Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

i have a mate with a ford ranger, 2.5L 4 pot turbo diesel. when he took me for a spin in it the turbo was spooling up as we slowly reversed across the flat grass in his front yard lol. Those things spool up so quickly, that's the purpose as diesels don't like to rev

Edited by Galois
  • Replies 75
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

No can't agree.

Typical automotive discussion, way too much generalisation.

Modern large truck diesels have a beautiful flat torque curve from around 900 to 2200rpm, all due to big turbocharging boost.

OLD fashioned diesels didn't rev too well, but even an Rd28 will still be pulling strong at 5000rpm, not too shabby for a diesel.

As for this one.............

No can't agree.

Typical automotive discussion, way too much generalisation.

Modern large truck diesels have a beautiful flat torque curve from around 900 to 2200rpm, all due to big turbocharging boost.

OLD fashioned diesels didn't rev too well, but even an Rd28 will still be pulling strong at 5000rpm, not too shabby for a diesel.

As for this one.............

lol, generalizations are the only way to talk about a general topic like this. Your specific examples suck and he is right: diesels don't like to rev. They are typically long stroke and high compression, which is why turbochargers are employed to make the most of what they can rev to. The RD28 is not your average diesel engine, it has a much shorter stroke than most diesel engines (actually shorter than it's bore is wide), hence it revs out to 5000 and the power band is more midrange oriented. It lacks the low down torque that most diesels have. Further evidence of this is peak torque at 2400rpm...again, higher than most diesels. And surprise surprise, peak torque is 178nm...which is shithouse for a 2.8 diesel because it is designed more like a petrol engine that runs on diesel. Yet, in contrast, the 3 litre petrol engines of the same time revved out and produced peak power past 5000rpm. So no, they don't like to rev out in comparison to most engines.

Modern truck diesels have a flat curve because they've got a massive stroke and the torque doesn't die off because the turbocharger draws it out.

That's cause turbos work better with diesels. They don't rev high (as per a longer stroke than petrol engines) and this would severely limited boost in a supercharger application. Turbo lag is also much less noticeable on a turbo diesel because they are high compression engines - in fact, the turbocharger is solely there to extend the useable range of the diesel engine in the middle and upper RPM (they run out of steam very quickly), rather than to produce more torque/power all round.

It's all about application. There's no "one is better than the other". One will always be better for your application than the other..."which one" depends on your application. Vehicle manufacturers around the world still have a divide about it, there's no general consensus that one is better than the other, which is why twin charging exists.

my point was design efficiency. by using exhaust gas pressure, turbos are using some of the wasted energy from the engine. sure it does increase back pressure but compared to the loss of a supercharger, turbo is more efficient.

though, im not a mechanical or thermal engineer, so i cant do the math to prove it.

We see alot of supercharged domestic cars and i can tell you now most of them (vortech style) are laggy dyno queens, the twin screw are the only way to go.

i should post some boost curves from vortech, kenne bell and harop chargers vs turbos... you will be surprised.

My thoughts on supercharging fall into two groups, dyno queen or useful :banana: I prefer to use a whipple (twin screw) style setup as boost is more turbo like ie comes in and stays constant whereas your vortech style charges increase boost with rpm so peak power and boost is always @ peak rpm... great for dynos, crap for daily livability.

The whipple will hit target boost quickly and offer FAR GREATER area inder the curve, much like a turbo setup.

Here is a comparison boost curve vortech vs turbo

typical_boost_curve.jpg

Here is vortech versus whipple supercharger.

Twin screw --->

twinscrew.jpg

Vortech --->

ve_chargedcentrifugal.jpg

i should post some boost curves from vortech, kenne bell and harop chargers vs turbos... you will be surprised.

I am definitely interested if they are the same motor with supercharger vs turbo for similar power outputs.

I am definitely interested if they are the same motor with supercharger vs turbo for similar power outputs.

similar outputs (520 vs 560rwkw) ^^ different chargers (these were the only two graphs on my comp which where close in peak power)

interesting trent. obviously different applications so can't accurately compare, but for arguments sake it's good. look at the torque. the twin screw made 200nm more at 50kmh less (1000rpm), but at 2500rpm the twin screw is making double the torque. that thing would be an absolute pig in the wet..... or the damp, or even if it looked like rainging, LOL.

how about a comparison with super vs turbo chargers on smaller engines? r25/6 or sr20 since that's what the majority here have.

there's a vid floating around with a s15 running a turbo and super setup, making around 300kw. (if i recalled correctly)

Edited by Peter89
how about a comparison with super vs turbo chargers on smaller engines? r25/6 or sr20 since that's what the majority here have.

there's a vid floating around with a s15 running a turbo and super setup, making around 300kw. (if i recalled correctly)

look in the forced induction section under twin charged i posted a few results in there, we have a rb30 with a gt3540 and supercharger that comes in... sick setup and is all home built see build thread here

http://forums.justcommodores.com.au/vn-vp-...ukes-vn-43.html

look in the forced induction section under twin charged i posted a few results in there, we have a rb30 with a gt3540 and supercharger that comes in... sick setup and is all home built see build thread here (ended up @ 400rwkw 23psi @ 2000ish)

http://forums.justcommodores.com.au/vn-vp-...ukes-vn-43.html

At 2000ish RPM? Fark me...no lag there!

Yeah I knew they boosted from low, I was just surprised by the amount of power the thing is putting out at 2000rpm particularly with a turbo bolted on. As is the purpose of twin charging I guess...

Whipple superchargers usually have full boost by 1200rpm, don't even need any throttle.

yup, if you look at the post above you will see the whipple is making 6 -odd psi down there :P

yup, if you look at the post above you will see the whipple is making 6 -odd psi down there :P

I think if someone made a Whipple supercharger kit for a skyline that didn't require $5k of fabrication for custom manifolds and relocating power steering etc and wasn't ridiculously loud there would be a definite market for it.

I know there is someone on here that has supercharged his RB25DE but he has had lots of issues with the bypass valve and making the car quieter than a 747 on full noise. If these problems could be ironed out I think a lot of people would use them.

Would make the engine drive like a big capacity v8 which all the RB30 guys seem to love.

Edited by Rolls

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...