zombiehuntr

b18b, fresh rebuild, stock rods, p30 pistons, Log manifold, stock head, t3\t4 hyrbid housed 57 trim turbo, aftermarket manifold/throttle body, 750cc injectors, etc... arp rod bolts and mains.... bust 300hp with enough boost and good tuning? please speak from experience only. I've spent the last hr searching and haven't been able to find any relevant answers...

B_Swapped93

What are you asking if that set up listed will push 300whp with a good tune ?. if so ditch the shitty ebay t3/t4 and get a good EMS like a Hondata s300.

zombiehuntr

don't plan to use a egay turbo, I was implying a generally similar sized turbo. and I've already got a ecu with the s300 setup installed waiting... the weapon of choice is....
http://bisimoto.com/store/index.php?...roducts_id=612. which will be ordered tomorrow once this check I deposted yesterday clears

zombiehuntr

and yeah... If I can hit 300.9 I'll be happy. lol.... I'm already boosted and making 224hp and 197tq on a dynojet dyno in 80* weather with 60-70% humidy.. tuned at CNR Performance in B.R. La... And thats a crome tune. steve ( guy that owns CNR ) is a magician with tuning on the gulf coast...

dcmatt

iTrader: (7)

Yea its capable of hitting 300. a Garrett 57 trim like your mention in is good for a lol over 400. a 50 trim would hit 300 easily and give you a lil more powerband.

Schister66

I agree...you could downsize the turbo and gain overall powerband without sacrificing your power goal. Also, if you dont already have the manifold, you may want to consider a shorty ramhorn instead of a log...they flow much better and can grow with you as your setups progress. Log manifolds are cheap and easy...made for a first setup but nothing more.

Something like this: http://www.spoolinperformance.com/st...products_id=59
Its $100 more than a log, but has a true collector and flows much better. I used to run the SLS version of this same manifold on my stock block GSR

Freemananana

iTrader: (3)

Should be easy. What turbo are you running now? You said you were making 220 wHP or so. A smaller turbo will hit 300 wHP if that is your goal. I would also suggest checking the market place for a slightly used turbo. Could save you a couple hundred dollars.

motoxxxman

before anything else: ditch the idea of using a log manifold, and get some form of tubular manifold. that alone will increase power output in higher rpms quite a bit, due to log mani's flowing like garbage at pretty much all rpm's above standard cruising speeds.

next: you should ask yourself what type of setup you want: 1) something for straight drag type power? 2) something for lots of midrange power and fast spool for autocross type racing or low speed city romping? 3) or something with all around good power and spool everywhere for an all-purpose street romper? these are the questions that would regard what turbo to buy. the turbo size you mentioned would be good for #1 above, but not 2 or 3. A super 60 t3 (NOT a super 60-1 t3/t4!) would be ideal for #2 and might even do quite well for #3 as well. a smaller t3/t4 than what you mentioned would be ideal for #3 for the power range you're seeking.
the turbo you mentioned is ideal for #1 above because it will have great flow characteristics at high rpms at full throttle, but that's about it. it'll spool slow and flow low and possibly surge at lower rpms.

for reference, I run a super 60 t3 in my b20a prelude, and I'm at 300tq/300whp at only 9psi with 9.8:1 compression, all stock everything (besides valve springs and bearings), 1psi at 1800, full boost at 3800, and anything over 4k rpms is practically instant spool. IE if I cruise at 15"/hg vacuum at 4800 and punch it, it hits full boost in less than 1/2 of a second. and if I boost and shift, it hits full boost in less then a 1/10th of a second upon the next shift

Freemananana

iTrader: (3)

How are you making 300HP and 300 ft-lbs?

A short ram manifold would be nice, but I've seen plenty of set ups make your power goal with less. I'd suggest cruising the market forum and see what second hand products are floating around.

Schister66

The turbo is tiny...comes on hard, but falls on its face. Its probably very similar to the powerband on an STi.

http://i562.photobucket.com/albums/s...6/d9349368.jpg
http://accessecu.com/dyno/graph.php?...rgb2=204000000

B20luda

300whp on pump gas at 9psi on a b20a? prove it. you gained nearly 200whp from a dinky turbo and 9psi.. i dont think so.

To others, the B20A has a massive stroke 95mm so torque and horsepower are often simular, there powerbands are like an SRT4..

To OP, the use of ARP main studs isn't needed, make sure the rods are sized after the rod bolt install.

Tony the Tiger

300 WTQ @ 9 PSI is way out of the ordinary. It is reaching a zone that even our most efficient engines can never reach at all, built or not.

The math is quite simple actually... It's nothing new for most folks here, but it's nice to put some numbers on display.

