EATON M90 vs 1FEFZ ENGINE (1 Viewer)

[SUMOTOY]

There we no personal attacks here from me, only trying to understand the mumbo jumbo. As far turbos go, I am obviously way behind you and Mark technically speaking, but my first one was my homemade kit in 1979 on a 20R in my truck with 36" tires, alcohol injection and dial-a boost. A little bubba, I agree. An old buddy of mine Price Cobb helped out a little. He worked for Cartech in the 70s. My turbo language stops there although Corky Bell was an interesting guy to work with on this project.

He's a piece of work, and I love laughing reading his book, they didn't change the guy.

W5, it's mumbo jumbo to most. I'm going to stick this out to try and get some understanding. I'm used to nerding with the turbo boys in great detail, so I may jump over heads a few times. What really matters is the numbers in post 1. From just a engine airflow perspective on the 1FZFE the TRD kit makes the grade really well at low boost.

HTH

SJ

 

[pulse98]

The 7th injector port seems like a perfect excuse to add nitrous. Nitrous soundslike a good intercooler to me

I don't like add on injectors. Spend the time to dial in the fuel pressure regulator and injector size. Add on injectors work, but they were really designed for TBI and CIS engines.

SJ

 

[Waggoner5]

He's a piece of work, and I love laughing reading his book, they didn't change the guy.

W5, it's mumbo jumbo to most. I'm going to stick this out to try and get some understanding. I'm used to nerding with the turbo boys in great detail, so I may jump over heads a few times. What really matters is the numbers in post 1. From just a engine airflow perspective on the 1FZFE the TRD kit makes the grade really well at low boost.

HTH

SJ

I agree completely although if you do build a turbo kit that is consistantly priced with the TRD, I will buy one.

 

[SUMOTOY]

I agree completely although if you do build a turbo kit that is consistantly priced with the TRD, I will buy one.

I'd only build duals for this motor, so I don't see that happening at all! Christo is quite safe.

SJ

 

[parabola]

Sumotoy, just trying to follow your math here. How did you choose 1.5 as the ideal pressure ratio?

 

[cruiserdan]

A blower kit is just under 3 grand.

 

[SUMOTOY]

Sumotoy, just trying to follow your math here. How did you choose 1.5 as the ideal pressure ratio?

That's pretty much what the comparo is, it's not so much my choice. I'd be very wary of taking this motor to even 10psi in either trim. It's not built for that. Most normally aspirated engines use 1.5PR for bolt on kits, I'm good with that. Beyond that you really drive effective compression ratios up high enough that other parts need to be added.

Choose another PR, I can plug the math into my spreadsheet. I won't into the actual truck.



SJ

 

[parabola]

That's pretty much what the comparo is, it's not so much my choice. I'd be very wary of taking this motor to even 10psi in either trim. It's not built for that. Most normally aspirated engines use 1.5PR for bolt on kits, I'm good with that. Beyond that you really drive effective compression ratios up high enough that other parts need to be added.

Choose another PR, I can plug the math into my spreadsheet. I won't into the actual truck.



SJ

The issue is, while 7psi may be the sweet spot for that SC, as you've noted, larger turbos are not really all that efficient at these lower pressure ratios. So, to limit the turbo to the optimal supercharger pressure ratio in your comparo's, you're artificially limiting the turbo application's performance in order to suit your argument.

Now, I do agree that you obviously have to mind your dynamic compression ratios, but without research, no one can really say how much boost you can safely run on a properly tuned 1FZ-FE. Your only REAL concern is detonation.

I regularly ran 22psi on a T04R turbo in my 3L I6 that had an 8:1 compression ratio on 93 octane in the middle of summer in TX, with no detonation. I'm sure that with your experience, you've had your assumptions blown out of the water before.

I'm not advocating trying to run that much boost on a 1FZ, but I don't think we should be making any assumptions here without the appropriate data, and I definately don't think that we have a very fair comparison here.

 

[SUMOTOY]

The issue is, while 7psi may be the sweet spot for that SC, as you've noted, larger turbos are not really all that efficient at these lower pressure ratios. So, to limit the turbo to the optimal supercharger pressure ratio in your comparo's, you're artificially limiting the turbo application's performance in order to suit your argument.

Now, I do agree that you obviously have to mind your dynamic compression ratios, but without research, no one can really say how much boost you can safely run on a properly tuned 1FZ-FE. Your only REAL concern is detonation.

