turbo upgrades

[Majestic]

Connecticut.

Don't know if you are close to any of these locations:

https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/ethanol_locations.html#/find/nearest?fuel=E85&location=connecticut

 

[FighAsHuck]

Without Ethanol, there's always the option of going full ****** with METHANOL!

WOOOOOOOOOOO BOY!

REEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!

I LOVE METH!

E85 would be easier, but methanol is plentiful and E85 is not where I'm at. Car still put down 400hp so I have no complaints.

 

[High on Ethanol]

E85 would be easier, but methanol is plentiful and E85 is not where I'm at. Car still put down 400hp so I have no complaints.

Definitely understand. I used to carry 5gal of E85 in my trunk when I traveled.

 

[Kevin81]

Don't know if you are close to any of these locations:

https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/ethanol_locations.html#/find/nearest?fuel=E85&location=connecticut

Nope. They're both a solid 80 miles or more away.

 

[stripSHO]

The difference in VE from 5000 RPM to 6000 RPM is maybe 5%, nowhere near an explanation for the amount of freefall exhibited with the GH turbos. So no it's not the cams. Since I have to guess the real answer I'll say excessive exhaust manifold pressure causing exhaust valve float.

ATP's have made upwards of 450 lb-ft all the way at 6500 RPM, meaning you can make 550 hp with hardly any more torque than a basic tune. I don't know why you guys have started rating a turbos performance based on its ability to break an engine. Stock turbos can do that too if that's what you're after.

 

[SM105K]

The GH intercooler actually makes a huge difference.

Not on my car......mine had really bad boost taper in the high rpms, WGDC had to be maxed to make up the difference, and it make less power with significantly colder IAT's.

Put my stock IC back in with my Ice Water DIY sprayer. My car is going .3 tenths faster in the same ambient air with more boost, less WGDC, and hotter IAT's.

 

[FiveLeeter918]

Not on my car......mine had really bad boost taper in the high rpms, WGDC had to be maxed to make up the difference, and it make less power with significantly colder IAT's.

Put my stock IC back in with my Ice Water DIY sprayer. My car is going .3 tenths faster in the same ambient air with more boost, less WGDC, and hotter IAT's.

interesting.

 

[mattr66]

The difference in VE from 5000 RPM to 6000 RPM is maybe 5%, nowhere near an explanation for the amount of freefall exhibited with the GH turbos. So no it's not the cams. Since I have to guess the real answer I'll say excessive exhaust manifold pressure causing exhaust valve float.

ATP's have made upwards of 450 lb-ft all the way at 6500 RPM, meaning you can make 550 hp with hardly any more torque than a basic tune. I don't know why you guys have started rating a turbos performance based on its ability to break an engine. Stock turbos can do that too if that's what you're after.

Okay.... have you ever seen an ecoboost with lightly ported heads and reground cams all else being equal? Once you see how much duration we don't have you will realize the truth.

 

[SM105K]

interesting.

Not really. Matt said the GH IC is on the verge of being too big for the stock turbos. My turbos were already tired and not making the boost others have with the stock IC.

The GH IC just made my turbo problem worse. It did make the 1 less hp but with 2 psi of boost less. So it is efficient.

 

[Zpak]

From my untrained eye it was a huge benefit. Outside of any other knowledge of in tune particulars, with the only change being the intercooler and to be fair, 10° cooler ambient temps, went from a best of 12.1 to an 11.9. By the end of the 11.9 run I was able to hold 5° more timing than the 12.1 which ultimately netted me almost 3 mph faster trap speed.

 

[76FoMoCo]

I did find the GH ic increased my WG at 17 psi was maxed at 100% on stock turbos. on the stock ic I was 90% now with the bigger gen 3 and the Ic i'm at 70% at 18 psi some of this is my DA runs 2500 at best to 5500 most times

 

[802SHO]

I’m seeing 74%average-ish WGDC with 20 psi GHgen3’s. Ported hot side.

 

[Ecoboost_xsport]

Okay.... have you ever seen an ecoboost with lightly ported heads and reground cams all else being equal? Once you see how much duration we don't have you will realize the truth.

C'mon @mattr66, drop those cams already! LOL....

 

[stripSHO]

Okay.... have you ever seen an ecoboost with lightly ported heads and reground cams all else being equal? Once you see how much duration we don't have you will realize the truth.

Okay....

Yeah. 248 degrees total, right? Have you ever seen an NA 3.5l with THE EXACT SAME DURATION rev to 6800 rpm from the factory?

Here's what the power band of these engines looks like when not choked by an almost 3:1 backpressure ratio:

(https://www.knfilters.com/dynocharts/69-3528TS_dyno.pdf)

Here's the ECU torque model from my 93 tune only losing 12 hp between 5k and 6k rpm despite a 2 psi boost loss:


Now virtual dyno from 3 different tunes showing flat horsepower between 5k and 6k despite that same 2 psi boost loss:


The inherent volumetric efficiency of the engine seems pretty simple to estimate from a log as long as the speed density is accurate. VE = Load x (barometric pressure/manifold pressure), no? Here's an example with this 4th gear 4600-5864 rpm data from a run. 3.7% drop from 5000 to 5864 rpm; only 2.5% from 5500-5864 rpm.


