Greddy Turbo Installed - Details Inside!!!!
#926
1st 13 sec Mazda MP3
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: NJ
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by AvatarQAZ
AND YES LARGER TURBO DOES MATTER!!! Compressing 1 ft^3 of air in a small turbo to 7 psi IS NOT THE SAME as 1.4 ft^3 of air compressed at 7 psi by a large turbo.
Where you measure it, at the intake mani, will read the only number that really matters.
#927
Not as smart as you
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Anchorage, AK
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Kooldino
That's only true when you're talking about the air INSIDE the tubo housing itself.
Where you measure it, at the intake mani, will read the only number that really matters.
Where you measure it, at the intake mani, will read the only number that really matters.
#929
Registered
iTrader: (5)
Wait a minuite I must have come in late. I never said anything about the size of the turbo. The compressor in my equations doesn't know anything or have a size. I'm only pointing out that the number of moles depends on the efficency.
Next if the tubes are smaller the air just speeds up. The same will go through unless your talking grossly small. You want to keep the speed up in the tract to a certain point.
Also when it goes through a smaller tube and speed goes up the pressure goes DOWN. This is known a Bernoulli's theorem. This is the reason venturi's work.
So go back to the experiments and it proves why you can get a false impresion as to what you have in the way of mass. Simply put, temp makes the moles run faster thus hitting the walls harder showing more pressure but there are no more moles.
Remember 2mc. Mass x twice the speed. Force.
Next if the tubes are smaller the air just speeds up. The same will go through unless your talking grossly small. You want to keep the speed up in the tract to a certain point.
Also when it goes through a smaller tube and speed goes up the pressure goes DOWN. This is known a Bernoulli's theorem. This is the reason venturi's work.
So go back to the experiments and it proves why you can get a false impresion as to what you have in the way of mass. Simply put, temp makes the moles run faster thus hitting the walls harder showing more pressure but there are no more moles.
Remember 2mc. Mass x twice the speed. Force.
#931
Cones need lovin' too!
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Beavercreek, Ohio
Posts: 649
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Richard Paul
temp makes the moles run faster thus hitting the walls harder
![Smilie](https://www.rx8club.com/images/smilies/smile.gif)
bw, I love the car in your avatar... have any more floating about?
#932
RX8 and a Truk....
Originally Posted by Kooldino
Whoa, there, tiger...
I'm talking WHP.
So 40%-60% added to ~170whp = 238-272 whp.
I'm talking WHP.
So 40%-60% added to ~170whp = 238-272 whp.
I understand, Tiger (
![Roll Eyes (Sarcastic)](https://www.rx8club.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif)
Looks like the car is losing 31??% thru the drivetrain, or we aren't starting with 238hp.
![Wink](https://www.rx8club.com/images/smilies/wink.gif)
I used 180whp. why? 180 x .75 - 240hp.
180whp + 40% = 250whp....180whp + 50%= 270whp. Frankly, I'd be thrilled if the car makes 230-235 w/ the GReddy kit....but since we don't have a baseline, we can only 'assume' whatever gains it shows.
![Smilie](https://www.rx8club.com/images/smilies/smile.gif)
My hidden agenda is this: 8psi on a motor rated at 164hp = 250whp. 8psi on a motor rated at 238hp, with a similiar-sized turbo SHOULD be quite a bit MORE....because as so many of you have stated, 'displacement doesn't matter'.
#933
Where the air is rare
![Smile](https://www.rx8club.com/images/icons/icon7.gif)
Originally Posted by twospoons_
Let's all just go to the pub an grab some beers... it's friday.. let's get drunk.
(...and wait for the dyno numbers, of course....IMPATIENTLY, I might add...)
![Smilie](https://www.rx8club.com/images/smilies/smile.gif)
Last edited by JoeMamma; 01-21-2005 at 06:29 PM.
#934
Registered
So if displacement is what really matters, what if we had a 450 cu. in. engine that only deveoped 200 hp for whatever reason. (I know it sounds like a waste but bear with me). If we had perfect efficiency meaning absolutely no temperature change at exactly 14.7 psi which also meant that we'd have exactly twice the air as at ambient (this is all for reference sake so don't get technical), we should theoretically have 400 hp. How would displacement factor in? Obviously the example assumes 100% efficiency and is purely fictional but the deciding factor seems to be the initial horsepower at ambient temperatures and pressures and not engine size. Displacement doesn't matter. Sorry. Initial horsepower along with a combination of airflow and efficiency (note I didn't state at what pressure!) and frictional losses will determine power output.
#935
1st 13 sec Mazda MP3
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: NJ
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by dmp
I understand, Tiger (
).
Looks like the car is losing 31??% thru the drivetrain, or we aren't starting with 238hp.![Wink](https://www.rx8club.com/images/smilies/wink.gif)
![Roll Eyes (Sarcastic)](https://www.rx8club.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif)
Looks like the car is losing 31??% thru the drivetrain, or we aren't starting with 238hp.
