trash talkers
5th Gear Member
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,451
From: United States
RE: trash talkers
The point behind using two smaller turbos of the same size rather than one big one is that way you can have good low & high rpm power. Say on an inline 8 (just for imagination purposes) for example you have one turbo that flows say 500cfm that would reach full boost at 4000rpm. Then in a different setup you use two smaller turbos that flow 250 cfm a piece. At low rpm you route all 8 cylinders into one small turbo so boost comes at low rpm, then as you aproach 3500rpm it starts to gate some into the 2nd turbo, then at 4000rpm the 2nd turbo is spooled aswell.
It's the same concept as having a single turbo setup that flows 250cfm, of course you're going to reach full boost on a setup like that at around 2000rpm in this scenario, then at 4k a 2nd one kicks in so both act together & it behaves like a bigger turbo so it still has high end efficiency.
The reason they did it on the cars they did is the cars equipped with a sequential setup generally tend to be engines that can turn very high rpm. The inline 6 for example is a perfectly balanced bottom end & has a valvetrain that can keepup for quite a bit therefore it can turn high rpm. If you can turn say 7500 rpm max you don't want a big turbo like 4500-7500rpm efficiency range, in that case youre car would be slow below 4500rpm. Likewise you dont' want a turbo that works best at 3000-6000rpm then you run out of steam above 6krpm so your last 1500rpm is kinda useless. So you make a setup that can give you a good efficiency from say 3k to 7.5k (that's pretty hard to do with a single turbo)
With the rotary engine you have an engine that can turn ALOT of rpm, but the rotary doesn't have very much power at low rpm so it helps to have some way of producing boost at lower rpms.
Btw, the rx-7 turbo's are the same, both have the same impeller & turbine & both have the same size exhaust & compressor housing. Same goes for supras, they are both identical in size in both the impeller, turbine, & both the compressor & exhaust housing
There was no twin turbo rb25. The only turbo one was the rb25det. The twin turbo was the rb26dett & it used two gt25's which were identical, but it wasn't ran in a sequential setup, the rear 3 exhaust powered the rear turbo & front 3 powered the front 3.
It's the same concept as having a single turbo setup that flows 250cfm, of course you're going to reach full boost on a setup like that at around 2000rpm in this scenario, then at 4k a 2nd one kicks in so both act together & it behaves like a bigger turbo so it still has high end efficiency.
The reason they did it on the cars they did is the cars equipped with a sequential setup generally tend to be engines that can turn very high rpm. The inline 6 for example is a perfectly balanced bottom end & has a valvetrain that can keepup for quite a bit therefore it can turn high rpm. If you can turn say 7500 rpm max you don't want a big turbo like 4500-7500rpm efficiency range, in that case youre car would be slow below 4500rpm. Likewise you dont' want a turbo that works best at 3000-6000rpm then you run out of steam above 6krpm so your last 1500rpm is kinda useless. So you make a setup that can give you a good efficiency from say 3k to 7.5k (that's pretty hard to do with a single turbo)
With the rotary engine you have an engine that can turn ALOT of rpm, but the rotary doesn't have very much power at low rpm so it helps to have some way of producing boost at lower rpms.
Btw, the rx-7 turbo's are the same, both have the same impeller & turbine & both have the same size exhaust & compressor housing. Same goes for supras, they are both identical in size in both the impeller, turbine, & both the compressor & exhaust housing
There was no twin turbo rb25. The only turbo one was the rb25det. The twin turbo was the rb26dett & it used two gt25's which were identical, but it wasn't ran in a sequential setup, the rear 3 exhaust powered the rear turbo & front 3 powered the front 3.
4th Gear Member
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,447
From: Charlottesville, VA
RE: trash talkers
ORIGINAL: FoxGT
The point behind using two smaller turbos of the same size rather than one big one is that way you can have good low & high rpm power. Say on an inline 8 (just for imagination purposes) for example you have one turbo that flows say 500cfm that would reach full boost at 4000rpm. Then in a different setup you use two smaller turbos that flow 250 cfm a piece. At low rpm you route all 8 cylinders into one small turbo so boost comes at low rpm, then as you aproach 3500rpm it starts to gate some into the 2nd turbo, then at 4000rpm the 2nd turbo is spooled aswell.
It's the same concept as having a single turbo setup that flows 250cfm, of course you're going to reach full boost on a setup like that at around 2000rpm in this scenario, then at 4k a 2nd one kicks in so both act together & it behaves like a bigger turbo so it still has high end efficiency.
