Re: EGT, not relevent here - LONG

[QSHIPQ@aol.com]

In a message dated 97-11-02 16:22:15 EST, you write:

>But, forgetting numbers for a minute, isn't it at least interesting that
someone has >added a larger turbo / better IC / >better fuel system to an
audi, and at least one >person [me] who has ridden in it says it has less lag
than the RS2?  >If, as Scott >infers, the low egt's are a result of a turbo
that is too big, wouldn't the lag increase, >not decrease [over >the RS2] ? 
No,  infer and conclude, I don't jump there with you.  I can show with math
that a larger turbo CAN yield a lower egt.  I can show with the same math,
that a whole bunch of turbos, can flow more at a lower PR and higher DR, than
is what's claimed, and yield a higher egt, not "bad" for the reasons you
think. A couple of thoughts:

a)  The RS2 turbo uses a smaller hot side housing and turbine outlet than the
stock k26
b)  You say Eric's mods has less lag than an RS2.  Not all equal here.  By
math, I can PROVE (and did) that if you put a rock stock RS2 on Eric's car,
dial BACK the boost, you will have the same flow at a lower PR, hence lower
DR = faster.  You haven't given me anything but your butt calibration on the
RS2 comparo.  That other guy has the right turbo, maybe the wrong mods.
 Happy for the referral to make him faster.:)


>  I am not suggesting that these points answer all questions, but why not
have an >open mind?  I mean, could Eric be >onto something here?  Or, would
we hate to >admit it?  Testosterone comes to mind.  
"RS2 wannabe's "and "Blows into the weeds" are testosterone.  Me, I posted
math.  Give me the math so that we can believe any of those claims.  So far,
Eric has found a turbo that gives him 22psi of boost (forget the 2.8bar for
now).  22psi to a MC motor is fast.  Confirmed by your calibration, ok.  Is
it "right" or "better" or "faster".  Math and physics says "Testosterone
Claim" to the RS2 at a higher DR and lower PR.  So argue the math, NOT with
me, my attitude or my Wannabe intentions.  

 
 >On the subject of egt's, this is why the low numbers were relevant to ME.
 I have >the 89 dual-knock sensor motor, which as you know, carries a
slightly higher CR.  >High CR's scare the bejesus out of me based on my
experience with race engines--->especially when you do something which
creates a lean condition.  
> Now, I think Scott and I can agree that no matter what CR you have, you
cannot >afford to go lean, at least for very long.  Scott experienced this in
one of his 5000's, >at the cost of a piston and a engine tear-down, as I
recall.  

Ross I believe you mean sir.  I haven't had to do that yet.  IF your only
concern is EGT, then you may want to consider a couple of things.  Egt is
irrelevent to the PR and the BMEP.  Egt is the fuel mods ability to give
lambda fuel to a given amount of air.  The fuel demand is LOWER with a higher
PR, cuz by definition the DR is lower than a different turbo operating at a
higher DR, see Turbos at Altitude posts - Archives.  Think of it as pounds of
air instead of Ratio, Bruce.  My conclusion?  I see egt's as an indicator,
that WHATEVER the DR is, the fuel is not a problem, nor should it be at
2.79PR.  Flow AND Density is low> Amount of Fuel needed is LOW.
 Specifically,  assume Eric to lower the PR and increase the DR (dials BACK
the boost and installs the RS2, FI), he will need more fuel than he needs
now.  So that calibration means more to you than I, sir.  Lean is exactly
what you DON"T have here by definition.  The math says we should EXPECT what
you saw.  

A couple more thoughts for you to ponder:
*  A stage II (Ned Ritchie) MC "mod" is quite cabable of 2.5bar PR (21.75psi
corrected).  A search of the archives can show Eric got it, so have I
(claim), so did Ross, a few others, and Ned Ritchie knew it, his comment,
 "That's too much"  (insert excited stutter:).  Certainly to a stock K26
turbo, yes, and a claim I've made already.   NOT a stock WG spring, and NOT a
2.5bar PT.  Hence, voltage from the stock 2.0bar PT divided.  This is nothing
new to anyone with a calibrated boost (something other than the dash) guage
either.

*  Another interesting turbocharger tidbit:
Increasing the speed of a given turbocharger does NOT increase it's flow,
ONLY the PR.  - Fact

Changing the argument to EGT, to me is irrelevent to the numbers and
conclusions drawn Bruce.  It has relevence, not all as you presented however.

Another ponder:  If not for the efforts of the very QLCC folks here Eric
belittled in his original "claim" post to Scott M, I find it ironic that
S.O.c's claims could not be made.  If not for the efforts of the
Chipindippindude, and others, the 2.5bar PT wouldn't even be bantered around.
 I spoke to Ned about doing one for 4.5 years now, and it took the LCC to
finally get it to happen.  So, I for one, take offense from the get go at the
pompousness of the claimants post to Scott Mockry, so excuse my ego inserts
along the way.  Really a slap in the face to all of us that were nerding on
the idea off list, to make all of us go faster.  Testosterone?  Please, that
has no valid math in it.   And now the list is full of "idiots"?  Maybe for
taking the time to understand what is "claimed".  My apologies to all.  

So, instead of giving the S.O.c the finger outright, this Mr. Turbo dude
decided that the list needed some baseline education on turbocharger theory
and combustion engine formulas (insert potential COI) keeping the "sale" out
of the whole issue..  The nicest way I could think of to put the "claimant"
in the hot seat for his exact claims.  Correct it?  For that I get paid,
higher potential COI.  Interesting the conclusion, and it doesn't change all
along: wrong turbo.  Well, wrong couple other things as well, but the turbo
part is KISS (keep it simple stupid) in application.  My formulas and inputs
spued, VE % (not judged or agreed, just happy to plug and play) replugged by
request.  Conclusion:  Same, wrong turbo.  Fast?  No calibration to that, but
22psi (2.5bar, don't even have to accept 2.8bar - I don't btw) on a turbo
makes a audi turbo fast (easy math), you and Randall calibrated.  Faster than
RS2 Wannabes?  Well, hang on a second, that claim cannot be justified by the
math.  

There are no posts objecting to the math, mine or Dave's.  So, no muddying of
the waters there.  Change the numbers, hey we're both game, give 'em up,
happy to plug and play.  Right now, with ALL the posts,  we can draw one of 3
conclusions:  1) same flow can be had at a lower PR and higher DR, 2) the
mods are not correct, or 3) the claim is not correct.  I can mathmatically
PROVE 1) based on 2.79PR, so that leaves 2 or 3.  Eric, Randall, Bruce, YOU
TELL ME.  I just did 1 above.  So far, all the ass calibration and "what
if's" and I "ass calibrated the RS2" don't change 1, 2 or 3.  Sorry to each
of you, and to the list for wasting bandwidth trying to get the
understanding.  EGT?  Irrelevent to the Claim or Conclusions 1,2 or 3.

I have been most accomodating of claims and exceptions to all combustion
concepts.  A return of that favour appreciated.  Discussing EGT, is really
pretty advanced for this discussion, irrelevent, and frankly Bruce, I don't
think you have a firm grasp on it's implications to a turbocharged motor.
 Again, not to judge, only some ponderance of the evidence for you. 

Scott