SS 2.4L Engine Upgrades?
Thread Starter
Banned
Joined: 12-21-05
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
From: Georgia
Nj I posted earlier in this thread that I was leaning twords the turbo charger Tim has for sale. So if I even made the smallest reference to it you should know that by now beings your assuming. So if your done blabing about who knows what and what does what of corse the turbo "the size of your head" would push more power. what would i rather have....humm lets see...a handful of bills of a bank full of bills. Me personally, id take the bank full. I never said anything about size in the first place. I simple stated that the 2.4 Eco-tech engine could handle 16 pounds of boost. Next time, if your woundering whats running through my head about sizes when i was not referring to sizes, just ask. Its easy its simple. If you havent noticed by now some of us are actually trying not to dogg each other out on the last 2 pages of this post, so if you dont mind, lets try to keep it that way
Senior Member
Joined: 05-17-06
Posts: 872
Likes: 0
From: Denver Metro
The 2.0 and 2.4 both have excellent potential, they are the same base engine! Depends on how and what is done to them and what your intended use is for them. The 2.0 will definitely be safer in the higher RPM range, but I never go above 6300 anyway. With VVT and 20% more displacement of the 2.4L it is a plus for my intended use, should make good low and mid range power with the M62! Just gotta get a good tune to prevent knock destruction. The 10.4:1 stock compression of the 2.4 will defintiely be an issue with FI.
). But for the street, low initial compression means very low torque at low speeds off boost. My '85 Renault Fuego Turbo was a screamer on boost (17 lb from the factory!) but it was a ROYAL PAIN to get across a busy intersection. Until about the middle of the street it felt about like a Vespa. Low initial compression, high boost.OTOH, boosting a stock 2.4 means the WORST it will run is how it runs now. The key is to keep boost at reasonable levels.
Another advantage of high initial compression with low boost is the marginal diminishing returns of an intercooler at lower boost. Below .4 bar (roughly 6 PSI) an intercooler is actually causing more HP loss than the gains from cooling the intake stream. This is because the blockage caused by the intercooler is roughly linear (it's roughly the same at the flows encountered between, say, 5 lb boost and 15), while the cooling effect is proportional to boost (it cools better at higher boost, when the differential between the compressed intake air and outside air is greater). This means a low boost application will work quite well without the expense and plumbing of an intercooler. You can always add an intercooler later if you get low compression pistons and a bigger turbo.
Finally, turbo lag is much less with a lower boost, non-intercooled engine. Big turbos and big intercoolers mean it will perform like a dog until it finally spools up (after 3K - 4K RPM) and then the HP ramp-up is extreme. Not a problem at the drag strip, but un-drivable on a road course and almost as much so on the street.
And autos are preferable, since you don't loose boost and have to re-spool with each shift!
It's all about trade-offs.
Senior Member
Joined: 05-09-06
Posts: 2,173
Likes: 0
From: .
There's always been a healthy debate between high initial compression ratio with low boost, and low initial compression ratio with high boost. The latter will make more power safely (although I've read the theories and, considering the BMEP is the same, I'm not sure I understand why ). But for the street, low initial compression means very low torque at low speeds off boost. My '85 Renault Fuego Turbo was a screamer on boost (17 lb from the factory!) but it was a ROYAL PAIN to get across a busy intersection. Until about the middle of the street it felt about like a Vespa. Low initial compression, high boost.
OTOH, boosting a stock 2.4 means the WORST it will run is how it runs now. The key is to keep boost at reasonable levels.
Another advantage of high initial compression with low boost is the marginal diminishing returns of an intercooler at lower boost. Below .4 bar (roughly 6 PSI) an intercooler is actually causing more HP loss than the gains from cooling the intake stream. This is because the blockage caused by the intercooler is roughly linear (it's roughly the same at the flows encountered between, say, 5 lb boost and 15), while the cooling effect is proportional to boost (it cools better at higher boost, when the differential between the compressed intake air and outside air is greater). This means a low boost application will work quite well without the expense and plumbing of an intercooler. You can always add an intercooler later if you get low compression pistons and a bigger turbo.
Finally, turbo lag is much less with a lower boost, non-intercooled engine. Big turbos and big intercoolers mean it will perform like a dog until it finally spools up (after 3K - 4K RPM) and then the HP ramp-up is extreme. Not a problem at the drag strip, but un-drivable on a road course and almost as much so on the street.
And autos are preferable, since you don't loose boost and have to re-spool with each shift!
It's all about trade-offs.
