PDA

View Full Version : ATP Turbo Ultimate CHRYSLER swingvalve?



Pages : [1] 2

iTurbo
12-18-2010, 03:40 PM
http://www.atpturbo.com/mm5/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=tp&Product_Code=ATP-WGT-061&Category_Code=WGT

What do you guys make of this?

Pat
12-18-2010, 03:58 PM
Wow...is the chrysler style exhaust housing even still in production?

iTurbo
12-18-2010, 04:01 PM
Yeah, I was surprised they would make this too...they also have a new Mercedes version that looks similar. ATP has made custom turbine housings in the past; maybe they will pick it up if Turbonetics drops out.

GLHNSLHT2
12-18-2010, 04:22 PM
LOL! I was looking at it and my g/f saw it and thought it was an engagement ring! Maybe I should buy one and propose :)

shackwrrr
12-18-2010, 05:08 PM
Well, I know what I am going to get soon lol.

shackwrrr
12-18-2010, 05:14 PM
also could it be that the mercedes pattern is the same as the chrysler????

well this looks like it is lol

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Mercedes-5-bolt-discharge-outlet-turbo-flange-downpipe-/130399558382?pt=Motors_Car_Truck_Parts_Accessories&hash=item1e5c6b5aee

ShadowFromHell
12-18-2010, 05:19 PM
Ive been wanting something like this for so long!!! Now if one of the vendors came out with a matching DP... I wonder how hard it is going to be to build a downpipe that will clear the PS pump?

shackwrrr
12-18-2010, 05:26 PM
Ive been wanting something like this for so long!!! Now if one of the vendors came out with a matching DP... I wonder how hard it is going to be to build a downpipe that will clear the PS pump?

FWD has a downpipe, they designed it for people that have a t3 with a ford housing using a version of this same swingvalve, no reason it wouldnt work on an 8 valve.

http://www.turbo-mopar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=54625

iTurbo
12-18-2010, 05:28 PM
I want to try the new ATP Cosworth turbine housing/swingvalve. It looks like a bolt-on replacement for TIII but you would still have to use the stock TIII O2 housing elbow/donut. I have no idea if this would actually work but would love to try it. I've been thinking of ordering a 50trim/stg II optioned with it for one of my cars.

http://www.atpturbo.com/mm5/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=TP&Product_Code=ATP-HSG-075&Category_Code=

Turbo224
12-18-2010, 05:29 PM
Just buy one of these and any half assed exhaust shop can weld it to your existing exhaust. Instant 3" downpipe. Thats exactly what I did on my R/T and it works great.


http://www.atpturbo.com/mm5/graphics/00000001/Catalog%20Images/pipe/mdp002-01.jpg

Ondonti
12-18-2010, 09:41 PM
also could it be that the mercedes pattern is the same as the chrysler????

well this looks like it is lol

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Mercedes-5-bolt-discharge-outlet-turbo-flange-downpipe-/130399558382?pt=Motors_Car_Truck_Parts_Accessories&hash=item1e5c6b5aee

From the way its written, I think they describe the flange as Chrysler style, but they made the product for Mercedes guys, not us. They obviously don't care enough to even mention this product overlap to our community.



For a TIII, if you want to change housings (turbo upgrade), this would make no sense. Just buy a normal t3 housing and use a normal ATP swingvalve.

ShadowFromHell
12-18-2010, 09:42 PM
Just buy one of these and any half assed exhaust shop can weld it to your existing exhaust. Instant 3" downpipe. Thats exactly what I did on my R/T and it works great.


http://www.atpturbo.com/mm5/graphics/00000001/Catalog%20Images/pipe/mdp002-01.jpg

That would move it to the passenger side a bunch, and has no flex in it. I could build a DP no problem, and will if I ever end up with one of these. What I was getting at is it would be a nice package with the ATP piece and a matching DP.

iTurbo
12-18-2010, 11:23 PM
From the way its written, I think they describe the flange as Chrysler style, but they made the product for Mercedes guys, not us. They obviously don't care enough to even mention this product overlap to our community.

I think they made an error in the description because there is two new listings for the Ultimate Internal Swingvalve in their online catalog. The pictures for the Chrysler and Mercedes styles do show they are in fact different bolt patterns.

Mercedes:
http://www.atpturbo.com/mm5/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=tp&Product_Code=ATP-WGT-060&Category_Code=WGT

Chrysler:
http://www.atpturbo.com/mm5/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=tp&Product_Code=ATP-WGT-061&Category_Code=WGT

tryingbe
12-19-2010, 12:14 AM
http://www.atpturbo.com/mm5/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=tp&Product_Code=ATP-WGT-061&Category_Code=WGT

What do you guys make of this?


Too little, too damn late.

iTurbo
12-19-2010, 12:32 AM
Honestly if you think about it, you are right. If I were building another 8v I wouldn't think twice about getting the TurbosUnleashed 3" swingvalve. While it's nice that ATP might be opening up to the Chrysler stuff, the fact that a stock-type no fab required downpipe is easily available and clears everything perfectly is enough to steer me towards what is already available.

Shadow
12-19-2010, 12:34 AM
I've never understood why they bias the W/G so much compared to the turbine wheel. IMO the v-band hole should be about 3/4-1" lower.

Ondonti
12-19-2010, 12:59 AM
I've never understood why they bias the W/G so much compared to the turbine wheel. IMO the v-band hole should be about 3/4-1" lower.
Doesn't look terrible to me. The wastgate hole will move a LOT more exhaust per size then the turbine wheel. Higher velocity gases from the wastegate slamming into the lower velocity turbine gases will probably cause more turbulence and more backpressure.

I can't understand why they made this product though. Maybe because they found it was easy for them to do after already making others.

http://www.atpturbo.com/mm5/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=tp&Product_Code=ATP-MDP-010&Category_Code=MDP

Pretty sure this will work but Tyler already stated that he was able to USE the other downpipe. People cry so much about fitting things around there so Warren built a ridiculous long pipe 4-2-1 header and it still fit.
http://www.atpturbo.com/mm5/graphics/00000001/Catalog%20Images/pipe/ATP-MDP-010_450.jpg

Shadow
12-19-2010, 01:34 AM
Doesn't look terrible to me. The wastgate hole will move a LOT more exhaust per size then the turbine wheel. Higher velocity gases from the wastegate slamming into the lower velocity turbine gases will probably cause more turbulence and more backpressure.

Gotta disagree with you on this one. Anything that disrupts the helical flow of the turbine is what makes things more turbulent causing greater backpreasure.

But ya, I never said terrible, just not how I would have designed it.

4 l-bodies
12-19-2010, 01:56 AM
I've never understood why they bias the W/G so much compared to the turbine wheel. IMO the v-band hole should be about 3/4-1" lower.
Rob I agree, but IMO, it still is a nice design.:thumb: Light years ahead of factory swingvalve designs. IMO, moving V-band hole lower would make that lower bolt hole accessible (at least from the outside of the swingvalve). I would think it would need to be lower than 1" to make that bolt hole functional on the inboard side.
It is pretty strange why they would come out with this now. Did they just figure out there is a market for old school turbo Dodges twenty five+ years after they came out?:confused2:
Todd

Ondonti
12-19-2010, 02:03 AM
Gotta disagree with you on this one. Anything that disrupts the helical flow of the turbine is what makes things more turbulent causing greater backpreasure.

But ya, I never said terrible, just not how I would have designed it.

So if you can explain how slamming the wastegate gases right into that same flow is better then inducing a slight bend, I could agree.
Turbulence is a bad thing in the swingvalve area. Much worse then being forced to take a turn. The facts will be read out all day on the dyno. Turbulence will effectively shrink the size of the swingvalve, creating more backpressure, and losing power.
It is leaps and bounds better then any Chrysler style swingvalve, so much better that its comical to even argue about their design.

Simsy
12-19-2010, 02:47 AM
now im regretting going with the TU dualpattern SV :(

2.216VTurbo
12-19-2010, 03:07 AM
Are we sure this bolts up?? the '5th' hole location looks wrong to me but:confused2:

black86glhs
12-19-2010, 03:09 AM
I'm liking the V-band outlet. If I can swing it(hehe), I might try one of these and make a nice DP. To hell with trying a T-III turbo....lol.

Ondonti
12-19-2010, 03:50 AM
Here is an incredible waste of time since MS paint is so terrible to draw with. 1.5 hours lol. yay tv.

Just represents mass/velocity @ WOT at high rpms. Actual turbulence you would have to guess on your own. My figuring would be that when exhaust paths dogpile and leave empty spaces, that is a bad thing. If you made a shallower bend, I think both v band setups would look a lot nicer. I also can't say it would make much of a difference on the dyno.
Obviously exhaust is not a red line, but something that is going to be filling all spaces etc etc etc.

You can see that porting the wastegate hole and radiusing the wastegate would help more exhaust go through the wastegate, and also help the gases blend in nicely. Making the downpipe adapter thicker would slow the angle that exhaust gases come together.


To be more accurate, wastegate flow is biased to one side of the hole, and that would make all of these pictures look even worse. Exhaust is really bouncing off that one wall and changing directions towards the wall of the swingvalve, not trying to go downstream.
http://i546.photobucket.com/albums/hh426/ondonti/Turbododge/Turbo/Wastegate.jpg?t=1292744807

Juggy
12-19-2010, 08:21 AM
now im regretting going with the TU dualpattern SV :(

the atp UI swingvalve has been out for awhile (2-3 years??) do your reasearch b4 you run off and purchase parts, especially considering you were already T3 turbine'd :thumb:

i wasnt aware they had gone with a cast production piece for the TD swingvalve tho....glad to see we will still have options for 3" without having to get one in a group buy :eyebrows:

tryingbe
12-19-2010, 11:19 AM
i wasnt aware they had gone with a cast production piece for the TD swingvalve tho....glad to see we will still have options for 3" without having to get one in a group buy :eyebrows:


I bet the reason for group buy is because the market is small and people with the money is even smaller.

Here lies the problem with the new ATP swingvalve. As soon as ATP figure out they are not making any money nor will they ever make any money for their swingvalve with Chrysler flange, they will shut down production.

Shadow
12-19-2010, 12:39 PM
So if you can explain how slamming the wastegate gases right into that same flow is better then inducing a slight bend, I could agree.
Turbulence is a bad thing in the swingvalve area. Much worse then being forced to take a turn. The facts will be read out all day on the dyno. Turbulence will effectively shrink the size of the swingvalve, creating more backpressure, and losing power.
It is leaps and bounds better then any Chrysler style swingvalve, so much better that its comical to even argue about their design.

First off, I'm in No ways comparing this S/V to Any type of Stock design! I've said it once, I'll say it again, Any stock design S/V is going to suck compared to any mandrel design....Period!

I Am comparing this S/V to The Best It Could Be! That's all, just a critique on what Could make it better!

Slamming W/G gasses into the turbine flow? What do you think is happening in said design? The turbine gasses are being "slightly" redirected upward as the W/G gasses are coming down! Add to that the Fact that the turbine gasses are Not exiting in a straight path, as your diagram would suggest and you might start to see what I'm talking about.

Nice diagrams BTW! Not sure why you went past 90 deg on the bend though, that only makes things look worse. (is this what you have to do to run that S/V? run past 90 and back to fit it?)

IF I have some time later, I'll paint a couple pics myself to illistrate what I'm talking about more clearly. ;)

30 PSI SHADOW
12-19-2010, 01:41 PM
this is better. 120 degree pipe from ATP

iTurbo
12-19-2010, 02:25 PM
now im regretting going with the TU dualpattern SV :(

Actually this new ATP piece is Chrysler-only so it wouldn't do anything for you since you are TIII. I guess you could switch to the 'standard' ATP Ultimate S/V but you you'll have to get full custom downpipe or get the FWDP DP, and you might be the first to do that. If it were me, I would just fix up your downpipe since you have a good combo already; but my offer still stands...

iTurbo
12-19-2010, 02:26 PM
Are we sure this bolts up?? the '5th' hole location looks wrong to me but:confused2:

Alan, I saw that too. I was thinking maybe they got the pictures backwards in the product descriptions for the new Chrysler and Mercedes UISV.

Aries_Turbo
12-19-2010, 03:57 PM
Too little, too damn late.

i wouldnt say so... look at that cosworth style housing that iturbo posted up. the age of the vehicles that are compatible with that piece are just as old or older than ours.

new products are always welcome. im tempted to use that new chrysler sv on my ShelbyZ.

Brian

Austrian Dodge
12-19-2010, 05:30 PM
i wouldnt say so... look at that cosworth style housing that iturbo posted up. the age of the vehicles that are compatible with that piece are just as old or older than ours.

new products are always welcome. im tempted to use that new chrysler sv on my ShelbyZ.

Brian

well, i wouldn't dare to compare ford cosworth cars with TM's. the crowd is WAY bigger and they spend a TON more money.
don't get me wrong, i like that ATP piece and have the ford style one myself, but i fear it's going to end like tryingbe already mentioned. once they realize they're not selling enough of them, they wont cast another batch.

black86glhs
12-19-2010, 05:33 PM
well, i wouldn't dare to compare ford cosworth cars with TM's. the crowd is WAY bigger and they spend a TON more money.
don't get me wrong, i like that ATP piece and have the ford style one myself, but i fear it's going to end like tryingbe already mentioned. once they realize they're not selling enough of them, they wont cast another batch.

Well then, buy a bunch of them so they feel like they are selling a lot. This will perpetuate the cycle.:thumb:

iTurbo
12-19-2010, 05:44 PM
well, i wouldn't dare to compare ford cosworth cars with TM's. the crowd is WAY bigger and they spend a TON more money.
don't get me wrong, i like that ATP piece and have the ford style one myself, but i fear it's going to end like tryingbe already mentioned. once they realize they're not selling enough of them, they wont cast another batch.

I love ATP Turbo and buy a lot of stuff from them, but I suspect that is exactly what will happen. Take the ATP "RS" BOV for example. When they came out they were supposed to be the ultimate versatile BOV for DIYers thanks to the modular design. I really liked the one I bought for my Omni so I bought another for my SL. I even wanted to buy a third one but they have been out of production for years now. A lot of the attachments and adapters are no longer available as well which limits how well I can 'recycle' them into a new project. I tried emailing them about it but they just say it's obsolete and then try to sell me a Greddy 'RS' or 'RZ' BOV. They still list the ATP 'RS' BOV in their catalog though. So if anybody knows where I can find a good used one let me know!!

tsiconquest88
12-19-2010, 08:55 PM
The link in post 1- apparently its for both chry and mercedes... read the bottom of the page in small font, it mentions for mercedes and the top of the page says chrysler as you can see that lol... Not sure if you guys already know this, but from what i have seen some of you saying, it looks like your saying that merc and chry are different sv's.

tsiconquest88
12-19-2010, 09:00 PM
I love ATP Turbo and buy a lot of stuff from them, but I suspect that is exactly what will happen. Take the ATP "RS" BOV for example. When they came out they were supposed to be the ultimate versatile BOV for DIYers thanks to the modular design. I really liked the one I bought for my Omni so I bought another for my SL. I even wanted to buy a third one but they have been out of production for years now. A lot of the attachments and adapters are no longer available as well which limits how well I can 'recycle' them into a new project. I tried emailing them about it but they just say it's obsolete and then try to sell me a Greddy 'RS' or 'RZ' BOV. They still list the ATP 'RS' BOV in their catalog though. So if anybody knows where I can find a good used one let me know!!



Not for nothing but the type rs ebay ones are good... there is one i have used twice (one on the mini and went with it). I didnt have any issues with them. Maybe i will get flamed for using it and i dont care but its worth it for the money and your not running really high boost and whatnot, otherwise i wouldnt trust it lol...

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Type-RS-S-Turbo-Blow-Off-Valve-BU-Eclipse-EVO-RX7-IS300-_W0QQcmdZViewItemQQfitsZSubmodelQ3aRSQQhashZitem3f 05deb2e6QQitemZ270681420518QQptZMotorsQ5fCarQ5fTru ckQ5fPartsQ5fAccessories

iTurbo
12-19-2010, 09:56 PM
Look again. They are different part numbers and clearly they are different castings. They made an error in the listing it looks like to me.

iTurbo
12-19-2010, 09:58 PM
Not for nothing but the type rs ebay ones are good... there is one i have used twice (one on the mini and went with it). I didnt have any issues with them. Maybe i will get flamed for using it and i dont care but its worth it for the money and your not running really high boost and whatnot, otherwise i wouldnt trust it lol...

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Type-RS-S-Turbo-Blow-Off-Valve-BU-Eclipse-EVO-RX7-IS300-_W0QQcmdZViewItemQQfitsZSubmodelQ3aRSQQhashZitem3f 05deb2e6QQitemZ270681420518QQptZMotorsQ5fCarQ5fTru ckQ5fPartsQ5fAccessories

That is a totally different BOV than I was talking about. Doesn't use same flange setup or adapters at all.

tryingbe
12-19-2010, 10:03 PM
i wouldnt say so... look at that cosworth style housing that iturbo posted up. the age of the vehicles that are compatible with that piece are just as old or older than ours.



Cosworth style housing is used in Lotus Esprit, (http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.lotusespritturbo.com/910_Lotus_Engine.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.lotusespritturbo.com/Lotus_Esprit_Turbo_910_Engine.htm&usg=__QI0txunZc4RQVQN2Fcno5rU5Kj4=&h=358&w=500&sz=30&hl=en&start=0&zoom=1&tbnid=0DbZ2urfNLzWjM:&tbnh=133&tbnw=177&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dlotus%2Bturbo%2Besprit%2Bengine%26um% 3D1%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26biw%3D1280%26bih%3D843%26tbs%3Disch: 1&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=672&vpy=217&dur=902&hovh=190&hovw=265&tx=138&ty=113&ei=-7cOTYenEpPGsAOSsq2KCg&oei=-7cOTYenEpPGsAOSsq2KCg&esq=1&page=1&ndsp=24&ved=1t:429,r:3,s:0) Jaguar XJ220 (http://www.evo.co.uk/front_website/gallery.php?id=306920), Ford Escort Rs Cosworth (http://www.modified.com/features/0106_sccp_1994_ford_escort_rs_cosworth/photo_06.html), and TIII Turbo Dodge.

XJ220 used a 3.5L with two of those turbine housings to make 500+ hp, and it was the faster street car (top speed) until Mclaren F1 came out.

ATP market for the turbine housing maybe small, but their potential customer sure have $$$$$$. Plus, the drop-in design for would be very desirable for people that have those rare cars.

How many turbo dodge do you still see on the road? Out of those, how many have the money to spend to buy a turbo? If they do have the money to buy the turbo, how many of those are going to keep the Chrysler flange?

If ATP had this product 20 or even 10 years ago, they would make money, I'm sure. But now, I don't see them selling more than 10 when other vendor had trouble selling a "drop-in" piece.

mock_glh
12-19-2010, 10:06 PM
The link in post 1- apparently its for both chry and mercedes... read the bottom of the page in small font, it mentions for mercedes and the top of the page says chrysler as you can see that lol... Not sure if you guys already know this, but from what i have seen some of you saying, it looks like your saying that merc and chry are different sv's.

There are 2 different parts. Compare these two items that were posted later on.

Mercedes:
http://www.atpturbo.com/mm5/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=tp&Product_Code=ATP-WGT-060&Category_Code=WGT

Chrysler:
http://www.atpturbo.com/mm5/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=tp&Product_Code=ATP-WGT-061&Category_Code=WGT

They definitely do not look the same, though the text at the bottom suggests they are.

tsiconquest88
12-19-2010, 10:07 PM
you were talking about greddy rs and stuff as well, therefore thinking you were possibly going that route, that is why i mentioned it... its a greddy type rs knockoff.


As for the sv, i dont see a difference at all? Im talking about post one's link. There are 2 pics of sv's but they are just different views. Thats what it looks like to me. idk.

iTurbo
12-19-2010, 10:14 PM
OK I can see the reason for the mixup. But yeah, The ATP 'RS' and the later Greddy RS don't have anything in common but the letters. I think the ATP-made one is a lot better and would buy another if I could only find one.

tsiconquest88
12-19-2010, 11:00 PM
yea i dont even know what the atp rs looked like, i dont think i ever even heard of it till you. I just was referring to the greddy rs you mentioned.

black86glhs
12-19-2010, 11:06 PM
I love the Don Trumps on here whining about why they made it.....you guys crack me up. It doesn't hurt you in any way, yet you piss and moan about it. They aren't going to go broke if they don't sell well. Yes I know, you know more about making money and business decisions than anyone else....I get it.:rolleyes:

iTurbo
12-19-2010, 11:07 PM
Found a good pic showing the ATP Turbo RS BOV in various configurations.

http://www.atpturbo.com/root/releases/images/release061204/bov_front02.jpg

tsiconquest88
12-19-2010, 11:15 PM
i would go for the 1st and 3rd one.... i dont bother with any of the stupid o-ring bov's, hose/clamp ones, and such. gasket/bolt flange is the deal imo!!! I have seen many people have leaks at the o-ring types. I had a turboxs rfl back in the day on a car, it did ok but i always had to remove it, re-lube, get new allen screws that hold it to the adapter thats welded to the pipe, etc etc. I guess these vband types are ok too, never tried them but they are getting popular. But i wouldnt get an ebay vband one, i doubt all surfaces are true lol.

iTurbo
12-19-2010, 11:17 PM
All four of those BOVs are the same valve....just different attachments based on what you are installing it on. On my GLH and SL, it looks like the far left blue one, except I usually run the big horn on the discharge instead of the clamp on recirculation adapter.

tsiconquest88
12-19-2010, 11:20 PM
ohhhh ok, i see they made one bov work for anything. Thats pretty cool. Either way i go for bolt/gasket, my preference over the other bov styles, this particular though, again im impressed as they made it able to use any variation with the same exact bov. I personally never seen that before from one bov.

iTurbo
12-19-2010, 11:23 PM
Yeah it's a shame they don't make them anymore. You could configure them for just about anything pretty easily without having to have stuff rewelded every time.

thedon809
12-19-2010, 11:31 PM
So wait, is this swingvalve for the t3 turbo or will it bolt on to a regular t2 garrett?

iTurbo
12-19-2010, 11:50 PM
So wait, is this swingvalve for the t3 turbo or will it bolt on to a regular t2 garrett?

I don't blame you for the confusion. It has to do with how Chrysler named their turbo engines, i.e. "Turbo I", "Turbo II" etc....and the Garrett turbochargers which were installed on those engines, which were known as T3 which is a broad class of turbos commonly found on many production cars. I have gotten into that habit of saying 'TIII' when I refer to the Chrysler 2.2L DOHC engine, and saying 'T3' when I refer to the Garrett turbo.

The new Chrysler version of the ATP swingvalve should bolt right up to a Chrysler TI/TII turbo (which are Garret T3). Hope this makes sense!

thedon809
12-19-2010, 11:59 PM
Hmmmmm. I may have to try this thing out then. I'm going to put my omni into the air and see how much room is under there for the downpipe.

black86glhs
12-20-2010, 01:02 AM
Hmmmmm. I may have to try this thing out then. I'm going to put my omni into the air and see how much room is under there for the downpipe.

Since the PS is gone from my car, I have no issues. But if you weld the v-band flange on the pipe so it is already beginning to make the turn to go down, it will save you some room. I might have a pic here.
The second pic shows it better. Lower profile. Tighter bend.

Shadow
12-20-2010, 12:23 PM
Here is an incredible waste of time since MS paint is so terrible to draw with. 1.5 hours lol. yay tv.

Just represents mass/velocity @ WOT at high rpms. Actual turbulence you would have to guess on your own. My figuring would be that when exhaust paths dogpile and leave empty spaces, that is a bad thing. If you made a shallower bend, I think both v band setups would look a lot nicer. I also can't say it would make much of a difference on the dyno.
Obviously exhaust is not a red line, but something that is going to be filling all spaces etc etc etc.

You can see that porting the wastegate hole and radiusing the wastegate would help more exhaust go through the wastegate, and also help the gases blend in nicely. Making the downpipe adapter thicker would slow the angle that exhaust gases come together.


To be more accurate, wastegate flow is biased to one side of the hole, and that would make all of these pictures look even worse. Exhaust is really bouncing off that one wall and changing directions towards the wall of the swingvalve, not trying to go downstream.
http://i546.photobucket.com/albums/hh426/ondonti/Turbododge/Turbo/Wastegate.jpg?t=1292744807

Here's my take on what's going on. First pic is just an illistration of how the exhaust gasses WANT to leave the turbine wheel. I know, my drawing sucks, but I think you get the picture. Exhaust is being Tornado'd out of the wheel, def NOT a straight line by any means.

