This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - BoostedRPS
16
« on: July 28 2018, 10:30:25 AM »
Tyler said: "Exactly. Your cylinder heads dictate the volume of air that can enter the cylinder, to potentially create power. The compression ratio (dynamic/etc), combustion chamber design, fuel used, spark advance, valve timing, etc...all dictate how much airflow the engine will actually use and burn. Heads provide the potential for power, the rest of the engine determines if it can use that potential."
And this is why we have seen a few cars with stock cams run mid tens. Good heads with a good turbo to push the air in when the valves open in spite of a short duration, low lift opening.
Two things matter and I believe they have been covered already. First you have to push all the air you can into the engine. Second, you have to trap that air long enuf to burn it well before it goes to the turbo and out the tail pipe.
I disagree with Earl's comments about a turbo engine won't run well with a NA cam. Many of the cams we have used to get better performance are NA profiles. The Edelbrock 204/214 was very popular early on. Then we had/have the 206/206, 208/208, and the ever popular 212/212. All of these are NA profiles but they work. The really early cams like the 218/218 and such also made power but gave up the bottom end and have mostly gone away with the advent of better turbos.
And, yes, Mike/Earl, in theory, cams designed for turbos will be much better. In theory, that is. In practice, on street cars, no one has come up with the magic required to demonstrate theoretical superiority. As most of us drive our cars on the street some portion of the time, performance walks, theory talks...  Maybe with dual overhead cams, or such, things will change. Variable cam timing! yeah, baby!
Duttweiler said that it has been his experience with these new breed of efficient turbos with low backpressure ratios, that a cam grind similar to a NA engine works better than what we have typically thought a "turbo cam" should look like. Granted, this is for 2,000+hp engines running turbos with crazy boost at high rpms with minimal exhaust restriction... but still..
17
« on: July 28 2018, 09:12:58 AM »
Brad, you used too big a turbo for the combination and it did not have a chance to come into the zone where it was designed for. It was lazy.
Exactly!The engine had more output because an old 70 p-trim is a dogshit turbo compared to a new Gen 2 CEA 6262 wheel.For example, here are 3 Garrett turbos from 3 different lines they produce. All are within a few MM of each other for compressor wheel and turbine wheel size. In fact, the highest output wheel is actually 3mm smaller than the others...point here is that the old cast 61mm wheel flows a max of almost 70lb/min and it is rated to 675hp.. Why? Because for starters that last 5-8lb/min of airflow isn't putting the turbo in a very efficient range in terms of the compressor wheel's speed and the temp of airflow coming from the wheel. Second, the turbo needs to spin at almost 44psi in order to reach the max flow potential of that wheel. You could run the turbo at around 33psi and still get something like 65-66lbs/min airflow, but that is still a lot of boost.Here is that turbo I am talking about, from the GT line. It is a cast wheel 61/62 :https://www.turbobygarrett.com/turbobygarrett/turbochargers/gt3582rThis next turbo is from the GTX line and is rated for 750hp, yet barely puts out 67lb/min of airflow. It is a 100% billet point-milled 58/62 sized turbo. From about 30-38psi you are still getting a lot of output from the wheel, with peak output being around 38psi. This turbo is a GTX Gen 2 turbo with a ball bearing center section. This line of turbos is the epitome of Garrett's tech achievements. Point here is that the newer tech wheels can support more power than what the compressor map would dictate, or have us believe. Considering the 62mm cast-wheel flowed 70lb/min and was only rated to 675hp, and this billet 58mm wheel flows only 67lb/min yet is rated for 750hp, that should be a pretty good indicator of just how much of a difference in output the newer vs. old tech wheels have. Link to turbo: https://www.turbobygarrett.com/turbobygarrett/turbochargers/gtx3576r-gen-iiLast, a GTW turbo. It is a billet hybrid flank/point-milled 62/62 turbo putting out about 73lb/min, rated to 750hp. Link: https://www.turbobygarrett.com/turbobygarrett/turbochargers/gtw3684rTyler, if we use two stock GN turbos on a 400 inch v8, each turbo will see half the engine on a bank and bank mounting system. Therefore, each turbo will be feeding 200 ci which is less than a single turbo on a 231 Buick. Therefore, it will seem to be slightly larger as it is feeding a smaller system.In this case, it will be able to produce a bit more usable air flow (more mass) than it would on a turbo buick and it will add quite a bit of power.If you add some serious heads, and a big cam, then you have just changed the rules of the game. In that case, you have limited the utility of the two turbos as the power band has been moved up and away from the capability of the two turbos to keep up.It's the same with a 231 if you put higher flowing heads and a big cam in the engine...you just ran away from the turbo by pushing the power band to a higher rpm. You have to keep a reasonable datum on the combination if you wish to demonstrate a point that is valid. We are dealing with something that is fairly simple in concept but quite complex in application. Crap. Yes you're right. Those turbos would be seeing roughly 200ci each. Where did my brain go when I missed that?!
More testing for you. I bolted Norbs' 70 P trim with a .63 Garret exhaust housing on it. The car went 12.2 at 114 with the high/low gear 02's checking in just under 800 with alky on 23 PSI. I slapped the 6262 on it with the same tune and the car instantly went 11.5 at 121 on 20 PSI with the same tune and alky. C'mon turbo experts...tell me why.
