Hmm, well- it depends on the size of the turbo unit. A LARGE turbo will take time to fully spool, (turbo-lag) and you won't get much low end torque. Superchargers seem famous for low end torque, but a properly sized turbo will give you the same numbers, with better top end.
turbo anyone?
- Thread starter concretejungle
- Start date
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.
[quote author=Doc link=board=2;threadid=15368;start=msg146517#msg146517 date=1083122849]
Hmm, well- it depends on the size of the turbo unit. A LARGE turbo will take time to fully spool, (turbo-lag) and you won't get much low end torque. Superchargers seem famous for low end torque, but a properly sized turbo will give you the same numbers, with better top end.
[/quote]
I believe turbochargers.com is using a Garrett T4 unit, the turbo is a 46 wheel Ptrim with .84 A/R turbine housing. With a wheel that small and housing that large and the amount of exhaust our trucks can expell, i think this unit will spool very quickly. that is just one of a gazillion choices out there. I'm leaning towards garrett T3/TO4B with internal wastegate right now. Please keep in mind, i'm just starting to learn this stuff
k
Hmm, well- it depends on the size of the turbo unit. A LARGE turbo will take time to fully spool, (turbo-lag) and you won't get much low end torque. Superchargers seem famous for low end torque, but a properly sized turbo will give you the same numbers, with better top end.
[/quote]
I believe turbochargers.com is using a Garrett T4 unit, the turbo is a 46 wheel Ptrim with .84 A/R turbine housing. With a wheel that small and housing that large and the amount of exhaust our trucks can expell, i think this unit will spool very quickly. that is just one of a gazillion choices out there. I'm leaning towards garrett T3/TO4B with internal wastegate right now. Please keep in mind, i'm just starting to learn this stuff
k
Similar spec to what I had, would make max boost at 1400rpm, and would pull 250kph on the rev limiter in 5th gear....
There is absolutely no comparison to a supercharged 4.5 and a Safari turboed unit, having driven both, especially at altitude, where it has to be pointed out the supercharger is actually fitted to someone who is used to a turbo
There is absolutely no comparison to a supercharged 4.5 and a Safari turboed unit, having driven both, especially at altitude, where it has to be pointed out the supercharger is actually fitted to someone who is used to a turbo
[quote author=inacoma link=board=2;threadid=15368;start=msg146524#msg146524 date=1083123413]
I believe turbochargers.com is using a Garrett T4 unit, the turbo is a 46 wheel Ptrim with .84 A/R turbine housing. With a wheel that small and housing that large and the amount of exhaust our trucks can expell, i think this unit will spool very quickly. that is just one of a gazillion choices out there. I'm leaning towards garrett T3/TO4B with internal wastegate right now. Please keep in mind, i'm just starting to learn this stuff
k
[/quote]
Well, you seem very much well on your way. There is a very involved mathmatical calculation where you can determine exactly what size turbo you need in relation to your displacement and flow capacities, but usually it's better to phone or e-mail the companies like Garret or IHI and have them recommend an application.
I believe turbochargers.com is using a Garrett T4 unit, the turbo is a 46 wheel Ptrim with .84 A/R turbine housing. With a wheel that small and housing that large and the amount of exhaust our trucks can expell, i think this unit will spool very quickly. that is just one of a gazillion choices out there. I'm leaning towards garrett T3/TO4B with internal wastegate right now. Please keep in mind, i'm just starting to learn this stuff
k
[/quote]
Well, you seem very much well on your way. There is a very involved mathmatical calculation where you can determine exactly what size turbo you need in relation to your displacement and flow capacities, but usually it's better to phone or e-mail the companies like Garret or IHI and have them recommend an application.
[quote author=the shed guy [Aus/CAC] link=board=2;threadid=15368;start=msg146626#msg146626 date=1083136117]
Similar spec to what I had, would make max boost at 1400rpm, and would pull 250kph on the rev limiter in 5th gear....
There is absolutely no comparison to a supercharged 4.5 and a Safari turboed unit, having driven both, especially at altitude, where it has to be pointed out the supercharger is actually fitted to someone who is used to a turbo
[/quote]
So as far as the comparison goes....since you've driven both...what do you like and why??
