Twisted Turbo Pump Gas M1000
- Thread starter ccpowder
- Start date
Its not that much extra work to convert a bd turbo kit to the F7 chassis. The only things you have to modify is the oil tank mount and the exhaust. There might be a few other things Im forgetting but it wasnt too bad. Mine has a M1000/1200 big bore in it but I dont think it would change things much with the F7 motor.
Last edited:
Use the TDR reeds when I can get them or use the M1000 reeds. Usually put the M1000 reeds in the M8s when turboing. Well under 100$ and will last longer than stock m8 reeds for the turbo sleds. I personally think the stiffer reeds help the bottom end quite a bit as well.
The M1000 Kit listed is the Race Fuel kit. Dont think he has added the Pump Gas kit because he wanted to get more testing first with the stock injectors. Will talk to Shain and post a price if he is ready to get really busy.
I see some of you talking about pumpgaskit and how well it works, and some of you say that they have to test the pumpgaskit more first before they added this kit.
I thinking on a "pumpgaskit" for my M1000 for the next season, but what is the hpnumbers on a M1000 pumpgaskit?
Can i buy a complete pumpgaskit and bolt on my 1000 and play in the snow and smile or what?
Of course i can go with a racekit, but that do the thing a little bit more expensive.
(Riding in Norway from 100-1600 meters)
What about Cutler, BD?
P
product tester
Well-known member
The pump gas m1000 kits are ready to go at 4.5 #s at 4300 ft we gained 85 hp over stock.
Nice, if i understand you right you mean the twisted kit makes 85hp over stock. Will a CPC come as a "pumpgaskit" or will it just work with racefuel on the M1? I think its gonna be a twisted or cutler kit with a attitude box!
R
Rms Rydning
Well-known member
Even if this is corrected HP its not possible with 4,5psi/0,30 bar of boost with pumpgas.
The M1000 have 165hp at sealevel and with 4,5psi boost you can teoretically get +50hp in a 4 stroke but not possible on a 2 stroke,and you dont even get close to that number because the backpressure is way to low compare to the boost pressure.4,5psi= +30hp in this kits.The air/fuel mixture is going right thru the engine,remeber we dont have a exhaust valve that close before the intake valve is opening,Everything is open and happend on the same time,so we reely on the backpressure in the exhaust to charge the sylinders.This is the reason why all the M8T on pumpgas with low boost wasnt able to run away from a well tuned NA 800 .Like all the M8T vs 860 treads here.To get +85hp you will need around 9psi boost and more boost at altitude.
M
mtn_extreme
Well-known member
So if your 165 hp at sea level you would be what at 4000 ft , 130 hp?
So take the 35 hp difference that you would gain with the turbo because altitude doesn't affect it (much) and add the 50 hp from boost and you have an 85 hp gain, right?????????
So take the 35 hp difference that you would gain with the turbo because altitude doesn't affect it (much) and add the 50 hp from boost and you have an 85 hp gain, right?????????
P
product tester
Well-known member
Have you ever had one on the dyno? I have had one on the dyno for almost 6 months now and we are gaining 85 hp at 4.5#s a two stroke makes more power at lower boost levels than a 4 stroke.
I did go run with the 860 and it would keep up with the pump gas 8 for about 500 ft and could not out do the 1000 anywhere.
P
product tester
Well-known member
You are dead on the hp was 129 stock it made over 205 at 7000 rpm with 4.5#s of boost
R
Rms Rydning
Well-known member
At 4500ft you have about 13% loss in pressure and Hp. And that will give about 144hp if everything is right.You are not talking about boost,you are talking about absolute pressure.
At sea level 14,7 psi +4,5psi boost =19,2psi absolute pressure.
19,2psi -12,7psi(@4500ft)=6,5psi boost now.And that givs you teoretically 215hp -some losses= 205hp-144hp@4500ft = 61hp gain with absolutt pressure @19,2psi.
At 4500 you have 6,5psi boost now.
So 4,5 psi does NOT give you 85 hp for sure.Only way to do that is if you have a IC that is more than 100% efficient,and that is possible if the IC is cooled down beyond ambient temp like they did in the F1 turbo time...
P
product tester
Well-known member
you are talking thery I am talking what happened on our dyno!!!
R
RKT
Well-known member
This is the common misconception with turbos..
