K24's Anyone?
#61
02-25-2007, 01:24 PM
KPG
Where have I routinely complained about this site? Care to post a few of those routines? Are you trying to win some support from 6Speeders by saying that or what is exactly the purpose of that childish statement?
Where am I debating dyno sheets? I am just trying to make you understand how little they mean for what you are trying to prove.
In case you have not noticed, 9 out of 10 posts from you are a selling line for Kevin's products, with or without any basis or tangible data. Not that I care since I highly respect him and know him before you had ever heard of him probably and could not be happier for him if you do any good to his business. Problem is that you are not doing him any favours by doing what you are doing.
But back to the topic on this thread, any discussion about turbo lag that relies on dyno sheets or performance numbers comparing cars with different states of tune or hardware setups is useless. Each one made a choice for a certain tuner, so just play the customer's role, enjoy them, and let others enjoy theirs.
Performance-wise, Divexxtreme ran 136mph trap speed on those K24/18G, something must be ok with them I guess.
Where have I routinely complained about this site? Care to post a few of those routines? Are you trying to win some support from 6Speeders by saying that or what is exactly the purpose of that childish statement?
Where am I debating dyno sheets? I am just trying to make you understand how little they mean for what you are trying to prove.
In case you have not noticed, 9 out of 10 posts from you are a selling line for Kevin's products, with or without any basis or tangible data. Not that I care since I highly respect him and know him before you had ever heard of him probably and could not be happier for him if you do any good to his business. Problem is that you are not doing him any favours by doing what you are doing.
But back to the topic on this thread, any discussion about turbo lag that relies on dyno sheets or performance numbers comparing cars with different states of tune or hardware setups is useless. Each one made a choice for a certain tuner, so just play the customer's role, enjoy them, and let others enjoy theirs.
Performance-wise, Divexxtreme ran 136mph trap speed on those K24/18G, something must be ok with them I guess.
Last edited by Jean; 02-25-2007 at 01:36 PM.
#62
02-25-2007, 02:01 PM
Originally Posted by KPG
Carver, excellent points.So, unless you are specifically building a 1 dimensional car to maximize any 1 of the above points 1,2,3 or 5, shouldnt the general discussion of turbos in a given class/price range shift to avg power and tq across the power band- point #4.The avg forum member here is most likely looking for info on a flexible,multipurpose turbo that has great performance at the 1/4 mile, road course and street work ,but specifically excels at none of those. I know I fit that target market since I track, drag and still need a car that my wife drives 5K miles a year.It now becomes a "power under the curve" debate and some tuning kits excel at that and some dont. If so why would one give away the lower part of the band in a 24/18G turbo? Be good , Kevin
You know the funny thing is that after reading this forum for the last two years, I have a modified view of the audience. I came here thinking most people would want the standard 3k-7k powerband, but now I can see that many are looking for the 3.5+k-7.5+k and a few want 2k-6k etc.
In addition, people are constantly using the word "lag" to define boost threshold which is very misleading. Dyno's don't test lag because you're not timing response from off to on throttle at 5000rpm etc.
To really classify the k24/18g turbocharger as having certain response characteristics compared to an xxxx design, I believe a more comprehensive, normalized and impartial setup, testing and measuring process has to be utilized. That's not to say that one can't promote the benefits of a given design, but to say it does something compared to something else, well, the designs have to be tested using the same frame of reference and observation. And right now, that's not being done dyno-wise at least.
I am constantly sitting here wondering about the variables and am very aware of how they can affect the outcome.
-what was the temperature, pressure and humiditiy and at what altitude?
-what was the fuel?
-what was the a/f?
-what was the a/f tested with and where was the placement of the probe?
-how close was the timing to MBT throughout?
-when and how was the dyno calibrated?
-was the manifold pressure gauge calibrated or checked?
-what gear, tire pressure etc. was used?
-what was the engine water and oil temperature?
-what run was it, how did the other runs go?
-what type of airflow cooling was used, fan placement?
