b230R build

hk 40 said:

But I dont need to talk about that to know you don't need 28 psi to hit 300 hp. U love to argue with me about nothin... and stay trying to portray me as ignorant.

Damn playa verification of that is all over the place.

Click to expand...

What makes power is the mass of air that?s in the cylinder before it starts getting compressed.

There is a reason that turbo compressor maps are listed in mass flow rates vs pressure.

30psi from a 13c is probably 160 crank hp
30psi from a 19t is around 290hp
30psi from a gt30 is going to be closer to 350-400.
30psi from a gt50 is going to send the head into orbit.

All at the same pressure, drastically different flow rates.
Drastically different trade offs in design and implementation.

culberro said:

What makes power is the mass of air that’s in the cylinder before it starts getting compressed.

There is a reason that turbo compressor maps are listed in mass flow rates vs pressure.

30psi from a 13c is probably 160 crank hp
30psi from a 19t is around 290hp
30psi from a gt30 is going to be closer to 350-400.
30psi from a gt50 is going to send the head into orbit.

All at the same pressure, drastically different flow rates.
Drastically different trade offs in design and implementation.

Click to expand...

All that is great such basic lessons. But you still dont need 28 psi to reach 300hp. Who is running the straw u keep referring to? How far is PDX gonna drag this horse. If your going to give all this why not give an estimate of your hp at 28 pounds since you run that? Will it help your argument, whatever its supposed be, if its significantly over 300 hp? If it isn't over 300 hp or just at it then why wud I be the one that needs the lesson on sizing the correct turbo? You already had the east post a little under that at 20 or so pounds. I fully agree.

God Lee!

hk 40 said:

All that is great such basic lessons. But you still dont need 28 psi to reach 300hp. Who is running the straw u keep referring to? How far is PDX gonna drag this horse. If your going to give all this why not give an estimate of your hp at 28 pounds. Will it help your argument, whatever its supposed be, if its significantly over 300 hp? If it isn't over 300 hp or just at it then why wud I be the one that needs the lesson on sizing the correct turbo? You already had an the east post a little under that at 20 or so pounds. I fully agree.

God Lee!

Click to expand...

You keep showing how little you understand of turbo systems and the trade-offs and compromises of different frame sizes, housings, and wheels.

The turbo selected for our application is great, quick response and durable. Sure, a larger turbo would be great for peak numbers, but then it becomes useless for the task at hand.

How that by making a true statement that easily verifiable all over the place? All i see is pdx telling I know nothing but never ever proving how.....

Why not just give an estimate of your hp at 28 pounds sir ?

hk 40 said:

How that by making a true statement that easily verifiable all over the place? All i see is pdx telling I know nothing but never ever proving how.....

Why not just give an estimate of your hp at 28 pounds sir ?

Click to expand...

It's probably in the 250-275 range with the current small turbine housing with internal WG.

Bigger turbine housing was probably over 300 by a decent amount.

culberro said:

It's probably in the 250-275 range with the current small turbine housing with internal WG.

Bigger turbine housing was probably over 300 by a decent amount.

Click to expand...

And so where is the lesson in this I should learn about your choice in turbo and shows what I haven't a clue about. If the east and many other sources have done that with less boost. This was you experience based on the turbos YOU ran what does it have to do with me or my knowledge base? Your post is exactly what I said it would reveal. If you didnt hit 300 you must have had the straw and if it was way over that didnt prove your case because obviously that means 300 was achievable with less.

Are you just interested in presenting me as an idiot? You haven't done a very good job here. If that is the case.

hk 40 said:

Are you just interested in presenting me as an idiot? You haven't done a very good job here. If that is the case.

Click to expand...

I think you're doing a good job of that on your own. Some setups may take 30 psi to make 300whp, some will take 15psi to make that number.

It's your setup that matters, not the boost number

cosbySweater said:

I think you're doing a good job of that on your own. Some setups may take 30 psi to make 300whp, some will take 15psi to make that number.

It's your setup that matters, not the boost number

Click to expand...

Fair enuf....
Have a good day.


Hubert

hk 40 said:

And so where is the lesson in this I should learn about your choice in turbo and shows what I haven't a clue about. If the east and many other sources have done that with less boost. This was you experience based on the turbos YOU ran what does it have to do with me or my knowledge base? Your post is exactly what I said it would reveal. If you didnt hit 300 you must have had the straw and if it was way over that didnt prove your case because obviously that means 300 was achievable with less.

Are you just interested in presenting me as an idiot? You haven't done a very good job here. If that is the case.

Click to expand...

No. He?s trying to educate you. You?re presenting yourself as an idiot very well all by yourself.

But there is no education in saying the same thing. I have made no claims about setup If people have done it at less boost then obviously the have the right setup to do so. Or that evidence wouldn't exist everywhere. Every thing youre going on about with turbos I already know so your not teaching me anything.