The reason they did it on the cars they did is the cars equipped with a sequential setup generally tend to be engines that can turn very high rpm. The inline 6 for example is a perfectly balanced bottom end & has a valvetrain that can keepup for quite a bit therefore it can turn high rpm. If you can turn say 7500 rpm max you don't want a big turbo like 4500-7500rpm efficiency range, in that case youre car would be slow below 4500rpm. Likewise you dont' want a turbo that works best at 3000-6000rpm then you run out of steam above 6krpm so your last 1500rpm is kinda useless. So you make a setup that can give you a good efficiency from say 3k to 7.5k (that's pretty hard to do with a single turbo)
With the rotary engine you have an engine that can turn ALOT of rpm, but the rotary doesn't have very much power at low rpm so it helps to have some way of producing boost at lower rpms.
Btw, the rx-7 turbo's are the same, both have the same impeller & turbine & both have the same size exhaust & compressor housing. Same goes for supras, they are both identical in size in both the impeller, turbine, & both the compressor & exhaust housing
There was no twin turbo rb25. The only turbo one was the rb25det. The twin turbo was the rb26dett & it used two gt25's which were identical, but it wasn't ran in a sequential setup, the rear 3 exhaust powered the rear turbo & front 3 powered the front 3.
The point behind using two smaller turbos of the same size rather than one big one is that way you can have good low & high rpm power. Say on an inline 8 (just for imagination purposes) for example you have one turbo that flows say 500cfm that would reach full boost at 4000rpm. Then in a different setup you use two smaller turbos that flow 250 cfm a piece. At low rpm you route all 8 cylinders into one small turbo so boost comes at low rpm, then as you aproach 3500rpm it starts to gate some into the 2nd turbo, then at 4000rpm the 2nd turbo is spooled aswell.
It's the same concept as having a single turbo setup that flows 250cfm, of course you're going to reach full boost on a setup like that at around 2000rpm in this scenario, then at 4k a 2nd one kicks in so both act together & it behaves like a bigger turbo so it still has high end efficiency.
The reason they did it on the cars they did is the cars equipped with a sequential setup generally tend to be engines that can turn very high rpm. The inline 6 for example is a perfectly balanced bottom end & has a valvetrain that can keepup for quite a bit therefore it can turn high rpm. If you can turn say 7500 rpm max you don't want a big turbo like 4500-7500rpm efficiency range, in that case youre car would be slow below 4500rpm. Likewise you dont' want a turbo that works best at 3000-6000rpm then you run out of steam above 6krpm so your last 1500rpm is kinda useless. So you make a setup that can give you a good efficiency from say 3k to 7.5k (that's pretty hard to do with a single turbo)
With the rotary engine you have an engine that can turn ALOT of rpm, but the rotary doesn't have very much power at low rpm so it helps to have some way of producing boost at lower rpms.
Btw, the rx-7 turbo's are the same, both have the same impeller & turbine & both have the same size exhaust & compressor housing. Same goes for supras, they are both identical in size in both the impeller, turbine, & both the compressor & exhaust housing
There was no twin turbo rb25. The only turbo one was the rb25det. The twin turbo was the rb26dett & it used two gt25's which were identical, but it wasn't ran in a sequential setup, the rear 3 exhaust powered the rear turbo & front 3 powered the front 3.
Though I suppose I was talking about, specific to what I said about the size of the turbo's, was to have one small, one perhaps a little larger in a sequential set up. I suppose you could look at it as a different way to achieve the same effect you describe in routing all 8 cylinders through one turbo low in the rpm band, then shunting to the second higher in the band so both units act like a single, larger turbo. You could have the same effect routing all 8 through one turbo, or in the rotary's case, all four, then shunt to the larger unit higher in the rpm band. It'd be a little tricky to control the shunt point, and it would probably take some trial & error to find the most efficient point to do so on a given set up, but it'd work none the less I think. And it wouldn't be anymore difficult than controling a partial shunt like what you describe with each turbo handling a partial load at WOT. That's just me though, as either way would work just as well, though I do see why factory TT setups like Mazda's rotary and Toyota's 2JZ do it the way you described.
5th Gear Member
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,451
From: United States
RE: trash talkers
ORIGINAL: Subotai_95
Hrrrmm.. I can smell what yer cooking there, and that does make sense regarding what you said about the efficiency of the unit in a given rpm range. Though if the V Spec R34 TT wasn't an RB25 it had to have been the RB26, cause you're right on about the split between the front and rear 3's.. Just a little confusing if you're not in there working on them day in and day out. Though I'm a little at odds with why nissan chose to split the setup of the RB26 like that unless maybe for dependability of the setup? And out of curiosity, what DID the R34's have?? I've heard both the RB25 and the RB26, though I suppose it could've been either, because there were several different variants of the R34, some with more power than others..
