Prodigy Performance 3.6 Turbo DIY Install

[UselessPickles]

So now for my leaking power steering fluid story...

After installing the new power steering hose, there were no obvious leaks. But as time went by, I started to notice there was a damp spot on the steering gearbox around the hose fitting. It slowly grew bigger over time. So one day, I decided I would get in there with a wrench and just snug it up a bit tighter to stop the leak. The next day, the entire gearbox was completely soaked in a thick coat of fluid, and the fluid level in the reservoir had visibly dropped.

So I ended up out in the driveway in the dark (got a late start in the evening) with a head lamp, going through the whole messy process of removing the power steering hose again so that I could hopefully find an obvious cause for a leak.

And it was luckily quite obvious:

http://www.uselesspickles.com/files/jeep/prodigy_turbo_stage2/ps_hose_adapter.jpg


The OEM power steering hose has funky ends that appear to be a small compression fitting with an o-ring. From some quick searching, this seems to be a common type of hose fitting for power steering lines (probably other high pressure hydraulic lines too). The new hose in the stage 2 kit has "AN" style flared compression fittings, and comes with adapters (one pictured above).

Some googling taught me that you need to pre-lube the o-rings on these fittings before installing, and then also not over-tighten them, or else you can damage the o-ring and cause a leak. I didn't pre-lube it when I installed it, which probably partially damaged it. Then tightening it more to try to stop the leak just damaged it more.

A trip to a small local hardware store in the morning was all I needed to find a replacement o-ring that was very close in size. This time, I pre-lubed the o-rings with fluid (ATF-4 is what the manual calls for in the power steering system, btw), and followed some advice I found for tightening: gently thread it in until you feel it "bottom out" (obvious sudden increase in resistance), then just snug it up about another 1/8 turn. It doesn't need to be super tight.

The tricky part is that the AN flared fitting needs to be tightened more tightly, so you should hold the adapter steady with a second wrench while tightening the hose onto it to avoid accidentally indirectly over-tightening the adapter.

I'm learning all kinds of stuff from my mistakes with this turbo install :)

[NOLAjeeper]

So now for my leaking power steering fluid story...

After installing the new power steering hose, there were no obvious leaks. But as time went by, I started to notice there was a damp spot on the steering gearbox around the hose fitting. It slowly grew bigger over time. So one day, I decided I would get in there with a wrench and just snug it up a bit tighter to stop the leak. The next day, the entire gearbox was completely soaked in a thick coat of fluid, and the fluid level in the reservoir had visibly dropped.

So I ended up out in the driveway in the dark (got a late start in the evening) with a head lamp, going through the whole messy process of removing the power steering hose again so that I could hopefully find an obvious cause for a leak.

And it was luckily quite obvious:

http://www.uselesspickles.com/files/jeep/prodigy_turbo_stage2/ps_hose_adapter.jpg


The OEM power steering hose has funky ends that appear to be a small compression fitting with an o-ring. From some quick searching, this seems to be a common type of hose fitting for power steering lines (probably other high pressure hydraulic lines too). The new hose in the stage 2 kit has "AN" style flared compression fittings, and comes with adapters (one pictured above).

Some googling taught me that you need to pre-lube the o-rings on these fittings before installing, and then also not over-tighten them, or else you can damage the o-ring and cause a leak. I didn't pre-lube it when I installed it, which probably partially damaged it. Then tightening it more to try to stop the leak just damaged it more.

A trip to a small local hardware store in the morning was all I needed to find a replacement o-ring that was very close in size. This time, I pre-lubed the o-rings with fluid (ATF-4 is what the manual calls for in the power steering system, btw), and followed some advice I found for tightening: gently thread it in until you feel it "bottom out" (obvious sudden increase in resistance), then just snug it up about another 1/8 turn. It doesn't need to be super tight.

The tricky part is that the AN flared fitting needs to be tightened more tightly, so you should hold the adapter steady with a second wrench while tightening the hose onto it to avoid accidentally indirectly over-tightening the adapter.

I'm learning all kinds of stuff from my mistakes with this turbo install :)

Jeff i had the same issue with the power steering leak. O ring was damaged. 3rd day after the install of the stage 2 is when i noticed a puddle of pink fluid under the jeep. Took it back to the shop and they replaced the O ring. Havent had a problem since.

[jeepsking]

Hi,

On Friday i went to dunes with my JK . It was fun, but i experience a high vibration on road. Check the wheel balance all ok. Check the shaft (transfer shaft bolt were loose ) and then i saw this ...... :(

[JeepLab]

Hi,

On Friday i went to dunes with my JK . It was fun, but i experience a high vibration on road. Check the wheel balance all ok. Check the shaft (transfer shaft bolt were loose ) and then i saw this ...... :(

Ugh. are you sure all your pipes are geometrically correct? i remember it was tight getting everything in.

and this is a side question, as its answer has no bearing. how hard were you wheeling? high speed? big twist? did you hear a "CLUNG" sound at any point?

[jeepsking]

Ugh. are you sure all your pipes are geometrically correct? i remember it was tight getting everything in.

and this is a side question, as its answer has no bearing. how hard were you wheeling? high speed? big twist? did you hear a "CLUNG" sound at any point?

Hi Ross,

This pipe is rigid, so i don't think i can change any angle. Yes as i stated before that i drive extremely off road with high speed (60mph). I don't blame PD they have done an excellent work putting a turbo kit in a pentastar JK , but i hope that they revise the routing of driver side manifold.

[UselessPickles]

then i saw this ...... :(

That actually makes a lot of sense now that I think about it. There's no clearance issue between that pipe and the front driveshaft with a stock track bar. But if you use a longer track bar with a suspension lift to re-center the front axle, that will push the front axle closer to the pipe (toward passenger side) when the suspension is compressed to the point of normal stock ride height (when the track bar is level).

The stock suspension setup has the trackbar level when at normal ride height, and the axle swings *away* from that pipe (toward the driver side) if the suspension either compresses or extends from normal ride height.

I think the solution will be to extend the trackbar mounts (frame mount downward and/or axle mount upward) so that you can use a shorter track bar that is closer to being level when at normal ride height.

[jeepsking]

That actually makes a lot of sense now that I think about it. There's no clearance issue between that pipe and the front driveshaft with a stock track bar. But if you use a longer track bar with a suspension lift to re-center the front axle, that will push the front axle closer to the pipe (toward passenger side) when the suspension is compressed to the point of normal stock ride height (when the track bar is level).

The stock suspension setup has the trackbar level when at normal ride height, and the axle swings *away* from that pipe (toward the driver side) if the suspension either compresses or extends from normal ride height.

I think the solution will be to extend the trackbar mounts (frame mount downward and/or axle mount upward) so that you can use a shorter track bar that is closer to being level when at normal ride height.

Hi Jeff,

I have 2" lift JKS with teraflex adjustable front track bar. What should i do now ?

[Rexx19]

Hi Jeff,

I have 2" lift JKS with teraflex adjustable front track bar. What should i do now ?


Paging Dr. Pickles!

LOL. how clutch is that guy? you know he's got the answer.

[UselessPickles]

Hi Jeff,

I have 2" lift JKS with teraflex adjustable front track bar. What should i do now ?

For now, you could shorten the track bar to be about as long as the stock track bar. Maybe a little longer than stock will be OK. You'll basically have to find a compromise between having exhaust clearance, and having the front axle close to centered.

As you make adjustments, have a heavy friend or two jump on the front bumper while you watch the path of the drive shaft, checking for clearance between exhaust and driveshaft.

I have a 2" AEV spacer lift with the stock track bar. My front axle is close enough to being centered that it's not worth getting an adjustable track bar. Since my kit is a spacer kit, it gives me exactly 2" lift. If you you have a spring lift, then you might actually have more than 2" lift, and your axle might be more off-center than mine.

I still think the ultimate solution would be modified track bar mounts to allow you to use a stock-length track bar that sits level at normal ride height. That would probably require some custom work (fabrication, welding, etc).

[UselessPickles]

Time to solve the problem of the vulnerable coolant reservoir. Just as a reminder, the Prodigy instructions currently have you mount the reservoir behind the front bumper:

http://www.uselesspickles.com/files/jeep/prodigy_turbo_stage2/reservoir_installed1.jpg


Dan from Prodigy shared a picture of an alternate location that an install shop thought of. I liked it so much, that I relocated mine similarly:

http://www.uselesspickles.com/files/jeep/prodigy_turbo_stage2/coolant_tank_relocate_10.jpg


I really like this location better. It's not exposed to trail damage. The vent is not exposed to road spray, rainwater, puddles, etc. The cap is easy to access for checking fluid level and refilling. The reservoir is level with the top of the radiator with a short hose connecting them. This is basically the ideal location for the reservoir.

The reservoir has threaded holes that allow us to bolt it to the plastic wall, with a bolt coming from the other side of that wall. That means we need to get the TIPM (Totally Integrated Power Module) out of the way to access the other side of the wall.

Start by moving whatever this thing is. It just slides up off its mounting tab, then push it aside:

http://www.uselesspickles.com/files/jeep/prodigy_turbo_stage2/coolant_tank_relocate_1.jpg


That will give us a little more room to push the TIPM aside.

Next, remove the TIPM. Use a flat blade screwdriver to unlatch the 4 mounting tabs. You'll have to lift up on the TIPM at each corner as you unlatch to ensure that it fully disengages:

http://www.uselesspickles.com/files/jeep/prodigy_turbo_stage2/coolant_tank_relocate_2.jpg

http://www.uselesspickles.com/files/jeep/prodigy_turbo_stage2/coolant_tank_relocate_3.jpg


These plastic ribs need to be trimmed so that the reservoir can sit as low and as close to the wall as possible:

http://www.uselesspickles.com/files/jeep/prodigy_turbo_stage2/coolant_tank_relocate_4.jpg


I just used a Dremel with a sanding drum. Remove the air filter to get some more working room:

http://www.uselesspickles.com/files/jeep/prodigy_turbo_stage2/coolant_tank_relocate_5.jpg


Once you trim enough plastic out of the way, hold the reservoir in place while using a 1/4 inch drill bit to mark where you'll drill a hole through the plastic wall:

http://www.uselesspickles.com/files/jeep/prodigy_turbo_stage2/coolant_tank_relocate_6.jpg


NOTE: Only the lower mounting hole is being used. There's no space for a bolt head to fit on the other side of the plastic wall in the location of the upper mounting hole.

The fun part is drilling the hole. There's not enough space to get a hand-held drill in there, especially with the turbo in place. I used the Dremel again. A small drill bit was used to start the hole, then I used what I believe is called a "cone burr" ( narrow cone-shaped grinding/filing bit) to slowly/carefully ream the hole out larger until my bolt just barely fit through:

http://www.uselesspickles.com/files/jeep/prodigy_turbo_stage2/coolant_tank_relocate_7.jpg

http://www.uselesspickles.com/files/jeep/prodigy_turbo_stage2/coolant_tank_relocate_8.jpg


That's a 5/16 inch diameter, 18 pitch thread bolt. I learned the hard way that the mounting hole on the reservoir is NOT threaded all the way through. I started with a 1-1/4 inch long bolt, but bottomed it out on the threads of the reservoir before I could tighten it down. I ended up cutting about 1/4 inch off the bolt. To be safe, I would probably buy a 3/4-inch long bolt if I were doing this again.

Mount the reservoir with that bolt and tighten it down good. It's very solid with only one bolt holding it:

http://www.uselesspickles.com/files/jeep/prodigy_turbo_stage2/coolant_tank_relocate_9.jpg


Then you just need to cut an appropriate length of hose from the original coolant reservoir hose, hook it up to the radiator, install the TIPM, and install that other thing that was move aside at the beginning:

http://www.uselesspickles.com/files/jeep/prodigy_turbo_stage2/coolant_tank_relocate_10.jpg


There's plenty of clearance from the turbo and air filter:

http://www.uselesspickles.com/files/jeep/prodigy_turbo_stage2/coolant_tank_relocate_11.jpg

http://www.uselesspickles.com/files/jeep/prodigy_turbo_stage2/coolant_tank_relocate_12.jpg


And the final overall view of my install with this latest change:

http://www.uselesspickles.com/files/jeep/prodigy_turbo_stage2/under_hood_side_update1.jpg

http://www.uselesspickles.com/files/jeep/prodigy_turbo_stage2/under_hood_top_update1.jpg

[jeepsking]

Paging Dr. Pickles!

LOL. how clutch is that guy? you know he's got the answer.

Thanks for the compliment. The idea is to share the infos so whoever face it know's what to do.

Jeff, thanks again and i will adjust the track bar as you said cause i already have one and not tends to get the mount (which is a better solution as u said).

To be honest i thought about the same location of the recovery tank because i have AEV bumper which u can't put the tank on it .but didn't had the time to relocate.

For the time being my front drive shaft is out for trouble shooting (no vibration now ) and the shaft looks ok (i guess ) let see what happens next.

[jeepsking]

The cause of vibration :)

[bo9roadking]

^^^Time for an upgrade.

[JeepLab]

The cause of vibration :)

WHOA.

Did you feel it all at once? or was the change gradual?

[jeepsking]

WHOA.

Did you feel it all at once? or was the change gradual?

Yes. It came all once.

I have ordered a heavy duty shaft from Curtis taton. Hopefully i will get it in December.

[UselessPickles]

MOAR BOOST!

I think I may have finally solved my exhaust leak. I installed a new "header" gasket (where the exhaust pipe mounts to the exhaust port of the engine) on the driver side where I had a stubborn leak. I now have seen boost peaking in the 8.0-8.3 psi range! Previously, I was only getting up to the 7.8-8.0 range. I seem to be on par with NOLA with boost numbers now. The highest I saw today was 8.58 psi in 4th gear. I wimped out at 120mph, but it was still accelerating.

Even better than higher peak boost is that I'm building boost a bit earlier in the rpm range now.

In 2nd gear:
1 psi at 2250 rpm
2 psi at 2600 rpm
3 psi at 2800 rpm
4 psi at 2900 rpm
5 psi at 3100 rpm
6 psi at 3300 rpm
7 psi at 3500 rpm
8 psi at 3900 rpm

I need to get a nice clean data log of a 2nd gear pull to create an updated boost curve chart...

[JeepLab]

MOAR BOOST!

I think I may have finally solved my exhaust leak. I installed a new "header" gasket (where the exhaust pipe mounts to the exhaust port of the engine) on the driver side where I had a stubborn leak. I now have seen boost peaking in the 8.0-8.3 psi range! Previously, I was only getting up to the 7.8-8.0 range. I seem to be on par with NOLA with boost numbers now. The highest I saw today was 8.58 psi in 4th gear. I wimped out at 120mph, but it was still accelerating.

Even better than higher peak boost is that I'm building boost a bit earlier in the rpm range now.

In 2nd gear:
1 psi at 2250 rpm
2 psi at 2600 rpm
3 psi at 2800 rpm
4 psi at 2900 rpm
5 psi at 3100 rpm
6 psi at 3300 rpm
7 psi at 3500 rpm
8 psi at 3900 rpm

I need to get a nice clean data log of a 2nd gear pull to create an updated boost curve chart...

Keep it coming!

[UselessPickles]

Keep it coming!

As you wish!

I got a nice clean data log of a 2nd gear full throttle pull. Here's my new boost curve:

http://www.uselesspickles.com/files/jeep/prodigy_turbo_stage2/boost_2nd_gear_update1.png


And here it is compared to my boost curve with the exhaust leak:

http://www.uselesspickles.com/files/jeep/prodigy_turbo_stage2/boost_2nd_gear_leak_compare.png


Lesson: Make sure your exhaust system is leak free when you have a turbo, or else you'll be missing out on power and turbo response!


And for a fun comparison, I found this dyno chart of a RIPP supercharged 3.6 Wrangler, with a boost curve. Notice that the boost curve is not actually linear. It seems to be a shallow exponential curve. If it was linear, it would have 5 psi around 3250 rpm (half peak boost at half peak engine speed), but it doesn't actually reach 5 psi until 4600 rpm!

http://www.uselesspickles.com/files/jeep/prodigy_turbo_stage2/ripp_chart.jpg

[UselessPickles]

GRRR... my charts are getting shrunk because of ads to the point that they are difficult to read.

1) There needs to be a better way to allow ads to display in posts without making the entire right side of the screen unusable to post content. That's just a huge waste of space and leads to unnecessary shrinkage of images. Does the forum software or ad plugin have other options for how to display ads? Maybe display them between posts rather than inside posts? Or maybe have ads occupy a horizontal section of the post rather than an entire vertical section?

2) What happened to the feature that allowed us to click images to view them in full size?

[JeepLab]

GRRR... my charts are getting shrunk because of ads to the point that they are difficult to read.

1) There needs to be a better way to allow ads to display in posts without making the entire right side of the screen unusable to post content. That's just a huge waste of space and leads to unnecessary shrinkage of images. Does the forum software or ad plugin have other options for how to display ads? Maybe display them between posts rather than inside posts? Or maybe have ads occupy a horizontal section of the post rather than an entire vertical section?

