Closest to HP numbers gets a prize!
#12
01-31-2008, 11:37 AM
RE: Closest to HP numbers gets a prize!
Well, only the dyno will tell, but evidence suggests I'll make the best power at about 26psi. And it's not really an eclipse turbo. It's made by mitsubishi, but so is the 25g, and people are making well over 550 with those.
I'm trying to get the car as light as possible. I'm thinking it probably weighs 2175 right now. I still have some trunklid and hood bracing to remove, as well as some noise dampening material (tar basically) from the floor. So that's where the number come from. I have some very efficient tricks up my sleeve in management, and have a little more work to do to get the 60' times where I want them. 1.71 so far just dumping the clutch at 8psi and 3800 on the 2-step with a stock PT cruiser clutch, so I have to play with that a little more to figure out where to launch the car at its new lower weight and stiffer clutch. I also am limiting boost in first gear to a controllable 12-13psi, and after 2nd is engaged, full boost will be switched on, so I can use the most power my traction can provide depending on the gear.
Once I up the turbo to a bigger bullseye unit, I'll go to a 3 level boost control, so 12, 25, 42, and hopefully be in the high 9s. I'll need to do more chassis work to get it into the low 9s, but that should be possible around that 750hp, 2000lb level.
I'm trying to get the car as light as possible. I'm thinking it probably weighs 2175 right now. I still have some trunklid and hood bracing to remove, as well as some noise dampening material (tar basically) from the floor. So that's where the number come from. I have some very efficient tricks up my sleeve in management, and have a little more work to do to get the 60' times where I want them. 1.71 so far just dumping the clutch at 8psi and 3800 on the 2-step with a stock PT cruiser clutch, so I have to play with that a little more to figure out where to launch the car at its new lower weight and stiffer clutch. I also am limiting boost in first gear to a controllable 12-13psi, and after 2nd is engaged, full boost will be switched on, so I can use the most power my traction can provide depending on the gear.
Once I up the turbo to a bigger bullseye unit, I'll go to a 3 level boost control, so 12, 25, 42, and hopefully be in the high 9s. I'll need to do more chassis work to get it into the low 9s, but that should be possible around that 750hp, 2000lb level.
#13
01-31-2008, 11:40 AM
RE: Closest to HP numbers gets a prize!
ORIGINAL: GRIFF
280 I am more interested on how the e85 conversion turns out... keep us posted on those details.
280 I am more interested on how the e85 conversion turns out... keep us posted on those details.
You might want to revise your guess. I was already making around 240 at less than 10psi. If bumping that up another 15psi or so only makes it put out another 40, I'll cry.
#14
01-31-2008, 12:04 PM
RE: Closest to HP numbers gets a prize!
u got any head work done? im sorry bro, but im just not seeing those numbers through stock heads with nothing but forged internals. u got any links to similar builds doing this?
#15
01-31-2008, 12:45 PM
RE: Closest to HP numbers gets a prize!
Well, there really isn't a comparable car. Mine's a unique build. But the turbo I'm using is a TD05-16G-10CM2. Flows enough for 400 as advertised.
Stock, most N/A cars at my altitude see around 92kpa of IM pressure at full throttle. I'll be making 270-275kpa of IM pressure. That's almost 3 times the air pressure as the car sees stock. It's a 132hp motor from the factory, or around 150 with stock internals, but all the bolt ons. Good tuning with a standlone can make that 160 without any internal engine work, but good design of aftermarket intake and exhaust. So let's say the most that this car could possibly make is 480 with that turbo, but that won't happen due to the inefficiencies of the turbo system. So cut at least 10% off of that for inefficiencies. So 430 would be a stretch, but theoretically possible. I know I won't be making that much, just simply because my turbo manifold design is less than ideal for top end hp, but better for quick spool. Now that's all under the assumption that the turbo still makes boost air instead of blowing hot air at 26psi. (Once the compressor spins fast enough to force the air to move faster than the speed of sound, it just makes hot air, which kills power)
I don't know if any of that clarified anything, but it should bring you guys close to understanding what I have under the hood. I know it's a completely different idea than tons of cubes, but makes the power nonetheless.
Stock, most N/A cars at my altitude see around 92kpa of IM pressure at full throttle. I'll be making 270-275kpa of IM pressure. That's almost 3 times the air pressure as the car sees stock. It's a 132hp motor from the factory, or around 150 with stock internals, but all the bolt ons. Good tuning with a standlone can make that 160 without any internal engine work, but good design of aftermarket intake and exhaust. So let's say the most that this car could possibly make is 480 with that turbo, but that won't happen due to the inefficiencies of the turbo system. So cut at least 10% off of that for inefficiencies. So 430 would be a stretch, but theoretically possible. I know I won't be making that much, just simply because my turbo manifold design is less than ideal for top end hp, but better for quick spool. Now that's all under the assumption that the turbo still makes boost air instead of blowing hot air at 26psi. (Once the compressor spins fast enough to force the air to move faster than the speed of sound, it just makes hot air, which kills power)
I don't know if any of that clarified anything, but it should bring you guys close to understanding what I have under the hood. I know it's a completely different idea than tons of cubes, but makes the power nonetheless.
#17
01-31-2008, 01:47 PM
RE: Closest to HP numbers gets a prize!
ORIGINAL: esteinmaier
Well, there really isn't a comparable car. Mine's a unique build. But the turbo I'm using is a TD05-16G-10CM2. Flows enough for 400 as advertised.
