96mm vs 102mm s400 turbine

Leiffi said:
It would be different if there was enough fuel to max them out. Or maybe compressor was maxed out so bigger turbine side does not help. But still these kind of tests are interesting.
Click to expand...

Fuel quantity/rate certainly was not an issue. The point being as long as the turbine has sufficient power to run the compressor, altering the turbine flow by going to a different turbine housing had less than a 1% impact on power.
 
Smokem said:
Fuel quantity/rate certainly was not an issue. The point being as long as the turbine has sufficient power to run the compressor, altering the turbine flow by going to a different turbine housing had less than a 1% impact on power.
Click to expand...
Bigger turbine side is used when you have maxed out smaller one, if not, you just lose power. So bigger housing needs more fuel.
 
Leiffi said:
Bigger turbine side is used when you have maxed out smaller one, if not, you just lose power. So bigger housing needs more fuel.
Click to expand...

Your baseless generalized answers are confusing, apparently you are trying to convince yourself you are correct.
 
Smokem said:
Your baseless generalized answers are confusing, apparently you are trying to convince yourself you are correct.
Click to expand...
Correct about what ? It is just impossible to rule out all the variables in these tests, needs too much time and money. Every turbine, or whatever part, is best in certain combinations and setups.

There is some strange results, like bigger turbinehousing making less power at higher rpm, same power at lower rpm.
 
Leiffi said:
There is some strange results, like bigger turbinehousing making less power at higher rpm, same power at lower rpm.
Click to expand...

It's only a 5 hp difference in that last pic, how much is that in percents, 1%? Might go inside the dyno accuracy etc.

Would be nice if someone made comparison of different turbo setups so that the engine control would keep EGT constant from e.g. 3000 rpm up. Or lambda constant through whole rpm range and EGT limiter at high rpm. That way we would see the true power potential of each setup.
 
Leiffi said:
Understand but we never do it because it is not real life. Should have no meaning to housing size.
Click to expand...

It directly relates to real life specifically in a sled pulling application, and it very much has a meaning to housing size. I think you are mistaking your opinion for fact.
 
Leiffi said:
Understand but we never do it because it is not real life. Should have no meaning to housing size.
Click to expand...

Smokem said:
It directly relates to real life specifically in a sled pulling application, and it very much has a meaning to housing size. I think you are mistaking your opinion for fact.
Click to expand...

Not only sled pulling, but also working applications.

For example, a loaded semi on the road. When it hits a hill, what happens with rpm? Negative sweep.

So yes, a negative sweep on an engine dyno is very applicable. Probably more so than a chassis dyno that runs the rpm “up hill”.
 
Smokem said:
It directly relates to real life specifically in a sled pulling application, and it very much has a meaning to housing size. I think you are mistaking your opinion for fact.
Click to expand...



You need to ignore Leiffi, he is a euro troll that has never done anything performance related in his life. Bases his experience off what other people have told him. (I’m sure most of which was to get him to go away.) Totally doesn’t understand why certain engines are dyno’d in certain ways. Thinks acceleration or inertia dynos are the only true way to test, even if the engine being ran is used in a pulling application where the load is gradually increased. He’s a time vampire and will not bring anything useful to this or any other thread.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top