Power levels so far/shed built.
Oct 17, 2018, 08:23 AM
#46
Evolved Member
Thread Starter
Since you can't relate the two I will assist you on it. It is a very relevant and very simple connection.
Breaking down things, the specific turbo is much smaller than mine, with not as efficient aero as mine, if I take into account that his setup is as efficient as mine of course, other than that it is a 4g63 setup on a stock inlet mani, which was one of the points for posting the above.
The power level is lower because he is on crap 93 oct and on a less efficient turbo.
Repeating what I said, if he used my setup, (modified stock inlet manifold), on the same turbo, 6466, on 102 oct race gas he would have made 100whp more,that takes him up to atleast 740whp on a Mustang dyno. 740whp on a Mustang is 840 on a Dynojet. That is how it is related.
If we take power levels on a Mustang dyno, I strongly believe that my setup is between 800-850whp, and that the stock intake manifold, ported and re-arranged, can reach these levels of power.
Another point which , you did not adress, maybe because you are not aware of it.
On a certain same setup, 40 psi on a smaller turbo is not the same as 40 psi on a larger turbo. The larger/more efficient the turbo, the higher the density of the air is pushing at higher boost levels/pressure ratios, due to the less work/rpm the turbo needs to do, thus staying into its efficiency zone.
Otherwise , everyone would run the stock turbo i.e, at 40 psi and make the same power as a 6262.
I do not rely on the VD Dynojet mode to measure and know the power levels of my setup, I only posted in Dynojet mode on here because you guys relate to it. I take into account only the Mustang mode.
I know the fuel I am using is excellent in all aspects, and I know my setup is very efficient, I see not a reason why my setup does not make 800-850 whp on a Mustang dyno.
Marios
Breaking down things, the specific turbo is much smaller than mine, with not as efficient aero as mine, if I take into account that his setup is as efficient as mine of course, other than that it is a 4g63 setup on a stock inlet mani, which was one of the points for posting the above.
The power level is lower because he is on crap 93 oct and on a less efficient turbo.
Repeating what I said, if he used my setup, (modified stock inlet manifold), on the same turbo, 6466, on 102 oct race gas he would have made 100whp more,that takes him up to atleast 740whp on a Mustang dyno. 740whp on a Mustang is 840 on a Dynojet. That is how it is related.
If we take power levels on a Mustang dyno, I strongly believe that my setup is between 800-850whp, and that the stock intake manifold, ported and re-arranged, can reach these levels of power.
Another point which , you did not adress, maybe because you are not aware of it.
On a certain same setup, 40 psi on a smaller turbo is not the same as 40 psi on a larger turbo. The larger/more efficient the turbo, the higher the density of the air is pushing at higher boost levels/pressure ratios, due to the less work/rpm the turbo needs to do, thus staying into its efficiency zone.
Otherwise , everyone would run the stock turbo i.e, at 40 psi and make the same power as a 6262.
I do not rely on the VD Dynojet mode to measure and know the power levels of my setup, I only posted in Dynojet mode on here because you guys relate to it. I take into account only the Mustang mode.
I know the fuel I am using is excellent in all aspects, and I know my setup is very efficient, I see not a reason why my setup does not make 800-850 whp on a Mustang dyno.
Marios
Last edited by Evo8cy; Oct 17, 2018 at 08:48 AM. Reason: typo
Oct 17, 2018, 09:26 AM
#48
EvoM Community Team Leader
post some 1/4 slips and that should end the debate.
Oct 17, 2018, 10:28 AM
#49
Evolved Member
Thread Starter
Because it is crap, and it is not me saying it, factual reality is, no it is not the same, certain research I have done has shown that it is not. European fuels have higher density and calorific value than U.S ones. In fact 93 oct, has a lower than that actual octane rating, even sources online have presented and proved and concluded the fact that 93 oct does not give better mpg than 87 oct. If you search the inernet you will find plenty of evidence. Now you might come and say, that you live there and you use it, and that it gives you higher mpg, well my research has shown me that 8 to 10 people have said that 93 oct does not give them better mpg than 87 oct. Maybe there are some areas where the fuel is better than other areas, but as a general condition this is what I have found out.
