Supercharged QV (take 3)-or is it a turbo? | Page 3 | FerrariChat
Buy

Supercharged QV (take 3)-or is it a turbo?

Discussion in 'Technical Q&A' started by mk e, Jan 12, 2006.

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.

Page 3 of 11
  1. 348 Turbo

    348 Turbo Formula 3

    Jul 17, 2002
    1,837
    #51 348 Turbo, Jan 16, 2006
    Hi Mark,
    I just read your thread for the first time! Don't know how I've been missing it? Anyway, sounds like a great idea. I'm not sure, but I think Kenny Tran of Kenny Tran Racing in Dallas played with these for a while, (might stilll be using them). I also know that James Patterson is versed in Variable Vane Turbos as well. Might be an interseting conversation to have with these guys. I'll be following along, (and lurking on the sidelines).
    BTW- Bob Norwood personally told me that the 348 intake is his favorite, He claimed to use it frequently in his "projects".
     
  2. Fred2

    Fred2 F1 World Champ
    Silver Subscribed

    Jan 2, 2005
    18,351
    nj
    #52 Fred2, Jan 16, 2006
    OK, I'll bite.
    How is the 348 Manifold different?
     
  3. wildegroot

    wildegroot Formula 3
    Professional Ferrari Technician

    Nov 19, 2003
    1,522
    Frenchtown NJ
    Full Name:
    Wil de Groot
    #53 wildegroot, Jan 16, 2006
    Mark,

    You're welcome to come take a look any time. I'd love to come check out your set-up too (if it's still together) But I would like to do that AFTER my boosted 308 is done. It's a spare-time project and I don't have a whole lot of spare time. I've got to keep my nose to the grind-stone if I'm going to have it done for the spring.

    That's interesting about the 348 intake. You would think it would make a difference for a naturally aspirated engine and not so much for forced induction.

    Have you ever checked out some of the diesel set-ups with twin turbos feeding a roots blower?

    Wil
     
  4. snj5

    snj5 F1 World Champ

    Feb 22, 2003
    10,213
    San Antonio
    Full Name:
    Russ Turner
    #54 snj5, Jan 16, 2006
    As far as the 348 intake, I've talked with Mark and I think it has to do with the intake pulsing and resonance. Just as exhaust tuning is helped by the flat crank V-8 having evenly distributed pulses for each bank, the 348 has separate plenums for each 'even-pulsing' bank, each with its own throttle body. So, I think having separate plenums per bank on a flat crank V-8 engine may have some advantages on intake pulsing. As far as forced induction, I am less sure. Anyway, I am looking at going to seperare cold air fed airboxes for each side of my naturally aspirated 3.2; the current airbox loses 8 - 10 hp on the dyno, even without a filter.
    Similarly, the Alfa Montreal has an intake resonator as well - and so effective that the car makes more power with the airbox on than off!
    best
    rt
     
  5. snj5

    snj5 F1 World Champ

    Feb 22, 2003
    10,213
    San Antonio
    Full Name:
    Russ Turner
    #55 snj5, Jan 16, 2006
  6. mk e

    mk e F1 World Champ

    Oct 31, 2003
    13,866
    The twilight zone
    Full Name:
    Help me get this thing finished! https://gofund.me/39def36c
    #56 mk e, Jan 16, 2006
    The QVs use a tuned runner manifold with a plenum, which is what the 348 (and on) is also but the shape and volume of the plenum is very different. My dynosim software refers to it as a "honda type" intake, but I think it was on the ferraris first. High revving 4 valve engines seem to respond well the the particular design for some reason....the 348 has about the same cams as a qv, but the torque carries out to about 7000 or 7200 vs 5500 on a qv. In my sim software, that is exactly what the result is when I click honda type manifold vs tuned runner with plenum....so that's 3 data points that all agree making me think it's worth a try.

    As far as natural aspiration vs forced, the forced engine will have the same shape curve the NA engine did, just higher. So any improvement you make in the base engine will carry into the boosted engine. If the boost is 15 psi, a 50hp improvement in the NA engine will be 100 on the FI engine. So right now my plan is to change the intake and do some flow work to try to wring about a 300hp base number out of the engine. Then when I put 25 psi to it, I should be looking at a flat 800 hp...but my honest expectation is to come up about 100 shy at 700...still pretty good though.

