jetenginedoctor

Wrong. Mass changes power output, not volume, not pressure. The higher the charge density, the greater the power output. If you increase the charge pressure and keep the resultant increase in temperature in check, you increase the charge density. This is what makes the engine make more power.

Here's another way to look at it. Let's say you wake up one Morning, the sky is clear, but it's a chilly 40 degrees F outside. Your car runs AWESOME on your way to work. Later that day, it clouds up a bit and you get light rain off and on throughout the afternoon. Then when you're getting ready to leave home, it's not raining, but it's cloudy and 85 degrees F. Oddly, the car doesn't run as well as it did in the morning. Why? Did the gas go bad? No, the charge density is lower, and the engine makes less power.

jimlab

Get the details on his transmission as well. You didn't mention whether it was a 6-speed or an automatic, but at only 286 RWHP, it sounds like an auto.

jetenginedoctor

No, it was a 6-speed, tested in 4th gear.

LT1-10AE

My point is, you're preaching that 8PSI is 8PSI and it is not. If you've got a 14B pushing 8PSI it's a whole different ballgame and power output than 8PSI on something like a T78. You keep sidestepping the subject.

The difference is the volume of air passed, and compressed by the turbos.

My last rotary dyno'd 371 to the wheels at 16PSI. If what you're saying is true, then a stock turbo - although it would be reaching it's outer limits - would also dyno 371 to the wheels when cranked up to 16PSI if I were to keep the charge temps inline.

Would you rather fill up a swimming pool with a run of the mill garden hose at 30PSI or in front of a fire hose at 30PSI? They are both 30PSI so they should perform equally according to your reason, no?

YearsOfDecay

Ya know... All ya all are full of ****...

I told my Motor Head Dad... who owned a rotary station wagon when i was a kid, that zkeller had bought the LS-1 and was tearing the rotary out of the car in preparation for the swap and he said "well, I'd have done that a long time ago.. I could never keep points in that wagon"

I said, "Dad... they haven't used points in rotaries in like 20 years or something" and he replied

"I don't give a rats *** about the points... that's not the point.... he's on the right track, but his logic is all screwed up, when he's done... what He's going to have is a (and I quote) dirty rotten filthy cocksukken chevrolet motor in an otherwise beautiful car, even if it is a rice burner. He needs to be beaten sensless for a sin like that!!""

Can you tell dads a Ford man!

Me.. I told Zkeller long ago, that if my motor goes, (more like when) I've got a late 60's 289 sittin up at the old man's shop that is crying for a rebuild, a supercharger and a new home! I think he said something about "blasphemy" to me at that time..... My how opinions change!!!

jetenginedoctor

No, I'm not sidestepping. Like I said, it doesn't matter WHAT the source of the inlet charge, if it's the same pressure, same temperature, and same atmosphere, its density is the same, and it will make the same pressure while maintaining the rate of mass airflow to support ???? HP.

I never said that two grossly different turbos had the same efficiency. Show me where I did. Putting words in my mouth? I've forgotten more about turbines than you'll ever know. You might want to sit this one out. . . starting now.

No, it's not. It's the MASS of the air. GET THAT THROUGH YOUR HEAD!

No, that's not what I said. You could never make the charge temps the same using the same charge cooler, and the charge cooler it'd take that would be capable of that sort of temperature drop would have one hell of a charge airflow penalty. Not to mention trying to run a stock turbo at that pressure ratio and ???? SCFM would no doubt create one hell of an exhaust restriction as well. . . . you're not comparing apples to apples. You're also trying to put words into my mouth.

This example of yours is ******* retarded. The water that comes from a garden hose or a fire hose are both coming from the same place, and have the same mass and temperature. Both will fill your swimming pool well enough for your dumb *** to drown in. What's your point? By the way, fire mains are 80 psi or more, Corky.

jimlab

The last time I heard something like this it was in 7th grade from a couple of dipshits whose shop projects didn't turn out as well as mine did. If I recall correctly, their logic was that since both of their fathers were loggers, they'd forgotten more about woodworking than I'd ever know.

Out of gratitude for this little trip down memory lane, I'll give you the same response I gave them...

LT1-10AE

That's commonly known smartass. My comparison was for volume - differences in the size of the hose with the same pressure.

So what you're telling us is that a 5.7 V8 with a pair of Garrettt GT25s at 8PSI will not make 600HP to the wheels. You're also saying that a single GT42 will not make similar numbers on the same engine at 8PSI. Both setups intercooled, of course.

If you can honestly say that 600HP (or spitting distance from it) with those two setups is impossible at 8PSI, then you are a hypocritical troll.

You should brush up on your turbo knowledge.

And I'll agree with Jim about your middle school comment.

digitalsolo

iTrader: (2)

Fortunately for us you seem to have no problem remembering how to act like a jackass.

wanklin

iTrader: (2)

Allrighty, how about giving Z his thread back?

jetenginedoctor

Okay, I was wrong about what that car made. Here is the best pull we made.



There are a couple little dips in it, but you can see well enough how it runs. Notice there's no dips in the AF ratio, so the ECU must have pulled timing at a couple spots, as there is clearly no misfiring.



So, based on the actual test result (instead of my CO fogged memory of the test) my math needs to change a bit.

That should be 263rwhp.

Still the same.

Should be:

263 rwhp * 1.546=406.6 rwhp

That's more than 40rwhp shy of what we figured before.

All still true. Though, I'd say it'll take more than the afore mentioned boost pressure and 200hp shot of spray to make 600HP on this guy's Firebird.

rynberg

At this point, I feel obliged to point out the fact that a Dyno Dynamics dyno typically gives results 12-15% LESS than a Dynojet provides. Gee, so your 263 dyno results now equal about 310 rwhp on a Dynojet. Sounds about right for a lightly modded LT-1 engine to me....an LS-1 makes significantly more power than an LT-1.

In the US, people commonly talk about cars using Dynojet numbers.