-were retests done exactly the same way?
I could go on and on and I don't mean to turn this into an **** engineer diversion. Imho, when stating comparison results one needs to be very careful to not make claims unless all the variables are normalized and so far it just hasn't happened with the dyno tests.
As has been stated, showing up the same day at the same dragstrip is very hard to argue with from a power under the curve vs. weight vs. trap speed perspective.
#63
02-25-2007, 02:05 PM
Originally Posted by Jean
KPG
Where have I routinely complained about this site? Care to post a few of those routines? Are you trying to win some support from 6Speeders by saying that or what is exactly the purpose of that childish statement?
Where am I debating dyno sheets? I am just trying to make you understand how little they mean for what you are trying to prove.
In case you have not noticed, 9 out of 10 posts from you are a selling line for Kevin's products, with or without any basis or tangible data. Not that I care since I highly respect him and know him before you had ever heard of him probably and could not be happier for him if you do any good to his business. Problem is that you are not doing him any favours by doing what you are doing.
But back to the topic on this thread, any discussion about turbo lag that relies on dyno sheets or performance numbers comparing cars with different states of tune or hardware setups is useless. Each one made a choice for a certain tuner, so just play the customer's role, enjoy them, and let others enjoy theirs.
Performance-wise, Divexxtreme ran 136mph trap speed on those K24/18G, something must be ok with them I guess.
Where have I routinely complained about this site? Care to post a few of those routines? Are you trying to win some support from 6Speeders by saying that or what is exactly the purpose of that childish statement?
Where am I debating dyno sheets? I am just trying to make you understand how little they mean for what you are trying to prove.
In case you have not noticed, 9 out of 10 posts from you are a selling line for Kevin's products, with or without any basis or tangible data. Not that I care since I highly respect him and know him before you had ever heard of him probably and could not be happier for him if you do any good to his business. Problem is that you are not doing him any favours by doing what you are doing.
But back to the topic on this thread, any discussion about turbo lag that relies on dyno sheets or performance numbers comparing cars with different states of tune or hardware setups is useless. Each one made a choice for a certain tuner, so just play the customer's role, enjoy them, and let others enjoy theirs.
Performance-wise, Divexxtreme ran 136mph trap speed on those K24/18G, something must be ok with them I guess.
As for currying favor with fellow 6speeders....If you say so...
As for you debating dyno sheets..I apoligize. I stand corrected. You summarily dismiss them so that could not be called debate.
As for me hurting Kevin's business...that is a subjective statement on your part, nothing more. Please if you have some hard evidence that I am hurting his business please forward them to me since it would be of great concern.I assume you have none , so please dont speak of things with no facts to back them up as you routinely accuse me of doing...Consistency, Jean.
Anyway, since this has gone too far off topic I will end it here, but I would gladly continue this thru PM's if you choose. Be good my friend
Kevin
#64
02-25-2007, 02:06 PM
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 739
Rep Power: 50 
Originally Posted by KPG
Hey Tom. I just wanted your input on the 18G proto hybrids. You claim they are superior to all other hybrids. Since you made a direct reference to Kevin M perhaps you should compare his K16 based 3A hybrid to your favorite 24 based hybrid. Both these kits are priced relatively close so they are a good comparison. Dont even look at the dyno numbers themselves(even though UMW is higher ), just concentrate on the HP line on the graph and see how it trends. The Proto 700 kit plateaus and flatlines around 5K and never recovers power and actually drops off a bit. The UMW K16 based hybrid continues to make power all the way to redline. It would seem your turbo isnt all that efficient around 5K....I am at a loss as to why, since the " small " K16 based turbo keeps gaining ground high up in the rpm band where the 24/18G supposedly claims an advantage. Since the UMW turbo will make more power down low as well, how can you claim the 24 hybrids are the optimal solution? Be good...Kevin G
), just concentrate on the HP line on the graph and see how it trends. The Proto 700 kit plateaus and flatlines around 5K and never recovers power and actually drops off a bit. The UMW K16 based hybrid continues to make power all the way to redline. It would seem your turbo isnt all that efficient around 5K....I am at a loss as to why, since the " small " K16 based turbo keeps gaining ground high up in the rpm band where the 24/18G supposedly claims an advantage. Since the UMW turbo will make more power down low as well, how can you claim the 24 hybrids are the optimal solution? Be good...Kevin GSimple fact is when compairing the same car with same hardware same boost levels and allowing for custom tuning to suit the respected turbos the K24 based combo will beat the K16 based combo anytime if using the same compressor wheel (interchangable for both platforms). This is a fact!!! There is no disputing the larger AR and turbine wheel of the K24 based turbo will outflow the smaller K16 anyday. Now when you start compairing other variables you skew the results.
