Why turbo a BEAMS?

[nailmonkey]

Originally Posted by MANDALAY

Im curious why Rogue went so low. Maybe they were setting it up for mega boost ?
Phoenix went with 9.5.
Since the Calinda is 9:1 and has the same rods as the Beams and Rogue put Forges on its really weird that they would go lower ????
Can you find out if there is any retardation because of knocking ? and what are your FR .
Myself and other members are really interested in these facts

Hi,

I'm not sure why it is so low to be honest, but I do know that this was the design and it took a lot of work to get it that low. I wouldn't imagine it was designed for more than 2bar of boost as that was the maximum the manifold was pressure tested to. My theory is that for a turbo-charged application it's the amount of boost you are able to run that is more important than the compression ratio.

Not sure what happens when you tune a Gen4 maybe the higher CR becomes a hinderance as you can't run enough boost? 9:1 might be fine for 280FWHP but maybe it's too high for 400FWHP?

Not sure if there is any detonation, I would have thought it would have been low to none hopefully, it's a pretty safe map as the plan was always to take it back for a re-map.

What is FR?

Nik

[nailmonkey]

Originally Posted by MANDALAY

Wit till Purtone reads this line

"The manifold is very nice but I'm not allowed to tell you who made it " LOL

I know it's nothing personal, Patrick asked me not to divulge that information, they probably wouldn't make one for a member of the public anyway. You could always ask Rogue themselves how much it would cost to have one made.

Nik

[Roman]

I dont understand why some of you are insistant on a 9:1 or higher compression ratio for a turbo or [does it go yet] setup.

Surely this build is a testament to what works well!

[puretone]

Originally Posted by nailmonkey

I know it's nothing personal, Patrick asked me not to divulge that information, they probably wouldn't make one for a member of the public anyway. You could always ask Rogue themselves how much it would cost to have one made.

Nik

I could care less who made it LOL, they did do a nice job on the TIG.
What I am after is what material (SS obviously but 306/316) they used & more importantly the I.D. of the SS elbows, would be even nicer is they have schematic around still, saves me clunking around & making 15 mistakes before I get it all right....also where they located the wastegate, it looks like its not external....altho it could be hidden under there some place.
I know its a ram-horn design, I just don't want to reinvent the wheel along the way.
DOUBLE BTW, is that thing set up for twin scroll????


edit: low compression is probably from dished pistons?

[oldsoul45]

Can't wait to do my low budget version...

[puretone]

Originally Posted by oldsoul45

Can't wait to do my low budget version...

I'll be sharing that boat with you

anyone got a line on some good twin-scroll turbo's??

[puretone]

Originally Posted by nailmonkey

I know it's nothing personal, Patrick asked me not to divulge that information, they probably wouldn't make one for a member of the public anyway. You could always ask Rogue themselves how much it would cost to have one made.

Nik

That punk got his head up his own rear-end ask 2000$ for a similar manifold & I'd pay it on a good day....oh wells


Hey you guys reckon a twin-scroll turbo would flow better on our RedTops? I think so....

[oldsoul45]

Originally Posted by puretone

I'll be sharing that boat with you

anyone got a line on some good twin-scroll turbo's??

"Puretone row the boat ashore..hallauya" altogether now

[mr220v]

Originally Posted by nailmonkey

Hi,



Not sure what happens when you tune a Gen4 maybe the higher CR becomes a hinderance as you can't run enough boost? 9:1 might be fine for 280FWHP but maybe it's too high for 400FWHP?

Here's a dyno of a gen4 on stock internals:

http://www.mr2.com/forums/turbo-3s-g...e-ko-sb50.html

This guy runs 100octane. It was stated that somewhat less power was made on pump gas. 9:1 comp gets to be an issue around 380whp maybe?

[nailmonkey]

Originally Posted by mr220v

Here's a dyno of a gen4 on stock internals:

http://www.mr2.com/forums/turbo-3s-g...e-ko-sb50.html

This guy runs 100octane. It was stated that somewhat less power was made on pump gas. 9:1 comp gets to be an issue around 380whp maybe?

Hi,

Interesting thread, it's certainly making the power! Interesting to compare the figures, if I had the skillz I'd overlay them in photoshop.


