}BlueFire{

iTrader: (8)

I really want to stick with a precision turbo so would there be something better suited for the job that they make?

Sales@Tick

iTrader: (3)

Jason, I saw Pete post that in reference to chads car once but I could be mistaken. It's been so long.... still proves a very good point.

Sales@Tick

iTrader: (3)

Meaning on a chassis dyno or on track? That was done on a dyno jet 248 iirc what HED has.

OP: I would consider the pt7675 on a 5.3 to be more along the lines of the bigger turbine tighter AR method.

427

iTrader: (3)

I think it's best tested on the track. The chassis dyno cannot match the engine acceleration and that tightens up the results. On the track you would notice more difference between those two AR housings, and how they match the car would be easy as looking at the time slip.

Kurt

Sales@Tick

iTrader: (3)

I agree. What do you think would be seen on the track? I would be led to believe that the 1.0 would still be more responsive with more under the curve power, but with the heat in the exhaust one would see from spooling the turbo on the starting line and then off the trans brake down track would allow the 1.47 to generate enough drive pressure to make up for the loss we're seeing on the dyno.

If that was indeed done on Jaimie's truck, it is a 262 c.i. V6 with a GTV-88 which is a 98mm turbine wheel. With that turbo he has been 4.94@149 in the 1/8th and 7.5x@189 in the 1/4. He has a precision X275 LF85 or LF88 on there now.

427

iTrader: (3)

Large turbine big AR stuff will sometimes be sluggish early in the run and then recover poorly on gear changes. In drag cars you many times run faster by giving up peak power for more power at the bottom of the gear.
The dyno will most always show more "HP" with free flowing parts, but sometimes they make the engine lazy.

Kurt

TurboMonte100

iTrader: (1)

^^Agreed