Highest HP 4g63 engine (from 2007)
Sep 19, 2009, 09:14 AM
#31
Evolving Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Evoland
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I edit my post cause there are some people that they do not understand why I post this.
When you built a high HP motor you must know that you have big chances to blow it.
This is not a problem.
Noone ever made an ultra fast car with any blow of the engine or anything.
You must take some risks to do it.
Anyway,keep up the fight for the most powerfull or quicker or anything else you want.
I will keep only the pleasure of driving one.
Have a nice day.
When you built a high HP motor you must know that you have big chances to blow it.
This is not a problem.
Noone ever made an ultra fast car with any blow of the engine or anything.
You must take some risks to do it.
Anyway,keep up the fight for the most powerfull or quicker or anything else you want.
I will keep only the pleasure of driving one.
Have a nice day.
Last edited by konstantinosIX; Sep 30, 2009 at 04:05 AM.
Sep 20, 2009, 09:38 AM
#35
You guys are all bench racing. #1 sin for an automotive enthusiast.
I'm pretty sure AMS has an engine dyno... or that they've done testing on an engine dyno. Compare their numbers vs. this guys and be done.
To the OP,
Don't mount your pressure transducer directly to your intake manifold. The vibration will kill the sensor.
To all the shops out there doing engine development. Get an AVL A/C dyno.
I'm pretty sure AMS has an engine dyno... or that they've done testing on an engine dyno. Compare their numbers vs. this guys and be done.
To the OP,
Don't mount your pressure transducer directly to your intake manifold. The vibration will kill the sensor.
To all the shops out there doing engine development. Get an AVL A/C dyno.
Sep 21, 2009, 11:27 AM
#37
Former Sponsor
Thread Starter
Hi,
Yes David 36.75psi – 1234hp, and i am no exited, is just fine.
I can explain in few words what happened.
For maximum power there are few ways to accomplish it.
Low Mechanical efficiency engine and high rpms small displacement, high mechanical efficiency engine lower rpms small displacements. Low efficiency engine big displacement high torque = lower rpm power band, and chemical volumetric efficiency that u combine it to the above combos to add more efficiency.
BMW formula 1 turbo, early 80s uses the 1rst combo. 1600cc Bmw 16v (from stock passenger car) engine destroked to 1500cc so as to have better rod to stroke ratio, 76psi boost pressure to qualification and 66psi – 55 running the race with 11.800rpms and 1450hp from 1500cc engine displacement. That its old technique of adding efficiency from an engine rev it so high. Most common engines like 4g63 runing 57-65% mechanic efficiency. That means per 1000cc displacement they can move and burn 65% of his displacement. Assume to understand it better 65hp per 1000cc. From the 2ltr 4g63 we have 65 x 2 = 130hp if u remove the turbocharger for example.
Hondas s2000, k20s etch from stock efficiency running higher levels. If u make the efficiency higher then if u boost this engine u will have it double or triple or depends the boost pressure that u use. If u have 130hp N/A engine and boost it to 14.7 psi and have intake air temperature the same exactly then u will have 260hp. If u boost the 130hp engine to + 30psi then u multiply the 130 x 3 (1 intake cylinder pressure 14.7) + 30psi = 390hp. Look it now, its like an evo8 running actually 30psi. Thats all with normal volumetric efficiency. Take the same example now to an s2000 honda engine. 220hp x 14/7 psi = 440hp, 220hp x 3 (1 intake cylinder pressure 14.7) + 30psi = 660hp when the stock 4g63 have 390hp at the same boost and same displacement.
As u can see the difference just making the engine little more efficient is dramatically different. My 4g63 engine running 133% Vol eff. and the best point is when i boost it the mechanical efficiency stays the same but the volumetric goes double or triple or any boost pressures i desire goes x (boost pressures).
The dyno at my first post was from a ford 1940cc engine 4 cylinder 16v engine that i made at 2006 that’s engine efficiency’s was 185%, i had 213hp per 1000cc displacement.
David here is the point that i am not happy with 36.75psi – 1234hp, if my old cosworth had 416hp N/A from 1950cc before 4 years, (now a stock Suzuki bike gsxr 1000 2008 model, have from 998cc +190hp (73.4mm piston with 59mm stroke) = 190hp per ltr but with 12.5:1 comp ratio, and as we had 17:1comp ratio we had more efficient engine but much more loses from friction and weight of moving masses. The weight of our 92mm piston at 12000rpms weight to the crank almost 4.5tones and the bike just below from one tone.
