16/24 Hybrid vs K24 Dyno Data Comparison Spreadsheet
#1
11-29-2006, 09:07 PM
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Michigan
Age: 55
Posts: 2,726
Rep Power: 414 
16/24 Hybrid vs K24 Dyno Data Comparison Spreadsheet
Since there has been alot of talk lately about sub 700HP turbo solutions, I thought this would make an interesting comparison. Both vehicles were run AWD at the same facility , the same Mustang dyno and the same dyno operator. The two setups are Kevin's 16/24 ZC with his in house ECU programming(my car) and an EVO stg4. I think these numbers show a well engineered hybrid has no downside at these power levels when compared to a 24. Both cars have similar peak HP, but peak tq and tq under the curve are quite different.Zippy made a great summary in the " 16 and 24: pros and cons thread" about these hybrids and I think the data backs up his conclusion. The only point I would argue with is the power levels. Technology is marching along and 750hp is possible with no downsides as well. Kevin showed me aprelim dyno sheet of his STG3 setup that will be in production soon. It has more tq than these stg2's at all points on the rpm band and it comes in slightly earlier as well.Peaks at well over 700hp+.... Kevin
#5
11-29-2006, 11:00 PM
Basic Sponsor
Not to get into arguments... but its been long ago said that some tune cars for peak HP .... I say.... not all HP is the same. If I recall correctly, in the 2004 US tuner shootout, evoms had the highest HP on the dyno.. but lost the Dyno portion of the shootout because of the "area under the curve".
Now, nothing wrong with that either. just a different approach. Different philosophy... maybe just a little more conservative?
Now, nothing wrong with that either. just a different approach. Different philosophy... maybe just a little more conservative?
__________________
2001 996TT 3.6L and stock ECU
9.66 seconds @ 147.76 mph 1/4 mile click to view
160 mph @ 9.77 seconds in 1/4 mile click to view
50% OFF ON PORSCHE ECU TUNING BLACK FRIDAY SPECIAL
2001 996TT 3.6L and stock ECU
9.66 seconds @ 147.76 mph 1/4 mile click to view
160 mph @ 9.77 seconds in 1/4 mile click to view
50% OFF ON PORSCHE ECU TUNING BLACK FRIDAY SPECIAL
Last edited by markski@markskituning; 11-30-2006 at 12:03 AM.
#6
11-30-2006, 12:35 AM
I am not surprised that a K16/K24 hybrid will produce similar peak HP to a K24/K24 turbo, given that the compressor is the primary component of peak HP and both use the same K24 compressor. Likewise, I am also not surprised that a K16/K24 hybrid will spool faster than a K24/K24 turbo and, therefore, have greater power under the curve, given that the turbine is the primary component of spooling and the K16 hybrid uses a smaller turbine which spools faster. This is precisely why hybrid turbos of any size continue to be preferred.
I previously used a K16/K24 hybrid supplied by Speed Gallery. It worked awesome for precisely the reasons set forth above. It generated similar power to my stock K24 turbo (x50), but spooled faster. I subsequently switched to an Ultimate Motorworks' K16/K26 hybrid turbo, which also worked fabulously. I currently use EVOMS' K24/GT30 hybrid turbo for the same reasons and it too does a wonderful job of balancing peak power and spooling for purposes of maximizing power under the curve (as opposed to a pure GT30 turbo, which would take longer to spool and have less power under the curve).
I suppose that, to some degree, the reduction in the size of the turbine might somehow limit the full power producing potential of the compressor, such that the compressor might generate less power with a smaller turbine than it would with an equal size turbine. I really don't know the answer to this. Kevin or Stephen or Todd Z. or Todd K. should chime in on this issue.