Stock, most N/A cars at my altitude see around 92kpa of IM pressure at full throttle. I'll be making 270-275kpa of IM pressure. That's almost 3 times the air pressure as the car sees stock. It's a 132hp motor from the factory, or around 150 with stock internals, but all the bolt ons. Good tuning with a standlone can make that 160 without any internal engine work, but good design of aftermarket intake and exhaust. So let's say the most that this car could possibly make is 480 with that turbo, but that won't happen due to the inefficiencies of the turbo system. So cut at least 10% off of that for inefficiencies. So 430 would be a stretch, but theoretically possible. I know I won't be making that much, just simply because my turbo manifold design is less than ideal for top end hp, but better for quick spool. Now that's all under the assumption that the turbo still makes boost air instead of blowing hot air at 26psi. (Once the compressor spins fast enough to force the air to move faster than the speed of sound, it just makes hot air, which kills power)
I don't know if any of that clarified anything, but it should bring you guys close to understanding what I have under the hood. I know it's a completely different idea than tons of cubes, but makes the power nonetheless.
Well, there really isn't a comparable car. Mine's a unique build. But the turbo I'm using is a TD05-16G-10CM2. Flows enough for 400 as advertised.
Stock, most N/A cars at my altitude see around 92kpa of IM pressure at full throttle. I'll be making 270-275kpa of IM pressure. That's almost 3 times the air pressure as the car sees stock. It's a 132hp motor from the factory, or around 150 with stock internals, but all the bolt ons. Good tuning with a standlone can make that 160 without any internal engine work, but good design of aftermarket intake and exhaust. So let's say the most that this car could possibly make is 480 with that turbo, but that won't happen due to the inefficiencies of the turbo system. So cut at least 10% off of that for inefficiencies. So 430 would be a stretch, but theoretically possible. I know I won't be making that much, just simply because my turbo manifold design is less than ideal for top end hp, but better for quick spool. Now that's all under the assumption that the turbo still makes boost air instead of blowing hot air at 26psi. (Once the compressor spins fast enough to force the air to move faster than the speed of sound, it just makes hot air, which kills power)
I don't know if any of that clarified anything, but it should bring you guys close to understanding what I have under the hood. I know it's a completely different idea than tons of cubes, but makes the power nonetheless.
btw, 1.7 60' is awesome for a car like that. i havent heard of many fwd cars doing it.
#19
01-31-2008, 02:56 PM
RE: Closest to HP numbers gets a prize!
ORIGINAL: SpecterGT260
that sounds much more realistic, the 750 seemed kinda out there, it would take a completely new everything, ud basically be running a neon shell.
btw, 1.7 60' is awesome for a car like that. i havent heard of many fwd cars doing it.
ORIGINAL: esteinmaier
Well, there really isn't a comparable car. Mine's a unique build. But the turbo I'm using is a TD05-16G-10CM2. Flows enough for 400 as advertised.
Stock, most N/A cars at my altitude see around 92kpa of IM pressure at full throttle. I'll be making 270-275kpa of IM pressure. That's almost 3 times the air pressure as the car sees stock. It's a 132hp motor from the factory, or around 150 with stock internals, but all the bolt ons. Good tuning with a standlone can make that 160 without any internal engine work, but good design of aftermarket intake and exhaust. So let's say the most that this car could possibly make is 480 with that turbo, but that won't happen due to the inefficiencies of the turbo system. So cut at least 10% off of that for inefficiencies. So 430 would be a stretch, but theoretically possible. I know I won't be making that much, just simply because my turbo manifold design is less than ideal for top end hp, but better for quick spool. Now that's all under the assumption that the turbo still makes boost air instead of blowing hot air at 26psi. (Once the compressor spins fast enough to force the air to move faster than the speed of sound, it just makes hot air, which kills power)
I don't know if any of that clarified anything, but it should bring you guys close to understanding what I have under the hood. I know it's a completely different idea than tons of cubes, but makes the power nonetheless.
Well, there really isn't a comparable car. Mine's a unique build. But the turbo I'm using is a TD05-16G-10CM2. Flows enough for 400 as advertised.
Stock, most N/A cars at my altitude see around 92kpa of IM pressure at full throttle. I'll be making 270-275kpa of IM pressure. That's almost 3 times the air pressure as the car sees stock. It's a 132hp motor from the factory, or around 150 with stock internals, but all the bolt ons. Good tuning with a standlone can make that 160 without any internal engine work, but good design of aftermarket intake and exhaust. So let's say the most that this car could possibly make is 480 with that turbo, but that won't happen due to the inefficiencies of the turbo system. So cut at least 10% off of that for inefficiencies. So 430 would be a stretch, but theoretically possible. I know I won't be making that much, just simply because my turbo manifold design is less than ideal for top end hp, but better for quick spool. Now that's all under the assumption that the turbo still makes boost air instead of blowing hot air at 26psi. (Once the compressor spins fast enough to force the air to move faster than the speed of sound, it just makes hot air, which kills power)
I don't know if any of that clarified anything, but it should bring you guys close to understanding what I have under the hood. I know it's a completely different idea than tons of cubes, but makes the power nonetheless.
btw, 1.7 60' is awesome for a car like that. i havent heard of many fwd cars doing it.
Btw, I'll only be spinning the SOHC head to 7300 because it just plain doesn't flow enough to make power up top.
It's pretty good, but there's always better. I have a good friend that has run a 1.56 60'in a neon. I think that run resulted in a 9.2xx 1/4 mile. I can only imagine how scary that would be driving a car that fast with the power to the wrong axle.