2) What happened to the feature that allowed us to click images to view them in full size?

1. its vbulletins template, i cant alter it.

2. what kind of files are they. Upload as jpgs and it will think they are pics and make them full size when you click them.

[UselessPickles]

I'm hot-linking to images on my own web server ("From URL" option in the "Insert Image" dialog).

[Timmy]

[QUOTE=UselessPickles;3705]MOAR BOOST!

I now have seen boost peaking in the 8.0-8.3 psi range! Previously, I was only getting up to the 7.8-8.0 range. I seem to be on par with NOLA with boost numbers now. The highest I saw today was 8.58 psi in 4th gear."

Forgive me for asking, I'm only doing so for my own information, but it appears the boost numbers you are seeing are no better than what is seen for a supercharger with a standard pully, let alone the high elevation pully that seems to bring the boost up to 11 PSI. If I recall, the sales pitch on a turbo vs. SC was that it was suppose to spin up faster and provide more boost, but from your information here that doesn't appear to be the case? Am I missing something on this? Please know, this question is NOT a jab at anyone that has a chosen a turbo over an SC, I'm just trying to understand the differences for when it comes time for me to pick one.

BTW, JeepLab, you get that high elevation pully on yet? Any feedback? It appears you should have been seeing about a 30% increase in boost!

[JeepLab]

[QUOTE=UselessPickles;3705]MOAR BOOST!

I now have seen boost peaking in the 8.0-8.3 psi range! Previously, I was only getting up to the 7.8-8.0 range. I seem to be on par with NOLA with boost numbers now. The highest I saw today was 8.58 psi in 4th gear."

Forgive me for asking, I'm only doing so for my own information, but it appears the boost numbers you are seeing are no better than what is seen for a supercharger with a standard pully, let alone the high elevation pully that seems to bring the boost up to 11 PSI. If I recall, the sales pitch on a turbo vs. SC was that it was suppose to spin up faster and provide more boost, but from your information here that doesn't appear to be the case? Am I missing something on this? Please know, this question is NOT a jab at anyone that has a chosen a turbo over an SC, I'm just trying to understand the differences for when it comes time for me to pick one.

BTW, JeepLab, you get that high elevation pully on yet? Any feedback? It appears you should have been seeing about a 30% increase in boost!

I had the SC out and separated, but I could not remove the pulley!

[UselessPickles]

it appears the boost numbers you are seeing are no better than what is seen for a supercharger with a standard pully, let alone the high elevation pully that seems to bring the boost up to 11 PSI. If I recall, the sales pitch on a turbo vs. SC was that it was suppose to spin up faster and provide more boost

I don't think anyone ever claimed that the turbo would produce more boost than the superchargers, but only that the turbo would produce more power. A turbo produces power more efficiently than a supercharger because it is using heat energy from the exhaust that would be otherwise thrown away out the tail pipe. The superchargers get their power directly from the crankshaft, so there is more parasitic power loss. Given a turbo and a supercharger that produce the same peak boost, the turbo will produce more net power to the drivetrain.

For the RIPP (and other centrifugal superchargers) specifically, even with the 11 psi high altitude pulley, you only get that 11 psi at 6500 rpm (and only if running down near sea level). The chart I posted with the RIPP boost curve appears to be with the high altitude pulley, because it gets up to just over 10 psi. Compare that boost curve to my boost curve. If the additional boost of the high altitude pulley being run at low elevations is enough to catch up with or surpass the power of the turbo, it will only beat the turbo near redline.

Somewhat unrelated, but speaking of high altitude pulleys...

The intent of the high altitude pulley is to compensate for thinner air at higher elevations, and produce the same amount of boost up there as the normal pulley would produce near sea level. With a given pulley, a supercharger will lose boost as go up into higher elevations.

The turbo, however, adjusts to changing elevations automatically. Its boost is controlled by a wastegate, which is calibrated to open up when boost pressure exceeds a fixed amount of pressure above ambient pressure. My turbo will produce about 8.2 psi peak boost at sea level, and up in the mountains, without making any adjustments.

[Pznivy]

The turbo, however, adjusts to changing elevations automatically. Its boost is controlled by a wastegate, which is calibrated to open up when boost pressure exceeds a fixed amount of pressure above ambient pressure. My turbo will produce about 8.2 psi peak boost at sea level, and up in the mountains, without making any adjustments.

This is why planes are turbo props. You couldn't use a supercharger on a plane. You'd crash.

[FieryRobot]

But you can add a wastegate to a supercharger, no? Especially a centrifugal one.

[Timmy]

I don't think anyone ever claimed that the turbo would produce more boost than the superchargers, but only that the turbo would produce more power. A turbo produces power more efficiently than a supercharger because it is using heat energy from the exhaust that would be otherwise thrown away out the tail pipe. The superchargers get their power directly from the crankshaft, so there is more parasitic power loss. Given a turbo and a supercharger that produce the same peak boost, the turbo will produce more net power to the drivetrain.

For the RIPP (and other centrifugal superchargers) specifically, even with the 11 psi high altitude pulley, you only get that 11 psi at 6500 rpm (and only if running down near sea level). The chart I posted with the RIPP boost curve appears to be with the high altitude pulley, because it gets up to just over 10 psi. Compare that boost curve to my boost curve. If the additional boost of the high altitude pulley being run at low elevations is enough to catch up with or surpass the power of the turbo, it will only beat the turbo near redline.

Somewhat unrelated, but speaking of high altitude pulleys...

The intent of the high altitude pulley is to compensate for thinner air at higher elevations, and produce the same amount of boost up there as the normal pulley would produce near sea level. With a given pulley, a supercharger will lose boost as go up into higher elevations.

The turbo, however, adjusts to changing elevations automatically. Its boost is controlled by a wastegate, which is calibrated to open up when boost pressure exceeds a fixed amount of pressure above ambient pressure. My turbo will produce about 8.2 psi peak boost at sea level, and up in the mountains, without making any adjustments.

Thanks Pickles, food for thought when making a decision between the two.

[UselessPickles]

But you can add a wastegate to a supercharger, no? Especially a centrifugal one.

Technically, yes, you could setup a supercharger system with a wastegate (or some sort of precision bypass valve) on the intake somewhere after the supercharger. Then you could use a smaller pulley wheel to over-spin the supercharger some, while relying on the wastegate/bypass to limit boost. With a centrifugal supercharger, this would give you peak boost before redline, then hold peak boost up to redline. With other types of superchargers, it would just over-work the supercharger constantly unless you drove up to a higher elevation.

The big difference between this idea and how a wastegate fits into a turbo system is that on a turbo, the wastegate limits the speed of the turbo. The wastegate bleeds off exhaust, around the turbine side of the turbo, limiting the turbo speed, and indirectly limiting boost. With the supercharger setup, the wastegate would be directly bleeding off boost pressure, but the supercharger would still be spinning faster than necessary to generate the controlled amount of boost. Faster supercharger = less efficient = more heat.

This variable ratio ProCharger looks pretty cool, though: http://www.lsxtv.com/news/procharger-introduces-revolutionary-programmable-ratio-supercharger/

[gbaumann]

Technically, yes, you could setup a supercharger system with a wastegate (or some sort of precision bypass valve) on the intake somewhere after the supercharger. Then you could use a smaller pulley wheel to over-spin the supercharger some, while relying on the wastegate/bypass to limit boost. With a centrifugal supercharger, this would give you peak boost before redline, then hold peak boost up to redline. With other types of superchargers, it would just over-work the supercharger constantly unless you drove up to a higher elevation.

The big difference between this idea and how a wastegate fits into a turbo system is that on a turbo, the wastegate limits the speed of the turbo. The wastegate bleeds off exhaust, around the turbine side of the turbo, limiting the turbo speed, and indirectly limiting boost. With the supercharger setup, the wastegate would be directly bleeding off boost pressure, but the supercharger would still be spinning faster than necessary to generate the controlled amount of boost. Faster supercharger = less efficient = more heat.

This variable ratio ProCharger looks pretty cool, though: http://www.lsxtv.com/news/procharger-introduces-revolutionary-programmable-ratio-supercharger/

I think Pickles is spot on. And, I don't mean to hijack this portion of the thread but since we're talking about bypasses and wastegates and how to make desired power I thought I'd "share."

The engineers for these power mods are much smarter than me so I'm sure there is a good reason for bypassing superchargers. I'd just like to know what it is. I understand wastegate operation on a turbo. The turbo boost is not linear with exhaust flow. There's no ideal blade pitch for low RMP through high RPM. Pick a good one for lower RPM operation which would produce too much boost at high RPM and adjust by bypassing exhaust. It's elegant. Makes sense to me, that is, unless the wastegate is eliminating boost altogether which I presume it isn't.

But the bypass on my supercharger is binary (in the case of Magnuson). You're either putting boost into the engine or your're not. There's no middle ground according to Mag. The bypass closes when manifold pressure is ZERO which is pretty near WOT. Great for a dragster. But not for a daily driver. Seriously, the compressor is turning all the time. Why not use the boost better and throughout the RPM range? Again, smarter people than me I'm sure have concluded that you need boost to get you from 0-60 (assuming that you've got your foot all the way to the floor) but you don't need boost when you get there. We'll they haven't' driven my jeep. They've driven corvettes or challengers which have one big difference. When they get to 60 mph and the supercharger goes to bypass the car is still being powered by a big motor. They started life as powerful HP to weight ratio vehicles. Superchargers take them from really fast to downright irresponsible.

But that's not us. We have jeeps. Big, square, heavy, full framed, solid axle, locking differential, large diameter tire jeeps. We started life under powered and overweight. I want boost at part throttle so when I speed up from 40 to 60 mph or 70-80 mph the truck accelerates with confidence. And I don't want to get that by opening up to WOT. There's no need for it. It just causes my auto trans to downshift. Heck, if I want to increase acceleration by lowering gears then I'd put 5.11's in the diffs and accelerate in third gear at around 5 thousand rpm's. I'm sure she'd pin me in the seat and I don't need a supercharger or turbo to do that.

So I've made a decision. For those of you who know that I'm struggling with the "lift to sift" issue I've found new PCM that I can install that will finally control my auto trans. I'm going to have it installed for me after the new year. Good new is it should meet my need for better shifting and all-time power. The catch is the PCM costs $25,500 to install and comes with a 6.4L hemi.

[FieryRobot]

The catch is the PCM costs $25,500 to install and comes with a 6.4L hemi.

Ha! That certainly is one approach.

I'm liking the benefits of Turbo more and more, especially since my driving can take me into the Sierras for skiiing, so we're talking about a range from near sea level to 10K ft. Seems like the turbo would cope better. Would a supercharger just start to behave badly at altitude, or will you just get less boost?

The other side of this of course is that the install is definitely very involved compared to the SC, and being in CA I am concerned about passing smog tests later (my truck is new enough to not worry for a while, but it will happen eventually).

[UselessPickles]

Crap... I just realized that some of my boost calculations in past discussions may have been wrong.

At some point, I had come across something saying that to convert from inHG to PSI, you simply divide by 2. It turns out that's just a rough approximation. To make it more fun, some of the boost numbers I have reported in the past were valid, and others may not have been valid, and there's no way for me to know which is which. Some data logs gave me atmospheric pressure directly in PSI (if the log started recording before the engine was started, then manifold pressure = atmospheric pressure). Other data logs required me to convert the logged barometric pressure to PSI. Sometimes I used an online conversion tool. Other times, after reading the "divide by 2" claim, I was lazy and just divided by 2. I don't know if I used this lazy approach with any of the number I actually reported online.

I do know at least that the most recent boost curves that I posted are correct (both before and after fixing my exhaust leak).

BTW... if any boost numbers were calculated wrong, they would low by about 0.2-0.3 psi

[UselessPickles]

Would a supercharger just start to behave badly at altitude, or will you just get less boost?

It should not behave badly. You would just get less boost at higher elevations.



I am concerned about passing smog tests later (my truck is new enough to not worry for a while, but it will happen eventually).

The turbo kit will definitely not pass emissions tests. It won't even pass a visual inspection, because the crankcase breather vents to atmosphere. The BOV venting to atmosphere may also be an automatic fail. If you get the turbo, you'd be taking a gamble on the idea that you could modify the kit to recirculate the crankcase breather back into the air filter (through an oil catch can), swap out the lower section of the BOV for the recirculating body and connect it to the air filter, then hope that you can find a performance shop to make a custom tune for you that passes emissions tests. You might even need some custom work done to the exhaust to add a bigger catalytic converter. The high-flow cat in the turbo kit seems pretty small, and is probably bare minimum in functionality.

Prodigy has told me that they have no plans to make their kit pass emissions inspections. If you are seriously interested, call and talk to them about it. Maybe they'll change their mind if they get enough demand for an emissions-compliant kit.

[FieryRobot]

It should not behave badly. You would just get less boost at higher elevations.

But will the tuning be able to deal with it successfully? That's the 'bad behavior' part I'd be worried about. If it's just less boost/power, I'll live.


Prodigy has told me that they have no plans to make their kit pass emissions inspections.

Damn. That might be the deal-breaker for me. At least the SCs are trying to get CARB compliance. Though, they've been in that state for some time now...

[UselessPickles]

Yes, supercharger tuning will (should, if done properly) be able to deal with changes in elevations. You would just have less boost/power.

[UselessPickles]

Crap... I just realized that some of my boost calculations in past discussions may have been wrong.

I went back through some stuff and think that I have confirmed that all boost numbers I have shared were correctly calculated. False alarm :)

[jeepsking]

I went back through some stuff and think that I have confirmed that all boost numbers I have shared were correctly calculated. False alarm :)

I am using torque App and it showed today 10.9 psi once as a peak value.

Anyway i have received the front shaft and installed it today , i am really happy with it.

[UselessPickles]

I am using torque App and it showed today 10.9 psi once as a peak value.

That sounds scary. Prodigy told me that the tune is designed to handle up to 9.2 psi. It's possible that Torque just captured a very brief spike in boost as you lifted off the throttle, but before the BOV opened.

I think you need to send me a data log from the inTune so I can compare your boost to everyone else :) I'll PM you.

[jeepsking]

That sounds scary. Prodigy told me that the tune is designed to handle up to 9.2 psi. It's possible that Torque just captured a very brief spike in boost as you lifted off the throttle, but before the BOV opened.

I think you need to send me a data log from the inTune so I can compare your boost to everyone else :) I'll PM you.


Hi,

Today i made my setup same as yours Jeff and it went down to 8.3 and sometimes 7.9 looks like i am gona go back to PD setup (taking vacuum source shared with BOV for the waste gate) and i will send the data later.

Sorry i just read the post and the private message after doing your setup

[UselessPickles]

That makes sense. The Prodigy setup for the wastegate can cause over-boost in partial throttle transitions. Since that setup is trying to get the manifold pressure up to the target (~8.2 psi), there can be part-throttle conditions where the turbo produces more than 8.2 psi prior to the throttle body while trying to make the pressure after the partially closed (restricted) throttle body reach 8.2 psi. In this situation, opening the throttle more reduces the restriction and can cause a temporary surge in boost as that excess pressure behind the throttle body is now allowed to enter the intake manifold.

During full throttle acceleration, it won't make a difference because the pressure is the same on both sides of the throttle body at full throttle.

[AGOM]

Hi All, and a happy new year.

its been really busy, I was suppose to give you an update after my stage 2 install, well this is how it all went:
I have installed the kit at the end of October, the install was a learning curve with a very high learning gradient, I went by the Prodigy install instructions, just mad some changes or actually one, which is the relief tank that I lifted up behind the fan shroud similar to what NOLA did.
after running the car softly for a brief time or lets say very brief time, I started my first logs which I set to prodigy and my custom tune came back and all was good.
little did I know that disaster was just around the corner, my engine broke!! and that was a real down time for me, but in a way I was happy to have found out that the turbo was not the cause, but it meant that all the fun had to stop until I can get my hands on a new block.
so everything came off again and when I got the new engine the install started all over again.
now everything is going well with regards to the full operation of the car and turbo.
im hoping to get some logs done so as to start fine tuning the car, and find out what boosts im getting.

will keep you posted

[JeepLab]

Hi All, and a happy new year.

its been really busy, I was suppose to give you an update after my stage 2 install, well this is how it all went:
I have installed the kit at the end of October, the install was a learning curve with a very high learning gradient, I went by the Prodigy install instructions, just mad some changes or actually one, which is the relief tank that I lifted up behind the fan shroud similar to what NOLA did.
after running the car softly for a brief time or lets say very brief time, I started my first logs which I set to prodigy and my custom tune came back and all was good.
little did I know that disaster was just around the corner, my engine broke!! and that was a real down time for me, but in a way I was happy to have found out that the turbo was not the cause, but it meant that all the fun had to stop until I can get my hands on a new block.
so everything came off again and when I got the new engine the install started all over again.
now everything is going well with regards to the full operation of the car and turbo.
im hoping to get some logs done so as to start fine tuning the car, and find out what boosts im getting.

will keep you posted

How did you break the block? Was it replaced under warranty?

