Some problems with new setup
09-12-2007, 04:16 PM
#41
0.0 BAR
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 0
Re: Some problems with new setup
Originally Posted by jo_gobel
"The "Unreal" power curve is on 110-octane race fuel, and it began to push the limits of the 83 lb/hr injectors as the engine delivered the nastiest, table-flat, 1,000 lb-ft torque curve you can imagine, plus 1,165 hp at the top end."
consirvitive crank hp na for that built 406ci small block would be 550chp *.068 = 37.4 *14.6 psi = 546hp +500chp= 1046chp
that seems close enough for me
"The "Wow" tune-up with a 91-octane-friendly 7 psi boost delivers 724 lb-ft at a low 4,800 rpm and 769 hp at an also-low 6,000 rpm."
consirvitive crank hp na for that built 406ci small block would be 550chp *.068 = 37.4 * 7psi = 261.8hp +500chp=761.8chp
wow, thats pretty ------- close isnt it?
and no, i dont think you win.
by the way, i said that the 1psi/10chp was based on the CAVI and most production engines.
consirvitive crank hp na for that built 406ci small block would be 550chp *.068 = 37.4 *14.6 psi = 546hp +500chp= 1046chp
that seems close enough for me
"The "Wow" tune-up with a 91-octane-friendly 7 psi boost delivers 724 lb-ft at a low 4,800 rpm and 769 hp at an also-low 6,000 rpm."
consirvitive crank hp na for that built 406ci small block would be 550chp *.068 = 37.4 * 7psi = 261.8hp +500chp=761.8chp
wow, thats pretty ------- close isnt it?
and no, i dont think you win.
by the way, i said that the 1psi/10chp was based on the CAVI and most production engines.
seems like to me i DID prove you wrong.
see, there you go again, not reading my posts
09-12-2007, 06:34 PM
#42
0.0 BAR
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 35
Re: Some problems with new setup
Listen kenne Bell HAS been proven wrong on his old boost book, and the whole 1 psi = 10 CHP is so far from the truth it's not funny. first off you have to figure in WHERE you get 1psi from in the rpm range, a smaller t25 turbo with 1 psi at say 2k rpms will be a far less power gain then 1 psi from a T4 at 2k rpms, Pressure can't be related to straight power gain, it is far more complex, it's more like CFM X RPM etc equation. In ANY case I don't expect anyone to believe me, and I'm not saying the cav is the end all cars.. I'm just BASING it on a comparison to my Balt which DID dyno over 260 WHP before the clutch and flywheel. And we raced from 3-5k rpms in 4th gear, which is over 100 mph. I guess you can SIT tight and wait till a later date when I get a new wideband sensor and fix the fueling. And then you can call BS when I have a dyno sheet and 1/4 slip. I'm sorry if you think I'm just a dumb kid, but I actually did my homework since I had my civic and joined this site a long time ago.
09-12-2007, 08:22 PM
#43
0.0 BAR
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 0
Re: Some problems with new setup
so now your basing your assumption that the Cavi is as fast as the Cobalt based on a 2000 rpm race in 4th gear?
hahaha, you kill me dude.
the only thing that would prove is that its as fast in those rpms in that gear.
run from 0-100+mph, then come here and say your Cavi is as fast as that Cobalt of yours.
and since i have provided my info and backed up my claims MULTIPLE times, how about you show me where Kenne Bell is proven wrong multiple time?
I think your talking about Corky Bell, the author of "Maximum Boost"
hahaha, you kill me dude.
the only thing that would prove is that its as fast in those rpms in that gear.
run from 0-100+mph, then come here and say your Cavi is as fast as that Cobalt of yours.
and since i have provided my info and backed up my claims MULTIPLE times, how about you show me where Kenne Bell is proven wrong multiple time?
I think your talking about Corky Bell, the author of "Maximum Boost"
09-12-2007, 11:19 PM
#44
0.0 BAR
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 35
Re: Some problems with new setup
Yea sorry I wasn't thinking right earlier it was Corky Bell. But look up Gary Gardella's Turbo Cobalt that is running 50 pounds of boost and over 1400 WHP. So by your equation the turbo is only giving 500 WHP and the 2.0 is pushing 900 WHP?! I know for a fact since I followed their build for a long while that the engine is in no way putting 900 WHP without the turbo, maybe 600 WHP at the very max. Even if they were running 200 shot nitrous that doesn't add up. No offense I just think you should read more into the technical of a turbo, I'm pretty new as far as that goes but for years still I know basing power on PSI is dumb and is FAR less accurate then me running my cobalt against her cavalier. Also I'm not going to lose my license AGAIN just to drive above 100 mph to see which is faster. We know it's fast, but again a dyno will prove my point, just give me a month lol.
09-12-2007, 11:36 PM
#45
0.0 BAR
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 0
Re: Some problems with new setup
you need to read my posts as well...
the formula is this....
1psi = 6.8% hp
you say its 600whp, which is about 750chp. for some reason, i just dont trust your hp guesstamates, so i will even go LOWER for your estimated hp rating. I say that 2.1 ecotec is putting out 400 chp at the most.