Though I suppose I was talking about, specific to what I said about the size of the turbo's, was to have one small, one perhaps a little larger in a sequential set up. I suppose you could look at it as a different way to achieve the same effect you describe in routing all 8 cylinders through one turbo low in the rpm band, then shunting to the second higher in the band so both units act like a single, larger turbo. You could have the same effect routing all 8 through one turbo, or in the rotary's case, all four, then shunt to the larger unit higher in the rpm band. It'd be a little tricky to control the shunt point, and it would probably take some trial & error to find the most efficient point to do so on a given set up, but it'd work none the less I think. And it wouldn't be anymore difficult than controling a partial shunt like what you describe with each turbo handling a partial load at WOT. That's just me though, as either way would work just as well, though I do see why factory TT setups like Mazda's rotary and Toyota's 2JZ do it the way you described.
Hrrrmm.. I can smell what yer cooking there, and that does make sense regarding what you said about the efficiency of the unit in a given rpm range. Though if the V Spec R34 TT wasn't an RB25 it had to have been the RB26, cause you're right on about the split between the front and rear 3's.. Just a little confusing if you're not in there working on them day in and day out. Though I'm a little at odds with why nissan chose to split the setup of the RB26 like that unless maybe for dependability of the setup? And out of curiosity, what DID the R34's have?? I've heard both the RB25 and the RB26, though I suppose it could've been either, because there were several different variants of the R34, some with more power than others..
Though I suppose I was talking about, specific to what I said about the size of the turbo's, was to have one small, one perhaps a little larger in a sequential set up. I suppose you could look at it as a different way to achieve the same effect you describe in routing all 8 cylinders through one turbo low in the rpm band, then shunting to the second higher in the band so both units act like a single, larger turbo. You could have the same effect routing all 8 through one turbo, or in the rotary's case, all four, then shunt to the larger unit higher in the rpm band. It'd be a little tricky to control the shunt point, and it would probably take some trial & error to find the most efficient point to do so on a given set up, but it'd work none the less I think. And it wouldn't be anymore difficult than controling a partial shunt like what you describe with each turbo handling a partial load at WOT. That's just me though, as either way would work just as well, though I do see why factory TT setups like Mazda's rotary and Toyota's 2JZ do it the way you described.
As for the purpose of running two turbos in parallel on the skyline I don't know, they built that with fairly large turbos for more high end power & seeing as how it was built more with racing in mind than lots of street driving that's understandable, if you're racing you don't generally spend much time at low or mid rpm so putting extra moving parts in there for a sequential is only going to succeed in making more parts to break down.
As for why they ran two rather than one single large, that I don't know. From building kits I can tell you that the power gain you get from a turbo kit has quite a bit to do with header design which is why I don't like building single kits for a twin bank engine anymore, in a setup like that you have to run a crossover pipe where some of the exhaust gasses cool making the exhaust gas more dense so it loses velocity & takes up less space which is exactly what you don't want to happen, the hotter the gas the more it's going to spin the turbine. On top of that you are adding unnecessary bends & bends aren't a good thing on either the intake or exhaust side of a turbo car, generally the less there are the better.
I would imagine they ran two turbos for the same reason. Although on an inline engine like that There really isn't too much to gain, maybe a very small bit, but all 6 cylinders are already pretty close together.
Some people say that two smaller turbos have less rotating mass so they spool quicker, I have no proof to back up either side of that so i don't know if that's true because a better header design would make it spool faster aswell. It seemed to me like the rotating mass might be heavier if you took both impeller & turbines out, then weighed them with a single large I would think the twins would be a little heavier. Same volume of exhaust gasses in both cases.
My guess would be they did it for a better header design if I had to pick something, but I really don't know.
I'm not sure how many combustions you would count on the rotary technically since there is only 1 combustion per crank rotation per rotor. So in a 2 rotor there would be 2 combustions taking place every 1 crank rotation. The rotors only spin a 1/3 of the speed of the crank.
4th Gear Member
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,447
From: Charlottesville, VA
RE: trash talkers
ORIGINAL: FoxGT
the r34 was the rb26dett
As for the purpose of running two turbos in parallel on the skyline I don't know, they built that with fairly large turbos for more high end power & seeing as how it was built more with racing in mind than lots of street driving that's understandable, if you're racing you don't generally spend much time at low or mid rpm so putting extra moving parts in there for a sequential is only going to succeed in making more parts to break down.
