Can a turbo charger be used to increase MPG?

[FastDriver]

Originally Posted by bitemeharder5

A real test would be to tune the crap out of the car before the turbo install and then after changing nothing more than the turbo. If so get a standalone to get really nitty gritty down to it. That's just my .02 instead of wondering about it test it out and be a pioneer. But the tuner must remain the same as everything else... and then you will only have that one comparison... a number of tuners before and after comparison would be great. Good luck. Oh and I understand this is not optimal.. just how it should be tested for a true theory and its backing.

This is actually a very good idea. When I become proficient with the BS3, I could do this just for ####s and giggles with my mustang. Everything on my car is optimized for use with a turbo, not n/a. However, if my suspicions are correct, then I still won't see any advantage once the turbo goes on. Timing, and AFR theoretically shouldn't change at cruise w/ or w/o a turbo. If I ever do this, I'll be sure to come back to this thread.

Chris

[FastDriver]

My guess is very few people here have heard of Corky Bell, but if you were really into turbocharging mustangs, you'd likely have come across the mustang "turbo bible." He's the author. I have a copy, and here's what he has to say on the subject. From page 13 of Maximum Boost by Corky Bell

Will the turbocharger hurt my mileage?
Yes. The turbo, when installed as an aftermarket item on a spark-ignition engine, is not an economizer and cannot be construed as such. There is no engineering basis for making such claims. If you are led into purchasing a turbo under the premise of improving your fuel mileage, be sure to get a written guarantee. When not operating under boost, a turbocharger is a small system restriction. This restriction causes a small loss in volumetric efficiency. Volumetric efficiency and fuel economy are definitely tied together. If your driving habits are about the same as most, your mileage will drop about 10% city and 5% highway. No miracles here.

That, btw, is straight from the pages of the book, and is not some googled opinion. I'm guessing it still won't satisfy you, despite the fact that Corky Bell has more experience with turbos in all kinds of vehicles in his left pinky than you will have in your life, 96tang.

[baskin]

Originally Posted by FastDriver

Baskin,

At least you have an arguable explanation for a possible way that turbos take advantage of energy the engine otherwise would not. Fuel that continues to burn in the exhaust would definitely contribute to the spool of the turbine. That explanation was well thought out.

The concern that I have here is that it still doesn't get to the part where it contributes to fuel efficiency at cruise. So assume that the turbine can remove more energy than the additional exhaust back pressure robs from the piston on the exhaust stroke. That energy goes into the compressor, which transfers the energy into the kinetic energy of the air in the inlet tubing. There is slightly less vacuum before the throttle blade, so the driver compensates by opening the throttle a little less. Since the car uses the same amount of power at cruise (say 20hp) to maintain a constant speed, the air the motor takes in remains the same. Obviously, we don't want more air and fuel getting into the motor over the same distance, else that would by definition be a decrease in fuel efficiency. So instead of taking advantage of the additional exhaust energy, it is wasted in the inlet tube.

Would you agree with my assessment here?

Chris

I edited that a few times to try and get some clarity, it didn't come out very clear. What I'm saying is that if you add an inert gas, or trap an inert gas, some of the heat from the burning mixture will then transfer to that gas in lieu of transferring to the cylinder wall and head. The advantage is that any heat transferred to the gas can be used for work where the heat transferred to the block can't.

I've found several decent articles where the EGR valve is adjusted in order to improve mileage a small amount. The problem that they run into is that, since the exhaust has to be injected near the inlet of the intake manifold in order to get a fair distribution between cylinders, it dilutes the burnable mixture to the point that it misfires. The advantage over that in trapping the exhaust is that some of the exhaust would probably not mix with the intake charge, so more can be trapped than added with the EGR without misfire. The same thing could of course be done with a restriction in the exhaust.

I’m not saying that this will absolutely add efficiency, I’m just saying that it’s the only viable argument that a tc will add efficiency. The argument that any boost at part throttle will add efficiency is incorrect by its very definition in that the same thing can be accomplished at the intake valve on an N/A car by just opening the throttle more.

[speedin']

Originally Posted by FastDriver

My guess is very few people here have heard of Corky Bell, but if you were really into turbocharging mustangs, you'd likely have come across the mustang "turbo bible." He's the author. I have a copy, and here's what he has to say on the subject. From page 13 of Maximum Boost by Corky Bell

That, btw, is straight from the pages of the book, and is not some googled opinion. I'm guessing it still won't satisfy you, despite the fact that Corky Bell has more experience with turbos in all kinds of vehicles in his left pinky than you will have in your life, 96tang.

nice one. i also read that book and dropped the corky bell reference but no one got it.