400chp x .068 = 27.2hp per psi x 50psi = 1360hp + 400chp = 1760chp - 20% for drivetrain loss = 1408whp
get it in your thick ------- skulls that the 1ps/10chp is based off of the original posters Cavi's engine specs.
no matter how you twist it, the 1psi=6.8%hp equation WILL give you a VERY CLOSE estimate of what your car will put down on any give boost
the formula is this....
1psi = 6.8% hp
you say its 600whp, which is about 750chp. for some reason, i just dont trust your hp guesstamates, so i will even go LOWER for your estimated hp rating. I say that 2.1 ecotec is putting out 400 chp at the most.
400chp x .068 = 27.2hp per psi x 50psi = 1360hp + 400chp = 1760chp - 20% for drivetrain loss = 1408whp
get it in your thick ------- skulls that the 1ps/10chp is based off of the original posters Cavi's engine specs.
no matter how you twist it, the 1psi=6.8%hp equation WILL give you a VERY CLOSE estimate of what your car will put down on any give boost
09-12-2007, 11:42 PM
#46
0.0 BAR
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 0
Re: Some problems with new setup
Originally Posted by Julex
No offense I just think you should read more into the technical of a turbo, I'm pretty new as far as that goes but for years still I know basing power on PSI is dumb and is FAR less accurate then me running my cobalt against her cavalier. Also I'm not going to lose my license AGAIN just to drive above 100 mph to see which is faster. We know it's fast, but again a dyno will prove my point, just give me a month lol.
so please, dont sit there with keyboard warrior mindset and think your going to tell me something i dont allready know or teach me something. i am pretty sure i am the only one in this thread teaching anything. everyone else wants to try and disprove something i have said like yourself or your Cavi buddy that has been giving me a hard time. and neither one of you are doing a good job at it FYI.
09-13-2007, 03:23 AM
#48
0.5 BAR
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 69
Re: Some problems with new setup
jo gobel is a dumb **** for several reasons. kenne belle makes twin screw superchargers and the 1psi 10 hp rule if maybe applicible to their applications doesnt hold true for turbo cars. first of all you have to consider that turbos come in a lot of different sizes and shapes, and there's a good reason why a large-ish turbo will make higher peak power numbers than a 2g t25 at the same boost level. sure the t25 will make great low end and midrange but the power difference between that and say a disco potatoe will be enormous on your average 1.8-2.0 at the same exact boost pressure.
09-13-2007, 10:43 AM
#49
0.0 BAR
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 0
Re: Some problems with new setup
junkyard, your the dumb **** for not even opening the Kenne Bell link.
It wasnt even written my Kenne Bell, it was written by Jim Bell, and at the top of the page it says "Jim Bell's Supercharged/Turbocharged Performance Guide"
straight from the Kenne Bell site, first paragraph, http://www.kennebell.net/company/company.htm
"Kenne Bell, an icon in the world of high performance, was formed in 1968 by Jim Bell, originally specializing in normally aspirated V8 and V6 Buicks. The company has long been recognized as a "super tuner" and innovator of high tech performance products, particularly in the area of turbocharging and supercharging."
so you know what junkyard, go ---- yourself for trying to come in here and voice your concern without anything to back it up.
It wasnt even written my Kenne Bell, it was written by Jim Bell, and at the top of the page it says "Jim Bell's Supercharged/Turbocharged Performance Guide"
straight from the Kenne Bell site, first paragraph, http://www.kennebell.net/company/company.htm
"Kenne Bell, an icon in the world of high performance, was formed in 1968 by Jim Bell, originally specializing in normally aspirated V8 and V6 Buicks. The company has long been recognized as a "super tuner" and innovator of high tech performance products, particularly in the area of turbocharging and supercharging."
so you know what junkyard, go ---- yourself for trying to come in here and voice your concern without anything to back it up.
09-13-2007, 10:47 AM
#50
0.0 BAR
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 0
Re: Some problems with new setup
and FYI, i never said the formula was 100% accurate, only that it will give you a good idea of where you HP levels will be at.
and junkyard, take a look at every equation that i have typed out for all the naysayers that have come in here, everyone of the equations are pretty god damn close to what the real world hp level is on that give car.
and again, the 1psi/10hp only applies to the original posters Cavi based on his setup and his engine. other setups will be over 10hp mark, the 6.8% rule is based of the the engines N/A hp. so if the engine makes 500 crank hp N/A the formula is 1psi/34hp.
my god, some of you just love to argue and never read what the other person is saying.
and junkyard, take a look at every equation that i have typed out for all the naysayers that have come in here, everyone of the equations are pretty god damn close to what the real world hp level is on that give car.
and again, the 1psi/10hp only applies to the original posters Cavi based on his setup and his engine. other setups will be over 10hp mark, the 6.8% rule is based of the the engines N/A hp. so if the engine makes 500 crank hp N/A the formula is 1psi/34hp.
my god, some of you just love to argue and never read what the other person is saying.
