TURBO POWERRRRRRRRRRRRRR On a 250?

holy crap batman thats awesome i didnt think they made nitrous systems that small, ill have to pass on the electric super charger looks like an ( as seen on tv) bit to gimiky
 
The real advantage of a turbo over supercharger is when your going up mountains.
They automatically 'increase boost' because of the pressure differential
For ultimate power, there really isn't anything in it but superchargers don't have any 'lag' even if too big for motor (just gear them differently)

BTW,
They make single shot nitrous systems for 35cc pocket bikes
 
The other thing is turbos are "free" power - chargers need to be driven by the engine and will zap some power (maybe not a hell of a lot for a small engine, but did you know a 350 small block doesn't make enough power to drive the supercharger on a top fuel dragster??).
 
twistekeys said:
But how's this not fun to think about? ;D
Click to expand...

Thought experiments are always fun.
I have thought about L O N G stroke, low RPM stationary engine designs, but am I likely to ever build anything like that? No. I am not Smokey Yunick.

I have thought about using engine heat to make steam for a secondary engine. Will I ever build it? Not likely, (though not impossible.)
 
Sonreir said:
And you're unlikely to find a turbo that meets your needs. A turbo for a 250cc engine would be very difficult to find.

The world's smallest mass produced turbo is the IHI RHB31. It was originally designed for 660cc Kei cars in Japan. Only at the very highest RPMs would your 250 engine be putting out enough exhaust to spool that turbo.

You'd be better off looking at superchargers.
Click to expand...


Nah you can find one in your bathroom it's called a blow dryer! ;)
 
AlphaDogChoppers said:
I have thought about using engine heat to make steam for a secondary engine. Will I ever build it? Not likely, (though not impossible.)
Click to expand...

I thought about the same thing, only the steam would be used to provide additional pressure for spooling a turbo. :D
 
Sonreir said:
Depends on the size and the gearing ratios. A supercharger can be more powerful than a turbo, but that's like saying a V6 can be more powerful than a V8. It's not a good comparison.

What can be said is that turbos are more efficient than superchargers, and so when seeking maximum horsepower, a turbo usually holds the edge.
Click to expand...

+1
 
hillsy said:
The other thing is turbos are "free" power
Click to expand...

Since this thread has gone to hell in a handbasket already, I am crossing the line to pedantic town, and going to pull you up on 'free' power for turbos.

Increasing the efficiency of an engine is 'free' power. To increase efficiency you can increase the compression ratio, you can increase the intake air density, you can remove a restrictive exhaust system.

A turbo does the opposite in all 3.

Turbo + high compression = detonation
Turbo increases intake air temperature, decreasing density. Even intercoolers will not get you back to ambient due to efficiencies
Turbo restricts the exhaust process by sticking a great big hunk of metal that the air needs to push to pass.

So whilst I concur you can get increased power with a turbo I dispute it being free.
 
;D
internetsloth.jpg
 
ako said:
So whilst I concur you can get increased power with a turbo I dispute it being free.
Click to expand...

I think what he was referring to was the fact that a super charger will take some horsepower to make some horse power for an example: takes .5 for every 2 it creates. (Not real specs just an example) Where a turbo charger does not rob horsepower from an engine to create horsepower is just uses the exhaust gases rather than a manual link with a pulley or gear where power is lost.

The feasibility of putting one on a bike is not really something I would delve into because if you have the determination to do it you can make anything work. That being said I would probably put my time and money into other areas than a turbo.
 
twistekeys said:
Wait, how does NOS work? And I totally want that little pod filter ;D
Click to expand...

NOS is actually a brand name. It stands for Nitrous Oxide Systems. Nitrous Oxide is the molecule NO. One atom of nitrogen, one atom of oxygen. One of the interesting properties of NO is that at around 500°F, the oxygen and nitrogen decouple, leaving you N2 and O2 molecules. O2 happens to be the molecule needed to combust your gasoline and since such a large volume of oxygen is needed to combust a very small volume of gasoline, the limiting factor for getting lots of horsepower out of an engine is how much oxygen you can stuff into the cylinders.

So basically, NO doesn't provide any additional horsepower on its own. In fact, it will cause a seriously lean condition (and probably toast your engine) if you inject it without also compensating with additional fuel. It's the added fuel that gets you more power. The NO just lets you add more fuel without experiencing a rich condition and losing power.

twistekeys said:
So you have to drill into the head to inject the NOS? ...Is this like injecting ether while riding?
Click to expand...

No. Actually, you can/should hook it directly up to the vacuum ports on your carbs. But again, if you don't provide extra fuel during the NO injection, your engine is not going to be happy.

Extra fuel is traditionally metered using a fuel pump and injectors, but there are mechanical ways of of doing it, too.
 
Also, that little fan blower thingy is an absolute waste of money.

Figure out how much air your engine is ingesting at high RPMs and you can quickly find that no fan is going to be able to beat that.
 
On the bike Im slowly but surly putting together, i modified the gas cap to seal with a 11 pound spring, and a line (with a one way check valve) fron the airbox surrounding the carbs pressurizing the fuel tank. to keep from going to a rich fuel situation i have a bleed off into a small carbon can with another check valve and line to the vacume manafold.
 
Sonreir said:
NOS is actually a brand name. It stands for Nitrous Oxide Systems. Nitrous Oxide is the molecule NO. One atom of nitrogen, one atom of oxygen. One of the interesting properties of NO is that at around 500°F, the oxygen and nitrogen decouple, leaving you N2 and O2 molecules. O2 happens to be the molecule needed to combust your gasoline and since such a large volume of oxygen is needed to combust a very small volume of gasoline, the limiting factor for getting lots of horsepower out of an engine is how much oxygen you can stuff into the cylinders.

So basically, NO doesn't provide any additional horsepower on its own. In fact, it will cause a seriously lean condition (and probably toast your engine) if you inject it without also compensating with additional fuel. It's the added fuel that gets you more power. The NO just lets you add more fuel without experiencing a rich condition and losing power.


No. Actually, you can/should hook it directly up to the vacuum ports on your carbs. But again, if you don't provide extra fuel during the NO injection, your engine is not going to be happy.

Extra fuel is traditionally metered using a fuel pump and injectors, but there are mechanical ways of of doing it, too.
Click to expand...

That sounds RELATIVELY easy compared to charging. So why can't you achieve a higher amount of fuel with a wider jet setup in-carb?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DTT Light or Dark

  • DTT Light

    • Spread the Love

    Back
    Top Bottom