). But for the street, low initial compression means very low torque at low speeds off boost. My '85 Renault Fuego Turbo was a screamer on boost (17 lb from the factory!) but it was a ROYAL PAIN to get across a busy intersection. Until about the middle of the street it felt about like a Vespa. Low initial compression, high boost.OTOH, boosting a stock 2.4 means the WORST it will run is how it runs now. The key is to keep boost at reasonable levels.
Another advantage of high initial compression with low boost is the marginal diminishing returns of an intercooler at lower boost. Below .4 bar (roughly 6 PSI) an intercooler is actually causing more HP loss than the gains from cooling the intake stream. This is because the blockage caused by the intercooler is roughly linear (it's roughly the same at the flows encountered between, say, 5 lb boost and 15), while the cooling effect is proportional to boost (it cools better at higher boost, when the differential between the compressed intake air and outside air is greater). This means a low boost application will work quite well without the expense and plumbing of an intercooler. You can always add an intercooler later if you get low compression pistons and a bigger turbo.
Finally, turbo lag is much less with a lower boost, non-intercooled engine. Big turbos and big intercoolers mean it will perform like a dog until it finally spools up (after 3K - 4K RPM) and then the HP ramp-up is extreme. Not a problem at the drag strip, but un-drivable on a road course and almost as much so on the street.
And autos are preferable, since you don't loose boost and have to re-spool with each shift!
It's all about trade-offs.
Senior Member
Joined: 01-05-06
Posts: 10,877
Likes: 2
From: East Brunswick, NJ
Nj I posted earlier in this thread that I was leaning twords the turbo charger Tim has for sale. So if I even made the smallest reference to it you should know that by now beings your assuming. So if your done blabing about who knows what and what does what of corse the turbo "the size of your head" would push more power. what would i rather have....humm lets see...a handful of bills of a bank full of bills. Me personally, id take the bank full. I never said anything about size in the first place. I simple stated that the 2.4 Eco-tech engine could handle 16 pounds of boost. Next time, if your woundering whats running through my head about sizes when i was not referring to sizes, just ask. Its easy its simple. If you havent noticed by now some of us are actually trying not to dogg each other out on the last 2 pages of this post, so if you dont mind, lets try to keep it that way
Because you made no reference to a size/trim or style turbocharger, 16 PSI means absolutely nothing. Saying that the engine can handle 16 pounds of air pressure means nothing to the amount of air being shoved in per PSI of air pressure.
The point of saying the size of the turbocharger was pointing out the CFM flow difference between the 2 and also pointing out that you made no mention to a size of a turbocharger...just air pressure. That was the complete point. You SHOULD refer to sizes because that's what matters.
I'm not assuming anything, I'm only commenting on what you present...and you're not presenting much. I don't care if you're trying to be friendly with everyone now...I was replying to the comment you made to me.
You keep saying that we are assuming but we aren't. You give us more and more information and we are comment.
Senior Member
Joined: 05-09-06
Posts: 2,173
Likes: 0
From: .
There's always been a healthy debate between high initial compression ratio with low boost, and low initial compression ratio with high boost. The latter will make more power safely (although I've read the theories and, considering the BMEP is the same, I'm not sure I understand why ). But for the street, low initial compression means very low torque at low speeds off boost. My '85 Renault Fuego Turbo was a screamer on boost (17 lb from the factory!) but it was a ROYAL PAIN to get across a busy intersection. Until about the middle of the street it felt about like a Vespa. Low initial compression, high boost.
OTOH, boosting a stock 2.4 means the WORST it will run is how it runs now. The key is to keep boost at reasonable levels.
Another advantage of high initial compression with low boost is the marginal diminishing returns of an intercooler at lower boost. Below .4 bar (roughly 6 PSI) an intercooler is actually causing more HP loss than the gains from cooling the intake stream. This is because the blockage caused by the intercooler is roughly linear (it's roughly the same at the flows encountered between, say, 5 lb boost and 15), while the cooling effect is proportional to boost (it cools better at higher boost, when the differential between the compressed intake air and outside air is greater). This means a low boost application will work quite well without the expense and plumbing of an intercooler. You can always add an intercooler later if you get low compression pistons and a bigger turbo.
Finally, turbo lag is much less with a lower boost, non-intercooled engine. Big turbos and big intercoolers mean it will perform like a dog until it finally spools up (after 3K - 4K RPM) and then the HP ramp-up is extreme. Not a problem at the drag strip, but un-drivable on a road course and almost as much so on the street.
And autos are preferable, since you don't loose boost and have to re-spool with each shift!
It's all about trade-offs.
). But for the street, low initial compression means very low torque at low speeds off boost. My '85 Renault Fuego Turbo was a screamer on boost (17 lb from the factory!) but it was a ROYAL PAIN to get across a busy intersection. Until about the middle of the street it felt about like a Vespa. Low initial compression, high boost.OTOH, boosting a stock 2.4 means the WORST it will run is how it runs now. The key is to keep boost at reasonable levels.
