Forced Induction Superchargers | Turbochargers | Intercoolers

242/242 .624/.624 on a 115 or 242/240 for Rearmount

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 08-30-2009, 10:48 AM
  #21  
TECH Addict
 
engineermike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,153
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts

Default

Perhaps in the 1500 hp range, you aren't quite as flexible on the converter. After a couple of tries on the converter on my 900 hp car, we were able to get the pre-spool engine rpm high enough to get fast spool, while keeping slippage down post-spool. The end result is the extra hp from a conventional split and fast spool.
Old 08-30-2009, 11:28 AM
  #22  
FormerVendor
iTrader: (3)
 
Shawn @ VA Speed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Virginia Beach,Virginia
Posts: 2,991
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Default

the converter slippage on Phil's car is 8%-pretty much unheard of in a smallblock turbo car making 2000+ hp,the tight converter allows us to run the big mph.if we had to run a looser converter-which we would to run a trad split cam-we would have more slippage and need the extra hp to run the same mph-so basically we would be running the motor harder to get the same end result.
Old 08-30-2009, 05:46 PM
  #23  
TECH Addict
 
engineermike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,153
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts

Default

Shawn, what I'm saying is that your 1500 - 2000 hp combo's have to run tight converters to keep slippage down. But, the measly <1000 hp combo's can run converters that slip enough to allow quick spool, but are tight on top end.
Old 08-31-2009, 07:39 AM
  #24  
TECH Senior Member
iTrader: (21)
 
Fireball's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Cecil County Raceway!!!
Posts: 8,484
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts

Default

Originally Posted by engineermike
I've tried a single-pattern and lost enough power, with no noticeable gain in spool time, that I switched back to a conventional split.
So you've never tried a reverse split then huh? You have no data then...

Just because its a reverse split means nothing...still need to get the valve events right...

There is no magic stuff in my motor and it just flat out works...Even at low boost...mine will run mid 150s i the 1/4 at 8psi
Old 08-31-2009, 07:50 AM
  #25  
TECH Addict
 
engineermike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,153
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts

Default

Originally Posted by Fireball
So you've never tried a reverse split then huh? You have no data then...
I went from a traditional split to a single pattern and lost 30 rwhp. You think I'm going to go further in that direction? Even Shawn admits the traditional split will make more power. However, with my converter, I don't need the quicker spool that a reverse-split supposedly gives you.
Old 08-31-2009, 09:14 AM
  #26  
Gingervitis Addict
iTrader: (2)
 
slow67's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: DFW
Posts: 2,399
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts

Default

Originally Posted by engineermike
I went from a traditional split to a single pattern and lost 30 rwhp. You think I'm going to go further in that direction? Even Shawn admits the traditional split will make more power. However, with my converter, I don't need the quicker spool that a reverse-split supposedly gives you.
I'm pretty sure crashly had the same conclusion as Shawn at VA speed. He has a rail car with twins on an SBC. The traditional split made more power, but didn't ET as good or spool as good.
Old 08-31-2009, 11:37 AM
  #27  
TECH Fanatic
Thread Starter
iTrader: (6)
 
TurboAv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Tonopah, AZ
Posts: 1,455
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Default

Tastes Great!!!!


Less Filling!!!



Quick Reply: 242/242 .624/.624 on a 115 or 242/240 for Rearmount



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:33 PM.