Close

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 51 to 75 of 75
  1. #51
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    13,485
    Rep Points
    58.0
    Mentioned
    318 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0



    Yes Reputation No
    well, i think ill stay with what i posted above. bad part is this is on hold undefinatly now. Good topic none-the-less though

  2. #52
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    4,616
    Rep Points
    3,236.6
    Mentioned
    24 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    33


    Yes Reputation No
    To tell you the truth I wouldnt spend money trying to build up the N54, I would focus on the exhaust turbine as a restriction first and foremost. Single turbo upgrade and leave it at 550-600 whp.
    Some people live long, meaningful lives.

    Other people eat shit and die.

    I'm not racist, I hate everybody equally; especially fat people.


    Click here to enlarge

  3. #53
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,925
    Rep Points
    1,372.6
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    14


    Yes Reputation No
    But he has turbine restriction covered pretty much already without trading off much spool. Quite nice compomise between power and spool. At a tuned lambo level.

  4. #54
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    4,616
    Rep Points
    3,236.6
    Mentioned
    24 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    33


    Yes Reputation No
    Oh thats right he has the turbo upgrade. Port the head LM Click here to enlarge
    Some people live long, meaningful lives.

    Other people eat shit and die.

    I'm not racist, I hate everybody equally; especially fat people.


    Click here to enlarge

  5. #55
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    13,485
    Rep Points
    58.0
    Mentioned
    318 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0



    Yes Reputation No
    LOL.. yea, im thinkin pistons, rods, heads and valves. should be enough for a reliable DD Click here to enlarge oh yea, and a 2ndary fuel system..

  6. #56
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    885
    Rep Points
    8.0
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    Yes Reputation No
    Do not knife edge the crank. If you're going to balance it, balance it with the harmonic balancer, rotating assembly, flywheel, clutch, and pressure plate attached. Also, I wouldn't lower the compression ratio one bit. Direct injection cars require and get away with so much more compression than port injection cars.


  7. #57
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    118,800
    Rep Points
    31,797.3
    Mentioned
    2084 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    318


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by 5mall5nail5 Click here to enlarge
    Do not knife edge the crank. If you're going to balance it, balance it with the harmonic balancer, rotating assembly, flywheel, clutch, and pressure plate attached. Also, I wouldn't lower the compression ratio one bit. Direct injection cars require and get away with so much more compression than port injection cars.
    Yes they most certainly can but it still stands to reason that lowering the compression will allow more boost on pump, just that the same psi can be achieved at a higher ratio with DI than with Port.

    Stage 2 or 2.5 E9X M3 S65 V8 supercharger kit for sale
    : http://www.boostaddict.com/showthrea...r-kit-for-sale

  8. #58
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Corpus Christi, Texas, United States
    Posts
    3,106
    Rep Points
    1,236.6
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    13


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    Yes they most certainly can but it still stands to reason that lowering the compression will allow more boost on pump, just that the same psi can be achieved at a higher ratio with DI than with Port.
    What would be the benefit of more boost? He is going to be trying to recover lost power, he already has meth, and I highly doubt those turbos will be in their better efficiency islands trying to pump out 21+ psi.

    Then again, there are no compressor maps for them, and I haven't plotted an N54, so I could be wrong, and these turbos could be happy at 26psi, who knows?

  9. #59
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    13,485
    Rep Points
    58.0
    Mentioned
    318 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0



    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by SlicktopTTZ Click here to enlarge
    What would be the benefit of more boost? He is going to be trying to recover lost power, he already has meth, and I highly doubt those turbos will be in their better efficiency islands trying to pump out 21+ psi.

    Then again, there are no compressor maps for them, and I haven't plotted an N54, so I could be wrong, and these turbos could be happy at 26psi, who knows?
    i thught about this, i did find some good info on dropping compression vs not and something about 3% loss, which is more than made up for by adding even 1psi. ill find it again and repost it.
    as for the RB's ive read similar info that these should be good for 26 psi. id like to get 25 if they are up to it and everything else is as well

  10. #60
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,925
    Rep Points
    1,372.6
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    14


    Yes Reputation No
    It is about the individual preferences. Responsiveness vs power. Responsiveness wins races, power wins quarter miles. Pick yours from somewhere in the spectrum.