Another advantage of high initial compression with low boost is the marginal diminishing returns of an intercooler at lower boost. Below .4 bar (roughly 6 PSI) an intercooler is actually causing more HP loss than the gains from cooling the intake stream. This is because the blockage caused by the intercooler is roughly linear (it's roughly the same at the flows encountered between, say, 5 lb boost and 15), while the cooling effect is proportional to boost (it cools better at higher boost, when the differential between the compressed intake air and outside air is greater). This means a low boost application will work quite well without the expense and plumbing of an intercooler. You can always add an intercooler later if you get low compression pistons and a bigger turbo.
Finally, turbo lag is much less with a lower boost, non-intercooled engine. Big turbos and big intercoolers mean it will perform like a dog until it finally spools up (after 3K - 4K RPM) and then the HP ramp-up is extreme. Not a problem at the drag strip, but un-drivable on a road course and almost as much so on the street.
And autos are preferable, since you don't loose boost and have to re-spool with each shift!
It's all about trade-offs.
yes, but the smaller the turbo (dependant on bearings and efficiency also) the mroe heat it is going to generate at a given flow, so if you are running a small turbo at 6 psi, you are still gonna want to intercool because it will be considerably safer. You may lose boost, but you are also able to tune alot more aggressively.
Senior Member
Joined: 08-12-06
Posts: 12,764
Likes: 1
From: here
Yeah well my 2.4 is still N/A and makes 900 hp to the wheels! Ooops did I say that out loud? LOL!
as for the 305 350 thing I was useing them to make the point that more cubic inches = more HP. Always has and always will. True it may need internal work I'm not saying it could take 35psi safely and last for years all I was getting at is that if you ran the same boost levels into the 2.4 the HP yeild would be greater, thats all. I wasn't picking a fight I was only saying theres no replacement for displacement!
Ooops did I say that out loud? LOL! as for the 305 350 thing I was useing them to make the point that more cubic inches = more HP. Always has and always will. True it may need internal work I'm not saying it could take 35psi safely and last for years all I was getting at is that if you ran the same boost levels into the 2.4 the HP yeild would be greater, thats all. I wasn't picking a fight I was only saying theres no replacement for displacement!
Senior Member
Joined: 05-09-06
Posts: 2,173
Likes: 0
From: .
Yeah well my 2.4 is still N/A and makes 900 hp to the wheels! Ooops did I say that out loud? LOL!
as for the 305 350 thing I was useing them to make the point that more cubic inches = more HP. Always has and always will. True it may need internal work I'm not saying it could take 35psi safely and last for years all I was getting at is that if you ran the same boost levels into the 2.4 the HP yeild would be greater, thats all. I wasn't picking a fight I was only saying theres no replacement for displacement!
Ooops did I say that out loud? LOL! as for the 305 350 thing I was useing them to make the point that more cubic inches = more HP. Always has and always will. True it may need internal work I'm not saying it could take 35psi safely and last for years all I was getting at is that if you ran the same boost levels into the 2.4 the HP yeild would be greater, thats all. I wasn't picking a fight I was only saying theres no replacement for displacement!
Thread Starter
Banned
Joined: 12-21-05
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
From: Georgia
I just said on the post u just copied that I was looking at Tim's turbo.
Garrett GT Tuner Turbo Kit: $3000 vs Retails: $3200 (Save $200) http://www.tntautosport.com/store/in...roducts_id=153
There is you a link.
For what it matters if a engine can handle 16 lbs. of boost it can handle 16 lbs of boost, yes bigger trims, turbos, blah blah make a difference but like I said be4 if you wanted to know just ask, *******.
Garrett GT Tuner Turbo Kit: $3000 vs Retails: $3200 (Save $200) http://www.tntautosport.com/store/in...roducts_id=153
There is you a link.
For what it matters if a engine can handle 16 lbs. of boost it can handle 16 lbs of boost, yes bigger trims, turbos, blah blah make a difference but like I said be4 if you wanted to know just ask, *******.
Senior Member
Joined: 08-12-06
Posts: 12,764
Likes: 1
From: here
i know you arent trying to start a fight. I'm just saying, that is a blanket statement that is overly used. for that to be true everything else has to be equal. higher redline is actually what makes more horsepower. Torque is majorly determined by the stroke. That's why you see fairly small displacement motors, like the 4.3L v8 in the f430 making almost 500hp. Then there is the 7.0l ls7 in the z06 making barely anymore horsepower....of course the ls7 has it by a long shot in the torque department because of the displacement, but the 4.3 revs much higher, and horsepower= (tqXrpm)/5252. That is why revving higher is always good. Until you start to drop off in torque that is...
