Camaro5 Chevy Camaro Forum / Camaro ZL1, SS and V6 Forums - Camaro5.com
 
Emblempros
Go Back   Camaro5 Chevy Camaro Forum / Camaro ZL1, SS and V6 Forums - Camaro5.com > Engine | Drivetrain | Powertrain Technical Discussions > Forced Induction - V6


Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 04-17-2009, 05:14 PM   #18
speedster
SST...
 
speedster's Avatar
 
Drives: SST Camaro 2010
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: East Coast of Florida
Posts: 5,935
Pick up a copy of the latest issue of Hot Rod. The place that made the engine on the cover (Nelson Racing Engines) is making complete twin turbo setups for the SS Camaros.
__________________
speedster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-17-2009, 05:20 PM   #19
09CobaltSS/Turbo
 
09CobaltSS/Turbo's Avatar
 
Drives: 2009 Cobalt SS Turbo 97 tahoe
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Colorado
Posts: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by speedster View Post
Pick up a copy of the latest issue of Hot Rod. The place that made the engine on the cover (Nelson Racing Engines) is making complete twin turbo setups for the SS Camaros.
I'm trying to tell them the days of just slapping on a power adder on are here. A lot of companies are even starting to offer the option of a turbo charger on 75% of the entire line up of vehicles.... The future is here.
__________________
09CobaltSS/Turbo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2009, 02:03 AM   #20
Grape Ape
 
Drives: 96 Bronco w/ a 5 speed
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: PNW
Posts: 296
Quote:
Originally Posted by vladkgb View Post
theres no way a turbo or super charger "bolt-on" kit will be made and still run on pump gas. its impossible because the v6 has 11:1 compression due to the direct injection, this engine wont be able to take much boost at all before detonation will be a big problem. If the v6 gets any type of forced induction expect atleast a head change to lower the compression ratio, which = big monies.
I saw a Canadian outfit the sells twin turbo upgrades for the VW R32 (AWD V6 Golf) that was offering head spacers on their higher HP kits. You might also need a new intake manifold (or more spacers) and longer timing chains/belts but still probably cheaper than head work.

But you might be able to kill two birds and swap in shorter, forged rods and/or pistons that would allow high boost by being stronger and by lowering compression.

But I don;t think there will be a problem with moderate levels of boost since as Dragoneye mentioned it runs fine on 87 octane. And more convincingly, there are already Cadillacs running around with blowers on the same V6.
Grape Ape is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2009, 02:17 AM   #21
Grape Ape
 
Drives: 96 Bronco w/ a 5 speed
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: PNW
Posts: 296
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragoneye View Post
I know how it all works....

I was just referring to the design that STS uses in response to your hose anaolgy. The volume of the piping of their system is roughly the same as a traditional system plus an intercooler. They achieve this by using skinnier pipes on the return side.

Yes, it's farther away from the engine, so there's a heat loss, but they sized the turbo(s) specifically to work from back there, and consequently, the time it takes to pressurize the intake piping is the same as any other turbo system.
The intake piping might have the same volume as an inter cooler, but I'd rather have either an inter cooler cooling the air or a short pipe without one so the system could pressurize faster. This sounds like the worst of both worlds.
Grape Ape is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2009, 04:04 AM   #22
fierodeletre
 
Drives: 02 WS6 TA, 88 Fiero Formula
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Utard
Posts: 296
The issue of compression is not traditional and should not be viewed as such. No fuel/air is compressed in a DI engine. This is the reason they went with the high C/R. Because they could get away with it, because it makes a higher specific output powerplant. Having the high C/R in a boosted setup really would only be a question of fuel pressure, since the new TDC cyl pressure would now be 5-25 PSI + 1 bar X 11.1 instead of < or = 1 bar X 11.1, and you'd have to be sure that the 1200 psi (I think) max fuel pressure would be enough to atomize into such a high-pressure volume of air. It's been said a thousand times before. They didn't "tune" the engine for 87 octane. You can run any octane you like in it. They use 87 because it's a great selling point for customers and it illustrates the brilliance of the idea. You can't detonate dry air. Again, the biggest hurdles to FI on the LLT will be sufficient fuel pressure and perhaps head gasket integrity, not C/R.
fierodeletre is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2009, 11:38 AM   #23
Rock
 
