PDA

View Full Version : PT 61 or GT35R ?



glhs875
12-28-2005, 08:52 AM
Has anyone ever tried a PT61 or a GT35R on an 8V engine? If so, what were the results?

Rattlesnake
12-30-2005, 11:07 PM
Has anyone ever tried a PT61 or a GT35R on an 8V engine? If so, what were the results?
I have a GTS61 built by Innovative turbo in my Spirit and I love it. I don't get full boost no earlier than 4100rpm and it builds up an little slow, but when it hits 3900-4100 it jumps from 20 to 36psi in a blink of an eye. I have it with a .48a/r because I wanted to see how it would react on the track. I did a test at 25psi and the hp and torque didn't cross until 6200rpm and they both were climbing stadily even after crossing. Brought the boost to 36 and the torque was increadible, it felt like if I was rammed from behind and pushed forward. Did the same test in the dyno and torque peaked at 4300 and hp at 4600rpm. The motor was chocking. I'm updating to a .63a/r for next year to make it more flow efficient. I do road racing, so I need torque for turn exiting accelaration and the .48a/r turbine gave me a lot of torque at the expense of high rpm hp. So I'll keep you posted of the outcome.
http://memimage.cardomain.net/member_images/11/web/491000-491999/491208_109_full.jpg
This is back in 2003 at Summit Point Raceway, West Virginia. It was quite a work out through the turns(stock struts and eiback springs) but when I took the straight it was a different story. Evos, Pontiac GTO, Porsche Carrera, BMW M3 and WRXs were no match for me once on the straight. 140mph in 4th and still pulling on the straight, I prayed before every session! That day I ended up with a big fanclub, I could hear the people scream and shout every time I passed somebody. I got to my pit area and the place was surrounded by a lot of people wanting to see the "White brick"

P.S. 406WHP and 454wlbs/ft

Rattlesnake
12-31-2005, 12:03 AM
There's a picture of it in the car.http://memimage.cardomain.net/member_images/11/web/491000-491999/491208_91.jpg

8valves
01-02-2006, 04:35 PM
I use a 30R with the 76mm wheel and love it. It's way more durable than the standard journal bearing turbos I've been using, spins more freely, instant boost response above 4000 rpms, and a WAY bigger compressor wheel than the Super 50 trim TO4E I use to run, yet I get full boost at the same rpm point.

A 35R is pushing it on an 8V head in my opinion, unless you're in an all out drag application where surge is of no concern. Besides, I really don't think they suit the engine all that well.

Turbo Joe has used one successfully on an 8V however, and he seems to like it.

Aaron Miller

glhs875
01-02-2006, 07:39 PM
I use a 30R with the 76mm wheel and love it. It's way more durable than the standard journal bearing turbos I've been using, spins more freely, instant boost response above 4000 rpms, and a WAY bigger compressor wheel than the Super 50 trim TO4E I use to run, yet I get full boost at the same rpm point.

A 35R is pushing it on an 8V head in my opinion, unless you're in an all out drag application where surge is of no concern. Besides, I really don't think they suit the engine all that well.

Turbo Joe has used one successfully on an 8V however, and he seems to like it.

Aaron Miller

Thanks for the replies. But I've decided on an SC6152. It seems to spool great, and is capable of 600+ HP. I do like the dual ball bearing setup though.

glhs875
01-02-2006, 07:41 PM
I use a 30R with the 76mm wheel and love it. It's way more durable than the standard journal bearing turbos I've been using, spins more freely, instant boost response above 4000 rpms, and a WAY bigger compressor wheel than the Super 50 trim TO4E I use to run, yet I get full boost at the same rpm point.

A 35R is pushing it on an 8V head in my opinion, unless you're in an all out drag application where surge is of no concern. Besides, I really don't think they suit the engine all that well.

Turbo Joe has used one successfully on an 8V however, and he seems to like it.

Aaron Miller

Aaron, what kind of HP and at what rpm did you lay down with that turbo?

glhs875
01-02-2006, 07:45 PM
Rattlesnake, what engine are you making the 400+WHP & torque with. Is that from a dyno pull or just an estimation?

