Quote:
Originally Posted by leathermang
I used ' high boost' only due to you calling the turbos in your examples as ' low boost'...
but the point stands with regard to the HP increase..... less than 50 percent
Why do you completely skip over my requests for you to state the empirical differences you are claiming for this type of project ? If you keep doing that... others are going to conclude you realize providing them is not good for your argument.....
"People do this because you keep the fuel e3conomy of the 240 (for what it is), combined with the power in the right places to make the 240 engine much more usable as a daily driver."--JB3
How much difference in mileage do you claim between a turbo 240 engine and a NA 617?
" Power in the right places" .... I assume you are saying the power curve is moved.. from where to where are you claiming it is moved ?
|
the 617 turbo factory is low boost. Why is this a matter of argument? compared to other turbo applications.
for example a 5.9 cummins cruising boost might be 8-10psi, and the wastegate might open in the high 20s psi.
As for your other questions, instead of scoffing and scolding, why don't you ask the two members who have posted in this thread their results? 47dodge has stated in other threads that he has improved the 240 economy with a turbo, so hes getting high 20s to low 30s with more power on hills. Whats hard to understand about this concept?
This reminds me very much of the stand you have taken against putting a 4 speed behind a 617 turbo.