GARRETT better than KKK ?
08-17-2002, 04:25 PM
#16
Race Director
How about this Tim? I recently dyno'ed my car and this was the result. All With a k26 no less. Same power curve as those silly garrett turbos you sell 
<img src="graemlins/beerchug.gif" border="0" alt="[cheers]" />
<img src="graemlins/beerchug.gif" border="0" alt="[cheers]" />
08-17-2002, 05:00 PM
#17
Pro
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 544
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to compare my 4 different turbo's #'s
Stock=180WHP
1st mod's Powerhaus B/B full exhaust, MAF, K27DR = 280WHP
2nd mod's Technodyne K27#8 hybred, o-ringed head = 330WHP
3rd mod's Technodyne big turbo(same or quicker spool as K27), 550cc inj., mod'd MAF, Tial WG, cheapo muffler = 404WHP
IMHO, the next time I race someone for 25ft from a dead stop I'll wish I had "quick spool" NOT!!!
Paul
Stock=180WHP
1st mod's Powerhaus B/B full exhaust, MAF, K27DR = 280WHP
2nd mod's Technodyne K27#8 hybred, o-ringed head = 330WHP
3rd mod's Technodyne big turbo(same or quicker spool as K27), 550cc inj., mod'd MAF, Tial WG, cheapo muffler = 404WHP
IMHO, the next time I race someone for 25ft from a dead stop I'll wish I had "quick spool" NOT!!!
Paul
08-17-2002, 05:38 PM
#18
Instructor
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Moscow
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank's again to keep me with feeding with good infos.
BTW Tim your stage Turbo is TO54E compressor with KKK hotside ?
Is it a right bolt-on turbo ? Watercooled ?
Just to remind you my objectives : I am building a 3.0 L engine based on 968 block with 2.7 l head so the torque issue is little bit less problematic due to the 20% bigger displacement of the engine.
Nicolas
BTW Tim your stage Turbo is TO54E compressor with KKK hotside ?
Is it a right bolt-on turbo ? Watercooled ?
Just to remind you my objectives : I am building a 3.0 L engine based on 968 block with 2.7 l head so the torque issue is little bit less problematic due to the 20% bigger displacement of the engine.
Nicolas
08-17-2002, 06:13 PM
#19
Drifting
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: St. Louis
Posts: 2,058
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tim,
Not only is that peak torque @ 3600 impressive, but overall the appearance is that of a really smoothly tuned car. I can really appreciate that chart after my recent and only dyno experience today. Between smooth boost delivery, air/fuel ratio and ignition there's a whole lot that needs to coincide to get a chart like that. Gives me more appreciation for folks that do it every day. <img src="graemlins/beerchug.gif" border="0" alt="[cheers]" />
Not only is that peak torque @ 3600 impressive, but overall the appearance is that of a really smoothly tuned car. I can really appreciate that chart after my recent and only dyno experience today. Between smooth boost delivery, air/fuel ratio and ignition there's a whole lot that needs to coincide to get a chart like that. Gives me more appreciation for folks that do it every day. <img src="graemlins/beerchug.gif" border="0" alt="[cheers]" />
08-18-2002, 11:08 AM
#21
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 3,953
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[quote]Originally posted by Geoffrey:
<strong>Just to chime in here, the 89 and earlier 911 turbos used essentially a KKK K26 turbo although it has a different number. The 91-94 911 turbos used a KKK K27-7200 turbo. KKK K29 turbos did not come from the factory on any production 911 turbo. I use a rather large (T04S) Garrett Turbo on my 930 and it does not smoke and works well with my setup</strong><hr></blockquote>
There's a lot of confusion about what type of turbos were used on 911's- possibly b/c of the long time span of their existence(?). Anyway, I'm not positive of ANYTHING having to do w/their turbo's, but have been told MANY different things about them- I would THINK that the newer ones, like '90 & up, would be SMALLER turbos, rather than larger, as they were twin turbo designs I believe- it WAS the 964 (1990) that started TT's wasn't it? I thought the earliest 930's had K29's which made sense, as they were more of an on/off type turbo- of course, the '88/'89's were still SORT of that way- the TQ peak wasn't until 4000rpm (same as Turbo S), and HP @ 5500rpm- according to Automobile Mag June/88 where they compared a 911 Turbo to a 944 Turbo S- it listed the 911 Turbo as having a KKK 3LDZ(?) & the Turbo S as KKK K26-2670(?). I'm not too sure about the article on it's statistics, as it has SEVERAL misprints and also lists the manufacturer's data for the cars instead of actual tests- that means it shows the Turbo S as running the 1/4 in 13.5
It also shows it's TQ as 250 instead of 258- all stock Turbo dyno's I've seen, including my own have shown at least a 10 point spread b/t HP & TQ, and usually more like 15 - 20- so assuming the HP is really 247, then TQ would be at least 258. SO, I don't rely too heavily on that Automobile Mag article, although it does have some good insight on the FEEL of the cars, etc... Anyway, I'm glad to hear that your Garret doesn't smoke- I'm leaning towards a Garret of some sort for my turbo upgrade whenever I get the $ to do my rebuild, and the smoking issue is about the only thing that scares me about them...
