Forced Induction/Nitrous Technical discussions for all power adders - turbos, superchargers, NOS

Lowest PSI for a 1.6

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old December-10th-2002 | 04:54 PM
  #1  
slikpro's Avatar
Thread Starter
Protege Enthusiast
 
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 128
From: San Diego, CA.
slikpro is on a distinguished road
Lowest PSI for a 1.6

I've noticed that a typical PSI is 6 lbs, would there be any gains running at 3 lbs?

I really want to add a turbo kit to my 1.6, but all this technical stuff seems expensive and complex, like ECU upgrade, injectors and so on.
________
HEAD SHOP

Last edited by slikpro; August-29th-2011 at 08:35 PM.
Old December-11th-2002 | 01:23 AM
  #2  
redrims's Avatar
Protege Progasm
 
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,456
From: MD
redrims is on a distinguished road
agreed No use in wasting the money.
Old December-11th-2002 | 03:34 AM
  #3  
UCSBgeek's Avatar
formerly chastan
 
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 2,350
From: California, USA
UCSBgeek is on a distinguished road
He could probably get away with 6psi without too many other mods, no? Then again I don't know about the 1.6L engine.
Old December-11th-2002 | 01:36 PM
  #4  
BryanPendleton's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 48
From: Houston, TX
BryanPendleton is on a distinguished road
You will almost assuredly have to accomodate the extra air somehow. . . I would think the very minimum you would have to do with ANY turbo kit/system is install a FMU, which increases fuel pressure with manifold pressure. This type of "fuel managment" (I use the term fuel managment lightly) is generally adequate and fine for a low boost application, such as 6psi. You can certainly run less if you like, but why.

Now I suspect that there are a few car with mass air flow systems and fuel systems that would allow you to run a draw-thru setup using OE MAF and injectors. . . . Don't know that this application though.

Enjoy,
Old December-11th-2002 | 03:49 PM
  #5  
turboge's Avatar
Goodbye everyone
 
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 383
turboge is on a distinguished road
6psi on a T-66 or 6psi on a IHI VF11, VJ20, VJ23, .....etc.... I think 6psi could be too little or too much...
Old December-11th-2002 | 08:33 PM
  #6  
biknman's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 457
From: Central Maryland
biknman is on a distinguished road
Boost level

I have a 1999 1.6L MTX turbocharger with a Garret T25. I have about 12,000 miles on the car with the turbo running at 6psi all the time and 8 to 10psi when I race it.
Old December-11th-2002 | 08:49 PM
  #7  
itzkcatz's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 2,130
itzkcatz is on a distinguished road
U mine as well run atleast 5 psi if ur spending the money for the parts and such . Not sure about power increases i would assume a 35-40 hp increase?? ...Jon
Old December-11th-2002 | 11:39 PM
  #8  
turboge's Avatar
Goodbye everyone
 
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 383
turboge is on a distinguished road
I would think a T25 can be spooled to 16psi on the 1.6 without problems. Just have the fuel and the ignition setup correctly.
Old December-12th-2002 | 01:03 AM
  #9  
BryanPendleton's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 48
From: Houston, TX
BryanPendleton is on a distinguished road
Originally posted by turboge
6psi on a T-66 or 6psi on a IHI VF11, VJ20, VJ23, .....etc.... I think 6psi could be too little or too much...
Oh no! Not this old misconception again. You are not trying to imply that 6psi with a small turbo is different from 6psi with a large turbo are you? I do not what to let this go, out of fear that is will mislead someone, regardless of your intentions.

Manifold pressure is manifold pressure. A given manifold pressure is determined by the volumetric flow rate at a given engine speed, nothing more. It doesn't matter if a T66 or a T25 is moving the air, the manifold pressure is determine by the volumetric flow rate at a given engine speed. Where a larger turbo differs is that it flows higher volumetric flow rates more effeciently, meaning that at higher engine speeds the turbo does not heat up the air charge as much. This effectively moves the power band around, with a larger turbo moving powerband higher in the rpm range and smaller turbo lower powerband in rpm range.

Now at what rpm's you plan to run boost is a valid concern, because higher rpms means more air and thus more fuel, so you can quickly exceed the limitations of a OE fuel system simply from running higher rpms.

