TURBOs!?

[oab_au]

Blah blah blah blah

[bazza]

Blah blah blah

['E']

What a mass debate

[BackWoodsBob]

:unamused:

[bazza]

Originally Posted by oab_au

What has been shown over the years, that the turbo has been tried on the EG33, is that its the exhaust pipes that cause it to die at 5000.

The early ones used or copied a kit that was around at that time. This kit had the two engine pipes joined together then going to the turbine. This caused interference between the cylinders so that a cylinders overlap would be pressured by the exhaust pressure from the previous cylinder.

The fix was to run the two engine pipes right up to the turbine before they joined. When this was done the engine ran up the range OK.

This is the problem with turbos on a six cylinder engine, and why twin turbos are the go on sixes.

Harvey.

Incorrect - now with proof. This is an acceleration plot as I posted in the other thread. No issues whatsoever revving to 6500 rpm and pulling all the way with the stock headers. The pulses have no issue as I already knew if the system is setup right. Later the RPM limit was lifted to 6800 rpm and again no issues.

As I mentioned to Tony and what the plot shows is it's still accelerating to the rev limiter and it's increasing in it's acceleration - which is stunning considering the effects of air resistance at 100 mph start really acting on the car etc.

The stock cams are absolute rubbish for anything but a stock setup and should be upgraded as a major priority. The order or priority should be duration and lift, then buckets, valves, springs and then maybe changing the centrelines etc.

[oab_au]

Incorrect - now with proof

What proof?

The camshafts were not the only change that you did to this engine, over the first.
You also changed the connector pipe that connects the two exhaust manifolds, to the turbine, from this, short type that the early kits use, Perrin used and you copied.



You changed the connector pipes to, two longer, separate pipes, to the turbine, that Phill, Phast SVX used, I recommended, and you built for this engine.



You don’t know what you have done that has caused any change.

I’ll continue on the Camshaft thread in time, about you poor choice of cams.

Harvey.

[bazza]

Originally Posted by oab_au

What proof?

The camshafts were not the only change that you did to this engine, over the first.
You also changed the connector pipe that connects the two exhaust manifolds, to the turbine, from this, short type that the early kits use, Perrin used and you copied.



You changed the connector pipes to, two longer, separate pipes, to the turbine, that Phill, Phast SVX used, I recommended, and you built for this engine.



You don’t know what you have done that has caused any change.

I’ll continue on the Camshaft thread in time, about you poor choice of cams.

Harvey.

Someone hates being wrong. Please explain why it's a poor cam choice? Oh, your ****ty 386 computer simulation says so. So I get power from 2000 rpm to 8000 rpm - yes TERRIBLE choice. So the turbo holds nice flat boost and the Vmax is about the same with half the boost and timing - again terrible choice.

Over the last few months I've noted that the people who've followed your advice over the years have NEVER produced one decent result to date. All your theory polluting these forums for 10 years and not one single decent result to show for it. How do you explain that? It's a disgrace really given people listen to you blindly.

Your ego and arrogance is expected of course but if you check the timestamps - my version 3 headers were built well before you got on your high horse. The fact that you think I did something on your advice is embarrassing.

Now I could prove this beyond a doubt but you'd still argue and claim to be the EG33 Guru which is funny given your terrible record to date.