The peak torque RPM range for a stock'ish B20A is between 3500-4000RPM, it is basically a 2.0L with a VE of 80-84% in its N/A form. At 6000-6500 RPM, this motor has a VE of 62-67% judging by the baseline dyno charts. Beyond that, the engine no longer breathes. I am using numbers like 120 WTQ (80 WHP) @ 3500RPM, and 95 WTQ (110 WHP) @ 6000RPM for the math.

To reach 300 WTQ at the B20A's "prime" spot of 3500-3800RPM at 9 PSI of boost, it needs to have a VE of 180+ %. Give or take a few due to rough numbers, but you can easily see that is pretty much impossible unless there are major, major, major motor mods done. I haven't even factored in turbo efficiency. I am just going by pressure only! That's like feeding the engine with an air compressor.

Just this peak torque alone at only 9 PSI of boost, means this engine in N/A form MUST make 180-185 WTQ at 3500RPM, which is basically a fully built to the **** N/A K24 engine with 2.4L for a fun comparison.


Now for horsepower, to reach 300 WHP, it needs to maintain a VE of 170+ % @ 6500RPM. The engine in N/A form must hold up to 140 WTQ at its stock redline to make this possible. If that is the case, the stock B20A engine must at least be making 180-190 WHP for baseline @ 6500RPM.

That's all... Before we get too technical, we should ask again if his boost gauge or logs are in fact reading correctly, or if there are more mods we do not know about with the B20A.

motoxxxman

my setup: b20a5 block bored to 83mm using oem b21 pistons, block shaved once, head shaved multiple times, giving an overall static comp ratio of 9.8:1. ported/polished head, smoothed IM ports, port matched IM/head and turbo mani/head, custom equidistant tubular turbo manifold, 2" open dump from tial 38mm wg, oem b21 ex cam, oem b20a5 intake cam, h23 rods, super 60 t3 0.63 a/r, turbo mounted directly behind core support (less than 6" piping from comp housing to fmic), 2.5" charge pipes, 2.5" mandrel exhaust with 3" inlet ws2 unbaffled muffler, 93 octane. I've plotted all my power results to the compressor flow chart of the super 60 and it is barely even getting into the efficiency range of this turbo, I have waaaaaay more room for higher boost and higher airflow before it starts becoming a restriction.

this was my most recent dyno graph on a mustang dyno that was pre-programmed to display 12%-15% lower output numbers than what mustang uses as default settings, which puts it at 20%-25% lower numbers than any other dyno out there. boost according to my crome datalogs stays steady at 9.2-9.3psi, and boost according to the mustang dyno's logs shows exactly the same. the twitchy top end is actually because the wideband this shop uses is on a custom bracket going in the tailpipe and it actually filled up more than half my tailpipe and was starting to choke it out. I think my cat is starting to choke it a hair at high rpm's as well, and cyl 3 began to see very minor breakup near redline. I did another pull with the mustang wideband removed and saw even higher numbers and smoother lines, but forgot to take a pic so I have no proof of that and therefore do not make any solid claims to it, just a reference. dotted line was my street tune baseline with very conservative timing at the same boost level (baseline run actually made a little higher boost, near 9.8psi due to the wg still being cold). Also, at one point in the middle of tuning I did set the loading and correction factors to mustang's default settings just to see what it displayed for numbers, and it was quite impressive (higher by a good amount, over 300 tq and whp with more tuning still needed), but it made it no longer comparable to my tuning pulls, so I returned everything back to the previous settings for consistency. besides, I'm not a numbers guy, I'm a "race me or ride with me and you'll see" type of guy. easily spins 3rd gear from a roll at any speed on colder days while riding on pretty sticky 215/40/17's with a darn good alignment.

actual numbers for this chart were 249tq/252whp. I'd like to get the torque curve to stay a bit flatter, so in the future I will more than likely be getting slightly larger cams and larger TB (60mm, currently run a stock 56mm TB). and at some point I may even make a custom IM with slightly shorter/fatter runners, but that's just a thought at the moment because I don't want to lose too much midrange power as this car is built strictly for autocross, so I need the throttle response and low/mid-range power and fast spool.

also for reference, just for curiosity's sake, my buddy (boss from a previous performance shop I worked at 6 years ago) and I took his evo to this mustang dyno, and a dyna-pack and a dyno-jet all in the same day. it made 398tq/406awhp on the mustang, 468tq/475whp on the dyno-jet, and 472tq/482awp on the dyna-pack. pretty self-explanatory numbers comparison results

gc8dc95

Dyno numbers don't matter anyway. Lets see track numbers.

