Turbo, Carbs, Throttle Bodies, Boost???

[mangojace]

how longs a piece of string? It can give as many gains as you would like lol! Mate uses it on his 670 bhp track skyline though!

[axsaxoman]

Originally Posted by scot-ish

it is his attitude though, when he tells you before it goes on the rollers that "a car like that, will never make that power" and then proceeds to take his foot of the pedal when the turbo is not even in its peak range.

If i took my foot off at6400 how come there is a line showing to over 7k .
its along time ago ,but i can say for sure i would ask customer what rpm he wanted go to and unless there was a over heating problem or something i would have gone to that --.
I don,t go in for flash bhp readings and a powr run will take at least 17secs --so maybe the power jsut dropped away as the intercooler heated up --that si the usual reason why turbo,s are just given a very short dyno run --to show a flash bhp reading not a steady one .
if an old designsmall capcacity engine could make 500bhp I would why the WRC makers cars can get nowhere near that figure ??
they spend millions and only get just over 300 on WRC cars.
I leave it to common sense of readers to decide which is most probable .
car makers of the world have got it wrong or maybe the 500 bhp is not a REAL sustainble figure + just a flash reading.
If you look in the seat coupra R handbook where it quotes torque it has a note beside it whic hindicates the torque figure is after 1minute --how much proof do you want that flash figures are not real --if they could have just taken a reading and printed it they would as it would be a higher figure ,but they know no one would get the much higher figure consistantly. and would have customer complaing it was down on power

[mangojace]

Originally Posted by axsaxoman

If i took my foot off at6400 how come there is a line showing to over 7k .
its along time ago ,but i can say for sure i would ask customer what rpm he wanted go to and unless there was a over heating problem or something i would have gone to that --.
I don,t go in for flash bhp readings and a powr run will take at least 17secs --so maybe the power jsut dropped away as the intercooler heated up --that si the usual reason why turbo,s are just given a very short dyno run --to show a flash bhp reading not a steady one .
if an old designsmall capcacity engine could make 500bhp I would why the WRC makers cars can get nowhere near that figure ??
they spend millions and only get just over 300 on WRC cars.
I leave it to common sense of readers to decide which is most probable .
car makers of the world have got it wrong or maybe the 500 bhp is not a REAL sustainble figure + just a flash reading.
If you look in the seat couprs R handbook where it quotes toruq it has a note beside it whichindicates the torque figure is after 1minute --how much proof do you want that flash figures are not real --if they could have just taken a reading and printed it they would ,but they know no one would get the much higher figure that is shown doing that way

I full well know the glanza is very tuneable...loads of 250-300 bhp glanza's going about in the uk running td05's! So why did you say no way in hell will a 1.3 engine make 300 bhp to that bloke on here?

You think they spend millions getting there engines too 300 bhp? LOL no they have a 34 mm restrictor to keep the power down.

[axsaxoman]

I cansay for sure i never said that -but you must allow for the vein in which these "slagging posting " are made --does not make a good read unless they change things.
i can quote you an AX sport 194cc 8v built in spain with s/c + turbo in 1991 which made a "sort of relable" 470 bhp --used with 4wd as a rally car ,so there is no way i would say its impoosible ,same as the wheel nuts werre loose after 10mins --would you not have come back and insisted the rest of the car was checked over+ --of course you would

[dannygti]

John, wrc cars are restricted to 300hp. I thought you would know this??
They also make around 480lbs ft torque as a result of using lots of boost and restrictor.

[scot-ish]

Originally Posted by axsaxoman

If i took my foot off at6400 how come there is a line showing to over 7k .
its along time ago ,but i can say for sure i would ask customer what rpm he wanted go to and unless there was a over heating problem or something i would have gone to that --.
I don,t go in for flash bhp readings and a powr run will take at least 17secs --so maybe the power jsut dropped away as the intercooler heated up --that si the usual reason why turbo,s are just given a very short dyno run --to show a flash bhp reading not a steady one .
if an old designsmall capcacity engine could make 500bhp I would why the WRC makers cars can get nowhere near that figure ??
they spend millions and only get just over 300 on WRC cars.
I leave it to common sense of readers to decide which is most probable .
car makers of the world have got it wrong or maybe the 500 bhp is not a REAL sustainble figure + just a flash reading.
If you look in the seat coupra R handbook where it quotes torque it has a note beside it whic hindicates the torque figure is after 1minute --how much proof do you want that flash figures are not real --if they could have just taken a reading and printed it they would as it would be a higher figure ,but they know no one would get the much higher figure consistantly. and would have customer complaing it was down on power

i would say its a pretty sustainable figure, the car 500bhp one runs 10 sec 1/4's. so its not a false reading.

