Does altitude affect Turbo vehicles VS N/A vehicles debate.
05-30-2002, 12:52 PM
#51
AudiWorld Super User
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 11,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ignorance is bliss in your case.
I don't want to hear about dynos which you witnessed... I want to hear about dynos you were INVOLVED IN... NONE! Get a clue: you don't know what you're talking about. You have ZERO experience. You have ZILCH for know-how. I can't explain that to you... you'll find out by getting owned in every other aspect of motorsports.
Turbonetics supply the turbos for world-record cars... they don't build, tune, or drive them. BIG DIFFERENCE! They are the same people that think by changing the compressor side of a KO-3 they will gain longevity (by keeping the brittle KO-3 shaft... what kind of logic is that?). Those guys are good at selling quality turbos, but aren't focused in on applications (other than knowing how to read compressor maps). Tell me Kesler: have you ever been to a Turbonetics siminar on reading compressor maps? Didn't even consider so...
Like I said before: get back on the fence where you belong and let the guys who actually know a little something about cars participate in the discussion. I'm still green in when it comes to this stuff, but you're just a drooling infant lost in a galaxy of info.
Turbonetics supply the turbos for world-record cars... they don't build, tune, or drive them. BIG DIFFERENCE! They are the same people that think by changing the compressor side of a KO-3 they will gain longevity (by keeping the brittle KO-3 shaft... what kind of logic is that?). Those guys are good at selling quality turbos, but aren't focused in on applications (other than knowing how to read compressor maps). Tell me Kesler: have you ever been to a Turbonetics siminar on reading compressor maps? Didn't even consider so...
Like I said before: get back on the fence where you belong and let the guys who actually know a little something about cars participate in the discussion. I'm still green in when it comes to this stuff, but you're just a drooling infant lost in a galaxy of info.
05-30-2002, 12:58 PM
#52
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 6,556
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pat, are you saying that turbos cannot altitude compensate?
Because if you are, I'm sorry to say that you're wrong. Ever wonder how turboprop planes don't fall out of the sky? Altitude compansation.
If you'd like, I can get you some links which discuss it in detail, but trust me, they do compensate if set up properly.
If you'd like, I can get you some links which discuss it in detail, but trust me, they do compensate if set up properly.
05-30-2002, 01:02 PM
#53
Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 2,209
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You'd figure with your vast knowledge, this debate would be over quickly.
The majority of the people who have replied to this post all agree on the fact that turbos are more immune to altitude than NA cars. Yet you argue that the lost of horsepower is the same.
So a company that makes turbos, but doesnt know how to tune them? LOL sounds pretty pathetic doesnt it? Let me ask you this, would you want to buy a turbo from a company that makes turbos but doesnt know how to tune them? If they cant tune them, how can the turbo be any good? What about design concept. If they cant tune the turbos, how can they design a better one?
So from your perspective Turbonetics is nothing more than a turbo supplier? Im sure they would love to chime in if they can.
Ask yourself this, who are you going to believe? A world reknowned company or a kid who has tuned a few cars and been to a few seminars? Sounds like someone is bringing a knife to a gun fight buddy.
So a company that makes turbos, but doesnt know how to tune them? LOL sounds pretty pathetic doesnt it? Let me ask you this, would you want to buy a turbo from a company that makes turbos but doesnt know how to tune them? If they cant tune them, how can the turbo be any good? What about design concept. If they cant tune the turbos, how can they design a better one?
So from your perspective Turbonetics is nothing more than a turbo supplier? Im sure they would love to chime in if they can.
Ask yourself this, who are you going to believe? A world reknowned company or a kid who has tuned a few cars and been to a few seminars? Sounds like someone is bringing a knife to a gun fight buddy.
05-30-2002, 01:17 PM
#54
AudiWorld Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 1,142
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What is "thin air", air that is less dense, dense it what you ask, 02
however, even if the air is thinner, meaning per cubic inch it contains less O2 molecules, the air still can be compressed. Therefore, you still, will pack more Air into the chamber (rigid container) ... as, compared to a N/A engine which does not have this packing mechanism, you still will get more O2 into each firing of turboed engine as compared to the same N/A engine bretheren.
So, that leaves question, given the N/A and turbo will both be handicapped by less O2 dense air of higher altitudes, how much of a hit will each engine type take?
The only possible why to scientifically test this debate is to take two identical engines, save one of these engines has added turbo charger. And then measure the energy output of the combustion reaction at sea level, then move say 500ft above sea level and measure the energy output of the combustion reaction at that level, then go to 1000ft repeat, etc ...
Plot a graph of our energy outputs, for each engine, if the two lines are virtually parallel then each engine takes the same amount of hit. If they diverge, converge, intersect, etc ... then obviously one engine takes less of hit then the other, which one is all dependent, since we haven't done the experiment.
