Max HP from HX35 / HX40?
Max HP from HX35 / HX40?
04-18-2010, 08:44 PM
#1
My goals are a daily driver with a good compromise of power and economy. According to Tomnik, with the new 7.5 elements, fuel economy should be about the same unless one really gets on it. That said, I am shooting for 250-300HP.
With a tuned IP and an HX35, with that be sufficient? Or should I look for an HX40? I would like something that will get boost around the 2000 rpm mark if possible.
I do not need a lengthy response because I do not want to flood up this post. I have another post I will use as my project thread and will add info there. So my main question is:
What is the HX35 capable of HP wise on my car?
jonbobshinigin
04-18-2010, 08:44 PM #1I may have an opportunity to go ahead and get a turbo for my 603 Wagon, although Tomnik and Derv are not Tuning the IP just yet. BUt if the right deal comes up I need to know what will work.
My goals are a daily driver with a good compromise of power and economy. According to Tomnik, with the new 7.5 elements, fuel economy should be about the same unless one really gets on it. That said, I am shooting for 250-300HP.
With a tuned IP and an HX35, with that be sufficient? Or should I look for an HX40? I would like something that will get boost around the 2000 rpm mark if possible.
I do not need a lengthy response because I do not want to flood up this post. I have another post I will use as my project thread and will add info there. So my main question is:
What is the HX35 capable of HP wise on my car?
04-18-2010, 08:50 PM
#2
ForcedInduction
04-18-2010, 08:50 PM
#2
An HX35 is more than enough for 300hp but it will be very slow to spool for a daily driver. An HY35 or HE341 are a much better compromise. An HE351 would have some surge issues but could work.
04-18-2010, 10:01 PM
#4
Turbos don't "get you" horsepower, thats the fuel's job.
This post was last modified: 04-18-2010, 10:01 PM by ForcedInduction.
ForcedInduction
04-18-2010, 10:01 PM
#4
Everything the stock internals can handle and more.
Turbos don't "get you" horsepower, thats the fuel's job.
jonbobshinigin
04-18-2010, 10:41 PM #6Wrapped header? What exactly is that and what advantage does it give?
04-18-2010, 10:50 PM
#7
Wrapping a header holds the heat in and heat drives the turbo. Wrapping the header you can actually hold the pipe while it runs and it won't burn you.Wrapping you use a high temp. wrap that is fiberglass based and wrap the entire header. Wrapping also lowers under the hood temps and helps with saving the paint on your hood. I think the hy will be just a little to small as it is a 9cm housing it will choke you at red line. If the had a 10cm housing that would be a great size but not sure if they make one for these turbos.
04-19-2010, 06:02 AM
#8
(04-18-2010, 10:50 PM)95e300dez Wrapping a header holds the heat in and heat drives the turbo.Pressure and velocity (momentum) actually drive the turbo.
Keeping heat in prevents the exhaust gasses from cooling and losing its volume.
Quote:Dare I say it? An HX30 might be what you are looking for...I don't doubt it could support his power goal and it would spool up great, but it might be a little small. If he wanted 175-200hp (max out the stock pump) it would be perfect.
This post was last modified: 04-19-2010, 06:03 AM by ForcedInduction.
ForcedInduction
04-19-2010, 06:02 AM
#8
(04-18-2010, 10:50 PM)95e300dez Wrapping a header holds the heat in and heat drives the turbo.Pressure and velocity (momentum) actually drive the turbo.
Keeping heat in prevents the exhaust gasses from cooling and losing its volume.
Quote:Dare I say it? An HX30 might be what you are looking for...I don't doubt it could support his power goal and it would spool up great, but it might be a little small. If he wanted 175-200hp (max out the stock pump) it would be perfect.
04-19-2010, 10:46 AM
#9
(04-19-2010, 09:43 AM)GREASY_BEAST Cummins says its good for 240hp at pressure ratio of 3.1 and 0.35kg/s flow rate."240hp" is totally arbitrary. 240hp on a short-stroke engine like ours is much less power and airflow than a long-stroke engine like Cummins makes.
ForcedInduction
04-19-2010, 10:46 AM
#9
(04-19-2010, 09:43 AM)GREASY_BEAST Cummins says its good for 240hp at pressure ratio of 3.1 and 0.35kg/s flow rate."240hp" is totally arbitrary. 240hp on a short-stroke engine like ours is much less power and airflow than a long-stroke engine like Cummins makes.
04-19-2010, 03:21 PM
#10
OM605 600hp diesel drag car build with BMW E30 chassis
I tested an HY35 on my 605 and that is a back pressure making turbo on that closed turbine wheel and small housing.
OM605 600hp diesel drag car build with BMW E30 chassis
jonbobshinigin
04-19-2010, 03:36 PM #11What does that mean? Are you recommending something other than an HY35?
04-19-2010, 06:05 PM
#12
(04-19-2010, 10:46 AM)ForcedInduction(04-19-2010, 09:43 AM)GREASY_BEAST Cummins says its good for 240hp at pressure ratio of 3.1 and 0.35kg/s flow rate."240hp" is totally arbitrary. 240hp on a short-stroke engine like ours is much less power and airflow than a long-stroke engine like Cummins makes.
Nope, other way around.
The cummins being direct injection requires less fuel and hence less air to develop the same power as an old IDI merc does.
Airflow ~ power/efficiency.
(04-19-2010, 10:46 AM)ForcedInduction(04-19-2010, 09:43 AM)GREASY_BEAST Cummins says its good for 240hp at pressure ratio of 3.1 and 0.35kg/s flow rate."240hp" is totally arbitrary. 240hp on a short-stroke engine like ours is much less power and airflow than a long-stroke engine like Cummins makes.
Nope, other way around.
The cummins being direct injection requires less fuel and hence less air to develop the same power as an old IDI merc does.
Airflow ~ power/efficiency.
04-19-2010, 06:55 PM
#13
(04-19-2010, 06:41 PM)GREASY_BEAST Ah ok. Thanks. In any case, the turbo is good for x flow rate at y pressure ratio (see above). Anyone know what this translates to in 617, 602, 603, and 606 terms?
Just to throw some numbers around.
18:1 A/F ratio at max power (clean and safe)
270 g/kwh BSFC
80% VE
60% turbo efficiency
60% intercooling.
3 litre diesel.
4000 rpm
0.35 kg/s results in 260kw.
To get that airflow through that engine at that size you'd need boost around 60psi, torque would be around 620Nm.
In short, I doubt it'd hold together for long.
Limiting yourself to max pressure ratio of 3:1, you'll be looking at 173kw, 410Nm.
(04-19-2010, 06:41 PM)GREASY_BEAST Ah ok. Thanks. In any case, the turbo is good for x flow rate at y pressure ratio (see above). Anyone know what this translates to in 617, 602, 603, and 606 terms?