Ill be an idiot and can live with that but I certainly cant call anyone here one the same way that continues to resound with me and your friends.

You have not made the point that 300 hp is not possible at 28 pounds. If you wanna throw with the right setup in there you do that but is doesn't change or make untrue the statement so there's really nothing to learn there.

culberro said:

What makes power is the mass of air that?s in the cylinder before it starts getting compressed.

There is a reason that turbo compressor maps are listed in mass flow rates vs pressure.

30psi from a 13c is probably 160 crank hp
30psi from a 19t is around 290hp
30psi from a gt30 is going to be closer to 350-400.
30psi from a gt50 is going to send the head into orbit.

All at the same pressure, drastically different flow rates.
Drastically different trade offs in design and implementation.

Click to expand...

If I am not wrong, you need 33lb/in (900kg/h) of air for 300HP and 44lb/min (1200 kg/h) for 400HP. Converting to to pressure feels challenging since you need to know the intake temp, which you will find out after knowing the required pressure ratio and guesstimating IC efficiency. And that is still ASSuming dry air. How do you get out of that? I could guess it is somewhere between 100F and 175F (highest number I found), but that is a large range

Dalek,
Seems to an idiot since the date is available you could easily determine the CFM for a turbo at whatever level of efficiency or environmental coefficients that exist then convert that number easily to the weight/hourly rate youve posted there. If those are the values you feel equate directly to hp estimates.


Regards
Hubert

dalek said:

If I am not wrong, you need 33lb/in (900kg/h) of air for 300HP and 44lb/min (1200 kg/h) for 400HP. Converting to to pressure feels challenging since you need to know the intake temp, which you will find out after knowing the required pressure ratio and guesstimating IC efficiency. And that is still ASSuming dry air. How do you get out of that? I could guess it is somewhere between 100F and 175F (highest number I found), but that is a large range

Click to expand...

I think you’re pretty low in your air temps. Post compressor temps can be upwards of 400F depending on boost level and compressor efficiency. I did the calcs a while back and I think we’re probably 300f post compressor temps. This is why good intercoolers are so important.

8v red blocks suffer from huge flow restrictions in both intake and exhaust, so they’ll never make the claimed HP that the turbo manufactures list. This is why most 8v engines need fairly large turbos so make reasonable HP. The pumping efficiency is really low, so you need more pressure or flow rate to overcome the losses.

Good source on compressors and temps:
http://www.epi-eng.com/piston_engine_technology/turbocharger_technology.htm

Data point:
Harlards 8v was a hand wavy 250 hp at 25psi (ported head as well) , and his 16v is 300whp at 12psi (I think) using the same turbo and bottom end. Only real difference is the head and intake manifold change. That’s also with a 90+ bolted onto a 16v, so there’s more to be made with a better flowing exhaust for sure. 8v heads flow terribly.

hk 40 said:

But there is no education in saying the same thing. I have made no claims about setup If people have done it at less boost then obviously the have the right setup to do so. Or that evidence wouldn't exist everywhere. Every thing youre going on about with turbos I already know so your not teaching me anything.

Ill be an idiot and can live with that but I certainly cant call anyone here one the same way that continues to resound with me and your friends.

You have not made the point that 300 hp is not possible at 28 pounds. If you wanna throw with the right setup in there you do that but is doesn't change or make untrue the statement so there's really nothing to learn there.

Click to expand...

I'm pointing out for about the 10th time that nobody can have a different opinion without you either thinking you are being attacked, or, that they are an idiot. In this case, you flipped it, trying to imply culberro is somehow trying to make you out to be an idiot. I'm going to give you my honest opinion. From what I have read so far you know just enough about turbocharging to get yourself into trouble. Everything with you is about numbers. You are forgetting reality. I'm going to make this super simple for you. Culberro is talking about a usable power band, not a peak HP value. We aren't talking about a stationary power plant or an aircraft engine that runs at a constant speed nearly all the time. You are completely missing the forest for the trees. Nobody drives a dynamometer, they drive the vehicle strapped to the dynamometer. Peak numbers mean very little in the real world. I don't see one mention of power under the curve from you. Believe it or not, there are plenty of people on here that not only understand turbocharging, they actually are applying their knowledge. So, that said, try listening and learning from others for a change instead of trying to show off your knowledge that you assume you possess.

