Legal or not?

young12valve

young12valve

teach me everything
Joined
Sep 22, 2010
Messages
1,113
Well some of you saw this on facebook and not all of you have fb i would like to expand on this so here is the question is this legal or not according to NADM? Discuss
NADM Rule
Turbocharger: The vehicle is limited to a single turbocharger; the inducer bore on the compressor housing may be 2.6”. The inlet will be measured using a 2.65-inch plug or internal calipers. Bushing from any larger turbo size down to a 2.6 turbo is PROHIBITED.
A stock map width enhancement (MWE) groove is allowed. No MWE groove will be allowed that has a width greater than 1/4 inch. All provisions allowing air to the wheel other than via the bore and the MWE groove are prohibited.
6.4 liter Powerstroke engines may utilize the factory twin-turbo configuration.
541237_3396595606844_1628354084_2715658_1111216121_n.jpg
 
Last edited:
i would say as soon as you won then no way.. the outer portion makes it bigger..
 
A stock map width enhancement (MWE) groove is allowed. No MWE groove will be allowed that has a width greater than 1/4 inch. All provisions allowing air to the wheel other than via the bore and the MWE groove are prohibited.
Doesn't look legal to me
 
I think according to the bore rule its not but hey leave it up to the tech guys if they don't say chit, then i would keep my mouth shut. There is a big thing on fb about it and i would like to get it on here and make it available to the rest of the Diesel world.
 
MWE grooves are not in front of the compressor wheel. They are below the tip of the longer fin, and usually above the shorter fin. A MWE groove that is completely in front of the compressor wheel is not a MWE groove at all, just an ineffective finger guard on an illegal turbo.

Edit: Even if it is illegal, I like it because it's shiny.
 
Last edited:
Amish Elegance said:
MWE grooves are not in front of the compressor wheel. They are below the tip of the longer fin, and usually above the shorter fin. A MWE groove that is completely in front of the compressor wheel is not a MWE groove at all, just an ineffective finger guard on an illegal turbo.
Click to expand...


I agree with your definition of the MWE, but I believe in past practice NADM, as well as other had allowed MWE that was in front of the rule as I think there were some of the folks that were doing that. Part of the reason is some of the groups have specified that the MWE must be in a certain location in relation to the wheel.

Also who says that you don't have a specific cover that has the MWE way out front and then stick a billet wheel in it with a low tip height.

No MWE needs to be the next revision of rules. Slick face covers, eliminates all the guess work in teching.
 
Last edited:
Not legal.

Bushing from any larger turbo size down to a 2.6 turbo is PROHIBITED.

It is obviously not a 2.6 wheel in the turbo so the bushing is attempting that.

Second

No MWE groove will be allowed that has a width greater than 1/4 inch

Could be wrong but looks like more than 1/4 to me if you can call it a MWE groove.
 
ninerqb8 said:
Not legal.

Bushing from any larger turbo size down to a 2.6 turbo is PROHIBITED.

It is obviously not a 2.6 wheel in the turbo so the bushing is attempting that.

Second

No MWE groove will be allowed that has a width greater than 1/4 inch

Could be wrong but looks like more than 1/4 to me if you can call it a MWE groove.
Click to expand...


Your not reading, NADM allows stepped covers. Which means you can have a 3.0 wheel, and stick a 2.6 cover on it.


Yes the MWE looks larger than 1/4" and if it is then it is a fail for the MWE being too large.
 
Last edited:
zstroken said:
Your not reading, NADM allows stepped covers. Which means you can have a 3.0 wheel, and stick a 2.6 cover on it.


Yes the MWE looks larger than 1/4" and if it is then it is a fail for the MWE being too large.
Click to expand...

So if the MWE was lowered down to 1/4 inch then this would pass? correct?
 
young12valve said:
So if the MWE was lowered down to 1/4 inch then this would pass? correct?
Click to expand...


Based on past precedent I would say yes. More of the reason for a slick cover rule. Protrusion brought the HP down, however folks have used better wheels to get the HP up.

That turbo won't pass for a protrusion rule.

Whose turbo is it actually? Looks like a batmowheel, but who made it?
 