BHP
3000RPM we're both about 75rwhp
4000RPM Gen4 ~160rwhp beams ~180rwhp
5000RPM Gen4 ~310rwhp beams ~280rwhp
6000RPM Gen4 ~365rwhp beams ~330rwhp

Torque
3000RPM Gen4 ~130ft/lbs beams ~120ft/lbs
4000RPM Gen4 ~200ft/lbs beams ~240ft/lbs
5000RPM Gen4 ~325ft/lbs beams ~285ft/lbs
6000RPM Gen4 ~325ft/lbs beams ~280ft/lbs

(Difficult to tell on my plot as I have some tuning runs as well as power runs on the plot)

Difficult to draw conclusions from it really... The Gen4 is pretty impressive as is the KO turbo, seems to spool really well. I'm guessing it must be a bit bigger than a GT2860RS. The beams seems to have the edge up to 4000rpm where it's 20bhp/40ft/lbs up on the Gen4 but then the larger turbo starts to spool and soon beats the beams. Might be different on pump fuel as he reckons a 10-15% drop in power.

I wouldn't swap, but then I'm a BEAMS fan on a BEAMS board so I'm supposed to say that.

Nik

[nailmonkey]

Originally Posted by oldsoul45

Can't wait to do my low budget version...

I'll look forward to reading about it, you're welcome to go for a passenger ride in mine if you're anywhere near Stoke anytime (same goes for all BEAMS forum residents)

Nik

[mr220v]

If you're going to make the ultimate S series FI motor, using a beams head is a given. Might use a 5s bottom end too.

I really don't understand why the 3L 2jz got vvti, but they left it out on the 3sgte? The 2L motor would have benefited more from it. They even left it out on the st246 3sgte.

I think your motor should be edging the gen4 out in the bottom end more than it is though.

[Roman]

I'm pretty sure that the late JZ motors have the VVTI on the exhaust side...

I think they needed it to improve the emissions to be able to keep using that motor with tighter emissions rules.

Perhaps the 3SGTE was under the threshold of needing this.

[Servin]

Originally Posted by mr220v

Here's a dyno of a gen4 on stock internals:

http://www.mr2.com/forums/turbo-3s-g...e-ko-sb50.html

This guy runs 100octane. It was stated that somewhat less power was made on pump gas. 9:1 comp gets to be an issue around 380whp maybe?

Looks like BEAMS has a better power curve. Hmm for the cost of getting a gen4 and making it work in the 2, I feel like I would rather go with the BEAMS even if its a bit more money.

[mr220v]

^gen4's are pretty cheap. Kameleon's was $1400 shipped with ecu. On top of that, you'd need a transmission, axles, and an IC of some sort.

[puretone]

Originally Posted by Roman

I'm pretty sure that the late JZ motors have the VVTI on the exhaust side...

I think they needed it to improve the emissions to be able to keep using that motor with tighter emissions rules.

Perhaps the 3SGTE was under the threshold of needing this.

late model JDM Supra 2JZ's definitely did...

[mr220v]

I believe the 96+ 1jzgte's have the vvti on the intake cam though.

I have been wondering lately if it really makes a difference? The vvt mechanism on ohv motors varies the cam timing in relation to the crank as varying the relation between intake and exhaust is impossible.

[nailmonkey]

Originally Posted by mr220v

I think your motor should be edging the gen4 out in the bottom end more than it is though.

40ft/lbs at 4000RPM seems quite a lot more tbh, interesting that despite the Gen4's higher compression ratio, the off-boost performance doesn't seem as good as the beams and that's where the higher compression is supposed to help.

Also, I'm still running a stock exhaust, the reduced flow could either be a help or a hinderance, could be helping the low range torque. I'm pretty sure the beams has a lot more left and the turbo certainly has but for a start I'd need a new MAP sensor as it only has a 2.5bar one currently. We're also at the limits of the ST205 chargecooler according to traditional wisdom and I don't know what the current duty is on the 700CC injectors. So to get any more power could cost a whole lot more money....

Nik

[mr220v]

I'd take the vvti over the higher compression any day.

[oldsoul45]

Originally Posted by nailmonkey

I'll look forward to reading about it, you're welcome to go for a passenger ride in mine if you're anywhere near Stoke anytime (same goes for all BEAMS forum residents)

Nik

PM sent...only in Preston...organising bus load now