Chip

iTrader: (3)

Agreed, it might be that on some dynos you cant, the exact numbers to me arent really relevant a dyno is just about optimising the output and giving you a ballpark figure for comparison to engines run at other facilities.

COCHYN

Then leave it be, why continue to pick at it? You both (you and Mike) have strong opinions with clear or possibly obscure knowledge to justify those opinions, so just leave it be, you're just not going to agree. Jimbo's even having to put his 2 pence worth in to give an impartial view because yes, SCS were being slagged off about their dyno results.

Chip

iTrader: (3)

I dont want to leave it be because i dont want anyone thinking its an opinion, it isnt, its a fact, a .63 housing t34 can safely make more power than a .48 housing one can.

J1mbo knows this too, but is getting distracted by all mikes other blathering on so isnt replying as clearly as he otherwise would, plus is talking about things like drivability etc which we all know anyway and wasnt the point in question.

I dont want people getting the impression that to make more power reliably they should be using a smaller housing, as its NOT the case, larger housing will run cooler and more efficiently and safely make more power.

COCHYN

Quite simply Chip, if you carry on then you'll just look like a kid with a rattle trying to get attention....or a complete tit! We've all read what you think and what Mike believes, I personally prefer the .63 over the .48 because of how mine performs on it. But there's nothing else you can say except to go round in circles, which the next few pages WILL BE until a sensible moderator wakes up and closes the thread.

Just leave it be man, I'm sure nobody cares now

Chip

iTrader: (3)

You are making the completely incorrect assumption that I give a flying fuck what a bunch of people on a forum think of me, I dont at all.
I do however care if threads are accurate or not.

If someone leave the thread thinking im the biggest cunt ever to try and help people learn on the internet, but also thinking that a larger exhaust housing is a way to increase a turbo's ability to safely flow more air than thats a far better result IMHO than if they were to leave thinking I was awesome but that fitting a smaller housing would allow them to run more horsepower safely.

Surprises me after so long and so many posts on this forum that people can still fail to "get" me to that extent.

Totally uninterested in popularity contests, totally interested in correct and useful info.

COCHYN

Lets be honest though Chip, you always have something to say, be it positive or not (the latter mostly). Its the way you bring yourself across that makes you the Passionford troll. You might hate that title, but 9/10 you are at the start, middle and end of EVERY debatable thread that leads to the infamous arguments on this forum. With respect, maybe you should keep your opinions to yourself perhaps and allow people to make their own mistakes, its how we all learn isn't it

Chip

iTrader: (3)

Interesting view, TBH doesnt seem to be shared by most people I talk to though.
Most people I interact with on here seem to realise my motivation on any technical thread is always just to do my best to make sure it is accurate.
Trolls want attention, I dont particuarly, I just want people to get the right info, I dont really care who it is from, me or anyone else is equally good IMHO.
There are only 2 times when that means a long debate, if I have made a mistake and take a while to realise it (happened once that I can think of so far but im sure it will happen again despite my best efforts for it not to, am only human after all) or when someone else insists on keeping on with incorrect counter information.
Also you make arguments sound like a bad thing, I disagree when they are informative, who wants to read a forum full of people too scared to say their honest opinion just because someone might get upset by it, would bore me to tears.
If you dont like longwinded debates/arguemtns whatever you want to call them, why are you on page 7 of a thread having one about not even the subject but about what you think might be the way one of its participants minds work? Surely that really IS trolling?

COCHYN

Aaaaaanyway

Chip you're diluding yourself into thinking that your opinion is the only one that matters. Do you actually believe that everything you post should be taken as gospal, that you're always right? Have you ever thought that these people you talk to are just humouring you because they really can't be bothered with your "I know all" attitude?

Because that's how you always come across i.e. like the top suspension mount thread that you ruined because you refused to acknowledge someone (well many people actually) who knew better than you. And please don't bother trying to pedal that it's the "only time I was wrong" because then you will look like a right spanner

But alas, I stick to my original post, give up because this whole thread is all about the usual debate between the same people who will never agree on anything

Right, gotta get off this Blackberry now and get some work done on the ward... night...

foreigneRS

quite agree

you still don't get it, do you? if it was just his opinion, he would put it acrosss and leave it, if it's a fact that someone has disputed he will keep on until they have accepted it as a fact.

if you don't like it, either don't visit the thread/forum, or put his posts on your ignore list and get over it.

JamesH

iTrader: (21)

A dyno should be the most accurate way to measure an engines output.

A lot of big dyno places have to do correlation, so an engine runs the same cal etc, and has to be within a very small % tolerance on EVERYTHING - power, torque, temperatures, emissions etc

COCHYN

If you believe that then you're as much of a diluded knob as he is to push and push...Chip never gives up until everyone believes he's God Just because he believes strongly in something, it doesn't make it true all the time. Wake up dumbass, form your own opinion and stop jumping on the band wagon

Chip

iTrader: (3)

Again, I am amazed at how wide of the mark you are, its facts that matter not opinions, and the more thoroughly something is discussed the more likely the facts are what is left standing.



