Turbo; JH or PL?

[rocco16 at sbcglobal.net (LEF)]

Dan,
 You are getting further and further away from the subject of our discussion and closing in on personal attacks.
I've told you, repeatedly, what my theories are on the benefits of the usual NA  power modifications as applied to a turbo motor, and why I feel that way.

You don't agree, and that's okay; you don't have to.  But you seem determined to try to prove me "wrong" in every statement I make, which is getting slightly irritating.

As I said earlier, let's just agree to disagree.  To continue in this manner is fruitless.

larry
sandiego16v
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Dan Bubb 
  To: LEF ; scirocco-l@scirocco.org 
  Sent: Sunday, January 07, 2007 10:42 AM
  Subject: Re: Turbo; JH or PL?


  Start cranking the boost up on your son's engine. Watch the diminishing returns. Watch the engine melt down at a low power level because of all the heat and resultant detonation you'll get from a restricted normally aspirated lump with minimal adaptation to FI.
  You haven't produced any data for the list relative to this project at all other than it exists.
  Why don't you let us all know the specs and the performance?
  And what's wrong with responding to this on the list?

    ----- Original Message ----- 
    From: LEF 
    To: Dan Bubb 
    Sent: Sunday, January 07, 2007 10:51 AM
    Subject: Re: Turbo; JH or PL?



    Dan,
    You are correct in your last statement; the power increase that a turbo provides does not come without a negative power effect; that effect is additional exhuaust restriction.  Like the hp required to drive a supercharger, that hp loss is more than offset by the hp gain provided by the device that is absorbing the energy. There is no free lunch (this has been my favorite saying for all the years I've been on this list).
     A turbo is driven by waste energy, but it does impart its own price tag (even though that price tag is not parasitic drag). To me, the price of the turbo lunch is additional heat in the engine compartment (with its affect on rubber and plastic parts and electrical components), lag, exhaust fabrication, the moving/modifying of engine compartment components to make room for large amounts of tubing and intercooler, etc., not the fact that the turbo absorbs 5hp worth of exhuast flow in order to make 45 additional hp; in the end, what we see is a net 40hp increase, which is all we are concerned with in our quest for additional power.

    You aren't going to convince me that I was wrong when I said "More power can be had by simply increasing boost... normal go-fast methods of big cams, free-flowing intakes and exhausts, porting and polishing(part of those free-flowing items), higher compression, etc. are not only uneccessary but, in some cases, counterproductive to the turbo engine.

    I also realize that I am not going to convince you that I am right.  What say we agree to disagree?

    larry
    sandiego16v

    I guess if your theory that the turbo was driven only by waste energy was correct then none of this would be true. Unfortunately, the engine does have to work to drive the turbo. There is no free lunch.
      Dan