Building a motor to support boost / 600 WHP
03-08-2018, 12:13 PM
#61
its called a build for a reason. Remember where the guy said things happen in phases and I said it describes my build exactly?
No you probably dont read what I write just like I dont read urs.
Well sorry but its time to make you look arrogant now.
I said 11.8 and you scoffed at that. So then I said 10's and you scoffed at that too. The only thing between 10 and 11.8 is 11.7-11.0. And since 11.7 is very close to 11.8 surely you don't think that it makes a difference being .1 lower. that leaves 11.0 to 11.6 as ur suggested range. I'm going to naturally choose the farthest thing from 11.8 that isn't 10's, 11.0 to 11.2, as your laughable a/f that is going to make all the difference from my suggested 11.8 (which I only mentioned as a minimum for fuel conservation purposes to which you also laughed and said you do not spend that much time at WOT to need to worry about it.)
Two things come to mind next.
1. if you came to me and wanted to make 600rwhp using an oem 6.0 with un-gapped piston rings and also you claim "the tune is everything" and suggested 11.0 as an A/F ratio. I would say let me look at some numbers first.
366x6200/3456 = 656cfm * .069 = 450 corrected bhp
but then engine is stock, so
450 * .78 = 351bhp
minus drivetrain loss through an 4l80e,
351 * .82 = 287rwhp stock, is this about right for a stock 6.0 4l80e?
research: wiki thinks I am in the ballpark, which is all that matters atm:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LS_bas...l-block_engine
Assuming those are bhp numbers, my estimate was actually high which will help make it look a bit "safer" on paper when we add boost.
So now, boost. Double it with about 18psi of boost 287 * 2 = 570rwhp.
Looks like it needs close to 20psi to achieve 600whp this way. So, no, I wouldn't call it safe on 93 octane, the tune isn't "everything", common sense has to play a role somewhere and tell us when to stop with the unnecessary risk. Maybe 1 pass on the dyno for fun, but not racing around a hot track like that. Motor needs a cam to bring boost down, next mod. And if racing around a road course water is worth its weight in gold. Many racing bodies do not allow injections of any kind when they provide the fuel.
2. you really got upset over 11.2 vs 11.8 so there is a problem dude. Im not making fun of you, it just seems like you get upset over certain numbers, specifically 3 and 8 and sometimes 5. You hate 3psi for some reason and pretend like 7 or 10 is going to make it "a real turbo motor" lol. And you hate 11.8 even though the number on the gauge is skewed by sensor position, temperature, and manufacturing tolerances, and variations between cylinders. A totally different number exists for each individual cylinder that has nothing to do with what is on the gauge besides it played a role in 1/8 (.125 of what you see) of the averaged display, which will often read differently than the one on the dyno at the tailpipe anyways! And yet still you pretend the number .5 on your gauge (wherever it is, whoever makes it, whatever cylinders it averages, whatever temperature it is, ) is going to make some kind of difference in the tune to "make safe an engine at high enough boost levels to more than double the output from suffering thermal expansion related catastrophic failure". Anybody with an engineering background can see ur full of **** over this and just want to argue.
this makes pandas sad, mate
No you probably dont read what I write just like I dont read urs.
Well sorry but its time to make you look arrogant now.
I said 11.8 and you scoffed at that. So then I said 10's and you scoffed at that too. The only thing between 10 and 11.8 is 11.7-11.0. And since 11.7 is very close to 11.8 surely you don't think that it makes a difference being .1 lower. that leaves 11.0 to 11.6 as ur suggested range. I'm going to naturally choose the farthest thing from 11.8 that isn't 10's, 11.0 to 11.2, as your laughable a/f that is going to make all the difference from my suggested 11.8 (which I only mentioned as a minimum for fuel conservation purposes to which you also laughed and said you do not spend that much time at WOT to need to worry about it.)
Two things come to mind next.
1. if you came to me and wanted to make 600rwhp using an oem 6.0 with un-gapped piston rings and also you claim "the tune is everything" and suggested 11.0 as an A/F ratio. I would say let me look at some numbers first.