If i make the 4g63 running same efficiency look what will happen: 1950cc ford engine 416hp > 4g63 stroked to 2150cc (11% stroked) = 416hp x 11% = 457hp x 14.7 psi = 914hp and at 15psi boost pressure i will have 1371hp (457 x 3 (30psi). I had now at 36.75 psi – 1234hp, and i can have exactly 1.599hp, at the same pressure exactly, making my engine more efficient.
Lets assume that we forget the chemical efficiency that its important ( imagine the nitro methane race funny cars have N/A 4000hp and when running 90% nitro methane double their engine vol efficiency goes to 8000hp directly.
A quick explanation of engine Vol Efficiency = cylinder heads job, how quick the engine can burn the mixture per a certain time period. How we can moving masses from the same displacement. 200hp from a 2ltr engine is 80-85% efficiency. 200hp from 4000cc engine is 35%-40%. The percentage of hp per efficiency varies depends of the mechanical characteristics of each engine. Bore to stroke ratio, rod length to stroke, pistons speed m/sec, and of course my worst nightmare the friction.
Imagine to 85.5mm 4g63 piston with normal 2 compression rings and one oil, at 1000rpms we have 25hp and loses from piston friction 0.7hp and when we have at 7000rpms 160hp and 37hp friction loses, the friction loses are not just double per 1000rpms. The old cosworth engine with 416rpms that i rev it 12000rpm i should have at 11.200 that i have the maximum horsepower (412hp) 490-500hp.
I had 92mm bore piston and the friction was 10% more than the evo. Another for friction is the crank angle at ATDC – piston to wall surface, the mean piston velocity and how much time the piston stays down and the acceleration in m/sec2 from the ATDC to the BTDC that we can calculate it also to G., Our pistons are designed to reach instantly at 33m/sec depends the size the weight and the friction and the fuel type.
Making big steps adding efficiency to an engine is the cams. I can write for ours about this subject but let’s be quickly as i can. I have test hundreds of cams – combos etc.
Cams is the referee between intake and exhaust, the best way to design a camsaft is to know ur engine very well, ur target boost level the amount of the lbs/min per boost level to the intake port, and what rpm band u want ur horsepower, the cylinder head flow characteristics in cfm, and much more details that can i explain to a new detailed post. U must combine and manage to the velocity with the speed of sound with waves so as to have full benefits of this phenomenon. U can add extra presure to the cylinder from the stock 14.7psi at sea level by making working with it.
The intake valves open each every 720 degrees rotation of the engine and exhaust too, the intake wave of the sound travels and must hit the valve closed and return to the intake plenum twice so as when at the next rotation of the engine the wave returns again to have extra pressure velocity inside the chamber when then fully opens.
That will add more positive pressure that can reach almost +25psi bar extra with out using the turbocharger. U can easy calculate the speed wave as the speed of sound travel with 343m/sec. U can divide the runner length so as to calculate the runner length from the valve to the throttle, for example when we want this phenomenon starts at 5000rpms we must make the runners 412mm, when we want the wave at 10000rpms we must make it 206mm total length more rpms less runner length. This is with the second wave style theory, we can also work with 4 theory as we work at wrc cars and F3 racecars and superbikes. When we want to calculate this exactly we must know the air temperature when gets high the speed of sound from 343m/sec goes higher, when we calculate it with 20celcium and we have 343m.sec to divide at 50celcium goes to 360m/sec to divide. Another important vary is the mass per molecule of air that its measured kg/kmol, its too important as well.
Exact phenomenon its at the exhaust side as well. Intake with out combined harmonically with the exhaust is nothing, u can add positive pressures if u don’t combined with the exhaust. I try to make it as simply and quick and understood i can.
The other and important too is the speed that give to the valve. The acceleration that gives to the valve when opens and when closes, fluid dynamics and wave dynamics have nothing to do now, the same cam with same degrees at 0.1mm and same valve list can be 2 or 3 or 4 times slower than a different design cam but with same overall characteristics but different ramp rate. Most common cam rates are between 2-2.5g rated so as to work for unlimited time with the stock “soft” valve train. Most drag racing ramps for mitsubishi are between 3-3.8g. The G is the acceleration that gives to the valve at the same time period. When the ramp rate goes high the problems start with the valve train components. The weight of the valve from 3g and above hit the valve seat so rough that can brake it instantly. Except of this the valve hit the seat and with out make “suspension” above the seat makes loosing power from the loss of jumping. We design cams that can reach 8gs instantly, depends the valve train.
We have cams for the 4g63 for stock hydraulic system that we have test and test and i ensure u that they pass most of the mechanical profiles that there is, the custom mechanical profiles need highly modification to the valve seats, valve spring and valve weight as they makes the valve accelerate above 5.5g. to 8g. The valve train lasts for sort period then, but u can have dramatically horsepower gains although the valve train parts.
Here is one of my tests to see, its a Mitsubishi 4g63 evo at the dyno. The engine have stock valves, stock completely cylinder head no porting, upgraded valvesprings only, stock hydraulic system, pauter rods, 9:1 comp pistons, stock crank, bigger intake plenum and an air to air intercooler and a 88 lbs custom turbo. I test HKS 264cams with our custom high G stage 1 profile for stock cylinder head system but upgraded springs. The only change we make from the below diagrams are the custom cams.
32 psi HKS cams
32 psi HKS cams Boost pressure vs Hp
30psi Custom Cams torque vs Hp
30psi custom cams Boost pressure vs Hp
The comparison now:
Our cams spool faster the same turbo and produce 80hp above the HKS at 2psi lower. I rev it until 8000rpm only as most parts of the cylinder head remains stock, the design of these cams are efectively until 9000rpms in 2 ltr engine and boost levels until 47psi.
Our custom cams 30psi vs 32psi HKS
Boost presure diagrams vs Hp
Now lets see higher boost levels the diference precentage how changes.
37psi HKS cams Torque Vs Hp
37psi HKS cams Boost pressure Vs Hp
Our custom cams at 33psi (4psi less HKS) torque vs Horsepower
Our custom cams at 33psi (4psi less HKS) presure vs Horsepower
The comparison now:
Custom cams spool faster the same turbo and produce 122hp above and 11kgr torque from the HKS at 4psi lower, the power stays up.
Custom cams 33psi vs HKS 37psi torque vs power
Custom cams 33psi vs HKS 37psi boost presure vs power
I have no more time to write, at my next post i will send u pictures of the parts that we use.
Spyros Panopoulos
Extreme Tuners
-------- Power Under Pressure --------
* Taking Turbocharging To The Next Level *
Yes David 36.75psi – 1234hp, and i am no exited, is just fine.
I can explain in few words what happened.
For maximum power there are few ways to accomplish it.
Low Mechanical efficiency engine and high rpms small displacement, high mechanical efficiency engine lower rpms small displacements. Low efficiency engine big displacement high torque = lower rpm power band, and chemical volumetric efficiency that u combine it to the above combos to add more efficiency.
BMW formula 1 turbo, early 80s uses the 1rst combo. 1600cc Bmw 16v (from stock passenger car) engine destroked to 1500cc so as to have better rod to stroke ratio, 76psi boost pressure to qualification and 66psi – 55 running the race with 11.800rpms and 1450hp from 1500cc engine displacement. That its old technique of adding efficiency from an engine rev it so high. Most common engines like 4g63 runing 57-65% mechanic efficiency. That means per 1000cc displacement they can move and burn 65% of his displacement. Assume to understand it better 65hp per 1000cc. From the 2ltr 4g63 we have 65 x 2 = 130hp if u remove the turbocharger for example.
Hondas s2000, k20s etch from stock efficiency running higher levels. If u make the efficiency higher then if u boost this engine u will have it double or triple or depends the boost pressure that u use. If u have 130hp N/A engine and boost it to 14.7 psi and have intake air temperature the same exactly then u will have 260hp. If u boost the 130hp engine to + 30psi then u multiply the 130 x 3 (1 intake cylinder pressure 14.7) + 30psi = 390hp. Look it now, its like an evo8 running actually 30psi. Thats all with normal volumetric efficiency. Take the same example now to an s2000 honda engine. 220hp x 14/7 psi = 440hp, 220hp x 3 (1 intake cylinder pressure 14.7) + 30psi = 660hp when the stock 4g63 have 390hp at the same boost and same displacement.
As u can see the difference just making the engine little more efficient is dramatically different. My 4g63 engine running 133% Vol eff. and the best point is when i boost it the mechanical efficiency stays the same but the volumetric goes double or triple or any boost pressures i desire goes x (boost pressures).
The dyno at my first post was from a ford 1940cc engine 4 cylinder 16v engine that i made at 2006 that’s engine efficiency’s was 185%, i had 213hp per 1000cc displacement.
David here is the point that i am not happy with 36.75psi – 1234hp, if my old cosworth had 416hp N/A from 1950cc before 4 years, (now a stock Suzuki bike gsxr 1000 2008 model, have from 998cc +190hp (73.4mm piston with 59mm stroke) = 190hp per ltr but with 12.5:1 comp ratio, and as we had 17:1comp ratio we had more efficient engine but much more loses from friction and weight of moving masses. The weight of our 92mm piston at 12000rpms weight to the crank almost 4.5tones and the bike just below from one tone.
If i make the 4g63 running same efficiency look what will happen: 1950cc ford engine 416hp > 4g63 stroked to 2150cc (11% stroked) = 416hp x 11% = 457hp x 14.7 psi = 914hp and at 15psi boost pressure i will have 1371hp (457 x 3 (30psi). I had now at 36.75 psi – 1234hp, and i can have exactly 1.599hp, at the same pressure exactly, making my engine more efficient.
Lets assume that we forget the chemical efficiency that its important ( imagine the nitro methane race funny cars have N/A 4000hp and when running 90% nitro methane double their engine vol efficiency goes to 8000hp directly.
A quick explanation of engine Vol Efficiency = cylinder heads job, how quick the engine can burn the mixture per a certain time period. How we can moving masses from the same displacement. 200hp from a 2ltr engine is 80-85% efficiency. 200hp from 4000cc engine is 35%-40%. The percentage of hp per efficiency varies depends of the mechanical characteristics of each engine. Bore to stroke ratio, rod length to stroke, pistons speed m/sec, and of course my worst nightmare the friction.
Imagine to 85.5mm 4g63 piston with normal 2 compression rings and one oil, at 1000rpms we have 25hp and loses from piston friction 0.7hp and when we have at 7000rpms 160hp and 37hp friction loses, the friction loses are not just double per 1000rpms. The old cosworth engine with 416rpms that i rev it 12000rpm i should have at 11.200 that i have the maximum horsepower (412hp) 490-500hp.
I had 92mm bore piston and the friction was 10% more than the evo. Another for friction is the crank angle at ATDC – piston to wall surface, the mean piston velocity and how much time the piston stays down and the acceleration in m/sec2 from the ATDC to the BTDC that we can calculate it also to G., Our pistons are designed to reach instantly at 33m/sec depends the size the weight and the friction and the fuel type.
Making big steps adding efficiency to an engine is the cams. I can write for ours about this subject but let’s be quickly as i can. I have test hundreds of cams – combos etc.
Cams is the referee between intake and exhaust, the best way to design a camsaft is to know ur engine very well, ur target boost level the amount of the lbs/min per boost level to the intake port, and what rpm band u want ur horsepower, the cylinder head flow characteristics in cfm, and much more details that can i explain to a new detailed post. U must combine and manage to the velocity with the speed of sound with waves so as to have full benefits of this phenomenon. U can add extra presure to the cylinder from the stock 14.7psi at sea level by making working with it.
The intake valves open each every 720 degrees rotation of the engine and exhaust too, the intake wave of the sound travels and must hit the valve closed and return to the intake plenum twice so as when at the next rotation of the engine the wave returns again to have extra pressure velocity inside the chamber when then fully opens.
That will add more positive pressure that can reach almost +25psi bar extra with out using the turbocharger. U can easy calculate the speed wave as the speed of sound travel with 343m/sec. U can divide the runner length so as to calculate the runner length from the valve to the throttle, for example when we want this phenomenon starts at 5000rpms we must make the runners 412mm, when we want the wave at 10000rpms we must make it 206mm total length more rpms less runner length. This is with the second wave style theory, we can also work with 4 theory as we work at wrc cars and F3 racecars and superbikes. When we want to calculate this exactly we must know the air temperature when gets high the speed of sound from 343m/sec goes higher, when we calculate it with 20celcium and we have 343m.sec to divide at 50celcium goes to 360m/sec to divide. Another important vary is the mass per molecule of air that its measured kg/kmol, its too important as well.
Exact phenomenon its at the exhaust side as well. Intake with out combined harmonically with the exhaust is nothing, u can add positive pressures if u don’t combined with the exhaust. I try to make it as simply and quick and understood i can.
The other and important too is the speed that give to the valve. The acceleration that gives to the valve when opens and when closes, fluid dynamics and wave dynamics have nothing to do now, the same cam with same degrees at 0.1mm and same valve list can be 2 or 3 or 4 times slower than a different design cam but with same overall characteristics but different ramp rate. Most common cam rates are between 2-2.5g rated so as to work for unlimited time with the stock “soft” valve train. Most drag racing ramps for mitsubishi are between 3-3.8g. The G is the acceleration that gives to the valve at the same time period. When the ramp rate goes high the problems start with the valve train components. The weight of the valve from 3g and above hit the valve seat so rough that can brake it instantly. Except of this the valve hit the seat and with out make “suspension” above the seat makes loosing power from the loss of jumping. We design cams that can reach 8gs instantly, depends the valve train.