Adrian
Similar spec to what I had, would make max boost at 1400rpm, and would pull 250kph on the rev limiter in 5th gear....
There is absolutely no comparison to a supercharged 4.5 and a Safari turboed unit, having driven both, especially at altitude, where it has to be pointed out the supercharger is actually fitted to someone who is used to a turbo
[/quote]
So as far as the comparison goes....since you've driven both...what do you like and why??
Adrian
[quote author=the shed guy [Aus/CAC] link=board=2;threadid=15368;start=msg146305#msg146305 date=1083103436]
My turbo 80 ran 10 psi boost, making 300 rear wheel horsepower and 400 rear wheel foot pounds, with no issues, for 80,000km while I had the vehicle, and it got abused, doing 2 baja style events, but twice as long as the Baja 1000.
[/quote]
300 HP seems too low for 10psi, was this an actual dyno reading or was this an educated estimate of what the 80 did with the turbo? Also, if it was an actual dyno reading, what does "rear wheel horsepower" indicate? In other words is it really 300 all wheel horsepower!?! How do they account for OR mechanically remove the front wheels from the equation? I would think with 10 psi, 375 HP would be easy with the right exhaust system? What do you think?
My turbo 80 ran 10 psi boost, making 300 rear wheel horsepower and 400 rear wheel foot pounds, with no issues, for 80,000km while I had the vehicle, and it got abused, doing 2 baja style events, but twice as long as the Baja 1000.
[/quote]
300 HP seems too low for 10psi, was this an actual dyno reading or was this an educated estimate of what the 80 did with the turbo? Also, if it was an actual dyno reading, what does "rear wheel horsepower" indicate? In other words is it really 300 all wheel horsepower!?! How do they account for OR mechanically remove the front wheels from the equation? I would think with 10 psi, 375 HP would be easy with the right exhaust system? What do you think?
hoser
SILVER Star
300 AWHP sounds reasonable to me. That would be 400hp at the crank given a 25% drivetrain loss.
[quote author=hoser link=board=2;threadid=15368;start=msg147087#msg147087 date=1083198041]
300 AWHP sounds reasonable to me. That would be 400hp at the crank given a 25% drivetrain loss.
[/quote]
That makes sense...I was told that the turbo on my rig was rated at 375HP at 8psi. That would refer to an engine dyno rating as opposed to a rear wheel rating or to an all wheel rating. So, is it realistic that the drivetrain loss would amount to 25%? If so, then that is the final frontier for performance mods after the turbo and the suspension. Would gearing account for part of that 25% or is drivetrain loss more measured through the loss of power with turning the transmission and turning all the other moving parts? If it is more measured through this sort of loss of power, I wonder how to lower the loss? Perhaps a part time 4wd conversion would work wonders, other than that I'm at a loss as to what to do to get more efficiency. Any thoughts? Cool thread!
300 AWHP sounds reasonable to me. That would be 400hp at the crank given a 25% drivetrain loss.
[/quote]
That makes sense...I was told that the turbo on my rig was rated at 375HP at 8psi. That would refer to an engine dyno rating as opposed to a rear wheel rating or to an all wheel rating. So, is it realistic that the drivetrain loss would amount to 25%? If so, then that is the final frontier for performance mods after the turbo and the suspension. Would gearing account for part of that 25% or is drivetrain loss more measured through the loss of power with turning the transmission and turning all the other moving parts? If it is more measured through this sort of loss of power, I wonder how to lower the loss? Perhaps a part time 4wd conversion would work wonders, other than that I'm at a loss as to what to do to get more efficiency. Any thoughts? Cool thread!
hoser
SILVER Star
Most two-wheel drive cars lose about 13-18% through drivetrain losses. Transverse mounted engines rotating in the same direction as the wheels will give the least loss. Full Time 4WD will give the most loss. I'm throwing a 25% loss out as a guess. Bigger/heavier tires lose hp as well. When you put the vehicle on a dyno, you use the gear that is closes to 1:1 ratio to give you most accurate results. Dyno machines vary quite a bit too. The same car on different dynos can show 10% variation.