Not sure who did the work but Gene Mohney posted it and i just reposted it here trying to find out an answer for myself.
 
young12valve said:
Not sure who did the work but Gene Mohney posted it and i just reposted it here trying to find out an answer for myself.
Click to expand...

Also when gene posted it he said all measurements were with in rules, 2.6 bore, <.250 grove. assuming all the numbers are right is it legal?
 
When are pullers gonna fix this stupid SH!t and just go to spec chargers ?
Is it the inherent need for something to b!tch about?

Spec charger and if you get caught screwing with it you get a fine and miss 2-3 hooks.

I guess the pulling forum would be pretty boring then though....
 
05_LLY said:
Also when gene posted it he said all measurements were with in rules, 2.6 bore, <.250 grove. assuming all the numbers are right is it legal?
Click to expand...
Yeah true so if i was teching the turbo i would pass it.
 
That turbo might look nice but it's going to surge and not flow worth a crap.
 
My point was, assuming it is .25", because what they are calling a MWE groove is positioned in-front of the wheel, it is not a MWE groove.

If it were a charger with a stepped cover, all they did was magically remove the inducer portion exposing the step to atmosphere. That is not a MWE groove.

Take this example:

url


This is a MWE groove. Notice its position is below the tips of the wheel. It must be there to perform its intended function. The purpose of a MWE slot is to reduce surge/stall, period. This groove in one instance, according to Bullseye, (especially applicable given the wheel in the OP example) "allow air to be pulled and fed directly into the second set of blades on the compressor wheel outside of the main inlet. This most noticeably increases the efficiency of the compressor as well as over air flow, hence the name, Map Width Enhancement Grooves: it produces "wider" compressor maps!"

Some also make arguments that it allows excess pressure in certain part-throttle situations to escape before passing over the main tips of the compressor wheel, preventing surge. (Thereby also effectively widening the map, hens the name.)

If the turbo in the OP had its 2.6 bore down to the face of the wheel, then had a MWE groove starting below face of the wheel and exposing a depth of .25", one could make an argument for its legality with the current NADM ruleset. (It would fail any org with protrusion requirements.)

Because it is completely in front of the wheel, it cannot be classified as a MWE groove, even if it does meet the .25" spec.
 
Last edited:
Amish Elegance said:
My point was, assuming it is .25", because what they are calling a MWE groove is positioned in-front of the wheel, it is not a MWE groove.

If it were a charger with a stepped cover, all they did was magically remove the inducer portion exposing the step to atmosphere. That is not a MWE groove.

Take this example:

url


This is a MWE groove. Notice its position is below the tips of the wheel. It must be there to perform its intended function. The purpose of a MWE slot is to reduce surge/stall, period. This groove in one instance, according to Bullseye, (especially applicable given the wheel in the OP example) "allow air to be pulled and fed directly into the second set of blades on the compressor wheel outside of the main inlet. This most noticeably increases the efficiency of the compressor as well as over air flow, hence the name, Map Width Enhancement Grooves: it produces "wider" compressor maps!"

Some also make arguments that it allows excess pressure in certain part-throttle situations to escape before passing over the main tips of the compressor wheel, preventing surge. (Thereby also effectively widening the map, hens the name.)

If the turbo in the OP had its 2.6 bore down to the face of the wheel, then had a MWE groove starting even with the face of the wheel and exposing a depth of .25", one could make an argument for its legality with the current NADM ruleset. (It would fail any org with protrusion requirements.)

Because it is completely in front of the wheel, it cannot be classified as a MWE groove, even if it does meet the .25" spec.
Click to expand...


I am not disagreeing what a MWE slot is intended to be used for, I am saying past practice it has been allowed. So some folks are gonna have to step up and say no way it isn't legal anymore....

With my example before, what if someone actually uses a cover from an application that has the MWE far out from a wheel with a really tall tip, and then takes a wheel with a low tip height and contours the cover to fit. The MWE is is the factory location still. Correct? The rules don't say that the MWE has to serve as an MWE. It just says stock MWE groove is allowed. It doesn't even say it has to be in a specific location. This is the gray area in the rule that is being used. Eliminate the gray area!
 
That looks kinda like a couple 2.6 HX60 I seen last year that didnt work very well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top