well, i have no proof either way that points in the direction that you actually built that setup.. or any proof that you paid for someone else to build that setup.. but "only limited by the size of your turbo"? come on, that right there tells me that you don't have a clue.. not only have i seen that turbo put more power down to a cars rear wheels. but i have seen a smaller turbo put down more than that to all 4 of it's wheels(an audi BTW..

but hey, if you have the time, money, and know how. then by all means, turbo your 30v. im all for progression. no one has ever really tackled the project like that full on and completed. idon't car what the fastest audi is. just as long as there are fast audi's out there. so i'll be waiting for your results..

and just because you are trying to go against EVERY solid, backed up, fact there is about this whole MPG thing. doesn't mean that you can't excell in other area's.. some people are dumber than a box of rocks. but they can still become a rocket scientist.. your previous endeavors/accomplishments do not mean a thing in this thread. they have nothing to do with the topic at hand

and do you think you are cool or something becasue you "don't go by cc's"? is that really what gets you through the day? if so, then what is your superior term forthe Flux Capacitor? i would really like to sound as intelligent as you

 

if you go to garrett's website youll see the gt40 with the 82mm wheel is only rated at around ~550hp. considering im putting around 575 to the wheels...thats like what 650+ at the crank which is about 100hp more than the turbo is rated for. id say its maxed out. you must be thinink of the gt4088 or gt4094r. if youd like you can check photo album, theres a link to it in my profile. its very much out of date but it covers the design and fabrication of that setup which youll notice all takes place in my garage..

my past endevors/accomplishments became relavent as soon as you tell me imclueless and i dont know a thing about turbos.

im not sure why you took such offence to me saying that. i just happend to go by lb/hr. they are really the same thing.if youd like there are online calculators and simple forumlas to convert to cc's.

you can say whatever you want and im fine with it.im not reallyaround here that often anyway.

edit: my home page doesnt seem to show up, heres the link: http://flickr.com/photos/58138860@N00/

 

Im sorry, but this thread just gets funnier. So you can weld, neat. What does that prove? From what i have seen is that you slap on a huge *** turbo (with a crappy compressor chart) and think you are going to make big power. You choosing a 82 over the 88 or 88r just shows your ignorace along with everything else shown in this and other threads. I just think its hilarious that there area good amount or1.8t's making over 500whp (with t3's and even t25's) with far less turbo and displacement.

 

howdoes choosing a gt4082 show my ignoracne? given my goals its a very good turbo for me. sure my max is ~575hp but honestly on a normal basis(before the rebuild)i drove around with boost levels below 7psi, less than 500hp. ~500hp + a 2300lb fully worked 240z does alot of damage....i dont need more nor want more (not right now atleast). hell there are people with swaped rb25det's with 350ish hpbeating 600hp lambo's. but be sure, if i wanted more hp, it could eailsy be made and i mean easy!! comparing the max output of these v8's isnt fair even against a 1000hp 1.8t. its just no contest.but thats an entirly diffrence subject all together.

 

the 4082 isnt much compared to the 4088 and 4088r. If you want to make good power, you got to have a engine that can run the psi and the turbo to flow it. The 82 vs 88 isnt a contest.





IF you wanna talk civil and listen to reason, both sean and i would be happy to talk turbos and power with you.

 

You three should take it to the eFIGHT room and RILLY go at it!!!

 

Yeah! Nothing says BLOW ME faster than a big **** turbo

Give'm hell Cincy

 

dont have to, most of his is self induced

 

im still waiting to be linked

 

Hey fellas!!!
It appears I'm a little late to the forum (aren't I always...)

Despite my rather minimal posts, I tend to read on here and others - OFTEN. I enjoy a good laugh, and this one sure has helped my morning grumpiness!! =)

ANYWAY - Back to the beginning, have any of you heard of Jonus' Audi? I know little more than that about it, but I'm pretty sure if you type in 'Jonus Audi 90' in a video search engine, you'll be VERY upset that there are others of the same name.... arguing AGAINST Audi.

And damnit!!! - if you are going to argue a point, throw out all your damn variables... they show your ignorance. You prove a point by setting all variables EQUAL, change one, then PROVE (with as much evidence as you can get...) your point. I enjoyed the 'engineer's analysis' earlier...

......

Why was this said? Well, to make me giggle a little harder, and because everybody knows that energy cannot be created or destroyed. A bigger turbo does not always imply a drop in mpg, and could potentially even INCREASE mpg. Slapping a turbo on the exhaust (they do have to go there... right???), restricts the motor's exhale significantly(unless positioned further from the engine, in which case the restriction is lesser than significant..ly). And, no matter how you look at it, you will always lose power by placing a restriction on it - intake or exhaust. The energy used to spool the turbo is lost from the engine, which should be a clear sign of loss in mpg. The larger restriction you put on the engine, the more energy is lost to it... However, is a larger turbo a larger restriction? If you are at lower cruising speeds and throttle is constant, there could be a less restriction on the engine because there is more room for the air to pass on a larger turbo. So, this could imply a GAIN in mpg. Interesting thought - let's all get BIGGER TURBOS for the ECONOMY!!! (HeHe... I can see myself as a student pursuing this argument in sustainable energy class - just for S.A.G... =)) You did bring up the point that...

......

Finally! One, valid, argument. But, no sh*t sherlock! Of course a stock 1.8t has tiny huevos (sorry, can't speak it or spell it... Here, 'huevos' or 'eggs' sounds much better to me when assumed it means '*****' or 'sack' or 'a pair'o'nuts' - rather, one tiny nut in this case on a 4cyl). A bigger turbo takes more time to spool, which requires more energy input - from the engine's output. Instead of applying a dynamic footpedal / acceleration standpoint to your argument, understand that most people on this forum are less than retarded, and UNDERSTAND that a BIG TURBO requires MORE ENERGY to spin it. During acceleration, it can be assumed that a big turbo will not speed up at the same rate that a smaller turbo will, and that there will be a point (forget the name of it...) when the smaller turbo 'kicks in' where the bigger turbo has not yet. At this point, the smaller turbo car is more efficiently burning the fuel because there is no longer a restriction(rather a compression) on the intake, only the exhaust. For sake of time (which FAR TOO MUCH has been wasted already), it should be obvious that a larger turbo is not suitable for city driving, as it may never spool and only take energy from the engine that could otherwise be put to the ground if ideal.

Which brings me back to the SECOND post / FIRST reply to this forum... where...

Amen! You are not putting a big turbo in your car for gas mileage, I don't care who you are. You are putting it in to lose as much gas as possible in the shortest amount of time... and hopefully, as EFFECTIVELY as possible. Why? Because... Well, do yourself a favor, and search for Audi Jonus 90 on google vids... Or click here, hopfully this link on CAMAROZ28.com stays active for a while... http://videos.camaroz28.com/video/62...8a007fe174.htm ...

I'm on my way to go buy an A4 1.8t in about 15 minutes. It has a broken timing belt... Figure I'll 'increase the mpgs while I'm there...'.