2nd pic is the S/V in Q. By not centering the outlet based on the turbine wheel the gasses can't expand the way they would like to and are moved upward into the path of the W/G gasses. With all of the discussion of head flow, I would think most of you can see this.

3rd is what I would consider optimal. 3" is not only centered on turbine wheel, but notice how it comes right off the bottom of the turbine housing allowing gasses to expand into it the way they want too.

Special thanks goes out to Brent for doing all the hard work. I just had to fill in the blanks! (after I erased and had a blank to fill in of course)

Chris W
12-20-2010, 12:50 PM
The signal to the wastegate actuator is pulsed to maintain a desired boost level. No one has taken into consideration that the wastegate puck never opens more then a fraction of an inch. This deflects the exhaust stream towards the side, not straight out hitting the back of the SV. The stream is also less concentrated since the puck broadens it's path.

I don't believe the ATP version have an O2 sensor port? I couldn't tell in the pics.

Chris-TU

Shadow
12-20-2010, 02:22 PM
The signal to the wastegate actuator is pulsed to maintain a desired boost level. No one has taken into consideration that the wastegate puck never opens more then a fraction of an inch. This deflects the exhaust stream towards the side, not straight out hitting the back of the SV. The stream is also less concentrated since the puck broadens it's path.

I don't believe the ATP version have an O2 sensor port? I couldn't tell in the pics.

Chris-TU

Agreed, and I was going to mention this, but for simplicity sake, and because I was more concentrated on the exhaust path out of the turbine, I didn't.

Good call though!

pauly_no_van
12-20-2010, 04:07 PM
IMO the v-band hole should be about 3/4-1" lower.

Agreed.
If they designed it to cover the 5th hole instead of using it, it would be a better piece.

black86glhs
12-20-2010, 04:49 PM
The signal to the wastegate actuator is pulsed to maintain a desired boost level. No one has taken into consideration that the wastegate puck never opens more then a fraction of an inch. This deflects the exhaust stream towards the side, not straight out hitting the back of the SV. The stream is also less concentrated since the puck broadens it's path.

I don't believe the ATP version have an O2 sensor port? I couldn't tell in the pics.

Chris-TU

Your right Chris. It would be located in the downpipe.

rbryant
12-20-2010, 04:52 PM
Agreed.
If they designed it to cover the 5th hole instead of using it, it would be a better piece.

It looks like they cast a generic piece with an oval inlet and a large flange and then milled the flange and wastegate provisions differently for each application from the same generic casting.

There was probably some compromise based on doing it that way.

-Rich

shackwrrr
12-20-2010, 05:39 PM
My take is, if you want to be picky on how the downpipe lines up with the turbine so it flows better, you shouldnt even be looking at an internal waste gate. With the gasses that come from the puck the flow from the turbine is restricted anyway and placement of the outlet doesnt matter all that much. If you want the best you need to separate the wastegate flow from the turbine flow and either introduce it in gradually later on or dump it separate. No matter what kind of internal waste gate(other than separated internal) you are adding so much turbulence that all you need to worry about is getting it out.


tl:dr those who whine, just go external.

Shadow
12-20-2010, 06:41 PM
My take is, if you want to be picky on how the downpipe lines up with the turbine so it flows better, you shouldnt even be looking at an internal waste gate. With the gasses that come from the puck the flow from the turbine is restricted anyway and placement of the outlet doesnt matter all that much. If you want the best you need to separate the wastegate flow from the turbine flow and either introduce it in gradually later on or dump it separate. No matter what kind of internal waste gate(other than separated internal) you are adding so much turbulence that all you need to worry about is getting it out.


tl:dr those who whine, just go external.

This post wins first prise as the most useless self contradictory post I've read in months! lol :thumb:

Shadow
12-20-2010, 07:08 PM
My take is, if you want to be picky on how the downpipe lines up with the turbine so it flows better, you shouldnt even be looking at an internal waste gate.

Really? So rather than doing a little thinking and R&D just scrap the whole thing and spend 2-3 times the time and money on a set-up that will prob net you 0 over what we're talking about in this thread.



With the gasses that come from the puck the flow from the turbine is restricted anyway and placement of the outlet doesnt matter all that much.

So If I'm hearing you right, once something is found to be restrictive, there's No cure. Gotta scrap the whole deal and go big or go home! That right?



No matter what kind of internal waste gate(other than separated internal) you are adding so much turbulence that all you need to worry about is getting it out.

Isn't this the entire point of my post! Or what other method of "getting it out" is there, other than more efficiet flow?



tl:dr those who whine, just go external.

So you define yourself as a whiner. At least that part makes sense! :thumb:

pauly_no_van
12-20-2010, 08:18 PM
:grouphug:

Shadow
12-20-2010, 08:35 PM
:grouphug:

YaYa, not trying to come across too harshly, but with this kind of thinking, why do anything!

Why stay MTX, I'll just give up and go auto because ppl say I'll ET quicker!

Why stay 8v, 16v it way more efficient so why try to work anything out, just scap it and go to the next best thing!

H#LL, why run a FWD at all, RWD or AWD are obviously going to hook better!

I think you get my point.....:p

tsiconquest88
12-20-2010, 08:57 PM
I think you get my point.....



nah i dont think you make any sense at all lol

rbryant
12-20-2010, 09:16 PM
YaYa, not trying to come across too harshly, but with this kind of thinking, why do anything!

Why stay MTX, I'll just give up and go auto because ppl say I'll ET quicker!

Why stay 8v, 16v it way more efficient so why try to work anything out, just scap it and go to the next best thing!

H#LL, why run a FWD at all, RWD or AWD are obviously going to hook better!

I think you get my point.....:p

While there is something to be said for solving problems avoiding them has just as much merit.

People will always like to do things their own way and as long as they are taking a good reasonable approach at what they are doing the rest is all just opinion and preference...

-Rich

black86glhs
12-20-2010, 09:35 PM
YaYa, not trying to come across too harshly, but with this kind of thinking, why do anything!

Why stay MTX, I'll just give up and go auto because ppl say I'll ET quicker!

Why stay 8v, 16v it way more efficient so why try to work anything out, just scap it and go to the next best thing!

H#LL, why run a FWD at all, RWD or AWD are obviously going to hook better!

I think you get my point.....:p

HAHAHAHAHA....like you know what you are talking about!!!!!! LOL. Just kidding with ya, Mr Mclellan.
It was hard to say that, so don't make me again...lol.

I don't think it is so horrible, but it definitely isn't state of the art. Maybe it is more for ease of pulling things apart. Granted they aren't going to advertise it just for that, but it is easier to work on than the stock SV.

ShadowFromHell
12-20-2010, 10:15 PM
I see your guys points, but I still think this unit is light years ahead of our stock stuff. We should just be happy to have it available!

black86glhs
12-20-2010, 10:19 PM
I see your guys points, but I still think this unit is light years ahead of our stock stuff. We should just be happy to have it available!

I agree, I like it. The exhaust will be easier to remove.:thumb:

Shadow
12-21-2010, 12:28 AM
HAHAHAHAHA....like you know what you are talking about!!!!!! LOL. Just kidding with ya, Mr Mclellan.
It was hard to say that, so don't make me again...lol.

Knock yourself out, I can take it! :D


I don't think it is so horrible, but it definitely isn't state of the art. Maybe it is more for ease of pulling things apart. Granted they aren't going to advertise it just for that, but it is easier to work on than the stock SV.

I'm Deff NOT trying to say it's Horrible or even close! Was just comparing it to something I think works Better. :eyebrows:


I see your guys points, but I still think this unit is light years ahead of our stock stuff. We should just be happy to have it available!

Agreed, options are always nice and so is diversity. Again, wasn't trying to make it sound That bad, just wondered why they wouldn't have made it that much better. (would have been easy to do)

black86glhs
12-21-2010, 12:33 AM
Knock yourself out, I can take it! :D



I'm Deff NOT trying to say it's Horrible or even close! Was just comparing it to something I think works Better. :eyebrows:



Agreed, options are always nice and so is diversity. Again, wasn't trying to make it sound That bad, just wondered why they wouldn't have made it that much better. (would have been easy to do)

Yeah Bob, we both are saying roughly the same thing, I knew what you meant.:thumb:

Simsy
12-21-2010, 01:11 AM
Actually this new ATP piece is Chrysler-only so it wouldn't do anything for you since you are TIII. I guess you could switch to the 'standard' ATP Ultimate S/V but you you'll have to get full custom downpipe or get the FWDP DP, and you might be the first to do that. If it were me, I would just fix up your downpipe since you have a good combo already; but my offer still stands...

yeah im probably just going to wind up modifying my setup i have now...but everyone ive been talking to is telling me that the v-band atp setup will flow better than the TU SV

shackwrrr
12-21-2010, 01:11 AM
Keywords were "My take is", meaning it was my opinion and just the way I think of it. I will say it now, This setup is better than the TU, Stock, or hogged out stock. You should be happy that a company that has no connections with our hobby made a product that will be extremely low volume.

All I'm saying is that if this isn't good enough for you, you probably need to look elsewhere for a setup. All swingvalves suck in my opinion, yes I will run one but I'm not shooting for 500+ HP, that 3/4in difference in outlet offset isn't going to make enough difference without already pushing the internal wastegate setup to its limits.

So just be happy that its made and its another option, its better than what we already have.

Shadow
12-22-2010, 10:20 AM
Keywords were "My take is", meaning it was my opinion and just the way I think of it. I will say it now, This setup is better than the TU, Stock, or hogged out stock. You should be happy that a company that has no connections with our hobby made a product that will be extremely low volume.

Agreed, it's a nice piece!


All I'm saying is that if this isn't good enough for you, you probably need to look elsewhere for a setup. All swingvalves suck in my opinion, yes I will run one but I'm not shooting for 500+ HP, that 3/4in difference in outlet offset isn't going to make enough difference without already pushing the internal wastegate setup to its limits.

Already did, where do you think the S/V in the diagram I posted came from?


So just be happy that its made and its another option, its better than what we already have.

Really? See above post! I was Not arguing based on a mythical idea. The S/V in my diagram that I compared this ATP unit to is Real. (I should know, I made it over 8 years ago! lol How else do you think I've made the power I have on so little!)

Juggy
12-22-2010, 10:54 AM
Agreed, it's a nice piece!



Already did, where do you think the S/V in the diagram I posted came from?



Really? See above post! I was Not arguing based on a mythical idea. The S/V in my diagram that I compared this ATP unit to is Real. (I should know, I made it over 8 years ago! lol How else do you think I've made the power I have on so little!)

i musta missed that part. so tell me why your "shadow 3" SV" will flow better then the ATP UI SV????
kind of hard to top an nice mandrel bent 90 right off the turbo....instead of the air whacking into a wall like the stock SV. i know you adjusted and made it nicer to flow, but i still cant see it flowing better then the ATP UI SV coupled with a 90 mandrel???

I was going to go the external route and ditch my TU 3" for some real flow. but what your saying is I dont need to go external and spend the extra money to make more power???? but either way i am spending money, if I wanted to "upgrade" to your 3" SV. honestly I think I can get off with a complete external setup, for around the same price. yes around 300-350. complete with custom downpipe AND tial 38mm gate.

we know your setup has been proven to 500whp. but when will it become a restriction?? im guessing this is what your stressing, is that you dont need to go external to make 500 whp, and can keep things "stockish" and still make big power.

again like previously mentioned in the thread, it all comes down to personal preference and what people want, what they can afford, and what they are willing to work it ;)


edit: btw...still may be some time to try n convince me to run yours b4 going external ;) just out of curiosity, how many of these things of yours are floating around? havent heard anyone mentioned running them. i know we talked about the gains and stuff b4 in emails. would like some feedback from others who have swapped em in.

Shadow
12-22-2010, 11:35 AM
Now I'm F'n PISSED! WTF just happened to this site! I just spent 20min replying to this post and I get loged out! Then it tells me to refreash and log in and I loose my reply!

Some mod better have a good explanation of what they just did!

Juggy
12-22-2010, 01:36 PM
Now I'm F'n PISSED! WTF just happened to this site! I just spent 20min replying to this post and I get loged out! Then it tells me to refreash and log in and I loose my reply!

Some mod better have a good explanation of what they just did!

click on that little box next to "remember me"
and whenever i do a long post....i always COPY it just in case something happens....ya it sucks i know!

puppet
12-22-2010, 01:43 PM
What's missing from the conversation is an understanding of how/why exhaust gasses flow out of the turbine and what effects the flow pattern. I think that the shape of the chamber the gasses exit into has everything to do with the flow patterns shape. If the chamber has an allowance for an internal gate, the flow will be disrupted proportionally. The volume of the gasses will fill all of the area(s) within the chamber first before flowing out of it. If the area of the chamber is irregular and not constructed with smooth flow exit in mind .. the flow will get more turbulent, slowing the eventual gas exit and increasing backpressure.

I arrive at this because of the VNTs ability to shape the exhaust gas shape/flow. The VNT changes the flow shape dynamically to suit spool. It stands to reason then that the shape of the chamber (SV) will/can determine flow pattern. Exhaust gasses exit the stock SV housing in a turbulent fashion because it has no direction imposed on it. It's a box. The ideal would then mean a mandrel or straight shot off the turbine. Including anything else in the path will hurt to a degree. Doesn't matter how flow looks leaving the turbine ... we can't change that but we can collect and direct it in a more uniform and efficient manner.

Shadow
12-22-2010, 02:29 PM
What's missing from the conversation is an understanding of how/why exhaust gasses flow out of the turbine and what effects the flow pattern. I think that the shape of the chamber the gasses exit into has everything to do with the flow patterns shape. If the chamber has an allowance for an internal gate, the flow will be disrupted proportionally. The volume of the gasses will fill all of the area(s) within the chamber first before flowing out of it. If the area of the chamber is irregular and not constructed with smooth flow exit in mind .. the flow will get more turbulent, slowing the eventual gas exit and increasing backpressure.

I arrive at this because of the VNTs ability to shape the exhaust gas shape/flow. The VNT changes the flow shape dynamically to suit spool. It stands to reason then that the shape of the chamber (SV) will/can determine flow pattern. Exhaust gasses exit the stock SV housing in a turbulent fashion because it has no direction imposed on it. It's a box. The ideal would then mean a mandrel or straight shot off the turbine. Including anything else in the path will hurt to a degree. Doesn't matter how flow looks leaving the turbine ... we can't change that but we can collect and direct it in a more uniform and efficient manner.

I agree 100%!

Now, is there any way I can get my post back? Through my PC or through this site? Can I not access my RAM in my PC and get it that way?

Aries_Turbo
12-22-2010, 02:41 PM
i dont think so. get typing. :)

Shadow
12-22-2010, 05:22 PM
i dont think so. get typing. :)

So riddle me this; Am I going to have to login every 20 min or less now? (if I walk away from the screen and come back)

---------- Post added at 03:02 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:09 PM ----------


click on that little box next to "remember me"
and whenever i do a long post....i always COPY it just in case something happens....ya it sucks i know!

This is F'n rediculous! 30 mins this time!

I don't have anything that says "remeber me" on my screen. WTF, why can't I remain logged in long enough to post! IS it TOO much to ask that when I login, I stay logged in until I log out or AT LEAST LEAVE the site!

---------- Post added at 03:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:02 PM ----------


i musta missed that part. so tell me why your "shadow 3" SV" will flow better then the ATP UI SV????

Did you look at the diagram I posted? Pretty self explanitory!

---------- Post added at 03:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:13 PM ----------



kind of hard to top an nice mandrel bent 90 right off the turbo....instead of the air whacking into a wall like the stock SV. i know you adjusted and made it nicer to flow, but i still cant see it flowing better then the ATP UI SV coupled with a 90 mandrel???

Adjusted and made it nicer to flow? Adjusted what? Hard to top a nice 90 deg off the turbo? MY S/V IS a 90 deg right off the turbo! lol

---------- Post added at 03:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:16 PM ----------


I was going to go the external route and ditch my TU 3" for some real flow. but what your saying is I dont need to go external and spend the extra money to make more power???? but either way i am spending money, if I wanted to "upgrade" to your 3" SV. honestly I think I can get off with a complete external setup, for around the same price. yes around 300-350. complete with custom downpipe AND tial 38mm gate.

My S/V is Not a cast piece, too bad. If it were, I could prob sell it for less because it wouldn't be so labour intensive, but the initial costs would be killer.

Therefore I need parts to build my S/V's. Hence the need for a 2 1/2" S/V core. So, my S/V is 250.00 + you send me your 2 1/2" S/V to moddify.

Most ppl now a days have a 2 1/2" S/V either on their car or as spare parts. Either way, no one has ever bought one of my S/V's outright for 325.00. They have all had 2 1/2" S/V's to send in for core. (pretty sure you knew this already?)

86Shelby
12-22-2010, 05:25 PM
Before you sign in you should see it like the attachment. Be sure to check the box next to "Remember Me" before you hit enter.

Shadow
12-22-2010, 05:48 PM
we know your setup has been proven to 500whp. but when will it become a restriction?? im guessing this is what your stressing, is that you dont need to go external to make 500 whp, and can keep things "stockish" and still make big power.

again like previously mentioned in the thread, it all comes down to personal preference and what people want, what they can afford, and what they are willing to work it ;)


edit: btw...still may be some time to try n convince me to run yours b4 going external ;) just out of curiosity, how many of these things of yours are floating around? havent heard anyone mentioned running them. i know we talked about the gains and stuff b4 in emails. would like some feedback from others who have swapped em in.

Convince you? Man I really wish you would have taken me up on the offer I made to you over a year ago. That I would send you one of my S/V's and you would bolt it on with no other change and run your car right into the 11's! You could have BtB dyno and ran it at the track and provided the feedback that you are now requesting.

And as per our agreement, if it lived up to it's hype, pay me for it, if you weren't satisfied that it was all I made it out to be you could send it back to me and I would pay shipping Both ways!

---------- Post added at 03:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:29 PM ----------


Before you sign in you should see it like the attachment. Be sure to check the box next to "Remember Me" before you hit enter.

Ah, that remember me! Damn, I thought that was going to remember my password, not allow me to be logged in longer?

---------- Post added at 03:38 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:31 PM ----------



edit: btw...still may be some time to try n convince me to run yours b4 going external ;) just out of curiosity, how many of these things of yours are floating around? havent heard anyone mentioned running them. i know we talked about the gains and stuff b4 in emails. would like some feedback from others who have swapped em in.

Strangly enough, everyone who has bought a S/V from me is Not looking to go over 300-350WHP. Plus I have no idea if they even have they're cars together yet.

The owner of the Charger we put into the mid 11's @ 125mph (28lb boost and out of fuel on the +40's) is thinking about running a meth inj kit to take the little 46 trim stage 1 too 30+psi. If he follows through, I will get my hands on a TU 3" S/V and BtB dyno and run the car at the track to get some feedback.

See, that's why I really wanted you to take me up on my offer. Knowing you have what most concider the best pieces possible TU 3" S/V and TU cast header, it would have been a great comparo.

Also knowing you couldn't get your car into the 11's with way more stuff done (other than the S/V) than the full bodied Charger we put into the mid 11's!

For a matter of fact, the little 46 trim Charger we built with my 3" S/V traps 117-120mph on 20psi boost pump gas tune!

---------- Post added at 03:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:38 PM ----------




See, that's why I really wanted you to take me up on my offer. Knowing you have what most concider the best pieces possible TU 3" S/V and TU cast header, it would have been a great comparo.


Now, before anyone goes off the deep end thinking I'm taking a shot at TU, guess again! I've never once said anything bad about they're S/V's. For a matter of fact, quite the opposite!

They're piece is exactly what it's advertised to be, a bolt-on upgrade with little to no moddification needed. I'm sure that Chris would be the first to admit that "total performance" was not as important as pkging and ease of instal. So I'm in no ways saying it's an apples to apples comparo, my S/V Should give better performance, that's what it was designed to do!

Juggy, I would have also liked to see how my S/V would have worked with the TU manifold. Should have put the exhaust almost back to the stock location!

BadAssPerformance
12-22-2010, 05:59 PM
For a matter of fact, the little 46 trim Charger we built with my 3" S/V traps 117-120mph on 20psi boost pump gas tune!

Sounds like a quick car, are they a member here?

BTW, the SV is not the only cork in our systems... When i had the 2.2L in the Z, I ran 120mph on a 2.5" Turbonetics SV at 20-24psi boost and then the same with a TU 3" SV with not much gain at 24psi and up to 30psi. ... just means that my restriction was elsewhere. One of the local guys runs a Shadow with an old FM E2 with FM modified 2.5" SV on ~20psi and went 11.27 @ 121.91...

---------- Post added at 03:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:55 PM ----------


Now, before anyone goes off the deep end thinking I'm taking a shot at TU, guess again! I've never once said anything bad about they're S/V's. For a matter of fact, quite the opposite!

They're piece is exactly what it's advertised to be, a bolt-on upgrade with little to no moddification needed. I'm sure that Chris would be the first to admit that "total performance" was not as important as pkging and ease of instal. So I'm in no ways saying it's an apples to apples comparo, my S/V Should give better performance, that's what it was designed to do!

Good point for 400whp or less, there is no need for anything larger than a TU 3" SV.

4 l-bodies
12-22-2010, 07:11 PM
.....Strangly enough, everyone who has bought a S/V from me is Not looking to go over 300-350WHP. Plus I have no idea if they even have they're cars together yet.....


Rob I have a little street feedback for you on one of your swingvalves. You sold one to Steve M. He is on this forum. I built his motor a few years ago and Steve installed the motor but wanted me to do final steps in getting the vehicle back on the road after ten years being off the road. 2.2 with one of my +1mm heads, S-50 with F2 wheel with of course your swingvalve. Big front mount quality cooler, Demos Menegon cam, Blah, blah, blah... In other words, motor was done well.
Since we didn't have a known good 3 bar cal, we broke in the motor and clutch with a Shelby lancer LM with stock boost levels. My first clue that this was no ordinary motor was how much fuel pressure it needed to run properly with 53lb injectors and stock LM. Normally, you would need to run fuel way down in the 20-26PSI (static) to get idle and low speed A/F correct. This motor needed like 36 PSI just to run normally. At 11-12 PSI (stock shelby boost levels) this car is darting all over the road! With slicks the car would be running in mid-upper 12's on this boost level! When we turn boost up another 12-15 PSI it's gonna be a handful. That will be another 100+ HP. 11's should be easily attainable with proper traction.
Certainly don't want to sound like it's all on account of the swingvalve, as this car has some very nice (and expensive) parts on it, but the swingvalve is a perfect addition for a vehicle with this type of mods. Now we just need to get a proper cal made for it. Original goal was 300 WHP. Probably will wind up closer to 400 WHP.
Todd

Shadow
12-22-2010, 08:22 PM
Sounds like a quick car, are they a member here?

BTW, the SV is not the only cork in our systems... When i had the 2.2L in the Z, I ran 120mph on a 2.5" Turbonetics SV at 20-24psi boost and then the same with a TU 3" SV with not much gain at 24psi and up to 30psi. ... just means that my restriction was elsewhere. One of the local guys runs a Shadow with an old FM E2 with FM modified 2.5" SV on ~20psi and went 11.27 @ 121.91...

---------- Post added at 03:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:55 PM ----------



Good point for 400whp or less, there is no need for anything larger than a TU 3" SV.

Yes and no. The S/V does several things and by the sounds of your post, yours was done at 20-24psi! This is where you find out what's going on. IF you could have swapped my S/V on to your car with no other change, you would have known what the restriction was.

