What if...............

Status
Not open for further replies.
Smokem said:
The current highest hp 3.0" turbochargers use a 0.60AR compressor cover, so I don't see your point.
Click to expand...


I'm referring to the volume of air available. The .60 wpuld be faster to make pressure, but will limit the wheels to end flow for some of the potential field setups.

Also when performing a side by side comparison on maps.... the 400sx-76 falls short compared to the 400sx-e 72. From start to finish the 72sxe moves more air faster and better to the edge of the map and would suit a MUCH broader field of competitiors.

Now I only brought the sxe up as a reference since the whole 360* debate took place. Also as stated before the 96mm turbine is an oem option which would mesh nicely with setups that are already used to dumping massive volumes of air.

Still as said before the turbo should essentially be untouched if this were to be an Apple's to Apple's competition, so let the competitor choose their v-band cover based on their dyno testing and test and tune.... if the .63 works better for them rather than the V2 .72 then so be it. That was their cover of choice as long as it retains factory spec and zero welding, cutting, or grinding should be allowed.

If there are tooling marks then DQ is handed out.

Remember the V2 is what a $300+ OEM part right?..... So if the user wants to invest that because it better suits their setup, but the CHRA remains constant across the board then it fair play. Everyone has that option available.
 
It's very clear from your comments that you have no idea what you are talking about.
 
The cubic inch range on engines competing in this is very small from top to bottom. The engines will perform best on the same turbine. It looks like to me the turbo chosen is realible affordable and makes decent power for diesel application. Also it wouldn't give one person an advantage over the other. It looks like some get easily caught up in advertising for turbo upgrades that don't benefit their application.
 
Smokem said:
It's very clear from your comments that you have no idea what you are talking about.
Click to expand...

No that has zero to do with it. You just have the constant notion of everything you say to be fact, when there are countless users on here that have proved you "testing" to fall short from real world application.

I say this as matter of fact and not opinion! The irony is some of the so called "experts" ignore others experiences and data.... even the oem data that's provided is wrong according to you!
 
There is no better real World application than an engine dyno, which you apparently have zero experience with, nor no knowledge of back to back comparison results. You can argue what something will do on paper for as long as you like, but many engine builders that actually dyno turbochargers know the facts.
 
blackmega3500 said:
I say this as matter of fact and not opinion!
Click to expand...

How many people have to tell you? Where does your experience and knowledge come from to argue with everyone, including people that make their living at this, that what you say is "fact and not opinion?"

Stop. Just, please, stop.
 
Last edited:
Smokem said:
There is no better real World application than an engine dyno, which you apparently have zero experience with, nor no knowledge of back to back comparison results. You can argue what something will do on paper for as long as you like, but many engine builders that actually dyno turbochargers know the facts.
Click to expand...

Until said application hits the real world strip/ street where the test environment is not a standardized controled measure of a closed room!

I'll throw this out there for fun.....

This is why it takes a room full of engineers horrific periods of time to make even the most basic of projects come together with slight imperfections, whereas Joe blow weekend warrior or enthusiast can build a better more reliable platform in half the time and budget as the application process isn't over thought, yet tried and true!$.02

I digress....
 
Yes, because it is totally illogical to test different platforms in a controlled environment and compare the results. :hehe:


blackmega3500 said:
Until said application hits the real world strip/ street where the test environment is not a standardized controled measure of a closed room!

I'll throw this out there for fun.....

This is why it takes a room full of engineers horrific periods of time to make even the most basic of projects come together with slight imperfections, whereas Joe blow weekend warrior or enthusiast can build a better more reliable platform in half the time and budget as the application process isn't over thought, yet tried and true!$.02

I digress....
Click to expand...
 
unfinished business said:
Yes, because it is totally illogical to test different platforms in a controlled environment and compare the results. :hehe:
Click to expand...

You missed the point.

Science and result are relative to environment subjected to.... This is the reason not all sciences are considered concrete.

Just because you have xxx perform in a set application controlled application such as something like an engine dyno, DOES NOT MEAN the same results a replicatable in another platform.

Good googly mooogly, do you remember when the 6.7 first started seeing big singles and all the 5.9 guy's thought it was just the craziest thing ever..... and said "oh no can't be done because of XYZ"... same premise here. Different applications, net different results!

That about as elementary as it could be broken down.

PDD displayed a very good representation of this with their turbo tutorials awhile back. Funny thing is the pullers called them crazy for their setup and looked what happens at UCC... They won!:woohoo:

Here's a better example..... user here ran a 472sxe and mad a 10.6 or 10.5 pass with the 87/82 turbine, and if I remember correctly went only a couple tenths faster with the 476/96.....

To the topic at hand had that 472sxe had a bigger turbine housing it probably would be out performed the 476/96. That there is AN OPINION acquired via observation!
 
