Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Ok...a few generalisations first...:D

You have two turbos both flowing 60cfm into the same engine. The inlet temps are the same but in order to supply the 60cfm one of the turbos has to run 20 psi vs the bigger turbos 14psi.

So which turbo will make more power?

Firstly let me say that I think that scenario is impossible. There is no way (that I know of) for a smaller turbo at 20 psi to supply 60cfm at the same temperature as a larger turbo does at 14 psi. In addition to turbo rpm differences, there would be some engine rpm differences (ie; the larger turbo is going to need more engine rpm to produce the same airflow). Since "power" (horsepower I assume) is torque X rpm / 5250, the different engine rpm would make a comparison difficult.

But let's say it is possible, I believe that the larger turtbo will produce more power because it has less exhaust restriction (via the larger turbine). If this (larger turbine) is the primary reason for the 14 psi versus 20 psi, then the extra power will be substantial.

:cheers:

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/74606-boost-and-power/#findComment-1369374
Share on other sites

Just my thinking but wouldn't they have the same total power apart from the obvious lesser exhaust restriction as SK said, but the larger turbo spool up much later in the rev range and the smaller turbo spool up quicker therefore the smaller turbo would give the power quicker than the bigger one......does that make sense?

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/74606-boost-and-power/#findComment-1369496
Share on other sites

you need a mrs troy

Stuff that, recent times have proven they are more trouble then the R32:)

Im curious to try a new turbo that is a bolt on to my setup. Basically im running about 17psi to make 235rwkws.

My current turbo flows about 42-45cfm. The turbo i want to run flows around 60cfm. Now here is the thing the turbo uses the exact same turbine as i currently run, the same exhaust housing, just has a bigger compressor and associated compressor housing.

The diameter of the wheel is 3mm, maybe it was 4mm bigger then what i currently run.

Could be interesting to see how it performs

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/74606-boost-and-power/#findComment-1369519
Share on other sites

Stuff that, recent times have proven they are more trouble then the R32:)

Im curious to try a new turbo that is a bolt on to my setup. Basically im running about 17psi to make 235rwkws.

My current turbo flows about 42-45cfm.  The turbo i want to run flows around 60cfm. Now here is the thing the turbo uses the exact same turbine as i currently run, the same exhaust housing, just has a bigger compressor and associated compressor housing.

The diameter of the wheel is 3mm, maybe it was 4mm bigger then what i currently run.  

Could be interesting to see how it performs

My guess.......More airflow to make more power = more boost, as the turbine is going to be a restriction at the higher airflow. This usually means closer to compressor surge, as the compressor can deliver more flow than the turbine can receive. Usually Trust add larger turbines for more power, this avoids the compressor surge issue.

Should be an interesting experiment none the less.:cheers:

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/74606-boost-and-power/#findComment-1369552
Share on other sites

Stuff that, recent times have proven they are more trouble then the R32:)

Im curious to try a new turbo that is a bolt on to my setup. Basically im running about 17psi to make 235rwkws.

My current turbo flows about 42-45cfm.  The turbo i want to run flows around 60cfm. Now here is the thing the turbo uses the exact same turbine as i currently run, the same exhaust housing, just has a bigger compressor and associated compressor housing.

The diameter of the wheel is 3mm, maybe it was 4mm bigger then what i currently run.  

Could be interesting to see how it performs

If you run the same PSI (17) as you curently do won't it just make the same power more or less, just later it the rev range thus making the upgrade faily useless unless you run more boost?

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/74606-boost-and-power/#findComment-1370216
Share on other sites

If you run the same PSI (17) as you curently do won't it just make the same power more or less, just later it the rev range thus making the upgrade faily useless unless you run more boost?