---------- Post added at 05:23 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:20 PM ----------


Rob I have a little street feedback for you on one of your swingvalves. You sold one to Steve M. He is on this forum. I built his motor a few years ago and Steve installed the motor but wanted me to do final steps in getting the vehicle back on the road after ten years being off the road. 2.2 with one of my +1mm heads, S-50 with F2 wheel with of course your swingvalve. Big front mount quality cooler, Demos Menegon cam, Blah, blah, blah... In other words, motor was done well.
Since we didn't have a known good 3 bar cal, we broke in the motor and clutch with a Shelby lancer LM with stock boost levels. My first clue that this was no ordinary motor was how much fuel pressure it needed to run properly with 53lb injectors and stock LM. Normally, you would need to run fuel way down in the 20-26PSI (static) to get idle and low speed A/F correct. This motor needed like 36 PSI just to run normally. At 11-12 PSI (stock shelby boost levels) this car is darting all over the road! With slicks the car would be running in mid-upper 12's on this boost level! When we turn boost up another 12-15 PSI it's gonna be a handful. That will be another 100+ HP. 11's should be easily attainable with proper traction.
Certainly don't want to sound like it's all on account of the swingvalve, as this car has some very nice (and expensive) parts on it, but the swingvalve is a perfect addition for a vehicle with this type of mods. Now we just need to get a proper cal made for it. Original goal was 300 WHP. Probably will wind up closer to 400 WHP.
Todd


NICE! You don't know what it feels like to sell ppl something and be left to wonder if they ever got it together or ever really got things worked out.

I don't think anyone really knows how seriously I take stuff like this. I sell somebody something that I swear by and I expect them to have great results.

Really glad you took the time to post this, just made my week!

---------- Post added at 06:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:23 PM ----------


Sounds like a quick car, are they a member here?

Not that I'm aware of. I don't think he's been on any of the forums for a couple years. (busy with life)


BTW, the SV is not the only cork in our systems... When i had the 2.2L in the Z, I ran 120mph on a 2.5" Turbonetics SV at 20-24psi boost and then the same with a TU 3" SV with not much gain at 24psi and up to 30psi. ... just means that my restriction was elsewhere. One of the local guys runs a Shadow with an old FM E2 with FM modified 2.5" SV on ~20psi and went 11.27 @ 121.91...[COLOR="Silver"]

Don't forget, a header will make a crappy S/V look better than it is just like in Aarrons header test. The even pulses will flow through the turbine And through the S/V more efficiently right up to it's limit. So, correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you have an equil length header on that mtr? It would have used the S/V more efficiently than a log mani ever could and then stop (almost like flipping a switch) when it reached it's limit. Which is exactly what it sounds like it did!

OmniLuvr
12-22-2010, 09:08 PM
so shadow, have you ever thought of running a v-band flange at the end of your sv, instead of the "factory" style dp flange? then you could make your sv's out of the 2.25" unit because you wouldnt need the 2.5" dp flange? also, i think you can purchase v-band flanges as pairs with the clamp, so that a person purchasing your sv would only need to weld the matching flange (that could be provided with your sv) to there dp to work? i really like your sv, but it sucks having to give you a 2.5" as a core to sacrifice, when they are considerd an "upgrade".

Shadow
12-23-2010, 12:17 AM
so shadow, have you ever thought of running a v-band flange at the end of your sv, instead of the "factory" style dp flange? then you could make your sv's out of the 2.25" unit because you wouldnt need the 2.5" dp flange? also, i think you can purchase v-band flanges as pairs with the clamp, so that a person purchasing your sv would only need to weld the matching flange (that could be provided with your sv) to there dp to work? i really like your sv, but it sucks having to give you a 2.5" as a core to sacrifice, when they are considerd an "upgrade".

Funny you ask, as this is exactly what Juggy wanted. I could do that without any problems and I would not need a 2 1/2" S/V core. (would still need the flange off the 2 1/4 though)

I made it this way because it's less hassle for the end user. Bolt in on, adjust your exhaust system and go. + this S/V works with the 3" downpipes that are already available.

With the v-band your going to have to invest in a flex pipe somewhere along the exhaust system. Another expense and something I didn't think too many ppl wanted to do.

Juggy
12-23-2010, 12:38 AM
so shadow, have you ever thought of running a v-band flange at the end of your sv, instead of the "factory" style dp flange? then you could make your sv's out of the 2.25" unit because you wouldnt need the 2.5" dp flange? also, i think you can purchase v-band flanges as pairs with the clamp, so that a person purchasing your sv would only need to weld the matching flange (that could be provided with your sv) to there dp to work? i really like your sv, but it sucks having to give you a 2.5" as a core to sacrifice, when they are considerd an "upgrade".


Funny you ask, as this is exactly what Juggy wanted. I could do that without any problems and I would not need a 2 1/2" S/V core. (would still need the flange off the 2 1/4 though)

I made it this way because it's less hassle for the end user. Bolt in on, adjust your exhaust system and go. + this S/V works with the 3" downpipes that are already available.

With the v-band your going to have to invest in a flex pipe somewhere along the exhaust system. Another expense and something I didn't think too many ppl wanted to do.


lol.....ya I was requesting the V band. then I could just mock up a flex piece on the downpipe and would be good 2 go.

I may be still willing to do some testing :) the reason i couldnt get into the 11s was because my over looked clogged fuel filter would only allow me 40 psi fuel pressure with 25 psi boost. I couldnt even muster 55 static...LOL. however with an intake swap i picked up a solid 4 mph. but with no fuel car was down on torque and 1/8th mile suffered, i just picked it up on the back 1/2.

the car has undergone slight changes since. its now a 2.5L and can play with my own tuning :)

also the local dyno shop cease to exist. It may open back up sometime next year but its doubtful. swingvalve swap on the car is a breeze when you've made the switch to cap screws! I was aiming for some real back to back testing against the TU swingvalve

with the tune i got on the car now, 11s are in the bag easily. cant even keep the slicks hooked in 3rd from a roll :evil:
I couldnt even spin them in 2nd gear runnin 12.0 lol

Shadow
12-23-2010, 12:44 AM
lol.....ya I was requesting the V band. then I could just mock up a flex piece on the downpipe and would be good 2 go.

I may be still willing to do some testing :) the reason i couldnt get into the 11s was because my over looked clogged fuel filter would only allow me 40 psi fuel pressure with 25 psi boost. I couldnt even muster 55 static...LOL. however with an intake swap i picked up a solid 4 mph. but with no fuel car was down on torque and 1/8th mile suffered, i just picked it up on the back 1/2.

the car has undergone slight changes since. its now a 2.5L and can play with my own tuning :)

also the local dyno shop cease to exist. It may open back up sometime next year but its doubtful. swingvalve swap on the car is a breeze when you've made the switch to cap screws! I was aiming for some real back to back testing against the TU swingvalve

with the tune i got on the car now, 11s are in the bag easily. cant even keep the slicks hooked in 3rd from a roll :evil:
I couldnt even spin them in 2nd gear runnin 12.0 lol

So when you gettin to a track to confirm the new found powa?

4 l-bodies
12-23-2010, 01:06 AM
Funny you ask, as this is exactly what Juggy wanted. I could do that without any problems and I would not need a 2 1/2" S/V core. (would still need the flange off the 2 1/4 though)

I made it this way because it's less hassle for the end user. Bolt in on, adjust your exhaust system and go. + this S/V works with the 3" downpipes that are already available.

With the v-band your going to have to invest in a flex pipe somewhere along the exhaust system. Another expense and something I didn't think too many ppl wanted to do.

With having a v-band style, that would open a market for people that are running TBI header manifolds as well. Obviously the angle of the flange is completely different with the relocated turbo on the TBI header. I have a TBI header on my 86 GLHT. I'm using a FM modified swingvalve, which was part of their kit, which BTW, I needed to massage a lot. It is no bigger than 2.5" but is does have a cast mandrel elbow fabricated into the swingvalve which is along the same lines as yours. Not nearly as large as your 3" log manifold swingvalve though. LMK if you end up making any of those.

BTW- I do know what it feels like getting little feedback on parts. I've sold many really big flowing BV & +1mm heads and rarely get feedback. I've got three BV heads sold alone to a 2 guys in FL and never heard one word from them. They must like em cause they keep buying, but yeah a little feedback would be good to hear.
Todd

GLHNSLHT2
12-23-2010, 01:10 AM
No news is usually good news :)

Juggy
12-23-2010, 01:12 AM
So when you gettin to a track to confirm the new found powa?

they open first thing may...so long as I can get my buddy to tow me :)

BadAssPerformance
12-23-2010, 01:46 AM
Yes and no. The S/V does several things and by the sounds of your post, yours was done at 20-24psi! This is where you find out what's going on. IF you could have swapped my S/V on to your car with no other change, you would have known what the restriction was.

So is your SV magical? LOL ;) I dont think you read my post correctly, there is a big difference between the 2.5" SV and 3" TU SV and I did not see a gain even increasing boost from 24psi to 30psi, so I seriously doubt yoru SV would have doen anything.


Don't forget, a header will make a crappy S/V look better than it is just like in Aarrons header test. The even pulses will flow through the turbine And through the S/V more efficiently right up to it's limit. So, correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you have an equil length header on that mtr? It would have used the S/V more efficiently than a log mani ever could and then stop (almost like flipping a switch) when it reached it's limit. Which is exactly what it sounds like it did!

Yes I did have an equal length header, but again, with the variables changed, the 3" SV was not the restriction at 400 whp.

Shadow
12-23-2010, 10:10 AM
So is your SV magical? LOL ;) I dont think you read my post correctly, there is a big difference between the 2.5" SV and 3" TU SV and I did not see a gain even increasing boost from 24psi to 30psi, so I seriously doubt yoru SV would have doen anything.

What is the TU S/V rated at? +5WHP? Do you think you would notice that at your power level? + you had an already ported 2 1/2" S/V, so gain could have been less.

Remember, even though it's bigger, it shares the same inherent design flaw that the 2 1/2" has. You going to reach a point were the turbulence in the housing is going to create too much BP and that's going to be it!

Your a big header fan, I would think you would understand this better than most. Any stock style S/V is like a stock exhaust mani in a way. Exhaust is flowing through so turbulently it's like pushing meat through a grinder. Once BP becomes too high, everything on the other end is going to suffer.

The TU S/V addes volume, not quality of flow, so it's going to work "see better gains" at lower boost levels where the exhaust turbulence isn't critical. Your BtB test may just have proven the limit of both the stock ported 2 1/2" S/V and the TU 3".

Haven't you even wondered why so many seem to stall right around the 400WHP level? Then you look at those that have gone past that mark with one of these 8v's and they're ALL using a different style S/V or external W/G.

Is a header magical? No, it's just a Way better design and you know this! Yet you have no problem with claims of 40WHP gains at the 400WHP mark with a header? Did you think exhaust works on a different principle when it's on the aft side of the turbo?

The 11 sec Charger we built gained at least 30WHP from this S/V, prob more like 40 and I'll go into more detail when I have a chance and see if you can see where I'm coming from.

Juggy
12-23-2010, 10:19 AM
So is your SV magical? LOL ;) I dont think you read my post correctly, there is a big difference between the 2.5" SV and 3" TU SV and I did not see a gain even increasing boost from 24psi to 30psi, so I seriously doubt yoru SV would have doen anything.



Yes I did have an equal length header, but again, with the variables changed, the 3" SV was not the restriction at 400 whp.


how could u not see/feel a gain? didnt TU dyno the 2.5 vs 3", and it picked up something like 5hp and 25ish fpt???

the TU 3" SV is just a bigger copy of the standard 2.5" SV. shadow has taken it another step, and has modfied the exhaust path, by helping it exit on a more radius'd smoother path, then just slamming out on a 45 degree wall. when we had talked #s, he was very sure that even swapping from my TU 3" to his mandrelish 3" SV, that I should pick up approx 25-30 hp over the swingvalve swap.

yeah im stirring the pot now JT ;)
again, this is why me and him first engaged conversation. i was on the verge of breaking into the 11s and he swears his swingvalve would have allowed me too! (altho i had fueling issues....). And with my car having all of the goodies it does, Im a really good candidate for some real back to back testing considering i have a custom intake, big valve G head with the TU header and a GT3076r; at this point I have very little restriction in the exhaust/intake...now is my TU 3" the cork?? would a really nice proper flowing swingvalve/downpipe really be that noticeable over what i am running now??

Rob, you need to post a pic of this thing on here!!! I still have the one u emailed me showing the SV bolted up to a motor, but the pic is very small. its been awhile since I last seen what it looked like....man I forgot how much nicer that thing looked over my TU one here.

BadAssPerformance
12-23-2010, 10:30 AM
What is the TU S/V rated at? +5WHP? Do you think you would notice that at your power level? + you had an already ported 2 1/2" S/V, so gain could have been less.

Remember, even though it's bigger, it shares the same inherent design flaw that the 2 1/2" has. You going to reach a point were the turbulence in the housing is going to create too much BP and that's going to be it!

I am confused by your statement of it being "rated at 5WHP" and not sure where you got that from, but it does really matter, right? I'm sure you understand that a specific part by itself does not provide a specific HP gain but instead is a combination specific, i.e. a part may gain less hp on a stock combo vs. a race built combo.

I think your turbulence theory has some merit but is not quite the restriction you think it is. ... at least below 400whp.

Juggy
12-23-2010, 10:32 AM
I am confused by your statement of it being "rated at 5WHP" and not sure where you got that from, but it does really matter, right? I'm sure you understand that a specific part by itself does not provide a specific HP gain but instead is a combination specific, i.e. a part may gain less hp on a stock combo vs. a race built combo.

I think your turbulence theory has some merit but is not quite the restriction you think it is.

TU advertised a 5whp and 20 somethign fpt gain. dyno'd over 2.5" SV....

BadAssPerformance
12-23-2010, 10:34 AM
TU advertised a 5whp and 20 somethign fpt gain. dyno'd over 2.5" SV....

So what? You missed my point. On what engine combo?

Juggy
12-23-2010, 10:37 AM
So what? You missed my point. On what engine combo?

ha! i dont think anyone knows besides chris. he only posted the dyno plot on his site showing the gains. there was NOTHING mentioned about the setup, or what was done or not done to the car, besides the swingvalve swap.

i can only assume it was a stock ish setup. now did those gains include a 3" downpipe over a 2.5" one as well????? like i said...no one knows....

BadAssPerformance
12-23-2010, 11:05 AM
Your a big header fan, I would think you would understand this better than most. Any stock style S/V is like a stock exhaust mani in a way. Exhaust is flowing through so turbulently it's like pushing meat through a grinder. Once BP becomes too high, everything on the other end is going to suffer.

I didnt say I didnt understand turbulence.


The TU S/V addes volume, not quality of flow, so it's going to work "see better gains" at lower boost levels where the exhaust turbulence isn't critical. Your BtB test may just have proven the limit of both the stock ported 2 1/2" S/V and the TU 3".

I'm 99.9% sure that my BtB test only proved that the mild port 2pc intake was my restriction, but you're right in that the crappy 2.5" SV supported 400whp.


Haven't you even wondered why so many seem to stall right around the 400WHP level? Then you look at those that have gone past that mark with one of these 8v's and they're ALL using a different style S/V or external W/G.

Ya know, I added a 400whp note to my last post before I saw you added to this post. ;)


Is a header magical? No, it's just a Way better design and you know this! Yet you have no problem with claims of 40WHP gains at the 400WHP mark with a header? Did you think exhaust works on a different principle when it's on the aft side of the turbo?

You missed my point. A header may only add 5 hp on a stock motor and 40 on a race one...


The 11 sec Charger we built gained at least 30WHP from this S/V, prob more like 40 and I'll go into more detail when I have a chance and see if you can see where I'm coming from.

Sounds cool, a true BtB test?

---------- Post added at 08:53 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:46 AM ----------


ha! i dont think anyone knows besides chris. he only posted the dyno plot on his site showing the gains. there was NOTHING mentioned about the setup, or what was done or not done to the car, besides the swingvalve swap.

i can only assume it was a stock ish setup. now did those gains include a 3" downpipe over a 2.5" one as well????? like i said...no one knows....

And really it doesn't matter... I like to think this crowd is more intelligent than the old SBC crowd using what I have always called "Summit Racing Math" ... you know, when someone takes a 300hp chebby crate motor and bolt on a +50hp carb and +50hp headers and +50hp cam and +50hp intake and then tells everyone at the car show the car makes 500hp when the car has never been on a dyno or down the dragstrip ;)

---------- Post added at 09:05 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:53 AM ----------

Forgot I did another BtB test with the 2.2L with 3" TU SV.

-120mph on motor... ~25psi all gears

-128mph on spray... 100hp jets BUT way rich so *maybe* 80 shot? ~20psi, no spray in 1 & 2, ~25psi on the gun in 3 & 4

By weight and mph ~ 85whp pick up so ~ 485? Yes the spray adds efficency BUT it also adds a TON more gasses that gotta get out of the "turbulent" SV...

Shadow
12-23-2010, 11:23 AM
I know I've rattled this tale off 100+ times to ppl who have asked (and prob some who didn't! lol) but not sure if I've ever posted in on the forums. (maybe?)

Years ago, and when I was first getting into these cars, one of the ways I would cut through the bull was to seek out individuals who had a track record for the things they had done. (I thought everyone did this, but later found out that some ppl just can't be helped!)

This brought me to individuals like Gus and Gary. Rather than having to start at square 1, and prove out everything myself, I trusted that the info they were giving was true to the best of their ability. (not that I agreed with everything they were doing, just that I believed the info, ie. results vs build info was true)

This is also the reason I have little patience for ppl who want to bad mouth guys like Gus and Gary and others who have taken the time to share their result with the rest of us. No one is perfect! Why do some ppl not see this? A person can only do what is theirs to do and do it to the best of their ability and be truthfull about it, that's all you can ask of someone....no?

So, when ppl would come to me to build their car, I would Always look at the results from a similare build, that a proven individual that I trusted had shared.

I would then compare my own results and that more than anything else would Prove wether I was on the right track or not.

I soon learned that the key to everything I was doing was quickly coming down to the turbine side of things. It was no secret that as I was going to make more power, the turbine would get bigger along with the housing and lag would increase. Now because all of the cars I was building were street car, ppl obviously wanted the least amount of lag possible.

Enter Kelvin, a customer who walked into my shop some 8 years or so ago and asked if we could build him a 12 sec street S/C. Now I knew that what that really ment (in my mind anyways) was that we were going to be building a car that could rap off an 11 on slicks on the right day. (11 meaning 11.9x!)

So I did what I always did, looked back on all of the notes that I had taken until something caught my eye. This was going to be our biggest build to date, my TT had been sitting since the flood of 97 and I had no idea when I would get back onto it, so we lived our dreams through other ppls builds.

I left the turbo selection to Glenn, one of my most trusted friends and an authorized Garrett turbo rebuilder. Since the goal was going to be 400hp he chose the 46 trim in it's native housing. (this was before I even knew what a 46 trim was) Now we needed to choose the hot side, This was My department!

In my notes I found something I had writen down from years earlier on Gary's K-car. When he was running the S60 .63 A/R stage 1 and I believe ported 2 1/2" S/V. The car was trapping 115mph if memory serves and the turbo was maxed. He then put a 40 shot of No2 into it and went a high of 118mph. Upped the No2 to 60 shot and his mph didn't go up. He concluded that the turbine and manifold combo had become too restrictive and it was time to upgrade.

I had a different take on this. If what Glenn had been feeding me (about the exhaust exiting the turbine in a helical "tornado like" shap) was really as crusial to turbo efficiency as he was making it out to be, this could be a perfect oportunity to find out.

I will run the exact same hot side, .63 A/R stage 1 wheel and run a ported stock exhaust mani like Gary was running and see IF the turbine or mani Was the restriction!

Now Garys car was an auto, so I knew that his mph would be slightly lower than a MTX car, but his car was 2200lb with driver at that time, Kelvins Charger was more like 2600lbs. I figured the weight difference should = the auto/MTX difference and it should be a pretty fair comparo.

So, the build became known around here as the "119+mph biuld"!lol Now I was known for my MPH builds because that's all I ever talked about, if the car makes the MPH, the rest is just traction and driving. In other words, I knew that mph proved the power you were making more so than any BS dyno, ET was just showing how much power you were getting to the ground!

You should have heard the naysayers around here! 400hp out of an 8v, on a stock exhaust mani? Never!

I'll never forget the day another good friend of mine (Todd) dropped by the shop. Now we had built several turbo cars for him and he was wondering wether one could stay 8v and really make that much power. I was just getting ready to drop in the P/T and the newly designed S/V was staring us right in the face.

I told him about the similarities of the builds, told him all of the perameters. He looked at me and said "what if it only traps 115'? I said quite bluntly, "if it only traps 115 I will look at it as a total failure on my part and that I know nothing about building one of these mtrs"!

I then went on to relay to him that the car would trap 119+. How much is the +, I don't know, but I do know this, however much more we trap than 119 will be ALL on account of this S/V!

Well the rest is hystory. The car went out and absolutly shattered every expectation we had of it! 11's on the right day? The car proved to be an all day any day 11 sec car, going 11.62 @ 125mph on 28 psi with a stage 5 FWD cal and +40's running 78psi static fuel preasure! (106 in the rail which was a little scary) + this was before I really knew how to drive these cars and I was Granny (no WOT) shifting because it was, after all, someone elses car!

In conclusion we put more hp through the .63 A/R stage 1 than anyone said we should be able to do, and have contined to do so ever since.

The Only reason I have been able to reach the HP levels I have with the stock exhaust mani is Because I have concentrated on the least amount of BP on the Aft side of the turbine.....period!

Magic? There's nothing magical about it, but I could see how it might appear that way to some! :drum:

I should add that this was around the same time that I was trading e-mails with Joe O'conner. Now he swore by his 2 1/2" mandrel S/V and that's where I originally got the idea to make it this way. (just wanted to go as big as I could and still have stock-like fittment)

BadAssPerformance
12-23-2010, 01:19 PM
Good story, thanks for sharing. I agree in learning from others so we dont have to each do it ourselves to figure it out :nod: thats what this forum and sharing stories/info is all about :thumb:

Sounds like you have had some great results with that SV. Did you get a chance to do any BtB testing against a 2.5" or 3" SV?

There are many ways to get to a result and combined efficiencies are key so obviously a better SV will help, just like a better intake, head, header, etc. :nod:

If you havnt figured out my smartass comments, I tend to call stuff "magical" when something is talked so highly about that it appears that it is the sole reason a car makes power is because of that item. ;)

Looking thru the last page... with the 2.5" SV, 3" SV and your outlet each capable of 400whp... I'll take the magical comment back, LOL ;)

Shadow
12-23-2010, 03:46 PM
Good story, thanks for sharing. I agree in learning from others so we dont have to each do it ourselves to figure it out :nod: thats what this forum and sharing stories/info is all about :thumb:

Sounds like you have had some great results with that SV. Did you get a chance to do any BtB testing against a 2.5" or 3" SV?

There are many ways to get to a result and combined efficiencies are key so obviously a better SV will help, just like a better intake, head, header, etc. :nod:

If you havnt figured out my smartass comments, I tend to call stuff "magical" when something is talked so highly about that it appears that it is the sole reason a car makes power is because of that item. ;)

Looking thru the last page... with the 2.5" SV, 3" SV and your outlet each capable of 400whp... I'll take the magical comment back, LOL ;)

It's all good JT, like I've said before I don't take things to seriously on the net. Although when ppl use a sertain slang, I'm usually inclined to throw it back out there!

I do have trouble, when so many are struggling to make good power, with miss-information. So when I Know something is a Major piece of the puzzle, I will emphasize it!

So, not convinced yet eh? I can see your a tough nut to crack! Let's go about this a different way and see if we can't Prove something out!

List your mods to the 8v you had in the Daytona you were talking about, Like this;

CAI=

I/C=

I/C piping=

TB=

Intake=

Turbo= (including hot side info)

Mani or header=

Head and cam= (including type of head and valve size)

Bottom end= (lower/higher than normal comp? diff stroke ect)

Tranny gearing=

Slick size=

Race weight=

BadAssPerformance
12-23-2010, 04:53 PM
So, not convinced yet eh? I can see your a tough nut to crack! Let's go about this a different way and see if we can't Prove something out!

Not convince of what? Where did I ever say that a better flowing exhaust dump wouldnt help? :confused2: All I said was that the stock style SV's are good to 400+ whp...

Or do you mean on my car with the old 2.2L? As I posted above I ran 128mph ~ 485whp thru a "turbulent" SV so pretty sure that wasnt *the* restriction.

Entire build documented here:
http://www.badassperformance.com/mrides/z/04_specs/z_2004_8v_specs.html

ShadowFromHell
12-23-2010, 05:33 PM
I love reading this guys, keep it up. Mind posting a pic up of your S/V shadow? Been a while since I have seen a pic.

turbovanman²
12-23-2010, 06:18 PM
YaYa, not trying to come across too harshly, but with this kind of thinking, why do anything!

Why stay MTX, I'll just give up and go auto because ppl say I'll ET quicker!

