Speed3 at 465whp!

[shane02pro5]

I just posted in the other thread but... Now that I see this was posted by Hiboost I'm sure Juan was testing the limits of the motor and has intentions of building it after. He may have had people waiting for 6 months and was hard as hell to get ahold of sometimes but I'm sure he wouldn't lie about this.

 

[BLKSp33d3]

guys its a fake if u look at the dyno he has one run at 223whp, that 465 was another car just labeled under mazdaspeed3 come one guys this guy is running 2 intercoolers lol

 

[InlineTwin]

I believe 465 is not unreasonable for the engine. A 4G63 can push 1000 HP and it is a 2.0L. But...

There is only one GT35 on Garrett website that would not have surge issues with the 2.3L on the MS3 at 20psi and it cannot push 400 HP. Not to say that there are not Frankenstein configurations that can do better...

To push 465 HP requires about 50lb/min of airflow ON ANY ENGINE. So If it peaks boost at 6000 RPM it is possible a large turbo can push 50 lb/min over the limited RPM range available without ruining the motor. But what good is a motor that can run peak boost at 6000 - 6250 RPM? You can't even race that.

The owner is probably planning to open up the top end as much as possible; going for 8500 RPM redline???

A ported (compressor side) GT3071 can push 475 Hp and still be very street able if the top end can be opened up. For those who are interested in not race only applications. Peak HP numbers are cool, but don't equal fun on the road.

 

[numbnuts22715]

I believe 465 is not unreasonable for the engine. A 4G63 can push 1000 HP and it is a 2.0L. But...

There is only one GT35 on Garrett website that would not have surge issues with the 2.3L on the MS3 at 20psi and it cannot push 400 HP. Not to say that there are not Frankenstein configurations that can do better...

To push 465 HP requires about 50lb/min of airflow ON ANY ENGINE. So If it peaks boost at 6000 RPM it is possible a large turbo can push 50 lb/min over the limited RPM range available without ruining the motor. But what good is a motor that can run peak boost at 6000 - 6250 RPM? You can't even race that.

The owner is probably planning to open up the top end as much as possible; going for 8500 RPM redline???

A ported (compressor side) GT3071 can push 475 Hp and still be very street able if the top end can be opened up. For those who are interested in not race only applications. Peak HP numbers are cool, but don't equal fun on the road.

the 4g63 can run 1000 hp when its built. This is the stock motor. Lots of people have blown at way lower power than 465 or 477 or whatever else for whichever video youre watching.

 

[InlineTwin]

the 4g63 can run 1000 hp when its built. This is the stock motor. Lots of people have blown at way lower power than 465 or 477 or whatever else for whichever video youre watching.

Yeah, so. Past performance is not proof of future gains. There have been a few people, who honestly didn't know what they were doing, that blew their engines.

And the 4g63 can support 500+ HP with stock internals.

Look at it this way the engineers that designed the motor used at least a 1.5 factor of safety. And beyond that is fatigue resistance, which probably, in the case of an engine, is a more critical factor. HP is not a linear relationship to internal stresses, but it is close enough to believe the structure of the motor can support 400+ HP.

Forgings and casting are sometimes a little difficult to determine failure rates due to hydrogen embrittelment with steel parts and micro structure cracking in aluminum castings.

I don't know how Mazda inspects and buys off their forged and cast parts, but it is not reasonable to point the finger at the manufacturer when the guy(s) who blew his motor recorded no data about the strains on the structure or even basic air fuel delivery values at the time of failure.

 

[avarela86]

Inline...I like where you are taking this.

 

[FMOS Racing]

To make 465 whp at 20 psi on any motor, you'd need a 100% efficient turbo (at 20 psi) and a motor that made a little over 200 whp naturally aspirated.

Assume that a good turbo + intercooler is 90% efficient, and you need a engine that started life making about 225 whp naturally aspirated. If the turbo + intercooler is not so great and therefore only 70% efficient, then you need a combo making about 285 whp naturally aspirated. I'm not going to spend the time looking up the maps for the turbo in question to figure out the efficiency at that MAF and PR.

So, the question to ask yourself is whether or not the motor in question could be making between 225 whp and 285 whp (call it 250 whp just for the sake of argument) before putting 20 psi to it.

