| And if you use less boost to make the same power PER lb of boost you have yourself a couple of benifits. That depends on how you look at it. If your setup can make 66xRWHP at 24psi, but the bottom end and midrange suffer considerably, how could that be perceived as a benefit? It's about making the most efficiant air pump right? While this is true, it is too broad of a statement to use as you aren't specifying at what RPM you are wanting it to be most effective. Seb's car makes the same power at lower boost, which implies that his setup is breathing better but only at that higher RPM. In the bottom end and midrange, he is making considerably less power and torque, so there was a sacrifice there. Seb's engine is an efficient air pump only at high RPM. The detriment to bottom end and midrange, IMHO, far outweigh the benefit, especially considering that his setup isn't offering much more peak power than the other two, and a whole lot less torque. If you want to consider an efficient air pump, take a look again at the dynocharts of my setup. It is outflowing Seb's and Dee's across the entire RPM band, yet, I am using the smallest turbine section of the two. I see your point that this may not be an apples to apples comparison, but, the results are what they are and the differences in the results are indicating to us what the differences in hardware is doing. I'm not trying to make an apples to apples comparison: that is a futile exercise. I am trying to show the differences. There is no conjecture in the data we have - three cars, same dyno, same correction factors: it is the best anyone is going to get. I'm sorry if you feel that I am forcing you to embrace this information - that isn't my intent.
[ ashspecz.com ]
[ agpowers@bellsouth.net ] Enthusiasts soon understand each other. --W. Irving.
Are you an enthusiast? If you are out to describe the truth, leave elegance to the tailor.
Albert Einstein
|