[AGOM]

Well, it all began when for some reason while servecing the engine was overfilled, might be because of laps of attention to the quantity that was drained out.
I was using the car with no problems untill i installed the turbo, which ment now i was pushing the car and having fun with the extra boost - like any reasonable guy with a turbo jk would do- that in turn lead to excessivly high engin pressure which forced the excess oil to look for a way out.
After a wheeling in the dunes and pushing the car as we do normally i notices oil coming out from breathers engin manifold and even in the exhaust.
Followed by a lot of whit smoke and abnormal sound.
When they took it appart they found that 3 pistons where damaged with heavy signes of detonations, nearly all spark plugs where charred, a cracked head cylinger, and corroded crank shaft.
Also all my exhaust piping was full of oil.
They would not fix it under warrenty mainly because i installed the turbo, but we came to an agreement to share the coast since the oil change was not done properly, not sure how things work there, but for us warrenty will be hard to chase once you modify the car, and to have them repair it was not acceptable to me, i would never feel comfertable with the car.
It was painfull paying for a new engin but the idea of a fresh start was a bit more tempting.

Now iv been running with the turbo on the new engine for about a month and been noticing that somethings where not behaving as they should.
Here i would like to say thanks to UsslessPickles, i sent him my lates logs to have a second opinion and he pointed out some things that i overlooked when reading thru the logs.
I now have a knocking issue at some phases of my acceleration ' Retarded Knocking' and sent the Logs to Dan at Prodigy who is also been quick to identify what might the cause be, he thinks that the valve is not working properly and a replacment is on the way, im hopefull that it will solve the situation.
Also, may have been discussed before, the starting issues with the first start attempt failing or stalling and the second one goes thru the full auto crank start.
I recieved a tune for that, but as U.P mentioned to me that a little of throtle assistance will help and it dose.
But other than that im getting a max boost of 8.3 on 2nd gear and max of 8.5 on 3rd.
And the dunes have never been this fun before.. Lol

[UselessPickles]

Wow. I would not expect so much damage just from over-filling the oil.



Also, may have been discussed before, the starting issues with the first start attempt failing or stalling and the second one goes thru the full auto crank start.
I recieved a tune for that, but as U.P mentioned to me that a little of throtle assistance will help and it dose.l

Prodigy sent me a tune that completely fixed this issue for me. I no longer have to use throttle to help the engine start.

[AGOM]

It was over-filled by 3ltrs, I didn't feel much difference but when I started pushing the engine it was showing signs of hesitation followed by burnt oil smell, which I thought was coming from the manifold breather, and when I checked under the hood that little filter we fitted at the end of the driver side manifold had oil dripping from it, and that was another warning signe.

Maybe I should get another tune sent, the first one didn't fix that issue.

[gbaumann]

It was over-filled by 3ltrs, I didn't feel much difference but when I started pushing the engine it was showing signs of hesitation followed by burnt oil smell, which I thought was coming from the manifold breather, and when I checked under the hood that little filter we fitted at the end of the driver side manifold had oil dripping from it, and that was another warning signe.

Wow - so sorry to be reading this. How did they know the overfill was 3ltrs? Are they/you sure the A/F/R didn't lean out and cause detonation? This is important stuff. We learn tons from failures. Were you able to determine if the overfill put the rotating assembly in the oil? Did you get any trouble codes?

[AGOM]

From what i know the quantity of oil should be 6ltrs, when they drained it it have a little over 9ltrs, that was just from opening the pan, oile was also there in my exhaust all the way from headers till the catback.
I hade to have it all chemically washed.
And what was really confusing is that untill i took it for repair there was no codes, no check engine, nothing!!!
This is all based on the repair report that i was givin and talking to the mechanic.

[Timmy]

From what i know the quantity of oil should be 6ltrs, when they drained it it have a little over 9ltrs, that was just from opening the pan, oile was also there in my exhaust all the way from headers till the catback.
I hade to have it all chemically washed.
And what was really confusing is that untill i took it for repair there was no codes, no check engine, nothing!!!
This is all based on the repair report that i was givin and talking to the mechanic.

Dang, sorry to hear about all that. I overfilled the oil on my VW Passat one time (which had a tuned turbo in it) and had a similar experience. I used a new oil suction device to pull the oil out through the fill tube. Nice product, BUT, you have to get the oil heated up first to pull the oil out. Well, I used it for the first time and nothing was really coming out, I freaked out thinking my car wasn't running with any oil, so I like any dumb idiot in this circumstance, instead of questioning the new gizmo product I bought, I dumped more oil in. After less than a day, I realized, I just doubled the amount of oil in the engine. I promptly drained it using the old-school method (drain plug) and then re-filled, and the car worked without issue for tens of thousands of more miles.

Regarding Jeep not covering the engine cost. By law, they have to *prove* that your modification did the damage. If we didn't have this law, then technically they could drill a hole in your engine block, destroying the engine, and claim it was because of YOUR modifications that the engine failed and not THEIR drill hole through the engine block that cracked the thing in half. If memory serves, I believe this is call the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act of 1975 that protects you and requires that they expend the time and effort to prove their claim (http://www.impalasuperstore.com/naisso/magmoss.htm)

[UselessPickles]

Regarding Jeep not covering the engine cost. By law, they have to *prove* that your modification did the damage. ... Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act of 1975

I don't think U.S. law applies to AGOM over in Oman :)

But I would be interested to hear if there's any kind of similar law/precedent over there.

[AGOM]

Your right, the laws here are different, if you mod the car out of the OEM spec then its your responsbility.
They claim that its due to the extra stress caused by the turbo that caused it, and that if it was a standard engin it would have not gotten that bad and all that would have been done is refilling with the correct amount of oil and thats it.
It all comes down to how much time im willing to loose to chase the issue, and where can i get an approved independant expert that has an idea of how involved the turbo is on a JK. Not sure how things go there, but here it could be a long process.
What i could have done is to have removed the turbo and then took it to them, but to me thats unethical and i would be cheating my self of knowing what went wrong, if it was the turbo that contributed to the growth of the issue than be it. I love my turbo its realy fun to drive.
Im just a little bit more carefull with whats going in and out of the car.
Its a fresh start for me now and im just focused on getting it right, and im fortunate that in this forum there is a lot of help as well as the support im getting from Prodigy.
my advise its less expensive to check your oil that to replace the engin... Lol

[Timmy]

I don't think U.S. law applies to AGOM over in Oman :)

But I would be interested to hear if there's any kind of similar law/precedent over there.

Ahh, I see, I didn't even check his profile to see that he was not in the U.S. Yes, that would make sense that the laws would be different. Sorry about that AGOM, I'm not used to checking to see if a JeepLab members is not based in the U.S.

That being said, it was a nice chance to whip out that little tid-bit for any U.S. owners that are concerned about how their mod would impact their warranty.

[UselessPickles]

I practiced some snow driving skills today. Listen to those turbo sounds :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kfYyeRwRSI


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kfYyeRwRSI

[JeepLab]

***** MODERATED ****

Hey everyone, this was the point where this thread went off turbos into a discussion about tires, I moved all the tire talk to a new thread - "Pickles Tire Convo"

http://jeeplab.com/showthread.php?234-Pickles-Tire-Covo

[UselessPickles]

How about some more geeky data...

So I was looking at a dyno chart of a RIPP supercharged Wrangler with a boost curve again, and I figured out that the boost curve just about perfectly matches a quadratic curve. That means I can now plot the RIPP boost curve on a chart with my turbo boost curve.

Here's the RIPP dyno chart again:

http://www.uselesspickles.com/files/jeep/prodigy_turbo_stage2/ripp_chart.jpg


That must be the "high altitude" kit, since it is advertised to produce 9-11 psi at sea level. The standard kit is advertised as 8 psi, so i can plot that as well.

http://www.uselesspickles.com/files/jeep/prodigy_turbo_stage2/prodigy_vs_ripp_boost.png


It's interesting that there's not a lot of difference between the standard RIPP and Prodigy at low rpms.

More interesting is that RIPP just claimed on another forum today that their kit produces 40% gains as low as 1800 rpm. How do they get 40% gains from less than 1 psi boost? And if RIPP can do that, why doesn't the turbo produce 40% gains as low as 2200 rpm, where it has similar boost as RIPP at 1800?

[KaiserBill]

Well did you take into account the dimensions of the Ripp Vortex unit in comparison to the Prodigy Unit? Size is a big deal. What about the gear ratio that Ripp uses in the unit-- that matters. In your turbo, like the one on my diesel it is only run on exhaust gas pressure; so lower rpm means less pressure on the rear turbine so less Boost. Where as a supercharger usually has a gearbox so that at low rpm it creates a significant amount of boost.

[UselessPickles]

I'm taking into account the actual recorded boost curve from a dyno run of a RIPP supercharger on a Wrangler. I don't need to know anything about the size, gear ratio or pulley size, etc. The RIPP is a centrifugal supercharger, so it doesn't produce much boost at low rpms, as evidenced by the dyno chart with the boost curve that I posted. Compare the boost curve from the dyno chart to the curve I plotted on my chart. Almost a perfect match.

[KaiserBill]

I'm taking into account the actual recorded boost curve from a dyno run of a RIPP supercharger on a Wrangler. I don't need to know anything about the size, gear ratio or pulley size, etc. The RIPP is a centrifugal supercharger, so it doesn't produce much boost at low rpms, as evidenced by the dyno chart with the boost curve that I posted. Compare the boost curve from the dyno chart to the curve I plotted on my chart. Almost a perfect match.


Answer me if I'm wrong-- you want to know why your turbo and the Vortech V3 super that Ripp uses show differences at low rpm right?

[UselessPickles]

I want to know how RIPP system could possibly produce 40% gains in torque/power at 1800 rpm (as claimed by RIPP), when there is less than 1 psi boost at 1800 rpm (that's less than 6.8% additional air above atmospheric pressure). And if somehow that actually is correct/possibly, then why can't the turbo produce 40% gains in torque/power as low as 2200-2300 rpm, where it is generating a similar amount of boost?

I'm trying to get a response from RIPP about this. I'm hoping it was just a typo, because the claim seems ridiculous.

[Rexx19]

Maybe at 1800 RPM the pentastar is making 100 hp. with the RIPP maybe it makes 140. I have no idea personally. But you are not talking about 40% of 285. The stock power made at 1800 is much less.

[UselessPickles]

A 40% gain is a 40% gain regardless of RPM. The stock Pentastar has 90% of peak torque starting around 1900 rpm, so a 40% gain in torque down there would definitely be noticeable.

[KaiserBill]

I want to know how RIPP system could possibly produce 40% gains in torque/power at 1800 rpm (as claimed by RIPP), when there is less than 1 psi boost at 1800 rpm (that's less than 6.8% additional air above atmospheric pressure). And if somehow that actually is correct/possibly, then why can't the turbo produce 40% gains in torque/power as low as 2200-2300 rpm, where it is generating a similar amount of boost?

I'm trying to get a response from RIPP about this. I'm hoping it was just a typo, because the claim seems ridiculous.


Manifold pressure doesn't always correspond with actual CFM. Roots Lobe type units for example have very low Manifold pressures but extremely high CFM ratings. And you can duplicate this effect with Centrifugal units if you gear them properly. That is the reason many aircraft superchargers during WWII were actually two speed units: they used a higher speed at high altitude for cruising giving them similar performance to the low altitude lower speed setting at higher engine rpms. Some where even two speed and had a second stage on the high speed unit to give them add pressures at high altitudes that was how the Junkers Jumo 207B a 16.6 L two stroke diesel engine developed nearly sea-level performance at 40,000+ feet..

To be honest it seems like a dubious claim given the type of unit they use in the system. But it could be true. You would really need to know exactly how they have spec'd out the V3 unit from Vortech and what sort of Garrett turbo you have in your system. The big difference is going to come down to how much air each of the system is capable of putting into the cylinder head at any given Boost Rating. That was what I clumsily attempting to get at last night. What is missing is in your analysis is enough information about each system to really compare them. You have only bits and pieces of the necessary data required to perform your analysis. The really critical data points your missing have to do with volume of air flow each unit is really producing at any given boost for specific rpm. The Vortech unit could have a 50% advantage in volume compared to your unit and that will make a big difference in power. So you can graph boost points and hp points all day long without knowing the specifics about volume into the cylinder head you really cannot say that Ripp is making a false claim.


For example Whipple makes an amazing Roots-Lobe unit that does just what I'm talking about produces 50% power at 5 PSI at Idle...

http://whipplesuperchargers.com/index.php?dispatch=products.view&product_id=149

[UselessPickles]

The centrifugal supercharger essentially the compressor side of a turbo, but driven by the crankshaft rather than an exhaust turbine. The mechanics by which they compress air and maintain manifold pressure on a running engine is the same.

Yes, there will be differences in characteristics of efficiency because of the differences in what drives the compressor (one system may get a different amount of net power with the same amount of boost), but the differences cannot possibly be so much that the supercharger is able to produce 40% gains with less than 1 psi, while the turbo does not produce any significantly noticeable gain at the same amount of boost. In general, I would expect the turbo to be more efficient at creating net gains from boost pressure, because it uses some "free" heat/expansion energy from the exhaust.

Your example of the Whipple producing 50% gains at low rpm... that's with more than 5 times the amount of boost at which RIPP claims 40% gains! With a similar boost:power-gain efficiency, the RIPP would make less than 10% gains at the rpm/boost in question. That seems a lot more believable.

[gbaumann]

I agree with KaiserBill. It's a complex recipe. I've often wondered what type of hp/torque gains you'd get with just the larger injectors that come with these forced induction kits together with premium gas and an aggressive calibration. Let's put that on the dyno and pull without boost. People seem to focus on boost and PSI. But, as we all agree, the compressor is merely a means to an end. The end being a desired air/fuel charge. Again, I'm no expert but having built my fair share of naturally aspirated engines I know there are plenty of gains to be found in just helping the motor breathe better. The vacuum of the piston dropping on intake is not always met with an efficient air/fuel charge. Port size, runner design, valve size, cam degree, lift, duration and so on all affect whether the air/fuel charge snaps into the cylinder or slugs into it. If you've ever set cam degree then you know you can get a better air/fuel charge by delaying the opening of the intake valve a bit and causing the piston drop to create vacuum. When the valve opens the "rush" generates velocity and fills the cylinder better than if intake valve were to open right at TDC and the charge were just drawn into the cylinder. But don't wait too long or the vacuum can draw the intake valve open and cause havoc. Also, don't create too much vacuum and encourage power loss. And, of course, one cam degree doesn't serve all RPMs well. Nor does one anything. And so we have Variable Valve Timing, four valves per cylinder in some engines, unequal length intake runners, dual plane manifolds and so on. We have myriad options to play with.

The point here is unless you know how each calibration table is set up at a given RPM you just can't know what's going on inside the cylinder and what the HP/torque numbers will (or should) be. I'd approach it by defining what I want to achieve. Max torque at 2,800 rpm. Max HP at 5,500 rpm. Killer low end torque. Screamer peaking near redline. Build to your definition and don't worry about what others are saying they can do.

Of course, all that said (rambled) I think RIPP could be "a bit off" in their claim unless, of course, the thing is tuned just perfectly and you wouldn't really need any boost to get the gain with the larger injectors, cams timed right, ignition spot on and high octane fuel.

[UselessPickles]

The point here is unless you know how each calibration table is set up at a given RPM you just can't know what's going on inside the cylinder and what the HP/torque numbers will (or should) be.

And my point is that if the difference is not primarily the type of forced induction (which I don't think it is, because both are a centrifugal compressor, and the turbo should theoretically be more efficient anyway), then there must be some combination of RIPP exaggerating their claim, or a difference in the calibration (tune) causing the difference in low RPM gains. It's the same engine on the same vehicle, so there's no sense trying to get into details of how port size, runner design, etc. can affect the results. All those details are exactly the same between the two vehicles being compared here, so it's irrelevant.



Of course, all that said (rambled) I think RIPP could be "a bit off" in their claim unless, of course, the thing is tuned just perfectly and you wouldn't really need any boost to get the gain with the larger injectors, cams timed right, ignition spot on and high octane fuel.

And if that's the case, then a dialed-in tune with the turbo should get similar results at those low RPMs where boost is similar to RIPP. I heard a rumor that a new tune for the turbo may have some low rpm improvements, so maybe Prodigy and RIPP won't be so far away from each other at low rpms after all.

Still no response from RIPP. Maybe they don't check their PMs on that forum.