This can be finagled a few percentage points either way by cam selection and exhaust design, but the rule of thumb is that you take boosted power and divide it by (the pressure ratio times the system efficiency) to find the naturally aspirated power.

 

[shane02pro5]

Where does this logic come into play considering 1.6l honda with low compression that probably make under 90whp without boost and 20psi can put them and many other built motors well over 400whp.

 

[FMOS Racing]

It's not logic, it's the way engines work and it's basic thermodynamics. No one is sticking 20 psi to a 90 hp engine and making over 400 hp.

Engines are air pumps. A naturally aspirated engine makes its power at a 14.7 psi absolute at sea level. This changes marginally based on ambient conditions but for the sake of discussion, 14.7 will do nicely.

Every 14.7 psi above that gains a whole number multiplier to the amount of air that an engine can process (14.7 psi boost = 2x naturally aspirated, 29.4 psi = 3x naturally aspirated, etc). The efficiency of the turbo plays into that in that heating the air causes the amount of total air mass the engine processes to decrease. Positive pressure causes a further loss of power by decreasing the amount of timing an engine can use in order to prevent autoignition. You can never make power at a rate great than the pressure ratio multiplier.

A little reading on the subject, Corky Bell's "Maximum Boost" is an excellent book on turbo systems and how they work. Or here's Garrett's take on it - http://www.turbobygarrett.com/turbobygarrett/tech_center/turbo_tech103.html

Let me caveat that and say that I'm assuming you're starting with a proprely tuned naturally aspirated motor and finishing with a properly tuned boosted motor. If you have some crappy, no timing, too rich tune on a naturally aspirated combo because you pulled a turbo off of it and didn't bother to dial it in, you could definitely blow the whole "rule of thumb."

 

[shane02pro5]

How can you say nobody is sticking 20psi to a 90WHP (just an estimate considering fully built lower compression so it will make less power without the boost) 1.6l motor.

CWILL had 411whp out of his P5 which is about 90whp na also once you drop the compression and I think he was 8.3:1.

I'm around 330whp with my 8.5:1 90whp=/- at 20psi and soon will be running 20psi on a larger turbo!?

 

[InlineTwin]

It's not logic, it's the way engines work and it's basic thermodynamics. No one is sticking 20 psi to a 90 hp engine and making over 400 hp.

Engines are air pumps. A naturally aspirated engine makes its power at a 14.7 psi absolute at sea level. This changes marginally based on ambient conditions but for the sake of discussion, 14.7 will do nicely.

Every 14.7 psi above that gains a whole number multiplier to the amount of air that an engine can process (14.7 psi boost = 2x naturally aspirated, 29.4 psi = 3x naturally aspirated, etc). The efficiency of the turbo plays into that in that heating the air causes the amount of total air mass the engine processes to decrease. Positive pressure causes a further loss of power by decreasing the amount of timing an engine can use in order to prevent autoignition. You can never make power at a rate great than the pressure ratio multiplier.

A little reading on the subject, Corky Bell's "Maximum Boost" is an excellent book on turbo systems and how they work. Or here's Garrett's take on it - http://www.turbobygarrett.com/turbobygarrett/tech_center/turbo_tech103.html

Let me caveat that and say that I'm assuming you're starting with a proprely tuned naturally aspirated motor and finishing with a properly tuned boosted motor. If you have some crappy, no timing, too rich tune on a naturally aspirated combo because you pulled a turbo off of it and didn't bother to dial it in, you could definitely blow the whole "rule of thumb."

It is not logic and it is not a rational method. Your telling us you read the Turbo Tech on Garrett's website and still don't get it?

Tech numero 03 clearly states it takes about 36 to 44 lbs/min of air flow to produce 400 HP ON ANY ENGINE. Displacement, efficiency, RPM, Boost, none of it matters. The only assumption is BSCF.

Now when getting specific about an engine say a 2.3L DISI we can take into consideration displacement, efficiency, RPM, and boost. So lets do that now.

Lets take our 2.3L engine and find out what kind of boost we need. Well that depends on what RPM. Lets say we want 400 HP at 6750 RPM. Now lets assume the AFR is 10.0 and the BSCF is .55.

computing
Please Wait...
computing

It will take 33.8 psi absolute or 19.1 psig at sea level.

Please reread the turbo techs. thanks.

 

[InlineTwin]

And that is also assuming 83% volumetric efficiency. The VE I backed out from my stock dyno runs.