    Oh, and responsive is nice for a daily driver.

  11. #61
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    118,800
    Rep Points
    31,797.3
    Mentioned
    2084 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    318


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by SlicktopTTZ Click here to enlarge
    What would be the benefit of more boost?
    Very generally speaking, more power. Not saying specific to his application with current turbos.

    Stage 2 or 2.5 E9X M3 S65 V8 supercharger kit for sale
    : http://www.boostaddict.com/showthrea...r-kit-for-sale

  12. #62
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    118,800
    Rep Points
    31,797.3
    Mentioned
    2084 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    318


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by 654 Click here to enlarge
    Responsiveness wins races, power wins quarter miles.
    The 1/4 mile is a race but I get what you are saying.

    What is the goal? I would prefer response on the road course.

    Stage 2 or 2.5 E9X M3 S65 V8 supercharger kit for sale
    : http://www.boostaddict.com/showthrea...r-kit-for-sale

  13. #63
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Corpus Christi, Texas, United States
    Posts
    3,106
    Rep Points
    1,236.6
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    13


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    Very generally speaking, more power. Not saying specific to his application with current turbos.
    Ha, ok, I should of said, "What would be the benefit of more boost, on Lost Marine's car, with his current turbos, while losing some power from dropping the compression ratio, and forcing them to spin faster, possibly putting them farther out of their efficient areas?"

    If RB turbos are good for 26psi on the N54, and Lost Marine is currently detonating while trying to hit that number because of the relatively high stock compression ratio, (make sure it's not because of fueling or MAP sensor, which seem to be the current "limiters") then I would say yes, get some good pistons and drop the static ratio a bit.

  14. #64
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    13,485
    Rep Points
    58.0
    Mentioned
    318 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0



    Yes Reputation No
    i think a new TMAP is out and ready for us, im not positive though.

  15. #65
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Corpus Christi, Texas, United States
    Posts
    3,106
    Rep Points
    1,236.6
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    13


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by LostMarine Click here to enlarge
    i think a new TMAP is out and ready for us, im not positive though.
    If it is, we still need a tune to do the voltage scaling for the new MAP sensor, which I think the only one working on it so far is CP-E.
    Last edited by fundahl; 11-01-2010 at 05:37 PM.

  16. #66
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,925
    Rep Points
    1,372.6
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    14


    Yes Reputation No
    I believe he meant that the voltage scaling has been done?

  17. #67
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    13,485
    Rep Points
    58.0
    Mentioned
    318 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0



    Yes Reputation No
    heres what i was reading about CR and Boost:

    "
    Compression Ratio - Boost 101
    Is a low compression engine better for forced induction than high compression?
    Depends on how much boost you're putting into the engine.
    The big issue here is managing the amount of internal pressure within the cylinders; by making sure it's not going to damage the engine whilst still making the most power possible. Too much pressure can cause catastrophic failure where you literally blow the head off the engine. Hence why Top Fuel drag cars have big straps to hold the superchargers down in case they get blown off.
    The higher the compression ratio, the more natural torque an engine produces. Adding forced induction increases the effective compression of an engine, because although you have the same compression ratio, air and fuel are entering the cylinder already at a higher pressure. This increase in pressure translates into a bigger bang at ignition, and a larger pressure from the expanding exhaust gases - resulting in more power.
    Dropping the compression ratio allows a higher amount of induction pressure to be used, meaning a greater volume of fuel and air can be squeezed into the cylinder. This results in a big increase in torque and power - as long as that volume is being delivered.
    When the turbocharger or supercharger is not delivering the full volume - when it's 'off boost' then the engine is relying on a lower amount (and pressure) of air coming in, which results in less power. This breathless lack of power is often mistakenly referred to as lag.
    A low compression engine with big induction pressure will perform very poorly 'off boost' (i.e. when the turbo/supercharger is not delivering), and will very rapidly build power as it comes 'on boost'. In extreme cases this can literally be like flicking a switch from no power to instant full power - and a car that will be quite a handful to drive hard. Depending on the induction device, this 'boost threshold' can be quite high in the engine rev range.
    A higher compression engine with low induction pressure will perform much better 'off boost' because it still has its own natural compression to generate power; it will generally not have a big jump in power, and as the induction device is generally smaller, its boost threshold will be much lower.
    A low compression, big boost engine will make an insane amount of top end power, but be very wheezy and powerless down low, whereas the same sized engine with higher compression and lower boost will be very torquey low down, but won't make as much top end power.
    "What's better, low compression and more boost or high compression and less boost?"
    There are certainly reasons to try to raise compression ratio, namely when off-boost performance matters, like on a stree tcar, or when using a very small displacement motor. But when talking purely about on-boost power potential, compression just doesn't make any sense.
    People have tested the power effects of raising compression for decades, and the most optimistic results are about 3% more power with an additional point of compression (going from 9:1 to 10:1, for example). All combinations will be limited by detonation at some boost and timing threshold, regardless of the fuel used. The decrease in compression allows you to run more boost, which introduces more oxygen into the cylinder. Raising the boost from 14psi to 15psi (just a 1psi increase) adds an additional 3.4% of oxygen. So right there, you are already past the break-even mark of losing a point of compression. And obviously, lowering the compression a full point allows you to run much more than 1 additional psi of boost. In other words, you always pick up more power by adding boost and lowering compression, because power potential is based primarily on your ability to burn fuel, and that is directly proportional to the amount of oxygen that you have in the cylinder. Raising compression doesn't change the amount of oxygen/fuel in the cylinder; it just squeezes it a bit more.
    So the big question becomes, how much boost do we gain for X amount of compression? The best method we have found is to calculate the effective compression ratio (ECR) with boost. The problem is that most people use an incorrect formula that says that 14.7psi of boost on a 8.5:1 motor is a 17:1 ECR. So how in the world do people get away with this combination on pump gas? You can't even idle down the street on pump gas on a true 17:1 compression motor. Here's the real formula to use:
    sqrt((boost+14.7)/14.7) * CR = ECR
    sqrt = square root
    boost = psi of boost
    CR = static compression ratio of the motor
    ECR = effective compression ratio
    So our above example gives an ECR of 12.0:1. This makes perfect sense, because 12:1 is considered to be the max safe limit with aluminum heads on pump gas, and 15psi is about as much boost as you can safely run before you at least start losing a significant amount of timing to knock. Of course every motor is different, and no formula is going to be perfect for all combinations, but this one is vastly better than the standard formula (which leaves out the square root).
    So now we can target a certain ECR, say 12.0:1. We see that at 8.5:1 CR we can run 14.7psi of boost. But at 7.5:1 we can run 23psi of boost (and still maintain the 12.0:1 ECR). We only gave up 1 point of compression (3% max power) and yet we gained 28% more oxygen (28% more power potential). Suddenly it's quite obvious why top fuel is running 5:1 compression, that's where all the power is!!
    8.5:1 turns out to be a real good all around number for on and off boost performance. Many "performance" NA motors are only 9.0:1 so we're not far off of that, and yet we're low enough to run 30+ psi without problems (provided that a proper fuel is used).
    Example: "I've got a 500+ CID motor and I'm looking to make 900hp. Can I use a GT42, I've heard they can make 900hp?"
    Nope! There's nothing wrong with the GT42, it will definitely make 900hp, just not in this scenario. Here's why: 900hp represents a fairly constant amount of air/fuel mixture, regardless of whether it's being made by a small motor at high boost (e.g. 183ci at 32psi) or a large motor at low boost (e.g. 502ci at 10psi).
    The first problem is that most compressors are only able to reach their maximum airflow when they are running at high boost levels. For example, a GT42 is able to flow about 94lbs/min of air at 32psi of boost, but it can only flow around 64lbs/min of air at 10psi. Often people are quick to assume that high boost means high heat and therefore decreased efficiency, but in reality, it takes higher boost levels to put most turbos into their "sweet spot". In this particular example, the turbo is capable of almost 50% more HP at high boost levels than it is at low boost levels.
    The other problem is related to backpressure. If the exhaust system (headers, turbine, downpipe, etc.) is the same between both motors, the backpressure will be roughly the same. Let's say the backpressure measures at 48psi between the motor and turbine. The big motor will run into a bottleneck because there is 48psi in the exhaust and only 10psi in the intake (a 4.8:1 ratio). This keeps the cylinder from scavenging/filling fully and therefore limits power. The small motor, on the other hand, has 32psi of boost (only a 1.5:1 ratio) to push against the backpressure. Therefore it is able to be much more efficient under these conditions.
    The bottom line is, as your motor size increases, your boost level will go down (in order to achieve the same power level). In such a case you will need to maximize the flow potential of your compressor and minimize the restriction of your exhaust system (including the turbine) in order to reach your power goals.

