1000 HP 20B Street Car Project
#177
I suggest that you try it b4 you ban the inlet from your project.. Give it a shot.. you already bought it and you will loose lot's of cash for nothing.. at least try it!!
Originally Posted by Auto Illusions
I was under the impression that the intake was one of a kind.....
I have been mislead to believe that he was making the intake when it actually come from Hogans!
For this reason i will be selling the entire assembly in which i had full polished as you can see... I paid $3900 for the intake with the fuel rails and around $300 for full polish plus an additional $175 to port match the upper plenum to the lower intake manifold as well as the lower to the stock gasket.....
My loss but i will sell the complete Intake with fuel rails and full polish for $3500 and another $280 for the throttle body...
I talked with Hogans today and they are asking $3200 for the intake and another $200 for the fuel rails with about a 4-6 week wait.
I am now making my own from scratch, something i did not have the time to do before but am now willing to do in order to have a one of a kind custom intake....
I will post pics once it has been started....
I have been mislead to believe that he was making the intake when it actually come from Hogans!
For this reason i will be selling the entire assembly in which i had full polished as you can see... I paid $3900 for the intake with the fuel rails and around $300 for full polish plus an additional $175 to port match the upper plenum to the lower intake manifold as well as the lower to the stock gasket.....
My loss but i will sell the complete Intake with fuel rails and full polish for $3500 and another $280 for the throttle body...
I talked with Hogans today and they are asking $3200 for the intake and another $200 for the fuel rails with about a 4-6 week wait.
I am now making my own from scratch, something i did not have the time to do before but am now willing to do in order to have a one of a kind custom intake....
I will post pics once it has been started....
#178
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Moon Twp. Pennsylvania
Posts: 703
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Calling and calling about the turbo every day...........Innovative says they are waiting for some parts to finish the build.......I really want to get the new header built and get the turbo mounted up to see if i have enough clearance for a new mani....
The stock mani is so tight to the engine, that is the hardest thing to overcome when building a sheet metal intake.
The stock mani is so tight to the engine, that is the hardest thing to overcome when building a sheet metal intake.
#179
I'll blow it up real good
iTrader: (1)
Originally Posted by ZoDDy
I'm not an expert in flow tech, but i have picked up a few things at my work. I've been working with some windtunnel models in the aircraft industry air intakes and stuff.. I wonder if this inlet really is that good? Looks not that smooth like it should be? And i wonder how good it is to use one throttle body in the center?
maybe 2 or 3 smaller TB:s on differen't runners for better distribution between the rotor chambers? Does it have to be that fancy? Is it possible to mod the original inletmanifold or make a new one with larger runner or a better plenum?
maybe i'm totally wrong but i don't like what i see
I've done some testing with differen't inlets on 4 cylinder engines..
To mension one test i did was with a single weber carb placed in the center..
didn't work good at all.. and the engine started to drink lot's of fuel too
maybe 2 or 3 smaller TB:s on differen't runners for better distribution between the rotor chambers? Does it have to be that fancy? Is it possible to mod the original inletmanifold or make a new one with larger runner or a better plenum?
maybe i'm totally wrong but i don't like what i see
I've done some testing with differen't inlets on 4 cylinder engines..
To mension one test i did was with a single weber carb placed in the center..
didn't work good at all.. and the engine started to drink lot's of fuel too
I'm not bagging on you, but have any of you guys questioning these designs ever seen custum sheet aluminum manifolds before? This is a pretty typical way of designing them and if you think they are not efficient, let the NHRA pro stock teams know that because they use the same basic design principals and are always looking for a few extra hp. Maybe you found it for them.
Hogans and several other companies are about the best in the business and you can be sure they know what they're doing.
The topic about even distibution to all rotors being in question because of the centered tb placement sure does seem like it could be improved upon. But short of going with 2 or 3 seperate tb's, I don't know how they could do it. By doing that, you are substantially increasing the cost for what might be very little, if any gains at all. Sure would look cool though.
Auto Illusions, I didn't mean to burst your bubble by uploading that pic. Sorry about that. But just by comparing those two pics you can see plenty of differences between the two that make it pretty obvious that your design is not a copy of the Hogans manifold. You manifold is one of a kind most likely. Think about the design limitations they had to work with. I bet any place you go to will end up designing something similiar because of the limitations. You already have a nice, one of a kind manifold in your possesion.