Just to throw some numbers around.
18:1 A/F ratio at max power (clean and safe)
270 g/kwh BSFC
80% VE
60% turbo efficiency
60% intercooling.
3 litre diesel.
4000 rpm
0.35 kg/s results in 260kw.
To get that airflow through that engine at that size you'd need boost around 60psi, torque would be around 620Nm.
In short, I doubt it'd hold together for long.
Limiting yourself to max pressure ratio of 3:1, you'll be looking at 173kw, 410Nm.
04-19-2010, 10:13 PM
#14
(04-19-2010, 06:05 PM)Kiwibacon Nope, other way around.
The cummins being direct injection requires less fuel and hence less air to develop the same power as an old IDI merc does.
Airflow ~ power/efficiency.
Nope. You're comparing a high-speed low VE engine to a low-speed high VE engine, very different. A cummins making 240hp does so at a much lower RPM which means torque is much higher.
ForcedInduction
04-19-2010, 10:13 PM
#14
(04-19-2010, 06:05 PM)Kiwibacon Nope, other way around.
The cummins being direct injection requires less fuel and hence less air to develop the same power as an old IDI merc does.
Airflow ~ power/efficiency.
Nope. You're comparing a high-speed low VE engine to a low-speed high VE engine, very different. A cummins making 240hp does so at a much lower RPM which means torque is much higher.
04-20-2010, 03:15 AM
#15
(04-20-2010, 02:14 AM)GREASY_BEAST EDIT: Also, these power figures are at 18:1 ("clean and safe"). If you want more hp on the top end (sport mode) turn a screw and go for "dangerous and dirty" (13ish:1?). Just have to watch the EGT gauge.
13:1, now that's just silly. No end of muppets doing it though.
14.55:1 is stoich.
16:1 is generally regarding as the point you start becoming smoke propelled.
Personally I prefer diesels to go like diesels shouldn't without smoking. The number of guys in the US who think it's cool to blow smoke and bitch about their restricted choice of diesels is incredible.
(04-20-2010, 02:14 AM)GREASY_BEAST EDIT: Also, these power figures are at 18:1 ("clean and safe
13:1, now that's just silly. No end of muppets doing it though.
14.55:1 is stoich.
16:1 is generally regarding as the point you start becoming smoke propelled.
Personally I prefer diesels to go like diesels shouldn't without smoking. The number of guys in the US who think it's cool to blow smoke and bitch about their restricted choice of diesels is incredible.
04-20-2010, 06:02 AM
#16
(04-19-2010, 06:55 PM)Kiwibacon 0.35 kg/s results in 260kw.
To get that airflow through that engine at that size you'd need boost around 60psi, torque would be around 620Nm.
The finns are doing more than 260kw, yet I don't know of anyone boosting 60 psi.
1992 Mercedes 190D 2.5 turbo 5sp manual. EGT+boost gauges. Boost controller set to ~14.5 psi. 1 1/4 turns on full load adjustment. LPG injection.
![[Image: 3803751914_8fdca63138_o.jpg]](http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3543/3803751914_8fdca63138_o.jpg)
(04-19-2010, 06:55 PM)Kiwibacon 0.35 kg/s results in 260kw.
To get that airflow through that engine at that size you'd need boost around 60psi, torque would be around 620Nm.
The finns are doing more than 260kw, yet I don't know of anyone boosting 60 psi.
1992 Mercedes 190D 2.5 turbo 5sp manual. EGT+boost gauges. Boost controller set to ~14.5 psi. 1 1/4 turns on full load adjustment. LPG injection.
04-20-2010, 11:05 AM
#17
(04-20-2010, 03:15 AM)Kiwibacon 13:1, now that's just silly. No end of muppets doing it though.
14.55:1 is stoich.
16:1 is generally regarding as the point you start becoming smoke propelled.
Personally I prefer diesels to go like diesels shouldn't without smoking.
That I agree with. Losing 2-5hp in air pumping losses is worth it to run clean.
ForcedInduction
04-20-2010, 11:05 AM
#17
(04-20-2010, 03:15 AM)Kiwibacon 13:1, now that's just silly. No end of muppets doing it though.
14.55:1 is stoich.
16:1 is generally regarding as the point you start becoming smoke propelled.
Personally I prefer diesels to go like diesels shouldn't without smoking.
That I agree with. Losing 2-5hp in air pumping losses is worth it to run clean.
04-20-2010, 05:14 PM
#18
(04-20-2010, 06:02 AM)Deni(04-19-2010, 06:55 PM)Kiwibacon 0.35 kg/s results in 260kw.
To get that airflow through that engine at that size you'd need boost around 60psi, torque would be around 620Nm.
The finns are doing more than 260kw, yet I don't know of anyone boosting 60 psi.
They're running higher rpm so less torque, less boost and not running clean. The ones I've seen videos of are also blowing a disgusting amount of black smoke. I don't know about you, but breathing is pretty high on my list of priorities.
(04-20-2010, 06:02 AM)Deni(04-19-2010, 06:55 PM)Kiwibacon 0.35 kg/s results in 260kw.
To get that airflow through that engine at that size you'd need boost around 60psi, torque would be around 620Nm.
The finns are doing more than 260kw, yet I don't know of anyone boosting 60 psi.
They're running higher rpm so less torque, less boost and not running clean. The ones I've seen videos of are also blowing a disgusting amount of black smoke. I don't know about you, but breathing is pretty high on my list of priorities.
04-20-2010, 06:00 PM
#19
According to the sticky in the Drivetrain Forum:
722.3 (W4A040)- 290lb/ft
I am not sure what that translates to in HP for my car but I believe I remember reading that my transmission can handle something around 220HP...after that I will need to get the internals upgrades. Apparently 722.6 parts can work in the 722.3.
jonbobshinigin
04-20-2010, 06:00 PM #19It will be part of my plan in the future. Initially it was part of my plan from the start because I thought my transmission needed a rebuild now. I was able to make a few adjustments and now I think I will add power and rebuild/upgrade internals later.
According to the sticky in the Drivetrain Forum:
722.3 (W4A040)- 290lb/ft
I am not sure what that translates to in HP for my car but I believe I remember reading that my transmission can handle something around 220HP...after that I will need to get the internals upgrades. Apparently 722.6 parts can work in the 722.3.
04-20-2010, 11:14 PM
#20
(04-20-2010, 06:00 PM)jonbobshinigin I am not sure what that translates to in HP for my car but I believe I remember reading that my transmission can handle something around 220HP...after that I will need to get the internals upgrades. Apparently 722.6 parts can work in the 722.3.
