In case anyone was wondering, it can be done, at least for a little while. At 128K miles, this thing is no spring chicken, but it was driven on full synthetic for the past 40K.
Boost is 16 PSI at about 3000 RPM and tapers off to 10 PSI by redline. I'm using 93 octane fuel 2-step colder plugs and a very good air to water intercooling setup. It's about 50F out here and IATs are around 70F under boost. Without the intercooler, I absolutely could not go beyond 7 psi without knocking. With the intercooler, there's no sign of knock at 16 PSI. There's no way I'd attempt this with an air/air intercooler.
I have a dyno run scheduled tomorrow morning so wish me luck.
2002 Cavalier 2200 5spd
Nice. I run 10 daily but have seen 13-15 spikes setting up a boost controller before..pretty scary for my stock motor but damn did it feel great!
What are you doing for fuel?
I designed and built a speed-density EIC that drives a Delphi 95 lb/hr low impedance injector. This car's primary purpose in life right now is to be a testbed for it.
2002 Cavalier 2200 5spd
Solid Snake wrote:In case anyone was wondering, it can be done, at least for a little while. At 128K miles, this thing is no spring chicken, but it was driven on full synthetic for the past 40K.
Boost is 16 PSI at about 3000 RPM and tapers off to 10 PSI by redline. I'm using 93 octane fuel 2-step colder plugs and a very good air to water intercooling setup. It's about 50F out here and IATs are around 70F under boost. Without the intercooler, I absolutely could not go beyond 7 psi without knocking. With the intercooler, there's no sign of knock at 16 PSI. There's no way I'd attempt this with an air/air intercooler.
I have a dyno run scheduled tomorrow morning so wish me luck.
Been there, done that...... I was set at 20psi on my old setup(T3/T4 60 Trim/stage 3 wheel--all on stock bottom end) and it held a solid 20psi with no tapering off.... It was well over 300whp before it let go(spanked a Teminator when it came apart
), I just never made it to the dyno for "proof".... Can't wait to see your numbers though... BTW, looked at your profile again... I would highly advise you to get a "set" of bigger injectors and tune them accordingly. Your 5th injector can and will eventually cause you issues... As stated before, can't wait to see your numbers....
BTW, you have any updated pics of your setup?
P&P Tuning
420.5whp / 359.8wtq
Glad to hear that yours has held up to even more abuse. Exactly how did your engine "let go"?
I'm using a plain old T3 clone with .48 turbine. It spools up quickly and has a lot of grunt down low. Reminds me of my Saab 9K. It doesn't develop the full 16 PSI in 1st or 2nd because the gear ends fairly quickly.
I'm at work now but I have updated pics at home. Hopefully my cousin can come with me tomorrow and take a video of the pull.
Both my ECU and motor are stock. Driveability is still very good and the transition from vacuum to boost is seamless with no CELs . Tonight I'm going to fine tune fuel delivery and lock the fuel matrix.
When I finish this EIC (hopefully the 2200 lasts that long), I'll get a bigger set of injectors and build a SAFC as my next project.
2002 Cavalier 2200 5spd
Solid Snake wrote:Glad to hear that yours has held up to even more abuse. Exactly how did your engine "let go"?
I'm using a plain old T3 clone with .48 turbine. It spools up quickly and has a lot of grunt down low. Reminds me of my Saab 9K. It doesn't develop the full 16 PSI in 1st or 2nd because the gear ends fairly quickly.
I ended up blowing #3 ringland. No signs of any detonation(physically, and off of HPT logs). It appears the ring gap was my issue...
P&P Tuning
420.5whp / 359.8wtq
hmmm... so if the 2200 can hold that much power and boost... how much can a stock L61 really handle?
...I am the BEST at what I do...
"I guess your right[BlueBoost]. Me and my slow car are failers."
^Two VERY different motors, there's enough ticker tape on the L61's to know they wont take that kinda boost in stock form.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edited Thursday, December 03, 2009 7:38 PM
"Never argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience!" -Anonymous
May we add this to the pros/cons of a 2200
I took it out tonight for some last minute tuning. It's too late to screw around with a new learning algorithm, so I just locked the fuel table, and I'll run with it tomorrow morning. It varies from about 11.5:1 to 13:1. While I was out, I came across a "Type R" RSX with some A-pillar gauges, he didn't want to run. The rest of the time I toyed around with a V6 eclipse.
Quote:
hmmm... so if the 2200 can hold that much power and boost... how much can a stock L61 really handle?
