Loxxrider's 200 20v Revver: See you on "The Project Pad"

[123quattro]

It looks like 1400 CFM at 11k RPM is what I need to be able to achieve.

So you are shooting for 1000chp? What about something like a Borg Warner S480? They are pretty cheap and can make that power.

[WOMBAT]

I'd like to see that sheet and indulge my geek side

[my2000apb]

hta 3794 900+whp capable

[Hank]

You look at any turbo and it is going to make fantastic power for about 4000 RPM worth of powerband tops. Older turbos even worse. Choosing power goals is basically just shifting where that powerband will occur, given the rest of the motor/head is up to the flow goals.


k24 fool boost by 2800, drops off at 6000
rs2, full boost by 3400, drops off at 6500
3071r full boost by 3700 drops off at 7000
3076 full boost by 3900 drops off at 7500
HTA3582r on my stroker, full boost by 3800, starts to drop off at 8000

I think an HTA3794r would make 900whp, but it would have a power band from 5000-9000. Not a bad powerband, but it would sortof waste the top end he is building the motor for. Really to rev to 11000, you need a turbo that is going to make power up there to justify going up there. Probably something in the 4202 range where you have full boost by 5800 and keep pulling to 10,000 and have an extra 1000 rpm to work with past the peaks.

[my2000apb]

hmmm good point hank, i see the 3794 as about the biggest, big useable pwoerband on hydro lifters, kind of turbo

mmm gtx4202 would be a real screamer up there

[loxxrider]

I guess I'm just kinda shooting for the most power it can make with boost onset around 5-6k leaving a 5k *usable* (probably 4k of actual high power like Hank said) powerband.

Tim, I was considering that, but had concerns like Hank. The Pro52 is basically the smallest I can consider. I need to compare it's comp map to that of a 42r.

Casey, I guess the best way is to e-mail the excel file because I can't attach it here easily. Let me know if you see anything wrong, but I think it is an OK first order approximation for use with a compressor map.

[loxxrider]

Honestly, the GTX4202 and Pro52 compressor maps are really similar. At this point, I'm just concerned with what the hotsides can flow.

Attachment ( 34342 ) : compressor_pro52.jpg


Attachment ( 34343 ) : gtx4202r_comp.JPG

[loxxrider]

**edit, graph changed since apparently Holset didn't use lb/min for this one :/ **

What do you guys think of this? Looks like the Pro52 would be a better turbo around 30 psi. For 40 psi, it seems that the GTX4202 would be a better fit. **HOWEVER** they market the Pro52 as being 5.0 PR-capable and tested up to 74 psi and their public comp maps don't have efficiency islands, so it could be in a more efficient spot than the GTX4202.

This is all based on quite a lot of assumptions, but I was excited and wanted to try doing this. The spoolup I used was based on what I actually saw when driving with my HX52 which netted about 25 psi by 5500 RPM while brake boosting (4th gear approximation without going to jail ).

Attachment ( 34377 ) : Theoretical turbos for 200 20v.PNG

[WOMBAT]

caseyo.hara20 at g mail 8)

[Justin517]

what do you plan on doing with the car? a cruiser that you bring to the strip?

I know these gigantic turbos don't make 0 psi up until the boost on-set... but I feel like I would absolutely hate driving a car with a sub-2.5L engine that doesn't really boost until 5000+rpm.

Unless you are building something that just gives you dyno chart bragging rights, I feel like an engine that has a nice 3500 or 4000-9000 rpm power band and peaks at say 900hp would be much more fun and usable in 90% of situations than an engine that has a 5000 or 6000-11000rpm and peaks at 1000-1100hp. But that might just be me.

[ChrisAudi80]

an engine that has a 5000 or 6000-11000rpm and peaks at 1000-1100hp.

This is what he wants.

[death 4kqt]

what do you plan on doing with the car? a cruiser that you bring to the strip?

I know these gigantic turbos don't make 0 psi up until the boost on-set... but I feel like I would absolutely hate driving a car with a sub-2.5L engine that doesn't really boost until 5000+rpm.

Unless you are building something that just gives you dyno chart bragging rights, I feel like an engine that has a nice 3500 or 4000-9000 rpm power band and peaks at say 900hp would be much more fun and usable in 90% of situations than an engine that has a 5000 or 6000-11000rpm and peaks at 1000-1100hp. But that might just be me.

he does have an m5 for daily driver duty. I think chris is trying to build an all out monster, sacrifices have to be made if that is what you want to do.

[123quattro]

GT4202 vs my GT3082.

On a 6.6L V8 the 4202 is spooling at ~2000. On a 2.2L I'm guessing it would come up around 6000-6500 rpm.

[glibobbo21]

Man i love vband coldsides. I wish the hx40 was...

[123quattro]

Thing that sucks about that is it's Garrett specific. I think it was something stupid like 3.3"? So, another $40 for the mating flange.

[Justin517]

death 4kqt wrote:[/quote]

what do you plan on doing with the car? a cruiser that you bring to the strip?

I know these gigantic turbos don't make 0 psi up until the boost on-set... but I feel like I would absolutely hate driving a car with a sub-2.5L engine that doesn't really boost until 5000+rpm.

Unless you are building something that just gives you dyno chart bragging rights, I feel like an engine that has a nice 3500 or 4000-9000 rpm power band and peaks at say 900hp would be much more fun and usable in 90% of situations than an engine that has a 5000 or 6000-11000rpm and peaks at 1000-1100hp. But that might just be me.

he does have an m5 for daily driver duty. I think chris is trying to build an all out monster, sacrifices have to be made if that is what you want to do.[/quote]

I understand that... but having another 1500-2000 rpm of lag for an additional 100-200hp doesn't seem worth it.