Drives: 2007 Mazdaspeed 3
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Jacksonville FL
Posts: 35
Your biggest issue is going to be fuel management and ecu tuning,depending on how hard the ecu is to crack. DI is also a relatively new technology, what we do know is you can run higher C/R due to much more accurrate and cleaner fuel burn directly into the combustion chambers. Hard part is you better hope that the stock Injectors can handle an increased fuel demand.
On my Mazdaspeed3 with a 2.3L DISI it has a 9.5:1 C/R that puts out 256/280 hp/torque. Not bad for a 4banger. It took about a year to get anytype of tuning out as well as fuel upgrades. However, one of the first modifications to help with the fuel problems and detonation was methanol injection. You will aslo probably want to change your plugs out for 1 or 2degree colder plugs and run on 93 octane. You will get huge power from going turbo. I'd put pricing for a kit at around 4500 minimum for a single turbo setup. More than likely going to come with a enginemanagement of some sort,turbo, turbo manifold, downpipe, intercooler, piping, possibly fuel upgrades, and various hoses,fittings,and clamps.
Rock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2009, 05:28 PM   #24
THE EVIL TW1N
Banned
 
Drives: 2003 Cobra Convertible
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: CA
Posts: 2,925
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rock View Post
Your biggest issue is going to be fuel management and ecu tuning,depending on how hard the ecu is to crack. DI is also a relatively new technology, what we do know is you can run higher C/R due to much more accurrate and cleaner fuel burn directly into the combustion chambers. Hard part is you better hope that the stock Injectors can handle an increased fuel demand.
On my Mazdaspeed3 with a 2.3L DISI it has a 9.5:1 C/R that puts out 256/280 hp/torque. Not bad for a 4banger. It took about a year to get anytype of tuning out as well as fuel upgrades. However, one of the first modifications to help with the fuel problems and detonation was methanol injection. You will aslo probably want to change your plugs out for 1 or 2degree colder plugs and run on 93 octane. You will get huge power from going turbo. I'd put pricing for a kit at around 4500 minimum for a single turbo setup. More than likely going to come with a enginemanagement of some sort,turbo, turbo manifold, downpipe, intercooler, piping, possibly fuel upgrades, and various hoses,fittings,and clamps.
I think the prices for a turbo upgrade will be closer to $6000+.
THE EVIL TW1N is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2009, 11:25 PM   #25
09CobaltSS/Turbo
 
09CobaltSS/Turbo's Avatar
 
Drives: 2009 Cobalt SS Turbo 97 tahoe
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Colorado
Posts: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by THE EVIL TW1N View Post
I think the prices for a turbo upgrade will be closer to $6000+.
If we are lucky
__________________
09CobaltSS/Turbo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2009, 11:38 PM   #26
Grape Ape
 
Drives: 96 Bronco w/ a 5 speed
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: PNW
Posts: 296
Quote:
Originally Posted by fierodeletre View Post
The issue of compression is not traditional and should not be viewed as such. No fuel/air is compressed in a DI engine. This is the reason they went with the high C/R. Because they could get away with it, because it makes a higher specific output powerplant. Having the high C/R in a boosted setup really would only be a question of fuel pressure, since the new TDC cyl pressure would now be 5-25 PSI + 1 bar X 11.1 instead of < or = 1 bar X 11.1, and you'd have to be sure that the 1200 psi (I think) max fuel pressure would be enough to atomize into such a high-pressure volume of air. It's been said a thousand times before. They didn't "tune" the engine for 87 octane. You can run any octane you like in it. They use 87 because it's a great selling point for customers and it illustrates the brilliance of the idea. You can't detonate dry air. Again, the biggest hurdles to FI on the LLT will be sufficient fuel pressure and perhaps head gasket integrity, not C/R.
Here is a link to GM's data sheet for the LLT: http://media.gm.com/us/powertrain/en...6/09_LLT_n.doc

They say that the fuel is injected during the intake stroke, while the intake valve is open. This still allows all of the fuel vaporization's cooling to go into the air instead of the intake valve which doesn't need it. The rest of the gains appear to have been made the hard way: better cooling of the chamber (like the oil jets squirting the bottoms of the pistons).
Grape Ape is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2009, 04:39 AM   #27
fierodeletre
 