<strong>Just to chime in here, the 89 and earlier 911 turbos used essentially a KKK K26 turbo although it has a different number. The 91-94 911 turbos used a KKK K27-7200 turbo. KKK K29 turbos did not come from the factory on any production 911 turbo. I use a rather large (T04S) Garrett Turbo on my 930 and it does not smoke and works well with my setup</strong><hr></blockquote>
There's a lot of confusion about what type of turbos were used on 911's- possibly b/c of the long time span of their existence(?). Anyway, I'm not positive of ANYTHING having to do w/their turbo's, but have been told MANY different things about them- I would THINK that the newer ones, like '90 & up, would be SMALLER turbos, rather than larger, as they were twin turbo designs I believe- it WAS the 964 (1990) that started TT's wasn't it? I thought the earliest 930's had K29's which made sense, as they were more of an on/off type turbo- of course, the '88/'89's were still SORT of that way- the TQ peak wasn't until 4000rpm (same as Turbo S), and HP @ 5500rpm- according to Automobile Mag June/88 where they compared a 911 Turbo to a 944 Turbo S- it listed the 911 Turbo as having a KKK 3LDZ(?) & the Turbo S as KKK K26-2670(?). I'm not too sure about the article on it's statistics, as it has SEVERAL misprints and also lists the manufacturer's data for the cars instead of actual tests- that means it shows the Turbo S as running the 1/4 in 13.5
It also shows it's TQ as 250 instead of 258- all stock Turbo dyno's I've seen, including my own have shown at least a 10 point spread b/t HP & TQ, and usually more like 15 - 20- so assuming the HP is really 247, then TQ would be at least 258. SO, I don't rely too heavily on that Automobile Mag article, although it does have some good insight on the FEEL of the cars, etc... Anyway, I'm glad to hear that your Garret doesn't smoke- I'm leaning towards a Garret of some sort for my turbo upgrade whenever I get the $ to do my rebuild, and the smoking issue is about the only thing that scares me about them...
08-18-2002, 04:27 PM
#22
Drifting
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: St. Louis
Posts: 2,058
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
tazman,
yea, I'm working on a post (scanning dyno/afr charts, etc.). I wish I could throw out some monster number at you but it will probably take one more dyno trip to do that. 299 rwhp and 309 tq SAE corrected at 16psi and pump gas.
On my first run the line to the fpr blew off! Things went scary lean. Wait till you see that chart. So on my second run I just got to do my "initial" pull, so to speak, and since it was a club dyno day with two pulls per car, I was done before I could correct anything.
The good new is there's plenty to correct.
yea, I'm working on a post (scanning dyno/afr charts, etc.). I wish I could throw out some monster number at you but it will probably take one more dyno trip to do that. 299 rwhp and 309 tq SAE corrected at 16psi and pump gas.
On my first run the line to the fpr blew off! Things went scary lean. Wait till you see that chart. So on my second run I just got to do my "initial" pull, so to speak, and since it was a club dyno day with two pulls per car, I was done before I could correct anything.
The good new is there's plenty to correct.
08-18-2002, 05:50 PM
#23
Three Wheelin'
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Reading PA
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Russ at least you have the dyno chart of your run so you can do some corrections with the SDS before your next run. Just ask Rage it will take alot more runs to get things tuned well. I don't think I want to see your first chart 
it might make my stomach turn. I look forward to seeing your post <img src="graemlins/bigok.gif" border="0" alt="[thumbsup]" /> Good Luck!
it might make my stomach turn. I look forward to seeing your post <img src="graemlins/bigok.gif" border="0" alt="[thumbsup]" /> Good Luck!
