RS2 turbocharger

[QSHIPQ at aol.com]

--
[ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ]
Dave:
Not at all sure what you are saying, but if you apply the same testing
methodology to both turbochargers in your "charts" the rpm differential
doesn't change.  IOW, given the same "down/up" scenario applied to both
turbos, the 300rpm differential doesn't change, nor do the graphs themselves.
 Remember too, that the RS2 doesn't need to spin as fast as the k24 for the
same PR/cfm.  To put some perspective on the 24 v RS2 debate, take a gander
at the k27 equipped sport quattro you also "charted", you can easily see that
the 27 suffers massive amounts of lag.  3600rpm before 258lb/ft of torque in
fact.

I encourage you to look hard at the basics of turbo theory, airflow, and
compare the two turbo MAPS.  Porsche/kkk did a fantastic job on the RS2
turbocharging unit, something else is kicking the car in the gut.


Scott Justusson


In a message dated 6/12/02 6:48:54 PM Central Daylight Time,
deaton at tranzrail.co.nz writes:


i also think that it is worth pointing out that i don't believe the torque
charts that i obtained and circulated represent every-day reality.  these
came from the owners manuals for my cars.  i would make a distinction as to
how the torque figures are derived.  i believe that the numbers are obtained
while running the turbo "down", rather than up.  when you run the turbo "up"
you are taking spool-up time/latency, as you suggest, into account.  taking
spool-up time into account, there is no way, ime, that the k24 peaks at
1950rpm, for example, and no way that the rs2 performs better than the k24
at 2300rpm as the charts suggest.