The newest 100% bolt on Greddy Hybrid turbocharger!
05-14-2010, 11:55 PM
#676
Turbocharger Guru
Thread Starter
I don't understand what the "fight" is about.
The assertion was made that "X" turbo flows "Y" pounds of air.
I want to know exactly under what conditions this occurs.
Instead of hemming and hawing about engine flow etc I just want to know where the number came from.
I have absolutely no problem getting the data on this. I want to know why the calimant is having such a difficult time.
The assertion was made that "X" turbo flows "Y" pounds of air.
I want to know exactly under what conditions this occurs.
Instead of hemming and hawing about engine flow etc I just want to know where the number came from.
I have absolutely no problem getting the data on this. I want to know why the calimant is having such a difficult time.
05-15-2010, 03:02 PM
#677
Here is a scinereo for ya. You have a honda B16 engine with a 60-1 running 15 psi of boost. Also you have a Ford 302 with a 60-1 running 15 psi. They are running the same boost levels. Their pressure ratios are the same. What you are claiming is both engines are flowing the same volume of air since the compressor is at a fixed 15 psi?
Please tell me that you are not serious. Please.
I am really having a hard time accepting that you have no idea what we are talking about here.
Here is a scinereo for ya. You have a honda B16 engine with a 60-1 running 15 psi of boost. Also you have a Ford 302 with a 60-1 running 15 psi. They are running the same boost levels. Their pressure ratios are the same. What you are claiming is both engines are flowing the same volume of air since the compressor is at a fixed 15 psi?
If the compressor has a "fixed capability" you think both engines would produce the same amount of volume if the turbos were at 15 psi?
If the compressor has a "fixed capability" you think both engines would produce the same amount of volume if the turbos were at 15 psi?
That is my entire point.
You claim a particular turbo flows a certain mass of air. That number is useless without describing the conditions under which it will flow that.
The 3082 will flow 50 lbs of air, too. But it will do it at a different Pr at a different efficiency than the "60-1" (which is a dinosaur, btw).
In your example, you leave out the other side of the equation and expect people to assume that the flow mass is different just because the displacements are different and it doesn't quite work like that.
Last edited by MazdaManiac; 05-15-2010 at 03:11 PM.
05-16-2010, 11:07 AM
#678
Turbocharger Guru
Thread Starter
I edited this b/c I misinterperted Air Mass. I made an idiot of myself and admit it :D
Last edited by Bryan@BNR; 05-18-2010 at 01:10 AM.
05-16-2010, 01:21 PM
#679
This is absolutely wrong.
Mass is a "quantity". Volume is a "quantity". They can only be correlated via temperature and that is the crux of this discussion that you seem to be missing.
You are really beginning to worry me.
A compressor will provide an absolute air mass at a given Pr with an absolute efficiency.
It has absolutely nothing to do with the motor.
With a static flow restriction and spun at a controlled RPM, the output will be a fixed value.
All turbos are assessed this way and the flow claim that you made would have to come from this math.
It is not interested in what motor you are building that day. It is just physics.
You can continue to dance around this question all you want, but all you are doing is revealing a deep and troubling ignorance.
If you don't understand what we are talking about here, than just acknowledge that and we will find a way to move on.
Otherwise, I'm going to keep going with this until we get to the bottom of why you are making assertions and recommendations about turbos for the RX-8 seemingly without having a clue as to why they aren't working.
Though this is essentially true, you have to at least know the "calcuations" before you can make claims that so-and-so turbo is a "50 pound" turbo.
This is completely true, though beyond the capabilities of most "enthusiasts".
Mass is a "quantity". Volume is a "quantity". They can only be correlated via temperature and that is the crux of this discussion that you seem to be missing.
You are really beginning to worry me.
A compressor will provide an absolute air mass at a given Pr with an absolute efficiency.
It has absolutely nothing to do with the motor.
With a static flow restriction and spun at a controlled RPM, the output will be a fixed value.
All turbos are assessed this way and the flow claim that you made would have to come from this math.
It is not interested in what motor you are building that day. It is just physics.
You can continue to dance around this question all you want, but all you are doing is revealing a deep and troubling ignorance.
If you don't understand what we are talking about here, than just acknowledge that and we will find a way to move on.
Otherwise, I'm going to keep going with this until we get to the bottom of why you are making assertions and recommendations about turbos for the RX-8 seemingly without having a clue as to why they aren't working.