    I've been looking at some of the number the supra guys claim and with what parts and I'm a little confused honestly....they don't seem to fit the basic math. I find a guy with 25psi boost from the turbo I'm planning to use, stock head and cams (they are milder than the qv cams - torque peak at 4000) and 750rwhp. That engine should be about 200 hp in NA trim, so 25psi should yeild about 530 crank hp....I need to figure out what up with that.
     
  7. mk e

    mk e F1 World Champ

    Oct 31, 2003
    13,866
    The twilight zone
    Full Name:
    Help me get this thing finished! https://gofund.me/39def36c
    #57 mk e, Jan 16, 2006
    After a little more digging the supra question is more confusing

    The hot cam seems to be a 272/272.....which has 22 duration at .050 lift with .361 total lift.

    A stock QV can is [email protected] and .305 lift...very close.
    a 328 is [email protected] and .348 lift.

    So the ferrari basicall comes with the "hot" turbo cam and ported heads...I don't understand the hp number those guys claim.
     
  8. mk e

    mk e F1 World Champ

    Oct 31, 2003
    13,866
    The twilight zone
    Full Name:
    Help me get this thing finished! https://gofund.me/39def36c
    #58 mk e, Jan 16, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 7, 2017
  9. Gary48

    Gary48 Guest

    Dec 30, 2003
    940
    #59 Gary48, Jan 16, 2006
    Now were talking!
     
  10. mk e

    mk e F1 World Champ

    Oct 31, 2003
    13,866
    The twilight zone
    Full Name:
    Help me get this thing finished! https://gofund.me/39def36c
    #60 mk e, Jan 17, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 7, 2017
    I spent some time playing with my dynosim software tonight...here's my engine with ported heads (it wants 20% more intake flow and about 10% more exhaust) OEM intake (1 &3) vs "honda type" aka 348 (2&4) both naturally aspirated and at 24 psi boost. The software thinks 800 is a good number :)

    Note how the torque carries out anothe 1500 rpm which adds about 50 hp to the NA engine. Also note the with the turbo it doesn't hit full boost until about 5000 rpm...which is exactly what I'm finding on the supra graphs. That means the super charger will need to be on until 5000 rpm...I'll need a bigger supercharger than I was thinking. Last, anything over about 8000 or 8500 is just garbage.
    Image Unavailable, Please Login
    Image Unavailable, Please Login
    Image Unavailable, Please Login
    Image Unavailable, Please Login
     
  11. Artvonne

    Artvonne F1 Veteran

    Oct 29, 2004
    5,379
    NWA
    Full Name:
    Paul
    #61 Artvonne, Jan 17, 2006
    Wow, thats a lot of snort.

    Need some room? Why not put a fuel cell up front, down low where the battery now sits, and move the battery to the trunk so you can yank out the stock fuel tanks. You could also relocate the oil cooler to the front of the car. Now you could use all of that room for intercoolers, using the current air ducts in the body.

    Koenig did a blown and turboed TR years back, and I believe Norwood does something simular, maybe they could lead you in the right direction? But a lot of power can be made through cooling, so you may want to consider some large ones.

    And yes, I think that guys name at Norwood was Jim. Told me same stuff, that a 308 is actually stronger than a TR gearbox. Said the input shaft into a TR was good for about 900 HP and it would snap. They consider the input shaft like we would consider a fuse, or a shear bolt. It saves the transmission. You may want to reinforce the engine mounts, be a shame to see it spool up in the engine compartment when the 900HP boost hits :)
     
  12. snj5

    snj5 F1 World Champ

    Feb 22, 2003
    10,213
    San Antonio
    Full Name:
    Russ Turner
    #62 snj5, Jan 17, 2006
    The NA sim really makes a lot of sense to me from what I have seen.. So that was with what kind of induction - that is multiple tb's or the stock Kjet? You know where I am going with this. Is there anyway to do a sim with ported qv heads, multiple tbs (i.e. Webers), stock exhaust cam/timing (same as qv) and an intake cam with total lift .361; durations 261@020, 235@050, lobe center 105 ? I'm guessing about 320/260 with a broader torque curve.

    Will repeat my experience to those who want to purchase wilder cams - for the NA engine, the stock cams max out the head flow; Your money is better spent porting the head. You can keep the stock cams allowing K-jet, and realize across the board increase with no low end penalty.

    I gotta get my heads ported.
     