[FastDriver]

baskin,

Concur with your 1st and 3rd paragraphs. You lost me in the 2nd. Not because I disagree with any part, but rather because I could not understand what you were trying to communicate.

The problem that they run into is that, since the exhaust has to be injected near the inlet of the intake manifold in order to get a fair distribution between cylinders, it dilutes the burnable mixture to the point that it misfires.

Are you saying that the "clean" air/fuel mixture is so diluted by the exhaust gases that the mixture will not combust correctly?

The advantage over that in trapping the exhaust is that some of the exhaust would probably not mix with the intake charge, so more can be trapped than added with the EGR without misfire.

Totally lost me in this sentence. Please clarify.

The same thing could of course be done with a restriction in the exhaust.

Since this sentence follows the logic of the preceding sentence, I also could not follow the point made here.

Chris

[FastDriver]

Originally Posted by speedin'

nice one. i also read that book and dropped the corky bell reference but no one got it.

That you did.... right here in this post... I totally missed it.

Originally Posted by speedin'

i said it before and i'll say it again. adding a turbo will NOT increase your MPG.

however a turbo car that makes 300hp will likely be more fuel efficient than a NA car that makes 300hp.

read maximum boost by corky bell for those who disagree.

[baskin]

I'm saying that the EGR itself will give a slight improvement in mileage, but you can only inject so much exhaust into the intake manifold before it causes the engine to misfire.

Evidently, once it causes enough separation between the CxHx and the O2, the flame won't propagate. Because there would be less mixing of the exhaust and CxHx / O2 with the trapped exhaust than with the injected exhaust, more exhaust could be mixed in without having a misfire.

[Stang Seller]

Originally Posted by huesmann

Comparing apples to oranges? '85 Mustangs were carbed, '95 Mustangs were EFI...

Just responding to this, forgot to turn off my notification for this thread
Should have figured out that the '85 was an EFI vehicle if you go back a bit and see that I mentioned running a crap MAF sensor. I ran an '86 harness, with an '89 A9L computer plugged in, with 30# injectors, C+L crapmeter, and a 255lph in tank feeding a Garret T04E with a 57 trim compressor and a P trim turbine with 1.00 A/R.

Originally Posted by Ralph Greene

I haven't built a race engine , or designed a fuel system for one in a while, and that was a supercharged 4V 4.6 V8, around 570 RWHP, so I'm a little out of date with latest technology. I do know it's easier now to get good fuel economy and drivability than just a few years ago.

I just pointed out that Ford announced it expects to get about 25 MPG highway in passenger car (LIncoln MKS) with 3.5 V6 TT engine making about 350 HP................................ So....in these two comparisons, obviously adding a turbo did not increase fuel economy....and this was a factory effort, with all their resources.

I wasn't really digging at you, just the guy who somehow somewhere in your posts believes there is concrete proof to shock me into disbelief. The factory effort has so many other possibilities wrapped around it, I am sure they wouldn't take the same engine with all the same parameters and just slap a turbo on it and do a daily-driving comparo.

Originally Posted by 96tangcobra

Yet MORE indecipherable jibberish and non educated guessing going on..Until you have actually read the book then your going by an overview(Not hardly the entirety of the book by any means and yes,Its a good book but has nothing to do with the question at hand.Nice try though..Ive already listed some of the reasons efficiency CAN happen and this is the best you can muddle up?WOW,I dont understand why you even bother posting because your just digging your OWNED hole even deeper..And your correct about one thing,I do have more experience and been tuning cars longer than you have been walking.I BUILD turbo's,I know EXACTLY how they work.I TUNE cars,I know EXACTLY how that works as well,Albeit only a hobby since Ive been working for the company Im at now for 12 years..Which,BTW Im tech support for the company that supplys all of fords machining equipment.Basically,We manufacture all the machining tools that ford uses to machine all their parts so who is this "Senior engineer?" Ive probably met him over the years,If not I can ask some of them that I do know who he is..

Ouch, owned.

Originally Posted by bitemeharder5

A real test would be to tune the crap out of the car before the turbo install and then after changing nothing more than the turbo. If so get a standalone to get really nitty gritty down to it. That's just my .02 instead of wondering about it test it out and be a pioneer. But the tuner must remain the same as everything else... and then you will only have that one comparison... a number of tuners before and after comparison would be great. Good luck. Oh and I understand this is not optimal.. just how it should be tested for a true theory and its backing.

