jfaulkner
Douche Hunter
I prefer factory turbos.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
There really is nothing better than OEM. That goes for anything from turbos to boobs.
I prefer factory turbos.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
I prefer factory turbos.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
A lot of that is over my head, however, wouldn't the 1:1 ratio lead you to believe that the forces are close to balanced? If the turbine housing is too tight or the wheel is too small, you'll see a much higher drive pressure number vs boost, the same if there's an intake restriction. When it gets a higher than 1:1 ratio you're seeing an inefficiency on one side or the other of the turbo, it's taking way more power than its producing.1:1 has no basis in thrust values, unless you want to get all engineer level and calculate surface area acted upon on.
Opinion: 1:1 ratio has no basis in fact. The mass having work imparted to it and the mass imparting the work are only loosely connected by the turbine shaft. You would have to calculate enthalpy of the exhaust gas stream across the turbine, and calculate the power needed to flow/pump inlet air at any given point of operation. Pressure alone is far from an indicator of the efficiency of the turbocharger as a system. Calculate power in vs power out.
I would like to read if someone has published information to contradict my opinion. I've never had a reason to look in to it either way. I just (think I know) the energy available to the turbine and what's being imparted into the inlet air mass are so wildly different that it's not reliable to use pressure.
Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk
Thrust is axial, not radial. 1:1 will be near equal force towards the center of the turbo no matter what the pressure is.
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
A lot of that is over my head, however, wouldn't the 1:1 ratio lead you to believe that the forces are close to balanced? If the turbine housing is too tight or the wheel is too small, you'll see a much higher drive pressure number vs boost, the same if there's an intake restriction. When it gets a higher than 1:1 ratio you're seeing an inefficiency on one side or the other of the turbo, it's taking way more power than its producing.
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
There really is nothing better than OEM. That goes for anything from turbos to boobs.
Words to live by there!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
A lot of that is over my head, however, wouldn't the 1:1 ratio lead you to believe that the forces are close to balanced? If the turbine housing is too tight or the wheel is too small, you'll see a much higher drive pressure number vs boost, the same if there's an intake restriction. When it gets a higher than 1:1 ratio you're seeing an inefficiency on one side or the other of the turbo, it's taking way more power than its producing.
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
Actually I couldn’t leave those stock either, bigger is always better.
I’m gonna have to disagree there but...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
I forgot Pete guys aren’t into women that much.
I forgot Pete guys aren’t into women that much.
Dont lump us all in with rick. Pretty sure hes a closet kw guy anyway.
Dont lump us all in with rick. Pretty sure hes a closet kw guy anyway.
You guys know where I can get a chrome stamped peanut cover? Got a good customer asking for one
Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk
It’s your lie tell it how you want but if I see a red oval and drop my wallet, I’m kicking it to a safe distance before I think about bending over to get it.
I get that, but we're using it to monitor a setup that's in use, not engineering a turbo from scratch. Since you rarely see under 1:1 at wot we should able to use that number as an estimate of overall effeciency even though it won't cover every eventuality. You've seen a lot more turbos than I ever will; when would a 2:1 setup be efficient and a 1:1 wouldn't be?It would appear that way on the surface but as kyle was getting at it is an arbitrary number when comparing a given turbine and compressor. Two entirely different designs. Different blade count, architecture, conditions (temperature), etc. More times than not bearings aren't the issue. It is overspeed and/or lack of oil supply. That doesn't necessarily mean the engine isn't keeping up so much as orifices and internal metering isn't supplying enough.
That sounds dickish after I reread it and that's not what I intended lol.I get that, but we're using it to monitor a setup that's in use, not engineering a turbo from scratch. Since you rarely see under 1:1 at wot we should able to use that number as an estimate of overall effeciency even though it won't cover every eventuality. You've seen a lot more turbos than I ever will; when would a 2:1 setup be efficient and a 1:1 wouldn't be?
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
All I'm saying is who is actually doing to show that X setup is in peak efficiency at 1:1? It is (very well put) arbitrary.I get that, but we're using it to monitor a setup that's in use, not engineering a turbo from scratch. Since you rarely see under 1:1 at wot we should able to use that number as an estimate of overall effeciency even though it won't cover every eventuality. You've seen a lot more turbos than I ever will; when would a 2:1 setup be efficient and a 1:1 wouldn't be?
Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk