Performance potential
12-18-2002, 07:19 PM
#46
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quaz..
Thanks for posting the pic!
Z...
Thanks for sharing with us!
That car is so impressive...
I went to Borchardt's yesterday and the guy said about 10 928's showed up that day and he remembered the one 'making big numbers'.
I can literally look out my window and see the back of Borchardt's. It makes me sick thinking that 10 928's were over there dynoing and I didn't know about it. <img src="graemlins/crying.gif" border="0" alt="[crying]" />
I would love to do something like that to my car. Did he buy a kit, or did he shop around and hand pick the parts?
I'm curious about the intercooler and the brackets for the SC if it's not a kit.
That picture has me drooling... <img src="graemlins/jumper.gif" border="0" alt="[jumper]" />
Thanks for posting the pic!
Z...
Thanks for sharing with us!
That car is so impressive...
I went to Borchardt's yesterday and the guy said about 10 928's showed up that day and he remembered the one 'making big numbers'.
I can literally look out my window and see the back of Borchardt's. It makes me sick thinking that 10 928's were over there dynoing and I didn't know about it. <img src="graemlins/crying.gif" border="0" alt="[crying]" />
I would love to do something like that to my car. Did he buy a kit, or did he shop around and hand pick the parts?
I'm curious about the intercooler and the brackets for the SC if it's not a kit.
That picture has me drooling... <img src="graemlins/jumper.gif" border="0" alt="[jumper]" />
12-18-2002, 09:17 PM
#47
Rennlist Member
SRV, we have a <a href="http://autos.groups.yahoo.com/group/gloc/" target="_blank">Yahoo Group</a> for the Milwaukee/Chicago area 928 guys. Sign up for the mailing list and you won't miss it again. Also, there are more pictures on the site of the Dyno day, my car, Mikes car, Jean-Louis' racer....
<img src="graemlins/beerchug.gif" border="0" alt="[cheers]" />
<img src="graemlins/beerchug.gif" border="0" alt="[cheers]" />
12-19-2002, 01:28 PM
#48
Three Wheelin'
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Northern Kentucky
Posts: 1,446
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No head work, bottom end work, and only 8 psig of manifold pressure...and you are stating over 500 HP at the crank? Sounds far fetched.....but maybe it is true? Granted I have the 230 HP 16-Valve stock engine, but on 8.5 psig of manifold pressure I don't make anywhere close to those kind of numbers.
The boost pressure is the key to what makes this car make big HP. Corking the intake would allow no flow through the heads, the turbo or blower would stop right along with the engine. The whole systems has to work together. The point is this...if the turbo or blower can provide enough CFM to hold the boost pressure at a certain level through the entire engine speed range, then the car will make more power than with the boost level starting to drop off at high RPMs. With turbo sizing it is a matter of getting one (or two) that will spool up quickly enough, yet still deliver adequate boost pressures long into the engine speed range.
I guess my point is the mass of air entering the engine is proportional to the manifold pressure, RPM and other factors, like the cam profile, intake runners, etc. At the end of the day, for a given engine, there is no way you can get more mass of air into the engine by dropping boost levels. This assumes you have not changed anything else. The arguement that boost levels are not important is hogwash...because the level of boost is proportional to the mass of air that enters that engine. Remember, it is compressed before the piston ever comes up to compress it....therefore there is more mass of air already there to be burned...add fuel, make power.
Perhaps I'll be surprised when I put mine on the Dyno next month?, but I don't expect anthing much over 400 HP at the crank with the 8.5 psig of boost I am running. I may shoot for 10 or 11 psig, but that is where the line is drawn.
Time will tell...
The boost pressure is the key to what makes this car make big HP. Corking the intake would allow no flow through the heads, the turbo or blower would stop right along with the engine. The whole systems has to work together. The point is this...if the turbo or blower can provide enough CFM to hold the boost pressure at a certain level through the entire engine speed range, then the car will make more power than with the boost level starting to drop off at high RPMs. With turbo sizing it is a matter of getting one (or two) that will spool up quickly enough, yet still deliver adequate boost pressures long into the engine speed range.