) Anyway when I had it built it was ballenced like no tomorrow! All 8 piston, rod, wrist pin and ring assembles were ballenced to .000 grams and the crank was spin ballenced to 15,000 RPM's! I regularly shifted it at about 8000 rpm's and on more then one occation (sp?) hit over 9500 RPM's, never broke a thing! Now that was a serious engine and it was over 3 times the displacement of what we're talking about here and I did it safly for almost 8 years! Racing it almost every weekend and driving it back and forth to work every single day. In fact it lived for the guy I sold it to for over a year when he sold it to his brother who had it for almost a year when he sold it to a MORON of a father who gave it to his 16 year old son who killed himself in it 2 weeks after the sale.Anyway big engines can handle RPM's just fine but you NEED to build them correctly! My Pontiac engine cost almost as much as my Cobalt did! But damn was it fun!
Senior Member
Joined: 05-09-06
Posts: 2,173
Likes: 0
From: .
Meh I guess I'm just too old school in my thinking. I'll always take a big block over a tiny engine any day of the week! AND if you ballence the engine correctly it can handle the highest RPM's. Case in point my old 428 ci Pontiac big block ( Thats 7.2 litres to you youngsters ) Anyway when I had it built it was ballenced like no tomorrow! All 8 piston, rod, wrist pin and ring assembles were ballenced to .000 grams and the crank was spin ballenced to 15,000 RPM's! I regularly shifted it at about 8000 rpm's and on more then one occation (sp?) hit over 9500 RPM's, never broke a thing! Now that was a serious engine and it was over 3 times the displacement of what we're talking about here and I did it safly for almost 8 years! Racing it almost every weekend and driving it back and forth to work every single day. In fact it lived for the guy I sold it to for over a year when he sold it to his brother who had it for almost a year when he sold it to a MORON of a father who gave it to his 16 year old son who killed himself in it 2 weeks after the sale.
Anyway big engines can handle RPM's just fine but you NEED to build them correctly! My Pontiac engine cost almost as much as my Cobalt did! But damn was it fun!
) Anyway when I had it built it was ballenced like no tomorrow! All 8 piston, rod, wrist pin and ring assembles were ballenced to .000 grams and the crank was spin ballenced to 15,000 RPM's! I regularly shifted it at about 8000 rpm's and on more then one occation (sp?) hit over 9500 RPM's, never broke a thing! Now that was a serious engine and it was over 3 times the displacement of what we're talking about here and I did it safly for almost 8 years! Racing it almost every weekend and driving it back and forth to work every single day. In fact it lived for the guy I sold it to for over a year when he sold it to his brother who had it for almost a year when he sold it to a MORON of a father who gave it to his 16 year old son who killed himself in it 2 weeks after the sale.Anyway big engines can handle RPM's just fine but you NEED to build them correctly! My Pontiac engine cost almost as much as my Cobalt did! But damn was it fun!
Senior Member
Joined: 01-05-06
Posts: 10,877
Likes: 2
From: East Brunswick, NJ
I just said on the post u just copied the i was looking at Tim's turbo.
Garrett GT Tuner Turbo Kit: $3000 vs Retails: $3200 (Save $200) http://www.tntautosport.com/store/in...roducts_id=153
There is you a link.
For what it matters if a engine can handle 16 lbs. of boost it can handle 16 lbs of boost, yes bigger trims, turbos, blah blah make a difference but like I said be4 if you wanted to know just ask, *******.
Garrett GT Tuner Turbo Kit: $3000 vs Retails: $3200 (Save $200) http://www.tntautosport.com/store/in...roducts_id=153
There is you a link.
For what it matters if a engine can handle 16 lbs. of boost it can handle 16 lbs of boost, yes bigger trims, turbos, blah blah make a difference but like I said be4 if you wanted to know just ask, *******.
Originally Posted by Pip Squeeks
LOL you guys are no help and obviously dont know what YOUR talking about u can get 15psi off the 2.4
Originally Posted by Pip Squeeks
im looking for websites not knowledge i know what im talking about this ISNT my only car my built 91 turboed integra speaks for it self.
Originally Posted by Pip Squeeks
and as for the 900+ HP if you guys dont believe me i met a guy at spring fling with a car just like mine that had heard about it so i hope he reads this post cause i dont know his tag name yet.
Originally Posted by Pip Squeeks
Im not really interested in a turbo. Im leaning more twords a SC for the 2.4.