The torque produced is 311.5 ft-lbs for this case.

thanks.

 

[FMOS Racing]

Not sure how anything you said there contradicts what I said? I never said the 2.3 couldn't make 400 crank hp at 20 psi?

Now seeing that you left out compressor efficiency, let's assume the system is, say 90% efficient just for the sake of the discussion. 19.1 psi becomes 19.1*1.1 = 21 psi. 21+14.7 = 35.7/14.7 = 2.43. 400/2.43 = 164 hp, or about 5% off of what a naturally aspirated Mazda 2.3 makes. Given the stackup of assumptions, I'd say that's pretty close for a rule of thumb, wouldn't you? And certainly within the bounds of reason given the difference in the two motors and the RPM selection.

For what it's worth, and as a bit of credential, I own 4 turbocharged vehicles (one making ~850 hp, another making ~1600 hp), and have worked in development for two of the "Big Three." I was just trying to share an easy method of sorting out what you can expect from turbocharged application, not give a completely mathematical basis for compressor selection.

[Edit] By the way, using the rule of thumb and assuming an 80% efficient system at stock boost, a STOCK MS3 DISI would also be... 165 hp naturally aspirated.

 

[InlineTwin]

To correct the record and bring it back to the point you did state a 90 hp engine could not produce 400 Hp at 20 psi. My simple example was to show that yes actually it could. It may take a high rpm to achieve it but it could do it.

I see now it wasn't clear because I chose to use the 2.3L as an example, thinking you would look again at the formulas at your disposal and see the point I was making.

So my point again; go ahead use a smaller engine displacement and make it horribly inefficient. 20 PSI could boost the engine to 400 HP with a high enough RPM. (or maybe other factors as well!!??)

As for my credentials I have a degree in aerospace engineering and many years of expanding and applying that knowledge. I do understand how to correctly use these basic mathematical concepts. I have written an engine simulator and many other types of simulators; this is not new to me, but I digress. Look at the information again and see where the assumptions may be applied and how the math in the problem interacts and works.

 

[clos561]

thats bulls*** without pump upgrade and upgraded internals im suprised that hasnt popped even if thats true...

 

[FMOS Racing]

Tell you what, use the Garrett equations and do the exact same thing you've done but use 300 hp and 500 hp in addition to the 400 hp you've already computed. You'll find that the change in power between 300 hp, 400 hp, and 500 hp is exactly the same as the change in the absolute pressure.

I'll make it easy, and I'm assuming a constant manifold temperature of 80 degrees, which we KNOW won't stay constant and which we KNOW will increase the necessary change in PR, but since that's the INEFFICIENCY in my above statements, we'll ignore it for now. I also used a more realistic A:F of 11.5:1.
300 hp = an absolute pressure of 27.78 psia
400 hp = an absolute pressure of 37.04 psia
500 hp = an absolute pressure of 46.31 psia

300 hp to 400 hp = a change of 1.33 times, 27.78 to 37.04 = a change of 1.33 times to the absolute pressure.
400 hp to 500 hp = a change of 1.25 times, 37.04 to 46.30 = a change of 1.25 times to the absolute pressure.

The change to the absolute pressure is also the change to the pressure ratio, which is what the rule of thumb is saying.

By the way, I created a hypothetical "90 hp" engine and ran it through the Garrett stuff to prove a point. I had to use 100 hp, a 1.6 liter displacement and a VE of 0.75 to get an engine weak enough. Still used the same RPMs. And remember, those have to be constant for the rule of thumb.

Using the Garrett equations, for that motor to make 400 hp would require 58.93 psia, or 44.2 lbs of boost.

Using the rule of thumb, going from 100 hp naturally aspirated to 400 hp boosted would require 400/100 = 4 * 14.7 = 58.8 - 14.7 = 44.1 lbs of boost.

By the way, you'd have to spin that hypothetical 100 hp 1.6 liter motor 11,250 RPMs to make 400 hp at 20 psi.

I'm not the snide type so there won't be any smart aleck rejoinders.

 

[Mazdaspeed2oo35]

Tell you what, use the Garrett equations and do the exact same thing you've done but use 300 hp and 500 hp in addition to the 400 hp you've already computed. You'll find that the change in power between 300 hp, 400 hp, and 500 hp is exactly the same as the change in the absolute pressure ratio.

