996 Turbo / GT2 Turbo discussion on previous model 2000-2005 Porsche 911 Twin Turbo and 911 GT2.

Volumetric Efficiency Comparo

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Rate Thread
 
  #61  
Old 01-04-2011, 05:20 PM
996ttalot's Avatar
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Surrey, England
Posts: 226
Rep Power: 45
996ttalot has a reputation beyond repute996ttalot has a reputation beyond repute996ttalot has a reputation beyond repute996ttalot has a reputation beyond repute996ttalot has a reputation beyond repute996ttalot has a reputation beyond repute996ttalot has a reputation beyond repute996ttalot has a reputation beyond repute996ttalot has a reputation beyond repute996ttalot has a reputation beyond repute996ttalot has a reputation beyond repute
Here are the standard values for 996 turbo (k16). You can use the correlation factor column to your VE values to get the results.
 
Attached Images  
  #62  
Old 01-04-2011, 05:23 PM
TTdude's Avatar
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Fastlane USA
Posts: 2,319
Rep Power: 244
TTdude Is a GOD !TTdude Is a GOD !TTdude Is a GOD !TTdude Is a GOD !TTdude Is a GOD !TTdude Is a GOD !TTdude Is a GOD !TTdude Is a GOD !TTdude Is a GOD !TTdude Is a GOD !TTdude Is a GOD !
Originally Posted by 996ttalot
Here are the standard values for 996 turbo (k16). You can use the correlation factor column to your VE values to get the results.
Awesome. Thanks Ken.
 
  #63  
Old 01-04-2011, 05:45 PM
996ttalot's Avatar
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Surrey, England
Posts: 226
Rep Power: 45
996ttalot has a reputation beyond repute996ttalot has a reputation beyond repute996ttalot has a reputation beyond repute996ttalot has a reputation beyond repute996ttalot has a reputation beyond repute996ttalot has a reputation beyond repute996ttalot has a reputation beyond repute996ttalot has a reputation beyond repute996ttalot has a reputation beyond repute996ttalot has a reputation beyond repute996ttalot has a reputation beyond repute
This is what i get for you and MBailey. I have just taken approx figures from the graph on the first page of the thread - how do we think that compares? I don't know whether the correlation will be identical for 997 v 996.
 
Attached Images  

Last edited by 996ttalot; 01-04-2011 at 05:56 PM.
  #64  
Old 01-04-2011, 05:46 PM
MBailey's Avatar
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Texas
Posts: 2,957
Rep Power: 454
MBailey Is a GOD !MBailey Is a GOD !MBailey Is a GOD !MBailey Is a GOD !MBailey Is a GOD !MBailey Is a GOD !MBailey Is a GOD !MBailey Is a GOD !MBailey Is a GOD !MBailey Is a GOD !MBailey Is a GOD !
Originally Posted by 996ttalot
Here are the standard values for 996 turbo (k16). You can use the correlation factor column to your VE values to get the results.
Are you saying that you could use the same correction factors for different types of turbos?
 
  #65  
Old 01-04-2011, 05:49 PM
996ttalot's Avatar
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Surrey, England
Posts: 226
Rep Power: 45
996ttalot has a reputation beyond repute996ttalot has a reputation beyond repute996ttalot has a reputation beyond repute996ttalot has a reputation beyond repute996ttalot has a reputation beyond repute996ttalot has a reputation beyond repute996ttalot has a reputation beyond repute996ttalot has a reputation beyond repute996ttalot has a reputation beyond repute996ttalot has a reputation beyond repute996ttalot has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by MBailey
Are you saying that you could use the same correction factors for different types of turbos?
Mike I don't know. I have used the same for k16 v k24 and it worked fine when comparing x50 against std 996 turbo k16 v my set up.

When I done the rough graph of you and ttdude, the figure for you looks low, but it was a quick taking the values of the graph on the first page. Also when you produced the VE numbers for your car, was that at the maximum they could be e.g. boost levels, fueling etc?

