Speed Force Racing Turbo 292whp
02-10-2005, 09:40 AM
#51
RX8 and a Truk....
Originally Posted by twospoons_
Why would they need bigger injectors if they were running only 292hp crank?..
Because they car ran lean for them? No idea...but 6psi and 100-120whp gain? Doesn't seem plausable.
02-10-2005, 10:06 AM
#52
RX7store.net
Originally Posted by Richard Paul
Very funny 13, but my foot is not in my mouth. From the boost I can get the mass if you give me some other data. Did you notice that I did the math for philox engine and came very close to his output. Now the numbers for this installation should be close. Meaning temp and baro etc. If I remember right the answer was 242hp. that's 50 hp less than these guys are claiming. Now I don't know about anyone else but that is just to far off the theoretical number to be possable.
If the math is that far off why have it at all. All engineers should be taken out back and shot as worthless beings. Of no use to the world.
Giving every possable, even every impossable benefit of the doubt 6psi can only be 40% increase in intake. Now that would be no loss for working the air. Better then 100% efficency. Perpetual motion, call the Pentigon and the patent office.
Given 175 WHP to start x 1.4=245
A 70 hp increase and not probable due to reality.
So how do you get 120 hp increase?????????????????????
I'll tell you how, with a mass increase of 80% or a Pr increase of about 120% or 18 psi after the IC. Now that looks like three times what we have here and your going to point out that if you just doubled Jons increase you would be there so 14psi should do it. Ahhh now here is where what I preach comes in. You can't just add up the boost numbers because the air is hotter for the next 7psi and that group of psi's has less mass. On top of that with a turbo it is costing more percentage wise to get your higher boost due to the extra restriction of exhaust.
(Note; it will cost more with a supercharger too if it is the kind that becomes very inefficiant after the first few pounds(read roots).)
You can argue that saying your using a larger A/R but that get's us off on another topic best argued by rotarygod.
I've made my point and await counter points.
If the math is that far off why have it at all. All engineers should be taken out back and shot as worthless beings. Of no use to the world.
Giving every possable, even every impossable benefit of the doubt 6psi can only be 40% increase in intake. Now that would be no loss for working the air. Better then 100% efficency. Perpetual motion, call the Pentigon and the patent office.
Given 175 WHP to start x 1.4=245
A 70 hp increase and not probable due to reality.So how do you get 120 hp increase?????????????????????
I'll tell you how, with a mass increase of 80% or a Pr increase of about 120% or 18 psi after the IC. Now that looks like three times what we have here and your going to point out that if you just doubled Jons increase you would be there so 14psi should do it. Ahhh now here is where what I preach comes in. You can't just add up the boost numbers because the air is hotter for the next 7psi and that group of psi's has less mass. On top of that with a turbo it is costing more percentage wise to get your higher boost due to the extra restriction of exhaust.
(Note; it will cost more with a supercharger too if it is the kind that becomes very inefficiant after the first few pounds(read roots).)
You can argue that saying your using a larger A/R but that get's us off on another topic best argued by rotarygod.
I've made my point and await counter points.
Last edited by Jason; 02-10-2005 at 10:12 AM.
02-10-2005, 11:38 AM
#56
Registered
The point that Richard is trying to make is that 6 psi is only 40% (40.8%) of 14.7 psi. This means that you can only get a MAXIMUM of 40% more power from 6 psi of boost and this assumes 100% efficiency with no losses. If we look at bigger vs. smaller turbos and their losses we will see that a system can't produce this power level but rather somewhere below it. How much below 40% gain is based in turbo sizing, etc. Tuning can't change this top number and neither can a larger turbo. While Richard and I have argued for a long time that you can't necessarily judge power potential by boost, one thing that was never mentioned is that each boost number does have a max potential number. Every setup regardless of turbo size and tuning figures in below this number. There is a cap to what you can do with what you have.
No one is saying this car didn't do 292 rwhp. I know it's possible and am very excited someone has hit that number. (I hope that isn't a corrected number). The problem is that it defies several chemistry laws at only 6 psi.
There are actually 3 possibilities. I am not making a judgement but rather just showing the options.
1: The engine actually can make ALOT more power than we think it can and that it is just tuned poorly stock hence the low dyno numbers.
