The size of the turbo a person runs USUALLY depicts how fast he wants to go,and anyone running a 91+mm turbo i figure is shooting for a 7 sec time when know that the 88mms that have been available had proven low 8s at the time in cars 3-4000#s heavier
Yes, you're right. Usually, a person would pick a turbo that is small enough to spool as quickly as possible, but still be large enough so that the compressor is operated in an acceptable efficiency zone. Usually, 65% efficiency is considered the low limit of where people will operate a turbocharger compressor.
Picking either way between the trait of quick spooling and enough compressor capacity is one of the well known compromises in the world of turbocharging. And one that is readily excepted by the vast majority of turbocharger racers.
Then I came along to screw with everyones heads. Sooorryyy. :tongue:
If a person had a solution that would deal with the quick spooling side of the turbocharger choice compromise, and that would be nitrous injection, why would he then not choose a turbocharger where the engine, at its maximum airflow, would operate smack dab in the middle of the compressors highest efficiency range?
78% compressor efficiency at maximum engine airflow versus 65% compressor efficiency at maximum engine airflow.
People. That was not a hard decision for me to make.
And on top of all that, the large turbine side of my turbo choice has allowed me to achieve crossover which, with the cam that I'm using, has improved the engine VE.
Otto. Are you trying to tell me that I should have compromised the efficiency of my combination and just stepped in line with everyone else?
Who needs new discoveries anyway?
How many people told Columbus the world is flat. Don't waste your time. Yet...