As for why they ran two rather than one single large, that I don't know. From building kits I can tell you that the power gain you get from a turbo kit has quite a bit to do with header design which is why I don't like building single kits for a twin bank engine anymore, in a setup like that you have to run a crossover pipe where some of the exhaust gasses cool making the exhaust gas more dense so it loses velocity & takes up less space which is exactly what you don't want to happen, the hotter the gas the more it's going to spin the turbine. On top of that you are adding unnecessary bends & bends aren't a good thing on either the intake or exhaust side of a turbo car, generally the less there are the better.
I would imagine they ran two turbos for the same reason. Although on an inline engine like that There really isn't too much to gain, maybe a very small bit, but all 6 cylinders are already pretty close together.
Some people say that two smaller turbos have less rotating mass so they spool quicker, I have no proof to back up either side of that so i don't know if that's true because a better header design would make it spool faster aswell. It seemed to me like the rotating mass might be heavier if you took both impeller & turbines out, then weighed them with a single large I would think the twins would be a little heavier. Same volume of exhaust gasses in both cases.
My guess would be they did it for a better header design if I had to pick something, but I really don't know.
I'm not sure how many combustions you would count on the rotary technically since there is only 1 combustion per crank rotation per rotor. So in a 2 rotor there would be 2 combustions taking place every 1 crank rotation. The rotors only spin a 1/3 of the speed of the crank.
ORIGINAL: Subotai_95
Hrrrmm.. I can smell what yer cooking there, and that does make sense regarding what you said about the efficiency of the unit in a given rpm range. Though if the V Spec R34 TT wasn't an RB25 it had to have been the RB26, cause you're right on about the split between the front and rear 3's.. Just a little confusing if you're not in there working on them day in and day out. Though I'm a little at odds with why nissan chose to split the setup of the RB26 like that unless maybe for dependability of the setup? And out of curiosity, what DID the R34's have?? I've heard both the RB25 and the RB26, though I suppose it could've been either, because there were several different variants of the R34, some with more power than others..
Though I suppose I was talking about, specific to what I said about the size of the turbo's, was to have one small, one perhaps a little larger in a sequential set up. I suppose you could look at it as a different way to achieve the same effect you describe in routing all 8 cylinders through one turbo low in the rpm band, then shunting to the second higher in the band so both units act like a single, larger turbo. You could have the same effect routing all 8 through one turbo, or in the rotary's case, all four, then shunt to the larger unit higher in the rpm band. It'd be a little tricky to control the shunt point, and it would probably take some trial & error to find the most efficient point to do so on a given set up, but it'd work none the less I think. And it wouldn't be anymore difficult than controling a partial shunt like what you describe with each turbo handling a partial load at WOT. That's just me though, as either way would work just as well, though I do see why factory TT setups like Mazda's rotary and Toyota's 2JZ do it the way you described.
Hrrrmm.. I can smell what yer cooking there, and that does make sense regarding what you said about the efficiency of the unit in a given rpm range. Though if the V Spec R34 TT wasn't an RB25 it had to have been the RB26, cause you're right on about the split between the front and rear 3's.. Just a little confusing if you're not in there working on them day in and day out. Though I'm a little at odds with why nissan chose to split the setup of the RB26 like that unless maybe for dependability of the setup? And out of curiosity, what DID the R34's have?? I've heard both the RB25 and the RB26, though I suppose it could've been either, because there were several different variants of the R34, some with more power than others..
Though I suppose I was talking about, specific to what I said about the size of the turbo's, was to have one small, one perhaps a little larger in a sequential set up. I suppose you could look at it as a different way to achieve the same effect you describe in routing all 8 cylinders through one turbo low in the rpm band, then shunting to the second higher in the band so both units act like a single, larger turbo. You could have the same effect routing all 8 through one turbo, or in the rotary's case, all four, then shunt to the larger unit higher in the rpm band. It'd be a little tricky to control the shunt point, and it would probably take some trial & error to find the most efficient point to do so on a given set up, but it'd work none the less I think. And it wouldn't be anymore difficult than controling a partial shunt like what you describe with each turbo handling a partial load at WOT. That's just me though, as either way would work just as well, though I do see why factory TT setups like Mazda's rotary and Toyota's 2JZ do it the way you described.
