20+ Psi of boost

benmagoo · Post by **benmagoo** » Sat Mar 17, 2007 11:29 am

Hulooo

I have a standard 89 Turbo and have seen the French Perfomance and GTi magazine article with the Nochturnal Developments Renault 5 running the standard Volly lump on a T28 with 22Psi of boost???

Can a standard turbo really cope with over 20Psi of boost???

I happen to have a T28 kicking about and plan to fit it to my 480, am looking for buckets of torque for pod runs etc.

Cheers

jgtynan · Post by **jgtynan** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 11:38 am

Im sure i read in a post somewhere on here that the standard b18ft engine will take upto 27psi??

benmagoo · Post by **benmagoo** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 12:18 pm

CRIKEY thats HUGE

I think Volvo intended this motor to be far more powerful than the standard 120Bhp???

200+ Must be fairly easy?

robkendall · Post by **robkendall** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 1:51 pm

you should ask Haz.....member on this site.....think his display name is haz@nocturnaldevelopments......still comes on every now and again.....
hmmmm....thats a coincidence....wonder if its the same guy?

rob

benmagoo · Post by **benmagoo** » Mon Mar 19, 2007 2:21 pm

Cool thanks for the lead :O)

rpruen · Post by **rpruen** » Fri Mar 23, 2007 1:55 pm

benmagoo wrote:CRIKEY thats HUGE

I think Volvo intended this motor to be far more powerful than the standard 120Bhp???

200+ Must be fairly easy?

A little history about the B18FT, mostly educated guess work....

The engine was +T'd by porsche, and I think they intended the engine to make about 150 bhp. Volvo possibly reduced that to 120 for 'safety margin'

At the 92 change (i.e. 480 Mk 1.5) I believe there where plans to increase the power output into the 150 ish range again(to outdo the 2l?), with a bigger clutch, and slightly better flowing turbo being added, as well as a slightly better cam. For some reason that was dropped as well.

I was running a standard engine at 254bhp (28psi) and didn't have too many problems. Though you have to be carefull as the combustion chamber is inside the piston, and it's only cooling is by oil spray. Piston overheating is an issue before detonation sets in.

Richard

felyx · Post by **felyx** » Sat Mar 24, 2007 10:03 am

Rich is very right i have melted pistons and plugs before , after i had cained the shit out a uncapped boost on a car that was going to the scrapyard in a couple of days because it would badly fail MOT etc.

i only ran the car for about a 100 miles whacking it at up 150 mph ( no richmod ) just no boost limit .

and the engine was fully melted as in only 3/4 of the spark was left and it took 125 foot lbs of torqe to get the plug out .

anyhow it was just a last blast for the old girl days before its funeral , going out with a bang

cheers felyx

haz@nocturnal_development · Post by **haz@nocturnal_development** » Sun May 13, 2007 2:50 pm

hi, the article you've read is one of my customers cars. but its now bac in for stand alone ecu's and a cgarge cooler upgrade.
the engine internals are std but the turbo is not. the std t2 cant really cope with more than 15psi.
the t28 is a good option for pod, its laggy but fun fun fun on boost. my car has been ran up to 25psi where it starts to det, with the only option is to adjust timing, which i guess is wat rich had to do for 28psi. i'm guessin the cam would also have been changed and the rev limit increased for rich to make that much power from a small unit.
also 28psi on a t25 is a bit much too, the charge temps will be way to high for which you will have to overfuel to help with coolin or fit water injection to avoid melting the piston. either way this can be resolved by fittin a larger turbo, which will flow the same air at lower pressure and lower temps, just laggier.
a laggier turbo helps elsewhere too as torque higher up the rev range reduces the risk of damaging the clutch and gearbox. the only problem i've had is the std rev limit on the ecu, which i'm told can be adjusted with the rich mod, but seems like its a by product of the mod rather than an actual tuning option.

melting pistons and plugs is tuning error thru to very hot charge temps, and you'll need at least 7000 revs and 17's on a volvo to crack 150mph.
its a shame to see a wasted engine when so many of you complain that us 'reno owners' are breakin your good 480's for the engine

BNZ · Post by **BNZ** » Sun May 13, 2007 9:37 pm

haz@nocturnal_development wrote: its a shame to see a wasted engine when so many of you complain that us 'reno owners' are breakin your good 480's for the engine

AHAA,so there are 2 type of B18FT owners,in a dispute !

