# Dynoed my car @ 15psi (video too)



## sushtsi (Oct 7, 2005)

Hey guys,

Just thought i'd do a baseline on my car to see what it is making before I get into tuning it etc. Car is untuned and at 15psi. It is RWHP on a dynojet @ the wheels, not at the hubs. Not sure if rear wheel hp is lower or higher than hub hp usually. Here's the chart and video. What do you guys think?

http://autodome.ca/highline/r32 gtr/dyno.avi (need Xvid codec)


----------



## kirbz (Nov 13, 2003)

what mods??

must be a huge turbo to produce 548 at 15psi!?

dont know just didnt sound like a 500+bhp car??


----------



## sushtsi (Oct 7, 2005)

kirbz said:


> what mods??
> 
> must be a huge turbo to produce 548 at 15psi!?
> 
> dont know just didnt sound like a 500+bhp car??



STill figuring out what exact mods the car has. SUpposed to have upgraded internals, cams, injectors,upgraded manifolds, HKS Turbos (tryin to figure out if they are 2530 or 2540's still, maybe 2835's?? Can't see too much of the turbos), trust intercooler w/ full piping kit, fcon V (no mafs) and more. 

The car is damn loud, after about 4500rpm the people in the shop had to cover their ears as it was too loud! The car is definetely fast, pulls hard on my brothers Ferrari F355.


----------



## kirbz (Nov 13, 2003)

dont think theres any chance 2540's or 2530's would produce that kind of power at 15psi and would have thought you could have seen the 2835's as there pretty big turbos 

dont know just didnt hear a pair of big turbos spooling up??

you got any engine pics?? im sure many more knowledgeable members on here could tell you the rough spec with a few decent pics


----------



## R33_GTS-t (Apr 27, 2005)

Couldn't actually see the vid. I'm assuming it's a GTR and you disconnected the front drive. I'd have said it was a big single from the power but the spool is too gradual.

I'm going to guess that it's an RB30 with big twins, maybe GT3037Ss and maybe 280 cams.???


----------



## kirbz (Nov 13, 2003)

R33_GTS-t said:


> Couldn't actually see the vid. I'm assuming it's a GTR and you disconnected the front drive. I'd have said it was a big single from the power but the spool is too gradual.
> 
> I'm going to guess that it's an RB30 with big twins, maybe GT3037Ss and maybe 280 cams.???


well he said its got hks turbos but he cant really see them which to me would point to poss 2530's as you cant really see most of the turbo but for that kind of power at around 1 bar would need to be like you said a big single or a big twin setup?


----------



## sushtsi (Oct 7, 2005)

I do have pics which i'll post in a bit. I'm not sure if its an rb30 or not. Also don't know the spec of the cams. This is the problem with getting a car from Japan sometimes, can't find the exact specs. 

The turbos look big, I can only see the intake side of them though as the rest is very hard to get at because of the upgraded manifolds/piping.


----------



## kirbz (Nov 13, 2003)

TBH bud there 2530's or 40's internally wastegated etc

2530's running at full boost 1.4-1.5 bar ish are good for approx 480-500 rwhp and the 2540's prob another 30 or 40 bhp more??


----------



## sushtsi (Oct 7, 2005)

Well the dyno doesnt lie. The guy before me had a supercharged stang and put out 352 @ the wheels which was right on. The guys were suprised as hell. I thought mid 400's maybe but the car is fast as hell. Like I said it easily pulls away from my bro's 355 and is definetely faster than a few vipers & Lotus V8 tt we've had. Possible RB30 conversion?


----------



## kirbz (Nov 13, 2003)

sushtsi said:


> Well the dyno doesnt lie. The guy before me had a supercharged stang and put out 352 @ the wheels which was right on. The guys were suprised as hell. I thought mid 400's maybe but the car is fast as hell. Like I said it easily pulls away from my bro's 355 and is definetely faster than a few vipers & Lotus V8 tt we've had. Possible RB30 conversion?


to be honest bud even it it had an RB30 it might make a little more than the average car with the same spec but theres no way that an untuned car with say 2530's running around 1 bar would make 550bhp at the wheels, no chance most running full boost are making around 480 at the wheels


----------



## R33_GTS-t (Apr 27, 2005)

Well I'm baffled. If the turbos are mounted underneath, that suggests 2530s but they won't give 550rwhp, or about 650 flywheel hp, at 15psi. I've never heard or seen of it before anyway. People were debating 700hp at 1.4bar (20.3psi) in another thread.

Looking at the relatively low torque however, it may be possible with a very lairy cam setup. 390rwlbft is about 460 flywheel lbft. The torque is still high for 15psi but with a stroked engine and high lift cams (280s maybe), it's bordering on possibility. It's the fact that power is still rising at cut-off and 6500rpm torque peak that makes me suggest the cams.


----------



## R33_GTS-t (Apr 27, 2005)

kirbz said:


> to be honest bud even it it had an RB30 it might make a little more than the average car with the same spec but theres no way that an untuned car with say 2530's running around 1 bar would make 550bhp at the wheels, no chance most running full boost are making around 480 at the wheels


You're getting awhp and rwhp confused here. He states rwhp, so he must have disabled front drive. 480awhp would be close to 550rwhp if they were both measured at the wheels and not the hubs....I think.


----------



## R33_GTS-t (Apr 27, 2005)

sushtsi said:


> Not sure if rear wheel hp is lower or higher than hub hp usually.


Wheel hp is always lower that hub hp if you measure like for like, i.e. rear-wheel vs rear-wheel or all-wheel vs all-wheel.


