[sellout]

Yep sorry, it was 840 that has been verified on the 86. It took the hta37 to get 900. Check evom, there's dynos out there. AWD and Insanespeed seem to make them the most.

Further, the 2.4L, is that an evo x, or a LR 4g which can rev out well beyond what a stroker 4b11 can?
Can we take this into a new thread as well? I don't want to keep on OP's thread with this talk

The engine I was talking about is a long rod 4G that only gets revved to 8000. ~5250fpm piston speed. Of course he does have a better R/S ratio, but he's not really taking advantage of it with a redline of 8K.

You could take a 2.5L 4B to 8500 easily and if you can't max out an HTA86 with that, then there's something badly wrong with your setup.

 

[weebles]

The engine I was talking about is a long rod 4G that only gets revved to 8000. ~5250fps piston speed. Of course he does have a better R/S ratio, but he's not really taking advantage of it with a redline of 8K.

You could take a 2.5L 4B to 8500 easily and if you can't max out an HTA86 with that, then there's something badly wrong with your setup.

That car is an MR with an SST which is reluctant to accepting more power and RPMS.

The cars issue is not the turbo or displacement, simply the fact that SST's have not been figured out to the point where big builds are viable.

 

[chkmgnt59]

Cool, glad we're in a new thread

The car in question, the OP from the other thread, is running 93 pump gas, on an MR. In theory, a 2.5L 4b at 8500 should max an hta86. He isn't revving that high, he isn't on c16/corn, and he is using an MR, thus he has tq issues to keep in mind.

My argument all along over there, was that within the confines of what he has, the 2.5L engine + hta86 made no sense. He made a 'tq monster' motor, on a transmission which can't hold torque. And he limited his rev range, where keeping tq low as he needs to would require that he rev it out to make big power.

So my whole point was that car's decisions made no sense to me, as he built a car that limits itself greatly and never really gets to utilize it's strengths.


For a street car, a stroke/bore engine + big turbo could be quite fun, assuming a GSR tranny. I would think a stock frame would be more fun, as it'd spool better, make more tq, and such. For a track (road or drag), you want the revs, the table flat tq curve, etc - which a 2.5 + big turbo doesn't work for.

Could you make the power on a 2.5? Sure, but why? You don't build a stroker for drag or for racing. If you have a 2.5, you want a nice street car. Adding a big, laggy turbo to it doesn't make for a good street car IMO.

Hope that clarifies what I was saying over there.

 

[Murlo26]

In for fun

 

[on2it]

good work in creating a new thread for this. Add in the title of the thread what this is about though so ppl know what this is about.

 

[sellout]

Cool, glad we're in a new thread

The car in question, the OP from the other thread, is running 93 pump gas, on an MR. In theory, a 2.5L 4b at 8500 should max an hta86. He isn't revving that high, he isn't on c16/corn, and he is using an MR, thus he has tq issues to keep in mind.

My argument all along over there, was that within the confines of what he has, the 2.5L engine + hta86 made no sense. He made a 'tq monster' motor, on a transmission which can't hold torque. And he limited his rev range, where keeping tq low as he needs to would require that he rev it out to make big power.

So my whole point was that car's decisions made no sense to me, as he built a car that limits itself greatly and never really gets to utilize it's strengths.


For a street car, a stroke/bore engine + big turbo could be quite fun, assuming a GSR tranny. I would think a stock frame would be more fun, as it'd spool better, make more tq, and such. For a track (road or drag), you want the revs, the table flat tq curve, etc - which a 2.5 + big turbo doesn't work for.

Could you make the power on a 2.5? Sure, but why? You don't build a stroker for drag or for racing. If you have a 2.5, you want a nice street car. Adding a big, laggy turbo to it doesn't make for a good street car IMO.

Hope that clarifies what I was saying over there.

That's all fine and dandy, but it's got absolutely nothing to do with the statement you made that brought on this whole shitstorm:

On a 2.5L, there's just no point to a giant t3 turbo. Those turbos need rpms to make power, not displacement.

There is nothing in that statement about limiting torque because its an MR and nothing about limiting a "giant t3" to 93 pump. You made a ridiculous statement and I called you on it. You defended it, and now you're trying to make it true by adding all the specifics of the OPs car as if that was your intention with that statement the entire time.

You mentioned the 33RB and the 5857 as better matches because of the turbo being "able to peak" whatever that means, when neither of those turbos would be able to max out on pump 93, and both would also be limited by the fact that we're talking about an MR.

Just noticed this:

For a track (road or drag), you want the revs, the table flat tq curve, etc - which a 2.5 + big turbo doesn't work for.

Did I forget to mention that my friend's 2.4L just under 700whp HTA86 car actually is a track car?

 

[joey]

Sub'd

 

[3dman1]

Here is a sample of what some of the turbos in question do on a 2.3 setup. All done by 8000 rpm

2500 rpm, HTA86, 115/57
2500 rpm, HTA82, 125/62
2500 rpm, HTA76, 125/62

3000 rpm, HTA86, 133/76
3000 rpm, HTA82, 144/82
3000 rpm, HTA76, 153/87

3500 rpm, HTA86, 181/120
3500 rpm, HTA82, 207/138
3500 rpm, HTA76, 233/155

4000 rpm, HTA86, 281/214
4000 rpm, HTA82, 342/260
4000 rpm, HTA76, 414/315

4500 rpm, HTA86, 456/390
4500 rpm, HTA82, 482/410
4500 rpm, HTA76, 520/440

5000 rpm, HTA86, 540/510
5000 rpm, HTA82, 516/486
5000 rpm, HTA76, 529/499

5500 rpm, HTA86, 546/567
5500 rpm, HTA82, 513/532
5500 rpm, HTA76, 522/542

8000 rpm, HTA86, 458/679
8000 rpm, HTA82, 389/579
8000 rpm, HTA76, 378/563

As you can see there is not much point in reving a 3586 past 8500 rpm on 2.3. so i dont think it will get better on a 2.5.

 

[Murlo26]

The HTA86 is at 679 at 8000...I believe the torque is first then power otherwise those numbers don't make sense

So as far as I can tell power is still climbing.

 

[sellout]

Here is a sample of what some of the turbos in question do on a 2.3 setup. -snip- As you can see there is not much point in reving a 3586 past 8500 rpm on 2.3. so i dont think it will get better on a 2.5.

Not nearly enough info to make that kind of generalization. Displacement by itself has very little to do with the shape of a power band.

 

[blk-majik]

sorry i missed the earlier discussion, but is this an argument about the relationship between displacement and engine speed to spool time? aren't both of those variables just used to determine air mass? and isn't that really the only thing that matters when it comes to spooling any given turbine?

 

[Murlo26]

Just an FYI, I love displacement, wish I would've gone a 2.4L with a Manley stroker crank now, ultimate 9k revving 2.4L for the win

 

[chkmgnt59]

That's all fine and dandy, but it's got absolutely nothing to do with the statement you made that brought on this whole shitstorm:

There is nothing in that statement about limiting torque because its an MR and nothing about limiting a "giant t3" to 93 pump. You made a ridiculous statement and I called you on it. You defended it, and now you're trying to make it true by adding all the specifics of the OPs car as if that was your intention with that statement the entire time.

You mentioned the 33RB and the 5857 as better matches because of the turbo being "able to peak" whatever that means, when neither of those turbos would be able to max out on pump 93, and both would also be limited by the fact that we're talking about an MR.

Just noticed this:


Did I forget to mention that my friend's 2.4L just under 700whp HTA86 car actually is a track car?

We can agree to disagree about my intent. I made several comments which directly mentioned that we were talking about that specific car, if I didn't convey what I meant perfectly, that's my fault, but you do not know what I intended to mean. I made several posts "we're talking about THIS car" etc
that I thought made it clear I was referring to that specific car.

And your friend's car I'm sure is quite nice, the 2.4LR can rev pretty high.

 

[HappyMint]

There isn't enough of that der hootin and a hollarin in dis here thread we need moar of it! :dancebanana:

 

[razorlab]

Cool, glad we're in a new thread

The car in question, the OP from the other thread, is running 93 pump gas, on an MR. In theory, a 2.5L 4b at 8500 should max an hta86. He isn't revving that high, he isn't on c16/corn, and he is using an MR, thus he has tq issues to keep in mind.

My argument all along over there, was that within the confines of what he has, the 2.5L engine + hta86 made no sense. He made a 'tq monster' motor, on a transmission which can't hold torque. And he limited his rev range, where keeping tq low as he needs to would require that he rev it out to make big power.

So my whole point was that car's decisions made no sense to me, as he built a car that limits itself greatly and never really gets to utilize it's strengths.


For a street car, a stroke/bore engine + big turbo could be quite fun, assuming a GSR tranny. I would think a stock frame would be more fun, as it'd spool better, make more tq, and such. For a track (road or drag), you want the revs, the table flat tq curve, etc - which a 2.5 + big turbo doesn't work for.

Could you make the power on a 2.5? Sure, but why? You don't build a stroker for drag or for racing. If you have a 2.5, you want a nice street car. Adding a big, laggy turbo to it doesn't make for a good street car IMO.

Hope that clarifies what I was saying over there.

You don't even have half the facts right, how can it clarify anything?

 

[HappyMint]

You don't even have half the facts right, how can it clarify anything?

Oh there some of that hollarin!

 

[sellout]

And your friend's car I'm sure is quite nice, the 2.4LR can rev pretty high.

You missed the point. He doesn't rev it beyond 8k, because he doesn't need to.

For the record, Magnus recommends an 8500 rpm redline for that stroker kit.

 

[on2it]

You don't even have half the facts right, how can it clarify anything?

Bryan - mate you might have to clarify facts for all the readers so we know where each of the arguments are coming from.. right now I don't have all the facts to follow this discussion :/

Especially in regards to the below post.

Here is a sample of what some of the turbos in question do on a 2.3 setup. All done by 8000 rpm

2500 rpm, HTA86, 115/57
2500 rpm, HTA82, 125/62
2500 rpm, HTA76, 125/62

3000 rpm, HTA86, 133/76
3000 rpm, HTA82, 144/82
3000 rpm, HTA76, 153/87

3500 rpm, HTA86, 181/120
3500 rpm, HTA82, 207/138
3500 rpm, HTA76, 233/155

4000 rpm, HTA86, 281/214
4000 rpm, HTA82, 342/260
4000 rpm, HTA76, 414/315

4500 rpm, HTA86, 456/390
4500 rpm, HTA82, 482/410
4500 rpm, HTA76, 520/440

5000 rpm, HTA86, 540/510
5000 rpm, HTA82, 516/486
5000 rpm, HTA76, 529/499

5500 rpm, HTA86, 546/567
5500 rpm, HTA82, 513/532
5500 rpm, HTA76, 522/542

8000 rpm, HTA86, 458/679
8000 rpm, HTA82, 389/579
8000 rpm, HTA76, 378/563

As you can see there is not much point in reving a 3586 past 8500 rpm on 2.3. so i dont think it will get better on a 2.5.

 

[blk-majik]

wow... people really missing the point here. Back up and start with the basics

Air Mass = (Engine Displacement) * (Air Density) * (RPM/2)

IE, in a 2.0L Evo X at 4500 RPM using standard temperature and presure:
2.0L = 122 in^3
Air Mass = (122 in^3) * (0.00004671 lb(m)/in^3) * (4000 rpm) / 2
Air Mass = 11.39724 lb/min of air flow

Stop thinking of this in terms of air through an engine, and instead think of it as water through a pump. We're pumping 11.39 lb of water per min, and it's creating a stream.

Now imagine we put a water mill in that stream. How big of a mill? That's up to you. A bigger mill can power a bigger machine. The bigger the mill, the heaver it will be and the more water we'll need to run over it to get it to spin. With only 11.39lb/min of water to work with, if we put too big of a mill, it'll act like a dam and wont do us any good. If we end up needing a mill that requires more water flow than our pump is giving us, then we have a couple options. We can either run it at a higher speed (increase the RPM), or increase the volume of water it moves in each cycle (increase the displacement).

A turbo works the same way. Our engine is equal to the pump, the air pushed through the engine is equal to the water, and the turbo is equal to the mill. The difference is that the pump usually runs at the same speed, while our engine revs over a wide range of RPMs.

We have the same problem. A turbo that exceeds the air mass being pushed by the engine will act like a dam at low RPMs. To overcome that, you either have to wait until you're at a higher RPM, or increase the amount of air pumped per cycle by increasing the displacement of the engine.

Lets go back to the formula. The stock turbo is fully spooled by 2900 RPM. At 2900 RPM, we're pushing 8.27lb/min. That means that we need 8.27lb/min to spool this turbo.

An FP Black seems to hit full spool on a 2.0L at about 4400RPM. Going back to our forumla, this tells us that the Black requires 12.54lb/min to spool. So we're giving up 1500 RPM in spool-time to gain the higher output of the FP Black. This sucks.

We have a few ways to gain this back: Up the rev limit by 1500 RPM (duh), or increase the displacement so that we can hit 12.54lb/min at 4400RPM. Asking for another 1500RPM will take a lot of work and money and prayer... and you'll still be asking for trouble. So how much displacement would we need?

Engine Displacement = Air Mass / ( (Air Density) * (RPM/2) )
= 12.54lb/min / ( (0.00004671 lb(m)/in^3) * (2900 rpm) / 2 )
= 185.10 cubic inches
= 3.03L will spool a FP Black like the stock turbo

Welp... it's not possible to bore/stroke a 2.0L engine to get 3.0L. Just not enough space. How about splitting the difference? Boring and (especially) stroking the engine add rotational mass which is more dangerous at higher RPMs, so the builder will have to use top shelf stuff. We know we can get 2.5L pretty easily. Lets calculate the RPM at which we'd spool with 2.5L of displacement:

RPM = (2 * Air Mass) / ( (Engine Displacement) * (Air Density) )
= (2 * 12.54lb/min ) / (153 in^3 * 0.00004671 lb(m)/in^3)
= 3509 RPM for full spool

Now we're only giving up less than 600 RPM of spool
Raising the rev limiter 500 RPM isn't toooo horribly risky, so you can gain that back.

Well, thats an FP Black. How about a hta86? I cant find a lot of info on them, but AMS did post some dynos. No boost plots, but torque curves usually give a good indication of spool. Based on this, I'd say it spools around 5750RPM

So, how much air does it need to spool? Back to Air Mass = (Engine Displacement) * (Air Density) * (RPM/2). We need 16.38 lb/min.

So at 2.5L, at what RPM should we hit that?
RPM = (2 * Air Mass) / ( (Engine Displacement) * (Air Density) )
= 3790 RPM is about when an hta86 will spool on a 2.5L engine. So a 2.5L with a hta86 will lose a little under 900 RPMs. If you up the rev limit 500 RPM, then you're only losing a little under 400 RPM. Not bad.

Anyway, the bottom line is that putting a big turbo on a larger displacement engine is sorta the reason for going large displacement =/ Raising the rev limit can achieve the same thing, but it's a lot harder to pull off. Just look at formula 1 cars. They rev to 18,000 RPM and make 700-800 hp with a 2.4L v8 without any forced induction. How do they get that much power without boost from 2.4L? have you not been reading? By running it at 18,000 RPM! Do the math and see how much air they're flowing

 

[razorlab]

Bryan - mate you might have to clarify facts for all the readers so we know where each of the arguments are coming from.. right now I don't have all the facts to follow this discussion :/

Especially in regards to the below post.

I'm not going to comment on a 4th gear 5spd dyno chart from a non-square non-mivec 4G63 that is totally different then a square dual mivec 4B11 when this whole discussion was based on a 4B11 in 3rd gear, on a MR 6spd.