EX: 210 fwhp X 40% (max) = 294 fwhp
EX: 225 fwhp X 40% (max) = 315 fwhp
EX: 238 fwhp X 40%(max) = 333 fwhp
EX: 247 fwhp X 40% (max) = 345.8 fwhp
These numbers show the max potential assuming zero losses that you can get at 6 psi. Any setup regardless of size can't exceed this. This is the cap.
2: The engine might not be putting out 292 to the wheels at 6 psi. This does fit within the range of the above numbers according to what we know of the Renesis.
3: The engine did in fact produce 292 wheel hp but not at 6 psi.
These are the only options within the laws of physics.
I am very excited that this kit has gotten nearly 300 hp. I am actually hoping that the answer lies in choice #1. This would be exciting. However based on what we know so far about this engine, it seems improbable. A little more info could shed some light on which it actually is. Could this be proof of the "lost horsepower"?
No one is saying this car didn't do 292 rwhp. I know it's possible and am very excited someone has hit that number. (I hope that isn't a corrected number). The problem is that it defies several chemistry laws at only 6 psi.
There are actually 3 possibilities. I am not making a judgement but rather just showing the options.
1: The engine actually can make ALOT more power than we think it can and that it is just tuned poorly stock hence the low dyno numbers.
EX: 210 fwhp X 40% (max) = 294 fwhp
EX: 225 fwhp X 40% (max) = 315 fwhp
EX: 238 fwhp X 40%(max) = 333 fwhp
EX: 247 fwhp X 40% (max) = 345.8 fwhp
These numbers show the max potential assuming zero losses that you can get at 6 psi. Any setup regardless of size can't exceed this. This is the cap.
2: The engine might not be putting out 292 to the wheels at 6 psi. This does fit within the range of the above numbers according to what we know of the Renesis.
3: The engine did in fact produce 292 wheel hp but not at 6 psi.
These are the only options within the laws of physics.
I am very excited that this kit has gotten nearly 300 hp. I am actually hoping that the answer lies in choice #1. This would be exciting. However based on what we know so far about this engine, it seems improbable. A little more info could shed some light on which it actually is. Could this be proof of the "lost horsepower"?
02-10-2005, 11:44 AM
#57
Sorry Jason, not so. I've been on the dyno with the ren and the operator had complete control of ign and fuel. There was no more. That's it, 220? not on on a stock one. Don't ask I can't tell ya, but it's the truth.
That's an engine dyno BTW. So the numbers are right. Non of this dyno to dyno BS.
That's an engine dyno BTW. So the numbers are right. Non of this dyno to dyno BS.
02-10-2005, 11:50 AM
#58
Right Fred, I knew you would explain it better then I.
You just didn't know what I just posted above. So that leaves out hope for number one.
Didn't you mean RWHP as with the "R"
OOPs I see what you ment "FLYWHEEL" HP. Duhh
You just didn't know what I just posted above. So that leaves out hope for number one.
Didn't you mean RWHP as with the "R"
OOPs I see what you ment "FLYWHEEL" HP. Duhh
Last edited by Richard Paul; 02-10-2005 at 12:05 PM.
02-10-2005, 11:56 AM
#60
Kaiten Kenbu Rokuren
Rotarygod, going along with your max horsepower chart, I'm a bit confused. Is that a max increase you can achieve with the turbo itself? I think that's what it is, so couldn't a great deal of power have come from the tuning with the TSI unit? Richard may have been able to mess around with the engine dyno, but not with the turbo. I may also have missed this, but do they have an intercooler in this setup? Sorry for my poor reading skills :p
02-10-2005, 12:00 PM
#61
Registered
That is the max potential possible with 6 psi of boost. That assume absolute 100% efficiency (turbo, intercooler, etc) which would mean perpetual motion. It takes power to make power. Every system regardless of tuning has to fall somewhere under this.
02-10-2005, 12:07 PM
#62
Kaiten Kenbu Rokuren
Originally Posted by rotarygod
That is the max potential possible with 6 psi of boost. That assume absolute 100% efficiency (turbo, intercooler, etc) which would mean perpetual motion. It takes power to make power. Every system regardless of tuning has to fall somewhere under this.
