Quote:
Originally Posted by jr_ss
There?s an overwhelming amount of dyno graphs out there that prove your formulations are flawed. I think this one is the icing on the cake... These motors respond well and perform when boosted. You can not deny this.
https://www.driftworks.com/forum/thr...670wnm.268847/
Edit* Here is the landspeed racer dyno. Gasp! 1.5l making 400ftlbs of torque...
 |
That is not a dynojet bro. It also clearly says "flywheel torque" which is a dead give away that they are working backwards from RWTQ and RWHP with a number that somebody put into the computer at random (nobody actually knows what their drivetrain losses are, they can put whatever number they feel like)
We only use dynojet because they cannot be fooled. I can hex edit or adjust the torque from any other dyno, such as that one, to read whatever I want.
I could show you right now a 2L engine making 1000ft*lbs naturally aspirated. shocker
So far my dynojet predictions match every single 2.0L on the internet that I have found. Not one flaw with my formula or reasoning.
and so far the only thing you have shown me is 1 person who claims 24psi made 360ft*lbs of torque, which I also believe.
Send more dynojets of SR20VE and I will knock em down one by one. Don't try to fool me with other dynos lol. What do you think I am... noobie city over here
I want you to think about something very carefully. Energy comes from fuel, not boost. The boost just increases air density so you can inject more fuel.
Therefore, a/f ratio has a dramatic impact on torque, as does inlet air temperature.
If we hold those two variable constant, and assume ambient underhood air temp (100*F~) and typical gasoline ratio of "plenty of fuel" 11.5:1, what other factors remain?
There is displacement, Volumetric efficiency, compression ratio, and air density which is a function of air temp (a
constant we are holding) and pressure (the boost pressure we are given as a
constant).
Peak torque is typically achieved around 100% VE on all engines designed after 1982 as a constant 95 to 100% given, stock truck 2.4L KA24, stock truck 5.3L, stock 2JZ, stock SR20, all make near 95 to 100% VE so
it is another constant we can ignore.
Notice how engine flow rate or head flow rate, or anything to do with the head beyond VE (which is constant) has absolutely nothing to do with torque output.
therefore it is impossible for anyone to take any 2L in the world, and get more torque from it given those constraints. It is thermodynamically, energetically, very unlikely without some novel technique (such as Direct Injection algorithms) to alter the BSFC and thermal efficiency of a power plant.
This is the same way engineers use modelling to determine power plant consumption, heat loss, shaft power, etc... That is, by holding some variables constant and looking what happens to the other ones.
In a more simple example, just use your imagination. Fill a cylinder to 100% capacity with the piston in opportune position and then fire the plug and measure the force generated by the piston's descent.
if you do this over and over with a 0.5L (1/4 of a 2L) cylinder you will find that no matter how many times you do the same experiment, it will generate the same torque or push given all identical starting conditions.
changing the "head" (cover over the cylinder) will not affect the torque unless it disturbs the compression ratio or efficiency of combustion. And even then the difference will be slight, and all heads made by Nissan after 1982 and all Heads made by Chevrolet made after 2002 contain the same cylinder head technology "fast burn" so there is little difference, nothing better has come along since for gasoline, and even if it does it will only be less than 1% superior.
why is that? How can I say that?
We know this because combustion has reached a pinnacle in our society. That is, thermodynamics has extracted all of the available energy (within 1% of what it attainable due to countless studies over the last 40 years by scientists and engineers on typical port injection engine platforms) regardless of who manufactures the engine because all engines in our modern time make use of similar computer modelling which puts the efficiency of every modern engine right near its calculable limit (the limit defined by calculus) of what is possible with gasoline.
This why no matter whether we check 1995 or 2015 or 2020 the fuel efficiency on modern engines and cars has not gone up by much if anything it has gone down due to stricter emissions regulations! That is to say that, if they could squeeze more than 1% or 2% from any modern gasoline engine it would have shown up as an improved fuel economy model, yet new corvettes and new Toyota supras with all their modern combustion gadgetry still provide a measly 15mpg to 22mpg or whatever, the same in 1995 and 2015. They are at the limit of efficiency!