Your adjenda is clear.
What kind of kick back to you get from Kevin? All I hear you spew is marketing hype for his products.
As for me I like protomotive. I did not have them do my turbos though so you can't put me in the same catagory as you. I am pro K24's not so much pro protomotive.
Keep your K16 based turbo and those of us in the know realize you are loosing 75-100 HP if you were to do K24 based turbos.
#65
02-25-2007, 02:08 PM
Originally Posted by CARVER
Thanks Kevin.
You know the funny thing is that after reading this forum for the last two years, I have a modified view of the audience. I came here thinking most people would want the standard 3k-7k powerband, but now I can see that many are looking for the 3.5+k-7.5+k and a few want 2k-6k etc.
In addition, people are constantly using the word "lag" to define boost threshold which is very misleading. Dyno's don't test lag because you're not timing response from off to on throttle at 5000rpm etc.
To really classify the k24/18g turbocharger as having certain response characteristics compared to an xxxx design, I believe a more comprehensive, normalized and impartial setup, testing and measuring process has to be utilized. That's not to say that one can't promote the benefits of a given design, but to say it does something compared to something else, well, the designs have to be tested using the same frame of reference and observation. And right now, that's not being done dyno-wise at least.
I am constantly sitting here wondering about the variables and am very aware of how they can affect the outcome.
-what was the temperature, pressure and humiditiy and at what altitude?
-what was the fuel?
-what was the a/f?
-what was the a/f tested with and where was the placement of the probe?
-how close was the timing to MBT throughout?
-when and how was the dyno calibrated?
-was the manifold pressure gauge calibrated or checked?
-what gear, tire pressure etc. was used?
-what was the engine water and oil temperature?
-what run was it, how did the other runs go?
-what type of airflow cooling was used, fan placement?
-were retests done exactly the same way?
I could go on and on and I don't mean to turn this into an **** engineer diversion. Imho, when stating comparison results one needs to be very careful to not make claims unless all the variables are normalized and so far it just hasn't happened with the dyno tests.
As has been stated, showing up the same day at the same dragstrip is very hard to argue with from a power under the curve vs. weight vs. trap speed perspective.
You know the funny thing is that after reading this forum for the last two years, I have a modified view of the audience. I came here thinking most people would want the standard 3k-7k powerband, but now I can see that many are looking for the 3.5+k-7.5+k and a few want 2k-6k etc.
In addition, people are constantly using the word "lag" to define boost threshold which is very misleading. Dyno's don't test lag because you're not timing response from off to on throttle at 5000rpm etc.
To really classify the k24/18g turbocharger as having certain response characteristics compared to an xxxx design, I believe a more comprehensive, normalized and impartial setup, testing and measuring process has to be utilized. That's not to say that one can't promote the benefits of a given design, but to say it does something compared to something else, well, the designs have to be tested using the same frame of reference and observation. And right now, that's not being done dyno-wise at least.
I am constantly sitting here wondering about the variables and am very aware of how they can affect the outcome.
-what was the temperature, pressure and humiditiy and at what altitude?
-what was the fuel?
-what was the a/f?
-what was the a/f tested with and where was the placement of the probe?
-how close was the timing to MBT throughout?
-when and how was the dyno calibrated?
