Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Have thought about that too, but can't help but feel that there is a possibility the owner will want to charge for more boost at some point in the future. I tend to think of F20Bs and more so H22As as parallels of RB25s, which I'd probably not put a TD05 on either. I think in this case a little more lag and more than enough flow would be the preferred, but still pondering on it.

  On 05/03/2012 at 9:02 AM, GTScotT said:

.... the brutal hit of the 20g.

LOL, I wish it had a brutal hit :) The car that I drove years ago that made me go TD06-20G was an 180SX Jap Drift car and it did come on harder then the RB20...but wasnt as brutal as say an RB25 with HKS 3040...that came on HARD!

Re the low boost Honda. As a rough guide my thing makes 180rwks at 8psi. 225rwkws at 14psi and 260rwkws at 19psi...roughly. So they work ok at lower pressure ratios giving you a decent gain per psi even at low boost

Roy - cheers, thats the 20G with TD06 hotside - right? Thats one of the reasons I am pondering the full TD06SL2 20G, an 18G etc will make >230kw - but they may need the boost more. The Honda needs decent flow at lower boost, and they drive turbos reasonably well. If we went TD05 (or even 06) with an 18G compressor and found that it isn't flowing quite as much as we need then that would be quite a pain. If we go TD06SL2 20G its going to make the power the engine will want to make on 11-12psi as far as I can tell, but it will be less responsive than the 18G (esp. TD05 hotside one), which relatively speaking is probably less of a fail as I can't see the TD06SL2 being terribly laggy relative to rev range.

The trick here is the current turbo on the car is a Chinese 700hp something or another, so anything compared to that is probably going to feel supercharged :) The other thing to remember is with a filthy Honda, with this car the party starts at around 5500rpm and redline on this fella is 8000rpm regardless of if or what turbo is on it.

Appreciate any thoughts or experience that might help with this, as at the moment just trying to make the best educated guess.

Do you really peg the H22A with similar character to an RB25? That's some jump.

If its good flow at low boost I would be thinking larger compressor smaller turbine. Maybe TD05H 20G? I can only see this as a negative if the user wants to access the upper most regions of the compressors flow capacity. Remember again the Evos do quite well out of the little TD05H :thumbsup:

  On 05/03/2012 at 9:57 AM, GTScotT said:
Do you really peg the H22A with similar character to an RB25? That's some jump.

If its good flow at low boost I would be thinking larger compressor smaller turbine. Maybe TD05H 20G? I can only see this as a negative if the user wants to access the upper most regions of the compressors flow capacity. Remember again the Evos do quite well out of the little TD05H :thumbsup:

I'm not actually sure what you're saying by saying "Thats some jump", surely you aren't talking about an RB25 over an H22A?

Yeah, I had thought about the whole TD05/20G idea as well and still think its well worth considering though mindful of the fact that 240kw @ wheels on an EVO is pushing the old TD05s quite hard while there is the possibility we could be looking at numbers in that range from the Honda and really keen on ideally not becoming knock limited - or at least minimally so.

I owned a H22A VTEC Prelude in Auckland for 4 years, damn nice cars, and the H22A really gets going after 5500rpm - almost turbo goodness - they are quite high compression engines though, I take it that your friend's block (talking to you Lithium) has the compression lowered as its already turboed??

  On 06/03/2012 at 12:21 AM, Lithium said:

Yep, around 9.5:1 compression - and yeah, they are very good motors and have epic potential. My flatmates Prelude makes in the area of 190fwkw, which would be respectable for a turbo 4cyl even :)

Thats a bit hard to digest, from the factory they are 150kw at the engine, lets say this is 110-120 fwkw, and since Hondas are NA and so well tuned and designed from the factory, no amount of headers, exhaust, intake and VTEC controllers is going to net you that much gain over stock (unlike turbo cars), I think roughly even 30fwkw gain over stock is huge for a Honda. If that Prelude makes 190fwkw without a turbo (unless its the same friend with the turbo H22A?) then thats either pretty phenomenal or too good to be true..pinch.gif

  On 06/03/2012 at 12:41 AM, rondofj said:
If that Prelude makes 190fwkw without a turbo then thats either pretty phenomenal

Cheers, will tell the owner that... he gets a kick out of people being incredulous at the results :D A huge amount of work into it to get there - it goes a tad beyond exhaust intake and VTEC controller but no its not the car we're matching a turbo for so a bit OT, was pointing out these things can breathe something fierce if they want to.

gtfo with all your Honda talk.

with the lovely day yesterday with dry roads, i was able to test the current tune on only 14psi and it is very responsive.

will be interesting to compare graphs with mine and a gt3071 to compare boost/rpm when i get it.

cant wait to experience the full tune of 22psi in a few weeks!

will be lots of fun.. :devil:

oh and the car sounds extremely g4y with the gate plumbed up, it needs to scream!!

  On 06/03/2012 at 1:05 AM, dori34 said:

gtfo with all your Honda talk.

with the lovely day yesterday with dry roads, i was able to test the current tune on only 14psi and it is very responsive.

will be interesting to compare graphs with mine and a gt3071 to compare boost/rpm when i get it.

cant wait to experience the full tune of 22psi in a few weeks!

will be lots of fun.. :devil:

oh and the car sounds extremely g4y with the gate plumbed up, it needs to scream!!

