Ford Mustang Forums banner
21 - 40 of 197 Posts
I buy your argument if your turbo is already maxed out before you go higher. If that is the case, you have the wrong turbo as a starting point- the turbo should be sized to provide the designed air flow at the peak efficiency island, and thereby provide a significant amount of capacity at higher airflow reqts.

For example, the Incon system was designed to provide the airflow to make around 500 hp at 8 psi in a pretty much stock motor. The system is around 1/2 full capacity at that point and the remainder can be obtained, albiet at lower efficiency, if the boost is increased (up to ~23 lbs boost and 800 HP).

The system will provide 8 psi at any altitude, because that is where the wastegate spring is set to, and the impeller will spin faster to achieve it. You are correct though, that the air density is less at altitude than at sea level, and that that air will contain less O2, but the boost pressure should be the same at both elevations, and the boost pressure can be increased to provide the same number of O2 molecules as before with a turbo, or with a different pulley setup with a supercharger. A supercharger will show a significant drop in boost pressure at altitude because it is governed by engine speed and cannot compensate like the turbo can.
 
Yes, you're pretty much right. I think we're starting to understand each other.

The system will provide 8 psi at any altitude, because that is where the wastegate spring is set to, and the impeller will spin faster to achieve it. You are correct though, that the air density is less at altitude than at sea level, and that that air will contain less O2, but the boost pressure should be the same at both elevations
Maybe I didn't explain myself the best here, but Yes, you are correct. I didn't mean that my boost changed from the different altitudes. My boost was always 12 lbs (where I always had it set) no matter what altitude I was at because that's what the wastegate was set at. The difference is that 12 lbs at sea level will make more power than 12 lbs at high altitude because the turbo doesn't have to work as hard to achieve it. The harder the turbo works, the more heat there is in the air charge, and the less o2 content there is. And... That the high altitude turbo would have to crank out about 14 lbs rougly to have the same o2 content as the sea level car at 12 lbs.

The change in boost pressure I was talking about is because of the compressor being maxed out and unable to produce any more boost at peak rpm.

I buy your argument if your turbo is already maxed out before you go higher. If that is the case, you have the wrong turbo as a starting point
This is exactly the point I was trying to get across, except I was using a larger turbo as an example. There comes a point when a turbo simply cannot move anymore air, or spin any faster. But there are a couple factors that influences a turbos' speed that I forgot to touch on last time.

With my original T04E "54" I would hit 12 lbs rather quickly then as the engine rpm increased (above 4500) the boost would start to decrease to about 8 lbs at 6000 rpm. This was all with the wastegate literally pinned closed. All of my exhaust was running through the turbo likely spinning it to, or over, it's maximum rpm. The boost was dropping because the engines air requirements became more than the turbo could pump out to maintain anything over 8 lbs. By looking at the compressor map for that turbo, I'm surprised it even gave me 8 lbs. It simply can't spin fast enough to produce more than that on my motor. Even if it were able to spin faster it would be way out of efficiency, and would likely hurt power production.

Another factor for my 62-1 running out of steam on my motor, is there is a chance that inefficiencies in my exhaust system and/or engine combination has limited the exhaust energy that is needed to spin the turbo any faster. That turbo should be good for about 110,000 rpm and I may have only been spinning it to say 90,000 simply because I didn't have the exhaust energy/pressure to spin it any faster. There are a lot of factors that could influence exhaust energy.

Either way, I'm making more power than ever with my T70 at the same boost levels (so far I haven't gone over 12 lbs with it), and I'm not concerned with running out of room with compressor efficiency from this bad boy. I'm in the process of working out my water/alcohol injection so I can run more boost. I'm also planning a trip back to the dyno in January with some race gas and 14 lbs of boost to see what this combo can really do.
 
I hate to throw a wrench into your otherwise correct statements...but

and the boost pressure can be increased to provide the same number of O2 molecules as before with a turbo
The harder the turbo works, the more heat there is in the air charge, and the less o2 content there is.
Now then being a pilot and flying turbo charged planes for a living let me be the first to tell you this.

