Quote:
Originally Posted by BabyDiesel
Ty, Russell is correct, you know you are already bitten. You've been on here and TeamZX2 more in the past week than in the last year! 
The only issues I have with going turbo is the cost of all the parts, the need for a rebuild, and not having access to machinery to get the job done. Only 3 reasons, but 3 very big reasons!
Also, IIRC me and Russell were discussing this via PM. If I went with 2-3 psi, 250* IAT and 35:1 AFR, the software said that I would be around 64.9 mpg at speed. That seems mighty low, especially when Donkey CRX and OG VX are getting over 100 mpg @ 50 mph with no turbo. Buuuttt, I don't think his software took into consideration RE92's RRC, sub-0.20 Cd aerodynamics, weight reduction, etc. So it is really a toss up  |
When I ran the numbers it was based on a stock car (stock aero,tires etc) without other mods.
What the turbo does is it expands the
efficient lean burn window.
A good example of this is going up a slight incline in a N/A engine. The engine will be in lean burn but won't produce enough power to keep a steady speed. The BSFC numbers crash and the car actually uses more fuel even though its in lean burn. So in this case the BSFC numbers would go from .45 to .55 BSFC.
With a turbo engine and lean burn with the same incline the BSFC stay closer to .45 and the results are less fuel for the same incline used. The turbo engine has a advantage by using a higher air pressure before the intake valve that creates more swirl and tumble and mixes better with the fuel. The turbo also keeps combustion temps down by the extra air thats added.
The expense of the turbo alone is a high cost, plus I wouldn't go turbo without running a management system that you can change the fuel and ignition tables and control open loop enable. So you have another expense.