366x6200/3456 = 656cfm * .069 = 450 corrected bhp
but then engine is stock, so
450 * .78 = 351bhp
minus drivetrain loss through an 4l80e,
351 * .82 = 287rwhp stock, is this about right for a stock 6.0 4l80e?
research: wiki thinks I am in the ballpark, which is all that matters atm:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LS_bas...l-block_engine
Assuming those are bhp numbers, my estimate was actually high which will help make it look a bit "safer" on paper when we add boost.
So now, boost. Double it with about 18psi of boost 287 * 2 = 570rwhp.
Looks like it needs close to 20psi to achieve 600whp this way. So, no, I wouldn't call it safe on 93 octane, the tune isn't "everything", common sense has to play a role somewhere and tell us when to stop with the unnecessary risk. Maybe 1 pass on the dyno for fun, but not racing around a hot track like that. Motor needs a cam to bring boost down, next mod. And if racing around a road course water is worth its weight in gold. Many racing bodies do not allow injections of any kind when they provide the fuel.
2. you really got upset over 11.2 vs 11.8 so there is a problem dude. Im not making fun of you, it just seems like you get upset over certain numbers, specifically 3 and 8 and sometimes 5. You hate 3psi for some reason and pretend like 7 or 10 is going to make it "a real turbo motor" lol. And you hate 11.8 even though the number on the gauge is skewed by sensor position, temperature, and manufacturing tolerances, and variations between cylinders. A totally different number exists for each individual cylinder that has nothing to do with what is on the gauge besides it played a role in 1/8 (.125 of what you see) of the averaged display, which will often read differently than the one on the dyno at the tailpipe anyways! And yet still you pretend the number .5 on your gauge (wherever it is, whoever makes it, whatever cylinders it averages, whatever temperature it is, ) is going to make some kind of difference in the tune to "make safe an engine at high enough boost levels to more than double the output from suffering thermal expansion related catastrophic failure". Anybody with an engineering background can see ur full of **** over this and just want to argue.
this makes pandas sad, mate
03-08-2018, 12:23 PM
#63
03-08-2018, 07:52 PM
#66
Ill do my engine next
I have this 5.3:
The 2000-2003 engines made 285 hp (213 kW) and 325 lb·ft (441 N·m).
-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LS_based_GM_small-block_engine
330x5800/3456 = 553cfm * 0.069 = 38.2lb/min
but its stock, so,
38.2 * .78 = 298.0bhp
298bhp * .85 (15% drivetrain loss) = 253rwhp
I have no doubt this is what it would make right now with 3psi of boost @ 5500 to 5800rpm, that is, around 250rwhp.
--->
Lets see what it does around 18psi: 253 * 2 = 500rwhp
Now lets put a camshaft in the engine:
330x5800/3456 = 592.01cfm * 0.069 = 40.8lb/min
but its got a cam now, so,
40.8 * .95 = 387bhp
387bhp * .85 (15% drivetrain loss) = 329rwhp
--->
now try 18psi of boost: (329 * 2) = 658rwhp
Somebody random tries 16.5psi and: 577rwhp dynojet
https://www.theturboforums.com/threa...ck-5-3.333892/
So a cam is worth between 80 to 150 horsepower, depending on redline, at this output.
Looks like I am giving the cam more credit on the stock head than it deserves. the 4.8 Estimate I did above was probably also slightly higher than it is in reality. Still, a good, how you say, benchmark for what to expect.
--->
Just for fun lets see the stock engine again at 12psi:
330x5800/3456 = 553cfm * 0.069 = 38.2lb/min
but its stock, so,
38.2 * .78 = 298.0bhp
298bhp * .85 (15% drivetrain loss) = 253rwhp
253 * 1.827 = 462rwhp
because mine is going through 4l80e and stock truck manifolds I should be closer to 420rwhp as exhaust gas pressure takes a small chunk.
