Post Hp and boost## please 12v 24v or cr and what chargers thanks

UNBROKEN said:
You're not arguing my point....you're MAKING my point.
Yes it's expensive to do it right...but addressing airflow IS the right way to do it.
Does the old school way work? Obviously it does...but now ain't then and there are better, more efficient ways to do things these days.
Aftermarket heads, ported heads, side draft intakes, cams, etc all help with airflow...they'll all make more power with less boost.
CFM>PSI....you can't argue that point.

To address your 3 points.
1...if someone can't afford to do it right then thu need a new hobby. 2...doing it right will decrease IAT....fact
3...it works...but there's a better way.
Click to expand...

Really?

Well then any of you budget race trucks out there should just pack it up,cause your cheap compound systems are NOT the right way to make power.

You can't seriously believe this. This does not need to be a rich mans sport and I believe the reason the nhrda is one of the few racing orgs. out there that is actually growing is because guys can make power so cheaply with these trucks in there own garage without being a full blown mechanic. Granted big power is not cheap but good fun power is.
 
I subscribe to the theory that it's cheaper to spend the money to do it right the first time than it is to fix it every other week because I cheaped out on something.
Not everyone thinks that way and that's fine...but don't expect me to apologize for thinking the way I do.

And for a big power daily driver I think my "cheap" compounds are exactly right.
Little to no lag and big airflow up top. I don't think anyone would call custom built chargers from Keating and ED fabbed into compounds by Joe Hellmann cheap anyway. LOL
 
Last edited:
UNBROKEN said:
You're not arguing my point....you're MAKING my point.
Yes it's expensive to do it right...but addressing airflow IS the right way to do it.
Does the old school way work? Obviously it does...but now ain't then and there are better, more efficient ways to do things these days.
Aftermarket heads, ported heads, side draft intakes, cams, etc all help with airflow...they'll all make more power with less boost.
CFM>PSI....you can't argue that point.

To address your 3 points.
1...if someone can't afford to do it right then thu need a new hobby.
2...doing it right will decrease IAT....fact
3...it works...but there's a better way.
Click to expand...

gs1000 said:
Really?

Well then any of you budget race trucks out there should just pack it up,cause your cheap compound systems are NOT the right way to make power.

You can't seriously believe this. This does not need to be a rich mans sport and I believe the reason the nhrda is one of the few racing orgs. out there that is actually growing is because guys can make power so cheaply with these trucks in there own garage without being a full blown mechanic. Granted big power is not cheap but good fun power is.
Click to expand...

I agree 100% I cant afford to do anything right the first time :D hahaha but Ive learned a TON from my mistakes. If you dont have money you shouldn't be shunned in this sport. Take Will (BigBlue24) for example, he has somewhere around 4k TOTAL in his truck and he has gone 12.20 in the quarter. He was the most popular racer at that race i believe!
 
CFM>PSI....you can't argue that point.
Click to expand...

Sure you can.

PV=NRT
N=PV/RT
it is quite simple to see that Pressure and volume are equal in this equation. If you double the p and not the v you will get X. then double the v and not the p you get the same X. Simple as 2 X 4 is the same as 4 X 2. As long as you are able to keep the temp the same through intercooling cfm is = to pressure.
Maybe instead of a very expensive head cam intake rebuild, one might consider turning up the boost( as long as the PR is in the map of the compressor) and running some ice water in a water to air intercooler. you say 800hp at 60psi via volume work, i say the same 800 is possible at 100psi, as you have said, or 800 hp at 60psi with extreme intercooling, with no mods to volume. If you increase volume by 2 or decrease temp by 2 it is the same.

CFM is one of the 3 variables which can be manipulated.
the goal is not CFM, the goal is molecules of air in the cylinder. however you can get more in the better.
The fact aslo remains that of the three variable volume, pressure and temperature, volume is the most expensive, and time consuming variable to manipulate, but the others are just as important, equal in fact.
 
YURMOM said:
bif bif bif bif bif

sounds like a cat fight between a couple pencil pushers
Click to expand...

not meant to be a fight in any way,
just a discussion, debate, all for the benifit of compd. nothing wrong with discussing different ideas. If my ideas turn out to be wrong, i am not offended but am glad to have learned.
 
YURMOM said:
you need CFM if its cold air and PSI if its warm/hot air......end of story
Click to expand...

OK, sounds as if youve really studied it out and your arguments are compelling and complete, live in alaska turn up boost, live in florida do engine mods. thank you.
 
UNBROKEN said:
I subscribe to the theory that it's cheaper to spend the money to do it right the first time than it is to fix it every other week because I cheaped out on something.
Not everyone thinks that way and that's fine...but don't expect me to apologize for thinking the way I do.