1. There is no difference in oxygen content at sea level vs. at 34,000 ft. The difference is and why you can't breate at that altitude has to do with air density. The oxygen content i.e. 02 is still the same regardless.

2. When you have a turbo charged airplane, (yes i'm still stuck at flying turbo props... *sigh*) we produce the same amount of horsepower at sea level vs. at altitude for a given RPM and we do this with the turbo charger. So I don't see how (unless its a design issue with car turbo's vs. plane turbo's) you would lose effiency at altitude for a given RPM...especially at only 6500ft...course we prolly use considerably larger turbos, but i'm not an AF&P I just know the systems.

3. I will agree that at a given altitude for a given RPM we can no longer maintain the power we need, no longer gain lift required to gain altitude etc. and that is due to the turbo's in ability to compress the incoming air. That though isn't due to less oxygen, it has to do with the air density.

Some things to think about though. We as pilots fly at a given RPM a given Manifold Pressure (HP) and receive a set boost rating from the turbos. All this for a specific altitude and desired TAS (true air speed). With cars I know that its very difficult to always drive at the same RPM and to control the amount of HP you have like we can with a planes engine...so there are some variables that you can't even consider there.

Anyways, I just wanted to clarify the whole o2 vs. air density vs. pressure vs. temp thing. Just remember if you want a more efficent turbo, you've got to increase air density, the easiest way for car's to do that is through cooling off the air that enters the turbo...i'm positive that you two already know this though.
 
that is due to the turbo's in ability to compress the incoming air. That though isn't due to less oxygen, it has to do with the air density.
I think what we were trying to say here is as the turbo has to work harder (spin faster) it will change efficiency from ideal to less than ideal. The change will add heat to the air charge. If the turbo is large enough, the change in altitude likely won't change it's efficiency range. It just depends on where you're at on the compressor map of the turbo as to whether it will change efficiency.

The difference in o2 we're refering to is that if the compressors' efficiency changes, there becomes more heat in the air charge. I'm sure you'll agree that 12 lbs of 100 degree air (after being compressed) will have more oxygen content than 12 lbs of 150 degree air. So, because of the increase in heat from the turbo spinning faster there will be less o2 content in a given air charge from one altitude to another.

As you said, there are too many factors when comparing a turbo airplane engine to a turbo car engine. For example, inlet air temperature. You're dealing with a lot cooler air temps at 32,000 ft than we are. I'm sure the air temp has a lot to do with o2 content. Even though the air is less dense at 32,000 ft, because of the cool temperature of the air, there may be the same o2 content as the air at 5,000 ft at 75 degrees. This is in theory of course, maybe you could expand on that.

While on the subject, what is the temperature of the air at 32,000 ft?
 
Squack-
Thanks for the notes- very interesting stuff, but I think you have it wrong still, not that I have any specific experience to lean on here. I'm pulling from a basic understanding of chemistry and physics. Let me explain...

There is no difference in oxygen content at sea level vs. at 34,000 ft. The difference is and why you can't breate at that altitude has to do with air density. The oxygen content i.e. 02 is still the same regardless.
The O2 conentration should be pretty much the same (% O2 : %N2 ...). Air density is a measure of the mass of gas molecules in some defined volume of air, like a cubic meter, at a given temp and pressure. The air pressure tends to compress the air molecules together. Heat mades the molecules move/vibrate apart and therefore take up more space.

Now power is a function of how much fuel you can burn. As you know, the ideal fuel air ratio is somewhere around 1 part gas to 14 parts air at sea level, because the number of molecules of oxygen pretty much matches up with the amount of fuel. as you get higher, the air density (mass/unit volume) drops, which by definition, means that the air contains less mass (fewer molecules/ oxygen) than it did at sea level. You therefore need to compress larger quantities of air to provide enough oxygen to support the oxidation of the same amount if fuel needed to support the desired power level. The relative concentration of the different gasses is the same at any pressure, but the actual number of molecules of each gas drops as the ambient pressure drops and/or as the temp increases. In physics, the relationship is defined by the Ideal gas law.