Why stay 8v, 16v it way more efficient so why try to work anything out, just scap it and go to the next best thing!



Now your talking, :thumb: :partywoot:



The thread got a little side tracked but great thread, :nod: :thumb:

glhs0426
12-23-2010, 09:50 PM
I had a different take on this. If what Glenn had been feeding me (about the exhaust exiting the turbine in a helical "tornado like" shap) was really as crusial to turbo efficiency as he was making it out to be, this could be a perfect oportunity to find out.


Is this why you like the Holset so much? It has the exhaust outlet virtually straight off the turbine and huge, resulting in no backpressure.

Shadow
12-24-2010, 12:11 AM
Is this why you like the Holset so much? It has the exhaust outlet virtually straight off the turbine and huge, resulting in no backpressure.

It deff factored in on me picking it. Best internal gated turbo I've seen!


Some pics of one of my 3" S/V's......


And one mounted on my 2.2.

black86glhs
12-24-2010, 12:56 AM
It deff factored in on me picking it. Best internal gated turbo I've seen!


Some pics of one of my 3" S/V's......


And one mounted on my 2.2.

I think you can remove the bright light from the s/v. I don't think it adds HP. LOL.

Shadow
12-24-2010, 11:15 AM
I think you can remove the bright light from the s/v. I don't think it adds HP. LOL.

I could show you the pics I took without, just a black hole. (was a crappy camera)

Shadow
12-24-2010, 12:59 PM
First off, let me just say that I had No idea how much you had done on that build! (thought I was pretty familiar, but obviously not) I thought you had run a 50 trim stage 3, which would have been a perfect comparo to my 57 trim stage 3. The 60-1 is more like a direct comparo to the Holset I'm running now!

Regardless, this will still work just fine. Biggest problem in comparing build info on the basis of gleaning any good info is how reputable the sources are. In this case (I believe anyways) that we have two good reputable builds. So here we go;

CAI= Your 3" intake with K&N vs my 4" intake with K&N

I/C= Your Spearco 1080cfm vs my dual stock I/C set-up

I/C piping= ? vs my 2 1/2" (guessing that yours was at least 2 1/2"

TB= Both 52mm

Intake= Both 2 piece ported (although mine was not welded, didn't port the lower That much)

Turbo= (including hot side info) Your 60-1 .63 A/R stage 3 vs my 57 trim .63 A/R stage 3

S/V= Your stock styl 2 1/2" or TU 3" vs my 3" mandrel

Mani or header= Your eq length header vs my stock ported mani

Head and cam= (including type of head and valve size) Your big valve G-head and FM 475 cam vs my +1mm G-head and stock turbo roller cam

Bottom end= (lower/higher than normal comp? diff stroke ect) same, unless you want to count yours being CB and mine not.

Tranny gearing= Both 555 with 3.85 FD

Slick size= both 24.5 x 8.5

Race weight= I believe you have said 2750lb vs my 2550 at the time (might have been closer to 2600?)

And a couple notes; you were running light weight tires and rims (skinnies) and manual rack vs me with heavier tires and rims and still running PS

Both car look like they were running full 3" exhaust, mine was right to the rear bumper, I can't quite tell if yours was (I'm guessing yes)

we both had UD pullies, MP head gaskets, stock flywheels. So other than you being stand alone (fast) and me being FWD stage 5 smec we were even both running 72lb inj's! so everything else looks even.

Now, I was able to trap just under 130mph with that set-up vs your 120mph your car was a couple hundred lbs heavier, so I'll dock a couple mph and call it 128.

Looking through the list all I had was a larger CAI (4" vs your 3") and my 3" mandrel S/V vs your 2 1/2" or TU 3" stock style S/V.

You had a better head, bigger turbo, bigger cam, better I/C, and a Header!

Now, if this wasn't your car (try to be unbiased here) What would the obvious conclution be?

I think the No2 test you did has clouded things a bit. You thought that because you could make more power on the funny gas that your exhaust wasn't the restriction, I don't agree.

No2 is a much more efficient burning fuel and it's not like you didn't have the Volume of exhaust flow to push it through, you did! What you didn't have was the quality of flow that you needed After the turbine to allow the turbo to Make More Power Without the No2. Can you see that now?

This is actually some Great info! I really needed to think this through a little and now (like any time that truth comes out) so many other things make perfect sense!

I always wondered how my preasure ratio could possibly be so low when so many others had measured and recorded massive PR's in their stock manis.

Now don't get me wrong, I knew it was from my S/V but it never dawned on me that all of these other ppl were using stock style S/V's! And that's the answer to all of the riddles. Everyone thought that @ 35+ psi on the stock ported exhaust mani that my PR Must be 2.5 even 3:1! It's because they never understood how my S/V was dropping the PR in my mani!

You of all ppl always thought that my exhaust mani was some kind of crazy cork in my system, even though I tried to tell you it wasn't that kind of cork. Well guess what, with the info that you provided, BtB testing the 2 1/2" and 3" TU and then running the No2 you have proven that the stock style S/V design IS that kind of cork! (for a turbo anyways)

So, here's my conclusion;

Stock style S/V's will see they're biggest gains with a stage 1 turbine. As you increase the size of the turbine wheel (stage 2, stage 3 ect) the turbulence gets worse faster and the turbine can't flow enough to support any more HP. No2 doesn't depend on the efficiency of a turbine wheel to make power, so the size of exhaust is enough to support more hp, just Not efficient enough for the turbo you were running to make any more power. You didn't happen to get a PR reading while this was going on, did you? Cause that would have been interesting!

Interestingly enough, by running the No2, you prob saw what my S/V would have done on your car! (I would have said 30-50WHP gain) It would have allowed your turbo to make All the power it could to your next restriction, which would prob have been your intake mani, but not before making 450+WHP!

OmniLuvr
12-25-2010, 04:50 AM
i believe B.A.P. was also running a "crushed" 3" muffler shop exhaust out the back...

BadAssPerformance
12-25-2010, 10:58 AM
First off, let me just say that I had No idea how much you had done on that build! (thought I was pretty familiar, but obviously not) I thought you had run a 50 trim stage 3, which would have been a perfect comparo to my 57 trim stage 3. The 60-1 is more like a direct comparo to the Holset I'm running now!

Regardless, this will still work just fine. Biggest problem in comparing build info on the basis of gleaning any good info is how reputable the sources are. In this case (I believe anyways) that we have two good reputable builds. So here we go;

Seriously the"build" is only half of the variables needed to compare... Not enough info to jump to any conclusions IMO

Some comments added in BOLD


CAI= Your 3" intake with K&N vs my 4" intake with K&N correct

I/C= Your Spearco 1080cfm vs my dual stock I/C set-up As much as the 1080cfm flows, the efficiency SUCK and it doesnt cool much

I/C piping= ? vs my 2 1/2" (guessing that yours was at least 2 1/2" correct

TB= Both 52mm correct

Intake= Both 2 piece ported (although mine was not welded, didn't port the lower That much) My lower was welded BUT the plenum to runner was FAR from gasket matched

Turbo= (including hot side info) Your 60-1 .63 A/R stage 3 vs my 57 trim .63 A/R stage 3 Which housing did you have? I found out later with the 60-1 in the "B" cover can be quite a heat pump north of 20psi

S/V= Your stock styl 2 1/2" or TU 3" vs my 3" mandrel correct

Mani or header= Your eq length header vs my stock ported mani correct

Head and cam= (including type of head and valve size) Your big valve G-head and FM 475 cam vs my +1mm G-head and stock turbo roller cam What was the cam timing set at?

Bottom end= (lower/higher than normal comp? diff stroke ect) same, unless you want to count yours being CB and mine not. CB dont add power, C/R close to stock, whatever the JE's get

Tranny gearing= Both 555 with 3.85 FD correct

Slick size= both 24.5 x 8.5 correct

Race weight= I believe you have said 2750lb vs my 2550 at the time (might have been closer to 2600?) Yeah, 2750

And a couple notes; you were running light weight tires and rims (skinnies) and manual rack vs me with heavier tires and rims and still running PS Since we're talking about power not ET, yes the "no PS" helps but the wheels dont matter

Both car look like they were running full 3" exhaust, mine was right to the rear bumper, I can't quite tell if yours was (I'm guessing yes) Yes full MB 3" with muffler a sstated on th ebuild sheet ;) Yeah OmniLuvr, by 2004 the crimp bent was on the T2 Shadow :thumb:

we both had UD pullies, MP head gaskets, stock flywheels. So other than you being stand alone (fast) and me being FWD stage 5 smec we were even both running 72lb inj's! so everything else looks even. Hmmmm

This is where the other half of the variables come in and I guess I didn't include everything on my build as far as tuning variables. There are hundreds of tuning variables but lets just look at the important ones:

What was your:

-Type and octane of fuel?

-How much boost?

-Total timing at high RPM/Boost?

-A/F ratio in 4th?

-Air intake temp going thru the traps?



Now, I was able to trap just under 130mph with that set-up vs your 120mph your car was a couple hundred lbs heavier, so I'll dock a couple mph and call it 128.

OK, so we are talking ~50hp.... looking back, I could have freed most of that up by switching from a B to an E comp cover and putting in a better I/C.


Looking through the list all I had was a larger CAI (4" vs your 3") and my 3" mandrel S/V vs your 2 1/2" or TU 3" stock style S/V.

LOL... you have rose colored glasses my friend, there are MANY things different about our builds. Yes our builds are similar, but other people with similar builds have run 105mph...


You had a better head, bigger turbo, bigger cam, better I/C, and a Header!

I think a couple posts up someone said bigger is not always better. For example the 1080cfm I/C is not that great IMO.


Now, if this wasn't your car (try to be unbiased here) What would the obvious conclution be?

For a comparisson? Not enough data to make any conclusions.


I think the No2 test you did has clouded things a bit. You thought that because you could make more power on the funny gas that your exhaust wasn't the restriction, I don't agree.

No2 is a much more efficient burning fuel and it's not like you didn't have the Volume of exhaust flow to push it through, you did! What you didn't have was the quality of flow that you needed After the turbine to allow the turbo to Make More Power Without the No2. Can you see that now?

An engine is an air pump right? And your argument is that the "turbulent" flow will not allow more air to exit efficiently right? So I brought up the N2O example to merely exhibit that the "turbulent" outlet can in fact flow more junk thru it, and support more than 400 HP...


This is actually some Great info! I really needed to think this through a little and now (like any time that truth comes out) so many other things make perfect sense!

Always good tech discussions on T-M :thumb:


I always wondered how my preasure ratio could possibly be so low when so many others had measured and recorded massive PR's in their stock manis.

Now don't get me wrong, I knew it was from my S/V but it never dawned on me that all of these other ppl were using stock style S/V's! And that's the answer to all of the riddles. Everyone thought that @ 35+ psi on the stock ported exhaust mani that my PR Must be 2.5 even 3:1! It's because they never understood how my S/V was dropping the PR in my mani!

Again as said before I agree 100% that a better outlet helps. My argument is still that the "turbulent" SV's have supported over 400whp.


You of all ppl always thought that my exhaust mani was some kind of crazy cork in my system, even though I tried to tell you it wasn't that kind of cork.

Wait, so you're saying your car would not make any moer power with a header? Really?


Well guess what, with the info that you provided, BtB testing the 2 1/2" and 3" TU and then running the No2 you have proven that the stock style S/V design IS that kind of cork! (for a turbo anyways)

As mentioned, still variables to discuss.


No2 doesn't depend on the efficiency of a turbine wheel to make power, so the size of exhaust is enough to support more hp, just Not efficient enough for the turbo you were running to make any more power. You didn't happen to get a PR reading while this was going on, did you? Cause that would have been interesting!

But the extra volume on the N2O gas still has to get out right? Thats the only reason I mentioned it cuz you talk like the stock style SV is soooo restrictive the stuff just cannot get out. This shows that it obviously can.

Also, due to traction I was only on the gun in 3 and 4 (spinning tires in both) and TOTAL timing on was only 8° to try an not blow it up, LOL


Interestingly enough, by running the No2, you prob saw what my S/V would have done on your car! (I would have said 30-50WHP gain) It would have allowed your turbo to make All the power it could to your next restriction, which would prob have been your intake mani, but not before making 450+WHP!

I love your posts man, they always read like an infomercial for whatever you're promoting... nothing bad, just how you write them I guess? Likewise, what would my header have done for your car? ;)

I can see how you would jump to your conclusion, heck if the build was similar and the only difference was the header and 50hp the other way I would say thats the difference, but as mentioned we're not looking at all of the variables... AND there are several ways to get to a similar result as well.

As mentioned, we both agree that a better SV will help efficiency. Although not the most efficient way to do it, can we also agree that a "turbulent" SV can support over 400whp too?

Shadow
12-25-2010, 02:28 PM
This is where the other half of the variables come in and I guess I didn't include everything on my build as far as tuning variables. There are hundreds of tuning variables but lets just look at the important ones:

What was your:

-Type and octane of fuel? 50/50 mix premium and c10

-How much boost? 35-36psi this is also iteresting, as I was able to make power with each lb of boost and Never the opposite, think about it.

-Total timing at high RPM/Boost? 13deg

-A/F ratio in 4th? 11.8 was what I target for, but prob anything from 11.5-12.0


-Air intake temp going thru the traps? I've never monitored that. (lol?)




LOL... you have rose colored glasses my friend, there are MANY things different about our builds. Yes our builds are similar, but other people with similar builds have run 105mph...


If it wasn't Your car we were talking about, I would have listed a myriad of variables such as; Was the mtr put together right? Was the timing belt on correctly? Was the cam timing screwy? Was the tune off? Was the driver off? ect ect!

I purposly left all BS variables out because I figured you'd have that well in hand. + if you didn't, like you said, others have done far worse! (mostly from simple controllable problems like I listed and your results would have been closer to thiers)

Actually, and like I said at the very beginning of my post, IF it wasn't your car or someone else that I could trust the info, I wouldn't even bother....to what end?




I think a couple posts up someone said bigger is not always better. For example the 1080cfm I/C is not that great IMO.

I had thought about this. I purposly ran the two stock I'C's because I knew they would cool well for what they could flow. I also knew that, while that Spearco can flow some decent CFM, it's short pass makes it a prime candidate for Not cooling as well. So good call. Was you air intake temps crazy?



An engine is an air pump right? And your argument is that the "turbulent" flow will not allow more air to exit efficiently right? So I brought up the N2O example to merely exhibit that the "turbulent" outlet can in fact flow more junk thru it, and support more than 400 HP...

Correct, an engine IS an air pump, BUT a turbo IS a power exchanger. It Needs a certain preasure differential to operate and be able to continue making power. That preasure differential comes from "before" and "after" the turbine wheel/housing.

When the backpreasure on the aft side of the turbo begins to "stack" everything behind it follows suit.(Allowing you to make more boost from the restriction, but not make any more power, or make insignificant power)

If it were to continue to a point where the before and after preasures where almost the same, the turbo would start "falling out of boost".

Now, regardless of any of these prerequisits for a turbo to operate and make power, No2 is Not inhibited by Any of them.

So, even with a restriction that will not allow a turbo to make more power, doesn't mean that you can't force more exhaust through at the same PR. (but just for the record, once you have a restriction Or condition, that will allow you to make more boost, but not make any more power, deff time to figure out WUWT!)




Always good tech discussions on T-M :thumb:

Have to agree there! :clap:




Again as said before I agree 100% that a better outlet helps. My argument is still that the "turbulent" SV's have supported over 400whp.

Not dissagreeing, just surprised that you would take this kind of stance on something that is WORSE than the ported stock mani vs header debate! You were/are So adimate about a header over a ported stock mani, and now we're talking about a far worse more restrictive piece (clearly) and you fight for it like it's something good?

It sends a confusing message. Now I know that we all have our passions, mine is trying to enlighten ppl on what Not to do if your looking to make good power and reflect on things I've personaly found to work well.

And why wouldn't I? Ppl think that I have some magical touch or something and that's why I've done so well on so little, more so than anything they've seen done before! (well, up until Warrens new build)

And nothing bothers me more when I can't even convince them that it's very simple, nothing magic about it! I spell it out in plain english and still nothing seems to change. (which is why I stopped posting in a lot of other places, really, what's the point!)

But then I see 1 person have good success and it makes it worth while, so rant over! :nod:




Wait, so you're saying your car would not make any moer power with a header? Really?

This also confuses me. JT, have we not dissgussed this before? Was it not me who said In Your HEADER thread that I believed that a proper header would make 30-40WHP on the Charger with no other change?

Do you forget these things, or is it only in the heat of debate and for debates sake that you would say this?

FTR, I will say it again, a header will make 30-40WHP on the Charger and we might actually get to see that before this new year is over!

Now comes the real Q! Why oh WHY didn't your header make more power on your set-up? Why could I make 450WHP on a turbo that is only capable of 490ish and you could only make 400WHP with a turbo capable of 600WHP?

What I would fear is the message that sends, that my ported stock mani works better than your header! And I will be the first to say, that's Not the case. Can you believe how this would go IF I SAW THROUGH ROSE COLORED GLASSES? I could completly state my case that your header is a piece of crap and that this PROVES that the ported stocker is KING!

Do you see me doing that? No, WHY? Because the header ISN"T the problem! But the Fact that you had a header on there, and couldn't see ANY benefit from it, should have pointed you in the right direction!



I love your posts man, they always read like an infomercial for whatever you're promoting... nothing bad, just how you write them I guess? Likewise, what would my header have done for your car? ;)

Your header would make 30 more WHP minimal on my set-up AT that time! (prob 40 now!) That's my point!

If we would have both had headers think of how this would look. I'd be30-40 MORE WHP ahead in this comparison and THEN what would you think about what I'm saying?

I hear ya on the informercial thingy! lol (although in all fairness, this is informative, is is not?)
And FTR, my original post should have read ANY 2 1/2" + mandrel or even smooth shot of the turbine, not just MY 3" S/V! (maybe this is where it's sounding like that? Would have been better if I didn't make the S/V and wouldn't look like I'm saying all this just to promote something that's personal to me?)




As mentioned, we both agree that a better SV will help efficiency. Although not the most efficient way to do it, can we also agree that a "turbulent" SV can support over 400whp too?

Again, this confuses me? Not the most efficient way to do it? Then what is? Your header couldn't perform through the restiction after it, it Needed a BETTER FLOWING PIECE after the turbine to be able to work!
I don't need to list all of the ppl who have made 400WHP on stock mani's to prove this do I?

JT, really, you Should be able to see this. When you go out to buy a sterio, are you going to buy the best components, amps ect and then by a mediocre set of speakers and hope it sounds good?

THE SINGLE GREATEST THING that a turbo DEPENDS on is the difference in preasure from the before to aft side of the turbine (the lesser pr being on the aft side! lol).....PERIOD! Not rocket science! The greater that difference the more efficient the turbo can make power. (would you like to argue this as well?) :eyebrows:

BadAssPerformance
12-25-2010, 11:20 PM
If it wasn't Your car we were talking about, I would have listed a myriad of variables such as; Was the mtr put together right? Was the timing belt on correctly? Was the cam timing screwy? Was the tune off? Was the driver off? ect ect!

I purposly left all BS variables out because I figured you'd have that well in hand. + if you didn't, like you said, others have done far worse! (mostly from simple controllable problems like I listed and your results would have been closer to thiers)

Actually, and like I said at the very beginning of my post, IF it wasn't your car or someone else that I could trust the info, I wouldn't even bother....to what end?

Thanks for the confidence, I agree and am not asking if stuff like timing belt was set up right as I trust yours was too.

The few variables I asked about are specific performance related items to better compare the two vehicle setups.

What was your:

-Type and octane of fuel?

-How much boost?

-Which compressor cover?

-Total timing at high RPM/Boost?

-A/F ratio in 4th?

-Air intake temp going thru the traps?


I had thought about this. I purposly ran the two stock I'C's because I knew they would cool well for what they could flow. I also knew that, while that Spearco can flow some decent CFM, it's short pass makes it a prime candidate for Not cooling as well. So good call. Was you air intake temps crazy?

I'll have to look them up to get exact numbers but under 20psi they were OK and over they got hot.


Now, regardless of any of these prerequisits for a turbo to operate and make power, No2 is Not inhibited by Any of them.

So, even with a restriction that will not allow a turbo to make more power, doesn't mean that you can't force more exhaust through at the same PR. (but just for the record, once you have a restriction Or condition, that will allow you to make more boost, but not make any more power, deff time to figure out WUWT!)

The extra gas still has to get out, so how is it not inhibited? Due to various restriction N2O does typically raise boost levels a little so the PR is probably not the same anyways. You make an interesting comment here that even tho turbulent you can still force exhaust through it... this is the exact point I am making that even tho turbulent it can support more if you push it hard enough.

Again man, I am not saying that there are not more efficient ways to do it.


Not dissagreeing, just surprised that you would take this kind of stance on something that is WORSE than the ported stock mani vs header debate! You were/are So adimate about a header over a ported stock mani, and now we're talking about a far worse more restrictive piece (clearly) and you fight for it like it's something good?

If you're not disagreeing then that means that we are agreeing and this discussion is close to done :thumb:


It sends a confusing message. Now I know that we all have our passions, mine is trying to enlighten ppl on what Not to do if your looking to make good power and reflect on things I've personaly found to work well.

Do you remember in the Header thread where I said that it's not needed unless you wanna make big power? That is the identical stance I am making with this SV argument. How is that confusing? :confused2:


And why wouldn't I? Ppl think that I have some magical touch or something and that's why I've done so well on so little, more so than anything they've seen done before! (well, up until Warrens new build)

And nothing bothers me more when I can't even convince them that it's very simple, nothing magic about it! I spell it out in plain english and still nothing seems to change. (which is why I stopped posting in a lot of other places, really, what's the point!)

But then I see 1 person have good success and it makes it worth while, so rant over! :nod:

Now I'm confused, did you see any of the many places in this thread where I agreed a better outlet would help? :confused2:


This also confuses me. JT, have we not dissgussed this before? Was it not me who said In Your HEADER thread that I believed that a proper header would make 30-40WHP on the Charger with no other change?

Do you forget these things, or is it only in the heat of debate and for debates sake that you would say this?

OK, there has to be an English to Canadian SmartAzz translation issue here, cuz you said the mani wasn't a cork, I make my S/A comment about it being a cork, and now you're confused but also post why you think its a cork... LOL...


FTR, I will say it again, a header will make 30-40WHP on the Charger and we might actually get to see that before this new year is over!

Cool, and Sweet.


Now comes the real Q! Why oh WHY didn't your header make more power on your set-up? Why could I make 450WHP on a turbo that is only capable of 490ish and you could only make 400WHP with a turbo capable of 600WHP?

Many reasons... first off when you put a 600whp wheel in a smaller housing its not a 600whp comp wheel any more...


What I would fear is the message that sends, that my ported stock mani works better than your header! And I will be the first to say, that's Not the case. Can you believe how this would go IF I SAW THROUGH ROSE COLORED GLASSES? I could completly state my case that your header is a piece of crap and that this PROVES that the ported stocker is KING!

:hail:

Header for sale!


Do you see me doing that? No, WHY? Because the header ISN"T the problem! But the Fact that you had a header on there, and couldn't see ANY benefit from it, should have pointed you in the right direction!

I NEVER did a BtB with the header so how do you know it is or isnt ANY benefit from it? :confused2:


Your header would make 30 more WHP minimal on my set-up AT that time! (prob 40 now!) That's my point!

If we would have both had headers think of how this would look. I'd be30-40 MORE WHP ahead in this comparison and THEN what would you think about what I'm saying?

I would still wonder about the other variables. I added them to the beginning of this post for reference.


I hear ya on the informercial thingy! lol (although in all fairness, this is informative, is is not?)
And FTR, my original post should have read ANY 2 1/2" + mandrel or even smooth shot of the turbine, not just MY 3" S/V! (maybe this is where it's sounding like that? Would have been better if I didn't make the S/V and wouldn't look like I'm saying all this just to promote something that's personal to me?)

LOL, glad you got the joke man... I prolly sounded like an infomercial talking about tube headers :o


Again, this confuses me? Not the most efficient way to do it? Then what is? Your header couldn't perform through the restiction after it, it Needed a BETTER FLOWING PIECE after the turbine to be able to work!

I think you missed my point completely. It is summarized in the following two comments:

- A better SV will be more efficient than a turbulent one
- A "Turbulent" SV can support 400whp

That is all.