On that note, if you really want something different, go with two or three tb's or even better, p-port the engine and you'll have your one of a kind setup, or at least one of three...
#180
working towards the goal
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Georgia
Posts: 402
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dave, that is the most simple and logical manifold for this engine I have seen thus far (minus the stock one). But I keep thinking about a problem that was mentioned earlier, too much or too little air into the chambers. I suppose there isn't a "perfect" design.
#181
NRX7HVN
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 597
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IMHO I think it's a shame you tore down a 19k miles CYM like that. You could have atleast got a higher mileage CYM for a "project car". Just my 2 cents.
The rest of the project is pretty awesome though.
The rest of the project is pretty awesome though.
#182
Super Snuggles
Originally Posted by mpfcc
IMHO I think it's a shame you tore down a 19k miles CYM like that. You could have atleast got a higher mileage CYM for a "project car". Just my 2 cents.
BTW, there's nothing wrong with that Hogan's intake manifold. They know far more about intake design than the arm chair Physicists on this forum.
#184
Super Snuggles
Originally Posted by ForceFed
We've been seeing pictures of your V8 for quite some time now. Any chance we'll see the car move under it's own power before the close of the century?
#187
Hogans they are probably very good at manifolds and what i've heard, Hogans do 99% piston engine manifolds becoz this is the biggest market.. Sounds logic too me.
Some of the tunnelram sheetmetal inlets looks really awsome and they probably perform that way too, but i don't think you can not compare the V8 inlet and the rotary one..
You dont have to be a physicist to wonder why the majority of the car manufacturer use round and smooth inlet runners? They spending billions of bucks to improve things all the time. Highperformance sports car, Aircrafts Formula1 you name it.. IMO it's not a coincidence . And look at the original LS1 intakemanifold.. I'm pretty sure that GM know what they doing. Everything is not directly good becoz it's shiny Even if all the Harley owners seems to belive that
Some of the tunnelram sheetmetal inlets looks really awsome and they probably perform that way too, but i don't think you can not compare the V8 inlet and the rotary one..
You dont have to be a physicist to wonder why the majority of the car manufacturer use round and smooth inlet runners? They spending billions of bucks to improve things all the time. Highperformance sports car, Aircrafts Formula1 you name it.. IMO it's not a coincidence . And look at the original LS1 intakemanifold.. I'm pretty sure that GM know what they doing. Everything is not directly good becoz it's shiny Even if all the Harley owners seems to belive that
Originally Posted by jimlab
It's his car, isn't it?
BTW, there's nothing wrong with that Hogan's intake manifold. They know far more about intake design than the arm chair Physicists on this forum.
BTW, there's nothing wrong with that Hogan's intake manifold. They know far more about intake design than the arm chair Physicists on this forum.
#188
Super Snuggles
Originally Posted by ZoDDy
Some of the tunnelram sheetmetal inlets looks really awsome and they probably perform that way too, but i don't think you can not compare the V8 inlet and the rotary one.
You dont have to be a physicist to wonder why the majority of the car manufacturer use round and smooth inlet runners? They spending billions of bucks to improve things all the time. Highperformance sports car, Aircrafts Formula1 you name it.. IMO it's not a coincidence.
And look at the original LS1 intakemanifold.. I'm pretty sure that GM know what they doing.
#189
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Moon Twp. Pennsylvania
Posts: 703
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Could we start an intake thread?
I just don't want to get off the subject and lose any ones interest that is following this thread!
Thanks.
I just don't want to get off the subject and lose any ones interest that is following this thread!
Thanks.
#190
Newbie
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
uhm, as for turbos, if you want stuff to support over 1000hp, easily, then i have a few reccomendations. For single turbos, my only reccomendations would be the Trust T88 series (the T88-34D can only support 900 i think), the T88H-34D can support 950 or 1000, and the new T88H-38GK (sp?) can reportedly support around 1100hp, which is damn crazy.
