> As the owner of a turbo car and one who has been disgusted by the
> many anti-turbo rules, I have to disagree with you here. The BOV (or
> pop off valve), while protecting the compressor wheel and shaft bearings
> from stall induced by rearward traveling shock waves, serves a VERY
> noticable performance function. Without the BOV, the turbo may come
> to a complete stop, and this will increase spool up time. With a BOV,
> the turbo can continue to spin even with the throttle closed, and you
> get boost very quickly when you open the throttle again. Cars without
> a BOV from the factory will see a marked change in performance from
> the addition of one.
---
You assume that additions to the car (which would be illegal) are
present that would spin the turbo up while not under load, without that sort
of system, the BOV is a zero HP gain.
Without a BOV, fine..I cant help a handicapped design, but to
upgrade from a stocker to a larger one, i dont see the real performance
gain.
Allowing any exhaust is a REAL upgrade for a turbo car, not a BOV.
Now, since the the HP/Torque output of the car is only with the
turbo going full rate, it almost seems unfair (or at least not taken into
consideration by the SCCA) that everytime we let off the gas, we're
basically a dead car. lets see how much the N/A crowd foams at the mouth
when we restrict them to 10% of operating power at any RPM range for 5
seconds just because they let off the gas. By not allowing BOV upgrades (a
zero real HP upgrade) I see this as a way to restrict badly classed turbo
cars from -ever- being competative. Im not whining because the MK Supra is
never -ever- gonna be a contender in FS or ESP because I didnt buy my two
Supra turbos to be such, I just like em.
If the SCCA wants to honestly update and revise the rules for more
modern times, -real- modifications need to be defined and dealt with
appropriately, and the things that came up because someone who complained
because they didnt understand...well, those need to go.
I don't see the preventative work putting you in mod....what exactly
are
you referring to? The things that will punt you to mod are
increasing
boost, changing out the wheel, or clipping the exhaust
turbine...none
of which I consider preventative.
---
Musta been way late at night, I dont remember how I got MOD out of a
BOV, but I can add to that.
Im running 8psi stock on a stock turbo. The stock turbo is capable
of 17psi easy. I install a $2000 turbo, and run it at sock boost. Why does
it move me from P to MOD?
> > Imagine this being competative: A toyota celica with a 2.L motor
> >(stock internals/head..etc) with a turbocharger on it competing in EM.
> >Yeah...ok.
>
>
> I can only assume you mean an All-Trac...if that's the case, in EM, you
> can run all the boost you want. I know for a fact that the 3S-GTE engine
> running stock internals and head will handle 24psi from a T-04E
> compressor.
> This puts your AWD Celica around 350HP. If you run the stock CT-26
> turbo, but bump it up to 17psi with a better intercooler, you're around
> 260HP.
---
No, a regular old celica, two-wheel-drive. Not a single
modification other than bolting on a turbo.
> I ran an MR2 Turbo in ASP last year, so I know your complaints. They
> aren't anything I haven't stated already, and they are the primary reason
> I retired the Turbo and started prepping my 85 MR2 for CSP. Most turbo
> cars seem to be doing fine, but most of the Toyota turbo cars seem to be
> underdogs.
---
What region are you in? maybe we'll catch each other this year.
Ive retired the Supra from ESP, only because it couldnt possibly be
classed any worse. In a straight line it'll eat up anything in the class,
but take your foot off the gas then turn a corner...no way.
Ive decided to chase down some AS competition in the VR4 this year.
|