ok i have te manual 3.0 litre it is not that bad but soon as i shift to 3rd it seem to run out of torque or just not pulling like it dose 2nd 1st i have tj manual box in it so would extractors and panel filter make it go any better and give it more 3rd or mid range

Get extractors which have long primaries.. aka RPW ones... give very good mid range push

what you got to do is slam some nice cam shafts in stage one RPW and get some cam gears and get engine sim program and time them up nicely
:D

Displacement increase is the most effective way to gain torque.

But this is definitely not the cheapest option.

You could look at advancing your timing, upping your compression, cams, extractors (tho they're more for mid-high end benefits).

Displacement increase is the most effective way to gain torque.

you can double your effective capacity by running 14.7psi :p which would be cheaper is the big question

turbo give a wad load of torque.. my 1L 3pot has 170nm

I should've added without forced induction lol ;) But that's what I meant :lol:

should bother, its not going to make enough of a difference for the car to be even close to fast. auto and less cubes is a bad combo

Whats this turbo hair dresser gimp goin on about, sounds like hes trying to tease a magna. Lets say we ban him hey :badgrin: , he's disrupting our forums, and he drives a performance charade :? .

thanks guys i got some extractors on order and filter commin

ok i have te manual 3.0 litre it is not that bad but soon as i shift to 3rd it seem to run out of torque or just not pulling like it dose 2nd 1st i have tj manual box in it so would extractors and panel filter make it go any better and give it more 3rd or mid range

Droping it 2.5inches should make it pull harder in 3rd....

Take it to 3.5l and torque will be yours. 8)

a question about turbos. People have been saying that turbos produce extra torque (which is just acceleration, right?). Well, i always thought that turbos worked off of 'exhaust' (which spins the turbine) and that it takes a certain amount of 'exhaust' to create the boost. Often about 2500-3000rpms. How does this help low end torque, if the turbo doesn't 'kick in' until 3000rpms?
Or is 3000rpms low-end? :oops: :oops: :oops:

Cheers,
Cam.

Acceleration is a result of torque. It's force in a rotational sense.

Of boost, an engine will produce only about as much torque as it would in an N/A application. Obviously it increases as RPM increases. The time that it's waiting for boost to start to kick in is called lag. Some say that lag has been removed in some cars like the XR6T but while turbos are still run off exhaust gas, there will always be lag. The bigger engines naturally have a decent amount of torque and smaller ball bearing turbos spin up easier reducing lag.

the size of the turbo(s) and the tunning also affect the boost range, since yours is a V6, fit twin turbos like the TT magna. Maybe even smaller ones so they spool up faster but combine to give decent top end also.

on big engines that have a lot of exhaust gases flowing from straight off idle, like a 4.0 ford XR6, or V8 a turbo can have minimal lag, the other thing contributing to lag in turbo engines is the lower compression they usually have, giving less power until boost builds. Having low pressure turbo on standard compression helps minimises lag.
back to the extractors and panel filter, shorter primaries and not overlarge in diameter (not bigger than 1and 1/2 in) will give more torque in lower range, wheras longer primaries will give more gain in midrange and especially top end. The panel filter is meant to be effective improvement across the rev range.

The RPW TT Magna utilises twin 320hp Garret GT-28 ball bearing turbo's. On the large V6 engine even with decompression down to 8.5 : 1 it still produces boost at 1500 / 1800 rpm and has full boost by 2700 rpm and all the way to the redline.

It is always a case of choosing the correct sized turbo for your application. Ball bearing turbo's are good for providing good solid top end as well as very low boosting and don't require a lot of air to get them spinning. When I turn my engine off the turbines still continue to spool down for about 30 seconds.

The benefit of a twin system is you can use two fairly small turbos on each bank remember on a 3.5 its only 1.75 litres per side nad have very low rpm boosting but massive top end. With the smaller 200hp garret turbo's on a 3.0 it would be awesome for low rpm acceleration.

Turbo's create a lot of torque and there horsepower is free in the sense it uses exhaust gases. Any form of boosting creates torque though sa the efficiency of the engine is increased dramatically.

A N/A car only has an efficiency rating of around 85%. I can't think of the correct term tonight.

A Turbo car has an efficincy rating of usually around 110% because the air being rammed in is greater in qauntity than what the combustion chamber normally holds due to the compression factor.

This means more bang for buck, and more torque.