As for twins, well, there sure is a shitload of options. You got your HKS 3240's (in twin they support around 1200hp, 600hp each), HKS 3040, HKS 3037 and 3037S. Then your Veilside/HKS 3540's (not sure on the estimate, but GTR-700 uses them, and that car is currently running at over 1 megawhatt of power [1300hp] from a stroked RB26-DETT [stroked to 2.7L], more info at www.exvitermini.com), so as you can tell they support a shitload, and cost it too. Then there's your trust T67's (in twin), TD06's (in twin). And they basically are your big players in the japanese turbo scene. BTW HKS are better engineered versions of Garret, and trust is Greddy.
You could always opt for your local ones, providing they do the trick and are up to scratch. I just prefer the japanese makes because they are of high quality and get the job done right.
As for twins, well, there sure is a shitload of options. You got your HKS 3240's (in twin they support around 1200hp, 600hp each), HKS 3040, HKS 3037 and 3037S. Then your Veilside/HKS 3540's (not sure on the estimate, but GTR-700 uses them, and that car is currently running at over 1 megawhatt of power [1300hp] from a stroked RB26-DETT [stroked to 2.7L], more info at www.exvitermini.com), so as you can tell they support a shitload, and cost it too. Then there's your trust T67's (in twin), TD06's (in twin). And they basically are your big players in the japanese turbo scene. BTW HKS are better engineered versions of Garret, and trust is Greddy.
You could always opt for your local ones, providing they do the trick and are up to scratch. I just prefer the japanese makes because they are of high quality and get the job done right.
#191
Super Snuggles
Originally Posted by Auto Illusions
Could we start an intake thread?
I just don't want to get off the subject and lose any ones interest that is following this thread!
I just don't want to get off the subject and lose any ones interest that is following this thread!
#192
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Moon Twp. Pennsylvania
Posts: 703
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by jimlab
I thought the subject at the moment was your intake.
I am sure you understand my statement if you have read back a few pages...
#193
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Moon Twp. Pennsylvania
Posts: 703
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have already chosen my turbo although i do appreciate your opinion.. It seems as though you are knowelegable on this subject and if my turbo setup does not work, i will be reconsidering..
Any way, i am going with the Innovative GTB series with an 88 compressor wheel and 132 exhaust AR.
It is a plenty big turbo, if only it will spin!
Any way, i am going with the Innovative GTB series with an 88 compressor wheel and 132 exhaust AR.
It is a plenty big turbo, if only it will spin!
#194
Hey, where did my $$$ go?
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Bimingham, AL
Posts: 4,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You wont have to worry about it spinning on a 20B, they have awesome exhaust velocity and can turn the hell out of a turbo. I dont think that turbo is going to make the power your wanting though if your looking for 1000RWhp. It'll get close if its using a Garrett T88 wheel but I think your going to fall short of your goal.
Your going to need to flow about 135lbs/min of air (about 1900cfm) to make 1000rwhp. I'm sure Innovative has a compressor map for that turbo, call them and see if it'll flow 135lbs/min. If its using a Garrett T88 compressor wheel I think its MAX its 125lbs/min of flow which should put you right about 900-950rwhp if you totally max the turbo. I'd get a turbo that can flow around 150lbs/min just to leave yourself some margin for error.
Stephen
Your going to need to flow about 135lbs/min of air (about 1900cfm) to make 1000rwhp. I'm sure Innovative has a compressor map for that turbo, call them and see if it'll flow 135lbs/min. If its using a Garrett T88 compressor wheel I think its MAX its 125lbs/min of flow which should put you right about 900-950rwhp if you totally max the turbo. I'd get a turbo that can flow around 150lbs/min just to leave yourself some margin for error.
Stephen
Last edited by SPOautos; 09-15-04 at 10:31 AM.
#195
Super Snuggles
I know it's a little late in the game, but I'd find a way to use two turbos if you don't want a power curve that looks like a 25-foot tall haystack and starts at 5,000 rpm.
Making the power you want with a single turbo means sacrificing your low end. Since you stated that this isn't meant to be a purpose-built drag car, I think you're going to be highly disappointed in its street manners. First, because of the lack of power in the rpm range seen in typical street driving, and second, because the power is going to come on violently over a very short rpm range once you do get the turbo spooled and get into the powerband.
Experience and history has shown that cars like this (Red-Rx7's ~600 RWHP 20B car is a good example) have a hell of a time with traction on street tires. When you push for maximum power out of a small displacement engine, it's going to have undesirable characteristics for street driving both when on and off boost. Unfortunately, you can't have your cake and eat it too, unless you start with a lot more cubic inches to fill in the low end.
