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

Re: Following the Claims

11/17/97 12:08 PM QSHIPQ@aol.com

>> Scott knows not of what he is talking......  I've had the Audi 
>> intercooler flow tested. In two pass mode the intercooler is 55% 
> >efficient and has a 6psi pressure drop at 15psi of boost. In single pass 
>> mode  (Scott's current fav) it's only 50% efficient with a 4psi pressure 
> >drop at 15psi of boost. 
>Unlike the bypass valve, here we don't have enough in the equation, sir.
> Here, we need Flow and Pressure and Temp.  Got Pressure.  Without Flow and
>Temp, how did you get the "50% efficient"?  Care to share the test method
>that?  How does one come to that efficiency number, professor?  So you
>what CFM at what Pressure and what Temp?  How was that extrapolated to an
>efficiency rating?  Before and after temps at the IC IN the car, actual vs
>calculated?  Which turbo did you use to get the actual numbers?  Which car
>did you measure the numbers from. What numbers did you get to give you the
>55% efficiency.  Given the baseline understanding of turbocharger theory
>proposed by you, with all do respect professor, some here would like to see
>HOW you got the numbers you did.  Assuming the numbers correct (giving the
>benefit of the doubt), a few of us in Lab 101, could do the same test with
>the same methods and get the same numbers.  Don't mind results, happy to
>accept them, some method might be nice to make sure we are all looking at
>same experiment.  Thanks for sharing your answers, how bout the homework to
>get them?

Scott, this flow rating was done on Spearco's flow bench using a FAA 
standard day for baseline temps and baro press flow was computed for the 
stock k26 turbo, increase the cfm and it only get's worse expontially.  
The test was done correctly but more importantly the Test was DONE, 
Something that you have never done. For the test to be correct you cannot 
do it on a car.
>> A proper intercooler installed in the car <1>can be up to 96% Efficient
> >a pressure drop of only .4psi at 20psi of boost.  Do the math which one 
>> is better?  I know which is better, that's why <2> I'm running a custom
>> single pass, high efficency low pressure drop intercooler in the car.
>"Can be"....  Well an IC "CAN BE" over 100% efficient, so I have no problem
>with that statement.  That I interpret as your CLAIM TO your car.  How bout
>being specific to WHAT you have?  I make the assumption that <1> and <2> to
>be the CLAIM, though NOT the statement, please do clarify.  No one should
>disagree to the "Can Be".  Question: IS this the claim of WHAT you have, or
>recitation.  Are we talking the "can be" applied to Air to Air OR Water to
>Air?  We could apply some basics to each of those theories too.  IF A2A,
>how big is this super IC?  .4 at 20psi, what is it AT 26psi (YOUR CLAIM) or
>even 22psi (2.5bar PT)?  Care to share Efficiency "ratings and evaluations"
>with the rest of the class?  

First off Scott I'd like to point out your contradiction.....  You claim 
to know EXACTLY What is on my car.  What's wrong your crystal ball a 
little foggy? If you know what's on my car I should'nt have to tell you 
what I have....  

I digress.  My intercooler is air to air, at 26psi and assuming the same 
CFM (Big assumption on your part because when I increase psi I also 
increase CFM) my pressure drop only increase's to .52psi.  Your above 
question's show a lack of understanding of the subject matter at hand.

> >Thoses pressure drop numbers BTW totally invalidate Scott's PR numbers.  
> >This is where Scott has been getting into trouble....  All of Scott's 
> >MATH is based on an Ideal Zero Loss Intake system, one in which there is 
> >no pressure drop in the system at all.  Because of that all his Temp's, 
> >Pressure's and CFM's are unrealistic.
> >Like Scott likes to say......  It's Mat >>
>I don't assume a zero loss intake system...  In fact, if you look at the
>HPGains program it does, my math or Dave's don't.  Let's put this statement
>here in perspective to the CLAIMS made.  If the above is true, you saying
>that the ACTUAL PR of your 2.8 (measured at intake) is HIGHER before the IC
>(hey that's MY claim)?  From your own post here it seems that it is AT LEAST
>26.4 before the IC. What is it?  

Let me go through this so that even you can understand it. A turbo map is 
a map of the turbo's performance.  The Turbo only, No intake tract, no 
airfilter, no intercooler, no exhaust system, Just the turbo on a flow 
bench. Hopefully compaines like KKK use a standard day for a temp and 
pressure baseline.  A map is produced showing island's of efficient 
operation at specific pressure's and CFM's. This can be thought of as 
"Gross PR". Where are the other losses? Their not in there. Have you ever 
taken into account the loss becasue of the airfilter?  For you to keep 
claiming "Net PR" (Boost at the intake that your gauge see's) you need to 
take these into account and they are NOT included in VE.  Using a stock 2 
pass intercooler and 2.0 NETPR a K26 needs to be working above 2.42 
GrossPR (I'm not even factoring in the loss due to airfilter here, If you 
were to do that your GrossPR would be in excess of 2.9) In the meantime 
the engine is only seeing the 2.0PR CFM's......... 

>More questions to the claims made.  We DON'T have a baseline here.  Given
>history, maybe a better idea than looking for an "A" in putting numbers up.

More correctly YOU Don't have a baseline.  I've done my homework so have 
other's..... Why can't you?

>With all due respect to the pitch of the prop.



Eric Fletcher S.O.C.
'87 5KCSTQ with WAY too many toys.....

According to Einstein, the faster you go, the longer you live.

St. Louis, MO