L
Lone Watie
Guest
I think lamar needs to check the links he provided and then his math. :awesomework:
-
Help Support Hardline Crawlers :
ID small chevy
- Thread starter "S"-box
- Start date
Dear joshwho?;
Oh yeah, I forgot one thing. The track used to be unlit and I don't know if anyone has added lights to it or not since the last time I was there, so if you plan on racing after dark make sure that your ride has working headlights. It tends to get a bit dark towards the finish line as I recall.
Your friend;
LAMAR
Oh yeah, I forgot one thing. The track used to be unlit and I don't know if anyone has added lights to it or not since the last time I was there, so if you plan on racing after dark make sure that your ride has working headlights. It tends to get a bit dark towards the finish line as I recall.
Your friend;
LAMAR
WHITE TRASH1
fruit stripe
It is rather obvious that someone has never heard of Nelson & Nelson racing engines... 
I've seen n/a honda's turn 10 seconds in the 1/4 and boosted/methanol ones pull down towards the 6's. I'd have to say they are definately pushing over 6 psi to do that... :haha:
I've seen n/a honda's turn 10 seconds in the 1/4 and boosted/methanol ones pull down towards the 6's. I'd have to say they are definately pushing over 6 psi to do that... :haha:
NO! That is 1/4 mile!
You are saying that quick owns it? If that's the case (which it is) and you have ever had ANY clue about a quick street car then would realise that 142mph in the 1/8th is BLISTERING and prob on par with a TOP FUEL RAIL (todays top fuel rails) and would net a trap speed of over 300MPH! :looser:
Binder
Well-Known Member
It is rather obvious that someone has never heard of Nelson & Nelson racing engines...
I've seen n/a honda's turn 10 seconds in the 1/4 and boosted/methanol ones pull down towards the 6's. I'd have to say they are definately pushing over 6 psi to do that... :haha:
Not necessarily. The key to this thread is "pump gas". Changing fuel changes everything.
WHITE TRASH1
fruit stripe
Nelson & Nelson run pump gas in their engines. Twin snails on a wicked small block pushing around 1000 hp on the dyno is nothing to sneeze at. :redneck:
There is NO Honda (other than a motorcycle) running under twenty pounds of boost anywhere below the 7's and THAT's being generous.
I asked lamar many times what kind of boost would be acceptable for quite a few different kinds of fuel and at what temp the 140psi he stated would ignite pump fuel, but NO responses to the questions that I ask :eeek:
L
Lone Watie
Guest
josh you dont debate on a subject like this , you cant use logic on them nor can you have intelligent discussions with them on the subject. Their Critical thinking goes out the window and your responces no matter what are twisted in thier mind to convey that they are right. I simply gave up on having intelligent discourse with anyone who is that passionate about things because lets face it its not worth having a 40 page thread with one side bringing up statistics and the other opinions.
messix
Well-Known Member
dear lamar:
according to your expansive knowledge and experience there would be no way that F1 engines made 1,000+ hp our of 1.5L four cylinder engines.
but it happened http://www.motoiq.com/magazine_arti...7-cosworth-f1-gba-1200bhp-15l-v-6-engine.aspx
according to your expansive knowledge and experience there would be no way that F1 engines made 1,000+ hp our of 1.5L four cylinder engines.
but it happened http://www.motoiq.com/magazine_arti...7-cosworth-f1-gba-1200bhp-15l-v-6-engine.aspx
DING! DING! DING! I didn't want to say it because F1, CART and INDY cars defy the laws of physics ALL the time... RIGHT? no? OK, well I guess that's just a whole new caliber of stuff that's... well, I guess it fits in right here! If you ( sorry, not you messix, but my friend LAMAR) crewed for a top fuel team that's in the business of breaking new ground and all that jazz then why so close minded? There are MANY variables that can make new things possible and serious questions that you seem to have the answers to, but you won't answer...
messix
Well-Known Member
there are so many variables to squeezing boost into a motor. roots blowers have a narrow band of efficiency and then just cost hp and add heat to the intake charge, centrifugally blowers don't make low end grunt with top end power, turbos get tricky with balancing the exhaust pressure to intake boost and cam timing events. and all the above add heat while compressing the intake charge. the mitigating action is to cool the intake charge with inter-coolers or to introduce a chemical cooling agent, being nitrous, methanol or h2o.
modern electronic engine management both in fuel delivery and ignition control has caught up to the non-exotic builders, this used to be the magic grounds of F1 and other highly funded motor sports teams. this technology has opened up the doors on big time power and reliability.
technological advances in cylinder head design has made power and efficiency bounds to where a factory n/a 4 cylinder engines are making power that v8s made not 15 years ago!
so lamar you may need to climb back in to the modern age of engine design.
ps. i'd like to bring up prostock engines that go over the line on n/a volumetric efficiency and make over 2.5hp/cid!
modern electronic engine management both in fuel delivery and ignition control has caught up to the non-exotic builders, this used to be the magic grounds of F1 and other highly funded motor sports teams. this technology has opened up the doors on big time power and reliability.
technological advances in cylinder head design has made power and efficiency bounds to where a factory n/a 4 cylinder engines are making power that v8s made not 15 years ago!
so lamar you may need to climb back in to the modern age of engine design.
ps. i'd like to bring up prostock engines that go over the line on n/a volumetric efficiency and make over 2.5hp/cid!
