turbo and nitrous

[miamieclipse]

oh ya....nos is stupid, blows motors up, def dont waste ur money on that...

Please disregard this if it was sarcastic comment: Hey ignorant ####: 1) It is not NOS it is Nitrous, NOS is a company that sells nitrous kits. 2) Nitrous does not blow engines up, stupid people do & that is why it has gotten a bad reputation...DUMB ####!

Now if you were being sarcastic please disregard that comment above.

PS Your friend got ripped on his turbo kit; I could get a: turbonetic manifold with a t3 turbo, a turbo back exhaust, a nice bov, mbc, fmic, all the ic piping, fuel pump, injectors, and forged pistons & rods done for the same price your friend paid for his entire turbo kit.

 

[GSGoinFast]

i wonder, if you used laughfing gas wounld it give you more hp then automotive n20? I would think it would because its stronger i guess u could say, but i have no experence with it is i have no idea.

nope it isnt, the 100 ppm sulfer has no effect on performance

my buddy put a turbo kit on his 98 eclipse, it was a bad investment in his part, he bought a star turbo kit, stage 2 with the fmic, he is only able to run about 7 pounds of boost, and he still gets fuel cut, its not worth it, so go from there....$3199.00

If u were get injectors....that will run u about 350
Then u get a fuel pump....thats about 80 bucks

Now you can run more boost, wow how much more like 12-13.....ya now u have stock internals....

Pistons....500
Rods....300

not to mention installation charges....

so u do the math, if u want to spend all that money on a turbo kit when ur going to have to all the other work after, and oh ya....nos is stupid, blows motors up, def dont waste ur money on that...

wow... ok 7psi is a nice gain, put us near or over the stock turbo model crank hp. after fuel upgrades, he could run 10 psi, not 12-13 on our stock internals. but that is more power then 10psi on a turbo car, higher compression. but thats not really what the threads about.

now, your last paragraph made you look retarded, with a little help from mike it made you look more retarded.

NOSS doesnt blow motors up, if blows welds on intakes... pff shows how much you know

 

[InjenTalon96]

i was just making a point that all that money ur dumping into a 420a u could just buy a turbo eclipse or talon, i had a talon and i wanted to do all that shit so i just got a gst

 

[rarson]

i was just making a point that all that money ur dumping into a 420a u could just buy a turbo eclipse or talon, i had a talon and i wanted to do all that shit so i just got a gst

Well, luckily (for the 420A crowd), some people have more ingenuity than you.

Nitrous comes on instantly and build cylinder pressure very quickly (well instantly for that purpose) which is hard on engine parts as they go from handeling 150hp to 225hp after your 75hp shot kicks in. On a turbo car is happens gradually as the turbo spool up, that slight delay in time makes it a lot more mechanical part friendly. That being said any stock engine can take 50-75hp shot of nitrous (dry or wet) genearlly with no problems. Must like non-turbo engines can have 6-7psi of boost stock with no problems.

I have to say I disagree. Most of the stress on engine parts comes from inertia. Thus the faster you spin the engine, the more you stress it (which is why the guys trying to push the limits of stock rods always end up breaking at a high rpm). If you're making 250 hp at 3500 rpm or you're making 250 hp at 7500 rpm, the stress is going to be higher at 7500 guarenteed. Now, I will agree that spraying at low rpm is ill-advised, but that's not stress-related, that's due to the fact that the engine is more likely to knock at lower rpms.

Most of the engine failures I've seen exhibited some signs of ductile failure. The more ductile a metal is, the lower it's hardness, and the less brittle it is. Thus, the lower it's potential for brittle fracture. I would think the force applied "suddenly" by activating nitrous would lead to brittle fracture, but maybe my thinking is off. I don't think with ductile metal that the suddeness of the force would have an effect, just the magnitude of the force. Might be worth a discussion.

Just so everybody is on the same page here is a quick run down. Engines need fuel and air to run. HP comes from burning gasoline no other way, period. If you burn more gasoline you make more HP.

Technically yes, but I'd like to clarify. BURNING more gas WILL make horsepower. Throwing more fuel at an engine without adding more air will, in most cases, make less horsepower, provided the previous a/f ratio was already at an acceptable level. Most of the gas we add to make our cars a little richer than stoic is to suppress detonation, not to burn; you'd get the same affect by replacing that gas with water. Jim, I know you said "Engines need fuel and air to run" so I'm not trying to say you're wrong, I'm just emphasizing the air part. Some people might read that and think somehow they can get more horsepower out of bigger injectors (why do I always see this as a listed mod on N/A engines?).

 

[aliczander]

i was just making a point that all that money ur dumping into a 420a u could just buy a turbo eclipse or talon, i had a talon and i wanted to do all that shit so i just got a gst

turboing, or running n2o a 420a isnt about wanting a gst or a gsx or a tsi, its about wanting to make your car fast. all you people who keep saying u should just buy a gst or a gsx and save your money, you people really piss me off.... if i wanted a gst or a tsi i would have bought one, so leave it alone allready, the 420a is a good motor, so like i said just leave it alone, every one has there reasons for what they got

 

[GSGoinFast]

I have to say I disagree. Most of the stress on engine parts comes from inertia. Thus the faster you spin the engine, the more you stress it (which is why the guys trying to push the limits of stock rods always end up breaking at a high rpm). If you're making 250 hp at 3500 rpm or you're making 250 hp at 7500 rpm, the stress is going to be higher at 7500 guarenteed. Now, I will agree that spraying at low rpm is ill-advised, but that's not stress-related, that's due to the fact that the engine is more likely to knock at lower rpms.