Ken
 
  #66  
Old 01-04-2011, 06:01 PM
MBailey's Avatar
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Texas
Posts: 2,957
Rep Power: 454
MBailey Is a GOD !MBailey Is a GOD !MBailey Is a GOD !MBailey Is a GOD !MBailey Is a GOD !MBailey Is a GOD !MBailey Is a GOD !MBailey Is a GOD !MBailey Is a GOD !MBailey Is a GOD !MBailey Is a GOD !
Originally Posted by 996ttalot
Mike I don't know. I have used the same for k16 v k24 and it worked fine when comparing x50 against std 996 turbo k16 v my set up.

When I done the rough graph of you and ttdude, the figure for you looks low, but it was a quick taking the values of the graph on the first page. Also when you produced the VE numbers for your car, was that at the maximum they could be e.g. boost levels, fueling etc?

Ken
Thanks Ken!!
Interesting graph... I dont know if its high or low since my car has never been dynoed. The log used for the VE calculation about a year old and I have made some power gains since then. Regardless, its very interesting data and I really appreciate you and Dave working so hard to draw so many valuable conclusions from it!!
 
  #67  
Old 01-04-2011, 06:04 PM
TTdude's Avatar
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Fastlane USA
Posts: 2,319
Rep Power: 244
TTdude Is a GOD !TTdude Is a GOD !TTdude Is a GOD !TTdude Is a GOD !TTdude Is a GOD !TTdude Is a GOD !TTdude Is a GOD !TTdude Is a GOD !TTdude Is a GOD !TTdude Is a GOD !TTdude Is a GOD !
Originally Posted by 996ttalot
Mike I don't know. I have used the same for k16 v k24 and it worked fine when comparing x50 against std 996 turbo k16 v my set up.

When I done the rough graph of you and ttdude, the figure for you looks low, but it was a quick taking the values of the graph on the first page. Also when you produced the VE numbers for your car, was that at the maximum they could be e.g. boost levels, fueling etc?

Ken
Thanks for plotting my "dyno" graph. For Mike, I just used one set of data from his datalog in which he had a couple runs recorded. I didn't check to see which one was best and I believe none of them were from his 5.5s run.
 
  #68  
Old 01-04-2011, 06:05 PM
996ttalot's Avatar
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Surrey, England
Posts: 226
Rep Power: 45
996ttalot has a reputation beyond repute996ttalot has a reputation beyond repute996ttalot has a reputation beyond repute996ttalot has a reputation beyond repute996ttalot has a reputation beyond repute996ttalot has a reputation beyond repute996ttalot has a reputation beyond repute996ttalot has a reputation beyond repute996ttalot has a reputation beyond repute996ttalot has a reputation beyond repute996ttalot has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by MBailey
Thanks Ken!!
Interesting graph... I dont know if its high or low since my car has never been dynoed. The log used for the VE calculation about a year old and I have made some power gains since then. Regardless, its very interesting data and I really appreciate you and Dave working so hard to draw so many valuable conclusions from it!!
No issues. The thing is that when I study your signature (which I presume is the car we are referring too?) that ran almost 200 at the texas mile - correct?

If that is the case, then I would have thought that you would have needed more power, or you are running less weight perhaps?

I think you need to go out and get another datalog!!!
 
  #69  
Old 01-04-2011, 06:07 PM
996ttalot's Avatar
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Surrey, England
Posts: 226
Rep Power: 45
996ttalot has a reputation beyond repute996ttalot has a reputation beyond repute996ttalot has a reputation beyond repute996ttalot has a reputation beyond repute996ttalot has a reputation beyond repute996ttalot has a reputation beyond repute996ttalot has a reputation beyond repute996ttalot has a reputation beyond repute996ttalot has a reputation beyond repute996ttalot has a reputation beyond repute996ttalot has a reputation beyond repute
Originally Posted by TTdude
Thanks for plotting my "dyno" graph. For Mike, I just used one set of data from his datalog in which he had a couple runs recorded. I didn't check to see which one was best and I believe none of them were from his 5.5s run.
We need Mike to take his car for a spin

Okay it is getting late here (1am) so I sign off for tonight and catch up later today.
 