I'm actually in this exact process right now. I am setting up my Vic Jr headed 351W with a Professional Products EFI lower, custom box upper, full street exhaust, 30# injectors, and tuned by me through a Holley Commander 950 MPFI. I will most likely be doing testing with my current cam, then swapping that out for a turbo cam right before I install my turbo system. I will also be doing dyno testing and datalogging on all the parameters. I'm digging for a T56 and related parts, so that will be installed once the car is dialed in with a T5 and I will have mileage data from both setups. Then, later on this year I will be installing a custom turbo system consisting of a single GT42 and my goal is a street driven 700+hp Stang that gets 600km per tank. In time I will actually have proof to dispel these nonbelievers, instead of just 'my word against yours'.
With that said, I'm done with this thread.
SS

[baskin]

In other words, the odds of the hydrogen giving it's electron up to an oxygen to form h20 is a function of energy input and proximity. Dilution decreases proximity

[FastDriver]

Ok, the first part makes sense to me now. I'm also with you on the flame propagation. I don't follow on the last sentence. Injected exhaust comes from the EGR, but what trapped exhaust are you referring to?

Also a question about EGRs in general, if you don't mind taking a bit of a tangent from the main topic. Does the EGR increase mileage because of unburned fuel that remains in the exhaust that can be used after it goes back into the cylinder?

If not, how does an already hot, unburnable mixture increase fuel mileage since it's the pressure differential before vs. after combustion that creates power. Something that is already hot can't thermally expand as much as ambient air, and without fuel it would create no new moles of gas.

I don't mean to be dense. I'm just trying to thoroughly understand everything you're laying out.

Thanks,

Chris

[FastDriver]

I'm actually in this exact process right now. I am setting up my Vic Jr headed 351W with a Professional Products EFI lower, custom box upper, full street exhaust, 30# injectors, and tuned by me through a Holley Commander 950 MPFI. I will most likely be doing testing with my current cam, then swapping that out for a turbo cam right before I install my turbo system. I will also be doing dyno testing and datalogging on all the parameters. I'm digging for a T56 and related parts, so that will be installed once the car is dialed in with a T5 and I will have mileage data from both setups. Then, later on this year I will be installing a custom turbo system consisting of a single GT42 and my goal is a street driven 700+hp Stang that gets 600km per tank. In time I will actually have proof to dispel these nonbelievers, instead of just 'my word against yours'.
With that said, I'm done with this thread.
SS

Sounds like a very nice combo. I've got a 331 with a GT42, and though it has a TKO behind it I plan to put in a T56, as well. My goal is also 700 rwhp on pump gas. I have no mileage goals, just want it to be fun and streetable.

Look, when I started in this thread, I adamantly expressed that I did not know the answer to the question. After the research I've done, I'm now inclined to believe that turbos do not add efficiency. I respect your opinion, but I really do want to see something more concrete than an undocumented opinion. I have yet to see a real fair comparison, and I think I would actually enjoy doing one, myself. I also look forward to comparing notes in the future and hearing your results.

Chris

[baskin]

Originally Posted by FastDriver

Ok, the first part makes sense to me now. I'm also with you on the flame propagation. I don't follow on the last sentence. Injected exhaust comes from the EGR, but what trapped exhaust are you referring to?

Also a question about EGRs in general, if you don't mind taking a bit of a tangent from the main topic. Does the EGR increase mileage because of unburned fuel that remains in the exhaust that can be used after it goes back into the cylinder?

If not, how does an already hot, unburnable mixture increase fuel mileage since it's the pressure differential before vs. after combustion that creates power. Something that is already hot can't thermally expand as much as ambient air, and without fuel it would create no new moles of gas.

I don't mean to be dense. I'm just trying to thoroughly understand everything you're laying out.

Thanks,

Chris

I'm referring to the exhaust that doesn't make it out on the exhaust stroke due to the restriction in the exhaust.

If you look at emissions output, you can see there are almost no unburned hydrocarbons and co to co2 is just another covalent bond, which isn't worth much. What I'm saying is that the exhaust is hot, but it's still a lot colder than the actual combustion for a couple of reasons. First, a lot of heat is lost as it travels through the exhaust port. There isn't a lot of surface area but the temperature differential is high. Second, compressing any gas heats it (ideal gas law), so the ATM pressure exhaust gets cooled just by being let out of the chamber.

