Jump to content
SAU Community

Power Fc Vs Nistune

Mick_o

By Mick_o,
in Engines & Forced Induction

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 213
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

DVS JEZ
DVS JEZ

Cough cough

GTSBoy
GTSBoy

Nistune can be set up to idle really well with most changes, but as with all such things, spastically large injectors or massive AFM capacity mean that you're working at the very bottom end of the sca

GTSBoy
GTSBoy

Well, sort of. It is actually pretty easy to determine the relationship, for A GIVEN ENGINE, between MAP and air flow (with IAT correction). And it's not going to be much less accurate to calculate

Posted Images

Rolls Grand Master

Rolls

Posted
Posted

We can produce both powers at the same rev by adjusting the throttle plate.

Timing would be correct for the application at both loads.

If the AFR is the same fuel usage will be double.

However, I do believe I was caught up in the moment and using the word "exactly" may not bet totally correct.

There are many factors that come in to play like the difference in barometric pressure, air and fuel temp from the 2 events being 100hp and 200hp.

If measurable there would have to be some sort of variation.

The real concern is why your turbo is kicking out? I would be upset if my 3037 was doing that

More revs means more inefficiencies due to friction in all the moving parts, different revs mean different intake speeds due to the cam (which is why torque changes and isn't always the same) on boost, off boost changes things as well. The same power at the same AFR can be COMPLETELY different.

D_Stirls Veteran

D_Stirls

Posted
Posted

More revs means more inefficiencies due to friction in all the moving parts, different revs mean different intake speeds due to the cam (which is why torque changes and isn't always the same) on boost, off boost changes things as well. The same power at the same AFR can be COMPLETELY different.

Torque changes through the rev range due to changing Volumetric Efficiency.

R31Nismoid Grand Master

R31Nismoid

Posted
Posted

i dont get whats so "lol", you do realise that its a street turbo usually you dont go over 5000rpm, i can deal with the 500rpm unlike having a lot of lag.

A street turbo that comes on @ 4500rpm - when you don't go over 5000rpm?

500rpm band... awesome.

Birds Grand Master

Birds

Posted
Posted

Let's not forget more RPM when connected to a gear = more vehicle speed = more resistance = greater load on the engine to maintain that speed...will change with inclines and declines of road surface too. Way too many variables!

GTSBoy Grand Master

GTSBoy

Posted
Posted

i dont get whats so "lol", you do realise that its a street turbo usually you dont go over 5000rpm, i can deal with the 500rpm unlike having a lot of lag.

Lol. On drugs much? Who says you don't usually go over 5k in a street turbo car. Especially wierd when we're talking about RB engines where you can scream to well over 5k in less than a second in 1st and 2nd....and usually do so.

HYPED6 Collaborator

HYPED6

Posted
Posted

More revs means more inefficiencies due to friction in all the moving parts, different revs mean different intake speeds due to the cam (which is why torque changes and isn't always the same) on boost, off boost changes things as well. The same power at the same AFR can be COMPLETELY different.

I do believe i said the same revs for different power.

You should actually read my post before replying.

B-rice Mentor

B-rice

Posted
Posted

Lol. On drugs much? Who says you don't usually go over 5k in a street turbo car. Especially wierd when we're talking about RB engines where you can scream to well over 5k in less than a second in 1st and 2nd....and usually do so.

im running a GTX3076r soon so i dont really care i never take it on track so below 5000rpm is good enough beside if i tune that badboy properly i can achieve about 480hp which is very decent for a street car. Another mans eat is another mans poison.

HYPED6 Collaborator

HYPED6

Posted
Posted

The same power at the same AFR can be COMPLETELY different.

What uses completely more fuel.

An Ls1 5.7 NA at 12.5:1 making 370rwhp

Or a CA18 turbo at 12.5:1 making 370rwhp?

Now we are talking massive measurable differences here so the answer should be very clear.

Rolls Grand Master

Rolls

Posted
Posted (edited)

I have no idea, would come down to many factors... valve train friction, the v8 has more valves, pushrods, but each piston is lighter, the turbo car has higher VE but less cylinders.... Id flip a coin imo.

Probably go the LS1 because of more conservative cam profiles/emissions laws when the motor came out.