Simple question: Why would a engine ,with a turbo on it, not lose the same HP (or close to the same) at elevation as the N/A engine?
Air quality is Air quality no matter how it is inducted..
The M10, M8, or any engine is the same engine N/A or Boosted and will suffer the same losses from elevation..
Try driving your Diesel truck from UT to MN and watch the boost levels climb as you go lower in elevation.. WHY? Because the engine is making more power. The opposite is true also.. Drive from MN to UT and watch your boost levels get lower as you rise in elevation..
The difference is that you can compensate for this air issue by adding more boost.. but the engine is still suffering from the same power losses regardless of its induction method.
Try running a M8 Turbo at 8PSI on 91 octane in MN and see how far you get.
There is no question that any forced induction has the ability to make up for power that is lost from elevation increases.. But this comes inthe form of MORE pressure/boost... To state that the boosted engine does not lose the same,or near the same, power from less active air as the N/A engine is just not correct.
Kelsey
Last edited:
R
Rms Rydning
Well-known member
You might just lett the wastegate be open on the dyno to get that 129hp run?Or was this a bone stock m1000?
M
mtn_extreme
Well-known member
This was a question, notice all the question marks? Therfore how could it be a misconseption of a non-correct statement?
Common sense would seem to indicate that even though the air density is the same , a motor that naturally draws air would be much much more affected than one where the air is being forced in. The forced air would remain close to constant despite density differences where natural air flow would be
affected more. Turning up boost would force more less dense air into the cylinder to compensate for compression loss where there would be no way to regulate compression losses from a N/A motor.
Explain why this theory would be wrong.
MX
R
RKT
Well-known member
This was a question, notice all the question marks? Therfore how could it be a misconseption of a non-correct statement?
Common sense would seem to indicate that even though the air density is the same , a motor that naturally draws air would be much much more affected than one where the air is being forced in. The forced air would remain close to constant despite density differences where natural air flow would be
affected more. Turning up boost would force more less dense air into the cylinder to compensate for compression loss where there would be no way to regulate compression losses from a N/A motor.
Explain why this theory would be wrong.
MX
The engine is still N/A until boost is induced... So, if the M10 is 140HP at elevation on a N/A sled it is also 140HP on the boosted sled.. This extra 35HP?? Where did it come from? If I could gain 35HP simply by placing a turbo on the end of my exhaust pipe.. Sign me up!
So, the reality is that the M10 is 140HP (for lack of a better number) at 9Kft.. Add 50HP (very high estimate for 5psi boost.. more like 30HP at 5psi) and you have 170+HP M10 at 9K which will run like a SOB!
Now the M8 (140-145HP stock) equals about 104-110HP stock at 9kft..
8PSI will yield aprox 40-45HP MAX (it is less because of the turbo and really the engine's porting) so you have 145-155HP at elevation.. Still not bad... But, this is no match for a 170HP M10 or any other 170HP sled..
Kelsey
M
mtn_extreme
Well-known member
OK, I can grasp this line of thinking. Altitude is altitude and your saying sleds have to start equal. Boost improvenments are from that point on. I will buy that. I am not sure about the m8 being less due to the porting. However, my bigbore m8T with custom porting and custom head is considerably quicker in top end and hole shot than my stock m8T. The turbo boost with the BBM8 comes on about 4500 rpm and the stocker M8T doesn't show boost until about 5800/6000 rpm. A big advantage in just about every riding situation. With this said, cannot the porting of the stocker be improved for the turbo?
Just so you know comparisons - they both have identical clutching and gearing although the BB has a 174" track , the other a 163".
R
RKT
Well-known member
MX: Yes, the porting of the engine is a big player in how much power the engine makes boosted or not boosted.. This is why you see the results you do.. IMO, boosted sleds benefit from PROPER porting more than the N/A sleds.. The problem is that most of the turbo suppliers are NOT engine builders so, they do not know whatto do to the cylinders to get more power with boost.. But you can turn up the boost and compensate so, they have a work around.. I suspect your BB engine makes better power at lower boost than your stocker EVEN though your BB is not ported ot headed for the turbo specifically..
But, yes, ALL engines start out equal in power.. the amount of boost, porting, or head etc.. then allow for it to make more , or less, power.
Kelsey
What about a a copy of the dyno run showing 250hp @5 psi? I have my doubt about the numbers provided by some people here...
