[Christ]

Originally Posted by pgfpro

I did I'm still trying to put a whole write pic deal together.



I have a copy of "Internal Combustion Engine Fundamentals" by John Heywood. I use it as a guide, but I wish there were more on lean burn engines. So I might have to get his SAE papers also.

Your right I have done something different then what the status quo is by running a lower compression engine. I have to thank you for the final help on my project by advising me that the turbo is producing more heat and pressure at cruise speed and how it will help with the fuel itself. This is a must needed part of the equation when running a low compression engine.

The turbo is a single T3 undivided turbine inlet. I might have made a big mistake by going to a larger frame turbo. I had a friend do some testing with the same engine with this turbo and the results were good. My reasons for messing with a perfectly good combination is I want to make over 450whp while being able to drive down the road with no hypermiling skills and get over 80MPG and have a driving range of 800 miles. This turbo will get me the performance I need to walk away from any stock ZO1 Corvette or Tesla with a long range ability. I cant help it. Its the performance side of me I get tired of people saying you can't have performance and fuel mileage in one package. You must take one road or the other. Thats BS you just need to make your own road.

The bold part - That's the part that determines why I say things like "dynamic compression" rather than static. There's a big difference, and to me, static compression means not a damn thing, because you can build engines with huge static compression numbers (or, in your case, smaller compression numbers) that don't act anything like "the book" says "they should".

Of course, having read anything by Widmer, you're already aware of that.