New turbo rules?

DISTURBED said:
I've spoken to a few that are just swapping wheels and covers but have not tested them. I'm contemplating just doing this myself to get by till they release something. I'm kinda running out of time since they have had since Nov to get something figured out. So I wonder what the hold up is? HP is far short of what they thought, are they not making it off the dyno or no one cares to build these and test them?
Click to expand...

Call Hypermax. They just posted on FB last night that they have some 3.6 turbos ready!
 
Smoking S said:
Large map groove that can only be seen with cover off .
Click to expand...

The cover does not need to be removed to see the MAP groove, and Mears saw it in person and ruled it legal before the season started, and as such never failed tech all year.

Smoking S said:
Probably the reason why everyone has to buy a new turbo and take pennies on the dollar on the 2.6 and 3.0 slotted legal turbos. LOL
Click to expand...

In reality the covers that prompted the rule change had adjustable MAP grooves. If you are going to make accusations, you should at least get your facts straight.
 
Smokem said:
The cover does not need to be removed to see the MAP groove, and Mears saw it in person and ruled it legal before the season started,
Click to expand...

A ring 5 inches in front of the wheel, 6" in diameter isn't called a MAP groove. It's called a PER (power enhancement ring) lol

As weston has said before, there was grey areas, shame on ppl for letting it get out of hand. They had every chance to do so. Remember the KNECK area rule that was introduced but never put in the rule? Westons idea of a maximum map ring size and location would have helped alot
 
Last edited:
jones95runner said:
A ring 5 inches in front of the wheel, 6" in diameter isn't called a MAP groove. It's called a PER (power enhancement ring) lol
Click to expand...

The "MAP" groove was still measured behind the compressor wheel nut not five inches in front of the wheel, this was the rule as explained to us and why it was legal. If we were in fact trying to cheat, why on Earth would we openly show our cover to a tech official for verification before the season started.

Myself and Eric both pushed for smoothbore rules before the 2015 season, and anyone who reads this forum will know very well I have proposed this for some time. And as far as rules are concerned, we personally would like to see the 2.5" class go smoothbore also.
 
^ This. Not the cheating part, but they need to jump on the smooth bore wagon in that class too. The 2.5 turbos look like the 2.6 from last year, except the groove faces out instead of forward. The ED chargers that were great last year are dime a dozen on the market now, just like every 2.6 and 3.0 turbo. I think PPL plans to use a smooth when they start the class next year, or its what Mears told us in a meeting anyway. I'm sure they'll renig by then

Sent from my SM-G900R4 using Tapatalk
 
Cotpc will most likely be going smooth bore 2.5 in 2017 season. The tech, other rep and I both are in favor of this.

Sent from my E6782 using Tapatalk
 
Pudge said:
^ This. Not the cheating part, but they need to jump on the smooth bore wagon in that class too. The 2.5 turbos look like the 2.6 from last year, except the groove faces out instead of forward. The ED chargers that were great last year are dime a dozen on the market now, just like every 2.6 and 3.0 turbo. I think PPL plans to use a smooth when they start the class next year, or its what Mears told us in a meeting anyway. I'm sure they'll renig by then

Sent from my SM-G900R4 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


Are you saying he want to pick up 2.5? That's dumb
 
I'm saying they will probably adopt 2.5 like it is rather than go to a smooth bore charger. They do plan on a one ton driveline class. At least 3 months ago they did

Sent from my SM-G900R4 using Tapatalk
 
I just find it funny how no one is giving current 3.6" #'s...even if I was to order. It's like they are waiting for someone or everyone else's #'s so they have the "right answer."...... 30hp more than so & so, or 50hp more than what's his nuts
 
Yellow Jacket said:
I just find it funny how no one is giving current 3.6" #'s...even if I was to order. It's like they are waiting for someone or everyone else's #'s so they have the "right answer."...... 30hp more than so & so, or 50hp more than what's his nuts
Click to expand...

We ran a 3.6 I put together and it sure didn't impress me. I know there will be better turbos out there, but from what I saw where it made peak power is part of the problem.
 
Last edited:
Smokem said:
I think you will need to increase the bore size closer to 2.6-2.75" smoothbore.
Click to expand...

I've been hearing some rumors floating around about this as well. 2.6 smooth bore would definitely be nice and should keep the class from getting out of control. Our 2.5 group is located in south central PA. We would most likely adopt smooth bore rules if COTPC and other groups adopted it. Pro Street Diesel iirc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top