts to become impressive. Let's compare peak HP (instead of torque) percentages since we see torque is dramatically falling off.

 

at 100% volumetric efficiency at 7,400 RPM to create 965 hp as shown the intake air would be 140 degrees F

 

at 91% volumetric efficiency at 7,400 RPM to create 965 hp as show the intake air would be 90 degrees F

keep in mind that part of the torque fall off on the graph is due to boost pressure fading down slightly, which I've accounted for

 

So either way, it looks like they've lost AT LEAST 7% volumetric efficiency from peak torque to peak HP. That 7% might not sound like much, but many of the efficient DOHC heads are making about a 5% or less window for most of their upper RPM range, which is what gives you a FLAT torque curve, like this:

 

I'm not going to take the time to calculate it out, but seeing as it's a 1.6 liter making about 105 lbs of torque at the wheels it's around a 90% volumetrically efficient engine. And keep in mind that my, very lightly modified engine of that same B16 honda pictured above put over 175 HP to the wheels... with a similarly flat torque curve. I'm sure my B18 was damn close to 100% volumetrically efficient at peak torque, if not actually over. And that's on pump gas, with stock cams, on a stock head. Much more power can be had if I really wanted it, but I wasn't going to spend that deeply.

 

So again, it sounds to me like you have a LOT more power potential, but you need to be willing to raise the boost and find out why it's not making the extra horsepower. Find out the REAL reason inlet temps are going up in an proportional way. If you saw a 2-3 degree increase in temps per PSI change, but then all of the sudden say a 5-6 degree increase, there's a reason. Find that reason, and you'll find more horsepower. Obviously MANY others have overcome the quest for power on the ET heads, and it sounds like you've got the right motor to do it, just need the time and patience to find out what's going on. I'll say it one more time...

 

 

...heat in the inlet temps in a force induced engine does not originate from the head flow itself.

 

BTW, i'm going through all this with you because I care enough about you and others that spend a huge amount of money on an engine build and don't necessarily get what you can out of it, for lack of understanding. I'm not saying your engine builder doesn't know anything. I'm saying he's not taking the time to EDUCATE YOU, the CLIENT in order for you to truly UNDERSTAND what's going on. You paid him to build an engine, not teach a seminar. But without that vital education then much of the build is just lost.

[260DET]

Appreciate your effort G and I will reread and think further about what you have said . In the meantime here is a quick response.

 

The principle I am applying in all of this is that the less the engine resistance to flow is then the more it will flow at the same boost level when compared with an engine with a higher resistance to flow.  Which is why the GTR and 997 engines were mentioned. If they did not have very efficient head flows then they would not make the power that they do at the boost levels they use. In other words, increased boost will only partially compensate for poor head flows and there comes a time when increasing the boost further offers little flow improvement and excessively rising inlet temperatures.

 

Just like a garden hose with an adjustable nozzle. Adjusting the nozzle tighter increases pressure but restricts flow just like a 'tighter' head restricts flow. And flow/volume is what we want at the lowest pressure we can achieve.

 

I'm not sure what quoting the Electramotive engines achieves. No doubt they replaced their turbochargers regularly using such high boost and of course their heads were way better than what we have. Their inlet temps must have been sky high which may be acceptable in a high level race engine just like running water thin oil is. But not practical for us mere mortal amateurs who like a bit of a safety margin.

[260DET]

Given the commonality of systems as previously mentioned, for comparison below is the VG30DET dyno sheet. Note the very useable 3000 rpm power spread and comparing the torque figures between it and the VG33ET we see that the DET has 405 ft/lb @ 4900 while the ET does 395 ft/lb @ 4200 rpm. The ET starts off well but is unable to go on with the job of delivering the required power once revs rise.

Edited September 26, 2013 by 260DET

[Gollum]

All of the above I totally agree with. I personally hope to reach my L28ET goals with only 18psi, but if required I'll just add a bit more boost to get there, as long as my intake temps are manageable.

 

I was only using the Eletromotive engine as an example because they used stock head castings, and I find it interesting that even THEY had high RPM flow restrictions that caused the head to peak it's torque early.

 

What's really interesting to me is that I've never seen someone overcome that characteristic for the VGxxE heads, yet it's certainly not just because of valve count. There's plenty of 2 valve head engines that make upwards of 95% volumetric efficiency and are able to make peak torque at 6k and beyond.

[260DET]

Believe that Electramotive used special head castings G, what was 'special' about them is an unknown. Maybe something like the NISMO ones. What would be informative is a technical review of the E engines but unfortunately the chance for that is long gone. They did use a different lower plenum design which looks like it had much larger runners but it's my understanding that a tweaked stock lower plenum is all that is needed for 400 whp. Maybe the better flowing E lower plenum somehow overcame or minimumised  the head restriction, who knows.

