sprint32

What about the common VL turbo pump? I've heard of people having good results with them. What do they flow like and what sort of price are they these day's. Might even feed two of them off a surge tank if they're cheap/moderate flowing

a replacement head will only be second hand anyway. Provided you take it to a competent tradesman you should be fine.

You wont find many here that like water/air intercoolers. (Not bling, bling enough!) But I'm with you. Here's the last time 'I' tried to open peoples eyes: http://www.skylinesaustralia.com/forums/sh...ead.php?t=37234 Enjoy the flame session.

Can anybody sell me one R33 series 1 ignition transister? (lots of names for it, I know.) My friend is stranded at the moment. Has to keep borrowing his girlfriends one whenever he wants to drive his! For those who dont know what I'm talking about, It's the finned box thingy that sits on top of the coil cover at the back of the head.

Sweet.... any news on your plans for water injection. I'm a huge fan of this idea, I want to try it on mine when I get it back on the road.

Ok. So you got 245 rwkw at 10 psi, now after the porting you have achieved 240 rwkw at 17 psi. Have you been able to recover this power loss? (i know it's only slight, but it's an extra 7 pound.)

Yeah, nice try again. But you're still forgeting the temperature rise of the air affecting the volume of air as well. (Quote Sydneykid: What you seem to have ignored is the 1 bar of boost in the RB25DET example, that effectively doubles its air consumption ability. Plus an RB is 90% efficient in its air consumption, so 250 litres per second X 90% = 225 litres per second. So the 0.008 of a second difference in airflow through your super duper inlet system makes SFA difference to the response. Which is what I said in the first place....) This wasn't about response. It's about the turbo having to spin faster before producing boost, thats rpm closer to the "FAILURE POINT" so if we can spin it slower for the same amount of air, safer for the turbine. I'm not saying I'll get 220+ at the wheels, it was just raised as a not too far fetched goal to create interest. It was never a proven claim, just an eye opener to what "MAY" be available. I wasn't aware this was a spelling bee. Want an elephant stamp for that one? We'll end it there ay, Or should I say you guys will end it there as I know you cant resist having the last word, else you wouldn't be resorting to feeble attempts to insult me because you dont understand the laws of physics. Maybe It'll work, maybe it wont. But I'm not scared to try something different. My car made (with slight detonation in the top end, Damn townsville air.) 108 RWKW when stock as a rock with even the factory exhaust. I'll let you know how I went, and anything unusual or helpfull along the way. Doing it different sprint32

Obviously you dont read well. The whole point of this discusion was increasing the efficiency of the ENTIRE system. The reason I said to read all of the points that I've covered is because I'm spending too much time repeating myself for those who just jump on the last post without relating it to what I said formerly. (when they do all they look for is spelling mistakes, Like that means something on the road. Wasn't aware this was a spelling bee.). No-one seems interested in relating facts together to make a gain, There just looking to put someone down as if that makes them feel better about themselves. Very narrow minded. As I said, These concepts arn't new, and there all facts, and if you do a search on these (come on, at least try.), you will find everyone understumbles them alone, but put them all together at the same time and they're like a deer in headlights. I don't understand that. sorry about the balloons and stuff. Wasn't explained well. we dont have any 'slip' of air, like a positive dissplacment supercharger. But centrifugal compressors are affected more readily by pressure ratio, and when they do start to 'slip' because there fighting against this pressure ratio, they create heat which makes matters even worse. The air is less dense at a higher temperature. Thats all sydneykid's example was missing.

Here, Here. As a matter of fact there's a bit of a trend I hear of sending engines over here to be worked on cause it's cheaper to ship it over, have it worked over, and then ship it back. Good post sydney kid. Break the trends. (methods I mean, NOT the yen coming to australia! Encourage that! he, he.)