Sorry but Im not the one the one making all the assumptions here about who knows and have done what their car. And why cant they have a different opinion because of what I say? Its free they just post it . But where does the opinion reside that 300 hp is not possible with 28 pounds that other people cannot have? You have said 1o times yourself those numbers at less than 28 pounds with the right turbo and that is merely and addendum to my original statement and I stand by that. It in no way stops their opinions know what I have and other have done successfully. Youve continued to assume you know what I have and what ive done even though I never told you and that really isnt my problem. Your crew PDX is nasty and are trolls in their own right so there no reason for me to share anything with them personally about what exist under my own hood but I should be able to post to my friend and I do no t have to agree with what they say if my own experiences have been different. Seems to me its me that cannot have my own opinion because its you here insisting on changing it to agree with what? I do not know. Im sorry but you're arguing over nothing.

hk 40 said:

Sorry but Im not the one the one making all the assumptions here about who knows and have done what their car. And why cant they have a different opinion because of what I say? Its free they just post it . But where does the opinion reside that 300 hp is not possible with 28 pounds that other people cannot have? You have said 1o times yourself those numbers at less than 28 pounds with the right turbo and that is merely and addendum to my original statement and I stand by that. It in no way stops their opinions know what I have and other have done successfully. Youve continued to assume you know what I have and what ive done even though I never told you and that really isnt my problem. Your crew PDX is nasty and are trolls in their own right so there no reason for me to share anything with them but I should be able to post and i do no t have to agree with what they say if my own experiences have been different. Seems to me its me that cannot have my own opinion because its you here insisting on changing it to agree with what? I do not know.

Click to expand...

Nobody has said you can't have your own opinion. That's all that is going on here. Opinions. I don't want a peaky power plant in a car that has to see speeds anywhere from 5 mph to 120 mph. I haven't heard you say anything about racing even once. Perhaps, I missed it? You don't back up anything you say on here with anything you have actually done. Having a bunch of pretty parts isn't the same as having a Trophy on your shelf from winning an event with the vehicle you built. I don't care what someone else you know did. What have you done that you can point to and describe what the goals were and how it worked out?

Plenty but when I do things like that im degrading or condescending. The EV thread is the perfect example. And again you charged me with no one else can have an opinion and I still say how can I do that? But i have the right not to accept theirs and you seem to have a problem with that. Theres no way i can stop there opinions so that hold no weight. Im fairly sure they would love to know my numbers but from other members experience dealing with there eyeball dynos id never do it. Its simply trool food for your friends . Im sorry but evidence of that is all over this board for years. Telling people how much hp there car makes based just on the turbo. Little things like that. Its pretty clear that they dont think any of their **** stinks. I dont have the time to go thru and equipment piss match with them. I know I have a good car because it is mine and I drive it.

Thats the bottom line you wont get any numbers or photos of what I have going one by throwing words like idiots around or obviously you've never done it statements when the truth is you have not a clue what im running what I have or the numbers it does. Im fine with you calling it trash because I wont share it with them. We are not friends and they dont like me and I dont like them. so why would I share with them?

Sometime we just have to live with the worlds many opinions mine is I never need to attack their post or them personally to prove a point here.

hk 40 said:

Plenty but when I do things like that im degrading or condescending. The EV thread is the perfect example. And again you charged me with no one else can have an opinion and I still say how can I do that? But i have the right not to accept theirs and you seem to have a problem with that. Theres no way i can stop there opinions so that hold no weight. Im fairly sure they would love to know my numbers but from other members experience dealing with there eyeball dynos id never do it. Its simply trool food for your friends . Im sorry but evidence of that is all over this board for years. Telling people how much hp there car makes based just on the turbo. Little things like that. Its pretty clear that they dont think any of their **** stinks. I dont have the time to go thru and equipment piss match with them.

Thats the bottom line you wont get any numbers or photos of what I have going one by throwing words like idiots around or obviously you've never done it statements when the truth is you have not a clue what im running what I have or the numbers it does. Im fine with you calling it trash because I wont share it with them. We are not friends and they dont like me and I dont like them. so why would I share with them?

Sometime we just have to live with the worlds many opinions

Click to expand...

You just did a fantastic summation for us. There is absolutely no reason for you to be on here anymore because all you want to do is grandstand and insult anyone that doesn't think you are a god, or, disagrees with you. I'm going to give you a short vacation while the rest of the moderators decide your fate.

2manyturbos said:

You just did a fantastic summation for us. There is absolutely no reason for you to be on here anymore because all you want to do is grandstand and insult anyone that doesn't think you are a god, or, disagrees with you. I'm going to give you a short vacation while the rest of the moderators decide your fate.

Click to expand...

I was having such a good time actually reading about simple engine building. Then some how we ended up in a poo shower worse than I've seen in most OT threads.

Anyway... Regarding the rod, piston, and ratio talk, do a lot of these principles go out the window if you have wild amounts of low end torque? I'll just let the cat out of the bag. I'm very slowly working on an M90 conversion. I'm certainly not planning to keep the skinny rods in, but I'm also not planning to make anywhere near 300hp either. I would imagine that immediate boost off idle would be particularly rough on stuff. H-beams and forged pistons at the minimum?

There are multi-stage electronic boost controllers to deal with what you are concerned about.