[Mk2] [Turbo] Maximum power on stock internals?

[Chris]

As Ash said, this could be a good debate if everyone stopped bitching a little.

I used WI on my car until I went to a bootmount where it was not needed. I used a Aquamist system for years. Good bit of kit.

T.F.S, what are the inlet temps after prolonged use? Where is the temp taken from? And with what sensor? Only asking as the graph shows only 60 odd degrees on the coolant temp, so must of been a cold engine.

I wondered if you have tried it all day? Same temps?

[Tsia]

You may like to read this if not seen before.

http://www.imoc.co.uk/forums/viewtopic. ... 82&start=0

Awesome!

[T.F.S.]

As Ash said, this could be a good debate if everyone stopped bitching a little.

I used WI on my car until I went to a bootmount where it was not needed. I used a Aquamist system for years. Good bit of kit.

T.F.S, what are the inlet temps after prolonged use? Where is the temp taken from? And with what sensor? Only asking as the graph shows only 60 odd degrees on the coolant temp, so must of been a cold engine.

I wondered if you have tried it all day? Same temps?

have you seen the full logs on youtube?, its all on the build thread bud

[Chris]

looking at the log though, there is moments of WOT, but for very short periods of time, and never exceeds 5k. 1.3 Bar is not alot for a 30 series turbo either. Not a true representative of everyday use. I think on a fully warmed engine, with full boost and WOT application to the redline, the charge temp will rocket.

I am all for WI, and it's benefits. But not convinced just WI is enough. An IC or CC is required. However, I like you trying something new.

[ashley]

I am all for WI, and it's benefits. But not convinced just WI is enough. An IC or CC is required.

Unless you run 100% methanol as your base fuel, and inject pre TB as well as direct port...

[Turbonoz]

Massive boot mount can't be beaten for intercooling duties IMO

[ashley]

Massive bootmount charge cooler

[Chris]

Agree with both of you

Not sure about the original question... I did 320bhp on my old Rev 3 with CT20B at 1.3 bar. That was stock internals. (with WI)

[RyanRs]

Massive boot mount can't be beaten for intercooling duties IMO

Massive boot mount like this

[2mad]

^^ Holy moly that does look cool

Looks tidy too

[A.BLAKE]

Yeah ^ that is pure porn.....

[T.F.S.]

looking at the log though, there is moments of WOT, but for very short periods of time, and never exceeds 5k. 1.3 Bar is not alot for a 30 series turbo either. Not a true representative of everyday use. I think on a fully warmed engine, with full boost and WOT application to the redline, the charge temp will rocket.

I am all for WI, and it's benefits. But not convinced just WI is enough. An IC or CC is required. However, I like you trying something new.

I couldnt hold WOT any more, it was starting to spin the rears at 70mph+ in the rain lol, 1.3bar on a 30 series is enough to give you inlet temps of well over 100c within seconds...it was hitting 90c with my aquamist system maxxed out!

I managed to get that down to 40c and held that temp after repeated applications of full boost up to 5k in 4th when the rears started to spin in the rain...slow down, on it again and repeat 5 times

that was with 175cc of meth and 575cc of water, I fitted the new setup today which will provide 1000c of liquid...i am yet to decide upon mixture but it should drop temps another 15c which puts me in the 25-35c range

[T.F.S.]

Massive boot mount can't be beaten for intercooling duties IMO

Massive boot mount like this

Image Replaced With URL For Quote http://a3.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos- ... 9136_n.jpg

Exactly what I am trying to get away from, I want lower temps than that can provide whilst keeping my boot and not having the lag that a system like that causes.

[Kongaroo]

Just had a read of this thread to see what could generate 5 pages of discussion so quickly

I agree with TFS on the intercooling effect. I'd say there is certainly an intercooling effect even if you were to inject just a few inches pre-throttle body.

The reason I know this is because I checked IAT readings from the sensor in the intake manifold when I had my car at the dyno back when I was mapping it for the GT28RS.

With the dyno fans on and the car running at low speed on the rollers my car was holding a steady intake temp. During power runs there was a consistent 3 degrees C drop in the IAT reading. Pulls were from around 3000 to 7600 RPMs each time. I was spraying pure methanol which has less cooling effect than water.

Although 3 degrees C might not sound a lot remember that had the spray been turned off I would very likely have seen an increase in IAT readings instead although exactly how many degrees it would have risen by I did not take time to find out.

[Kongaroo]

To get more HP you are going to have to put more air into the engine, that will raise the cylinder pressure and will mean you will need a higher octane fuel.

