best turbo for cossie ???
13-01-2007, 05:21 PM
#41
Yoon
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Norwich
Posts: 6,844
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by GARETH T
i got another one,, but i think ill save it for a rainy day 
the problem is that it has a realtive small exhaust housing compared to its compressor sizing! someones tried to lower the boost threshold by using a small exhaust housing and sadly what you end up with is surge!
btw boost threshold is the point in the rev range where the turbo starts to make positive pressure,, most poeple call this lag,, but it isnt,,, lag is the time it takes for the turbo to spin upto speed when in the correct operating rev range
the problem is that it has a realtive small exhaust housing compared to its compressor sizing! someones tried to lower the boost threshold by using a small exhaust housing and sadly what you end up with is surge!
btw boost threshold is the point in the rev range where the turbo starts to make positive pressure,, most poeple call this lag,, but it isnt,,, lag is the time it takes for the turbo to spin upto speed when in the correct operating rev range
Know the difference's mate
,finished the Corky Bell book t'other night,some great info in there.
13-01-2007, 05:24 PM
#42
Professional Waffler
oh becarful with the corky bell book,, he does make a few errors in it,,, i cant remember what they are but he does 
just remembered,, one thing he says is use a over pressure switch to turn the fuel pump off
i can only imaging the outcome
just remembered,, one thing he says is use a over pressure switch to turn the fuel pump off
i can only imaging the outcome
13-01-2007, 05:32 PM
#46
PassionFord Post Whore!!
i have to say, on my spec engine,
the std 240r didn't surge at all, and it didn't boost any earlier than a full on gt30 .82 that i run now.
But the md240r that TD did for my 2nd version, did surge on the same engine.
the std 240r didn't surge at all, and it didn't boost any earlier than a full on gt30 .82 that i run now.
But the md240r that TD did for my 2nd version, did surge on the same engine.
13-01-2007, 05:37 PM
#47
Originally Posted by Fiecos Dan
Good luck.
but your right, about the engine dyno, and a RR.
ps, heres my answer on the other post in the rst section.
Please do.
But have you boost/rpm checked your T34 @ every 100 rpm, under full load in the car?
and on the same actuator, boost controll, and same full spec and same weather conditions, but just the turbo changed, do the same on the new turbo.
but your right, about the engine dyno, and a RR.
ps, heres my answer on the other post in the rst section.
Originally Posted by Fiecos Dan
Originally Posted by M K
il see how mine differs from standard t34 at the berks rolling road day
Please do.
But have you boost/rpm checked your T34 @ every 100 rpm, under full load in the car?
and on the same actuator, boost controll, and same full spec and same weather conditions, but just the turbo changed, do the same on the new turbo.
& the old t34 is now off of the car ready for the buyer
i see what you meant tho, a back to back exact test would of been nice
14-01-2007, 08:32 AM
#49
Virgin
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Test´s that have been done in Sweden with several cars has showed that a ballbearing turbo might give you positive boost a couple of hundred rpm´s earlier.
but the big difference is how fast it builds 'full boost'
example:
a std turbo started to build boost at 3000rpm and got spooled at somewhere around 3800rpm, fullboost at 4000rpm
an exact copy of that turbo but only difference was ballbearing:
Started to build boost at 2700rpm but was spooled around 3100rpm and fullboost at 3300rpm.
Thats 500 rpm´s added to torquecurve. not bad at all, but not a gift from god.
but what the test shows in my eyes is how big the difference are between old turbos and newer.
the effectivity is far more better than old turbos EVEN THOU IT´S BIGGER
but the big difference is how fast it builds 'full boost'
example:
a std turbo started to build boost at 3000rpm and got spooled at somewhere around 3800rpm, fullboost at 4000rpm
an exact copy of that turbo but only difference was ballbearing:
Started to build boost at 2700rpm but was spooled around 3100rpm and fullboost at 3300rpm.
Thats 500 rpm´s added to torquecurve. not bad at all, but not a gift from god.
but what the test shows in my eyes is how big the difference are between old turbos and newer.
the effectivity is far more better than old turbos EVEN THOU IT´S BIGGER
14-01-2007, 06:04 PM
#50
Professional Waffler
Originally Posted by BatFink
Got that and his new four stroke one on order mate.
its in my wishlist with my next order of books
14-01-2007, 06:40 PM
#52
Happily retired
Originally Posted by Mike Rainbird
I am just pointing out that roller-bearing cores do not give faster spool-up. This is achieved with different design of turbo (smaller, lighter shaft and more efficient turbine design) and NOTHING to do with the roller bearing core.
Rod
15-01-2007, 03:56 PM
#53
Yoon
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Norwich
Posts: 6,844
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GARETH T
Got those two books mate,had a brief look through them.
Both look bloody good,especially the Forced Induction one.
Some rather cool stuff in there,ten times better the the Corky one so far.
All three are good books for what I've looked at.
Dan.
Got those two books mate,had a brief look through them.
Both look bloody good,especially the Forced Induction one.
Some rather cool stuff in there,ten times better the the Corky one so far.
All three are good books for what I've looked at.
Dan.
16-01-2007, 10:51 AM
#54
Originally Posted by ThePH
Originally Posted by Mike Rainbird
I am just pointing out that roller-bearing cores do not give faster spool-up. This is achieved with different design of turbo (smaller, lighter shaft and more efficient turbine design) and NOTHING to do with the roller bearing core.
Rod
They possibly changed other things as well? As in my experience of absolutely IDENTICAL turbos, there is no way you would have been able to tell which had the roller bearing core. Think about it, how much friction is there in a bearing FLOATING in a bath of oil ?
I would imagine that the 10% can be attributed to better design and smaller shafts, which require less rotational force to get them up to speed. However, the downside is a week turbo that WILL snap shafts if it sees a whiff of surge (so absolutely MUST have a dump valve).
16-01-2007, 02:02 PM
#56
Originally Posted by Mike Rainbird
Originally Posted by ThePH
Originally Posted by Mike Rainbird
I am just pointing out that roller-bearing cores do not give faster spool-up. This is achieved with different design of turbo (smaller, lighter shaft and more efficient turbine design) and NOTHING to do with the roller bearing core.
Rod
They possibly changed other things as well? As in my experience of absolutely IDENTICAL turbos, there is no way you would have been able to tell which had the roller bearing core. Think about it, how much friction is there in a bearing FLOATING in a bath of oil ?
If in your experience there is no way of telling which turbo had a roller bearing on Identical turbos, then why do roller bearing cores even exist? As if there is no difference then it seems pointless
16-01-2007, 02:05 PM
#57
Originally Posted by MarK4
Mike in your opinion do all GT series turbo's require a DV or just the huge ones like rod uses?
Originally Posted by CossieRich
Originally Posted by Mike Rainbird
Originally Posted by ThePH
Originally Posted by Mike Rainbird
I am just pointing out that roller-bearing cores do not give faster spool-up. This is achieved with different design of turbo (smaller, lighter shaft and more efficient turbine design) and NOTHING to do with the roller bearing core.
Rod
They possibly changed other things as well? As in my experience of absolutely IDENTICAL turbos, there is no way you would have been able to tell which had the roller bearing core. Think about it, how much friction is there in a bearing FLOATING in a bath of oil ?
If in your experience there is no way of telling which turbo had a roller bearing on Identical turbos, then why do roller bearing cores even exist? As if there is no difference then it seems pointless
The roller bearing's can take more thrust loadings than the 360° flat type ones.
16-01-2007, 02:12 PM
#59
DEYTUKURJERBS
That forced induction book is good, but it is a little wrong sometimes, the odd big smells of "ive heard" rather than "i know" but generally its the best book ive read.
WRC turbos are BB arnt they? They run no water cooling.
How many times have i said that t3 t34 t4 etc etc means nothing and are very vague terms?
Its a t3/4 still
WRC turbos are BB arnt they? They run no water cooling.
Originally Posted by CossieRich
More of a hybrid badged as a T34 surely
Its a t3/4 still
16-01-2007, 02:52 PM
#61
Originally Posted by CossieRich
Thankyou Mike
This 'magical' Roller bearing T34 tested in PF. Is it actually a T34 as no conventional t34 could make that hp. More of a hybrid badged as a T34 surely
This 'magical' Roller bearing T34 tested in PF. Is it actually a T34 as no conventional t34 could make that hp. More of a hybrid badged as a T34 surely
(which magically gets 350bhp out of a Grp A restricted engine and then 30bhp disappears when put on A N Other dyno ).
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Karl 3dr
Pictures, video & Photoshop Forum
102
14-10-2016 08:17 PM
Focosmitch
Ford RS Cosworth Parts for Sale
36
09-10-2015 07:38 PM
Matt Baxter
Ford RS Cosworth Parts for Sale
6
16-09-2015 08:30 PM