Custom Remote Kit success.

[chadder]

^ smack! [img]graemlins/slap.gif[/img]

[nocutt]

I agree to disagree here TH

...Also, another thing to keep in mind, a turbo car is only losing less HP than an N/A car WHILE IT IS IN BOOST. When the car is not boosting, it's still losing what its NA counterpart would be, and that makes for less power during launches (for a manual car with no stutter box), and a slightly longer amount of time spent before the turbo reaches its boost threshold...

I am not going to stir the pot, however that isn't entirely thru...also you do lose power as altitude increases but the truth of the matter is you can actually compensate by adding more pressure...in your case you are perhaps reaching the threshold of what I will do with a boost referenced fuel regulator...anywayz my point is an FI car when in "N/A mode" is still a turbo car...you are still for a lack of better term in a 'closed system', meaning the turbo is still providing air to the engine...it just isn't pressurized...which really is another reason why 9.4:1 CR and a turbo have a good unboosted throttle response + MPG...
NEwayz we can all kiss, hold hands and sing "kumbaya" later...let's keep it clean guys ;)

[Teufel Hunden]

Originally posted by nocutt:
I agree to disagree here TH </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />...Also, another thing to keep in mind, a turbo car is only losing less HP than an N/A car WHILE IT IS IN BOOST. When the car is not boosting, it's still losing what its NA counterpart would be, and that makes for less power during launches (for a manual car with no stutter box), and a slightly longer amount of time spent before the turbo reaches its boost threshold...

I am not going to stir the pot, however that isn't entirely thru...also you do lose power as altitude increases but the truth of the matter is you can actually compensate by adding more pressure...in your case you are perhaps reaching the threshold of what I will do with a boost referenced fuel regulator...anywayz my point is an FI car when in "N/A mode" is still a turbo car...you are still for a lack of better term in a 'closed system', meaning the turbo is still providing air to the engine...it just isn't pressurized...which really is another reason why 9.4:1 CR and a turbo have a good unboosted throttle response + MPG...
NEwayz we can all kiss, hold hands and sing "kumbaya" later...let's keep it clean guys ;) </font>[/QUOTE]You do bring up a good point. Like i said above, my power levels are pretty much stuck where they are because of the limits of the FMU combined with my LT1 injectors and the stock tune. In the interest of not stressing out the components even more for not much gain, i leave it at 10psi, as i see that as sort of a safety margin. Also, we can take a quick look at absolute manifold pressure to see what's really happening. Ambient + Boost, my elevation = 11ambient + 10boost = 21psi absolute. At sea level, running the same boost pressure.. 14.7ambient + 10psi = 24.7psi absolute.. the difference being 3.7psi. Pretty big difference, i'd say.

I agree that it's still a closed system, and even when not producing boost, the turbo is still supplying air, but it's not a whole lot of air. Uncorrected on the dyno, my car put down around 160-170rwtq of actual power. Having the turbo blow some extra air into the engine while not in boost might help a bit, but it's surely not enough to make up for that big power deficit during launches.

[ February 13, 2005, 02:24 PM: Message edited by: Teufel Hunden ]

[nocutt]

You do bring up a good point. Like i said above, my power levels are pretty much stuck where they are because of the limits of the FMU combined with my LT1 injectors and the stock tune. In the interest of not stressing out the components even more for not much gain, i leave it at 10psi, as i see that as sort of a safety margin. Also, we can take a quick look at absolute manifold pressure to see what's really happening. Ambient + Boost, my elevation = 11ambient + 10boost = 21psi absolute. At sea level, running the same boost pressure.. 14.7ambient + 10psi = 24.7psi absolute.. the difference being 3.7psi. Pretty big difference, i'd say.

I agree that it's still a closed system, and even when not producing boost, the turbo is still supplying air, but it's not a whole lot of air. Uncorrected on the dyno, my car put down around 160-170rwtq of actual power. Having the turbo blow some extra air into the engine while not in boost might help a bit, but it's surely not enough to make up for that big power deficit during launches.

