RE: turbo or na?
Login  | |
|
RE: turbo or na? - 12/9/2005 6:20:13 PM
|
|
|
Kappa22
Posts: 3100
Joined: 12/4/2004
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: streetfreakz
as far as being more efficient than some superchargers or turbo's goes? yes they are. we had one of these ''chat forums'' do a test on a 96 integra, and compare it to the jackson supercharger for the same vehicle. i was told by one of the members by personal e-mail, that the jackson supercharger called for a 32hp gain, and when they tried the e-turbo they got 31hp. would they admit to this? NO!! they wouldn't. i contacted paxton and vortec personally on this devise, their engineers told me over the phone, that they will not do a test on the product. why? because after looking at the dyno results, they called it a DIRECT THREAT.
This says it could be more efficient than some superchargers some of the time, but I'd like to see any evidence you can come up with demonstrating the fact that it's more efficient than a real turbo.
As stated before: A true turbo is the only [mainstream] forced induction system that generates engine power from waste energy. Electric fans and superchargers are both taking power right off the crank.
Also, turbos easily pull 150,000+ rpms consistently, which accounts for their superior air mass numbers (when compared to electric fans). Does your fan run at these speeds? And please don't tell me this has nothing to do with anything. PSI is one thing, but without moving a good solid number of CFM, you might as well be blowing into your intake; I can get generate 12 psi with my mouth if that's any indication of what numbers mean.
More efficient than a turbo? No. More cost-effective (assuming you're running miniscule levels of boost)? Sure. But I'd still need some real proof and a good word from someone I could trust.
_____________________________
Your Forum Turbo Groupie...
Also your official Forum EF and GTR Brain-Trust
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
RE: turbo or na? - 12/9/2005 7:27:05 PM
|
|
|
streetfreakz
Posts: 19
Joined: 12/8/2005
Status: offline
|
yes you can use the stock battery, if you wanted to activate this at full throttle or partial throttle you can. we always activated at idle for the dyno's.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: turbo or na? - 12/9/2005 7:43:41 PM
|
|
|
streetfreakz
Posts: 19
Joined: 12/8/2005
Status: offline
|
are the electric turbo's more effecient than a common exhaust driven turbo? you better believe it they are. i'm kinda confused that this question was even asked. with the common turbo, you have intercoolers-oil coolant lines-and even special heat wraps. all of this because of the high heat factors. lets not forget the cost of installation, or if there are certain items that have to be special made for one to fit, and this always happens. turbo's are not made for many applications as well. lets not forget turbo lag, turbo's will not kick in until around 3,500 rpm's, and then the full effect is not given until the vehicle is at max rpm's. there are many downfalls to turbochargers. but if this is what people would want, then i have no problem with this. the electric turbo does in a way feed of off some wasted energy. most vehicles have a charging system of 14.7 volts, but only use 12 of them. were does the wasted energy go? thats why your vehicle has ground straps, if you remove the ground straps you will burn up the starter in your vehicle every time. the electric turbo will feed of off this wasted 2 volts, this helps in drawing less of off the battery. so no, the electric turbo cannot compare to the higher psi turbo's. but they are and always will be more efficient than one.
|
|
|
|
|
Printable Version