Giving a general figure without stating at what RPM makes no sense. 220hp at 2500rpm is much more powerful than 220hp at 5000rpm.
RPM/HP at constant 290lb/ft
1600 88
1700 94
1800 99
1900 105
2000 110
2100 116
2200 121
2300 127
2400 133
2500 138
2600 144
2700 149
2800 155
2900 160
3000 166
3100 171
3200 177
3300 182
3400 188
3500 193
3600 199
3700 204
3800 210
3900 215
4000 221
4100 226
4200 232
4300 237
4400 243
4500 248
4600 254
4700 260
4800 265
4900 271
5000 276
5100 282
5200 287
5300 293
5400 298
5500 304
5600 309
5700 315
5800 320
5900 326
6000 331
6100 337
6200 342
6300 348
6400 353
6500 359
6600 364
6700 370
6800 375
6900 381
7000 387
7100 392
7200 398
7300 403
7400 409
7500 414
This is why saying "you can make X HP with this turbo" doesn't work. Different engines make different torque at different RPMs. The 617, 603 and 606 are all 3.0L but they have a very different torque curve from each other. Another example: The Cummins 4BTA3.9 has the same airflow (psi for psi boost)and HP rating as a 617, but the 4BT will always be more powerful because it makes more torque to get that HP rating due to its limited RPM.
This post was last modified: 04-20-2010, 11:23 PM by ForcedInduction.
ForcedInduction
04-20-2010, 11:14 PM
#20
(04-20-2010, 06:00 PM)jonbobshinigin I am not sure what that translates to in HP for my car but I believe I remember reading that my transmission can handle something around 220HP...after that I will need to get the internals upgrades. Apparently 722.6 parts can work in the 722.3.
Giving a general figure without stating at what RPM makes no sense. 220hp at 2500rpm is much more powerful than 220hp at 5000rpm.
RPM/HP at constant 290lb/ft
1600 88
1700 94
1800 99
1900 105
2000 110
2100 116
2200 121
2300 127
2400 133
2500 138
2600 144
2700 149
2800 155
2900 160
3000 166
3100 171
3200 177
3300 182
3400 188
3500 193
3600 199
3700 204
3800 210
3900 215
4000 221
4100 226
4200 232
4300 237
4400 243
4500 248
4600 254
4700 260
4800 265
4900 271
5000 276
5100 282
5200 287
5300 293
5400 298
5500 304
5600 309
5700 315
5800 320
5900 326
6000 331
6100 337
6200 342
6300 348
6400 353
6500 359
6600 364
6700 370
6800 375
6900 381
7000 387
7100 392
7200 398
7300 403
7400 409
7500 414
This is why saying "you can make X HP with this turbo" doesn't work. Different engines make different torque at different RPMs. The 617, 603 and 606 are all 3.0L but they have a very different torque curve from each other. Another example: The Cummins 4BTA3.9 has the same airflow (psi for psi boost)and HP rating as a 617, but the 4BT will always be more powerful because it makes more torque to get that HP rating due to its limited RPM.
04-20-2010, 11:33 PM
#21
(04-20-2010, 11:14 PM)ForcedInduction This is why saying "you can make X HP with this turbo" doesn't work. Different engines make different torque at different RPMs. The 617, 603 and 606 are all 3.0L but they have a very different torque curve from each other. Another example: The Cummins 4BTA3.9 has the same airflow (psi for psi boost)and HP rating as a 617, but the 4BT will always be more powerful because it makes more torque to get that HP rating due to its limited RPM.
Gearboxes are torque limited. Power ratings are therefore useless.
However, in the rest you've contradicted yourself. You said the cummins produces the same power, then said it's more powerful because it has more torque.
Power is power. 100kw is not more powerful than 100kw.
The cummins is more torquey, but it is not more powerful.
However. Turbochargers are airflow limited, airflow dictates the fuel which can be burnt and the power which can be produced. This is why turbochargers do indeed have power ratings.
For a petrol engine it works out pretty close to 10hp per lb/min of airflow. Hence a 28 lb/min turbo can produce 280hp if it is well matched.
For a diesel it's between 6 to 8hp for each lb/min depending on how efficient your engine is. Hence a 28lb/min turbo can produce about 225hp if it is well match.
Does this clear it up or do you still think that torque changes the airflow?
(04-20-2010, 11:14 PM)ForcedInduction This is why saying "you can make X HP with this turbo" doesn't work. Different engines make different torque at different RPMs. The 617, 603 and 606 are all 3.0L but they have a very different torque curve from each other. Another example: The Cummins 4BTA3.9 has the same airflow (psi for psi boost)and HP rating as a 617, but the 4BT will always be more powerful because it makes more torque to get that HP rating due to its limited RPM.
Gearboxes are torque limited. Power ratings are therefore useless.
However, in the rest you've contradicted yourself. You said the cummins produces the same power, then said it's more powerful because it has more torque.
Power is power. 100kw is not more powerful than 100kw.
The cummins is more torquey, but it is not more powerful.
However. Turbochargers are airflow limited, airflow dictates the fuel which can be burnt and the power which can be produced. This is why turbochargers do indeed have power ratings.
For a petrol engine it works out pretty close to 10hp per lb/min of airflow. Hence a 28 lb/min turbo can produce 280hp if it is well matched.
For a diesel it's between 6 to 8hp for each lb/min depending on how efficient your engine is. Hence a 28lb/min turbo can produce about 225hp if it is well match.
Does this clear it up or do you still think that torque changes the airflow?
04-20-2010, 11:35 PM
#22
I certainly understand that...I was just stating what the transmission was capable of handling. Because I am not very knowledgable in all this I am coming here to learn and absorb as much as I can.
So Forced...if you will, explain what you feel the difference in HY35 and HX35 would be on my car. Comparing spoiling time, etc.
Thanks for everything so far guys, the info has been great thusfar!
This post was last modified: 04-20-2010, 11:44 PM by jonbobshinigin.
jonbobshinigin
04-20-2010, 11:35 PM #22(This was posted before kiwibacons reply)
I certainly understand that...I was just stating what the transmission was capable of handling. Because I am not very knowledgable in all this I am coming here to learn and absorb as much as I can.
So Forced...if you will, explain what you feel the difference in HY35 and HX35 would be on my car. Comparing spoiling time, etc.
Thanks for everything so far guys, the info has been great thusfar!
04-20-2010, 11:59 PM
#23
(04-20-2010, 11:33 PM)Kiwibacon However, in the rest you've contradicted yourself. You said the cummins produces the same power, then said it's more powerful because it has more torque.The same horsepower. Lets not argue semantics.