Drives: 02 WS6 TA, 88 Fiero Formula
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Utard
Posts: 296
I didn't go through it, but if that is true, why do they use such a high pressure fuel pump and injectors? Technically in a NA engine that air charge would be in vacuum.
fierodeletre is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2009, 12:30 PM   #28
09CobaltSS/Turbo
 
09CobaltSS/Turbo's Avatar
 
Drives: 2009 Cobalt SS Turbo 97 tahoe
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Colorado
Posts: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by fierodeletre View Post
I didn't go through it, but if that is true, why do they use such a high pressure fuel pump and injectors? Technically in a NA engine that air charge would be in vacuum.
Because it is like a Diesel .. Normal injectors squirt the fuel in the opposite stroke towards the bottom. DI has a VERY VERY small window of time to get the fuel into the cylinder. we are talking quarters of a milisecond to get the exzact amount of fuel for every stroke .. VERY complex
__________________
09CobaltSS/Turbo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2009, 03:21 PM   #29
SemperFi
U.S. Marine Corps
 
SemperFi's Avatar
 
Drives: 2009 Ducati Streetfighter
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Central Texas
Posts: 407
Quote:
Originally Posted by 09CobaltSS/Turbo View Post
Because it is like a Diesel .. Normal injectors squirt the fuel in the opposite stroke towards the bottom. DI has a VERY VERY small window of time to get the fuel into the cylinder. we are talking quarters of a milisecond to get the exzact amount of fuel for every stroke .. VERY complex
How do yall know all this stuff. Its impressive and entertaining.

But I do have a quick question. 6000+ seems like a lot for a single turbo, but i believe it. What I want to know is how much HP and torque gain do you think we will see? Because it better be more than enough to get faster than the SS, since the price difference between the two engines is smaller than that turbo cost...
__________________

Texas Residents: Join the Texas social group!

Semper Fi!
SemperFi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2009, 04:48 PM   #30
UsedTaHaveA68
 
UsedTaHaveA68's Avatar
 
Drives: Hyundai Sonata
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Little Rock, AR
Posts: 497
Quote:
Originally Posted by 09CobaltSS/Turbo View Post
Because it is like a Diesel .. Normal injectors squirt the fuel in the opposite stroke towards the bottom. DI has a VERY VERY small window of time to get the fuel into the cylinder. we are talking quarters of a milisecond to get the exzact amount of fuel for every stroke .. VERY complex
The "opposite stroke towards the bottom" is usually called the "intake" stroke.

And CobaltSS, the DI does NOT, repeat, does NOT inject fuel during the compression stroke. Do a little research before spreading false information on these boards. It injects it during the intake stroke, just like a normal engine. Taken from http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2...19/313350.html:

A diesel, however, DOES inject the fuel near the TDC of the compression stroke. The reason gasoline engines, including the 3.6DI, don't do this is because of the rate at which gasoline burns. Gasoline burns much quicker than heavier diesel fuel. If you were to inject it at TDC, where the air is extremely compressed and HOT, you would probably spontaneously ignite the gasoline. This results in an EXPLOSION, also called detonation. Everyone knows this is bad. In a gasoline engine, you want an extremely rapid, but CONTROLLED burn. Not an explosion. Thus, the only thing the new V6 has in common with a diesel is the fact that the fuel is injected directly into the cylinder. Absolutely. Nothing. Else.

Edit: Well crap, I tried to embed the animation so everyone wouldn't have to click on the link, but I couldn't get it to work. Sorry guys.
UsedTaHaveA68 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2009, 06:02 PM   #31
fierodeletre
 
Drives: 02 WS6 TA, 88 Fiero Formula
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Utard
Posts: 296
Quote:
Originally Posted by UsedTaHaveA68 View Post
The reason gasoline engines, including the 3.6DI, don't do this is because of the rate at which gasoline burns. Gasoline burns much quicker than heavier diesel fuel. If you were to inject it at TDC, where the air is extremely compressed and HOT, you would probably spontaneously ignite the gasoline. This results in an EXPLOSION, also called detonation.
If detonation occurs at TDC wouldn't the force of the "EXPLOSION" force the piston DOWN? Where it was going anyway? Detonation occurs because the fuel burns as the piston is still travelling upward. When fuel burns as the piston moves downward, the energy is allowed a mechanical "place to go" and burns much more smoothly. Diesels are nothing more than controlled detonators. They burn smoothly. So does the DI. It's controlled by spark ignition however.

