@@fascistpedant758 the +1 needs to be added to the division sum before the multiplication occurs. I'm sure there are 10 ways to write it, but in my example it's needed. I didn't need the "X" either, but included it for clarity.
Please make a video about engine tuning for turbo stuff! Holley EFI is pretty simple to understand for beginners but the timing, fueling and other info would be very helpful! 🙌
Richard, you asked if I'd use your formula? I've been using it now for over 30 years ... been working as a great rule of thumb for longer than that, I'm sure. It's good to hear someone bring it out there in the open from a guy who's done a lot of testing. It just makes sense.
A good friend of mine once said "For every 14.7 lbs of boost, you double the engines cubic inch value." Same difference, it appears. If a 5.3 NA engine makes 425hp, then a 10.6L NA engine should make 850hp...all things equal. It's an air pump, right? Air in, air out.
Love the video’s! Everyone is turbo crazy! I wish you would do some more vids on LS motors with different types and budgets of kits for spray.keep up the great work, can’t make everyone happy 👍💯
Love every video man you are definitely a mad scientist. But when you refer to a video and say it is here and point☝️ to a link it is never there. I’ve noticed this at least twice. Again love your videos they are getting better all the time. I’m in the middle of LS swapping a 98 s10 LQ4/GT45/4l80 and your channel has been a great source of information, inspiration and caused much contemplation. Lol. Keep it up these videos are like crack for gear heads.
I just installed a vortech Si supercharger this week. My first foray into boost. I have a ~40X hp 350 sbc. I haven't had time to do a full rpm sweep yet but I'm expecting 7-9psi at 6000rpms.
Could you do something with cheap vs high end $ turbo of similar hp rating. To see the difference in boost response in real world conditions? Maybe std vs ball bearing turbos for example. Love the way your smashing these vids out, esp the quick data we see that would normally be a 30min episode on other channels. Keep it up 👍
Noticing how the turbos tend to not add as much at the lower rpms as they do on top I wonder how much of that is lag? Would be interesting to see if there is a power curve difference running the dyno sweep from the top down vs the bottom up. That way you would eliminate any bottom end lag effects.
@@richardholdener1727 Yes it is more stress on the motor I think dragging them down. They for sure will find the weak links!lol I agree since turbo lag effects driveability running from the bottom up gives a better indication of how the engine will perform in use. I was just curious what if any difference there might be in the torque output based on using the other method. I think for certified hp isn't the load supposed to be held at given rpms and not done as a sweep? I realize For tuning a given setup it is irrelevant but again just curious what kinds of differences you see in the power curves based on the different test methods.
I had same engine go from 1053 to 1374 with air to air intercooler but a piss poor fan on Dyno , one more pound boost a cam change from blower grind to turbo grind and Procharger to twin turbos so I attribute most of gain to not driving supercharger .
Thanks for years of hard work. Sharing years of information. BUT, One more step. Share the fuel maps. So I can build a the same exact engine. Married with Children. So I do NOT have the funds 💰, to spend $2,000 or $3,000 tuning. Thanks, we do appreciate the TRUTH about making horse power. Not trying to sell us, intake, heads, pistons, rods, crankshaft, race block. You running a junk yard dog making 600 hp, 700 hp, 800 hp. With a engine out of a pickup. Thanks
been using this for years. I'm interested to see what my 2650 on 8 PSI makes. One thing to consider on a roots style is the change in intake manifold. It can affect the formula a little. Octane also can become a problem as you go up in boost.
My plan was to cover that, but I used a Vortech instead with the stock intake-I have a cool comparison coming up with all the forms of forced induction
@@richardholdener1727 I don't know what book you guys are talking about but I had the blue cover Auto Math Handbook back in 95'. Anyone remember Quarter Jr ?
@@richardholdener1727 With all the EFI technology, boost cut, electronic Mac boost solenoids, Do you think the “Big Bang 351W” would of survived your testings back in the day?
I think tho, something you must consider is if you are running an intake and air filter on the inlet of the turbo (hey Richard, that would be a nice test!). And if you have open exhaust off the turbo or an exhaust system on the vehicle. What about fuel? Isn’t e85 going to make more power at the same boost if you are running more timing? All of these are left out factors....
@Richard we often struggle with to restrictive turbine housing for some factory position turbo - Please test what is better maxing boost on small turbine housing or lower boost but more timing !
Everyone is saying the same. It's just pressure ratio x known power = new power. I am; however, curious what Richard is referring to about us engineers saying that this formula doesn't work? Are you suggesting that we would say that pressure itself is irrelevant but it's really air density that matters? Even though pressure is the bulk of the change in density.
Using absolute pressures and local atmospheric pressure would useful at higher elevations. e.g. At Denver the atmospheric =~12 psi. @ 15 psi boost, the absolute charge pressure = (15+12=27 psi). 27/12=2.25, 2.25 x 300 hp = 675 hp. To compensate for charge air temperature, divide NA absolute temperature by boost temperature. e.g. @ 70 F ambient, absolute T = 529.7 Rankine, @ 150 F charge T, absolute charge T = 609.7 R. 529.7/609.7 = 0.869. 0.869 x 675 hp = 586.6 hp. Note that dynamometer readings are rarely the power actually produced, but corrected to what the engine would produce at Standard Temperature and Pressure.
Now can you imagine us falling asleep in maths if the teacher was Richard! We would have our little desks all around in the dyno cell and our eyes would have been as big as dinner plates!.. lol 😆
Learn more on here than any were else on UA-cam or the internet ..he'll I'm just shootin for 500whp in my 94 ss s-10..a engine. 2000 4.8.. turbo 350.. 150 thousand miles tbss intake.throttle body. and ebay gt-45.factory ecu. Do I need valve springs at 500whp? .any suggestion or advice
@@richardholdener1727 hey love the videos and stock cam probably only gonna run it to around 6200. 6500rpm on 93 with some octane boost that's what I was turnin n/a it's a street truck Mabey few track runs ..think stock springs will hold up at that rpm they have been but I plan on runnin about 10 pounds 475 500whp in that range. .that's really my only question the springs and eat size injectors u think ? I'm on a tight budget learning as I go I was going to decap the stock injectors
I would like to see a video measuring egt of a turbo engine with and with out water methanol. Also if you use water methanol do you need as much ring gap?
