Quote:
Originally Posted by CThunder-blue
The reason why there's a single intercooler and not a twin set up is because you have to have the intercooler facing forward. There's not enough surface area of the face of the bike to mount any such twin intercooler setup.
|
The upright width of our ninjette is measured from mirror-tip to mirror-tip and clearance is limited by our exhaust-system.
Honestly, I'd be more concerned about drag than space.
More importantly, from what I've read, the main reason to use a single or a parallel intercooler setup (
always!!! - according to one source) is that connecting intercoolers in series results in doubling the loss of boost (which, hopefully, can be traded-off against better cooling). But, I think we'd be within the constraints, even if the compressor generates 12 psi and we lose 8psi in the coolers and we'd be getting 4psi of boost. Note, that I'm not making any claim that this is in any conceivable way optimal if one wishes to generate lots of power.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CThunder-blue
The other factor you
|
Wrong pronoun! You meant to say 'we', right? Welcome aboard!
Quote:
|
haven't discussed is the problem of the stock components. A carb setup wouldn't work with a turbo efficiently.
|
Isn't this is getting a little too far ahead? I think we should use the reasoning that once we actually have 50 inefficiently turbocharged ninjettes with comparable setups, we'll very likely have 50 owners willing to do a lot of experimenting. Remember, the uncharged stock system isn't tuned to deliver maximum power, either.
Quote:
|
When the turbo creates pressure, you would need tons of fuel. When it's not making +pressure, all that fuel in a carb setup will cause the engine to run rich. This is primarily why EFI is required for a turbo setup. It's why you will find old carb'ed muscle cars with superchargers and not turbochargers.
|
While EFI makes (efficient) turbocharging (much) easier, it's not a requirement, see e.g.
http://www.olskoolrodz.com/forum/showthread.php?t=32873.
As a reminder, it's safe to assume that none of the problems we need to address has an obvious solution. Which is exactly what makes it so exciting! Keep in mind that our ingenuity is primarily limited by our willingness to make huge fools of ourselves and I'm willing to bet that your problem-solving abilities are actually much better than you think.
Quote:
|
I can't imagine anyone running 23psi into a 250 engine. I won't say it's not possible, but the chances of the engine surviving more than a single run wouldn't be high. You would need to lower compression to run high boost. If you can reliably make X amount of HP at 12psi and retain the stock compression ratio, that would be easier than having custom pistons made to lower the CR so you can run more boost and make the same power as X @ 12psi.
|
Very true. Of course you're talking to someone who'd have bet his bottom dollar that you can't successfully drag-race a minivan with a couple of really cheap modifications....
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by http://www.turbominivan.com/
[...]maintain a proper air/fuel ratio and you can run 25+ pounds of boost on the stock block, crank, rods, and pistons!
|
Fortunately, I don't drag-race a Z-28 and all I could have lost is all my money. Which, come to think of it is rather interesting, because I previously thought I had more money than pride. Live and learn!