Got 608HP and 660NM

[Rusty]

You are a saver =] .Kiss.

Do I need only a plate from Sasch , or anything else ?

Get in touch with Repo for a nice price Shame that Euro/GPB is 1.09 at the mo

[driftin jo]

CHRIST you start to sound like passionford :/

The stated figures on garret homepage is just as stated a guideline.
There are more then enough cars now that make more then garret state, a gt35 ar 0.86 have made 706bhp on a cossie, my gt35 1,06 made 651bhp @ 2bar on my cossie and a m8 gt30 ar 0.82 makes 562bhp @ 2,1bar.
It´s how effective the engine is to use the air, not the pressure the turbo makes that makes the power

below is a copy of my post from yesterday #25
---------------------------------------------

Personally i think it much more likely that there is the normal dyno exaggeration factor going on here, i remember talking to a guy last year who works with a proper engine dyno and he said that not a single engine he had ever tested in 10 years had made the power that was “estimated/ calculated by deducting losses or other means from a rolling road. Most he said were between 3 -10 % over what they actually made on a real dynamometer , some he said were almost 15% over and the odd one or two 20+%
I think like he does that there is nothing wrong with a rolling road , in fact they are great for tuning but just work with wheel hp and forget about what the crank hp may or may not be!

---------------------------------------------

One more thing i would like to add it was originally stated on this thread that a GT30 had made 608hp, i and a few other people questioned this as this seemed like it would be well over what was capable from this turbo, later it was mentioned that the turbo was not in fact a standard garret but a hybrid so it is plausible to assume that it could make make 608 hp !

I'm also not saying that the garrett rating cant be exceeded but not by that much, you would be talking 16% over the garrett quoted 525hp, if you spoke to a garret engineer and said this to them they would just laugh at you.

If you take it that you need 11.5 lbs per min airflow for 100hp you would need over 6 times this for 609hp about 70 lbs per min ,now take a look at the compressor map for a GT3076 (below)
there is no way on gods earth it could do that ! The red dot to the right of the map is about were you would need to be .


ps
i used to work for a company called Erlson in skelmersdale next to garrett, we made all the bearings , comp wheels shafts etc for garret and supplied most of the world's turbo charger manufacturers. I spoke/worked with engineers from garrett many times wile i worked there !

[AUDIS2avant]

driftin jo: so what you are saying here is that all the people that have made these figures, including my self are lying?
Can u explain then why some bigger engines make more power with lesser boost then our small 2 liter engines?

[driftin jo]

driftin jo: so what you are saying here is that all the people that have made these figures, including my self are lying?
Can u explain then why some bigger engines make more power with lesser boost then our small 2 liter engines?

Well that's simple a 4 litre engine with the same turbo as used on a 2 litre will have the same flow of air into the engine assuming all things are equal i.e. VE , but as the 4 litre engine only needs half the boost psi, so then there is more efficiency from the air not getting as hot from compression and thus the timing can be advanced more and you make more power.


If you read the post above you will see i didn't call anyone a liar just that all rolling road figures are exaggerated !

[AUDIS2avant]

Well that's simple a 4 litre engine with the same turbo as used on a 2 litre will have the same flow of air into the engine assuming all things are equal i.e. VE , but as the 4 litre engine only needs half the boost psi, so then there is more efficiency from the air not getting as hot from compression and thus the timing can be advanced more and you make more power.


If you read the post above you will see i didn't call anyone a liar just that all rolling road figures are exaggerated !

Well you stated it your self, if a bigger engine is more effective on lesser boost, then why cant a smaller engine be the same? ie porting the head cames bigger valves etc etc
And btw, those 20 RR i have tried in my time have been about 10bhp out @ worst, so maybe a brittish thing then?

[driftin jo]

Just for ref 034 made 703.3 wheel hp on a rolling road, now a lot of people would on a rolling road add 33% to this fig which gives 25% for drive train losses. So you get a crank hp fig of 935.3 hp.

When they entered the Castrol Syntech Top Shop Challenge they made 848hp on an engine dyno !
So as you can see there is 90hp exaggeration from rolling road !
Just one example .

[driftin jo]

http://www.pumaracing.co.uk/setup01.htm

[driftin jo]

Well you stated it your self, if a bigger engine is more effective on lesser boost, then why cant a smaller engine be the same? ie porting the head cames bigger valves etc etc
And btw, those 20 RR i have tried in my time have been about 10bhp out @ worst, so maybe a brittish thing then?

so you are saying you have had it on a rolling road then took the engine out and put it on a real dyno and it was only 10 bhp out.

I think not.

[Knight Rider S4]

[driftin jo]

Well you stated it your self, if a bigger engine is more effective on lesser boost, then why cant a smaller engine be the same? ie porting the head cames bigger valves etc etc
And btw, those 20 RR i have tried in my time have been about 10bhp out @ worst, so maybe a brittish thing then?

a smaller engine cant be the same as it needs big boost to have the same airflow,and thus cylinder pressures start to become restrictive unless you run an old f1 turbo style set up with only 6-1 compression ratio or unless you have one of those "magic" engines with 150% VE before boost!

[AUDIS2avant]

Well that article says more about the operator then the dyno itself...

And no, that would be to expensive to do that, but u need to remember that one thing is reading about it on the internet, and using stated numbers, and trying it live and getting experience on it, 2 different things

[AUDIS2avant]

a smaller engine cant be the same as it needs big boost to have the same airflow,and thus cylinder pressures start to become restrictive unless you run an old f1 turbo style set up with only 6-1 compression ratio or unless you have one of those "magic" engines with 150% VE before boost!

It´s called air speed m8, it´s how you port the head, the inlet, the exhaust manifold, the cams etc,(effenciency) not how much pressure you put inside the engine.

[driftin jo]

It´s called air speed m8, it´s how you port the head, the inlet, the exhaust manifold, the cams etc,(effenciency) not how much pressure you put inside the engine.

You don't say, well i never new that.

In case you didn't notice that was sarcasm .

The super touring car that Audi ran was a 1.8 litre non turbo and made 280+ hp at about 10000rpm
but you wouldn't like the price tag .

[EspenW]

Stating crank hp from numbers derived from a rolling road is completely worthless. The Americans and Australians understand this and only quote wheel hp.
A rolling road is a tool for tuning, designed to provide baseline whp number that will tell the user whether a mod worked or not.
WHP numbers will vary drastically between different types of dynos, so they really can't be compared either.

[EspenW]

Just for ref 034 made 703.3 wheel hp on a rolling road, now a lot of people would on a rolling road add 33% to this fig which gives 25% for drive train losses. So you get a crank hp fig of 935.3 hp.

When they entered the Castrol Syntech Top Shop Challenge they made 848hp on an engine dyno !
So as you can see there is 90hp exaggeration from rolling road !
Just one example .

That is interesting. Assuming that Javad & co ran the same type of fuel, same boost pressure, and same load/sweep rates on the dynos, it tells us that the drivetrain loss is still more than 17% at this very high hp level (drivetrain loss as a percentage drops with increasing power). Of course, this only applies to the specific rolling road that 034 used (probably their own Mustang dyno)