Rattlesnake
01-02-2006, 10:22 PM
Rattlesnake, what engine are you making the 400+WHP & torque with. Is that from a dyno pull or just an estimation?
That is a dyno pull in a Mustang dyno. After the pull he showed me the numbers and i was shocked. They were 339hp and 379lbs/ft. I told him that was impossible because with my older set up i had 377whp and 404lbs/ft! He asked in what dyno was it. I reply on a Dinojet, then he said that's why. He explained to me that his dyno puts a load on the car based on the weight. Then he pointed at 2 black cells with yellow number on the computer screen that read 406.8hp and 454.8lbs/ft. Then he said that those readings are what the Dynojet reads, and that, that was the power at the wheel without the load.
About the engine, it is a 2.5 SOHC.

85lebaront2
01-02-2006, 10:59 PM
Man, you need to go to VIR if NASA runs there. It has a 4000 ft uphill back straight. That thing ought to fly up it, the only problem, you have to slow way down for the downhill beyond it. SCCA won't allow turbos in IT classes.

glhs875
01-03-2006, 08:49 AM
That is a dyno pull in a Mustang dyno. After the pull he showed me the numbers and i was shocked. They were 339hp and 379lbs/ft. I told him that was impossible because with my older set up i had 377whp and 404lbs/ft! He asked in what dyno was it. I reply on a Dinojet, then he said that's why. He explained to me that his dyno puts a load on the car based on the weight. Then he pointed at 2 black cells with yellow number on the computer screen that read 406.8hp and 454.8lbs/ft. Then he said that those readings are what the Dynojet reads, and that, that was the power at the wheel without the load.
About the engine, it is a 2.5 SOHC.

WOW! How many rpm's will that 2.5 rev? And at what rpm was peak power made?

8valves
01-03-2006, 02:19 PM
I made 370 whp and 395 wtq by 5000 rpms when an IC pipe blew. This is at 26 psi on 93 octane on a 2.2 8V. The dual core cooler seemed to be choking the motor as it's parts combo is set up for 4000+ rpm power, but power was dying after peak. I expect to see over 400 whp on pump gas without the use of alcohol or any other injection next spring.

Aaron Miller

Rattlesnake
01-03-2006, 03:07 PM
WOW! How many rpm's will that 2.5 rev? And at what rpm was peak power made?
At that particular pull peak hp was at 4600rpm and peak torque at 4200rpm(36psi). I did a pull at a lower boost (22psi) and the hp and torque curves kept climbing without crossing passed 5600rpm when I let off. With that test I came to the conclution that the turbine that I have now(.48ar) is chocking the motor, in other words it is intaking more than it can exhaust at that particular boost level. I will try the .63 and see how it responds. I went with a .48ar for 2 reasons:1-to compensate for the increase of compressor and wheel. 2-To spool up quicker to obtaine midrange hight torque. For a heavy road race car you need more torque than hp.

glhs875
01-03-2006, 03:17 PM
I made 370 whp and 395 wtq by 5000 rpms when an IC pipe blew. This is at 26 psi on 93 octane on a 2.2 8V. The dual core cooler seemed to be choking the motor as it's parts combo is set up for 4000+ rpm power, but power was dying after peak. I expect to see over 400 whp on pump gas without the use of alcohol or any other injection next spring.

Aaron Miller

Your doing very well Aaron! Was that with the Taft S3 cam? A 400whp pump gas engine is very strong!

glhs875
01-03-2006, 03:19 PM
At that particular pull peak hp was at 4600rpm and peak torque at 4200rpm(36psi). I did a pull at a lower boost (22psi) and the hp and torque curves kept climbing without crossing passed 5600rpm when I let off. With that test I came to the conclution that the turbine that I have now(.48ar) is chocking the motor, in other words it is intaking more than it can exhaust at that particular boost level. I will try the .63 and see how it responds. I went with a .48ar for 2 reasons:1-to compensate for the increase of compressor and wheel. 2-To spool up quicker to obtaine midrange hight torque. For a heavy road race car you need more torque than hp.

Are you going to dyno the engine after you install the .63ar housing? If so, I would like to see the dyno sheet, and one vs. the .48ar housing. That would be interesting!

Rattlesnake
01-03-2006, 03:22 PM
Are you going to dyno the engine after you install the .63ar housing? If so, I would like to see the dyno sheet, and one vs. the .48ar housing. That would be interesting!
Yes I will, so that way I can decide which one I'm going to keep. And I'll post the dyno results.

8valves
01-03-2006, 05:21 PM
Your doing very well Aaron! Was that with the Taft S3 cam? A 400whp pump gas engine is very strong!

Yes, S3 cam at 5* adv, not degreed. Just installed and put there and never touched. It's on my to-do list.

