double post

 

courtesy of the lounge.. i think this takes the cake

 

I noticed that N/A, peak horsepower is at 9,700rpms, and turbocharged, it is at 7,200 rpms, what causes this?

I was surprised that my peak HP was at 6,700, I turned up my boost since then, is the power band and peak horsepower now be at a lower rpm?

 

most turbo's can't keep up with the amount of air an engine needs at high rpm so they restrict the rpm an engine can rev too... I think thats probably why anyway

 

Well, in a way, you're right. The engine will still probably rev to the same RPMs, or at least be capable of it. However, the particular turbo setup may reach its peak efficiency at a lower RPM. It could be the turbo used, it could be the wastegate used, and it could be the engine design. You can be sure, though, if the goal was pure top end power, there are turbos that can supply enough air to keep the engine pulling harder and harder right to redline. The ones chosen for this design probably provided a better power curve, and the peak just happened to be earlier. Keep in mind it's area under the curve that's important, not peak numbers.

 

i cant see the 6 rotor motor!!!!!!!!!!! can u post a link to it? that would be awsome. thanx

-Angel-

 

Thanks for the info.

I noticed on my dyno sheet that peak torque was reached at 3500 and was flat till 6800, which is where my peak hp is.

I didn't think my motor was going to have that much torque to tell you the truth.

186 whp
160 ft/lbs

 

Definitely air restriction somewhere...my peak was at 7100 RPM with a N/A streetport... 113 RWHP... 6800 RPM is too low....

 

Well, THAT would make "Project:Chefasaurus Rex" a HELLUVA lot cheaper and easier....

 

Anyone got a picture of this "Three piece eccentric shaft"? It sounds scary.

 

No, but this will give you a bit of an idea. It's the same concept except it's for twin rotor engines. Guru two piece e-shaft.

 

Oh, my...sterling is losing it...who pissed him off this time? And sterling, why haven't you posted what was involved in getting the Kia gearset to work, foh? Most threads fell back to hearsay when it was being tossed around a year and a half ago. No one had a real answer and here you had it all along. when are you going to post pics of your wife now that you've figured out how to use a digicam...?...LOL....I couldn't help myself, sorry....off to the rexy batting range!!

 

Oh yeah- the Kia set- Well, I could'nt find one in a junker. Somewhere in my county there's a Kia in a parking lot missy a diffy!

I dunno- can you give me some tips on haow to supe-up my minivan? Can we graft a Mariah body kit to it?

And nobody pissed me off- I was just trying to keep up with everyone else regarding their autobiographical bragging sigs!
Gueeze- what's wrong, fellas?

Someone did **** me off though (and you know who you are, you *******!)
I think he tattled to Ken about my sig.
It pissed me off because he complained in a thread about my sig, and though it is very obnoxious, it's not much longer than some folks sigs! (And in my opinion mine makes for far more entertaining reading anyway.)

So I got my wish after all.

Sure, girls. I could simply hit the "Hide Signatures" button in my options menu, but if someone has a simple blurb to share as some insight to them, I would like to see it.

I seriously DOUBT that the sig option was designed specifically for the purpose of listing all of the **** people have!

 

Or posting 1600x1200 pictures of their cars.

 

Absofreakinlutely!!!

 

My sig is small .

By the way Sterling, I read that article about the rotary in your avatar. Someone started a thread about the wolds smallest rotary a while ago and I linked y'all to it. Kinda cool to think about actually .

~T.J.

 

My sig isnt big - but I suppose I could always make it bigger

 

We've already had one member banned for the sig thing, so I guess that's what's coming up next unless they don't have some unifrom policy regarding stubborn members changing their sigs.....we gots to Friday....