One thing would be interesting is when people talk cfm/hp head flow, what cfm really equals to dyno power, does increase of 50hp in flow = 50hp on dyno.
So the weird thing about my supra. it makes 232hp (crank) stock from 7psi boost (8.4:1 comp). But it is a known thing that around 20-24psi boost makes 500whp. now the formula you have when you reverse calculate the NA hp I get 163 hp and then go forward with 22psi and I get 400crank hp. The only thing I can think of is they might be making way more then 232 crank once you put an intake and exhaust and intercooler on it. If I could do a engine pull with the restrictive intake and exhaust off I think it should make 260-280HP so it should make 600 Crank or near 500 whp.
@@Turbogto_guy No way I'm going to check out your videos. Im going to the drag strip with the turbo lsx gto for the fist time this year 2020 lol hopfully the stock rear end holds up
JUNKYARD GOAT well there’s people in the 1.5-1.6 60ft on stock rear with an auto. Standard is brutal on the stock diff. On 8-11psi (I have boost by gear) I went 11.10@128 with a very soft 1.9 60ft launch. I had timing dialed way back because it was the stock motor. Now I have a built 5.3 that Will take way more boost. And I put a bigger stall. And a launch control (2step) got ordered this morning.
Hello Richard, Fantastic series of Videos. I am going through all of them in the last few days, enjoying them but mostly looking for those tidbits of new knowledge. I am a very passionate Turbo guy every since 1977, when I first saw a Porsche Turbo 935 on the race track. I started researching every possible piece of information on the subject I could and then in 1979 I built all the components to put a single big turbo from a cat diesel motor onto my 400 firebird. I drove it through the 1980's, blowing it up multiple times due to preignition but learned lots. Nobody was doing at the time and I had the fastest car around when it wasn't broken. I took the car off the road in the 1990s but kept it and then in about 2005 I started rebuilding it again but this time building it strong enough to handle 1000 Hp.(entire drivetrain and suspension. If you or anyone want to see the car or story, I have it all documented on my Facebook Page "Johns 1975 Formula 400 Firebird" but I want to ask you several questions. 1: I have read (several times) each book I could find on turbocharging and from the theory the turbocharged motor should produce double the HP of an NA engine (at same altitude) minus 4% to account for additional backpressure on the exhaust. (Unless you can achieve a situation of higher pressure on the boost side vs. the exhaust side. Which you have shown on several Videos.) The question is, when you Dyno the engine for NA power, do you measure with the turbines still restricting the exhaust and just dump the boost or do you measure with headers or open exhaust manifolds? 2: Can you do a video on timing reduction under boost? This is the one subject I can't find a lot of information on. In the 80's I used a 8 degree boost retard on my HEI resulting in a 26 degree advance under boost but now I have a Fast Fuel injection system with the CD ignition and duel trigger Mallery distributor, so I can set the ignition where I like. I will put the car on a dyno as soon as I can to determine those numbers but would like to know more from other builds? 3: I have been wondering why the back pressure should climb so high on a too small turbo if you release that pressure when the wastegate opens. Can this be that the waste gate is too small or incorrectly positioned?. Thank you for doing these videos, I am looking forward to watching the rest of them. You might find a few other questions by me on other your other videos. By the way during the time I wasn't working on the firebird I had a couple of Eagle Talons that I also turned up the boost. (and changed exhaust systems and bigger turbos and intercoolers etc..) I also drove a Turbo Yamaha Motorcycle in the 80s as well. so basically 40+ years of turbo passion.
If you a weak smoged, lets say csb 350. Is ut possible to get more then a 100% gain at 14,7psi boost? If the cylinder filling is real bad on the original motor. Love your channel Richard
How does that change with tubing sizing and turbo sizing. If you make 10 lbs of boost on a 3" intake tube wont be the same if you switch to a 3.5" tube.
Would the parasitic loss of the SC (verses the turbo) be offset by the NA increase in horsepower (the base number used in this formula) due to being able to run long tube headers and not a restrictive cast iron manifold? If you had the exact same engine and put cast iron manifolds on it and ran a base dyno pull and used that as the base HP number for the test of the turbo, and then put long tube headers on the same engine and ran it on the dyno and used that number (should be higher) as the base HP number for the SC, would the parasitic HP loss be less than the loss of having to run cast iron manifolds?
Richard, a question relating to super charger losses. This lill guy only cost 19hp so its not incredibly significant but as you mention something like a roots charger can cost at lot more in losses. For convo sake lets say and engine is making 700hp with a super charger at the crank but is costing 100hp to run the super charger is it stressing the internal engine parts like the engine is making 800hp at the crank?
Hi Richard, first.. I wanna say I've learned a lot from watching you're videos, they are very good for understanding how certain systems work, I wanna ask, what about turbo CFM, is it also a factor for making power?, or it is just the turbo pressure?
I forget, did you do a timing difference video? I say, take a motor, run it NA at three different timing levels. Then compare that to running a motor at 14.7 psi and the same three timing levels.
I have a Toyota 3UZ V8 engine with two small but adequate turbos. NA it made 130KW on an wheel dyno. By adding 9psi of boost with a big intercooler power jumped to 319kw on the same dyno with only 12 deg of timing to be safe. The only thing that was done to the engine was lowering the compression with a thicker head gasket. My tuner says that it is normal to double the power on one of these engines in stock form with only 7psi. Why do you think is the gain so much? Do you have any experience with these?