Quote:Power is power. 100kw is not more powerful than 100kw.That is wrong. Horsepower and KW are just math, torque is an actual measure of work. Thats why a 500hp diesel in a semi can move 80,000lbs up a 6% grade at a decent pace with its 1,800lb/ft of torque (1600rpm) while a 500hp g@s engine would barely get it moving at all with just 404lb/ft (6500rpm).
And I guarantee the turbo needed on that 500hp diesel is much bigger than on the g@s engine. Thats because the diesel has a much larger stroke and displacement with a very limited RPM. They are making the same HP/KW rating yet the diesel is producing far more energy to get that rating because it can't produce RPM like the g@sser. If the g@sser were to make the same torque (work) as the diesel, it would need to produce over 2200hp@6500rpm!
Quote:Does this clear it up or do you still think that torque changes the airflow?Do you still not grasp the fact that torque and airflow have no relation between engines?
This post was last modified: 04-21-2010, 12:00 AM by ForcedInduction.
ForcedInduction
04-20-2010, 11:59 PM
#23
(04-20-2010, 11:33 PM)Kiwibacon However, in the rest you've contradicted yourself. You said the cummins produces the same power, then said it's more powerful because it has more torque.The same horsepower. Lets not argue semantics.
Quote:Power is power. 100kw is not more powerful than 100kw.That is wrong. Horsepower and KW are just math, torque is an actual measure of work. Thats why a 500hp diesel in a semi can move 80,000lbs up a 6% grade at a decent pace with its 1,800lb/ft of torque (1600rpm) while a 500hp g@s engine would barely get it moving at all with just 404lb/ft (6500rpm).
And I guarantee the turbo needed on that 500hp diesel is much bigger than on the g@s engine. Thats because the diesel has a much larger stroke and displacement with a very limited RPM. They are making the same HP/KW rating yet the diesel is producing far more energy to get that rating because it can't produce RPM like the g@sser. If the g@sser were to make the same torque (work) as the diesel, it would need to produce over 2200hp@6500rpm!
Quote:Does this clear it up or do you still think that torque changes the airflow?Do you still not grasp the fact that torque and airflow have no relation between engines?
04-21-2010, 12:27 AM
#24
(04-20-2010, 11:59 PM)ForcedInduction The same horsepower. Lets not argue semantics.
That is wrong. Horsepower and KW are just math, torque is an actual measure of work. Thats why a 500hp diesel in a semi can move 80,000lbs up a 6% grade at a decent pace with its 1,800lb/ft of torque (1600rpm) while a 500hp g@s engine would barely get it moving at all with just 404lb/ft (6500rpm).
No, you've got them around the wrong way.
Power is power regardless of the units you use. Horsepower, kilowatts, BTU/s, J/s, it's all the same.
Power is the rate that work is being done. If you think it's just maths then you're way out of your depth already. This is high school level physics.
A 500hp gas engine would shift that 80,000lb truck up the hill just as fast as the 500hp diesel. It'd burn a huge amount more fuel doing so, but because it develops the same power, it will produce the same motive force at the same speed.
Torque is twisting force. That is all.
(04-20-2010, 11:59 PM)ForcedInduction And I guarantee the turbo needed on that 500hp diesel is much bigger than on the g@s engine. Thats because the diesel has a much larger stroke and displacement with a very limited RPM. They are making the same HP/KW rating yet the diesel is producing far more energy to get that rating because it can't produce RPM like the g@sser. If the g@sser were to make the same torque (work) as the diesel, it would need to produce over 2200hp@6500rpm!
The 500hp diesel will have a bigger turbo because it runs leaner. The truck turbo will need to shift close to double the air because the diesel will be running around 22:1 A/F ratio compared to the 12:1 of a petrol at max power.
The rpm, displacement and rotating speed of these engines are irrelevant if power and airflow are your only points of interest.
(04-20-2010, 11:59 PM)ForcedInduction Do you still not grasp the fact that torque and airflow have no relation between engines?
Your question makes no sense.
(04-20-2010, 11:59 PM)ForcedInduction The same horsepower. Lets not argue semantics.
That is wrong. Horsepower and KW are just math, torque is an actual measure of work. Thats why a 500hp diesel in a semi can move 80,000lbs up a 6% grade at a decent pace with its 1,800lb/ft of torque (1600rpm) while a 500hp g@s engine would barely get it moving at all with just 404lb/ft (6500rpm).
No, you've got them around the wrong way.
Power is power regardless of the units you use. Horsepower, kilowatts, BTU/s, J/s, it's all the same.
Power is the rate that work is being done. If you think it's just maths then you're way out of your depth already. This is high school level physics.
A 500hp gas engine would shift that 80,000lb truck up the hill just as fast as the 500hp diesel. It'd burn a huge amount more fuel doing so, but because it develops the same power, it will produce the same motive force at the same speed.
Torque is twisting force. That is all.
(04-20-2010, 11:59 PM)ForcedInduction And I guarantee the turbo needed on that 500hp diesel is much bigger than on the g@s engine. Thats because the diesel has a much larger stroke and displacement with a very limited RPM. They are making the same HP/KW rating yet the diesel is producing far more energy to get that rating because it can't produce RPM like the g@sser. If the g@sser were to make the same torque (work) as the diesel, it would need to produce over 2200hp@6500rpm!
The 500hp diesel will have a bigger turbo because it runs leaner. The truck turbo will need to shift close to double the air because the diesel will be running around 22:1 A/F ratio compared to the 12:1 of a petrol at max power.
The rpm, displacement and rotating speed of these engines are irrelevant if power and airflow are your only points of interest.
(04-20-2010, 11:59 PM)ForcedInduction Do you still not grasp the fact that torque and airflow have no relation between engines?
Your question makes no sense.
04-21-2010, 11:25 AM
#25
(04-19-2010, 10:46 AM)ForcedInduction "240hp" is totally arbitrary. 240hp on a short-stroke engine like ours is much less power and airflow than a long-stroke engine like Cummins makes.
Wow! I can't believe I'm reading that... That statement is NOT true. 240hp REALLY IS 240hp.... If you take a car making 240hp@4000rpm and a truck running 240hp@2500 rpm they are delivering the same amount of power to the road. If you geared the vehicles so that they were making their max power at, say, 60mph, they would both be able to pull the same amount of weight up a grade.(04-20-2010, 11:14 PM)ForcedInduction 220hp at 2500rpm is much more powerful than 220hp at 5000rpm.
Wrong! 220hp at 2500 has much more TORQUE... NOT power.
John Robbins
'05 E320 CDI - 118k - Faaaaaast!!
'87 300TD - 317k - Cracked head... but an OM606 is on the way!
'79 300SD - 295k - Bad engine = project car!
(04-19-2010, 10:46 AM)ForcedInduction "240hp" is totally arbitrary. 240hp on a short-stroke engine like ours is much less power and airflow than a long-stroke engine like Cummins makes.