Finally, I respectfully disagree with the notion suggested by Markski that EVOMS strives solely for peak power, to the exclusion of spooling or power under the curve, whereas other tuners are more focused on power under the curve. As stated above, EVOMS' GT800 turbos, as well as their GT700 turbos, are both hybrid designs for the specific purpose of maximizing power under the curve, rather than simply peak power. If peak power was the objective, EVOMS would emphasize larger turbos over faster spooling hybrids. Of note, EVOMS experimented with a GT35 set-up, but abandoned it because, notwithstanding the outrageous peak HP (close to 1000 hp), the turbo lag was terrible and the power under the curve was likewise insufficient.
I think we ALL are in agreement that power under the curve is the ultimate objective.
Craig
I previously used a K16/K24 hybrid supplied by Speed Gallery. It worked awesome for precisely the reasons set forth above. It generated similar power to my stock K24 turbo (x50), but spooled faster. I subsequently switched to an Ultimate Motorworks' K16/K26 hybrid turbo, which also worked fabulously. I currently use EVOMS' K24/GT30 hybrid turbo for the same reasons and it too does a wonderful job of balancing peak power and spooling for purposes of maximizing power under the curve (as opposed to a pure GT30 turbo, which would take longer to spool and have less power under the curve).
I suppose that, to some degree, the reduction in the size of the turbine might somehow limit the full power producing potential of the compressor, such that the compressor might generate less power with a smaller turbine than it would with an equal size turbine. I really don't know the answer to this. Kevin or Stephen or Todd Z. or Todd K. should chime in on this issue.
Finally, I respectfully disagree with the notion suggested by Markski that EVOMS strives solely for peak power, to the exclusion of spooling or power under the curve, whereas other tuners are more focused on power under the curve. As stated above, EVOMS' GT800 turbos, as well as their GT700 turbos, are both hybrid designs for the specific purpose of maximizing power under the curve, rather than simply peak power. If peak power was the objective, EVOMS would emphasize larger turbos over faster spooling hybrids. Of note, EVOMS experimented with a GT35 set-up, but abandoned it because, notwithstanding the outrageous peak HP (close to 1000 hp), the turbo lag was terrible and the power under the curve was likewise insufficient.
I think we ALL are in agreement that power under the curve is the ultimate objective.
Craig
Last edited by Craig; 11-30-2006 at 12:40 AM.
#7
11-30-2006, 12:40 AM
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Michigan
Age: 55
Posts: 2,726
Rep Power: 414
Originally Posted by Craig
I am not surprised that a K16/K24 hybrid will produce similar peak HP to a K24/K24 turbo, given that the compressor is the primary component of peak HP and both use the same K24 compressor. Likewise, I am also not surprised that a K16/K24 hybrid will spool faster than a K24/K24 turbo and, therefore, have greater power under the curve, given that the turbine is the primary component of spooling and the K16 hybrid uses a smaller turbine which spools faster. This is precisely why hybrid turbos of any size continue to be preferred.
I previously used a K16/K24 hybrid supplied by Speed Gallery. It worked awesome for precisely the reasons set forth above. It generated similar power to by stock K24 turbo (x50), but spooled faster. I subsequently switched to an Ultimate Motorworks' K16/K26 hybrid turbo, which also worked fabulously. I currently use EVOMS' K24/GT30 hybrid turbo for the same reasons and it too does a wonderful job of balancing peak power and spooling for purposes of maximizing power under the curve (as opposed to a pure GT30 turbo, which would take longer to spool and have less power under the curve).
I suppose that, to some degree, the reduction in the size of the turbine might somehow limit the full power producing potential of the compressor, such that the compressor might generate less power with a smaller turbine than it would with an equal size turbine. I really don't know the answer to this. Kevin or Stephen or Todd Z. or Todd K. should chime in on this issue.