A typical NA combo with 1-3/4" long-tube headers will frequently get swapped to truck manifolds when adding the turbo in your videos. How do you account for the 20-30HP difference that the long tubes made in the NA combo that are now lost due to the manifolds? Does it even matter?
Richard Holdener OK, but most of your other vids change from NA headers to manifolds w/ turbo. Would you just estimate the HP loss from removing the headers before applying your formula?
I'm no engineer, but you need to watch gale banks videos on MAD. Manifold air density. I want on of his idash data monsters bad. He explains why MAD is better than boost, and the idash makes it readable.
Not only is Holdener familiar with all of this(he even referenced it a couple videos ago when he was talking about boost), but you're missing the point. Banks didn't miraculously make the measure of manifold air pressure(boost) - he just developed an alternative that offers the specific information that people are typically referencing boost numbers for. That doesn't mean that boost PSI doesn't tell us anything, or is inaccurate; it means that, IF you understand what it is actually describing within your engine(which would be the relationship between air pressure and air restriction within your specific combination - boost is a measure of RESTRICTION after all, and the more downstream flow, the lower the restriction. If that isn't an informative data point, I don't know what is), you can reference it with real accuracy for the information that it offers. No, obviously "how many pounds of boost are you runnin, brah?" doesn't actually tell us ANYTHING about an engine if you aren't already familiar with similar combinations(if you're familiar with typical boost numbers run on stock LS engines, then you can certainly reference boost as a reliable data point for other stock LS engines), that's what Gale's point is, and that's the point behind 'MAD', it offers information relevant to what that question is really asking(basically "how much air are you moving through it?"). However, the fact remains that everything Holdener explained in here is completely accurate - it doesn't matter what engine it is, what combination, if you double the air pressure going into the engine, you're going to double the power output. This is accurate because it is an informed understanding of the information that boost brings to the table. Pay attention to exactly what Rich is explaining, his word choices, etc., and compare it to what Banks has said about boost, and you'll see how they aren't antithetical/hypocritical. Boost isn't a "bad" measurement, it's just a DIFFERENT measurement - but, it only has value to those who understand what exactly it is telling you about your engine, and it's as useless as anything else if you don't understand what it's expressing. MAD isn't an all encompassing boost PSI replacement, rather it's designed for what people have commonly tried to (mis)use boost pressure for. I wish I could explain it better, I'm sure this devolved into a word salad lol, but anything like this that has to do with engine dynamics gets REAL complex REAL quick, it's a lot to wrap one's head around
i tried your formula, if you times by 14.6 and divide by 14,7, then you are going to end up with a smaller number then the na hp. how you come up with that number has got me
turbo hp = (boost pressure/14.7 (+ 1)) x na hp..example (10 psi/14.7 =.68 + 1=1.68) multiply 1.68 times the na power output (example 400 hp ls) to get the boost output at 10 psi (a 400-hp na motor should make near 672 hp at 10 psi).
@@richardholdener1727 thankyou for the quick reply, I get it now, thankyou mate. the amount of effort you put into making these videos you make is huge. I am now fully subscibed. sorry for the late reply been a bit busy.
Ok but don't turbochargers with different sizes flow different amounts of air (CFM) at the same boost level. Say we have a car making 300hp @14.7 psi on a gt28, won't the same car make 350-400hp on a gt35 @ 14.7 psi ? Isn't flow (CFM) of the turbo more important (that's why we have turbo maps) than the boost ? So if the cars make 2x the power with the gt28 than it's possible to make 2.5x the power with the gt35, or I'm I getting something wrong ?
@@riceracingdonmega Thanks for the reply. As I understand it, specific power is based on the whole of the setup. In the case of the other video, the SP raised because of the decline in back pressure (less restriction from the twins), so even though the boost pressure was the same, the setup with the twins had more fresh and cooler air in the cylinders dew to the lower back pressure, so the SP go higher. I agree that the videos are more focused on the majority of viewers, which is nice since he has a lot of experience and know-how on the subject.
So my gen4 alu 5.3 with ls9 cam should make 400hp N/A with accessories and I'm running 14 psi of boost with a S475 so about 800hp . Should make about 650whp and feels like it does.
I'm planning on putting a turbo on my 2016 Silverado 5.3 stock engine stock gear no cam no heads no nothing just full bolt ons with the on3 78/75 turbo , any issues ?
@@talalalmufti9858 Should work no problem . The only problem is the direct injection, you are limited by your fuel system on how much power you can make.
Richard Holdener ok so mainly its the other way around that it will make different power gains. Say 66mm turbo on a 5.3 compared to a s475. @14.7psi that 66 might have so much back pressure it can’t make the power it should.
@@richardholdener1727 i also forgot its illegal in cali my friend just showed me his new project runing a roots blower with twin turbos breaking his tuners dyno insane!
Do you have any videos that show the real world difference from putting a bigger turbo in? Like if you run a 76mm vs a 78mm at 10 lbs of boost with a standard air to air intercooler would it make any more power because of the potential for lower intake temperatures ? since most of us are not running a water to air and our intake temperatures change dramatically
But what about turbo size. Like I’m running 18 pounds of boost on a Volkswagen 1.8 turbo with a k03 turbo and making roughly 210 hp/250 ft lbs. although a friend had a 1.8t with a 58 trim turbo and larger inter cooler piping and running similar boost pressure and making close to 400 hp. I suppose the supporting Mods are a factor. Considering boost pressure is a measure of restriction not power. n extremely efficient motor is going to make more power with less boost pressure.