As far as having an M5 for a daily... stock M5s make under 325whp and about 300 wtq... whether we are comparing it to a 200 that makes 800whp or 1100whp... it wont make a difference, there is no comparison.

I'm just thinking that area under the curve is quite possibly better on a tiny engine with a huge turbo making 800 vs one with a gigantic turbo making 1100hp. I've driven a DSM that was making 650+hp and it was an on/off switch.... boring boring boring then BOOM... crap your pants fast for a half second then you hit redline and have to shift.

I understand what he is doing... I'm just more or less playing devils advocate.

[123quattro]

Retarded fast highway cars are pretty popular in Florida. No matter which of those turbos he picks I think power will come on like a switch. I do commend him for spinning to 11k rpm. That's going to sound spectacular!

[Hank]

I'll play the angel on the other shoulder.

Have you every driven a 600cc sports bike? How come those things don't get crap for being relatively dead until 12,000 and rev to 17500? I tell you, if you drive one for an extended period, you just learn without thinking that you keep the revs right at 12,000 for optimal fun!

Same way with bigger turbos.

I have a relatively "laggy" turbo on my 2.6L with the 3582r. That "nothing, nothing, nothing" is still faster than chipped URQs, stock 20vt URQs, urS, or even a 225hp TT. I have done pulls in top gear with a taller 01e transmission than any of these cars, and they still can't pull me from 50-100 roll on at 2000 rpm in top gear. Why? It is still a very flow happy engine. Any positive pressure is appreciated. I may only make 3 psi at 2000 rpm, but is still more power(airflow) than a 20vt with a k26 at 10psi. But who drives like that regularly in a hot rod? Why not just shift up 3 gears to 3rd where you are at 5000 rpm and on boil?

Nobody loves lag, but I have never had anybody ride(not drive) in my car and complain about it being laggy. Just gotta learn how to drive the thing! I have had the comment of lag when people drive the car, but that is just because they don't have the experience to ride out the powerband.

[quattroman]

Have you every driven a 600cc sports bike? How come those things don't get crap for being relatively dead until 12,000 and rev to 17500? I tell you, if you drive one for an extended period, you just learn without thinking that you keep the revs right at 12,000 for optimal fun!

** Is it advisable to bury the tach on a 600? Redline is fine, 3k in to red? no power there anyway.

cheers

[Hank]

R6's factory limiter is at 17500. I buried mine daily for a year and a half and a better part of 15000 miles. Loved it.



Power did drop off up there, but "no power up there" is a little bit of a stretch. Still far more than 10,000 rpm.

[death 4kqt]

R6's factory limiter is at 17500. I buried mine daily for a year and a half and a better part of 15000 miles. Loved it.



Power did drop off up there, but "no power up there" is a little bit of a stretch. Still far more than 10,000 rpm.

ever watch stunters with those things, they live on the rev limiter. No issue. Revs are like crack when riding a 600.

[123quattro]

Totally unrelated, but Yamaha has been overinflating their tach output for years. They spin about 1500rpm lower than what the tach reads. 16,000 rpm is still badass though.

http://www.superbikeplanet.com/2006/Feb/060214d1.htm

My ZX-6RR is quite gutless to 8000rpm. It's fast if you wind it out, but it draws a lot of attention. Some day I'll be looking to replace it with an Aprilia or Ducati 1L twin. I think one of those would suit my style better.

[loxxrider]

There are a number of reasons for doing what I'm doing. For one, the mechanical engineer in me really likes all the design that went into (and the shiny of) the parts that are needed to achieve the RPMs I want to shoot for. Two, high RPM sounds AWESOME. Three, I like to push the limit a bit and do something different from what most others do (why build another stroker?). Four, I already have an NA, very responsive car to drive and I like the contrast with the way power comes on in a heavily-turbocharged application.

Yes, I'd probably be very satisfied with 750-800 whp, but at this point, why not shoot for the stars? It doesn't cost any (much?) more money to make 1000 whp than it does to make 750 whp. You still kinda need (or at least want) things like bigger studs, mains + girdle, and more for both builds. The only thing that is going to happen is that the powerband is going to shift up... it isn't going to get narrower. In order for me to meet my RPM goals, the turbo has to be able to flow up top, so it has to be bigger. The result of that is a power-band in the higher RPMs, but NOT a narrower power band. Also, the power in the "NA" portion of my RPM range isn't so terrible (remember, I already tested the car out to 25 psi on the HX52). It is still responsive... sorta like a stock 7a. I imagine it will only get better with the CNC port job, slightly increased displacement, and mild compression reduction (from 9.3:1 to 9.0:1 in this case). Also, like Hank said, even at 5-15 psi, this thing is flowing a lot and is not exactly slow. When the power does come on, it comes on HARD which is very fun.

Transient response isn't so good obviously, but the goal isn't to build an ultra-responsive track car. I guess it is just to make the most power possible and be able to put it down on the street.

John, I've already tested the HX52 to spool to 25 psi by 5500 RPM. It is basically the same size as a 4202, so I would expect spool to be very similar. I think 6-6500 is a fair bet for a full 40 psi as I alluded to in my flow map thing on page 163.

[my2000apb]

mmmmm 40+psi

[Hank]

Yeah john, I had heard that on the yamaha. I guess my argument is that who cares what the tach says, just run it where it makes power.

I love the 636 I rode for a while. Super nice bike. I like revs so the 600cc bikes are awesome to me. I prefer them to liter or twin.