M1000PGT or M8PGT
- Thread starter knuts82
- Start date
careful hatchers, he'll drag you down to his level... and then beat you with experience!
as for the thread... i've had an 800 aero 53, an 800 auto, a 1000 auto and now back on an 800 aero, 66 this time. the 800s are just more responsive and react quicker on boost, much like the stockers, they just have that snappy quick feel to them. i think a 600 on boost would be a bunch of fun.
but, for all out get out, the 1000 is got alot more legs then the 800.
on a hill... the 1000 is the ticket, by far
in the trees, havin fun... the 800 gets the nod.
as for the thread... i've had an 800 aero 53, an 800 auto, a 1000 auto and now back on an 800 aero, 66 this time. the 800s are just more responsive and react quicker on boost, much like the stockers, they just have that snappy quick feel to them. i think a 600 on boost would be a bunch of fun.
but, for all out get out, the 1000 is got alot more legs then the 800.
on a hill... the 1000 is the ticket, by far
in the trees, havin fun... the 800 gets the nod.
C
CBX
Well-known member
I feel no need to apoligize here Kelsey. People are looking for good info. I am pointing out that your information about turbos is incorrect.
Baseline power? Thats a new term. I cant say i've ever heard any or seen for that matter on any engine next the where B.H.P., shaft HP, or KW rating of any engine (piston or turbine) where there is/was a number called advertised baseline horsepower...
does baseline power mean like half throttle or something? 1000 rpm above idle? Could you give more info on that one? Perhaps something that can be quantified?
quote by RKT
"If BASELINE power had ZERO to do with the turbo power, then ALL turbos charged engines would make the SAME HP on the same BOOST.. Right?? "
C'mon Kelsey. PSI doesn't measure mass air flow. Are compressors rated by PSI or by Mass air flow? (mass air flow is the correct answer btw). Is the air/fuel ratio determined by PSI or air mass to fuel mass?
So this baseline HP therory of yours aside, I never said anything about changing the timing of the engine, port height, fuel, compression ratio or any other factor for that matter. I specifically pointed out your incorrect info of turbo charged engines losing more power % wise at elevation. That Kelsey is completely false. Force Induction applications lose aprox half the loss of what a naturally aspirated engine does. I'm sure if i spent enough time searching I could find an SAE arcticle that says that.
Your point of why could 1 of 2 identical 800cc turbo sleds perform better. If i remember your words correctly when I used to work in your shop, "no two sleds are alike". Is my quote wrong? Way too many variables there Kelsey. You know that.
Please don't spead false information like saying turbo's lose more power per elevation than N/A. Because it is simply not true.
For anyone who would like to learn more about turbo's, how they work, and everything else about them, visit www.turbobygarrett.com and click on the tech section. Lots of excellent information there.
Last edited:
I quoted your whole post kelsey. I highlighted the parts the needed to be emphazied on in my first post and this post. I think everyone can agree that a turboed sled wont make any boost or hp idleing, or until spooled up. The same statement can me made for an N/A engine.
They dont make power either till ya spool them up too, right?
The analogy of parasitic loss due to the turbo is a poor one. Does it take HP to drive the compressor. sure. But to say install the turbo and dont hook up the charge tube?
I would suggest if one is going to argue that turbo's are a poor choice, efficency isnt the arguement to use. Any combustion or reaction engine is an air pump. Only one that doesnt apply is solid/liquid hypergolic rockets.
Pretty simple. Its all physics. I'm not complaining here Kelsey. Just throwing out the flag on mis-information. Turbos increase effeciency. Not the other way around.
Fixed it for you...LOX is just a super zoot version of "air" and they use big pumps...snicker...sorry...I just had to....
C
CBX
Well-known member
Thanks! Your right. I guess something like the X-30 would fall into that category. Never thought about it like that.
I was thinking along the lines that any engine is essentially an air pump, except rockets, since the oxidizer is enclosed.
Thanks for the post. It was kinda fun reading about hypergolic fuel systems.
I'm kind of in the same boat as the OP. I'm wanting a turbo sled. I cant decide if i want to build my own system on an xp, or just get one of shain stangers twisted 1k's or 800......... decisions decisions......
Thanks! Your right. I guess something like the X-30 would fall into that category. Never thought about it like that.
I was thinking along the lines that any engine is essentially an air pump, except rockets, since the oxidizer is enclosed.
Thanks for the post. It was kinda fun reading about hypergolic fuel systems.
I'm kind of in the same boat as the OP. I'm wanting a turbo sled. I cant decide if i want to build my own system on an xp, or just get one of shain stangers twisted 1k's or 800......... decisions decisions......
Sorry to hijack again...but I was wrong. Only solids are not pumps. Liquid engines use turbines to force the fuel and oxidizer into the combustion chamber. Hypergolic use pressurized tanks. The only difference is that hypergolics leave the compressors behind on earth...and they don't need an ignition source.... Turbines, compressors, pistons...all pumps... sorry...