I don't need to list all of the ppl who have made 400WHP on stock mani's to prove this do I?

How would that prove if a turbulent SV can or cannot make 400whp?


JT, really, you Should be able to see this. When you go out to buy a sterio, are you going to buy the best components, amps ect and then by a mediocre set of speakers and hope it sounds good?

Dude its not that at all... and your comment here helps me understand your view on this and bringing up the header thread gives me an idea how to explain my point.

You see, there are several ways to get to a goal, and there are also different goals people have. And not to mention our frugal members out there that look for cheap speed.

You talk like a big SV is the first mod a newbie should do and I am merely saying that it would be a better mod to do down the line. I would say the identical thing about a tube header. Think about a tube header on a stock turbo? why would anyone want to do that? Its a waste! LOL!

So, from ported stockers making 400whp and turbulent SVs making 400whp... kinda seems like neither one is really needed to be replaced until 400whp, or at least quite a bit over 300whp to me...


THE SINGLE GREATEST THING that a turbo DEPENDS on is the difference in preasure from the before to aft side of the turbine (the lesser pr being on the aft side! lol).....PERIOD! Not rocket science! The greater that difference the more efficient the turbo can make power. (would you like to argue this as well?) :eyebrows:

Again, I have not once argued that a better SV is not more efficient or that the PR on the turbine side is important for turbine efficency.

There are however other variables such as turbine to compressor balance, charge temperature, etc. that do fall directly into the engine efficiency equation. Its a package deal...

OmniLuvr
12-26-2010, 02:13 AM
Yes full MB 3" with muffler a sstated on th ebuild sheet

im a little slow sometimes, sorry jt, but, the light weight wheels will help with power ;)

there was a magazine artile where they were building an rsx road race car, they put an intake on it & gained 7hp, header & gained 10 hp, exhaust/muffler & gained 3 hp, then slapped some 17 or 18" wheels and tires on it, and guess what, they were down to 3 hp over stock hp, that means they lost 17hp by putting the new wheels on it.

dodgeshadowchik
12-26-2010, 08:02 AM
Well, yeah... bigger wheels = more rotating mass. (Generally speaking... there are some incredibly light weight larger wheels out there now) More weight to haul around... So there will be a loss. However, its not a loss of power at the engine.

BadAssPerformance
12-26-2010, 10:25 AM
im a little slow sometimes, sorry jt, but, the light weight wheels will help with power ;)

there was a magazine artile where they were building an rsx road race car, they put an intake on it & gained 7hp, header & gained 10 hp, exhaust/muffler & gained 3 hp, then slapped some 17 or 18" wheels and tires on it, and guess what, they were down to 3 hp over stock hp, that means they lost 17hp by putting the new wheels on it.

Its cool man, hard to read thru all these novel like posts, LOL ;)

Really? How did they measure the hp loss?

I dont have a dyno so every hp number I throw out uses the old hp vs. trap speed calculator. What I have found on my T2 Shadow is that the car will run the same mph (power equation) with the Bogarts or other wheels but the lighter Bogarts will let it run a slightly quicker ET due to robbing less of that power on the run.

GLHNSLHT2
12-26-2010, 12:19 PM
Really? How did they measure the hp loss?



Isn't hp on a dyno just calculated by how quickly you can accelerate the rollers? If you have heavy wheels and can't turn the rollers as quickly you should be able to measure the hp loss from them right?

BadAssPerformance
12-26-2010, 01:26 PM
Isn't hp on a dyno just calculated by how quickly you can accelerate the rollers? If you have heavy wheels and can't turn the rollers as quickly you should be able to measure the hp loss from them right?

Not exactly how quickly, but the ability to make it achieve an angular velocity (rpm) against a resistance/brake (Torque)

HP = (Tq * rpm)/5252

So lighter wheels may change the profile of the curve, however, I would expect them to not affect peak numbers as 10-15 lb of weight on the cars wheels is nothing compared to hundreds of pounds of 4 foot diameter rollers.

But I'm not really a fan of Dyno's... when my car eledgedly made a 588whp pull with the 2.4L, it was actually barley at 400whp LOL!

dodgeshadowchik
12-26-2010, 01:29 PM
It's that fuzzy dyno math, JT. All the cool people use it; since they are afraid to actually track-test it.

BadAssPerformance
12-26-2010, 01:30 PM
It's that fuzzy dyno math, JT. All the cool people use it; since they are afraid to actually track-test it.

LOL, the fuzzy dyno math proven by 1000whp Supras running 11's ;)

Shadow
12-27-2010, 01:28 AM
But I'm not really a fan of Dyno's... when my car eledgedly made a 588whp pull with the 2.4L, it was actually barley at 400whp LOL!

Agreed, I never trusted Dyno's before and I trust them less in recent years! I knew they could be off, but I never would have guessed they could be That far off! (I would have thought 20-50WHP tops!)

I feel badly for the owners, as I'm sure some of them actually believe that they're making that much power. For the ones who end up taking their cars to the track, anyways! Must be depressing to run the car over and over trying to "live up" to what they dyno'd and having to come to the conclusion that the dyno was wrong.

Even worse, the ones who Refuse to accept the truth and keep making excuse after excuse why the car won't back up the #'s at the track.

I was very fortunate. I never dyno'd until I had a pretty good idea of what kind of power I was making. Then, when I finally did go, the #'s were almost dead on to what I would have expected. (every one else thought I was going to dyno higher)

Not saying I don't take my own dyno runs with a grain of salt, I do. Just nice that they seem to be pretty accurate vs my track #'s.

shackwrrr
12-27-2010, 02:57 AM
Dynos are good to start with a basline for tuning. Start with "x" amount before, then build an engine to make "n" amount and then tuning to make "a" amount

BadAssPerformance
12-27-2010, 10:41 AM
Agreed, I never trusted Dyno's before and I trust them less in recent years! I knew they could be off, but I never would have guessed they could be That far off! (I would have thought 20-50WHP tops!)

It all comes down to the input variables and setup and skill of (or lack there of) the dyno operator...

---------- Post added at 08:41 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:39 AM ----------


Dynos are good to start with a basline for tuning. Start with "x" amount before, then build an engine to make "n" amount and then tuning to make "a" amount

Yes they can be very useful tools when used properly. :nod:

They still are unable to replace actual track testing as wind and traction do not come into play and the same engine in a charger or a minivan will yeild different results, LOL.

puppet
12-27-2010, 12:24 PM
... but wind and traction have nothing to do with engine potential. That's all a dyno is going to tell you ... and it is useful information, especially if the car doesn't make the numbers ;)

Shadow
12-28-2010, 12:53 PM
... but wind and traction have nothing to do with engine potential. That's all a dyno is going to tell you ... and it is useful information, especially if the car doesn't make the numbers ;)

Make the #'s on the dyno, or at the track? Not 100% on what your saying here? Cause it Almost sounds like your saying If the car dynos a high # and then doesn't back it up at the track, the dyno will tell you why that happened! lol

puppet
12-28-2010, 03:24 PM
No .... what I'm saying is that if the car doesn't ET/MPH to expectation .. and the dyno info is good ... it would be a mistake to assume that the dyno numbers are incorrect. Could be issues with traction or ( if engine dyno'ed) gearing, tire selection, etc ... driver? I believe track times speak more to an overall vehicle combo rather than just engine torq/hp.

BadAssPerformance
12-28-2010, 03:47 PM
True. Thats also why I typically use mph instead of ET to calculate hp as our traction limited FWD cars typically under-ET for a given mph. And then there is the Simon's minivan factor where the mph equation doesnt take into account tool-shed shaped vehicles, LOL :D

puppet
12-28-2010, 04:02 PM
OK ... but your calculations aren't a HP figure. What an ET/MPH time tells you is how fast you can drive that car down a 1/4 mile with an xxxHP engine (dyno verified) under the hood. End result doesn't change HP rating ... see what I mean?

Your comment about the 1000hp supra et'ing 11's doesn't nessarilly mean the engine isn't 1000hp. ... might be that the guy just can't drive ... or???

BadAssPerformance
12-28-2010, 04:06 PM
The way the equations work (and have been verified) ET is more of a measurement of driver / traction and mph is more hp. Sure, no calculation is 100% accurate but the mph method has proven to be very close to dyno numbers.

The Supra thing was a joke as there are many dyno queens that dont have the suspension to put it to the ground.... they run a shiton of mph tho, LOL

puppet
12-28-2010, 04:09 PM
lol ... good for guys like us that they just can't wave the dyno sheet around and pick up the wally.

BadAssPerformance
12-28-2010, 04:15 PM
Lol..

Shadow
12-28-2010, 04:39 PM
OK ... but your calculations aren't a HP figure. What an ET/MPH time tells you is how fast you can drive that car down a 1/4 mile with an xxxHP engine (dyno verified) under the hood. End result doesn't change HP rating ... see what I mean?

Your comment about the 1000hp supra et'ing 11's doesn't nessarilly mean the engine isn't 1000hp. ... might be that the guy just can't drive ... or???

I agree with you on driver error. That aside, and as long as the car is on slicks (although I've even seen mph make sense on street tires as long as it's not stupididly miss matched) Your going to get a pretty accurate read on how much power is being made when you factor in the weight.

Now, if you have several other eg's of X car with same gearing, same weight, ect ect. and those cars have accurate dyno vs track #'s, then you can verify/dissmiss your #'s based on proven consistant #'s.

puppet
12-28-2010, 05:00 PM
Understood. I'm just not in favor of dismissing dyno (reliable) data info in favor of track times as it relates to engine hp output. Doing that sweeps too many other important variables under the rug, ultimately holding the car back, if in fact that matters to the owner. Realizing and correcting a vehicle/drivers faults makes best use of the available hp under the hood. That's what translates into great track times.

BadAssPerformance
01-05-2011, 12:09 AM
The few variables I asked about are specific performance related items to better compare the two vehicle setups.

What was your:

-Type and octane of fuel?

-How much boost?

-Which compressor cover?

-Total timing at high RPM/Boost?

-A/F ratio in 4th?

-Air intake temp going thru the traps?


Yo Shadow, just curious if you missed these tidbits of info? Since I now see yer selling some outlets, I'll give you another shot to talk me into one ;)

Shadow
01-05-2011, 11:39 AM
Yo Shadow, just curious if you missed these tidbits of info? Since I now see yer selling some outlets, I'll give you another shot to talk me into one ;)

Take a closer look at post #115, I filled that in and I don't think you noticed.

BadAssPerformance
01-05-2011, 02:38 PM
Take a closer look at post #115, I filled that in and I don't think you noticed.

Nope, didn't notice, thanks. I'll add mine below in BLUE ...



This is where the other half of the variables come in and I guess I didn't include everything on my build as far as tuning variables. There are hundreds of tuning variables but lets just look at the important ones:

What was your:

-Type and octane of fuel? 50/50 mix premium and c10 Sunoco 100 Unleaded

-How much boost? 35-36psi this is also iteresting, as I was able to make power with each lb of boost and Never the opposite, think about it. Yes, very interesting as I was only at 24psi to hit 400whp... HUGE difference here.

-Total timing at high RPM/Boost? 13deg Was that your base timing or total as the cal adds timing for rpm and reduces it for MAP? I'm looking for total, mine was 12deg total at 24psi/7k rpm

-A/F ratio in 4th? 11.8 was what I target for, but prob anything from 11.5-12.0 I was barely 11:1, definitely on the fat side

-Air intake temp going thru the traps? I've never monitored that. (lol?) I need to look up my exact numbers but was ~150°F in November :( that 1080 CFM cooler is not that efficient over 20psi... and the small "B" comp cover with "the largest wheel Turbonetics would put in it" is not exactly efficient either :(

Sounds like quite a bit of difference to me... I really dont think you can compare our setups as much as you'd like.

I stand by my previous statement... A 2.5" or 3" stock style SV will support over 400whp, but *obviously* a bigger one will help ;)

Shadow
01-05-2011, 03:01 PM
Sounds like quite a bit of difference to me... I really dont think you can compare our setups as much as you'd like.

I stand by my previous statement... A 2.5" or 3" stock style SV will support over 400whp, but *obviously* a bigger one will help ;)

Knock yourself out! lol As you may or may not have guessed by now, I didn't reply to this to necc convince you of anything. (was quite obvious from the beginning that you were pretty well stuck where you were....literaly!)

I replied to this so that anyone else reading it wouldn't necc have to be stuck in the same closed looped proccess, and have an "option" for making more efficient power. (which Again, surprizes me the most about your position considering you seem to view yourself as one to make power with efficiency rather than raw boost.)

Octain means didly, unless your saying you weren't running enough and were knocking? I was obviously running more because MY set-up WAS able to make MORE BOOST!

13 deg WAS TT.

Only 24 to make 400hp and then you couldn't make Any more even though you could make more boost! While I was able to make power/boost right to 38psi and could have even gone higher! This Should be your biggest clue to what's really going on!

Like I said, I'm satisfied that there's enough info here for ppl to make up their own minds, including you.

After which, any way they decide to go is fine with me! :clap:

BadAssPerformance
01-05-2011, 09:57 PM
Knock yourself out! lol As you may or may not have guessed by now, I didn't reply to this to necc convince you of anything. (was quite obvious from the beginning that you were pretty well stuck where you were....literaly!)

My opinion can be swayed if I see proof to sway it and I guess I just havn't seen any. A back to back would go a long way with this.


I replied to this so that anyone else reading it wouldn't necc have to be stuck in the same closed looped proccess, and have an "option" for making more efficient power. (which Again, surprizes me the most about your position considering you seem to view yourself as one to make power with efficiency rather than raw boost.)

I agree that it is always good to have options, the ATP housing that started this thread is definitely neat. And you're right I do like efficiency, but I also try to balance everything out for each build... for example I would not put a header on a car unless it already had a good head and larger than stock turbo cuz although it adds efficiency the money is better spent elsewhere.


Octain means didly, unless your saying you weren't running enough and were knocking? I was obviously running more because MY set-up WAS able to make MORE BOOST!

Too much Octane w/o the timing or boost to use it reduces performance


13 deg WAS TT.

I'm not familiar with the FWDP Stage 5 or whatever you were running... well at 36psi, thats still quite a bit...


Only 24 to make 400hp and then you couldn't make Any more even though you could make more boost! While I was able to make power/boost right to 38psi and could have even gone higher! This Should be your biggest clue to what's really going on!

Wow, 38psi? damn thats a lotta boost. Wait, I thought you said earlier in this thread that your boost went down with the bigger less turbulent outlet? Now I'm confused what you are trying to say even more.

So 50 more hp on 14 more psi... sounds about right...

Yep 400whp on 24psi... and didnt make much more going up to 30psi... (never pushed it higher for this reason) BUT wait, get this... the SAME thing happened with the 2.4L! and WITH a 3" Mandrel Bent Outlet ... How did this happen? Well, I figured it out when I looked at the intake temperatures and at 34psi net OVER 200°F even with a MUCH larger intercooler than I had on it when it was a 2.2L... I did nothing but turn the boost down to 28-29 and the temp dropped significantly and the car started to make power.... then this year I swapped on the 35R on with the larger S comp housing and intake temps dropped significantly and I made 5 more mph... Now I kinda wish I had a larger comp housing on the turbo and better intercooler for the 2.2L...

So no, I really dont think a "less turbulent" outlet would have helped my 2.2L that much as I had other efficiency issues...

Shadow
01-05-2011, 11:44 PM
Yep 400whp on 24psi... and didnt make much more going up to 30psi... (never pushed it higher for this reason) BUT wait, get this... the SAME thing happened with the 2.4L! and WITH a 3" Mandrel Bent Outlet ... How did this happen?

The same thing, so your saying you could only make power to 24psi with the 2.4l + 3" mandrel outlet.



Well, I figured it out when I looked at the intake temperatures and at 34psi net OVER 200°F even with a MUCH larger intercooler than I had on it when it was a 2.2L... I did nothing but turn the boost down to 28-29 and the temp dropped significantly and the car started to make power....

Wait a second, now your making good power at 29psi! (practically the 30 you just said you Couldn't make power to!)



JT, I was done with this a week ago, sorry you didn't see the info that was right in front of you all this time. Your posts are becoming more contradictory as you drag this out and for what?

As I already stated, I'm satisfied with the info that came out of this. I have No intention of arguing about nothing with you, and that is what this is fast becoming.

You continue to do what you believe is right and I'll do the same and let history decide who's method worked best. :amen:

BadAssPerformance
01-06-2011, 01:58 AM
The same thing, so your saying you could only make power to 24psi with the 2.4l + 3" mandrel outlet.

Wait a second, now your making good power at 29psi! (practically the 30 you just said you Couldn't make power to!)

Maybe I did not state it clearly, the small comp housing turbo (on the 2.4L) made the same power at 24psi and 34psi but more power at 29psi... this was all due to intake temp. Then looking back at the 2.2L with the same exact turbo/housing (and worse I/C) I noticed similar increase in intake temperature with boost, so therefore I base the lack of increase in power on the heat.


JT, I was done with this a week ago, sorry you didn't see the info that was right in front of you all this time. Your posts are becoming more contradictory as you drag this out and for what?

As I already stated, I'm satisfied with the info that came out of this. I have No intention of arguing about nothing with you, and that is what this is fast becoming.

You continue to do what you believe is right and I'll do the same and let history decide who's method worked best. :amen:

All this time? Really? :confused2: All the info was not in front of me until I saw your additions to post #115 today...

Not sure what you see as contradictory, and sorry that you think I'm dragging it out..... I guess I was just trying to understand why you were so adamant that your swingvalve was automatically going to make more power on my old 2.2L setup when we were comparing apples to oranges with your 38psi 57trim to my overheating 60-1HiFi in a B cover... :confused2:

But whatever, if you're done, I can be too, although I find it funny that now that I get into the details you dont want to discuss it anymore... OK with me. :thumb:

I'm done now too, good luck with the SV sale... :amen:

Shadow
01-06-2011, 12:07 PM
Maybe I did not state it clearly, the small comp housing turbo (on the 2.4L) made the same power at 24psi and 34psi but more power at 29psi... this was all due to intake temp. Then looking back at the 2.2L with the same exact turbo/housing (and worse I/C) I noticed similar increase in intake temperature with boost, so therefore I base the lack of increase in power on the heat.

Well in post #101 you were 99% sure it was your ported 2 piece intake........




All this time? Really? :confused2: All the info was not in front of me until I saw your additions to post #115 today...

Additions? Today? I posted that at the same time I originally made the post!


Not sure what you see as contradictory, and sorry that you think I'm dragging it out..... I guess I was just trying to understand why you were so adamant that your swingvalve was automatically going to make more power on my old 2.2L setup when we were comparing apples to oranges with your 38psi 57trim to my overheating 60-1HiFi in a B cover... :confused2:

Can you see how it looks contradictory now?

This is why I don't want to continue, as the inconsistancy comes out of what your saying the conversation has no where to go but the lowest common denominator.

We started this with the "given" that you knew what you were doing. That you knew how to tune and set things up and Knew how to read the gauges and tell what they ment.

Now your saying that you didn't. That you knew your intake temps were high, but had no clue how to cool them....even for a run! That you had to go through 3 I/C's before finding one that seemed to work? Even though just a few pages ago you said the problem was your intake......99%!

So now, instead of having any kind of conversation that could lead to a meeting of the minds, we're left with snide remarkes in a desperate attempt to grasp at the remaining straws.

14psi=50hp? That is what I would expect from someone in junior high. Not from you!

Can you see why I have/had no interest in continuing this? Because once I see it take a turn for the worse, there's No going back! (and for some reason, specially when ppl have a point to make, it almost always seems to go this way)

I was going to PM you this, but since you asked openly "why" I didn't want to contunue, and then tried to make it look like your "details" were an added bonus for your side of the story, rather than the inconsistancy that they have turned out to be, I decided to LYK.

IF you Really want to prove something, bolt the same S/V and exhaust that you had on the 8v onto the 2.4. Since your so sure it will support 48XWHP, you really shouldn't loose much power. I'll even go on record Right Now and say 50+WHP loss! Go ahead, prove me wrong.........

dodgeshadowchik
01-06-2011, 02:49 PM
I think the point to all this dragged out technobabble was the SV is not necessary until you're making more the 400HP. Since the people on this board are more into budget speed, it would make more sense to spend the money elsewhere. NOT an argument over which is better.

Aries_Turbo
01-06-2011, 03:00 PM
can someone please do a back to back dyno test with multiple boost pressures and intake pressure and exhaust pressure datalogs????

Brian

BadAssPerformance
01-06-2011, 03:06 PM
Can you see how it looks contradictory now?

Yes, looking back I can see how the intake comment was contradictory, I guess I should have looked into the whole thing more before making my first post. sorry.

... kind of like you proclaiming our cars were set up the same before we knew that you ran 38psi ... can you at least admit that our cars were not the same and therefore the comparison you made was a just a bit of a stretch?

I guess this happens on the internet when people only have time to type what they want to say without having all the details and I think we are both at fault here.


This is why I don't want to continue, as the inconsistancy comes out of what your saying the conversation has no where to go but the lowest common denominator.

Sorry that you think this is some sort of pissing match argument instead of a discussion of how stuff works.

I'll explain where the inconsistancy came from and I can see how the progression of posts make it look the way it does.

I thought it was 99% the intake for 4 years UNTIL you said it was the turbo outlet in this thread. I never looked into any of it further previously cuz I haven't had a 2.2L in the car for 4 years... so thanks for opening my eyes and making me look into it more.

Could a MB SV helped? MAYBE. But you know what, I never tried one and dont have any proof it would have.

All I have is what was tried with the 2.2L and what I learned on the 2.4L with the same hairdryer and what I see now is that there were intake temperature issues at higher boost.


We started this with the "given" that you knew what you were doing. That you knew how to tune and set things up and Knew how to read the gauges and tell what they ment.

Now your saying that you didn't. That you knew your intake temps were high, but had no clue how to cool them....even for a run! That you had to go through 3 I/C's before finding one that seemed to work? Even though just a few pages ago you said the problem was your intake......99%!

Sorry you don't think I know anything, I guess I don't have a clue... :(


I was going to PM you this, but since you asked openly "why" I didn't want to contunue, and then tried to make it look like your "details" were an added bonus for your side of the story, rather than the inconsistancy that they have turned out to be, I decided to LYK.

No need for PM, I have thick skin, tell me how you really feel in public, I can care less...


IF you Really want to prove something, bolt the same S/V and exhaust that you had on the 8v onto the 2.4. Since your so sure it will support 48XWHP, you really shouldn't loose much power. I'll even go on record Right Now and say 50+WHP loss! Go ahead, prove me wrong.........

I would have if I could have (cuz I'm cheap and didnt want to buy anything else) but it didnt fit... BUT If I could put it on according to your math it should reduce it more than 150whp to only 400whp right? Thats your claim earlier in this thread...

Maybe you could do an actual B2B test to prove your theory and help sell your parts? :thumb:

BTW, again, I have said all thru this thread that a better outlet is better.... the stock style SV is just not the 400whp barrier you say it is.

Shadow
01-06-2011, 04:10 PM
Yes, looking back I can see how the intake comment was contradictory, I guess I should have looked into the whole thing more before making my first post. sorry.

... kind of like you proclaiming our cars were set up the same before we knew that you ran 38psi ... can you at least admit that our cars were not the same and therefore the comparison you made was a just a bit of a stretch?

I guess this happens on the internet when people only have time to type what they want to say without having all the details and I think we are both at fault here.



Sorry that you think this is some sort of pissing match argument instead of a discussion of how stuff works.

I'll explain where the inconsistancy came from and I can see how the progression of posts make it look the way it does.

I thought it was 99% the intake for 4 years UNTIL you said it was the turbo outlet in this thread. I never looked into any of it further previously cuz I haven't had a 2.2L in the car for 4 years... so thanks for opening my eyes and making me look into it more.

Could a MB SV helped? MAYBE. But you know what, I never tried one and dont have any proof it would have.

All I have is what was tried with the 2.2L and what I learned on the 2.4L with the same hairdryer and what I see now is that there were intake temperature issues at higher boost.



Sorry you don't think I know anything, I guess I don't have a clue... :(



No need for PM, I have thick skin, tell me how you really feel in public, I can care less...



I would have if I could have (cuz I'm cheap and didnt want to buy anything else) but it didnt fit... BUT If I could put it on according to your math it should reduce it more than 150whp to only 400whp right? Thats your claim earlier in this thread...