[KaiserBill]

I agree with KaiserBill. It's a complex recipe. I've often wondered what type of hp/torque gains you'd get with just the larger injectors that come with these forced induction kits together with premium gas and an aggressive calibration. Let's put that on the dyno and pull without boost. People seem to focus on boost and PSI. But, as we all agree, the compressor is merely a means to an end. The end being a desired air/fuel charge. Again, I'm no expert but having built my fair share of naturally aspirated engines I know there are plenty of gains to be found in just helping the motor breathe better. The vacuum of the piston dropping on intake is not always met with an efficient air/fuel charge. Port size, runner design, valve size, cam degree, lift, duration and so on all affect whether the air/fuel charge snaps into the cylinder or slugs into it. If you've ever set cam degree then you know you can get a better air/fuel charge by delaying the opening of the intake valve a bit and causing the piston drop to create vacuum. When the valve opens the "rush" generates velocity and fills the cylinder better than if intake valve were to open right at TDC and the charge were just drawn into the cylinder. But don't wait too long or the vacuum can draw the intake valve open and cause havoc. Also, don't create too much vacuum and encourage power loss. And, of course, one cam degree doesn't serve all RPMs well. Nor does one anything. And so we have Variable Valve Timing, four valves per cylinder in some engines, unequal length intake runners, dual plane manifolds and so on. We have myriad options to play with.

The point here is unless you know how each calibration table is set up at a given RPM you just can't know what's going on inside the cylinder and what the HP/torque numbers will (or should) be. I'd approach it by defining what I want to achieve. Max torque at 2,800 rpm. Max HP at 5,500 rpm. Killer low end torque. Screamer peaking near redline. Build to your definition and don't worry about what others are saying they can do.

Of course, all that said (rambled) I think RIPP could be "a bit off" in their claim unless, of course, the thing is tuned just perfectly and you wouldn't really need any boost to get the gain with the larger injectors, cams timed right, ignition spot on and high octane fuel.


Now, I would like to see your 6.4 on pair of turbos! Nelson Racing Engines from CA makes a Hemi they say gets 2000hp...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHmx6KvL69U

or more for your application a mere 700hp.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnBbofUhCdE

These are like 50K or more but hey if you want to play you've got to pay.


But getting back on point. It is so hard to compare bolt on kits true performance values because most of the time these units are designed for street driving applications. So they tend to make sure that the vehicle has a pretty broad power range and sacrifice a lot performance for reliability and drive-ability. But, usually what they get customers hung up on is manifold pressure. Yes, there is a relationship between manifold pressure and volume of air reaching the cylinder heads but it isn't a linear relationship if you are comparing two different units. I don't think Useless Pickles wants to accept the fact that you really need to know the volumetric efficiency of each unit at a specific rpm range. That is what is really going to tell you how much power you are going to get at specific boost setting.

For all we know the Ripp unit could be flowing twice as much air into the cylinder head as his Prodigy's Garrett turbo does at 1800rpm which could result in a 40% increase in power at that rpm range over the stock engine. It isn't impossible that unit could turn say 75hp into 105hp at 1800rpm. However, the fact is they might have really played around with this engine as well.

At the end of the day you are correct we need more information about how they've setup the systems and what their goals were.

[KaiserBill]

And my point is that if the difference is not primarily the type of forced induction (which I don't think it is, because both are a centrifugal compressor, and the turbo should theoretically be more efficient anyway), then there must be some combination of RIPP exaggerating their claim, or a difference in the calibration (tune) causing the difference in low RPM gains. It's the same engine on the same vehicle, so there's no sense trying to get into details of how port size, runner design, etc. can affect the results. All those details are exactly the same between the two vehicles being compared here, so it's irrelevant.



And if that's the case, then a dialed-in tune with the turbo should get similar results at those low RPMs where boost is similar to RIPP. I heard a rumor that a new tune for the turbo may have some low rpm improvements, so maybe Prodigy and RIPP won't be so far away from each other at low rpms after all.

Still no response from RIPP. Maybe they don't check their PMs on that forum.


Well, actually Turbos tend actually rob you of power when they aren't producing boost. They create back pressure on the manifold and that resistance has to be over come before you start to see a gain in power. The severity of this issue is based on the turbo size and the engine's size. Which is why when you sequentially turbocharger and engine you will notice the first turbo is small and it operates almost immediately producing boost. Then you have a bigger unit for higher RPM and higher power where the turbo's exhaust back pressure is more than over come by the immense HP and Torque gains.

And since centrifugal superchargers have the same basic deign they also have the same issues with lag. However, if you gear them correctly, you can reduce this lag at low rpm. Another plus is that your average centrifugal unit can run at much higher rpm ranges than the positive displacement model superchargers.

As for performance-- of course tuning a car for better performance at low rpm or high rpm will trump a car designed for daily driving under those conditions. But you just don't have enough information about each system to really say for example that if my turbo makes .75 PSI at 1800rpm I'm getting 800CFM and the Ripp unit is making 1100CFM at .75PSI Boost with 1800rpm. Then you could say oh, I see why my system isn't producing %40 percent more power at that rpm range because they have 300CFM more air in the engine than I do. And that is all we're telling you Useless Pickles you just need more technical information about the units to really do the analysis you want to do.

But, I agree that %40 increase in power at that rpm range seems hard to believe but it is possible to do.

[UselessPickles]

For all we know the Ripp unit could be flowing twice as much air into the cylinder head as his Prodigy's Garrett turbo does at 1800rpm which could result in a 40% increase in power at that rpm range over the stock engine.

No.

Each cylinder has a capacity: 3.6L / 6 = 0.6L

The cylinder fills with 0.6L of air at close to the manifold pressure. Yes, it's more complex than that due to valve overlap, timing, etc., etc., that can affect how efficiently the cylinder fills, but let's simplify it and just say it fills with 0.6L of air at the same pressure as the manifold pressure. It doesn't matter for the sake of this discussion because we are not comparing different engines with different cylinder fill efficiencies.

If the manifold pressure is 15.7 psia (1 psi boost above atmospheric pressure at sea level), then the cylinder will fill with 0.6L of air at 15.7 psia. It is 100% irrelevant what the supercharger/turbo is *capable* of flowing. If it is producing 1 psi boost, then there is 0.6L of air at 15.7 psia going into the cylinder. The only difference is going to be the efficiency of the turbo/supercharger and the intercooler, leading to differences in air temperature, which will affect the actual amount of air molecules in the cylinder. I can assure you that intake temps at full throttle at low RPMs with the turbo are pretty close to ambient temperature. There's no way that the RIPP could have intake temps at that RPM so much cooler that it could explain a much larger gain.

At 1800 rpm, the RIPP is making about 0.6 psi. So at sea level, standard temp, pressure, etc, that would be about 14.7 + 0.6 = 15.3 psi.
At 1800 rpm, the Prodigy is making about 0.3 psi, so same conditions, that's about 14.7 + 0.3 = 15.0 psi.

Ideal gas law, PV = nRT. Given the same volume (1 cylinder), temperature (already established IATs must be very close) and type of gas (atmosphere), pressure is DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL to number of molecules of gas. That means that at 1800 rpm, the RIPP is only putting about 100 x (15.3 - 15.0) / 15.0 = 2% more air into the cylinder than the Prodigy.

The RIPP also only puts 100 x (15.3 - 14.7) / 14.7 = 4% more air in than stock. Add to that that the RIPP is DIRECTLY driven by the engine itself, it just does not make sense at all that the RIPP supercharger itself could be responsible for a 40% gain in net power output at that RPM.

Exhaust back pressure with the turbo would not explain a much smaller gain from the turbo compared to RIPP at the same RPM where boost is very similar. The exhaust pressure is much more indirect than the RIPP being powered by the crankshaft. That exhaust pressure is what is driving the turbo. I also happen to know that the exhaust:boost pressure ratio with the Prodigy setup is less than 1:1. That means the boost filling the cylinder is stronger than the exhaust back-pressure during valve overlap, so there won't be an issue of exhaust back pressure causing some exhaust to remain in the cylinder. The boost will actually help push the exhaust out of the cylinder.

It has to be either a much improved calibration over stock that favors power rather than whatever Chrysler sacrificed power for at that RPM (emissions? fuel efficiency? dumbing down power for "driveability"?), or the 40% gain claim is B.S., or a mix of both.

If such a large gain in power is possible at 1800 rpm with the RIPP, then a respectable gain should also be possible with the turbo down in that rpm range if tuned similarly. A 40% gain from RIPP vs a perceived zero gain from Prodigy at the same RPM (we unfortunately do not have any good stock vs Prodigy dyno charts yet to see for sure) simply cannot be primarily explained by differences between the supercharger and turbo themselves.


Well, actually Turbos tend actually rob you of power when they aren't producing boost.

The turbo is producing boost in the situation being discussed here.

[KaiserBill]

No.

Each cylinder has a capacity: 3.6L / 6 = 0.6L

The cylinder fills with 0.6L of air at close to the manifold pressure. Yes, it's more complex than that due to valve overlap, timing, etc., etc., that can affect how efficiently the cylinder fills, but let's simplify it and just say it fills with 0.6L of air at the same pressure as the manifold pressure. It doesn't matter for the sake of this discussion because we are not comparing different engines with different cylinder fill efficiencies.

If the manifold pressure is 15.7 psia (1 psi boost above atmospheric pressure at sea level), then the cylinder will fill with 0.6L of air at 15.7 psia. It is 100% irrelevant what the supercharger/turbo is *capable* of flowing. If it is producing 1 psi boost, then there is 0.6L of air at 15.7 psia going into the cylinder. The only difference is going to be the efficiency of the turbo/supercharger and the intercooler, leading to differences in air temperature, which will affect the actual amount of air molecules in the cylinder. I can assure you that intake temps at full throttle at low RPMs with the turbo are pretty close to ambient temperature. There's no way that the RIPP could have intake temps at that RPM so much cooler that it could explain a much larger gain.

At 1800 rpm, the RIPP is making about 0.6 psi. So at sea level, standard temp, pressure, etc, that would be about 14.7 + 0.6 = 15.3 psi.
At 1800 rpm, the Prodigy is making about 0.3 psi, so same conditions, that's about 14.7 + 0.3 = 15.0 psi.

Ideal gas law, PV = nRT. Given the same volume (1 cylinder), temperature (already established IATs must be very close) and type of gas (atmosphere), pressure is DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL to number of molecules of gas. That means that at 1800 rpm, the RIPP is only putting about 100 x (15.3 - 15.0) / 15.0 = 2% more air into the cylinder than the Prodigy.

The RIPP also only puts 100 x (15.3 - 14.7) / 14.7 = 4% more air in than stock. Add to that that the RIPP is DIRECTLY driven by the engine itself, it just does not make sense at all that the RIPP supercharger itself could be responsible for a 40% gain in net power output at that RPM.

Exhaust back pressure with the turbo would not explain a much smaller gain from the turbo compared to RIPP at the same RPM where boost is very similar. The exhaust pressure is much more indirect than the RIPP being powered by the crankshaft. That exhaust pressure is what is driving the turbo. I also happen to know that the exhaust:boost pressure ratio with the Prodigy setup is less than 1:1. That means the boost filling the cylinder is stronger than the exhaust back-pressure during valve overlap, so there won't be an issue of exhaust back pressure causing some exhaust to remain in the cylinder. The boost will actually help push the exhaust out of the cylinder.

It has to be either a much improved calibration over stock that favors power rather than whatever Chrysler sacrificed power for at that RPM (emissions? fuel efficiency? dumbing down power for "driveability"?), or the 40% gain claim is B.S., or a mix of both.

If such a large gain in power is possible at 1800 rpm with the RIPP, then a respectable gain should also be possible with the turbo down in that rpm range if tuned similarly. A 40% gain from RIPP vs a perceived zero gain from Prodigy at the same RPM (we unfortunately do not have any good stock vs Prodigy dyno charts yet to see for sure) simply cannot be primarily explained by differences between the supercharger and turbo themselves.



The turbo is producing boost in the situation being discussed here.

Some of your formulas need to be tweaked... The guage pressure is different than absolute pressures and you will have to adjust your gauge pressure.

But here you go: Vortech makes two models of the V-2 Supercharger: The V-2SCI which runs at 17PSI and 1050CFM max making 725HP and the V-2E which runs at 17PSI and 1150CFM creating 775Hp max--

http://www.vortechsuperchargers.com/page.php?id=30157
http://www.vortechsuperchargers.com/page.php?id=30008

So, you know do you still want to go with CFM factor doesn't matter???? All we've been saying is that you don't have enough information to say anything meaningful about your Turbo running at .3 PSI and Ripp's unit operating at .6 PSI. You need more data points. Also you don't exactly know how Ripp has tuned this vehicle or the differences between the kits to really say anything at all about why your system seems to make less power at the same hp range.

Oh, and depending on your turbo's size and requirements .3 psi of boost might not over come the back pressure on the cylinder head.

Yes, your right you can figure out how much theoretical power the engine can create. However, to do that you really need to know all the specs for each unit you comparing. You don't have enough of the picture to really be able to see the differences in Ripp's setup and Prodigy's setup.

I applaud what you are doing actually. However, you just need more data. I would get a friend with a Ripp Unit and Your Truck to a Dyno place-- pop out the engines and really put all the gauges on them. Find out the flow from the supercharger/turbochargers, find out the programing points for the fuel air management system, check to see if maybe the Ripp system has a better flowing intake system, maybe they have a better aftercooler system, and then you can really say okay-- this is what we found and this what they claim and here is why it does whatever it does. It is expensive.

[UselessPickles]

Some of your formulas need to be tweaked... The guage pressure is different than absolute pressures and you will have to adjust your gauge pressure.

Please explain what was wrong with my calculations. I did my calculations in terms of absolute pressure (psia): atmospheric pressure + boost (aka guage pressure, psig).



But here you go: Vortech makes two models of the V-2 Supercharger: The V-2SCI which runs at 17PSI and 1050CFM max making 725HP and the V-2E which runs at 17PSI and 1150CFM creating 775Hp max--

http://www.vortechsuperchargers.com/page.php?id=30157
http://www.vortechsuperchargers.com/page.php?id=30008

So, you know do you still want to go with CFM factor doesn't matter????


Yes, for the context of what I'm talking about, CFM *capability* is irrelevant. The specs you linked to only show that a supercharger that is *capable* of flowing more air at a given pressure is *capable* of producing more power (because more total air per unit time = more power; I did not need to be convinced of this) than a supercharger that can maintain the same boost, but at a lower flow rate... IF... BIG IF... it is paired up with an engine that is capable of CONSUMING air at that flow rate. The flow rating of a supercharger/turbo is important in choosing the correct size for the engine that you are installing it on. A higher CFM supercharger cannot magically force more air through an engine at a higher flow rate, but at the same pressure. To push more air through the engine requires higher pressure (which would actually still be the same lower CFM, but at a higher pressure, because CFM is just volume per rate of time, regardless of pressure).

Two different things that are pushing air into the same engine with the same pressure cannot possibly be pushing different amounts of air into the cylinder (which I already fully explained in my previous post).


Oh, and depending on your turbo's size and requirements .3 psi of boost might not over come the back pressure on the cylinder head.

Did you miss the part where I mentioned that the exhaust:boost pressure ratio of the turbo system is less than 1:1? And therefore the boost pressure is stronger than exhaust back-pressure?

[UselessPickles]

One last attempt to explain from a different direction why CFM capability of the supercharger/turbo is completely irrelevant to my analysis of RIPP's claim of 40% gains at 1800 rpm. Please actually read through this and put some effort into understanding it before responding.


CFM = Cubic Feet Per Minute

That's a rate of flow of a volume of air per unit time. A volumetric flow rate. That's it. Volume/time. Pressure, mass of air, or number of molecules is completely independent of flow rate.

What is the flow rate of the Pentastar engine at 1800 rpm? For simplicity, we will ignore extra volume in the ceiling of the combustion chamber, valve overlap, etc. Let's just go by the displacement.

3.6 L total displacement, but each cylinder requires 2 rotations of the engine to intake and exhaust 1 cylinder full of air.

So (3.6 L) * (1800 rpm) / 2 = 3240 L/minute

Again... this is just volume of air. Pressure, temperature, etc., are all unspecified. It does not specify the AMOUNT of air flowing through the engine. Just the VOLUME. The AMOUNT of air depends on the volume, pressure and temperature.

So what's the volumetric flow rate of the engine at 1800 rpm with 0.3 psi boost? At 0.6 psi boost? At 37 psi boost? The answer is always 3240 L/minute. The difference is the pressure and temperature of the air, which results in a different AMOUNT of air, but the same VOLUME.

Even if there's some inefficiency with cylinder filling (intake valve isn't open long enough to equalize pressure between cylinder and manifold, for example), the end result will still be the same VOLUME of air, but at a slightly lower pressure than manifold pressure (the ECU has lookup tables of volumetric efficiency multipliers to deal with this).

What if you have a supercharger capable of flowing up to 98,000 L/min at 58 psi, and it's producing 23 psi at 1800 rpm? What's the volumetric flow rate through the engine now? Still 3240 L/minute! The supercharger does not change the volume of the cylinders. And it does not change the engine speed. Therefore it cannot possibly change the volumetric flow rate of air through the engine. It only compresses air, changing its pressure and temperature.

