BBK Full/E85 vs FP_GREEN/C16.. FACTS!
Why do you keep bringing up a EBC? If that is reference to the ECU-controlled boost on the BBK we tuned that is not a "EBC" in sense of it being a AVC-R, etc like Boltz talked about above.
It is a solenoid controlled by the ECU. In most instances, more robust than aftermarket EBC's in their control. Let's not turn this into a yet another MBC vs ECU-boost thread however.
Here are two points of data from a BBK using ECU-controlled boost and a FPgreen using ECU-controlled boost (both using GM 3 port solenoids).
This boost data was from the session where the BBK was producing 427whp/376wtq and the FPgreen was producing 403whp/378wtq. Both where evo 9's with M2 cams, TBE, FMIC, turbo porting, stock maf and stock ECU. Both are outputting the highest I've seen on our dyno so far, for their respective turbos.
The only reason I am posting this data is it backs up my claims that have been quoted here from the BBK thread I posted saying that the BBK held more boost on this 9 than any FPgreen on a 9. *both of these are running 100% duty cycle 6,000 rpm+
BBK, solid plot:
FPgreen:
**I'm sorry I don't have the latest plots from both these cars (which both make more power now, reference in the dyno plots I posted earlier in this thread) and I'm sorry I don't have the same visual type of plots. I lost my pencil so I can't overlay them currently.
It is a solenoid controlled by the ECU. In most instances, more robust than aftermarket EBC's in their control. Let's not turn this into a yet another MBC vs ECU-boost thread however.
Here are two points of data from a BBK using ECU-controlled boost and a FPgreen using ECU-controlled boost (both using GM 3 port solenoids).
This boost data was from the session where the BBK was producing 427whp/376wtq and the FPgreen was producing 403whp/378wtq. Both where evo 9's with M2 cams, TBE, FMIC, turbo porting, stock maf and stock ECU. Both are outputting the highest I've seen on our dyno so far, for their respective turbos.
The only reason I am posting this data is it backs up my claims that have been quoted here from the BBK thread I posted saying that the BBK held more boost on this 9 than any FPgreen on a 9. *both of these are running 100% duty cycle 6,000 rpm+
BBK, solid plot:
FPgreen:
**I'm sorry I don't have the latest plots from both these cars (which both make more power now, reference in the dyno plots I posted earlier in this thread) and I'm sorry I don't have the same visual type of plots. I lost my pencil so I can't overlay them currently.
EDIT: Don't get me wrong. The mph is especially impressive when you take into account the excessive amount of taper.
Last edited by sparky; Jan 17, 2009 at 04:03 PM.
^^ I think that clears up any misconceptions. Now thats how you do a real comparison. Seems like the "details" weren't left out of this comparison. Can you post up a comparison of the two cars with pump gas as well?
.
our 49-50lbs min flow rating is estimated....
to properly determine flow rating you need a test cell etc... which garrett is one of the few that has one... we dont....
the other things to consider is the efficiency of a design, not just flow.... what brian and others have found is our turbo allows for more timing advance than the others he has tested....
regardless.. now we are comparing turbos again... didnt tom say that wasnt really the point of this thread?
cb
to properly determine flow rating you need a test cell etc... which garrett is one of the few that has one... we dont....
the other things to consider is the efficiency of a design, not just flow.... what brian and others have found is our turbo allows for more timing advance than the others he has tested....
regardless.. now we are comparing turbos again... didnt tom say that wasnt really the point of this thread?
cb
I am wondering why the 5#'s of boost taper....Is this with a Green turbo or the stock IX turbo? I am still not clear on which of the two turbos we're talking about on your car. I imagine that to achieve that nice trap speed that it is, in fact the Green. But, I still wonder why the taper? Who ported it and just how extensive was the porting job? If you don't mind my asking.
EDIT: Don't get me wrong. The mph is especially impressive when you take into account the excessive amount of taper.
EDIT: Don't get me wrong. The mph is especially impressive when you take into account the excessive amount of taper.
