Porkie

iTrader: (1)

10000000%

I apologise and now your comment makes perfect sense.

I am a wally!

Porkie

iTrader: (1)

Hands up who has an all singing all dancing mental spec engine on a gt** ad with nutty ported this and secret cams who now wishes they have saved their money and tried a std engine on a maxed out t34.48!!!!

I know I do!!!!



I actually love my current engine in westy! But reading this Bugatti muffed it... Quad turbos? Nah... You need ONE t34.48!

Chip

iTrader: (3)

Kind of mate, but in that case it was because it took that long for someone to actually give me detailed answers about how it was configured so I could therefore properly understand it as I have never seen one in real life and the photo was quite misleading, where as in this case its just cause Mike is refusing to actually accept information thats been readily available for several pages.
Basically im a lot better at admitting when im wrong and just saying "thanks for correcting me" than Mike is. although in both our cases it doesnt happen often as we do both tend to only post when we are quite sure in the first place (although as you mention with the top mounts, even being careful there will still be the occasional misunderstanding, no one is infalible, especially when it appears lives are at risk like it really did look with those when I misunderstood them)

I think it says a lot about someone if they will just put their hands up when they are wrong or not, to me im absolutely OCD about techy stuff being as factual as possible so the moment I ever do realise I am wrong I will always instantly say so in no uncertain terms, Mike on the other hand doesnt care if things are actually correct or not providing it looks like he is the one who is right

Chip

iTrader: (3)

Sarcasm aside, I've always liked T34.48 for a rwd road car sierra on a standard beam, anymore power is only really useful once you are already way past the speed limit, different if its 4wd though or running on semi slicks and a decent beam etc.

Chip

iTrader: (3)

At higher rpm if you have more compression you can get away with less airflow (and hence lower turbo speeds) for the same power, so essentially it gives the turbo a slightly easier life, but conversely in the midrange the higher comp means you cant run as much ignition timing which puts EGTs up, which effectively gives the turbo a harder life.
So its quite a fine balance, and TBH the standard low 8s is not a bad place to be at all.

Really the "big two" factors for how much air will be consumed and hence how hard the turbo is going to spin are engine rpm and boost. Another fairly major factor is headwork and cams, as if the engine can breathe easier it means that the turbo can flow the same amount of air for less boost pressure, and that means that you move vertically down on the compressor map, which will drop turbo speed.

Gatecrasher

Same bullshit diffrent thread!

Mike take one if these for getting sucked in and biting you moron

RWD_cossie_wil

iTrader: (9)

To be honest, on anything apart from an open dual carridgeway or motorway, a good T34 car will be faster than anything with a bigger turbo, purely because all of the power & torque are where you need them in a road car. My T4 saff is a weapon in 4/5th gear, but up to then a T34 car would be on its coat tails...

Ginge

I posted this up a while ago... lots of non believers in the thread all taking the piss.



Ginge

JamesH

iTrader: (21)

You thought this would help them stop taking the piss?

ajamesc

I wouldent go with that! I had a 350 set up with a t34 now have a 500 set up with a gt30 and i carnt think of any point the gt30 isn,t massively faster lol. On a nice warm day with hot r888s and my gripper diff it dosent spin and 2 and 3rd with 2.6bar feel like its going too take off

Chip

iTrader: (3)

My original comments he was replying to were talking about standard diff, standard road tyres etc and the fact that there isnt really enough grip to exploit the extra power on the road often.
The GT turbos do change things though in terms of how soon you can have the power from a bigger turbo

ajamesc

Im not quoting on the thread as a hole just on what rwd_ cossie_ will put about a t34 car being faster than anything! with a bigger turbo till 4th or 5th so different diff and tyres fall into the anything category

Chip

iTrader: (3)

He was talking about other cars also using antique turbos only I think, lol

GT turbos are awesome

R4N SS

iTrader: (6)

classic quote but sums it up in a nutshell

Rod-Tarry

.

Sorry but so funny.
Have you been in a properly sorted Saff with huge Power on a modern Turbo, if you aint perhaps best to say nowt . 60-100 2.7secs try that on a t34 would be passed 150 before a t34 plods its way to 100mph you simply have no idea of where things are at do you.

Chip

iTrader: (3)

Lol @ Rod.

I think you are taking him a little out of context, but its easy to do so from how he worded it I will admit.

If you were talking about a standard diff and normal road tyres (ie not 888 etc) which what my post he replied to was on about, your engine would really not find the grip it needs in the lower gears in that context.

In that context, 350-400 is plenty really, as its hard to lay down anymore.

Mike Rainbird

iTrader: (3)

FFS, it's like talking to a kid .