Also, with larger turbos being more effecient at higher rpm, there will be slightly more air. Volumetric flow rates are the same regardless of turbo, but based on density of air, the mass flow rate changes. Thus as turbo effeciency increases, mass air flow also increases even though volumetric flow rate remains same for a given engine speed and manifold pressure. With that said, the high rpm effecient turbo will "tax" the fuel system somewhat more.
Old December-12th-2002 | 03:05 AM
  #10  
UCSBgeek's Avatar
formerly chastan
 
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 2,350
From: California, USA
UCSBgeek is on a distinguished road
Remember I'm a beginner at this...

so does that mean you can have a smaller turbo work decently with stock or close to stock fuel pumps, but for the larger ones need better pumps?
Old December-12th-2002 | 11:36 AM
  #11  
BryanPendleton's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 48
From: Houston, TX
BryanPendleton is on a distinguished road
Originally posted by Chastan
Remember I'm a beginner at this...

so does that mean you can have a smaller turbo work decently with stock or close to stock fuel pumps, but for the larger ones need better pumps?
Technically, at a given engine speed (rpm) the more effecient turbo will require more fuel at that engine speed. This difference is small though. We are probably talking about, at most a 20% difference in turbo effeciency and that might be the difference between a small T25 and a large T4 turbo. For a typically street application, most people will not be getting to radicall with the turbo selection, so the differences in fuel needs for a "street" turbo for your car is probably null.

Similar to modifying a N/A car. If you slap headers and bolts, and some mild cams, you have effectively increase high rpm volumetric effeciency, meaning the motor now injest more air at high rpms. The motor thus needs more fuel, but the fuel system is generally adequate to meet those demands, BUT do some radical head work and cam work and valve train work, and suddenly your motor is TOO effecient at scream'n rpm's that the stock fuel system is NOT adequate. Similar on a FI application. Most street turbo application running same boost will have very similar fuel demands. Start getting radical, and those demands will increase.
Old December-12th-2002 | 05:35 PM
  #12  
slikpro's Avatar
Thread Starter
Protege Enthusiast
 
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 128
From: San Diego, CA.
slikpro is on a distinguished road
Turboge, I see your are selling the protege. Are you moving to another facility here in california or moving elsewhere.

I'm really interested in the turbo set-up with my car. My only real concern is the extent of modifications needed to turbo a car. I would like to have a turbo set-up that would closely resemble a factory one, not like the ones I see racing with thousands of modifications. This is why I kinda thought that if the boost is kept at a minimum, it would keep the price and functionality reasonable.

Any thoughts?
________
Sunset Boulevard Residence 2 Condo

Last edited by slikpro; August-29th-2011 at 08:35 PM.
Old December-12th-2002 | 05:57 PM
  #13  
turboge's Avatar
Goodbye everyone
 
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 383
turboge is on a distinguished road
Turboge, I see your are selling the protege. Are you moving to another facility here in california or moving elsewhere.
May be headed to Burbank, not certain on a location yet.

I'm really interested in the turbo set-up with my car. My only real concern is the extent of modifications needed to turbo a car. I would like to have a turbo set-up that would closely resemble a factory one, not like the ones I see racing with thousands of modifications. This is why I kinda thought that if the boost is kept at a minimum, it would keep the price and functionality reasonable.
From the manifolds that I've seen built for the 1.6 I don't think a "factory look" was attained. The manifolds we build don't look factory either, but they place the turbo in the "factory" location so you don't have a giant hair dryer sitting next to your hood. Obviously aluminum heatshields would help this type of a look out.

With the misconceptions out there that all people need is a "FPR" and a fuel pump to run low boost people get some bad info. This may work on certain hondas out there but on our cars its a bit different. I don't like blowing up motors that aren't mine, even mine at that. With a turbo at any boost level you are achievining more than the system was ever designed to handle. I always recommend accompanying power increase with controllability of fuel and ignition components. Tune it right the first time and you'll save more money in the long run.

For the people that want to go FI and stay cheap I really just tell them to go N2O. A good 50 shot setup correctly will be just as fun to play with as a 4psi turbo kit.
Old December-12th-2002 | 06:06 PM
  #14  
slikpro's Avatar
Thread Starter
Protege Enthusiast
 
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 128
From: San Diego, CA.
slikpro is on a distinguished road
Were you able to keep any parts from the 1.6 project you had?

How long would you need my car at your shop for a basic kit? Burbank is not too far from me here in San Diego, I lived there years back.

I'm really interested in your product, let me know.
________
Vaporizers

Last edited by slikpro; August-29th-2011 at 08:35 PM.
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
XtrmLzNC
3rd gen Suspension/Brakes
1
November-28th-2003 09:07 PM
Bruce95fmla
1st gen/323/GLC Suspension and Brakes
67
June-23rd-2003 08:45 PM
DuckyZoom
Southeastern US
1
April-16th-2003 10:58 PM
shumax
3rd Gen Protege/MazdaSpeed/P5/MP3
1
August-6th-2002 11:47 PM
Sweedenhouse
3rd gen Suspension/Brakes
0
February-16th-2002 03:14 PM

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:05 AM.