928 vs. todays competition
#166
O/N...you never stop amazing me....your crankshaft losses are far higher than any pumping losses I will ever see and you can take that to the bank. Yes, it is a parasite as far as I am concerned. I see no ignorant use of the word, specifically in this joking context. You don't think there are extra loads on your crank?...now that is really funny. I've got documented proof of 20 years of turbo power and 60,000 miles on a 928 without issue. Before there was even a Vortech supercharger, there were turbo 928s...many of which are still going strong!
Hey, competition keeps us all at our best, doesn't it. O/N, think about your boost curve characteristics next time you drop the hammer... and remember, while you are watching the boost creep up in high gears...this is when the turbo powered car is already at full tilt. He'll proably be short shifting just to give you a snowball's chance
Hey, competition keeps us all at our best, doesn't it. O/N, think about your boost curve characteristics next time you drop the hammer... and remember, while you are watching the boost creep up in high gears...this is when the turbo powered car is already at full tilt. He'll proably be short shifting just to give you a snowball's chance
#167
You always forget about that little lever we have to the right of the steering wheel... when it's time to go, I drop it a gear or two & I am never out of my power band. It's a different style of driving than with a turbo, so you may not be familiar with it, but don't knock it.
Please don't let this bump your testosterone, as your time is better spent in the garage than
Six months, though? Have mercy.
Please don't let this bump your testosterone, as your time is better spent in the garage than
Six months, though? Have mercy.
#168
Hey BC...the Goldmember 3-spd A/T car made 355 ft-lbs and 265 HP on a 100F day. I'd fully expect 30-40 more hp on a cooler day,
#171
Originally Posted by Jim Nowak
The dyno should adjust the output for ambiant heat so that shoud not be a factor. However, the fact that you were making 355 lb-ft of tq but only 265 RWHP is a problem and is not something to brag about. The low RWHP in relation to the high tq would be indicative of an issue with timing, fuel, or poor compressor efficiency. Your torque must have dropped like a rock after 3500 rpm to have only 265 RWHP. Please post the dyno chart so we can see.
Look at the factory specs for a buick GN. In either intercooled or non-intercooled form the tq is significantly higher than the HP.
The same is true for the Ford Mustang SVO, and the little chrysler 2.2 turbo motors.