Originally Posted by Pip Squeeks
im not here to talk BS over a computer screen like some peeps are doing here lol
Originally Posted by Pip Squeeks
and as for the 900+ HP if you guys dont believe me i met a guy at spring fling with a car just like mine that had heard about it so i hope he reads this post cause i dont know his tag name yet.
Originally Posted by Pip Squeek
no matter where u go theres doubters and haters so live on and get over it:P
Originally Posted by Pip Squeeks
lol its nice to see im not the only "retard" that knows this engine can handle 16 boost...
Originally Posted by Pip Squeeks
i mean i just got off the phone with tim with the turbo charger for sale and he said he knows guys with 8 lbs of HP on the stock engine. so an extra 16 lbs wont be much
Originally Posted by Pip Squeeks
i mean have u guys read the injector upgrade thats going on in the forums...chevys engines are diferent....but there not THAT different...
Originally Posted by Pip Squeeks
#34 injector upgrade (from stock SS/SC Injectors)
Originally Posted by Pip Squeeks
lol its a post im not worried about proper grammer and punctuation its a forum not a college paper
Originally Posted by Pip Squeeks
I never said anything about size in the first place. I simple stated that the 2.4 Eco-tech engine could handle 16 pounds of boost.
And to conclude the idiocy of the day...
Originally Posted by Pip Squeeks
i work alot and dont have all the time in world to research for hours on end blah blah blah...
Originally Posted by Pip Squeeks
im looking for websites not knowledge i know what im talking about
Originally Posted by Pip Squeeks
what im saying is i want to get the BEST stuff for the 2.4 they have out and SC at same time BE4 putting the super charger on stock so i dont have a 2000 dollar super charger only boosting 3 psi...
Originally Posted by Pip Squeeks
I never said anything about size in the first place. I simple stated that the 2.4 Eco-tech engine could handle 16 pounds of boost.
Sorry, I just love that last quote.
So there, now I'm a *******.
*Insert p0wnag3*
Senior Member
Joined: 01-02-06
Posts: 16,982
Likes: 0
From: SK
The factory redline on the 2.4L is higher than the 2.0 also???
This however, may only be due to that fact that the 2.0 is FI and the 2.4L isn't.
I'm not bashing the 2.0 in any way, I'm just saying that I think the 2.4L is a little underestimated!
This however, may only be due to that fact that the 2.0 is FI and the 2.4L isn't.
I'm not bashing the 2.0 in any way, I'm just saying that I think the 2.4L is a little underestimated!
Thread Starter
Banned
Joined: 12-21-05
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
From: Georgia
I think your missing something
The part where I have no idea what im talking about...Is there anything else you would like to add? Since im so "stupid" on how forced induction works well how about you explain to us how boosting a car with a turbo pushing 16 lbs of boost is SOO much different than lets say, boosting your car with 16 lbs of boost? Just go ahead and exclude the "common" facts that generally a larger turbo is going to produce better, exclude the facts that a turbo is efficent because it "forces" air to compress above the pistons NO MATTER what size turbo you have, and the fact that ALL turbo's (explically for cars) can reach RMP's of 80,000 to ohh i dunno around 150,000 while our poor little cars can reach what 7K roughly. Im pretty sure that no matter what turbo i magically place on my invicible cobalt engine (after built internals) its GONNA handle 16 lbs. of boost.
I mean jesus do you want me to tell you oh im getting a turbo "the size of my head" with foil bearing, 60 trim, and a small electric power supply to run my turbo at low RPM's to reduce lag? OH and wait i cant forget...im not gonna put a wastegate on my car cause im sure my invicible 2.4 can handle it NO problem.
I'm sure i didnt LIST it all beings im gonna drop a turbo on my car thats bigger than my head that you would only see go on machines to go inside mine caves, but you know it doesnt really matter. If my car can only handle 16 Lbs. from a turbo it can handle 16 lbs from a turbo. Doesnt matter if its 600 CFM or a 900 CFM if it can handle it, it can handle it. Unless of corse im pulling my pocket size turbo out of my pocket and attaching it every morning.
So go ahead and enlighten us on how wrong this post is and all things i didnt list cause I know I didnt list them all
The part where I have no idea what im talking about...Is there anything else you would like to add? Since im so "stupid" on how forced induction works well how about you explain to us how boosting a car with a turbo pushing 16 lbs of boost is SOO much different than lets say, boosting your car with 16 lbs of boost? Just go ahead and exclude the "common" facts that generally a larger turbo is going to produce better, exclude the facts that a turbo is efficent because it "forces" air to compress above the pistons NO MATTER what size turbo you have, and the fact that ALL turbo's (explically for cars) can reach RMP's of 80,000 to ohh i dunno around 150,000 while our poor little cars can reach what 7K roughly. Im pretty sure that no matter what turbo i magically place on my invicible cobalt engine (after built internals) its GONNA handle 16 lbs. of boost. I mean jesus do you want me to tell you oh im getting a turbo "the size of my head" with foil bearing, 60 trim, and a small electric power supply to run my turbo at low RPM's to reduce lag? OH and wait i cant forget...im not gonna put a wastegate on my car cause im sure my invicible 2.4 can handle it NO problem.