Finally, I respectfully disagree with the notion suggested by Markski that EVOMS strives solely for peak power, to the exsclusion of spooling or power under the curve, whereas other tuners are more focused on power under the curve. As stated above, EVOMS' GT800 turbos, as well as their GT700 turbos, are both hybrid designs for the specific purpose of maximizing power under the curve, rather than simply peak power. If peak power was the objective, EVOMS would emphasize larger turbos over faster spooling hybrids. Of note, EVOMS experimented with a GT35 set-up, but abandoned it because, notwithstanding the outrageous peak HP (close to 1000 hp), the turbo lag was terrible and the power under the curve was likewise insufficient.
I think we ALL are in agreement that power under the curve is the ultimate objective.
Craig
I previously used a K16/K24 hybrid supplied by Speed Gallery. It worked awesome for precisely the reasons set forth above. It generated similar power to by stock K24 turbo (x50), but spooled faster. I subsequently switched to an Ultimate Motorworks' K16/K26 hybrid turbo, which also worked fabulously. I currently use EVOMS' K24/GT30 hybrid turbo for the same reasons and it too does a wonderful job of balancing peak power and spooling for purposes of maximizing power under the curve (as opposed to a pure GT30 turbo, which would take longer to spool and have less power under the curve).
I suppose that, to some degree, the reduction in the size of the turbine might somehow limit the full power producing potential of the compressor, such that the compressor might generate less power with a smaller turbine than it would with an equal size turbine. I really don't know the answer to this. Kevin or Stephen or Todd Z. or Todd K. should chime in on this issue.
Finally, I respectfully disagree with the notion suggested by Markski that EVOMS strives solely for peak power, to the exsclusion of spooling or power under the curve, whereas other tuners are more focused on power under the curve. As stated above, EVOMS' GT800 turbos, as well as their GT700 turbos, are both hybrid designs for the specific purpose of maximizing power under the curve, rather than simply peak power. If peak power was the objective, EVOMS would emphasize larger turbos over faster spooling hybrids. Of note, EVOMS experimented with a GT35 set-up, but abandoned it because, notwithstanding the outrageous peak HP (close to 1000 hp), the turbo lag was terrible and the power under the curve was likewise insufficient.
I think we ALL are in agreement that power under the curve is the ultimate objective.
Craig
Trending Topics
#8
11-30-2006, 12:55 AM
Originally Posted by KPG
Craig, what are your impressions on the differences from a 16/24 to 16/26.Thanks,Kevin
Craig
#9
11-30-2006, 12:59 AM
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Michigan
Age: 55
Posts: 2,726
Rep Power: 414
Originally Posted by Craig
The K16/K26 (aka UM Stage V) produced more top end power. On the other hand, I vagely recall that the K16/K24 hybrid may have spooled a tad faster, notwithstanding the same size turbine. I think the K16/K24 hybrid was awesome for street light to street light bursts of quick speed. However, the K16/K26 hybrid was a better all around turbo, particularly when you factor in highway bursts. That being said, I do not think the peak HP levels are hugely different. I think that K16/K24s top out in the low-mid 500 HP range, whereas the K16/K26s may be good to the low 600 hp range (don't quote me on these figures). For a significant upgrade in power, one should consider a larger Garrett compressor, such as the GT28 used in EVOMS GT700 turbos. I am not sure what Protomotive's 18g compressor is (I have seen it referred to), but I think it too is larger than the K24 compressor.
Craig
Craig
#10
11-30-2006, 02:45 AM
Basic Sponsor
well, I hate to keep bringing this up... but the 2004 shootout had many tuners including Evoms and Protomotive... and one of the stages was the dyno test. Here are two short paragraphs of the dyno results...
"The dyno score was split between peak horsepower and torque delivery. The first is simple enough; it's the biggest number. The second is more complicated: Imagine each car has a gear that tops out at 100 mph, then add up all the torque available to accelerate the vehicle from 40 mph to 100 mph in that gear." and "Protomotive's hybrid-turbo monster had area under the curve 15% greater than the highest peak-horsepower car, the Evolution Motorsports Stage 4, and 11% greater than the nearest competitor, By Design. Of 25 points available on the dyno, the 551-hp Protomotive car collected 24.107. Second place went to the 564-hp Evo Stage 4 car, with 20.053 points."