Therefore, two different forced induction systems producing the same boost pressures and intake air temperatures on the same engine at the same engine speed cannot possibly be operating at different volumetric flow rates (CFM, or whatever units you care to use), no matter what their peak boost or peak CFM ratings are.

[KaiserBill]

One last attempt to explain from a different direction why CFM capability of the supercharger/turbo is completely irrelevant to my analysis of RIPP's claim of 40% gains at 1800 rpm. Please actually read through this and put some effort into understanding it before responding.


CFM = Cubic Feet Per Minute

That's a rate of flow of a volume of air per unit time. A volumetric flow rate. That's it. Volume/time. Pressure, mass of air, or number of molecules is completely independent of flow rate.

What is the flow rate of the Pentastar engine at 1800 rpm? For simplicity, we will ignore extra volume in the ceiling of the combustion chamber, valve overlap, etc. Let's just go by the displacement.

3.6 L total displacement, but each cylinder requires 2 rotations of the engine to intake and exhaust 1 cylinder full of air.

So (3.6 L) * (1800 rpm) / 2 = 3240 L/minute

Again... this is just volume of air. Pressure, temperature, etc., are all unspecified. It does not specify the AMOUNT of air flowing through the engine. Just the VOLUME. The AMOUNT of air depends on the volume, pressure and temperature.

So what's the volumetric flow rate of the engine at 1800 rpm with 0.3 psi boost? At 0.6 psi boost? At 37 psi boost? The answer is always 3240 L/minute. The difference is the pressure and temperature of the air, which results in a different AMOUNT of air, but the same VOLUME.

Even if there's some inefficiency with cylinder filling (intake valve isn't open long enough to equalize pressure between cylinder and manifold, for example), the end result will still be the same VOLUME of air, but at a slightly lower pressure than manifold pressure (the ECU has lookup tables of volumetric efficiency multipliers to deal with this).

What if you have a supercharger capable of flowing up to 98,000 L/min at 58 psi, and it's producing 23 psi at 1800 rpm? What's the volumetric flow rate through the engine now? Still 3240 L/minute! The supercharger does not change the volume of the cylinders. And it does not change the engine speed. Therefore it cannot possibly change the volumetric flow rate of air through the engine. It only compresses air, changing its pressure and temperature.

Therefore, two different forced induction systems producing the same boost pressures and intake air temperatures on the same engine at the same engine speed cannot possibly be operating at different volumetric flow rates (CFM, or whatever units you care to use), no matter what their peak boost or peak CFM ratings are.

Whatever, you want to believe is fine with me. However, your first formula is wrong-- your volume at 1800rpm is always 3.6L at 5400 rpm the engine still is 3.6L at 150,000rpm still 3.6L! Now CFM is also directly related to the more important number--- lbs/Ft3 measuring air-density. That formula looks like this take CFM x .076Lbs/ft3 and poof that is the magic number. I tend to use CFM because it, well, works just as long as you remember to change it over to Lbs/ft3 and then remember that is per minute. Thusly, even a compressor running at .6 PSI operating at X Lbs/ft3 will create less power than a similar unit doing .6PSI with X+2 Lbs/ft3.

Hence my Vortech examples-- at any given Manifold pressure the V-2E has the potential to produce more horsepower than its similar brother the V-2SCI unit. That little 100CFM difference if it is constant across the entire units performance band produces an extra 7.6Lbs/Ft3 of air mass per minute!!! which if you say rough equates to about 30-50hp at any rpm range for any given boost. If that is a constant 100CFM increase. Now it might not be, but it could be. Which would make your analysis totally meaningless if you didn't take that extra air-mass into account for each given boost level.

So here is the general rule of thumb!!!! And it isn't supper accurate, but if you are making 125 HP at flywheel/ by 10.5 = 12.5hp per Lb/min. So if you are at 1800 rpm and you are pulling in an extra 2.2lbs/min of air (which can then be converted over to CFM, LFM, KG/CM3 or ML/CM or whatever you like) you roughly get a 27.5 hp which is pretty damn close to a 40% increase in power if go from 75HP at 1800 rpm to about 102.5HP: So what it is about a 37 percent increase in power? And it only required an addition 2.2lbs/min of air mass to reach the cylinders.

Until you know exactly how much air/mass is reaching the cylinders for a given boost pressure will not tell you anything of importance. Because guess what moving more air at any pressure means the potential for more air-molecules to be found in that specific volume of gas. Damn that air density.

Also on a side not I think you are misunderstanding Pressure Ratio on the Turbo chart. It doesn't measure the ratio of boost produced for a given volume of exhaust- it measures the ratio of compressione from absolute pressure at the inlet of the turbo to the outlet of the turbo. So lets say you have a 1.25:1 Pressure Ratio at 55,000rpm (impeller speed) means that you out pressure is 1.25 times that of the absolute pressure reading of the inlet side. Most turbos never get much more than 3.0 to 3.5 to 1 ratios. But that is pretty damn impressive. That's why staging turbos can get really insane pressures rapidly.

[UselessPickles]

I believe in physics :)

[UselessPickles]

You have completely failed to comprehend nearly every explanation and formula I have provided. Your responses completely misrepresent what I have said, or state irrelevant information/facts/etc.

For example:


your first formula is wrong-- your volume at 1800rpm is always 3.6L at 5400 rpm the engine still is 3.6L at 150,000rpm still 3.6L!

I have no idea what point you're trying to make here. Your statement does not at all back up your claim that my formula is wrong. Your statement is not in disagreement with my formula. I challenge you to prove that my formula for estimating volumetric flow rate of the engine is incorrect... with actual explanation of the physical processes and use of complete formulas as I have.


Now CFM is also directly related to the more important number--- lbs/Ft3 measuring air-density. That formula looks like this take CFM x .076Lbs/ft3 and poof that is the magic number. I tend to use CFM because it, well, works just as long as you remember to change it over to Lbs/ft3 and then remember that is per minute. Thusly, even a compressor running at .6 PSI operating at X Lbs/ft3 will create less power than a similar unit doing .6PSI with X+2 Lbs/ft3.

Again, a clear indication that you do not actually understand the relationship between pressure, volume, mass, and density of a gas. Two different devices both feeding air into the same engine at the same engine speed with the same amount of pressure in the same atmospheric conditions and same temperature cannot possibly be providing air at different densities (Lbs/ft3) it is absolutely physically impossible.

Density (Lbs/ft3) is directly proportional to pressure. All else equal (same engine, same rpm, same atmospheric conditions, same intake temp, etc). The only way one device could provide denser air is to provide air at a higher pressure. If both produce the same pressure, then they are both providing air with the same density and same flow rate.



Also on a side not I think you are misunderstanding Pressure Ratio on the Turbo chart. It doesn't measure the ratio of boost produced for a given volume of exhaust

You're making a HUGE assumption that I looked at (and misinterpreted) a turbo compressor map to determine the exhaust:boost pressure ratio. I never said anything about the compressor map. Where did you come up with this assumption?

If you must know, I used my knowledge of how the wastegate works combined with the rated boost level of the wastegate spring used in the kit (rated based on a 1:1 exhaust:boost pressure ratio), compared to the actual amount of boost that the spring allows in this turbo kit.



Anyway, it is very clear that you do not have a solid foundation of the physics involved to properly discuss this subject. Please stop. Seriously, this is going no where. Go take a physics class. Learn the Ideal Gas Law, and truly understand it. When you come back and re-read your posts, you will see how completely incorrect and/or irrelevant some of your arguments are. I truly do not intend this as an insult. I'm encouraging you to learn to understand things in a formal/logical/mathematical way that will allow you to more completely/formally express your ideas in terms of math.

I'm also not pulling a "I'm right, you're wrong, no matter what you say". I like to be proven wrong, because I like learning new things. You are, however, failing to provide any complete logical explanations to back up any of your claims. You have made several technically correct statements (by themselves), but have failed to bring them together with any consistency to prove/disprove any particular relationship. You say my formulas are wrong. Please, explain what's wrong with them. Show me the correct formulas. " take CFM x .076Lbs/ft3 and poof that is the magic number" does not count. Start with complete formulas (like the ideal gas law, formula for volumetric flow rate, formula for mass flow rate, etc) and combine/rearrange them to mathematically prove a relationship you are trying to communicate.

[gbaumann]

Two different devices both feeding air into the same engine at the same engine speed with the same amount of pressure in the same atmospheric conditions and same temperature cannot possibly be providing air at different densities (Lbs/ft3) it is absolutely physically impossible. .

So then regarding the dyno results you're trying to reconcile it's looking like an erroneous claim or a different calibration. Question, does Prodigy use Diablosport to generate their calibration files or are they working independently with the CMR software? I wonder how different each mfg's calibration file can be. You'd think that Prodigy, Magnuson, RIPP have all gotten their hands on the others' calibration files and are looking at them.

[UselessPickles]

Yes... my assertion is that either the claim is exaggerated, or RIPP just has a much better calibration at low rpms than Prodigy, or a mix of both. The difference in gains is too much to be explained by differences in efficiency of the RIPP vs Prodigy systems themselves.

Prodigy does their own tuning with the CMR software.

I do remember talking to either RIPP or Prodigy at one point, and they said they worked closely with Diablosport to develop some proprietary tuning capabilities in the CMR software so that they could properly account for boost in the calibrations. All the FI manufacturers work closely with Diablosport for CMR support. I don't know if there's some special calibration capabilities that are available to some manufacturers and not others, so it's tough to know whether it would even be meaningful to compare calibrations between different manufacturers.

I'm curious about whether the CMR software gives them control over the variable valve timing. I was just reading about how ideal cam timing is different at low rpm for a turbo, as compared to NA, to help the turbo spool more quickly.

Anyway, Prodigy is working on an improved tune. I know that low RPMs is an area they will put some effort into, because that have received feedback from multiple people about low RPMs feeling sluggish. It's possible that low RPM just was not a priority for Prodigy previously, so the hadn't yet put effort into optimizing it.

[gbaumann]

CMR had better include authority over cam phasing!!! If not, then what are we doing? Playing with AFR and spark timing?

And you've got four independently phased cams each with their own electronic actuator/sensor. According to Borg Warner the advanced VVT system is responsive to load in addition to RPM which sounds like torque management to me. Whatever it is it can most likely be optomized for a turbo. Most VVT systems phase intake and leave exhaust alone but not Pentastar. Huh. . . wonder if they included exhaust cam phasing in anticipation of someday bi-turboing the RAM 1500 or some other similar application. Ugh. . . It kills me that all of the raw materials are there but you have to have the software - ALL of the software - so you can make it work and the darn OEM won't release the code. And from my conversations with Magnuson, DiabloSport can be difficult at times. In fact, in one conversation a person at Mag who does not want to be on the record went on a five minute all-out rant regarding DiabloSport. In among the explitives were some salient facts such as the fact that DiabloSport actually generates the calibrations which goes beyond "support" to actual partnership. Also of interest was the fact that Mag pays thousands and thousands of dollars for the calibration engineers that DS provides. Of editorial color was the statement, "we are slaves to these guys. . . " I'll leave the rest out.

[UselessPickles]

Speaking of cam phasing... I found a decent intro explanation of how cam phasing affects both NA and turbo engines: http://www.hamotorsports.com/cam-gear-tuning.html

With full control over the VVT system, it could be optimized throughout the RPM range. I'll try to get some details about how much control CMR has over the VVT.

Yeah, the exact nature of the relationships between the turbo/supercharger manufacturers and Diablosport is a bit of a mystery to me still. I know it's definitely more than a basic customer support relationship with regards to the CMR software. That's one reason I'm patiently waiting for Prodigy to improve their tune rather than running out to a local tuning shop. Prodigy is going to continue to work closely with Diablosport to improve their tune and to address issues reported by many customers around the world, and the resulting improved tune will be made available to all Prodigy owners. For free!

A local tuning shop will only work on my tune for the couple hours that I paid for. I'm sure they'll gladly allow me to pay for more tuning time if I come back and report some mild driveability issues, but they won't have the benefit of feedback/logs from many people around the world, and they sure don't have any motivation to continue tweaking, testing and improving the tune once I've handed them my money and drive away. And they won't have as strong of a partnership with Diablosport as Prodigy, RIPP, etc., to be a driving force to improve the CMR capabilities for the application.

[UselessPickles]

Kinda off-topic, but not worth it's own thread...

I got bored and took pixel-perfect measurements at every 100 rpm increment from Magnuson's own dyno chart (http://www.wranglerforum.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=708977&d=1390872766) to add their boost curve to my collection:

http://www.uselesspickles.com/files/jeep/prodigy_ripp_magnuson_boost.png


I don't know why that chart stops at 6100 rpm. looks like the torque curve is leveling out, so it probably doesn't go up any more, if at all, as it approaches 6500 rpm.

I'd like to add Sprintex to the chart, but I can't fund any charts with a boost curve. Has anyone seen anything?

This chart really belongs in a thread about comparing all major power modifications in general. Seems like it would be good to have a continuously updated post that lists all the options, gives basic info about each, provides links to more info about each, etc.

[JeepLab]

Kinda off-topic, but not worth it's own thread...

I got bored and took pixel-perfect measurements at every 100 rpm increment from Magnuson's own dyno chart (http://www.wranglerforum.com/f202/magnuson-supercharger-pentastar-testing-458593-8.html) to add their boost curve to my collection:

http://www.uselesspickles.com/files/jeep/prodigy_ripp_magnuson_boost.png


I don't know why that chart stops at 6100 rpm. looks like the torque curve is leveling out, so it probably doesn't go up any more, if at all, as it approaches 6500 rpm.

I'd like to add Sprintex to the chart, but I can't fund any charts with a boost curve. Has anyone seen anything?

This chart really belongs in a thread about comparing all major power modifications in general. Seems like it would be good to have a continuously updated post that lists all the options, gives basic info about each, provides links to more info about each, etc.

What do you say to letting me take the post and start a new thread. I only hesitate because you specifically state "not worth its own thread".

If anyone could chart it out pickles, its you. What do you say? Everyone loooooves to O.D. on charts and graphs.

[Timmy]

Kinda off-topic, but not worth it's own thread...

I got bored and took pixel-perfect measurements at every 100 rpm increment from Magnuson's own dyno chart (http://www.wranglerforum.com/f202/magnuson-supercharger-pentastar-testing-458593-8.html) to add their boost curve to my collection:

http://www.uselesspickles.com/files/jeep/prodigy_ripp_magnuson_boost.png


I don't know why that chart stops at 6100 rpm. looks like the torque curve is leveling out, so it probably doesn't go up any more, if at all, as it approaches 6500 rpm.

I'd like to add Sprintex to the chart, but I can't fund any charts with a boost curve. Has anyone seen anything?

This chart really belongs in a thread about comparing all major power modifications in general. Seems like it would be good to have a continuously updated post that lists all the options, gives basic info about each, provides links to more info about each, etc.

Maybe this is a dumb question, but if RIPP and Mag indicate they are producing 8 PSI of boost with std pulley, and 11 PSI of boost with High Elevation pulley, why does your chart (or their data) only show Magnuson with a max of 6 PSI?

[Timmy]

Density (Lbs/ft3) is directly proportional to pressure. All else equal (same engine, same rpm, same atmospheric conditions, same intake temp, etc). The only way one device could provide denser air is to provide air at a higher pressure. If both produce the same pressure, then they are both providing air with the same density and same flow rate.

Good explanation Pickles! I kept scratching my head with what was being written in the other posts regarding CFM... As an example... The idea that you could push 1000 CFM @ 1 PSI vs. 1500 CFM @ 1 PSI through the same pipe, what the!?! Did someone not play with a garden hose as a kid enough to know that to obtain an increase in CFM at the same pressure would require an increase in the diameter of the garden hose!!!

For those who didn't get to play with a garden hose as a kid, here's the real formula.

cfm = area of pipe * sqrt (2*Pressure/density)

The idea that one turbo could deliver higher CFM at the same pressure, on the same engine, at the same RPM versus another turbo is just silly. That goes against the laws of physics (as previously stated by said poster named Pickles.)

[UselessPickles]

What do you say to letting me take the post and start a new thread. I only hesitate because you specifically state "not worth its own thread".

If anyone could chart it out pickles, its you. What do you say? Everyone loooooves to O.D. on charts and graphs.

I just didn't feel like committing to fleshing out the beginnings of a complete FI comparison post at the time. Next time I'm looking to kill some time in the evening, I'll start a new thread with the intent to continue to update the first post as a basic comparison guide.



Maybe this is a dumb question, but if RIPP and Mag indicate they are producing 8 PSI of boost with std pulley, and 11 PSI of boost with High Elevation pulley, why does your chart (or their data) only show Magnuson with a max of 6 PSI?

I took the boost data straight from Magnuson's own dyno chart (link in my post above was incorrect, but is now fixed). This is a chart that Ross posted on the wrangler forum, identifying it as a dyno chart from Magnuson:

http://www.wranglerforum.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=708977&d=1390872766


If you know of any more recent data about that supersedes that chart, please point me to it so I can update my data.