Wow! I can't believe I'm reading that... That statement is NOT true. 240hp REALLY IS 240hp.... If you take a car making 240hp@4000rpm and a truck running 240hp@2500 rpm they are delivering the same amount of power to the road. If you geared the vehicles so that they were making their max power at, say, 60mph, they would both be able to pull the same amount of weight up a grade.(04-20-2010, 11:14 PM)ForcedInduction 220hp at 2500rpm is much more powerful than 220hp at 5000rpm.
Wrong! 220hp at 2500 has much more TORQUE... NOT power.
John Robbins
'05 E320 CDI - 118k - Faaaaaast!!
'87 300TD - 317k - Cracked head... but an OM606 is on the way!
'79 300SD - 295k - Bad engine = project car!
04-21-2010, 04:05 PM
#26
Can someone please explain the difference in an HY35 and an HX35 would be on my car? Does one spool faster than other?
jonbobshinigin
04-21-2010, 04:05 PM #26Back on topic...
Can someone please explain the difference in an HY35 and an HX35 would be on my car? Does one spool faster than other?
04-21-2010, 04:06 PM
#27
We are and these car is smokey. whitout smoke not power, in mechanic pumps. Now we have special made aldas, so mybe we can get that smoke little down. And what come that power smoke, i dont have any broblems on egt or engine temps.
And what come at turbos, if you have a 7mm pump what gives fuel as it should, you dont have any broblems with internals on hx35, hy35 or even hk 40. But my self i dont but that HY35 a power Merceds.
This post was last modified: 04-21-2010, 04:12 PM by ForcedInduction.
OM605 600hp diesel drag car build with BMW E30 chassis
Have you tune your pumps on dyno to get best power? I doubt taht not that much power with out smoke.
We are and these car is smokey. whitout smoke not power, in mechanic pumps. Now we have special made aldas, so mybe we can get that smoke little down. And what come that power smoke, i dont have any broblems on egt or engine temps.
And what come at turbos, if you have a 7mm pump what gives fuel as it should, you dont have any broblems with internals on hx35, hy35 or even hk 40. But my self i dont but that HY35 a power Merceds.
OM605 600hp diesel drag car build with BMW E30 chassis
04-21-2010, 04:08 PM
#28
(04-21-2010, 11:25 AM)TymbrymiActually drive those two vehicles.
Quote:220hp at 2500 has much more TORQUE... NOT power.Sorry, torque is an actual measurement of power. Horsepower is just a math formula somebody made up that derives its result from torque and RPM.
ForcedInduction
04-21-2010, 04:08 PM
#28
(04-21-2010, 11:25 AM)TymbrymiActually drive those two vehicles.
Quote:220hp at 2500 has much more TORQUE... NOT power.Sorry, torque is an actual measurement of power. Horsepower is just a math formula somebody made up that derives its result from torque and RPM.
04-21-2010, 04:14 PM
#29
(04-21-2010, 04:08 PM)ForcedInduction Horsepower is just a math formula somebody made up that derives its result from torque and RPM.So what you need when you drive at quater mile? Horsepower or NM
OM605 600hp diesel drag car build with BMW E30 chassis
(04-21-2010, 04:08 PM)ForcedInduction Horsepower is just a math formula somebody made up that derives its result from torque and RPM.So what you need when you drive at quater mile? Horsepower or NM
OM605 600hp diesel drag car build with BMW E30 chassis
04-21-2010, 04:37 PM
#30
(04-21-2010, 04:14 PM)jeemu So what you need when you drive at quater mile? Horsepower or NM
Torque and lots of it over a broad RPM range. The more torque you have at higher rpms the higher your "horsepower" will be.
Thats why a 14.0L diesel with 1800lb/ft torque is only rated 500hp instead of 2200hp.
ForcedInduction
04-21-2010, 04:37 PM
#30
(04-21-2010, 04:14 PM)jeemu So what you need when you drive at quater mile? Horsepower or NM
Torque and lots of it over a broad RPM range. The more torque you have at higher rpms the higher your "horsepower" will be.
Thats why a 14.0L diesel with 1800lb/ft torque is only rated 500hp instead of 2200hp.
04-21-2010, 05:16 PM
#31
(04-21-2010, 04:37 PM)ForcedInductionSo you tell us at you drag race with torgue?(04-21-2010, 04:14 PM)jeemu So what you need when you drive at quater mile? Horsepower or NM
Torque and lots of it over a broad RPM range. The more torque you have at higher rpms the higher your "horsepower" will be.
Thats why a 14.0L diesel with 1800lb/ft torque is only rated 500hp instead of 2200hp.
This post was last modified: 04-21-2010, 05:30 PM by ForcedInduction.
OM605 600hp diesel drag car build with BMW E30 chassis
(04-21-2010, 04:37 PM)ForcedInductionSo you tell us at you drag race with torgue?(04-21-2010, 04:14 PM)jeemu So what you need when you drive at quater mile? Horsepower or NM
Torque and lots of it over a broad RPM range. The more torque you have at higher rpms the higher your "horsepower" will be.
Thats why a 14.0L diesel with 1800lb/ft torque is only rated 500hp instead of 2200hp.
OM605 600hp diesel drag car build with BMW E30 chassis
04-21-2010, 05:29 PM
#32
(04-21-2010, 05:16 PM)jeemu So you tell us at you drag race with torgue?
ALL engines work with torque. Their horsepower rating is only a result of their torque curve. You want to see what engines actually work with power (torque) and those that just get their nuts revved off? Look at 60' times.
If you've got a Cummins with 1000lb/ft of torque at 2000-3000rpm, it may only have 600hp. If you've got a ricer that has 600hp at 10,000rpm its got only 315lb/ft of torque.
So please explain why the E320 Bluetec has a 0-60 time just 0.1 seconds slower than its g@s counterpart that has an extra 57hp? Maybe the diesel's TORQUE has something to do with it?
This post was last modified: 04-21-2010, 05:33 PM by ForcedInduction.
ForcedInduction
04-21-2010, 05:29 PM
#32
(04-21-2010, 05:16 PM)jeemu So you tell us at you drag race with torgue?
ALL engines work with torque. Their horsepower rating is only a result of their torque curve. You want to see what engines actually work with power (torque) and those that just get their nuts revved off? Look at 60' times.
If you've got a Cummins with 1000lb/ft of torque at 2000-3000rpm, it may only have 600hp. If you've got a ricer that has 600hp at 10,000rpm its got only 315lb/ft of torque.
So please explain why the E320 Bluetec has a 0-60 time just 0.1 seconds slower than its g@s counterpart that has an extra 57hp? Maybe the diesel's TORQUE has something to do with it?