L61's have higher compression, which works against high boost numbers. On the other hand, you get more power out of every PSI. Also, 2200's don't flow as well, so even though I've got 16 PSI at the manifold, how much air is actually getting in there is anyone's guess.
Also are we talking about how much boost the engine will tolerate under perfect combustion with race fuel, or just the detonation wall you'll run into on pump gas? A 2200 will probably let you shove more boost down its throat, without detonating, but that doesn't have much to do with its strength. When detonation starts, both of these motors are dead in the water.
A few years back it was pretty much gospel around here that "2200 rods break at 7 PSI". If you run 7 psi of boost through a crappy intercooler, or no intercooler, you'll cause detonation, and that will break your 2200. No engine is going to tolerate detonation for long. Now if we're talking about the fatigue limit of the rods, maybe an engineer around here could figure that out. It's a safe bet though, that well behaved combustion at 16 PSI causes far less peak stress on pistons and rods than detonation under low boost or even with no boost at all.
That's why I can't stress the importance of intake charge temperature enough. It's very easy to grenade this motor at 7 PSI if your intercooling sucks. Stupidly, I decided to just run a charge pipe to the throttle to get some boost going before my intercooler setup arrived, and the motor was kicking like a mule at the 7 PSI mark. Now, I'm using a full-blown radiator as a H/E (which also gives a great sleeper look). There's a huge amount of thermal mass in this system, so by the time the compressed charge manages to raise it a mere 25F, I'm already bouncing off the governer, and by the time I coast back down to 55MPH, It's almost back to ambient again.
Personally, I don't believe in using extra fuel as coolant. I'd sooner use water. I've found that unless you're on the bleeding edge of detonation, a lean mixture merely causes some power loss, it doesn't preignite. I've run off-the-charts lean (think 17:1) without detonating.
Ambient temp tonight was 48F and boosted IATs averaged 70F. The highest temperature I saw on my scangauge after a 0-100 run was 80F. For 12-16 PSI, that's ridiculously good. When the summer comes, I'll have to pull it back, but for now, tis the season for boosting.
2002 Cavalier 2200 5spd
so... water meth for christmas... lol
...I am the BEST at what I do...
"I guess your right[BlueBoost]. Me and my slow car are failers."
Keep in mind that a H/E efficiency is based on power/energy sink. Pressure alone is only one piece of the equation, flow rate is the other. To intercool 300hp is relatively easy regardless of HE style. I do believe your numbers are slightly better than I've seen with say an air to air but I personally wouldn't write home about them.....as far as turbo setups go.
See you can have 50psi at very low flow rates which will increase time to life in the HE thus increasing chances to sink energy/heat and increasing chances to decrease temp. So it would be easy to see a larger displacement motor with more flow rate at lower pressures with higher IAT's then you and they could still have a more efficient HE setup than you do...see my point? You gotta think about both variables in the equation. To put it another way, dP(MAP - Baro) is directly related to dT(Intake temp post HE - Ambient temp), meaning a fixed amount of pressure increase will be associated with a fixed amount of temperature increase. Now, remember that your HE's efficiency in respect to your intake change is primarily a function of time to live. So, the slower it passes thru the HE, the more heat sunk/energy lost into the HE. Or you could say that dT(Intake temp post HE - Ambient temp) is inversely related to dt(Time of air exit HE - Time air enter HE, or HE resonance time) - Sorry to nerd it up, I think that helps me keep it straight while trying to think about it more then it does help anybody else.
EDIT: It's all personal preference as far as what it's worth to themselves, but I have not seen very many benefits if any in a Air-Water HE over an Air-Air in engine power levels below 450hp. Above that, the added energy storage of water is noticed, but only as a short term buffer since it too will eventually get heat soaked and require air to cool....so this is kinda why I say it's personal preference. To each person the driving style, power level and economics will be different.
Generally it's safe to say an air-water HE only buys you time over an air-air, and in some cases not much at that....depends on how much water you got circulating in the system. Then also remember, water weighs in at 8.34lbs/gal....by the time you got a reasonable volume of it, plus a pump(including weight and energy consumption) and plumbing, it can get pretty heavy and costly compared to an air-air only system.
Just mentioning this as something to think about for people interested in the two options and wanting to think about the implications caused by the differences.
Edited 3 time(s). Last edited Friday, December 04, 2009 7:01 PM
"Never argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience!" -Anonymous
Joshua Dearman wrote:^Two VERY different motors, there's enough ticker tape on the L61's to know they wont take that kinda boost in stock form.
