Does anyone know the volumetric efficiency for the 6A13TT engine
i know it is estimated that a 4 valve per cylinder engine is about 90% but I wanted to know if anyone had the exact value. I am talking about a standard engine not modified.
Does anyone know the volumetric efficiency for the 6A13TT engine
i know it is estimated that a 4 valve per cylinder engine is about 90% but I wanted to know if anyone had the exact value. I am talking about a standard engine not modified.
Bye for Now!
Don't know it but if you can log some ecu parameters you will be able to calculate it. Guess you will have to disable the turbos.
http://installuniversity.com/install...n_9.012000.htm
Too much is just enough.
i would have thought some might know this
Assuming your MAP sensor scaling is OK, then 2.6 bar is 1.6 bar of boost absolute (1 bar atmospheric + 1.6bar boost). Are you sure your MAP pressures are reading correctly?
However, you should try working in kPa. Why? Because 100kPa = 1 bar and, conveniently for us, 100kPa @ 100% VE ROUGHLY translates to 100% load
VE is therefore easy to calculate from your ECU logging. If you get 100kPa at 100% load at any RPM, then you effectively have 100% VE.
If, on the other hand your MAP pressure is 260 kPa but your load is only 200, then VE = 200 / 260 * 100 or 76% VE
I would expect that VE on a 6a13 to exceed 100% by a reasonable margin, probably 110% or more at peak torque.
thanks kenneth,
if the VE is around the 100%+ mark in the reagion where the turbo is at full spool, say 3000 rpm to 6000rpm then that would make a massive difference to my other calculations that i have been working on.
i will have to start logging the data to see what it reviels.
thanks again kenneth.
Ok so If I understand this correctly, if I am using a boost controller and it is set to 1 bar (100 kpa) and get into the 160 load cell, which I don't believe is a difficult thing to do.
the VE is 160% at that point in the rev range surely that can't be right.
Sent from my space-aged gizmo
No, that isn't right.
Remember what I wrote. 100% load is effectively the same as 100kPa at 100% VE.
This is the major difference between MAP and MAF, and why MAF is, at least on a production vehicle, a better solution.
160 load could be 160kPa at 100% VE. It could also be 100kPa at 160% VE (given constant temperature, which isn't really going to happen). A MAF is designed to measure mass air flow, which coupled with mass fuel flow, is able to give consistent AFR over a wide operating range and also be tolerant of changes in VE over time.
MAP on the other hand, requires VE to be a known constant so that it can use the MAP pressure and temperature (plus baro etc) to calculate fuel requirement. As soon as VE changes, you have a change in your fuel because the air mass flow changes.
Anyway, back on track.
Lets say 100% load = 100kPa at 100% VE. When you are pushing through more boost, you are increasing the kPa value as well as the load value. So all you do is re-arrange the formula and get something like 160 load at 160kPa = 100% VE.
This is why you log MAP and Load @ RPM. by knowing load (and assuming load = kPa at 100% VE) you can then calculate the VE.
Does that make sense?
So it is
(load / kpa) * 100 = VE %
(100 / 100 ) * 100 = 100% VE
100 kpa @ 100 load VE = 100%
160 kpa @ 160 load VE = 100%
I get that above ,
so the below must be true.
120 kpa @ 100 load VE = 83%
100 kpa @ 120 load VE= 120%
100 kpa @ 160 load VE = 160%
Which is what I said above isn't it.....
or am i still missing something?
i have sent you some rep points for being so helpful and understanding when i probably asking some stupid questions.
Sent from my space-aged gizmo
Last edited by Davezj; 08-07-2016 at 04:33 PM.
1 bar of boost = 200kPa absolute, roughly. So that is about 80% VE
yes ok i missed that fundamental point that the kpa is absolute pressure so atmosphere plus boost pressure.
so using that info,
200kpa (1 bar boost) @160 load VE = 80%
so at any given load value as you increase the boost pressure the VE goes down.
the 100% VE at 160 load is 0.6 bar boost.