That P-trim wheel isn't going to flow worth a damn under 25-26psi with those stock heads of yours. Add to that the wheel wasn't in a very good efficiency range, therefore it was putting out less-than-optimal temps from the wheel.The 6262 having a wider comp map, was probably right at the base of the more efficient parts of the comp map, so it was putting out colder air, for starters. Add to that the usable range in that turbo is much wider, so running it at 20psi you were still getting good airflow out of it. The design of the PTE Gen 2 CEA wheels allows for the turbos to help overcome a lot of the shortcomings most Buick engines have...like crappy camshaft selection/poor valve timing/exhaust flow restriction (for earl..)/etc ... Meaning that the turbo does not require everything to be perfect in your setup in order to provide great response and power output from it. Contrary to the 6262's design, the old 70mm turbo does not have those features, thus requiring you to either 1) run it in the pressure range of highest efficiency in order to obtain the best performance, 2) optimize your engine's setup for that specific turbo.Remember my answer to the "what are the real benefits of billet wheels that you would see on the street?" question I received? That answer is the answer to this question of yours.
I'm likely oversimplifyin g this. A given engine can only swallow so much air? We've heard overturboing an engine. What dictates how many lbs per hour or CFM's a given engine can handle.
Exactly. Your cylinder heads dictate the volume of air that can enter the cylinder, to potentially create power. The compression ratio (dynamic/etc), combustion chamber design, fuel used, spark advance, valve timing, etc...all dictate how much airflow the engine will actually use and burn. Heads provide the potential for power, the rest of the engine determines if it can use that potential.
18
« on: July 28 2018, 08:18:12 AM »
If you 'maximize' an engine for N/A and add a turbo, you're pretty much going to blow it up. Or be happy at 2psi of boost.
an N/A engine with a turbo isn't right, and a turbo engine ran N/A won't be right. Camshaft overlap alone knocks it out.
An engine is a total system. Not a standard that all applications start from.
Also: Everytime I hear or read the term ''back pressure'' I want to murder a baby bunny.
Exhaust restriction. Blow me. I dress like Shaft. I AM INTERVINCENTBL E!
19
« on: July 27 2018, 10:22:06 PM »
Could be, I am on the north end of lake Superior but no.
If you said a turbo at a certain rpm flowed, by itself, enough air to make 1000 hp I get that.
What started this is a guy locally wanted to put 2 stock gn turbos on a warmed over 400 sbc and I don't think that would work properly for a low 9 but I don't know how to explain why.Maybe I'm wrong.
He ended up putting on 2 -70's.
If you are going to turbocharge an engine that had originally been designed to run NA, you have to make changes in the engine to reflect the increases in airflow the turbo will provide.
What I mean is that an NA engine will have a camshaft that will have the exhaust valve open later on the power stroke, compared to a turbo camshaft. This plays a role in the backpressure and amount of exhaust duration that is required from the camshaft. The more airflow entering your engine, the more time you need to remove that airflow. If you have an exhaust system that has backpressure in it (like a 3-bolt turbo Buick engine, for example) you need to make sure you allow ample time to remove the pressurized air from the cylinder, and minimize the amount of time of overlap in the valves. There is more, but you get the point that you need to change some things in a NA engine if you want to get the most out of a turbo setup.
A 400"ci SBC would probably make enough power on it's own, if it was a good build, to produce 450-550fwhp, which is what you would obtain from putting a stock GN turbo. The stock turbos don't flow more than probably 50-55lb/min, which translates to 500-550hp at the most.
If you put two of them on the car, you aren't going to have 500hp + 500hp. Rule of thumb with twin turbo setups is you only gain 80% of the second turbo's power potential. Not only that, but you need to make sure the cylinder heads can flow enough volume to support the airflow coming from these turbos, and your exhaust system needs to be free-flowing enough to minimize the backpressure.
With turbos like the stock GN turbo, which are quick spooling on an small engine like our 231ci, if you put them on a 400ci engine the amount of exhaust gas entering the turbine housing at even moderate rpm levels will be so high that it will quickly become a restriction, because the turbine housing will not be able to support the volume of exhaust gas flow coming from the engine. As the rpms climb, eventually the turbo will become incredibly inefficient because the wheels will be spinning so fast, due to all the exhaust gas entering the turbo. Yes, wastegates will help prevent this, but only to a point. The turbos are simply too small, and because of this they will be inefficient. If you were able to get 500hp from one of these turbos in an ideal engine setup, putting them on an engine where they are incredibly inefficient like that 400ci engine you would be lucky to get 350-400hp out of one of these. That is why even basic turbo LSx engines use single turbos with sizes no smaller than 67/70mm compressor wheels, because a turbo of that size will be able to support the amount of exhaust flow coming from the engine, while still being efficient. The cylinder heads on a LSx typically flow so well that they may only need to make 10-15psi to reach the max flow of a turbo of that size, because their cylinder heads have so little restriction in them. On crappy heads like ours, it may take 35+psi to reach the max flow levels of a 67 or 70mm turbo, for reference.
It just seems to me there is a basic ''premise'' missing.If I put said turbo on a 1 liter motor it will make 1000 hp?If i put said turbo on a 16 liter motor IT will make 1000 hp ?What does ''support'' mean in this context?
You need to change how you think if you intend on understanding this concept.