I know the 0.63 a/r would have lasted fine if it had been capped to 385bhp, but why would I want a set up that was so compromised by doing this ? The area under the graph would be reduced by a good 10-15%, with no gains anywhere, only losses in response . The only benefit would be that the 0.63 a/r wouldn't shit itself (but then neither does the 0.48 a/r at this power).


You keep quoting the 370bhp, which as I have mentioned REPEATEDLY is the figure I mentioned on as being safe on a standard engine. We will have to disagree on what you feel is deemed safe, as to get 400bhp out of a 0.63 a/r requires cams and headwork, which moves the powerband upwards and causes the overspeeding issues, so again, I PERSONALLY would not be happy running a 0.63 a/r with a peak power figure @ 6500 to 400bhp.

I'm not the one going off at tangents, I keep stating the same thing over and over .

Wahoo


For me, if booth turbos were equally reliable, I'll have the one with the 500rpm lower boost threshold thank you very much .

I'm only saying the figure of 370 on standard engines. I would agree that 385bhp out of a modded engine would be fine on a 0.63 a/r. HOWEVER, I wouldn't personally run a 0.63 a/r at 385bhp, as it seems pointless when a 0.48 a/r will do the same for the same level of reliability but with a better boost threshold. For the LAST time, it is the extra 500rpm that the 0.63 a/r runs at that kills them (when they are pushed outside their compressor maps).

Mike Rainbird

iTrader: (3)

ONLY when the rev range that it makes this at is extended - how many more fucking times do I have to say it ?

As then you're not comparing like for like scenarios......

IF you were comparing like for like, then I would agree with you 100%. A larger turbo would be safer, but with compromise of reduced boost threshold.

v man

hahahahahaha

this is so funny

basically who really gives a fuck

is is this all really worth it

just agree to disagree

RWD_cossie_wil

iTrader: (9)

Rod, you really are a cock arn't you? I thought at your age you would have given up waving your willy about at every chance to show off about how fast your car is

Read what chip wrote, then what I wrote. For 95% of people, ON THE ROAD, a cosworth running a T34 with a nice tune will be faster for MOST people, down to drivability etc, compared to most T4 cars and poorly specced huge turbo cars

As a road car/cost/performance compromise, a solid T34 car is hard to beat.

JamesH

iTrader: (21)

I think the point Rod is trying to make, is that if you go from a T34 to a GT30 and not a T4, you may not have that opinion?

Chip

iTrader: (3)

Not a problem extending the rev range so you have that extra bit of rpm out of a corner before a gear change etc providing you manage the boost to keep turbo speeds sensible.

Of course not, you are copmaring a .48 housing with no inteligently applied boost control with using a .63 housing the same way, which is not safe as its not idiot proof, but as the rest of us arent idiots we dont need a turbo that is.


I am I am comparing an inteligently setup .48, with an inteligently setup .63, that is like for like.


A larger turbo is safer yes, thats what I've been telling you for several pages, and yes the boost threshold is reduced I havent said otherwise.

What I have done is ask why when (apparently now even including you) everyone knows the .63 can safely make MORE power than a .48 you say the .48 is safe to 385 and the .63 only safe to 370.


The rest of what you are saying TOTALLY contradicts that, so I dont really know why you dont just man up and admit that was a silly figure to have picked and that 390-400 on a .63 is equally as safe as 385 on a .48. Thats reality after all as Ive been telling you for the last few pages so rather than keep wandering off at tangents why not just thank me for correcting you and move on?

Danielbetty

iTrader: (3)

Wasn't expecting all this lol

Chip

iTrader: (3)

Its a question of simple maths really mate:



+



=

JamesH

iTrader: (21)

Danielbetty

iTrader: (3)

But then again been told there's loads of arseholes on here, so not surprised at this really

Chip

iTrader: (3)

I dont really see anyone being an arsehole on this thread particuarly TBH, bit of harmless banter with some good technical merit too it is most of what is going on, but I guess everyone has a different idea of what consitututes being an arsehole or not.

Lambchop

iTrader: (1)

PMSL

Mike Rainbird

iTrader: (3)

We'll have to agree to disagree I'm afraid.

I can't say it any more times that it is the differences in where the turbos produces their peak power figures that causes the issues .

However, we still haven't had YOUR explanation as to why the 0.48 a/r is safe to run to it's absolute limit (385bhp ish @ 6000rpm), but the 0.63 a/r can't (420bhps ish @ 6500rpm)?

Chip

iTrader: (3)

Indeed, so long as you cant understand that boost control can be used to safely extend the .63 beyond what the .48 can manage there is no chance you being able to agree with me.

Well I can say many more times thats up to the mapper, but as you arent one you dont seem to understand.
If you want 400bhp@6K rpm on a .63 you can have it, then tail the boost off after that to make sure the 400bhp doesnt get exceded at higher rpm and this will in turn manage the turbo speeds for you.
Get harvey to explain it to you, or j1mbo, im sure they will both know what I mean!