 

Agree that there is nothing inferior about a good two valve design for power, up to around 8000 rpm anyway. Which is one of the reasons why I tried the VG33ET. Oh well, life would be dull if we all did the same easy engine thing.

 

Have to have a look at your L28ET project G, is it on this forum?

Edited September 28, 2013 by 260DET

[Gollum]

My L28ET project is currently mostly non-existent. The S30 it's in has been garage bound for about 2 years now while I deal with more important aspects of life. The good news is that I'll be starting a megasquirt install soon and should at least have the car back on the road again. I'm going to be a LONG ways off from my final goal of course, but the EFI is the first step in a long road. At the end of the day, fuel and spark control will make or break any project, which is why it's the very first thing I'm focusing on. Once I've got the spark system how I want it long term, and have done a few important fuel upgrades I'll be moving towards manifold fabrication. Once I've got manifolds I'll be converting over to a dual fuel setup with E85 and pump gas. Once That's all been tuned at relatively conservative levels I'll be starting on building a head that will eventually just go on a junkyard shortblock while I tune on the new head. 

 

It's a LONG road, especially when you know you'll be doing majority of the work yourself. But it's called a hobby for a reason right?

 

Here's a thread that's now 5 years old going through my process of how I wanted to build my intake. I've been working on it recently as you'll see in the last page, and I think I'm getting a lot closer to how I really want to build it. 

 

I'm sure once I get further along I'll start a genuine project thread though, mostly just to bring all the pieces of information to one spot, as I have threads spread all over and will continue to make piece specific threads for certain things.

[260DET]

Going back over all this, the only conclusion that I can come to is that no VG30ET using original type heads and valves would produce anywhere near 400 whp on the dyno mine used. And there is no reason to think that there is anything wrong with that dyno or the way it was used. It's a pity that horsepower figures can't be properly compared internationally. 

[BLOZ UP]

You can't really trust horsepower numbers even from the same machine unless it's on the same day. It's a tool for tuning, not winning a bench race.

 

However, what was wrong with the examples of 30ETs making 400, 450 peak HP? Even allowing for variances in dynos it's not a stretch to put any of those passed 400 WHP on any dyno. Or are we still limiting to an arbitrary 15psi? Because 15psi on one turbo is not the same 15psi on another, and the flow through the heads can be entirely different.

[Gollum]

Going back over all this, the only conclusion that I can come to is that no VG30ET using original type heads and valves would produce anywhere near 400 whp on the dyno mine used. And there is no reason to think that there is anything wrong with that dyno or the way it was used. It's a pity that horsepower figures can't be properly compared internationally. 

 

I hate that "international" crap. Same BS that I've heard others say. If a dyno is configured correctly, which in many cases I admit they aren't, then the corrected SAE HP will be with a SMALL percentage of all of dynos. If you really want to dismiss all the dynos on the net of VG's making 400+hp because you have some inherent belief that some dynos are just always wrong then I pity you. EVERY example I've shared making your power levels were running closer, if not over, 20 PSI!!!! I'd venture to say that considering the PSI difference your dyno is EXACTLY on par with what all these other dyno's are showing!

 

Yes a dyno is just a tool to tune with, like BLOZ UP says. I don't believe in getting in a pissing match on dyno numbers, because they're always relative. But that said, a dyno can show with a very small margin of error, what that car actually put down, at that instance, with that load, with that ambient temperature, corrected to sea level pressures. If you want to say "well my dyno is just honest and nobody else's is" then I'd say that's called ignorance. Instead of dismissing data, look for the missing link. I've already told you the missing link. You're not going to get there on 15psi with relatively stockish heads. I'd bet even the Electromotive "race only" and "unreliable" (what you seem to say) configuration probably would NOT have made 400whp at 15psi!

 

Hell, BLOZ UP was running 18PSI when he put 390 to the wheels. That's about EXACTLY what you'd put down if you were running 18PSI judging by the dyno YOU PROVIDED. 

[BLOZ UP]

18psi on stock cams and heads. Easily over 400 with cams. Although I was injector limited at the time.

 

I expect to make at least 400WHP and hopefully about 450WHP and over 500ft-lbs on my 3.3L build, with cams, at around 20psi on my 50 trim T3/T04. That is, my mods will be:

 

• Turbo w/tubular manifolds (not a huge difference over stock, but needed more because of space concerns)
• charge cooler
• cams
• valve grind
• 750CC injectors

That's it.

 

Right now on my worn out VG30ET, I'm making an educated guess of 300WHP right now at 18psi and I have 78% compression. I figure that because I started at 240RWHP on the dyno at 18psi and tuned it from there, and judging from my datalogs I should be well over 300HP but I'll keep it conservative since all I have are my datalogs, time, and a calculator.

 

Multiply that by the percentage of compression I'm missing (1.2727) and I get 380RWHP, which sounds about right. Very similar to my last setup.