as has been said, i thought wrc cars were restricted???


with regards to the wheel nuts being loose, that came from the horses mouth, i believe he called you when he left. i only know this, as i was interested in malcolms old charged saxo, the one you built a while back, and wondered why it was sitting with the passenger side suspension hanging out of it after it came off on track. i was informed of the wheel nuts, after he left yours. and then was also informed of a possible problem with the ball joint, but the bolt just snapped after a lap???

[axsaxoman]

yes wrc are restricted with a 34mm restrictor .-no argument there .
the man phoned me the next day regarding wheel nuts loose not straight away as i would have told him to return .cetainly there were no marks on wheel or studs to suggest that they had been loose at any time,when next we saw the car + other whel bolts were well over the correct torque-- as far as suspension on race track --its a race track+ he wasn,t diving it round lke a granny was he + these things happen - no one can say for sure what happend other than when we checked other side pinch bolt it was stretched and thinner in the middle ,so it had been ovetightend some time in its life --what we supposed to do replace every bolt with a new one every time they are removed --could have been malcom or the previous owner that "checked " them and overtightened them --race track driving is very hard on everything -- the new strut was totally bent forward --due to the way the car was pulled out of the gravel trap -- i gave him a new one + straightend as much as pssible the wing --which i had no real need to do
I can say for sure if the pich bolt was loose ,and just not something you do and especially with a nyloc-put it through and not tighten at same time nut it would have made a noise or fallen out in the time between it being here and knockhill 10days later?.
If it wasn,t there at all the bottom arm would have fallen out within 1/2 a mile if not sooner

If the man was so unhappy how i treated him why did he come back and spend more money on swirl pot system and a new dif other things ??

its like this posting its a no win situation --no matter what isay -but i only reply to show we do not walk away from any rpoblems if we are made aware of them and will always do ur best to find a solution to them
-

[kristel10589]

John, when are you going to tell f1 and the fia there wrong and to use a supercharger instead of a turbo lmfao. As for you saying all turbos do is shatter gearboxes and driveshafts, i have never heard so much b/s.

Let me think of all them car companies that use turbos and have no problem. Now lets think how many companies supply their cars supercharged, hmmmmmmmmmm mercedes and errrrrrrrrrrrrrrr. F1 going turbo, wrc already turbo, btcc turbo, majority of cars on the road are turbo'd (out of boosted cars not inc n/a).
Both have there pros and cons, id rather turbo but thats personal preference.

[quikydan]

this is getting a bit bitchy!

[axsaxoman]

Originally Posted by kristel10589

John, when are you going to tell f1 and the fia there wrong and to use a supercharger instead of a turbo lmfao. As for you saying all turbos do is shatter gearboxes and driveshafts, i have never heard so much b/s.

Let me think of all them car companies that use turbos and have no problem. Now lets think how many companies supply their cars supercharged, hmmmmmmmmmm mercedes and errrrrrrrrrrrrrrr. F1 going turbo, wrc already turbo, btcc turbo, majority of cars on the road are turbo'd (out of boosted cars not inc n/a).
Both have there pros and cons, id rather turbo but thats personal preference.