So is it even worth it to go with a centrifugal super charger instead of a turbo? I'd appreciate a reply from anyone that knows. It's my daily driver 4th gen camaro
Back in early 80s while an 8th grader sitting at the kitchen table with my Dad he said. "If you want to make power go TURBO"! "Double the atmospheric pressure and I'll effectively double the engine size and DOUBLE the power minus a few %"..... using some technical jargon. Did the kid listen? Like most, Nope. In the 90s after earning a few $$ I bought a Procharger. 🤪 Now I'm stuck with the name, crapster.
People making more power boosted than the formula (if they're honest) indicates extreme amounts of charge cooling, like dry ice and alcohol in the air to water instead of room temperature or even ice water.
Here is the only problem with this formula it's for dyno engines only not actual engines in ur car. We (junkyard guys) ain't going to dyno test no junkyard engine lol especially with turbos when u have to build the turbo kit in the car around everything else. Just saying that's my honest opinion. I watch ur videos to find out one thing what makes the most power. What makes my engine run to the fullest potential. If I can copy ur build it would make it easier also so maybe u can do a build series like other UA-camrs. Just an idea
@@richardholdener1727I have a 5.3/4.8l not sure yet but it's going to be a street engine my goal is to make over 700hp on spray without spraying it maybe 500hp. I have a 6.0L that is getting a forge internals and a turbo I need it to make as much as possible trying to race with that engine. The 4.8/5.3 not really an issue. The 6.0L is where I need help what cam? What fuel? What heads? What torque converter? What transmission? What rear gear?
its a baseline to reference, not an ohms law by any-means, its a simple theory not a formula, your supposed to fill in the blanks.. instead your sitting on your ass trying to discredit someone on the internet. Nobody trusts a guy named Pat, this bs just added to your already cursed name Pat.
@@richardholdener1727 I´ve been tuning a lot of turboengines myself so i´m well aware of that, but are every other aware of that? Maybe they need some more info to understand this is just a loose formula that measures power very sloppy.
@@Patricks_Projects it's not incomplete if you're assuming all other parameters to be equal. If the IAT is the same between n/a and boosted the base air density won't be a factor in the equation. We're not making a comparison to a constant.
Richard really means:
Boosted HP=N/A HP X ((Boosted psi / 14.7) + 1)
Noticed that as well ... good catch.
Thank you from all of us math nazis
@@Paulster2 thanks for the correction because i was loosing HP with the formula richard posted going from 115 to 59
You don't need the inner set of parentheses.
@@fascistpedant758 the +1 needs to be added to the division sum before the multiplication occurs. I'm sure there are 10 ways to write it, but in my example it's needed. I didn't need the "X" either, but included it for clarity.
Your videos keep getting better all the time. All this great information! Thank you for sharing
I second that. Surprised you don't have more subscribers keep at it
Richard, thank you for your videos. I learned more for past couple month from your videos than in 4 years talking to mechaniks.
I LOVE THIS GUY! GREAT FORMULA! IT WORKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Please make a video about engine tuning for turbo stuff! Holley EFI is pretty simple to understand for beginners but the timing, fueling and other info would be very helpful! 🙌
Great video as usual. Think we all can agree we want to see you work that bag.
That is a really cool way at looking at it. Not a way I have thought about it. Thanks for the 🤯
Did the math and it totally worked on my setup. Badass
Richard Holdener... Proof you CAN teach even us old dogs new tricks. YOU THE MAAAAN!
I really want to thank you! I think about things so differently after watching your great videos.
Richard holdener..
Best channel ever 👍🏻
Formula works well with my build. Thanks man
Uses it all the time and it works. One knows one has done well when the engine delivers more power at high boost than the power formula predicts. :)
Great news about the four leaf clover, brings good luck for the boost!!
I left that in as an out take-good stuff with family
Great little cherry on top of a good video 👍👍
Richard, you asked if I'd use your formula? I've been using it now for over 30 years ... been working as a great rule of thumb for longer than that, I'm sure. It's good to hear someone bring it out there in the open from a guy who's done a lot of testing. It just makes sense.
The return of the tree fort 👍
A good friend of mine once said "For every 14.7 lbs of boost, you double the engines cubic inch value." Same difference, it appears. If a 5.3 NA engine makes 425hp, then a 10.6L NA engine should make 850hp...all things equal. It's an air pump, right? Air in, air out.
much harder to feed a 10.6L NA motor-it doesn't double the displacement-it doubles the hp output
@@richardholdener1727 Agreed. What my friend said was that you "effectively" double the cubic inches. You're squeezing in 2x atmospheric pressure.
Love the video’s! Everyone is turbo crazy! I wish you would do some more vids on LS motors with different types and budgets of kits for spray.keep up the great work, can’t make everyone happy 👍💯
Love every video man you are definitely a mad scientist. But when you refer to a video and say it is here and point☝️ to a link it is never there. I’ve noticed this at least twice. Again love your videos they are getting better all the time. I’m in the middle of LS swapping a 98 s10 LQ4/GT45/4l80 and your channel has been a great source of information, inspiration and caused much contemplation. Lol. Keep it up these videos are like crack for gear heads.
I thought I out the card up at the right spot-I'll check
This is epic, Richard.
Wow. I was on the phone with a friend last night explaining it exactly the same. I even used the 400 and 450hp examples.
I mean it honestly makes sense. It's a good reference check.
I just installed a vortech Si supercharger this week. My first foray into boost. I have a ~40X hp 350 sbc. I haven't had time to do a full rpm sweep yet but I'm expecting 7-9psi at 6000rpms.
Great as always Richard
Good job Richard!!!!
Considering the higher inlet temps and lack of timming is say its a pretty good formula.
Great formula
Could you do something with cheap vs high end $ turbo of similar hp rating. To see the difference in boost response in real world conditions? Maybe std vs ball bearing turbos for example.