We have cams for the 4g63 for stock hydraulic system that we have test and test and i ensure u that they pass most of the mechanical profiles that there is, the custom mechanical profiles need highly modification to the valve seats, valve spring and valve weight as they makes the valve accelerate above 5.5g. to 8g. The valve train lasts for sort period then, but u can have dramatically horsepower gains although the valve train parts.
Here is one of my tests to see, its a Mitsubishi 4g63 evo at the dyno. The engine have stock valves, stock completely cylinder head no porting, upgraded valvesprings only, stock hydraulic system, pauter rods, 9:1 comp pistons, stock crank, bigger intake plenum and an air to air intercooler and a 88 lbs custom turbo. I test HKS 264cams with our custom high G stage 1 profile for stock cylinder head system but upgraded springs. The only change we make from the below diagrams are the custom cams.
32 psi HKS cams
32 psi HKS cams Boost pressure vs Hp
30psi Custom Cams torque vs Hp
30psi custom cams Boost pressure vs Hp
The comparison now:
Our cams spool faster the same turbo and produce 80hp above the HKS at 2psi lower. I rev it until 8000rpm only as most parts of the cylinder head remains stock, the design of these cams are efectively until 9000rpms in 2 ltr engine and boost levels until 47psi.
Our custom cams 30psi vs 32psi HKS
Boost presure diagrams vs Hp
Now lets see higher boost levels the diference precentage how changes.
37psi HKS cams Torque Vs Hp
37psi HKS cams Boost pressure Vs Hp
Our custom cams at 33psi (4psi less HKS) torque vs Horsepower
Our custom cams at 33psi (4psi less HKS) presure vs Horsepower
The comparison now:
Custom cams spool faster the same turbo and produce 122hp above and 11kgr torque from the HKS at 4psi lower, the power stays up.
Custom cams 33psi vs HKS 37psi torque vs power
Custom cams 33psi vs HKS 37psi boost presure vs power
I have no more time to write, at my next post i will send u pictures of the parts that we use.
Spyros Panopoulos
Extreme Tuners
-------- Power Under Pressure --------
* Taking Turbocharging To The Next Level *
Last edited by Extreme Tuners; Sep 21, 2009 at 11:30 AM.
Sep 21, 2009, 04:21 PM
#41
I see alot of papers with #'s but none that i could care about.. where is that little paper with 1320ft on it??? I could make 1400hp on a dynodynamics and run 8.75 with it.. Yes it wouldnt add up just like the dyno charts i am seeing..
Mike
Mike
Last edited by AWD Motorsports; Sep 21, 2009 at 08:38 PM.
Sep 21, 2009, 08:30 PM
#42
Evolved Member
iTrader: (7)
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Las Vegas!
Posts: 846
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting...
We use Gallons, they use Liters... We use miles per hour, they use Kilometers... We use "at the wheels", they use "at the flywheels"...
Pretty interesting though...
We use Gallons, they use Liters... We use miles per hour, they use Kilometers... We use "at the wheels", they use "at the flywheels"...
Pretty interesting though...
Sep 22, 2009, 04:08 AM
#43
Newbie
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: VA
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
see my post above, do a google image search for 'dynapack dyno sheet' and you'll see that the charts are all listed as 'flywheel torque' even though they measure output at the wheels. In my experience (when properly set up), they measure pretty close to a dynojet.
Sep 22, 2009, 11:52 AM
#44
Former Sponsor
Thread Starter
If u want tell me something for ur horsepower and show me ur dynoplot.
We had 1400hp before 2 year with common racing fuel when most tuners (supose and u) try the stock 74mm garrett Gt42 for first time to the 4g63 engine.
Please next time post something usefull to THIS topic.
Sep 22, 2009, 12:03 PM
#45
You are OFF TOPIC. Look the title of the topic again.
If u want tell me something for ur horsepower and show me ur dynoplot.
We had 1400hp before 2 year with common racing fuel when most tuners (supose and u) try the stock 74mm garrett Gt42 for first time to the 4g63 engine.
Please next time post something usefull to THIS topic.
If u want tell me something for ur horsepower and show me ur dynoplot.
We had 1400hp before 2 year with common racing fuel when most tuners (supose and u) try the stock 74mm garrett Gt42 for first time to the 4g63 engine.
Please next time post something usefull to THIS topic.