02-10-2005, 12:41 PM
#65
0.19 posts per day
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Chicagoland, IL
Posts: 246
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Richard Paul
I might get in trouble for this but that number (290 +)has been reached at the FLYWHEEL. It was done with almost twice the boost though. Yes with IC.
02-10-2005, 12:55 PM
#66
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When I started this thread it was to report what Keith from SFR told me after their latest Dyno run , while most of you were positive afew seem to always be negative it's like they can't be positive about anything unless it's their own.. I just don't get it, why don't we just hold on alittle before we shoot off our mouths about a product and give them the benefit of the doubt. It will be posted soon, and I hope they are correct and some of you will have to eat your words.....
02-10-2005, 01:06 PM
#67
Roto, because given the brain trust that has accumalated here on this board + time to speculate and spout formulae before any more info is given, that is what always happens. We have all been waiting for these FI kits for so long (years it seems haha) and have had the notorious posts of 3 million hp with 2psi then disappearing has led to alot of critics, and prove its with dyno sheets. I just read and enjoy the intellect 
02-10-2005, 01:20 PM
#69
RX8 and a Truk....
Originally Posted by Rotoman
When I started this thread it was to report what Keith from SFR told me after their latest Dyno run , while most of you were positive afew seem to always be negative it's like they can't be positive about anything unless it's their own.. I just don't get it, why don't we just hold on alittle before we shoot off our mouths about a product and give them the benefit of the doubt. It will be posted soon, and I hope they are correct and some of you will have to eat your words.....
I wouldn't claim the replies are 'negative' - however, people are replying based on what they know.
Physics...Experience...that sort of thing.
When somebody claims 'x' hp from 'x' mods to a car, they need to either have the data to support their claim, or be prepared to receive criticism.
02-10-2005, 01:38 PM
#71
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Mount Laurel, NJ
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think these posts are great, especially for me since I have never owned an FI car.
(But will soon !!)
I do agree that some posts have a tone that could be more friendly and
less like an attack.
It does not bother me, nor should it... but it is an issue.
-B
(But will soon !!)
I do agree that some posts have a tone that could be more friendly and
less like an attack.
It does not bother me, nor should it... but it is an issue.
-B
02-10-2005, 01:45 PM
#72
X-Sapper
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: where angle's fear to tread
Posts: 2,392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
^^naw it's not an issue..it's the internet:p seriously though...i wouldn't say bringing up a valid point that is based in scietific fact anythign negative...it's just thr truth...can't argue with that.:D now let all hug and get our panties out of a bunch lol
02-10-2005, 02:00 PM
#73
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: South Florida
Posts: 1,080
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, "tuning" really doesn't have anything to do with the turbo per se. Its fuel and ignition. I think these are max power gains in a 100% efficient system based on power out with no turbo. Varying the turbo choice, with the changes in efficiency, etc will determine how close you can get to the theoretical maximum, it will never push you over it. Frankly, I've never seen it explained like this, but it makes perfect sense.
jds
jds
Originally Posted by Aoshi Shinomori
Rotarygod, going along with your max horsepower chart, I'm a bit confused. Is that a max increase you can achieve with the turbo itself? I think that's what it is, so couldn't a great deal of power have come from the tuning with the TSI unit? Richard may have been able to mess around with the engine dyno, but not with the turbo. I may also have missed this, but do they have an intercooler in this setup? Sorry for my poor reading skills :p
02-10-2005, 02:10 PM
#74
Registered
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Mississauga, Ontario
Posts: 1,343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At least members get emotional and wnat to make a case for their argument. At the end of the day, we all learn from that and grow stronger as a group. That is why so many people here are addicted to this forum, myself included.
02-10-2005, 03:24 PM
#75
RX7store.net
Originally Posted by Richard Paul
Sorry Jason, not so. I've been on the dyno with the ren and the operator had complete control of ign and fuel. There was no more. That's it, 220? not on on a stock one. Don't ask I can't tell ya, but it's the truth.
That's an engine dyno BTW. So the numbers are right. Non of this dyno to dyno BS.
That's an engine dyno BTW. So the numbers are right. Non of this dyno to dyno BS.
So you tuned the motor until it detonated and then pulled timing out and thats how you figured out the max efficency of the engine? Who says there was no more in the engine?
Jason