Quote:
Originally Posted by Dimman
Eaton is also very tight about their drive HP requirements and volumetric efficiency. Compare a TVS map to a Lysholm map, and you see that the Lysholm ones are complete, Eaton's aren't. There just seems to be a lot of 'you have to ask Eaton directly' to get data. Not transparent at all. Plus in the Cobalt demo, they use theoretical numbers on the high power SC version.
I think I sized out a 900 or 1050 as being really good for this motor. But after like 5 years of tease, they STILL aren't ready...
I want to see a real Eaton vs Lysholm test, because I don't like how Eaton is presenting its numbers. Why did GM ditch them on the Cobalt, BTW?
Side note: once I get my BRZ, I'm pretty sure I want to try a positive displacement SC, as I have my turbo fix now.
|
R1050 would be the best choice it what i want to use. should be capable of 350whp 250ish torque. which would be perfect.
Chevrolet went away from eaton because the were using m62 twin screw style. and that could not match the turbo for efficiency. TVS would have matched the turbo (ish) but at the time the R900/R1050 were not even in the works just the 1320. which was a bit too big.
i did however get the complete picture. mechanical efficiency is 95% for the 1320 so i would suspect it shouldn't be much different. i also confirmed that eaton's maps do take all considerations (power requirements, VE, Mechanical Efficiency ) into the thermal efficiency maps they put out. the numbers on the maps are the NET product of all the different factors taken together.