AMS Pikes peak build! - Page 5

Martin@AMS · Mar 30, 2009, 11:10 AM

Unrestricted,
TQ was higher than 450... so was WHP

Restricted
TQ was lower than 500, and whp was higher than 300

BTW I learned a lot about turbo over speed and restrictors during this tune, even though I manged to fall asleep twice tuning the car (6am) and one time my whole lower body went numb from dave's tiny seat. That was crazy!

DaveK · Mar 30, 2009, 11:11 AM

Not sure what the final numbers/curves looked like on the restrictor, but on the first pull with the 34mm in there, the HP line was heading up up up, and it hit the 300whp line and it went flat...instantly. Restrictors really do work.

I think once we're able to play with antilag we'll be able to get the torque numbers up in the 2-4k rpm range. I think Martin did a great job of working with the turbo's flow characteristics from 4-6k rpm getting it to make good safe power.

A full blown WRC car will make 320-325hp and 500-530ft/lbs running hyper-aggressive antilag (~20psi at idle).

scorke · Mar 30, 2009, 11:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaveK

Not sure what the final numbers/curves looked like on the restrictor, but on the first pull with the 34mm in there, the HP line was heading up up up, and it hit the 300whp line and it went flat...instantly. Restrictors really do work.

I think once we're able to play with antilag we'll be able to get the torque numbers up in the 2-4k rpm range. I think Martin did a great job of working with the turbo's flow characteristics from 4-6k rpm getting it to make good safe power.

A full blown WRC car will make 320-325hp and 500-530ft/lbs running hyper-aggressive antilag (~20psi at idle).

A full blown WRC car has 2 liters of displacement as well...

I expected way more tq on racegas, on c16 on my GT3076 I made 480 ft lbs, stock intake manifold, stock head, stock maf...

Scorke

Martin@AMS · Mar 30, 2009, 11:31 AM

If I lugged in a higher gear it would have definately made more torque also. On the restrictor it would only make about 23ps of boost on full spool and fall down to 8psi at 6K!!! Once you see the dynographs you can see how it would probably make close to 500ft-lbs at an earlier RPM with the restrictor and probably 600ft-lbs without. Running e85 I don't want to be too aggressive with timing or boost either, It seemed to reach limit and I could have probably squeezed another 10ft-lbs with more timing but finishing the race is more important (and fun) than DNF'ing.

So #'s

No restrictor - 546 ft-lbs at 33psi of boost and 466whp
Restrictor - 430ft-lbs at 23psi and 316whp

I think that's pretty damn good to make WRC power when they probably have over $100K into the engine. If I was building this as a restrictor only engine, then I would make a different intake manifold, different compression, play with cams and timing a bit and I'm sure TQ would go up and HP would stay the same.

DaveK · Mar 30, 2009, 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scorke

A full blown WRC car has 2 liters of displacement as well...

Good point, that slipped my mind. Any idea what sort of CR those guys use? I head it was pretty high, but not sure I ever found a concrete answer?

Quote:

Originally Posted by scorke

I expected way more tq on racegas, on c16 on my GT3076 I made 480 ft lbs, stock intake manifold, stock head, stock maf...

I'm sure if we had used C16 we could've tried to push more boost and timing, but this turbo is done after ~5000rpm. Everything has to happen before that. The thing to keep in mind with this turbo is that its designed to make power on the restrictor, not with an open intake. Its got a 5-blade intake wheel, and I think the opening on the turbo is around 48mm, which I think is tiny compared to a 3076.

Dave

scorke · Mar 30, 2009, 11:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martin@AMS

If I lugged in a higher gear it would have definately made more torque also. On the restrictor it would only make about 23ps of boost on full spool and fall down to 8psi at 6K!!! Once you see the dynographs you can see how it would probably make close to 500ft-lbs at an earlier RPM with the restrictor and probably 600ft-lbs without. Running e85 I don't want to be too aggressive with timing or boost either, It seemed to reach limit and I could have probably squeezed another 10ft-lbs with more timing but finishing the race is more important (and fun) than DNF'ing.

So #'s

No restrictor - 546 ft-lbs at 33psi of boost and 466whp
Restrictor - 430ft-lbs at 23psi and 316whp

I think that's pretty damn good to make WRC power when they probably have over $100K into the engine. If I was building this as a restrictor only engine, then I would make a different intake manifold, different compression, play with cams and timing a bit and I'm sure TQ would go up and HP would stay the same.

Sounds good.

Agreed on the whp-> dollar quotient, amazing to know that with some wisely invested money in the right hands you can make some silly results

546 ft lbs is going to be funnnn, does it make it at about 4500-5000 rpm or sooner?

Scorke

SparkTech · Mar 30, 2009, 11:37 AM

Nice job Guys...David thanks for the update

Martin@AMS · Mar 30, 2009, 11:42 AM

546 TQ at about 4000 RPM!

Martin@AMS · Mar 30, 2009, 11:45 AM

This is the second rally car on I've tuned on a restrictor here. First was ACP's EVO IX but that's on a stock turbo, now Dave's car. Both have different setups so it's hard to compare and just isolate the turbo difference.
For Pikes Peak I think Dave is going to go with a new GT30R we've been testing that has a billet compressor wheel. It made 580whp on my 2.0L 9:1 compression EVO!

zbomb · Mar 30, 2009, 11:50 AM

Martin, In your opinion is this turbo cost-prohibitive for a street car ( non- competition car ). Full tourque at 4K with 546 ft/lb's could be fun in a street car...or any car for that matter.

Nez136 · Mar 30, 2009, 12:00 PM

That thing is awesome.

scorke · Mar 30, 2009, 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Martin@AMS

546 TQ at about 4000 RPM!

Wowwww. Mine was peaking at 4400 rpm, thats the difference in turbo technology/aero there, amazing.

That is SILLY, like boosted V8 silly.

Scorke

DaveK · Mar 30, 2009, 12:18 PM

I think the big benefit of this turbo is the fancy metals used in its construction as its able to tolerate anti-lag. As for street vs. motorsports use, it'll come up to the wallet of the owner I guess, but the new 'public' version of this turbo sounds like it might be a better bet for those who won't run antilag 24/7.

I wasn't able to find flow maps for this turbo anywhere, especially when running the turbo off the 34mm restrictor, so this dyno/tuning session has certainly shed some light on things. Hopefully I can assemble the antilag bits over the next few weeks and have Martin work some more magic.

Dave

scorke · Mar 30, 2009, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaveK

I think the big benefit of this turbo is the fancy metals used in its construction as its able to tolerate anti-lag. As for street vs. motorsports use, it'll come up to the wallet of the owner I guess, but the new 'public' version of this turbo sounds like it might be a better bet for those who won't run antilag 24/7.

I wasn't able to find flow maps for this turbo anywhere, especially when running the turbo off the 34mm restrictor, so this dyno/tuning session has certainly shed some light on things. Hopefully I can assemble the antilag bits over the next few weeks and have Martin work some more magic.

Dave

There are some good CFM to WHP calculations, you could do the math backwards and come up with some good calculations. Or use boost, rpm, and iat to figure out the volume of air you were moving at different points, the taper to 8 psi at redline must feel like hitting a wall on the restrictor.

Dave be sure to get and or use TedB's optimal shift point calculator for this setup, they will probably be quite different one inake to the next.

Scorke

Bimmubishi · Mar 30, 2009, 01:32 PM

Well that is straight sick.

Good tq Martin.