There's little we can do to gain efficiency except for, convert to 2WD and get lighter, thinner wheels.
There's little we can do to gain efficiency except for, convert to 2WD and get lighter, thinner wheels.
I still think turbos are extremely over rated and a waste of money for wheeling. Same can be said, although a little lesser degree with superchargers.
[quote author=Junk link=board=2;threadid=15368;start=msg147297#msg147297 date=1083218260]
I still think turbos are extremely over rated and a waste of money for wheeling. Same can be said, although a little lesser degree with superchargers.
[/quote]
Wow, that's quite the blanket statement (wouldn't expect anything less from diet coke).
...curious on your thoughts of "why"?? And don't use that statement that turbos will not spool up quick enough, they will if designed correctly. Also helps in high altidudes and on loose uphill runs. Amont other advantages. but mostly interested in what YOU think is over rated.
K
I still think turbos are extremely over rated and a waste of money for wheeling. Same can be said, although a little lesser degree with superchargers.
[/quote]
Wow, that's quite the blanket statement (wouldn't expect anything less from diet coke).
...curious on your thoughts of "why"?? And don't use that statement that turbos will not spool up quick enough, they will if designed correctly. Also helps in high altidudes and on loose uphill runs. Amont other advantages. but mostly interested in what YOU think is over rated.
K
my comment is based stricly on the no-bang-for-the-buck. Yes, I have the blower on my beater, but I'm telling you that while wheeling on 36's and doing fairly hardercore trails, I have never found the blower to help one bit. There has never been a power issue. If you are towing trailers at altitude, fine if you want to blow the money then that's cool. I do a lot of towing with my truck. Usually pulling 4-5k and too frequently more than that, and that's why I got the darn blower. It's highly over rated. You want more umph when wheeling, do a gear swap. If you really want to blow up to 6k on a turbo, you'd be better off buying a beater 80 and hacking some off to save weight like the Yellow Thong. You have the skills and knowledge to pull it off. So why comprimise and continue to spend more money on a truck that will never be 100% trail or 100% street (not necessarily you, but you know what I mean). I'd think for like 7-8k and some time, you'd have a super capable 80, may or may not be street legal and there would NO comprimise.
or buy a tow rig 
Well, although I am not anywhere near the level of Junk when its wheeling we're talking about, I would definitely disagree that the turbo is wasted money for wheeling purposes. There are so many situations where the turbo makes the forward progress so predictable, managable etc. At that point its not the top power, its the lowend power and the lowend torque. I'm not referring to rock crawling as such cause I have not handled much of that yet, but in snow, mud, sand, serious slopes, loose sandstone, it makes a serious difference. Plus the fact that I can pull off of any trail, hit any pavement and smoke almost anything truckish out there, that makes for less "compromise factor" in terms of a vehicle that performs anywhere. In fact the other day, I helped pull an Mercedes ML430 out of a simple spot on a simple trail, he was somewhat embarrased, blamed himself for getting stuck, and then stated that nothing is better for street and or mild to moderate trail use than the ML. I did not respond to that but I did extract him and wished him well. Well, then two hours later, just happened to line up at the stop light going up a long mountain pass. He looks over and smiles. Within 20 meters off the line where we were equally pulling away, we was a smaller and smaller spec in my rearview!!! I totally smoked him, no serious effort at all. Then at another light ten miles or so later, he eventually pulls up and looked baffled and blushed at the 80. Now, my 4600 dollars went alot further than his same 4600 dollars didn't it? Whoa what a feeling, turboed toyotas!!!
My GMC will easily spank you, but I don't like to use it for that. I don't have a cruiser to drag race or go fast, but I see where you are coming from. It is all in what you want from the rig. No one is the same. 
[quote author=hoser link=board=2;threadid=15368;start=msg147291#msg147291 date=1083217666]
Most two-wheel drive cars lose about 13-18% through drivetrain losses. Transverse mounted engines rotating in the same direction as the wheels will give the least loss. Full Time 4WD will give the most loss. I'm throwing a 25% loss out as a guess. Bigger/heavier tires lose hp as well. When you put the vehicle on a dyno, you use the gear that is closes to 1:1 ratio to give you most accurate results. Dyno machines vary quite a bit too. The same car on different dynos can show 10% variation.
