Hey justin, you still around? Just wondering how the truck is running. I was just talking with a couple guys about yours and Russ' build and we were thinking maybe you should have Ken check your pump out. We all agreed that there should be more fuel there than that especially since iirc russ is only running a cranked stock pump. That is unless, Russ has tinkered with the inside of it, or we have all been mislead on the cababilities of the stock pump vs. the turbo cal. Also, i was looking at the dyno sheets on OB and comparing the differences. According to them it seemed that the ideal combo is the dps stage 1s and moose pump, for whatever reason that is, perhaps just a tired turbo cal. which caused me to wonder about yours.

I may be off my rocker here but here is some quick math im lookin over. NMB2 has said that we "should" see 2.7rwhp per cc of fuel injected. Lets take that for granted.

stock pump 50x2.7= 135 That is roughly rwhp of a NA engine. yet... weve seen up to or over 200rwhp on a stock cranked pump.

Turbo cal. 90ccx2.7= 243rwhp Roughly what you are making with the turbo cal.

So the math seems right except... the cababilities of the stock pump. according to the math the less efficient NA engine requires 50cc to make its power, yet we turn them up and make 200+ makes no sense, unless the stock pump is capable of more cranked up and 50cc is what its calibrated for.
218/2.7= 80 russ' for instance, which says to me a stock pump is set to 50cc, but will flow 80cc cranked.
however 150ccx2.7=405rwhp
and 180ccx2.7= 486rwhp... a
nd lastly, should one be made 200x2.7=540.

These as im sure you are all aware are rough estimates of projected RWHP per CC of fuel injected. Turbo efficiency, valvetrain efficiency, and rpm range no doubt have an effect, but im starting to think its alot less than we have been led to believe, or at least for me anyway. Great example of this is Russ vs. Justins engine. I have no doubt the cam helps, but it seems the turbo makes very little difference to the engine when its out of fuel, bottom line is you can only make x-amount of power on x-amount of fuel, which from what i have seen is approx. 2.7rwhp per cc. Just thought all of this is interesting, and leads my to my "question"

Why once adding a turbo, did i not feel 60+hp worth of power increase? I can easily say that my hill climbing and towing capabilities have increased exponentially, but my accelearation is nearly unchanged. I am out of fuel, no doubt about it, yet perhaps i do not have the pump turned up all the way, i did turn it up until it "stopped" and i did not want to damage it so i quit there and backed it off half a flat. Approx 3.5 flats is what i got out of it. I have no idea where it was set before, it would haze pretty good at WOT when NA.

I apologize if you dont want this in your thread, i just think its a little more fitting.

 

I think Russ had some mods done to his pump but I'm not quite sure. Iirc its somewhere in the neighborhood of like 78ccs. Don't quote me on that though.

 

Oh and I just did the math. 78ccx2.7=210 which is pretty close to what Russ made...

 

Sorry double post.

 

Also why was 91dirty's truck so efficient powerwise? He was close in hp but was a bit less with torque.

 

All I had was the ATS upgrade unit, 3" DP wrapped crossover/uppipe, removed s***y air intake and had 4" tube with cone filter, NA pump up 5flats and just put the pedal to the floor EGTs were creaping to 1200 and boost was nearing 20, out of 2 runs I did I backed out early because I didn't want my headbolts seeing 20psi (18 was highest i let it) lol not bad for 217000 mile stock gasket motor. I was shocked I was over 200 on a mustang dyno with those heavy *** tires

 

Ya that is impressive, and yet unimpressive at the same time. Impressive for the stock pump, and slightly dissapointing for the turbo-cal. When the turbo pump was good for twice the fuel it sounded alot better, however it is starting to seem a stock pump is good for 75-80cc's, at least on paper. Im interested to know what they do on a flow bench. Makes me think that a DB2 should be capable somewhere around 100cc with work, or more.

 

Ok guys, Ill give this a crack... Mike nice post...

I dont wanna project like I am putting down Russ' truck here, that is not my intention at all, Russ has got a good setup, and as I have said, I was really suprised to see how close he was to my setup, and as I hear through the grapevine, he is really itching to get some fuel to his setup, and beat my numbers...

However here is my take. Number one, Russ' pump is most definately a "cranked" stocker, as in not just turned up at the fuel screw, but worked internally to about as far as a stock pump will go. Russ has been interested (Even contacted Ken @ DPS) about the mods that make a Turbo Cal, a Turbo cal. It is clear that Russ' pump is in the 75-80cc range, if it wasnt, it wouldnt have made the numbers it did.

Diesel power is produced directly from fuel, so 50cc/70cc/80cc/90cc is only going to make so much power, no matter if you have a Turbo or not... Now the area under the curve is going to be different (Mike that probably explains your situation in a way) but peak power is going to be the same, because thats where the energy is tapped out. Now the difference between my setup and Russ' setup, is my truck is capable of a lot more with more fuel... Russ is just about tapped out without going to a substantially better turbo (hotside speaking) If you look at his curve, it is very choppy (which could be a number of things, low fuel pressure for one, but another is his hotside setup, and turbine wheel, he has a "decent" coldside). The fact is, is even Russ' setup is maxing out 75cc of fuel, and doing it rather efficiently...

Now let me throw this out there, because its something that I have been looking into a little bit since the dyno....Effective gear ratio.

I have read that dynos will actually lower HP numbers the further you get away from a 1:1 ratio, and generally from 3.55 to 4.10 on a vehicle that has the same size tires, a 5-10% difference is usually common, and that would make sense looking at Dirty's numbers, and why his torque looks so low compared to his HP... Because of his effective ratio.

So if we were all running the same size tires, and the same grea ratio, my HP numbers would be even further away from Russ' (+10-15hp most likely) while probably being around the same torque (with the benefit going to Russ, because of the nature of his cam)... and Dirty's power would be in the 190/450 range I would assume, which is about where similar setups to his usually dyno...

All of this is based strictly off what I have researched, so it is what it is, but the only way to truely find out where everybody compares, would be to have the same gear ratios and tires...

Who knows, maybe my shortblock is a little tired and letting some power escape... I know my studs arent helping that matter...

 

And Yes, in the future (After I get a few things done here) Im going to send my pump back to Ken to give it a check up, and possibly see If I can get a few cc's more out if it.

 

I dont think that anyone could see that as putting down anyones rig. I get you having a more capable setup (with more fuel) but at what range do we need the extra capability is basically all i was asking i guess. One thing to keep in mind as well, your turbo is "remote" mounted, im curious to see what a difference that makes, and maybe that is possible for the "slower" powerband.

To make sure im understanding what your saying, my pickup, with 35s and 3.55 gears would read higher hp and lower tq comparatively, but both would be inflated, compared to 3.55s with stock tire hieght?

 

With the new hypermax gaskets coming into production, the IC, and better flowing engine. I would venture a guess that you could run up into the high 20's low 30's for boost, possibly making a 150cc pump viable. Worst case scenario there is having to turn down the pump to keep egts in check. Did you use a main girdle? I am definately interested in one of those for myself, girdle or bed plate even. Just thinkin out loud here.

 

Well essentially, You would want to run a 1:1 input into the dyno, that way there is no calculating to do, because any reduction skews the results. Dynos measure off of inertia, and reduction has to be calculated out, based on the results. Obviously its impossible to get exactly 1:1 into a chassis dyno, but the closer you get to to it the better your numbers are going to look because of less reduction.

And as far the length of my remote setup goes, its within 6" of total length of NMB2's setup (which is short for comparison sake) and my setup is substantially shorter than the banks or ATS setup not to mention that Im using schd40 1-1/2" pipe for my crossover, so what I lost in length, I gained (read: less) in volume.

 

Im thinking mid 20's boost would be capable on my current setup, Im only at 6* advanced on my timing. NMB2's old setup with running 22+ psi on hot ATS air with a 90cc pump.

As far as the girdle goes, it would be insurance on an engine seeing 4k+ RPM, otherwise its probably a waste for money... A bedplate would be nice, but again, overkill in 99% of builds.

Over the next year, I plan to build a new longblock to replace mine. I plan to sleeve a 7.3 block, torque-plate hone to 150 ft/lbs on the studs, Turbo Rods, Custom pistons, Balanced, Coated, Screw-in plugs, 18.5:1 compression, Fully Ported heads, Possibly a new cam (Im going to try and work with Delta, Justin, and Russ to come up with a good cam with the best of both worlds)... And Id be interested in trying out the new Hypermax gaskets, but Im not going to pay $500 to be a guinea pig...

 

If i remember right, you said that engine is a low mileage turbo engine right? Assuming you do replace it, i would be very interested in it. I dont want to sleeve if i can avoid it, so that leaves me with trying to find as near a virgin block as possible. The torque plate hone, assuming it does what i think it does, is a very neat idea.

I dont think they really need a "guinea pig" but perhaps, given their track record with IDI's and PSDs i dont think thats the case. I am definately interested in them, coupled with studs i should hope that will entirely remove the head gasket weakness we all dread.

 

Yeah, its a Turbo Long block, and in damn good shape too for the mileage, its got 160k+ on it... The only problem is I have the studs cranked, and getting a bit a blowby from it, my rear main is dripping, and its pushing some oil past my VC's... The only reason I want to sleeve it is I dont trust a stock bore 7.3 on high boost, let alone a bored block on it... Ill probably sleeve it down to 6.9 or maybe even somewhere inbetween, as Im going custom on the pistons anyway. Im going to have flanged sleeves put in so there is no worries about the sleeve dropping.