But I didn't have to be in boost at that RPM range (refering to my last
message)
On Mon, 15 May 2000, Charles Wyman wrote:
> I'd rather have a turbo setup from the manufacture than a supercharger, but would rather have a supercharger as a aftermarket part than a turbo. A turbo is more efficient in that 1/3 of the fuel burned goes to power, 1/3 to heating & cooling, and 1/3 out the exhaust. So, in theory if you can use the 1/3 that is wasted out the exhaust and re-use it you are increasing the efficiency of the engine. And, yes of the 1/3 that goes to the exhaust some power will be lost do to turning the turbo and the increase in operating temps. A friend of mine has a BMW M3, a very nice CAR, he showed me this www.bellengineering.net/BMW/M3turbo.htm it is some good reading. But remember this application may not be true for all vehicles. I personally will be getting a s/c for my Durango. It is my daily driver and would prefer not to have my engine operating at boost under low RPM's, such as cruising at highway speeds. I like the idea of having boost at 3,000 RPM through 5,200 RPM. So, when!
!
I!
> 'm at WOT I'm also under boost.
>
> Sorry for the long e-mail and I don't mean to flame anyone, but I just wanted to put in my $0.02!
>
> _________________________________________________________
> Chuck
> '00 Flame Red Durango SLT+
> 5.9L, 4x4, 3.92 LSD, R/T wheels (Goodyear Eagle GT II 275/60/R17)
> 2.5" Dynomax Magnum Race Series cat back exhaust
> Quick-D T-body & intake
> Mopar Performance PCM (on back order)
> best 1/4 mile (stock): 16.08 @ 84 mph
> www.geocities.com/papa_c_d/
> _________________________________________________________
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 11:51:18 EDT