----------



## kirbz (Nov 13, 2003)

R33_GTS-t said:


> You're getting awhp and rwhp confused here. He states rwhp, so he must have disabled front drive. 480awhp would be close to 550rwhp if they were both measured at the wheels and not the hubs....I think.


i know the difference bud but i presumed he was mistaken by saying rwhp as i cant see why anyone would run it as a 2wd on the dyno?? all i can think of is its at the fly and there using a silly trans loss of 30% or something silly


----------



## sushtsi (Oct 7, 2005)

K sorry for the confusion, thought the video would show that it was done in rwd mode. Pulled the 4wd fuse and did it in rwd mode. The car had was tuned etc. in Japan, but not tuned for Canadian gas (running 94 octane which is like 98-99 japan gas). I am talking power at only the 2 rear tires. Also, just realized that I posted a video of the 2nd run which was the lowest of the 3 runs i did. 1st run was 546, immediately after did a 2nd run and it was 531, let it cool off for a few minutes and then 548.


----------



## sushtsi (Oct 7, 2005)

R33_GTS-t said:


> Well I'm baffled. If the turbos are mounted underneath, that suggests 2530s but they won't give 550rwhp, or about 650 flywheel hp, at 15psi. I've never heard or seen of it before anyway. People were debating 700hp at 1.4bar (20.3psi) in another thread.
> 
> Looking at the relatively low torque however, it may be possible with a very lairy cam setup. 390rwlbft is about 460 flywheel lbft. The torque is still high for 15psi but with a stroked engine and high lift cams (280s maybe), it's bordering on possibility. It's the fact that power is still rising at cut-off and 6500rpm torque peak that makes me suggest the cams.



The car is supposed to have upgraded camshafts, not sure of the spec though. It has a tiny bit of a rough idle (revs smoothly though).

Now that I have clarified that it is rwhp (2wd dyno), does this seem a bit better? What type of drivetrain loss is there usually (15-17%)??


----------



## kirbz (Nov 13, 2003)

sushtsi said:


> The car is supposed to have upgraded camshafts, not sure of the spec though. It has a tiny bit of a rough idle (revs smoothly though).
> 
> Now that I have clarified that it is rwhp (2wd dyno), does this seem a bit better? What type of drivetrain loss is there usually (15-17%)??


well if its true then your making more than ive heard on 2530's at full boost never mind 15psi??? and on 94 octane fuel???


----------



## sushtsi (Oct 7, 2005)

kirbz said:


> well if its true then your making more than ive heard on 2530's at full boost never mind 15psi??? and on 94 octane fuel???


I was thinking that they are 2540's because of the way that they spool up. It looks a lot more gradual compared to other peoples 2530 dynos. The car also doesnt have a whole lot of power down low, but after 5000 it hits hard. Maybe my boost gauge is just way out of whack?


----------



## skyline69_uk (Jan 6, 2005)

Easy way to work if possible is to work on boost adjusted specific bhp or torque so if 550rwhp would be about 600bhp or so and with 2 bar (incl atmosphere) and 3 litres means 600/6 = 100bhp per litre unboosted which is a lot for an RB engine even with with a 3 litre conversion as the revs have not gone very high. The standard is about 85bhp max for a RB26 taking good breathing mods into account. Must have different cams to get that figure.

Torque wise it is maxing at about 440 FT LBS say at the engine so once again 440/6 = 74 FT LBS per litre (boost removed) which is high for a turbo'd car without the right cams but MAY be possible with the right cams and flow capacity but I would doubt it unless tuned by someone well into the racing game.

I reckon the psi figure may be incorrect - where did you take the boost reading from and with what gauge?

Here may be of interest to some http://www.virtualengine2000.com/


----------



## sushtsi (Oct 7, 2005)

well firstly the car does have aftermarket cams, not sure which type though.

Secondly, the car in Japan must have been tuned at some point by an HKS PRO dealer as it has an FCON V PRO which can only be tuned by hks dealers. 

I have taken the boost reading on a line that is going to the fcon map sensor, the hks pro dealer (one of 3 in all of Canada) looked at it and said its fine. It's hooked up to a Stuart Warner 40 psi gauge (big in the Muscle car industry). Getting around -9psi of Vacuum at idle. 

Also, the hp looks to be increasing at redline still. When I get the hks pro dealer to tune the car should I get the rev limiter raised?


----------



## skyline69_uk (Jan 6, 2005)

I found an old formula for working out bhp based on how much air you can flow in a petrol engine. It basically said CFM / 1.5 working at 100% Vol Eff is a good guessimate which would give for a RB30 at 15psi about 740 CFM at 7000rpm with 100% VE meaning the bhp would be 493bhp at the engine. 

I reckon the boost most be around 1.4 bar for those figures which seems right for someone running those turbos - why have those babies at 1 bar?


----------



## skyline69_uk (Jan 6, 2005)

By the way CFM = 
CID (CC/16.4) 
× RPM 
x Boost (incl atmo in bar)
× VE 
÷ 3464 
__________
Cubic Feet p/min

so RB30 = (183 X 7000 X 2 X 1.00) / 3464 = 740

I'm not sure how much turbo boost and compression ratio alter the CFM / 1.5 formula although so could make a big different.


----------



## sushtsi (Oct 7, 2005)

The reason its at 1 bar is because thats what the car is running with the boost controller off. I have only run the car once with the evc turned up a tiny bit to 18psi. This is what also makes me think that the car isn't running very high boost. I will get it tuned and have more boost on it when the hks dealer tunes it.

Those formulas are interesting, but can't necessarily take into account a lot of things. Cam specs, turbo size/porting, manifold flow etc. etc. I've owned 2 Vipers (US Spec) and those were legitimate 120mph 1/4 mile cars, this GTR throws you back much harder and is quite a bit faster than those Vipers were. The car is making a lot of power.