I always thought you were the boy who digs Hondas.. On a different note, its good to hear you like the Kando TD06 on your 34 Neo, thats the way I'm sure I will be heading soon.:yes: From initial impressions, does the boost and 'torque feel' ramp up hard and aggressive or is it the boring linear feeling turbo that some people love??

  On 06/03/2012 at 1:29 AM, dori34 said:

Roy, can you please post up your latest td06-20g dyno graph so i got something to work off :)

Will be interesting to see the difference. I only have road speed graphs which normally look ok ithrough the mid due to the shorter gearing and 17" wheels.

This is my current one, running Plazmaman, 6boost and the difference is 98 and ARC cooler vs 100 and R34 GTR cooler.

med_gallery_462_50_656235.jpg

This gives you an idea of how much I lost with the Plazmaman and 6boost manifold

med_gallery_462_50_277177.jpg

LOL, so looking at the above graph you may start to understand why sometimes I seem like an argumentative bastard with looking to quantify results or asking questions. I have spent about 2k on manifold changes only to lose power and response and make the car more sensitive to ignition and detonation :spank:

  On 06/03/2012 at 1:04 AM, Lithium said:

Cheers, will tell the owner that... he gets a kick out of people being incredulous at the results :D A huge amount of work into it to get there - it goes a tad beyond exhaust intake and VTEC controller but no its not the car we're matching a turbo for so a bit OT, was pointing out these things can breathe something fierce if they want to.

agreed the honda product is hugely underated.. People in the states slap a turbo or 2 on a v6 accord and it easily pokes out 300fwkw...and there inlies their problem "FWKW" as useless as a one legged man in an ass kickin competition..the day they put a diff in the rear end is the day they get the notoriety they deserve..

  On 06/03/2012 at 1:41 AM, rondofj said:

I always thought you were the boy who digs Hondas.. On a different note, its good to hear you like the Kando TD06 on your 34 Neo, thats the way I'm sure I will be heading soon.:yes: From initial impressions, does the boost and 'torque feel' ramp up hard and aggressive or is it the boring linear feeling turbo that some people love??

yeh mate, comes on hard.

you will not be disappointed if you go down this path.

  On 06/03/2012 at 3:20 AM, dori34 said:

yeh mate, comes on hard.

you will not be disappointed if you go down this path.

Good to hear you sorted your boost problems mate. Keen to see your dyno results! What rpm are you hitting full boost by with the TD06SL2-20G?

Edited by swarzee
  On 06/03/2012 at 8:50 AM, swarzee said:

Good to hear you sorted your boost problems mate. Keen to see your dyno results! What rpm are you hitting full boost by with the TD06SL2-20G?

did a test last night,

in 4th from 2000rpm flat foot, it hit full boost by around 37-3800rpm.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • Yeah, that's fine**. But the numbers you came up with are just wrong. Try it for yourself. Put in any voltage from the possible range and see what result you get. You get nonsense. ** When I say "fine", I mean, it's still shit. The very simple linear formula (slope & intercept) is shit for a sensor with a non-linear response. This is the curve, from your data above. Look at the CURVE! It's only really linear between about 30 and 90 °C. And if you used only that range to define a curve, it would be great. But you would go more and more wrong as you went to higher temps. And that is why the slope & intercept found when you use 50 and 150 as the end points is so bad halfway between those points. The real curve is a long way below the linear curve which just zips straight between the end points, like this one. You could probably use the same slope and a lower intercept, to move that straight line down, and spread the error out. But you would 5-10°C off in a lot of places. You'd need to say what temperature range you really wanted to be most right - say, 100 to 130, and plop the line closest to teh real curve in that region, which would make it quite wrong down at the lower temperatures. Let me just say that HPTuners are not being realistic in only allowing for a simple linear curve. 
    • I feel I should re-iterate. The above picture is the only option available in the software and the blurb from HP Tuners I quoted earlier is the only way to add data to it and that's the description they offer as to how to figure it out. The only fields available is the blank box after (Input/ ) and the box right before = Output. Those are the only numbers that can be entered.
    • No, your formula is arse backwards. Mine is totally different to yours, and is the one I said was bang on at 50 and 150. I'll put your data into Excel (actually it already is, chart it and fit a linear fit to it, aiming to make it evenly wrong across the whole span. But not now. Other things to do first.
    • God damnit. The only option I actually have in the software is the one that is screenshotted. I am glad that I at least got it right... for those two points. Would it actually change anything if I chose/used 80C and 120C as the two points instead? My brain wants to imagine the formula put into HPtuners would be the same equation, otherwise none of this makes sense to me, unless: 1) The formula you put into VCM Scanner/HPTuners is always linear 2) The two points/input pairs are only arbitrary to choose (as the documentation implies) IF the actual scaling of the sensor is linear. then 3) If the scaling is not linear, the two points you choose matter a great deal, because the formula will draw a line between those two points only.
    • Nah, that is hella wrong. If I do a simple linear between 150°C (0.407v) and 50°C (2.98v) I get the formula Temperature = -38.8651*voltage + 165.8181 It is perfectly correct at 50 and 150, but it is as much as 20° out in the region of 110°C, because the actual data is significantly non-linear there. It is no more than 4° out down at the lowest temperatures, but is is seriously shit almost everywhere. I cannot believe that the instruction is to do a 2 point linear fit. I would say the method I used previously would have to be better.
×
×
  • Create New...