Turbo experts: Compressor Maps
11-29-2005, 08:25 PM
#1
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Compressor maps for h22
This is on a h22 motor at 1.02 ve . In 70 degree temps.
10psi 1.6 pressure rate
8,000---39.5
8,500---41.7
9,000---44.3
20psi 2.4 pressure rate
8,000---55.5
8,500---58.6
9,000---62.4
30psi 3.1 pressure rate
8,000--71.6
8,500--75.4
9,000--80.3
Modified by D1andOnly at 11:17 PM 11/29/2005
10psi 1.6 pressure rate
8,000---39.5
8,500---41.7
9,000---44.3
20psi 2.4 pressure rate
8,000---55.5
8,500---58.6
9,000---62.4
30psi 3.1 pressure rate
8,000--71.6
8,500--75.4
9,000--80.3
Modified by D1andOnly at 11:17 PM 11/29/2005
11-29-2005, 09:00 PM
#2
Honda-Tech Member
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Somewhere in California
Posts: 4,408
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
Re: erase (D1andOnly)
why'd you delete your post? I started to post some stuff but then I saw you deleted it. Anyways I read all your posts and here was my reply.
I have a spreadsheet that I've been working on and it's meant to calculate the mass flow rate and volumetric flow rate using engine specifications. I used things like engine size, VE%, HP ratings, stock dyno charts and a few other automotive calculations. Right now it's only good for finding mass flow at peak HP RPM's. It needs some tweaking to figure out the mass flow at lower RPM ranges. According to the engineers at Honda the VE% for an H22 is 102% at 7000 RPM's. To figure out the VE% you take the actual flow rate at 7000 RPM and divide it by the theoretical flow rate at 7000 RPM, multiply by 100 you'll get 101.9%. That's what I do for my calculations so the Honda engineers must be correct.
Based on my calculations a stock H22 flows 21 lb/min at 7000 RPM's. So at 10 psi that should be 34 lb/min and 20 psi thats 49 lb/min, at 30 psi you're looking at 64 lb/min of airflow (all theoretical, and all at 7000 RPM).
I'd go into it more but I have to get ready to leave for work. When I get home I'll post a screenshoot of the Quattro Pro spreadsheet that I made.
I have a spreadsheet that I've been working on and it's meant to calculate the mass flow rate and volumetric flow rate using engine specifications. I used things like engine size, VE%, HP ratings, stock dyno charts and a few other automotive calculations. Right now it's only good for finding mass flow at peak HP RPM's. It needs some tweaking to figure out the mass flow at lower RPM ranges. According to the engineers at Honda the VE% for an H22 is 102% at 7000 RPM's. To figure out the VE% you take the actual flow rate at 7000 RPM and divide it by the theoretical flow rate at 7000 RPM, multiply by 100 you'll get 101.9%. That's what I do for my calculations so the Honda engineers must be correct.
Based on my calculations a stock H22 flows 21 lb/min at 7000 RPM's. So at 10 psi that should be 34 lb/min and 20 psi thats 49 lb/min, at 30 psi you're looking at 64 lb/min of airflow (all theoretical, and all at 7000 RPM).
I'd go into it more but I have to get ready to leave for work. When I get home I'll post a screenshoot of the Quattro Pro spreadsheet that I made.
11-29-2005, 09:09 PM
#3
Honda-Tech Member
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Toronto, ON, Canada
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: erase (BlueShadow)
Save your time...here's one everyone uses, it's good enough to plot your maps, anyways, and the math is right...
right click save as:
http://www.gnttype.org/techare...s.xls
right click save as:
http://www.gnttype.org/techare...s.xls
11-29-2005, 09:25 PM
#4
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: erase (BlueShadow)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by BlueShadow »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">why'd you delete your post? I started to post some stuff but then I saw you deleted it. Anyways I read all your posts and here was my reply.</TD></TR></TABLE>
I just saw my numbers were totally wrong. now i know these numbers im posting are best results that ive come up with.
I just saw my numbers were totally wrong. now i know these numbers im posting are best results that ive come up with.