08-18-2002, 07:07 PM
#24
Nordschleife Master
[quote]Originally posted by Robby:
<strong>
It also shows it's TQ as 250 instead of 258- all stock Turbo dyno's I've seen, including my own have shown at least a 10 point spread b/t HP & TQ, and usually more like 15 - 20- so assuming the HP is really 247, then TQ would be at least 258.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Odd..
My car dyno'ed at 235 RWHP and 220 lb/ft of torque..bone stock. I know its *** backwards...but hey who's complaining..
<strong>
It also shows it's TQ as 250 instead of 258- all stock Turbo dyno's I've seen, including my own have shown at least a 10 point spread b/t HP & TQ, and usually more like 15 - 20- so assuming the HP is really 247, then TQ would be at least 258.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Odd..
My car dyno'ed at 235 RWHP and 220 lb/ft of torque..bone stock. I know its *** backwards...but hey who's complaining..
08-19-2002, 09:40 AM
#26
Race Director
"all stock Turbo dyno's I've seen, including my own have shown at least a 10 point spread b/t HP & TQ, and usually more like 15 - 20- so assuming the HP is really 247, then TQ would be at least 258."
That's only coincidental that you noticed this constant spread. Most likely because all the Turbos where you've seen this spread have used the same turbo. One of the issues with our cars is madly diving torque curve. If it just happens to dive at the same rate as HP climbs, then you would have even max TQ and HP numbers.
But if you have a set-up with a high-boost/high-flow turbo at low-RPM for great torque, but a restrictive intake and exhaust that hurts HP, then you might have a situation like John Anderson's last car that got 500lb-ft of torque, yet 'only' 400hp.
At the other end are the revvy 4-bangers in the S2000 Hondas with HP figures 50% higher than their torque. Or even more extreme like the F1 cars with HP that's 3-times higher than torque!
That's only coincidental that you noticed this constant spread. Most likely because all the Turbos where you've seen this spread have used the same turbo. One of the issues with our cars is madly diving torque curve. If it just happens to dive at the same rate as HP climbs, then you would have even max TQ and HP numbers.
But if you have a set-up with a high-boost/high-flow turbo at low-RPM for great torque, but a restrictive intake and exhaust that hurts HP, then you might have a situation like John Anderson's last car that got 500lb-ft of torque, yet 'only' 400hp.
At the other end are the revvy 4-bangers in the S2000 Hondas with HP figures 50% higher than their torque. Or even more extreme like the F1 cars with HP that's 3-times higher than torque!
08-20-2002, 04:10 AM
#27
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,635
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Russ at least you have the dyno chart of your run so you can do some corrections with the SDS
before your next run. Just ask Rage it will take alot more runs to get things tuned well. I don't think I
want to see your first chart it might make my stomach turn. I look forward to seeing your post
Good Luck!
I have never had to be on the dyno for more then hour or two to tune a TEC to perfection. 3-D graphing helps tremendously;^)
before your next run. Just ask Rage it will take alot more runs to get things tuned well. I don't think I
want to see your first chart it might make my stomach turn. I look forward to seeing your post
Good Luck!
I have never had to be on the dyno for more then hour or two to tune a TEC to perfection. 3-D graphing helps tremendously;^)
08-20-2002, 02:22 PM
#29
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 3,953
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Danno-
You're absolutely right about them using the same turbo's, as I was talking about stock 951's- particularly Turbo S's- not sure about chipped ones, or anything else, although many of the chipped ones seem to illustrate the same point I was making, which is, that the STOCK 951 has a decent bit more TQ than HP- even going by stock manufacturer's engine output- normal 951 had 217 & 238 (or 240- depending on where you look) and the Turbo S had 247 & 258- except for every now and then, you'll see 250TQ instead- I'm just saying that 250 can't be right and that 258 is much more likely...
Mine dynoed 198HP & 216.2TQ- that was a month after I bought the car- 11/99- the graph looks kind of funny- the TQ peaks ~3700rpm & HP ~5700rpm- also, the graph just isn't as FULL as many of the other's I've seen- the TQ kind of dives down, and then level's out again before tapering off for good- the HP dip's a little too... I'll list some #'s at the end...
Paul- it's really hard to tell- the lines are all a squiggly mess in there- three runs- 5250 is pretty much where they meet- the HP & TQ are somewhere in the 175 range it appears...