So I hope you can understand why I find it so peculiar and interesting that dyno runs featuring your turbos are uniquely shaped like this:


whereas the competition can carry power to 6500 rpm, like this:



Losing 20-25% torque in this span of 500 rpm is definitely not characteristic of the cams. All evidence is to the contrary. That 7 at the end of your tach wasn't just put there for good luck. So let me translate my harebrained theory into a question: what exhaust manifold pressure should be expected with your turbos at 20 psi and 5500 rpm?

 

[BrentB]

Doesn’t cr also offer a stage 3 now? Wondering if it is comparable to the GH turbos?

https://crpengineering.com/product/3-035-310/

 

[DadMobile]

I’ve heard great things about those CR turbos in other platforms. They supposedly have a good compressor wheel design. Either turbo you choose will have enough powah to bend a rod, blow your trans, grenade the rdu/ptu.

 

[Jordan_R]

Doesn’t cr also offer a stage 3 now? Wondering if it is comparable to the GH turbos?

https://crpengineering.com/product/3-035-310/

CR only upgrades compressor side so you have the huge turbine restriction. 40.6mm compressor is the same size as the GH gen3 turbos except GH matches the turbine side so you have a more efficient turbo. I've seen a car rod the motor with the CR stage 3 though so they do put out some steam just for the price you can get a more effective overall turbo from GH and be less prone to turbine housing cracks from a turbine that can move the exhaust more efficiently. A lot of cost from CR for half the machine work

 

[DadMobile]

Yah it’s kind of a crazy how much those turbos cost. A little birdy told me they have to order $200k worth of compressor wheels at a time. Sheesh

 

[mattr66]

Okay....

Yeah. 248 degrees total, right? Have you ever seen an NA 3.5l with THE EXACT SAME DURATION rev to 6800 rpm from the factory?

Here's what the power band of these engines looks like when not choked by an almost 3:1 backpressure ratio:
View attachment 16772
(https://www.knfilters.com/dynocharts/69-3528TS_dyno.pdf)

Here's the ECU torque model from my 93 tune only losing 12 hp between 5k and 6k rpm despite a 2 psi boost loss:
View attachment 16773

Now virtual dyno from 3 different tunes showing flat horsepower between 5k and 6k despite that same 2 psi boost loss:
View attachment 16774

The inherent volumetric efficiency of the engine seems pretty simple to estimate from a log as long as the speed density is accurate. VE = Load x (barometric pressure/manifold pressure), no? Here's an example with this 4th gear 4600-5864 rpm data from a run. 3.7% drop from 5000 to 5864 rpm; only 2.5% from 5500-5864 rpm.
View attachment 16776

So I hope you can understand why I find it so peculiar and interesting that dyno runs featuring your turbos are uniquely shaped like this:
View attachment 16778

whereas the competition can carry power to 6500 rpm, like this:
View attachment 16779


Losing 20-25% torque in this span of 500 rpm is definitely not characteristic of the cams. All evidence is to the contrary. That 7 at the end of your tach wasn't just put there for good luck. So let me translate my harebrained theory into a question: what exhaust manifold pressure should be expected with your turbos at 20 psi and 5500 rpm?

I could extract a little more power at higher rpms, but there is a reason the factory tapers boost off slightly before the shift the same way that I do.

Sent from my motorola edge plus using Tapatalk

 

[mattr66]

Okay....

Yeah. 248 degrees total, right? Have you ever seen an NA 3.5l with THE EXACT SAME DURATION rev to 6800 rpm from the factory?

Here's what the power band of these engines looks like when not choked by an almost 3:1 backpressure ratio:
View attachment 16772
(https://www.knfilters.com/dynocharts/69-3528TS_dyno.pdf)

Here's the ECU torque model from my 93 tune only losing 12 hp between 5k and 6k rpm despite a 2 psi boost loss:
View attachment 16773

Now virtual dyno from 3 different tunes showing flat horsepower between 5k and 6k despite that same 2 psi boost loss:
View attachment 16774

The inherent volumetric efficiency of the engine seems pretty simple to estimate from a log as long as the speed density is accurate. VE = Load x (barometric pressure/manifold pressure), no? Here's an example with this 4th gear 4600-5864 rpm data from a run. 3.7% drop from 5000 to 5864 rpm; only 2.5% from 5500-5864 rpm.
View attachment 16776

So I hope you can understand why I find it so peculiar and interesting that dyno runs featuring your turbos are uniquely shaped like this:
View attachment 16778

whereas the competition can carry power to 6500 rpm, like this:
View attachment 16779


Losing 20-25% torque in this span of 500 rpm is definitely not characteristic of the cams. All evidence is to the contrary. That 7 at the end of your tach wasn't just put there for good luck. So let me translate my harebrained theory into a question: what exhaust manifold pressure should be expected with your turbos at 20 psi and 5500 rpm?

The NA engines also have the advantage of twin VCT. We can't phase our exhaust cams

Sent from my motorola edge plus using Tapatalk