Maybe you could do an actual B2B test to prove your theory and help sell your parts? :thumb:

BTW, again, I have said all thru this thread that a better outlet is better.... the stock style SV is just not the 400whp barrier you say it is.

Glad to see you taking this in stride, many don't/can't! So cudos to you for that! I agree, your car had too many other variables that were out of kilter to really tell what gains would or wouldn't have taken place.

I'm just so use to ppl resorting to a pissing match as soon as their opinion is not getting across, and I really didn't want it to go that way, not with me, not with you.

I'm not saying you don't know what your doing, just stating what things start looking like when posts begin to contradict themselves.

Then when you add comments like 14psi=50hp it really starts to look like it's only headed in one direction........

Don't forget, I was only running a turbo capable of 490WHP and I got 450 out of it. You were running a 600WHP capable turbo, and you got 400 out of it with what looks like way more supporting mods. (except the S/V).

You obviously must realize that lb for lb our tubos are Not going to make the same power. My only point was that I was able to make power all the way up the boost curve and you were not. (and you have stated several reasons for this)

So, I wondered if you had just figured this out and that was going to be my next Q. For that reason alone I'm glad we kept this going!

BtB, someday, hopefully, but as you well know, time is always an issue, specially when it comes to proving something that you already believe you know! lol

I will add this, one more time. Whatever the difference, it's going to be multiplied by a less efficient mani Before the turbo. In other words, IF I had run a nice EQ length header, and not the ported mani, I wouldn't have needed this piece as soon as I did.
This will prove interesting when I do swap on a header, as I May Not see the gains that some would expect, for that same reason.

Now your free to dissagree, but with all of the claims of 2:1 PR's and higher with stock ported mani's and comparable turbos/builds to the Charger, and with what everyone thought My PR would be because of the stock mani, when I tested it and found it to be near 1:1 don't you think that proved something?

BadAssPerformance
01-06-2011, 09:34 PM
Glad to see you taking this in stride, many don't/can't! So cudos to you for that! I agree, your car had too many other variables that were out of kilter to really tell what gains would or wouldn't have taken place.

Out of kilter, conservatively tuned, bad parts combo, call it what you want, there was significant room for improvement WITH the stock style SV.

...and you were running 14psi more boost, no? Obviously 14psi does not exactly equal 50whp, but it sure helps.


Don't forget, I was only running a turbo capable of 490WHP and I got 450 out of it. You were running a 600WHP capable turbo, and you got 400 out of it with what looks like way more supporting mods. (except the S/V).

Thats a 600whp capable comp wheel, but not turbo...

"looks like more mods" ok, but with a lot less boost right?


You obviously must realize that lb for lb our tubos are Not going to make the same power. My only point was that I was able to make power all the way up the boost curve and you were not. (and you have stated several reasons for this)

Realistically a 57trim in an E cover and a 60-1HiFi in a B cover are very similar in peak power capability assuming same turbine wheel and housing A/R.


BtB, someday, hopefully, but as you well know, time is always an issue, specially when it comes to proving something that you already believe you know! lol

I hear ya on the busy thing.... Maybe one of your customers will do a true B2B then


I will add this, one more time. Whatever the difference, it's going to be multiplied by a less efficient mani Before the turbo. In other words, IF I had run a nice EQ length header, and not the ported mani, I wouldn't have needed this piece as soon as I did.

I'm confused, so are you now saying that a header would allow higher than 400whp with a stockish SV? :confused2:


Now your free to dissagree, but with all of the claims of 2:1 PR's and higher with stock ported mani's and comparable turbos/builds to the Charger, and with what everyone thought My PR would be because of the stock mani, when I tested it and found it to be near 1:1 don't you think that proved something?

Again, I dont think anyone is disagreeing that a better outlet helps...

Again, just saying that a stock style SV is not limited at 400whp as you claimed

cordes
01-06-2011, 11:58 PM
Again, just saying that a stock style SV is not limited at 400whp as you claimed

On this note, isn't/wasn't Reeves running a 3" TU piece?

Juggy
01-07-2011, 10:13 AM
On this note, isn't/wasn't Reeves running a 3" TU piece?

no. hes running something much nicer. that happens to be the same piece this thread was started with.....

Shadow
01-07-2011, 11:42 AM
Good point for 400whp or less, there is no need for anything larger than a TU 3" SV.

Just to be perfectly clear, I can't agree with this statement.



So, from ported stockers making 400whp and turbulent SVs making 400whp... kinda seems like neither one is really needed to be replaced until 400whp, or at least quite a bit over 300whp to me...

If quite a bit over 300whp means 350+ (for the S/V only) I could agree with this, depending on set-up of course.

Comparing the stock style S/V to a properly ported stock exhaust mani @ 400whp as a restriction is rediculous. I've Proven that a stock mani can go 500+WHP EFFICIENTLY! PROVEN, DOCUMENTED EVEN! While the stock style S/V is still under scrutiny..........



I'm confused, so are you now saying that a header would allow higher than 400whp with a stockish SV? :confused2:


What I'm saying is exactly what I've been saying all along. A more efficient exhaust Before the tubine will help to overcome a less efficient exhaust After the turbine and vise versa. IMHO any build over 350WHP is going to see sig gains when going to a mandrel style outlet After the turbo, even if it's only a 2 1/2" madrel 90!

cordes
01-07-2011, 01:03 PM
no. hes running something much nicer. that happens to be the same piece this thread was started with.....

Very cool. How long has he had that in there?

black86glhs
01-07-2011, 09:14 PM
You 2 (Shadow and JT) have it all wrong. You put on a 1.5" mandrel bend and the speed of the exhaust gets moving so fast, it actually creates a vacuum at each cylinder!!! Why can't we all just get along?:love::banana-mario::grouphug::cheer2::peace:

Shadow
01-07-2011, 09:28 PM
You 2 (Shadow and JT) have it all wrong. You put on a 1.5" mandrel bend and the speed of the exhaust gets moving so fast, it actually creates a vacuum at each cylinder!!! Why can't we all just get along?:love::banana-mario::grouphug::cheer2::peace:

Not sure what you mean, I thought we were getting along just fine! Just think of how this could have gone if we didn't both own 10 sec cars! lol

Juggy
01-07-2011, 09:53 PM
Not sure what you mean, I thought we were getting along just fine! Just think of how this could have gone if we didn't both own 10 sec cars! lol

you 2 live close enuff to one another. i say take it out on the track :eyebrows:

black86glhs
01-08-2011, 02:47 AM
I was just a joke Bob, nothing more, nothing less. Don't read too much into it.:)

Juggy
01-08-2011, 03:10 AM
I was just a joke Bob, nothing more, nothing less. Don't read too much into it.:)

well whoever can read it in "9 seconds" has my vote ;)

go get em boys!!!

rob (shadow) you got a recipe to rip mid 10s already. lighten her up and start bangin them gears a little harder.....!!!!!

---------- Post added at 02:10 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:06 AM ----------

I wish i coulda got my fueled 2.2 gt30 to the track...ran 12.0 at 115 on a mere 40 psi fuel pressure with 25 psi boost...I couldnt even make static 55!!!! idk...do the math....i had some serious car there, just running 1/2 the fuel pressure i should have. the 2.5 G head combo spooled faster and made way more top end then the unfueled 2.2 i had mid 11s in the bag.....but prolly at a low 120mph.....i wish i had the 2.2 to the track b4 i drove it around n clogged the fuel system!!! man note to self, if u have to disconnect the knock sensor for the car to drive decent, you def have a fueling issue!!! LOL

BadAssPerformance
01-08-2011, 11:52 AM
If quite a bit over 300whp means 350+ (for the S/V only) I could agree with this, depending on set-up of course.

Depending on setup is very important, the last thing we need is folks reading about a better SV or header and putting either one of those on a stockish motor and hoping for big results... the system has to work together

The overall system pressure is what drives the equation. For making 400whp on 24psi a stock style SV can do the job because there is not as much pressure in the system that has to get out compared to a 450whp on 38psi.


Comparing the stock style S/V to a properly ported stock exhaust mani @ 400whp as a restriction is rediculous. I've Proven that a stock mani can go 500+WHP EFFICIENTLY! PROVEN, DOCUMENTED EVEN! While the stock style S/V is still under scrutiny..........

With 38psi the manifold could look like a roller coaster and still work OK ;) Go bolt a stock SV on and see if it looses 100+whp to 400whp as you have infered will happen.........


What I'm saying is exactly what I've been saying all along. A more efficient exhaust Before the tubine will help to overcome a less efficient exhaust After the turbine and vise versa.

Of course, just like a better flowing head, intake, TB, intercoler, intake pipe, air filter... the whole system has to work together... and each item helps the sum of the total eqution, but is limited by the others.


IMHO any build over 350WHP is going to see sig gains when going to a mandrel style outlet After the turbo, even if it's only a 2 1/2" madrel 90!

This is where I think there is confusion. The HP level is not the limiting factor as much as system pressure. It really depends a lot on how a specific build is set up to get to the HP goal... if a car makes 400whp on 24psi there is less pressure in the system that needs to get out compared to, say, running 38psi.

Shadow
01-08-2011, 12:29 PM
I was just a joke Bob, nothing more, nothing less. Don't read too much into it.:)

Sorry, I thought my lol at the end showed you that I took it as "just a joke". I guess I should have gone advanced and put a couple more in there! :lol::clap::nod::evil::D

I'll remember for next time.;)

Shadow
01-08-2011, 12:54 PM
This is where I think there is confusion. The HP level is not the limiting factor as much as system pressure. It really depends a lot on how a specific build is set up to get to the HP goal... if a car makes 400whp on 24psi there is less pressure in the system that needs to get out compared to, say, running 38psi.

Interesting, and I think you hit the nail right on the head! So let me make 100% sure I'm understanding what you think is going on.

Your saying that if you had 2 Identicle builds, with the Only difference being the turbos, and 1 could make 400WHP @ 24psi boost, the other one 400WHP @ 35psi boost. That the 35psi mtr would have, say, +11psi (multiplied by the exhaust BP) more preasure in the exhaust?

BadAssPerformance
01-08-2011, 01:48 PM
Interesting, and I think you hit the nail right on the head! So let me make 100% sure I'm understanding what you think is going on.

Your saying that if you had 2 Identicle builds, with the Only difference being the turbos, and 1 could make 400WHP @ 24psi boost, the other one 400WHP @ 35psi boost. That the 35psi mtr would have, say, +11psi (multiplied by the exhaust BP) more preasure in the exhaust?

No, I was not saying anything about "identical builds" as there are many HP influencing variables.

All I am saying that higher psi IN produces higher psi OUT so the outlet becomes more important at higher boost pressures

Shadow
01-08-2011, 03:33 PM
No, I was not saying anything about "identical builds" as there are many HP influencing variables.

I'm trying to establish some kind of working perameters so that we can disscuss this!


All I am saying that higher psi IN produces higher psi OUT so the outlet becomes more important at higher boost pressures

Isn't that what I just said in my post?

O.K. You give me a working eg. of what your trying to say, cause I think we're just going in circles here.

86Shelby
01-08-2011, 03:51 PM
JT - Potato

Robert - No, potato

JT - Grrrr, that's not what I said. I said Potato

Robert - I realize that, but it's still potato.

Yup, you two are just running in circles.

bakes
01-08-2011, 03:56 PM
28042

BadAssPerformance
01-08-2011, 04:49 PM
^^^ LOL... :clap:


I'm trying to establish some kind of working perameters so that we can disscuss this!

OK... your example is confusing as there is probably not much "identical" between a 400WHP @ 24psi and a 400WHP @ 35psi setup (which possibly only made 250-300 at 24psi?) ... not realistic

But yes I think we both agree that higher psi IN yields higher psi OUT.

Thinking out loud here... The SV flow capabilities should not limit HP until some flow/pressure restriction level is reached. So the SV is not necessarily a HP limiter if the HP is made at lower boost / system pressure.

Aries_Turbo
01-08-2011, 06:27 PM
Thinking out loud here... The SV flow capabilities should not limit HP until some flow/pressure restriction level is reached. So the SV is not necessarily a HP limiter if the HP is made at lower boost / system pressure.

the SV will limit HP if the total rest of the combo is optimized for flow.

something like a 2.0 with a head that flows 320/260 @.5", nice big plenum intake, header, 3" pressure piping, good intercooler, big turbo, cams, revving to 9k, etc.

the SV will definitely limit a setup like that cause with the SV not being a limit, that combo would make 400whp at something like 18psi. pop a crappy SV on there and the boost will probably rise with no other factors and the power will go down.

Brian

Shadow
01-08-2011, 06:34 PM
OK... your example is confusing as there is probably not much "identical" between a 400WHP @ 24psi and a 400WHP @ 35psi setup (which possibly only made 250-300 at 24psi?) ... not realistic

I wasn't trying to be realistic, was just trying to set something up so I could fully understand what you were saying.


But yes I think we both agree that higher psi IN yields higher psi OUT.

Now this IS the reason I was trying to establish those constants (perameters) because IF I'm hearing you right, I don't necc agree with this statement.

IF you are indeed saying (the same thing I said several posts ago) That the higher the intake preasure, the higher the exhaust preasure period when comparing 2 different set-ups (as was my unrealistic eg) then I most deff have to dissagree.

Just so we're clear, I'm not talking about a single case ie. the higher you turn up the boost on a mtr the higher the preasure everywhere, that's a given.

I'm talking about 1 mtr compared to another like you were saying earlier. 2 mtrs making roughly the same hp but one has a larger compressor and so makes that power @ 24psi and the other turbo has a smaller compressor and makes that power at 30psi.(I dropped the psi to 30 so it's more realistic this time)

Actually I can see this going on and not getting through, so let me try this;

Let's take my 450WHP @ 35psi eg. Now that was on a stage 3 .63 A/R hot side with 57 trim compressor.

Now let's say that your 60-1 was actually mounted to a ported stocker like mine and same mandrel S/V and was able to make 450WHP @ 28psi, same stage 3 .63 A/R hot side, just larger compressor.

IF I'm hearing you right, you think that my exhaust preasure will automatically be higher because I'm running more boost?

Shadow
01-08-2011, 07:10 PM
This is where I think there is confusion. The HP level is not the limiting factor as much as system pressure. It really depends a lot on how a specific build is set up to get to the HP goal... if a car makes 400whp on 24psi there is less pressure in the system that needs to get out compared to, say, running 38psi.

This is the statement right here. You say the HP level is NOT the limiting factor as much as system pressure.

Now I'm guessing that your refering to exhaust pressure when you say this. I'm also guessing that you believe that the exhaust pressure is in direct relationship to intake pressure (let's even say "governed by") and NOT by overall HP.

Is this right?

Shadow
01-09-2011, 12:34 PM
Seems like a long pause for a Yes or No answer.

I'll break things down the way I see it, and see if that adds More confusion, or begins to straighten things out a little.




This is where I think there is confusion.

As I said earlier, agreed and I think you hit it right on the head. Many ppl struggle with this as well as the simple "how can a turbo making 13psi boost make more power than another turbo making 13psi boost"? It's still just 13 psi boost!?



The HP level is not the limiting factor as much as system pressure.

Now I will be the first to admitt, I haven't done a lot of reading when it comes to books like "Corky Bell" ect.ect. My background comes from a very simple understanding of basic thermodynamics and an inherent ability to solve problems.

Most, if not all of my understanding has come from personal experiance and comparing different builds on the basis of which ones made good power and which ones didn't and believing I could see the reasons why. Then I would simply apply that reasoning and to this day it has not lead me astray, Not Once!

In all my experiance I would have to say that your statement is backwards, which would deff be a point of confusion.

My understanding would be this; The system preasure is Not the limiting factor as much as the HP level. (when it comes to exhaust preasure, which is the "given")


It really depends a lot on how a specific build is set up to get to the HP goal... if a car makes 400whp on 24psi there is less pressure in the system that needs to get out compared to, say, running 38psi.

Again, it sounds like you are confused about the intake preasure ALONE having an effect on the exhaust presure? As I stated earlier, the intake preasure plays a role, but not to the extent that your making it sound.

I can only imagine that your starting to think more thoroughly about this and that's why you haven't responded, that's good, cause I'm not necc saying that I'm right! Maybe you have something to teach me here! ;)

BadAssPerformance
01-09-2011, 12:50 PM
Just so we're clear, I'm not talking about a single case ie. the higher you turn up the boost on a mtr the higher the preasure everywhere, that's a given.

OK, so in this case you agree, higher PSI IN produced higher PSI OUT, right?

So for a given application at 450whp and 35psi boost it would need a better SV (to flow the higher psi out) but the same application might not make 350whp at 24psi boost regardless of outlet cuz at the lower boost, less stuff needs to get out of the motor.

...So if an engine could make 400whp at 24psi, or even 500whp at 24psi, it may not need a bigger outlet yet as that may not be the restriction.


Let's take my 450WHP @ 35psi eg. Now that was on a stage 3 .63 A/R hot side with 57 trim compressor.

Now let's say that your 60-1 was actually mounted to a ported stocker like mine and same mandrel S/V and was able to make 450WHP @ 28psi, same stage 3 .63 A/R hot side, just larger compressor.

IF I'm hearing you right, you think that my exhaust preasure will automatically be higher because I'm running more boost?

I would expect it to be higher because the sh!t has to get out, but thats not exactly what I am saying.


This is the statement right here. You say the HP level is NOT the limiting factor as much as system pressure.

Now I'm guessing that your refering to exhaust pressure when you say this. I'm also guessing that you believe that the exhaust pressure is in direct relationship to intake pressure (let's even say "governed by") and NOT by overall HP.

Is this right?

What I am saying is that pressures, temperatures and flows rates are the limiting producing factors and HP is merely the sum output of the system equation. Hell, after reading Brians post, add to this RPM to this equation too.

Think about a 10k rpm motor making 300whp ... at 300 it could possibly benefit from a larger SV cuz at the higher RPM more stuff has to get out of the motor. But on the contrary a lower RPM/boost setup could make 500whp at lower boost and not need as much outlet flow...

So I guess what bugs me is when I see stuff like "a stock style SV cannot make power over 400whp" or "a MB SV is needed at 350whp" because depending on the build, it may or may not be the limiter for a given combo.


the SV will limit HP if the total rest of the combo is optimized for flow.

Agreed. And it *may* limit sooner if higher RPM needs it. and it *may* limit later if you have better system efficiencies with temperatures, etc beyond just flow.

Directconnection
01-09-2011, 01:31 PM
IF I'm hearing you right, you think that my exhaust preasure will automatically be higher because I'm running more boost?

You guys are getting me all confused....

When parameters change, the backpressure will be dictated on on SHAFT speeds. Reverse engineer your hypothetical Qs from there.

Shadow
01-09-2011, 01:48 PM
OK, so in this case you agree, higher PSI IN produced higher PSI OUT, right?

Only because/if it's making more power with the added psi! If the psi goes up, but make no more power, the exhaust preasure will remain the same (not go up) because as I said, the exhaust preasure is a derivitive of Cylinder preasure (ie engine power, HP tq) Not intake mani preasure.


...So if an engine could make 400whp at 24psi, or even 500whp at 24psi, it may not need a bigger outlet yet as that may not be the restriction.

Negative. 500WHP IS 500WHP wether it's from a turbo making 24 psi, 35 psi OR a high comp mtr on Only 8 psi! The Power output of the mtr IS the governing body which will dictate exhaust preasure!




Think about a 10k rpm motor making 300whp ... at 300 it could possibly benefit from a larger SV cuz at the higher RPM more stuff has to get out of the motor. But on the contrary a lower RPM/boost setup could make 500whp at lower boost and not need as much outlet flow...

This is Most deff the confusion that your talking about, and make no mistake, either I am confused or you are, cause this make Zero sense to me and maybe someone else (if any see clear) will shead more light so this doesn't end with the two of us in a dead lock!

A 10k rpm motor making 300whp will have the Same exhaust flow (preaure out of the head) as the same mtr making 300whp at 5k rpm!

So the 500WHP low rpm mtr is making way more exhaust preasure and will deff need a better path for the exhaust!

Cyl preasure ALONE will dictate exhaust preasure as cyl preasure alone will dictate engine power (hp/tq) so the exhaust preasure of any 400whp 8v 2.2 will be the Same and need the same mods After the head to keep BP down in order to make MORE POWER!....No?

I think your wrapped around operating preasure and your using it to negate all of the other factors involved. The biggest one of all being V (volume)

GLHNSLHT2
01-09-2011, 02:40 PM
Here's how your turbine outlet should look anyway

http://photos.motoiq.com/MotoIQ/Columns/Beyond-the-Dyno-by-Eric-Hsu/cosworth-gba04/905785406_kfHiH-M.jpg

http://photos.motoiq.com/MotoIQ/Columns/Beyond-the-Dyno-by-Eric-Hsu/cosworth-gba03/905785402_rnanu-M.jpg

BadAssPerformance
01-09-2011, 03:49 PM
Only because/if it's making more power with the added psi! If the psi goes up, but make no more power, the exhaust preasure will remain the same (not go up) because as I said, the exhaust preasure is a derivitive of Cylinder preasure (ie engine power, HP tq) Not intake mani preasure.

Negative. 500WHP IS 500WHP wether it's from a turbo making 24 psi, 35 psi OR a high comp mtr on Only 8 psi! The Power output of the mtr IS the governing body which will dictate exhaust preasure!

Really? 500WHP is 500WHP... OK, with this theory and your saying that the stock SV is a 400HP limiter then how does a this HP limiter allow a car to make more HP with nitrous... I mean HP is HP right? ~480 HP (at 24psi) thru my restrictive SV... IIR Super60Omni made over 500whp on a 60 shot... How did that happen?

Volumetric Efficiency is the difference. Yes, Volume is Volume, but the efficiency and how much power can be made from a givin volume is a variable.

Why didnt my 2.2L make much more than 400WHP going from 24psi to 30psi? Well cooking the air and therefore reducing the VE of the combo had a big part in this. I little nitrous and MUCH cooler air and it made more power. All with the same SV.


Cyl preasure ALONE will dictate exhaust preasure as cyl preasure alone will dictate engine power (hp/tq) so the exhaust preasure of any 400whp 8v 2.2 will be the Same and need the same mods After the head to keep BP down in order to make MORE POWER!....No?

Yes higher cyl pressure will dictate higher exhaust pressure and the higher boost yeilds the higher cylnder pressure, but the ability for the engine to use that pressure to make hp has to do with how efficiently that pressure is put in there... 30psi @ 200°F does not make nearly as much power as 30psi @ 100°F

GLHNSLHT2
01-09-2011, 04:13 PM
With Nitrous the volume is the same, you're just able to pack that many more oxygen molecules into that given volume.

Shadow
01-09-2011, 04:20 PM
:clap:
Here's how your turbine outlet should look anyway

http://photos.motoiq.com/MotoIQ/Columns/Beyond-the-Dyno-by-Eric-Hsu/cosworth-gba04/905785406_kfHiH-M.jpg

http://photos.motoiq.com/MotoIQ/Columns/Beyond-the-Dyno-by-Eric-Hsu/cosworth-gba03/905785402_rnanu-M.jpg

Now your talkin!

---------- Post added at 02:20 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:15 PM ----------



Yes higher cyl pressure will dictate higher exhaust pressure and the higher boost yeilds the higher cylnder pressure, but the ability for the engine to use that pressure to make hp has to do with how efficiently that pressure is put in there... 30psi @ 200°F does not make nearly as much power as 30psi @ 100°F

This is exactly why I attempted to set "constants" at the beginning of this debate, because I knew if we couldn't agree on everything else being equil, the disscusion would move all over the map.

If you want to disscuss why some ppls set-ups are not optimal and the mistakes they've made in why they couldn't make power, that's fine, but that's not what I'm talking about.

I'm talking about everything working right! All else being equil, if you can't look at it like that, how can you possibly see what's going on in the first place?

Directconnection
01-09-2011, 04:42 PM
30psi @ 200°F does not make nearly as much power as 30psi @ 100°F

Unless it's being measured on the exhaust side, then the reverse will be true.

500whp is 500whp, but comparing two entirely different engine combos (one being much less efficient) I do not believe exhaust preasure (pressure ;-) will be the same. I do not believe X cylinder pressure = X pressure before the turbine, at, and after.... Just like the pressure before and after the intercooler (and varying types as well) will be drastically different, don't you think different valve, chamber shape, runner volume and shape plays a role in what mechanical energy in the combustion chamber actually makes it to the turbine?