Edited by Rolls
HYPED6 Collaborator

HYPED6

Posted
Posted

but the LS1 has more volume, and needs less load per liter to create the the same power.

In a perfect world would have a smaller throttle opening but generate the same power.

So you can tell me, on the same engine creating 2 different power out puts that fuel requirements per horsepower are COMPLETELY different

But you cant tell me that with 2 completely different engines, creating the same horsepower your not to sure what one would use more fuel?

Rolls Grand Master

Rolls

Posted
Posted
So you can tell me, on the same engine creating 2 different power out puts that fuel requirements per horsepower are COMPLETELY different

But you cant tell me that with 2 completely different engines, creating the same horsepower your not to sure what one would use more fuel?

I'm not sure if this is a serious question? How on earth am I meant to know the different efficiencies of the two engines? It involves hundreds of things! All I said is it would be different...

HYPED6 Collaborator

HYPED6

Posted
Posted

More revs means more inefficiencies due to friction in all the moving parts, different revs mean different intake speeds due to the cam (which is why torque changes and isn't always the same) on boost, off boost changes things as well. The same power at the same AFR can be COMPLETELY different.

Its not a serious question, Its a trick question. Its also a demonstration to show that statements like the above shouldn't be posted unless you know exactly what you are talking about.

Both engines use the similar fuel. most would say the same fuel. both do it in COMPLETELY different ways.....

But both use very similar fuel quantities.

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
 Share
Go to topic listing


  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • MBS206
      R34 GT-T cycling ABS pump

      By MBS206 · Posted

      The team at OBD2 Australia are pretty good, shoot them an email and ask them. I've dealt with them before for work stuff. I'd be shocked if it didn't work, so long as Consult can activate the ABS. But you might need to use KLine for it which would be the stopper, as I don't think that piece does KLine comms.
    • Dose Pipe Sutututu
      R34 GT-T cycling ABS pump

      By Dose Pipe Sutututu · Posted

      Yeah and hence my ghetto way of slamming the brakes, get the ABS to cycle, rebleed seems to be a sensible workaround.
    • TurboTapin
      CD009 RB Conversion

      By TurboTapin · Posted

      Hey! Happy to help. Nothing inherently wrong with the adapter, it's more so with Brett Collins himself. He gave me a lot of incorrect information when I was in contact with him and was extremely rude when I challenged him. He stated I could not use any aftermarket twin plate clutches except for his own, not to use the dush shield, bla bla bla and it was all BS.  Collins stated to cut roughly 14mm's off the housing, I took off 15mm to make room for the dust shield. I would confirm with whatever adapter manufacturer you're using. 
    • GTSBoy
      33 GTR Broken front wheel knuckle

      By GTSBoy · Posted

      There's plenty of OEM steering arms that are bolted on. Not in the same fashion/orientation as that one, to be sure, but still. Examples of what I'm thinking of would use holes like the ones that have the downward facing studs on the GTR uprights (down the bottom end, under the driveshaft opening, near the lower balljoint) and bolt a steering arm on using only 2 bolts that would be somewhat similarly in shear as these you're complainig about. I reckon old Holdens did that, and I've never seen a broken one of those.
    • MBS206
      33 GTR Broken front wheel knuckle

      By MBS206 · Posted

      Let's be honest, most of the people designing parts like the above, aren't engineers. Sometimes they come from disciplines that gives them more qualitative feel for design than quantitive, however, plenty of them have just picked up a license to Fusion and started making things. And that's the honest part about the majority of these guys making parts like that, they don't have huge R&D teams and heaps of time or experience working out the numbers on it. Shit, most smaller teams that do have real engineers still roll with "yeah, it should be okay, and does the job, let's make them and just see"...   The smaller guys like KiwiCNC, aren't the likes of Bosch etc with proper engineering procedures, and oversights, and sign off. As such, it's why they can produce a product to market a lot quicker, but it always comes back to, question it all.   I'm still not a fan of that bolt on piece. Why not just machine it all in one go? With the right design it's possible. The only reason I can see is if they want different heights/length for the tie rod to bolt to. And if they have the cncs themselves,they can easily offer that exact feature, and just machine it all in one go. 
×
×
  • Create New...