BTW, this is from Magnuson's web site (http://www.magnacharger.com/p-126-jeep-wrangler-36l-jk-2012-2014-magnuson-supercharger.aspx):



In testing, this kit demonstrated between an 80 - 100 HP and 60-70 lb-ft increase at the wheels at just 6 psi.

[UselessPickles]

to obtain an increase in CFM at the same pressure would require an increase in the diameter of the garden hose!!!

Since water is incompressible (in practicality, at least), but air IS compressible, the garden hose is a bit oversimplified.

With water, there IS a direct relationship between volumetric flow rate (e.g., CFM) and mass flow rate (e.g., lbs/ft^3).

With air, the relationship between volumetric flow rate and mass flow rate depends on density, which depends on temperature, pressure and volume.

To make things more confusing, in the world of engine dynamics, they speak of the volumetric efficiency of the engine. It is often explained as the percentage of "volume" of the cylinder that gets filled with air. As I discussed before, the volume of the displacement of the cylinder never changes. So volumetric efficiency is a bit of a misnomer (but not entirely incorrect, either, as I'll explain later). It's really a ratio of the AMOUNT (mass) of air that gets into the cylinder compared to the AMOUNT of air that *would* fill the cylinder *if* it were allowed to reach full equilibrium with the intake manifold.

At 50% volumetric efficiency (number chosen arbitrarily to make my later example easier to comprehend), it doesn't mean that the cylinder is only filled 50% of the of the way with air. That's impossible, because whatever AMOUNT of air enters the cylinder will expand to fill the entire volume.

But if you think of it from the perspective of the intake manifold, the term "volumetric efficiency" actually makes sense: 50% efficiency means that 50% of the cylinder's volume worth of air in the manifold has filled the cylinder. For the Pentastar, a cylinder is 3.6L / 6 = 0.6L. Let's say the manifold pressure is 10 psi (easy number to work with). At 50% volumetric efficiency, that means 50% of 0.6L = 0.3L worth of the manifold's 10 psi air enters the cylinder. That AMOUNT of air will fill the entire 0.6L in the cylinder (when the piston is at the bottom of the stroke). Volume are inversely proportional. That means when that 0.3L of the 10 psi air expands by double to fill the 0.6L cylinder, the pressure will be cut in half to 5 psi* (see disclaimer below). The air in the cylinder now has 50% the pressure of the manifold, AND 50% the amount (mass) of air that would have filled the cylinder if it were allowed to completely "fill" with air from the manifold.

So because of the relationships between volume, pressure, density and mass of air, it can really be thought of as either volumetric efficiency (from the perspective of the manifold) OR mass filling efficiency. It all works out mathematically the same, and will produce the same result in the calculation to determine the amount of air in the cylinder.

*Disclaimer: I simplified a bit for the explanation. When that 0.3L of 10 psi air expands into the 0.6L cylinder, the pressure may not become exactly half, because I believe the temperature of the expanding gas will decrease as well. This gets into some complications that I don't understand. So some of my previous statements in earlier posts may be incorrect about the relationship of how much pressure gets into the cylinder, but the concepts would be correct if you worked in terms of mass rather than pressure.

[KaiserBill]

Good explanation Pickles! I kept scratching my head with what was being written in the other posts regarding CFM... As an example... The idea that you could push 1000 CFM @ 1 PSI vs. 1500 CFM @ 1 PSI through the same pipe, what the!?! Did someone not play with a garden hose as a kid enough to know that to obtain an increase in CFM at the same pressure would require an increase in the diameter of the garden hose!!!

For those who didn't get to play with a garden hose as a kid, here's the real formula.

cfm = area of pipe * sqrt (2*Pressure/density)

The idea that one turbo could deliver higher CFM at the same pressure, on the same engine, at the same RPM versus another turbo is just silly. That goes against the laws of physics (as previously stated by said poster named Pickles.)

No, genius air expands when it enters the cylinder head!!!! This why Roots Lobe Units are called Blowers-- because they develop very very low pressure all the time! So, since no engine runs at 100% volume metric efficiency throughout its entire rpm range-- you can squeeze in more air into the cylinders just by increasing the volume metric flow of the air reaching engine. Remember as the air expands to fill in the open space it will slightly cool. This is where Roots Lobe units really have problems because of the way they create pressure and volume they actually tend to heat the air up more at low rpm then they do at high rpm. But when it comes to volume metric efficiency across a broad RPM range the RL system is hard to beat. Now, with a more air friendly system like the Centrifugal unit Vortech uses the air at low pressures is relatively cold and dense-- the the more you add the greater air density in the cylinder head (up to a point). The point is this at .6 PSI there is a good bet that the Vortech unit can move enough air into the cylinder head to achieve a noticeable increase in the volume metric efficiency of the engine without requiring the engine to need extra manifold pressure to compress more air into the cylinder head. So basically, you might go form say 91% volume metric efficiency to 95% efficiency thus allowing you to burn more fuel creating a mere 30-40hp extra. Physics is just fine... All the fun laws of Boyle's, Charles', and the kinetic theory of heat are intact and happily loving each other.

What, I said was Manifold Pressure doesn't necessarily have a linear relationship between CFM and Boost Pressure! You can very well have two different turbos running at the same engine speed, on similar engines developing two radically different CFM outputs. Why do you think they make so many different units that fit essentially the same size displacement engines??? Is it because they just want to sell people two different turbos for no reason at all? No, it is because different sorts of performance goals require different types of units and peak CFM outputs for specific manifold pressures.

Then I proved to you people with a link to two Vortech V-2 mode Units that outwardly look identical with only minor differences in specifications that have 100CFM difference in peak output. And this translates to 50HP extra at peak performance all while maintaining a maximum boost of 17PSI. So, yeah, would like to try to stating again how wrong I am.

http://www.vortechsuperchargers.com/page.php?id=30157

http://www.vortechsuperchargers.com/page.php?id=30008



My entire point since day one is that if you look a boost graph and decide that some company is misrepresenting their claims on this data alone-- you will probably look foolish. There are just so many more factors that come into play with adding forced induction to an engine. If you don't know how the engines are setup and what goals each kit has-- then it is hard to say that one claim is preposterous because I've got Prodigy's turbo kit and it cannot do it. It might not be designed to do it. And that is just bummer for you. Personally, I think they put out boost graphs because they know most people buying kits aren't well enough versed in forced induction theory to really know what they are looking at.. So yeah you see 10PSI or 11PSI or 22PSI and think wow that is going to be so awesome in my car, truck, or jeep. And not knowing what exactly your engine is doing to start with gives you almost no way of knowing how effective that kit will be on your engine in the long run.

[KaiserBill]

Since water is incompressible (in practicality, at least), but air IS compressible, the garden hose is a bit oversimplified.

With water, there IS a direct relationship between volumetric flow rate (e.g., CFM) and mass flow rate (e.g., lbs/ft^3).

With air, the relationship between volumetric flow rate and mass flow rate depends on density, which depends on temperature, pressure and volume.

To make things more confusing, in the world of engine dynamics, they speak of the volumetric efficiency of the engine. It is often explained as the percentage of "volume" of the cylinder that gets filled with air. As I discussed before, the volume of the displacement of the cylinder never changes. So volumetric efficiency is a bit of a misnomer (but not entirely incorrect, either, as I'll explain later). It's really a ratio of the AMOUNT (mass) of air that gets into the cylinder compared to the AMOUNT of air that *would* fill the cylinder *if* it were allowed to reach full equilibrium with the intake manifold.

At 50% volumetric efficiency (number chosen arbitrarily to make my later example easier to comprehend), it doesn't mean that the cylinder is only filled 50% of the of the way with air. That's impossible, because whatever AMOUNT of air enters the cylinder will expand to fill the entire volume.

But if you think of it from the perspective of the intake manifold, the term "volumetric efficiency" actually makes sense: 50% efficiency means that 50% of the cylinder's volume worth of air in the manifold has filled the cylinder. For the Pentastar, a cylinder is 3.6L / 6 = 0.6L. Let's say the manifold pressure is 10 psi (easy number to work with). At 50% volumetric efficiency, that means 50% of 0.6L = 0.3L worth of the manifold's 10 psi air enters the cylinder. That AMOUNT of air will fill the entire 0.6L in the cylinder (when the piston is at the bottom of the stroke). Volume are inversely proportional. That means when that 0.3L of the 10 psi air expands by double to fill the 0.6L cylinder, the pressure will be cut in half to 5 psi* (see disclaimer below). The air in the cylinder now has 50% the pressure of the manifold, AND 50% the amount (mass) of air that would have filled the cylinder if it were allowed to completely "fill" with air from the manifold.

So because of the relationships between volume, pressure, density and mass of air, it can really be thought of as either volumetric efficiency (from the perspective of the manifold) OR mass filling efficiency. It all works out mathematically the same, and will produce the same result in the calculation to determine the amount of air in the cylinder.

*Disclaimer: I simplified a bit for the explanation. When that 0.3L of 10 psi air expands into the 0.6L cylinder, the pressure may not become exactly half, because I believe the temperature of the expanding gas will decrease as well. This gets into some complications that I don't understand. So some of my previous statements in earlier posts may be incorrect about the relationship of how much pressure gets into the cylinder, but the concepts would be correct if you worked in terms of mass rather than pressure.

It is not a misnomer. What it is saying is that the distance between the molecules of air is now 50% greater. So let's say you have .6L of air in a 1.2L bottle that means the gas has twice the volume to fill-- now I can fill this same space with 50% more stuff before I start to need extra pressure to get air into the same space. That is all it means. It have this 1.2L bottle completely filled at 14.7PSI and I try to fill it up with 50% more air I will need roughly 50% more more pressure to do so. So, to get to 150% Volumetric efficiency I will need roughly 22.05PSI of pressure in the bottle which is the original 14.7 PSI to keep the air in and then addition 7.35PSI to compress it enough to get 50% extra volume in.

So, as I said before more air in the chamber means what??? More molecules which means greater density!

[UselessPickles]

It's over. Stop. Please.

[UselessPickles]

I do need to correct myself on one detail, though. The reference for "volumetric efficiency" is atmosphere, rather than the intake manifold, as I incorrectly stated early. This does not invalidate any of the concepts or relationships I described, though. So volumetric efficiency is the percentage of a cylinder's volume worth of ambient atmosphere air (the amount of air, number of molecules, in that volume of atmosphere) that actually gets into the cylinder. Boost causes a volumetric efficiency of over 100%.

[KaiserBill]

I do need to correct myself on one detail, though. The reference for "volumetric efficiency" is atmosphere, rather than the intake manifold, as I incorrectly stated early. This does not invalidate any of the concepts or relationships I described, though. So volumetric efficiency is the percentage of a cylinder's volume worth of ambient atmosphere air (the amount of air, number of molecules, in that volume of atmosphere) that actually gets into the cylinder. Boost causes a volumetric efficiency of over 100%.

What happens when we increase our volumetric efficiency from say 80% to 90%??? I'll give you a clue--- AIR DENSITY INCREASES!

[UselessPickles]

I don't know why you are shouting the obvious at me and think you need to give it to me as a clue. Your "clue" is not inconsistent with anything I have said. Please stop. Your lack of comprehension is hanging out and it's embarrassing.

[KaiserBill]

It's over. Stop. Please.

Why Pickles... What did the Ideal Gas law leave you cold this morning? Or have you finally realized that, yes, you need more data to make any intelligible analysis of the Ripp v. Prodigy systems?

[Yoinkers]

Why Pickles... What did the Ideal Gas law leave you cold this morning? Or have you finally realized that, yes, you need more data to make any intelligible analysis of the Ripp v. Prodigy systems?

This thread is off the rails. Spiraling out of control. The tech discussion here makes my head spin.

[KaiserBill]

I don't know why you are shouting the obvious at me and think you need to give it to me as a clue. Your "clue" is not inconsistent with anything I have said. Please stop. Your lack of comprehension is hanging out and it's embarrassing.


I'm going to send this new understanding of volumetric efficiency to my buddies over at Caterpillar. They will love it.

P.S. A turbo doesn't have a 1:1 Ratio between exhaust pressure and boost. One impeller is compressing the air flow so it has a different geometry than the one that gases push against! These differences make a big difference in how much boost you get for specific volume of gas accelerating the unit. Also you will notice that the Intake housing is smaller than the exhaust housing[sometimes you need to measure it to see the difference]-- this is because the intake is trying maximize pressure by having a higher rotational speed than the turbine. Where as the exhaust is trying maximize the volume of gas pushing the against the turbine thus increasing the speed of the compressor. It is like having an overdrive where you get more rotations out of the smaller compressor wheel to keep up with the bigger slower rotating turbine.... So really you have more a 4-5 or even 10 to 1 ratio in favor of boost pressure over that of exhaust pressure. This is why the turbo becomes more efficient as the exhaust pressure increases and compress wheel's rpm goes up! You know it is the damn centripetal force formula.

[UselessPickles]

OK, KaiserBill. You win. Kinda...

All of this completely tangential talk of volumetric efficiency got me thinking...

KaiserBill may be right, either by coincidence for the wrong reasons, or he could just be bad at putting together a coherent/consistent explanation. I really don't know.

The key to this could be a difference in volumetric efficiency at low rpm. The turbo system will have higher exhaust back pressure. KaiserBill did point this out (a few times I think), but never followed through with the connection that it could be reducing the engine's volumetric efficiency.

Ideally, during the intake/exhaust valve opening overlap, exhaust will completely flow out and be replaced with fresh air from the intake manifold before the exhaust valve closes. Then the intake stroke will continue pulling in more fresh air from the manifold. With more exhaust back pressure, it could resist that complete expulsion of exhaust, and leave some exhaust gasses trailing behind when the exhaust valve closes. That exhaust gas is now taking up space and reduces the amount of new fresh intake air that makes it into the cylinder. The total amount of gasses in the cylinder could end up being the same, but not all of it is new, combustible, fresh air from the intake manifold. This both means less fresh air for combustion (less power), AND less amount of air is consumed from the intake manifold. Less air consumed from the manifold means that air is flowing through the engine at a lower rate, which would be represented as a lower volumetric efficiency. And if the engine is consuming air from the manifold at a lower rate, then air would have to be flowing into the manifold (from the turbo) at a lower rate to maintain the same boost level as system with higher volumetric efficiency.

So there's an explanation of how a turbo and supercharger on the same engine could be operating at the same boost level, same engine speed, same temperature, etc., but the supercharger could be flowing air faster than the turbo and producing more power. I still maintain that it is not the flow capability (CFM rating) of the compressor that causes this difference, but the flow capability of the engine itself. I just previously failed to see that the engine's flow capability could be different between the supercharger and turbo.

I would be surprised to learn that exhaust back pressure from the turbo is enough to account for a 40% difference in power. I still suspect it has more to do with the tune.

[UselessPickles]

I'm going to send this new understanding of volumetric efficiency to my buddies over at Caterpillar. They will love it.

Just be sure to send it to them properly revised with my own correction of myself that it's all relative to atmosphere rather than the intake manifold. I got it wrong initially, but my error was really irrelevant to the point I was trying to make.

My revised summary of my understanding/explanation of volumetric efficiency:

The ratio of the amount (number of molecules) of fresh intake air that enters into the cylinder compared to the amount (number of molecules) of air present in a cylinder-displacement volume of local ambient atmosphere, expressed as a percentage.

Like you've pointed out a couple times, it's the amount of air (molecules) that matters, which is why I said "volumetric efficiency" is a bit of a misnomer. Volume alone does not describe an amount of air.



P.S. A turbo doesn't have a 1:1 Ratio between exhaust pressure and boost.

I never claimed it did. I only mentioned TiAL's wastegate spring ratings that are based on an assumed 1:1 exhaust:boost pressure ratio. See the fine print in the lower-right of this image:

http://store.forcedperformance.net/merchant2/graphics/00000001/data/MVSprings2.jpg




Spring Pressures are calculated based on a 1:1 back pressure ratio. It is not uncommon to see a +/- 2psi differential.


Now I could be completely misinterpreting this, so please correct me if I'm wrong. They only mention "back pressure", which I assume to be exhaust back pressure. And it's a ratio of "back pressure" to something. Since a wastegate involves a balance between exhaust pressure and boost pressure fighting against the spring pressure, I assumed they are referring to a ratio between exhaust back pressure and boost pressure.

The spring in the Stage 2 turbo kit is rated at 7.25 psi, but it produces about 8.2 psi when used in this particular kit. Therefore, if that ratio TiAL refers to is correctly an exhaust:boost pressure ratio, then my exhaust:boost pressure ratio must be less than 1:1.

I have been unable to find anything that explains what "back pressure ratio" is in terms of a wastegate or turbo system. If anyone can point me to info about this, please do.

