About Us

69Goat1 · 12-27-2009, 01:22 AM

Here is mine... switching some stuff around before spring though...

Scott M · 12-27-2009, 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmpgto

John Welters

bankbook · 12-27-2009, 08:44 PM

Heres a few.

bad69bird · 12-27-2009, 09:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scott M

I couldn't agree more Scott! Kinsler and I pitted next to him at Norwalk this past year and that car is a bad biotch!!!

Tom Vaught · 12-28-2009, 02:53 PM

These might be a bit more "Production Oriented" but still "My Engines"

http://www.gizmag.com/go/5007/picture/18451/

http://www.cleveland.com/business/in...aler_fi_1.html

http://jalopnik.com/5042696/going-in...coboost-engine

There are others but they will do for right now.

I am really looking forward to the F-150 "ECO_BOOST" engine in the F-150. The magazine guys have been driving the "Mule" vehicles for a couple of years now.

Tom Vaught

Yep, John's car is getting better every year and yes the 106mm Turbo is a big turbo.
Turbonetics has some 117mm-125mm turbos out there (20% BIGGER!)

Scott M · 12-28-2009, 10:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bad69bird

I couldn't agree more Scott! Kinsler and I pitted next to him at Norwalk this past year and that car is a bad biotch!!!

I've seen that car several times, but never with the front end removed.

If I was a turbo-bound man, that single locomotive-sized turbo would be the way
I'd go.

Seems like the smaller twin turbo deal is 2X the cost as everything is duplicated.

That twin turbo silliness is just too much complicated do-hickery and plumbing for
my low-brow simple mind to comprehend.

Tom:

What are the tradeoffs of each?

Thanks, Pops.

gtome · 12-28-2009, 11:09 PM

I would think twin turbo's would be easier to build because of the physical size of them would be smaller (easier to place), and you wouldnt have to try to run 8 pipes into a single turbo. Also with the smaller size I would think they would be able to spool a little quicker?

Tom Vaught · 12-28-2009, 11:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scott M

I've seen that car several times, but never with the front end removed.

If I was a turbo-bound man, that single locomotive-sized turbo would be the way
I'd go.

Seems like the smaller twin turbo deal is 2X the cost as everything is duplicated.

That twin turbo silliness is just too much complicated do-hickery and plumbing for
my low-brow simple mind to comprehend.

Tom:

What are the tradeoffs of each?

Thanks, Pops.

The twins would offer you a bit more maximum Turbo rpm as the larger the wheel the more tip speed trying to tear the thing apart.

The single Turbo has the higher tip speed but also has a much larger wheel which will move more air at a higher efficiency (less heat).

The twins will accelerate faster due to the smaller wheel inertia but for a drag car with a brake, how much difference is there in inertia response with the big turbo when the Turbo is already spooled up to over 2/3s of the engine speed when the car leaves.

For most racers who are not trying to set world records the Big Single makes the most sense. As long as the big single is supported well the rest of the plumbing is pretty straight forward on a front mount turbo if you can package it. A center mount deal like Welters does not affect the handling of the car much side for side if you get the exhaust pointed the right way. That means no side bias on the exhaust to move the car sideways. No fuel (methanol) blowing on the track in front of the right rear tire. Things that some people miss initially. The oil drain from the turbo going downward into the pan above the oil level. Providing for pipe connections (support bars) so that the rubber hoses do not blow off the turbo on the "money run".

Bob Rieger ran smaller (very high rpm/ High Pressure Ratio) turbos on his cars but he had the money to replace the turbos (He changed them like he changed his oil).

http://videos.streetfire.net/video/B...age_187267.htm

Travis has experience in running both a big Single Turbo car (Welters) and twin turbos (Rodney's car) so he should weight in on this discussion as I am sure that he has other thoughts I probably have missed on this post. The calibration effort may be different too.

Tom Vaught

baron_ · 12-29-2009, 01:02 AM

I've done both and had a much easier time of twin turbos.

The large turbos you can't mount to the exhaust, or a head. They have to be mounted to the frame or something hard....as they're heavy SOB's

My small turbos hang off the exhaust manifold with no issues.
I don't need flex pipes like a hard mounted turbo would need

Also, it was ridiculously tough making room for a large turbo...keeping it under the hood....

I cussed the single big turbo issues for a year before going to twins...and had the project done in a hurry

62fatcat · 12-29-2009, 01:53 PM

here is my bird- f2 procharger, and one of my ventura- dual 4 nos cheater plate system out of the car, i couldn't find one with it in.

Tom Vaught · 12-29-2009, 03:36 PM

This car used Rajay Turbos 375E-70s with Heat shields and other higher cost options.

The car was a 327 CID engine with a 1965 Mechanical Rochester Fuel Injection

I sold 2 of these Turbos to my co-worker at Holley Carburetor. I purchased 10 of them from a Guy named Larry Beasley who was the national sales manager for RAJAY at the time.

That was my first large purchase of turbos. The car was a street car but was making about 550 hp based on the turbo maps, mass flow, and pressure ratios documented.

Tom Vaught

Scott M · 12-29-2009, 06:12 PM

Man, judging by that picture, your friend Larry Weasley sure is one grade A dork.

Was he a virgin when that picture was taken?

Tom Vaught · 12-29-2009, 06:38 PM

Larry maybe was a grade A dork, I do not know.

I can tell you for a fact that the guy in the photo was far from being a virgin when that photo was taken. He did use a little grecian formula hair coloring though. His hair was grey when he was 21. LOL! Bite me plastic wood boy. (:>)

Tom Vaught