I will agree that at a given altitude for a given RPM we can no longer maintain the power we need, no longer gain lift required to gain altitude etc. and that is due to the turbo's in ability to compress the incoming air. That though isn't due to less oxygen, it has to do with the air density
You cannot maintain the rpm/power because the air density is lower AND because the lower density air contains fewer o2 molecules, which makes the mixture too rich, unless you can find more oxygen oxygen (through turbocharged compression) to maintain power.
 
Turbo

The O2 conentration should be pretty much the same (% O2 : %N2 ...). Air density is a measure of the mass of gas molecules in some defined volume of air, like a cubic meter, at a given temp and pressure. The air pressure tends to compress the air molecules together. Heat mades the molecules move/vibrate apart and therefore take up more space.
Absolutely correct, just be sure that you know that its all the molecules not just o2...and its not really more space, its they're less dense, therfore less pressure

Now power is a function of how much fuel you can burn. As you know, the ideal fuel air ratio is somewhere around 1 part gas to 14 parts air at sea level, because the number of molecules of oxygen pretty much matches up with the amount of fuel. as you get higher, the air density (mass/unit volume) drops, which by definition, means that the air contains less mass (fewer molecules/ oxygen) than it did at sea level. You therefore need to compress larger quantities of air to provide enough oxygen to support the oxidation of the same amount if fuel needed to support the desired power level. The relative concentration of the different gasses is the same at any pressure, but the actual number of molecules of each gas drops as the ambient pressure drops and/or as the temp increases. In physics, the relationship is defined by the Ideal gas law.
That paragraph is 100% absolutely correct, and i love the way you said "You therefore need to compress larger quantities of air to provide enough oxygen to support the oxidation of the same amount if fuel needed to support the desired power level. "

You cannot maintain the rpm/power because the air density is lower AND because the lower density air contains fewer o2 molecules, which makes the mixture too rich, unless you can find more oxygen oxygen (through turbocharged compression) to maintain power.
Here ya lost it...You are correct up to a point, there is still the same amount of o2 per cubic meter that there is of any other gas in our atmosphere, at any given temperature, at any given density, and at any given pressure (read the ideal gas law you just mentioned). There is still the EXACT same percentages of o2 to nitrogen, argon, helium, xeon ect. I could give you the exact percentages, but there is no point to it. All i'm trying to say is stop thinking that oxygen becomes more concentrated as it goes through its different states of high and low pressure/density/temperature. And realize that regardless of what state that the air parcel is in its content are still the same.

If you take a piece of sky, we typically refer to them as slugs, you can refer to them however you want meters, feet, miles what ever. You take that and compress it, heat it, throw it up to the upper atmosphere and it will always, always, always, contain the exact same percentage of oxygen to the other gasses in the atmosphere. That is pure physics, it has nothing to do with fewer o2 molecules per, slug, because it is absolutely constant. You cannot separate them (well you can, but that is an absolutely entirely different process then compressing it). Wait till I get home and i'll send you some links and other information to help you out. I guess what i'm trying to say is that heat acts on the parcles of the air, as does the pressure, etc. not just o2 per give measurement.

Don't worry if you don't believe me because i've got students who i teach who have a hard time believing it too, and I had a bitch of a time believing it myself when I was first told...but it is none the less true. (if you think thats bad wait till I tell you that centricifal force doesn't exist...and I try to explain that one to ya...lol...and yeah i know about Newton..so don't try to use physics on that one either).


While on the subject, what is the temperature of the air at 32,000 ft?
Temperature goes from a standard lapse rate at 1,000MSL (it is for all basic scientific principles standard from sea level to 1,000 MSL) of 2 degrees C then at varying stages of the atmosphere it cools more rapidly and heats up and cools etc. For an exact i'd have to get a Winds Aloft Forecast and it'll tell you how cold it is for which city etc.
 
Isn't a turbo prop a jet engine with a propeller attached to it and not a piston engine with a "turbocharger"? Regardless, the same principles apply to either one(they both compress air)

I'm a commercial pilot and am stuck flying single engine pistons. I'd give my left nut to fly a king air or equivalent.

Temps that high are typically -50C as illustrated below.