TQ:
2000- 87
3000- ~150
3500- 200
~3750- ~215
4000- ~215
4250- ~205
4500- ~195
4750- ~190
5000- 180
5250- ~180
5500- ~170
5750- ~170
6000- ~160
HP:
2000- 35
3000- ~90
3500- ~125
4000- ~160
4500- ~170
5000- ~180
5500- ~190
~5750- ~198
6000- ~190
All of these are close estimates based on looking at the little colored lines- there is no print out, except the low reading, which started at 2000rpm- ACTUALLY, it is a hair BELOW 2000, but I listed those #'s right at 2000- by 6000, both TQ & HP lines were well on the downward slope- it's not a very impressive graph for a Turbo S- while the TQ is pretty decent actually, the HP is a little low for it- an 18 point difference- and, as I said- it just isn't nice and FULL like I would like for it to be. Oh well- I have since installed a Powerhaus head that raised compression to 8.3, and hopefully I'll get to do my rebuild soon and get some mods going- larger turbo, Danno's MAF, etc- still trying to decide what all I want to do- well, it's more a matter of what I can afford, which will be nothing unless I can get a job soon- just lost mine- anyone have any ideas? I'm willing to relocate
You're absolutely right about them using the same turbo's, as I was talking about stock 951's- particularly Turbo S's- not sure about chipped ones, or anything else, although many of the chipped ones seem to illustrate the same point I was making, which is, that the STOCK 951 has a decent bit more TQ than HP- even going by stock manufacturer's engine output- normal 951 had 217 & 238 (or 240- depending on where you look) and the Turbo S had 247 & 258- except for every now and then, you'll see 250TQ instead- I'm just saying that 250 can't be right and that 258 is much more likely...
Mine dynoed 198HP & 216.2TQ- that was a month after I bought the car- 11/99- the graph looks kind of funny- the TQ peaks ~3700rpm & HP ~5700rpm- also, the graph just isn't as FULL as many of the other's I've seen- the TQ kind of dives down, and then level's out again before tapering off for good- the HP dip's a little too... I'll list some #'s at the end...
Paul- it's really hard to tell- the lines are all a squiggly mess in there- three runs- 5250 is pretty much where they meet- the HP & TQ are somewhere in the 175 range it appears...
TQ:
2000- 87
3000- ~150
3500- 200
~3750- ~215
4000- ~215
4250- ~205
4500- ~195
4750- ~190
5000- 180
5250- ~180
5500- ~170
5750- ~170
6000- ~160
HP:
2000- 35
3000- ~90
3500- ~125
4000- ~160
4500- ~170
5000- ~180
5500- ~190
~5750- ~198
6000- ~190
All of these are close estimates based on looking at the little colored lines- there is no print out, except the low reading, which started at 2000rpm- ACTUALLY, it is a hair BELOW 2000, but I listed those #'s right at 2000- by 6000, both TQ & HP lines were well on the downward slope- it's not a very impressive graph for a Turbo S- while the TQ is pretty decent actually, the HP is a little low for it- an 18 point difference- and, as I said- it just isn't nice and FULL like I would like for it to be. Oh well- I have since installed a Powerhaus head that raised compression to 8.3, and hopefully I'll get to do my rebuild soon and get some mods going- larger turbo, Danno's MAF, etc- still trying to decide what all I want to do- well, it's more a matter of what I can afford, which will be nothing unless I can get a job soon- just lost mine- anyone have any ideas? I'm willing to relocate
08-20-2002, 06:11 PM
#30
Three Wheelin'
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Posts: 1,596
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[quote]Originally posted by TurboTim:
<strong>Just ask Rage it will take alot more runs to get things tuned well.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I went through about 3 tanks of 103 octane, 2 tanks of pump fuel, doing runs down "secret highways" and tuning before the car felt right. Then I got my wideband O2 and used about 1/2 tank of 103 octane to perfect the onboost A/F, and 1 tank of pump fuel to perfect the day to day driving A/F.
It's a lot of work, definately not for the weak! =)
<strong>Just ask Rage it will take alot more runs to get things tuned well.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I went through about 3 tanks of 103 octane, 2 tanks of pump fuel, doing runs down "secret highways" and tuning before the car felt right. Then I got my wideband O2 and used about 1/2 tank of 103 octane to perfect the onboost A/F, and 1 tank of pump fuel to perfect the day to day driving A/F.
It's a lot of work, definately not for the weak! =)