I'm sure i didnt LIST it all beings im gonna drop a turbo on my car thats bigger than my head that you would only see go on machines to go inside mine caves, but you know it doesnt really matter. If my car can only handle 16 Lbs. from a turbo it can handle 16 lbs from a turbo. Doesnt matter if its 600 CFM or a 900 CFM if it can handle it, it can handle it. Unless of corse im pulling my pocket size turbo out of my pocket and attaching it every morning.
So go ahead and enlighten us on how wrong this post is and all things i didnt list cause I know I didnt list them all
Senior Member
Joined: 01-02-06
Posts: 16,982
Likes: 0
From: SK
Squeeks, go buy the Garrett Turbo kit for the 2.2L's it should fit the 2.4L also. Then find a good tuner shop to install it and tune it for you. You can do whatever you want as long as you have the money to back up your talk.
Senior Member
Joined: 01-02-06
Posts: 16,982
Likes: 0
From: SK
Check this out I think this might be more what you are looking for:
http://www.year2032.com/ecotec.htm
http://www.year2032.com/ecotec.htm
Senior Member
Joined: 01-05-06
Posts: 10,877
Likes: 2
From: East Brunswick, NJ
I think your missing something The part where I have no idea what im talking about...Is there anything else you would like to add? Since im so "stupid" on how forced induction works well how about you explain to us how boosting a car with a turbo pushing 16 lbs of boost is SOO much different than lets say, boosting your car with 16 lbs of boost? Just go ahead and exclude the "common" facts that generally a larger turbo is going to produce better, exclude the facts that a turbo is efficent because it "forces" air to compress above the pistons NO MATTER what size turbo you have, and the fact that ALL turbo's (explically for cars) can reach RMP's of 80,000 to ohh i dunno around 150,000 while our poor little cars can reach what 7K roughly. Im pretty sure that no matter what turbo i magically place on my invicible cobalt engine (after built internals) its GONNA handle 16 lbs. of boost.
I mean jesus do you want me to tell you oh im getting a turbo "the size of my head" with foil bearing, 60 trim, and a small electric power supply to run my turbo at low RPM's to reduce lag? OH and wait i cant forget...im not gonna put a wastegate on my car cause im sure my invicible 2.4 can handle it NO problem.
I'm sure i didnt LIST it all beings im gonna drop a turbo on my car thats bigger than my head that you would only see go on machines to go inside mine caves, but you know it doesnt really matter. If my car can only handle 16 Lbs. from a turbo it can handle 16 lbs from a turbo. Doesnt matter if its 600 CFM or a 900 CFM if it can handle it, it can handle it. Unless of corse im pulling my pocket size turbo out of my pocket and attaching it every morning.
So go ahead and enlighten us on how wrong this post is and all things i didnt list cause I know I didnt list them all
The part where I have no idea what im talking about...Is there anything else you would like to add? Since im so "stupid" on how forced induction works well how about you explain to us how boosting a car with a turbo pushing 16 lbs of boost is SOO much different than lets say, boosting your car with 16 lbs of boost? Just go ahead and exclude the "common" facts that generally a larger turbo is going to produce better, exclude the facts that a turbo is efficent because it "forces" air to compress above the pistons NO MATTER what size turbo you have, and the fact that ALL turbo's (explically for cars) can reach RMP's of 80,000 to ohh i dunno around 150,000 while our poor little cars can reach what 7K roughly. Im pretty sure that no matter what turbo i magically place on my invicible cobalt engine (after built internals) its GONNA handle 16 lbs. of boost. I mean jesus do you want me to tell you oh im getting a turbo "the size of my head" with foil bearing, 60 trim, and a small electric power supply to run my turbo at low RPM's to reduce lag? OH and wait i cant forget...im not gonna put a wastegate on my car cause im sure my invicible 2.4 can handle it NO problem.
I'm sure i didnt LIST it all beings im gonna drop a turbo on my car thats bigger than my head that you would only see go on machines to go inside mine caves, but you know it doesnt really matter. If my car can only handle 16 Lbs. from a turbo it can handle 16 lbs from a turbo. Doesnt matter if its 600 CFM or a 900 CFM if it can handle it, it can handle it. Unless of corse im pulling my pocket size turbo out of my pocket and attaching it every morning.
So go ahead and enlighten us on how wrong this post is and all things i didnt list cause I know I didnt list them all
First thing first, how do you survive in society? I mean, you can't even make any sense and you have all the time in the world to type out a few paragraphs. Do you go to McDonalds and say "Burger...now...mouth"? Talking to you is like talking to Tarzan except you don't have a cool monkey around.
Anyways...
You have a comprehention problem, not me. I fully understand what you were saying. Your engine can handle 16 PSI of boost pressure. Uh huh...that's super. The point I was making is that you're thinking in the wrong sense and air pressure isn't what is important initially. The comparasion (god this is like the 2nd time I'm explaining this...) of the different size turbochargers was pointing out that air pressure and CFM flow per PSI of the 2 different turbochargers is going to effect power output.
Keep thinking that 600 and 900 CFM doesn't matter and that pressure is what it's all about. Tell me how much power output you have between the 2.
No is saying that a 2.4 can't handle "16 PSI of boost", I'm talking about that what you are caring about so much ISN'T WHAT MATTERS THE MOST.
And if you want me to show how "smart" I am, I can.
When I was talking about the size of the turbocharger, I wasn't necessarily talking about the outside dimentions of it, I was referring to the specs of it. What is the compressor and turbine a/r? Things of that nature.
But you probably don't even know what a/r means...so why even bother. I mean according to you flow rates don't matter either.
and to further point out your statement:
Originally Posted by Pip Squeek
NO MATTER what size turbo you have, and the fact that ALL turbo's (explically for cars) can reach RMP's of 80,000 to ohh i dunno around 150,000 while our poor little cars can reach what 7K roughly.
The turbine and compressor wheel speed has nothing specifically to do with the engine you have dummy. The RPM that your wheels spin has to deal with the PSI of boost pressure you need for that specific turbocharger. You're also comparing your max Engine RPM to your turbos wheel speeds which makes absolutely no sense.
This is what I'm talking about. You are comparing things that make absolutely no sense and why I further point out that you don't know what you are talking about hence why you are buying a pre-made kit since you're so gifted and smart.
End yourself.
Senior Member
Joined: 05-09-06
Posts: 2,173
Likes: 0
From: .
I just said on the post u just copied that I was looking at Tim's turbo.
Garrett GT Tuner Turbo Kit: $3000 vs Retails: $3200 (Save $200) http://www.tntautosport.com/store/in...roducts_id=153
There is you a link.
For what it matters if a engine can handle 16 lbs. of boost it can handle 16 lbs of boost, yes bigger trims, turbos, blah blah make a difference but like I said be4 if you wanted to know just ask, *******.
Garrett GT Tuner Turbo Kit: $3000 vs Retails: $3200 (Save $200) http://www.tntautosport.com/store/in...roducts_id=153
There is you a link.
For what it matters if a engine can handle 16 lbs. of boost it can handle 16 lbs of boost, yes bigger trims, turbos, blah blah make a difference but like I said be4 if you wanted to know just ask, *******.
I think your missing something The part where I have no idea what im talking about...Is there anything else you would like to add? Since im so "stupid" on how forced induction works well how about you explain to us how boosting a car with a turbo pushing 16 lbs of boost is SOO much different than lets say, boosting your car with 16 lbs of boost? Just go ahead and exclude the "common" facts that generally a larger turbo is going to produce better, exclude the facts that a turbo is efficent because it "forces" air to compress above the pistons NO MATTER what size turbo you have, and the fact that ALL turbo's (explically for cars) can reach RMP's of 80,000 to ohh i dunno around 150,000 while our poor little cars can reach what 7K roughly. Im pretty sure that no matter what turbo i magically place on my invicible cobalt engine (after built internals) its GONNA handle 16 lbs. of boost.
I mean jesus do you want me to tell you oh im getting a turbo "the size of my head" with foil bearing, 60 trim, and a small electric power supply to run my turbo at low RPM's to reduce lag? OH and wait i cant forget...im not gonna put a wastegate on my car cause im sure my invicible 2.4 can handle it NO problem.
I'm sure i didnt LIST it all beings im gonna drop a turbo on my car thats bigger than my head that you would only see go on machines to go inside mine caves, but you know it doesnt really matter. If my car can only handle 16 Lbs. from a turbo it can handle 16 lbs from a turbo. Doesnt matter if its 600 CFM or a 900 CFM if it can handle it, it can handle it. Unless of corse im pulling my pocket size turbo out of my pocket and attaching it every morning.