I regularly ran 22psi on a T04R turbo in my 3L I6 that had an 8:1 compression ratio on 93 octane in the middle of summer in TX, with no detonation. I'm sure that with your experience, you've had your assumptions blown out of the water before.

I'm not advocating trying to run that much boost on a 1FZ, but I don't think we should be making any assumptions here without the appropriate data, and I definately don't think that we have a very fair comparison here.

My real concern isn't detonation, my real concern is a bolt on turbo to a N/A application running more than 8psi. How do you know you had no detonation? You didn't hear it? By the time you hear detonation, the damage has been done, btdt. I'm not at all blown out of the water, I just don't have enough information on your setup.

What did you run for fuel mods, timing, intercooler exhaust and ecu? Airflow meter, chip tuning, data logging? Is this the 3LI6 in your Toyota Supra that is 'down'. That's a turbo motor already (and I'll pass on the obvious question.... I visited Sound Performance here in Chicagoland, they are getting 550-880 dyno horsepower out of that motor. Different egg, unless you are speaking to some other I6?

I regularly run turbo 2.2L motors to 26psi on 93 octane at 9.3:1 compression ratios. 1 with 200k on it. That's also with no external boost control, it's all within the modified factory turbo ECU with a pressure transducer. I see nowhere any information that the ECU code has even been cracked in stock form on the 80. Even if you did crack the code, it has no provision for recognizing boost.

The 1FZFE has cast internals not forged, which means, tho possible, I sure wouldn't be looking to push it very hard. Read Dusty's comments on the boys from the mid east and their experiences with high boost.

I've never blown up a motor (yet). That requires a very in depth theory and application background is required. It also gives a very good baseline for evaluating just about any setup. I see a stout motor here, but I don't see a big boost motor with bolt on mods here. We can't even keep the headgasket to stay put with the stock engine.

I'm more than willing to compare 7-8psi levels of boost, since that's really what we are talking. Christo, Dusty, Safari and AVO can take on the higher boost levels. Given what I know about this motor, that's not without risk, one I'll take a pass on thanks. Again, all my posts change if we start seeing 14psi numbers being posted from turbo apps.

That's not what I see yet. I won't even challenge that anyone do that, I'm happy to just give the argument assuming they did.

SJ

 

[landtank]

We can't even keep the headgasket to stay put with the stock engine.

Sure we can. The problem is with the original HG, the replacements have been fine. And if I do go with forced induction I'll be swapping over to studs prior to install.

 

[SUMOTOY]

Sure we can. The problem is with the original HG, the replacements have been fine. And if I do go with forced induction I'll be swapping over to studs prior to install.

Not my understanding, I read several posts here where even the new one popped. Beware of head studs Rick, I use them very rarely. My theory is that if a head gasket wants to blow, it's because something is not right in the combustion chamber, and the head gasket is a great warning device for that.

Put the head studs on, and you have that same problem in the combustion chamber, the head gasket will allow that problem to get to a lot higher critical point before it blows. Up to and including warping the head beyond repair, BTDT!

Target your boost reasonably, studs are unnecessary, IMO/E

SJ

 

[parabola]

My real concern isn't detonation, my real concern is a bolt on turbo to a N/A application running more than 8psi. How do you know you had no detonation? You didn't hear it? By the time you hear detonation, the damage has been done, btdt. I'm not at all blown out of the water, I just don't have enough information on your setup.

My point wasn't to blow your assumptions out of the water, but to say that mine were by what I was able to do with that car. I've since tried to limit my assumptions.

Sound, feel, power, watching your plugs, regular leak downs, and then proven by running 30k miles at that level is how I can say it wasn't detonating.

What did you run for fuel mods, timing, intercooler exhaust and ecu? Airflow meter, chip tuning, data logging? Is this the 3LI6 in your Toyota Supra that is 'down'. That's a turbo motor already (and I'll pass on the obvious question.... I visited Sound Performance here in Chicagoland, they are getting 550-880 dyno horsepower out of that motor. Different egg, unless you are speaking to some other I6?