04-21-2010, 05:39 PM
#33
(04-21-2010, 05:29 PM)ForcedInduction(04-21-2010, 05:16 PM)jeemu So you tell us at you drag race with torgue?
ALL engines work with torque. Their horsepower rating is only a result of their torque curve. You want to see what engines actually work with power (torque) and those that just get their nuts revved off? Look at 60' times.
If you've got a Cummins with 1000lb/ft of torque at 2000-3000rpm, it may only have 600hp. If you've got a ricer that has 600hp at 10,000rpm its got only 315lb/ft of torque.
So please explain why the E320 Bluetec has a 0-60 time just 0.1 seconds slower than its g@s counterpart with an extra 57hp? Maybe the diesel's TORQUE has something to do with it?
Actually it's a lot easier to compare different engines with hp output rather than torque.
Both the ricer and such cummins are both capable of doing the same amount of work and that's what matters - horse power that is.
If you'd put the same drive train with such gearbox that would handle the high rpm of a ricer, it would be capable of pulling the same load as the cummins; altough the sound would be more annoying...
(04-21-2010, 05:29 PM)ForcedInduction(04-21-2010, 05:16 PM)jeemu So you tell us at you drag race with torgue?
ALL engines work with torque. Their horsepower rating is only a result of their torque curve. You want to see what engines actually work with power (torque) and those that just get their nuts revved off? Look at 60' times.
If you've got a Cummins with 1000lb/ft of torque at 2000-3000rpm, it may only have 600hp. If you've got a ricer that has 600hp at 10,000rpm its got only 315lb/ft of torque.
So please explain why the E320 Bluetec has a 0-60 time just 0.1 seconds slower than its g@s counterpart with an extra 57hp? Maybe the diesel's TORQUE has something to do with it?
Actually it's a lot easier to compare different engines with hp output rather than torque.
Both the ricer and such cummins are both capable of doing the same amount of work and that's what matters - horse power that is.
If you'd put the same drive train with such gearbox that would handle the high rpm of a ricer, it would be capable of pulling the same load as the cummins; altough the sound would be more annoying...
04-21-2010, 06:17 PM
#34
just because a unit of measure is derived "using math" from other units of measure does not detract from the usefullness of said unit. And by the way, power is only derived from torque in this instance, (that I know of). Power is used in plenty of other instances, and has nothing to do with torque. Say the lightbulbs in you house use 30 Watts. Thats a measure of power just like horsepower is. How much torque do those lightbulbs make?
Both power and torque are usefull in predicting the performance of an automobile. Perhaps one unit may be more useful than the other depending on the situation, but you cannot say that one is generally more valid or useful than the other, by only comparing small specific portions of vehicle performance envelopes.
Words often have specific meanings in certain contexts. Misuse of certain words seems to be at the nexus of this discussion so maybe we should "argue semantics". Ill start."Power" means energy generated per unit time.
"Powerful" describes something possessing or generating power.
"Torque" means twisting force, or distance x(cross product) force.
"Work" means energy expended, force exerted over a distance, or distance *(dot product) force.
"Torque" is not the same thing as "Work".
"Powerful" does not describe the amount of torque that something has.
sort of back to the original discussion, And i think that Kiwi said this already: The volume of air per unit time ingested by an engine should be roughly proportional to the POWER(energy per unit time) of the engine divided by the efficiency (another word that has a specific meaning) of the engine.
This post was last modified: 04-21-2010, 06:32 PM by shredator.
just because a unit of measure is derived "using math" from other units of measure does not detract from the usefullness of said unit. And by the way, power is only derived from torque in this instance, (that I know of). Power is used in plenty of other instances, and has nothing to do with torque. Say the lightbulbs in you house use 30 Watts. Thats a measure of power just like horsepower is. How much torque do those lightbulbs make?
Both power and torque are usefull in predicting the performance of an automobile. Perhaps one unit may be more useful than the other depending on the situation, but you cannot say that one is generally more valid or useful than the other, by only comparing small specific portions of vehicle performance envelopes.
Words often have specific meanings in certain contexts. Misuse of certain words seems to be at the nexus of this discussion so maybe we should "argue semantics". Ill start.
"Power" means energy generated per unit time.
"Powerful" describes something possessing or generating power.
"Torque" means twisting force, or distance x(cross product) force.
"Work" means energy expended, force exerted over a distance, or distance *(dot product) force.
"Torque" is not the same thing as "Work".
"Powerful" does not describe the amount of torque that something has.
sort of back to the original discussion, And i think that Kiwi said this already: The volume of air per unit time ingested by an engine should be roughly proportional to the POWER(energy per unit time) of the engine divided by the efficiency (another word that has a specific meaning) of the engine.
04-22-2010, 06:14 AM
#36
(04-21-2010, 05:29 PM)ForcedInduction So please explain why the E320 Bluetec has a 0-60 time just 0.1 seconds slower than its g@s counterpart that has an extra 57hp? Maybe the diesel's TORQUE has something to do with it?
That's very easy to explain.
Acceleration uses the power available at a range of rpm, acceleration rates depend on the average power available in this rpm range.
You're comparing peak power figures, which aren't much use unless your engine only runs at that rpm.
I've had two posts deleted today. Can anyone explain why is it just moderators ego?
(04-21-2010, 05:29 PM)ForcedInduction So please explain why the E320 Bluetec has a 0-60 time just 0.1 seconds slower than its g@s counterpart that has an extra 57hp? Maybe the diesel's TORQUE has something to do with it?
That's very easy to explain.
Acceleration uses the power available at a range of rpm, acceleration rates depend on the average power available in this rpm range.
You're comparing peak power figures, which aren't much use unless your engine only runs at that rpm.
I've had two posts deleted today. Can anyone explain why is it just moderators ego?
04-22-2010, 06:33 AM
#37
(04-22-2010, 06:14 AM)Kiwibacon I've had two posts deleted today. Can anyone explain why is it just moderators ego?Kiwi, your posts here and in the VGT thread were edited or deleted because they were disrespectful and did nothing to reinforce your position. You should take a good look at shredator and GREASY_BEAST's posts to learn how to conduct yourself in a respectful and productive debate. Saying "you're a fool" or "you don't know what you're talking about" is attacking the opponent to incite an emotional response rather than attacking their data to disprove their point(s), it shows you're lacking material to back your own position. Ever notice I have never resorted to calling you names or putting you down as a person?
If you keep up being disrespectful and insulting you'll just end up like CID. Act like the mature, educated adult you are and we'll all be happy and learn from each other. Degrading the thread into a shit-slinging spectacle doesn't benefit anyone, except when said shit-slinging fits the "having fun" context of a discussion. I'm not an idiot like drmiller100 on benzworld or Brian on peachparts, if you treat me and everyone else respectfully I'll always reciprocate that treatment.