Your turbine wheel's exducer is too heavily shrouded. On a Green there is about a 4-5 PSI of backpressure difference between a turbine housing that has the turbine discharge area radically ported and a housing with an unported discharge area.
Bryan(Razorlab) at GST has put up some boost logs of Greens with fully ported turbine discharge areas. The boost plot flatlines at 26 PSI or however high they set it.... NO TAPER whatsoever! Do a search for those logs and some pics of radically ported turbine housings by 9sec9, and "ssteve"(who is also on Norcalevo).
If you totally port the turbine discharge area, or have "ssteve", do it or send it back to Forced Performance for their latest, improved porting job you should be able to get rid of that insidious taper. Or after looking at the pics you may attempt the porting youself.
Bryan(Razorlab) at GST has put up some boost logs of Greens with fully ported turbine discharge areas. The boost plot flatlines at 26 PSI or however high they set it.... NO TAPER whatsoever! Do a search for those logs and some pics of radically ported turbine housings by 9sec9, and "ssteve"(who is also on Norcalevo).
If you totally port the turbine discharge area, or have "ssteve", do it or send it back to Forced Performance for their latest, improved porting job you should be able to get rid of that insidious taper. Or after looking at the pics you may attempt the porting youself.
Last edited by sparky; Jan 18, 2009 at 09:49 AM.
Bryan, do you see any differences in the porting jobs of each turbo, since this WOULD help/hurt the boost. Pressure differential between the mouth and the butthole could make for either low pitched rumbles due to less velocity, or high pitched squeekers. (Trying to dumb down and make good analysis for those who would rather have a visual).
Chad, I agree with your last points. The latest technology in wheels is definitely better than when the Green came out in 2006. The new BBK Full certainly appears to take advantage of the latest in design knowledge. I have to ask this, how did you determine what it took to build a PUMP GAS turbo? Did you see a difference through testing of what characteristics Pump vs Race fuel had on turbo efficiencies? I know I've asked this several times, but I still haven't seen any one really address this, although it's been used over and over again.
Chad, I agree with your last points. The latest technology in wheels is definitely better than when the Green came out in 2006. The new BBK Full certainly appears to take advantage of the latest in design knowledge. I have to ask this, how did you determine what it took to build a PUMP GAS turbo? Did you see a difference through testing of what characteristics Pump vs Race fuel had on turbo efficiencies? I know I've asked this several times, but I still haven't seen any one really address this, although it's been used over and over again.
Your turbine wheel's exducer is too heavily shrouded. On a Green there is about a 4-5 PSI of backpressure difference between a turbine housing that has the turbine discharge area radically ported and a housing with an unported discharge area.
Bryan(Razorlab) at GST has put up some boost logs of Greens with fully ported turbine discharge areas. The boost plot flatlines at 26 PSI or however high they set it.... NO TAPER whatsoever! Do a search for those logs and some pics of radically ported turbine housings by 9sec9, and "ssteve"(who is also on Norcalevo).
Bryan(Razorlab) at GST has put up some boost logs of Greens with fully ported turbine discharge areas. The boost plot flatlines at 26 PSI or however high they set it.... NO TAPER whatsoever! Do a search for those logs and some pics of radically ported turbine housings by 9sec9, and "ssteve"(who is also on Norcalevo).
Now, just because the 8's are holding boost better on average with the same turbo, does not mean they are seeing the same airflow / making the same power.
Bryan, do you see any differences in the porting jobs of each turbo, since this WOULD help/hurt the boost. Pressure differential between the mouth and the butthole could make for either low pitched rumbles due to less velocity, or high pitched squeekers. (Trying to dumb down and make good analysis for those who would rather have a visual).
Unfortunatly no I don't. The FPgreen car did poorly on pump gas, made the same power as it did with the stock 9 turbo (339whp). However I think there was an issue with the turbine housing at the time. We swapped a dual flapper to single flapper housing (both ported) and tuned it straight on E85.