  #70  
Old 01-04-2011, 06:08 PM
MBailey's Avatar
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Texas
Posts: 2,957
Rep Power: 454
MBailey Is a GOD !MBailey Is a GOD !MBailey Is a GOD !MBailey Is a GOD !MBailey Is a GOD !MBailey Is a GOD !MBailey Is a GOD !MBailey Is a GOD !MBailey Is a GOD !MBailey Is a GOD !MBailey Is a GOD !
Originally Posted by TTdude
Thanks for plotting my "dyno" graph. For Mike, I just used one set of data from his datalog in which he had a couple runs recorded. I didn't check to see which one was best and I believe none of them were from his 5.5s run.
Interestingly, the graphed hp is almost exactly what Todd Z estimates my car is making so it may be very accurate.
 
  #71  
Old 01-04-2011, 06:15 PM
MBailey's Avatar
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Texas
Posts: 2,957
Rep Power: 454
MBailey Is a GOD !MBailey Is a GOD !MBailey Is a GOD !MBailey Is a GOD !MBailey Is a GOD !MBailey Is a GOD !MBailey Is a GOD !MBailey Is a GOD !MBailey Is a GOD !MBailey Is a GOD !MBailey Is a GOD !
You should put your car on the dyno graph too Ken!!
 
  #72  
Old 01-04-2011, 06:27 PM
996ttalot's Avatar
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Surrey, England
Posts: 226
Rep Power: 45
996ttalot has a reputation beyond repute996ttalot has a reputation beyond repute996ttalot has a reputation beyond repute996ttalot has a reputation beyond repute996ttalot has a reputation beyond repute996ttalot has a reputation beyond repute996ttalot has a reputation beyond repute996ttalot has a reputation beyond repute996ttalot has a reputation beyond repute996ttalot has a reputation beyond repute996ttalot has a reputation beyond repute
Here you go. I must be sleep calculating!
 
Attached Images  
  #73  
Old 01-04-2011, 06:32 PM
MBailey's Avatar
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Texas
Posts: 2,957
Rep Power: 454
MBailey Is a GOD !MBailey Is a GOD !MBailey Is a GOD !MBailey Is a GOD !MBailey Is a GOD !MBailey Is a GOD !MBailey Is a GOD !MBailey Is a GOD !MBailey Is a GOD !MBailey Is a GOD !MBailey Is a GOD !
Originally Posted by 996ttalot
Here you go. I must be sleep calculating!
Wow Ken!!
Your car pumps out the hp and torque!! Is that at 1.5 bar?
 
  #74  
Old 01-04-2011, 06:45 PM
TTdude's Avatar
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Fastlane USA
Posts: 2,319
Rep Power: 244
TTdude Is a GOD !TTdude Is a GOD !TTdude Is a GOD !TTdude Is a GOD !TTdude Is a GOD !TTdude Is a GOD !TTdude Is a GOD !TTdude Is a GOD !TTdude Is a GOD !TTdude Is a GOD !TTdude Is a GOD !
Originally Posted by MBailey
Interestingly, the graphed hp is almost exactly what Todd Z estimates my car is making so it may be very accurate.
Another good data point!

Originally Posted by 996ttalot
Here you go. I must be sleep calculating!
Sleep? What's that?!

Originally Posted by MBailey
Wow Ken!!
Your car pumps out the hp and torque!! Is that at 1.5 bar?
Yeah, his VE hits 300 or so. It would be interesting to see his 60-130 run with that profile.
 
  #75  
Old 01-04-2011, 06:49 PM
MBailey's Avatar
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Texas
Posts: 2,957
Rep Power: 454
MBailey Is a GOD !MBailey Is a GOD !MBailey Is a GOD !MBailey Is a GOD !MBailey Is a GOD !MBailey Is a GOD !MBailey Is a GOD !MBailey Is a GOD !MBailey Is a GOD !MBailey Is a GOD !MBailey Is a GOD !
Originally Posted by TTdude
Yeah, his VE hits 300 or so. It would be interesting to see his 60-130 run with that profile.
Yes, I suspect he would crush his prior 6.66s run!!
 


You have already rated this thread Rating: Thread Rating: 0 votes,  average.

Quick Reply: Volumetric Efficiency Comparo



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:19 PM.