 

Ok, so all those numbers are out of my rear, but the point is that 400, 450, even 500 HP isn't that far off. Really, keep it under 25psi and use 91 octane and they stay pretty reliable. It's the people that try to run passed 6500RPM that have problems, not necessarily the ones who go after too much power. The forces due to RPM put an insane amount of stress on these engines, not power.

Edited October 3, 2013 by BLOZ UP

[Gollum]

Just for the fun of it...

 

15 PSI + atmospheric = 29.7 PSI

 

18 PSI = atmospheric = 32.7 PSI

 

32.7 / 29,7 = 1.101010101

 

Your dyno @ 15psi 358 x 1.101010101 = 394.16

 

So like I GUESSED, and now just mathmatically showed, if you increased boost to 18 PSI like BLOZ UP's 390 dyno, you're be at 394, all other things being equal (basically meaning as long as you didn't detonate and have similarly equal timing relative to BMEP/IMEP. 

 

His dyno, along with others, is most likey NOT far off from yours...

[260DET]

Not going to get into a pissing match about it, the reasons for this sort of 'difference' in power figures have been going on forever elsewhere, it's quite common. Who is 'right' and who is 'wrong' is of no interest to me. The reason for not pushing the subject VG33ET's boost past 15 psi has been explained several times, intake temps in a hot climate are of relevant interest but there was no indication that there was much more past 15 psi anyway. I was there and saw from the dyno screen what was going on, from memory I said something to the effect of 'stick it up it and see what happens', if it could not do the numbers the VG30DET option was there with only an oil leak to fix. With a circuit car you soon find out what is real and so don't mess around with a loser engine.

 

I'm no dyno expert but the bloke who did the tuning is so, with the appropriate corrections, the two runs with the ET and the DET were as close as is practical. There has to be some measure of comparable performance, in the circumstances this is as good as it gets.

Edited October 4, 2013 by 260DET

[Gollum]

It's not a pissing match. Your dyno is exactly on. The only thing that's not "on" is why on earth your inlet temps seem to have skyrocketed after 15psi.... Your dyno figures are exactly on par with everyone's for 15psi, that's what I'm saying...

 

This whole thread is going around in circles because I don't think you really knew what you wanted to get out of it. Here's the summary:

 

1. The VGXXET heads suck, so don't expect them to flow well at higher RPM like the DET heads can with ease.

 

2. If you're wanting to stick to 15psi BOOST you're more than likely going to end up around 350whp give or take 5% depending on dyno and conditions

 

3. If you want to reach 400HP you're going to have to find a way to run more boost.

 

 

There, that's the entire topic. My personal suggestion would be to look into other fuels, namely alcohol based fuels. I'm not sure what ethanol availability is like in Australia, but I'm sure methanol is available enough to make a secondary injection system that only comes on at certain boost criteria a financially viable option.

 

I've seen, and work on, cars that were "maxed out" due to heat and detonation limits on pump gas gain a good 20% extra power availability when switching to E85, plus their turbos spooled sooner. The extra power comes from the fact that E85, and all alcohols, require HUGE amounts of heat to atomize, and thus REMOVE heat from the air and chamber. Your inlet temps will plummet if you can measure after the injection point, and you're ability to reduce knock will go through the roof. Alcohol doesn't foul plugs when going really rich like gasoline, which means you can run WAY down to around 6.5:1 (about 10:1 equivalent to petrol) and not even see a sign of spark fouling. This also makes for a VERY detonation resistant charge as the extra fuel is basically along for the ride as a cooling mechanism. The extra fuel is also a huge factor when spooling the turbo, as the exit gases are literally heavier.

 

But from the sound of things, I wasn't sure you wanted advice like that. It sounded like you wanted to know how to make your ET heads flow like youre DET heads, and that just isn't going to happen. THAT'S why I brought up the electromotive engine, because even THEY didn't get their race only setup to flow like DET heads.

[260DET]

So what may cause inlet temps to rise to the point where in practical terms there is no point in using more boost?

 

Vid of dyno tune of first VG30DET version, the 33 was next

 

[BLOZ UP]

Small/inefficient charge cooler. Not enough airflow over the charge cooler.

 

Is that a fan way in front of it? Or is that just a toolbox? It needs fans, those blue tornado ones worked pretty well in a pinch (but all I can find is those stupid inlet tornadoes on google). Otherwise, something like http://dynoblower.com/, or bigger.

 

I find it hard to believe no fans were used for your tests. Maybe I'm missing something?

Edited October 11, 2013 by BLOZ UP

[260DET]

Of course there was a fan used, see at 0.07 the big square grille thing at the right edge of the picture. Powerful thing, put it too close to the front and the bonnet would have to be lowered due to the wind force, walk in front of it and it would just about blow you over.

 

Same IC used with both engines, it is ducted unlike most and works very well. A data check made when the car was on the track confirmed this. This is what pisses me off, the whole setup was built to a high standard without using any potential power robbing shortcuts.

 

.