This post was last modified: 04-22-2010, 07:02 AM by ForcedInduction.
ForcedInduction
04-22-2010, 06:33 AM
#37
(04-22-2010, 06:14 AM)Kiwibacon I've had two posts deleted today. Can anyone explain why is it just moderators ego?Kiwi, your posts here and in the VGT thread were edited or deleted because they were disrespectful and did nothing to reinforce your position. You should take a good look at shredator and GREASY_BEAST's posts to learn how to conduct yourself in a respectful and productive debate. Saying "you're a fool" or "you don't know what you're talking about" is attacking the opponent to incite an emotional response rather than attacking their data to disprove their point(s), it shows you're lacking material to back your own position. Ever notice I have never resorted to calling you names or putting you down as a person?
If you keep up being disrespectful and insulting you'll just end up like CID. Act like the mature, educated adult you are and we'll all be happy and learn from each other. Degrading the thread into a shit-slinging spectacle doesn't benefit anyone, except when said shit-slinging fits the "having fun" context of a discussion. I'm not an idiot like drmiller100 on benzworld or Brian on peachparts, if you treat me and everyone else respectfully I'll always reciprocate that treatment.
04-22-2010, 10:51 AM
#38
(04-21-2010, 04:08 PM)ForcedInduction Sorry, torque is an actual measurement of power. Horsepower is just a math formula somebody made up that derives its result from torque and RPM.
I'm not going to bother arguing with you anymore. You are wrong. Many other people on this forum think you are wrong, my *high school* physics book thinks you are wrong, and nobody has agreed with your point of view. These are all signs that you are either doing a poor job explaining your position or that you are, in fact, wrong.
Not trying to be an ass or anything... just saying it like it is.
I wonder how long this post will last
John Robbins
'05 E320 CDI - 118k - Faaaaaast!!
'87 300TD - 317k - Cracked head... but an OM606 is on the way!
'79 300SD - 295k - Bad engine = project car!
(04-21-2010, 04:08 PM)ForcedInduction Sorry, torque is an actual measurement of power. Horsepower is just a math formula somebody made up that derives its result from torque and RPM.
I'm not going to bother arguing with you anymore. You are wrong. Many other people on this forum think you are wrong, my *high school* physics book thinks you are wrong, and nobody has agreed with your point of view. These are all signs that you are either doing a poor job explaining your position or that you are, in fact, wrong.
Not trying to be an ass or anything... just saying it like it is.
I wonder how long this post will last
John Robbins
'05 E320 CDI - 118k - Faaaaaast!!
'87 300TD - 317k - Cracked head... but an OM606 is on the way!
'79 300SD - 295k - Bad engine = project car!
04-22-2010, 10:56 AM
#39
(04-22-2010, 10:51 AM)Tymbrymi These are all signs that you are either doing a poor job explaining your position
I'll try to explain it in a more simple manner next time.
ForcedInduction
04-22-2010, 10:56 AM
#39
(04-22-2010, 10:51 AM)Tymbrymi These are all signs that you are either doing a poor job explaining your position
I'll try to explain it in a more simple manner next time.
04-22-2010, 11:01 AM
#40
What would you value this at, or what should I pay/what would be a fair price:
HX35
Twin scroll, 12 cm turbine, factory rebuilt all new parts
I am not sure about how different turbines effect things and such...just tell me what you think. Is an HX35 going to take longer to spool than the stock turbo?
jonbobshinigin
04-22-2010, 11:01 AM #40Excuse me for interrupting fellows :-)
What would you value this at, or what should I pay/what would be a fair price:
HX35
Twin scroll, 12 cm turbine, factory rebuilt all new parts
I am not sure about how different turbines effect things and such...just tell me what you think. Is an HX35 going to take longer to spool than the stock turbo?
04-23-2010, 05:16 AM
#41
.In essence, all of you are saying the same thing, just using different words.
A truck and a sports car, both having the same power in KW, both can do the same work. It all comes down to gearing. With enough low gearing, and high revolutions, the sports car will move the 80k LB weight.
Why don't trucks have small, race car engines? We all know it. Because of longevity. Obviously, a car revving very fast will be consumed much faster than a slow revving engine. Truck engines revving at 2k rpm vs. Formula 1 engines revving at 20k rpm.
1992 Mercedes 190D 2.5 turbo 5sp manual. EGT+boost gauges. Boost controller set to ~14.5 psi. 1 1/4 turns on full load adjustment. LPG injection.
I think we need to keep this discussion as civilized as we can .
In essence, all of you are saying the same thing, just using different words.
A truck and a sports car, both having the same power in KW, both can do the same work. It all comes down to gearing. With enough low gearing, and high revolutions, the sports car will move the 80k LB weight.
Why don't trucks have small, race car engines? We all know it. Because of longevity. Obviously, a car revving very fast will be consumed much faster than a slow revving engine. Truck engines revving at 2k rpm vs. Formula 1 engines revving at 20k rpm.
1992 Mercedes 190D 2.5 turbo 5sp manual. EGT+boost gauges. Boost controller set to ~14.5 psi. 1 1/4 turns on full load adjustment. LPG injection.
04-23-2010, 08:57 AM
#42
jonbobshinigin
04-23-2010, 08:57 AM #42I don't mind the banter really. However it can certainly be handled differently. Discussion > Argument. Now on the other hand, the thread has been sorta hijacked from the original poster, me. And if you read back, I've posted 3 posts now asking specific questions. None of which have been addressed...I am open to learning and asking dumb questions so that I learn. So let's just try to help me!
04-23-2010, 11:07 AM
#44
And now the 35 I'll be using that on my 603 whenever I get time to finishing the motor in the chassis.
George3soccer
04-23-2010, 11:07 AM #44All this drama. Let's get back to the projects and dedicate another post with all this theoretical, studious jargon. Love it reason why I'm in school, but I'll savethat fr the classroom.
And now the 35 I'll be using that on my 603 whenever I get time to finishing the motor in the chassis.
04-23-2010, 08:24 PM
#45
I have a book, "Turbo - Real World High-Performance Turbocharger Systems" by Jay K. Miller, it has Holset maps, if you are interested PM me and I will send you one. I don't want to post copyrighted material.