I am assuming your post is referencing a turbo rated to support 1,000hp?
If you have a 1L engine that had cylinder heads that were able to support the airflow required to make 1,000hp then putting that turbo on that engine would make 1,000hp. Think of the old Formula 1 turbocharged engines in the 80's. Small displacement, like 1.5-2L engines, that made over 1,000-1,500hp. The engines could support the airflow that the turbocharged produced, and therefore the engines were able to make that amount of power.
As for your comment about this turbo being put on a 16L engine and making 1,000hp..... The engine size does not matter. What matters is the engine's ability to support / allow for / provide the airflow through the cylinder heads that the turbocharger can produce, without causing any restrictions. If the cylinder heads can flow the amount of air, without issue or restriction, that the turbocharger can produce and flow, then the engine will be able to make up to 1,000hp. I say "up to 1,000hp" because things like combustion chamber design, fuel type used, camshaft design, compression ratio, pressure drop from turbo outlet to engine inlet, backpressure.. ...all of these things can influence how efficient an engine is. If you are familiar with the term Brake Specific Fuel Consumption, aka BSFC, this is a formula and number that tell you how efficient your engine is at burning all the air and fuel coming into the cylinder, and how much fuel is required to produce a certain amount of horsepower. The less fuel required to produce horsepower, the lower the BSFC, and technically the more "efficient" the engine is at burning all the fuel entering the cylinder. I am saying all this because engines have so many variables to them that can potentially cause drops in power output, that it is impossible to truthfully say that ANY part you put on your engine WILL produce X amount of power. This is why companies who are honest will rate a part's power potential by saying "it will support XYZ power" or "it can make up to XYZ power" because they understand there are so many things that can affect the power an engine can make. We say "support" because every engine is different. I could word it by saying "This turbo has the potential to make 1,000hp" if that suits you. What we are saying by using the word "support" is if your engine can supply all of the airflow through the cylinder heads that this turbo can produce and flow without any restriction or reduction in airflow volume, then your engine will be able to make up to 1,000hp. If your engine is built so that it can support all of the flow coming from the turbocharger without restricting it, then your engine will be able to utilize all of the flow that this turbo can produce, and will be able to make up to 1,000hp...assuming proper combustion / camshaft design for cylinder filling / etc. It takes a given amount of air and a matching appropriate amount of fuel to create enuf heat to generate a theoretical hp.The turbo is an air pump and the amount of air it generates could be measured or calculated. When the turbo is employed, we must move away from cfm.One formula to compute a theoretical amount of hp is: CFM x 0.069 x 10 = maximum horsepower that a turbo can theoretically support.We used to see turbos listed with a cfm number and max hp supported. The above formula usually matched up between the two. As turbos compress the air, we have to deal with lbs of air mass per minute instead of cfm to take into account the increased number of oxygen molecules per cfm. I would guess the hp potential is based upon the compressor map at the peak of the efficiency zone. I think one must have a good combination to get close to this numberTyler may have a more modern formula?
1 of the reasons is that the BSFC formula uses lb/min for the calculations of fuel and airflow requirements. Since the BSFC is used in calculating where a turbo for a certain engine may land on the compressor map, they use lb/min for airflow ratings. Also since the compressor maps use lb/min for the flow as well.
And since air has density to it, volume of airflow does not always translate to the actual amount of airflow entering the engine. Consider altitude changes in air density, for example. By using mass, which is the weight of the air, it is a little more precise in determining the actual amount of airflow. If we measured airflow that was at sea level, and the same volume of airflow but at 8,000ft elevation, the mass of the two groups of air would be different, since the density of the air changes with elevation. The sea level airflow would have more mass to it, compared to the 8k elevation airflow.
Does that make sense? I hope I explained it in an easy enough manner..
20
« on: July 27 2018, 06:27:50 PM »
Ok I'm on my phone so my response may be short for now..
When we say a turbo can "support" a certain power level, it is directly related to the volumetric efficiency of the engine, or VE. This in turn affects the engine's BSFC Brake specific Fuel Consumption.
What TF does this all mean?
Ok think of it like this...let's say you're not as old as you are now, and you're trying to go out and score a date/good night with a chick at a club/bar (or discotech for you old folks...hehehe).. think the female in this equation as how much power your engine you can make. Think of how "fly" /"tight your game is" as how much power your engine can support.
If you dress like shit, you won't land a date. (We're using "date" as the politically correct term here) Just like if your car cannot support the airflow, it won't make power. Air=power. Dressing like Shaft=good story the next morning..
A turbo is rated to "support" a certain amount of power, assuming the engine can flow that amount of air through the cylinder heads. If you have a 1000hp NA engine and slap an1000hp turbo on it, the engine will make just about 1000hp.
Turbos are now rated in lbs/hr of airflow. Years ago you could add a 0 onto the end of that rating and that was roughly the power itd make. Nowadays with new tech, it isnt uncommon to find a turbo rated to 100lb/hr and have it make 1,150+ hp.
Turbo power doesn't compound on one another with similarly rated turbos. In fact on twin setups you only get about 80% output of the 2nd turbo. Turbos are not like nitrous. Add more of the same size, and you still get more power..
If you make 1000hp NA, why would you be stupid enough to put a turbo rated for the power you already make, on your engine?
Does that answer most questions?