As for the purpose of running two turbos in parallel on the skyline I don't know, they built that with fairly large turbos for more high end power & seeing as how it was built more with racing in mind than lots of street driving that's understandable, if you're racing you don't generally spend much time at low or mid rpm so putting extra moving parts in there for a sequential is only going to succeed in making more parts to break down.
As for why they ran two rather than one single large, that I don't know. From building kits I can tell you that the power gain you get from a turbo kit has quite a bit to do with header design which is why I don't like building single kits for a twin bank engine anymore, in a setup like that you have to run a crossover pipe where some of the exhaust gasses cool making the exhaust gas more dense so it loses velocity & takes up less space which is exactly what you don't want to happen, the hotter the gas the more it's going to spin the turbine. On top of that you are adding unnecessary bends & bends aren't a good thing on either the intake or exhaust side of a turbo car, generally the less there are the better.
I would imagine they ran two turbos for the same reason. Although on an inline engine like that There really isn't too much to gain, maybe a very small bit, but all 6 cylinders are already pretty close together.
Some people say that two smaller turbos have less rotating mass so they spool quicker, I have no proof to back up either side of that so i don't know if that's true because a better header design would make it spool faster aswell. It seemed to me like the rotating mass might be heavier if you took both impeller & turbines out, then weighed them with a single large I would think the twins would be a little heavier. Same volume of exhaust gasses in both cases.
My guess would be they did it for a better header design if I had to pick something, but I really don't know.
I'm not sure how many combustions you would count on the rotary technically since there is only 1 combustion per crank rotation per rotor. So in a 2 rotor there would be 2 combustions taking place every 1 crank rotation. The rotors only spin a 1/3 of the speed of the crank.
The TT set-ups might indeed weigh a little more, though if you look at it, what's worth more, more efficiency and a broader, more dependable power curve, or 10 or 12 less lbs in engine weight? A dual set up would also help a good deal with heat soak, although if you run any turbo set up hard enough you'll still have cooling problems. As far as smaller turbos spooling quicker, I guess I could see that, though honestly, you're taking the same amount of exhaust gas and shoving it through a smaller port, so you might have a slightly quicker spool time with a smaller turbo, but you won't be running the same CFM as a larger turbo might. Granted that's all dependant on the design of the head unit, but it makes a least a little bit of sense..
I honestly couldn't tell you how many combustions would count per rotation of the crank, but I would think that ratio you mention is why the rotary's are a) able to turn such a high rpm redline reliably, and b) don't really produce all that much torque down low in the rpm band. Which essentially would make it a very good road racing set-up if you think about it.
As for header design on the skyline's, I wouldn't really be able to say, though with a dual parallel system you'd be able to use a straighter, better flowing design than you would say on a big turbo single. That's about as far as my thinking takes me on that one..
2nd Gear Member
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 228
From:
RE: trash talkers
the R32, R33, and R34 GTR's recieved the RB26DETT and all wheel drive, GTS models recieved the RB25DETT and a small few of the R32's got RB20DETT engines, and are rear wheel drive configuration[sm=itsok.gif] the R32-4 is just the body designations like SN-95 for the mid ninties mustangs and GTR/GTS is the trim like GT for the stangs
5th Gear Member
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,451
From: United States
RE: trash talkers
ORIGINAL: Subotai_95
Ahhh.. I see what you mean about the crossover's on the single unit kits. And that's true regarding a parallel set up most likely having less moving parts, and therefore less to break. I was thinking more from a 1/4mile standpoint though, which by and large, most JDM's aren't built for, unlike road racing and drifting, which they excel at.
The TT set-ups might indeed weigh a little more, though if you look at it, what's worth more, more efficiency and a broader, more dependable power curve, or 10 or 12 less lbs in engine weight? A dual set up would also help a good deal with heat soak, although if you run any turbo set up hard enough you'll still have cooling problems. As far as smaller turbos spooling quicker, I guess I could see that, though honestly, you're taking the same amount of exhaust gas and shoving it through a smaller port, so you might have a slightly quicker spool time with a smaller turbo, but you won't be running the same CFM as a larger turbo might. Granted that's all dependant on the design of the head unit, but it makes a least a little bit of sense..
I honestly couldn't tell you how many combustions would count per rotation of the crank, but I would think that ratio you mention is why the rotary's are a) able to turn such a high rpm redline reliably, and b) don't really produce all that much torque down low in the rpm band. Which essentially would make it a very good road racing set-up if you think about it.