I guess my point is the mass of air entering the engine is proportional to the manifold pressure, RPM and other factors, like the cam profile, intake runners, etc. At the end of the day, for a given engine, there is no way you can get more mass of air into the engine by dropping boost levels. This assumes you have not changed anything else. The arguement that boost levels are not important is hogwash...because the level of boost is proportional to the mass of air that enters that engine. Remember, it is compressed before the piston ever comes up to compress it....therefore there is more mass of air already there to be burned...add fuel, make power.
Perhaps I'll be surprised when I put mine on the Dyno next month?, but I don't expect anthing much over 400 HP at the crank with the 8.5 psig of boost I am running. I may shoot for 10 or 11 psig, but that is where the line is drawn.
Time will tell...
12-19-2002, 05:29 PM
#49
Rennlist Member
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[quote]<strong>Did he buy a kit, or did he shop around and hand pick the parts?</strong><hr></blockquote>
There are parts from a variety of places. I was completely serious when I said that there were parts from the local farm implement store on there.
[quote]<strong>I'm curious about the intercooler and the brackets for the SC if it's not a kit.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The intercooler was custom made to his size and shape specifications. The bracket on at that time didn't really work as well as it should, so more changes should be made there.
[quote]<strong>No head work, bottom end work, and only 8 psig of manifold pressure...and you are stating over 500 HP at the crank? Sounds far fetched.....but maybe it is true? Granted I have the 230 HP 16-Valve stock engine, but on 8.5 psig of manifold pressure I don't make anywhere close to those kind of numbers.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The only way any sort of even close to meaningful comparison can be made using boost numbers is if it's on the same or close to the same engine, with a similar setup. Even then temperature is a part of it. There are two other 32V cars that I know of with similar supercharger/intercooler setups as the one in the chart above. One on the east coast is an automatic transmission car that was making around 4 psi of indicated boost, due to a poorly designed belt system. That one made around 345rwph. The other car is on the west coast and is an automatic with a stock exhaust system. That one was supposed to have been running around 10 psi of indicated boost, and made around 485rwhp. I wasn't there for those dyno runs, but those are the numbers I was told, and I did see the dyno chart from the east coast car. Considering the indicated boost levels, and maybe to some extent some difference due to automatic compared to manual transmissions, I'd say the comparisons between the three are at least reasonably in line with each other. The 4psi indicated boost was roughly a 100hp increase and the 8psi of indicated boost was roughly a 200hp increase. The 10psi of indicated boost made a little less than the based on the other two expected 250hp increase over a stock engine, but at least part of that is because compression was lowered some on that car, and no "before" dyno run was done with the lower compression. It may very well be making the expected based on the others 250hp increase over what it would make with the low compression and no boost, but that would just be guessing. As it is, it's within about 15hp of a 250hp increase over what the engine should be making with the stock compression.
There was a second supercharged 928 there at the dyno the same day as the S4 in the above chart. That one was a '78. It was the first time it had been on a dyno, and had some fuel mixture and detonation problems that prevented it from getting the numbers it could have. Even if it was running perfectly, and the boost gauge was showing the exact same value as the S4, you couldn't make a valid comparison between that and the power made between the two. Comparing that '78 to your Callaway would probably be a more meaningful comparison if using indicated boost numbers. That's assuming your car is also intercooled about as efficiently. Even then there may be difference due to differences in efficiency between your turbo and his supercharger systems. That car is currently getting different heads and bigger cams though, so that could throw the whole thing way out of whack again as far as comparisons would go.
[quote]<strong>The arguement that boost levels are not important is hogwash...because the level of boost is proportional to the mass of air that enters that engine.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I disagree. The level of boost is how much pressure is in the intake manifold, and doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the mass of the air. All that boost is is a measure of how much force the air is exerting per square inch, and not how much mass it has. Mass and boost pressure are very different things, and are often confused. I'm sure most have noticed that their car makes more power when it's cold outside than when it's hot. The "boost" the car is seeing on those two different days is pretty much the same (atmoshperic pressure) but the mass of the cold air is greater than the hot air. Boost pressure in the manifold is not the same as air mass in the manifold, and neither one of those can necessarily be used to compare what's actually getting into the cylinders of two pretty different engines. Using that same supercharger, spinning at the same speed, would most likely provide different indicated manifoold boost levels on a Mustang, than on an S4, or a Corvette, or a Geo Metro. Adjusting the speed of the supercharger so that the indicated boost levels were all exactly the same on all of those cars, would most likely show different power level increases in each of those cases as well. That's why I said indicated boost levels aren't necessarily that important for comparisons. Apples to apples maybe, apples to oranges definitely not.