    "

  18. #68
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    6,683
    Rep Points
    3,335.6
    Mentioned
    225 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    34


    Yes Reputation No
    great thread...been thinking of going down this road as well next spring...lower compression down to Alpina levels (9.5), forged pistons and rods and ported head..
    Click here to enlarge

  19. #69
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Corpus Christi, Texas, United States
    Posts
    3,106
    Rep Points
    1,236.6
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    13


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by dzenno Click here to enlarge
    great thread...been thinking of going down this road as well next spring...lower compression down to Alpina levels (9.5), forged pistons and rods and ported head..
    And what for turbo(s)? 9.5:1 or even 9:1 would be good with a 600HP+ setup (Like AR single) assuming you will have the fuel system for it too. It will spool a bit later but you will actually be able to use the top range of the turbo(s) without blowing up!

    My 300zx is factory 8.5:1 with some forged parts and a 2000hp rated crank. Click here to enlarge

    Off boost response is actually pretty good, but I have taken off every emission control device, converted the main fan to electric, deleted the HVAC compressor, put on a crank pulley that under-drives the accessories and is about 1/5 the stock weight, put on a light-weight RPS segmented flywheel, 1-piece lightened steel driveshaft and I have very low backpressure considering I'm dumping straight out catless from two 3" mid-pipes.

    Also, it has a mechanical throttle, can't beat that for response. Click here to enlarge

    My 135i needs to be full bolt on already!

  20. #70
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    263
    Rep Points
    161.8
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    2


    Yes Reputation No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by SlicktopTTZ Click here to enlarge
    And what for turbo(s)? 9.5:1 or even 9:1 would be good with a 600HP+ setup (Like AR single) assuming you will have the fuel system for it too. It will spool a bit later but you will actually be able to use the top range of the turbo(s) without blowing up!

    My 300zx is factory 8.5:1 with some forged parts and a 2000hp rated crank. Click here to enlarge

    Off boost response is actually pretty good, but I have taken off every emission control device, converted the main fan to electric, deleted the HVAC compressor, put on a crank pulley that under-drives the accessories and is about 1/5 the stock weight, put on a light-weight RPS segmented flywheel, 1-piece lightened steel driveshaft and I have very low backpressure considering I'm dumping straight out catless from two 3" mid-pipes.

    Also, it has a mechanical throttle, can't beat that for response. Click here to enlarge

    My 135i needs to be full bolt on already!
    Damn! Good show on your 300!

  21. #71
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Miami Beach
    Posts
    1,094
    Rep Points
    513.1
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    6


    Yes Reputation No
    subscribed !
    Click here to enlarge

  22. #72
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Posts
    354
    Rep Points
    465.4
    Mentioned
    47 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    5


    Yes Reputation No
    How many people are interested in forged internals? We have something in the works for rods and pistons...... Click here to enlarge Already proven in the VW world to over 250hp/hole
    Click here to enlarge
    sales@ardesign.info | tel. 303.351.3515| www.ardesign.info
    Powering some of the world's fastest BMWs

  23. #73
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    CT
    Posts
    1,735
    Rep Points
    826.2
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    9


    Yes Reputation No
    That's.... 1500 horths powa!! Lol I would but I need turbos first Click here to enlarge or turbo Click here to enlarge

  24. #74
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Denver, CO
    Posts
    354
    Rep Points
    465.4
    Mentioned
    47 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    5


    Yes Reputation No
    Well we have that covered!
    Click here to enlarge
    sales@ardesign.info | tel. 303.351.3515| www.ardesign.info
    Powering some of the world's fastest BMWs

  25. #75
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    13,485
    Rep Points
    58.0
    Mentioned
    318 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0



    1 out of 1 members liked this post. Yes Reputation No
    i am, but how long until some real info? i might be starting this build in january..

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •