General Miata Chat A place to talk about anything Miata

AbsurdFlow + GT2871R + TiAL pornography

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 07-26-2009 | 05:15 PM
  #81  
SKMetalworks's Avatar
Elite Member
iTrader: (7)
 
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,731
Total Cats: 4
From: Renton Washington
Default

Ordering stainless pipe right now! lol
Old 07-26-2009 | 05:27 PM
  #82  
hustler's Avatar
Tour de Franzia
iTrader: (6)
 
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 29,085
Total Cats: 375
From: Republic of Dallas
Default

premier miata in the nation??? Getting there.
Old 07-26-2009 | 06:56 PM
  #83  
hustler's Avatar
Tour de Franzia
iTrader: (6)
 
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 29,085
Total Cats: 375
From: Republic of Dallas
Default


you suck


Wait...look at those maps...wtf? At 2BAR it looks like the GT2860rs is more efficient. WTF?

Last edited by hustler; 07-26-2009 at 07:32 PM.
Old 07-26-2009 | 10:15 PM
  #84  
emilio700's Avatar
Supporting Vendor
iTrader: (3)
 
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 7,407
Total Cats: 2,432
Default

Originally Posted by ThePass
Bravo Andrew. Bravo.

Emilio: "damn it, even with my amazing grip Savington is faster than the OGK... I need boost!"
*Emilio installs Rotrex, enter 200+ whp in OGK*
Savington: "Oh I was just getting started..."
*Built motor + GT2871R = Emilio takes his place in Savington's rearview mirror again*
More that just a Rotrex going in

I must say though, Sav's manifold/turbing housing set up looks quite the business.
__________________


www.facebook.com/SuperMiata

949RACING.COM Home of the 6UL wheel

.31 SNR
Old 07-26-2009 | 10:28 PM
  #85  
y8s's Avatar
y8s
DEI liberal femininity
iTrader: (8)
 
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 19,338
Total Cats: 574
From: Fake Virginia
Default

Originally Posted by hustler
Wait...look at those maps...wtf? At 2BAR it looks like the GT2860rs is more efficient. WTF?
they both look to be around 75% at 30 lb/min... which point were you looking at?
Old 07-26-2009 | 10:53 PM
  #86  
ZX-Tex's Avatar
Elite Member
iTrader: (15)
 
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 4,847
Total Cats: 27
From: San Antonio, Texas
Default

If you are looking at the efficiency at the center efficiency island, or the 'sweet spot', the 2860 is at 77% and the 2781 is at 76%. But if you look over at the right side of the map, the 2871 holds its efficiency longer; looking at 2.25 pressure ratio @ 35 lb/min of flow, the 2871 is at 72% and the 2860 is at 68% (and falling fast). The 2860 is also spinning about 25K RPM faster.
Old 07-26-2009 | 11:15 PM
  #87  
tkblazer's Avatar
Newb
 
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 8
Total Cats: 0
Default

dope manifold/dp setup, i hope he made a jig so he can make these any time
Old 07-26-2009 | 11:56 PM
  #88  
hustler's Avatar
Tour de Franzia
iTrader: (6)
 
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 29,085
Total Cats: 375
From: Republic of Dallas
Default

Originally Posted by y8s
they both look to be around 75% at 30 lb/min... which point were you looking at?
duh...sorry, at 25lb/min. Sav and I were comparing at 300whp/15psi.
Old 07-26-2009 | 11:59 PM
  #89  
hustler's Avatar
Tour de Franzia
iTrader: (6)
 
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 29,085
Total Cats: 375
From: Republic of Dallas
Default

Originally Posted by tkblazer
dope manifold/dp setup, i hope he made a jig so he can make these any time
the problem is intercooler piping. I'd have that **** right now if I could find someone to make 2 pipes for me but everyone in Dallas wants $500+. Its crazy how similar they are though.
Old 07-27-2009 | 12:00 AM
  #90  
y8s's Avatar
y8s
DEI liberal femininity
iTrader: (8)
 
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 19,338
Total Cats: 574
From: Fake Virginia
Default

then he better run more boost to prove he bought the right turbo.
Old 07-27-2009 | 04:08 AM
  #91  
Savington's Avatar
Thread Starter
Former Vendor
iTrader: (31)
 
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 15,442
Total Cats: 2,104
From: Sunnyvale, CA
Default

Wrong map fagglio. You posted the 48-trim map.