----------



## skyrocker (Feb 14, 2005)

sushtsi said:


> well firstly the car does have aftermarket cams, not sure which type though.
> 
> Secondly, the car in Japan must have been tuned at some point by an HKS PRO dealer as it has an FCON V PRO which can only be tuned by hks dealers.
> 
> ...


You really need to know what kind of engine internals are used before raising the rev limiter above 8K


----------



## R33_GTS-t (Apr 27, 2005)

You should also consider the rated capacity of the turbos if upping the boost.


----------



## skyline69_uk (Jan 6, 2005)

What the turbos can flow is also a good guide. The formula CFM/1.5 is based on pure maths/physics and has nothing to do with cams etc, it's the basic ability of how much air that engine has available if running at 15psi in the manifold and that's at 100% VE.

A good example of this sort of real world working out is at http://www.stealth316.com/2-turboguide.htm

see the section on
Maximum Effective Volume Airflow in CFM - 6 cyl (3 cyl)
2.972 L V6 @ 100% VE, constant temp., 14 psi into turbo 
RPM 0 psi boost 10 psi boost 15 psi boost 20 psi boost 25 psi boost 30 psi boost
7000 367 (184) 630 (315) 761 (381) 892 (446) 1023 (512) 1155 (578) 

"Now we can see why the pressure ratio levels the turbo is able to attain at different flow rates is so important, and why we need compressor flow maps. If the plenum is at 15 psi boost pressure at a certain air temperature, it makes no difference what turbo is used as long as it can meet or exceed the demand listed above at various engine speeds. The mass airflow is the same. The fact that a larger turbo can flow 500 cfm at 15 psi and that a smaller turbo can only flow 400 cfm at 15 psi does not mean the larger turbo can actually flow any more air than the smaller one into the engine at 15 psi plenum pressure. To have higher effective volume airflow, boost pressure must be increased. So what is really important is how much air the turbo will flow at these higher-pressure ratios and this is revealed only in the compressor flow maps and not in the common performance ratings. My web page 2-3s-compflowmaps.htm explains how to read compressor flow maps. "

And for the calculators...
http://www.stealth316.com/2-air-fuel-flow.htm

Brian


----------



## skyline69_uk (Jan 6, 2005)

Compression ratio does have a big effect on these values (BSFC) although so if the engine was running very rich and high compression it may be able to get this figure but it is doubtful that it would be set up this way as it would either have the "lumpy idle from hell" and idle over 1500rpm or det like a b*gger on ordinary fuel.


----------



## sushtsi (Oct 7, 2005)

the car does idle lumpy, when I start it its usually idling around 1400, after it warms up it settles around 1100-1200.

Also, isn't there the possibility that they are 2835 turbos? They were lowmounted on the older HKS R32 GTR (was reading an old magazine this morning where it was featured). Also, my intakes that attach to the turbo (all aftermarket piping) are 80mm in diameter (possibly reducing down to 70 at the turbos, doesnt look like much at all). It is my understanding this is larger than stock, and also larger than what the 2530/40 has?


----------



## skyline69_uk (Jan 6, 2005)

It may have the compression ratio upped and is running very rich - has the gasket or head been changed to a racing type one?

The cams etc and all the rest have nothing "directly" to do with the amount of theoretical bhp you can have, only the amount/density of air available is what really matter (what the cams allow is more/better air flow at high rpm therefore upping the CFM value) and of course the fuel type and the compression ratio at ignition.

To get above the usual CFM/1.5 guess you have to change the brake specific fuel consumption which usually requires upping the compression ratio.

It is possible the engine is doing this but it may be a mixture of an inaccurate boost gauge, optimistic rolling road (adjustments not correct) and some very good performance parts that is showing this high figure. At a guess if it's a RB30 with 15psi you may be getting 550bhp at the fly without going full out racer.

Remember too that I based the figures on 100% VE while at peak bhp most engines will be showing between 75% and 95% VE.

The car would feel faster than the other stuff you have driven as it may be slightly lighter than the other stuff (about 200lbs lighter than a Viper) and the 4wd makes a great difference for the feel up to the 60mph dash as the power is getting put down to the road.

The injectors would also be another good indicator - what type and size are they?

It's a difficult one to call to be honest, I reckon the dyno is a bit optmistic but who knows  . I would be interested to know once you find the spec out as this sort of stuff interests the fcuk out of me Sushtsi?

Brian


----------



## sushtsi (Oct 7, 2005)

I know that it may "feel" faster, but this is for sure faster. I am in the car business, have had several exotics as well as modified vehicles and this is by far the fastest. I'm also talking of speed in 2nd,3rd and 4th gear, not launching the vehicle. The other possibility I am as I posted above that the turbos are not 2530/40's. 

The car apparently has Sard 650's (according to the folks on SDU, not many responses on this forum) and the car is running a bit lean right now which also indicates that the car is making the power. I dont knonw about the dyno overreading, the place is quite reputable, they do tuning of mostly local race/track cars, their own 900hp rwd civic etc. 

From past experience I would put this car as going through the 1/4 mile at speeds of around 125-128mph which seems right based on the dyno figures. 

Once I have more info i'll update you guys.


----------



## R33_GTS-t (Apr 27, 2005)

sushtsi said:


> The car apparently has Sard 650's (according to the folks on SDU, not many responses on this forum) and the car is running a bit lean right now


What % duty cycle are you are?


----------



## sushtsi (Oct 7, 2005)

R33_GTS-t said:


> What % duty cycle are you are?



Not exactly sure. The thing is when I imported it all of my gauges, boost controller, filters were stolen. Right now I only have a boost gauge hooked up. Once the HKS dealer gets the software he can get into the fcon and tell me everything.


----------



## skyline69_uk (Jan 6, 2005)

The turbos matter none just the psi in the manifold and compression ratio etc. 