Usually the way we find the max of the turbocharger is to stick the car on the dyno and see the power changes and watch the curves as the boost is increased. When the car starts to not make gains at certain boost levels, we know the limitations of the turbocharger (when all other restrictions are removed). Usually when you have a maxed out turbocharger, under the curve numbers are great for streetability.
Last edited by MazdaManiac; 05-16-2010 at 01:25 PM.
05-16-2010, 09:20 PM
#680
Turbocharger Guru
Thread Starter
This is absolutely wrong.
Mass is a "quantity". Volume is a "quantity". They can only be correlated via temperature and that is the crux of this discussion that you seem to be missing.
You are really beginning to worry me.
A compressor will provide an absolute air mass at a given Pr with an absolute efficiency.
It has absolutely nothing to do with the motor.
With a static flow restriction and spun at a controlled RPM, the output will be a fixed value.
All turbos are assessed this way and the flow claim that you made would have to come from this math.
It is not interested in what motor you are building that day. It is just physics.
Mass is a "quantity". Volume is a "quantity". They can only be correlated via temperature and that is the crux of this discussion that you seem to be missing.
You are really beginning to worry me.
A compressor will provide an absolute air mass at a given Pr with an absolute efficiency.
It has absolutely nothing to do with the motor.
With a static flow restriction and spun at a controlled RPM, the output will be a fixed value.
All turbos are assessed this way and the flow claim that you made would have to come from this math.
It is not interested in what motor you are building that day. It is just physics.
You can continue to dance around this question all you want, but all you are doing is revealing a deep and troubling ignorance.
If you don't understand what we are talking about here, than just acknowledge that and we will find a way to move on.
Otherwise, I'm going to keep going with this until we get to the bottom of why you are making assertions and recommendations about turbos for the RX-8 seemingly without having a clue as to why they aren't working.
If you don't understand what we are talking about here, than just acknowledge that and we will find a way to move on.
Otherwise, I'm going to keep going with this until we get to the bottom of why you are making assertions and recommendations about turbos for the RX-8 seemingly without having a clue as to why they aren't working.
Back in 1998 my 13bt with a 60-1 generated 323 RWHP at 10 psi, 366 RWHP at 13 psi and 400 RWHP at 15 psi. The compressor works. Go do that with a 3071 "state of the art turbo" on a 13B.
It will only be time before someone gets good results. It will have to come with an upgraded actuator and possibly an intercooler that will flow more volume, but good numbers are in the future...
Last edited by Bryan@BNR; 05-16-2010 at 11:08 PM.
05-16-2010, 10:51 PM
#682
Registered User
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The issue you are missing, maniac, is that those compressor maps you are so tied to are usually taken in a static shop condition and with no compressor cover. you cant look at a raw compressor map from a manufacturer as gospel for how a turbo produces air flow on your particular application.
If you really have an issue with where the "lb/min" rating for the wheels comes from, take it up with the manufacturer. As far as it is applied to motors, that entirely depends on the efficiency of the motor itself, and you know this.
Case in point with your rotary motors being able to ingest air much faster than my pissed-on engine. Pressure is simply a measure of how much force the turbo has to apply to achieve a specific volume of flow into the motor. A "44lb" compressor wheel will take substantially more pressure on my motor to achieve the same amount of flow as it would on your motor. Pressure is simply a measure of resistance a turbo has to overcome (or force it has to apply) to a particular application in order to achieve a specified flow rate. Taking one turbo on your motor at 18psi is a completely different volume of ingested air than 18psi on my motor, or 18psi on my buddy's evo motor. You simply cant look at one compressor map and say "this is absolute truth in every application".
Feel free to start posting actual tests you have done or data you have that display the fluid dynamic or compressible air flow theory you are using to make your claims that Bryan or I are incorrect. Could you post your data you have taken comparing statically tested compressor wheels to those tested on various motors and how the volumetric efficiency of each engine affects the output capabilities of the turbo? Also please describe all of the testing material used to produce your compressor map from the earlier post, of if you didnt produce it yourself, what the conditions were for the test by the manufacturer for the compressor wheel, and what instrumentation they used to produce efficiency ratings and flow rate. As I am sure that any request for actual data you have taken is going to be a long wait on a train that doesn't come, most people would probably settle for any data you have at all. Like taking one turbo from a rotary motor and putting it on a piston motor and looking at how measured airflow correlates to produced pressure into the system by the same turbocharger vary. I doubt you have done this, but for someone who claims to hold all the keys, lets go ahead and start seeing some data to back up your argument please.