I am familiar with the b20a5, as mine made 420/340 and then later added a 75shot on top of it. My mod list is too big to bother, but it was running out of breath. I never seen numbers anywhere near that on that low of psi with a much larger turbo. The 240-250hp range is much more accurate.

I ended up ditching this platform because it ate transmissions for breakfast.

motoxxxman

actually, stock peak tq is 4500 or 4600 depending which version is being referenced. just to clarify.

motoxxxman

lol, yup I'm pretty familiar with your stuff I have yet to break tranny's though, I'm currently working with 2 tranny's with shot synchros so I shift gently.

I'm sure you've seen my drag vid from 2009, 12.81 @109.5, running 8psi with open exhaust on a street tune (quite conservative timing maps), spinning all of 1st and 2nd with open diff, slow shifting to 2nd and 3rd due to crappy synchro's, and MT ET drags 22x8x15 up front. this run was actually on the exact tune you see as the dotted line in the above dyno chart, but 1psi lower boost than portrayed in the dyno chart.
I ran 37 times in a row that day, all high 12's besides the first 2 runs where I launched horribly, and the one where I mis-shifted down a gear instead of up and spun the motor to over 13k rpms lol

motoxxxman

keep this in mind when viewing my above dyno chart:

Tony the Tiger

My earlier post was theoretical numbers based on several stock'ish B20A baseline dyno charts I found online. And coincidentally, your actual 249/252 dyno graph you've posted really verified that those should be your actual numbers. 249/252 is really way far from 300/300.

The shift in RPM band is not too important. Your torque curve is basically your VE curve in a sense. The "300 WTQ @ 9 PSI" is out of this world, because it requires an insane peak VE of 180% to deliver that peak torque in a 2.0L motor at any given RPM. This surpasses any built K20 or other aggressive race N/A 2.0L builds alike.

The shift in RPM just means it will make more HP with the same given torque. For 300 WTQ to happen @ 3000RPM, it is 170 WHP. For 300 WTQ to happen @ 5252RPM, it is 300WHP. For 300WTQ to happen @ 10500RPM, it becomes 600WHP. The torque dictates the VE at a given RPM, and it is this "VE" aka torque number, which made me skeptical. I wasn't doubting your 300WHP, but I was doubting your 300 WTQ.

Anyhow, your actual 249/252 dyno graph puts you in 145-155% peak VE range, which means your engine behaves similar to a mildly built B20 or a stockish K20A in N/A form at the prime RPM zones. This is much more believable, and still very impressive for a motor in that era.

The rest of the dyno reading high, low, etc.. doesn't quite give it the needed credit to justify the claims. Doing a number correction based on X-dyno vs Y-dyno is weak for discussion's sake, no matter how you look at it (especially when the numbers are out of this world)

blackeg

motoxxxman - oh god lebanon valley lol. ill keep an eye out for you when im there next year id like to check it out in person.

anyhow, op:


you really would have to keep the efficiency of the motor high(prolly an aftermarket cam 403's or like a rocket cam of similar size) and reduce as much exhaust restriction as possible aka no log manifold. the compression calculator makes it look like you are right around 11.5:1 which is high but not ridiculous high. that said it can be done especially with a good tune. 93 octane could do it but i would be more comfortable on like e85.

search up muckman he has an amazing thread on his high compression turbo build(s)

motoxxxman

blackeg. yeah that it is lol. not sure how soon i'll make it there again though considering i sold my drag wheels/tires, and it's pretty pointless to go with street tires with the power level i'm at now lol.

tony. i'm quite familiar with the tq/ve correlation, and how hp is calculated. you do need to notice 2 things though. b20a is 81mm bore, my engine was 83mm bore, and b20a5 is 9.0 compression, mine was 9.8 compression.

also, i did plenty of baseline testing. afterall, i worked at a shop with a dyno as lead tech and was able to use the dyno anytime i wanted after hours., and am friends with the owner of this mustang dyno. my n/a baseline was 145tq/146whp. at 5psi with timing retarded 5 degrees from ideal it made 212tq/216whp. i dont recall the exact numbers it made when i had timing set to ideal mbt at that 5psi, but it was a decent chunk higher than the 212/216.

people heavily underestimate the ve output of the bastard b on boost. nearly all well designed turbo setups on these engines make insane ve numbers when comparing to the same exact engine as n/a. it's not uncommon to see a 70 percent gain in power when airflow is only increased by 40 percent, comparing before/after boost on the same motor. hell, my engine saw peak hp gains of 10hp at 5500rpms, and a 35hp gain at 7k simply by replacing the stock exhaust with a custom 2.5 inch mandrel bent system.