Yeah I cant really call it a shlong....It's more lite a shlort. (He, he.) It's good you have a low pressure drop. But try blowing up a balloon and then try blowing up an airbed. Egsadurated (i know, it's not spelt right.) example,I know, or is it? us blowing up something is like a positive dissplacement pump. however, a centrfugal compressor has alot more pumping efficiency up till a point. If you modify your engine to flow more air, you increase the airflow before the turbos efficiency is effected to the same degree by pressure ratio, heating of the air, etc. I know it will take a while, but read over this thread again and then do a search on all these different methods. You will find that everyone agree's with all of them when considered alone (as they should as they are facts), but rarely tie them all together. But then we say it's all the little things combined that add up to quite a large difference!? Some even completely agree with me in other threads and then come here to try to tell me I'm wrong!!!!?? (yes, I have been laughing at this over the last week.) Seriously. You're either paying lip service to your friends and people who have done it before, or your just coming here to be argumentative. I know which I think, as the fact's are there, and everywhere else on these forums for that fact, as well as living proof. Before you try flaming someone, check out the facts. Those who do not learn from history are doomed to make the same mistakes.

Hows it going these days? not sure but i think i read somewhere you were making 300 odd rwkw's? If so, what changes did you make?

No. your calculation was correct, just incomplete. I know it sounds like a cop out but...Hang on. I've already told you why it doesn't work, no sense TRYING to show you again. but even a 350 chev (no im not a v8 lover, far from it. just a good size to show as comparison.) at 80% volumetric efficiency uses 226 cfm. thats at AMBIENT air temperature. Enough said. Sorry man. Physics and gas laws are on my side, weather you like it or not. I don't know everything but your starting to really dissapoint me. Do you really understand this stuff or are we just continuing this arguement for the entertainment of others. What say we deflate our brain muscles for a bit and just cool down? ( cause I must admit, It's getting to the point where I'm starting to enjoy this intellectual argument too, which isn't a healthy mindset to be in on these forums. teh, he!)

how long is the valve open for in a real engine. how much pressure is still in the cylinder when the intake valve opens. How long does it take and how agressively does it reach fully open. it may be possible to get a little vacume (i hate spelling that word, it doesn't look right. what, me fail english? that's unpossible! lol.) but in a engine with a turbocharger, that's impossible. The flow bench is a good tool but doesn't show the effects of cylinder backpressure. But we can change the effective efficiency of the turbocharger on the system if we can improve the breathing of the engine. you can use a bigger intercooling system that uses more air to reach the same pressure if you want, but thats wasting the turbo's shaft sp....lets not go there again. In the end your not going to make any more power cause the engine isn't breathing any better (when stock like most people, cams port's etc...), but you'll create a lot of heat in the air for no reason cause your spinning the turbo faster to do the same job. Surge line comes closer, efficiency decreases... You need to look at volumetric efficiency as well when testing how good a port flows. Thats not isolating the compressor side, thats thinking of the entire system as a whole. Your turn.

Couldn't help yourself could you. Anyway, In your first (ahemm) 'correction, I was talking about increasing volumetric efficiency, not combustion efficiency, changing the efficiency of turbo. If you can flow more air into the engine before reaching the set pressure you alter the aerodynamics of the compressor. It will flow more air before starting to rech its stall range. All airflow systems are tested under only one condition. Using what I've shown you above you can see it would be not only naieve but propostrous to think they can represent the restriction of all engines around the world. ALL airflow systems are different. We all agree you need to port the head on a turbo engine at some stage as the restriction wont let you flow enough air no-matter what pressure you run. Also as I was meandering on about last night, this is the reason they use placticene to put around flanges of intake ports on manifolds (and thier exits aswell depending on which way your testing), to prevent the air stalling as it has to turn 90 degree's. We all know the advantage's of a bell mouth at the start of your inlet tract. Your formula is a great one. IN FAIRYLAND!!! NO engine is 100% volumetrically efficient. none. You even said yourself that pressure is the restriction of flow, and correctly so. But unless your boost gauge is reading the pressure after the restriction (the valves) it wont be 100% volumetrically efficient. Then we take the inefficiency of the compressor into consideration as well and how much it heats the air, none of which i see in your working. And let's not even get into the efficiency of old versus new compressors. That was a really silly thing to say sydneykid. I'm dissapointed in you. I hold you higher than that. Maybe you were drunk too. Hey, if you stick around all week you'll watch the amazing man pull his foot out of his mouth seven times. (I hope that wasnt too harsh,lol)

By the way, I hope i'm not totally WRONG, WRONG, WRONG and INCORECT in saying that not even a 350 chev requires 250 litres per second. I'll even start dropping names and offer quotes too if you wana be smart and then coy. (sorry, that was uncalled for.)