If you really have an issue with where the "lb/min" rating for the wheels comes from, take it up with the manufacturer. As far as it is applied to motors, that entirely depends on the efficiency of the motor itself, and you know this.
Case in point with your rotary motors being able to ingest air much faster than my pissed-on engine. Pressure is simply a measure of how much force the turbo has to apply to achieve a specific volume of flow into the motor. A "44lb" compressor wheel will take substantially more pressure on my motor to achieve the same amount of flow as it would on your motor. Pressure is simply a measure of resistance a turbo has to overcome (or force it has to apply) to a particular application in order to achieve a specified flow rate. Taking one turbo on your motor at 18psi is a completely different volume of ingested air than 18psi on my motor, or 18psi on my buddy's evo motor. You simply cant look at one compressor map and say "this is absolute truth in every application".
Feel free to start posting actual tests you have done or data you have that display the fluid dynamic or compressible air flow theory you are using to make your claims that Bryan or I are incorrect. Could you post your data you have taken comparing statically tested compressor wheels to those tested on various motors and how the volumetric efficiency of each engine affects the output capabilities of the turbo? Also please describe all of the testing material used to produce your compressor map from the earlier post, of if you didnt produce it yourself, what the conditions were for the test by the manufacturer for the compressor wheel, and what instrumentation they used to produce efficiency ratings and flow rate. As I am sure that any request for actual data you have taken is going to be a long wait on a train that doesn't come, most people would probably settle for any data you have at all. Like taking one turbo from a rotary motor and putting it on a piston motor and looking at how measured airflow correlates to produced pressure into the system by the same turbocharger vary. I doubt you have done this, but for someone who claims to hold all the keys, lets go ahead and start seeing some data to back up your argument please.
Last edited by STiPower; 05-16-2010 at 10:53 PM.
05-16-2010, 11:23 PM
#683
Several points:
1) I am SWIMMING in data. Tens of thousands of megabytes. Hundreds of hours of logs.
Mass airflow, pressure, EGT, AFR, temperature of air, water, etc all spread across 7 different turbos on 4 different manifold designs, 5 different intercooler setups and a multitude of piping arrangements.
And this is just on MY car.
Then there are the HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of megabytes of have from the 130 other FI RX-8s that I have out there, spanning a dozen different turbos on another half dozen or so manifolds, cold-side setups, meth, nitrous, injectors, etc.
I won't even bother with the 3 different S/C systems.
2) You are still COMPLETELY missing the point and my question. I am not even ragging on your attempts to explain how YOU go about choosing your turbo. I am just asking you to QUANTIFY your claims of a given flow for a given turbo. Just a simple, single datapoint.
You made the claim. I just want to know where it came from.
3) This:
is hilarious.
Are you stating, FOR THE RECORD, that you do NOT understand the difference between air MASS and air VOLUME?
You guys seem completely hung-up on the idea that I am trying to prove that you are somehow "incorrect". This is, I would think, a pretty good indicator of both how ignorant you might be and how insecure you are in what you think you do actually know.
I have yet to even point out ANYTHING that I think you guys are saying is fundamentally "incorrect" in some proper application. What I AM pointing out is that you are stating stuff that is incorrect in ANSWERING THE SINGLE SIMPLE QUESTION that I have postulated.
Instead of taking pot-shots at me, just answer the stupid question! lol
I wouldn't try that with a 3071.
That is why I use a 3082.
When you turn up a 3071 to 15 PSI on a Renesis, it only makes about 360 HP on pump gas. The 3082 does this at 10 PSI.
1) I am SWIMMING in data. Tens of thousands of megabytes. Hundreds of hours of logs.
Mass airflow, pressure, EGT, AFR, temperature of air, water, etc all spread across 7 different turbos on 4 different manifold designs, 5 different intercooler setups and a multitude of piping arrangements.
And this is just on MY car.
Then there are the HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of megabytes of have from the 130 other FI RX-8s that I have out there, spanning a dozen different turbos on another half dozen or so manifolds, cold-side setups, meth, nitrous, injectors, etc.
I won't even bother with the 3 different S/C systems.
