Turbo Dyno graph question...
Turbo Dyno graph question... Are all turbo graphs like this one?
Im 95% sure that Im going turbo this year and was looking through some graphs. I used to be a hardcore N2O guy a couple years ago and I noticed that a turbo graph looks almost the same as a N2O graph. I didnt like the way N2O hit hard in the lower RPMs and fell off in the uppers. By the graph I posted, the TQ falls off almost 200 ft. lbs within 2000 RPMs. How noticable is this in street driving?
Im 95% sure that Im going turbo this year and was looking through some graphs. I used to be a hardcore N2O guy a couple years ago and I noticed that a turbo graph looks almost the same as a N2O graph. I didnt like the way N2O hit hard in the lower RPMs and fell off in the uppers. By the graph I posted, the TQ falls off almost 200 ft. lbs within 2000 RPMs. How noticable is this in street driving?
that is with a stock 98 cam and stock rockers.
also went 144mph like that so really not THAT bad.
dont think of it as you losing tq at the end, but gaining a ton in the middle.
also went 144mph like that so really not THAT bad.
dont think of it as you losing tq at the end, but gaining a ton in the middle.
I know thats your graph 
but Im looking at it from a street view. I used to spray (I compare N2O because I have experience with it) 150-200 shot on the street and when the hit came (the same as full spool) traction was a joke and as the RPMs rose, it felt like the car fell off. I like the linear power/ torque of a charger, but wanted a turbo because of the effiency and lack of belt slip crap.
but Im looking at it from a street view. I used to spray (I compare N2O because I have experience with it) 150-200 shot on the street and when the hit came (the same as full spool) traction was a joke and as the RPMs rose, it felt like the car fell off. I like the linear power/ torque of a charger, but wanted a turbo because of the effiency and lack of belt slip crap. 