Love the way your smashing these vids out, esp the quick data we see that would normally be a 30min episode on other channels. Keep it up 👍
Noticing how the turbos tend to not add as much at the lower rpms as they do on top I wonder how much of that is lag? Would be interesting to see if there is a power curve difference running the dyno sweep from the top down vs the bottom up. That way you would eliminate any bottom end lag effects.
we don't run the sweep in revers and people want to see turbo response
@@richardholdener1727 Yes it is more stress on the motor I think dragging them down. They for sure will find the weak links!lol I agree since turbo lag effects driveability running from the bottom up gives a better indication of how the engine will perform in use. I was just curious what if any difference there might be in the torque output based on using the other method. I think for certified hp isn't the load supposed to be held at given rpms and not done as a sweep? I realize For tuning a given setup it is irrelevant but again just curious what kinds of differences you see in the power curves based on the different test methods.
I had same engine go from 1053 to 1374 with air to air intercooler but a piss poor fan on Dyno , one more pound boost a cam change from blower grind to turbo grind and Procharger to twin turbos so I attribute most of gain to not driving supercharger .
Thanks for years of hard work.
Sharing years of information.
BUT, One more step.
Share the fuel maps.
So I can build a the same exact engine.
Married with Children. So I do NOT have the funds 💰, to spend $2,000 or $3,000 tuning.
Thanks, we do appreciate the TRUTH about making horse power.
Not trying to sell us, intake, heads, pistons, rods, crankshaft, race block.
You running a junk yard dog making 600 hp, 700 hp, 800 hp.
With a engine out of a pickup.
Thanks
been using this for years. I'm interested to see what my 2650 on 8 PSI makes. One thing to consider on a roots style is the change in intake manifold. It can affect the formula a little. Octane also can become a problem as you go up in boost.
My plan was to cover that, but I used a Vortech instead with the stock intake-I have a cool comparison coming up with all the forms of forced induction
Have been using the formula for almost 15 years. But as I use metric, that makes the formula easier 😀
Bar or kpa.
I started applying it back in 1980-90 after doing my first story for Kipp Kington at Turbo magazine-its been around long before that
I’ve been using that formula since 9th grade and MMFF was the Bible of HP.
OG up in the house
@@richardholdener1727 I don't know what book you guys are talking about but I had the blue cover Auto Math Handbook back in 95'. Anyone remember Quarter Jr ?
@@fntony4967 MMFF: Muscle Mustangs & Fast Fords
@@richardholdener1727 With all the EFI technology, boost cut, electronic Mac boost solenoids, Do you think the “Big Bang 351W” would of survived your testings back in the day?
DaOnE51T ooooooooh
I love your videos..sharing your knowledge
I think tho, something you must consider is if you are running an intake and air filter on the inlet of the turbo (hey Richard, that would be a nice test!). And if you have open exhaust off the turbo or an exhaust system on the vehicle. What about fuel? Isn’t e85 going to make more power at the same boost if you are running more timing? All of these are left out factors....
nothing is left out
@Richard we often struggle with to restrictive turbine housing for some factory position turbo - Please test what is better maxing boost on small turbine housing or lower boost but more timing !
Good to know !
Richard Holdener making math fun again with horsepower and boost.
Well damn, I wouldn't have spoiled this video with my previous comment about this if I knew this was coming! Lol
Everyone is saying the same. It's just pressure ratio x known power = new power.
I am; however, curious what Richard is referring to about us engineers saying that this formula doesn't work?
Are you suggesting that we would say that pressure itself is irrelevant but it's really air density that matters? Even though pressure is the bulk of the change in density.
Using absolute pressures and local atmospheric pressure would useful at higher elevations. e.g. At Denver the atmospheric =~12 psi. @ 15 psi boost, the absolute charge pressure = (15+12=27 psi). 27/12=2.25, 2.25 x 300 hp = 675 hp. To compensate for charge air temperature, divide NA absolute temperature by boost temperature. e.g. @ 70 F ambient, absolute T = 529.7 Rankine, @ 150 F charge T, absolute charge T = 609.7 R. 529.7/609.7 = 0.869. 0.869 x 675 hp = 586.6 hp. Note that dynamometer readings are rarely the power actually produced, but corrected to what the engine would produce at Standard Temperature and Pressure.
there is a flaw in the in the correction used by dynos as well-I'm thinking about doing a vid on dynos
Great explanation...would enjoy more explaintion and examples of roots blowers parasitic loss.es....asking for a friend....lol
Spend the money on a turbo. You'll make more power while being easier on your engine.
Now can you imagine us falling asleep in maths if the teacher was Richard! We would have our little desks all around in the dyno cell and our eyes would have been as big as dinner plates!.. lol 😆
Learn more on here than any were else on UA-cam or the internet ..he'll I'm just shootin for 500whp in my 94 ss s-10..a engine. 2000 4.8.. turbo 350.. 150 thousand miles tbss intake.throttle body. and ebay gt-45.factory ecu. Do I need valve springs at 500whp? .any suggestion or advice
probably not as long as rpm is kept down. If you swap cams-then yes
@@richardholdener1727 hey love the videos and stock cam probably only gonna run it to around 6200. 6500rpm on 93 with some octane boost that's what I was turnin n/a it's a street truck Mabey few track runs ..think stock springs will hold up at that rpm they have been but I plan on runnin about 10 pounds 475 500whp in that range. .that's really my only question the springs and eat size injectors u think ? I'm on a tight budget learning as I go I was going to decap the stock injectors
I would like to see a video measuring egt of a turbo engine with and with out water methanol. Also if you use water methanol do you need as much ring gap?