Shadow
01-09-2011, 08:42 PM
Unless it's being measured on the exhaust side, then the reverse will be true.

500whp is 500whp, but comparing two entirely different engine combos (one being much less efficient) I do not believe exhaust preasure (pressure ;-) will be the same. I do not believe X cylinder pressure = X pressure before the turbine, at, and after.... Just like the pressure before and after the intercooler (and varying types as well) will be drastically different, don't you think different valve, chamber shape, runner volume and shape plays a role in what mechanical energy in the combustion chamber actually makes it to the turbine?

This discusion has nothing to do with any comparison of Any 2 engines that we might have talked about earlier in the thread! This is simply an attempt to understand the Basic operating principles of an interrnal combustion engine!

JT made a statement that I not only believe is 100% incorrect, it highlights the "confusion" we're having through this whole discusion.

I have made my opinion as clear as I possibly can. Are you telling me that no one reading this can agree/dissagree with what's being said?

Highlight! We're talking about Exhaust preasure and what does/doesn't effect it. JT believes that a higher WHP mtr with sig lower intake preasure will have less exhaust preasure than a lower WHP mtr with higher intake preasure. I'm saying that's not only wrong, it's not possible! (and remember, we're not talking about one screwed up build compared to a good running build. We're talking everything working right and all things being equil except those perameters)

I can't believe this is so difficult to get across.

Steve, do you agree that in order for a mtr to make X power it's going to have to achieve X cyl preasure, no matter if that's from a big cam and head on low boost or on a restrictive head and cam and lots of boost?

So if it takes the Same cyl preasure to make the same power, both mtrs are going to have the Same exhaust preasure off the head! No Matter What's Going On BEFORE THE CYL! (including everything on the back side of the intake valve)

Directconnection
01-09-2011, 11:24 PM
Steve, do you agree that in order for a mtr to make X power it's going to have to achieve X cyl preasure, no matter if that's from a big cam and head on low boost or on a restrictive head and cam and lots of boost?

So if it takes the Same cyl preasure to make the same power, both mtrs are going to have the Same exhaust preasure off the head! No Matter What's Going On BEFORE THE CYL! (including everything on the back side of the intake valve)

In a ballpark statement, then yes. But in all reality.... then no. BSFC and BMEP aren't the same, correct?

dodgeshadowchik
01-10-2011, 12:20 AM
This discusion has nothing to do with any comparison of Any 2 engines that we might have talked about earlier in the thread! This is simply an attempt to understand the Basic operating principles of an interrnal combustion engine!



It is an air pump. :D

BadAssPerformance
01-10-2011, 12:28 AM
This is exactly why I attempted to set "constants" at the beginning of this debate, because I knew if we couldn't agree on everything else being equil, the disscusion would move all over the map.

The discussion is all over the map because you just keep saying the same thing and I am trying to understand what you are claiming.

You said it was HP and I mentioned pressure and why I thought it was different and you said "no its HP" ..... I really dont have time to argue so when you said my pressure comemnt was wrong I really didnt care and moved on to the HP comment you made and then brought up efficiency ..... and you're still trying to tell me (or more like everyone else with your comments like "JT is wrong") why my pressure comment is wrong... Like I said, I have thick skin and don't give a F what you think of me so say what you want but again, I dont have time to argue so I moved on in the conversation...

This whole discussion is really about one thing... the restriction of the "turbulent" outlets... whether it be on my "screwed up build" or your "good running build" or any car...

BTW, I LOLed at "screwed up build" .. nice to slide that in there ;)

Are you just trying to say your SV theory is right or are you trying to explain *how* you think that your SV theory is right? ...cuz if its the first, I should have given up pages ago.


If you want to disscuss why some ppls set-ups are not optimal and the mistakes they've made in why they couldn't make power, that's fine, but that's not what I'm talking about.

Looking back this discussion got rolling when you proclaimed that my 2.2L could not make over 400WHP with higher boost cuz it needed a MB SV on it. A bold statement without having all the facts, but really it did lead into a good discussion and investigation into my old setup.

Even after we discussed that my setup was not optimized, or as some say a "screwed up build"... you said that the SV was a 400WHP limiter and yours was needed at 350whp... but wait a minute, if my setup was optimized (not screwed up) wouldnt it produce more than 400WHP with the bad SV? Hmmmm....


...how can you possibly see what's going on in the first place?

Sorry you think I'm dumb... I guess I am... I don't know how my "screwed up build" even made 400whp with a stock SV ;)

Shadow
01-10-2011, 01:20 AM
You said this



This is where I think there is confusion. The HP level is not the limiting factor as much as system pressure. It really depends a lot on how a specific build is set up to get to the HP goal... if a car makes 400whp on 24psi there is less pressure in the system that needs to get out compared to, say, running 38psi.

Then this



All I am saying that higher psi IN produces higher psi OUT so the outlet becomes more important at higher boost pressures

and this



Thinking out loud here... The SV flow capabilities should not limit HP until some flow/pressure restriction level is reached. So the SV is not necessarily a HP limiter if the HP is made at lower boost / system pressure.

and this



Think about a 10k rpm motor making 300whp ... at 300 it could possibly benefit from a larger SV cuz at the higher RPM more stuff has to get out of the motor. But on the contrary a lower RPM/boost setup could make 500whp at lower boost and not need as much outlet flow...

All of which are saying the same thing. It showed me that the way we veiw flow through the mtr, and our understanding of it, is very different.

As you said, confussed.

I was hoping we could sort through that confusion and maybe in doing so, be able to resolve the rest of what we've been debating......I was wrong!

All I tried to do was ask you yes or no Q's to try to find some middle ground, but that was obviously too much to ask.

Now you think I'm making fun of you, thanks! The comment to Steve had ZERO to do with your car OR my car. I was simply trying to get a point across that is obviously lost in the translation.

Sorry we couldn't get anywhere with this, and I'm still Floored that not 1 single person seemed to have a clue what I was talking about! Who know's, I've been called crazy before, maybe it's true! lol

Anyway, Done.

black86glhs
01-10-2011, 04:10 AM
Sorry, I thought my lol at the end showed you that I took it as "just a joke". I guess I should have gone advanced and put a couple more in there! :lol::clap::nod::evil::D

I'll remember for next time.;)
That's better. Some people are dyslexic, I'm emotilexic....sorry. LOL.:eyebrows::lol:

Juggy
01-10-2011, 07:14 AM
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=380099924407&viewitem=&sspagename=STRK:MEWNX:IT#ht_683wt_939

in case any canadians are loooking to puchase the ATP swingvalve, this is a good deal considering its in canada, so no custom fees :)

Directconnection
01-10-2011, 11:14 AM
Who know's, I've been called crazy before, maybe it's true! lol



Nope, I am the crazy one on here. Not even debatable. Where's the "My Posts" tab at JT...

BadAssPerformance
01-10-2011, 03:01 PM
You said this Then this and this and this

All of which are saying the same thing. It showed me that the way we veiw flow through the mtr, and our understanding of it, is very different.

Yep, which is pretty much what I said in my last post and why I cut to the chase and commented on what is coming out of the system... You said it was HP producing the outlet so I didnt feel the need to argue that with you about pressure.


I was hoping we could sort through that confusion and maybe in doing so, be able to resolve the rest of what we've been debating......I was wrong! All I tried to do was ask you yes or no Q's to try to find some middle ground, but that was obviously too much to ask.

Why would I care to debate about pressure when you already told me that its HP and I should be able to see it? I mean you told me my theory was wrong, you told Steve my theory was wrong... OK... :confused2: The only reason I took a trip into theory land was to try to understand the real debate (from the beginning several pages back) about what is coming out of the system and your theory that the stock SV was a 400whp limiter.


Now you think I'm making fun of you, thanks! The comment to Steve had ZERO to do with your car OR my car. I was simply trying to get a point across that is obviously lost in the translation.

Hey, the internet sucks for communication but it sure read that way... but again, I could care less :thumb:


Sorry we couldn't get anywhere with this, and I'm still Floored that not 1 single person seemed to have a clue what I was talking about! Who know's, I've been called crazy before, maybe it's true! lol

Anyway, Done.

The only reason we cannot get anywhere with this is that every time I bring up your stock SV limit claims you ignore that part of my post and we end up in theory land about stuff that really doesnt answer the question from the start.

Yer done? OK I can be too, but first I will sum up the points that get close to an answer to that question...

You claim the stock SV is a 400whp limiter but should be replaced at 350whp. ...I can agree that it helps (all efficiencies sum) but its not the 400whp limiter you claimed.

I mentioned 480whp thru the stock SV on nitrous, you said thats different... I let it go.

You said that you could see how having a header before a SV would help not need one as soon... but then disagreed when I said that would lead me to beleive the SV may not a 400whp limiter.

Then you said I should bolt a stock SV on the 2.4L (550+whp) and you guarantee it would lose 50whp... and I commented that shouldnt it have to lose 150+whp to get to 400? Which you ignored and then we ended up in theory land...

So you are right, we should be done, cuz after this long, its obvious you're not interested in discussing your alleged claims...

Shadow
01-10-2011, 03:46 PM
JT, now don't get me wrong here, I'm in no means starting this up again. Fool me once, fool me twice has already Owned me! lol

I just wish there was some way to reach you so you would be able to understand why we can get any where with this. IF someone doesn't have a grasp on the basics of how things work, how can there be a disscusion?

You tell me what the polite way of saying, your thinking is Scewd is? Cause I obviously can't find one. At this point, anything I say will offend you because the disscusion has been brought down to the level of "Egos".

How can you possibly make a statement like this;


Think about a 10k rpm motor making 300whp ... at 300 it could possibly benefit from a larger SV cuz at the higher RPM more stuff has to get out of the motor. But on the contrary a lower RPM/boost setup could make 500whp at lower boost and not need as much outlet flow...


and then expect to have a disscusion on how Anything on the exhaust side is going to do anything?

This statement is an Oxymoron! But you can't see that. That doesn't make you stupid, it just means that until you can understand Why that statement doesn't work, there's nothing that can be disscussed. ( it's pointless because we're not both openly looking for an answer, we're just looking to defend what's ours)

I will say this, since practically no one came on here and said a word about any of this, I have to conclude that most of the community has no opinion on the matter, or doesn't understand it either.

So it really doesn't surprise me that so many struggle so hard to make 400WHP while a hand full go 500+.

dodgeshadowchik
01-10-2011, 07:06 PM
lol, what?!

I think the limiting factor on why people struggle to make 400HP is MONEY. :P
Plus HP is just a number. Unless you know how to use it; it means nothing. And that number varies based on weather, dyno, ect... which is why I personally don't like when people start throwing arbitrary numbers out there.

The fact is there was a claim made in this thread that was not backed up. It just ran in circles; dancing around the original claim.

Directconnection
01-10-2011, 07:23 PM
lol, what?!

I think the limiting factor on why people struggle to make 400HP is MONEY. :P
Plus HP is just a number. Unless you know how to use it; it means nothing. And that number varies based on weather, dyno, ect... which is why I personally don't like when people start throwing arbitrary numbers out there.

The fact is there was a claim made in this thread that was not backed up. It just ran in circles; dancing around the original claim.

How did you end up in here MB! This part of the forum is for the technically hypothetical bench racing upper-echelon train of thought only.... You must resist the urge to bench-race with us! Spare yourself now from the sausage-palooza... and go back to your DSM and Ford threads before you lose your mind like the rest of us;)

(just kiddin' ya)

dodgeshadowchik
01-10-2011, 07:27 PM
^^^

LMAFO!

I probably should. There's no way I could hold my own against engineering techno-babble. ;)

One a side note did you know that GMC is offering 22 different configurations of the 2500HD truck? Or that Buick is planning a release of the new Regal with a turbo engine and a 6-speed manual trans.

only 220HP tho.. needs a new SV.

Pat
01-10-2011, 07:28 PM
Can we combine this thread with the ported stock manifold vs header discussion and the nitrous vs no nitrous discussion? :D :D :D

Directconnection
01-10-2011, 07:30 PM
^^^

LMAFO!

I probably should. There's no way I could hold my own against engineering techno-babble. ;)

Well, if you do plan to stay, then let me welcome you "a-broad" (oopsy... I meant "a-board" ;-)

thedon809
01-10-2011, 09:12 PM
All i know is that the stock style swingvalve looks like it sucks for flow. That is reason enough to go with a mandrel type SV. When I was active with DSM's they all recomended better flowing outlets.

Shadow
01-10-2011, 09:41 PM
O.K. One more time for the Ladies!

I claimed this



The 11 sec Charger we built gained at least 30WHP from this S/V, prob more like 40 and I'll go into more detail when I have a chance and see if you can see where I'm coming from.

And this


In conclusion we put more hp through the .63 A/R stage 1 than anyone said we should be able to do, and have contined to do so ever since.

The Only reason I have been able to reach the HP levels I have with the stock exhaust mani is Because I have concentrated on the least amount of BP on the Aft side of the turbine.....period!

And of course, who could forget this! (one of my favorites)



THE SINGLE GREATEST THING that a turbo DEPENDS on is the difference in preasure from the before to aft side of the turbine (the lesser pr being on the aft side! lol).....PERIOD! Not rocket science! The greater that difference the more efficient the turbo can make power. (would you like to argue this as well?) :eyebrows:

then this


I will add this, one more time. Whatever the difference, it's going to be multiplied by a less efficient mani Before the turbo. In other words, IF I had run a nice EQ length header, and not the ported mani, I wouldn't have needed this piece as soon as I did.
This will prove interesting when I do swap on a header, as I May Not see the gains that some would expect, for that same reason.

And this



Comparing the stock style S/V to a properly ported stock exhaust mani @ 400whp as a restriction is rediculous. I've Proven that a stock mani can go 500+WHP EFFICIENTLY! PROVEN, DOCUMENTED EVEN! While the stock style S/V is still under scrutiny..........

What I'm saying is exactly what I've been saying all along. A more efficient exhaust Before the tubine will help to overcome a less efficient exhaust After the turbine and vise versa. IMHO any build over 350WHP is going to see sig gains when going to a mandrel style outlet After the turbo, even if it's only a 2 1/2" madrel 90!

And finally this



Negative. 500WHP IS 500WHP wether it's from a turbo making 24 psi, 35 psi OR a high comp mtr on Only 8 psi! The Power output of the mtr IS the governing body which will dictate exhaust preasure!

Cyl preasure ALONE will dictate exhaust preasure as cyl preasure alone will dictate engine power (hp/tq) so the exhaust preasure of any 400whp 8v 2.2 will be the Same and need the same mods After the head to keep BP down in order to make MORE POWER!....No?

Now you said "A" claim, I obviously made several claims, so, which one we talking about? lol


The fact is there was a claim made in this thread that was not backed up. It just ran in circles; dancing around the original claim.

And wether it was backed up or not depends on which side of the fence your on.

JT gave an example saying that if the mtr made 300WHP @ 10000rpms it would prob benifit from a Better than stock style S/V.

What I've been trying to say is that IF this is true, then IT MUST be true for every 300+hp configuration of that mtr! Wether it makes the power at 5000rpm, on 5 psi boost, on 40 psi boost....IT'S the same thing!

JT also gave an example of a 500WHP mtr making power at lower rpm or on lower boost
That wouldn't necc need a better flowing exhaust after the turbine because the power was made at lower rpm or on lower boost.

Now IF this is true, then again, it Has to be true for ever 500WHP configuration! In which case upgrading the S/V would be a total waiste of time IF it could support 500WHP efficiently!

Now, according to the rules, you can pic 1 OR the other, but NOT both.

JT is picking BOTH! Can you see how that can't work?

I'm starting to think that most out there are not reading the rule book. ;)

cordes
01-10-2011, 09:58 PM
Can we combine this thread with the ported stock manifold vs header discussion and the nitrous vs no nitrous discussion? :D :D :D

I'm not a mod, but I do declare that we have a long way to go in here before we reach that level.

While I'm sure that JT and Rob may not be satisfied with the thread outcome as of yet, I have enjoyed their insights.

black86glhs
01-10-2011, 10:03 PM
^^^

LMAFO!

I probably should. There's no way I could hold my own against engineering techno-babble. ;)

One a side note did you know that GMC is offering 22 different configurations of the 2500HD truck? Or that Buick is planning a release of the new Regal with a turbo engine and a 6-speed manual trans.

only 220HP tho.. needs a new SV.Only partially right. They are planning on a hot version with the 2.0T from the Cobalt and 6sp. 250-270 hp. :clap:

dodgeshadowchik
01-10-2011, 10:12 PM
Idk... how could it be true for all applications? If its making the power at 10,000rpm that's going to be moving air faster than if its making the HP at 5000rpm. I do not see how this would be the same?

Also boost pressure is not equal either. 18psi on a t25 turbo is not the same as 18psi on a 16g because the larger turbo can flow more air.

thedon: yes, the dsm crowd recommends better outlets. However, most quite a few run the EVO3 style 02 housing; which is still a "stock" piece and get decent results. I think the whole argument of this thread was that the SV wasn't needed until you are making big HP.

cordes
01-10-2011, 10:15 PM
Has anyone answered the question of when Reeves went from a stock style piece to what he is running now? I could be off, but I thought he was running a stock style swing valve when making well over 400WHP.

glhs0426
01-10-2011, 10:16 PM
I wish the discussion would keep going. Surely someone like Mr. Stramer will step in and clarify a few things such as how much exhaust flow is generated by an engine making 500hp @ 10k vs. 500hp @ 5k. After the exhaust flow discussion then we could have a few SV's flowed on a bench to determine which SV is needed for a certain hp level.

You know, hands on application accompanied by the scientific approach (this makes this because).

black86glhs
01-10-2011, 10:19 PM
I agree. It isn't as cut and dry as as this = this. If so, people would all be making the same #s and they don't.

Shadow
01-10-2011, 10:22 PM
Idk... how could it be true for all applications? If its making the power at 10,000rpm that's going to be moving air faster than if its making the HP at 5000rpm. I do not see how this would be the same?

Also boost pressure is not equal either. 18psi on a t25 turbo is not the same as 18psi on a 16g because the larger turbo can flow more air.

thedon: yes, the dsm crowd recommends better outlets. However, most quite a few run the EVO3 style 02 housing; which is still a "stock" piece and get decent results. I think the whole argument of this thread was that the SV wasn't needed until you are making big HP.

This has been my point all along. Exhaust flow is driven by cyl preasure which is in direct relationship too engine power (tq/hp). What size turbo, what boost level, what rpm ect ect is Irrelevant.

The Only concideration is how much power you need to flow. Ya know, Conservation of energy?

cordes
01-10-2011, 10:35 PM
This has been my point all along. Exhaust flow is driven by cyl preasure which is in direct relationship too engine power (tq/hp). What size turbo, what boost level, what rpm ect ect is Irrelevant.

The Only concideration is how much power you need to flow. Ya know, Conservation of energy?

Isn't that a little too theoretical to make a useful real world comparison in this situation? Couldn't we more narrowly and accurately describe that relationship by looking the the energy given off by the mass of fuel burned for an HP limiter?

BadAssPerformance
01-10-2011, 10:48 PM
JT, now don't get me wrong here, I'm in no means starting this up again. Fool me once, fool me twice has already Owned me! lol

ROFLMAO, really, you are not starting it up again? And then post all this? :lol:


I just wish there was some way to reach you so you would be able to understand why we can get any where with this. IF someone doesn't have a grasp on the basics of how things work, how can there be a disscusion?

We cant get anywhere because you are better at quoting stuff in this thread that doesnt matter instead of explaining why your theory is true.


You tell me what the polite way of saying, your thinking is Scewd is? Cause I obviously can't find one. At this point, anything I say will offend you because the disscusion has been brought down to the level of "Egos".

Nope, havn't offended me yet, the only ego to potentially get bruised here is your own :thumb:


How can you possibly make a statement like this; and then expect to have a disscusion on how Anything on the exhaust side is going to do anything?

Again, these were theories trying to understand what you are NOT clearly saying... and obviously they are all wrong, i mean you quoted them and told us all that a couple times now...


I will say this, since practically no one came on here and said a word about any of this, I have to conclude that most of the community has no opinion on the matter, or doesn't understand it either.

Or maybe all of them are waiting for you to tell us? This thread has had a few views...


Members who have read this thread : 184



O.K. One more time for the Ladies!

I claimed this

Back the truck up... You forgot this one, yes, I'm rolling this back to Post # 95:


The TU S/V addes volume, not quality of flow, so it's going to work "see better gains" at lower boost levels where the exhaust turbulence isn't critical. Your BtB test may just have proven the limit of both the stock ported 2 1/2" S/V and the TU 3".

Haven't you even wondered why so many seem to stall right around the 400WHP level? Then you look at those that have gone past that mark with one of these 8v's and they're ALL using a different style S/V or external W/G.

So is seems your theory is that a "turbulent" SV cannot support over 400whp. Not that it doesnt have the cross sectional area to let the gas out, but that it is "turbulent" and the flow of the exhaust is compromised.

You're really good at engine design theory (all your quotes above that say I'm wrong prove that you are) Can you please explain in simple terms (yes real simple please, *der*) why you think that 400whp is the limit of the stock style SV?

Juggy
01-10-2011, 10:51 PM
only 220HP tho.. needs a new SV.


welll from what am gathering from this thread you dont need anything spectacular until 400+ so even if the swingvalve is the size of my pee pee hole, im sure it'll still be able to make power!!!! ;) until 400 anyway lol

BadAssPerformance
01-10-2011, 10:55 PM
welll from what am gathering from this thread you dont need anything spectacular until 400+ so even if the swingvalve is the size of my pee pee hole, im sure it'll still be able to make power!!!! ;) until 400 anyway lol

I heard the ladies talk about yer pee pee hole... I bet it could do 450WHP, LOL

dodgeshadowchik
01-10-2011, 11:02 PM
400 is the mythical theoretical number. all hell brakes loose at 400.

Juggy
01-10-2011, 11:08 PM
I heard the ladies talk about yer pee pee hole... I bet it could do 450WHP, LOL

haha u know it....she was a 10 sexond pass, spillin oil all down the track b4 i blew my head out :lol:

Aries_Turbo
01-10-2011, 11:17 PM
you guys are both too cheeky and long winded, im to the "too long, didnt read" point.

bottom line is that the stock styled SV's are a hindrance to flow with the wall that the turbine discharge slams into. this hindrance reduces power significantly in the higher power levels. possibly exponentially.

a mandrel bent output will help power at all levels.

at 400whp, the stock styled SV is leaving some power on the table, period. i dont care how much. its reducing it.

Brian

GLHNSLHT2
01-10-2011, 11:27 PM
I wish the discussion would keep going. Surely someone like Mr. Stramer will step in and clarify a few things such as how much exhaust flow is generated by an engine making 500hp @ 10k vs. 500hp @ 5k. After the exhaust flow discussion then we could have a few SV's flowed on a bench to determine which SV is needed for a certain hp level.

You know, hands on application accompanied by the scientific approach (this makes this because).


Like said below it isn't the amount of flow per se, it's the turbulence that is caused by the design of the stock SV. This then limits total flow and might not be able to be reproduced on a flow bench.


you guys are both too cheeky and long winded, im to the "too long, didnt read" point.

bottom line is that the stock styled SV's are a hindrance to flow with the wall that the turbine discharge slams into. this hindrance reduces power significantly in the higher power levels. possibly exponentially.

a mandrel bent output will help power at all levels.

at 400whp, the stock styled SV is leaving some power on the table, period. i dont care how much. its reducing it.

Brian


ding ding ding!

cordes
01-10-2011, 11:31 PM
you guys are both too cheeky and long winded, im to the "too long, didnt read" point.

bottom line is that the stock styled SV's are a hindrance to flow with the wall that the turbine discharge slams into. this hindrance reduces power significantly in the higher power levels. possibly exponentially.

a mandrel bent output will help power at all levels.

at 400whp, the stock styled SV is leaving some power on the table, period. i dont care how much. its reducing it.

Brian

This message brought to you by all things laconic. Bravo.


ETA: I thought about the Spartans, and my post simply should have read as follows:

Good. Laconic.

Directconnection
01-10-2011, 11:31 PM
Me thinks we should disable the multi-quote function until this thread dies........

Aries_Turbo
01-10-2011, 11:36 PM
ill be honest... i did have to look up the work "laconic"..... it really isnt a word i use on a daily basis. :)

Brian

Pat
01-10-2011, 11:40 PM
This has been my point all along. Exhaust flow is driven by cyl preasure which is in direct relationship too engine power (tq/hp). What size turbo, what boost level, what rpm ect ect is Irrelevant.