I have seen L61's hold 18-20 psi in stock form. With stock fuel pump. One car pulled 113mph in the 1/4.
FU Tuning
There are still people talking about how much "boost" a given engine can hold? 16PSI on Snake's T3 2200 is not the same as 16PSI on a saab set up on an eco is not the same as 16PSI on a gt35r on an LD9.
Power breaks parts (and bad tuning), not necessarily pressure.
John Higgins wrote:Joshua Dearman wrote:^Two VERY different motors, there's enough ticker tape on the L61's to know they wont take that kinda boost in stock form.
I have seen L61's hold 18-20 psi in stock form. With stock fuel pump. One car pulled 113mph in the 1/4.
LOL, well, that could very well be true. Cause with the stock fuel pump your not going to have any problems since it wont push enough fuel to go past the limits of the motor(for the stock eco in this case). Like said above, his VE must have been absolutely crap for that motor for the stock fuel pump to be able to supply enough fuel at that pressure. Not surprised.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edited Friday, December 04, 2009 4:46 AM
"Never argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience!" -Anonymous
Didn't do as well as I thought. Something was off, AFRs were between 14-15:1. Also, he started around 3100 RPM, and I'm sure peak boost is right around there.
Anyway:
172.96 WHP
196.11 WTQ
I'm seriously considering ditching the fifth injector for a set of 4 and converting this unit to a SAFC.
Quote:
EDIT: It's all personal preference as far as what it's worth to themselves, but I have not seen very many benefits if any in a Air-Water HE over an Air-Air in engine power levels below 450hp. Above that, the added energy storage of water is noticed, but only as a short term buffer since it too will eventually get heat soaked and require air to cool....so this is kinda why I say it's personal preference. To each person the driving style, power level and economics will be different.
Generally it's safe to say an air-water HE only buys you time over an air-air, and in some cases not much at that....depends on how much water you got circulating in the system. Then also remember, water weighs in at 8.34lbs/gal....by the time you got a reasonable volume of it, plus a pump(including weight and energy consumption) and plumbing, it can get pretty heavy and costly compared to an air-air only system.
Haven't seen many benefits? How about running at 17:1 at 4500 RPM under 11 PSI, without a single ping?
(I know, fuel needs work)
I know the 2200 doesn't have fantastic flow, but it's hardly an outlier. The charge might sit in the IC for a little longer, but the other end of that is the charge needs to be compressed more in order to make the same power, which generates more heat. At 50 psi, you'll need the extra time in the intercooler, because compressing a charge to that pressure is going to generate a lot of heat. No free lunch here.
Yes, the water will become heat soaked in time, if you just run a tank with no exchanger. There's 1 gallon of water in my system between the IC and radiator (no reservoir), and it's worth every one of those 8 lbs. It takes a HUGE amount of energy to raise the temperature of a gallon of water (way more than 8 lbs of Al). The efficiency of the exchanger is important for any system, but not having giant temp swings each time you floor it has its benefits as well.
2002 Cavalier 2200 5spd
Well, I didn't write any of that to make you think I was kicking dirt on your setup man, don't get me wrong. I like when people think out of the box a bit. However I was just trying to bring to light some things that people might overlook...that's it. Also, I think you understood my example, but keep in mind 50psi was just a number used as an extreme example..nothing more.
Also, don't think just because you increase HE resonance time you need to further compress, not the case. What happens when you cool the charge under constant pressure(intercooler piping) is you increase the density. Which means the flow-rate(volume/min or CFM) post HE will be lower than pre HE...but the mass rate (lbs/min) will be the same on the entrance and exit of the HE.(This is why turbos are rated in lbs/min as CFM is useless without temperature correction and that would then make compressor maps a 3D map and even harder to understand) This is where alot of people get confused. Keep in mind the mass-rate is what is used directly into the HP calcs. Vol/min needs density applied to get there...and in an HE there is a dynamic density process in play, do not confuse this with a dynamic pressure process.....not the case, there is no throttle valve inline in the HE....or shouldn't be lol.