once i get the motor back together, i'll definitely be posting new dyno charts at various boost levels from 9 to 16psi. i was using the oem b21 pistons, and it now is getting custom je forged slugs at 83.5mm with a new static comp ratio a bit lower at 9.4 to 1. i also got new guides and did a full valve job while it was apart, as well as a lot more cosmetic upgrades, and some additional portwork. come to find out, i actually had 3 leaky intake valves and all 8 exhaust valves were leaking during the above charted dyno tuning session. time will tell how it performs after all this additional work.

motoxxxman

also to add, a fellow 3g luder using almost an identical setup as me with the exception of having 81.5mm bore and 8.5 to 1 compression, is currently making over 400 tq and whp at 18psi, also on a mustang dyno. i believe the exact numbers were 405tq/402whp. thats 1.5mm smaller than me, and more than 1 full point lower in compression than me.
and he's doing it on a dinky 16g, which is almost identical to my super 60 on both the turbine and compressor sides.

and to compare ve's, his setup if he were to remove the wg spring would only make about 130tq/135whp. try calculating that ve, you'd be stunned and stumped for sure lol.

but anyway, back on topic, the op was asking about his setup, and i was merely referencing the super 60 t3 turbo and tubular manifold

Tony the Tiger

Your math is not correct though. Horsepower is derived from torque vs RPM, and the HP gain becomes higher as RPM goes higher even though you have gained same torque (VE). You are having trouble with this basic concept. Different bore or stroke does not matter, because your overall displacement is still the same 2.0L.

To gain the torque you've claimed, you have surpass all the 2.0L engines of this world.

To report a 300 WTQ number in a 2.0L at only 9 PSI, it's almost impossible unless we resort to alternate fuels. I don't want to keep repeating, but your claimed numbers are too far off to even make it look reasonable.


I have to keep this simple, basically, in order for you to make 300 WTQ claim possible, the ONLY possibilities are:

- way more displacement

- insane compression, crazy cams, etc.. (read more below about VE)

- improve VE BIG time. Meaning that your engine must be well over half the torque output in N/A form in relation to 300 WTQ. Why well over half, because of 9 PSI, and is only 0.61 atmosphere. So your base engine HAS to make a minumum of 180 WTQ.

This is when it gets silly... For the above math, I was simply going with boost pressure. This means your engine is technically running on an air compressor with no turbine, no exhaust pressure, and a perfect world of 100% efficiency. Engine VE doubles with 1.0 Bar of boost on top. On a typical turbo setup, that 70% you were referring to, applies here. You can only reap 70% at today's efficiency standards, so this means...
.
.
.
--> Your engine, before boost, HAS to be making 234 WTQ in order to reach 300 WTQ @ 9 PSI of boost with 70% turbo efficiency.
.
.
.
Now let's think of what 2.0L engine here in this world can make 234 WTQ in N/A form. If there is one in this world today, then add 9 PSI of boost with 70% efficiency and it will reach 300 WTQ.

If you want to talk about horsepower, let's say this crazy engine actually exists, and apply it to typical Honda powerband fashion. This crazy engine would have made 530 WHP if it had 9200RPM redline, @ 9 PSI of boost.

The severity of your claim, is basically, a guy with a K20A turbo with stock displacement, managing 530 WHP at 9 PSI of boost on gasoline in terms of engine VE

Your actual 249/252 dyno numbers will be the number that makes total sense, and it's proven already since you have the dyno graph to show for it. The 300 WTQ, is beyond the current world.

motoxxxman

tony, as I said above, I am very familiar with the math, and I am familiar with how HP is calculated, and I'm very familiar with VE and everything related.

I find it rather amusing that you actually said this, because we both know it is absolutely wrong. if you change bore or stroke, displacement is obviously affected. displacement = surface area of bore x stroke.

b20a(5) = 95mm stroke x 81mm bore = 1958cc = 1.96L
b21a1 (what I used above) = 95mm stroke x 83mm bore = 2056cc = 2.05L
a 0.1L increase over b20

I'm done here, I know what my car does, and I personally don't care about numbers. street and track results are the only thing that matter to me, as should everyone else. but if you'd like to compare numbers, I'll gladly PM you my next dyno chart when I get the engine back together and re-tuned, or any of my previous dyno charts.

lets get back on topic here for the OP, suggestions for getting better results

Tony the Tiger

Nothing wrong with good discussion IMO. There was no need to emphasize an insignificant cc increase, it's too small. You are claiming too much torque gain in 2.0L worth of space.

FYI, your claim is only valid if you had 2.6L (or more) and amazing VE...

No worries, just continue on your build and best wishes