And for a big power daily driver I think my "cheap" compounds are exactly right.
Little to no lag and big airflow up top. I don't think anyone would call custom built chargers from Keating and ED fabbed into compounds by Joe Hellmann cheap anyway. LOL
Click to expand...

I agree with that theory, but I also am compelled my multiple ways to skin a cat.
 
Where does the power to generate the boost come into the equation(just a question, not trying to stir)? If you are making 60psi of boost pressure, you probably have 60psi (+ or - around 5%) of drive pressure. Seems like your using a certain amount of energy to maintain the drive pressure on the exhaust side, and a certain amount of energy to compress what is coming in on the intake side. If you add 30psi to both sides to generate the same hp level it seems like you would expend more energy maintaining the drive pressure side and compressing the opposite side.
 
gs1000 said:
OK, sounds as if youve really studied it out and your arguments are compelling and complete, live in alaska turn up boost, live in florida do engine mods. thank you.
Click to expand...

i have lived in bolth, Alaska was allot better
 
I think the mass or weight of air delivered to the motor is the single most important factor in building horsepower. Exhaust drive pressure, like Ron said, destroys horsepower, but is a necessary evil to drive the turbo charger(s) so they can produce mass or weight of airflow.

CFM by itself is meaningless unless some value for pressure is attached to it. Pressure by itself is meaningless unless some value for volume (CFM) is attached to it.

When you combine the two, you end up with mass flow.


So, now that we're all on the same page as far as mass flow, what is the best way to increase mass flow?

Since the cummins motor has a set volume of 359 cubic inches, air density is the only value that can change to increase the amount of mass or weight of air inside the motor.

The whole argument boils down to one question: What is the best way to increase air density with the least amount of parasitic loss in the generation process?

Parasitic loss on a supercharger, for example, is the horsepower lost by turning the belt that drives the supercharger. Parasitic loss on a turbocharger, for example, is the horsepower lost by exhaust back-pressure created between the pistons on their exhaust stroke and the turbine wheel(s) on the turbocharger.
 
Big Blue24 said:
What is the best way to increase air density with the least amount of parasitic loss in the generation process?
Click to expand...

I've already answered that numerous times....more airflow/less boost.
More air....covers air density
Less boost...less drive pressure....less parasitic loss.
 
I'm hoping to see an increase in power and decrease in boost from the new head/6.7 combo. If it does, i'd like to get one of Zachs CR heads when they come out and go to a triple charger setup. "Y" the hotpipe with a pair of GTX4294R primaries. Put a diverter valve in one leg of the hot pipe and one on the(same chargers) compressor outlet. Tie both valves into a single Nason switch so they open at the same time and play with the opening setting so that you have very fast spooling running the 4094 and just one 4294. At a certain primary boost level start opening the valves to bring the second primary online. Just a pipe dream, but something to play with when winter comes. Together they flow quite a bit more than my GT55.
 
Last edited:
It is impossible to put more CFM through the intake without A) psi increase, or B) temperature drop.

Psi in this case is CFM gentlemen, with an intercooler the turbo has to be way way way out of its map before the IAT becomes too hot and power drops off. 95% of the time what kills power when guys are pushing high psi on small turbos is drive pressure.
 
RonA said:
Where does the power to generate the boost come into the equation(just a question, not trying to stir)? If you are making 60psi of boost pressure, you probably have 60psi (+ or - around 5%) of drive pressure. Seems like your using a certain amount of energy to maintain the drive pressure on the exhaust side, and a certain amount of energy to compress what is coming in on the intake side. If you add 30psi to both sides to generate the same hp level it seems like you would expend more energy maintaining the drive pressure side and compressing the opposite side.
Click to expand...

There is a question section on the garrett website and one of the engineers mentioned how having higher drive than boost will negatively affect VE. So I believe that if the pressures are equal then ve will be what the engine would be naturally asperated. If you can get the drive lower than the boost I suppose the VE would actually be better than a NA motor?

If this is true, and I don't know that it is, then this would only apply to manipulating volume.
 
1st gen- 305/798 ftlbs. 57/65/12, 7 blade, HX35 based charger. 42 psi at intake horn, 22* of timing, 3" i/c piping, 2nd gen intercooler and intake horn. stock 1990 non intercooled injectors. was running 55 psi before intercooler install. after install and before timing advance i was at 46 psi
 
Last edited:
YOUNG GUNS15 said:
I agree 100% I cant afford to do anything right the first time :D hahaha but Ive learned a TON from my mistakes. If you dont have money you shouldn't be shunned in this sport. Take Will (BigBlue24) for example, he has somewhere around 4k TOTAL in his truck and he has gone 12.20 in the quarter. He was the most popular racer at that race i believe!
Click to expand...

no offense to bigblue24, its cool hes doing what hes doing for not much money. but come on 12's? thats so 8 years ago. id much rather spend 20k to run 10's!!!

:rockwoot:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top