The net result is that the heat moves from the new combustion to the exhaust gas. This then lowers the temperature of the overall gas, which is the primary reason why an EGR is used (to reduce NOx)

The temperature differential between the resulting gas and the block is now lower, so less gets transferred to the metal. It's transferred instead to the spent exhaust, which heats up, expands, and moves the piston.

[baskin]

In other words, it's not just the combustion that heats the gas, but also the pressure of the combustion, that part goes back to kinetic energy (electron angular) when the exhaust valve opens.

[FastDriver]

Originally Posted by baskin

I'm referring to the exhaust that doesn't make it out on the exhaust stroke due to the restriction in the exhaust.

Aha!

If you look at emissions output, you can see there are almost no unburned hydrocarbons and co to co2 is just another covalent bond, which isn't worth much. What I'm saying is that the exhaust is hot, but it's still a lot colder than the actual combustion for a couple of reasons. First, a lot of heat is lost as it travels through the exhaust port. There isn't a lot of surface area but the temperature differential is high. Second, compressing any gas heats it (ideal gas law), so the ATM pressure exhaust gets cooled just by being let out of the chamber.

The net result is that the heat moves from the new combustion to the exhaust gas. This then lowers the temperature of the overall gas, which is the primary reason why an EGR is used (to reduce NOx)

Now I'm with you.

The temperature differential between the resulting gas and the block is now lower, so less gets transferred to the metal. It's transferred instead to the spent exhaust, which heats up, expands, and moves the piston.

I gotcha

Now, I can see how this would work conceptually with an EGR. With exhaust trapped in the cylinder in a turbo system though, the thermal energy lost can only really go into the cooler mixture as it fills the cylinder. But hell, that actually might not be a bad thing because it would promote better atomization of the fuel as the extra thermal energy helps to vaporize the fuel. So at least some of the thermal energy transfered would not be going into expanding the clean mixture at the wrong time. All other heat from the trapped exhaust woudl either stay with it, or would go into the block. Still I suppose that your point remains the same. However it loses thermal energy, it would be able to absorb some of the heat, and thermal expansion would help to force the cylinder down without higher temps. I can definitely see how it would increase the engine's thermal efficiency, but I'm curious as to how much. I wonder how much there is to this, and also if the proportion of exhaust gas vs. clean mixture remains the same. i.e. I wonder if you would have to reduce the amount of flow through the EGR system to compensate for the trapped exhaust already in the cylinder.

I would like to learn more about this subject. Would you recommend any specific material to get me started?

Thanks,

Chris

[96tangcobra]

Originally Posted by FastDriver

I'll name the man only if he chooses to weigh in on the subject. You can verify his credentials at that time. Until then, giving out his information is pointless anyway.

This is another one of those "OMG, someone IS WRONG on the internet!" situations that I'm not spending any more time on trying to convince idiots. What I do have time to do is quote the supposed explanations and laugh at them, as anyone with a technical background would:


These are all either wrong or not applicable to the argument you are making.

Yes,We have all verified you are wrong,(Thats about as hard as breathing..) Also,With your responses and "theorys",The only "technical background" I could see you in charge of is "what size spatula should I use to flip these big macs"..And people that have successfully accomplished something that you have less than no clue about?And WERE the IDIOTS??Now THATS funny!! Also, what part is untrue on ANY of the facts I Posted?HMM?I'd bet you cant post his name up beacause he's a fictitous character You have made up just like all the knowledge youve spewed on this thread.Now grab your helmet and crayons and run along corky...

[FastDriver]

If you do have to reduce the EGR to achieve the same proportion, then I can't see the turbocharged process picking up anything significant.

If you don't, then it will pick-up some fuel-efficiency as a result. However, will this overcome the "negative" work done by the back-pressure in the exhaust? It would have to in order to produce a net gain in fuel efficiency.

Chris

[FastDriver]

lol. Ok 96tang. Since this thread is more about measuring your penis vs. the size of anyone else's than actually contributing to the discussion, I'm done with you. I don't have to break down your explanations because they're laughable. Besides, it would just prompt you to beat your chest even more. Good luck with that. I'd rather continue in my civil discussion of the topic with other participating members.