Last edited:
blackmega3500 said:
You missed the point.

Science and result are relative to environment subjected to.... This is the reason not all sciences are considered concrete.

Just because you have xxx perform in a set application controlled application such as something like an engine dyno, DOES NOT MEAN the same results a replicatable in another platform.

Good googly mooogly, do you remember when the 6.7 first started seeing big singles and all the 5.9 guy's thought it was just the craziest thing ever..... and said "oh no can't be done because of XYZ"... same premise here. Different applications, net different results!

That about as elementary as it could be broken down.

PDD displayed a very good representation of this with their turbo tutorials awhile back. Funny thing is the pullers called them crazy for their setup and looked what happens at UCC... They won!:woohoo:

Here's a better example..... user here ran a 472sxe and mad a 10.6 or 10.5 pass with the 87/82 turbine, and if I remember correctly went only a couple tenths faster with the 476/96.....

To the topic at hand had that 472sxe had a bigger turbine housing it probably would be out performed the 476/96. That there is AN OPINION acquired via observation!
Click to expand...

You keep saying we can't base our theories off one engine tested on an engine dyno yet all your arguments throughout this thread are based off one user here who ran a xx.x time with xx turbine and then switched to xx turbine and picked up x.xx ET. How's about you test your theory on more than one instance snowflake?
 
imelmo said:
Pro Tree please. This isn't a bracket race.
Click to expand...

You can have a pro tree in a bracket race, we do it all the time in the Gambler's races. Actually a lot of fun. I think the single light idea is a good one, go on green with no yellow at all.
 
lorendiesel5.9 said:
You keep saying we can't base our theories off one engine tested on an engine dyno yet all your arguments throughout this thread are based off one user here who ran a xx.x time with xx turbine and then switched to xx turbine and picked up x.xx ET. How's about you test your theory on more than one instance snowflake?
Click to expand...

A theory is essentially a hypothesis..... when you clearly missed that I gave you a conclussion so the 2 aren't equal!

Nonetheless the principle of my statement you clearly missed so please go reread! If you need help Google the compressor maps for yourself!

Ok schnookums!:homo:
 
Last edited:
blackmega3500 said:
A theory is essentially a hypothesis..... when you clearly missed that I gave you a conclussion so the 2 aren't equal!

Nonetheless the principle of my statement you clearly missed so please go reread! If you need help Google the compressor maps for yourself!

Ok schnookums!:homo:
Click to expand...

Hogue the phone, Wade a minute! You Googled the compressor maps? Googled? Are you for real right now bruh?
 
blackmega3500 said:
A theory is essentially a hypothesis..... when you clearly missed that I gave you a conclussion so the 2 aren't equal!

Nonetheless the principle of my statement you clearly missed so please go reread! If you need help Google the compressor maps for yourself!

Ok schnookums!:homo:
Click to expand...
So the result of a drag race is a conclusion, but the result of an engine dyno is a theory? The controlled environment of repeatability on the engine dyno is a theory? The drag strip with human error though is conclusion?

I guess I learn something new everyday.
 
Can we talk about the phucking race again, now....please?
The chargers for the 5500 and 6000lb classes will be chosen by us with input from the professionals. We can stop debating compressor maps now.
No choice we make will make everyone happy...and there's not a damn thing we can do about that. Once it's posted for sure you'll either race or you won't. We think most will want to race.
 
Subman631 said:
You can have a pro tree in a bracket race, we do it all the time in the Gambler's races. Actually a lot of fun. I think the single light idea is a good one, go on green with no yellow at all.
Click to expand...

Same as running a .400 tree, leaving at the yellow flash. Any diesel truck unless deeped stage as hell won't red light, unless a flinch.
 
RickFox said:
So the result of a drag race is a conclusion, but the result of an engine dyno is a theory? The controlled environment of repeatability on the engine dyno is a theory? The drag strip with human error though is conclusion?

I guess I learn something new everyday.
Click to expand...

Is this a serious question? Geezuuuus where should we start with what affects turbo performance.... atmosphere conditions i.e.... heat, humidity, elevation and density and a couple I'm forgetting. Your statement makes about as much sense as a black Santa clause statue! An engine dyno is a moot baseline. Now for a supercharger then yes it's a little more reliable.

Let's not even get into engine load, turbo surge at the edge of the map, boost drops during a shift and sustainable PR..... or for phuck sake parastatic loss through the drive train which of course is net HP.

Same truck, same driver, bolt the b!tch on, and press the pedal when ready on a tuned in setup is no a positive gauge from what your saying.

Now, as Unbroken stated moving on!
 
Yes....moving on. Starting to sound like a bunch of damn sled pullers in here. lol
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top