Displacement formuals
Displacement formuals I know there is no replacement for displacement... except boost. Is there a mathmatical formula out there to calculate the "displacement" of a boosted motor related to its displacement (cubes or CCs) and the #s of boost?
TECH Resident
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 845
Likes: 0
From: K-W, Ontario
Try this:
http://www.motorsportsdigest.com/tech/forced2.htm
http://www.turbofast.com.au/tfcalc.html
Thousands more links out there.
I guess it's not a one step calculation. You'd have to figure out what the
engine is ingesting at a certain elevation, and what the VE of the engine is
naturally aspirated. Maybe some sort of correction factor as well.
From that data, every atmoshpere theoretically doubles the effective displacement.
Just keep in mind that math is as good as the data you start with, as it's only
going to get you in the ball park.
http://www.motorsportsdigest.com/tech/forced2.htm
http://www.turbofast.com.au/tfcalc.html
Thousands more links out there.
I guess it's not a one step calculation. You'd have to figure out what the
engine is ingesting at a certain elevation, and what the VE of the engine is
naturally aspirated. Maybe some sort of correction factor as well.
From that data, every atmoshpere theoretically doubles the effective displacement.
Just keep in mind that math is as good as the data you start with, as it's only
going to get you in the ball park.
Last edited by Adrenaline_Z; Nov 10, 2005 at 11:04 PM.
TECH Resident
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 845
Likes: 0
From: K-W, Ontario
Here's another good article from Hot Rod Magazine. A few references to
math in this write up as well.
http://www.hotrod.com/techarticles/e...bo/index2.html
Damn, that turbo calculator was only off by EIGHT HP when mathing up the
variables on the compressor charts.
math in this write up as well.
http://www.hotrod.com/techarticles/e...bo/index2.html
Damn, that turbo calculator was only off by EIGHT HP when mathing up the
variables on the compressor charts.
Last edited by Adrenaline_Z; Nov 11, 2005 at 06:57 AM.
I don't have anything in front of me but you can do rough calculations.
BUT, that is it. Just rough, ballpark figures. You have to account for a bunch of variables that can change too easily due to atmospheric conditions to accuratly predict it. Just like in an NA application. NA is easier due to less complexity, but even those charts are plain rough also.
I'm basically explaining What Ben meant by No.
BUT, that is it. Just rough, ballpark figures. You have to account for a bunch of variables that can change too easily due to atmospheric conditions to accuratly predict it. Just like in an NA application. NA is easier due to less complexity, but even those charts are plain rough also.
I'm basically explaining What Ben meant by No.
Trending Topics
TECH Resident
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 845
Likes: 0
From: K-W, Ontario
I think all formulas are meant to be used as a guideline.
Does that mean we need to get rid of all formulas because they are not exact?
Even calculating DCR is subjective. As long nobody is pointing a dyno at
your head and wanting exact figures, most of these formulas can help you
select parts, and setup budgets for your engine builds.
I don't think anyone can dispute that boosting a 350 cube motor by 15 PSI
will get you an effective displacement of about 700 cubes. That's basing the math
on 100 efficiency.
Garbage in = Garbage out
Does that mean we need to get rid of all formulas because they are not exact?
Even calculating DCR is subjective. As long nobody is pointing a dyno at
your head and wanting exact figures, most of these formulas can help you
select parts, and setup budgets for your engine builds.
I don't think anyone can dispute that boosting a 350 cube motor by 15 PSI
will get you an effective displacement of about 700 cubes. That's basing the math
on 100 efficiency.
Garbage in = Garbage out
Last edited by Adrenaline_Z; Nov 11, 2005 at 05:55 PM.
LS1 Tech Stories
The Best V8 Stories One Small Block at Time
Top 10 Greatest Cadillac V Series Performance Models Ever, Ranked
Pouria Savadkouei
Top 10 Most Powerful Chevy Trucks Ever Made!
Hennessey's New Supercharged Silverado ZR2 Has 700 HP
Verdad Gallardo
Coachbuilt N2A Anteros Is an LS2-Powered C6 Corvette In Italian Clothes
Verdad Gallardo
Awesome K5 Blazer Restomod Comes With C7 Corvette Power
Verdad Gallardo
10 Camaros You Should Never Buy
10 LS Engine Myths That Refuse to Die
Verdad Gallardo
Five Reasons the Camaro Was the Most Pivotal Player in the Pony Car Wars 2.0
Brett Foote
10 Reasons the LS7 Is GM's Most Extreme Naturally Aspirated V8 Engine Ever
Verdad Gallardo
TECH Enthusiast
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 540
Likes: 0
It depends where you measure boost at. Every component in the intake track has a pressure drop.
For example(theoretical):
Engine #1
Stock 346, ls1 intake, etc...
Place a FI unit and measure boost. You get 9lbs
Engine #2
346, FASTintake, ported heads.
Place SAME FI unit and measure boost. You get 6lbs
What happened? Engine 2 is making more power on 6lbs?!!?!? Its all volumetric efficiency (VE) as stated above. The FI unit does not have to compress the air as much, less heat generated, FI unit in more efficent range, more flow = more power!
So in essence, measure the mass airflow not the #. In all reality PSI doesnt mean crap. The only thing PSI matters for is the efficiency range the FI unit is operating in. Mass flow is what you are concerned with for power
For example(theoretical):
Engine #1
Stock 346, ls1 intake, etc...
