| EAGLE5 |
11-17-2014 01:04 PM |
3. It's quite easy to make another kit scroll at low rpm. Put a smaller turbo on. Then you get a power band like Crawford, but you run into reliability problems. Then you build the engine. Then you tune. You still probably paid less then Crawford charges.
4. WHP is a better measure of actual performance because driveline loss is factored in. Crank horsepower is a bigger number, so it sounds better - good for marketing. Yes, dynos are different, which is why an intelligent person compares the same car pre and post mod on the same dyno with the same settings in as close to the same conditions as possible. Myself, I don't care about the dynos, whp, or SAE HP. I like my butt dyno and fun.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiz
(Post 2024514)
1. I did not try the FT86 Crawford kit.
3. It seems to me that the Crawford (twinscroll) kit is the only US kit (except for the low hp AVO kit) that makes more than 400hp on pump gas AND has a reasonable power band (i.e. it makes significant power below 4k rpm). I do not want a turbo kit that makes power/boost at 4.5+ rpm. This is what quarter mile kiddies need. This is how turbos performed in the 80s. I do not understand why most people seem to be content with the lag of the turbo kits that are mostly discussed in this forum.
4. I also do not understand why people insist on comparing whp figures. Noone does this in Europe. No car manufacturer quotes whp figures. The reason is simple. Each dyno reads differently. Moreover, the same dyno reads differently depending on the exact configuration. That's why dynos are usually calibrated so that you can correctly convert non-comparable whp figures and quote "normal", OEM-like crank hp figures that can be easily compared. Do you believe that every tuner cheats and, therefore, insist on whp figures?
|
|