A typical winds aloft forecast for cincinnati (CVG) Temps are the last two digits.
FT 3000 6000 9000 12000 18000 24000

CVG 3423 3318-15 3329-19 3333-23 3341-34 3348-43
30000
3478-46

FT 34000 39000
3470-47 3357-49
 
A King Air is a turbojet with a prop attached yes; however, you also have planes such as mooney's, lanceairs etc. that are piston singles and even some piston twins that have turbo's on them.

You know, now that I think about it...I wonder what size turbo they use...and I wonder if you could put a turbo from a plane on a car...hell i've known people to put their alternator from their chevy 350 on their cessna before...(same part size/rating etc. different pn...and no it won't pass an annual inspection).

As for your average lapse rate or temp. Its 2 degrees C for every 1000 ft. above 1,000MSL.
 
Everyone seems to be on the same path from what I can see.

Anyways, here's 5 cents of info, somebody correct me if I'm wrong.

I just think it's important to differentiate between the number of oxygen molecules at altitude and the percentages of oxygen at altitude.

Say you have a volume of air at sea level and a volume at altitude. The percentage of oxygen vs. all other gases are pretty much constant in each volume. However their densities will be much different, hence more oxygen (# of molecules, not percentage) are available for combustion.

I believe I was involved in a discussion with 19COBRA93 about this before, and I think I may have been in the wrong on my thinking about this subject. Hell, I could still be wrong.

Anyways,

Greg
 
Squawk7700 said:
I hate to throw a wrench into your otherwise correct statements...but





Now then being a pilot and flying turbo charged planes for a living let me be the first to tell you this.

1. There is no difference in oxygen content at sea level vs. at 34,000 ft. The difference is and why you can't breate at that altitude has to do with air density. The oxygen content i.e. 02 is still the same regardless.

2. When you have a turbo charged airplane, (yes i'm still stuck at flying turbo props... *sigh*) we produce the same amount of horsepower at sea level vs. at altitude for a given RPM and we do this with the turbo charger. So I don't see how (unless its a design issue with car turbo's vs. plane turbo's) you would lose effiency at altitude for a given RPM...especially at only 6500ft...course we prolly use considerably larger turbos, but i'm not an AF&P I just know the systems.

3. I will agree that at a given altitude for a given RPM we can no longer maintain the power we need, no longer gain lift required to gain altitude etc. and that is due to the turbo's in ability to compress the incoming air. That though isn't due to less oxygen, it has to do with the air density.

Some things to think about though. We as pilots fly at a given RPM a given Manifold Pressure (HP) and receive a set boost rating from the turbos. All this for a specific altitude and desired TAS (true air speed). With cars I know that its very difficult to always drive at the same RPM and to control the amount of HP you have like we can with a planes engine...so there are some variables that you can't even consider there.

Anyways, I just wanted to clarify the whole o2 vs. air density vs. pressure vs. temp thing. Just remember if you want a more efficent turbo, you've got to increase air density, the easiest way for car's to do that is through cooling off the air that enters the turbo...i'm positive that you two already know this though.
HEY FELLAS....GOT DILITHIUM CRYSTALS ??:evil: :evil:
 
19COBRA93 said:
Hey Trekkie, I think Spok is calling you. These aren't the Star Trek forums.
NO BUT YOU GUYS SURE SOUND LIKE KLINGONS.........IM A SUPERCHARGER GUY....i had a little s-trim vortech that made 586.5 rearwheel hp & 546.9 torque....i m getting ready to build another stang.......why should i get a turbo & pay more $$$ besides the usual intercooled boost....less stress on the crankshaft argument.......give me the pros & cons please....:D
 
more power under the curve
more RWHP at the same boost level
no belt slip/throwing belts
full boost at much lower RPM's then any centrifigul blower
not really much more money:

Vortech S-trim: around $3000?, comes with blower, backets, FMU, BTM? (no aftercooler for that price) Add an aftercooler to this to be fair $$$?
HP Performance stage 1 turbo kit: $4200, but comes with 42 lb injectors, 255 fuel pump, C&L MAF, SN-95 electric fan, intercooler, etc.