But if you raise the max revs to say 9000 rpm and at the same boost you will get 50% more power than you had a 6000rpm. The engine is just an air pump, pump more air you get more power

You will not get far trying to run on just road fuel

Also I'm not trying to be argumentative but I would also have to disagree with this part of Bob's quote above (highlighted in bold). Although power is a function of torque and RPM you won't get 50% more power at 9000RPM than at 6000RPM (ie. power as shown on a dyno sheet) because torque will begin to drop off well before then on a 3SGTE.

What you are more likely to see if you look at a dyno chart of a stock or even modified 3SGTE is the power plateu and begin to fall off somewhere betwen 6000 to 7000 RPMS because at this point you are already well past the point where peak torque has been achieved and torque is now falling. Also parasitic losses will be greater at higher RPMs too.

Although I would agree that having the extra RPM for the power band is always useful

[RyanRs]

Massive boot mount can't be beaten for intercooling duties IMO

Massive boot mount like this

Image Replaced With URL For Quote http://a3.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos- ... 9136_n.jpg

Exactly what I am trying to get away from, I want lower temps than that can provide whilst keeping my boot and not having the lag that a system like that causes.

Thats the thing tho, I didn't notice any extra lag with this setup over running a SMIC. Before i had that HTA GT35r on there i had a hybrid ct20b and comparing that to when i was running the same turbo on a smic, the lag increase was so minimal it was almost impossible to measure it without specialist tools! You will also notice my pipe routing is not exactly ideal either, with the cold side pipe a complete bodge atm and i could alter the IC end tanks to make the IC more efficient. My intake temps after a solid hour on the dyno tuning never got above 39~40'c and on the road on a warm to hot day 25~35'c.

[T.F.S.]

Ryan removal of the intercooler results in more boost at lower RPM and less lag, have a look at full boost figures on my logs...20psi at something like 3400-3600rpm

I could feel the difference as soon as I drove it and temps were really high at that point!

I guess its pretty obvious why..no pressure drop due to the lack of intercooler and 80% less pipework to fill.

It should also be posible in theory to take intake temps lower than ambient with water/meth injection which is not possible on an intercooled system so if I can get lower temps, less lag, better responce, higher octane (more ignition advance) what advantage does a large intercooler have?



Some reading on intake smoothing that some may find interesting
http://www.autospeed.com/cms/article.html?&A=0652

[T.F.S.]

To get more HP you are going to have to put more air into the engine, that will raise the cylinder pressure and will mean you will need a higher octane fuel.

But if you raise the max revs to say 9000 rpm and at the same boost you will get 50% more power than you had a 6000rpm. The engine is just an air pump, pump more air you get more power

You will not get far trying to run on just road fuel

Also I'm not trying to be argumentative but I would also have to disagree with this part of Bob's quote above (highlighted in bold). Although power is a function of torque and RPM you won't get 50% more power at 9000RPM than at 6000RPM (ie. power as shown on a dyno sheet) because torque will begin to drop off well before then on a 3SGTE.

What you are more likely to see if you look at a dyno chart of a stock or even modified 3SGTE is the power plateu and begin to fall off somewhere betwen 6000 to 7000 RPMS because at this point you are already well past the point where peak torque has been achieved and torque is now falling. Also parasitic losses will be greater at higher RPMs too.

Although I would agree that having the extra RPM for the power band is always useful

Well as you know you will not get 50% extra power due to volumetric efficiency.

[Turbonoz]

Going from a top-mount intercooler to a boot mount intercooler with 3" piping killed the driveability of my car, lag was terrible in comparison. Well worth the trade-off though.

[bobhatton]

To get more HP you are going to have to put more air into the engine, that will raise the cylinder pressure and will mean you will need a higher octane fuel.

But if you raise the max revs to say 9000 rpm and at the same boost you will get 50% more power than you had a 6000rpm. The engine is just an air pump, pump more air you get more power

You will not get far trying to run on just road fuel

Also I'm not trying to be argumentative but I would also have to disagree with this part of Bob's quote above (highlighted in bold). Although power is a function of torque and RPM you won't get 50% more power at 9000RPM than at 6000RPM (ie. power as shown on a dyno sheet) because torque will begin to drop off well before then on a 3SGTE.

What you are more likely to see if you look at a dyno chart of a stock or even modified 3SGTE is the power plateu and begin to fall off somewhere betwen 6000 to 7000 RPMS because at this point you are already well past the point where peak torque has been achieved and torque is now falling. Also parasitic losses will be greater at higher RPMs too.

Although I would agree that having the extra RPM for the power band is always useful

I was just trying to show the theory not accurate figures.

For the same designed power output at say 6000 rpm, if the engine is then designed for max power at 9000 rpm, the boost will be much lower, heat build up will be lower, higher compression pistons can be used, timing can still be as the stock engine design and lower octane fuel can be used.