There are parts from a variety of places. I was completely serious when I said that there were parts from the local farm implement store on there.
[quote]<strong>I'm curious about the intercooler and the brackets for the SC if it's not a kit.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The intercooler was custom made to his size and shape specifications. The bracket on at that time didn't really work as well as it should, so more changes should be made there.
[quote]<strong>No head work, bottom end work, and only 8 psig of manifold pressure...and you are stating over 500 HP at the crank? Sounds far fetched.....but maybe it is true? Granted I have the 230 HP 16-Valve stock engine, but on 8.5 psig of manifold pressure I don't make anywhere close to those kind of numbers.</strong><hr></blockquote>
The only way any sort of even close to meaningful comparison can be made using boost numbers is if it's on the same or close to the same engine, with a similar setup. Even then temperature is a part of it. There are two other 32V cars that I know of with similar supercharger/intercooler setups as the one in the chart above. One on the east coast is an automatic transmission car that was making around 4 psi of indicated boost, due to a poorly designed belt system. That one made around 345rwph. The other car is on the west coast and is an automatic with a stock exhaust system. That one was supposed to have been running around 10 psi of indicated boost, and made around 485rwhp. I wasn't there for those dyno runs, but those are the numbers I was told, and I did see the dyno chart from the east coast car. Considering the indicated boost levels, and maybe to some extent some difference due to automatic compared to manual transmissions, I'd say the comparisons between the three are at least reasonably in line with each other. The 4psi indicated boost was roughly a 100hp increase and the 8psi of indicated boost was roughly a 200hp increase. The 10psi of indicated boost made a little less than the based on the other two expected 250hp increase over a stock engine, but at least part of that is because compression was lowered some on that car, and no "before" dyno run was done with the lower compression. It may very well be making the expected based on the others 250hp increase over what it would make with the low compression and no boost, but that would just be guessing. As it is, it's within about 15hp of a 250hp increase over what the engine should be making with the stock compression.
There was a second supercharged 928 there at the dyno the same day as the S4 in the above chart. That one was a '78. It was the first time it had been on a dyno, and had some fuel mixture and detonation problems that prevented it from getting the numbers it could have. Even if it was running perfectly, and the boost gauge was showing the exact same value as the S4, you couldn't make a valid comparison between that and the power made between the two. Comparing that '78 to your Callaway would probably be a more meaningful comparison if using indicated boost numbers. That's assuming your car is also intercooled about as efficiently. Even then there may be difference due to differences in efficiency between your turbo and his supercharger systems. That car is currently getting different heads and bigger cams though, so that could throw the whole thing way out of whack again as far as comparisons would go.
[quote]<strong>The arguement that boost levels are not important is hogwash...because the level of boost is proportional to the mass of air that enters that engine.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I disagree. The level of boost is how much pressure is in the intake manifold, and doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the mass of the air. All that boost is is a measure of how much force the air is exerting per square inch, and not how much mass it has. Mass and boost pressure are very different things, and are often confused. I'm sure most have noticed that their car makes more power when it's cold outside than when it's hot. The "boost" the car is seeing on those two different days is pretty much the same (atmoshperic pressure) but the mass of the cold air is greater than the hot air. Boost pressure in the manifold is not the same as air mass in the manifold, and neither one of those can necessarily be used to compare what's actually getting into the cylinders of two pretty different engines. Using that same supercharger, spinning at the same speed, would most likely provide different indicated manifoold boost levels on a Mustang, than on an S4, or a Corvette, or a Geo Metro. Adjusting the speed of the supercharger so that the indicated boost levels were all exactly the same on all of those cars, would most likely show different power level increases in each of those cases as well. That's why I said indicated boost levels aren't necessarily that important for comparisons. Apples to apples maybe, apples to oranges definitely not.
12-19-2002, 06:15 PM
#51
Rennlist Member
In a perfect world, doubling the air pressure at the same temp (air mass) will double the power output....
