If you've got the gas (meth?) and tuning there's no problem with 9.0-10.0:1 and 45lbs.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Kataku2K3 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">If you've got the gas (meth?) and tuning there's no problem with 9.0-10.0:1 and 45lbs. </TD></TR></TABLE>

yep

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by SoCalude98 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
Its all in how you want to make power. Im a firm believer in making power with the motor and using the turbo as an ade in producing power as apposed to making power with the turbo. To me, making 400+WHP with 15 PSI or below is more of an accomplishment than making the same 400+ at 20+ PSI.

</TD></TR></TABLE>

Lets take this to the engineering extreme. Why not run 15:1 compression and 1 psi boost? You would be maximizing the motors ability to make power and also using the turbo to assist that.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by SoCalude98 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">Its all in how you want to make power. Im a firm believer in making power with the motor and using the turbo as an ade in producing power as apposed to making power with the turbo. To me, making 400+WHP with 15 PSI or below is more of an accomplishment than making the same 400+ at 20+ PSI.
</TD></TR></TABLE>

More power equals lower compression. Tony1 said it, and I agree. I've always said the same thing.

 

Hey like the comments. Anyone else have an opinion?

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by danl &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

Lets take this to the engineering extreme. Why not run 15:1 compression and 1 psi boost? You would be maximizing the motors ability to make power and also using the turbo to assist that.</TD></TR></TABLE>

Thats interesting. What about the other extreme? Say 7.0 cr and 35 psi on pump.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by nevin &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

Thats interesting. What about the other extreme? Say 7.0 cr and 35 psi on pump.</TD></TR></TABLE>

It would barely run if at all with that C/R.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by RyanCivic2000 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

It would barely run if at all with that C/R.</TD></TR></TABLE>

think again.... the old motor in our project car was about 7.5:1.... can you say 500hp on pump gas... all day long

 

8.5:1, and the occasional spike to 28 lbs.....no worries man, just spins the top of 4th gear and keeps on pulling....

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by uncleben'sspanishrice &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">I was at NED the other night with sleepyEG and kp4321 and saw something interesting. This guy had this huge beutiful front mount on his new RSX, so I went up to see what turbo setup he was running. Funny thing was he wasnt running any trubo. Interestingly, the air filter was attached directly to the intercooelr inlet pipe and the intake tube was directly piped into the intercoolers outlet. He claims he was making a good deal more power with this setup. We all thought it was kind of odd though. But, when he started it up, damn it was so loud. The intake noise was crazy. It even had lag like a normal turbo car when he revved it up. Sure proved to us that it was making a good deal more power with his intercooler. Just wanted your opinions. I am considering doing this to my b18c5 in my GSR as I really dont have the room for the turbo, just the front mount. Any thoughts?</TD></TR></TABLE>

That wouldn't work at all. the inake charge running throught the intercooler would be almost the same temp as the air running through the intercooler for cooling. it would be pointless and probably restrictive if anything. intercoolers work with turbos because compressing the air makes heat and the difference in tempature between the outside air and the charged air is really high there fore a lot of the heat can be absorbed out of the intake charge, if they are equal or close to equal almost no transfer of heat will happen.

 

look at my sig and tell me if i can run 7 lbs safely without new injectors and retarding the timing

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by JDogg &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

think again.... the old motor in our project car was about 7.5:1.... can you say 500hp on pump gas... all day long </TD></TR></TABLE>

Jesus, was that thing even any good to drive on the streets? It must have been laggier than hell.

 

Infact, this would not only add weight to the car, but it would increase the charge temps and increase the vacuum in the manifold, although only slightly. The pressure of the air drops across the intercooler and the temperature falls as a result. The warmer air outside then transfers some energy into the IC heating the air up. This is a horrible idea.

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by RyanCivic2000 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

Jesus, was that thing even any good to drive on the streets? It must have been laggier than hell.</TD></TR></TABLE>

i wish people would go build some low compression and realize that its NOT laggy. hell we had an sc61 on the thing and it built full (20-25psi) boost by about 4300 rpms and if you were up in the rpms off boost and hit the gas the boost came in VERY fast.... ie. rolling at about 7000 in 3rd and punch it.. immediate tire smokage. the car got about 26mpg in normal city driving and made 500hp on pump gas. whats not to like about it? any loss in cylinder pressrure off boost from the lower compression was more than made up for with timing.

 

25psi by 4300 rpm's with that compression? What was the displacement?
I chose to go with CP 85mm pistons with a 9:1 compression ratio. I am usin a gsr head so it should bump it up to about 9.2:1.

 

it was a 2liter b16

 

some guy i know said i would blow my motor with my current setup if i go turbo. he says 10:1 is way too high to be boosting. i was like, i hear turbo type r 's here and there. but hopefully an intercooler will help me not ping... and hopefully i dont have to change injectors. i am aiming for 220 whp, maybe more if i can play with it more. and wtf they say my cams will make me lag alot because of overlap. is that true??? i hear peope here and there use 62403 all motor cams for turbo.

 

^ No it's not too high of a compression to turbo, but you can't run that much boost onless your internals are forged. Are they? And what injectors do you have?

 

i just wanna run 7 psi and all i have is a block guard. stock injectors are 240 cc but i have a walbro 190 lph fuel pump

 

JDogg,I hear you man! I am a big believer in low comp,high boost,I love it for the reliability and can run my car 25-30psi and still drive it daily,over 100+ runs down the track, and it has 20K miles on stock rods,and headbolts,just used JE pistons.It is not bad at all to drive,sure at 2-3k there isn't any power,but what 4 banger makes power at 2-3k anyway? I drive peeps in my car and the words,"laggy" and "turbo lag"NEVER come up ,more like silence and holding on to the oh **** handle.Both work,I just like to have a wider window for tuning (errors) and if you want more power,simply turn up the boost!!! JDogg,what kind of pricing do you offer on the AEM UEGO gauge???I want one,really bad!

 

bump. i learned a lot from this thread. got my turbo kit today from revhard. yippie!!!

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by RyanCivic2000 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
Jesus, was that thing even any good to drive on the streets? It must have been laggier than hell.</TD></TR></TABLE>

Every single turbo DSM sold from 1990 to 1994 had 7.8:1 compression, stock. Are you going to tell me that they all were so laggy you couldn't drive them on the streets?

2 8 second street cars, 6 9 second street cars, and 28 10 second street cars say otherwise...

 

<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by RyanCivic2000 &raquo;</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">

Jesus, was that thing even any good to drive on the streets? It must have been laggier than hell.</TD></TR></TABLE>

I drove a honda with 7.25:1 compression and a T3/60-1, it wasn't bad at all. Lag is hella-overrated on the streets, the difference between 7:1 and 9:1 might be a half a second of spool, and once the turbo is spooled in first gear it stays spooled till you let off.

 

wow, this thread is interesting. i remember a thread about the same thing came up a while back and a majority of the people kept on saying high compression w/boost was better due to lag on low compression, etc, etc. on my old setup i ran 8.5:1 on my LS turbo and honestly even in low rpms it felt a lot stronger than my lil brother's mostly stock LS.

 

isnt the c/r on the evos 8 in the 7s