I'm not bashing Vortech, I know alot of people made great power and times with them. I'm just pointing out what I found out while comparing the Vortech to the HP Performance kit. I will be ordering an HP Performance kit this spring.
 
zelone said:
more power under the curve
more RWHP at the same boost level
no belt slip/throwing belts
full boost at much lower RPM's then any centrifigul blower
not really much more money:

Vortech S-trim: around $3000?, comes with blower, backets, FMU, BTM? (no aftercooler for that price) Add an aftercooler to this to be fair $$$?
HP Performance stage 1 turbo kit: $4200, but comes with 42 lb injectors, 255 fuel pump, C&L MAF, SN-95 electric fan, intercooler, etc.

I'm not bashing Vortech, I know alot of people made great power and times with them. I'm just pointing out what I found out while comparing the Vortech to the HP Performance kit. I will be ordering an HP Performance kit this spring.
Having owned two different superchargers, and now a turbo for two years and almost 60,000 miles (of turbo).....

I will back up everything he said. Superchargers are great bolt on power for the $$, but.... See list above, and I'll add that turbos are more reliable and durable than a typical supercharger (which is why I switched).

There are plenty of places (including this site) to look for info on the pros and cons. You basically have to weigh all the differences and decide which works best for you and your needs (and abilities).
 
as far as the whole o2 density/quantity/ratio/% conversation previously posted- i think the point was that yeah, the % of o2 was the same , but due to the altitude, the voulume is different.

ie: fill a balloon at 6000 ft (say 1 cubic foot of air) and take it to sea level and re-measure it. it is smaller due to the pressure. the %o2 and nitrogen etc are the same, but the volume is less, condensing the molecules together. thus a 1 cubic foot balloon filled at sea level would contain more of every molecule (at the same %'s) including oxygen. thus making more power per volume of air.

correct?

how about this:
the turbo doesnt really care how dense the air is, it cares about air pressure. meaning 10 cubic feet of helium compressed into my intake equals say....10 psi. 10 cubic feet of argon (heavier molecule) compressed into the same intake still equals 10psi- if we are are at the same altitude--- correct?

trying to learn as well...

by the way- i like turbos:
Incon twin turbo 800 kit with .63 a/r turbines GTBB35 turbos

Stock shortblock, F303, Edelbrock performer rpm heads (1.90/1.60) stock cobra intake, 75mm tb, incons mass air meter cal for 50 lb injectors by pro-m, stock fuel rails, kirban set at 43 psi vac plugged, 50 lb msd injectors, 3.55 gears, msd ignition, 10 degrees initial all in a 1990 mustang with anderson PMS.

475.7 hp and 515.7 ft lb torque with 9 psi of boost to the rear wheels.
 
Drlee50 said:
as far as the whole o2 density/quantity/ratio/% conversation previously posted- i think the point was that yeah, the % of o2 was the same , but due to the altitude, the voulume is different.

ie: fill a balloon at 6000 ft (say 1 cubic foot of air) and take it to sea level and re-measure it. it is smaller due to the pressure. the %o2 and nitrogen etc are the same, but the volume is less, condensing the molecules together. thus a 1 cubic foot balloon filled at sea level would contain more of every molecule (at the same %'s) including oxygen. thus making more power per volume of air.

correct?

how about this:
the turbo doesnt really care how dense the air is, it cares about air pressure. meaning 10 cubic feet of helium compressed into my intake equals say....10 psi. 10 cubic feet of argon (heavier molecule) compressed into the same intake still equals 10psi- if we are are at the same altitude--- correct?

trying to learn as well...

by the way- i like turbos:
Incon twin turbo 800 kit with .63 a/r turbines GTBB35 turbos

Stock shortblock, F303, Edelbrock performer rpm heads (1.90/1.60) stock cobra intake, 75mm tb, incons mass air meter cal for 50 lb injectors by pro-m, stock fuel rails, kirban set at 43 psi vac plugged, 50 lb msd injectors, 3.55 gears, msd ignition, 10 degrees initial all in a 1990 mustang with anderson PMS.

475.7 hp and 515.7 ft lb torque with 9 psi of boost to the rear wheels.
I think you have settled this. Sounds right to me.

Oh, and:

475.7 hp and 515.7 ft lb torque with 9 psi of boost to the rear wheels.
I think we should race...
 
21 - 40 of 197 Posts