Why do bigger turbos make more hp on the same psi?
05-10-2007, 06:08 PM
#51
Honda-Tech Member
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: fl, usa
Posts: 3,211
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: (k24em2)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by k24em2 »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
But they were also like 1.5L 6 or 8 cylinders.
</TD></TR></TABLE>
but the point is that it still worked and think about what you just said they used a 1.5L the amount of exhaust gases exiting the car is less then a 1.8L reguardless of the # of cylinders
But they were also like 1.5L 6 or 8 cylinders.
</TD></TR></TABLE>but the point is that it still worked and think about what you just said they used a 1.5L the amount of exhaust gases exiting the car is less then a 1.8L reguardless of the # of cylinders
05-11-2007, 01:18 AM
#52
Honda-Tech Member
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Deutschland, Germany
Posts: 518
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: (tony413)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by tony413 »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
how do you figure ? explain to me </TD></TR></TABLE> I learned the hydraulic thing in mechanic school. Let me look it up again. Maybe I misread something. I'll post up again later.
how do you figure ? explain to me </TD></TR></TABLE> I learned the hydraulic thing in mechanic school. Let me look it up again. Maybe I misread something. I'll post up again later.
05-11-2007, 08:32 AM
#54
Honda-Tech Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Lincoln, Ne, USA
Posts: 1,895
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: (tony413)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by tony413 »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
but the point is that it still worked and think about what you just said they used a 1.5L the amount of exhaust gases exiting the car is less then a 1.8L reguardless of the # of cylinders </TD></TR></TABLE>
Oh believe me I'm not arguing the fact that it didn't work. It worked very well.
but the point is that it still worked and think about what you just said they used a 1.5L the amount of exhaust gases exiting the car is less then a 1.8L reguardless of the # of cylinders </TD></TR></TABLE>
Oh believe me I'm not arguing the fact that it didn't work. It worked very well.
05-11-2007, 08:43 AM
#55
Honda-Tech Member
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: fl, usa
Posts: 3,211
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: (k24em2)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by k24em2 »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
Oh believe me I'm not arguing the fact that it didn't work. It worked very well.</TD></TR></TABLE>
agreed i think that if you can speed up the velocity of exhaust gases then the turbo will spool faster and since we all know that velocity sacks work why not just construct manifold runners with the same concept. if we could im thinking that we could use large AR.'s on smaller engines. its the same as switching rocker arms in V-8's with a stock cam, the enginer see more air then whats really there without changing durations.
also with higher speeding exhaust velocities you could keep the RPM's lower IF you wanted too so that your closer to the torque.
Oh believe me I'm not arguing the fact that it didn't work. It worked very well.</TD></TR></TABLE>
agreed i think that if you can speed up the velocity of exhaust gases then the turbo will spool faster and since we all know that velocity sacks work why not just construct manifold runners with the same concept. if we could im thinking that we could use large AR.'s on smaller engines. its the same as switching rocker arms in V-8's with a stock cam, the enginer see more air then whats really there without changing durations.
also with higher speeding exhaust velocities you could keep the RPM's lower IF you wanted too so that your closer to the torque.
05-11-2007, 08:56 AM
#56
Honda-Tech Member
Re: (Bailhatch)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Bailhatch »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">the skinny manifold runner thing has some merit actually...old school F1 cars had long, tiny runners (around 7/8" i think) and they made huge whp at high rpms...god i wish they were still unrestricted turbo like back when leg warmers were cool.</TD></TR></TABLE>
LOL, umm, no. 7/8" runners? I have a lot of books on the turbo F1 era, and while none of them have specifics on runner diameters, you can tell from the pics that they were no smaller than what is typically used today. You also have to remember they don't run thick wall manifolds, most of the stuff was inconel and .028-.039 wall, so for a given o.d., the i.d. was bigger than what most are used to seeing.
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by tony413 »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
agreed i think that if you can speed up the velocity of exhaust gases then the turbo will spool faster and since we all know that velocity sacks work why not just construct manifold runners with the same concept. if we could im thinking that we could use large AR.'s on smaller engines. its the same as switching rocker arms in V-8's with a stock cam, the enginer see more air then whats really there without changing durations.
also with higher speeding exhaust velocities you could keep the RPM's lower IF you wanted too so that your closer to the torque.</TD></TR></TABLE>
LOL, i don't even know what to say about your comments sometimes...