As for header design on the skyline's, I wouldn't really be able to say, though with a dual parallel system you'd be able to use a straighter, better flowing design than you would say on a big turbo single. That's about as far as my thinking takes me on that one..
Ahhh.. I see what you mean about the crossover's on the single unit kits. And that's true regarding a parallel set up most likely having less moving parts, and therefore less to break. I was thinking more from a 1/4mile standpoint though, which by and large, most JDM's aren't built for, unlike road racing and drifting, which they excel at.
The TT set-ups might indeed weigh a little more, though if you look at it, what's worth more, more efficiency and a broader, more dependable power curve, or 10 or 12 less lbs in engine weight? A dual set up would also help a good deal with heat soak, although if you run any turbo set up hard enough you'll still have cooling problems. As far as smaller turbos spooling quicker, I guess I could see that, though honestly, you're taking the same amount of exhaust gas and shoving it through a smaller port, so you might have a slightly quicker spool time with a smaller turbo, but you won't be running the same CFM as a larger turbo might. Granted that's all dependant on the design of the head unit, but it makes a least a little bit of sense..
I honestly couldn't tell you how many combustions would count per rotation of the crank, but I would think that ratio you mention is why the rotary's are a) able to turn such a high rpm redline reliably, and b) don't really produce all that much torque down low in the rpm band. Which essentially would make it a very good road racing set-up if you think about it.
As for header design on the skyline's, I wouldn't really be able to say, though with a dual parallel system you'd be able to use a straighter, better flowing design than you would say on a big turbo single. That's about as far as my thinking takes me on that one..
ORIGINAL: sethalot
the R32, R33, and R34 GTR's recieved the RB26DETT and all wheel drive, GTS models recieved the RB25DETT and a small few of the R32's got RB20DETT engines, and are rear wheel drive configuration the R32-4 is just the body designations like SN-95 for the mid ninties mustangs and GTR/GTS is the trim like GT for the stangs
the R32, R33, and R34 GTR's recieved the RB26DETT and all wheel drive, GTS models recieved the RB25DETT and a small few of the R32's got RB20DETT engines, and are rear wheel drive configuration the R32-4 is just the body designations like SN-95 for the mid ninties mustangs and GTR/GTS is the trim like GT for the stangs
I know what the #'s & styles are, but the difference in r32-34 is quite a bit more than just body differences... I did some research on them quite a long time ago. I loved the car because of the drivetrain & suspension, then 2f2furious came out & after they got popular I hated them because everyone thought they were supercars when to me the engines were nothing special in stock form. But in all that i've ever read & heard I have NEVER heard of a twin turbo 2.0 or 2.5 stock skyline engine. I know they made a single turbo, twin cam 2.5L, but not a twin turbo.
2nd Gear Member
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 228
From:
RE: trash talkers
maybe it was a typo in the ad i almost had a R32 with the 2.5l in it imported guy said it was twin turbo maybe he moddified it, but as for the 2.6L there isnt a difference between the one put in the R32 and the R34
5th Gear Member
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,451
From: United States
RE: trash talkers
ORIGINAL: scottp999
FoxGT - great posts. I'm loving my TT 3.0 Inline 6 at about 365whp and 370wtq.
FoxGT - great posts. I'm loving my TT 3.0 Inline 6 at about 365whp and 370wtq.
I want to build a turbo i6 for my vert to do something different & inline 6's are my favorite engines as far as design. I would do an import inline 6 swap if I were the type that doesn't mind mixing brands. I see nothing wrong with it when other people do it, just not something I like doing myself. [&:] I never liked building what other people do. I've even threw around the idea of a diesel engine in one just to do something you don't see everyday. Was working on a hydrogen powered setup, but I don't know that i'm going to be able to get enough hydrogen with the small cells I use. But heck... a water powered car... can't beat that for fuel economy
+ you'd be surprised at just how easy it is to make a hydrogen generator. My first prototype I used a plastic Jiff peanut butter jar & two stainless steel pipes just to see if it really worked. My friend didn't believe me & tried lighting it. Needless to say he found out it does work
. I thought about running my '89 GT on it with a toggle switch to switch between hydrogen (cruising) & gas (playing). Problem is i'm not sure how my exhaust will react since it's mild steel. I'm worried about rust. I'm also worried on whether it will do damage to turbines (i'm sure the exhaust housings would be ok, they're mostly rust already [8D]). Seems you have a wide safe range with hydrogen aswell as far as a/f ratio. 
Definitely something to look into. I'm a little scared to use my '89 as a guinea pig though, gotta do it sometime, just not sure what car to test it on.