2) You are still COMPLETELY missing the point and my question. I am not even ragging on your attempts to explain how YOU go about choosing your turbo. I am just asking you to QUANTIFY your claims of a given flow for a given turbo. Just a simple, single datapoint.
You made the claim. I just want to know where it came from.
3) This:
The definition of MASS according to dictionary.com is "a body of coherent matter, usually of indefinite shape and often of considerable size: a mass of air molecules.
Are you stating, FOR THE RECORD, that you do NOT understand the difference between air MASS and air VOLUME?
You guys seem completely hung-up on the idea that I am trying to prove that you are somehow "incorrect". This is, I would think, a pretty good indicator of both how ignorant you might be and how insecure you are in what you think you do actually know.
I have yet to even point out ANYTHING that I think you guys are saying is fundamentally "incorrect" in some proper application. What I AM pointing out is that you are stating stuff that is incorrect in ANSWERING THE SINGLE SIMPLE QUESTION that I have postulated.
Instead of taking pot-shots at me, just answer the stupid question! lol
That is why I use a 3082.
When you turn up a 3071 to 15 PSI on a Renesis, it only makes about 360 HP on pump gas. The 3082 does this at 10 PSI.
Last edited by MazdaManiac; 05-16-2010 at 11:25 PM.
05-16-2010, 11:26 PM
#684
Administrator
uggh. look stipower, mm didnt ask Bryan to produce every bit of testing hes ever done or anything even close to that. If mm feels like provided the historic data of all the various cars he has tuned and turbod in the past im sure he will.
but that wont answer the question. he asked one question- where did you get "50 trim flows 48 lb/min" and "60-1 flows 58-60 lb/min from.
bryan can answer it or not he does not need you to defend him or to confront MM for him. if you can answer then question then do so. your continued posting in this thread other wise seems to be only for the purpose of being confrontational and goading MM.
rules. read 'em https://www.rx8club.com/faq.php?faq=...q_user_conduct
but that wont answer the question. he asked one question- where did you get "50 trim flows 48 lb/min" and "60-1 flows 58-60 lb/min from.
bryan can answer it or not he does not need you to defend him or to confront MM for him. if you can answer then question then do so. your continued posting in this thread other wise seems to be only for the purpose of being confrontational and goading MM.
3. This is not a flame war site, so please do not engage in such. No distinction will be made between the instigator and those who merely participate.
4. Personal attacks against other forum members will not be tolerated, nor will any type of "trolling" for a fight. This includes political attacks, slurs, or sneering at any viewpoint or political party.
4. Personal attacks against other forum members will not be tolerated, nor will any type of "trolling" for a fight. This includes political attacks, slurs, or sneering at any viewpoint or political party.
05-16-2010, 11:29 PM
#685
BTW - The MOST important part of this thread would be to explain why the "newest 100% bolt on Greddy Hybrid turbocharger" is not flowing any more air than the GReddy turbo as it ships.
That is why we need this question answered (and then the follow-up after we finally get to the bottom of this).
That is why we need this question answered (and then the follow-up after we finally get to the bottom of this).
05-16-2010, 11:52 PM
#689
Turbocharger Guru
Thread Starter
With compressor maps, there are stated max flow rates/RPM/and pressure ratios. Air mass is still a body of air which is volume hahaha. Its just broken down into stats.
EDITED:
EDITED:
Last edited by Bryan@BNR; 05-18-2010 at 01:12 AM.
05-16-2010, 11:56 PM
#690
No. This was pointed out at that time.
Really? You spent all that time on RX-7Club and you think THIS is rude treatment?
You get asked one, single question and your answer is to pack up your toys and leave?
Amazing.
Well, I guess that answers the question in its own way.
Really? You spent all that time on RX-7Club and you think THIS is rude treatment?
You get asked one, single question and your answer is to pack up your toys and leave?
Amazing.
Well, I guess that answers the question in its own way.
05-17-2010, 01:06 AM
#695
Don't let this stupid little fight make you leave rx8club.com. I hate to say it but you seem to be the only one shipping out turbos in a timely fashion, 1 year wait times are for the birds.
05-17-2010, 01:32 AM
#699
Though, self-revealing an ignorance is not the same thing as being called ignorant.
I know absolutely nothing about wines. I am totally ignorant on wine in every aspect.
If someone pointed out that I am revealing my ignorance about wine when I order red to go with my fish, it would not be nearly the same thing as simply calling me ignorant.