11-29-2005, 09:38 PM
#5
Honda-Tech Member
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Somewhere in California
Posts: 4,408
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
Re: erase (turncoat)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by turncoat »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Save your time...here's one everyone uses, it's good enough to plot your maps, anyways, and the math is right...
right click save as:
http://www.gnttype.org/techare...s.xls
</TD></TR></TABLE>
That spreadsheet only works if you know what the VE% is. I use stock dyno charts and calculate VE% based on theoretical and actual flow rates. When I get a result for my VE% I compare it with what a lot of people say the VE% is for XX motor. The first motor I did was an H22, which I have done a lot of research on in the past. I calculated actual flow rate based on HP numbers and information I found on turbobygarrett. Then I divided an H22's theoretical flow rate by the actual flowrate I got and my result was 101.2%, which was what the Honda engineers said it would be. If my VE% matched what the Honda engineers published in an SAE paper, then the actual flow rate should be pretty accurate too.
So far I've been able to figure out the H22, B18C, and SR20DE's VE%. With the correct peak VE numbers the numbers would be a little off. At 20 psi the difference between 85% and 102% at 7000 RPM's is about 7 lb/min (42lb/min vs 49lb/min).
right click save as:
http://www.gnttype.org/techare...s.xls
</TD></TR></TABLE>
That spreadsheet only works if you know what the VE% is. I use stock dyno charts and calculate VE% based on theoretical and actual flow rates. When I get a result for my VE% I compare it with what a lot of people say the VE% is for XX motor. The first motor I did was an H22, which I have done a lot of research on in the past. I calculated actual flow rate based on HP numbers and information I found on turbobygarrett. Then I divided an H22's theoretical flow rate by the actual flowrate I got and my result was 101.2%, which was what the Honda engineers said it would be. If my VE% matched what the Honda engineers published in an SAE paper, then the actual flow rate should be pretty accurate too.
So far I've been able to figure out the H22, B18C, and SR20DE's VE%. With the correct peak VE numbers the numbers would be a little off. At 20 psi the difference between 85% and 102% at 7000 RPM's is about 7 lb/min (42lb/min vs 49lb/min).
11-29-2005, 09:39 PM
#6
Honda-Tech Member
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Somewhere in California
Posts: 4,408
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
Re: erase (D1andOnly)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by D1andOnly »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
I just saw my numbers were totally wrong. now i know these numbers im posting are best results that ive come up with.</TD></TR></TABLE>
When I get home I'll show you the spreadsheet I've been working on. In the meantime you can use the one that turncoat posted. Just use 102% VE for 7000 RPM's, and taper it down a few % above and below 7000 RPMs.
I just saw my numbers were totally wrong. now i know these numbers im posting are best results that ive come up with.</TD></TR></TABLE>
When I get home I'll show you the spreadsheet I've been working on. In the meantime you can use the one that turncoat posted. Just use 102% VE for 7000 RPM's, and taper it down a few % above and below 7000 RPMs.
11-29-2005, 09:42 PM
#7
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by BlueShadow »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
When I get home I'll show you the spreadsheet I've been working on. In the meantime you can use the one that turncoat posted. Just use 102% VE for 7000 RPM's, and taper it down a few % above and below 7000 RPMs.</TD></TR></TABLE>
yea i think 102% would be with a good built motor. heard with a mild motor setup .85% is the number to use. so i just used .88%...maybe i should use .98% on the 30psi numbers since a mild setup wouldnt handle it.
When I get home I'll show you the spreadsheet I've been working on. In the meantime you can use the one that turncoat posted. Just use 102% VE for 7000 RPM's, and taper it down a few % above and below 7000 RPMs.</TD></TR></TABLE>
yea i think 102% would be with a good built motor. heard with a mild motor setup .85% is the number to use. so i just used .88%...maybe i should use .98% on the 30psi numbers since a mild setup wouldnt handle it.