This is where i was looking for ppls feedback as the theory goes out the window i suspect in application.:P

If i run 17ps with a 2530, then 17psi with a 3037 then i would hope the 3037 would make more power:) Thing is what happens when you run the 3037 compressor and cover on the the 2530 turbine:confused:

You would think you get surge city. But the TD06 turbines flow a lot more then a 2530 turbine, and provided my exhaust valves and head etc are a restriciton before my Trust turbine/housing then i wonder if its possible that this setup may just do the job.

It will be interesting little experiment.:mad:

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/74606-boost-and-power/#findComment-1371288
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • Yeah, all the crude is used for fuels and petrochem feedstocks (pesticides, many other chemicals, etc etc). But increasingly over the last few decades, much of the petrochem synthessis has started with methane because NG has been cheaper than oil, cleaner and easier and more consistent to work with, etc etc etc. So it's really had to say what the fraction either way is. Suffice to say - the direct fuels fraction is not insigificant. Heavy transport uses excruciatingly large amounts. Diesel is wasted in jet heaters in North American garages and workshops, thrown down drill holes in quarries, pissed all over the wall to provide electricity to certain outback communities, etc etc. Obviously road transport, and our pet project, recreational consumption camouflaged as road transport, is a smaller fraction of the total liquid HC consumption again. If you're talking aboust Aussie cars' contribution to the absolute total CO2 production of the country, then of course our share of the cubic mile of coal that is used for power generation, metallurgy, etc adds up to a big chunk. Then there is the consumption of timber. Did you know that the production of silicon metal, for example, is done in Australia by using hardwood? And f**king lots and lots and lots of hardwood at that. Until recently, it was f**king jarrah! There are many such sneaky contributors to CO2 production in industry and farming. NG is used in massive quantities in Australia, for power gen, for running huge water pumps (like, 1-2MW sized caterpillar V16 engines running flat out pumping water) for places like mine sites and minerals/metals refineries. And there are just a huge number of those sort of things going on quietly in the background. So NG use is a big fraction of total CO2 production here. I mean, shit, I personally design burners that are used in furnaces here in Oz that use multiple MW of gas all day every day. The largest such that I've done (not here in Oz) was rated to 150MW. One. Single. Gas burner. In a cement clinker kiln. There are thousands of such things out there in the world. There are double digits of them just here in Oz. (OK< just barely double digits now that a lot of them have shut - and they are all <100MW). But it's all the same to me. People in the car world (like this forum's users) would like to think that you only have to create an industrial capability to replace the fuel that they will be using in 10 years time, and imagine that everyone else will be driving EVs. And while the latter part of that is largely true, the liquid HC fuel industry as a whole is so much more massive than the bit used for cars, that there will be no commercial pressure to produce "renewable" "synthetic" fuels just for cars, when 100x that much would still be being burnt straight from the well. You have to replace it all, or you're not doing what is required. And then you get back to my massive numbers. People don't handle massive numbers at all well. Once you get past about 7 or 8 zeros, it becomes meaningless for most people.
    • @GTSBoy out of the cubic mile of crude oil we burn each year, I wonder how much of that is actually used for providing petrol and diesel.   From memory the figure for cars in Australia, is that they only add up to about 2 to 3% of our CO2 production. Which means something else here is burning a shit tonne of stuff to make CO2, and we're not really straight up burning oil everywhere, so our CO2 production is coming from elsewhere too.   Also we should totally just run thermal energy from deep in the ground. That way we can start to cool the inside of the planet and reverse global warming (PS, this last paragraph is a total piss take)
    • As somebody who works in the energy sector and lives in a subzero climate, i'm convinced EV's will never be the bulk of our transport.  EV battery and vehicle companies over here have been going bankrupt on a weekly basis the last year. 
    • With all the rust on those R32s, how can it even support all the extra weight requirements. Probably end up handling as well as a 1990s Ford Falcon Taxi.
    • Yes...but look at the numbers. There is a tiny tiny fraction of the number of Joules available, compared to what is used/needed. Just because things are "possible" doesn't make them meaningful.
×
×
  • Create New...