Great vid. Thanks brother
One thing would be interesting is when people talk cfm/hp head flow, what cfm really equals to dyno power, does increase of 50hp in flow = 50hp on dyno.
not usually
So the weird thing about my supra. it makes 232hp (crank) stock from 7psi boost (8.4:1 comp). But it is a known thing that around 20-24psi boost makes 500whp. now the formula you have when you reverse calculate the NA hp I get 163 hp and then go forward with 22psi and I get 400crank hp. The only thing I can think of is they might be making way more then 232 crank once you put an intake and exhaust and intercooler on it. If I could do a engine pull with the restrictive intake and exhaust off I think it should make 260-280HP so it should make 600 Crank or near 500 whp.
Great job
But how do you size a turbo for your engine build. Not to big or too small
just ask
I have a LSX on 10 psi on my innercooled GTO
JUNKYARD GOAT I have a 5.3 on 15psi in my gto. Heads, cam. Should be at least 450 flywheel before turbo. 900fwhp on 15lbs. 😳
@@Turbogto_guy
No way I'm going to check out your videos. Im going to the drag strip with the turbo lsx gto for the fist time this year 2020 lol hopfully the stock rear end holds up
JUNKYARD GOAT well there’s people in the 1.5-1.6 60ft on stock rear with an auto. Standard is brutal on the stock diff. On 8-11psi (I have boost by gear) I went 11.10@128 with a very soft 1.9 60ft launch. I had timing dialed way back because it was the stock motor. Now I have a built 5.3 that Will take way more boost. And I put a bigger stall. And a launch control (2step) got ordered this morning.
@@Turbogto_guy
im scared to use my 2 step with my turbo lol maybe after I get a couple passes in
JUNKYARD GOAT I subscribed to your channel. Hopefully you post a video on how it went at the track.
Hello Richard, Fantastic series of Videos. I am going through all of them in the last few days, enjoying them but mostly looking for those tidbits of new knowledge. I am a very passionate Turbo guy every since 1977, when I first saw a Porsche Turbo 935 on the race track. I started researching every possible piece of information on the subject I could and then in 1979 I built all the components to put a single big turbo from a cat diesel motor onto my 400 firebird. I drove it through the 1980's, blowing it up multiple times due to preignition but learned lots. Nobody was doing at the time and I had the fastest car around when it wasn't broken. I took the car off the road in the 1990s but kept it and then in about 2005 I started rebuilding it again but this time building it strong enough to handle 1000 Hp.(entire drivetrain and suspension. If you or anyone want to see the car or story, I have it all documented on my Facebook Page "Johns 1975 Formula 400 Firebird" but I want to ask you several questions.
1: I have read (several times) each book I could find on turbocharging and from the theory the turbocharged motor should produce double the HP of an NA engine (at same altitude) minus 4% to account for additional backpressure on the exhaust. (Unless you can achieve a situation of higher pressure on the boost side vs. the exhaust side. Which you have shown on several Videos.) The question is, when you Dyno the engine for NA power, do you measure with the turbines still restricting the exhaust and just dump the boost or do you measure with headers or open exhaust manifolds?
2: Can you do a video on timing reduction under boost? This is the one subject I can't find a lot of information on. In the 80's I used a 8 degree boost retard on my HEI resulting in a 26 degree advance under boost but now I have a Fast Fuel injection system with the CD ignition and duel trigger Mallery distributor, so I can set the ignition where I like. I will put the car on a dyno as soon as I can to determine those numbers but would like to know more from other builds?
3: I have been wondering why the back pressure should climb so high on a too small turbo if you release that pressure when the wastegate opens. Can this be that the waste gate is too small or incorrectly positioned?.
Thank you for doing these videos, I am looking forward to watching the rest of them. You might find a few other questions by me on other your other videos. By the way during the time I wasn't working on the firebird I had a couple of Eagle Talons that I also turned up the boost. (and changed exhaust systems and bigger turbos and intercoolers etc..) I also drove a Turbo Yamaha Motorcycle in the 80s as well. so basically 40+ years of turbo passion.
If you a weak smoged, lets say csb 350. Is ut possible to get more then a 100% gain at 14,7psi boost? If the cylinder filling is real bad on the original motor.
Love your channel Richard
it is possible to get more than 100% if the charge temp is very low-I have something coming up on that (I failed with the C02)
How does that change with tubing sizing and turbo sizing. If you make 10 lbs of boost on a 3" intake tube wont be the same if you switch to a 3.5" tube.
ok, guess I failed math class...if I do HPxboost divide14.7? +1 does not come out for me ?
Would the parasitic loss of the SC (verses the turbo) be offset by the NA increase in horsepower (the base number used in this formula) due to being able to run long tube headers and not a restrictive cast iron manifold? If you had the exact same engine and put cast iron manifolds on it and ran a base dyno pull and used that as the base HP number for the test of the turbo, and then put long tube headers on the same engine and ran it on the dyno and used that number (should be higher) as the base HP number for the SC, would the parasitic HP loss be less than the loss of having to run cast iron manifolds?
Richard, a question relating to super charger losses. This lill guy only cost 19hp so its not incredibly significant but as you mention something like a roots charger can cost at lot more in losses. For convo sake lets say and engine is making 700hp with a super charger at the crank but is costing 100hp to run the super charger is it stressing the internal engine parts like the engine is making 800hp at the crank?
Wouldn’t this be dependent on volume as well? 14.7 lbs on a 67mm isn’t going to make nearly as much as 14.7 lbs from a s484? Correct me if I’m wrong
if the smaller turbo wont support the power level, it won't make the boost
Hi Richard,
first.. I wanna say I've learned a lot from watching you're videos,
they are very good for understanding how certain systems work,
I wanna ask, what about turbo CFM,
is it also a factor for making power?,
or it is just the turbo pressure?
finally THANKYOU
I forget, did you do a timing difference video? I say, take a motor, run it NA at three different timing levels. Then compare that to running a motor at 14.7 psi and the same three timing levels.