I agree again...this time not to disagree :D although a flaw which is actually dependent on taste...we are talking about a loss of almost 15% which is ultimately inconsequential you have the potential to gain 15% by simply turning the wick or going to a bigger turbo and then you wouldn't really care about boost...as a matter of fact, you shouldn't care about boost when making a strong standing point in this situation!! understandably boost needs to be referenced as a quantity...the kit should have been built around 'true density ratio'. Like I said this is only a taste thing, it isn't a big deal, but you cannot make an argument over density ratios...OVERALL it is a relative issue. If you are not going to turn the wick up ( I overstand this...I wouldn't just because there isn't anything to proove) or ever upgrade get a bigger comp. wheel like something in the range of a 6X-70mm wheel with your current exhaust configuration, better fuel management and ~6000ft will not really matter.
I am only been the devil's advocate here...I hear this argument all the time and for FI, especially turbo guys...remember I said ultimately...so other things in the middle is still BS...WE BRING OUR ATMOSPHERE TO US...think about it!! [img]graemlins/love.gif[/img]

[ February 13, 2005, 04:19 PM: Message edited by: nocutt ]

[GN-T66]

Just as a few more points here, or other things to consider here. At this altitude, you can very easily turn up boost in most any turbo, but at the same time you are working the turbo harder, and I believe TF mentioned it earlier, but you are creating more heat working the turbo harder making boost from the thinner air. Also, the closer a turbo is to being maxed out at sea level, the more power it will lose as altitude increases. turbo cars can actually lose just as much power from altitude if you've reached the point the turbo can work no harder.

My GN runs slower up here than at sea level, even with increased boost to compensate for pressure loss. And my turbo is not maxed out. When you look at the science it might just tell you it isnt really possible, but somehow it just ends up that way.

[nocutt]

Originally posted by GN-T66:
Just as a few more points here, or other things to consider here. At this altitude, you can very easily turn up boost in most any turbo, but at the same time you are working the turbo harder, and I believe TF mentioned it earlier, but you are creating more heat working the turbo harder making boost from the thinner air. Also, the closer a turbo is to being maxed out at sea level, the more power it will lose as altitude increases. turbo cars can actually lose just as much power from altitude if you've reached the point the turbo can work no harder.

My GN runs slower up here than at sea level, even with increased boost to compensate for pressure loss. And my turbo is not maxed out. When you look at the science it might just tell you it isnt really possible, but somehow it just ends up that way.

No doubt about that GN, but boost is still not the answer for some, CFM is...so therefore if you don't feel it necessary to turn up the wick, then when designing the turbo itself this most be taken into account...better yet when the time comes to upgrade you move to a bigger comp. wheel...
When we race in the california mountains boy you can "notice this" effect...it is very quantifiable. I told my relative (lives in 5800ft with a t-type)who wanted to upgrade to a TA49, engine isn't stock, but far from modded...just bolt-ons, I convinced him to get a TE63 he had the mods, he was very complaisant. This was a low 12s motor...with the TE63, a looser converter and more boost( 4psi more) he dropped his ET's...this car will churn low 11's all day . The primary crux? the Turbo!! We pack our atmosphere with us...so my main thing is relativity!
If you are in a high altitude build your turbo around this variable if you do not want to push more psi.
Let me put a better analogy relating to relativity...if you have an L67 and an L36, you don't use the same turbo because but engines have different dynamics...(yes it depends on what the owner(s) WANTs to do...but this is negligible...)
same thing here factor this variable :D

[Teufel Hunden]

Originally posted by nocutt:
No doubt about that GN, but boost is still not the answer for some, CFM is...so therefore if you don't feel it necessary to turn up the wick, then when designing the turbo itself this most be taken into account...better yet when the time comes to upgrade you move to a bigger comp. wheel...
When we race in the california mountains boy you can "notice this" effect...it is very quantifiable. I told my relative (lives in 5800ft with a t-type)who wanted to upgrade to a TA49, engine isn't stock, but far from modded...just bolt-ons, I convinced him to get a TE63 he had the mods, he was very complaisant. This was a low 12s motor...with the TE63, a looser converter and more boost( 4psi more) he dropped his ET's...this car will churn low 11's all day . The primary crux? the Turbo!! We pack our atmosphere with us...so my main thing is relativity!
If you are in a high altitude build your turbo around this variable if you do not want to push more psi.
Let me put a better analogy relating to relativity...if you have an L67 and an L36, you don't use the same turbo because but engines have different dynamics...(yes it depends on what the owner(s) WANTs to do...but this is negligible...)
same thing here factor this variable :D

