[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]

*To*: BRUCE@mannlawfirm.com*Subject*: Re: Flow*From*: QSHIPQ@aol.com*Date*: Thu, 30 Oct 1997 12:42:34 -0500 (EST)*cc*: quattro@coimbra.ans.net*Sender*: owner-quattro@coimbra.ans.net

In a message dated 97-10-30 12:24:24 EST, you write: << Conclusion? Don't have one yet. But, seems like we have exceptional intercooler work / fuel system work, that is a given. Hmmmm. Maybe the turbo ain't what one thinks it is? Back to my think tank I go.... Bruce >> Conclusion is, someone should confirm that 26psi is the boost. I don't think it is or can be, and Dave can show that IC efficiency isn't the answer. So WHAT is? Furthermore a test of Eric's car vs Ross Espisito (remember his was fast too) might prove that they have efffectively done the same thing. Given RE has used the RS2 and a larger IC, I argue that he will be faster, with the same (assuming here) 2.50PR. Testing those two egos, could prove very entertaining as well. 2.5PR on a 2.5 PT car gives 21.75 psi of boost, regardless of efficiencies, that's a lot of boost pressure, THAT IS WHAT FAST IS. Don't make this a bigger project than it is. By definition of a RS2 map, all other things being equal, you can't beat the RS2 TURBO MAP by math on a 136CI engine, I don't care WHAT you assume all the other numbers to be. The answer is LOWER PR with higher efficiencies give lower DR. That math you can't argue with. Fast? Whatever, it should just show that it could be faster with the same egt, fuel, mods WHATEVER you want to do with the rest of the car doesn't change the hot side of the turbine for sizing purposes. On a 136CI 2vpc head, Play with the CI in the equation, great. Playing with the VE doesn't change the turbine here, by math or MAP. Scott

- Prev by Author:
**Re: just for the hellofit** - Next by Author:
**Re: Correcting for 80% VE - just more questions then** - Prev by thread:
**Flow** - Next by thread:
**Re: Flow** - Index(es):