  13. mk e

    mk e F1 World Champ

    Oct 31, 2003
    13,866
    The twilight zone
    Full Name:
    Help me get this thing finished! https://gofund.me/39def36c
    #63 mk e, Jan 18, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 7, 2017
    I'll take a look at it tonight Russ. Just to give you an idea quickly, I swapt to multiple carbs on my engine, and here's what it spit out.
    Image Unavailable, Please Login
     
  14. snj5

    snj5 F1 World Champ

    Feb 22, 2003
    10,213
    San Antonio
    Full Name:
    Russ Turner
    #64 snj5, Jan 18, 2006
    If that is a stock qv engine with stock ports and cams, that is a lot closer to my actual dyno than my software sim. Will be interested in seeing the effect of porting and cams!
    Many thanks!
     
  15. mk e

    mk e F1 World Champ

    Oct 31, 2003
    13,866
    The twilight zone
    Full Name:
    Help me get this thing finished! https://gofund.me/39def36c
    #65 mk e, Jan 18, 2006
    Moving the fuek tank isn't a bad idea....I need to thing about that.

    Right now I've got a water/oil heat exchanger for the oil cooler, it can go anywhere convienent. I'm also using a water/air intercooler with a 20gpm pump and I ran a pair of 1" ID hoses up front to a pair of dedicated radiators in front of the front wheels...so I got about 324 sq-in of air flow area an it works, although I thing the intercooler I have in my intake is on the small side.

    I would like to shift to air/air for simplicity though if I can figure out how to make as good a system.
     
  16. Fred2

    Fred2 F1 World Champ
    Silver Subscribed

    Jan 2, 2005
    18,351
    nj
    #66 Fred2, Jan 18, 2006
    In graph #2, it shows that you are making maximum HP above the 7700 redline of the motor.
    IS the redline set where it is because of any mechanical concerns, or just the current set up runs out of steam at that rpm?
     
  17. ROLOcr

    ROLOcr Formula Junior

    Oct 25, 2005
    619
    Costa Rica
    Full Name:
    ROLO
    #67 ROLOcr, Jan 18, 2006
    air/air is more reliable and LIGTHER!!!
    i don't know wich is more efficient but i like more the air/air ones
     
  18. mk e

    mk e F1 World Champ

    Oct 31, 2003
    13,866
    The twilight zone
    Full Name:
    Help me get this thing finished! https://gofund.me/39def36c
    #68 mk e, Jan 18, 2006
    I guess there are 2 ways to look at it. The first is to leave the redline at 7700. If I do that, the torque is pretty flat from 5000-redline and that's not a bad thing.

    The second way to look at it's better to increase the redline and get the extra hp...even though the torque is dropping, more hp means you can run a little lower gearing and go faster....but spinning the engine faster does stress it more, but there is nothing really stopping it from spinning faster. Better pistons and maybe rod bolt are cheap insurance, but I don't thing they are required.

    I guess there is a 3rd way to look at it too...which is the sym software is wrong and the hp will be all done at 7000 just like it is now.
     
  19. mk e

    mk e F1 World Champ

    Oct 31, 2003
    13,866
    The twilight zone
    Full Name:
    Help me get this thing finished! https://gofund.me/39def36c
    #69 mk e, Jan 18, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 7, 2017
    OK. Graph 1 is your engine as it sits. Graph 2 is with an OEM intake cam. Graph 3 in web intake and exhaust. Graph 4 is replacing you carbs on enine 3 with multiple throttle bodies. Graph 5 is putting a propper plenum on engine 3...and seems high to me.

    A harley xr750 which is the exact same bore and stroke as a 308, but with a wider curve, they bost make about 95 rwhp at about 8500rpm. Using a 15% loss, that's 112 crank, time 4 to get to 8 cylinder is 450 hp, and that's a 2 valve engine. So 450 is do-able from a 3 liter 8, and going to 3.2 liter gets you 480 @8500 which is what the simulator is saying...it's all in the heads.

    If you decide you're going to do your heads let me know and I'll give you the contact info for my buddy who will be helping me with mine. I'm pretty good with most things, but he's definately better with flow than I am. I'll post the results I get. I may even run this engine NA this summer so I get to drive it this year...if I do I'll get dyno numbers.
    Image Unavailable, Please Login
    Image Unavailable, Please Login
    Image Unavailable, Please Login
    Image Unavailable, Please Login
    Image Unavailable, Please Login
     
  20. mk e

    mk e F1 World Champ

    Oct 31, 2003
    13,866
    The twilight zone
    Full Name:
    Help me get this thing finished! https://gofund.me/39def36c
    #70 mk e, Jan 18, 2006
    I agree, but I need to find a place for it.....
     