I previously claimed that due to this, boost pressure would be higher than exhaust back pressure in the 1800 rpm 0.3 psi situation being discussed. I now admit that I don't understand this exhaust:boost pressure ratio stuff enough to make that assumption. The more I think about it, the more I expect that exhaust:boost pressure ratio would not be constant, but would vary throughout different engine speeds and engine loads. In fact, I'm pretty sure a couple psi of exhaust back pressure is pretty normal even for a NA engine, which is clearly more than the amount of boost in that situation. The turbo would almost certainly create more back pressure than the stock exhaust system... then flow from this idea back to my previous post about how the extra back pressure would lead to lower volumetric efficiency...

[KaiserBill]

Just be sure to send it to them properly revised with my own correction of myself that it's all relative to atmosphere rather than the intake manifold. I got it wrong initially, but my error was really irrelevant to the point I was trying to make.

My revised summary of my understanding/explanation of volumetric efficiency:

The ratio of the amount (number of molecules) of fresh intake air that enters into the cylinder compared to the amount (number of molecules) of air present in a cylinder-displacement volume of local ambient atmosphere, expressed as a percentage.

Like you've pointed out a couple times, it's the amount of air (molecules) that matters, which is why I said "volumetric efficiency" is a bit of a misnomer. Volume alone does not describe an amount of air.




I never claimed it did. I only mentioned TiAL's wastegate spring ratings that are based on an assumed 1:1 exhaust:boost pressure ratio. See the fine print in the lower-right of this image:

http://store.forcedperformance.net/merchant2/graphics/00000001/data/MVSprings2.jpg




Now I could be completely misinterpreting this, so please correct me if I'm wrong. They only mention "back pressure", which I assume to be exhaust back pressure. And it's a ratio of "back pressure" to something. Since a wastegate involves a balance between exhaust pressure and boost pressure fighting against the spring pressure, I assumed they are referring to a ratio between exhaust back pressure and boost pressure.

The spring in the Stage 2 turbo kit is rated at 7.25 psi, but it produces about 8.2 psi when used in this particular kit. Therefore, if that ratio TiAL refers to is correctly an exhaust:boost pressure ratio, then my exhaust:boost pressure ratio must be less than 1:1.

I have been unable to find anything that explains what "back pressure ratio" is in terms of a wastegate or turbo system. If anyone can point me to info about this, please do.

I previously claimed that due to this, boost pressure would be higher than exhaust back pressure in the 1800 rpm 0.3 psi situation being discussed. I now admit that I don't understand this exhaust:boost pressure ratio stuff enough to make that assumption. The more I think about it, the more I expect that exhaust:boost pressure ratio would not be constant, but would vary throughout different engine speeds and engine loads. In fact, I'm pretty sure a couple psi of exhaust back pressure is pretty normal even for a NA engine, which is clearly more than the amount of boost in that situation. The turbo would almost certainly create more back pressure than the stock exhaust system... then flow from this idea back to my previous post about how the extra back pressure would lead to lower volumetric efficiency...

Useless Pickles, as I've said I applaud what you are doing trying to figure out if Ripp's claims are legitimate claims. That is good for everyone. People who can and do test these claims are important. The problem is that most manufactures are really dodgy about the details of their systems on purpose. While they do put little disclaimers on their products like "*** Our Results We Obtained In A Controlled Lab-- Real World Road Experience Does And Will Differ..." That want to blind people with my 86PSI of manifold pressure at 15,000RPM claims. Which is all about marketing-- damn those Madison Avenue Bastards. It is a shame these guys just don't come out and give a full spec sheet of the units capabilities. It would make comparisons so much easier. Then again it would probably daze and confuse a lot of people with way too many numbers.

Back Pressure is a bad term. Let's call it resistance to flow. The impeller creates it in a turbo unit and the exhaust system itself creates it in a Normally Aspirated System. You cannot really get rid of it completely. And yes, you are correct, the Normally Aspirated Engines do indeed have back pressure that is lower than their Turbocharged counter parts. I'm sure that Prodigy has reduced this to a minimum by keeping the lengths of exhaust as short and straight as possible. Increasing the diameter of the exhaust will help a lot too from the turbocharger unit itself. If you are using stock exhaust from the turbo to the catalyic converter and muffler you getting more resistance on the back end of the exhaust then you would if you increase that size. This will make the turbo operate more efficiently at lower pressures. But you might not be able to change those diameters too much. They might have specified a system that uses pretty stock stuff. But I would call up Prodigy and ask what sort of benefit going up a .25 inch or even 1 inch in diameter would do for me. The lower the back pressure is at any rpm the better.

Well, if you are getting 8.2PSI on the manifold but are still using 7.25PSI rated waste gate spring-- then well there is your answer the stage two kit's Aftercooler is giving you 1.17... to 1 ratio of boost ratio. That's good actually. However, freeing up the exhaust system and getting the absolute least restrictive design can improve those numbers. Also letting the turbo operate at higher Boost Pressures can see an improvement on those too.

[From looking at Garrett's website that turbo class the 550HP can put out a lot of Boost depending on the specific size of the unit- they have a couple different ones in that class. But they all create killer power levels at 20-30psi. If you don't like your warranty much-- I would suggest getting a waste that can handle a 30PSI spring or greater. You know one that never actually lets the exhaust gas bypass the turbine... Add Water Methanol Injection and of course custom deep-dish pistons (increase the chamber volume a little and drop the compression ratio from 9.5 to 1 down to 4.5 to 1 or less ) and then stand back and see how much power your 3.6L engine creates! Of course this is only if you really don't like your warranty and your jeep is not your daily driver! It is not impossible to get a 180BHP per L with out much effort doing this. You know 648HP at 6500rpm has a way of intoxicating the owner/operator of the vehicle-- insurance companies are however never that impressed...]


The big problem with the Jeep's hood is that they didn't give you much room to play with in the engine compartment. That's a real bummer actually. Because the ideal setup on a V6 or V8 engine is a twin turbo kit. That will let you maximize the exhaust pressure from each bank of cylinders into its own turbo unit. However, that doesn't seem like it would fit under the hood given the space they have under their. But that would probably let you have a system with better low end performance but you might not be so hot at 6500rpm.

If you want to really want increase your analysis and ask Jeeplab if they can send you their raw data from dyno of the system. If you get the torque numbers you can actually calculate Volume Metric efficiency of the engine for any given boost level. Which means that you can really see if their claims are true or not. Of course I would call anything within 5% of the 40% percent claim too close to call. You will need to get the air-fuel ratio numbers too... you might have to use a range of those to get approximations-- but hey like I said if you get within 5% of that Ripp number then you know it is at least possible to do. And it should be possible to do that sort of performance with the Vortech unit.

Here are some more fun formulas for you:

http://www.turbobygarrett.com/turbobygarrett/choosing_turbo

[UselessPickles]

Here's some fresh turbo porn from Prodigy:

http://www.uselesspickles.com/files/jeep/prodigy_turbo_stage2/turbo_on_engine_stand.jpg


They also mentioned on facebook that they got 382 hp and 380 ft-lbs out of their stage 2 test jeep now! Compared to the previous 359 hp and 373 ft-lbs, that means there's a small bump in peak torque, but more impressive is that the peak hp gain implies that torque falls off less after peak torque. This must have something to do with their recent efforts to improve the tune. I hope they finish it up soon and let us try it :)

[KaiserBill]

"This is the Stage 2 Upgrade Kit for the PRO-2001 Prodigy Turbo Kit for the 2012-2014 Jeep Wrangler. This is a complete Jeep Turbo Kit upgrade that adds our legendary front mount intercooler and increases boost by and additional 2PSI. Everything you need to get the power your Jeep needs on or off-road. With 7 years of development, the finest turbocharging components, OEM level engine management calibrations and extraordinary dyno proven results this package will make your Jeep perform as good as it looks! More Powerful than ANY supercharger!"

From the Prodigy Website... That is funny- Legendary Front Mount Intercooler??? That is funny-- considering this sort arrangement has been around for decades-- one would be almost forgiven if they mistook Prodigy for being the inventors of front mounted intercoolers. And for all that legend what do you get 2 extra PSI!!!! I hope they decided to turn up the boost a little.

[UselessPickles]

Yeah, "Legendary" seems a bit excessive, but that's marketing. The intercooler is very nice, though. Very solid and custom sized to just barely fit behind the grill on the Jeep.


And for all that legend what do you get 2 extra PSI!!!! I hope they decided to turn up the boost a little.

You also get much lower intake temps, so the gains are better than just a small boost increase.

They have plans to turn up the boost, but this seems to be as much boost as they are comfortable selling as a reliable kit on the stock engine. All I know for sure is that they have shared pictures of some forged pistons. They're going to strengthen the engine before adding more boost.

BTW - I heard that one of their customers took it upon themselves to turn up the boost (to somewhere around 12-14 psi, I believe), and ended up requiring an engine rebuild due to the damage that was caused.

[AGOM]

4 pages of catch-up reading and 4 Advils later and i must say that i enjoyed it.
I have to Applaud both UslessPickles and KaiserBill for their efforts and a great read, it tickled and teased my brain in more ways than one !! Lots of info.


Thnx guys

[KaiserBill]

Yeah, "Legendary" seems a bit excessive, but that's marketing. The intercooler is very nice, though. Very solid and custom sized to just barely fit behind the grill on the Jeep.



You also get much lower intake temps, so the gains are better than just a small boost increase.

They have plans to turn up the boost, but this seems to be as much boost as they are comfortable selling as a reliable kit on the stock engine. All I know for sure is that they have shared pictures of some forged pistons. They're going to strengthen the engine before adding more boost.

BTW - I heard that one of their customers took it upon themselves to turn up the boost (to somewhere around 12-14 psi, I believe), and ended up requiring an engine rebuild due to the damage that was caused.


I'm not saying the intercooler is bad. I'm just marveling at wording of the ad. From the description you would expect that this Legendary Custom Intercooler would make you espresso coffee, turn your engine into a 500+hp engine, and keep the kids entertained. It looks like a nice package.

My one question about it would be proximity to the to the rest of the engine stuff in your engine compartment-- you have the turbo very close putting out amazing heat. You have the engine putting a decent amount heat, then you have the radiator which is also putting out extra heat and then you have the exhaust manifold. You've got all those heat producing elements in such close proximity to the intercooler tends to reduce efficiency.

Air to Air systems work great at high speeds due to the volume of air flow you get. They tend to really drop of the performance charts when you get off road with slow moving air-speeds. Couple this with the close proximity of the everything under the hood and you start to see performance from your intercooler drop off. It is just one drawback of attempting to put extra things under the hood the original engineers didn't account for or ever intend for you to put under their. I wouldn't scrap the intercooler-- I just wouldn't be surprised that if I spend 4 hours off road at 15mph to see the same sort of performance as I would at 70mph cruising down the highway.

This is specially true for the air intake being right by the engine I understand why they want the turbo to get a nice short straight shot of air. However, that is right in the nexus of heat if you will. It is high up where all the hot air is going to rise to and it is next to the engine. I would like my air intake outside the hood in the clear away from extra heat sources. But that is just me. You're on the trail all day and the air is 80F ambient, then you have the above sources of heat and almost no air flowing into the system other than what the fans for the radiator can draw. I would increase those myself.

Also, does Prodigy offer an oil-cooler kit? That would be a great addition to the system.

[2k13jk]

Do you think itll be worth selling my ripp kit in my 2013 for a prodigy turbo kit

[UselessPickles]

Air to Air systems work great at high speeds due to the volume of air flow you get. They tend to really drop of the performance charts when you get off road with slow moving air-speeds. Couple this with the close proximity of the everything under the hood and you start to see performance from your intercooler drop off.

This is why I painted my intercooler with radiator paint. It radiates heat more efficiently than bare metal. If I had been thinking clearly at the time, I would have left the back side unpainted, because the black color also ABSORBS heat radiation more efficiently! Oh well.

I did have some problems with excessive intake temps on a hot summer day driving hard on sand dunes, but that was with stage 1 (no intercooler) AND an install error that was producing excess boost. I also only had those problems when repeatedly racing up sand dunes at high RPM (5000+ rpm) with boost. I've never seen any signs of excessive heat problems while driving slowly or idling.

Keep in mind that this is an add-on turbo kit that is sized to provide its big gains in the mid and upper rpm range under significant engine load. When crawling around off road at low speed, especially in 4LO, there's just not enough engine load to really spool the turbo up. The engine along with proper gearing is plenty for most non-extreme off road driving. Since the turbo isn't working hard in these situations, it's not generating extra heat. It's essentially just part of the exhaust system. Yes, there is extra exhaust routed through the engine compartment, but that's at least partially balanced by the removal of the stock catalytic converters (which hang directly off the heads of the engine, one on each side). Ceramic coating or heat wrap on the exhaust could reduce heat if that's a concern.

I would like to eventually build some kind of heat shield around the air filter to see if that has any significant effect on intake temps. It should be pretty easy to test with some back-to-back data logging with and without a heat shield. I expect it will have no significant impact at street driving speeds where there's good air flow, and it will probably only slow down the heat soak a bit at low speeds, rather than permanently reduce inlet temps.



Also, does Prodigy offer an oil-cooler kit? That would be a great addition to the system.

Haven't heard of any plans for this. The Pentastar already has an oil-coolant heat exchanger, so I'd guess that oil temps would not be an issue unless maybe you're really beating on it, like continuous high load, high boost operation, desert racing type stuff.



Do you think itll be worth selling my ripp kit in my 2013 for a prodigy turbo kit

I have not driven a RIPP, so can't really comment on how different the performance is, and therefore whether it would be worth switching. Jessee and Ross might be able to provide some insight, but I also think the upcoming update to Prodigy's tune needs to be taken into account before making a comparison.

[AGOM]

Has anyone had a problem with the wast gate?
Will it show in the log?
What are the common signs?

[UselessPickles]

I had a problem with the wastegate causing about 1.2 psi excess boost when I had stage 1. I had a damaged o-ring on the hose fitting for the boost sensing line to the wastegate, and I also had an exhaust leak where the wastegate mounts to the up-pipe. I'm not sure which issue caused the excess boost.

Any problem with the wastegate would show up as either too much or too little boost, which would show up in data logs. The shape of the boost curve over the entire RPM range could reveal if a wastegate is hooked up improperly too.

Do you suspect you have a problem? What are the symptoms. If you record a data log of full throttle acceleration in 2nd gear, from about 2000 rpm to redline, I can take a look at it and see if there's anything obviously wrong.

[gbaumann]

Haven't heard of any plans for this. The Pentastar already has an oil-coolant heat exchanger, so I'd guess that oil temps would not be an issue unless maybe you're really beating on it, like continuous high load, high boost operation, desert racing type stuff.

Have you given any thought to changing your t-stat to the Mishimoto or RIPP 180deg.? I've read a bit about it and it seems you need some custom tuning to adjust fan operation but for forced induction motors lower coolant temp could be a small part of the power recipe. In reading about the t-stat I came across information about the pentastar oil pump system that has a step-up solenoid that gets actuated by the PCM based on temp., RPM, engine load, etc. Again, small items and I AM NOT MAKING AN ACCUSATION but if RIPP's test jeep/motor has a lower temp t-stat and a custom tune which is generating lower engine compartment temps and keeping oil pressure at optimum without taking unnecessary power for the pump then we might start to see a difference in dyno charts. Also, I believe (not 100% sure) that the coolant passages in the heads include the cast-in exhaust runners. I know that GM's 3.6L bi-turbo Cadillac motor works that way. The exhaust helps get the engine up to operating temp faster at low load. At high load the coolant helps prevent damage to the catalytic converters. But, maybe it would be beneficial for the turbo guys to lower exhaust temps across the board and lower heat under the hood.

[UselessPickles]

I'm not going to mess with thermostats unless Prodigy tunes for it. Modern engines are designed to run at higher temps for efficiency and emissions, and I don't want to risk throwing things out of balance.

Yes, the pentastar does have coolant passages in the built-in header. If exhaust temps are not causing excess under-hood heat, then any attempt to reduce exhaust temps would actually hurt performance. Turbos are driven by the heat expansion of exhaust leaving the engine, and the pressure differential across the turbine.

Speaking of which... minimizing post-turbo exhaust pressure is probably a good thing to look at. Zero exhaust pressure post-turbo would be ideal. A first step would be to actually measure exhaust pressure in the stock exhaust system with a turbo to see if it is a major restriction to begin with. Reducing pressure hear would also improve volumetric efficiency, and reduce post-turbo exhaust temps, which would all work toward reducing under hood temps a bit.

[KaiserBill]

This is why I painted my intercooler with radiator paint. It radiates heat more efficiently than bare metal. If I had been thinking clearly at the time, I would have left the back side unpainted, because the black color also ABSORBS heat radiation more efficiently! Oh well.

I did have some problems with excessive intake temps on a hot summer day driving hard on sand dunes, but that was with stage 1 (no intercooler) AND an install error that was producing excess boost. I also only had those problems when repeatedly racing up sand dunes at high RPM (5000+ rpm) with boost. I've never seen any signs of excessive heat problems while driving slowly or idling.

