Author Topic: Quack  (Read 14724 times)

Offline breadman

  • Members
  • *****
  • Posts: 636
  • mk2 breadvan 1341 turbo sleeper (currently snoring
Re: Quack
« Reply #15 on: April 04, 2009, 10:43:57 am »


50 hp to driver the m45 hell thats alot of power wasted
steve
[/quote]

Combined with increased air temperature and the god awful screaming noise, it makes me wonder why anyone would want to fit one? Turbo FTW!

juan

  • Guest
Re: Quack
« Reply #16 on: April 04, 2009, 02:13:19 pm »


50 hp to driver the m45 hell thats alot of power wasted
steve

Combined with increased air temperature and the god awful screaming noise, it makes me wonder why anyone would want to fit one? Turbo FTW!
[/quote]

lol sorry but 50bhp at 7krpm ::) (charger rpm or engine rpm?)

100k mile+service intervals ;) sealed oil bath (no need for an oil supply), 200bhp+on a 1341 g40 ;) and if you don't like the noise fit a resonance chanber and an airbox ;) lol i could go on about them all day long.


anyway,

Welcome mr duck :)   Quack....Quack

Offline breadman

  • Members
  • *****
  • Posts: 636
  • mk2 breadvan 1341 turbo sleeper (currently snoring
Re: Quack
« Reply #17 on: April 04, 2009, 03:05:51 pm »
Yeah juan, I deffinately agree on the reliability side of things and relative cheapness of actually buying the charger. I am well aware of their pros, but also well aware of the cons.
BTW, I didn't quote the 50 bhp loss at 7k. I think the Eaton can run up to 14k+rpm so I would assume Duck (Andrew) meant 7k engine speed?
The trouble is I keep hearing about 200+bhp Eaton charged engines, however I've yet to actually see one that produces the "claimed power" or more importantly actually produces the goods on the 1/4 mile. I'm not saying you can't get 200bhp using an Eaton, it's just not the route I'd take.

Sorry, going off topic there.....
Welcome back Duck. ;D
« Last Edit: April 04, 2009, 03:12:08 pm by breadman »

Offline g40chris

  • Members
  • *****
  • Posts: 529
Re: Quack
« Reply #18 on: April 04, 2009, 06:10:01 pm »
im sure that the duck produced 234bhp with his eaton on a safe map

i have gone back to g-lader now anyway as i got fed up of noise and loss of torque at low down revs

Offline poloeatonm45

  • Members
  • *****
  • Posts: 287
Re: Quack
« Reply #19 on: April 05, 2009, 10:50:11 am »
my eaton set up has bags of low down grunt i love it, it scares the shit out of me lol mine has the smaller pully though whitch im told brings the torque back a bit low down as the charger spins up quicker.

sorry for the thread hi jack by the way

welcome back duck i remember you from the old pitstop forum im glad to see you back you seem quite clued up about this lil car and engine

steve

Offline hayesey

  • Administrators
  • *****
  • Posts: 5824
  • The CV joint killer
    • ClubG40
Re: Quack
« Reply #20 on: April 05, 2009, 08:38:23 pm »
I'm yet to see a rolling road printout showing an eaton making over 200bhp.  In fact I think the most I've seen one make is just shy of 190bhp.  Be interested to know if anyone else has got any printouts showing 200+ though. 


Offline g40chris

  • Members
  • *****
  • Posts: 529
Re: Quack
« Reply #21 on: April 05, 2009, 09:51:54 pm »
i think the 190bhp eaton was greg iirc nice looking car, the car had standard head, standard bottom end, standard pulley

i thought it was a very respectable figure for a standardish engine

tbh i didnt like the power delivery on the eaton and mine had 55mm pulley, PSD gas flowed big valve head, 1308cc lightened and balanced bottom end, large front mount, aquamist, gt inlet manifold, eaton cam etc. but i never had it rolling roaded as i done the pistom rings and damaged valve seats before i could get it on a rolling road. i would have been very dissapointed if it didnt reach 200bhp on the rolling road, deffo felt powerful enough to be, but felt more like a turbo or a valver power delivery with power increasing the higher up the rev range i went peaking at 1.45bar

anyway back to the topic

duck you will have to send me your number again as i lost it

Offline The Duck

  • Members
  • *****
  • Posts: 33
Re: Quack
« Reply #22 on: April 05, 2009, 10:58:36 pm »
Hello guys, thanks for all your welcome backs. It is great to see so many of you I remember well still around.