It is the turbo that develops the pressure - bigger turbos more pressure but the pressure is sitting at 15psi which is the equiv of a 6 litre NA engine with no scavenging (NA's if set up right have a boost above atmo of about 0.1 bar  ) which means you are getting 100bhp per litre after boost adjustment which is very high.


----------



## sushtsi (Oct 7, 2005)

it's my understanding that turbo size does make a big difference. For example, stock turbos, 2530's and 3037's all at 15 psi will produce quite a range of power. A large turbo at 15psi will push much more air than a small turbo at 15psi. So if I have 2835's at 15psi it will produce a lot more power than 2530's at 15psi.


----------



## skyline69_uk (Jan 6, 2005)

sushtsi said:


> it's my understanding that turbo size does make a big difference. For example, stock turbos, 2530's and 3037's all at 15 psi will produce quite a range of power. A large turbo at 15psi will push much more air than a small turbo at 15psi. So if I have 2835's at 15psi it will produce a lot more power than 2530's at 15psi.


your psi is measured at the manifold which is the final pressure the turbo pressure produces and has nothing to do with the type of turbo  . What you are thinking of is the turbo map which shows where it is efficient. Road turbos normally have a a nice spread (plateau) of efficiency but low peak eff while race turbos have a high peak eff plateau but crappy spread meaning they are a bit digital in their delivery of the power (on/off).

15 psi is 15 psi all day long - you have to realise the manifold does not know what type of turbo put the air in there only that is 15psi above atmospheric.


----------



## sushtsi (Oct 7, 2005)

skyline69_uk said:


> your psi is measured at the manifold which is the final pressure the turbo pressure produces and has nothing to do with the type of turbo  . What you are thinking of is the turbo map which shows where it is efficient. Road turbos normally have a a nice spread (plateau) of efficiency but low peak eff while race turbos have a high peak eff plateau but crappy spread meaning they are a bit digital in their delivery of the power (on/off).
> 
> 15 psi is 15 psi all day long - you have to realise the manifold does not know what type of turbo put the air in there only that is 15psi above atmospheric.



Okay so let me get this straight, you are saying that a T88 turbo @ 15psi will produce the exact same power as a T25 @ 15psi, correct??


----------



## skyline69_uk (Jan 6, 2005)

Yes, if they produce 15psi above atmo in the manifold at the same temp then that what they produce - temperature of the air has an effect as it's the air density that really counts if we reckon the intercooler is well matched and will do the cooling job well then the air temperatures should be about the same on differing turbos.

The bigger turbo has the ability to produce more e.g maybe 30psi while the smaller one cannot or one may be able to produce it across a greater range than the other, or the eff of the turbo (how hot the air is basically) is better for that range - that's the difference in the turbos they produce differing psi/temp at differing ranges otherwise we would all use one type of turbo. It doesn't matter if I produced the pressure with a foot pump and my dick it's still 15psi.

Does the 30psi in your tyres matter if you used a foot pump, electric pump or a garage pump to blow the tyre up - think about it for a second  .

When that valve opens in the cylinder the pressure in the manifold forces the air/fuel mixture into it at 2 bar. If the valve remain open long enough and then pressure in the cylinder will be a very close match to that in the manifold. It's simple really.

This link should go some way to explaining it

http://www.gnttype.org/techarea/turbo/turboflow.html

Air denisty is important but with intercoolers they basically even out the issue between turbos as they reduce the temperature so much.


----------



## sushtsi (Oct 7, 2005)

skyline69_uk said:


> Yes, if they produce 15psi above atmo in the manifold at the same temp then that what they produce - temperature of the air has an effect as it's the air density that really counts if we reckon the intercooler is well matched and will do the cooling job well then the air temperatures should be about the same on differing turbos.
> 
> The bigger turbo has the ability to produce more e.g maybe 30psi while the smaller one cannot or one may be able to produce it across a greater range than the other, or the eff of the turbo (how hot the air is basically) is better for that range - that's the difference in the turbos they produce differing psi/temp at differing ranges otherwise we would all use one type of turbo. It doesn't matter if I produced the pressure with a foot pump and my dick it's still 15psi.
> 
> ...


Please explain this then.

http://site.mawebcenters.com/evanstuning/comp1.html

GT30R @ 32psi = 565whp while GT35R @ 32psi = 654whp 

No other changes were made. Explanation?


----------



## R33_GTS-t (Apr 27, 2005)

Bigger turbos offer less restriction and cause less heating so more power. You'll also be nearer the centre of your peak efficiency island as you approach redline with bigger turbos.

It's either GT2530s, GT2535s, GT2540s, GTRSs or GT2860s. I'm edging towards a 350hp rated turbo. Any part number on this turbo?


----------



## Pavlo (Sep 12, 2002)

15psi isn't always the same as 15psi. Temperature of the inlet charge will have an effect on the density, and the restriction the turbo creates will have an effect on VE and also loss of inlet charge.

If it was as simple as just providing the engine with 15psi of manifold pressure, we would all have small lag free turbos!


----------



## skyline69_uk (Jan 6, 2005)

Pavlo said:


> 15psi isn't always the same as 15psi. Temperature of the inlet charge will have an effect on the density, and the restriction the turbo creates will have an effect on VE and also loss of inlet charge.
> 
> If it was as simple as just providing the engine with 15psi of manifold pressure, we would all have small lag free turbos!


Read what I posted - I said about temp...

"Originally Posted by skyline69_uk
Yes, if they produce 15psi above atmo in the manifold at the same temp then that what they produce "

"- temperature of the air has an effect as it's the air density that really counts if we reckon the intercooler is well matched and will do the cooling job well then the air temperatures should be about the same on differing turbos."

And 

"or the eff of the turbo (how hot the air is basically) is better for that range - that's the difference in the turbos they produce differing psi/temp at differing ranges otherwise we would all use one type of turbo."