Secondly let me make something clear, a specific fuel might have a higher octane rating but lower calorific value, depending on the combination of hydrocarbons and additives there are in the blend. To make things more simple, ethanol has high knock resistance but much lower calorific value than toluene, toluene also has high knock resistance.
When ethanol is blended in with benzene, which is the main hydrocarbon used in commercial fuels, binds certain key molecules of benzene and reduces its calorific value, so although the knock resistance of the blend (octane rating) has become higher its calorific value has become less.
An advertised fuel of 93 ron i.e that contains in its blend toluene and xelene , will have higher calorific value than a 93 aki which contains mainly ethanol to raise its knock resistance. A personal test of a certain 98 pump gas fuel that I had tested in Greece, many moons ago, had shown that it was actually 99.3 ron.
Then there is advertised and actual octane rating. It seems that in the U.S the advertised oct numbers are inflated.
It is 102 ron, but it is a racing formula containing toluene.
Marios
Last edited by Evo8cy; Oct 17, 2018 at 11:02 AM. Reason: typo
Oct 17, 2018, 11:05 AM
#51
EvoM Guru
iTrader: (1)
Since you can't relate the two I will assist you on it. It is a very relevant and very simple connection.
Breaking down things, the specific turbo is much smaller than mine, with not as efficient aero as mine, if I take into account that his setup is as efficient as mine of course, other than that it is a 4g63 setup on a stock inlet mani, which was one of the points for posting the above.
The power level is lower because he is on crap 93 oct and on a less efficient turbo.
Repeating what I said, if he used my setup, (modified stock inlet manifold), on the same turbo, 6466, on 102 oct race gas he would have made 100whp more,that takes him up to atleast 740whp on a Mustang dyno. 740whp on a Mustang is 840 on a Dynojet. That is how it is related.
If we take power levels on a Mustang dyno, I strongly believe that my setup is between 800-850whp, and that the stock intake manifold, ported and re-arranged, can reach these levels of power.
Another point which , you did not adress, maybe because you are not aware of it.
On a certain same setup, 40 psi on a smaller turbo is not the same as 40 psi on a larger turbo. The larger/more efficient the turbo, the higher the density of the air is pushing at higher boost levels/pressure ratios, due to the less work/rpm the turbo needs to do, thus staying into its efficiency zone.
Otherwise , everyone would run the stock turbo i.e, at 40 psi and make the same power as a 6262.
I do not rely on the VD Dynojet mode to measure and know the power levels of my setup, I only posted in Dynojet mode on here because you guys relate to it. I take into account only the Mustang mode.
I know the fuel I am using is excellent in all aspects, and I know my setup is very efficient, I see not a reason why my setup does not make 800-850 whp on a Mustang dyno.
Marios
Breaking down things, the specific turbo is much smaller than mine, with not as efficient aero as mine, if I take into account that his setup is as efficient as mine of course, other than that it is a 4g63 setup on a stock inlet mani, which was one of the points for posting the above.
The power level is lower because he is on crap 93 oct and on a less efficient turbo.
Repeating what I said, if he used my setup, (modified stock inlet manifold), on the same turbo, 6466, on 102 oct race gas he would have made 100whp more,that takes him up to atleast 740whp on a Mustang dyno. 740whp on a Mustang is 840 on a Dynojet. That is how it is related.
If we take power levels on a Mustang dyno, I strongly believe that my setup is between 800-850whp, and that the stock intake manifold, ported and re-arranged, can reach these levels of power.
Another point which , you did not adress, maybe because you are not aware of it.
On a certain same setup, 40 psi on a smaller turbo is not the same as 40 psi on a larger turbo. The larger/more efficient the turbo, the higher the density of the air is pushing at higher boost levels/pressure ratios, due to the less work/rpm the turbo needs to do, thus staying into its efficiency zone.
Otherwise , everyone would run the stock turbo i.e, at 40 psi and make the same power as a 6262.
I do not rely on the VD Dynojet mode to measure and know the power levels of my setup, I only posted in Dynojet mode on here because you guys relate to it. I take into account only the Mustang mode.
I know the fuel I am using is excellent in all aspects, and I know my setup is very efficient, I see not a reason why my setup does not make 800-850 whp on a Mustang dyno.
Marios
You keep saying you turbo is "more efficient" but have made no claim as to who makes it.