Now you're talking about changing variables.. which isn't want I was getting at with Russell. Also, my point about the manifold pressure is still valid, because my entire point in this thread is to illustrate the difference between sea level and this elevation with the same turbo at a set boost pressure. Why a set boost pressure? because my car is at a set pressure, and so are my example cars (except the porsche, but that was to illustrate something different)

Now, what you're saying is absolutely correct.. change the compressor, and at the same boost pressure, the car will make more power, and thus you will have compensated for the elevation. BUT, take that same car down to sea level with the same boost setting, and there will be a notable difference in increased power. By bringing up and hashing over and over the things you can do to change that, you're only covering the advantage a turbo car has over an N/A one, which i already covered earlier. Like you said, do this, that, and the other thing, and ~6000 feet won't really matter... but take that same car to sea level and the change in power will be obvious. "bringing the atmosphere with us" is a bit of an inaccuracy. As you said, volume is the determining factor, but what if that volume has less oxygen altogether?

[nocutt]

Originally posted by Teufel Hunden:

Now, what you're saying is absolutely correct.. change the compressor, and at the same boost pressure, the car will make more power, and thus you will have compensated for the elevation. BUT, take that same car down to sea level with the same boost setting, and there will be a notable difference in increased power. By bringing up and hashing over and over the things you can do to change that, you're only covering the advantage a turbo car has over an N/A one, which i already covered earlier. Like you said, do this, that, and the other thing, and ~6000 feet won't really matter... but take that same car to sea level and the change in power will be obvious. "bringing the atmosphere with us" is a bit of an inaccuracy. As you said, volume is the determining factor, but what if that volume has less oxygen altogether?

Sorry T-H...I told you, I was just been the devils advocate :D The original point stands...this is revised: elevation creates power discrepancies, however those who have the ability to bring atmosphere to them can POTENTIALLY make up for the deficit. ;)
OK now we have served everybody except N/A guys...lol!!

[Teufel Hunden]

Originally posted by nocutt:
Sorry T-H...I told you, I was just been the devils advocate :D The original point stands...this is revised: elevation creates power discrepancies, however those who have the ability to bring atmosphere to them can POTENTIALLY make up for the deficit. ;)
OK now we have served everybody except N/A guys...lol!!

I never refuted the point of potentially being able to make up for the deficit ;) My point was no matter how much making up for it you do, a car will never be as potent as it can be at sea level. You can cram more air into the engine via more boost pressure or a bigger turbo, but less oxygen is still less oxygen, and that same car will always make more power at sea level, BECAUSE of my absolute manifold pressure example. :D

[ February 14, 2005, 06:05 PM: Message edited by: Teufel Hunden ]

[GN-T66]

Originally posted by nocutt:
I told my relative (lives in 5800ft with a t-type)who wanted to upgrade to a TA49, engine isn't stock, but far from modded...just bolt-ons, I convinced him to get a TE63 he had the mods, he was very complaisant. This was a low 12s motor...with the TE63, a looser converter and more boost( 4psi more) he dropped his ET's...this car will churn low 11's all day . The primary crux? the Turbo!! We pack our atmosphere with us...so my main thing is relativity!
If you are in a high altitude build your turbo around this variable if you do not want to push more psi.
Let me put a better analogy relating to relativity...if you have an L67 and an L36, you don't use the same turbo because but engines have different dynamics...(yes it depends on what the owner(s) WANTs to do...but this is negligible...)
same thing here factor this variable :D

Keep in mind, altitude itself isnt so much the key figure here.. but DA (density altitude). IMO thats what we should use as a reference in comparing to sea level.

[T-Punk]

wow... your really pushing it with your sig lately arent you? As much as i dissagree with that pic in so many ways it is pretty humorous.

[shenanigans]

Glad I finished the thread...

I normally skip really really really long posts, but I was just going to ask the question how does altitude affect a FI car since you sort of "make" your own atmosphere with FI... but you guys answered it carry on now....

[ February 17, 2005, 10:55 AM: Message edited by: shenanigans ]