There's little we can do to gain efficiency except for, convert to 2WD and get lighter, thinner wheels.
[/quote]
25% for a four wheel drive is spot on according to my Porsche book that compares the Carrera 2 to the Carrera 4. Interestingly, it doesn't always translate into acceleration thought. Even though the Carrera 4 is heavier and has more power train losses (as seen on the chasis dyno), the acceleratino difference appears to only be due to the extra weight.
Cary
Most two-wheel drive cars lose about 13-18% through drivetrain losses. Transverse mounted engines rotating in the same direction as the wheels will give the least loss. Full Time 4WD will give the most loss. I'm throwing a 25% loss out as a guess. Bigger/heavier tires lose hp as well. When you put the vehicle on a dyno, you use the gear that is closes to 1:1 ratio to give you most accurate results. Dyno machines vary quite a bit too. The same car on different dynos can show 10% variation.
There's little we can do to gain efficiency except for, convert to 2WD and get lighter, thinner wheels.
[/quote]
25% for a four wheel drive is spot on according to my Porsche book that compares the Carrera 2 to the Carrera 4. Interestingly, it doesn't always translate into acceleration thought. Even though the Carrera 4 is heavier and has more power train losses (as seen on the chasis dyno), the acceleratino difference appears to only be due to the extra weight.
Cary
I wonder why most people think the reason to put a blower of sort on is to "wheel". I don't think anyone "except Junk" has ever said that "I need a blower so I can wheel better". The reason I got a blower was to pull this big ass boat around without straining the motor and making it seem like I have a V8 under the hood. It is also nice when I want to beat some punk off the line at a stop light 
and also when I want to pass someone it is no longer necessary to pull out the binoculars and make sure I have enough road room to pass, now I just look down at the gas gauge before I pass
I argued the point sometime back about an 80 in low range being able to handle any off road condition even with over sized tires. I think before you could stop the tires from spinning due to lack of horse power in low range that something would snap :bust: :bust2: first. Of course there are those who are going to disagree.
Yomama
and also when I want to pass someone it is no longer necessary to pull out the binoculars and make sure I have enough road room to pass, now I just look down at the gas gauge before I pass I argued the point sometime back about an 80 in low range being able to handle any off road condition even with over sized tires. I think before you could stop the tires from spinning due to lack of horse power in low range that something would snap :bust: :bust2: first. Of course there are those who are going to disagree.
Yomama
[quote author=DanKunz link=board=2;threadid=15368;start=msg147380#msg147380 date=1083249064]
My GMC will easily spank you, but I don't like to use it for that.
[/quote]
Your GMC would be embarrased, no way you can spank a turboed 80 with a 2500HD pickemup! That is a funny joke though, so good points for the comedy factor! PULEEEAAASE!
My GMC will easily spank you, but I don't like to use it for that.
[/quote]
Your GMC would be embarrased, no way you can spank a turboed 80 with a 2500HD pickemup! That is a funny joke though, so good points for the comedy factor! PULEEEAAASE!
- Thread starter
- #39
turbo, be careful! :-X
He could have some bullydog or banks equipment on that puppy. I"ve seen guys pushing 800 hp and over 1000 ft-lb of torque with those diesels.
He could have some bullydog or banks equipment on that puppy. I"ve seen guys pushing 800 hp and over 1000 ft-lb of torque with those diesels.
My friends 350Z can't keep up, he found out the hard way after dinner.
TDs are hard to beat 0-60, but we suck after that
I am stock still...lowly 350HP and 510 ft lbs. Single chip with no other mods puts me up 75HP and 160 ft lbs. though. Not interested in mods right now, it is on horse duty, not drag racing.
TDs are hard to beat 0-60, but we suck after that
I am stock still...lowly 350HP and 510 ft lbs. Single chip with no other mods puts me up 75HP and 160 ft lbs. though. Not interested in mods right now, it is on horse duty, not drag racing.