Binder
Well-Known Member
Yes there are many variables. The biggest one being fuel used. When was the last time anyone seen a indy car running pump gas? I'm not defending Lamar but why do you feel he's obligated to answer your question about the ignition point of different fuels. The basis of this discussion is "pump gas". The laws of physics won't change because you come up with a new design for anything. If pump gas mixed with the correct ratio of air is compressed past a certain point it will ignite. The only thing you can do to change this is change variables like add water or other chemicals for instance but then it's not just pump gas any more is it? :;
The reason I would feel that he defend what he said is because... well he said it. He tried to say that a pump gas engine can't make
"Please allow me to explain why your engine cannot possibly run on 32 PSI of forced induction boost:"
NO! You don't know what you are talking about here, I've made that boost in that car (with that engine of course)
"A fuel with an Octane RIN of 92 can sustain 140 PSI before it starts to pre-detonate. When pre-detonation occurs, the resulting explosion forces itself past the not fully closed intake valve."
How many people have used a compression tester on an engine? Just a STANDARD, STONE STOCK engine? CRANKING pressure is more than 140PSI on a engine without massive leakdown and blow-by. So is he saying that we can unhook our plugwires? In fact it would ignite before TDC and probably force the engine to turn backwards if what he's saying is true... BUT IT'S NOT OR THIER ARE VARIABLES ((like at what temp does it take 140PSI to ignite 92rin octane fuel) a question I asked, but he wouldn't answer because it would have to be vaporized at a VERY high temp for it to ignite by having 140PSI applied to it)
"At 32 PSI of boost? They would mean absolutely nothing.
You can't alter the laws of physics my friend."
That was his response to me asking "Combustion chamber design, quench, charge temp and chamber turbulance don't have anything to do with how much pressure an air-fuel mixture can endure in an engine before ignition?"
" You can't build an engine that produces enough exhaust gasses in order to spool up a turbo to 32 PSI. Or even 10 PSI, for that matter. To produce 32 PSI of boost from a turbocharger would require an inlet over 10" in diameter with an outlet of less than 1" in diameter."
Soo... every turbo manufacturer that builds a turbo that makes 10PSI or mor is breaking the laws of physics or lying to the world (along with EVERY pressure gauge manufacturer and datalogging sensor manufacturer)? So are you going to tell the gentalman that chimed in with the diesel making 35PSI that he's being lied to or that he's a liar seeing as you said "To produce 32 PSI of boost from a turbocharger would require an inlet over 10" in diameter with an outlet of less than 1" in diameter." ...and I highly he has a modified ocean freighter turbo stuffed under the hood of his truck (maybe it's remote mounted in the bed of his truck like an STS turbo system)?
HAVE YOU EVER READ A COMPRESSOR MAP? Or is that some "voodoo" that you don't need to waste your time with because there is no power to be had there?
"3.5 PSI in an SBC would be considered as a lot of boost, not overly much, but getting somewhat close to the edge of the engine's limits on 92 octane gasoline."
I hope you weren't being serious when you typed that! :haha: Being stuck in old school ways I'm sure you're familiar with Barney Navarro? Yes, he built a 700bhp 199ci RAMBLER STRAIGHT SIX in 1968 to race at indy! (and I know FOR A FACT that that engine exists) How about Gale Banks? In the 80's he was making a "Stage III 454 that was used for military, commercial and pleasure-craft applications. It produced 540BHP ON 88 OCTANE and 640 ON 91 OCTANE." and he made a turbo kit marketed by "American Turbo Corp." that included EVERYTHING (Nash 5 speed, driveline, exhaust, suspension components, 9 inch rear end, etc) to make a SMALL BLOCK Camaro/Firebird make and handle 500-600HP and if that noe enough he built a 580HP 92 OCTANE SMALL BLOCK THAT FIT UNDER THE HOOD OF THE CORVETTE THAT WENT OVER 200MPH AT BONIVILLE (it's on the cover of the book "TURBOCHARGERS" made by HP Books) NONE OF THOSE RAN UNDER YOUR MAGICAL 10PSI NEEDS A GARBAGE-CAN SIZED TURBO RULE!