21
« on: July 26 2018, 06:51:56 PM »
So checkout this new turbo that WORK is releasing today! I am the EXCLUSIVE vendor for this thing, and I have to say that I feel incredibly blessed to be able to sell a product of this caliber! Here is a copy and paste of the post I put up on TBcom and the FB groups: WORK Turbo and RPS are PROUD to offer a BRAND NEW Turbo for those looking to maximize their 3-bolt turbo setup! This turbo uses a .85 AR Buick 3 Bolt turbine housing, and a 4" inlet, 3" outlet Compressor housing. This turbo is rated to 1,100hp.To quote Reed Partridge, the owner of WORK Turbochargers, he has this to say about this turbo:"This has our 72mm compressor wheel, and our 9 bladed 76x68mm turbine wheel. This exhaust wheel is produced in Germany and is a full Inconelpiece, the compressor wheel, backplate and housing are all made right here in the states. It still uses a special Garrett ball bearing center housing, made in Japan or their Mexico facility. The 9 bladed option makes it ideal for peak flow, low mass and optimal performance in a smaller volute turbine housing, like the 3 bolt Buick.(This Turbo Includes) Full ball bearing, water cooled and every possible update to make it 100% bad ass. "This turbo has a price of $2,250 plus shipping, and this price INCLUDES the required water lines and oil feed fitting, which are an almost $200 value.This turbo is a DIRECT competitor of the Precision Gen 2 CEA 6870 turbo, except this turbo costs a few hundred dollars less.If you have any questions about this turbo, please call 707 362 6030 or email us at 1987GN@gmail.comThank you!
Tyler
www.boostedrps.comTHE NEW TURBOS WILL NOT HAVE THE SANDING/GRIDING MARKS ON THE COMPRESSOR HOUSING THAT THE TURBO HOUSING BELOW HAS. 
22
« on: July 26 2018, 04:51:46 PM »
If ya'll don't learn to cut and paste quotes and separate your answers from the quotes, I am going to make a tour and apply a permanent fix!
All the quote marks get confusing.. If you made it easy to quote mulitiple responses it'd be a big help!
23
« on: July 25 2018, 11:35:22 PM »
Yes...the 6765 on Reeds car.
The wheel he used was actually the first "Gen" of the G4 wheel that we used today.
So if you figure that the wheel he used has been improved upon MANY times over, then it stands to reason that if he were to make that run again using the current G4 6765 DBB, there would be a real improvement in the car's ET and MPH.
Thanks. I'm keeping an eye on Patrick Rubio at BG. I'd be using the TA Street head instead of the reworked stockers he's using. He's got an AC convertor in the car and a TT chip. Bottom end is stock. I'm expecting mid 10's without even trying. Turbo is a Precision...th e equivalent of Reeds 6765. Patrick will do a complete rundown on the tune on the car etc. I have a transmission that can handle 9 second power...and I run the 1/8th...which is less stressful...so the bottom end should hold up. If I can't find an AC 19930 up here...then I'll talk to my trans guy up here about restalling my 16930. You'll have to talk to Reed about how much stall for the 6765 with the new wheel and BB option. I wanna test with the Champion stock appearing intake I run against the full race version. I wanna see what Patrick does first.
Gotcha. Stall with the 6765 DBB on 110 race gas would start around 3300-3400. If you were running E85, I'd say more like 3,100-3,200 but I know Reed will say on gas 3,300-3,400 for your car. I know this because I've already asked him for ya  He would recommend to start with a 3,400rpm stall and see how the car performs. If the car spools faster than what we're guessing it will, considering the gasoline-based fuel and a flat tappet camshaft, then you could use a lower stall. Best to start a bit higher and have too much stall, then not enough. You can always have your converter guy change the stall speed if you need it lowered, but 3,400rpm would be a good starting place. Unless you plan to convert to E85, or swap to an aggressive roller cam, etc.
24
« on: July 25 2018, 10:46:19 PM »
Yes...the 6765 on Reeds car.
The wheel he used was actually the first "Gen" of the G4 wheel that we used today. So if you figure that the wheel he used has been improved upon MANY times over, then it stands to reason that if he were to make that run again using the current G4 6765 DBB, there would be a real improvement in the car's ET and MPH.
25
« on: July 25 2018, 10:24:59 PM »
Tyler...is the 6765 in Reeds car have the new wheel in it? If not...will it?
Do you mean the 6765 that ran the 11.17 or whatever it was? I am literally asking Reed as we speak. Hopefully he will have time to answer me tonight. If not, then tomorrow. [/size]Some of the slowest cars I have ever seen are owned by guys that love technology and buy all kinds of the latest and the greatest. Problem is there is a big difference out of buying tech and talking tech and actually getting the benefit out of it.Then you have the group that loves to kick your ass with their old tech because they know how to put a working combination together and they know how to drive their cars.There is also a group that understand modern tech and can actually use it but that is a smaller group and you don't find them talking bs on the Net. They are on the track learning how to use it.
I agree on all points.
Reed falls into the last group, without question. It is why I respect him so much.
My local buddy, who helps me with local sales/etc, is in the same boat as the last group... He used to run his own Pro Stock team in the 90's. The guy was running 8.20's in the early 2000's.