So, in a perfect world, a 285 rwhp S4 (a perfect S4)at .5 bar, will make 427rwhp. .5 bar is 7 psi!
This is with no losses associated to mechanical friction, increased engine heat, increased air intake heat, etc. Again, a perfect world.
So, to make 485 rwhp, in a perfect world, requires 1.7 bar absolute or 9.8 psi, again in a perfect world.
PV=nRT This is the IDEAL gas law and cannot be comprimised.
Secondly, if the engine is making 285 rwhp stock, and is running 10:1, then there is not way you can boost that engine to the BMEP required, use stock ign settings and still make 485 rwhp without detonation. Therefore, high octane fuel must have been used.
In summary, this output makes perfect sense if it the boost was around 11 psi, and the run used high octane gas.
I do not want to take away from the such a nice pull and lots of good work, nice job tim, but taggin the run with all stock, never a failure of any kind, pump gas, 8 lbs boost, etc. doesn't add up and detracts from accomplishment of the individuals effort.
Anyway, good luck.
Marc
DEVEK
So, in a perfect world, a 285 rwhp S4 (a perfect S4)at .5 bar, will make 427rwhp. .5 bar is 7 psi!
This is with no losses associated to mechanical friction, increased engine heat, increased air intake heat, etc. Again, a perfect world.
So, to make 485 rwhp, in a perfect world, requires 1.7 bar absolute or 9.8 psi, again in a perfect world.
PV=nRT This is the IDEAL gas law and cannot be comprimised.
Secondly, if the engine is making 285 rwhp stock, and is running 10:1, then there is not way you can boost that engine to the BMEP required, use stock ign settings and still make 485 rwhp without detonation. Therefore, high octane fuel must have been used.
In summary, this output makes perfect sense if it the boost was around 11 psi, and the run used high octane gas.
I do not want to take away from the such a nice pull and lots of good work, nice job tim, but taggin the run with all stock, never a failure of any kind, pump gas, 8 lbs boost, etc. doesn't add up and detracts from accomplishment of the individuals effort.
Anyway, good luck.
Marc
DEVEK
12-19-2002, 07:14 PM
#52
Burning Brakes
Regarding that picture, what kind of oil recirculation does he have going on there? Anyone else notice that? I'm going to be working on one for my dad's GTS that burns about 125mi/qt and I'd like some actual pictures of what others have been talking about. Any info on that guy's setup?
BJ
BJ
12-20-2002, 12:10 AM
#53
Banned
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Milwaukee
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quaz...
Thanks for the info; I'm all signed up now. I'm looking forward to talking to fellow 928 owners in person, plus seeing their cars!
Z...
You inspired me to start an investigation regarding forced induction once I return from vacation.
Hey all, have a safe and happy holidays!
Thanks for the info; I'm all signed up now. I'm looking forward to talking to fellow 928 owners in person, plus seeing their cars!
Z...
You inspired me to start an investigation regarding forced induction once I return from vacation.
Hey all, have a safe and happy holidays!
12-20-2002, 03:26 AM
#54
Flame on...
At some point with or without intake, cam change and or head work an engine is simply going to reach its' -CFM- maximum flow.
Advance, mapping, and compression ratio tinkering will further help or hinder.
At some point you are going to either detonate, or, literally BLOW the flame out.
I like the idea of more HP across the rpm range at the rear wheels but having a quick spool turbo tying in a waste gate, bypass valve, and inter-cooler, 2 0r 3 more sensors. Developing a management system to keep the critter firing reliably without running over rich, or lean, and somehow keeping things from twisting off under the car while doing doughnuts or watching the rear end pass the front end coming out of a turn under power seems to defeat "MY" idea of a daily driver.
Yeah, it would be a hoot and I'm not putting anyone down for that quest for power, but for "MY" budget and "MY" idea of a reliable, streetable car there is no future for more than 3 - 5 psi of boost.
I think for all the "use" an average owner would get out of a 450 plus HP giggle gas would be more cost effective.
To each their own...
John S. & Pattycakes
<img src="graemlins/beerchug.gif" border="0" alt="[cheers]" />
At some point with or without intake, cam change and or head work an engine is simply going to reach its' -CFM- maximum flow.
Advance, mapping, and compression ratio tinkering will further help or hinder.
At some point you are going to either detonate, or, literally BLOW the flame out.