![Wink](https://www.rx8club.com/images/smilies/wink.gif)
The post you are quoting I used 15% - which SHOULD be about right for a rwd sports car. (Miatas, for example, are 'around' 15%). I can't believe the rx8 would be TWICE that.
I used 180whp. why? 180 x .75 - 240hp.
180whp + 40% = 250whp....180whp + 50%= 270whp. Frankly, I'd be thrilled if the car makes 230-235 w/ the GReddy kit....but since we don't have a baseline, we can only 'assume' whatever gains it shows.
180whp + 40% = 250whp....180whp + 50%= 270whp. Frankly, I'd be thrilled if the car makes 230-235 w/ the GReddy kit....but since we don't have a baseline, we can only 'assume' whatever gains it shows.
![Smilie](https://www.rx8club.com/images/smilies/smile.gif)
My hidden agenda is this: 8psi on a motor rated at 164hp = 250whp. 8psi on a motor rated at 238hp, with a similiar-sized turbo SHOULD be quite a bit MORE....because as so many of you have stated, 'displacement doesn't matter'.
Besides, while a KL might claim 164chp, it probably puts 140 or so to the wheels.
#936
1st 13 sec Mazda MP3
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: NJ
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by rotarygod
So if displacement is what really matters, what if we had a 450 cu. in. engine that only deveoped 200 hp for whatever reason. (I know it sounds like a waste but bear with me). If we had perfect efficiency meaning absolutely no temperature change at exactly 14.7 psi which also meant that we'd have exactly twice the air as at ambient (this is all for reference sake so don't get technical), we should theoretically have 400 hp. How would displacement factor in? Obviously the example assumes 100% efficiency and is purely fictional but the deciding factor seems to be the initial horsepower at ambient temperatures and pressures and not engine size. Displacement doesn't matter. Sorry. Initial horsepower along with a combination of airflow and efficiency (note I didn't state at what pressure!) and frictional losses will determine power output.
#938
Originally Posted by rg
So if displacement is what really matters, what if we had a 450 cu. in. engine that only deveoped 200 hp for whatever reason. (I know it sounds like a waste but bear with me). If we had perfect efficiency meaning absolutely no temperature change at exactly 14.7 psi which also meant that we'd have exactly twice the air as at ambient (this is all for reference sake so don't get technical), we should theoretically have 400 hp. How would displacement factor in? Obviously the example assumes 100% efficiency and is purely fictional but the deciding factor seems to be the initial horsepower at ambient temperatures and pressures and not engine size. Displacement doesn't matter. Sorry. Initial horsepower along with a combination of airflow and efficiency (note I didn't state at what pressure!) and frictional losses will determine power output.
Last edited by globi; 01-21-2005 at 08:11 PM.
#940
Originally Posted by Richard Paul
Wait a minuite I must have come in late. I never said anything about the size of the turbo. The compressor in my equations doesn't know anything or have a size. I'm only pointing out that the number of moles depends on the efficency.
Next if the tubes are smaller the air just speeds up. The same will go through unless your talking grossly small. You want to keep the speed up in the tract to a certain point.
Also when it goes through a smaller tube and speed goes up the pressure goes DOWN. This is known a Bernoulli's theorem. This is the reason venturi's work.
So go back to the experiments and it proves why you can get a false impresion as to what you have in the way of mass. Simply put, temp makes the moles run faster thus hitting the walls harder showing more pressure but there are no more moles.
Remember 2mc. Mass x twice the speed. Force.
Next if the tubes are smaller the air just speeds up. The same will go through unless your talking grossly small. You want to keep the speed up in the tract to a certain point.
Also when it goes through a smaller tube and speed goes up the pressure goes DOWN. This is known a Bernoulli's theorem. This is the reason venturi's work.
So go back to the experiments and it proves why you can get a false impresion as to what you have in the way of mass. Simply put, temp makes the moles run faster thus hitting the walls harder showing more pressure but there are no more moles.
Remember 2mc. Mass x twice the speed. Force.
So, pressure drops with velocity also. Meaning that a high flowing big turbo actually creates less pressure?
I think my brain finally re-booted.
#941
8 the HARD way.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: San Antonio
Posts: 1,001
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And if we're not satisified with the numbers we get from THE DUO, we'll start to question the accuracy of the dynos. I mean, wasn't the RX-8 was considered a bad dyno test car without FI (due to a **** PCM and finicky ABS/DSC/TCS blah blah)... wont it be a bad test car with FI?
#942
Not as smart as you
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Anchorage, AK
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok, honestly... MazdaManiac, Philodox... you have built us up to a climax. The story is NOW at its apex. The suspense is killer... the commercial break, is over.
