Re: 5ktq Mods - Math vs Claims - long

["Lawson, Dave" <dlawson@ball.com>]

In the interest of advancing the frontiers of audi performance science,
let me
take my turn stirring the pot, where is that spoon.....

Eric writes...
>
since you lack first hand experience with both of the test cars (Oh did
I 
mention that this is on TWO Cars soon to be Three? Didn't think 
so.......)  Everything that you present here is simply a.........  CLAIM
>

Don't be too short sighted here, there are more that 2(3) ECUs fitted
with
with that MPX4250 (close enough, my data sheet is at home).

>
Scott,  Until you have actual experience with something you should 
remember that anything that you say about it is an unfounded claim, Ones

that we can do without.
>

And I guess the same goes for the source, until some real numbers are
posted
from a suitable performance monitoring device, it's just a claim.


And Randall writes...

>Much paraphrased/plagiarized text snipped.

Let me get this straight, performing a numerical analysis with
algorithms which
have been used for decades in quantifying turbocharged engine
performance is 
considered plagiarism? Somehow I don't quite believe this....

>
Have you seen the IC? 
Then how do you know what it is?  Just because you can post up numbers
ion equations that I know that I have recently seen does not make what
you say correct.  The formulas are, but your assumptions are way off and
you have assumed everything(since you know nothing of the actual mods). 
>

As Graydon has mentioned, I too would also like to know more details
about the latest execution of Eric's ride. Tell us more about the IC,
since
the claims are so wrong for this heat exchanger, and there are only 3 
basic states and you have ruled out gas, solid doesn't seem quite right,
so which liquid cooling medium is used?
 
>
I guarantee that Eric will not sell
said parts unless it is to go on my car and then it won't be for
profit.
>

Since Eric is not in the business to sell "said parts", lets quit
stroking
our wookies and table some details so those of us who actually perform
numerical analysis on proposed modifications can get the spreadsheets
calculatin'.




Orin then adds some details about wastegate control execution...

>
Only if the top if the wastegate is at atmospheric (and then it would
depend on altitude).  If the chip were to flip the wastegate solenoid
over such that manifold pressure is on top as well as the bottom of
the wastegate, the spring becomes irrelevant... you could then
wait for boost to rise before doing the normal control of the
frequency valve - switching back and forth between manifold pressure
and pre-turbo (slight vacuum).
>

Using the stock wastegate spring which is set for 0.3-0.4 bar boost and
maxing out the WGFV duty cycle doesn't quite get to 1.7 bar boost. The 
stock WGFV can't flow that much volume, typical is 0.2 bar. So, may be
a different WGFV is being used, maybe the HK$ EVC, but then it isn't
under the control of the ECU. But it does look like it would work OK. Or
maybe
the turbo is just pushing so much air, that with the WG fully open, it
still 
generates 16 psi boost... If that's the case it doesn't sound like the
primary
safety feature of the turbo eng is performing it's job and there is a
serious 
mismatch of components. The possibilities are endless, and I'm just
trying
to describe a physical setup which would perform as Eric describes, but
only he for sure can tell us what mechanism is being employed to produce
the said results. 


Well, that's all I can add, I'm just looking for more info than that of
some of 
the claims being batted about.

I pass the spoon into the next hand of the relay performance squad...
-
Dave Lawson