We can do this all day to get benchmarks. All I do is take given provided factory output numbers then match them to what my CFM equation and air weight is mathematically deriving. Then by comparing with real work dyno charts (I am too lazy, but you can...) it allows us to dial in the model to get closer to reality. If we needed to, say, plan a build. plan for how fast air is going to be moving through what size pipe. plan for how much fuel volume per time you will need. stuff like that.
I have this 5.3:
The 2000-2003 engines made 285 hp (213 kW) and 325 lb·ft (441 N·m).
-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LS_based_GM_small-block_engine
330x5800/3456 = 553cfm * 0.069 = 38.2lb/min
but its stock, so,
38.2 * .78 = 298.0bhp
298bhp * .85 (15% drivetrain loss) = 253rwhp
I have no doubt this is what it would make right now with 3psi of boost @ 5500 to 5800rpm, that is, around 250rwhp.
--->
Lets see what it does around 18psi: 253 * 2 = 500rwhp
Now lets put a camshaft in the engine:
330x5800/3456 = 592.01cfm * 0.069 = 40.8lb/min
but its got a cam now, so,
40.8 * .95 = 387bhp
387bhp * .85 (15% drivetrain loss) = 329rwhp
--->
now try 18psi of boost: (329 * 2) = 658rwhp
Somebody random tries 16.5psi and: 577rwhp dynojet
https://www.theturboforums.com/threa...ck-5-3.333892/
So a cam is worth between 80 to 150 horsepower, depending on redline, at this output.
Looks like I am giving the cam more credit on the stock head than it deserves. the 4.8 Estimate I did above was probably also slightly higher than it is in reality. Still, a good, how you say, benchmark for what to expect.
--->
Just for fun lets see the stock engine again at 12psi:
330x5800/3456 = 553cfm * 0.069 = 38.2lb/min
but its stock, so,
38.2 * .78 = 298.0bhp
298bhp * .85 (15% drivetrain loss) = 253rwhp
253 * 1.827 = 462rwhp
because mine is going through 4l80e and stock truck manifolds I should be closer to 420rwhp as exhaust gas pressure takes a small chunk.
We can do this all day to get benchmarks. All I do is take given provided factory output numbers then match them to what my CFM equation and air weight is mathematically deriving. Then by comparing with real work dyno charts (I am too lazy, but you can...) it allows us to dial in the model to get closer to reality. If we needed to, say, plan a build. plan for how fast air is going to be moving through what size pipe. plan for how much fuel volume per time you will need. stuff like that.
03-08-2018, 10:09 PM
#69
well, it was an interesting debate atleast but I am pretty convinced at this point that a stock LQ4 with a good tune should be able to handle it after reading through some threads and searching. Pretty amazing what those Iron blocks are capable of.
03-10-2018, 11:25 AM
#73
We have some tolerant moderators on this forum for sure. Do a search using his user name and you will soon see he does this on other forums as well. This seems to be a common reply.
kingtal0n - "you're taking segments of posts and choosing to take them out of context to make an argument against what he's posted"
That and he'll start an argument then try to take the discussion in a different direction that has nothing to do with the topic at hand lol
kingtal0n - "you're taking segments of posts and choosing to take them out of context to make an argument against what he's posted"
That and he'll start an argument then try to take the discussion in a different direction that has nothing to do with the topic at hand lol
03-10-2018, 12:19 PM
#74
We have some tolerant moderators on this forum for sure. Do a search using his user name and you will soon see he does this on other forums as well. This seems to be a common reply.
kingtal0n - "you're taking segments of posts and choosing to take them out of context to make an argument against what he's posted"
That and he'll start an argument then try to take the discussion in a different direction that has nothing to do with the topic at hand lol
kingtal0n - "you're taking segments of posts and choosing to take them out of context to make an argument against what he's posted"
That and he'll start an argument then try to take the discussion in a different direction that has nothing to do with the topic at hand lol
03-10-2018, 12:22 PM
#76
TECH Senior Member