-was the manifold pressure gauge calibrated or checked?
-what gear, tire pressure etc. was used?
-what was the engine water and oil temperature?
-what run was it, how did the other runs go?
-what type of airflow cooling was used, fan placement?
-were retests done exactly the same way?
I could go on and on and I don't mean to turn this into an **** engineer diversion. Imho, when stating comparison results one needs to be very careful to not make claims unless all the variables are normalized and so far it just hasn't happened with the dyno tests.
As has been stated, showing up the same day at the same dragstrip is very hard to argue with from a power under the curve vs. weight vs. trap speed perspective.
Kevin
#66
02-25-2007, 02:12 PM
Originally Posted by K24madness
Kevin,
Simple fact is when compairing the same car with same hardware same boost levels and allowing for custom tuning to suit the respected turbos the K24 based combo will beat the K16 based combo anytime if using the same compressor wheel (interchangable for both platforms). This is a fact!!! There is no disputing the larger AR and turbine wheel of the K24 based turbo will outflow the smaller K16 anyday. Now when you start compairing other variables you skew the results.
Your adjenda is clear.
What kind of kick back to you get from Kevin? All I hear you spew is marketing hype for his products.
As for me I like protomotive. I did not have them do my turbos though so you can't put me in the same catagory as you. I am pro K24's not so much pro protomotive.
Keep your K16 based turbo and those of us in the know realize you are loosing 75-100 HP if you were to do K24 based turbos.
Simple fact is when compairing the same car with same hardware same boost levels and allowing for custom tuning to suit the respected turbos the K24 based combo will beat the K16 based combo anytime if using the same compressor wheel (interchangable for both platforms). This is a fact!!! There is no disputing the larger AR and turbine wheel of the K24 based turbo will outflow the smaller K16 anyday. Now when you start compairing other variables you skew the results.
Your adjenda is clear.
What kind of kick back to you get from Kevin? All I hear you spew is marketing hype for his products.
As for me I like protomotive. I did not have them do my turbos though so you can't put me in the same catagory as you. I am pro K24's not so much pro protomotive.
Keep your K16 based turbo and those of us in the know realize you are loosing 75-100 HP if you were to do K24 based turbos.
Last edited by KPG; 02-25-2007 at 11:28 PM.
#67
02-25-2007, 02:38 PM
KPG
I am sure you are simply joking, but just in case I will correct you, you are talking about powerband of the K24/18G so I gave you the example of Scott reaching 136 mph trap speed. It does not mean that I hold religiously trap speed = exact HP as an exact science does it? It certainly does not prove anything about lag though, I hope it is clear now, I am consistent in what I say.
As far as you supporting your tuner or anyone else it is your prerogative, most of your posts do sound like a selling line though which is what I said and you questioned, that's all. People are free to support who they want, I certainly have no issue with that, but they should not ask why people say they do ?
I am also friends with Scott, but I don't agree with him on certain things, no big deal, my car is faster than his and he is not upset about it
As far as my motives, I will leave that to Kevin as well to know whether I have any. By way of disclosure I am a major shareholder in Garrett....
I am always good my friend, you know it
I am sure you are simply joking, but just in case I will correct you, you are talking about powerband of the K24/18G so I gave you the example of Scott reaching 136 mph trap speed. It does not mean that I hold religiously trap speed = exact HP as an exact science does it? It certainly does not prove anything about lag though, I hope it is clear now, I am consistent in what I say.
As far as you supporting your tuner or anyone else it is your prerogative, most of your posts do sound like a selling line though which is what I said and you questioned, that's all. People are free to support who they want, I certainly have no issue with that, but they should not ask why people say they do ?
I am also friends with Scott, but I don't agree with him on certain things, no big deal, my car is faster than his and he is not upset about it
As far as my motives, I will leave that to Kevin as well to know whether I have any. By way of disclosure I am a major shareholder in Garrett....