Trending Topics
11-29-2005, 09:48 PM
#8
Honda-Tech Member
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Somewhere in California
Posts: 4,408
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
Re: (D1andOnly)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by D1andOnly »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
yea i think 102% would be with a good built motor. heard with a mild motor setup .85% is the number to use. so i just used .88%</TD></TR></TABLE>
A stock motor is 102% at 7000 rpms, that's from the Engineers at Honda. They probably usedc the same general automotive formulas that me and the GNTtype.org site used to get that number. If you read the site below it says that the Honda engineers wrote an SAE paper stating what the H22 and F20C's VE% was.
anyhoo I'm off to work, I'll post more in a couple of hours
http://autospeed.drive.com.au/...=1127
yea i think 102% would be with a good built motor. heard with a mild motor setup .85% is the number to use. so i just used .88%</TD></TR></TABLE>
A stock motor is 102% at 7000 rpms, that's from the Engineers at Honda. They probably usedc the same general automotive formulas that me and the GNTtype.org site used to get that number. If you read the site below it says that the Honda engineers wrote an SAE paper stating what the H22 and F20C's VE% was.
anyhoo I'm off to work, I'll post more in a couple of hours
http://autospeed.drive.com.au/...=1127
11-29-2005, 09:55 PM
#9
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: (BlueShadow)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by BlueShadow »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
When I get home I'll show you the spreadsheet I've been working on. In the meantime you can use the one that turncoat posted. Just use 102% VE for 7000 RPM's, and taper it down a few % above and below 7000 RPMs.</TD></TR></TABLE>
cool. i would like to find out what numbers you got. Keep me updated.thanks
When I get home I'll show you the spreadsheet I've been working on. In the meantime you can use the one that turncoat posted. Just use 102% VE for 7000 RPM's, and taper it down a few % above and below 7000 RPMs.</TD></TR></TABLE>
cool. i would like to find out what numbers you got. Keep me updated.thanks
11-30-2005, 04:17 AM
#10
Honda-Tech Member
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Somewhere in California
Posts: 4,408
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
Re: (D1andOnly)
Here is a pic of the spreadsheet 've been working on. Like I was saying earlier I still need to tweak the lower RPM numbers, so pay no attention to any of the cells for 2000-5000 RPM's. The numbers for 5500-6500 RPM's might be good, but the numbers for 7000-8500 RPM's should be pretty accurate. The only problem is the mass flow rates aren't corrected real worl factors such as engine bay temps, or temperature changes from when you pressurize the air (since air heats up as you pressurize it).
If you want to calculate other flow rates for different boost pressures just take the actual lb/min and multiply it by the different pressure ratios.
If you want to calculate other flow rates for different boost pressures just take the actual lb/min and multiply it by the different pressure ratios.
11-30-2005, 08:33 AM
#11
Honda-Tech Member
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Toronto, ON, Canada
Posts: 88
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: (BlueShadow)
It looks like fun, but I'm not sure what the application is for this, asides from making a very, very obvious visual interpretation of how you fit on a compressor map. I just use turbocalcs to plot a few points on the map at different conditions to check, before I waste too much time.
I'm not sure how you're calculating the VE, it seems you are doing it as a function of power...
There are a many, many aspects of a motor setup which will affect your VE, which is why most people will find that someone else's tune will not work on their car, even with the "exact same" setup. If you really want to know the airflow of a motor at different RPMs, you will have to measure the airflow itself, and the only way I can figure is to do it with a mass-air meter. I could tell you on my S4 how much air flow there is since there is a mass-air meter...but not on a Honda.
I'm not sure how you're calculating the VE, it seems you are doing it as a function of power...
There are a many, many aspects of a motor setup which will affect your VE, which is why most people will find that someone else's tune will not work on their car, even with the "exact same" setup. If you really want to know the airflow of a motor at different RPMs, you will have to measure the airflow itself, and the only way I can figure is to do it with a mass-air meter. I could tell you on my S4 how much air flow there is since there is a mass-air meter...but not on a Honda.