And the engineer is not fictitious. He's a man I have a great deal of respect for. If he were to say that turbocharging alone increased fuel economy, I would accept his beliefs over my own, and then work very hard to learn why. Still, when I post his response it will not be directed towards you, and if there were a way to remove your posts from my view, I would do that and let others be the judge of whatever you had to say.

Good luck...

[baskin]

I just did a google search for EGR and gas mileage. I didn't find anything very technical, but there were some that you could tell weren't morons who had articles on tweaking the EGR. As far as the theory, just applying physics to the data in order to come up with a reasonable discussion, I'm not an expert in this field by any means.

[baskin]

Originally Posted by FastDriver

If you do have to reduce the EGR to achieve the same proportion, then I can't see the turbocharged process picking up anything significant.

If you don't, then it will pick-up some fuel-efficiency as a result. However, will this overcome the "negative" work done by the back-pressure in the exhaust? It would have to in order to produce a net gain in fuel efficiency.

Chris

It would offset it, but I don't think they would be the same because they're unrelated functions, for instance, the effectiveness to absorb heat would be dependent on the exhaust temperature to a different degree than the pumping loss which is more dependent on how full the cylinder is. You would have a net gain on the intake stroke and if it's filled very little, you would have little loss on the exhaust stroke

[FastDriver]

I just did a google search for EGR and gas mileage. I didn't find anything very technical, but there were some that you could tell weren't morons who had articles on tweaking the EGR. As far as the theory, just applying physics to the data in order to come up with a reasonable discussion, I'm not an expert in this field by any means.

That's ok. I definitely appreciate the insight, regardless. I never knew that EGRs had any purpose other than emissions, and had never considered how inert gases could contribute something meaningful to the engine's output.

Chris

[FastDriver]

lost me again baskin. Where does the net gain on the intake stroke come from?

[baskin]

For the same air and fuel input, the cylinder would be more filled. 14.7 psi pushes up on the bottom of the piston, depending on how much it's filled, something less pushes down.

[FastDriver]

Hmm... there's a lot going on in this discussion. Would you care to take it to AIM or Yahoo IM where we can discuss in real time? I'm not following the last couple of posts.

Chris

[baskin]

I don't think I have either one. What I mean is that it takes energy to pull the piston down because there is 14.7 psi (ATM) pushing the piston up from the crankcase side. If the cylinder is filled 10%, then there is only 1.47 psi pushing it down, so the net is 13.23 psi pushing up. If the exhaust gas fills it another 5%, then there is 2.2 psi pushing down, so the net is 12.5 psi pushing up, and so it takes less power from the crankshaft to pull it down.

[FastDriver]

I guess I see your point. However, the crankcase at cruise is not going to be at 1 bar. The PCV valve creates a "vacuum" on the crankcase side, as well.

Unfortunately, I have to call it a night. I'll catch up with you tomorrow.

Chris

[baskin]

I know, I just didn't want what I said to be more convoluted than it was already, that part washes out of the equation anyway

Later

[Boost Engineer]

Test

Quote:

"Also, what part is untrue on ANY of the facts I Posted?HMM?I'd bet you cant post his name up beacause he's a fictitous character You have made up just like all the knowledge youve spewed on this thread.Now grab your helmet and crayons and run along corky.."

Ok Bub, I am here.
What is this BS you are saying about me??

Tom Vaught

A. Thomas Vaught
Senior Engineer, Research & Innovation
Boosted Engine Systems Design Engineer
Powertrain Research & Development
The Ford Motor Company

[Erich]

Originally Posted by Boost Engineer

Test

Quote:

"Also, what part is untrue on ANY of the facts I Posted?HMM?I'd bet you cant post his name up beacause he's a fictitous character You have made up just like all the knowledge youve spewed on this thread.Now grab your helmet and crayons and run along corky.."

Ok Bub, I am here.
What is this BS you are saying about me??

Tom Vaught

A. Thomas Vaught
Senior Engineer, Research & Innovation
Boosted Engine Systems Design Engineer
Powertrain Research & Development
The Ford Motor Company

I'm not involved in the above disagreement but I would be interested to hear your thoughts/experiences on the question: Can a turbo be used to increase mpg? Also any other observations-especially on adding turbos to ford V8s!

Seems there are a few ways to look at the question. First compare a NA motor to the same motor plus a turbo. Second optimize both and third, will a properly set up turbo system actually deliver real-world performance/economy benefits?