I am always good my friend, you know it
#68
02-25-2007, 03:08 PM
Originally Posted by KPG
Carver, more excellent points. I guess that any comparison of any type is just not possible then. Once a year we should all get together and run at the track and then debate that forthe coming year. I thoroughly enjoy your posts..although they are deep Kevin
KevinI do agree however that showing up to the same track, the same day with the different setups would be very useful as long as the cars are weighed and fueled there.....
It would still be possible for someone to run an "aggressive" map at the track and then turn it down for the street......but controlled octane would put the kibosh on that in heart beat....then it comes down to who wants to run closer to the edge of mechanical destruction.....my point is that the track has its possible shortcomings too.
This is why the manufacturers use engine dynomometers. The SAE standards and their counterparts elsewhere along with removing the external variables allow precise and accurate measurements of horsepower and torque along with the other required data. The transient (lag) response still has to be optimized with actual track testing however. No competent engineer would ever claim that theory and simulated testing could completely substitute for the real world R & D that is required for a completed product.
Last edited by CARVER; 02-25-2007 at 03:12 PM.
#69
02-25-2007, 04:25 PM
hahah all of this came from a simple (k24 anyone). Simply a dispute almost everytime I read. We should simply put it in a way that the tuners tuned it in a way that they feel best for the car and driving condition. There is absolutely no data that supports either tuner from an apple to apple comparision and customer should just choose what fits them most. I feel that both tuners will give their customers the satisfaction
from their package. NOW IF ANYONE WANTS TO SELL ME A USED PACKAGE OF EITHER OR I WILL BE HAPPY TO TAKE IT BECAUSE I AM ABSOLUTELY DONE FROM TRYING TO DO RESEARCH.
from their package. NOW IF ANYONE WANTS TO SELL ME A USED PACKAGE OF EITHER OR I WILL BE HAPPY TO TAKE IT BECAUSE I AM ABSOLUTELY DONE FROM TRYING TO DO RESEARCH.
#70
02-25-2007, 05:36 PM
Divexxtreme,
Where will you be in Iraq? I am in the IZ (Green Zone), but travel here and there. PM me and I will give you my contact info.
Porsche content: I have seen Uday and Qusays Porsches, will post pics soon!
Anders
<SNIP>
Holding up well bro, thanks for asking. Flying back to the US in 4 days, so I'm pretty excited about that. But I head out to Iraq in September for 6-months...so I won't be home long.
</SNIP>
Where will you be in Iraq? I am in the IZ (Green Zone), but travel here and there. PM me and I will give you my contact info.
Porsche content: I have seen Uday and Qusays Porsches, will post pics soon!
Anders
<SNIP>
Holding up well bro, thanks for asking. Flying back to the US in 4 days, so I'm pretty excited about that. But I head out to Iraq in September for 6-months...so I won't be home long.
</SNIP>
#71
02-25-2007, 10:08 PM
Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: The Woodlands, TX
Age: 57
Posts: 1,935
Rep Power: 105 
Originally Posted by deepblue
Divexxtreme,
...I have seen Uday and Qusays Porsches, will post pics soon!
Anders
...I have seen Uday and Qusays Porsches, will post pics soon!
Anders
#73
02-25-2007, 11:15 PM
Originally Posted by Jean
I am also friends with Scott, but I don't agree with him on certain things, no big deal, my car is faster than his and he is not upset about it
#74
04-07-2007, 07:17 AM
Originally Posted by CARVER
Jean has a point here, actually a few.
This discussion is really talking about 5 different things which are being interchanged without defining which one is the point.
1. Boost threshold or the engine speed where exhaust flow is sufficient to produce positive intake manifold pressure
2. Turbo lag or the time delay of boost response while the engine is above the boost threshold.
I'd even go further to say the time delay at a specified and equivalent rpm above the boost threshold (the engine's defined operating rpm)
3. Peak horsepower
4. Mean horsepower also known as total HP x RPM area under the curve for a defined operating range
5. Operating environment, conditions and setup
Unless one specifies which point they're talking about, the discussion doesn't resolve or clarify anything. Here are some examples:
Driver A is a 1/4 mi., 60-130mph, big road course type. #4 is his primary concern since he's always above the boost threshold, spooled and in the proper gear.