Yes, the Supra's I6. I won't derail this thread with the specifics of that setup but if you want to discuss that further then feel free to PM me. To answer the question you passed on, it's down because I pulled the head to service a preexisting condition, the valve stem seals. Yes it is a different egg, and as I said originally, I'm not advocating anyone try to run anywhere near that on a 1FZ. I'm just saying we don't know anything right now about where the safe, or the most efficient levels are for boost on these motors. No reason to pull a number out of the air (7psi) and base every assumption off that one.

I regularly run turbo 2.2L motors to 26psi on 93 octane at 9.3:1 compression ratios. 1 with 200k on it. That's also with no external boost control, it's all within the modified factory turbo ECU with a pressure transducer.

I see nowhere any information that the ECU code has even been cracked in stock form on the 80. Even if you did crack the code, it has no provision for recognizing boost.

There you go, more power to my point. Every motor is different and we just don't have enough information at this point.

I don't understand what you mean by "recognizes" boost. It provides more fuel when it consumes more air?

The 1FZFE has cast internals not forged, which means, tho possible, I sure wouldn't be looking to push it very hard. Read Dusty's comments on the boys from the mid east and their experiences with high boost.

I've never blown up a motor (yet). That requires a very in depth theory and application background is required. It also gives a very good baseline for evaluating just about any setup. I see a stout motor here, but I don't see a big boost motor with bolt on mods here. We can't even keep the headgasket to stay put with the stock engine.

The head gasket issue is likely a design one. How many people have blown the newer head gasket?

I'm more than willing to compare 7-8psi levels of boost, since that's really what we are talking. Christo, Dusty, Safari and AVO can take on the higher boost levels. Given what I know about this motor, that's not without risk, one I'll take a pass on thanks. Again, all my posts change if we start seeing 14psi numbers being posted from turbo apps.

That's not what I see yet. I won't even challenge that anyone do that, I'm happy to just give the argument assuming they did.

SJ

My only point was that you are telling us that your SC horse is faster than a turbo horse but you're tieing the turbo horse's two back legs together.

 

[sleeoffroad]

I see nowhere any information that the ECU code has even been cracked in stock form on the 80. Even if you did crack the code, it has no provision for recognizing boost.

So what is wrong with using a SMT6 with a MAP sensor do to the the tuning. Not good enough either? Yes, it would be nice to tweak the factory ECU, but MR T decided we are not going to do that. MR GM likes you to do that. So good for them.

 

[sleeoffroad]

Not my understanding, I read several posts here where even the new one popped.

I have not seen those. I know IdahoDoug had a problem the 2nd time round, but that turned out to be the head. We have done a number of headgaskets and never one on a replaced gasket.

 

[Rookie2]

My only point was that you are telling us that your SC horse is faster than a turbo horse but you're tieing the turbo horse's two back legs together.

Reading through all his threads, I haven't got that he is saying that. I'm pretty sure his contention is at these lower boost levels the SC is a better application for this motor versus the single turbo applications currently used, and that "IF" the SC's could be set up with an intercooler, and some other fuel and adjustments to "ancillary" (I thought he made this word up, until I pulled out the dictionary... supporting or auxillary ) parts, the SC would produce as much or more HP at these boost levels.

That's the way I'm interpreting what he's saying.


Rookie2

 

[Rookie2]

That reaffirms my conclusion that the SC isn't the problem on the dyno, it's a IC/fuel/timing/exhaust (read: ancillary) problem.

So what are we talking to get this side of the equation worked out? Alot of research and developement or some research and someone willing to give it a go?

 

[landtank]

Not my understanding, I read several posts here where even the new one popped.

I'm pretty good at recalling what's been posted here. The only post I recall was one from Powderpig (Robbie), who stated the newer HG failed after 30k but was do to improper install.

 

[parabola]

Reading through all his threads, I haven't got that he is saying that. I'm pretty sure his contention is at these lower boost levels the SC is a better application for this motor versus the single turbo applications currently used, and that "IF" the SC's could be set up with an intercooler, and some other fuel and adjustments to "ancillary" (I thought he made this word up, until I pulled out the dictionary... supporting or auxillary ) parts, the SC would produce as much or more HP at these boost levels.

That's the way I'm interpreting what he's saying.


Rookie2

Well to that point, I don't have much to argue. Yes, the SC would likely perform better with intercooling in the picture. Yes, tuning these setups is critical to getting good performance out of them.

Back to my point about turbos for a second though: Generally speaking, the efficiency ranges of larger turbos are in the higher pressure ratio ranges, and that I agree with ST about. I haven't done all the research to say that there are no turbos that will work well for these very constrained parameters, but I'd be willing to bet that if we widened our parameters a bit (which we don't yet know isn't possible!) we would have a much easier time finding a good match for our application.

 

[SUMOTOY]

Well to that point, I don't have much to argue. Yes, the SC would likely perform better with intercooling in the picture. Yes, tuning these setups is critical to getting good performance out of them.

Back to my point about turbos for a second though: Generally speaking, the efficiency ranges of larger turbos are in the higher pressure ratio ranges, and that I agree with ST about. I haven't done all the research to say that there are no turbos that will work well for these very constrained parameters, but I'd be willing to bet that if we widened our parameters a bit (which we don't yet know isn't possible!) we would have a much easier time finding a good match for our application.

I've already conceded that at 14psi the scale changes in a big way. I don't see that being anymore than virtual discussion frankly. The half life of a cast internal motor will suffer greatly.

I haven't done the research on a custom turbo, because that would require a trip to the turbo dyno (BTDT, it's expensive, and you want to get your baseline sizing done already). I have done research on the available flavors of the Garretts, and I've already responded to several picks in terms of what I see coming given how the 1FZFE air demands plot onto the Maps.

Since this is now getting way beyond the bounds of reality, I suggest we keep to the boost levels applicable in this forum. 7-8psi limits the posts and challenges to finding good use of existing hardware to meet the current and realistic targets of an external bolt on forced induction system.

I'm on several turbo tech forums already, and live with them daily. I'm comfortable debating them, discussing them in theory, applicationm, even tweeks. What I find a bigger challenge as a turbo guy, is finding a turbo application well matched to a big engine at low boost. That intrigues me much more than what's 'possible' with big turbos and big boost. That's bread and butter for me.

I challenge all with any turbo experience to shift the paradigm and start thinking in terms of low boost effective mods. IMO, and what I posted at the beginning of this thread, it's going to be really tough for any single turbo setup to compete with a properly tuned M90 at 1.5PR. That doesn't appear to be the cause of disagreement, only that *if* one could change the PR, things would be different. I conceded that point months ago.


SJ

 

[SUMOTOY]

...I'm not advocating anyone try to run anywhere near that on a 1FZ. I'm just saying we don't know anything right now about where the safe, or the most efficient levels are for boost on these motors. No reason to pull a number out of the air (7psi) and base every assumption off that one.

Turbo motors built for turbos need not apply? I say we know exactly what's safe, cuz those runnnig 8psi or less haven't blown their motors with regularity. What we don't know is what's unsafe. In my audi experience, that's 28psi on a stock audi turbo. Well documented that those who choose to run there, don't do so very long. BTRT

I'm more a density guy than a boost guy myself, and see 8psi with a really good intercooler as about as far as I feel comfortable doing. You don't advocate anyone running high boost, but you feel 1.5PR isn't enough for a bolt on app? There are very few n/a motor that have forced induction addons exceeding 1.5PR that boost levels, not just the 80. Look around, that number isn't arbitrary at all. It's quite common.

There you go, more power to my point. Every motor is different and we just don't have enough information at this point.

We have enough information to know that if we choose 1.5PR the turbo choices are compromises at best. I understand that you may want to then argue turbos have more potential. Ok, I agree, I don't agree that the 1FZFE does in terms of longevity. Not sure I really care. This discussion has always been about a low pressure force inducted 80. Changing that to something else is premature.

I don't understand what you mean by "recognizes" boost. It provides more fuel when it consumes more air?

Most factory turbo systems have tables that recognize boost levels in it's tabling matrix. The best is a MAP sensor, IMO. Speed density or MAF will work, but it has a lot of limitations as the boost increases. If you look at the tables of a N/A motor, it will provide more fuel up to the limit of the table. By definition that would be zero vacuum. Beyond that, it doesn't recognize boost, because it's not a boost table ecu.

My only point was that you are telling us that your SC horse is faster than a turbo horse but you're tieing the turbo horse's two back legs together.

I'm comparing 1.5PR to 1.5PR. The MAPS of the single turbo apps on 4.5L tell you to turn up the boost. My challenge to any turbo guy is to accept the assignment as given: it's 1.5PR. There is no challenge at 14psi. Think outside the box here, don't change the design of it.

SJ