Also, don't forget that in a forced conduction energy transfer between the compressed air and aluminum is VERY efficient and gets more and more efficient in regard to heat transfer as the pressure increases. Now, also keeping in mind while added pressure inside the Al intercooler is raising it's internal efficiency, the external efficiency of the Al to the outside cooling(energy sinking) remains constant(for the most part) since the outside atmospheric pressure is constant......except that the cars velocity can increase this...but only to a point. Probably not seeing more than 1-3psi @ 100mhp or so....so I consider it arguably constant. So this is where the heat input to the Al can overcome the heat sinking abilities of the Al to the outside air. Mind you tho, all of the properties are hugely influenced by surface area since this is directly related to the heat transfer process. The outside contact area of the intercooler is quite a bit larger than the inside surface area so this makes up for most of the intake vs. outlet heat issues of the air-air HE's up to a point.....this point is close to that of what I mentioned earlier...about 450hp. With this in mind, this is when the heat absorbing properties of the water come into play. The same can be said of energy transfer of water as well, increase pressure and you can increase the transfer but not nearly as high of rate-of-gain to that of air...but water starts out with much higher transfer properties to begin with. Given this tho...you can increase the water pressure in the HE to sink more heat just like the concept with air...but with more limited gains than with air.
My simple point is this, air-air is generally easier to implement and has advantages over water at lower HP requirements. Water comes to shine at higher power levels then a 4 cyl generally sees. I said generally.......
Other things can be done to both setups to increase efficiency to better match driving intent and power level(air throughput). ie: raising water pressure can help sink heat on the HE, where spraying water on the outside of an Al air-air can dramatically increase energy sinking capabilities and in turn greatly increase it's effectiveness at higher power levels to better match that of a water setup at higher power levels than mentioned earlier. This step then obviously would be used as an incremental add to an air-air as power levels are increased down the road and wouldn't generally be a place to start since you would be left with again, pumps, lines and water tanks, ect.(weight)
Anyway, dont take this in the wrong light, no stones thrown from here. I dont want this to turn into like the many twin charge threads. All I tried to do there is something similar by trying to get them to understand that the charger sinks energy and they act like I spit in their mouth and slapped their momma. lol No need to go there.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edited Friday, December 04, 2009 11:07 AM
"Never argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience!" -Anonymous
Solid Snake wrote:Didn't do as well as I thought. Something was off, AFRs were between 14-15:1. Also, he started around 3100 RPM, and I'm sure peak boost is right around there.
Anyway:
172.96 WHP
196.11 WTQ
I'm seriously considering ditching the fifth injector for a set of 4 and converting this unit to a SAFC.
Just noticed your point about 'peak boost', don't confuse peak boost with peak power. Those #'s you have there are quite probably your real #'s. You need to think of an engine as an air pump, and fuel is added only to keep the AFR below X(whatever your target may be). Once you look at an engine in this light you begin to realize that engine's use the RPM to increase air throughput, by doing this you increase fuel input, thus increasing power as the fuel is where the power comes from. Just because you show 16psi @ 3000rpms doesn't mean it is making more power then when your car is at say 10psi @ 5500rpm. Your engine is pushing more air at 5500rpm then at 3000rpm, this obviously as I said, gives you the path to add the additional fuel which you can convert to energy.
Given the large drop in pressure drop you see thru your power band tho would leave me to believe the turbo is much too small for your application, however should give you a rather flat power curve at the same time since obviously the 16psi, while during slower operation of your pump, will fit more oxygen into the cylinders in each suction stroke than the pump will consume at 10psi but also remember how many more times you consume this 10psi volume of air at the higher rpm too. In your case, however, my example may be threatened by your small of a turbo being sort of an 'exception' case as if you were to apply this to say a more traditional turbo setup with a larger flowing turbo and a more ramped HP/psi curve you would really see what I mention. However the concept is valid still.
"Never argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience!" -Anonymous
Quote:
Just noticed your point about 'peak boost', don't confuse peak boost with peak power. Those #'s you have there are quite probably your real #'s. You need to think of an engine as an air pump, and fuel is added only to keep the AFR below X(whatever your target may be). Once you look at an engine in this light you begin to realize that engine's use the RPM to increase air throughput, by doing this you increase fuel input, thus increasing power as the fuel is where the power comes from. Just because you show 16psi @ 3000rpms doesn't mean it is making more power then when your car is at say 10psi @ 5500rpm. Your engine is pushing more air at 5500rpm then at 3000rpm, this obviously as I said, gives you the path to add the additional fuel which you can convert to energy.
Oh, I know power and boost are two different things. I don't think starting lower in the rev range would have affected my peak power much but I definitely think I would have gotten some more peak torque, especially since the engine's N/A torque peak is in that neighborhood. Also, starting at 3K really didn't do the turbo justice on paper. It really shines in the 2500-3500 region.
2002 Cavalier 2200 5spd
Joshua Dearman wrote:John Higgins wrote:Joshua Dearman wrote:^Two VERY different motors, there's enough ticker tape on the L61's to know they wont take that kinda boost in stock form.