GIVE UP THE NUMBERS!!! WE WANT DYNO!!!! :D VIDEO!!! PICTURES!!! AIIEEEEE
GIVE UP THE NUMBERS!!! WE WANT DYNO!!!! :D VIDEO!!! PICTURES!!! AIIEEEEE
#943
Where the air is rare
Originally Posted by AvatarQAZ
Ok, honestly... MazdaManiac, Philodox... you have built us up to a climax. The story is NOW at its apex. The suspense is killer... the commercial break, is over.
GIVE UP THE NUMBERS!!! WE WANT DYNO!!!! :D VIDEO!!! PICTURES!!! AIIEEEEE
GIVE UP THE NUMBERS!!! WE WANT DYNO!!!! :D VIDEO!!! PICTURES!!! AIIEEEEE
Heh-heh...he said "apex"....
(sorry...I'm impatient and trolling for the numbers, too)
#944
Rangers Lead The Way!
Thread Starter
Okay guys! After 400 miles and 8 hours I am finally back at home. It was quite an eventful day today at Altered Atmosphere. Some members of the forum tried to get the scoop ahead of everyone else by pulling out a dirty little trick and calling my cell phone.. I won't mention any names *cough Polak cough*.. But he was misinformed by the media
Here are the results
Jon's Car: 240.4 rwhp. Torque is a big fat ???????? because their dyno wouldn't read it properly.
Jeffs Car: 225 I think.. hopefuly he stops by to let you guys know.
Now, I did dyno my car before I put the turbo on. I had 174.44rwhp pre turbo and now I have 240.4rwhp with the turbo. For those of you that aren't mathematically inclined, that's a gain of 65.96rwhp coming from 7psi of boost. Not bad for a stock tune at all. I am very confident that when I tune the air/fuel I can squeeze another 25hp at the wheels. Eventually, I will tune for 9psi.
sorry for no torque numbers guys, call Altered Atmosphere and bitch at them for not being able how to get a proper RPM reading from a rotary engine
Now your thoughts?
![Wink](https://www.rx8club.com/images/smilies/wink.gif)
Jon's Car: 240.4 rwhp. Torque is a big fat ???????? because their dyno wouldn't read it properly.
Jeffs Car: 225 I think.. hopefuly he stops by to let you guys know.
Now, I did dyno my car before I put the turbo on. I had 174.44rwhp pre turbo and now I have 240.4rwhp with the turbo. For those of you that aren't mathematically inclined, that's a gain of 65.96rwhp coming from 7psi of boost. Not bad for a stock tune at all. I am very confident that when I tune the air/fuel I can squeeze another 25hp at the wheels. Eventually, I will tune for 9psi.
sorry for no torque numbers guys, call Altered Atmosphere and bitch at them for not being able how to get a proper RPM reading from a rotary engine
![Wink](https://www.rx8club.com/images/smilies/wink.gif)
#945
Banned
iTrader: (3)
Well, the dyno session went well, though it was a bit more expensive for me than I planned - I ended up being strapped down for three hours. Money well spent, though.
We had one fairly significant glitch and that is with the tach signal on the DynoJet. For some reason, it was unable to read our RPM ater 5500 RPM or so. Because of that, we couldn't get any torque plots because the machine would stop reading torque after it lost the ignition signal. It did, however, continue to record HP, but it needed to be plotted against wheel speed instead of RPM as most of us are acostomed.
This glitch was on both of our vehicles, so it isn't a failed component or the result of any particular combination of aftermarket parts since our cars are different in that respect.
First, Jon was hooked up and ran several base runs that were all within a hair of each other, so I think it is fair to say his graph is representative of the power he is producing. His results can be found just above this post in the thread.
After I got strapped in, we spent the better part of the next 3 hours tuning. My A/Fs were bumpy - mostly over-rich except for this lean spot right at 5100 RPM that I am still trying to tune completely out. The other issue was my boost.
I came to the dyno fearful of over-boosting since that had occured on some of my street-tuning runs. Last night, I pulled my wastegate actuator, cut it open and milled the spring down so that it would open at a significantly lower pressure. The problem is, I still don't understand how the PRofec modulates boost. I kept increasing the duty cycle to no avail. The result was I was trapped at 6 PSI, though I have been preparing for 9 PSI.
I guess I'll go back once I learn how to program the PRofec correctly.
Peak HP was 225 HP. I don't have a torque figure for the above-referenced reasons.
We had one fairly significant glitch and that is with the tach signal on the DynoJet. For some reason, it was unable to read our RPM ater 5500 RPM or so. Because of that, we couldn't get any torque plots because the machine would stop reading torque after it lost the ignition signal. It did, however, continue to record HP, but it needed to be plotted against wheel speed instead of RPM as most of us are acostomed.
This glitch was on both of our vehicles, so it isn't a failed component or the result of any particular combination of aftermarket parts since our cars are different in that respect.