LIKE I SAID - the eff of turbo across it's map is an indicator of the temp of the air but if the intercooler is well matched then the difference can be lessen greatly maybe 350K to 365K making maybe a 5% power difference.

The eff of the two turbos in that map area must be fairly different for a 20% gain and as R33_GTS-t says it is about eff as the curves are different for both turbos.

I stated in my post that temp being equal 15psi was 15 psi all day long - at least make an effort to read what I've posted correctly.

The forum makes interesting reading...

http://forums.evans-tuning.com/viewtopic.php?t=2931


Remember the original discussion was whether 15psi could achieve 600bhp on a 3l motor. The CFM calcs were working on normal air temp and sea level atmo pressure so with heated turbo air it's a hell of a lot less likely.


----------



## R33_GTS-t (Apr 27, 2005)

sk69 - for a given intercooler, having larger turbos will generally reduce temperature in the inlet plenum, unless you have 100% cooling efficiency. Having to use a larger intercooler increases lag.

The less restrictive turbine of the larger turbos also allows a more free exhaust flow, again increasing power. The difference between stock twins at 1.0bar and a T88 or large twin setup can and will exceed 100 bhp. The exhaust is another big factor (cat or decat) as are the cams and heads as well as the clearance pockets and quench arrangements of the pistons and combustion chamber. Then there's compression ratio, shape of combustion chamber, bore/stroke ratio. There's a lot of variables in this equation besides the turbos. The efficiency of the transmission will also affect wheel power, as will the engine internals. What happens in the combustion chamber has to be processed.


----------



## skyline69_uk (Jan 6, 2005)

R33_GTS-t said:


> sk69 - for a given intercooler, having larger turbos will generally reduce temperature in the inlet plenum, unless you have 100% cooling efficiency. Having to use a larger intercooler increases lag.
> 
> The less restrictive turbine of the larger turbos also allows a more free exhaust flow, again increasing power. The difference between stock twins at 1.0bar and a T88 or large twin setup can and will exceed 100 bhp. The exhaust is another big factor (cat or decat) as are the cams and heads as well as the clearance pockets and quench arrangements of the pistons and combustion chamber. Then there's compression ratio, shape of combustion chamber, bore/stroke ratio. There's a lot of variables in this equation besides the turbos. The efficiency of the transmission will also affect wheel power, as will the engine internals. What happens in the combustion chamber has to be processed.


Yeah correct I know all of this. 

see my post on page 2 of this thread...


skyline69_uk said:


> Easy way to work if possible is to work on boost adjusted specific bhp or torque so if 550rwhp would be about 600bhp or so and with 2 bar (incl atmosphere) and 3 litres means 600/6 = 100bhp per litre unboosted which is a lot for an RB engine even with with a 3 litre conversion as the revs have not gone very high. The standard is about 85bhp max for a RB26 taking good breathing mods into account. Must have different cams to get that figure.
> 
> Torque wise it is maxing at about 440 FT LBS say at the engine so once again 440/6 = 74 FT LBS per litre (boost removed) which is high for a turbo'd car without the right cams but MAY be possible with the right cams and flow capacity but I would doubt it unless tuned by someone well into the racing game.
> 
> ...



The original problem was that the size of the engine and the psi in manifold does not seem to add up to 600bhp without the air being very cool or it is below sea level (that is atmosphere is more than 14.7psi) when you relate it to common power from CFM formula. 

I have not said so far that it's not possible only "less than likely".

I gave the numbers a lot of scope with calcing it out e.g. 7000rpm not 6500 as on the Sushti graph, 100% VE not 95% which is usually the best possible at max bhp, cool air in the manifold not hot as expected on a turbo engine and sea level atmo (14.7). Cananda and the states have varying levels of land most above sea level (some even under 13psi) so I gave it the benefit of the doubt reckoning the atmo in Sushti's town was standard at 29.921 inches of mercury (inHg). 

Ask a proper tuner, Keith or someone like that if you don't believe me or check with the Supra guys who run 3 litre all the time.

Ask what psi they would run the in manifold to get 600bhp on a 3 litre engine at 6500rpm (where Sushti car is making max bhp) and I reckon it will be about at least 18psi and that's with a turbo(s)/intercooler set up to match perfect. 

It would be interesting to see what boost, size of engine and whp others in the drag game here are making and at what rpm.

I'm not having a go at Sushti car it's just the Maths does not seem to add up totally that's all - maybe I have got something wrong  but I running this from 3 automotive books I have at home, one is from MIT, and the other two are purely about turbochargers and written by turbocharger designers not some numpties. If the power had been made futher up the curve (say 7800rpm) it would not be a issue at all and the maths would work beautifully.


----------



## kirbz (Nov 13, 2003)

I think were all stuck on the 3 ltr thing but he doesnt know if it is?? and what are the chances of an unknown jap car coming out of japan with an OS giken 3 ltd conversion??? slim and none i would imagine so ifs got uprated internals i would have said its more likely to be a 2.7 or 2.8??


----------



## skyline69_uk (Jan 6, 2005)

kirbz said:


> I think were all stuck on the 3 ltr thing but he doesnt know if it is?? and what are the chances of an unknown jap car coming out of japan with an OS giken 3 ltd conversion??? slim and none i would imagine so ifs got uprated internals i would have said its more likely to be a 2.7 or 2.8??


lol, if it's 2.7 or 2.8 then that just makes the maths worse - this is not helping lol.

Was Keith not running his car with 2.7 litres at 37psi for about 900whp at high rpm's or something like that?