When he bought Dave Bamford's car it was running 8.90s. The same day that he purchased the car from Dave, he was able to make it run 8.50's before they left the track that day. Ultimately he got the car into the 8.20s.
When it comes to on-track suspension tuning/adjustments, or how to address the power management for the track, this guy is second to very few people in the country.
I know that I have A LOT to learn with these cars. The best I can do is to align myself with people like Reed and my buddy, who can educate me and help me grow in a positive manner and be supportive of my search for knowledge.
I am really looking forward to what we will achieve on this local car that will be running the new WORK G4S 6765 DBB Turbo that we just ordered! I am hoping for some SOLID low 9's on a car with a TurboTweak 6.1 chip, iron heads, and old ATR roller cam... I think it'll show everyone that old tech can still kick some ass, if you supplement it in the right way
26
« on: July 25 2018, 09:52:25 PM »
Got a message from Eric saying he has a fix for connection settings using the usb cable in lieu of the wifi. Mine connected both ways but ok. Also, something about the cooling fan coming on with the the a/c going. Wanted me to send the box back if I had time, said it would only take a day. I said ok and pulled the box out. Should be there Friday and then back by Monday-Tuesday. Fine with me. I have to go back to St Louis tomorrow for corporate bs and won't be back till Sunday anyway
And this is why I paid what I paid for his product.
Are you having issues connecting your laptop to the ECU over the supplied wifi? When I was first looking into the MS3 units and the ShadowDash application, I found out that Android tablets (or phones) have more difficulty connecting to the ECMs using Wifi than using the Bluetooth connection. For whatever reason, the Android tablets that were using the Shadowdash app could connect much easier and more consistently with the Bluetooth, than the wifi. The Bluetooth had barely any delay, and I mean so little that if you were using it as your dash/gauge cluster, I would have no concerns about how quickly it was able to receive and display the information. Food for thought- if you run the ShadowDash on an Android tablet, you can use the application MSDroid for Android devices, and actually make tuning adjustments on the fly with your tablet and have it saved to your ECM! So not only could you have your own custom dash with the Shadowdash, but you wouldn't need a laptop because the MSDroid application allowed you to make tuning changes with the tablet! Just sharing some info that I found helpful at the time.
27
« on: July 25 2018, 09:36:58 PM »
Throwing money at these cars doesn't work...as many have tried...and failed.
Throwing money at ANY problem never works. ...and only makes things worse 99% of the time.
Unless you're a divorce lawyer. Those guys figured it out.
.... "Boosted RPS....Attorne ys At Law" !!!
I think I may need to rethink my choice of vocation... hahahaha
I think the guys on a shoestring budget often do better...as they have to research every last thing to get the best bang for the buck. Throwing money at these cars doesn't work...as many have tried...and failed. I've watched Grumpy from day one...and learned early on that the stock junk...if kept out of detonation...i s incredibly durable. Other than Steve Wood, I doubt anyone else has kept track of the testing I've done and data I've posted over the years. You have to get out to the track and test...often. Swilling Timmes coffee and scarfing down donuts and staring under hoods won't learn you anything.Game changers for these cars were the introduction of high flow turbos...and the PTC 9.5 inch NL convertor. Tyler can hook you up with both. I'm interested to see data on the new IC Tyler is working on. I'm keeping an eye on Patrick Rubio...and what he does at BG. If he does what I think he'll do...then I'll be stepping up my program.
I totally agree that the guys on a shoestring budget are the ones who really try to push the boundaries of what is possible because they have to get every ounce of performance out of the parts they have, since they cannot afford to purchase things at their desire.
I've tried to take that outlook- of doing as much research as possible (within reason, in my case) and apply it to the parts that I carry and offer. I'm not taking credit for the design of all these parts (only the ones I directly worked on) but I will take credit for embracing and helping promote the parts that aim to maximize performance through utilization of new technologies or design strategies without breaking the bank or being obscenely more expensive than similar parts.
This is why I promote WORK Turbo so much...they offer performance levels you would obtain from a PTE turbo, for similar or less costs. If you compare what PTE has to offer, as a whole, against what WORK has to offer, I really do not see why anyone would go with a PTE unit...
Reed has done the research and has 25+ years of real world experience testing and building turbos for these cars, which not many people-regardless if they are turbo builders or not- can lay claim to. He knows what works, what doesn't...what will last, and what will eventually break.
The quality of internal parts he uses..and I'm not talking about just the G4 line, I am talking about the quality of parts used in every single turbo he builds, whether it is a "Rebuilt" turbo, or a brand new G4, or a custom S4E unit, are superior than ANYTHING Precision has to offer, bar-none.
Reed doesn't have a huge bankroll, or some crazy investor that can drop hundreds of thousands of dollars on tooling on a whim. He has had to figure out what wheel designs work (no pun intended) along all parameters; spool up, power ouput, powerband, longevity, durability, etc. through researching and testing his theories. What we have now is someone with almost 3 DECADES of turbo-building experience that knows from personal testing and research, what designs will perform and what designs won't.
Because Reed (WORK Turbos for those who don't know that Reed is the owner) IS the little guy on a shoe-string budget, and learned more from his experiences and testing that I could ever hope to, it is a big reason and driving force as to why his turbos perform as incredible as they do....his LACK of bankroll has forced him to learn what creates a superior wheel, and what a perfect turbocharger for XYZ engine/car setup would look like..and bring that all to fruition.
Sorry for the long rant..it's just that the type of person you described IS WORK Turbochargers and what has made them so successful at what they do, even with their small budget and production numbers compared to the larger companies..
As for my IC testing...I am going to talk to Duttweiler when I drop the engine off and ask him if we could put MAP sensors on either side of the IC core in the piping so that I can measure pressure drop across the core as we do our dyno testing.
I drop the engine off in September, so I will let you know what he says when I do!
And yes, I can provide you with a PTC 9.5" NLU converter and a high-flow turbo! And if you are a member of IhadaV8 then you will get special pricing as well! (badass discounts on everything possible)
I'll throw out a disagreement with the tried and true being difficult to beat. Expensive, probably but if you have good ideas and know how to execute them fun is more the adjective I would use. If nothing new worked top fuel would have never gotten to the fives, fours, threes and then a shortened track. We wouldn't have nine sec cars coming out of a dealership. If the race was already decided no one would race. We do it to have fun or at least I do. And the people. If you aren't meeting people at the track or other gtg you are definitely missing out. The run of the mill is for the unimaginative. I drive a Buick because it is different(and my grandmother drove em). I wrench in my own because I cant afford to be a checkbook hot rodder. And I enjoy doing it. I do understand some don't have the desire, the place or the skills to wrench but that ain't me. I'm glad Tyler has taken up selling stuff for my thirty yr old beater. Once he gets going he will probably forget us little guys but that is ok. He will do well because he has the drive to get there. Make sure you are making money as my dad used to tell me, you can stay home and not make money. No sense in going out and not making any.
I really appreciate the kind words and your excitement towards my company and what I am trying to accomplish.
I know it will take time and be a slow build, but I have no intentions of slowing down or stopping.
As a matter-of-fact, I received my confirmation from Holley today, confirming my enrollment in all three levels of the Holley EFI training courses in November! I need to start somewhere, and this will be it! These classes will provide me with the tools that I need to begin my knowledge base, and hopefully career, in aftermarket ECM tuning. The future looks bright as long as I don't let anyone bring me down or allow petty antics to divert my attention and influence my drive and willpower.
And to set things straight, I will NEVER forget you guys, no matter where I end up or (hopefully) how large my company may end up growing.
I was raised to always remember and respect those who were there in the beginning, and who helped you begin your path. As such, it would go against everything I stand for, if I ever held the attitude or aura of "too big for my britches" or the "too cool for school" attitude/cockiness.
If I ever act like that, you guys can pay Tom to come give me a solid kick in the dick, and I won't get mad..in fact if that ever happens, I'll know exactly why and it would probably be one damn good wakeup call...
28
« on: July 25 2018, 07:31:05 PM »
It is hard to beat what is already proven to work. I don't think that a faster spool up time will help me any as I am already traction limited when the boost quickly comes up to 25 psi. I am intrigued however with the dual scroll turbos and newer compressor wheels...
You are absolutely correct. Tried and true is hard to beat if you are looking at modifying your car, on a budget, and trying to determine where you should spend your money. This is why we also sell the older turbos, like the TE60, TE44 (although I prefer to substitute a billet 60mm compressor wheel since there isn't an increase in cost for the customer), TE62, etc. If you are traction limited then your suspension needs work before you add any go-fast parts...in my opinion, that is. Twin scroll turbos are not new in the world of turbos, just new to us in the Buick world since we seem to look at change as if it was the end of the world, and resist it as such.. Have you read the article I wrote on the new turbo wheels? If you are interested in the new compressor wheels, I would strongly encourage you to take a look at the article. Link: https://www.boostedrps.com/single-post/2018/06/20/Turbocharger-Cast-and-Billet-Compressor-Wheels--Not-all-Billet-Wheels-are-Made-EqualDont-Overpay-Or-Be-Fooled-Into-Buying-The-WRONG-TurboI didn't say I was looking for a new turbo. The 6262 is the go to turbo...and I'm asking questions for those that would like to step up to one with this new wheel. Bison cracked the 9's with a 6265...a stock short block...and pair of heads. Should be enuf turbo for most.As far as Arts convertors go...a used one can be had for a the price of a cup of coffee...as everyone has jumped ship to PTC. Slip rate for this 16930 comes in in the single digits...and I can get it flash off the line to 4 grand with minor low gear tuning for 1.5x launches. Maftpro and Gen 2 went the way of the dodo...Erics 5.7 chip is still here.
So then why is BoostedRPS wasting his time here developing new parts and combinations if we've had it figured out for a decade or more?If he is going to be successful somebody is going to need to step up and buy in with their dollar votes, and shun accepted practices along the way.With the relatively narrow powerbands these little V6s suffer from they can use all the help they can get as it relates to spool time, torque multiplication, rpm drop management between gears, and the ability to have 0% converter slippage.
I do have a name, in case you were curious... it is Tyler 
I do not consider myself as "wasting" time answering Brad's questions. I view Brad's questions as representative of what many people may be curious about, but fear posting and asking the question, or may not know exactly what questions to ask. I think Brad is helpful with his questions because it poses a lot of questions that beckon answers which address common concerns or ideologies that may be resistant or curious about these new turbos and what benefits they have, or why they are worth their various prices.