Mind you this experiment will only work with two identical engines, ie ... they have the same volume chamber, the same cylinders, etc .... the only allowable difference is one has a turbo charger.
This is the only controlled experimental and scientific way to put this argument to rest.
So, that leaves question, given the N/A and turbo will both be handicapped by less O2 dense air of higher altitudes, how much of a hit will each engine type take?
The only possible why to scientifically test this debate is to take two identical engines, save one of these engines has added turbo charger. And then measure the energy output of the combustion reaction at sea level, then move say 500ft above sea level and measure the energy output of the combustion reaction at that level, then go to 1000ft repeat, etc ...
Plot a graph of our energy outputs, for each engine, if the two lines are virtually parallel then each engine takes the same amount of hit. If they diverge, converge, intersect, etc ... then obviously one engine takes less of hit then the other, which one is all dependent, since we haven't done the experiment.
Mind you this experiment will only work with two identical engines, ie ... they have the same volume chamber, the same cylinders, etc .... the only allowable difference is one has a turbo charger.
This is the only controlled experimental and scientific way to put this argument to rest.
05-30-2002, 01:25 PM
#55
AudiWorld Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 1,142
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Added boost componsates for lower O2 levels because ...
The more boost you have the greater the pressure on the piston compressing the fuel/air mixture. Therefore the smaller the volume you've compressed the fuel/air mixture the cylinder, aer go the more violent the explosion when you light the fuel/air mixture in the cylinder. Obviously, in "thinner air", you've got to provide more boost to condense the volume of the gas/air mixture into the optimal firing state.
05-30-2002, 01:28 PM
#56
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 6,556
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All I can say is...
...every book and webpage I've ever read on this subject states emphatically that turbochargers can be set up such that they do not suffer any horsepower loss at high altitudes...as Eric Fletcher would say: "I suggest you read Corky Bell's book, "Maximum Boost""! ;-)
Anyway, unless everything I've read on the subject thus far was written by morons who didn't have a clue what they're talking about, turbos can and do compensate for altitude, provided that they're allowed to produce sufficient boost to overcome the altitude.
Anyway, unless everything I've read on the subject thus far was written by morons who didn't have a clue what they're talking about, turbos can and do compensate for altitude, provided that they're allowed to produce sufficient boost to overcome the altitude.
05-30-2002, 01:54 PM
#57
Member
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 3,341
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
They do compensate, by increasing boost - however, in a car
where the turbo's are near maximum capabilities at sea level, they will have little, if any compensation 'buffer' room. When the turbo cars for pike peaks races are built, they will run X pressure at sea level, which may only be 75% of the turbos capability, and can increase the turbos boost pressure to 95% as the altitude increases - but if they were to be tuned to 95% at sea level, going into that altitude, they would a) have very very little room to increase boost, b) overspin their turbo... For cars like ours, or Supra's running a lot of boost - you're going to see quite a drop in power...
Proof positive is how our cars will 'cut' boost in the cold weather, to try to keep the power the same, but as soon as it gets very warm - you don't see it increasing boost pressure enough to make it run similar to how it did in the cool weather... I'm not sure that boost pressure is increased much from say, 60 degrees on up. Same kind of theory - warm(thin) air, vs. cold(heavy) air...
Proof positive is how our cars will 'cut' boost in the cold weather, to try to keep the power the same, but as soon as it gets very warm - you don't see it increasing boost pressure enough to make it run similar to how it did in the cool weather... I'm not sure that boost pressure is increased much from say, 60 degrees on up. Same kind of theory - warm(thin) air, vs. cold(heavy) air...
05-30-2002, 03:58 PM
#59
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 6,556
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yup. That's what I meant by "set up properly"...
...and I also mentioned what you're discussing in my first post in this thread (below): if they haven't got enough reserve boost designed into it, it'll still lose power. I honestly don't know if the S4 has the capability to generate the full 250 HP at, say, 5000 ft. above sea level, but from what people have said, it's probably generating most of it, if not all...
For some reason, I thought the argument was that turbos don't compensate for altitude, period...I guess I could've read more posts in it, but dammit, I'm lazy today! ;-)<ul><li><a href="https://forums.audiworld.com/s4/msgs/831152.phtml">https://forums.audiworld.com/s4/msgs/831152.phtml</a</li></ul>
For some reason, I thought the argument was that turbos don't compensate for altitude, period...I guess I could've read more posts in it, but dammit, I'm lazy today! ;-)<ul><li><a href="https://forums.audiworld.com/s4/msgs/831152.phtml">https://forums.audiworld.com/s4/msgs/831152.phtml</a</li></ul>