  21. snj5

    snj5 F1 World Champ

    Feb 22, 2003
    10,213
    San Antonio
    Full Name:
    Russ Turner
    #71 snj5, Jan 18, 2006
    Wow - this is amazing for a NA engine, even if it is only close!

    So I understand it, these graphs are all with ported heads.

    So it seems for the best streetable torque and hp, the oem cams and a ported head with Webers? To me a normally aspirated 3.2 engine putting out a reliable 330 to 340 hp and 250 ft-lb of torque would be quite sufficient in a 3300 pound car for me; and one that is very simple to maintain. That would roughly translate to about 278 hp at the wheels with a very streetable torque curve. Just think what the torque would be at a higher compression.
    What do you mean by a proper plenum? Would the the new twin Lambo airboxes airboxes act as plenums? (See post #358 http://ferrarichat.com/forum/showthread.php?t=49407 )

    I am going to port my heads. Do you think it would be adviable to deck shave the heads a little for a bit of compression?

    This is wild. Many thanks

    rt
     
  22. mk e

    mk e F1 World Champ

    Oct 31, 2003
    13,866
    The twilight zone
    Full Name:
    Help me get this thing finished! https://gofund.me/39def36c
    #72 mk e, Jan 18, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 7, 2017
    All the graph are ported heads. Remember the golden rule about software...I makes a good engineer fast and a bad engine dangerous. I don't know how the software make it's predictions, butI'm sure it's relatively primative and since I don't know how it works I maybe unknowingly supplying gibberish to it with the selections I made. Basically, it all could be a load of crap.

    I have personally build both car and harely engines that made the kinds of number this software syas they should. I build a 2.8 liter 911 engine that made 350 hp at just over 8000 rpm and was very streetable, and it had carbs. My harley xr has carbs, ideas at the stock 1000 rpm and will run on pump gas making 95rwhp from 860cc twin.

    The bore and stroke on a harley xr are the same as a QV, but my 2 valve harley xr heads flow 148 CFM@10 in-H2O...the QV heads flow 94 (acording to Kermits numbers), way way short of whats required for the QV to make 380rwhp like it should if it was as good as a harley believe it or not.

    I'm going to pull my rear head in the next few days or so and get it on a flow bench to confirm Kermits number. Then I'll see what can be done with it. My buddy is very very good with this stuff, heads are all he does for a living...no motor anymore, no wrenching, just heads and the flow bench runs 6 days a week...he's going to help me on Sundays so I can avoid the long wait to get heads into his shop. If there is any way the heads can be made to flow properly, I pretty confident we will succeed. You might want to wait to do your heads until I get some results, unless you already have a shop you trust with porting.

    Here's a sym graph showing my engine with heads that match the harley and 24 psi boost....scary. It hits 800hp at 15 psi...but as I said before, it might all be crap :)

    I'm not sure about your new plenum....it might work. The Honda and 348 type intakes use a basically round plenum, but I just don't know enough to say if it matters or not. The answer is try it and see.

    I just ordered the material to make my new intake. I'm going with 4" Id tubing for the plunum. We'll see what happens.
    Image Unavailable, Please Login
     
  23. AR!

    AR! Formula Junior

    Apr 8, 2004
    981
    Berlin, Germany
    #73 AR!, Jan 18, 2006
    Volkswagen recently introduced an engine working with a dual setup (supercharger and turbocharger). Soon the engine will be on the market, as far as I can recall a 1.4 l engine with 170hp.
     
  24. Gary48

    Gary48 Guest

    Dec 30, 2003
    940
    #74 Gary48, Jan 18, 2006
    Mke, are you o.k. read your last post!
     
  25. mk e

    mk e F1 World Champ

    Oct 31, 2003
    13,866
    The twilight zone
    Full Name:
    Help me get this thing finished! https://gofund.me/39def36c
    #75 mk e, Jan 18, 2006

    I saw that, it's pretty cool...although for the cost I honestly don't understand why anybody would buy it...when their 2.0t is cheaper and makes 200hp. I'm thinking about twincharging becasue I'm stuck with the displacement I have and whatever flow I can get thru the heads...a factory isn't.

    Anyway, the point of the surge statement was that driving a turbo mechanically really doesn't make any sense to me be cause it will drive the compressor into a surge condition. Adding a separate supercharger to pull up the bottom end does make sense to me, at least in a very high boost application...under 10 psi I wouldn't even think about it, but at 20 or 25psi it loks pretty good.
     
Page 3 of 11

Share This Page