yourz:
Name:  739548-1comp_e.jpg
Views: 154
Size:  43.6 KB

minez:
Name:  472560-15comp_e.jpg
Views: 150
Size:  44.7 KB
Old 07-27-2009 | 05:42 AM
  #92  
Laur3ns's Avatar
Elite Member
 
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,053
Total Cats: 12
From: Enschede, NL
Default

Nice map. I expect to see at least 325hp at the flywheel at 20psi boost.
Old 07-27-2009 | 05:55 AM
  #93  
Savington's Avatar
Thread Starter
Former Vendor
iTrader: (31)
 
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 15,442
Total Cats: 2,104
From: Sunnyvale, CA
Default

Originally Posted by Spookyfish
Nice map. I expect to see at least 325hp at the flywheel at 20psi boost.
I expect to see that at 15psi. max.
Old 07-27-2009 | 06:17 AM
  #94  
Laur3ns's Avatar
Elite Member
 
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,053
Total Cats: 12
From: Enschede, NL
Default

Originally Posted by Savington
I expect to see that at 15psi. max.
Care to share some data? I just went through some calculations. For 325hp with 11.5AFR and a BSFC of 0.55lbs/hr you need around 35lb/min flow.

Add a 95F MAT and 7200rpm redline. You'd need 99% volumetric efficiency to produce 325hp at 15psi on 1860cc. A standard 1.6 engine has a 88% VE. A 99 head means it's from 1999, not that it's 99% VE
Old 07-27-2009 | 06:32 AM
  #95  
Savington's Avatar
Thread Starter
Former Vendor
iTrader: (31)
 
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 15,442
Total Cats: 2,104
From: Sunnyvale, CA
Default

You do realize that turbocharged engines routinely eclipse 100% VE, right? I'm basing my power goals mostly on what Hustler saw in his car. 262 on a Dyno Dynamics on pump gas at 15psi. You said flywheel horses, so factoring in 15% losses, that puts his car at 301.3bhp. I am running a larger turbo and 100 octane.
Old 07-27-2009 | 06:43 AM
  #96  
Laur3ns's Avatar
Elite Member
 
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,053
Total Cats: 12
From: Enschede, NL
Default

Originally Posted by Savington
You do realize that turbocharged engines routinely eclipse 100% VE, right?
Sure, but in that formule, it's about the VE of the engine that is going to be charged, without the turbo that is.

Source:
TurboByGarrett.com - Turbo Tech103

88% VE:
Mazda Miata performance handbook - Google Boeken

If you drop the AFR to 10.8, you'd get there if your head is 95% VE (99 head, valvejob):
Attached Thumbnails AbsurdFlow + GT2871R + TiAL pornography-savturbogoal.png  
Old 07-27-2009 | 08:14 AM
  #97  
Savington's Avatar
Thread Starter
Former Vendor
iTrader: (31)
 
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 15,442
Total Cats: 2,104
From: Sunnyvale, CA
Default

No offense, but I ******* hate horsepower formulas. Every single one of them is pure, unadulterated bullshit. Paul made 300whp at 14psi on a 2560R. I've seen a guy make 275whp at 14psi on a 2871R, a '94 head, and a fucked bottom end (bolt went through it). Matt makes 257whp at 9.5psi. Can you honestly tell me that the formulas you use can validate all of those cases?
Old 07-27-2009 | 08:38 AM
  #98  
Laur3ns's Avatar
Elite Member
 
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 2,053
Total Cats: 12
From: Enschede, NL
Default

I kept thinking about Paul's 300whp on a 2560 while I was punching those numbers. Apparently there are many more variables involved.
Old 07-27-2009 | 08:48 AM
  #99  
Savington's Avatar
Thread Starter
Former Vendor
iTrader: (31)
 
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 15,442
Total Cats: 2,104
From: Sunnyvale, CA
Default

VE is so hard to approximate. You would think that when you drop compression, for instance, VE would decrease, but a drop in compression will normally ADD torque (and thus power) to a turbo car.

I despise formulas that calculate horsepower for that reason - they are never detailed enough.
Old 07-27-2009 | 08:56 AM
  #100  
hustler's Avatar
Tour de Franzia
iTrader: (6)
 
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 29,085
Total Cats: 375
From: Republic of Dallas
Default

Paul also did that on a dynojet, you're going to do it on a Mustang. I was on a DD.



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:24 AM.