First, Jon was hooked up and ran several base runs that were all within a hair of each other, so I think it is fair to say his graph is representative of the power he is producing. His results can be found just above this post in the thread.
After I got strapped in, we spent the better part of the next 3 hours tuning. My A/Fs were bumpy - mostly over-rich except for this lean spot right at 5100 RPM that I am still trying to tune completely out. The other issue was my boost.
I came to the dyno fearful of over-boosting since that had occured on some of my street-tuning runs. Last night, I pulled my wastegate actuator, cut it open and milled the spring down so that it would open at a significantly lower pressure. The problem is, I still don't understand how the PRofec modulates boost. I kept increasing the duty cycle to no avail. The result was I was trapped at 6 PSI, though I have been preparing for 9 PSI.
I guess I'll go back once I learn how to program the PRofec correctly.
Peak HP was 225 HP. I don't have a torque figure for the above-referenced reasons.
#946
So, you have a peak hp number, but no plot? I was curious to see how linear the boost is and how well the GReddy maps are working.
Still, 240 hp is great! Congrats!
~ Matt
Still, 240 hp is great! Congrats!
~ Matt
#947
Go Texas Longhorns!
Jeff, looks like your not running to rich from what I can see, mostly all above 12. Is that what you were aiming for? Look's like the Greddy kit is performing as advertised.
Oh, and congrats guys
Oh, and congrats guys
![Smilie](https://www.rx8club.com/images/smilies/smile.gif)
Last edited by brillo; 01-21-2005 at 08:09 PM.
#948
Another thought...if you have the mph, you can figure out the RPM and then, using the 5252 (is that it?) factor, you can get the torque, right? Anyone want to play with Excel? I'd do it, but I'm still at work...
~ Matt
~ Matt
#949
Rangers Lead The Way!
Thread Starter
Guys, I don't have a scanner to scan the dyno sheet it. So I'm trying to use my digital camera to photograph the pages.
Dynorun.007 is in 4th gear
Dynorun.008 is in 3rd gear
Sorry for the poor quality of the pics, but the graphs are faint even in person. Enjoy!
-Jon
Dynorun.007 is in 4th gear
Dynorun.008 is in 3rd gear
Sorry for the poor quality of the pics, but the graphs are faint even in person. Enjoy!
-Jon
Last edited by philodox; 01-21-2005 at 08:06 PM.
#950
Registered
iTrader: (5)
If you have the engine running perfectly in tune the rotary will make about 7 BHP for every pound of air/min. A piston engine will make 10. No tears boys I learned this the very hard way.
Now it doesn't know how you made it eat that much air. If you forced it in at high pressure and high temp or lower press at lower press. It is the mass flow. Now it is easier to get the heavyer air in as it is displacing less volume. Also it lessens the thermal load on things plus helps detonation.
If you use a small tube or a big tube it doesn't know. It has nothing to do with the size of the turbo.
It has nothing to do with the displacement of the engine. What you are getting at is that a bigger engine will swallow more air thus have less resistance. Good point if that is what you ment. Manifold pressure is just the resistance to the airflow.
We took my blower off my dyno just as it was including pulleys, carbs and ducts. On my engine it was making 7psi. When we put it on the engine at someone elses dyno it made 10 psi. Their engine just didn't flow as much air. Proven by the fact that my engine made a lot more power with less boost. Their engine made less power before and after supercharging. The SC or turbo can't cover up all ills.
RG, I'm a little disappointed with the volume of you post, need some more mass.
Maybe you can explain it better then my little lab experiments did. But I can't see how, that is as plain as I can show it. I think these are smart guys saying the same thing, no?
In the famous words of Paul Newman "what we have here is a failure to comunicate"
Now it doesn't know how you made it eat that much air. If you forced it in at high pressure and high temp or lower press at lower press. It is the mass flow. Now it is easier to get the heavyer air in as it is displacing less volume. Also it lessens the thermal load on things plus helps detonation.
If you use a small tube or a big tube it doesn't know. It has nothing to do with the size of the turbo.
It has nothing to do with the displacement of the engine. What you are getting at is that a bigger engine will swallow more air thus have less resistance. Good point if that is what you ment. Manifold pressure is just the resistance to the airflow.
We took my blower off my dyno just as it was including pulleys, carbs and ducts. On my engine it was making 7psi. When we put it on the engine at someone elses dyno it made 10 psi. Their engine just didn't flow as much air. Proven by the fact that my engine made a lot more power with less boost. Their engine made less power before and after supercharging. The SC or turbo can't cover up all ills.
RG, I'm a little disappointed with the volume of you post, need some more mass.
Maybe you can explain it better then my little lab experiments did. But I can't see how, that is as plain as I can show it. I think these are smart guys saying the same thing, no?
In the famous words of Paul Newman "what we have here is a failure to comunicate"