11-30-2005, 01:15 PM
#12
Honda-Tech Member
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Somewhere in California
Posts: 4,408
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
Re: (turncoat)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by turncoat »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I'm not sure how you're calculating the VE, it seems you are doing it as a function of power... There are a many, many aspects of a motor setup which will affect your VE, which is why most people will find that someone else's tune will not work on their car, even with the "exact same" setup.</TD></TR></TABLE>
From the looks of it that's how the honda engineers did it for their SAE paper in the autospeed link. Like I mentioned earlier I used information that I knew to see if the VE% I calculated was the same one the Honda engineers came up with. And the number I got was the same as the one the Honda engineers said. I didn't make up any of the formulas in my spreadsheet. These are formulas that are already available. A lot of them are same formulas on the GNT page, such as converting volumetric flow to mass flow, except I haven't gotten a chance to make a temperature correction for mine. Also the formulas used for determining engine flow are similar, it's just his have the pressure correction.
convert CFM to lb/min = CFM x 0.076 (I found this formula on the turbobygarrett page, same one the GNT link uses)
theoretical CFM = RPM x displacement / 3456 (general automotive formula that is widespread on the web)
VE% = actual CFM / theoretical CFM x 100
You can find a lot of those formulas on the web. What I did inputted the manufacturers HP rating which is 200HP @ 7000 RPMs. Then I calculate the theoretical CFM. After that I did a little trial and error, and started increasing the actual CFM until it gave me a VE% of 102%. What I got was 21 lb/min...to check that number I took 200 HP and divided by 21 lb/min and got 9.5. According to the turbobygarrett page <u>turbocharged</u> engines generally make 9.5-10.5 HP per lb/min of air. If turbo motors make 9.5-10.5 HP per lb/min then a NA motor must make a little less then that. Assuming the actual lb/min I calculated for the H22 is correct, then it makes 9.5 HP for every lb/min of air.
EDIT:
One thing I want to add is that I did use 200 HP and the 21 lb/min air flow to see if other numbers were correct. But before I even did that I already had all the numbers needed to figure out actual airflow. VE% (102% as stated by Honda), and theoretical airflow (formula posted above. From there I just use the formula for calculating actual flow rate which would be:
(actual CFM / theoretical) * 100 = VE
Modified by BlueShadow at 3:23 AM 12/1/2005
There are a many, many aspects of a motor setup which will affect your VE, which is why most people will find that someone else's tune will not work on their car, even with the "exact same" setup.</TD></TR></TABLE>From the looks of it that's how the honda engineers did it for their SAE paper in the autospeed link. Like I mentioned earlier I used information that I knew to see if the VE% I calculated was the same one the Honda engineers came up with. And the number I got was the same as the one the Honda engineers said. I didn't make up any of the formulas in my spreadsheet. These are formulas that are already available. A lot of them are same formulas on the GNT page, such as converting volumetric flow to mass flow, except I haven't gotten a chance to make a temperature correction for mine. Also the formulas used for determining engine flow are similar, it's just his have the pressure correction.
convert CFM to lb/min = CFM x 0.076 (I found this formula on the turbobygarrett page, same one the GNT link uses)
theoretical CFM = RPM x displacement / 3456 (general automotive formula that is widespread on the web)
VE% = actual CFM / theoretical CFM x 100
You can find a lot of those formulas on the web. What I did inputted the manufacturers HP rating which is 200HP @ 7000 RPMs. Then I calculate the theoretical CFM. After that I did a little trial and error, and started increasing the actual CFM until it gave me a VE% of 102%. What I got was 21 lb/min...to check that number I took 200 HP and divided by 21 lb/min and got 9.5. According to the turbobygarrett page <u>turbocharged</u> engines generally make 9.5-10.5 HP per lb/min of air. If turbo motors make 9.5-10.5 HP per lb/min then a NA motor must make a little less then that. Assuming the actual lb/min I calculated for the H22 is correct, then it makes 9.5 HP for every lb/min of air.