Again with the missing the point totally, you'll find me and Mike for example agree on about 99% of things to do with cosworth engines etc, but there is no need for 5 pages of "yes i agree" for those 99% of times, so its only the other 1% of time that gets your attention.

I do think though if you personally want to talk for ages about a person you should go do it on facebook or whatever rather than on here, as if you think 2 people discussing turbos is boring when its so on topic for the forum, then imagine how boring most people are going to find you and me discussing me when thats so off topic.

Chip

iTrader: (3)

Indeed, OR until proved wrong of course, which is still cool cause it still means the end answer is the facts coming out which is all that matters.

Indeed.
Its quite ridiculous really that he apparently doesnt like repeating of opinions or people spamming threads, and then chooses to get that across by spamming a thread repeatedly with opinions about people, lol

CossieRich

iTrader: (1)

I did have a maxed out t34 but it blew so went GT30 on a relatively standard engine. Im glad the t34 went bang is all i can say. People need to try a GT on a standard engine and decent cam and get it mapped properly. Is mint

Quality 'PF, days of old thread' this is

CrOwSoN15

He probably would leave it be if you didn't continue to reply such daft comments about Chip, and nothing to do with the OP. Fair enough he's usually jumps into every debatable thread, but merely because he wants people to know the facts, not what average Joe thinks he knows about Cosworths. I'm pretty sure he knows a touch more than you, so why do you keep hating on him? Jealousy?

Martin-Hadland

iTrader: (2)

Good bit of selective quoting on Lee's comment Rich He does go on to say he's happy with his engine and I'd bet money that if we fitted a maxed out std T34'd engine to Lee's Westy he'd have it swapped back in a flash. THe beauty of a T34 is it's OE so very cheap, everyone likes cheap but not if it's at the expense of reliability.

COCHYN

Ah don't insult my intelligence pal, there's plenty of info on this whole forum that suggests your a class A dick! Even in these (once again) countless pages of you on fine irritating form that doesn't supply info in a helpful way, but in an antagonistic drilling until people give up because of your ignorance and a thread that is once again ruined within 2 pages. So if anything, I'm surprised you're not tired of your own pathetic "holier than thou" behaviour towards everyone by now. I've always said that you seem to know what you're on about, but the way you do it ALL THE LIVE LONG FUCKING DAY isn't right...and you really think you're helping? Well then happy condescending troll boy

Chip

iTrader: (3)

If you want to talk about me rather than engines start a thread about it is your best bet rather than keep posting off topic in this one.

Mad Matt

iTrader: (2)

What I find a shame is having pages and pages of stupid arguments just because someone posted facts. Looks like a french forum...

Martin-Hadland

iTrader: (2)

Agree totally

Mike Rainbird

iTrader: (3)

I understand that fully. The problem as I see it is that you are talking generically about turbos, where as I am talking about nearly 20 years experience of Cosworth engines (of various specs) specific comparing these turbos all on the same dyno (so a completely level playing field)....

I understand it completely, it's you that doesn't .

You can't have a reliable 400bhp on a standard engine at 6000rpm with a 0.63 a/r turbine . You only have to look at the figures I have provided for you to compare of my heavily ported and big cammed engine to see that it doesn't even (quite) make 400bhp at 6000rpm, and that is with the wastegate as good as welded shut .

So if you used my perfectly specced / flowed engine / high lift cammed engine as an example and capped the boost past 6000rpm to keep the turbo safe, you would have a near 400bhp peak at 6000rpm and could hold that to 6500 and then it would drop like a stone to around 360bhp to be safe at 7000rpm. However, you lose 500rpm spool up compared to the standard engined 385bhp 0.48 a/r turbo and only gain 15bhp top end. Given the HUGE extra cost a cammed and ported engine costs over a standard one, it's not exactly value for money .

On top of that, all you have to do is extrapolate that BACKWARDS and figure out that capping the boost in a similar way on an engine equipped with a 0.63 a/r turbine with standard cams, standard ports etc is going to produce a reasonable amount less (and the reason where I got my 370bhp figure from ) - lets be conservative and say that the cams and porting only give 10-15bhp . NOW do you see where I am coming from?

That is what I have been saying all along .

Ima Racing

iTrader: (1)

The only facts in this thread is:

Chip is the definative troll
&
Rainbird is the definative homo

The Youth.

iTrader: (1)

anyway back to the .48 .63 debate
martin, what inlet cam do I need on a t34.63 with a std engine to make around 370/380 in a non road car application.. ie my race car lol

steve

Big Will_

ajamesc

To me chip comes across as a very knowledgeable poster on here with some very good input rainbird i dont see post much but again seems to know what he is on about! To be fair there argument go,s a little over my head but it seems obvious that the larger houseing will make more power safely! But to start slating someone on a personal level (no names mentioned) because you dont seem to like them or agree with what they are saying when there points come across as valid just makes you look a knob lol

James @ M Developments.

iTrader: (2)

phh, rubish power,

Check out my T34.48 graph. 36psi peak,



I won most power of the day aswell, really pissed off all the vauxhall boys who all came out with under their claimed power
It was a vauxhall shootout day, i managed to grab a quick run lol.

carcollector

all of you in the naughty corner

Jim Galbally

bloodyhell, you two are STILL catfighting?!

kiss and make up FFS the pair of you

foreigneRS

i'm educated perfectly well to know what are facts and what is opinion in such matters, thanks very much. how about you?

i don't appreciate being called a deluded knob though, especially when you're too thick to even spell it correctly

slammed106

depressingly, this is true........