I have been giving huge discounts to anyone willing to try one of these new G4 turbos, or a WORK Turbo in general. I know the more people that have experience with these turbos, the more word will get out as to their performance, and people will see that PTE isn't the only viable option anymore.
This is my open invitation to anyone on IhadaV8: If you are willing to give one of these new turbos a shot, I will give you my dealer pricing, effectively "sponsoring" you, as long as you can provide real-world data on the turbo's performance relatively soon after you receive it. This means dyno sheets, ET slips, etc.
I didn't say I was looking for a new turbo. The 6262 is the go to turbo...and I'm asking questions for those that would like to step up to one with this new wheel. Bison cracked the 9's with a 6265...a stock short block...and pair of heads. Should be enuf turbo for most.As far as Arts convertors go...a used one can be had for a the price of a cup of coffee...as everyone has jumped ship to PTC. Slip rate for this 16930 comes in in the single digits...and I can get it flash off the line to 4 grand with minor low gear tuning for 1.5x launches. Maftpro and Gen 2 went the way of the dodo...Erics 5.7 chip is still here.
We plan on shooting for a 9.9x with a 6262 G4S turbo on my engine once it is built...I think with the right tune and 60ft, it is possible. Especially if we are using a twin scroll housing.
FWIW I like the Gen 2...I still think it is a great piece of equipment!
This is why I run stock junk...cuz it pisses people off. I drag the most from the least. I'm quite happy being a vendors nightmare. Then why the interest in a new turbo?I get there are many ways to skin a cat. However, if I was new to this or looking to upgrade from old tech - it would be well worth the leap into contemporary parts, in my opinion.
Are you saying that the cost for new turbos, compared to old turbos, IS worth it? Or is NOT?
This is why I run stock junk...cuz it pisses people off. I drag the most from the least. I'm quite happy being a vendors nightmare.
I would call myself a vendor and I don't consider you as a nightmare?
29
« on: July 24 2018, 05:15:18 PM »
Basically what I'm asking is can I spool this WORK G4 62mm wheel with the AC 16930 convertor I already have in the car. I run a .63 Precision exhaust housing. What exhaust housings are you offering?
If it is a "Real" Art Carr 3000 stall, then yes. From what I've gathered, and I know you will be able to set me straight on this so please correct me where I am wrong (because I am sure I will be)..but aren't those AC 16930's essentially a PTC 9.5" knockoff? Or maybe visa-versa?
Either way, Reed recommends to start with a 3,200 stall as a baselinefor any turbo he sells, assuming you are using a PTC 9.5" NLU, though. From there, we can work with Dusty Bradford to fix any spooling characteristic s/stall speed required by your setup, but the 3,200 will give a good baseline impression.
If your car is spooling a PTE 6262 with that converter, then it will be able to spool this turbo easily, in both the journal and ball bearing versions. The ball bearing version will spool even faster, especially with the supporting modifications (ported cylinder heads, E85 for fuel, larger than stock camshaft, good torque converter -like a PTC 9.5" NLU) to the car.
We offer a .63 and .85 AR turbine housing for the Buick 3-bolt housings.
If you decide to go 4 bolt, we have a TON of different configurations .
See... this is what pisses me off about the Buick community - stuck in the past with a total reluctance to move past known-knowns established 20 years ago. ScanMasters, using NB02s to tune under load, tuning with fuel pressure, Caspers knock gauges, a limited selection of 3-bolt turbos, antiquated converter theory and technology, internal wastegate downpipes with stupid little rod actuators, the ever loving fear of BOVs, and on and on...
Why not get a nice new converter that flashes to 4000rpm, has more efficient turbines and stators (for low speed driveability and better fluid coupling at the big end), and lock-up capability? Why not chop the damn 3-bolt flange off and get something that seals well? They literally sell CNC 4-bolt flanges on eBay for $50 that will adapt a round pipe to a square flange (I know I have one - and it is gorgeous) and suddenly your world of performance options grows exponentially. Why not add a 44mm WG, and slam a v-banded downpipe together with some eBay parts and Harbor Freight welder?
Risk and effort - that's why. People their love of a risk-free bolt-on culture. Take a damn welding class.
I think BoostedRPS needs to make package with a new PS exhaust manifold with a 4-bolt flange and external WG flange on it, offer up a bunch of decent T4-type turbos, a downpipe with an external wastegate dump tube, a spec converter, and a good intercooler - might have to have a lay-away payment plan.
Rant over.
I actually do have a package deal for;
*Gee M Racing Street Headers in a 4-bolt, external wastegate configuration.
*PTC 9.5" converter that will be spec'd by Dusty Bradford (I would have you order direct through him, or I could 3way call with you if requested).
*Turbosmart external wastegate for the headers.
*If you go with a Borg Warner 4-bolt housing, Gee M Racing is producing a V-band downpipe to fit in our cars for it. But it is ONLY for Borg Warner 4-bolt housings.
*ANY Turbo WORK Turbo offers; Garrett GTX Gen 2's, GTW's.. or Borg Warner SXE's or EFR's (although I wouldn't recommend these)... or WORK Rebuilt units, standard Billet Units, or G4 units..
*Treadstone and Bell front mount intercooler cores. Currently we do not have the mounting flanges and piping made for these, but we are working on them.
*We also have the only stock location liquid-to-air intercooler complete kit available for the TR.