Your explanation still doesn't explain why the DI motors use high PRESSURE fuel injectors on the same levels as DIESEL engines. Speed is not the issue. Quite a bit of engine power is used to attain that level of fuel pressure. Why do that when you don't need to?
fierodeletre is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2009, 06:28 PM   #32
MerF
Go Rays!
 
MerF's Avatar
 
Drives: 03 Trailblazer
Join Date: May 2007
Location: St Pete, Florida
Posts: 2,537
Quote:
Originally Posted by 09CobaltSS/Turbo View Post
If anyone knows something about turbos, rear mounted turbos are junk. I made a thread about Forced induction already but seems the word "turbo" is more recognized.
I know about turbos, and you are wrong. Just plain wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 09CobaltSS/Turbo View Post
......Imagine turning on a garden hose that is 100 ft vs 50 ft .. what hose will have water coming out first ? The answer is obvious .
Bad analogy for a bad point. The only reason you are waiting for that water is that the air in the hose has to be displaced first. If the hose is already full of water, no matter how long it is, the moment you apply pressure to one side water comes out the other. Instantly.

Now, keeping in mind that water doesn't compress this makes the analogy less pertinent. However the fact remains that the "lag" is negligible for the average rear-mount setup over a traditional manifold.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 09CobaltSS/Turbo View Post
LOL yeah you take Charge piping from a turbo and Decrease its diameter by half and see what happens LOL can you say Loss in PSI
Seriously? Do you understand physics at all? Smaller diameter with the same amount of air would actually increase PSI. That doesn't make it better, granted...I'm just pointing out to anybody who is looking for credible information to look elsewhere.

I will expand on the point he is trying to make though. Using smaller charge piping will decrease the efficiency of your turbo. So when you're at the strip and pulling 25 PSI on your next 9-second run you probably won't be able to (it's so hard to truly type sarcastically, but that was as close as I can make it).

The point is, you don't run a rear-mount in hopes of making huge numbers usually. Most people who are seriously making a racing build will build the manifold for the turbo. Rear-mounts are practically bolt-ons, there's no reason to worry about making the pipes >3" and you could get away with 2.5" charge piping just fine with a medium sized turbo making ~15 PSI.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 09CobaltSS/Turbo View Post
A turbo works by using the excess gas not being burned by the engine which is injected into the turbo pumping hot exhaust through the cold side or ( intercooler ) back to the engine .
Wow. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that you have a major typo and don't actually believe what you just wrote. I'll let you fix it, but in the meantime, anyone who is looking for valid information on turbocharging do NOT read this man's post.
MerF is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2009, 08:52 PM   #33
CamaroSpike23
Truth Enforcer
 
CamaroSpike23's Avatar
 
Drives: anything I can get my hands on
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: anywhere and everywhere
Posts: 22,830
Send a message via Yahoo to CamaroSpike23
Quote:
Originally Posted by vladkgb View Post
theres no way a turbo or super charger "bolt-on" kit will be made and still run on pump gas. its impossible because the v6 has 11:1 compression due to the direct injection, this engine wont be able to take much boost at all before detonation will be a big problem. If the v6 gets any type of forced induction expect atleast a head change to lower the compression ratio, which = big monies.
the v6 is also a DI motor... similar to a diesel, which will typically run 15:1+ cr with donkey buttloads of boost as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by THE EVIL TW1N View Post
I think the prices for a turbo upgrade will be closer to $6000+.
keep adding. remember, this will more than likely be a TT system when offered as both cars are true dual exhaust. I could see an STS system going for around 7-8k.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SemperFi View Post
How do yall know all this stuff. Its impressive and entertaining.

