a. this sure doesnt seem like the answer to my question about k-27 turbos.

2) Sorta seems like everyone would have been better off if they stuck with facts instead of cockfoolery about how great they think they are.

3)The appropriate answer to the question, "what time is it?" is not in my mind "I can sell you a really pimpy watch; if you dont buy it, you wont be able to tell time."

4) Dyno charts are preposterously easy to fudge...I dont know if this one is real or not, but when i see a chart for a turbo car without a correction factor and a boost trace on it, I immidiately file it away with the Loch Ness video, the bigfoot movie as the sort of "evidence" that doesnt really prove much.

It irrelevant to all of us whose chart this is, or who has prepared the various cars in the subsequent pics. It is not, however, irrelevant when a vendor lies about preparing two of them as examples of his experience. It draws into question every other assertion that comes out of his mouth. Maybe he is involved with each of them in some way, but now the seed of doubt has been planted.

The vendor who does so quickly BECOMES IRRELEVANT to me and my hard earned benjamins, for I can no longer take what he says at face value.

If there is a cabal afoot here to damage the credibility of Huntley, it has been much less succesful than his own posting of photos of cars he does not service as evidence of his expertise.


by the way...free legal advice to all of you...an absolute defense against claims of libel or slander is the ability to prove the validity of what you have said.

 

early, I'm trying to edit my post...now where is that damn coffee?

[quote]Originally posted by mumzer:
<strong>a.by the way...free legal advice to all of you...an absolute defense against claims of libel or slander is the ability to prove the validity of what you have said.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Correct! Been there, done that!

Take Care!

 

by the way...now that this has gotten completely derailed, can anyone answer my original question and post some maximum effort k-27/8 charts?

If not, how about k-29/8. Both would be interesting to me. Comments about antiquated german technology and high tech garret technology is irrelevant. I know the garrets work well, but thats not the information I am after.


It would be great if this thread could be used for the exchange of information and not further prickwaving.

 

Honestly Mumzer,

I have never taken a modded car with a K27 past around 335 rear wheel HP. I have not idea what it would make if pushed harder. I do know it slower to spool that the garret. On the other hand, the garret might be quick to spool, and has been installed in a lot of these hot rodded 951's, but the K27 doese not have the "over oiling" issue that a garret does.

Take Care!

 

Derrek, you sound a little angry there. I wonder why Huntley is the only company that always gets bashed. There HAS to be a reason.

 

Is the garret more efficient? When was the K 27 turbo designed. It seems like an old turbocharger.

 

 

Christian, is that with a MAP? thanks, Bill

 

[quote]Originally posted by christian:
<strong>My car with the 27/6 makes about 310 at 18 PSI, so I guess a 27/8 will make about 330 rwhp. And with a 2.8 maybe 350 or so.</strong><hr></blockquote>

WOW...someone with Data! I just soiled myself with surprise.

THANKS. any dyno sheets?

 

 

Paul Bloomberg hit 330rwhp with a K27/8, maf, and stock injectors @18psi. It was a 100k+ 2.5 motor.

I now have that turbo, #55's, fresh 2.5, and some other goodies. Shooting for 350, but 330 was my target when my rebuild started.

 

That has got to be one of the worst dyno sheets ive seen . The hp and torque drop faster than a rock off a bridge. I cant wait for you to get your car together Christan so we can tune in that map kit and get a flat torque curve. You can see in the chart where the mixture went way rich and dove .

 

The Dyno for Adam Chen was done for another San Diego Shop and if I recall the fall off was boost related due to a wastegate issue though I could be wrong.

 

The KKK turbos have a problem with back pressure above 1 bar. Up to 14 lbs ther is a 1 to 1 ratio of boost vs back pressure. At 18lbs of boost there is 30 lbs of exhaust back pressure working against the wastegate.
The turbo istself is capable if making decent hp numbers. There are other restrictions in the system that are causing the cars to lose performance. Ever notice how most of the dyno graphs show around 330rwhp?

 

[quote]Originally posted by KokelnRob:
<strong>The KKK turbos have a problem with back pressure above 1 bar. Up to 14 lbs ther is a 1 to 1 ratio of boost vs back pressure. At 18lbs of boost there is 30 lbs of exhaust back pressure working against the wastegate.
The turbo istself is capable if making decent hp numbers. There are other restrictions in the system that are causing the cars to lose performance. Ever notice how most of the dyno graphs show around 330rwhp?</strong><hr></blockquote>


OK...now we are on to something...
other than the exhaust plumbing between the exhaust port and the turbine section, which we are largely stuck with, what do you see as the major restrictions.

I think that they include inadequate intake lobe duration, too much intake runner length and inadequate plenum volume.

Am i missing something?