Chip

iTrader: (3)

There you go then Mike, you got there in the end!
400bhp and safe as 385bhp from the .48 on the same engine.

Stu @ M Developments

iTrader: (12)

What a topic! The OP's engine will be wicked and he will get a lot of enjoyment out of it no matter what the genuine power output is... a t34.48 well mapped on teh road in an old Sierra is enough for 95% of us.

The best part of this topic though, for me, was this little exchange:

And the way the chap then totally ignored this reply and others, just hoping his earlier comment would go away... lol

Mike Rainbird

iTrader: (3)

Where did you get THAT from ? The 400bhp @ 6000rpm is from a HEAVILY MODDED ENGINE (cams and a head fully ported by Nick Waples), the 385bhp is from a completely bog standard engine. They are NOT the same (one costs significantly more than the other . Your assumptions are based on your deluded view that you "think" you can get 400bhp from a standard Cosworth engine using a T34 with a 0.63 a/r. My factual figures (which I have posted up for you to look at) are based on years of viewing dyno sheets with these turbos on, so as I have maintained throughout, it is simply not possible to make 400bhp safely (for the turbo) on a standard engine with a 0.63 a/r.

You're just telling everyone what you "think" based on hearsay horsepower figures bandied around on the internet, when these don't stack up to what the engine dyno says .

Chip

iTrader: (3)

Thread isnt about a standard engine mike, the 385 I was referring to was from this engine, and its this engine that im sure would do 400 on harveys dyno no problem with a .63 instead of the .48.

As I have kept saying though, dont get so caught up in exact figures, they will obviously vary from engine to engine, the KEY thing though is that any given YB will make more power safely on a .63 than a .48 yet you are quoting 385 as safe on a standard yb with a .48 but saying that will be brought down to 370 for a .63, which was and still is nonsense.

carcollector

LOL @ Pussycat.....

still wouldnt wanna meet him when he has a bad day, although to me he has always been an angel !!

Gatecrasher

Agree 100% with this comment

Mike Rainbird

iTrader: (3)

As I said, it may make 15bhp more, but because of the extended rev range it will be using, I don't think it would be safer. As YOU have said, the 0.48 a/r is safe because of it's natural restrictions. Remove those AND raise the working limit of the turbo by 500rpm and you loose the safety.

Combined with that, as you can see by the graphs I posted up, the 0.63 a/r looses HUGE amounts of power down the bottom end and would gain only 15bhp at the top and still be marginal reliability wise due to the extra rpm it is being worked to.

Your theory ONLY stands in an exact like for like scenario, including operating rev-range. As soon as you extend this (as you have previously admitted is the cause for the overspeeding when comparing 0.63 to a 0.48), you negate the reliability you have created by putting on the bigger turbine .

Chip

iTrader: (3)

I dont know why you keep banging on about the .48 being better lower down, I have driven and been passenger in rather a large number of these engines on both turbos you know Mike, im perfectly aware of that, you are making out like im saying the .63 is a better option, I dont think that at all hence I run a .48 housing myself, NO ONE in this thread has ever said the .63 is better at low rpm, so why have you now posted about 5 times arguing with thin air that it is

However what the .63 IS good for is safely making more power than the .48 can, as if you apply the same max turbo speed to both it will make more power for that same speed (whatever turbo speed you happen to choose as safe, which different people will vary on hence he pointlessness of specific figures).
Bottom line is the .63 housing allows you to run MORE power safely on any given engine, by improving the turbos efficiency at high flow rates and hence reducing EBP and EGT thus making the engine more efficient too, I really dont understand why you cant grasp that when its so very very simple for everyone else to understand.

Ima Racing

iTrader: (1)

I actually now see what Mike means, i have not read any replies until now as its boring LOL, he is saying on a STANDARD engine a .63 would need to run big boost to see 400bhp but with the .48 this fictional bollocks 385bhp is running safely because of the lower rpm peak....UNLESS u heavily modify the engine to accept the air flow the .63 can deliver to see 400bhp then would mean lower boost so safer.

Chip

iTrader: (3)

Standard engine - .63 can safely make more power than the .48 can
Modified engine - .63 can safely make more power than the .48 can

Mike though says the opposite, that the .48 can make MORE power than the .63 can, which is utter nonsense.

The rest of what he is saying is all fine