I'm very interested to see how your project turns out, as I'm sure we all are, so please don't incorrectly interpret my comments as criticism of your project. It was not my intention be facetious or argumentative. I really am trying to help.
Making the power you want with a single turbo means sacrificing your low end. Since you stated that this isn't meant to be a purpose-built drag car, I think you're going to be highly disappointed in its street manners. First, because of the lack of power in the rpm range seen in typical street driving, and second, because the power is going to come on violently over a very short rpm range once you do get the turbo spooled and get into the powerband.
Experience and history has shown that cars like this (Red-Rx7's ~600 RWHP 20B car is a good example) have a hell of a time with traction on street tires. When you push for maximum power out of a small displacement engine, it's going to have undesirable characteristics for street driving both when on and off boost. Unfortunately, you can't have your cake and eat it too, unless you start with a lot more cubic inches to fill in the low end.
I'm very interested to see how your project turns out, as I'm sure we all are, so please don't incorrectly interpret my comments as criticism of your project. It was not my intention be facetious or argumentative. I really am trying to help.
#196
Administrative Me
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Kansas
Posts: 1,370
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jim-
My curve is drastic, but not like the 5k pikes peek climb, typically seen on Supras or people shooting for the 1k mark.
I was able to build full boost by 2800 rpms, which is very streetable. But, as with any car with large horsepower numbers (yours included), traction is nill with full accelleration. Street tires will not plant in my powerband, and do not see how a change in what I have now (for the better, without loosing power) could be any different.
As of right now, in 1500 RPM's I go from 300 rwhp to 630 rwhp. Yet, while in 500 rpms, I go from 300 rwhp to 500 rwhp. The turbo was actually too small for my engines airflow on the upper end of the rpm range. The power setup was very early in the powerband, which was great. By 4500 RPMs (could have been earlier, but the particular dyno was started late in the RPM band), I had 500rwhp.
My "large" horsepower gains were from 4000 - 5000 RPM range; not like the other crap starting at 5,000 working on up. I wish I was able to dyno the car in 4th gear by starting at a low RPM and working up, which would give a better picture in view of rwhp to rpm levels. Just looking at the numbers, the dyno really started at 3750 rpm. At 3750 rpm, it made 195 rwhp on the initial mash of the throttle. Yet, 250 rpms later, it was already at 300 rwhp. Therefore, I believe if the dyno would have started at 2000 rpm, it would have been told more info than mashing on it when Acosta did.
I no longer have that turbo setup. The ball-bearings burned themselves out in less than 1800 miles, all highway driven. In researching why this failure occured, it became obvious that the engine airflow was too much at peek (6000 rpm). Ideally, you would want a turbo to support a 70% or higher efficiency at peek. Yet, I was at the 20-25% efficency area at peek, meaning that 75% of the energy the turbo was making was only heating up the air.
I have now gone to a T76 compressor, and am very interested in the potenial differences. Here are the two compressor maps with a line drawn through, demonstrating where the turbo was operating:
OLD MAP
NEW MAP
My curve is drastic, but not like the 5k pikes peek climb, typically seen on Supras or people shooting for the 1k mark.
I was able to build full boost by 2800 rpms, which is very streetable. But, as with any car with large horsepower numbers (yours included), traction is nill with full accelleration. Street tires will not plant in my powerband, and do not see how a change in what I have now (for the better, without loosing power) could be any different.
As of right now, in 1500 RPM's I go from 300 rwhp to 630 rwhp. Yet, while in 500 rpms, I go from 300 rwhp to 500 rwhp. The turbo was actually too small for my engines airflow on the upper end of the rpm range. The power setup was very early in the powerband, which was great. By 4500 RPMs (could have been earlier, but the particular dyno was started late in the RPM band), I had 500rwhp.
My "large" horsepower gains were from 4000 - 5000 RPM range; not like the other crap starting at 5,000 working on up. I wish I was able to dyno the car in 4th gear by starting at a low RPM and working up, which would give a better picture in view of rwhp to rpm levels. Just looking at the numbers, the dyno really started at 3750 rpm. At 3750 rpm, it made 195 rwhp on the initial mash of the throttle. Yet, 250 rpms later, it was already at 300 rwhp. Therefore, I believe if the dyno would have started at 2000 rpm, it would have been told more info than mashing on it when Acosta did.
