bi-turbo gt v6 (z7u)

ahh, theres the info I was looking for..

If your running 300's, then at 65psi (4.5bar line pressure) and 100% duty you are going to see around 330-360bhp max, which does nearly match your DIN corrected 370bhp.

Won't see that 450bhp without some further work (if possible)

Maybe some more pipes?

. the timing advance alone is worth another 5 % in power i believe.

Dangerous though if you've already maxed out your fuel system...

well, in a way your right and in way you arent. what break specific fuel consumption are you assuming? i have dug up some old notes saying 6 x 300 x 1.3 =2370 cc. this means i was running 300 cc injectors at (1.32)2 x 3 = 5.2 bars. now 2370 cc/min at 0.25 g/h/hp is 2.37 x 60 X 0.78 / .25 = 444 hp. even at the mentioned 4.5 bars 6 X 300 x root (4.5/3) = 2205 meaning 413 hp. 250 g/h/hp by the way works out to 0.25/0.454 = 0.55 lb/h/hp bsfc. if the injectors are maxed out, the are maxed out. please realize that all this is more than 5 years behind me. i think, however, that these were my pre motec figures and that i went to lower pressure and larger injectors later (volvo???). one of these day i will try and start my old pc with all the logging files and then i will let you know.

the methanol is a fuel, so no further enrichment by the injectors would be needed. additional advance due to the cooling of intake charge.

Hey Roman, nice power outputs its excellent to see someone backing up their claims, good work. Where are you from?

i live in basel, switzerland.

Roman, I really like what you've done, and I totally agree with Ragnotti, it's lovely to see someone who knows what they're talking about and has actually done things way beyond everyone on here (including myself).

[Alpineandy]

i live in basel, switzerland.

Nice town, and close to mulhouse (schlumf collection - a good way to lose a day or 2)

i see, the compliments come after midnight.

by the way, basel also is close to anneau du rhin, which is a race track. only about 50 km, so i dont need a trailer.

It's 23:48 as I write this

well, in a way your right and in way you arent. what break specific fuel consumption are you assuming? i have dug up some old notes saying 6 x 300 x 1.3 =2370 cc. this means i was running 300 cc injectors at (1.32)2 x 3 = 5.2 bars. now 2370 cc/min at 0.25 g/h/hp is 2.37 x 60 X 0.78 / .25 = 444 hp. even at the mentioned 4.5 bars 6 X 300 x root (4.5/3) = 2205 meaning 413 hp. 250 g/h/hp by the way works out to 0.25/0.454 = 0.55 lb/h/hp bsfc. if the injectors are maxed out, the are maxed out. please realize that all this is more than 5 years behind me. i think, however, that these were my pre motec figures and that i went to lower pressure and larger injectors later (volvo???). one of these day i will try and start my old pc with all the logging files and then i will let you know.

Nope, sorry...

http://www.injector.com/injectorselection.php

http://www.rceng.com/technical.htm#WORKSHEET

http://www.iroczone.com/calcs/injectorsize.htm

Hence, why you made thereabouts 350-370bhp (evidence still forthcoming.. .. )

I'm sure thats the engine they used on the space shuttle - certainly looks like it. Something thats come out of this thread re - exhaust manifold design - are we now saying its not so much the manifold restriction but rather where the manifolds are siamesed into the turbocharger that causes all the power loss?

I'm sure thats the engine they used on the space shuttle - certainly looks like it. Something thats come out of this thread re - exhaust manifold design - are we now saying its not so much the manifold restriction but rather where the manifolds are siamesed into the turbocharger that causes all the power loss?

Yes, its the whole combinatation of the manifolds, mainly the link pipes and the diameter and length etc...

I hope people havent been thinking that when I say 'the manifolds are the restriction', that if you just change the 'manifolds' and keep the same pipework up to the turbo its going to be ok... ? I class the whole assembly of pipework before the turbo as the 'manifolds' as it is all pre-turbine.

And not jumping the gun, when Roman is forthcoming with some sort of dyno data we can then be sure the unorthadox system actually runs and makes more power than standard.

what break specific fuel consumption are you assuming? i think, however, that these were my pre motec figures and that i went to lower pressure and larger injectors later (volvo???). one of these day i will try and start my old pc with all the logging files and then i will let you know.

the methanol is a fuel, so no further enrichment by the injectors would be needed. additional advance due to the cooling of intake charge.

I was going on a BSFC of 0.55, which was being generous in your favour. If you work at 0.6, then you are on an extremely fine line, in fact making the power of a 0.5 setting due to running lean.

The common Volvo injectors I think you are talking about are Bosch 357s, which are still 300cc/min. They once used 337cc/min but these are still on the limit too at that power level.

When you say pre-motec days, were you running 300cc/min injectors on the standard ecu?

@david

thanks for the links, have saved them and will look at them when i find the time.

maybe im mistaken, but on first sight it seems there is a duty cycle of 80 % everywhere. maybe this makes the difference. im talking about fully open injectors. these calculating aids are only a rough approximation, as they dont seem to be taking the opening time into account. this used to be around 10 ms on these "ancient" units i believe. so if you loose this twice per engine cycle and add the loss to the 25 % (20/80 = 0.25) increase due to the dutycycle goin to 100% you wind up with an increase in flow or probably 30 % over what the tables tell you. Dont really feel like calculating this now.

yes i used to run 300 cc injectors with the standart ecu, reprogramed for them of course.