I have seen L61's hold 18-20 psi in stock form. With stock fuel pump. One car pulled 113mph in the 1/4.
LOL, well, that could very well be true. Cause with the stock fuel pump your not going to have any problems since it wont push enough fuel to go past the limits of the motor(for the stock eco in this case). Like said above, his VE must have been absolutely crap for that motor for the stock fuel pump to be able to supply enough fuel at that pressure. Not surprised.
VE was stock. No HPT at that time. The was even on stock injectors, but used the fuel side of a nitrous kit for fuel and a FMU.
I relaize PSI does not mean alot, but since everyone else was throwing PSI numbers out I decided to as well.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edited Friday, December 04, 2009 12:32 PM
FU Tuning
John Higgins wrote:
VE was stock. No HPT at that time. The was even on stock injectors, but used the fuel side of a nitrous kit for fuel and a FMU.
I relaize PSI does not mean alot, but since everyone else was throwing PSI numbers out I decided to as well.
Your absolutely right about pressure meaning little, but using the fuel side of the N2 kit makes ALOT more sense in this case since the pressure be damned at that point, just match the orifice size to get the rate required....this is probly what allowed him to get away with the stock pump. I'd bet the fuel pressure drop drastically allowing the pump to flow ALOT more when that N2 nozzle was opened up. Injector duty be damned, just size the orifice right where once opened the injectors trim to low duty, then increase to a 'reasonable' rate as the engine needed in higher RPM's...that's a terrible way to do it, but very interesting concept.
"Never argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience!" -Anonymous
Joshua Dearman wrote:John Higgins wrote:
VE was stock. No HPT at that time. The was even on stock injectors, but used the fuel side of a nitrous kit for fuel and a FMU.
I relaize PSI does not mean alot, but since everyone else was throwing PSI numbers out I decided to as well.
Your absolutely right about pressure meaning little, but using the fuel side of the N2 kit makes ALOT more sense in this case since the pressure be damned at that point, just match the orifice size to get the rate required....this is probly what allowed him to get away with the stock pump. I'd bet the fuel pressure drop drastically allowing the pump to flow ALOT more when that N2 nozzle was opened up. Injector duty be damned, just size the orifice right where once opened the injectors trim to low duty, then increase to a 'reasonable' rate as the engine needed in higher RPM's...that's a terrible way to do it, but very interesting concept.
Yeah it was not done on purpose truly. Car was Turboed (First Ecotec Turboed other than GM) with a 35 shot. Made 207whp on 7psi, and 240whp on 7psi with 35 shot. Nitrous side gotten broken. He was already running a FMU for boost. Then decided to use the fuel side for more fuel. Car was tuned on the dyno with wideband and EGT gauge to safe AFR's. Usually at 18psi, stock timing, 1 step colder plugs. Car ran unreal!!
I do agree for the reason the stock pump held up.
My only real point being that with the tuning we now have I think we are still on scratching the beginning. I think others have shown this. Ryan being one with his 2200 Turbo. It just has to be done right and tune right.
FU Tuning
I went and double checked everything. Boost control electronics were working, but I found why it peaked at 11 PSI at the dyno. The stupid nuts on the wastegate actuator loosened up. The guy at the shop said he didn't hear any detonation at all while it ran, so at least that much is nice.
I took it out again tonight and at 16 PSI it was solid. It even jumped up to 19 for a second. There were a lot of lean spots on my map around 7 psi in the upper rev range. I tried to flatten them out when a 5.0 stang pulled up and barked his tires. I walked away from him twice and he got off at the next exit. I was kinda bummed over my tune, until I stomped a GT with it.
2002 Cavalier 2200 5spd
Solid Snake wrote:The guy at the shop said he didn't hear any detonation at all while it ran, so at least that much is nice.
Please don't tell me your saying you have no knock because a dyno operator doesn't "HEAR" knock with his ears? I want to assume your logging a knock sensor, but no matter how I read your sentence it leads me to believe your trusting somebody's ears.
"Never argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience!" -Anonymous
Joshua Dearman wrote:Solid Snake wrote:The guy at the shop said he didn't hear any detonation at all while it ran, so at least that much is nice.
Please don't tell me your saying you have no knock because a dyno operator doesn't "HEAR" knock with his ears? I want to assume your logging a knock sensor, but no matter how I read your sentence it leads me to believe your trusting somebody's ears.
Unless they are "electric" ears
P&P Tuning
420.5whp / 359.8wtq