But I do have a quick question. 6000+ seems like a lot for a single turbo, but i believe it. What I want to know is how much HP and torque gain do you think we will see? Because it better be more than enough to get faster than the SS, since the price difference between the two engines is smaller than that turbo cost...
we know this stuff cus we read and work with these things. (some of us anyway.)

it wont be for a single turbo. more than likely it will be for a TT setup. similar to the vette setup. and priced accordingly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by fierodeletre View Post
If detonation occurs at TDC wouldn't the force of the "EXPLOSION" force the piston DOWN? Where it was going anyway? Detonation occurs because the fuel burns as the piston is still travelling upward. When fuel burns as the piston moves downward, the energy is allowed a mechanical "place to go" and burns much more smoothly. Diesels are nothing more than controlled detonators. They burn smoothly. So does the DI. It's controlled by spark ignition however.

Your explanation still doesn't explain why the DI motors use high PRESSURE fuel injectors on the same levels as DIESEL engines. Speed is not the issue. Quite a bit of engine power is used to attain that level of fuel pressure. Why do that when you don't need to?
detonation occurs any time the air/fuel mixture combusts when its not being ignited by the spark plug. technically it wouldnt be detonation at TDC because the spark plug should already be firing before TDC.

as for why DI motors use high press fuel injectors, its because they are in the combustion chamber, not in the intake manifold. what does this mean? basically that the injector has to be able to withstand the immense compression of the cylinder and still be able to spray the fuel and atomize it properly in a given amount of time.
__________________
Never race anything you can't afford to light on fire and push off a cliff
A group as a whole tends to be smarter than the smartest person in that group until one jackass convinces everyone otherwise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BowtieGuy View Post
Nobody makes CamaroSpike happy. You just disgust him a little less than other people.

Quote:
Originally Posted by WheelmanSS View Post
Post count is truly an accurate measure of how cool someone is on the Internet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Norris View Post
I piss excellence
and fart awesomeness
"You can think I'm wrong, but that's no reason to quit thinking.”
Quote:
Originally Posted by Overflow View Post
But not all people were born awesome like you, Spike.
CamaroSpike23 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2009, 09:37 PM   #34
RT21
Sage of Thread Killing
 
RT21's Avatar
 
Drives: IBM Tumbler
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Melbourne Beach, FL
Posts: 2,362
Quote:
Originally Posted by MerF View Post
I know about turbos, and you are wrong. Just plain wrong.

Bad analogy for a bad point. The only reason you are waiting for that water is that the air in the hose has to be displaced first. If the hose is already full of water, no matter how long it is, the moment you apply pressure to one side water comes out the other. Instantly.

Now, keeping in mind that water doesn't compress this makes the analogy less pertinent. However the fact remains that the "lag" is negligible for the average rear-mount setup over a traditional manifold.

Seriously? Do you understand physics at all? Smaller diameter with the same amount of air would actually increase PSI. That doesn't make it better, granted...I'm just pointing out to anybody who is looking for credible information to look elsewhere.

I will expand on the point he is trying to make though. Using smaller charge piping will decrease the efficiency of your turbo. So when you're at the strip and pulling 25 PSI on your next 9-second run you probably won't be able to (it's so hard to truly type sarcastically, but that was as close as I can make it).

The point is, you don't run a rear-mount in hopes of making huge numbers usually. Most people who are seriously making a racing build will build the manifold for the turbo. Rear-mounts are practically bolt-ons, there's no reason to worry about making the pipes >3" and you could get away with 2.5" charge piping just fine with a medium sized turbo making ~15 PSI.


Wow. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that you have a major typo and don't actually believe what you just wrote. I'll let you fix it, but in the meantime, anyone who is looking for valid information on turbocharging do NOT read this man's post.
Wow. I think the dude you were "correcting" is all the above:

a. has no idea what he is talking about
b. has no idea that he doesn't know what he is talking about
c. is feeling really silly right now
d. wishing he never posted on this thread.

__________________

"It's better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt." Abraham Lincoln
Quote:
Silver Streak: This car is screaming Camaro all the way through. If you are still complaining about the Camaro, you need to re-evaluate!
Edmunds: "You want to kick ass, or fondle the door panels, sissy?" LOL!!!
Blur: You need to develop your own level of badassery before handling a car with so much badass content.
pinkcamaro10: "gained the faith back" Thanks guys! "Patiently" waiting thanks to all the pink milk people!
http://camaro5rt.mybrute.com
RT21 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:50 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.