1982 300SD: 304,xxx Super M-pump with 7.5mm elements, 265 Nozzles, GT35 water cooled turbo, M90 Supercharger, A/W Intercooler, Serpentine drive belt, 3" SS exhaust with Magnaflow muffler, 240 breather, AEM dry Filter, Manual Boost Control, EGT / Boost / EMP gauges....Moved on to other projects
1995 F-350 7.3L PSD: 230,xxx 6.0 IC, DIY Stage 1 Injectors, 17* hpop, Tony Wildman Chip, John Wood Trans, 6.4L TC, 3" down pipe, 4" straight exhaust, 310 HP on wheel dyno - 8500# dually: 0-60 in 6.98
Suzuki Samurai: VW 1.9L TD, Trackick doubler transfer case (made by me) 5.8:1 transfer case gears, YJ springs front and rear with rear missing links, wheel base extended 14", diffs welded, some day a VNT.
Rudolf_Diesel
04-23-2010, 08:24 PM #45I am replying to one of many posts deleted, guess they didn't add to the topic.
I have a book, "Turbo - Real World High-Performance Turbocharger Systems" by Jay K. Miller, it has Holset maps, if you are interested PM me and I will send you one. I don't want to post copyrighted material.
1982 300SD: 304,xxx Super M-pump with 7.5mm elements, 265 Nozzles, GT35 water cooled turbo, M90 Supercharger, A/W Intercooler, Serpentine drive belt, 3" SS exhaust with Magnaflow muffler, 240 breather, AEM dry Filter, Manual Boost Control, EGT / Boost / EMP gauges....Moved on to other projects
1995 F-350 7.3L PSD: 230,xxx 6.0 IC, DIY Stage 1 Injectors, 17* hpop, Tony Wildman Chip, John Wood Trans, 6.4L TC, 3" down pipe, 4" straight exhaust, 310 HP on wheel dyno - 8500# dually: 0-60 in 6.98
Suzuki Samurai: VW 1.9L TD, Trackick doubler transfer case (made by me) 5.8:1 transfer case gears, YJ springs front and rear with rear missing links, wheel base extended 14", diffs welded, some day a VNT.
04-24-2010, 05:54 AM
#46
(04-23-2010, 10:41 PM)GREASY_BEAST My HX30 on the OM617 lags ever so slightly more than the stock turbo in the low end. Its not bad, but it could use a slight ALDA adjustment to keep it well-mannered.Thats good info, thanks. Do you think the HY30 would be too constrictive? Do you have an EMP gauge?
Quote:(please don't delete this post)You aren't trolling and your post is useful and relevant to the thread so there isn't anything to delete. Kiwi is having a little tantrum right now, he'll grow out of it (hopefully, unlike CID who chose to stay at the kids table).
This post was last modified: 04-24-2010, 05:55 AM by ForcedInduction.
ForcedInduction
04-24-2010, 05:54 AM
#46
(04-23-2010, 10:41 PM)GREASY_BEAST My HX30 on the OM617 lags ever so slightly more than the stock turbo in the low end. Its not bad, but it could use a slight ALDA adjustment to keep it well-mannered.Thats good info, thanks. Do you think the HY30 would be too constrictive? Do you have an EMP gauge?
Quote:(please don't delete this post)You aren't trolling and your post is useful and relevant to the thread so there isn't anything to delete. Kiwi is having a little tantrum right now, he'll grow out of it (hopefully, unlike CID who chose to stay at the kids table).
04-24-2010, 12:31 PM
#47
(04-23-2010, 10:41 PM)GREASY_BEAST My HX30 on the OM617 lags ever so slightly more than the stock turbo in the low end. Its not bad, but it could use a slight ALDA adjustment to keep it well-mannered. I imagine this characteristic will be quite a lot worse with an HX35 or HY35, possibly to the point of annoyance at stock fueling levels (i.e. no pump element mods).
Why would one put a big turbo with stock pump?
Of course bigger (conventional) turbos have more lag. That's why these "super turbos" have been adjusted so that non-boost fueling is very rich (heavy smoking), as it really helps spooling up.
(04-23-2010, 10:41 PM)GREASY_BEAST My HX30 on the OM617 lags ever so slightly more than the stock turbo in the low end. Its not bad, but it could use a slight ALDA adjustment to keep it well-mannered. I imagine this characteristic will be quite a lot worse with an HX35 or HY35, possibly to the point of annoyance at stock fueling levels (i.e. no pump element mods).
Why would one put a big turbo with stock pump?
Of course bigger (conventional) turbos have more lag. That's why these "super turbos" have been adjusted so that non-boost fueling is very rich (heavy smoking), as it really helps spooling up.
04-24-2010, 01:29 PM
#48
(04-24-2010, 12:31 PM)muuris Why would one put a big turbo with stock pump?
Efficiency of a modern turbo and capacity to increase power. Why spend $1500 on a high output injection pump if you don't have the ability to use any of it?
ForcedInduction
04-24-2010, 01:29 PM
#48
(04-24-2010, 12:31 PM)muuris Why would one put a big turbo with stock pump?
Efficiency of a modern turbo and capacity to increase power. Why spend $1500 on a high output injection pump if you don't have the ability to use any of it?
04-24-2010, 03:01 PM
#49
(04-24-2010, 01:29 PM)ForcedInduction Efficiency of a modern turbo and capacity to increase power. Why spend $1500 on a high output injection pump if you don't have the ability to use any of it?
Where does the increased efficiency show in practice when one puts a HX30 to a stock 617 (other than between the driver's ears)? And how do you have capacity to increase power without modifying the pump? Don't count the few dozen hp you can get by altering the pump settings alone.
No high output pump or big turbo can make use of alone. One needs both.
Yes, I know that with a nicely sized vnt a car can be clearly nicer to drive than with the 30 years old T3, but weren't we talking about big turbos..
Btw I spent around $350 for my pump
(04-24-2010, 01:29 PM)ForcedInduction Efficiency of a modern turbo and capacity to increase power. Why spend $1500 on a high output injection pump if you don't have the ability to use any of it?
Where does the increased efficiency show in practice when one puts a HX30 to a stock 617 (other than between the driver's ears)? And how do you have capacity to increase power without modifying the pump? Don't count the few dozen hp you can get by altering the pump settings alone.
No high output pump or big turbo can make use of alone. One needs both.
Yes, I know that with a nicely sized vnt a car can be clearly nicer to drive than with the 30 years old T3, but weren't we talking about big turbos..
Btw I spent around $350 for my pump
04-24-2010, 03:26 PM
#50
On that note, what affects, good or bad, would
installing an HX35 on now while at the same
time installing my euro exhaust manifold and a 2.5-3" exhaust system?
jonbobshinigin
04-24-2010, 03:26 PM #50Maybe I was not clear in that installing an HX35 is just a part of it. I completely plan on getting the pump modified.
On that note, what affects, good or bad, would
installing an HX35 on now while at the same
time installing my euro exhaust manifold and a 2.5-3" exhaust system?
Users browsing this thread:
48 Guest(s)
48 Guest(s)
Users browsing this thread:
48 Guest(s)
48 Guest(s)