LOL, umm, no. 7/8" runners? I have a lot of books on the turbo F1 era, and while none of them have specifics on runner diameters, you can tell from the pics that they were no smaller than what is typically used today. You also have to remember they don't run thick wall manifolds, most of the stuff was inconel and .028-.039 wall, so for a given o.d., the i.d. was bigger than what most are used to seeing.
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by tony413 »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
agreed i think that if you can speed up the velocity of exhaust gases then the turbo will spool faster and since we all know that velocity sacks work why not just construct manifold runners with the same concept. if we could im thinking that we could use large AR.'s on smaller engines. its the same as switching rocker arms in V-8's with a stock cam, the enginer see more air then whats really there without changing durations.
also with higher speeding exhaust velocities you could keep the RPM's lower IF you wanted too so that your closer to the torque.</TD></TR></TABLE>
LOL, i don't even know what to say about your comments sometimes...
05-11-2007, 08:58 AM
#57
Honda-Tech Member
Re: (tony413)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by tony413 »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
but the point is that it still worked and think about what you just said they used a 1.5L the amount of exhaust gases exiting the car is less then a 1.8L reguardless of the # of cylinders </TD></TR></TABLE>
No, each runner is connected to 1 cylinder. 1.5L total displacement on a 6 cylinder engine is .25L per cylinder, that's how much volume will come out of 1 runner at 100% VE. Compare that to our average of 1.9L 4 cyl. = .475L per cylinder. That's almost double...
but the point is that it still worked and think about what you just said they used a 1.5L the amount of exhaust gases exiting the car is less then a 1.8L reguardless of the # of cylinders </TD></TR></TABLE>
No, each runner is connected to 1 cylinder. 1.5L total displacement on a 6 cylinder engine is .25L per cylinder, that's how much volume will come out of 1 runner at 100% VE. Compare that to our average of 1.9L 4 cyl. = .475L per cylinder. That's almost double...
05-11-2007, 09:33 AM
#61
Honda-Tech Member
Re: (tony413)
Because you're not going from a big "plenum" to a small tube.
Why does nobody put a velocity stack at the end of the intake runner? Why not port the entry of the head to the shape of a velocity stack?
The velocity stack is to increase flow into a pipe, from an open area. You see in that picture where it makes the difference? Where the air is entering the tube from a sharp angle. That's not happening in a turbo manifold.
Why does nobody put a velocity stack at the end of the intake runner? Why not port the entry of the head to the shape of a velocity stack?
The velocity stack is to increase flow into a pipe, from an open area. You see in that picture where it makes the difference? Where the air is entering the tube from a sharp angle. That's not happening in a turbo manifold.
05-13-2007, 02:56 PM
#62
Re: (tony1)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by tony1 »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
LOL, umm, no. 7/8" runners? I have a lot of books on the turbo F1 era, and while none of them have specifics on runner diameters, you can tell from the pics that they were no smaller than what is typically used today. You also have to remember they don't run thick wall manifolds, most of the stuff was inconel and .028-.039 wall, so for a given o.d., the i.d. was bigger than what most are used to seeing.
</TD></TR></TABLE>
****, well thats why I said 'think'. I got that impression because a 'car guy' I know went to an F1 museum and said that he was amazed at how small the runners were and he held out his thumb and showed me "just about the same as my thumb!" he said. Apparently this was a some elaborate ploy to burn me on the intraweb 8 months later. Clever guy
I did find some pics though and you're right toenay
LOL, umm, no. 7/8" runners? I have a lot of books on the turbo F1 era, and while none of them have specifics on runner diameters, you can tell from the pics that they were no smaller than what is typically used today. You also have to remember they don't run thick wall manifolds, most of the stuff was inconel and .028-.039 wall, so for a given o.d., the i.d. was bigger than what most are used to seeing.
</TD></TR></TABLE>
****, well thats why I said 'think'. I got that impression because a 'car guy' I know went to an F1 museum and said that he was amazed at how small the runners were and he held out his thumb and showed me "just about the same as my thumb!" he said. Apparently this was a some elaborate ploy to burn me on the intraweb 8 months later. Clever guy
I did find some pics though and you're right toenay
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
