Chat? Chat???

What is this chat you speak of? mt.net chat?

um...question...

would 49lbs/min make the same power 8:1 as it does 10:1?

I've got this itch in the back of my skull that tells me it will make noticeably more power at 10:1...

Jason, we've been over this repeatedly. I'll just quote Geoff from Full Race in an email he sent me:

"Geoff Raicer to me
show details Mar 3

Yes we have run a few of these turbos to their limits, and the "rule of thumb" that you mentioned for lb/min flow rate X 10 for max whp on a built motor is a great one that i often go by. These turbos definitely follow that!"

This does assume gasoline and running as efficiently as possible. He's saying they'll flow at least the rule of thumb.

Running inefficiently will make less power with a certain amount of air.

I'm agreeing with you Erin, 18psi however said it really is loose when it comes to using this conversion.

When the hell did I ever say the turbo engineer is wrong? I just stated it made more power than what the turbos is rated for which is also listed on the Full-Race website and I talked to Geoff about it on another model. So wtf you talking about son?

E85 or not the performance of these turbos is awesome, they actually made close to 600 whp with this turbo on that forum the dyno sheets are still not posted however.

No, Jason. You keep claiming that the rule of thumb is for crank horsepower. I don't know where you got the idea, but this is the third time I've corrected it. :P

According to Precision they measure horsepower ratings of the turbo at the crank. I called and asked--they said and I qoute:

"there would be too many variables if we where to measure horsepower ratings of turbos to whp, such as fwd/awd/rwd applications and this would cause legal issues for us."

So? Uhm I don't know and really dont care lol eitherway I cannot wait to get my EFR

Precision? Wtf? Show me a precision map and tell me the ratings for their turbos.

I know crap about precision. Nothing. That's not even what we're talking about here. As far as I know, they don't even release maps of their stuff. Useless.

lb/min x 10 = ~maximum whp for gasoline and a 2wd car is a /rule of thumb/. From everything from the turbo found on some old volvo in the junkyard to the new EFR's. It's not a law of nature.

Also, you're missing the context. Lbs/min is a measure of how much a turbo can flow.

You can compare one turbo to another directly by that rating.

How much power a car makes with that flow is an indication of the /engine/ not the /turbo./

It's called volumetric efficiency.

Man stop it you two.

I was looking more closely at the specs for the EFR turbos and I'm not certain this is quite the performance revolution.

I suggest comparing the actual wheel diameters of the EFR turbos to the GTX turbos, and then looking closely at the compressor maps. For reference, here is a link that has the EFR compressor maps. http://www.6speedonline.com/forums/v...rger-line.html

In short, when comparing similarly sized turbos like say a efr7670 with a GTX3076, when I plot out the map, things look fairly similar in terms of how the turbo would spool and ultimate power capability.

Back to back tests efr vs gtx:
http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/show....php?t=2135597

Very close.

boner kill

Thanks for the link! But even if it is close as far as spool and power you have to think, cost...EFR has an awesome IWG set up being able to hold 35+ psi rock solid, integrated BOV as well. It might actually be cheaper to run a EFR IF you don't already have a GT series turbo now.


EDIT: Just skimming through the 25 pages, I have have missed something but comparing a GTX3076R to a 7670 is sort of like comparing a GT28 to a GT30 isn't it? I mean, the 7670 is bigger so how does that work?

It's only bigger on the turbine side.

I think in that forum they said 7670=GT35, 8376=GT40, 9180=GT42

I think a 7064 vs GTX3076R would be a much better comparison.

I'm watching this with interest as this is one of the turbos I'm considering, the other GTX3071

49lbs/m would happen a lot 'sooner' on a 8:1 engine than a 10:1 engine.

Huh? What are you talking about douche king. Higher compression makes more power and spools faster...

Don't mess with him. He's the DK.

Yes, only to a point. Then it falls off and the lower comp will keep climbing.

Erin,

After looking at this graph from BW it looks like they're rated at engine horsepower, see I knew I was right, which explains why that 7064 is making 540 whp which is about 500 crank horsepower--what they're rated at.


Holla at cha boi.
http://treadstoneintercoolers.com/bo..._selection.JPG