----------



## kirbz (Nov 13, 2003)

skyline69_uk said:


> lol, if it's 2.7 or 2.8 then that just makes the maths worse - this is not helping lol.
> 
> Was Keith not running his car with 2.7 litres at 37psi for about 900whp at high rpm's or something like that?


yep he was  keith had the trust stroker kit in his so 2.7 and running 3037's (i think)

From the pics i am 99% sure that his tubs are 2530's


----------



## psd1 (May 15, 2004)

kirbz said:


> I think were all stuck on the 3 ltr thing but he doesnt know if it is?? and what are the chances of an unknown jap car coming out of japan with an OS giken 3 ltd conversion??? slim and none i would imagine so ifs got uprated internals i would have said its more likely to be a 2.7 or 2.8??


Slim left and none is right behind him!!! The only way I see those cars getting out of the country is if it's a full document job...then it's gonna have the price and the paperwork to boot!!!


----------



## skyline69_uk (Jan 6, 2005)

Was it not at 2.5 bar (~37 psi) also and I'm sure the max power was at something well above 6500rpm?


----------



## kirbz (Nov 13, 2003)

skyline69_uk said:


> Was it not at 2.5 bar (~37 psi) also and I'm sure the max power was at something well above 6500rpm?


not sure as keith never has his cars dyno'd but with the size of his turbos then yeh i would have thought he would be peaking at his full boost and power at something like 6-7000 rpm?


----------



## skyline69_uk (Jan 6, 2005)

I thought Keith had upped the redline considerably to something more like 9000 rpm? I have seen drag Supra graphs peaking at 8000rpm.


----------



## R33_GTS-t (Apr 27, 2005)

I think the focus should be on the torque not the hp. Hp is a function of rpm, whereas torque depends mainly on capacity and boost. 390rwlbft, or 460lbft at the flywheel, isn't too steep for a 2.6 or 2.8 at 1.05bar. 

460/(2.6*2.05) = 86lbft/L

460/(2.8*2.05) = 80lbft/L

I've seen NA cars with a racing cat develop 100lbft/L albeit with a 11 or 12:1 CR. Even assuming this car has the standard 8.5:1, with no cat, the torque is possible. It is of course possible it has high compression pistons.

At 4500rpm, this thing has about the same torque as a stage 1 running 0.9-1.0 bar on stock turbos. Factor in wilder cams, cooler running, head mods, less exhaust restriction and there's no reason it shouldn't be higher 2000rpm later. The cams allow more air in per intake stroke, the air is cooler + bit of extra boost (hence more dense) and the exhaust stroke is easier.

When the spec of this engine is uncovered, the cams are guaranteed to be the major factor given the 6500rpm torque peak.


----------



## skyline69_uk (Jan 6, 2005)

R33_GTS-t said:


> I think the focus should be on the torque not the hp. Hp is a function of rpm, whereas torque depends mainly on capacity and boost. 390rwlbft, or 460lbft at the flywheel, isn't too steep for a 2.6 or 2.8 at 1.05bar.
> 
> 460/(2.6*2.05) = 86lbft/L
> 
> ...


Yes in a NA engine 100 for t/l figure is do-able but not usually on a street derived turbo'd car. For example M3's are usually in the 80's, the new M5 is just 70 t/l and Porsche 911's in the 70's t/l also.

On that subject http://www.pumaracing.co.uk/power2.htm had this to say....

"I have still to come across reliable data for any engine producing more than about 93 to 94 ft/lbs per litre where ultimate power was the aim - except of course for unreliable estimated "flywheel" power and torque figures derived from rolling road wheel bhp measurements in which case the sky is the limit. I once saw a rolling road power curve where peak torque was supposedly 120 ft/lbs per litre from a 4 valve engine of fairly uninspiring design. Even the operator finally admitted something didn't look right when we went through the maths together. The conclusion was that there had been massive wheelspin during that power run and none of the figures generated were of any use at all."

and from http://www.migweb.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=19874

"I'd be suspicious of any 2 litre giving more than 190ft/lb torque on pump fuel, 202 ft/lb from your engine represents 99ft/lb per litre and a VE of well over 100% unlikely even in a fully developed racing engine, even more so in a road going engine. Even well oversquare purpose built racing engines with 25-30% more valve area per litre are hard pushed to make over 96ft/lb per litre.
Figures like that can be due to errors in the scaling, if your peak BHP figure is given with the wrong RPM value then that will skew the torque."

The chances are the figures are not correct at the rolling road to be honest.

And remember the race engines are running "race fuel" .


----------



## sushtsi (Oct 7, 2005)

The quote of the 2 litre not making more than 190lb/ft on pump gas is the biggest load. The number of Talons and lancers making way over that on pump gas is ridiculous. I highly doubt the dyno is off. As it has been said the torque is being made way up high top which indicates some very aggressive cams. The car is making the power.


----------



## sushtsi (Oct 7, 2005)

Also you can go here to see a guy making [email protected] on his Supra w/ a T88 and 541rwhp with even less boost, on 91 octane (California gas is garbage)

Another thread http://supraforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=136922&highlight=15psi

and a quote from there

"its all in the tuning. I made 575whp at 14 or 15psi, 650whp at 21psi, so at 18psi i would have made over 600whp with race gas for safety purposes." 

That was on another T88 but it proves that a 3.0l motor can make that amount of power. So for example if my car has a 2.8 and at 15psi 548 isn't that off.


----------



## skyline69_uk (Jan 6, 2005)

The 2 litre is NA not turbo'd. The V10 3 litres in F1 made less than 100 t/l so you're saying your engine is more efficient than a F1 racer?

When the rolling road was done was anyone sitting in the back of the car or in the boot, if not then the chances the wheels were slipping is a good and high one 

I'm not going to persue it anymore as I feel I'm harassing you and I don't want to. If the FCON dealer remaps the car etc then you hopefully will have a new graph to show us if he has used a different rolling road.