Didnt realise you were after one Mike.
No problem at all, unlike you I am happy to just answer a direct question!

Its simply because the exhaust housing on the .48 increases back pressure enough that it hinders flow, so the boost required to make the engine swallow anymore air goes up and so in turn limits the turbos max rpm (385bhp on a .48 is at high boost level than require on a .63 to make the same power), where as on the .63 the engine can breathe more easily and hence the turbo can spin faster as it requires less boost for the same flow, so sees less resistance on the compressor side which acts like an air brake to limit shaft speed..

So basically "flat out" is a different speed for the shaft on the .63 than on the .48 (on a YB) Its that increase turbo speed which kills the bearings.

If you fit the .48 to a much better breathing engine, I am confident it too could then overspeed, but we're just talking about boat achors with asthma here of course.

Ima Racing

iTrader: (1)

Mike "i now fuck my girl with a BD10 instead of my small penis " Rainbird, one thing you fail to mention do they run an engine on a dyno very dangerously to get the pub figure but then back it off incar to make it safe, and do they tell the customer this? Infact do all dyno tuners do this to impress for the pound notes?
BUT all said and done the customer of this car will be very happy, BUT if u see an MAD or NMS sticker on another cossie i advise u pretend to be too old to race
IMHO of course!

Rsmat

iTrader: (2)

Rod change the fucking record mate...!

J1mbo

iTrader: (1)

Chip, the only thing I disagree with is the way your saying tail the boost off, the idea of the ports and cams is to alow the engine to flow air as efficiently as it can for as long as it can, so why bother in the first place change from a .48 to a .63 if you can only have it extra at 6000 but after that you have to tail the boost to what power a .48 is, defeating the object. It's there to run 27psi up top, and unfortunately if a customer wants that power then they have to put up with the turbo rebuilds.

I think that's what mikes trying to get at now.

No. Fuelling in 12 ish area and no ignition changes and runs identical boost. Sme might but we do not.

zetec-Sam

iTrader: (2)

A big +1 on that!

COCHYN

Boys FFS give it a rest. If you don't agree, I doubt you ever will by the time this thread reaches double figures.

SCS have built quality engines and have maintained the loyality of their customers like other tuners one way or another, so if you're going to be biased and insist that their work or anyone elses provides "pub figures" then let it be. What's the point of pushing it further and further, don't you have women standing behind you rolling their eyes at how pathetic you're being over all this???

Chip

iTrader: (3)

Other than Phil, who is just trolling for attension, no one is slagging SCS off in anyway at all mate, we all respect what Harvey and J1mbo can do with a YB

RWD_cossie_wil

iTrader: (9)

Indeed, I was merely pointing out arguing about 10-15Bhp either way is pretty pointless, as on 5 different rolling roads you would get around 10% of difference of "opinion" anyway, the most important thing is a good curve shape, and correct fuelling (IMHO), proving that your engine is safe and specced well.. Incidently I have never used SCS, but have been there a couple of times when my mates car was being rebuilt, Harvey seemed like a decent bloke, Jimbo would have been about 8 1/2 years old though

Chip

iTrader: (3)

Some people set out after a specific number, if they want a safe reliable 400 they can get that on the right engine with a T34.63 if they tail the boost off at the top end to stop it over spooling and making 420 etc.
Personally, like you, I would take the 4% hit on power and run a T34.48 instead and having it punchier and have more torque at the start of the midrange, or if I was racing I'd want 420 and accept a few hundred quid bill once or twice a season off CR for a quick turbo rebuild.
But what Mike said is that the .63 has to be run not at just a bit more than the .48 to stay safe (which is reality) but that it has to be run at LESS than the .48 (which is utter nonsense as both me and you and anyone else who understands how a turbo works realises)
So its that which I'd rather people didnt leave the thread thinking is true when it isnt, as I prefer threads to be accurate or there isnt much point in technical forums IMHO.



He's up for talking about ANYTHING except for why he thinks a turbo needs ot make LESS power to remain reliable after you swap to a larger housing that lowers EGTs and EBPs and increases the engines specific output per pound of boost
Im sure he has actually realised by now how stupid the concept of 370 on a .63 instead of 385 on a .48 was, but he just wont admit it cause he is Mike

Chip

iTrader: (3)

Me and Mike arent arguing about a specific number TBH, I've used his numbers just to keep it consistent, but the key thing is that a larger housing will allow MORE power not less, the exact figures arent relevant, and like you say will vary day to day, but the bottom line is the larger housing will always be safe for more power on any given dyno on any given engine on any given day, irrelevant of the exact number itself.

RWD_cossie_wil

iTrader: (9)

I was more getting at the first few pages when people were going ooooohh you can't do that on a .48/55/63 etc etc