I find with a 5.0 with a pair of small turbos that you can get as excellent fuel economy and have a very sporty feel to the car. All that torque makes the car fun to drive even under a very light load and thus you don't wind up using much gas.
Erich

[FastDriver]

Thank you for coming, Tom. No need to spare me if I am wrong on the subject. Like Erich said, please tell us what you think.

Thanks,

Chris

[96tangcobra]

Originally Posted by FastDriver

lol. Ok 96tang. Since this thread is more about measuring your penis vs. the size of anyone else's than actually contributing to the discussion, I'm done with you. I don't have to break down your explanations because they're laughable. Besides, it would just prompt you to beat your chest even more. Good luck with that. I'd rather continue in my civil discussion of the topic with other participating members.

And the engineer is not fictitious. He's a man I have a great deal of respect for. If he were to say that turbocharging alone increased fuel economy, I would accept his beliefs over my own, and then work very hard to learn why. Still, when I post his response it will not be directed towards you, and if there were a way to remove your posts from my view, I would do that and let others be the judge of whatever you had to say.

Good luck...

Not beating my chest in any way..The OP Asked for "EXPERIENCES" and several people posted their PERSONAL EXPERIENCES and you started to flame on them for doing so.BIG mistake..Anytime ANYONE says they have accomplished something other than what you think it should be then you call BS with absolutely zero experience nor knowledge of what your talking about.And if you knew how to read then you could see that I never said any of my installs saw huge gains But NOT ONE of the cars I turbo'ed had seen a decline under NORMAL driving conditions..Now,With That said.I never said that adding the turbo ALONE will increase the efficiency As a matter of fact,I even said it wouldnt be true in every singe case due to the different tuning methods,installations and driving habits.. I have done several and obviously there has been quite a few that have had the same results.So,The next time someone asks for personal "EXPERIENCES",NOT useless OPINIONS.. Then Keep your mouth shut..The OP wasnt asking for OPINIONS..

[96tangcobra]

Originally Posted by Boost Engineer

Test

Quote:

Ok Bub, I am here.
What is this BS you are saying about me??

Tom Vaught

A. Thomas Vaught
Senior Engineer, Research & Innovation
Boosted Engine Systems Design Engineer
Powertrain Research & Development
The Ford Motor Company

FIRST off,NOONE said anything TO you or ABOUT "you" Now that your here though,Post up some knowledge..

[FastDriver]

Originally Posted by 96tangcobra

Not beating my chest in any way..The OP Asked for "EXPERIENCES" and several people posted their PERSONAL EXPERIENCES and you started to flame on them for doing so.BIG mistake..Anytime ANYONE says they have accomplished something other than what you think it should be then you call BS with absolutely zero experience nor knowledge of what your talking about.And if you knew how to read then you could see that I never said any of my installs saw huge gains But NOT ONE of the cars I turbo'ed had seen a decline under NORMAL driving conditions..Now,With That said.I never said that adding the turbo ALONE will increase the efficiency As a matter of fact,I even said it wouldnt be true in every singe case due to the different tuning methods,installations and driving habits.. I have done several and obviously there has been quite a few that have had the same results.So,The next time someone asks for personal "EXPERIENCES",NOT useless OPINIONS.. Then Keep your mouth shut..The OP wasnt asking for OPINIONS..

Whatever dude. You win. You've got the biggest penis. Please stop replying to me. I already said I'm done with you.

[xr8240]

Originally Posted by speedin'

i said it before and i'll say it again. adding a turbo will NOT increase your MPG.

however a turbo car that makes 300hp will likely be more fuel efficient than a NA car that makes 300hp.

read maximum boost by corky bell for those who disagree.

That book was printed when ECU's where hardly efficiant compared to todays ECU's and very old tech book now!! Good for starter's learning about turbo's..

[96tangcobra]

Originally Posted by FastDriver

Whatever dude. You win. You've got the biggest penis. Please stop replying to me. I already said I'm done with you.

Quit posting in here then "dude" since as I already stated,You have no business posting your opinion when the OP asked for "EXPERIENCE"..And Im a little puzzled about your referrencing my penis size several times now..Are You a rump ranger?

[FastDriver]

Nice combo xr8240. You sound like you're in the same place with your car as I am with mine. Looks like you've got all the hardware to make some serious power, but like me you've still got a TKO that you don't want to break. How much boost to make that power? I'm hoping to make 700rwhp with 15psi or less on pump. I'm thinking somewhere around 10-12 psi for 600rwhp through my old-school TKO, though.