As of right now we've yet to find a car to out-dyno those numbers on straight pump with no injection. EDIT: on an 8V car, I don't know about 16V, but I would doubt it, hopefully someone can do better than that.

Aaron Miller

glhs875
01-03-2006, 07:03 PM
Yes, S3 cam at 5* adv, not degreed. Just installed and put there and never touched. It's on my to-do list.

As of right now we've yet to find a car to out-dyno those numbers on straight pump with no injection. EDIT: on an 8V car, I don't know about 16V, but I would doubt it, hopefully someone can do better than that.

Aaron Miller

Just be careful and don't go to high on the boost vs. compression ratio with only 93 octane. An 18 to 1 effective compression ratio on 93 octane is starting to push things. I was able to run 26psi on 93 octane only in my Daytona with a 7.9 to 1 static compression ratio. And based on the fuel flow I was having to give the engine, worked out to somewhere around 370whp give or take a little. I tried running 28psi, worked great with race gas, made alot more power, but got a piston (cast Mahle) on just the 93 octane. Any way, what Iam getting at, once the boost vs. octane threshold is met, if your after more power, a person needs to work on increasing the airfow, efficiency etc., instead of mainly boost increases. You have to really watch the total timing when running high boost pressure on 93 octane only, and then there is the point to where it doesn't matter how much timing is pulled out, the engine will still detonate.

8valves
01-04-2006, 03:10 PM
Just be careful and don't go to high on the boost vs. compression ratio with only 93 octane. An 18 to 1 effective compression ratio on 93 octane is starting to push things. I was able to run 26psi on 93 octane only in my Daytona with a 7.9 to 1 static compression ratio. And based on the fuel flow I was having to give the engine, worked out to somewhere around 370whp give or take a little. I tried running 28psi, worked great with race gas, made alot more power, but got a piston (cast Mahle) on just the 93 octane. Any way, what Iam getting at, once the boost vs. octane threshold is met, if your after more power, a person needs to work on increasing the airfow, efficiency etc., instead of mainly boost increases. You have to really watch the total timing when running high boost pressure on 93 octane only, and then there is the point to where it doesn't matter how much timing is pulled out, the engine will still detonate.

Yes, timing is actually real conservative as is right now, and at 26 psi the car sees no knock. Boost won't go any higher unless meth is injected or race gas is implimented. However, at that 26 psi I expect it to be over 400 whp. Yahoo for gains in VE!

Bryan LaForest is trying a lot of off-the wall thinking with the cylinder head, which was good before at 197 intake 153 exhaust, but now he's got all kinds of new ideas in teh process dealing more with fuel atomization and flame travel in the combustion chamber.

I was going to build my own header but actually have ot fund myself a trip to Germany in June to see the World Cup, so some mods are going to have to hold off for now. So the TU header is going to get a workout going again, should do the job just fine and be a damn durable setup all the while.

EDIT: by my math the total CR is already over 18:1 as well, I thought we worked it out and it was more like 22:1 or so. I'll have to look at the math again. My static is actually an unknown factor, they're TU's wiseco's w/ a stock thickness gasket, but the head has been opened up enough to have an effect on the CR. My best guess is somewhere around 7.6-7.8:1

Aaron Miller

87csx2.4
01-04-2006, 04:22 PM
Yes, S3 cam at 5* adv, not degreedHey brian that number sounds familiar doesnt it,My charger always ran the fastest time with the cam timing set exactly the same.

8valves
01-04-2006, 05:05 PM
Hey brian that number sounds familiar doesnt it,My charger always ran the fastest time with the cam timing set exactly the same.

That's because I saw you say that's where your car liked it... so I just picked it and ran with it! It will be degreed this season.

Aaron Miller

glhs875
01-05-2006, 12:16 AM
Hey brian that number sounds familiar doesnt it,My charger always ran the fastest time with the cam timing set exactly the same.

Yea, it did. But unless somes things change after this next round of mods, my combo seems to like it being retarded some.

glhs875
01-05-2006, 12:28 AM
I have a feeling that after I put this G head on that I have worked so hard on, along with the TU header, and the bad to the bone turbo, that all hell is going to break loose. I'm looking for low 8's to high 7's @ only 15psi with the new setup. I think it can happen, as the car went 8.59 @ 20psi (on pure streets & stock turbo)with a stock engine except the cam, and with only worked bolt on's. I'm starting to get excited!