yet another typical post trying to compare apples +oranges. and of course you can have your own preference but allow me the same -the main difference is i explain both and why i think for road use why the s/c is better for most users
wrc turbo,s cost over 2k and last maybe 500miles + many thousands of pounds of antilag and ecu control + water injection etc etc --not really a budget saxo ??
broken drive shafts??
if you haven,t seen any or heard of many i would why temple motorsport do such a roaring trade in making uprated ones + why there are are lots of posts on here from people breaking them on std cars.
I have always said that a turbo can give more ultimate power and i have always said that most of the big turbo saxo,s are using an incorrectly specced unit by the way that they spool up and full boost startshalf way up the rpm range and if a big powered one it will be very sudden--just because its the cheap way to get a big "bragging number" which is very hard to drive enthusastically on twsity roads or tracks.
car makers spend alot of money matching the turbines to give the best all round power curve fro a given car + what they are trying to achieve,which is why all modern turbo,s have lots of electronic control on them .
and to obtain the same smooth type of control will cost more than fitting an s/c --thats it in a nutshell --nothing more .
when graphs are posted they come with "thats not the real one ,just a run up" or it only made such much on yours then made over 300 next day on another set of rollers --but strangly the only graph posted is my one --and the big number graph ,is not posted.
best of it is al i was doing was a power run --not any sort of tuning,there worst you could hold against me is my rollers read low,or should that be accurate --you decide.
why would i want to fudge a power run --makes no sense what so ever
come on boys give the readers some credit for sniffing out BS

[raunchz]

I'm not a big fan of this 'bitching against gmc' - johns posted some great information on here in the past and has certainly helped me out when I was looking to build up a sc car.

If people are old enough to spend £5k on their car, then they're old enough to read parts of this forum and decide on whether to go turbo/Sc/na - people don't need to gang up on people who push Sc, or push na - different people have different preferences!

The constant ganging up will drive away people (gmc) with years experience and create some great parts at good prices. Yes some prices are expensive but everyone needs to earn a living.

It's people with experience and knowledge that make these forums, it's this knowledge which helps people do DIY builds which don't cost the earth. Without this knowledge people would have to drop their cars into the likes of Atspeed and gmc to do big bhp builds which would cost mega ££££ in labour.

I think John deserves a chance, I for one listen to what he says but I'd like to think I had some common sense to make up my final mind on things.

Come on guys

[axsaxoman]

Originally Posted by blackie_2k5

so john...while we're on the subject, the graphs i posted previousley, would you say they look "ok" other then the apparant richness up top?

ive not really had any feadback on them at all, the car certainley drives well, has god spread of useable power through the box, and tails off about where it should for the turbo im using, looking at graphs i can see from mapped s13's running the same turbo, it seems to follow pretty much the same lines as those.....

can,t imagine why you would want my opinion of this graph if have been following htis thread ..
there goes anyway--a sucker for punishment .
presuming the wastegate is shutting properly and the acutator is not floating ,no loss of boost through leaks + a non restrcitve intercooler.
I would guess that this turbo is from a much larger engined car with a low actuator setting . or it could be leaks that are loosing the boost orif its a home made manifold maybe the inlet to the turbo is too small --lots of possibilites
thats why it takes time to get to the boost,as your engine does not make enough hot gas to whizz it up and then after that there isn,t enough back pressure to keep the boost up ,so you are not getting the ideal turbo torque shape and it will be very civilised to drive because of that
thats what i see from looking at the graph and power numbers.
having a turbo running rich usually makes it spool up earlier ,sounds silly and no doubt i will be accused of bullshit AGAIN,but the extra carbon adds weight to the gas and so makes it spool up quicker and can make more boost in some cases
. better to have it rich than lean anyway

[adzvtr]

Originally Posted by raunchz

I'm not a big fan of this 'bitching against gmc' - johns posted some great information on here in the past and has certainly helped me out when I was looking to build up a sc car.

If people are old enough to spend £5k on their car, then they're old enough to read parts of this forum and decide on whether to go turbo/Sc/na - people don't need to gang up on people who push Sc, or push na - different people have different preferences!

The constant ganging up will drive away people (gmc) with years experience and create some great parts at good prices. Yes some prices are expensive but everyone needs to earn a living.

It's people with experience and knowledge that make these forums, it's this knowledge which helps people do DIY builds which don't cost the earth. Without this knowledge people would have to drop their cars into the likes of Atspeed and gmc to do big bhp builds which would cost mega ££££ in labour.

I think John deserves a chance, I for one listen to what he says but I'd like to think I had some common sense to make up my final mind on things.

Come on guys

basically covers what i was gunna say.
if it wasnt for the knolledge supplyed by these guys i would never have got my car where it is now.

[luthor1]

It's a T25 John I think on Blackie_2k5 as far as I know, and it'll be from a 200sx which has I think a 5/6psi wastegate actuator on it? I think he's got a manual bleed valve on it to bring it up to the bar. Better in my opinion would be a 12psi waste gate, then use the ECU (he's got one of mine) to control a solenoid and bring in the last 3psi nicely, or a 10psi actuator and control 5psi.

Doesn't a rich mixture slow the burn rate down too which 'simulates' retarding the ignition, which means the pressure from the charge comes out the exhaust valve later which helps turbo spool???

It's a REALLY good 8v that one, makes stupid power really, and it has a conservative ignition map, I know - I wrote it!

I worry a little about bore-wash though, and would like to see the fuelling at least stay within the reasonably measurable window and be in the 11.5-12.2 range to be ideal, then have a fiddle with ignition timing to keep it nicely out of detonation without being too retarded

Andy

[-shuggles-]

Originally Posted by luthor1

It's a T25 John I think on Blackie_2k5 as far as I know, and it'll be from a 200sx which has I think a 5/6psi wastegate actuator on it? I think he's got a manual bleed valve on it to bring it up to the bar. Better in my opinion would be a 12psi waste gate, then use the ECU (he's got one of mine) to control a solenoid and bring in the last 3psi nicely, or a 1-psi actuator and control 5psi.

Doesn't a rich mixture slow the burn rate down too which 'simulates' retarding the ignition, which means the pressure from the charge comes out the exhaust valve later which helps turbo spool???

It's a REALLY good 8v that one, makes stupid power really, and it has a conservative ignition map, I know - I wrote it!

I worry a little about bore-wash though, and would like to see the fuelling at least stay within the reasonably measurable window and be in the 11.5-12.2 range to be ideal, then have a fiddle with ignition timing to keep it nicely out of detonation without being too retarded

Andy

t25 from a s13 I think he said a couple of pages back

[axsaxoman]

11,5 -12.2 on 6psi --yes it should stand that -- sniff the oil cap thats always a good indication -if it reeks of petrol --then be worried

[blackie_2k5]

cheers for the input

at present(and when the car was dyno'd above) i had a boost leak, its coming from the idle valve, and since fixing a pretty big hole in a boost pipe, this has worsened. the car doesn get much use ATM as i now have a daily, so all niggles are in process of being sorted

the turbo is a t25 from an s13 as said, they come with a 10psi actuator as standard, and has a spring pre-load type boost controller/bleed valve to make ~15psi

the car has issues with fueling to sort, something im pretty sure is down to a dodgey pump or FPR, these are going to be replaced before it gets another tweak to sort out the fueling

the car does surge if running under half a tank..

the car does smell quite rich up top and apparantly throws some flames out on hard gear changes at times along with the expected occasional small amounts of black smoke on boost and dirty tail pipe

the turbo kit itself is very well made made and has no restrictions at all, the flow design must have had some serious thought! neither the system or the intercooler set up has restriction, however the boost pipe routing is quite long due to space issues, i am considering having a re think of routing, and reducing the pipe size to 2" as its currently 2.25, this should dramatically help my spool up

and since talking to andy, im now aware he can use electronic boost control on his ecu, so this is defintatly something i want to get fitted, once all other issues have been cured and im happy its ready, andy ill be coming to set me up and do a final map

EDIT ALSO JOHN- incase you werent aware, this is not a 16v, its a 90bhp VTR engine

[axsaxoman]

no I wssn,t aware what type of engine it was, until andy posted --but same would hold true for any make ,its the shape thats is funny for a turbo,but I am not suprise it cannot hold 15psi knowing what turbo it is + power its making

[Gareth_R]

Originally Posted by axsaxoman

I am not suprise it cannot hold 15psi knowing what turbo it is + power its making

And the dirty great boost leak??!!

[dannygti]

John, please could you give me your input on what sort of spec you would use if YOU were building a turbo 16v with reasonable budget as a track car?