Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

howdy guys

im wonderin why a car will boost sooner with a greater load? ie in a higher gear it will hit boost sooner than in a lower gear, and very little boost at all in neutral no matter the rpm.

can anyone give me an explanation of why this is?

or link me to somewhere that can tell me as i am pretty interested in this

thanks guys

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/106250-boost-quicker-with-greater-load/
Share on other sites

engine load makes exhaust gas, more gas, the faster the exhaust wheel spins, which makes more boost. also explains why you get jack all boost in 1st gear as there is engine rpm but not much load, load makes exhaust gas, which makes it spin more

how does a greater load create greater air flow in though? if you have your foot to the floor, the cylinder will be completely filled with air and fuel, so i dont see how there can be such a difference in boost response.

not arguing cos there obviously is a difference, just after a technical explanation is all.

thanks

Edited by salad

1st gear the car will be pushing the car from a dead stop so u cant expect it to just ramp up onto boost like it would when it is rolling.It is called momentum and if there is none then the car has to rev to create it.

it (250hp engine) cant rev if the thing holding it back weighs more than a tonne.the car has arround a 6:1 power to weight ratio.

Do a slow run in 1st and i bet you will be able to hit boost allot sooner than if you were at a complete hault.Why?because it doesnt have to work to pull the car allong it is allready reving,making the torque,and passing the exhaust gasses out through the ex turbine.

turbo 6cyl cars rely on the turbo to make all their torque.they have a low compression ratio so it is possible.If it were high then there would be to much pressure in the piston bore for the engine to handle,causing many comnplications leading to death for the engine.

So if boost isnt there -------------------^-^-----------flatliners for the skyline.

T-33

dangerous_daveo,

with regards to keeping away from light flywheels.

I dropped a light flywheel on my Rb20DET, to my suprise it felt so so much better, quicker off boost acceleration with no difference in spool. Taking off from a standing start was so much easier as the car simply wanted to accelerate where as with the stock flywheel my guess was it also had to over come the intertia of the heavy flywheel, resulting in a dougy feeling little 2ltr. :P

Gear changes were quicker, free rev's were noticably quicker allowing easier rev matching when approaching corners hard under brakes.

Fuel economy didn't change, neither did drivability.

I will definitely go a light flywheel again. 99% of those that have had a light flywheel before/after will always go the light flywheel. :P

  Cubes said:
dangerous_daveo,

with regards to keeping away from light flywheels.

I dropped a light flywheel on my Rb20DET, to my suprise it felt so so much better, quicker off boost acceleration with no difference in spool. Taking off from a standing start was so much easier as the car simply wanted to accelerate where as with the stock flywheel my guess was it also had to over come the intertia of the heavy flywheel, resulting in a dougy feeling little 2ltr. :P

Gear changes were quicker, free rev's were noticably quicker allowing easier rev matching when approaching corners hard under brakes.

Fuel economy didn't change, neither did drivability.

I will definitely go a light flywheel again. 99% of those that have had a light flywheel before/after will always go the light flywheel. :P

What about top end speed?

I only know that when i upgraded to a lighter flywheel on gran turismo the car wouldnt hold top speed for long untill it started to drop off.Where as the heavier stock item would allow it to stay there for longer.

MEH!!!

  Cubes said:
It will only boost quicker with regards to rpm, not so much time.

I am interested in this statement and also agree with Trust33 re momentum.

I am not sure that I agree with the premise that higher gear necessarily means higher load, although I agree that it is hard to create boost in neutral.

Bogging down in First Gear is death to a good launch with load at Maximum.

Will watch this space.

El Bee

Its because at higher gears the rev climbs up not as fast as a lower gear which gives the turbo more time to spool up and produce boost. Ie it might take a few seconds for it to eventually produce 5psi at 2000rpm. But in lower gear you're not sitting for a few seconds at 2000rpm. Ie;

Nail it in 4th at 2000 rpm and it'll stay at that revs for a while lettin the turbo spool up. Nail it at 2000rpm in 1st gear and you wont see any boost until later because the revs are climbing and the turbo is spooling up trying to 'chase' the revs so to speak.

Edited by Busky2k

ah, i think busky2k is dead on the ball.

as the revs rise the pressure in the plenum drops because more air is bein sucked in.

if revs rise too fast then, the positive pressure is bein cancelled by the negative pressure in the plenum

this sounds right to me anyway.

anyone else got any theories on this one?

and trust33, i dont think its about the momentum thing.... cos you will build boost faster in 5th than you will in 2nd, and in these gears your definitely not starting from a stop, so you have the momentum there

You've also got to consider that it's a bit of a circular system, that is air in air out.

If you WOT it in first it takes all of 3 seconds to go from 1000 rpm to 7000rpm. You aren't going to spin up a reasonable size turbo in that time to the point where it's making a lot of boost.

Then take the 5th gear on the freeway response trial that we all like doing. You plant it at say 2500rpm and within a second or so the car is making a couple of psi, that extra gas flow into the engine is going through the turbine side and speeding it up so at 2600rpm, 100rpm higher which in an NA car means squat in terms of extra airflow, you have started to spin the turbo at the point where it is actaully starting to push a bit more air into the system and you are making 4psi. Then at 2700 you are making 6psi and all of a sudden the turbo is helping itself make a decent amount of boost as you have more air going in, bigger bang, more exhaust, spins the turbo faster and boost starts to rise rapidly.