The Only concideration is how much power you need to flow. Ya know, Conservation of energy?

OK, I'll chime in....cylinder pressure is in direct relationship to torque, not hp. HP is a calculation of tq and rpm. That being the case, assume an engine generates x amount of cylinder pressure at 5000 rpm. If it achieves the same cylinder pressure at 8000 rpm, the engine is making the same tq, but obviously more hp.

Using the same example, x cylinder pressure at 5000 rpm and x cylinder pressure at 8000 rpm will produce the same amount of exhaust flow per 4 stroke cycle of that cylinder. However, since the engine is spinning 3k rpm faster, it's producing more 4 stroke cycles per second/minute, so the 8k rpm motor will produce more exhaust flow per second/minute.

One could argue that to make a certain amount of hp, you need to move a certain amount of air through the motor at any rpm and generally, I agree with that, but that blanket statement assumes way too many constants such as equal VE at different rpms, optimal ignition timing and fueling at all rpm ranges, effects of temperature (particularly on a boosted motor), etc. Too many variables.

Does any of this answer the million dollar questions posed in this thread? No. We can argue the merits of the discussion until next year, but without a back to back test or some pressure taps measuring backpressure, we won't know for certain. I think it can be assumed that a better flowing swingvalve will help (FWIW, I saw improvements on my car years ago going to an ATP like piece with a nice 3" mandrel downpipe coming off the swingvalve) Is a stock style swingvalve, regardless of size killing you at 400 hp? Maybe it's not ideal, but I doubt it's turning a 500 hp motor into a 400 hp motor.

Here's another question I'm going to just throw out there....trap speeds are a great indicator of how much go the motor has. However, they rarely tell you where the motor is making it's most power and on the torquey motors we run, they generally are not that accurate. All assumptions of 300, 400 or 500 hp are really just assumptions. Unless either of you dyno'd your cars, at the same facility at the same time (blah, blah, blah), you're aruging apples to oranges by comparing your results. Here's an example...I had a Spirit R/T that I trapped 110 mph in, which calculates to 330 hp. It dyno'd at 262 hp.

I'm not trying to throw fuel on the fire, I just think that there's no resolution to what you guys are arguing, eh, I mean debating. :-)

dodgeshadowchik
01-10-2011, 11:41 PM
blah blah blah. BLAHH BLAH!!! Blah?! OH BLAH!!! You're so BLah, blah!

Directconnection
01-10-2011, 11:41 PM
Also boost pressure is not equal either. 18psi on a t25 turbo is not the same as 18psi on a 16g because the larger turbo can flow more air.


Yes and no.... but 18psi is 18psi (in the same engine). 18psi coming out of your stock VNT is the same "preasure" as 18psi coming out of my 6262 (on the same engine). The difference in power comes from 2 things: the density of the air from the 6262 will be higher due to a cooler charge (more efficient compressor wheel not beating/heating up the air) and 2ndly: slower shaft speeds due to the compressor wheel not needed the same insane rpms to make 18psi boost. Slower shaft speeds means less backpressure happnin' in the turbine housing, which in return... frees up mucho HP :thumb:

Just thought I'd clarify....

cordes
01-10-2011, 11:41 PM
ill be honest... i did have to look up the work "laconic"..... it really isnt a word i use on a daily basis. :)

Brian

Most aren't familiar with it. Heck, most people don't know that the Spartans called home Laconia anyway. They were a poor and terse group of people. I like their style. Well, with the exception of the pederasty.

dodgeshadowchik
01-10-2011, 11:44 PM
Yes and no.... but 18psi is 18psi (in the same engine). 18psi coming out of your stock VNT is the same "preasure" as 18psi coming out of my 6262 (on the same engine). The difference in power comes from 2 things: the density of the air from the 6262 will be higher due to a cooler charge (more efficient compressor wheel not beating/heating up the air) and 2ndly: slower shaft speeds due to the compressor wheel not needed the same insane rpms to make 18psi boost. Slower shaft speeds means less backpressure happnin' in the turbine housing, which in return... frees up mucho HP :thumb:

Just thought I'd clarify....

Yes. :)

Pat
01-10-2011, 11:49 PM
blah blah blah. BLAHH BLAH!!! Blah?! OH BLAH!!! You're so BLah, blah!

Oh man, you just totally blahhed me. Ouch!

Directconnection
01-10-2011, 11:49 PM
You know what I think guys? I don't think it's nearly all that critical as what you/we are all making this out to be. ATP or TU 3" I feel the differences are minimal. Now a 2-1/4 stock SW is a different story....

Think about your nice free-flowing ATP setup, yet remind yourselves of the cork just downstream: the turbine wheel and scroll. A LOT of exhaust flow is fighting it's way through there.....

dodgeshadowchik
01-10-2011, 11:53 PM
Oh man, you just totally blahhed me. Ouch!

LOL.. it was bad timing. it was really a statement about the circles being run in this thread. :)

BadAssPerformance
01-11-2011, 12:00 AM
You know what I think guys? I don't think it's nearly all that critical as what you/we are all making this out to be. ATP or TU 3" I feel the differences are minimal. Now a 2-1/4 stock SW is a different story....

Think about your nice free-flowing ATP setup, yet remind yourselves of the cork just downstream: the turbine wheel and scroll. A LOT of exhaust flow is fighting it's way through there.....

In countless quotes of "what JT said" you may have missed where Rob claimed the TU 3" SV was no better than a stock one as its the wall that creates the "turbulence"...

---------- Post added at 10:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:58 PM ----------


Here's another question I'm going to just throw out there....trap speeds are a great indicator of how much go the motor has. However, they rarely tell you where the motor is making it's most power and on the torquey motors we run, they generally are not that accurate.

Damnit Pat, the one thing Rob and I agree'd upon in this thread and you gotta say THIS!? LOL ;)

puppet
01-11-2011, 01:25 AM
Rob.. JT .. I think quite a few people here understand what is going on with the exhaust side. ... but this discussion will be endless untill some sampling is done on the engine(s) exhaust side with stock and improved SV's.

Want to know if your intake piping to the turbo is undersized? ... put a tap into the pipe and if it shows a vacuum on gauge @WOT then there is your answer. Same with the SV. Tap it and it shouldn't register any pressure on gauge @WOT .. if it's sized right. You will still have a PD across the turbine.

My understanding of "back pressure" is that which happens in the manifold on a turbocharged engine .. before the turbine. This is what effects cylinder head flow for us. Reduce this and the engine will breathe better. This assumes no pressure after the turbine.

Shadow
01-11-2011, 03:48 AM
Nope, havn't offended me yet, the only ego to potentially get bruised here is your own :thumb:

Very cool, as I park my ego at the door in any discussion (as best as humanly possible)
So deff no bruising going on there!









Back the truck up... You forgot this one, yes, I'm rolling this back to Post # 95:

This one what? I was asked to clarify a "claim" that I made. Post 95 was still about forming a theory as to why you couldn't make more power with your set-up.




So is seems your theory is that a "turbulent" SV cannot support over 400whp. Not that it doesnt have the cross sectional area to let the gas out, but that it is "turbulent" and the flow of the exhaust is compromised.

You're really good at engine design theory (all your quotes above that say I'm wrong prove that you are) Can you please explain in simple terms (yes real simple please, *der*) why you think that 400whp is the limit of the stock style SV?

Now this is some funny Sh!t! Why did I think that the stock style S/V was limited to 400WHP? Were you not there? Here, Let me take you back. To a time before all the outragious quotes, a time when fellow Moparians were able to get along and discuss matters in a more civil tongue.

We were comparing our 2 builds, I was Assuming that your set-up was running as well as one could expect, you had given my set-up the same grace.

You were 99% convinced that your 2 piece intake was your restriction, I was 99% convinced that the 2 piece intake was Not your restriction.

So, with the info you provided, I did my best to theorize why you couldn't make power above 400WHP and I could. And even looking back, you had Every advantage over me Except a free flowing exhaust AFTER the turbine.

Then you had an epiphany, all of a sudden you came to the realization, for the first time, that your intake temps were completly out of wack and that was the reason you couldn't make more power!

Now, as fishy as this smelt, cause let's face it, if your intake temps are high and you run on a 10 deg cooler day the car is going to go faster. If you artificially cool the I/C the car is going to go faster. This isn't what I would concider a hard thing to diagnose nor a hard thing to determine.

Never the less, for arguments sake, I let it go. And ever since, excepted your explanation of why you couldn't go any faster and never thought any more of it till you brought this up.

Don't tell me you've been stuck back there all this time thinking that theory was set in stone?

That would be as rediculous as you thinking this discussion has anything to do with My S/V's! (I really hope you got over that way back in the beginning)

---------- Post added at 01:48 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:44 AM ----------


you guys are both too cheeky and long winded, im to the "too long, didnt read" point.

bottom line is that the stock styled SV's are a hindrance to flow with the wall that the turbine discharge slams into. this hindrance reduces power significantly in the higher power levels. possibly exponentially.

A MANDREL BENT OUTPUT WILL HELP POWER AT ALL LEVELS.

at 400whp, the stock styled SV is leaving some power on the table, period. i dont care how much. its reducing it.

Brian


Rob.. JT .. I think quite a few people here understand what is going on with the exhaust side. ... but this discussion will be endless untill some sampling is done on the engine(s) exhaust side with stock and improved SV's.

Want to know if your intake piping to the turbo is undersized? ... put a tap into the pipe and if it shows a vacuum on gauge @WOT then there is your answer. Same with the SV. Tap it and it shouldn't register any pressure on gauge @WOT .. if it's sized right. You will still have a PD across the turbine.

My understanding of "back pressure" is that which happens in the manifold on a turbocharged engine .. before the turbine. This is what effects cylinder head flow for us. Reduce this and the engine will breathe better. This assumes no pressure after the turbine.

Quoted for truth!

BadAssPerformance
01-11-2011, 07:53 AM
This one what? I was asked to clarify a "claim" that I made. Post 95 was still about forming a theory as to why you couldn't make more power with your set-up.

You comment quoted was not just about my "screwed up setup" if it was I would have let this go.


Now this is some funny Sh!t! Why did I think that the stock style S/V was limited to 400WHP? Were you not there? Here, Let me take you back. To a time before all the outragious quotes, a time when fellow Moparians were able to get along and discuss matters in a more civil tongue.

Wait, before you divert the question at hand, one more time, didn't you make the following statement that is independant of my "screwed up build" ?


Haven't you even wondered why so many seem to stall right around the 400WHP level? Then you look at those that have gone past that mark with one of these 8v's and they're ALL using a different style S/V or external W/G.

Yes, you stated that "ALL" over "400WHP" are using different SV's (not just my 400WHP "screwed up build") ....

And ever since this comment was made, each time I said anything about "a stock style SV can support over 400whp" you say something like "I cannot agree to that" ...

Whatever...

I think we all agree (I agreed all along and several pages back!) that a better flowing SV will be better.

I think most (all but one?) think that the stock style SV is NOT a 400whp limiter as claimed...

Shadow
01-11-2011, 10:29 AM
JT, Everything I spoke of during and after our disscussion about your build Was about/related to our discussion About your build! I would think that just stands to reason.

Yes, I have wondered, For years, why ppl have So Much trouble doing something that is so simple to do! So much so that I almost don't like to talk about it too much because I've found that it bothers ppl who have had trouble with it to hear me talk like this!

Your build and the info you gave me about it + reading ALL of the supporting mods, that for the most part are More than I'm using NOW AT OVER 500WHP made it look like it made perfect sense why ALL of this was going on! Can you, or can you Not see this?

NO I'm NOT saying the stock style S/V is a switch that shuts off at 400WHP, but in the case of your car it certainly looked like that. What I'm saying is the same thing I've said from the begining. Read through all of the posts I've ever made. I believe a better S/V at 400+WHP is going to be a 30-40whp gain, maybe more depending on build. That has NEVER Changed through this whole conversation! READ!

So, you go ahead and SQUEEZE 400WHP through a wall and continue to try and convince ppl to continue doing so.

I will continue to do what I always have, give as much usefull info according to My experience on what worked to get me to where I've gotten when it comes to making power with this platform!

cordes
01-11-2011, 11:48 AM
Rob.. JT .. I think quite a few people here understand what is going on with the exhaust side. ... but this discussion will be endless untill some sampling is done on the engine(s) exhaust side with stock and improved SV's.

Want to know if your intake piping to the turbo is undersized? ... put a tap into the pipe and if it shows a vacuum on gauge @WOT then there is your answer. Same with the SV. Tap it and it shouldn't register any pressure on gauge @WOT .. if it's sized right. You will still have a PD across the turbine.

My understanding of "back pressure" is that which happens in the manifold on a turbocharged engine .. before the turbine. This is what effects cylinder head flow for us. Reduce this and the engine will breathe better. This assumes no pressure after the turbine.

Won't there always be a pressure differential since there is a restriction caused by the filter?

puppet
01-11-2011, 12:19 PM
Won't there always be a pressure differential since there is a restriction caused by the filter?A street/strip car is one thing ... but you still want to minimize vacuum here, in this area, as much as possible. In a race set-up there shouldn't be any PD, ie: no vacuum. Any vacuum created inside the inlet .. before the turbo .. means that the engine is working harder, as a pump, to fill the cylinders. VE will be down accordingly.

The same thing applies to the exhaust side. Pressure in the SV or the piping pretty much means the exhaust is undersized for the set-up. Engine is working harder to puimp exhaust out .. stealing energy from the crankshaft. Compromise comes in as to how much the builder is willing to tolerate. (fit/cost vs HP gain/loss).

I used to think that low overlap cams were pretty much a given with turbocharged apps because of the above ... and plenty of sites around the net hold on to that theory, too. Now I realize that it's just a band-aid. Bandages aren't the right approach. Fix the reason why the engine is seeing excessive pressure and you'll be able to run a cam that can produce more power.

cordes
01-11-2011, 12:30 PM
A street/strip car is one thing ... but you still want to minimize vacuum here, in this area, as much as possible. In a race set-up there shouldn't be any PD, ie: no vacuum. Any vacuum created inside the inlet .. before the turbo .. means that the engine is working harder, as a pump, to fill the cylinders. VE will be down accordingly.

The same thing applies to the exhaust side. Pressure in the SV or the piping pretty much means the exhaust is undersized for the set-up. Compromise comes in as to how much the builder is willing to tolerate. (fit/cost vs HP gain/loss).

Sure. What do you think is a good minimum vac reading on a car which is running an air filter though? Has anyone done any testing to see what difference a filter make on a given car? Anyone take measurements while doing that?

puppet
01-11-2011, 12:36 PM
A good reading would be ZERO on the gauge.

cordes
01-11-2011, 12:42 PM
A good reading would be ZERO on the gauge.

I'll take that as an I don't know.

Shadow
01-11-2011, 02:19 PM
I used to think that low overlap cams were pretty much a given with turbocharged apps because of the above ... and plenty of sites around the net hold on to that theory, too. Now I realize that it's just a band-aid. Bandages aren't the right approach. Fix the reason why the engine is seeing excessive pressure and you'll be able to run a cam that can produce more power.

Again, QFT! Keep it up! :clap:

puppet
01-11-2011, 07:25 PM
I'll take that as an I don't know.Sorry I couldn't spoon feed you that info. How hard is it to establish how much your air filter/piping is restricting flow? Put in a tap and go from there. If you have a lot of vacuum draw .. switch it out with another type of filter ... or you may have to redo your piping ... or you feel you can live with it.

How's that for an answer?

cordes
01-11-2011, 07:28 PM
Sorry I couldn't spoon feed you that info. How hard is it to establish how much your air filter/piping is restricting flow? Put in a tap and go from there. If you have a lot of vacuum draw .. switch it out with another type of filter ... or you may have to redo your piping ... or you feel you can live with it.

How's that for an answer?

Answer to what? You didn't answer any of my questions. I think I may have read too much into your original post.

BadAssPerformance
01-11-2011, 07:33 PM
Your build and the info you gave me about it + reading ALL of the supporting mods, that for the most part are More than I'm using NOW AT OVER 500WHP made it look like it made perfect sense why ALL of this was going on! Can you, or can you Not see this?

No I'm not going down the "our builds and mods are different and 24psi vs. 38psi discussion again" ... Colder intake temps with more boost... 450WHP-500WHP definitely capable with the "turbulent" SV ...

Nope, I shouldnt even mention the 480whp @ 24psi (which could/should have been over 500 if it was used before 3rd gear) on nitrous, cuz somehow nitrous HP exits the SV differently than regular HP... :rolleyes: I cant even imagine your reason why that works but shouldnt, hell, it probably begins with "I cannot explain this to you cuz you think a 10k rpm... blah, blah, blah" LOL ;) <== JOKE


NO I'm NOT saying the stock style S/V is a switch that shuts off at 400WHP,

Great, we are FINALLY GETTING SOMEWHERE (I can use CAPS LOCK too :D )

If this is all you posted, I would be done now...


but in the case of your car it certainly looked like that. What I'm saying is the same thing I've said from the begining. Read through all of the posts I've ever made. I believe a better S/V at 400+WHP is going to be a 30-40whp gain, maybe more depending on build. That has NEVER Changed through this whole conversation! READ!

If YOU read my posts I AGREED with the benefits of a higher flowing SV :banghead: STILL Nobody is saying a better SV wont help over 400whp...


So, you go ahead and SQUEEZE 400WHP through a wall and continue to try and convince ppl to continue doing so

Not trying to convince anyone of that...

...only that a stock SV *can* get past 400whp. Glad we agree on this now, finally, after all these pages. :clap:

GLHNSLHT2
01-11-2011, 10:17 PM
Sorry I couldn't spoon feed you that info. How hard is it to establish how much your air filter/piping is restricting flow? Put in a tap and go from there. If you have a lot of vacuum draw .. switch it out with another type of filter ... or you may have to redo your piping ... or you feel you can live with it.

How's that for an answer?

I would be willing to bet that a 2.5 T1 smooth hose with NO Filter or AIRBOX would see a vacuum reading :)

Aries_Turbo
01-11-2011, 11:17 PM
I would be willing to bet that a 2.5 T1 smooth hose with NO Filter or AIRBOX would see a vacuum reading :)

exactly, any bend, any dimension change, any element, no matter how large creates a restriction and therefore a vacuum at that point.

i know things like generators have little vacuum gauges on the piping between the filter and engine/turbo to tell you when the filters need to be changed. when i see one at work next, ill look to see if there are any values.

Brian

cordes
01-12-2011, 12:25 AM
exactly, any bend, any dimension change, any element, no matter how large creates a restriction and therefore a vacuum at that point.

i know things like generators have little vacuum gauges on the piping between the filter and engine/turbo to tell you when the filters need to be changed. when i see one at work next, ill look to see if there are any values.

Brian

I would be very interested in seeing this.

black86glhs
01-12-2011, 02:20 AM
I would be very interested in seeing this.

Look at any heavy diesel truck(dump truck, semi, etc.), they have the same thing. They always have a small amount of vacuum on the dial.

Aries_Turbo
01-12-2011, 10:58 AM
yeah i saw one on a isuzu NQR box truck just yesterday too.... but before i read this thread.

Brian

puppet
01-12-2011, 12:48 PM
I would be willing to bet that a 2.5 T1 smooth hose with NO Filter or AIRBOX would see a vacuum reading :)We're not saying that ZERO vacuum cannot be achieved .. are we? People are beginning to outline cases of how/where there would still be vacuum in the intake. So, are we now supposed to start a physics argument as to xx dia *xx length combined with yy brand filter = x hg" reading. All this brain power will prove is that you can't race with an oem/like set-up ... well doh!

Wasn't the point of my post at all. The closer you get to ZERO the better ... ZERO is the goal. Do we understand this or not?

Shadow
01-12-2011, 03:36 PM
We're not saying that ZERO vacuum cannot be achieved .. are we? People are beginning to outline cases of how/where there would still be vacuum in the intake. So, are we now supposed to start a physics argument as to xx dia *xx length combined with yy brand filter = x hg" reading. All this brain power will prove is that you can't race with an oem/like set-up ... well doh!

Wasn't the point of my post at all. The closer you get to ZERO the better ... ZERO is the goal. Do we understand this or not?

lol! I feel for ya bro, just glad someone else is taking the reins! :D

black86glhs
01-12-2011, 04:14 PM
We're not saying that ZERO vacuum cannot be achieved .. are we? People are beginning to outline cases of how/where there would still be vacuum in the intake. So, are we now supposed to start a physics argument as to xx dia *xx length combined with yy brand filter = x hg" reading. All this brain power will prove is that you can't race with an oem/like set-up ... well doh!

Wasn't the point of my post at all. The closer you get to ZERO the better ... ZERO is the goal. Do we understand this or not?
I know I wasn't arguing that. All I was saying is that there will be a small amount of vacuum, especially at higher rpm. In a perfect (or darn near it) setup, yes, it would be so low it would look like zero.:nod:

dodgeshadowchik
01-12-2011, 06:33 PM
So, you go ahead and SQUEEZE 400WHP through a wall and continue to try and convince ppl to continue doing so.

I will continue to do what I always have, give as much usefull info according to My experience on what worked to get me to where I've gotten when it comes to making power with this platform!

He was never trying to convince people... he was stating that it was possible; as he did achieve that on his old setup.

cordes
01-12-2011, 06:44 PM
We're not saying that ZERO vacuum cannot be achieved .. are we? People are beginning to outline cases of how/where there would still be vacuum in the intake. So, are we now supposed to start a physics argument as to xx dia *xx length combined with yy brand filter = x hg" reading. All this brain power will prove is that you can't race with an oem/like set-up ... well doh!

Wasn't the point of my post at all. The closer you get to ZERO the better ... ZERO is the goal. Do we understand this or not?

My fault. I read more into your original post than was there.

I think we can all agree that Zero is better.

Directconnection
01-12-2011, 06:56 PM
He was never trying to convince people... he was stating that it was possible; as he did achieve that on his old setup.

Tammy Wynette music on cue: "Staynd... Bah... Yer... Mayon....":drum:

Juggy
01-12-2011, 06:58 PM
He was never trying to convince people... he was stating that it was possible; as he did achieve that on his old setup.

+1. i thought the whole argument here was that the 2.5 or 3" standard style swingvalve would limit flow...like who would argue that??? this thread has gone 2 the scrap yard in my boook. 2 people arguing about 2 different setups trying to prove something....too many variables to put 2gether, so each of you boys can take a seat after round 12 and eack take a score of 49 :D there aint no winner here........

black86glhs
01-12-2011, 07:49 PM
I win!!!!

GLHSHELBY
01-13-2011, 02:34 AM
Does any of this answer the million dollar questions posed in this thread? No. We can argue the merits of the discussion until next year, but without a back to back test or some pressure taps measuring backpressure, we won't know for certain. I think it can be assumed that a better flowing swingvalve will help (FWIW, I saw improvements on my car years ago going to an ATP like piece with a nice 3" mandrel downpipe coming off the swingvalve) Is a stock style swingvalve, regardless of size killing you at 400 hp? Maybe it's not ideal, but I doubt it's turning a 500 hp motor into a 400 hp motor.

Here's another question I'm going to just throw out there....trap speeds are a great indicator of how much go the motor has. However, they rarely tell you where the motor is making it's most power and on the torquey motors we run, they generally are not that accurate. All assumptions of 300, 400 or 500 hp are really just assumptions. Unless either of you dyno'd your cars, at the same facility at the same time (blah, blah, blah), you're aruging apples to oranges by comparing your results. Here's an example...I had a Spirit R/T that I trapped 110 mph in, which calculates to 330 hp. It dyno'd at 262 hp.

I'm not trying to throw fuel on the fire, I just think that there's no resolution to what you guys are arguing, eh, I mean debating. :-)

I`d love to see a b2b dyno and actual run of both SV`s just to see the difference. Every little bit adds up.

glhs0426
01-13-2011, 11:44 PM
I`d love to see a b2b dyno and actual run of both SV`s just to see the difference. Every little bit adds up.

Every little bit does add up. I think that was one side of the debate. A b2b just opens another can of worms....."The test was optimized for part 1 so it appeared to be better. Now if the timing and fuel tables were adjusted accordingly then part 2 would be the clear winner."......"The hard parts were made to enhance to outcome of part 2 because they do not enhance the flow characteristics of part 1."