So go ahead and enlighten us on how wrong this post is and all things i didnt list cause I know I didnt list them all
The part where I have no idea what im talking about...Is there anything else you would like to add? Since im so "stupid" on how forced induction works well how about you explain to us how boosting a car with a turbo pushing 16 lbs of boost is SOO much different than lets say, boosting your car with 16 lbs of boost? Just go ahead and exclude the "common" facts that generally a larger turbo is going to produce better, exclude the facts that a turbo is efficent because it "forces" air to compress above the pistons NO MATTER what size turbo you have, and the fact that ALL turbo's (explically for cars) can reach RMP's of 80,000 to ohh i dunno around 150,000 while our poor little cars can reach what 7K roughly. Im pretty sure that no matter what turbo i magically place on my invicible cobalt engine (after built internals) its GONNA handle 16 lbs. of boost. I mean jesus do you want me to tell you oh im getting a turbo "the size of my head" with foil bearing, 60 trim, and a small electric power supply to run my turbo at low RPM's to reduce lag? OH and wait i cant forget...im not gonna put a wastegate on my car cause im sure my invicible 2.4 can handle it NO problem.
I'm sure i didnt LIST it all beings im gonna drop a turbo on my car thats bigger than my head that you would only see go on machines to go inside mine caves, but you know it doesnt really matter. If my car can only handle 16 Lbs. from a turbo it can handle 16 lbs from a turbo. Doesnt matter if its 600 CFM or a 900 CFM if it can handle it, it can handle it. Unless of corse im pulling my pocket size turbo out of my pocket and attaching it every morning.
So go ahead and enlighten us on how wrong this post is and all things i didnt list cause I know I didnt list them all
Just go ahead and exclude the "common" facts that generally a larger turbo is going to produce better, exclude the facts that a turbo is efficent because it "forces" air to compress above the pistons NO MATTER what size turbo you have, and the fact that ALL turbo's (explically for cars) can reach RMP's of 80,000 to ohh i dunno around 150,000 while our poor little cars can reach what 7K roughly
wtf...what is that even supposed to mean? Are you just throwing random incoherent facts together and making a sentence? seriously stop arguing bud, you have 0 clue what you are talking about.
i said it before and ill say it again, i could tell from your first post that you have no idea what you are talking about.
Last edited by 8cd03gro; Mar 13, 2007 at 07:17 PM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
Senior Member
Joined: 01-05-06
Posts: 10,877
Likes: 2
From: East Brunswick, NJ
you, once again, have no idea what you are talking about. A toothpick could handle "16 lbs of boost" from a turbo the size of a pinhead. You have no clue what you are talking about, don't pretned you do, you are just making yourself look like an idiot.
you do realize that 16 psi on a small ass turbo is going to be far less CFM (cubic feet per minute which is actually the measurement of how much air is being forced into the motor) than a large turbo at 16 psi? Well no **** you are gonna put a wastegate on, i'd hope so unless you wanna see 50psi and a destroyed motor/turbo. Do you even know what a wastegate does?
Just go ahead and exclude the "common" facts that generally a larger turbo is going to produce better, exclude the facts that a turbo is efficent because it "forces" air to compress above the pistons NO MATTER what size turbo you have, and the fact that ALL turbo's (explically for cars) can reach RMP's of 80,000 to ohh i dunno around 150,000 while our poor little cars can reach what 7K roughly
wtf...what is that even supposed to mean? Are you just throwing random incoherent facts together and making a sentence? seriously stop arguing bud, you have 0 clue what you are talking about.
i said it before and ill say it again, i could tell from your first post that you have no idea what you are talking about.
you do realize that 16 psi on a small ass turbo is going to be far less CFM (cubic feet per minute which is actually the measurement of how much air is being forced into the motor) than a large turbo at 16 psi? Well no **** you are gonna put a wastegate on, i'd hope so unless you wanna see 50psi and a destroyed motor/turbo. Do you even know what a wastegate does?
Just go ahead and exclude the "common" facts that generally a larger turbo is going to produce better, exclude the facts that a turbo is efficent because it "forces" air to compress above the pistons NO MATTER what size turbo you have, and the fact that ALL turbo's (explically for cars) can reach RMP's of 80,000 to ohh i dunno around 150,000 while our poor little cars can reach what 7K roughly
wtf...what is that even supposed to mean? Are you just throwing random incoherent facts together and making a sentence? seriously stop arguing bud, you have 0 clue what you are talking about.
i said it before and ill say it again, i could tell from your first post that you have no idea what you are talking about.
Senior Member
Joined: 01-05-06
Posts: 10,877
Likes: 2
From: East Brunswick, NJ