As much as I respect Evoms for their Success- and I do... because no one has done what they have... I do believe that there are others who are better at it.... one car at a time.
respectfully,
markski
"The dyno score was split between peak horsepower and torque delivery. The first is simple enough; it's the biggest number. The second is more complicated: Imagine each car has a gear that tops out at 100 mph, then add up all the torque available to accelerate the vehicle from 40 mph to 100 mph in that gear." and "Protomotive's hybrid-turbo monster had area under the curve 15% greater than the highest peak-horsepower car, the Evolution Motorsports Stage 4, and 11% greater than the nearest competitor, By Design. Of 25 points available on the dyno, the 551-hp Protomotive car collected 24.107. Second place went to the 564-hp Evo Stage 4 car, with 20.053 points."
As much as I respect Evoms for their Success- and I do... because no one has done what they have... I do believe that there are others who are better at it.... one car at a time.
respectfully,
markski
__________________
2001 996TT 3.6L and stock ECU
9.66 seconds @ 147.76 mph 1/4 mile click to view
160 mph @ 9.77 seconds in 1/4 mile click to view
50% OFF ON PORSCHE ECU TUNING BLACK FRIDAY SPECIAL
2001 996TT 3.6L and stock ECU
9.66 seconds @ 147.76 mph 1/4 mile click to view
160 mph @ 9.77 seconds in 1/4 mile click to view
50% OFF ON PORSCHE ECU TUNING BLACK FRIDAY SPECIAL
Last edited by markski@markskituning; 11-30-2006 at 02:52 AM.
#11
11-30-2006, 04:39 AM
Basic Sponsor
I also think that there is a misconception about Protomotive's choice of hybrid turbos. For one, he can create a system to anyones liking... hybrid or straight garrett turbos.... he does not limit himself to what has become known as K24/18G turbo. This turbo is used on his 600 hp kits as well as on 700 HP kits. One can start out with the 600 hp set up then upgrade to the 700 hp set without having to go with another set of turbos. I was Told by Todd K that k16 based turbos do not produce meaningful power because of the smaller housing. Thus he starts out with k24s...
Now, for those who think that that's the only set up he makes... well its not true. Todd can make any kit with any turbo combination.... Why? Because he actually tunes these cars as well. thus he can make a k24/gt28r or a k24/gt30r turbo kit... other choices like k24/20g or k24/72lbs as well.
I went with garrett GT35r with a 44 mm TAIL Wastegate. I have a car with this exact turbo and I love it. I could have done a gt30r but chose to go for the bigger. Some complain about the lag(in theory).... I say that An efficient, well designed system can make up for the air flow restrictions... thus decreasing lag and increasing throttle response.
BTW- He water cools the garrett turbos and has a MAF solution for his 700+ HP car for quite a while now... not so with other tuners...
His approach to tuning is: slightly bigger compressors, an efficient system, less boost and not so much fuel.... On the contrary, other tuners use smaller compressors.... more boost.. more fuel...
Well, Protomotive's 700 hp kit runs ONLY 1.35 bars of boost(max) and apparently is the fastest 1/4 car to date on a stock motor and heads...(10.6 at 136 mph)- Divirexxtreme.
So just because one chooses bigger compressor wheels over another doesn't mean its less efficient.
Like I said before... different tuners have different approaches....
best,
markski
Now, for those who think that that's the only set up he makes... well its not true. Todd can make any kit with any turbo combination.... Why? Because he actually tunes these cars as well. thus he can make a k24/gt28r or a k24/gt30r turbo kit... other choices like k24/20g or k24/72lbs as well.
I went with garrett GT35r with a 44 mm TAIL Wastegate. I have a car with this exact turbo and I love it. I could have done a gt30r but chose to go for the bigger. Some complain about the lag(in theory).... I say that An efficient, well designed system can make up for the air flow restrictions... thus decreasing lag and increasing throttle response.