I no longer have that turbo setup. The ball-bearings burned themselves out in less than 1800 miles, all highway driven. In researching why this failure occured, it became obvious that the engine airflow was too much at peek (6000 rpm). Ideally, you would want a turbo to support a 70% or higher efficiency at peek. Yet, I was at the 20-25% efficency area at peek, meaning that 75% of the energy the turbo was making was only heating up the air.
I have now gone to a T76 compressor, and am very interested in the potenial differences. Here are the two compressor maps with a line drawn through, demonstrating where the turbo was operating:
OLD MAP
NEW MAP
#197
Administrative Me
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Kansas
Posts: 1,370
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jim, one thing I have learned, was foot control. The car is amazing at 25% throttle, where traction is easily held. Combined with the power & torque, 25% throttle rolling into 50% throttle handles most anything out on the road I have came across for comparisons.
#198
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Moon Twp. Pennsylvania
Posts: 703
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I had considered the twin setup and may reconsider again if the car is not driveable with the single turbo setup....
I am counting on the fact that a rotary engine has a very violent exhaust gas like SPOautos said and that a 3-rotor will have 1.5 times the exhast output as the 13B..
I have driven a 13B with both a t-78 and t-88 on the street and neither seemed to be undriveable or to laggy....
Because of my experiences with large turbo 2-rotors, the extra torque and added exhast gases a 20B can provide, i chose to try the large single turbo setup....
Any way, my turbo should be here any day now and i will start building yet another exhaust header! FUN FUN FUN
SPOautos, i am told that the GTB88 will provide 1850CFM with no problem and my goal is to get 1000 HP but not particularly to the rear wheels however that would be nice! I was also told that compressor maps are not something they normally hand out...i believe because of the costs involved in the testing..
I am counting on the fact that a rotary engine has a very violent exhaust gas like SPOautos said and that a 3-rotor will have 1.5 times the exhast output as the 13B..
I have driven a 13B with both a t-78 and t-88 on the street and neither seemed to be undriveable or to laggy....
Because of my experiences with large turbo 2-rotors, the extra torque and added exhast gases a 20B can provide, i chose to try the large single turbo setup....
Any way, my turbo should be here any day now and i will start building yet another exhaust header! FUN FUN FUN
SPOautos, i am told that the GTB88 will provide 1850CFM with no problem and my goal is to get 1000 HP but not particularly to the rear wheels however that would be nice! I was also told that compressor maps are not something they normally hand out...i believe because of the costs involved in the testing..
#199
Super Snuggles
Originally Posted by Red-Rx7
My curve is drastic, but not like the 5k pikes peek climb, typically seen on Supras or people shooting for the 1k mark.
But, as with any car with large horsepower numbers (yours included), traction is nill with full accelleration. Street tires will not plant in my powerband, and do not see how a change in what I have now (for the better, without loosing power) could be any different.
Jim, one thing I have learned, was foot control. The car is amazing at 25% throttle, where traction is easily held. Combined with the power & torque, 25% throttle rolling into 50% throttle handles most anything out on the road I have came across for comparisons.
Originally Posted by Auto Illusions
I have driven a 13B with both a t-78 and t-88 on the street and neither seemed to be undriveable or to laggy....
#200
Administrative Me
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Kansas
Posts: 1,370
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by jimlab
What are you using for engine management that safely allows partial throttle acceleration under boost? Tuning is typically done at WOT, so how does your engine management system compensate for partial throttle driving?
The tuning still needs further refinement, but was done with a few hours of street driving. This would entail various boost level mapping. Basically, tuning while I drive at various throttle positions for fine tuning. The ECU does mathmatical formulas to handle the various areas of increasing boost through the map (ie 2.5 psi, it calculates the injector pulses, etc), but where most of the street tuning was involved was in coming from vacuum pressure to a specifc positive manifold pressure.
We did many different ways, trying to map large vacuum pressure areas (higher rpm, then let of the throttle), to various blips from specific points. The datalogging of the software also made it much easier to see where the adjustments were needed.