Wye is increasing power with a turbo much saffer than any other type of tunning!!! Take a stock 1zz add 15 psi of boost and you more than boubble the power but only increase the loading by around 8%!! Useing 1000 more rpm N/A on the other hand would increase loading by 36 % plus the turbo rout is compressive load but N/A load increase is tensile stress!! And would only yeld 30 ish hp!! How's this possible I here you ask!! Well if anyone is intrested I'll do a quick wright up !!!
I think it's awesome that you are willing to contribute to the community, But please use proper writing!
Yer sorry about that but I do most posts on my I phone and it does some stupid predictive stuff and my spelling isn't great anyway Lol, how ever I have been in the performance and diagnostic business for a long time and am quite happy to help fellow members with anything I can!!! But if my spelling offends people then there's not a lot I can do about that!!! Sorry !!!
Quote from: "snap3"I think it's awesome that you are willing to contribute to the community, But please use proper writing!
+1
If I can barely decipher your comments how can someone whose whose first language is not English?
As for the logic? s:scared: :scared: s:scared:
why the negative comments, someone offers info and all you can do is slag them off.
Not sure where this thread might end but I find it quite offensive when people start commenting on things like spelling. It's a car forum and if you don't understand the post then ignore it. Branson is dyslexic but he managed to make a couple of quid.
I'd have a word with Nathan about getting something in the affiliates section.
Thanks guys, appreciate support s:) :) s:) as for the !! Logic !! If you truly understand how the internall combustion engine makes power then you wouldn't be questioning the !! Logic !! That I'm explaining about!! And as for not being able to disifer my post! We'll is it really that bad? I think not, anyway if there's anyone out there who can disifer my terrible English Lol and wants to know the reall attributes of making power with forced induction then let me know!!
I completely agree with turbo man (comparing values in relative) in what concerns the connecting rod load N/A vs Turbo! That is completely true s:wink: :wink: s:wink:
Nevertheless, turbo brings more heat and the piston, rings and valves are quite sensitive if not designed properly in order to evacuate the heat (valves for instance).
Even though you use an excellent air cooler, and you dont go crazy with ignition advance, the heat will be there...
Without speaking about the 1ZZ lubrication, with 300 mbar (4.35 PSI) oil pressure when idling which goes even lower after pushing the engine a bit harder. Knowing that the oil is going through the turbo, it is heated even more and its viscosity is going down...
All that to say that boosting an engine is a relevant solution (as a turbo enthusiast I will not say the opposite), although 15psi with OEM internals, without touching anything, would be as reliable as the F1 engines in 1984.
Just to say that with 200Ft.lb an 1ZZ engine will be just below 20 bar of BMEP (stock : ~12), and that cannot be without any consequence. And to get 200Ft.lb you do not need to push as hard as 15PSI...
could it be because you have a financial interest in it being better?
l viewtopic.php?f=7&t=47659 (http://mr2roc.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=47659) l
I said something wrong?
Quote from: "Micha"I said something wrong?
No micha your post was fine.
Mark was just pointing out he is developing a turbo kit he wishes to sell.
We'll put micha, and yes dead right heat is a two edged sword, but heat can be managed and 10 psi is a good pressure to run on stock internals, and markiii as far as it only being better cos I have a financial interest in it is some wot amusing! Cos the kit I'm developing at the moment would be roughly at cost cos I would like the feed back and it's a good way of finding wot does and does not work!!! And N/A tunning is far more expensive with very little gains!! Anyway only opens this thread to help people understand a bit more and hopefully learn a thing or to on the way, cos we all can learn from others regardless of back ground and past experance!! You never know I may even learn to spell s:lol: :lol: s:lol:
personnally i would have the title about all performance science. Regardless of money gain. For us all to know more about the physics so we all have more of an ability of making our own tuning.
With regards to the math in all cases the colder the air, the denser it is so more air is able to get into the stroke of the piston. Be interesting to see what gain an NA would get from a charge cooler added on.
That's something I mite try richard, and then add water meth kit cos both are quite cheap and easy mods!! And I know my bike feels a lot more responsive on a cold morning than it does warm afternoon!!!
[MOD] Ok gents, if we could just get one or two things out in the open here;
1. You must use proper English on the forum, "cos" etc is not proper English, we have members in foreign countries whos first language is not English.
2. Commercial interest is a question that is valid but maybe we will get more from the conversation if we stick to comparing NA tuning to turbo tuning, i.e. if you take a standard engine to 8000rpm then you are likely to get some valve bounce and considering the standard cams run out of steam before the oem redline then there seems little point trying to go higher.
3. If this thread is judged again to be heading in promoting commercial gain, it will be removed.
[/MOD]
Here's a little bit of fact that's not so obvious at first, the reason an engine that's boosted makes loads more torque and doesn't put loads more stress on the components is as follows ! Take the peak cylinder pressure on an N/A engine with standard comp and it's about 9300 ish psi if you add 1 bar of boost that peak only rises to 10700 psi so the increase is only about 8% but the power output is doubled and the reason Is that the burn lasts much longer into the stroke, tuners allways aim for peak cylinder pressure at about 14-18 degree atdc at witch piont the piston is stationary!! That force then pushes the piston down but the angle of crank is not giving good leaverage! Then the piston starts to accelerate very quick down the bore and the pressure decreases very rapidly to the piont were at 90 deg witch is best angle for torque the pressure has droper to less than 2500 psi so not much torque then!! Now same engine with boost has only 1400 ish more peak pressure about 8% but as piston accelerates down the bore the burn lasts much longer and the pressure stays just under peak all the way past 90deg were best leaverage is occurring !! Hope that makes sense to you all s:crazyeyes: :crazyeyes: s:crazyeyes:
When you compare maximal cylinder pressure, you do not say if the engine is at knock limit or iso-ignition advance (higher octan number)...
Just to compare comparable.
The fact that the higher engine speed puts lot more stress in the connecting rod (extension) than the boost (compression). And to make what you says useful, it means that the connecting rod choice is different whether it is for N/A high rev engine or for turbo application.
The same for bearings... some high speed NA engines have different material for upper and lower shell, and boosting this kind of engine is a bit more tricky in a mechanical sense...
Same fuel and tuned for best "safe" power!! Wouldn't tune to close to detonation limit because to many variables and always best to play safe, so for comparison all is equal !!
My thought was about parameters which have strong influence on cylinder pressure, and ignition advance is the n°1.
So I cannot agree with you on that particular point but I will not insiste.
My question about ignition advance was to say you have the same engine, the same ignition advance and you use higher octan number to reach the same advance without knock.
As I said I will not insist.
This topic could be very interesting with experience comparison, test reports... but if it is just about repeating what is written in many books about boost...
I can see were your going with the pressure vs timing but regardless of comp ratio,and timing peak cylinder pressure can only go do high before you get detonation, if you lower the comp from say 10-1 were you can run 18 deg at 10 psi to 8.5-1 you can run about 8 or 10 deg more timing at same boost but peak cylinder pressure will be almost the same!! Or you can run 8.5-1 and 20 psi but would need less timing to stop detonation but would have slightly higher cylinder peak and much more pressure at 90 deg atdc because burn would be much longer!! And as far as seeing real world tests and not getting any info from wots been done for many years ( ie ) books on boost an such, would be pointless because a lot of the hard work has already been done, but this post is for people who don't build engines or do own turbo conversions to help them understand how it works!!
Just like to clear up this commercial promoting accusation have I at any piont offered any type of service for commercial gain! No I have not, am I trying to help fellow members of this club with the very complex task of gaining power and enjoy there car's that bit more then yes! But I thought that's wot car clubs are about? Just because I'm in the motor trade doesn't mean I have to be a commercial enterprise to offer "free" advice and I have at no time given my company name or number to anyone, so not quite sure we're the problem is!! However if I'm braking any rules I apologise and won't comment on subject anymore!!
450-hp turbo man just sounds to me like an enthusiast who happens to do for a living what he enjoys.
I might be subconsciously jealous of that but I appreciate your input to the forums & your ideas, bro.
Interesting reading s:) :) s:)
s:D :D s:D No problem mate, glad you enjoy!! And yes your right I do for a living the same thing I enjoy as an enthusiast, well one of many Lol, boys and there toys ha, well if I don't get a slap on the rist or a ban then I'll just carrey on s:D :D s:D
I'm lost already. Which is making me want to know more!!
I wish I made the decision to make this stuff my profession years ago..
I'd love a beginners guide to tuning s:) :) s:) or rather, beginners guide to engine mechanics with the necessary dose of thermodynamics and the likes.
One fair comment; spelling is indeed awful but I can understand what you're saying. So all in all, thumbs up to this thread from me.
Haha yep spelling is awful, But hay thats me! to be onist a few years back I would have never come on a site like this because Iv always been embarrassed s:oops: :oops: s:oops: about my inability to spell! but from the age of about 8 or so all I ever wanted to do was learn how to take things apart ie engines Lol and make them work again, but after a few years of repairing and rebuilding standard stuff then commercial's I got in with some guys who raced hot rods and that was it hooked on making as much power as possible, so as much as my parents tried to get me to do well at school they failed miserably ! as you can tell ! but now Im a bit well a lot older I think hey you are wot you are so here I am just indulging in wot I love s:D :D s:D s:D :D s:D
I know there are different views on this but, for me, it's nothing to do with spelling or grammer ( s:lol: :lol: s:lol: ).
It's about communication.
My German is not bad but if you ask me to write it it's a grammatical disaster BUT I can be understood in print.
The best sales person I came across actually couldn't read or write.
Some of the best English grammar I've come across on here was actually posted by a German.
There are quite a few posters on here whose spelling and grammar is not A+ but so what? That's not the point of a car forum.
On my campervan forum most of the members are probably in their 60's and I can assure you that the overall standard is much worse than on here.
Everybody chill s:mrgreen: :mrgreen: s:mrgreen:
This is going off topic a bit, but to clarify, the reason we have rules on the way posts are written, is because we have many members and readers who's first language is not English and they want to understand as well. The odd mis spelling is not the problem, it is the use of contractions like 'cos' and lazy text speak that are the real issue. This was explained by Nic , a few posts above.
more air + more fuel = bigger explosion
reliability will almost certainly suffer when the forces involved are applied to components, whether part of the engine or elsewhere in the drive train or bits that make you stop. if you accept that then fill yer boots, nothing wrong with experimenting with tunning but you dont get something for nothing.
I take your point but don't totally agree.
I had a stage one remap on my Saab which increased the torque by a massive 33% and the BHP by 40%. I should have done it the other way 'round because I then had to sort the suspension and brakes.
I've had the car like that for around 12 years and it's over 100k with no issues whatsoever. I still get torque steer if I'm too foot happy at the lights.
Only reason I keep is it's not worth selling.
I guess some engines can take the modifications and others can't.
In what concerns turbo vs NA connecting rod load, turbo man is 100% right. And as conrods are the weak part on the 1ZZ it is relevant to underline that advantage.
Quote from: "mrzwei"I take your point but don't totally agree.
I had a stage one remap on my Saab which increased the torque by a massive 33% and the BHP by 40%. I should have done it the other way 'round because I then had to sort the suspension and brakes.
I've had the car like that for around 12 years and it's over 100k with no issues whatsoever. I still get torque steer if I'm too foot happy at the lights.
Only reason I keep is it's not worth selling.
I guess some engines can take the modifications and others can't.
thats a single anecdote, its like saying that peter o'toole smoked heavily, drank like a fish and lived to 85. therefore neither of those things are harmful. take 1000 sabb engines, do the same mod and compare to 1000 un modified engines. if they both retain the same reliability and both require the same maintenance regime then i stand corrected.
Quote from: "chimpman"more air + more fuel = bigger explosion
reliability will almost certainly suffer when the forces involved are applied to components, whether part of the engine or elsewhere in the drive train or bits that make you stop. if you accept that then fill your boots, nothing wrong with experimenting with tunning but you dont get something for nothing.
At least my example is real life evidence.
You just make an unsupported statement with no evidence whatsoever.
