Who is John Verhine???
Seems to think he is very smart.
Thanks
Randy
Who is John Verhine???
Seems to think he is very smart.
Thanks
Randy
There is no logical reason to call an Engine a motor.
Randy Hicks
86 GLHS60
86 GLHS 373 : SOLD, but never forgotten
89 Turbo Minivan
83 Turbo Rampage : SOLD
Edmonton,Alberta,Canada
Getting closer! But I want to see a dyno graph using at least a T3/T4 50 trim- Big intercooler and with stock cam and stock degree setting and then a graph with camshaft timing degree changes and or camshaft changes.Originally Posted by mopar-tech
If I reload my dyno software on another machine I'd be able to load the actual files from the dyno.
I'll have to do so when I have some spare time.
Working on clearing the decks.
Good morning-
Today I went flipping through some of my dyno pictures and found a few of the following.
First up the Daytona was on the rollers with the major changes being a 3-bar calibration that I was refining and a double core intercooler. As you can see the torque popped up quite a bit compared to the single core but HP was more or less the same. I'm of the opinion the stock turbo housing was just strangling the output. The car had a few gauges in place to check pressure drops and a digital temp gauge placed at various locations.
Without my notes in front of me I seem to recollect that I was working on the pumping tables of the calibration and making notes about various pressure drops in the system. I was starting out in the lower boost ranges and working my way up adjusting the fuel curves.
The dyno sheet that states S60/NPR is from Jon's CSX and you can see he was making virtually the same amount of torque (down slightly) but more HP. Chalk up a win here for the larger Super 60 compressor and .63 turbine housing.
Gary
Working on clearing the decks.
That's the point I am trying to make is that with an even larger turbo than the S60 along with a good flowing intercooler and exhaust and with tuning both with the CAL and camshaft is that WHP approaching or hitting 400 might be seen on a bone stock engine!
Good morning-
Today I went flipping through some of my dyno pictures and found a few of the following.
First up the Daytona was on the rollers with the major changes being a 3-bar calibration that I was refining and a double core intercooler. As you can see the torque popped up quite a bit compared to the single core but HP was more or less the same. I'm of the opinion the stock turbo housing was just strangling the output. The car had a few gauges in place to check pressure drops and a digital temp gauge placed at various locations.
Without my notes in front of me I seem to recollect that I was working on the pumping tables of the calibration and making notes about various pressure drops in the system. I was starting out in the lower boost ranges and working my way up adjusting the fuel curves.
The dyno sheet that states S60/NPR is from Jon's CSX and you can see he was making virtually the same amount of torque (down slightly) but more HP. Chalk up a win here for the larger Super 60 compressor and .63 turbine housing.
Gary
On Jon's CSX I feel that retarding the camshaft just 2 degrees would end up pushing WHP to over 300. Would be interesting to see what that change would do to the torque curve!
I think if you had an optimum turbo with a good intake and exhaust 400 might be possible. Everything would have to be just right though. The Super 60 was ok for its day but has been surpassed by modern designs.
The Reliant exceed 440 hp to the wheels with a stock camshaft and it had more in it.
The factory exhaust manifold isn't that great and I found out on the Reliant via pressure taps the "TBI header" isn't much better.
- - - Updated - - -
Possible, the torque is slightly soft due to the larger turbine housing... well if you call 337 ft/lbs soft.
The Daytona with stock turbo was always a riot, it would spool up like crazy when you stuffed your foot into it. Great fun when on the highway in 5th.
Working on clearing the decks.
That is impressive!
Dang, you guys are really giving me the itch to build the new motor for the Scamp. I've got a lot of the pieces in place to do it, just have to have the time... It's going to be a project for next winter.
This thread is giving me a lot of the info I need to know what I'm planning is on the right track....
Don't be shy, i retarded the cam *6* degrees on my stock engine Caravan and everything is fine!On Jon's CSX I feel that retarding the camshaft just 2 degrees would end up pushing WHP to over 300. Would be interesting to see what that change would do to the torque curve!
As for the 400hp thing, i think the sticking point when you say stock engine is stock cylinder head. As far as i know, Brian Lugert's old red/white shadow has the fastest 'stock head' passes at 11.5, but it was so light that i dont think that's anywhere near 400hp.
Dont push the red button.You hear me?