Quack....This turned out to be a bit of a longer post than expected!

Seems like lots of you are interested in the charger drive power. It is easy to work out and can be done for any charger.
You need to know the pulley ratio, flow per revolution of charger, boost map (or efficiency at stated RPM) and your inlet boost pressure.

To give you an idea check out a screenshot of the spreadsheet I created below (click the thumbnails). If anyone wants this xls file please shout.
BTW does anyone know the efficiency of a G-Lader and the flow per rev?? I will post one for a G-lader should I get the data.

The M45 flows 750cc per revolution.
Its boost map is available (see thumbnail)
At 7000 RPM on my setup the charger is doing just over 15000 rpm and has an efficiency of 50% (see boost map in one of my polo albums below, -please tell me should it not work)

At 8000RPM the eaton is an estimated 45% efficient (maybe lower, it is not on the map) and draws 59.8HP from me engine (check out the northern twang!).
Put the boost up and charger power gets even higher, this is the reason many eaton setups are pulling 20+ PSI and struggling to go much above 200BHP. Longer overlap and good flow matching is needed to get inlet boost into the cylinders. It drops pressure ratio, increases charger efficiency and takes less from the engine.












You can see the power curve shows no timing advance. Looking at the torque curve you can also see the ecu switching to static mixture mode at 6500RPM (The G40 did not have a timing advance data table above 6500 as this was the rev limit, timing above this rpm remains fixed at one setting hence the dip in torque. I think an aftermarket ECU would give good gains here but you really don't need it.

The little polo is in a fairly hefty state of tweakage and I have done lots of little bits that all add up to give a useable, torquey setup. I can always get full power when dry on the tarmac in 2nd, I did do it once in 1st but only once! (the diff is a little bit harsh -I am on that one though) When it is wet 3rd, and if bumpy will spin both wheels in 4th!
I have a great crack in my chassis that I found today to illustrate how nippy the little motor is too!
(Bastard thing, I wouldn't mind but my chassis has had lots and lots of attention and reinforcement. Now it needs some more......)

I really don't think that my 50HP to turn the eaton has been wasted.  :P

Since the remap the car is way way quicker. Power comes in hard from 3000 and peak torque now feels at 5500rpm and is savage (best way to describe is it feels like your 2nd turbo just kicked in). The car pulls equally hard really from 3500-8000 apart from the peak where it pulls plenty harder. I don't really drive it above 7K much unless.. erm driving enthusiastically alongside some erm middle aged bloke in his 50K motor with my shopping trolley!  ??? for the sake of engine longevity.
I do need to get it back on the rollers to prove out what power she is putting out. My estimate is 240BHP and potentially 260 on a cold day. This means the engine is pulling in the region of 300BHP before charger losses.  :o Fire!

To be honest it is too quick for the road (if you can fathom that) and on a cold day still scares the crap out of me.

I do look forward to taking it down the strip should I ever get around to it. Shame it cant be when it is cold.

I would like to see a gearbox that can handle 300BHP and I am sure the engine would be fine for it on a turbo setup.
As for the beauty of an eaton, should you see me I will take you for a spin, just ask.
The charm is good grunt and lack of lag whilst getting the power curve of a good turbo car with almost the low down torque of a G-lader. The G40 unit runs out of real good puff around 170BHP where it can still maintain optimum driveability, above this it starts to feel less progressive. Going back to a quick G always feels a little flat vs an eaton even though they are very potent cars and probably better for everyday driving. Then we have turbos that have to be kept in their happy zone and are in my opinion not even near as responsive when coming on the gas.