EDIT:
One thing I want to add is that I did use 200 HP and the 21 lb/min air flow to see if other numbers were correct. But before I even did that I already had all the numbers needed to figure out actual airflow. VE% (102% as stated by Honda), and theoretical airflow (formula posted above. From there I just use the formula for calculating actual flow rate which would be:
(actual CFM / theoretical) * 100 = VE
Modified by BlueShadow at 3:23 AM 12/1/2005
12-01-2005, 06:44 AM
#13
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: (BlueShadow)
Its a bunch of things to calculate and theres so many factors that im thinking of giving up. In reality i just wanted to find out what the idea turbo for a h22 with 8:5 pistons and Ls with 8:5 cr pistons.
T3 60-1 seems small for the h22 ---- since i dont even know if my numbers are correct ..dont know if that statement is correct.
I was trying to help out a friend that has a h22 with 8:5 cr pistons with upgraded intake manifold, tb, and fp. He has a t3/t4 50 trim with a .50 a/r. What ive seen on the forums here is that ppl are using t61 with .63 a/r or .70 a/r so i thought maybe that 50 trim .50 a/r hes going to use isnt going to help him as much if he were to use a t61 or a sc61 or a gt35r. what do you guys think?
T3 60-1 seems small for the h22 ---- since i dont even know if my numbers are correct ..dont know if that statement is correct.
I was trying to help out a friend that has a h22 with 8:5 cr pistons with upgraded intake manifold, tb, and fp. He has a t3/t4 50 trim with a .50 a/r. What ive seen on the forums here is that ppl are using t61 with .63 a/r or .70 a/r so i thought maybe that 50 trim .50 a/r hes going to use isnt going to help him as much if he were to use a t61 or a sc61 or a gt35r. what do you guys think?
12-02-2005, 08:22 PM
#14
Honda-Tech Member
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Somewhere in California
Posts: 4,408
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
Re: (D1andOnly)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by D1andOnly »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Its a bunch of things to calculate and theres so many factors that im thinking of giving up. In reality i just wanted to find out what the idea turbo for a h22 with 8:5 pistons and Ls with 8:5 cr pistons.
T3 60-1 seems small for the h22 ---- since i dont even know if my numbers are correct ..dont know if that statement is correct.
I was trying to help out a friend that has a h22 with 8:5 cr pistons with upgraded intake manifold, tb, and fp. He has a t3/t4 50 trim with a .50 a/r. What ive seen on the forums here is that ppl are using t61 with .63 a/r or .70 a/r so i thought maybe that 50 trim .50 a/r hes going to use isnt going to help him as much if he were to use a t61 or a sc61 or a gt35r. what do you guys think?</TD></TR></TABLE>
A 60-1 would be a good turbo for an H22. If you hava little extra money then an SC61 would be better, or if you are a baller then go for the GT35R. You are right though, it's a lot of stuff to calculate, and in the end it's only a best guess. Dont get too caught up in trying to us a calculator to tell you what turbo is best for you motor. There are enough experienced people on here who have actual experience with different turbo/motor setups. So selecting a turbo to meet your goals/budget shouldn't be too hard.
T3 60-1 seems small for the h22 ---- since i dont even know if my numbers are correct ..dont know if that statement is correct.
I was trying to help out a friend that has a h22 with 8:5 cr pistons with upgraded intake manifold, tb, and fp. He has a t3/t4 50 trim with a .50 a/r. What ive seen on the forums here is that ppl are using t61 with .63 a/r or .70 a/r so i thought maybe that 50 trim .50 a/r hes going to use isnt going to help him as much if he were to use a t61 or a sc61 or a gt35r. what do you guys think?</TD></TR></TABLE>
A 60-1 would be a good turbo for an H22. If you hava little extra money then an SC61 would be better, or if you are a baller then go for the GT35R. You are right though, it's a lot of stuff to calculate, and in the end it's only a best guess. Dont get too caught up in trying to us a calculator to tell you what turbo is best for you motor. There are enough experienced people on here who have actual experience with different turbo/motor setups. So selecting a turbo to meet your goals/budget shouldn't be too hard.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post