----------



## R33_GTS-t (Apr 27, 2005)

skyline69_uk said:


> Yes in a NA engine 100 for t/l figure is do-able but not usually on a street derived turbo'd car. For example M3's are usually in the 80's, the new M5 is just 70 t/l and Porsche 911's in the 70's t/l also.
> 
> On that subject http://www.pumaracing.co.uk/power2.htm had this to say....
> 
> ...


1998cc with 200lbft on an NA road car:

http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=15&article_id=6947&page_number=7


2711c with 257lbft on an NA road car:

http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=15&article_id=6947&page_number=6


----------



## sushtsi (Oct 7, 2005)

skyline69_uk said:


> The 2 litre is NA not turbo'd. The V10 3 litres in F1 made less than 100 t/l so you're saying your engine is more efficient than a F1 racer?
> 
> When the rolling road was done was anyone sitting in the back of the car or in the boot, if not then the chances the wheels were slipping is a good and high one
> 
> I'm not going to persue it anymore as I feel I'm harassing you and I don't want to. If the FCON dealer remaps the car etc then you hopefully will have a new graph to show us if he has used a different rolling road.



I know of several V10 8 litre motors making over 1300rwtq which is well over the 100tq/l so I don't know about this whole argument thing. There wasn't anyone sitting in the back, but I personally don't believe the vehicle was spinning. The graph is too smooth and replicated 3 times with the same results. I will post the graph with all 3 runs on it in a second to show this.


----------



## R33_GTS-t (Apr 27, 2005)

skyline69_uk said:


> The 2 litre is NA not turbo'd. The V10 3 litres in F1 made less than 100 t/l so you're saying your engine is more efficient than a F1 racer?
> 
> When the rolling road was done was anyone sitting in the back of the car or in the boot, if not then the chances the wheels were slipping is a good and high one
> 
> I'm not going to persue it anymore as I feel I'm harassing you and I don't want to. If the FCON dealer remaps the car etc then you hopefully will have a new graph to show us if he has used a different rolling road.


The F1 car is tuned for power not torque. Short stroke etc.

An IS300 with a supra engine and VVTi head has made 743rwhp at 20.5psi on pump gas and 960rwhp at 28psi on VP C16 using a PT76GTS (power still rising at cut-off):

http://my.is/forums/showthread.php?t=229796&highlight=pump+gas+record









http://my.is/forums/showthread.php?t=229922&highlight=pump+gas+record


----------



## R33_GTS-t (Apr 27, 2005)

sushtsi said:


> I know of several V10 8 litre motors making over 1300rwtq


Are they normally aspirated?


----------



## sushtsi (Oct 7, 2005)

R33_GTS-t said:


> Are they normally aspirated?


lol no, but they are streetable. Know of a few of them running on 93 octane gas as well.


----------



## sushtsi (Oct 7, 2005)

Here is the other dyno sheet with all 3 runs.


----------



## Zoltarc (Jun 26, 2005)

I've only just skimmed this thread so apologies if this is irreverent. Is it possible that the gauge was in a different scale to what is normally used. e.g. gauge pressure vs absolute pressure.


----------



## R33_GTS-t (Apr 27, 2005)

sushtsi said:


> lol no, but they are streetable. Know of a few of them running on 93 octane gas as well.


I think SVS have got their TTRS up over 2000rwhp but their rolling road only measures up to 1500rwhp.


----------



## R33_GTS-t (Apr 27, 2005)

sushtsi said:


> Here is the other dyno sheet with all 3 runs.


On the red plot it looks like you got some automatic timing retardation at around 6500rpm.


----------



## sushtsi (Oct 7, 2005)

R33_GTS-t said:


> On the red plot it looks like you got some automatic timing retardation at around 6500rpm.


Thought it was that or that it was heat soaked. Wanted to see what the car would do back to back so we didn't even turn the car off between runs 1 & 2 (546 & 531)


----------



## sushtsi (Oct 7, 2005)

Well redynoed last night. Lower but still decent. This is at a different dyno but still a dynojet. 522whp and high 370 torque. Again this was at 15-16psi on 94 octane gas. The car is running lean and needs more tuning but the FCONV has a password on it. Gonna start using race gas everyday. BTW the car was dynoed at 1 of 2 HKS PRO dealers in Canada. He figures that tuned right with the fuel and 30psi it should be making well into the 600whp range. This second dyno proved that the car is making the power at the boost stated.


----------



## Luffy (Jul 12, 2004)

Below is a graph of my car from GT-Art.

It was dynoed at 408hp @ all 4 wheels at only 1.2 bar.

All the spec says the car is running 2530 turbos but comparing the graphs my turbos come in a lot harder and the graph is a lot steeper than the above one so would this indicate that i might be running slightly bigger turbos than 2530's?

Sorry to Hi-Jack but i thought it would be a good comparison.


----------



## rasonline (Mar 24, 2005)

Ok so what's the latest on this car's specs? Any more info sushti?


----------



## Darbo (Nov 2, 2003)

Hi guys

I thought that the brake hp and torque curves always cross at approx 5250 rpm
due to the laws of phisics???
as once explained by Dave Walker emerald engineering

am i wrong?

hope you enjoy the GTR Sushtsi as you seem to be having fun 

Darbo


----------



## R33_GTS-t (Apr 27, 2005)

Darbo said:


> Hi guys
> 
> I thought that the brake hp and torque curves always cross at approx 5250 rpm
> due to the laws of phisics???
> ...


Only if power is in hp and torque is in lbft* and they are one the same scale*.


----------



## Darbo (Nov 2, 2003)

well is the one(dyno graph) at the top of this page wrong then???


----------



## Darbo (Nov 2, 2003)

Ahh i see what you mean

they have jiggled with the graph from the standard format


----------



## sushtsi (Oct 7, 2005)

rasonline said:


> Ok so what's the latest on this car's specs? Any more info sushti?



