Building a motor to support boost / 600 WHP
03-10-2018, 04:39 PM
#82
TECH Senior Member
03-10-2018, 08:16 PM
#85
10 Second Club
03-10-2018, 10:06 PM
#90
TECH Senior Member
03-10-2018, 10:32 PM
#91
Moderator
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: My own internal universe
Posts: 10,446
Received 1,838 Likes
on
1,146 Posts
Can I call it daylight savings if I'm using solar power to charge batteries??
03-11-2018, 10:46 AM
#92
TECH Senior Member
03-11-2018, 03:58 PM
#93
I hope I can help you learn something today. There is nobody using 93 and 12+ psi of boost on any stock LS engine (for long) for a reason. the number of Watts coming out of the engine is too high- even if it does not upset the fuel, the metal of the engine will over-expand. Some form of EGT restriction is needed. Making an engine richer than 11's, 10:1 9:1 7:1 is not a viable solution. We want the a/f near 14 if possible. it just isn't possible usually because it would upset the nature/reaction of the fuel. You are thinking from the fuel end, which is fine, but all fuels, and especially 93 octane, have cooling limitations. Water is better to add as low temp liquid when temps are above its boiling point because of the phase change potential. I could take an 11.8:1, add some water and potentially be near 13-14 again some applications. Depends on compression, and rate of compression, heat transfer properties of the materials surrounding the area.
03-11-2018, 04:24 PM
#96
And in this thread we learned:
- A stock LQ4 can easily handle 600 WHP with the proper tune and possibly gapping the rings.
- LS Motors that survive 42 PSI of boost are quite likely to go back to the future if launching from a dig with traction and hitting 88 MPH in 3 seconds or less.
- Time is relative.
03-12-2018, 10:06 AM
#98
I love this. Try to prove it. Nobody has, nobody can.
It doesn't count if the engine is just sitting. Mileage matters on 93 octane. You can buy a stock engine, turn it to 20psi or 30psi and make 1000 horsepower sure. But you can't get 100k miles out of it like that, all at WOT. OR even 50k or 30k. What I refer to in the passage you quote is a daily driver which spends the majority of time at WOT. There is a reason everybody suggest gapping the rings first. Stick 12psi down the throat of a stock 5.3L holding it at WOT long enough it will fly apart due to temperature related concerns under the right circumstances. I bet I could even cause it to happen with less boost.
How do I know I am right? Because:
1. I made no mention of intercooling. Perhaps my example is non-intercooled, in which case the outlet temp of the compressor starts out around 200*F and disaster is sure to ensue on 93.
2. I made no mention of heat transfer rate from the exhaust system, my example could be fully insulated, retaining all temperature and causing a meltdown, even at low power levels.
It helps me realize who on this forum is qualified for these discussions and who has trouble recognizing bait/engineers 'traps'.
A passage which is missing information on a test qualifies it's test taker similarly.
It doesn't count if the engine is just sitting. Mileage matters on 93 octane. You can buy a stock engine, turn it to 20psi or 30psi and make 1000 horsepower sure. But you can't get 100k miles out of it like that, all at WOT. OR even 50k or 30k. What I refer to in the passage you quote is a daily driver which spends the majority of time at WOT. There is a reason everybody suggest gapping the rings first. Stick 12psi down the throat of a stock 5.3L holding it at WOT long enough it will fly apart due to temperature related concerns under the right circumstances. I bet I could even cause it to happen with less boost.
How do I know I am right? Because:
1. I made no mention of intercooling. Perhaps my example is non-intercooled, in which case the outlet temp of the compressor starts out around 200*F and disaster is sure to ensue on 93.
2. I made no mention of heat transfer rate from the exhaust system, my example could be fully insulated, retaining all temperature and causing a meltdown, even at low power levels.
It helps me realize who on this forum is qualified for these discussions and who has trouble recognizing bait/engineers 'traps'.
A passage which is missing information on a test qualifies it's test taker similarly.
Last edited by kingtal0n; 03-12-2018 at 10:16 AM.
03-12-2018, 11:22 AM
#99
Much of what you argue is opinion anyway. What works for some may be just fine even if there are more efficient ways to do it. If you are confident in your knowledge, it's okay to "agree to disagree." Always getting the last word in is petty.