If you're so confident the car will make X power on a real dyno, please do so and post the results.
The only relevant comparison here is the one I posted, that turbo is likely very close to yours if not better (Precision gen2 6870 vs unknown 6868), and it took more boost to make less power whilst having a superior intake and exhaust manifold, as well as superior fuel (ethanol vs gasoline). You pretty need to be running Q or C16 to get the same octane as E85.
And yeah, I was COMPLETELY unaware larger turbo's make more power at the same boost levels. Thank you SO MUCH for explaining that to me....
Oct 17, 2018, 11:06 AM
#52
EvoM Community Team Leader
The energy content of the fuel isn't so important, it's easy to just add more fuel, and turbos like this anyway.
Oct 17, 2018, 11:09 AM
#53
Evolved Member
Thread Starter
Of course it is, it is what makes power, well a higher calorific value fuel can make a hell a lot more power than a lower calorific one at the same mass of fuel.
Marios
Oct 17, 2018, 11:12 AM
#54
EvoM Community Team Leader
Nah dude, I'm not talking about at a specific volume. As I said it's trivially easy to just add more fuel to make up the difference. It's getting oxygen in the cylinders that's hard.
Oct 17, 2018, 11:23 AM
#55
Evolved Member
Thread Starter
The stock intake manifold "can" make the power, it just takes way more boost. When you get above the 750-800whp range, you're looking at picking up ~50whp or more at the same boost by switching to a Magnus or similar. The stock intake acts very differently at 600whp than it does at 800+
You keep saying you turbo is "more efficient" but have made no claim as to who makes it.
If you're so confident the car will make X power on a real dyno, please do so and post the results.
The only relevant comparison here is the one I posted, that turbo is likely very close to yours if not better (Precision gen2 6870 vs unknown 6868), and it took more boost to make less power whilst having a superior intake and exhaust manifold, as well as superior fuel (ethanol vs gasoline). You pretty need to be running Q or C16 to get the same octane as E85.
And yeah, I was COMPLETELY unaware larger turbo's make more power at the same boost levels. Thank you SO MUCH for explaining that to me....
You keep saying you turbo is "more efficient" but have made no claim as to who makes it.
If you're so confident the car will make X power on a real dyno, please do so and post the results.
The only relevant comparison here is the one I posted, that turbo is likely very close to yours if not better (Precision gen2 6870 vs unknown 6868), and it took more boost to make less power whilst having a superior intake and exhaust manifold, as well as superior fuel (ethanol vs gasoline). You pretty need to be running Q or C16 to get the same octane as E85.
And yeah, I was COMPLETELY unaware larger turbo's make more power at the same boost levels. Thank you SO MUCH for explaining that to me....
- It is more efficient. Who makes it is not important, what it is important is what it can do.
- When I do, I will, no dynometer in my area.
- No, you are wrong and I disagree, I explained the relativity of the videos I posted, if you fail or refuse to see it, that has nothing to do with me.
It takes way more boost is very relative to each specific setup, and it does not take as much as you think it does. VE of a setup falls into place, mapping etc.
About my comment regarding turbos, it was mostly posted as an irony, as you seem to present yourself as a knowledgable person, it was secondly a reminder and an arguement at the same time, in the manner that the if guy in the yellow evo was using my turbo on his setup he would make more power at the same boost.
No I do not need to run C16, which is a 120mon fuel or Q, to reach the 105 mon e-85 is.
Also something else I have found out, is that e-85 is not actually 105 mon, but 102-103 ish at best case.
Here is an example of a source :
Marios
Oct 17, 2018, 11:32 AM
#56
Evolved Member
Thread Starter
-You seem to not have understood what I said about volume. If you take that quantity of ethanol you need to add to reach the calorific value of toluene, and instead of ethanol you use toluene at the same mass, the toluene quantity will make a hell lot more power.
- I never referred to a specific volume, I merely replied to your comment of adding more fuel.
- No, I disagree, oxygen on its own does not make power, pound to pound toluene makes more power than ethanol, and the reason it does not, is because it contains the oxygen molecule in its chain, it needs twice the fuel mass of toluene to make the same power, and that's what counts as you need to fill the cylinder with twice the same quantity of fuel to make the same power as toluene, and that leaves even less room for air, the only factor that counters that is the fact that ethanol contains oxygen, but it is not enough to scale and even things out with toluene. As for getting the most volume of air a setup can take , if you know what you are doing you can reach its max VE. If you want more space, add cylinders.