That is an expensive kit, just from the quantity of quality parts included, but if you were to put a "kit" like that on your car, assuming your engine and transmission could take it, you're talking about bolting on parts to your car that could easily...easily drop your car's ET up to 2 seconds, assuming your engine and trans can support it.
On a side note...if you go 4 bolt flange, you might as well go Twin Scroll. I know the cost is more because of running dual wastegates, but the benefits in performance far outweigh the slight cost increase..
Huh. Go figure. Well there ya go.
Thing is, I've never had anyone willing to spend that amount of money at one time to overhaul their car in such a manner. Typically the most money spent is either a turbo and headers, or billet rotating assembly. [/size]The ptc would be the knock off but I doubt they would like being called that. Art Carr has been doing these cars pretty much since new. The 9" nlu works great at the track but I didn't find it as streetable as i wanted back when. I'd look at the Dave H 3021 or something along those lines, or Mr bison has some pretty opinionated stances on converters. Or Mr Bradford. He reps a real nice unit.This talk of four bolt is very interesting. I might look at this Billy thing and cut up one of my pass side units and weld on a patch and se how that might work. Ever really thought about it before. Good stuff. Very thought provoking. Now I need to justify a tig machine.
We get our converters from Dusty Bradford. He hasn't steered me wrong yet.
If you do go four bolt, I strongly suggest looking into the twin scroll design.... it really has a ton of benefits that can really change how a turbo responds in a car..
30
« on: July 24 2018, 01:05:54 PM »
Basically what I'm asking is can I spool this WORK G4 62mm wheel with the AC 16930 convertor I already have in the car. I run a .63 Precision exhaust housing. What exhaust housings are you offering?
If it is a "Real" Art Carr 3000 stall, then yes. From what I've gathered, and I know you will be able to set me straight on this so please correct me where I am wrong (because I am sure I will be)..but aren't those AC 16930's essentially a PTC 9.5" knockoff? Or maybe visa-versa?
Either way, Reed recommends to start with a 3,200 stall as a baselinefor any turbo he sells, assuming you are using a PTC 9.5" NLU, though. From there, we can work with Dusty Bradford to fix any spooling characteristic s/stall speed required by your setup, but the 3,200 will give a good baseline impression.
If your car is spooling a PTE 6262 with that converter, then it will be able to spool this turbo easily, in both the journal and ball bearing versions. The ball bearing version will spool even faster, especially with the supporting modifications (ported cylinder heads, E85 for fuel, larger than stock camshaft, good torque converter -like a PTC 9.5" NLU) to the car.
We offer a .63 and .85 AR turbine housing for the Buick 3-bolt housings.
If you decide to go 4 bolt, we have a TON of different configurations .
See... this is what pisses me off about the Buick community - stuck in the past with a total reluctance to move past known-knowns established 20 years ago. ScanMasters, using NB02s to tune under load, tuning with fuel pressure, Caspers knock gauges, a limited selection of 3-bolt turbos, antiquated converter theory and technology, internal wastegate downpipes with stupid little rod actuators, the ever loving fear of BOVs, and on and on...
Why not get a nice new converter that flashes to 4000rpm, has more efficient turbines and stators (for low speed driveability and better fluid coupling at the big end), and lock-up capability? Why not chop the damn 3-bolt flange off and get something that seals well? They literally sell CNC 4-bolt flanges on eBay for $50 that will adapt a round pipe to a square flange (I know I have one - and it is gorgeous) and suddenly your world of performance options grows exponentially. Why not add a 44mm WG, and slam a v-banded downpipe together with some eBay parts and Harbor Freight welder?
Risk and effort - that's why. People their love of a risk-free bolt-on culture. Take a damn welding class.
I think BoostedRPS needs to make package with a new PS exhaust manifold with a 4-bolt flange and external WG flange on it, offer up a bunch of decent T4-type turbos, a downpipe with an external wastegate dump tube, a spec converter, and a good intercooler - might have to have a lay-away payment plan.
Rant over.
I actually do have a package deal for; *Gee M Racing Street Headers in a 4-bolt, external wastegate configuration. *PTC 9.5" converter that will be spec'd by Dusty Bradford (I would have you order direct through him, or I could 3way call with you if requested). *Turbosmart external wastegate for the headers. *If you go with a Borg Warner 4-bolt housing, Gee M Racing is producing a V-band downpipe to fit in our cars for it. But it is ONLY for Borg Warner 4-bolt housings. *ANY Turbo WORK Turbo offers; Garrett GTX Gen 2's, GTW's.. or Borg Warner SXE's or EFR's (although I wouldn't recommend these)... or WORK Rebuilt units, standard Billet Units, or G4 units.. *Treadstone and Bell front mount intercooler cores. Currently we do not have the mounting flanges and piping made for these, but we are working on them. *We also have the only stock location liquid-to-air intercooler complete kit available for the TR. That is an expensive kit, just from the quantity of quality parts included, but if you were to put a "kit" like that on your car, assuming your engine and transmission could take it, you're talking about bolting on parts to your car that could easily... easily drop your car's ET up to 2 seconds, assuming your engine and trans can support it. On a side note...if you go 4 bolt flange, you might as well go Twin Scroll. I know the cost is more because of running dual wastegates, but the benefits in performance far outweigh the slight cost increase..
|
Show Posts