By Lag:

quote:

By John:
…nice move Lag, you stepped into that one stating the power was the same as that of a NA S4.


Nice move? Show me what is wrong with the numbers.

Let me spoon-feed you again with a hint: NOTHING.

I do understand that your obsessive-compulsive chest-beating requires you to make unsubstantiated claims as my all-time-favorite listed above, but there’s no disputing those numbers. That is the beauty of mathematics, and there's no getting around it, no matter how much ranting otherwise.

By John:
Maybe this Lag-Algebra merits study?

By above link:
While the serious GTB-88 turbo was more than capable of supplying the airflow needs to produce the required 1,000 hp, the more efficient the basic motor, the less boost would be required to reach our goal. Some simple math helps here. Normally aspirated motors actually have atmospheric pressure pushing the air into the cylinders. This pressure (at sea level and at a given temperature) is 14.7 psi or one bar. Doubling the power output of the motor can be as simple as doubling the pressure to the motor. Upping the pressure to two bar (14.7 psi above atmospheric) can double the power output of your motor.

By above link:
Here is where things start to get tricky. Suppose you have a 300hp normally aspirated motor and want to double the power output. If you install a turbo kit and set the waste gate to 14.7 psi, chances are you will nearly double the power output.

By above link:
This pressure-to-power conversion works at elevated power levels as well, which is why we chose to increase the power output of the normally aspirated motor in the first place. If we run 14.7 psi, we essentially double any power gains applied to the normally aspirated motor. An example works well here. Suppose our test motor produced 400 hp normally aspirated. If we applied 14.7 psi to the 400hp motor, we would expect something near 800 hp. If we upped the power output of our normally aspirated motor to 450 (a gain of 50 hp), the same 14.7 psi would give us something closer to 900 hp. If we take this scenario one step further, we can see that a 500hp normally aspirated motor will produce near our magical 1,000 hp at just 14.7 psi. Had we tried to produce 1,000 hp with a 300hp motor, it would take over 34 psi of boost, with a 400hp motor we could lower the boost to 22 psi, while a 500hp motor reduces it to the aforementioned 14.7 psi.

By above link:
Remember, any power gained normally aspirated would be doubled at 14.7 psi.

By Lag, this thread page 8:

One may ask, well, what kind of calcs are you using? Fair enough, let’s make it easy to understand.

A normally aspirated engine is already operating under ‘boost’ since there’s 14.7 psi of atmospheric pressure rushing into the cylinders when the intake valve opens.

So the engine in question is putting out 205 hp at the crank at atmospheric pressure with the corresponding amount of fuel metered in for combustion to occur.

So now let’s ‘double’ the amount of ‘boost’, using a turbo, which would be the same as reading 14.7psi of positive manifold pressure on a gauge. Since we are now doubling the amount of air into the engine, we are also doubling the amount of fuel since we have to maintain the proper air/fuel ratio for combustion.

For all intents and purposes, this effectively doubles the engine’s horsepower! And this is the 'secret' of forced induction which allows a smaller engine to behave like a bigger engine; pretty simple, right?

So now we have:

205 crank hp x 2 = 410 crank hp

But according to John’s post, we didn’t double the amount of ‘boost’ as he states it’s running at 8 psi. So how much horsepower will 8psi give us at the crank? Let’s do some more easy calculations:

8psi / 14.7 psi = .544

.544 means that we are roughly one half over one atmosphere of pressure, or 1.544, or 1.544 Bar. Using that we now get:

205 crank hp x 1.544 Bar = 316.52 crank hp

I think it is safe to say that 317 is well South of the claimed ‘well North of 375’ hp statement.

What I just did is BASIC stuff, yet he doesn't seem to be aware of it, or else he would not have made those posts.

By John:
No, I don't have a dyno sheet, but based on the performance specs I have directly measured, road test articles done in 1984, and calibration results it would be a cold day in hell before the setup only delivered 317 off the crank. You guys know it and so do I.

I can stand here with an admittedely big mouth, because I do have a thorough understanding of both systems and what is required to make them work.

By John:
So sorry for the rest of you watching this post.

Originally posted by John.
Pete S.
For kicks, why don't you check out U.S. Patent 6,446,416.

Originally posted by John.
I do own a 1956 Lionel complete with the heated pellet stack and electric whistle. It also has the cool coal loader and luggage pickup unit which are considered rare accessories today.

Originally posted by John.
I'm anxiously awaiting what comeback you will come up with next, especially since this topic now has nothing to do with 928s, Porsches or automobiles at all.

Originally posted by PeteS
A legend in his own mind?

Originally posted by John.
Honestly, I really have nothing more to add.

Originally posted by Rufus Sanders
")

Now, if you each were forced to show ALL your receipt's for each HP project, we'd know who the real top gun was... HP/$, that's where it's at.- Ruf

Originally posted by Tim Murphy
I made the mistake of adding it up once.... I won't be doing that again.
PS: Don't let the wife know that I actually know that number.