I like the idea of more HP across the rpm range at the rear wheels but having a quick spool turbo tying in a waste gate, bypass valve, and inter-cooler, 2 0r 3 more sensors. Developing a management system to keep the critter firing reliably without running over rich, or lean, and somehow keeping things from twisting off under the car while doing doughnuts or watching the rear end pass the front end coming out of a turn under power seems to defeat "MY" idea of a daily driver.
Yeah, it would be a hoot and I'm not putting anyone down for that quest for power, but for "MY" budget and "MY" idea of a reliable, streetable car there is no future for more than 3 - 5 psi of boost.
I think for all the "use" an average owner would get out of a 450 plus HP giggle gas would be more cost effective.
To each their own...
John S. & Pattycakes
<img src="graemlins/beerchug.gif" border="0" alt="[cheers]" />
12-20-2002, 01:39 PM
#55
Three Wheelin'
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Northern Kentucky
Posts: 1,446
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting post here. I have a very informative book, titled "How to select and install Turbochargers". It is from 1971, but still has very good information nonetheless.
I am planning on taking the Bastard to the dyno after the 1st of the year. Today, it runs 8.5 psig in the manifold. I have purchased a boost control (spring and ball type) valve, which I will use to bring the manifold pressure up to a quasi-conservative 10 psig of boost. The other Callaway owner claims to have run 14 psig manifold pressure, but only in a pinch. He claims his car runs normally in the 10 to 11 psig range. Pushing my engine much past 10 or 11 psig could cause severe damage, and I don't want to go there. Callaway's Vettes ran on about 10 psig of manifold pressure and made around 400-420 HP at the crank.
I know there is a bit more power to be had, so my plan is to dial up the boost another couple of pounds, but to first add some fuel (increase fuel pressure) and maybe retard the timing a bit from where it is today. It will be a trial and error process, and the dyno will be a great tool to get the car really dialed in. I plan on using the wide band O2 sensor setup to make loaded checks of the fuel mixture. Luckily I can increase or decrease my fuel pressure, and even adjust the Microfueler box which controls the two additional injectors. I may start at 8.5 psig to get a baseline output.
My goal is to pick up another 30 or so HP, so I think this is doable today without too much difficulty.
Someday I will stop tinkering...hopefully this is before I do something really stupid?
I am planning on taking the Bastard to the dyno after the 1st of the year. Today, it runs 8.5 psig in the manifold. I have purchased a boost control (spring and ball type) valve, which I will use to bring the manifold pressure up to a quasi-conservative 10 psig of boost. The other Callaway owner claims to have run 14 psig manifold pressure, but only in a pinch. He claims his car runs normally in the 10 to 11 psig range. Pushing my engine much past 10 or 11 psig could cause severe damage, and I don't want to go there. Callaway's Vettes ran on about 10 psig of manifold pressure and made around 400-420 HP at the crank.
I know there is a bit more power to be had, so my plan is to dial up the boost another couple of pounds, but to first add some fuel (increase fuel pressure) and maybe retard the timing a bit from where it is today. It will be a trial and error process, and the dyno will be a great tool to get the car really dialed in. I plan on using the wide band O2 sensor setup to make loaded checks of the fuel mixture. Luckily I can increase or decrease my fuel pressure, and even adjust the Microfueler box which controls the two additional injectors. I may start at 8.5 psig to get a baseline output.
My goal is to pick up another 30 or so HP, so I think this is doable today without too much difficulty.
Someday I will stop tinkering...hopefully this is before I do something really stupid?
12-22-2002, 12:59 AM
#56
Rennlist Member
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 1,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[quote]Originally posted by John:
<strong>PV=nRT</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes it does. (I'm not going to go into Van der Waals forces, mixture of various different gasses, near relative velocity, and other situations where what really happens isn't what the the ideal gas law says is supposed to be happening.) The Ideal Gas law is close enough for practical purposes, in a static state, when solving for a variable in the equation. That's not what's going on in a running engine. There are constantly changing pressures, volumes, and numbers of particles in reguards to that equation. Bernoli's principle also factors in since we are talking about dynamic movement of gasses and pressures. Even if all of that wasn't an issue, there's no hp in that equation. The changes from boost as they relate to power produced in an engine have a lot more variables that aren't taken into consideration with just the gas law stuff. The initiation, speed, and movement of the flame front, thermal transfer, the velocity, homogenization and turbulence of the air/fuel mixture, fuel atomization, required voltage for ignition initialization, compressor efficiency and even things like valve spring pressure and more are all affected to a greater or lesser extent under boost. This stuff will also all also change at different RPM points, even on the same engine.
The discussion started out with someone asking about performance potential, and there's also been some question as to the existence of high power 928s. With all the B.S. claims being made for the performance of so many cars in general, I can see where it would be easy to be skeptical of just some stated claims. That's why I put the chart up and provided some information on the car. Two other people have stated that they're at least somewhat familiar with the car, and have seen it doing dyno runs on at least two different occasions. A third person has said that he talked to one of the dyno owners about it and the power it made. If anyone has any real results from another properly running, similarly equipped, 32v 928 that are way out of line with the three I've mentioned, I'd be happy to hear about them.
[quote]<strong>I have a very informative book, titled "How to select and install Turbochargers". It is from 1971, but still has very good information nonetheless.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It might be worthwhile picking up a more current book. I mean there have been a couple of advances in automotive technology in the last 30 years.
Pay very careful attention to the air/fuel mixtures when on the dyno. The 32v engines have some significant features in their design when it comes to adding boost. I know you have an older 16v engine, but you may be pretty surprised at the change in power from what might seem like relatively small changes in mixture.
[quote]Originally posted by Z:
<strong>I'm really hesitant to state the amount of boost, because boost numbers really aren't as meaningful as a lot of people seem to think, and I'm affraid just stating the number is going to start some big pointless bench racing debate. </strong><hr></blockquote>
I knew what was going to happen, and have no idea why I did it anyway. The chart is posted and answers the initial question.
<strong>PV=nRT</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes it does. (I'm not going to go into Van der Waals forces, mixture of various different gasses, near relative velocity, and other situations where what really happens isn't what the the ideal gas law says is supposed to be happening.) The Ideal Gas law is close enough for practical purposes, in a static state, when solving for a variable in the equation. That's not what's going on in a running engine. There are constantly changing pressures, volumes, and numbers of particles in reguards to that equation. Bernoli's principle also factors in since we are talking about dynamic movement of gasses and pressures. Even if all of that wasn't an issue, there's no hp in that equation. The changes from boost as they relate to power produced in an engine have a lot more variables that aren't taken into consideration with just the gas law stuff. The initiation, speed, and movement of the flame front, thermal transfer, the velocity, homogenization and turbulence of the air/fuel mixture, fuel atomization, required voltage for ignition initialization, compressor efficiency and even things like valve spring pressure and more are all affected to a greater or lesser extent under boost. This stuff will also all also change at different RPM points, even on the same engine.
The discussion started out with someone asking about performance potential, and there's also been some question as to the existence of high power 928s. With all the B.S. claims being made for the performance of so many cars in general, I can see where it would be easy to be skeptical of just some stated claims. That's why I put the chart up and provided some information on the car. Two other people have stated that they're at least somewhat familiar with the car, and have seen it doing dyno runs on at least two different occasions. A third person has said that he talked to one of the dyno owners about it and the power it made. If anyone has any real results from another properly running, similarly equipped, 32v 928 that are way out of line with the three I've mentioned, I'd be happy to hear about them.
[quote]<strong>I have a very informative book, titled "How to select and install Turbochargers". It is from 1971, but still has very good information nonetheless.</strong><hr></blockquote>
It might be worthwhile picking up a more current book. I mean there have been a couple of advances in automotive technology in the last 30 years.
Pay very careful attention to the air/fuel mixtures when on the dyno. The 32v engines have some significant features in their design when it comes to adding boost. I know you have an older 16v engine, but you may be pretty surprised at the change in power from what might seem like relatively small changes in mixture.
[quote]Originally posted by Z:
<strong>I'm really hesitant to state the amount of boost, because boost numbers really aren't as meaningful as a lot of people seem to think, and I'm affraid just stating the number is going to start some big pointless bench racing debate. </strong><hr></blockquote>
I knew what was going to happen, and have no idea why I did it anyway. The chart is posted and answers the initial question.