I showed you the effect of timing on a turbo motor in the pump gas vs race gas tune video-check it out
I have a Toyota 3UZ V8 engine with two small but adequate turbos. NA it made 130KW on an wheel dyno. By adding 9psi of boost with a big intercooler power jumped to 319kw on the same dyno with only 12 deg of timing to be safe. The only thing that was done to the engine was lowering the compression with a thicker head gasket.
My tuner says that it is normal to double the power on one of these engines in stock form with only 7psi.
Why do you think is the gain so much?
Do you have any experience with these?
A typical NA combo with 1-3/4" long-tube headers will frequently get swapped to truck manifolds when adding the turbo in your videos. How do you account for the 20-30HP difference that the long tubes made in the NA combo that are now lost due to the manifolds? Does it even matter?
on the 6.0L we had tube turbo headers
Richard Holdener OK, but most of your other vids change from NA headers to manifolds w/ turbo. Would you just estimate the HP loss from removing the headers before applying your formula?
Well said
I'm no engineer, but you need to watch gale banks videos on MAD. Manifold air density. I want on of his idash data monsters bad. He explains why MAD is better than boost, and the idash makes it readable.
Not only is Holdener familiar with all of this(he even referenced it a couple videos ago when he was talking about boost), but you're missing the point. Banks didn't miraculously make the measure of manifold air pressure(boost) - he just developed an alternative that offers the specific information that people are typically referencing boost numbers for. That doesn't mean that boost PSI doesn't tell us anything, or is inaccurate; it means that, IF you understand what it is actually describing within your engine(which would be the relationship between air pressure and air restriction within your specific combination - boost is a measure of RESTRICTION after all, and the more downstream flow, the lower the restriction. If that isn't an informative data point, I don't know what is), you can reference it with real accuracy for the information that it offers.
No, obviously "how many pounds of boost are you runnin, brah?" doesn't actually tell us ANYTHING about an engine if you aren't already familiar with similar combinations(if you're familiar with typical boost numbers run on stock LS engines, then you can certainly reference boost as a reliable data point for other stock LS engines), that's what Gale's point is, and that's the point behind 'MAD', it offers information relevant to what that question is really asking(basically "how much air are you moving through it?").
However, the fact remains that everything Holdener explained in here is completely accurate - it doesn't matter what engine it is, what combination, if you double the air pressure going into the engine, you're going to double the power output. This is accurate because it is an informed understanding of the information that boost brings to the table.
Pay attention to exactly what Rich is explaining, his word choices, etc., and compare it to what Banks has said about boost, and you'll see how they aren't antithetical/hypocritical.
Boost isn't a "bad" measurement, it's just a DIFFERENT measurement - but, it only has value to those who understand what exactly it is telling you about your engine, and it's as useless as anything else if you don't understand what it's expressing.
MAD isn't an all encompassing boost PSI replacement, rather it's designed for what people have commonly tried to (mis)use boost pressure for.
I wish I could explain it better, I'm sure this devolved into a word salad lol, but anything like this that has to do with engine dynamics gets REAL complex REAL quick, it's a lot to wrap one's head around
Are you sure the formula should not be like this Hp= NA x (psi/14.7 +1)?
i tried your formula, if you times by 14.6 and divide by 14,7, then you are going to end up with a smaller number then the na hp. how you come up with that number has got me
turbo hp = (boost pressure/14.7 (+ 1)) x na hp..example (10 psi/14.7 =.68 + 1=1.68) multiply 1.68 times the na power output (example 400 hp ls) to get the boost output at 10 psi (a 400-hp na motor should make near 672 hp at 10 psi).
@@richardholdener1727 thankyou for the quick reply, I get it now, thankyou mate. the amount of effort you put into making these videos you make is huge. I am now fully subscibed. sorry for the late reply been a bit busy.
What about flow and compression ratio?
How can I apprentice with you sir. You are awesome.
My car has 1.0 bar turbo and 70 hp. 1495cc 4 pistons. Its diesel. İf i open the pressure to 1.4 bar, how much hp i have? How can i calculate?
DIESEL POWER IS CONTROLLED MORE BY FUEL SUPPLY THAN AIR
Have you ever made MORE power then what you expected with the Power Boost Formula ?
yes with ice water in the intercooler
Can you run higher compression on turbos.
yes
@@richardholdener1727
Thanks for your help thinking about running some of them twins eBay on a 540 do you think it would go or blow
How would it work for an already turbo engine? Or maybe a rotary? 🤔
where he got what tip from?
Have you done tests to see how much Hp let’s say a lsa roots blower takes to drive it with different pulley configurations?
I have something coming up
Ok but don't turbochargers with different sizes flow different amounts of air (CFM) at the same boost level. Say we have a car making 300hp @14.7 psi on a gt28, won't the same car make 350-400hp on a gt35 @ 14.7 psi ? Isn't flow (CFM) of the turbo more important (that's why we have turbo maps) than the boost ? So if the cars make 2x the power with the gt28 than it's possible to make 2.5x the power with the gt35, or I'm I getting something wrong ?
@@riceracingdonmega Thanks for the reply. As I understand it, specific power is based on the whole of the setup. In the case of the other video, the SP raised because of the decline in back pressure (less restriction from the twins), so even though the boost pressure was the same, the setup with the twins had more fresh and cooler air in the cylinders dew to the lower back pressure, so the SP go higher. I agree that the videos are more focused on the majority of viewers, which is nice since he has a lot of experience and know-how on the subject.
the smaller turbo won't support the boost level at the power peak
Do this formula assume that the before and after use the same cams?
the cam doesn't matter-only the na power output
Last man standing reference there at the end.
glad someone caught that
Gen 3 ly6? Im guessing lq motor with the 317s and rod hp level
the Gen 3 was not an LY6-only the Gen 4-the Gen 3 test motor was from 1999 lq4 WITH 250k MILES (THNX CHAD REYNOLDS)
So my gen4 alu 5.3 with ls9 cam should make 400hp N/A with accessories and I'm running 14 psi of boost with a S475 so about 800hp . Should make about 650whp and feels like it does.