Well still haven't found out a whole lot. Getting an Fcon Navigator next week (a regular one as a Pro won't work w/ my Fcon V Pro V3.1) so that will give me a bit of insight as to the maps possibly. My Vacuum reading is low at idle though, around -9psi, after getting off boost its at -12. I've been told that this is probably due to the type of cams in my car (vehicle idles around 1300rpm usually)

The weird thing is when my car was in Japan it had an EVC5 hooked up and in the pics it was showing a reading of -25, the EVC5 was stolen during shipping so I can't verify that reading. Maybe a possible boost leak?

Believe I mentioned it before but I had it redynoed at an HKS Pro facility and it did 522rwhp again on a Dynojet, at 16psi (by redline hits around 17). 

The power seems to be quite a bit more than what others put out with the 25 series of turbos. At 30 psi/race gas I'm guessing it would put mid-high 600's to the rear wheels which I didn't think was capable of with 2530/2540's. 

Once the Navigator gets here I might have some more info.


----------



## The Admiral (Jul 27, 2004)

Interesting thread - sounds like a quick motor 

A simple "real life" power test would be a timed 30-130mph through the gears - with about 600bhp (500ATW) my car took about 13s...

Cheers 

Rog


----------



## sushtsi (Oct 7, 2005)

I think I will do that, just gotta make sure no police are around. It runs away from my brothers E46 M3


----------



## The Admiral (Jul 27, 2004)

sushtsi said:


> I think I will do that, just gotta make sure no police are around. It runs away from my brothers E46 M3


I should hope so :chuckle: 

Here's some times for comparison:










Takes away the traction issues etc associated with 1/4 miles, and is more repeatable...

Cheers 

Rog


----------



## sushtsi (Oct 7, 2005)

As an update for you guys. 

Had the car redone. New 3.24 Fcon V Pro, full retune for Canadian pump gas. Put in bigger injectors and fuel pump (785cc's). Running 19.5 psi, dynoing approx 490rwhp on a very accurate dynojet (the HKS PRO dealers one). The car now runs much safer, instead of having a dangerous 13.5:1 A/F I am not at 11.5:1 throughout the range, and the timing is A LOT less aggressive. Power output is relatively the same, but a much much safer tune. Also a lot more power under the curve. Should have the graph soon. 

On a side note, dyno's are too subjective, the first place I dynoed I got that 548rwhp figure, took it to the HKS Pro dealer and got 522whp (turned out that wasnt SAE corrected, but STD corrected. SAE was around 505whp). So that is around a 40rwhp difference between 2 different dyno's within 2 weeks of eachother and no difference to the car.


----------



## skyline69_uk (Jan 6, 2005)

sushtsi said:


> As an update for you guys.
> 
> Had the car redone. New 3.24 Fcon V Pro, full retune for Canadian pump gas. Put in bigger injectors and fuel pump (785cc's). Running 19.5 psi, dynoing approx 490rwhp on a very accurate dynojet (the HKS PRO dealers one). The car now runs much safer, instead of having a dangerous 13.5:1 A/F I am not at 11.5:1 throughout the range, and the timing is A LOT less aggressive. Power output is relatively the same, but a much much safer tune. Also a lot more power under the curve. Should have the graph soon.
> 
> On a side note, dyno's are too subjective, the first place I dynoed I got that 548rwhp figure, took it to the HKS Pro dealer and got 522whp (turned out that wasnt SAE corrected, but STD corrected. SAE was around 505whp). So that is around a 40rwhp difference between 2 different dyno's within 2 weeks of eachother and no difference to the car.


That's sounds a lot more like what I would have expected Sushtsi. Roller dynos are notoriously bad - the more power at each wheel you put down the more they read silly figures. Much better to get the car tuned on a Dynapack or other hub setup and if done one after each other you can see a huge difference in whp figures from roller to hub. A lot of European tuners are now moving to Dynapacks. 

A good article I read on it a while back is 
Dyno Tech

Seems like a great car by the way :clap: !

The gas (petrol) used in the States and Canada is much the same as our only the rating system is different - yours rating system is better as our only states RON and not an average of MON/RON like yours so your 91 octane is more like our 95/96 octane etc. MON is of more importance to turbo engines than RON.

From Wiki...
"In most countries (including all of Europe and Australia) the "headline" octane that would be shown on the pump is the RON, but in the United States and some other countries the headline number is the average of the RON and the MON, sometimes called the Anti-Knock Index (AKI), Road Octane Number (RdON), Pump Octane Number (PON), or (R+M)/2. Because of the 8 to 10 point difference noted above, this means that the octane in the United States will be about 4 to 5 points lower than the same fuel elsewhere: 87 octane fuel, the "regular" gasoline in the US and Canada, would be 91-92 in Europe. However most European pumps deliver 95 (RON) as "regular", equivalent to 90-91 US (R+M)/2."


----------



## sushtsi (Oct 7, 2005)

Yeah seems a bit more inline. We put a VERY conservative tune on it, only running 17 deg of timing whereas before was running 26. I'm confident that on race gas, more boost + timing I could get high 500's to the wheels, but that will have to wait for another day.


----------



## Floyd (Dec 15, 2004)

Do you know what turbo's your running? As earlier in the thread you hadn't identified them.


----------



## sushtsi (Oct 7, 2005)

Still havent figured out what turbos they are. Unless they are pulled apart, no way to tell. Either the 2530's or 2540's. Getting the car back this week so should be fun  A part of me is curious what it could have put out running slightly leaner at 12.0-12.2:1 and 22-24 degrees of timing. The thing is here in Canada the pump gas isn't the same quality every single time, if its stuff at the bottom of the gas stations gas tank, lower quality and will detonate WAY easier, so the conservative tune is perfect for street driving.


----------