From posts on here the clutch would seem to be the weakest link when going turbo. I can't recall any posts about people blowing engines but that's not to say that they don't exist. You would need to do some research. Anyway, we,re off to Germany s:bounce: :bounce: s:bounce:
No, remaps on turbocharged petrol and diesel cars are different situations to modifying cars like the Roadster which were designed as NA. When manufacturers design their maps for a mass produced turbo car, they dial things back a little to allow for poor fuel, extreme conditions in some markets, poor servicing and unsympathetic driving. Most aftermarket remaps liberate that redundant performance, with a fair amount of ease and the gains are significant. The resulting uprated vehicle can be quite reliable, but may not be entirely without the odd issue. Bear in mind though, that all the internal components would likely be over designed from the factory anyway.
The 1zz engine does not have those components over designed in the same way, so it is more of a minefield, but experience has shown some areas more vulnerable than others, once the output figures start to climb. Conrods are a particular area, as Micha has pointed out, as is the chocolate gearbox.
Its not all bad though, when you think that these components don't actually hold up too badly at outputs close to double their original intended amounts. Above that level and historical feedback shows you will be into replacing failed items regularly, unless stronger components are used.
I can with some certainty say that, as loadswine says, turbo'd cars can quite reliably be pushed to far more power for an extended period of time with little to no negative effects. Sure the engine life is reduced a couple years in the end, and they need a few more services, but all in all I can point out hundreds who have done this reliably (I'm one of them).
As for NA engines, diving back into the 90s and early 2000s, I remember quite a few people blowing their engines or causing expensive damage after doing cam mods, NOS, turbo kits with insufficient cooling, turbo kits with too much boost, turbo kits on crappy engines. Everything including Hondas, Toyotas, Renaults, Opel/Vauxhalls.
So it does seem to be a case of having to strengthen internals and gearbox on NA engines.
So as Nic has suggested many times; unless you're prepared to spend big bucks and do it properly, focus on handling mods s:) :) s:)
The simple answer I think is if you don't know all that much about this subject then only increase power by 60 ish % that way with regular servicing and a good conversion you should stay as reliable as standard!! But if you have the know how and the facility's to experiment then 200-300 or even 400 % increase is possible. I'm still running my first setup on 12 psi and doing some experimenting with fuel at the moment! And on pump gas I get 250 hp and 218 lb reliably, on 105 gas I get 316 hp and 268 lb of torque, all with same boost, however the timing is much more aggressive with 105, and it's all possible because with boosted cold charge you get a much much longer burn!! I'm building a new engine at the moment, 1zz all forged and that will be running with 1.5 bar of boost and should produce about 450 hp and hopefully high 300's in torque, but will it be fit and forget? Of course not it will need a very good maintenance program to keep it healthy !! But with that sort of power in such a light package it won't be stressed for as long as my 250 hp motor because at 250 hp I'm on full throttle a lot longer than with 450 hp!! So as with lots of things in life it's not always as strait forward as it seames!!
Quote from: "mrzwei"Quote from: "chimpman"more air + more fuel = bigger explosion
reliability will almost certainly suffer when the forces involved are applied to components, whether part of the engine or elsewhere in the drive train or bits that make you stop. if you accept that then fill your boots, nothing wrong with experimenting with tunning but you dont get something for nothing.
At least my example is real life evidence.
You just make an unsupported statement with no evidence whatsoever.
From posts on here the clutch would seem to be the weakest link when going turbo. I can't recall any posts about people blowing engines but that's not to say that they don't exist. You would need to do some research. Anyway, we,re off to Germany s:bounce: :bounce: s:bounce:
It's a single data point, interesting but inconclusive. Higher forces (and we're not talking a couple of hp) will cause more stress which if the components are close to the limit will have an effect - and not a good one. Like I say, good luck, it's interesting to mod cars but please don't claim that it will usually have zero effect on reliability.
Well all I can say to that is if your the type who likes to keep everything 99% reliable ( because nothing even standard cars are not 100% reliable) then turbo mod's are not for you!! In which case this tread really is not aimed at those types, this thread is aimed at people who want lots more performance for relatively little out lay, but as You say you don't get nothing for nothing, but I'm sure people into modding all ready no and except that fact!!