Volvo Project - Part 2 [ February 7th, 2011 ] By: Mark Ozimek Posted in » Ramblings

I mentioned in part 1 that I have a hard time making up my mind. This is the story of how I came to decide what turbo should get bolted up to the engine to get me to where I want to go. Be forewarned: A lot of text lies ahead. I’ll do my best to be interesting as I tell the (not so) enthralling tale.

As a point of reference in all this, for those who are unfamiliar with the Volvo powertrain, the stock shortblock seems to be good for around 600hp without sleeving, assuming the engine tune is good and heat is managed properly. Beyond that, the cylinder liners have a tendency to crack where they touch the next cylinder. The 5 speed transmission, M56H, is reliable for around that much as well, and can handle more, although gear and bearing life is rapidly declining at that point.

Originally, I was aiming for around 350whp, maybe a bit more, with a 56 trim Garrett GT2871R tucked away behind the engine. Let’s take a look at how the engine matches up with the compressor map. I made some very basic and incorrect assumptions that will get me into a ballpark estimation, such as the pressure ratio across the turbine being equal to the pressure ratio across the compressor. That will give a rough feel for where the boost threshold lies.

This is at 21psi, with a 7000rpm rev limit. Because I am looking to make this last a reasonably long time, I am choosing to keep the shaft speed around 90% of the maximum listed on the compressor chart. For the GT2871R, this is a whopping 120,000rpm! This allows for some special circumstances, like driving up mountains, to avoid overspeeding the turbo to hit the higher PR needed to get target boost in thinner air.

Anyway, onto the actual graph. As you can see, this turbo looks pretty well matched to the engine I want to build, although it is just a bit on the small side for peak power. The spool-up is based on the 0.64 A/R turbine housing flow curve that Garrett provides. Volvo uses a T3 flanged manifold, so I would get this turbo with the T3 based 0.63 A/R turbine housing, but that shouldn’t noticeably change spool.

That is just about enough airflow for about 400bhp without pushing the turbo too hard, or around 340whp. Being a FWD car, that seemed pretty reasonable figure. More would only really be usable at very illegal speeds, or on a pretty high speed track. The real nice thing about the GT2871R was that it should be making as much boost as I wanted by around 3000rpm, which is perfect for the highway, where the engine sits at 3000rpm as the car cruises at 75mph in 5th gear. Stepping up to a GT3071R or GT3076R will bring the boost up to 3500-3750rpm, which may be a bit too late for my tastes, despite the possibility of a bit more power and a cooler running engine from less exhaust restriction on a small turbine wheel.

I thought I had my turbo picked out, and had everything picked out to support it; ATP ultimate internal wastegate, the actuator, an adapter flange, the hose kit needed to get all the fluids to and away from it, the whole nine yards.

Fast forward a few months, and Garrett announces the GTX3582R, 3076R and 3071R. With a redesigned compressor wheel, they give about a 20% boost in max airflow from each turbo over the GT turbos they replace. Curiously enough, they switched from 12 split blades to 11 equal height. That will certainly affect how the compressor wheel performs. Plus they added “extended tips”, which basically just makes the compressor wheel bigger than its advertised exducer size.

Older “GT” compressor wheels look like this:

Newer GTX:

The basic sizes of the wheels remained about the same, and overall efficiency didn’t change noticeably. The general operating window got pushed to higher PR and more flow, including shifting the surge line up. By by pushing the compressor map to the right with the same turbine wheel, the compressor will be operating in a slightly less efficient spot during spool-up. I suspect this will push the boost threshold up in the RPM range a bit, as there will be more energy required from the turbine to compress the same amount of air to the same PR.

Despite previously ruling it out because of the spool time, the GTX3071R seemed like more viable alternative. It suddenly offered a much higher power potential without a significant impact on spool from before. Despite being “slow” compared to the 2871R, I reasoned that having boost by 3500-3750rpm could be doable for a DD. That still left me with about half of my total RPM range in boost, which is far from being a spiky peak hp dyno monster.

Not long after that, I found out about BorgWarner’s EFR line. There were a couple things that I really liked about what BW did with them. First, they made a really light turbine wheel, and kept the size up. This improves the turbine efficiency, and increases the amount of torque the exhaust gas should be exerting on the turbo shaft. This, along with the reduced rotating mass compared to the typical Inconel turbine wheel, should greatly improve transient response, and reduce backpressure a lot while keeping a configuration that still allows a respectable boost threshold.

In playing around with Matchbot, it seems that the EFR7064 will spool around 2750-3000rpm, and the 7670 will spool around 3250-3500rpm. As far as turbo performance goes, the 7064 stacks up pretty well against the GT2871R; similar boost threshold, potentially faster transient response, and can supply a few extra lb/min of airflow at the top end. The Garrett is better than the BW at lower pressure ratios. The most pressure I want to run on the GT2871R is about 21psi, from what we saw on the chart before. The improved performance of the 7064 at higher PR and higher flow means that I could run about 25psi and get a reasonable improvement in power without compromising the spool.