Marios
Last edited by Evo8cy; Oct 17, 2018 at 11:45 AM. Reason: added comment
Oct 17, 2018, 11:46 AM
#58
EvoM Community Team Leader
- I never referred to a specific volume, I merely replied to your comment of adding more fuel.
- No, I disagree, oxygen on its own does not make power, pound to pound toluene makes more power than ethanol, and the reason it does not, is because it contains the oxygen molecule in its chain, it needs twice the fuel mass of toluene to make the same power, and that's what counts as you need to fill the cylinder with twice the same quantity of fuel to make the same power as toluene, and that leaves even less room for air, the only factor that counters that is the fact that ethanol contains oxygen, but it is not enough to scale and even things out with toluene. As for getting the most volume of air a setup can take , if you know what you are doing you can reach its max VE. If you want more space, add cylinders.
Marios
- No, I disagree, oxygen on its own does not make power, pound to pound toluene makes more power than ethanol, and the reason it does not, is because it contains the oxygen molecule in its chain, it needs twice the fuel mass of toluene to make the same power, and that's what counts as you need to fill the cylinder with twice the same quantity of fuel to make the same power as toluene, and that leaves even less room for air, the only factor that counters that is the fact that ethanol contains oxygen, but it is not enough to scale and even things out with toluene. As for getting the most volume of air a setup can take , if you know what you are doing you can reach its max VE. If you want more space, add cylinders.
Marios
Oct 17, 2018, 11:52 AM
#59
EvoM Community Team Leader
- I never referred to a specific volume, I merely replied to your comment of adding more fuel.
- No, I disagree, oxygen on its own does not make power, pound to pound toluene makes more power than ethanol, and the reason it does not, is because it contains the oxygen molecule in its chain, it needs twice the fuel mass of toluene to make the same power, and that's what counts as you need to fill the cylinder with twice the same quantity of fuel to make the same power as toluene, and that leaves even less room for air, the only factor that counters that is the fact that ethanol contains oxygen, but it is not enough to scale and even things out with toluene. As for getting the most volume of air a setup can take , if you know what you are doing you can reach its max VE. If you want more space, add cylinders.
Marios
- No, I disagree, oxygen on its own does not make power, pound to pound toluene makes more power than ethanol, and the reason it does not, is because it contains the oxygen molecule in its chain, it needs twice the fuel mass of toluene to make the same power, and that's what counts as you need to fill the cylinder with twice the same quantity of fuel to make the same power as toluene, and that leaves even less room for air, the only factor that counters that is the fact that ethanol contains oxygen, but it is not enough to scale and even things out with toluene. As for getting the most volume of air a setup can take , if you know what you are doing you can reach its max VE. If you want more space, add cylinders.
Marios
Oct 17, 2018, 11:55 AM
#60
EvoM Guru
iTrader: (1)
MS103 is a highly oxygenated race fuel. I was referring to non-oxygenated fuels as your fuel likely isn't highly oxygenated. The octane isn't necessarily what makes E85 better than most race fuels, its that it brings it's own oxygen to the party. So to get a non-oxygenated race fuel/gasoline to make the same power (where it is able to handle the boost and timing), you need C or Q16. My statement was hastily and poorly worded.
Also, I watched the 1st half of that video, and E40 (FORTY) made more power than MS103, AND they were running out of fuel pump out the top. What was the point of sharing that video?
It's interesting that you continue to claim you turbo is much better than a similar sized turbo from a US manufacturer that currently has the best compressors for a high output drag cars available in the states. If your aero is so good, I would suggest marketing and selling it because it would sell like bottomless mimosas in American suburbia.
Also, I watched the 1st half of that video, and E40 (FORTY) made more power than MS103, AND they were running out of fuel pump out the top. What was the point of sharing that video?
It's interesting that you continue to claim you turbo is much better than a similar sized turbo from a US manufacturer that currently has the best compressors for a high output drag cars available in the states. If your aero is so good, I would suggest marketing and selling it because it would sell like bottomless mimosas in American suburbia.