Meanwhile I do have to figure out how to quieten my eaton whine (you guys are for sure right about that!) should be easy, - as I seem to be an acoustic design engineer for a living......

If anyone wants some files/pointers on the boost/charger power thing I would be happy to help.

All the best, later guys.

Quack.

Offline hayesey

  • Administrators
  • *****
  • Posts: 5824
  • The CV joint killer
    • ClubG40
Re: Quack
« Reply #23 on: April 06, 2009, 09:39:32 am »
you need to get that thing on a rolling road!

Offline Andy

  • Traders
  • *****
  • Posts: 1503
Re: Quack
« Reply #24 on: April 06, 2009, 05:26:15 pm »
You can see the power curve shows no timing advance. Looking at the torque curve you can also see the ecu switching to static mixture mode at 6500RPM (The G40 did not have a timing advance data table above 6500 as this was the rev limit, timing above this rpm remains fixed at one setting hence the dip in torque. I think an aftermarket ECU would give good gains here but you really don't need it.
There's no 'static mixture mode' as such - the map in the ECU simply has its last rpm setpoint at 6500rpm. There's a table within the map you can tweak to change the rpm setpoints, thus giving you more map resolution at higher rpm should you desire it. You're still limited to 16x16 fuel and ignition maps though!

I second Hayesey - get it on a dyno. Why not bring it to the next Club G40 or Club Polo RR day?

Offline Yoof

  • Traders
  • *****
  • Posts: 2355
  • I know naathing..
    • Polo Performance Parts
Re: Quack
« Reply #25 on: April 06, 2009, 05:40:37 pm »
Welcome back mr duck  ;D

Something doesn't add up here, a G-Lader design is far more efficient at any given boost level than these space heater eaton set-ups, the most power I've seen a well mapped G60 Lader on a 1341cc is 221bhp, I think you're dreaming at 240bhp  ;)

Get it on Aldon Automotives rolling road, it's possibly the best comparison you could ever do (being as so many polos have run on it)

My engine used to have an eaton strapped to it, which I have a printout for 223bhp for, although Ben (kingofming) said it was far quicker with the K03 conversion than eaton, when I first got it, it was only making 187bhp too... on Aldon's rollers.

Either way, good to see the duck return to the pond!

Offline g40chris

  • Members
  • *****
  • Posts: 529
Re: Quack
« Reply #26 on: April 06, 2009, 08:32:08 pm »
i think 240bhp is easily do-able with it setup correct considering the safe map rolling road had 233.26bhp@7766rpm, with the fuelling sorted out with the proper custom map it needs then i say 240bhp is definately possible.

good to have you back on here anyway dude as you always have something productive to say and always helpful.

i remember that you were giving andy from aw tracksport a drilling with questions at gti international about his ideas on the eaton conversions. he didnt have an answer to most of your questions. it was great

Offline PeteG40

  • Administrators
  • *****
  • Posts: 4036
  • Housewives heart throb
Re: Quack
« Reply #27 on: April 07, 2009, 12:32:15 pm »
well - if people want we will organise another club g40 rr day at the end of the season if you want? (and p1ss up of course)

people can battle it out between themselves!

Offline Andy

  • Traders
  • *****
  • Posts: 1503
Re: Quack
« Reply #28 on: April 07, 2009, 12:58:29 pm »
well - if people want we will organise another club g40 rr day at the end of the season if you want? (and p1ss up of course)
Sounds like a plan!

Offline The Duck

  • Members
  • *****
  • Posts: 33
Re: Quack
« Reply #29 on: April 07, 2009, 08:24:30 pm »
Rolling road day sounds fun!

Hey DJ, you got the plot anywhere of your eatoned polo? Or does anyone have Ben's knocking around? It would be good to see a proper torque curve to compare to.

Does anyone have any details of G40 and G60 efficiency (preferably boost maps?) There must be some data somewhere.
Would anyone know the flow rate of these two babies?

Quack.