"Please, dear God, tell me that you're joking! Yeah, that imported POS can bust 9s. In the 1/8 MILE! Oh lordy, I was breaking 9s in the 1/8 with a 55 Chevy and a 409, some thirty YEARS ago!"
Not a joke. I've driven it to those speeds IN THE QUARTER MILE. The shell being based on an imported car shows how narrow-oldschool-minded you are, it's a 3500lb car, that's all that should really matter in this discussion. As for going 9's in the 1/8th... I have an NA '67 VW Beetle that I was embarrased when it ran LOW 8's in the 1/8th mile... when I was 17, so no, not 9's in the 1/8th from a 1000hp turbo'd smallblock.
"1,117 horsepower MY ASS! I might have been born at night, but it wasn't LAST night! You guys ever hear of a dyno? Do you have ANY idea what it would take to make a SBC to get past 600 horsepower???"
So are you saying that puny little 2.0l didn't make over 1000hp at the wheels? Are you saying Extreme Turbo Systems, English Racing, Torque Freaks and Paul Nelson are making false claims and lying about that cars power output?
As for a 600hp SBC? Yes, I do and I'd say a REAL 600hp NA SBC wouldn't be too daily driver friendly, but a 600hp SBC is VERY docile.
"Son, I was working for Connie Kalitta probably about the time that you were born, therefore I don't need you to try and blow sunshine up my azz regarding cars or engines. "
From the sounds of it you had learned everything you know before you got there, or you were cleaning the trailers the whole time because things that you and I don't know about are possible and that's what keeps fuel crews and thier drivers employed. If not fuel cars would still be doing 6's.
"And no, you are not pushing 55 lbs. of boost pressure. Go home and actually study up a bit on engines and forced induction systems, then come back and talk to me."
Yes that car has ran 55PSI. AGAIN, are you saying Extreme Turbo Systems, English Racing, Torque Freaks and Paul Nelson are making false claims and lying about that cars power output? ...and there's no need to study up oh great one, I haven't found anything in the discussion that has required me study anything or to go consult BDS's magical chart.
"Sorry, but the NHRA and the IHRA call them WHIPPLE compressors.
http://www.whipplesuperchargers.com/....asp?PageID=81 "
Uh, sorry dude, but even WHIPPLE says they are a SCREW compressor, or a LYSHOLM compressor... why would they say so ON THIER WEBSITE IF THAT WASN'T THE CASE? http://www.whipplesuperchargers.com/content.asp?PageID=80
"32 pounds of boost pressure will raise your final CR to over 100:1 !!!Yo dipstick! Your cylinder heads won't stay on at that sort of compression ratio! Even supercharged DIESEL engines don't come anywhere CLOSE to a 100:1 compression ratio! Get real please."
FOR THE PEOPLE THAT ARE SAYING THIS DISCUSSION IS STRICTLY ABOUT FUEL QUALITY... LOOK AT THAT :wtf: So again, if you said you're dieselis running 35PSI he says you're wrong and you've lifted a head
Spark ignition engines can run well over 50PSI and keep from lifting heads. YOU are the one that needs to get real and do research."and I must inform you that they were racing to the 1/8 mile, and NOT the 1/4 mile! So yeah, the car busted into the upper 9s in the 1/8 with a top speed of 142 MPH, which is pretty goshdarned slow! In fact, I'd be too embarrassed to show at a strip with something like that."
YOUR MATH AND COMPREHENSION ARE WAY OFF! That was 1/4 mile. You think it was 142MPH in the 1/8th mile? :haha: it's fast, but not THAT fast... hold on, you said 142MPH in the 1/8th IS SLOW, or ISN'T QUICK? Wow! I'd be embarrased that you said THAT!
"The key to street racing is not about horsepower, it's all about torque. Top end horsepower numbers mean squat when you're street racing. It's all about getting the best torque possible and getting it at the lowest RPMs possible.
Horsepower sells car, whereas torque wins races. This is ALWAYS true in acceleration contests."
NOWHERE had I said word one about street racing.
You're right, horsepower (in relation to engines rather than steeds) is a made up number and it is a derivative of torque, BUT it's just about harnessing the power (torque), so it really doesn't matter where the torque is greatest as long as your setup to take advantage of the range that power is made in (but I too prefer my torque down low in the RPM range)
"The guy claims it is making 675 HP. OK, since we know the weight of a stock Evo is around 3,000 lbs. and we also know the calculated HP of the engine is 675 HP, we can therefore calculate the ride's top 1/8 and 1/4 ETs within about 1/5 of a second either way. The ride should be running:
6.19 in the 1/8 @ 111.6 MPH
9.65 in the 1/4 @ 139.5 MPH
In reality, the car ran a 9.94 ET in the 1/8 at 142 MPH. In the 1/4, it's calculated finish would be in the high 13s. Therefore, don't believe everything that people tell you. I've been racing for a day or two and after a while I can start to spot BS when I see it."