My Shadow has completely stock 89 turbo 2 2.2 with head studs, with unported 2 piece and unported exhaust manifold , and has run 7.06@96 in the 1/8th, and pretty sure it will go 11.0 or better in the quarter @ 5800 feet altitude, but it only weighs 2330 with me in it...
I was only using 2 degrees as an example LOL! I run more than that on my combos as well!
- - - Updated - - -
Impressive! Put it on a dyno so we can see what is going on! BTW what's the turbo?
My buddy Brian made several cam adjustments on the Dyno and his curve shifted right with each change.
His 2.5 really responded to late cam timing, probably the same with 2.2
As usual, great info Gary and Vigo !!
Thanks
Randy
There is no logical reason to call an Engine a motor.
Randy Hicks
86 GLHS60
86 GLHS 373 : SOLD, but never forgotten
89 Turbo Minivan
83 Turbo Rampage : SOLD
Edmonton,Alberta,Canada
Short rod to stroke ratio engines like a 2.2 and even more so a 2.5 respond well to a later intake valve closing point. Did the peak torque number stay the same even though it was being shifted to the right?
Last edited by glhs875; 05-18-2016 at 02:33 PM.
I recall 334 hp for Lugert's car. Don't know why I remember that, but it rings a bell. I also recall that car was very light.
Was a neat car. Wonder if it still exists...
Sounds good, I didn't realize you had a completely stock cylinder head!My Shadow has completely stock 89 turbo 2 2.2 with head studs, with unported 2 piece and unported exhaust manifold , and has run 7.06@96 in the 1/8th, and pretty sure it will go 11.0 or better in the quarter @ 5800 feet altitude, but it only weighs 2330 with me in it...
Dont push the red button.You hear me?
Yea, when I yanked the 2.5 for less torque it got this stock 2.2
ok, so how did YOU "calculate" your hp # on your 2.5? what did you have for an intercooler? a "stock" one?All hp is calculated. A 2.5 doesn't have any peak horsepower advantage over a 2.2 with the same top end parts
im not really sure how you got my quotes all mixed up with other quotes I made but it should have been pretty simple.
gary said that he made 254 on all stock parts at "all" of it boost, so how much was that 28psi?
I made 215hp ON THE DYNO TO THE WHEELS at 20 psi of boost with almost all stock parts except 3" swingvalve and downpipe, obviously not using all of the available power the turbo is capable of making but keeping it at a safe level for the tune I had and turbo longevity.
so you say that a 2.2 should make 240 hp at 20 psi, but gary made 254 at all of it boost, so what was gary doing wrong (he wasn't) if he made that # at lets say 28 psi? so with 8 psi more boost he only made 14 more hp than what you say it should make?
and of coarse the 2.5 is going to make more power almost everywhere in its efficient rpm range, its a "bigger" displacement engine, especially when you just said hp is a calculated number and we all know that the 2.5 makes way more tq so the hp figures will also be more at those rpms, so what happens is the hp (and tq) will fall off at higher rpm with stock parts because it wont flow well enough up there.
the "18hp" quote is figuring that a garrett t2 turbo is pretty much maxed out on our engines at about 260 hp, so for you to say that a t2 engine should make 240 on stock parts at 20 psi is saying that its about "18hp" away from maxing out the turbo on a "t2 engine" if you get what im saying?
And thank you shadow for posting your #'s with associated parts, seams like the "combo" of a more efficent turbo AND intercooler (plus free'er flowing exhaust) will let the engine make better hp at lower boost psi numbers with a smoothed out not "modded" 1 piece intake, but there is still more to be desired with the 1 piece intake.
so basically you can make plenty of power with a 1 piece if the other parts of the turbo system are satisfactory, but at a higher boost level depending on what your bottom end and tune can handle...
I personally always thought the 1 piece is very restrictive but at least with factual dyno results you can see that it is still "effective" but if you have the opportunity to swap intakes its not a bad idea...
Gary what kind of fuel were these dyno pulls/passes made with? Pump? Race gas? E85 wasn't really a thing back then was it?
Point of declining returns, differences in dyno's any number of factors.
You are going to make more power going from 10 psi to 20 than going from 20 to 30. Intercooler, compressor and turbine restrictions are coming into play.
Gas was always 94 octane Sunoco.
Working on clearing the decks.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