In the end though, I ended up settling on the EFR 7670. Here are the operating points found through the matchbot program, targeting a peak boost of 30psi, the points are at 2750, 3000, 3250, 3500, 6000 and 8000rpm. As you can see if you can squint hard (or right click and open the image to see the original size), it can make 30psi by 3500rpm and hold it to 8000rpm without overspinning the turbo:

I decided that having full boost by 3500rpm, going through the peak efficiency islands of the compressor wheel, and a potential for 500+whp was a good compromise, despite being more power than I should really be trying to push out of the block, and even more than I should be trying to put down to the front wheels of a street car. Logic be damned, I’m gonna do what I want! Plus, the EFR series has the distinct advantage of having a built-in recirculating BOV, and a high-flow IWG with an actuator that comes with the turbo. Those two things save enough money to make the higher cost of the EFR worthwhile.

So, one step of the project out of the way! I know what turbo I’m going with now. It’s time to make the rest of the engine support my goals. I’ll save that for part 3, since this is already a tl;dr post.

Suspension Setup Basics [ August 15th, 2008 ] By:Mark Ozimek

I’ve heard that a few of our readers would like to know a little more about things like camber and toe, and the effects the basic suspension settings have on vehicle stability and control. Before reading this, keep in mind that the optimal setup for any combination of car and road can vary a lot. This is just a guide to help understand what three settings do:

  1. Camber
  2. Toe
  3. Caster

There are many more variables in the suspension setup, but these three seem to be the most easily changed, and have the largest effect when tuning the car.

Camber is the angle of the wheels from vertical when viewed from the front. Negative camber means the top of the wheels is closer to the center of the car than the bottom. Positive is the opposite, with the top of the wheel further away than the bottom. The measurement is degrees off from vertical.

Usually the suspension in a car is designed to decrease camber as the suspension compresses. This way, when the body rolls as it goes through a hard corner, the outside suspension compresses and pulls the top of the wheel in, the inside decompresses and pushes the top of the wheel out, counteracting the roll from the body, keeping the tire closer to perpendicular with the road.

The main idea behind changing the camber angle is to maximize the tire’s contact patch for when you need it most. Typically it is set slightly negative to maximize traction during hard cornering. The downside is less traction when traveling in a straight line.

Positive camber causes more wear on the outside edge of the tire, while negative camber causes more wear on the inside edge of the tire.

Toe is the angle between the wheels and the car’s centerline when viewed from above or below. Toe-in means the tires point inwards, ie front of the tires are closer to the car’s centerline than the rear of the tires. Toe-out is opposite, with the front of the tires out and the rear in. The measurement is degrees off from parallel with the car’s centerline.

Toe mostly affects straight line stability and turn-in response. Toe-in improves straight line stability, negating the effects of things like surface irregularity, bumps, crosswind, and generally makes the car want to travel in a straight line.

The downside of this is that the turn-in response is reduced. Consider that the inside tires must travel through a smaller radius when turning than the outer tires. When turning with toe-in, the inside front tire will have a smaller angle of turn than the outside tire, meaning that it wants to go through a larger radius, and is fighting against the outside tire during a turn. As the weight is transferred to the outside tire, the effects of the inside is reduced.

Conversely, with toe-out, the car will be unstable at high speeds, anything that transfers weight to one side of the car will make the car want to turn in that direction because the tire is pointed outward. Keeping this in mind, it seems a contradiction that toe-out improves steering response. Remember what I mentioned before about the inner and outer tire’s turning radii. With toe-out, the inside tire tries to turn a tighter turn than the outside tire, which is exactly what we want. This way, the tires aren’t fighting against each other until the weight transfers to one side.

However, just like camber, any toe away from 0º increases wear on the tires; Toe-in causes more wear on the outside edge of the tire and toe-out causes more wear on the inside edge of the tire.

Caster is slightly more difficult conceptually, and it only applies to the steering wheels. The angle between the axis upon which the wheel turns and vertical is caster. The best example I can think of is a bicycle. The front wheel rotates about an axis that is not vertical, but is angled so that the axis of rotation is in front of the contact patch. When viewed from the side, positive caster means this axis of rotation is tilted backwards, the top is towards the rear of the car and the bottom is forward. Negative camber is when this axis is tilted forward.

What does this do? Well, when the contact patch is behind the steering axis (Positive caster), the wheels want to travel in a straight line, and will have a tendency to center when turning. As you would expect, the opposite is true with a negative caster, the wheels want to turn away from going straight and more in the direction that they are currently turning.

Negative caster was used a lot back in the 70’s and earlier to make the feel of the steering lighter, since less force is needed to turn if the wheels want to go in that direction. The problem there is that negative caster gives some instability when going in a straight line.

Almost all modern cars have positive caster to improve stability and ease of driving at speed. Although the steering wheel will be more difficult to turn, power steering helps that.

August 15th, 2008 | Leave a Comment

Powered by WordPress | Blue Weed by Blog Oh! Blog | Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS). | Automobile Blogs - Blog Top Sites