It's easy to see this on a typical small engine big turbo setup. It will take forever to make 5 psi but once it passes that point (or somewhere around there) the turbo is feeding itself so to speak and the boost rises exponencially (sp?).

yeah I think Busky2k & BHDave have a good point..

http://www.gnttype.org/techarea/turbo/turboflow.html

some interesting reading/maths... lol

it's all about how much air flow there is.. don't forget the more boost, the more positive air being pushed into the engine, the more air, more boost, so quicker a turbo spools up.. I think the speed is probably exponantial as well..

in fact this whole page has some great stuff

http://www.gnttype.org/techarea/turbo/turbopage.html

Edited by Links
  Cubes said:
dangerous_daveo,

with regards to keeping away from light flywheels.

I dropped a light flywheel on my Rb20DET, to my suprise it felt so so much better, quicker off boost acceleration with no difference in spool. Taking off from a standing start was so much easier as the car simply wanted to accelerate where as with the stock flywheel my guess was it also had to over come the intertia of the heavy flywheel, resulting in a dougy feeling little 2ltr. :unsure:

Gear changes were quicker, free rev's were noticably quicker allowing easier rev matching when approaching corners hard under brakes.

Fuel economy didn't change, neither did drivability.

I will definitely go a light flywheel again. 99% of those that have had a light flywheel before/after will always go the light flywheel. :)

I actually found my better once I went back to a stock one. (my light weight was about 3.5kgs). Thing is I also got the rb25box and 1 peice tailshaft in at the same time. So that might have had some affect.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • I came here to note that is a zener diode too base on the info there. Based on that, I'd also be suspicious that replacing it, and it's likely to do the same. A lot of use cases will see it used as either voltage protection, or to create a cheap but relatively stable fixed voltage supply. That would mean it has seen more voltage than it should, and has gone into voltage melt down. If there is something else in the circuit dumping out higher than it should voltages, that needs to be found too. It's quite likely they're trying to use the Zener to limit the voltage that is hitting through to the transistor beside it, so what ever goes to the zener is likely a signal, and they're using the transistor in that circuit to amplify it. Especially as it seems they've also got a capacitor across the zener. Looks like there is meant to be something "noisy" to that zener, and what ever it was, had a melt down. Looking at that picture, it also looks like there's some solder joints that really need redoing, and it might be worth having the whole board properly inspected.  Unfortunately, without being able to stick a multimeter on it, and start tracing it all out, I'm pretty much at a loss now to help. I don't even believe I have a climate control board from an R33 around here to pull apart and see if any of the circuit appears similar to give some ideas.
    • Nah - but you won't find anything on dismantling the seats in any such thing anyway.
    • Could be. Could also be that they sit around broken more. To be fair, you almost never see one driving around. I see more R chassis GTRs than the Renault ones.
    • Yeah. Nah. This is why I said My bold for my double emphasis. We're not talking about cars tuned to the edge of det here. We're talking about normal cars. Flame propagation speed and the amount of energy required to ignite the fuel are not significant factors when running at 1500-4000 rpm, and medium to light loads, like nearly every car on the road (except twin cab utes which are driven at 6k and 100% load all the time). There is no shortage of ignition energy available in any petrol engine. If there was, we'd all be in deep shit. The calorific value, on a volume basis, is significantly different, between 98 and 91, and that turns up immediately in consumption numbers. You can see the signal easily if you control for the other variables well enough, and/or collect enough stats. As to not seeing any benefit - we had a couple of EF and EL Falcons in the company fleet back in the late 90s and early 2000s. The EEC IV ECU in those things was particularly good at adding in timing as soon as knock headroom improved, which typically came from putting in some 95 or 98. The responsiveness and power improved noticeably, and the fuel consumption dropped considerably, just from going to 95. Less delta from there to 98 - almost not noticeable, compared to the big differences seen between 91 and 95. Way back in the day, when supermarkets first started selling fuel from their own stations, I did thousands of km in FNQ in a small Toyota. I can't remember if it was a Starlet or an early Yaris. Anyway - the supermarket servos were bringing in cheap fuel from Indonesia, and the other servos were still using locally refined gear. The fuel consumption was typically at least 5%, often as much as 8% worse on the Indo shit, presumably because they had a lot more oxygenated component in the brew, and were probably barely meeting the octane spec. Around the same time or maybe a bit later (like 25 years ago), I could tell the difference between Shell 98 and BP 98, and typically preferred to only use Shell then because the Skyline ran so much better on it. Years later I found the realtionship between them had swapped, as a consequence of yet more refinery closures. So I've only used BP 98 since. Although, I must say that I could not fault the odd tank of United 98 that I've run. It's probably the same stuff. It is also very important to remember that these findings are often dependent on region. With most of the refineries in Oz now dead, there's less variability in local stuff, and he majority of our fuels are not even refined here any more anyway. It probably depends more on which SE Asian refinery is currently cheapest to operate.
    • You don't have an R34 service manual for the body do you? Have found plenty for the engine and drivetrain but nothing else
×
×
  • Create New...