Driver B is a short road course/auto-x type. He is primarily concerned with #2 and #4 since he is always shifting to stay above #1,
but he is on and off the throttle with the turns so he wants average HP and minimum lag while above the boost threshold.
Driver C is primarily a city driver with low average speeds and many stops. He is concerned with #1 and #4 since he is constantly coming out of the boost threshold rpm and back into it. He'd rather have a lower boost threshold so that he can generate boost closer to idle for all the stops and slow transitions in the city.
Both drivers can't compare their performance to each other unless #5 is taken into account because all of the #1-#4's are affected by density altitude or the local pressure, temperature and humidity of the air during that given time. Add to that idea that many dyno operators don't correct for the local conditions properly with turbocharged engines and you really have quite a few variations to compensate for. Add in software variations for similar setups and you have another variable.
So to talk about #1 or #2 for a drag racer doesn't make sense.
To talk about #3 for an auto-x racer or stop and go driver doesn't make sense.
To not talk about #1 for a person at high density altitudes doesn't make sense.
To compare systems at different #5's has to be taken into account since the outcomes will be affected by it.
My point is that if different systems from different shops are to be compared, the conditions and objective criteria have to be defined clearly to get useful information out of the discussion. And even then, a focused effort has to be made to normalize the variables so that meaningful data is obtained.
$.02 etc.
This discussion is really talking about 5 different things which are being interchanged without defining which one is the point.
1. Boost threshold or the engine speed where exhaust flow is sufficient to produce positive intake manifold pressure
2. Turbo lag or the time delay of boost response while the engine is above the boost threshold.
I'd even go further to say the time delay at a specified and equivalent rpm above the boost threshold (the engine's defined operating rpm)
3. Peak horsepower
4. Mean horsepower also known as total HP x RPM area under the curve for a defined operating range
5. Operating environment, conditions and setup
Unless one specifies which point they're talking about, the discussion doesn't resolve or clarify anything. Here are some examples:
Driver A is a 1/4 mi., 60-130mph, big road course type. #4 is his primary concern since he's always above the boost threshold, spooled and in the proper gear.
Driver B is a short road course/auto-x type. He is primarily concerned with #2 and #4 since he is always shifting to stay above #1,
but he is on and off the throttle with the turns so he wants average HP and minimum lag while above the boost threshold.
Driver C is primarily a city driver with low average speeds and many stops. He is concerned with #1 and #4 since he is constantly coming out of the boost threshold rpm and back into it. He'd rather have a lower boost threshold so that he can generate boost closer to idle for all the stops and slow transitions in the city.
Both drivers can't compare their performance to each other unless #5 is taken into account because all of the #1-#4's are affected by density altitude or the local pressure, temperature and humidity of the air during that given time. Add to that idea that many dyno operators don't correct for the local conditions properly with turbocharged engines and you really have quite a few variations to compensate for. Add in software variations for similar setups and you have another variable.
So to talk about #1 or #2 for a drag racer doesn't make sense.
To talk about #3 for an auto-x racer or stop and go driver doesn't make sense.
To not talk about #1 for a person at high density altitudes doesn't make sense.
To compare systems at different #5's has to be taken into account since the outcomes will be affected by it.
My point is that if different systems from different shops are to be compared, the conditions and objective criteria have to be defined clearly to get useful information out of the discussion. And even then, a focused effort has to be made to normalize the variables so that meaningful data is obtained.
$.02 etc.
You're absolutely correct - each driver needs to examine his needs and then attempt to satisfy those needs through appropriate means.
Last edited by Tech-Law; 04-07-2007 at 07:26 AM.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
BlackMarketRacing
996 Turbo / GT2
37
12-08-2015 01:49 PM
BlackMarketRacing
996 Turbo / GT2
16
12-03-2015 10:46 AM