I'll make it easy, and I'm assuming a constant manifold temperature of 80 degrees, which we KNOW won't stay constant and which we KNOW will increase the necessary change in PR, but since that's the INEFFICIENCY in my above statements, we'll ignore it for now. I also used a more realistic A:F of 11.5:1.
300 hp = an absolute pressure of 27.78 psia
400 hp = an absolute pressure of 37.04 psia
500 hp = an absolute pressure of 46.31 psia

300 hp to 400 hp = a change of 1.33 times, 27.78 to 37.04 = a change of 1.33 times to the pressure ratio.
400 hp to 500 hp = a change of 1.25 times, 37.04 to 46.30 = a change of 1.25 times to the pressure ratio.

By the way, I created a hypothetical "90 hp" engine and ran it through the Garrett stuff to prove a point. I had to use 100 hp, a 1.6 liter displacement and a VE of 0.75 to get an engine weak enough. Still used the same RPMs. And remember, those have to be constant for the rule of thumb.

Using the Garrett equations, for that motor to make 400 hp would require 58.93 psia, or 44.2 lbs of boost.

Using the rule of thumb, going from 100 hp naturally aspirated to 400 hp boosted would require 400/100 = 4 * 14.7 = 58.8 - 14.7 = 44.1 lbs of boost.

I'm not the snide type so there won't be any smart aleck rejoinders.

To much equations and math here, make it simple, is that Video BS or not ? is it possible to get there without any upgrades in the engine, Fuel system etc ?

You seem to have alot of knowledge of what you are saying i have no doubt about it.. just make your statements easier for people to understand. is Hiboost full of BS with that 477whp and 465whp dyno ? can you really make that amount of power with Everything OEM in that car and engine.. Thanks.. Ive have seen what they can really do to a car with their Products and tunning, i own one of their Project and was done also by them and i know what they can do but 465whp and 477whp sounds unreal for a completely stock engine and fuel system.

 

[FMOS Racing]

I don't know enough about the stock MS3 parts, honestly, to know what kind of power they can take. I do know that with a correct tune, it's possible to make more power than a lot of people think on basic parts.

Would love to have 465 whp in mine, though!

 

[Mazdaspeed2oo35]

I don't know enough about the stock MS3 parts, honestly, to know what kind of power they can take. I do know that with a correct tune, it's possible to make more power than a lot of people think on basic parts.

Would love to have 465 whp in mine, though!

I know that, but 465whp or 477whp is to much power for everything to be stock, you need better exhaust, better IM atleast port and polish ,better IC, better intake, bigger injectors, better fuel pump, engine management etc,i mean i know with a good tune you can gain alot of power but i really think no matter how genius you are about tunning you need supporting mods to achieve those numbers. i really doubt any OEM mazda rods can hold that amount of power. im not putting down Hiboost cause i know them, theyve done my car and i know how they work, this just sounds to crazy to be done on a stock MS3 engine..

there is a Mazda 3 in Puerto Rico that is making some crazy, and i mean crazy power on his engine is called Xenon929, but you really need to look at his Mod List, not mentioning he needed C16 race gas and s*** load of boost to make big power, Im very sure you need a s*** load of work and money into your car and engine to get near the 550 HP this MS3 is putting down in stock engine form..


This Guy in Puerto Rico did 411WHP @ 16psi & 569WHP @ 29psi on C16 race gas. now you tell me that Video and dyno from that MS3 is possible or is BS..

http://www.mazdas247.com/forum/showthread.php?t=123682224

http://www.mazdas247.com/forum/showthread.php?t=123681247&page=4

 

[avarela86]

Compression makes a difference. The videos posted SAY 3inch exhaust, FMIC, GT35R, Manifold and tial wastegate, it's all there for this MS3. Not talking about you Mazdaspeed20035; some people are throwing dumb remarks like oh your using two intercoolers. It's obvious that he did one run with the stock intercooler and then one with the FMIC installed the next day. All people have to do is read his posts.

I'm just venting a little cause people constantly want something that's making great power and there's always those three little haters just talking outa their ass. I read a few of the inflammatory posts on youtube and it's downright stupid. Half those kids prolly don't even know half of what their talking about. This is why companies wonder why they even bother cause they do the R&D and then get shitted on when they show it off.