crispy-d · Post by **crispy-d** » Mon May 14, 2007 7:35 pm

The later Volvo 400 series with the later gearbox will do just over 152mph @ the rev limiter. I forget exactly when the limiter cuts in, something like 6202rpm, but I got to 133mph (GPS, speedo was reading 140mph) and the revs were at a fraction under 5200 per minute. And the size of the rims won't make a difference, just get bigger tyres!

crispy-d · Post by **crispy-d** » Mon May 14, 2007 7:43 pm

Also, my Rich mod hasn't touched either the rev limiter or the boost limit on my car. That would defeat the point of it, as it was designed to keep all the safety parameters in place. Obviously the 'supermod' removes the boost but at 14.6psi, or whatever it is. I also remember Rich telling me that he still had his rev limiter set at standard when he was running 254hp (I think that was also at the wheels, although I may be wrong) and 460Nm, although he did have a modified cam. I read in a post, some time back now, about how Rich managed to increase power from 175bhp to about 200bhp just by changing the cam. I think the ceramic-coated pistons helped in stopping the engine from melting too

You'll have to ask Martin on this one, but I believe the supermod gives ~220bhp @ ~22psi, along with ~420Nm. Rich spent thousands on getting his mods perfected, so I don't doubt them one bit!

martinholmesuk · Post by **martinholmesuk** » Mon May 14, 2007 8:38 pm

Richard sells both safe mods and unsafe mods. Richard states you run a risk on anything over the standard mod and hence if it goes bang it goes bang and sure as hell does his best to help and has given massive amounts of it over the years.

I trust richard and when it goes wrong I don't moan.

Richards mega mod car is not standard at all in any sense.

haz@nocturnal_development · Post by **haz@nocturnal_development** » Thu Jul 05, 2007 12:38 am

crispy-d wrote:I also remember Rich telling me that he still had his rev limiter set at standard when he was running 254hp (I think that was also at the wheels, although I may be wrong) and 460Nm, although he did have a modified cam. I read in a post, some time back now, about how Rich managed to increase power from 175bhp to about 200bhp just by changing the cam. I think the ceramic-coated pistons helped in stopping the engine from melting too
You'll have to ask Martin on this one, but I believe the supermod gives ~220bhp @ ~22psi, along with ~420Nm. Rich spent thousands on getting his mods perfected, so I don't doubt them one bit!

hmmm, yet to see any proof tho. not possible on that small blower he ran, no point in a crazy cam if the rev limit is in place, and ceramic coated pistons are only required if the turbo is too small creatin loads of hot gases

surely no-one wants to buy an unsafe mod??
also wat code gearbox is the later model. the m59 n m60 i've tried will only reach 132 gps at 6200??
i think alot of odd figures from wat i can only guess to be another can of worms rollin road day.

guitarcarfanatic · Post by **guitarcarfanatic** » Thu Jul 05, 2007 1:06 am

I *think* Richs turbo had been played with before he bought his car though. Definately remember him saying somewhere that it was boosting more than it should or something! That was before he started playing lol.

JohnTurbo · Post by **JohnTurbo** » Thu Jul 05, 2007 7:42 am

It was a t25...yes.

Matbat got around 200horses out of a t2 with the 25psi boost though i seem to remember.

I once calculated top speed based on 6250/final gear ratio/measured diameter of a 195/55/r15.

It came to 142.5 i think. The speedo reads 10% low, typically, though this will vary of course.

Interesting discussion.
Especially since i'll be bolting on my T25 (ex saab 9000T) soon.

martinholmesuk · Post by **martinholmesuk** » Thu Jul 05, 2007 7:47 am

Richards 480 came with a T25 not a T2. He thought it was a T2 at the start.

Anyone for some rich bashing lol.

crispy-d · Post by **crispy-d** » Fri Jul 06, 2007 9:24 pm

Haz, I'm sure there is "no point in a crazy cam if the rev limit is in place" but I don't recall saying anything about a 'crazy' cam. Your car, from what I can see is tuned for a race track, or drag races. Fair enough, and that's amazing, but driving on the road's a tad different, and it can make a whole lot of difference to the driving experience (and bhp figures) by shifting the torque band slightly higher up the rpm range, even if by 1000rpm. The point is, this engine wasn't designed to have it's nuts revved off it, otherwise it would've been a much lighter-weight and smaller design. It was designed for it's nice flat torque curve and it's ability to zip along at low revs nice and comfortably.
There was a fairly large post explaining exactly why the ceramic coated pistons were used, so you can search for that, but there are other factors that affect the combustion chamber temperature, not just turbo size. I still don't see the point in disputing it though, as no matter what, the ceramic coating enables higher temperatures more safely thus allowing for more boost and more power etc etc. So what's the problem?