So for a recap of the same mods on both the FPgreen and BBK car:
Both on E85, both Evo 9, both Cosworth M2 cams, both same FMIC (perrin), both same open air filters (GST) both stock MAF, both stock ECU, both ECU-boost with GM 3port, both stock block/head, both on the same dyno with the same tuner.
Here is a datalog overlay of MAF Hz airflow between the FPgreen and BBK on those two cars:
Last edited by GST Motorsports; Jan 18, 2009 at 12:42 PM.
Bryan, do you see any differences in the porting jobs of each turbo, since this WOULD help/hurt the boost. Pressure differential between the mouth and the butthole could make for either low pitched rumbles due to less velocity, or high pitched squeekers. (Trying to dumb down and make good analysis for those who would rather have a visual).
Chad, I agree with your last points. The latest technology in wheels is definitely better than when the Green came out in 2006. The new BBK Full certainly appears to take advantage of the latest in design knowledge. I have to ask this, how did you determine what it took to build a PUMP GAS turbo? Did you see a difference through testing of what characteristics Pump vs Race fuel had on turbo efficiencies? I know I've asked this several times, but I still haven't seen any one really address this, although it's been used over and over again.
Chad, I agree with your last points. The latest technology in wheels is definitely better than when the Green came out in 2006. The new BBK Full certainly appears to take advantage of the latest in design knowledge. I have to ask this, how did you determine what it took to build a PUMP GAS turbo? Did you see a difference through testing of what characteristics Pump vs Race fuel had on turbo efficiencies? I know I've asked this several times, but I still haven't seen any one really address this, although it's been used over and over again.
ive had plenty of turbos that were difficult to tune at lower boost levels, but at moderate levels they woke up, even in terms of timing i could run etc....
there are characteristics in the wheel designs that can affect the efficiency at varying boost levels... I basically said... let's sacrifice what we need to to make power over 31+ psi, and concentrate on making the combination work from 22-28....
of course there was the issue of the comp and turbine development.... there are plenty of wheels out there that I love....
cb
Thanks for the input Chad. It's through this type of discussion that we all progress. The slanted or idiotic posts lend nothing to advance the discussion. Quite the contrary. I sincerely appreciate you keeping the thread 'intact'. Your a gentleman and that has been born out by your posts.
Thanks for the input Chad. It's through this type of discussion that we all progress. The slanted or idiotic posts lend nothing to advance the discussion. Quite the contrary. I sincerely appreciate you keeping the thread 'intact'. Your a gentleman and that has been born out by your posts.
I try to offer up as much info a I can.. I ask plenty of questions too, ask David lol....
Whenever we work on something new, I know im going to have to spend quite a bit of time answering questions, its part of the process.
cheers,
im watching football, something i never do lol.. oh well, march is racing season
cb
a little OT, but Tom, we would love to have you out for the Turbo race here in PA in May. Blouch and CBRD are putting the event on, and again, would love to have you out for it! Had a great time chatting (albeit a bit short) with you at the Shooutout last year.. would love to continue that this year.
Ok, back on topic...
Ok, back on topic...
We spent alot of timing analyzing wheels that I like to use in garrett housings... and what we use on the subarus also..... we also did alot of testing through each 1/2 lbs of boost through our testing, and watching the timing and such we could run at each level....
ive had plenty of turbos that were difficult to tune at lower boost levels, but at moderate levels they woke up, even in terms of timing i could run etc....
there are characteristics in the wheel designs that can affect the efficiency at varying boost levels... I basically said... let's sacrifice what we need to to make power over 31+ psi, and concentrate on making the combination work from 22-28....
of course there was the issue of the comp and turbine development.... there are plenty of wheels out there that I love....
cb
ive had plenty of turbos that were difficult to tune at lower boost levels, but at moderate levels they woke up, even in terms of timing i could run etc....
there are characteristics in the wheel designs that can affect the efficiency at varying boost levels... I basically said... let's sacrifice what we need to to make power over 31+ psi, and concentrate on making the combination work from 22-28....
of course there was the issue of the comp and turbine development.... there are plenty of wheels out there that I love....
cb
CBRD,
Does Blouch Turbo makes your BBK turbos?