There are lots of other terms etc and higher compression N/A engines do create more torque but only to a point until the compression is so high that it actually cannot get the air into the combustion chamber in the correct way and can start losing horsepower at a point.

would it be correct in assuming that the turbo is also more efficient/torque producing due to the induction stroke requiring less of the power produced by the combustion stroke, in order to create vacuum?

would it be correct in assuming that the turbo is also more efficient/torque producing due to the induction stroke requiring less of the power produced by the combustion stroke, in order to create vacuum?

The first law of thermodynamics[1] says no.

Any (negligible) increase in efficiency due to a reduced vacuum in the cylinder will be more than offset by the slightly increased exhaust backpressure on the other side of the cycle.

David, I think the term you're looking for is volumetric efficiency. It's higher than 100% because you're putting a higher volume of air into the cylinder than the cylinder's swept volume.

[1] In layman's terms, the first law of thermodynamics says that there's no such thing as a free lunch. (Remember Homer's classic quote "Lisa, in this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!").

Thats the exact word - volumetric efficiency. Thank you.

[quote:c9f970a68c="Altera98"]would it be correct in assuming that the turbo is also more efficient/torque producing due to the induction stroke requiring less of the power produced by the combustion stroke, in order to create vacuum?

The first law of thermodynamics[1] says no.

Any (negligible) increase in efficiency due to a reduced vacuum in the cylinder will be more than offset by the slightly increased exhaust backpressure on the other side of the cycle.

David, I think the term you're looking for is volumetric efficiency. It's higher than 100% because you're putting a higher volume of air into the cylinder than the cylinder's swept volume.

[1] In layman's terms, the first law of thermodynamics says that there's no such thing as a free lunch. (Remember Homer's classic quote "Lisa, in this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!").[/quote:c9f970a68c]

hehe, i think you meant the second law? :D
first law states that an cyclic intergral of work is always proportional to a cyclic intergral of heat.

second law states that there's can not be a perpetual motion machine.

first law states that an cyclic intergral of work is always proportional to a cyclic intergral of heat.



Huh? C'mon gimme a break, it's near on 20 years since I studied this stuff :?

The first law says you can't get energy for nothing (ie no such as a free lunch, or as another lecturer put it, you can't win). The second law says that You don't even get what you paid for, or You can't even break even.

My understanding is that the first law tells us that the pressure in the cylinder on the intake stroke is not "free" energy, so it has to come at the expense of expending energy elsewhere. The second law then tells us that in order to gain that "free" energy we thought we had, it's actually cost us more energy than we've saved (ie the turbo backpressure robs more efficiency than the boost gives us).

Of course, the boost gives us better efficiency on other ways (more air/fuel mix, whcih when ignited, gives heaps more enegy to propel the car.

But yes, the first law tells us that a perpetual motion machine won't be able to generate free power, while the second law tells us that the perpetual motion machine won't even run.

(Homer: And this perpetual motion machine that Lisa built doesn't even work properly. It just keeps going faster and faster!! :D :lol: )

:D no worries, old school is cool. :p

I wasn't having a go at ya, was only teasing you.

The Zeroth law is just about heat transfer.

I thought 1st law is only stating a proportion.

And the second law states; the impossibility of any perpetual motion machines by the arguement of inefficiency within energy conversion.

The third Law deals with Entropy - deals with the entropy at absolute zero, particularly in respect to chemical equilibrium.

:p

:D no worries, old school is cool. :p :p

Wha? Old school? Why, I orta... you young whipper snappers, c'mere and say that!! ;) :p

No probs - I take everything said on these forums light heartedly - too many important things in life to get worked up about.

I have absolutely zero idea of the actual wording of the laws of thermodynamics. I find the analogies I qoted above (can't win/Can't even break even etc) have served me well to remember the concepts (not that I've had to use them in anger since sitting my last thermo exam in 1988).

It's interesting you mention the 3rd law. I was having dinner with a few Uni mates a couple of months ago, and we were reminiscing about our uni days (as you do). We got onto theremodynamics, and they all remembered the "you can't win / can't break even" analogies. I then piped up and said, "and the 3rd law says that you can't get out of the game". The others looked blankly at me and said "third law?" I just shifted uncomfortably in my seat and said "Yeh, something about Entropy I think". Seems I was on the right track afterall :lol:

Edit: Double post. Nothing to see here

Mumble mumble bloody new fangled computers. Bring back the slide rule, I say!!

damm i only did thermodynamics last year and ive already forgotten all that crap. like hell im gonna remember it in 20 years time. thats a fair effort Warps.