Place a FI unit and measure boost. You get 9lbs
Engine #2
346, FASTintake, ported heads.
Place SAME FI unit and measure boost. You get 6lbs
What happened? Engine 2 is making more power on 6lbs?!!?!? Its all volumetric efficiency (VE) as stated above. The FI unit does not have to compress the air as much, less heat generated, FI unit in more efficent range, more flow = more power!
So in essence, measure the mass airflow not the #. In all reality PSI doesnt mean crap. The only thing PSI matters for is the efficiency range the FI unit is operating in. Mass flow is what you are concerned with for power
yeah im familar with 9 psi on x motor not being the same as 9psi on y motor, its just a measure of the manifold pressure. just wondering if i could get an idea what the theoretical displacement on a motor is. 4 cyl guys brag about how much more power they make on less cubes, but becuase of FI they have the same efficency as a larger N/A motor
TECH Enthusiast
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 540
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by Moldmaker
If you are after a barometer of engine efficiency then study up on BMEP (brake mean effective pressure).
You can find more with a search than I could possibly post here.
Good luck.
You can find more with a search than I could possibly post here.
Good luck.
Generally, an optimized small FI engine will have a much greater BSFC than a larger displacement NA engine.
For example Eatons SuperTurbo program (Now called VW Twincharger) has much greater BSFC than a larger NA engine of equal power.
Teching In
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
From: arlington
No, I was actually looking for BMEP. IMO, BMEP is the better yardstick for comparing efficiency -an engine's ability to turn an a/f mixture into hp- than comparing fuel consumption per bhp. I'd compare based on peak output, tq/cid at peak power if you will.
Trying to determine some theoretical displacement for a turbo/supercharged engine IMO isn't worth the hassle. Not with so many variables in the mix. I'd rather calculate the means to the end, ie. manifold absolute pressure required to meet X horsepower target.
Trying to determine some theoretical displacement for a turbo/supercharged engine IMO isn't worth the hassle. Not with so many variables in the mix. I'd rather calculate the means to the end, ie. manifold absolute pressure required to meet X horsepower target.
TECH Enthusiast
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 540
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by Moldmaker
No, I was actually looking for BMEP. IMO, BMEP is the better yardstick for comparing efficiency -an engine's ability to turn an a/f mixture into hp- than comparing fuel consumption per bhp. I'd compare based on peak output, tq/cid at peak power if you will.
Trying to determine some theoretical displacement for a turbo/supercharged engine IMO isn't worth the hassle. Not with so many variables in the mix. I'd rather calculate the means to the end, ie. manifold absolute pressure required to meet X horsepower target.
Trying to determine some theoretical displacement for a turbo/supercharged engine IMO isn't worth the hassle. Not with so many variables in the mix. I'd rather calculate the means to the end, ie. manifold absolute pressure required to meet X horsepower target.
I'll agree to your statement interms of comparing engines, however, in terms of turning fuel into hp, BSFC is the direct relation... however, as you stated, there are far to many variables to determine "comparitive displacements"
TECH Fanatic
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,979
Likes: 3
From: Upstate NY
Originally Posted by Moldmaker
No, I was actually looking for BMEP. IMO, BMEP is the better yardstick for comparing efficiency -an engine's ability to turn an a/f mixture into hp- than comparing fuel consumption per bhp. I'd compare based on peak output, tq/cid at peak power if you will.
2003 BMW F1 engine numbers from BMW indicated max rpm of 19200 with an extimated power peak of 18000 and 900+ hp. Using 900, and 18000 I got 1.44 lb-ft/in^3 or about 5% better than a Cup engine. It amazes me that the Cup guys can get that kind of efficiency from 2 valve flat tappet pushrod gasoline endurance engines. If you don't make the power to get to the front, BSFC isn't going to win you many races.
Teching In
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
From: arlington
Thanks Old SStroker,
I'm glad I'm not the only one who looks at BMEP as a barometer of engine development. In all honesty, I never thought much of the matter until reading a paper by Yashio Nakamura -Honda R&D- some years ago on the subject of high performance engine development. I find myself calculating BMEP often now.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who looks at BMEP as a barometer of engine development. In all honesty, I never thought much of the matter until reading a paper by Yashio Nakamura -Honda R&D- some years ago on the subject of high performance engine development. I find myself calculating BMEP often now.
TECH Enthusiast
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 555
Likes: 0
From: Blairsville, GA
Originally Posted by Cop Car
I know there is no replacement for displacement... except boost. Is there a mathmatical formula out there to calculate the "displacement" of a boosted motor related to its displacement (cubes or CCs) and the #s of boost?
There's really too many variables to come up with a feasible, relatively easy formula. You'd have to consider things like ACTUAL head flow, measured boost pressure, volumetric efficiency, blah-blah blahh.
Let's talk big Mopar motors, for example. Stock 440 Magnum pushed 375hp. I've got a Mopar 440 pushing mid-500s hp. A friend of mine also has a Mopar 440, same displacement(including overbore, stroke, etc.), pushing over 1500 hp in a Pro Street drag car. We haven't even talked about a boosted 440 yet, either. My guess is it'd be scary fun, though.
TECH Fanatic
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 1,979
Likes: 3
From: Upstate NY
Originally Posted by Old SStroker
...BSFC isn't going to win you many races.
Originally Posted by DanO
I dont think anyone said it was....
Originally Posted by DanO
..in terms of turning fuel into hp, BSFC is the direct relation....