You say he CLAIMS the car makes 675WHP? It DOES. Are you insinuating that he is lying? So if your CALCULATOR can predict within 1/5th of a second than how is it that you don't belive that the car went SLOWER (by .09 seconds) than the 1/5th room for error? The 1/4 mile trap speed is LESS THAN 2% OFF from your calculations... SO WHAT AREN'T YOU BELIVING? If you've been ACTUALLY racing and having timeslips handed to you then you would know that a 675WHP car doesn't go 142MPH in the 1/8th mile.
YOU SAY THIS IS BULLSHIT?
"if you want to see a REAL no rules, no holds barred, heads up, strictly run what ya brung, drag strip, google *YELLO BELLY DRAGSTRIP*."
You have been stuck on "RULES" on paper (or in you head) that keep an engine from making power, but those are the only rules I'm talking about breaking, not track rules or anything of that sort. Break the chains and free your mind to learn something that you might not be comfortable with. :awesomework:
Binder
Well-Known Member
Long winded today I see.:redneck:
So let me ask you a question then. What is it that you (or anyone else) do to make the air/ fuel (pump gas) not preignite at extreme pressure and temperatures?
I think you're misunderstanding this. It's not the 140 PSI that's the problem it's the resulting pressure form the charge when it burns. More specifically because it burns before the engine is at TDC. That's the whole benefit to Diesel is the fuel isn't there when being compressed so they can handle much higher compression and boost.
What you list are all variables which will have some effect on when the fuel ignites. The problem is they don't have nearly enough effect to counteract the extreme pressure and resulting temperatutre.
Again don't confuse this conversation with how a diesel works.
What is the static compression ratio of the engines you list and what is the boost?
Again with the Deiesel thing......"32 pounds of boost pressure will raise your final CR to over 100:1 !!!Yo dipstick! Your cylinder heads won't stay on at that sort of compression ratio! Even supercharged DIESEL engines don't come anywhere CLOSE to a 100:1 compression ratio! Get real please."
FOR THE PEOPLE THAT ARE SAYING THIS DISCUSSION IS STRICTLY ABOUT FUEL QUALITY... LOOK AT THAT :wtf: So again, if you said you're dieselis running 35PSI he says you're wrong and you've lifted a head
So let me ask you a question then. What is it that you (or anyone else) do to make the air/ fuel (pump gas) not preignite at extreme pressure and temperatures?
I am not misunderstanding in the least.
1."A fuel with an Octane RIN of 92 can sustain 140 PSI before it starts to pre-detonate."
Binder- PRE-detonate is before spark form the plug has occured, so it is the pressure of the piston traveling towards TDC and the heat created by it. Those two things ALONE.
YOU may not THINK so, but those along with a good timing and fuel map coupled with cool charge temps and proper piston design and it works well.
Turbocharger design doesn't vary greatly between spark ignition and diesel (the exhaust side is bigger on a diesel than gas).
It's an air pump and it takes the same air to spin it and creates the same resistance on a given turbine wheel.
You mean to tell me that just by changing fuel the boost abilities and the compressor map change with NO physical changes to the turbo?
Do you also mean to tell me that an hx35 can make 35PSI on a 5.9l diesel, but not 15, 20, 25, 30 or 35 PSI on a gas engine? Do you think the same turbo can do any of that on a 4 cylinder under 2.5l?
" You can't build an engine that produces enough exhaust gasses in order to spool up a turbo to 32 PSI. Or even 10 PSI, for that matter."
I didn't take that out of context or doctor it... do you agree with his statement here?
"To produce 32 PSI of boost from a turbocharger would require an inlet over 10" in diameter with an outlet of less than 1" in diameter."
Or how about there?
1. Lifting a head has nothing to do with fuel quality.
...I'll elaborate. Let's take an engine with forged internals, aluminium heads, MLS gaskets and head studs 8.5:1 and put 40PSI to it.
On E98 the engine lives right?
On 92 octane pump gas it runs fine until you get to too high of a boost level and then it starts to detonate and melts pistons, shatters rings and ring lands, but the head doesn't lift.
Now tell me how a diesel with 18:1 or better and 40PSI with STOCK gaskets and head BOLTS doesn't lift a head JUST BECAUSE IT'S DIESEL.
If 8.5:1 +32PSI = 100:1 then the 18:1 or better +35PSI = MORE THAN 100:1, so LAMAR is WRONG there!
Reseach AND development ....and experience! :;