BTW- He water cools the garrett turbos and has a MAF solution for his 700+ HP car for quite a while now... not so with other tuners...
His approach to tuning is: slightly bigger compressors, an efficient system, less boost and not so much fuel.... On the contrary, other tuners use smaller compressors.... more boost.. more fuel...
Well, Protomotive's 700 hp kit runs ONLY 1.35 bars of boost(max) and apparently is the fastest 1/4 car to date on a stock motor and heads...(10.6 at 136 mph)- Divirexxtreme.
So just because one chooses bigger compressor wheels over another doesn't mean its less efficient.
Like I said before... different tuners have different approaches....
best,
markski
__________________
2001 996TT 3.6L and stock ECU
9.66 seconds @ 147.76 mph 1/4 mile click to view
160 mph @ 9.77 seconds in 1/4 mile click to view
50% OFF ON PORSCHE ECU TUNING BLACK FRIDAY SPECIAL
2001 996TT 3.6L and stock ECU
9.66 seconds @ 147.76 mph 1/4 mile click to view
160 mph @ 9.77 seconds in 1/4 mile click to view
50% OFF ON PORSCHE ECU TUNING BLACK FRIDAY SPECIAL
Last edited by markski@markskituning; 11-30-2006 at 04:55 AM.
#13
11-30-2006, 08:07 AM
Originally Posted by KPG
Since there has been alot of talk lately about sub 700HP turbo solutions, I thought this would make an interesting comparison. Both vehicles were run AWD at the same facility , the same Mustang dyno and the same dyno operator. The two setups are Kevin's 16/24 ZC with his in house ECU programming(my car) and an EVO stg4. I think these numbers show a well engineered hybrid has no downside at these power levels when compared to a 24. Both cars have similar peak HP, but peak tq and tq under the curve are quite different.Zippy made a great summary in the " 16 and 24: pros and cons thread" about these hybrids and I think the data backs up his conclusion. The only point I would argue with is the power levels. Technology is marching along and 750hp is possible with no downsides as well. Kevin showed me aprelim dyno sheet of his STG3 setup that will be in production soon. It has more tq than these stg2's at all points on the rpm band and it comes in slightly earlier as well.Peaks at well over 700hp+.... Kevin
The K24 was running certified 93. Were the hybrids also running 93 or race gas with more aggressive programming?
If so, would peak TQ and the power curve be significantly different with a race gas setup vs running 93?
#14
11-30-2006, 09:29 AM
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Michigan
Age: 55
Posts: 2,726
Rep Power: 414
Originally Posted by No SubstiTTute
Thanks for putting together the comparo and documenting your turbo odyssey.
The K24 was running certified 93. Were the hybrids also running 93 or race gas with more aggressive programming?
If so, would peak TQ and the power curve be significantly different with a race gas setup vs running 93?
The K24 was running certified 93. Were the hybrids also running 93 or race gas with more aggressive programming?
If so, would peak TQ and the power curve be significantly different with a race gas setup vs running 93?
#15
11-30-2006, 10:44 AM
What's the trade-off of a hybrid?
Hi all. I have a nagging question:
If it's so easy to make a hybrid k16/24 turbo that provides
'the best of both worlds', why does Porsche choose to
deliver (and KKK make) k16s and k24s as they do? I feel
sure there must be some sort of shortcoming of a 'hybrid'
which stops it from being a standard product. Anyone have
an idea what that might be?
Joe Weinstein
If it's so easy to make a hybrid k16/24 turbo that provides
'the best of both worlds', why does Porsche choose to
deliver (and KKK make) k16s and k24s as they do? I feel
sure there must be some sort of shortcoming of a 'hybrid'
which stops it from being a standard product. Anyone have
an idea what that might be?
Joe Weinstein
