Horsepower vs Boost Pressure comparison for Greddy based turbos
07-20-2010, 07:29 PM
#1
Horsepower vs Boost Pressure comparison for Greddy based turbos
Thought this might be interesting to Greddy / Greddy upgrade owners to see what sort of power they can expect to make at various boost levels .
These dynos were all of the same car on the same dyno with more or less the same turbo setup .
Note that boost is not constant for any of the runs so this needs to be looked at in conjunction with the whp result .
These dynos were all of the same car on the same dyno with more or less the same turbo setup .
Note that boost is not constant for any of the runs so this needs to be looked at in conjunction with the whp result .
Last edited by Brettus; 07-28-2010 at 04:06 PM.
07-22-2010, 08:50 AM
#10
The GReddy gets you nowhere near the "flow restrictions" of the motor.
And, clearly, there are other things going on in the car's utilized in this graph since identical pressure at higher RPM is yielding more power in one case, indicating greater flow, which can be attributed to many possible factors not elucidated here.
And, clearly, there are other things going on in the car's utilized in this graph since identical pressure at higher RPM is yielding more power in one case, indicating greater flow, which can be attributed to many possible factors not elucidated here.
Last edited by MazdaManiac; 07-22-2010 at 08:52 AM.
07-22-2010, 03:00 PM
#13
nope but good guess ... heh
I can tell you that afrs were pretty much identical for all 4 runs but there were some small revisions to the timing . Certainly not enough to make that much difference though .
I can tell you that afrs were pretty much identical for all 4 runs but there were some small revisions to the timing . Certainly not enough to make that much difference though .
Last edited by Brettus; 07-22-2010 at 03:07 PM.
07-22-2010, 03:45 PM
#19
SPOOLN8
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Posts: 2,225
Received 208 Likes
on
156 Posts
haha were's the story behind this?..... Oh and PM recieved Brettus... Thanks for clarifying (Just recieved turbo today!!!)
Last edited by RotaryMachineRx; 07-22-2010 at 04:39 PM.
07-22-2010, 04:13 PM
#21
I think a redesigned insert could make a difference .
I don't think the divider needs to be nearly as long as it is to do the job . Combine that with some nice radiused corners and voila ...... double the port capacity .
I don't think the divider needs to be nearly as long as it is to do the job . Combine that with some nice radiused corners and voila ...... double the port capacity .
Last edited by Brettus; 07-22-2010 at 04:18 PM.
07-22-2010, 04:24 PM
#23
07-24-2010, 09:36 AM
#25
I divide by zero
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Spring Hill, FL
Posts: 1,192
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok I'm in a random ideas kinda mood...so please bear with me. This is kind of a cross discussion of this thread and the one about your melted housing.
Do the exhaust ports on the center and outer housings share the same shape where the rotor passes them? Or are they smaller for the center housing and the shared ports?
What would happen if I were to make a manifold where the center port was deidicated to the wastege? It would eliminate flow through those ports alltogether until the wastegate cracks. Would it then be subjected to less pressure/resistance under higher boost? Or would forcing all the bleeding of pressure through the center actually create more heat and/or boost creep?
Do the exhaust ports on the center and outer housings share the same shape where the rotor passes them? Or are they smaller for the center housing and the shared ports?
What would happen if I were to make a manifold where the center port was deidicated to the wastege? It would eliminate flow through those ports alltogether until the wastegate cracks. Would it then be subjected to less pressure/resistance under higher boost? Or would forcing all the bleeding of pressure through the center actually create more heat and/or boost creep?
Last edited by Mawnee; 07-24-2010 at 09:42 AM.