Brettus turbo 111 (the ultimate Renesis turbo ?)
#1202
Registered
I might just do that ...lol
I have to say the current setup hasn't been any sort of breakthrough though . Bridgeport has had zero positive effect .
If my theory that the benefits you get in an rew engine are from fuel going straight through the engine and igniting in the manifold , then the wastegate setup i have was never going to take advantage of that effect anyway.
I have to say the current setup hasn't been any sort of breakthrough though . Bridgeport has had zero positive effect .
If my theory that the benefits you get in an rew engine are from fuel going straight through the engine and igniting in the manifold , then the wastegate setup i have was never going to take advantage of that effect anyway.
thewird
#1203
So if the engine doesn't have to provide as much power to drive the turbine ............... it makes more power at the crank !
Last edited by Brettus; 10-31-2016 at 12:04 AM.
#1204
Registered
If it helps the turbo spool as you say .............. then it is effectively making power at the same time .It takes power (aka pressure and heat ) to drive the turbine.
So if the engine doesn't have to provide as much power to drive the turbine ............... it makes more power at the crank !
So if the engine doesn't have to provide as much power to drive the turbine ............... it makes more power at the crank !
A typical bridgeport makes peak torque around 7000-8000 RPM depending on the size. Your turbo setup needs to be setup with that in mind (bigger exhaust, bigger turbine, and turbine housing a/r etc.) but I don't think the renny has enough overlap or exhaust flow to make it work without introducing a perry exhaust.
thewird
Last edited by thewird; 10-31-2016 at 12:20 AM.
#1205
agreed ........ there is no way that the renesis can bypass anywhere near as much air no matter how low the turbine backpressure is ..........due to the lack of exhaust overlap.
#1206
Registered
iTrader: (3)
The issue of bypass due to overlap is moot if the turbo is too restrictive. If exhaust pressure is substantially higher than intake pressure you will not get very much air/fuel passing through in the overlap window, depending on how much back pressure and how poorly tuned the exhaust/intake are you could even get more EGR and lose power.
ALS systems only work at low load because that's the only time you can feed intake air into the turbo exhaust housing. At high load the back-pressure wont allow it, but that's also where you don't need it.
Also with a undersized turbo the bridgeport adds very little because the restriction is the turbo. If you are going to put a major restriction in an air line you put it last, because it increases the pressure, and decreases the velocity through all restrictions before it. This is also why you want to be as free flowing as possible after the turbo.
ALS systems only work at low load because that's the only time you can feed intake air into the turbo exhaust housing. At high load the back-pressure wont allow it, but that's also where you don't need it.
Also with a undersized turbo the bridgeport adds very little because the restriction is the turbo. If you are going to put a major restriction in an air line you put it last, because it increases the pressure, and decreases the velocity through all restrictions before it. This is also why you want to be as free flowing as possible after the turbo.
#1207
The issue of bypass due to overlap is moot if the turbo is too restrictive. If exhaust pressure is substantially higher than intake pressure you will not get very much air/fuel passing through in the overlap window, depending on how much back pressure and how poorly tuned the exhaust/intake are you could even get more EGR and lose power.
At this point in the cycle there is only one place to go , and that is out of the exhaust port .
#1209
Not really concerned about the fact that mine didn't work . I just thought it interesting to look at my results vs the PP setups that do work.
My theory stacks up if you consider what happened in my case vs what happens on a PP bridge .
Last edited by Brettus; 10-31-2016 at 03:48 PM.
#1211
Cheers .
I would still have expected at least some small gains from doing it . Even if it just filled the dead area that is present after the exhaust closes, with clean air/fuel instead of exhaust gas . I haven't completely ruled out that possibility yet. The overlay of the before and after dyno is pretty much identical . But the AFrs on the bridgeport dyno were much leaner (11.5 vs 10.0) . Maybe if i had made afrs the same I would see some gain ....................... (running E50)
I would still have expected at least some small gains from doing it . Even if it just filled the dead area that is present after the exhaust closes, with clean air/fuel instead of exhaust gas . I haven't completely ruled out that possibility yet. The overlay of the before and after dyno is pretty much identical . But the AFrs on the bridgeport dyno were much leaner (11.5 vs 10.0) . Maybe if i had made afrs the same I would see some gain ....................... (running E50)
Last edited by Brettus; 10-31-2016 at 04:58 PM.
#1218
FULLY SEMI AUTOMATIC
iTrader: (9)
you got weird looking puppies down under
#1219
#1225
Registered
Your not going to get a benefit from a bridgeport unless you eliminate your backpressure. The only power gain comes from the exhaust siphoning the air in and flushing the chamber (cleaning excess exhaust gas), not wasted air/fuel going out the exhaust which only helps spool. The only way you can make turbo power on a bridge is by running large A/R turbo's which defeats the spool benefit but actually gives you the bridge mid to top-end power. There is zero benefit on a bridgeport in the low-end no matter what you do, its actually negative gains.
The AEM wideband failsafe works good but the their water/meth failsafe is garbage.
thewird
The AEM wideband failsafe works good but the their water/meth failsafe is garbage.
thewird