turbo or na?
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 3,095
From:
RE: turbo or na?
ORIGINAL: streetfreakz
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.
...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
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.
...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
I'd like to know what kind of revs your electric fan runs at to make 800+ CFM. And you say it uses 2 volts??? Not happening. In order to power the fan, your alternator is going to be working harder, generating more resistance, and subsequently taking that power directly off the crank.
You have fallen prey to a common misconception about the way cars work. In actuality, there is no such thing as wasted electrical energy in a car's electrical system. If the system was powered by a GENERATOR, there would be, but the whole point of the alternator is it has varying degrees of output, based on the amount of current being drawn by the car. You lose.
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.
And what you call the "full effect" is an utterly pointless statement. The concept of wastegates is obviously lost on you. If you keep revving your engine higher and higher, yes you would continue to get bigger and bigger boost numbers, but the the wastegate is there to LIMIT the amount of boost that can be generated by bypassing the turbine once the desired boost pressure is acheived (i.e. around 3,000 rpm). You lose again.
Once again, you have completely failed to provide any logical, theoretical, or actual proof of any of these claims you make.
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,720
From:
RE: turbo or na?
ORIGINAL: streetfreakz
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.
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.
HCF Member
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 7,168
From: Jersey
RE: turbo or na?
ORIGINAL: streetfreakz
turbo's will not kick in until around 3,500 rpm's,
turbo's will not kick in until around 3,500 rpm's,
I am at 8lbs of boost by 3,500rpms. This electric fan is going to be more efficiant than my turbocharger? Im getting about 50 miles per gallon on the highway. I do not buy it.
HCF Member
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 7,702
From:
RE: turbo or na?
ORIGINAL: sacicons
hmmm. fear is a loathsome foe in the world of business.
as far as the demo goes? i will have to decline, were afraid that we will get the same response as the others.
ORIGINAL: remington870_20ga
Btw, I dont think the fan is made of plastic.
http://www.spal.it/automotive/englis...entrifughi.htm
Btw, I dont think the fan is made of plastic.
http://www.spal.it/automotive/englis...entrifughi.htm
ORIGINAL: Kappa22
Unfortunately for you, none of this common turbo trash talk has ANYTHING to do with efficiency. It's all just the same old stuff people point out when they're trying to convince inexperienced car owners why turbochargers are a bad idea.
I'd like to know what kind of revs your electric fan runs at to make 800+ CFM. And you say it uses 2 volts??? Not happening. In order to power the fan, your alternator is going to be working harder, generating more resistance, and subsequently taking that power directly off the crank.
You have fallen prey to a common misconception about the way cars work. In actuality, there is no such thing as wasted electrical energy in a car's electrical system. If the system was powered by a GENERATOR, there would be, but the whole point of the alternator is it has varying degrees of output, based on the amount of current being drawn by the car. You lose.
Once again, uneducated trash talk. First of all, you wouldn't be running a T-68 on a stock Civic, so there's no reason your turbo lag would be this bad unless you don't know how to drive. A T-25, T-28, FP Big28, or even a T3/T04 with respectable trim will spool fully no higher than 3,100 rpm, and will be making positive displacement before that speed.
And what you call the "full effect" is an utterly pointless statement. The concept of wastegates is obviously lost on you. If you keep revving your engine higher and higher, yes you would continue to get bigger and bigger boost numbers, but the the wastegate is there to LIMIT the amount of boost that can be generated by bypassing the turbine once the desired boost pressure is acheived (i.e. around 3,000 rpm). You lose again.
Once again, you have completely failed to provide any logical, theoretical, or actual proof of any of these claims you make.
ORIGINAL: streetfreakz
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.
...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
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.
...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
I'd like to know what kind of revs your electric fan runs at to make 800+ CFM. And you say it uses 2 volts??? Not happening. In order to power the fan, your alternator is going to be working harder, generating more resistance, and subsequently taking that power directly off the crank.
You have fallen prey to a common misconception about the way cars work. In actuality, there is no such thing as wasted electrical energy in a car's electrical system. If the system was powered by a GENERATOR, there would be, but the whole point of the alternator is it has varying degrees of output, based on the amount of current being drawn by the car. You lose.
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.
And what you call the "full effect" is an utterly pointless statement. The concept of wastegates is obviously lost on you. If you keep revving your engine higher and higher, yes you would continue to get bigger and bigger boost numbers, but the the wastegate is there to LIMIT the amount of boost that can be generated by bypassing the turbine once the desired boost pressure is acheived (i.e. around 3,000 rpm). You lose again.
Once again, you have completely failed to provide any logical, theoretical, or actual proof of any of these claims you make.
ORIGINAL: XCM828
How is that more efficient than a turbo? The electric one runs off of 2 volts taken from the the electrical system. That's an incredibly miniscule amount of wasted energy compared to the amount of wasted energy that a turbo runs off of from wasted exhaust gasses. All of the intercoolers, oil coolant lines, heat wraps aren't necessary if you are running boost as low as that electric thing is producing. They are used to make it even more efficient than it already is. As for installation cost, in my case, free. And to say that turbo's are not made for many applications is just arrogant. You can find a prefabbed turbo kit for just about any car, certainly for more applications than you are providing. As for turbo lag, with the right application and tune, you can have full boost far under 3000rpm. And when you say "and then the full effect is not given until the vehicle is at max rpm's" that is completely wrong because you are at full boost whenever the turbo is spooling at the desired top speed, which usually occurs in the 2000-3500 rpm range depending on lag/tune/turbo size. It is a supercharger that does not reach full boost until max rpm. You seriously need to go read up on your turbo facts.
ORIGINAL: streetfreakz
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.
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.
ORIGINAL: pcupo12
I am at 8lbs of boost by 3,500rpms. This electric fan is going to be more efficiant than my turbocharger? Im getting about 50 miles per gallon on the highway. I do not buy it.
ORIGINAL: streetfreakz
turbo's will not kick in until around 3,500 rpm's,
turbo's will not kick in until around 3,500 rpm's,
I am at 8lbs of boost by 3,500rpms. This electric fan is going to be more efficiant than my turbocharger? Im getting about 50 miles per gallon on the highway. I do not buy it.
HCF Member
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 11,248
From: Charleston
RE: turbo or na?
I sent him a PM. I actually REALLY wanting to test this. I am willing to pay it too, at least a discounted price for what it is being sold for. Once Im done with it, Ill send it to the sunshine state for sacs to test it. And then accordingly, that is if it actualy is the sweetenes, he will send it back to me.
Seriously though. Whatever streetfreak says and swears by, hes innocent until proven guilty. Im gonna give him a shot.
Seriously though. Whatever streetfreak says and swears by, hes innocent until proven guilty. Im gonna give him a shot.
Cat Fuсker
Joined: Nov 1978
Posts: 7,036
From: The Moon
RE: turbo or na?
So you're saying you will not send a unit to either sacs or remington? AND You're saying that we're not open minded?? We're just asking for real world proof and we don't have a habit of believeing everything stated on the internet. Let one of our guys test it and expect to have honest feedback...but it doesn't look like you want that
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 3,095
From:
RE: turbo or na?
For the record, nothing I said was intended to be inflammatory or directly insulting. I am merely continuing to call your claims into question, being as they are still without any good solid evidence, and clearing up a few things that you obviously misunderstand. I would like to continue to discuss your product, so my above questions still stand.