Most of the engine failures I've seen exhibited some signs of ductile failure. The more ductile a metal is, the lower it's hardness, and the less brittle it is. Thus, the lower it's potential for brittle fracture. I would think the force applied "suddenly" by activating nitrous would lead to brittle fracture, but maybe my thinking is off. I don't think with ductile metal that the suddeness of the force would have an effect, just the magnitude of the force. Might be worth a discussion.

think, if your pistons are pushing 250hp on the crank at 7500 rpms, because the rpms are higher the car is accellerating faster, and that power gets pushed into a crank that is already going fast and is easily accellerated due to gearing in the transmission. now those 250 horses pushing on a crank at 3500 rpms, that crank cant accelerate as fast because of the gearing of the tranny, and that pressure is smashed against a crank that cant accelerate as fast as possible with that power. the power then puts enourmous stress on the internals. thats a reason why you dont spray when at low rpms. high cylinder pressures creating a lot of power that cant go anywhere. the main danger of nitrous over turbo is the nitrous pounds all that power at once while the turbo eases into it like Jim said. people break rods at high rpms because thats when the most power is made, and its the high power the rods cant take.

 

[rarson]

It has nothing to do with how fast you're accelerating the engine. That's like saying a heavier flywheel "stores" more power at the top end of a run. What!? No it doesn't, because the flywheel is constantly accelerating. You can't just interchange potential and kinetic energy.

You don't agree that stress will always be higher at higher rpms for the same power? Then go tell Corky Bell to rewrite his book. Go tell everyone that the laws of physics are screwed up, and that inertia doesn't really exist. Can you imagine what kind of stress is placed on engine parts, just by spinning them at 7500 rotations per minute (just ignoring the explosion thing for a minute)? Think of how fast the piston is moving up an down, with the engine speed being constantly 7500 rpm. Now think of the weight of all those parts and what kind of "opposite and equal" force is going to be placed on the rods, by making that piston reverse travel that quickly with that much force. That is why rods usually break at high rpms.

I believe Corky says something like 70% of the stress on your average engine is caused by intertia. And surprisingly, doubling horsepower DOESN'T double peak cylinder pressure, it's more like a gain of 30%. But don't quote me on those numbers, it's been a couple years since I read the book. If you have to know, go look it up yourself, Maximum Boost by Corky Bell.

 

[DSMJim]

The point of what I was talking about is a turbocharged engine has a lot less cylinder pressure to create the same amount of HP vs a nitrous engine. There is no debating this, this is a fact. For this reason piston companies when making pistons for a car will move the rings farther down and make the skirts thicker if the car is running nitrous. Why? Because it creates more cylinder pressure and is far more abusive to pistons. Turbo engines are just not that hard on pistons after all is said and done.

Many engines using our pistons make quite a bit more horsepower than this particular one without issue. The difference is they have done so in a more linear fashion. Hitting the nitrous adds an huge instantaneous spike in cylinder pressure and therefore torque. When the piston is at tdc and the rod is directly over the crank, only two things can happen, the cylinder head lifts and all the pressure is applied into the skirt of the piston skirt. Retarding the timing helps the problem by delaying max cylinder pressure until there is an angle between the piston and the crank. Unfortunately with nitrous, the factory computer can not pull it out quickly enough if the nitrous is activated anywhere around torque peak. As such, I wouldn't be suprised if this particular engine saw loads of 250 ft lbs one millisecond and 800 ft/lbs the next millisecond with as much boost as was being run here. Basically an Gorilla standing on the skirt of our piston.

So the particular customer has a few options. He can choose to slow down by getting rid of the nitrous, but that's un-American. He can retard the timing with a auxillary nitrous retard and that will help. He can also order some custom pistons that we make especially thick. These pistons will be quite a bit heavier, but that's what mother nature demands in this case.

I'll work with customer to see what can be done. -Brian Nutter-Wiseco Piston Co.

Hope that helps...

 

[GSGoinFast]

It has nothing to do with how fast you're accelerating the engine. That's like saying a heavier flywheel "stores" more power at the top end of a run. What!? No it doesn't, because the flywheel is constantly accelerating. You can't just interchange potential and kinetic energy.

You don't agree that stress will always be higher at higher rpms for the same power? Then go tell Corky Bell to rewrite his book. Go tell everyone that the laws of physics are screwed up, and that inertia doesn't really exist. Can you imagine what kind of stress is placed on engine parts, just by spinning them at 7500 rotations per minute (just ignoring the explosion thing for a minute)? Think of how fast the piston is moving up an down, with the engine speed being constantly 7500 rpm. Now think of the weight of all those parts and what kind of "opposite and equal" force is going to be placed on the rods, by making that piston reverse travel that quickly with that much force. That is why rods usually break at high rpms.

I believe Corky says something like 70% of the stress on your average engine is caused by intertia. And surprisingly, doubling horsepower DOESN'T double peak cylinder pressure, it's more like a gain of 30%. But don't quote me on those numbers, it's been a couple years since I read the book. If you have to know, go look it up yourself, Maximum Boost by Corky Bell.

so your telling me that in 3rd gear at 2000 rpms, the crank is accelerating at the same speed as it does at 6000rpms? i didnt mention anything about a flywheel so i dont get where your coming from there. ive read Maximum Boost, and its sitting in my room. when i get home from school ill see what it says.