I haven't heard of anyone having had any problems with a richmod in terms of safety. Dodgy injectors cause problems, but obviously that's not the richmod at fault...
I can't understand your speed figures, could just be the setup you have. I can only confirm what I've experienced which was 133mph at something like 5200-5300rpm. Pretty sure I was running 195/50/15 then. I've never been to a rolling road as my clutch was bad enough on road! Was pretty bad towards the end - no more clutch issues for me now

Not having a go, matey, just unsure of why you're so insistant on disbelieving Richard's work. It's always fun to be sceptical, but Rich really is a decent chap and many people on here can vouch for his mods and their effectiveness, me included. And most arguements put to him are lost, but in an informative and respectable way. Still, keep fighting

Regards,

Crispin

haz@nocturnal_development · Post by **haz@nocturnal_development** » Sun Jul 08, 2007 10:35 am

JohnTurbo wrote:It was a t25...yes.

Matbat got around 200horses out of a t2 with the 25psi boost though i seem to remember.

have you looked at compressor maps??? a t2 is out its effieciency past 18psi

rich apparently has a crazy cam

no need to find the thread. ceramic coating does allow hotter chamber temps, but if ya can set it up properly then why waste money n time on it, ??

i've got nowt against rich, nor his work. its the fact that most people of the site take his word as gospel. the people who try summit different get put down cos rich hasn't recommended it when most of tuning is common sense.
i can do mods similar to rich's, and can tell everyone what he's doin for most of his mods, volvo aren't bother about an old design ecu, nor whats bein done to it. just strange that t only thing i wanted rich to let me know about was changin the rev limit but its all 'top secret', i guess its a fluke by product.

maybe there's an event where we can put to the test some of the quicker cars in the club where the parameters are the same.

Robou · Post by **Robou** » Mon Jul 09, 2007 12:54 am

The rev limiter isn't so much a limiter in the actual sense. The ignition charges the coil for 4 mS, the actual spark needs 1 mS, makes 5 mS.

Now this can happen 200 times in a second (Indeed, 200 times 5 mS is 1 second!). And it happens, that 200 ignitions per second is the equivalent of 6000 rpm with a 4 cylinder engine. And that is about the limit we are talking about here.

Apparently in the old times everybody was satisfied with that, because the Volvo guys didn't want the engine to run any faster with the relatively heavy pistons and the related forces at this high piston speed. (I guess)

These 4 mS aren't ideal, in fact it is too short a time to get the maximum of energy out of the coil. So it would have been more sophisticated to make it variable, longer at low revs and then gradualy shorten it at higher revs to be able to spark at whatever revs and build in a real limiter. But they didn't.

What happens is, that the ECU, the EZ210K, figures when the next spark is needed, and activates the coil 4 mS before. It has a fixed dwell.

Now to the point why I wrote this post: Richard Pruen can't be blamed for not revealing this information, it is obvious when one connects an oscilloscope. But how would you change this setup? One can only do this by shortening the 4 mS, but then the spark will deteriorate at lower revs, as long as you keep using the standard ignition. Nobody can be expected to build in a variable dwell.

The solution would be to use a stand alone ignition device being triggered by the EZ210K, available at the coil, and THEN ask Richard to alter the 4 mS to whatever lower value. But I'm sure you'll put quite a load on him, because this value is not in eprom, it is either in the processor's ROM or somewhere in a resistor/capacitor combination on the board I believe.

Moreover, it could very well be that also the Jetronic has it's limitations in activating the injectors.

Imaging this can be achieved, then fuel injection should be able to cope with the demand. And the crank shaft bearings. And name it. I wonder if someone with some integrity would make a solution for this limiter problem public, because there will be an enormous rise in the amount of blown engines.

Nevertheless, it would be fun to try!

crispy-d · Post by **crispy-d** » Mon Jul 09, 2007 7:34 pm

That's very interesting. Would using separate coils make a difference, so that you could effectively overlap the charge cycles? Only ask that as my new car has an individual coil for each of the six cylinders! And I've never seen that on a car before. Having investigated, I've now seen a number of cars with that setup - thought it was a motorcycle thing?!
In any case, I still believe that it seems crazy to rev the engine much above 6000rpm, as you say it's likely to blow up. It wasn't designed to rev that high! Still, it would be fun, and in all fairness bbf's video shows it can rev that high and still sound good!