I'm planning on putting a turbo on my 2016 Silverado 5.3 stock engine stock gear no cam no heads no nothing just full bolt ons with the on3 78/75 turbo , any issues ?
@@talalalmufti9858 Should work no problem . The only problem is the direct injection, you are limited by your fuel system on how much power you can make.
Richard, Does this math hold true no matter what turbo size ? S475 to say a pro mod 94 on the same engine?
as long as the turbo can supply the air-but extreme cases might cause problems
Richard Holdener ok so mainly its the other way around that it will make different power gains. Say 66mm turbo on a 5.3 compared to a s475. @14.7psi that 66 might have so much back pressure it can’t make the power it should.
where i live we use 101 av gas have you played with it at all
@Mr. 6 liter you dont run av gas in street cars
yes we have but like the auto fuel better
@@richardholdener1727 i also forgot its illegal in cali my friend just showed me his new project runing a roots blower with twin turbos breaking his tuners dyno insane!
@Mr. 6 liter i just dont like the milkshake oil from ethanol we have one gas station that sells race gas but its seasonal and av gas is cheaper
So the bbc twin turbo test was way off?
yes-very conservative on the tune
Do you have any videos that show the real world difference from putting a bigger turbo in? Like if you run a 76mm vs a 78mm at 10 lbs of boost with a standard air to air intercooler would it make any more power because of the potential for lower intake temperatures ? since most of us are not running a water to air and our intake temperatures change dramatically
if both turbos provide 10 psi, power is the same
Mo POWER!!!!!!
But what about turbo size. Like I’m running 18 pounds of boost on a Volkswagen 1.8 turbo with a k03 turbo and making roughly 210 hp/250 ft lbs. although a friend had a 1.8t with a 58 trim turbo and larger inter cooler piping and running similar boost pressure and making close to 400 hp. I suppose the supporting Mods are a factor. Considering boost pressure is a measure of restriction not power. n extremely efficient motor is going to make more power with less boost pressure.
as indicated in the video-if the starting na power is higher, then the turbo power will be higher
1482 on a gen 3 😳😎👑
So is it even worth it to go with a centrifugal super charger instead of a turbo? I'd appreciate a reply from anyone that knows. It's my daily driver 4th gen camaro
I have a comparison video coming
@@richardholdener1727 I'm almost scared haha. Best Engine guy on UA-cam by far, and proving "forum logic" wrong daily
Back in early 80s while an 8th grader sitting at the kitchen table with my Dad he said.
"If you want to make power go TURBO"!
"Double the atmospheric pressure and I'll effectively double the engine size and DOUBLE the power minus a few %"..... using some technical jargon.
Did the kid listen?
Like most, Nope.
In the 90s after earning a few $$ I bought a Procharger. 🤪
Now I'm stuck with the name, crapster.
So for as long as I can remember it's been.
50% increase add 8-9psi or 100% increase go with about 16-17psi.
fun math to know
People making more power boosted than the formula (if they're honest) indicates extreme amounts of charge cooling, like dry ice and alcohol in the air to water instead of room temperature or even ice water.
When you start realizing that reference for a NA motor should be done in absolute pressure not atmospheric 0 it makes everything fall into place.
I think formula should be: Na x (psi/14.7+1)
I came up with the same thing. Almost posted til I read yours. Otherwise the 529Hp n/a examines only comes to 530hp. I think ill post it again anyway
yes
Cool 👍
Any plans to test a boosted application running meth to only control charge air temps?
How about a HP to DP conversion,
That's dinosaur power for those who didn't watch Flintstones!
Just divide HP by the weight of your horse and multiply by the weight of your dinosaur. The hard part is weighing your dinosaur.
What waste gates you running?
turbo smart Gen V 45s
Holdener Power Boost Formula™
patent pending
Here is the only problem with this formula it's for dyno engines only not actual engines in ur car. We (junkyard guys) ain't going to dyno test no junkyard engine lol especially with turbos when u have to build the turbo kit in the car around everything else. Just saying that's my honest opinion. I watch ur videos to find out one thing what makes the most power. What makes my engine run to the fullest potential. If I can copy ur build it would make it easier also so maybe u can do a build series like other UA-camrs. Just an idea
if you are looking for a particular power ouptut with a particular size motor-ask away. I'll show you an example
@@richardholdener1727I have a 5.3/4.8l not sure yet but it's going to be a street engine my goal is to make over 700hp on spray without spraying it maybe 500hp. I have a 6.0L that is getting a forge internals and a turbo I need it to make as much as possible trying to race with that engine. The 4.8/5.3 not really an issue. The 6.0L is where I need help what cam? What fuel? What heads? What torque converter? What transmission? What rear gear?
Here´s to add to the equation: you can have different density in the same pressure....
Thereby the the formula is very incomplete!
its a baseline to reference, not an ohms law by any-means, its a simple theory not a formula, your supposed to fill in the blanks.. instead your sitting on your ass trying to discredit someone on the internet. Nobody trusts a guy named Pat, this bs just added to your already cursed name Pat.
we call that mass flow-very cold or very hot can alter formula-think big picture
@@nickolaswhite4288 Talk about discredit *lol*
I just wanted to add some info so people could just understand what you just stated.
@@richardholdener1727 I´ve been tuning a lot of turboengines myself so i´m well aware of that, but are every other aware of that?
Maybe they need some more info to understand this is just a loose formula that measures power very sloppy.
@@Patricks_Projects it's not incomplete if you're assuming all other parameters to be equal. If the IAT is the same between n/a and boosted the base air density won't be a factor in the equation. We're not making a comparison to a constant.
But wait there's more....