Keep in mind that this is an add-on turbo kit that is sized to provide its big gains in the mid and upper rpm range under significant engine load. When crawling around off road at low speed, especially in 4LO, there's just not enough engine load to really spool the turbo up. The engine along with proper gearing is plenty for most non-extreme off road driving. Since the turbo isn't working hard in these situations, it's not generating extra heat. It's essentially just part of the exhaust system. Yes, there is extra exhaust routed through the engine compartment, but that's at least partially balanced by the removal of the stock catalytic converters (which hang directly off the heads of the engine, one on each side). Ceramic coating or heat wrap on the exhaust could reduce heat if that's a concern.

I would like to eventually build some kind of heat shield around the air filter to see if that has any significant effect on intake temps. It should be pretty easy to test with some back-to-back data logging with and without a heat shield. I expect it will have no significant impact at street driving speeds where there's good air flow, and it will probably only slow down the heat soak a bit at low speeds, rather than permanently reduce inlet temps.



Haven't heard of any plans for this. The Pentastar already has an oil-coolant heat exchanger, so I'd guess that oil temps would not be an issue unless maybe you're really beating on it, like continuous high load, high boost operation, desert racing type stuff.




I have not driven a RIPP, so can't really comment on how different the performance is, and therefore whether it would be worth switching. Jessee and Ross might be able to provide some insight, but I also think the upcoming update to Prodigy's tune needs to be taken into account before making a comparison.



I do realize the limitations add-on kits have when it comes to space and so on and so forth. Prodigy has made a very neat package. That cannot be disputed. However, I question why they didn't wrap the entire exhaust system with insulation and add some insulation to the intake as well. I've been thinking about doing it for some time on my 7.8L Diesel Engine. I doubt I will see more than .5% increase in performance but what the hell right? Worked for Jack Burton???? However, I say put the shield around the intake and then add some cool tape to the intake side of the turbo some heat tape to the exhaust and see what you get performance wise. And if that doesn't suite you go for the gusto and put the MW-50 on it!!! Nothing says lovin' like a turbo with a drinking habit! Some times you just need a turbo that drinks like a sailor!

Where I would be concerned the most with a turbo's inter cooler that is air to air is on the low speed side of things. That is always where air to air units really show performance issues. However, you could put in larger fans and change the thermostats settings so they run at lower temperatures say 20-30F lower than normal that way you make up for the inter-cooler's added heat and disruption of air flow to the radiator. This would really help at low speeds.

As for the oil-cooler. I didn't actually know the Pentastar had a dedicated oil cooler that is a nice feature. Now, the only question is can it handle the added heat? Also how much did you increase your oil capacity to account for the turbo unit? That is the big issue, if you cooler cannot handle the extra heat it doesn't help to much. However, I'm betting it is just enough to get the job done at normal driving speeds. You might want to see if you can get a bigger unit for times when you are running the engine hard in an environment where cooling is minimal.

Have you put an Exhaust Gas Temperature Gauge in yet? That is a nice option to have. That way you can tell what is happening in the exhaust part of your system. I need to put on in my truck. But I'm lazy about cutting into the exhaust system.

[UselessPickles]

You sure do suggest a lot of expensive and complicated improvements for problems for which there is no evidence that they need a solution :)

Things like exhaust wrap or ceramic coating aren't included in the kit because it's not necessary for daily driving and having some fun on the street. Including it in the kit would drive up the price with diminishing returns for most customers. Prodigy provides a solid, fully functional and complete kit with room for custom improvements if necessary, or if you're the type that thinks the extra money is well spent on such improvements.

I haven't seen any evidence of any heat issues at low speeds off road. Most low speed off road driving does not involve continuous periods of high engine load that would create a lot of boost and heat. Mudding is probably the most obvious exception to this. I do not like to play in deep mud, so I'm not concerned. Even when I was on the sand dunes repeatedly attempting to climb a dune with the turbo screaming at 5000+ rpm on a sunny 85*F summer day, moving slowly up the dune, getting stuck, backing down, trying again, about 6-10 times in a row, the coolant temp gauge would only move to about half way between the middle and 3/4 marks. After coming to a stop and idling, the temp gauge would move back to center after several minutes.

The oil system already has a larger than typical capacity: 6 quarts. I would be interested in data logging the oil temperature, but that doesn't seem to be available for logging on the Diablosport InTune.

I don't have an exhaust temp gauge. I'm not tweaking the turbo system to run any differently than designed, so I'm trusting that Prodigy designed it well enough and putting my money and effort into more useful things than double checking their work. I'm no expert on tuning, so I would really even know what to watch for with exhaust temps.

[KaiserBill]

You sure do suggest a lot of expensive and complicated improvements for problems for which there is no evidence that they need a solution :)

Things like exhaust wrap or ceramic coating aren't included in the kit because it's not necessary for daily driving and having some fun on the street. Including it in the kit would drive up the price with diminishing returns for most customers. Prodigy provides a solid, fully functional and complete kit with room for custom improvements if necessary, or if you're the type that thinks the extra money is well spent on such improvements.

I haven't seen any evidence of any heat issues at low speeds off road. Most low speed off road driving does not involve continuous periods of high engine load that would create a lot of boost and heat. Mudding is probably the most obvious exception to this. I do not like to play in deep mud, so I'm not concerned. Even when I was on the sand dunes repeatedly attempting to climb a dune with the turbo screaming at 5000+ rpm on a sunny 85*F summer day, moving slowly up the dune, getting stuck, backing down, trying again, about 6-10 times in a row, the coolant temp gauge would only move to about half way between the middle and 3/4 marks. After coming to a stop and idling, the temp gauge would move back to center after several minutes.

The oil system already has a larger than typical capacity: 6 quarts. I would be interested in data logging the oil temperature, but that doesn't seem to be available for logging on the Diablosport InTune.

I don't have an exhaust temp gauge. I'm not tweaking the turbo system to run any differently than designed, so I'm trusting that Prodigy designed it well enough and putting my money and effort into more useful things than double checking their work. I'm no expert on tuning, so I would really even know what to watch for with exhaust temps.

The tapes and wraps aren't really outrageously priced items. It is just a matter of wanting to put them on that can be annoying. It is easier then the system is being installed to wrap the stuff then put it on the engine.

Jegs Super High Temp Exhaust Header Wrap is about $63.99 plus Shipping/Tax for 25Feet you might need two rolls. So about $160.00 total
Jegs Heat Shield Tape (aka Cool Wrap by some manufacturers) rated for 1100F ranges in price from $19.99 to $29.99 depending roll size and some have free shipping so you could get out with perhaps 29.99 + tax
If you want higher heat protection they have a product rated at 2000F for $51.99 +shipping and tax

Now ceramics are great but pricey. This stuff will set you back maybe $350.00 when all said and done. And you can see improvements in performance under the right conditions. When you driving on a sand dune I bet you would notice a difference if you had the right gauges. Most of the time the driver will not be able to tell the difference in performance but it is there.

EGT-- is good to know because you don't have to tune the vehicle to get into a problem area. Certain types of usage can cause dangerous temperatures. Driving at high speeds for prolonged period on asphalt on a 120f day from LA to Vegas can cause issues EGTs. Ideally speaking when you see those numbers climb to some point that is dangerous that is when you would hit the WM-50 system and "BAM!" watch them drop and performance increase.

[UselessPickles]

If I were going to do anything with the exhaust, it would be ceramic coating. I don't really like the idea of having a cloth-like wrap on my exhaust that will be getting dunked in muddy water.

For the cold side, there's not really much to be wrapped. Most of it is elbow-shaped silicone couplers going through very tight places. There's only about 1 foot of actual pipe. Similarly, if anything, I might get that pipe ceramic coated along with the exhaust, but I wouldn't expect any noticeable gain from it at all.

If I were to go with water/meth injection, I would set it up like my brother's system on his STi. It automatically starts at a certain boost level, and ramps up to full flow at a higher boost level (the controller for the system has adjustable end points for this ramp up). His stock intercooler water spray is also integrated into this system to automatically start spraying at some boost level (before meth injection starts), rather than requiring a manual press of the button as it does in stock form.

I think an automated intercooler sprayer with a manual override button (to force a spray) might be a nice way to get some noticeable improvements without getting too intrusive or requiring any custom tuning to fully take advantage of it.

[AGOM]

Pickles,
im not sure what the problem is but I'v looked at the obvious as much as I can and now I'm thinking it might be something deeper.
I used to love the way the turbo sounded when you put your foot down and you get that distinctive whine followed by the whoosh when you release, but recently when I accelerate the whine is now mixed with some whoosh ( excuse the funny talk but I have no other way of explaining it) also while accelerating the car tends to hesitate, feels like it's beeing held back at times, and at cruising speed the boost comes in and out, you can hear the turbo spool up and release even though I'm holding a constant speed on a level road and no wind.
Also something weird happened to me on the highway, cruising at 80mph 2800RPM 5th gear the temperature starts to increase at a steady rate, had to slowdown because it didn't look like it was going to stop increasing, this is what I don't understand, same speed at on 4th gear RPM 3500 and the temperature starts to backdown and sits dead center on the gage, tried it again on 5th same speed temp up select 4th higher rpm same speed temp comes down.
My lack of knowledge in terms of reading or maybe interpreting the logs dose not help in getting my point across.
I will try and get a log to you by tomorrow and tell me what you think.

[FLIPmeOVER]

Is it a leak in the system?

[UselessPickles]

My lack of knowledge in terms of reading or maybe interpreting the logs dose not help in getting my point across.
I will try and get a log to you by tomorrow and tell me what you think.

If I were you, I would record a data log of those exact situations you described, and send them to Prodigy with a description of the problem.

Do you have the 6-speed manual transmission? If so, then what about driving at 80 mph in 6th gear? I drive 70-80 mph in 6th gear all the time without any trouble.

[AGOM]

I did send 3 logs to prodigy nearly 2 weeks ago, I don't know what they saw in the logs. But whatever it was they think the new tune will fix the issues. As much as I want it to be true I m not sure if it's a tune thing, i mean the starting issue was suppose to have been resolved with the tune I was sent, but never did.

My setup:
4dr Jk
Auto Tran.
4.10 ratio
315 75/17

[UselessPickles]

Maybe just wait for the new tune. I suspect it will be available to everyone pretty soon. Rumor is that it's pretty awesome, and a major improvement over the previous tune. I'm starting that rumor right now ;-)

[AGOM]

I'm waiting and hoping,
And it's killing me

[KaiserBill]

Pickles,
im not sure what the problem is but I'v looked at the obvious as much as I can and now I'm thinking it might be something deeper.
I used to love the way the turbo sounded when you put your foot down and you get that distinctive whine followed by the whoosh when you release, but recently when I accelerate the whine is now mixed with some whoosh ( excuse the funny talk but I have no other way of explaining it) also while accelerating the car tends to hesitate, feels like it's beeing held back at times, and at cruising speed the boost comes in and out, you can hear the turbo spool up and release even though I'm holding a constant speed on a level road and no wind.
Also something weird happened to me on the highway, cruising at 80mph 2800RPM 5th gear the temperature starts to increase at a steady rate, had to slowdown because it didn't look like it was going to stop increasing, this is what I don't understand, same speed at on 4th gear RPM 3500 and the temperature starts to backdown and sits dead center on the gage, tried it again on 5th same speed temp up select 4th higher rpm same speed temp comes down.
My lack of knowledge in terms of reading or maybe interpreting the logs dose not help in getting my point across.
I will try and get a log to you by tomorrow and tell me what you think.

When a turbo feels like it is going on and off that is called Compressor Surge or sometimes just Turbo Surge (the first is more correct). That happens because you are operating on the left hand boundary line of a Turbo Map. It is an area of massive instability in the in the pressure on the compressor wheel. And why you see it in 5th gear is probably because the cars throttle is too closed off so you are getting back pressure in the intake manifold causing an instant build up of extra air in the process-- this creates areas of high pressure and low pressure-- this causes the compressor wheel to create boost and then stop creating boost. I know this engine isn't a throttle body type system but it still has to control the air flow into the cylinder heads some way. It seems that is not working correctly. So, why does vanish in 4th ? The throttle is opening up more in 4th Gear to allow more fuel and air to mix and this gives the turbo the ability to pump all that air into the cylinder head. Why this didn't show up right away is sort of a mystery. It could be that your tunings some how reset to stock and you need to reset them. But I don't know much about your settings so those claims are hard to make by some one like myself. I would just take it to a mechanic have him test it out and see what he says. I bet Compressor Surge is what you are describing and it will cause the cylinder heads to trap excess exhaust cause if it is by an intake blockage. It could be a valve timing issues too-- the VVT system is some how cutting off the flow from the intake too early and causing the surge. Compressor surge is not good and you should have it corrected as quickly as possible.

[AGOM]

KaiserBill,
Is it possible that it would reset it self back to stock tune,,?
What I can do is reinstall the latest tune I hav and see what happens.

But I like what your proposing with the issue of compressor surge, totally possible, and makes perfect sense to me now.

[KaiserBill]

KaiserBill,
Is it possible that it would reset it self back to stock tune,,?
What I can do is reinstall the latest tune I hav and see what happens.

But I like what your proposing with the issue of compressor surge, totally possible, and makes perfect sense to me now.

I don't' know if it could go back to the stock tune. You said you had starting problems from the start. So that is not a good sign. Perhaps, the fix they sent you didn't exactly fix it, but caused new issues. Usually these issues will show up immediately when you install a turbo. Myself, I wouldn't touch the settings before I take it to a mechanic-- might even want to use a tow service to do that. Then let the mechanic drive and check out the settings. This is the one problem with aftermarket parts like this when they go wrong it is hard to say exactly how to fix it. The mechanic will have to talk to Prodigy and see what they think and what they spec out and then he will have to test everything and see if you are actually getting those requirements. It could take a long time to figure out what part of the system isn't functioning correctly right now.


Diagnosing a vehicle over the internet is not easy. And the best thing to do is really have a mechanic look at it and find out what is happening. Because you can do serious damage to the turbo if you let this condition continue.

[UselessPickles]

A typical mechanic is not going to be able to help much with an after-market bolt-on custom tuned turbo kit. If you do decide to take it somewhere, find a performance shop that specializes in designing/installing/tuning custom turbo systems and kits.

The only way your vehicle could have gone back to the stock tune is if you took it to a dealer and they flashed your computer with an update, or if you specifically installed the original backup with the InTune.

It is possible that a problem with your current tune caused long term fuel trims to gradually adjust to extreme values in a certain engine load/speed area of the maps/tables, which could explain why you did not initially experience these problems. An easy way to test this is to simply install the most recent tune you have from Prodigy again. This will guarantee you have the right tune installed, AND will reset all adaptive memory for a fresh start. If it starts driving good again, then you know for sure the tune was the problem.

[UselessPickles]

I've been testing the new tune from Prodigy for a couple days now. Low RPM power/driveability is SOOOO much better now. At this point, it's been so long since I've driven with a stock engine, that I honestly can't tell whether this new tune has simply returned low RPMs to stock power/driveability, or whether it's better than stock now. It's really hard to pinpoint the RPM at which the turbo starts feeling noticeably more powerful than stock.

The new tune made 382 hp and 380 ft-lbs torque on Prodigy's test jeep (up from their previous claim of 359 hp and 373 ft-lbs). I don't really feel an increase in max acceleration from the peak torque gain, but I do feel like the torque carries through to red line better without fading away as much. Can't wait to see a new dyno chart from Prodigy.

With the improvements to low end torque, I suspected that boost might build at low RPMs a bit better. With the tune producing more power, that would result in more exhaust gasses, which should provide more power to the turbo to generate more boost. Here's the results:

http://www.uselesspickles.com/files/jeep/prodigy_turbo_stage2/boost_2nd_gear_new_tune_feb_2015.png


NOTE: Because of the way that different "channels" of data in the data log are updated out of sync from each other, the data points in the chart can be off by up to about 100 RPM. It looks like the new tune causes a bit less boost where it steeply climbs between 2800 and 3800 rpm, but I suspect that is just an artifact from out-of-sync data being paired up. This is really only a significant problem on the part of the chart where the curve is very steep.

Looks like my prediction is correct! More boost in the low RPM range. I have no explanation for why I got more peak boost this time.

So here's the updated boost curve alone:

http://www.uselesspickles.com/files/jeep/prodigy_turbo_stage2/boost_2nd_gear_update2.png


And the update comparison chart:

http://www.uselesspickles.com/files/jeep/prodigy_ripp_magnuson_boost_update1.png


Based on the new boost curve, I sure would expect some noteworthy gains over stock starting around 2000 rpm. Someone still needs to get a turbo jeep and stock jeep on the same dyno for a good comparison dyno chart...

[Snarf77]

I've been testing the new tune from Prodigy for a couple days now. Low RPM power/driveability is SOOOO much better now. At this point, it's been so long since I've driven with a stock engine, that I honestly can't tell whether this new tune has simply returned low RPMs to stock power/driveability, or whether it's better than stock now. It's really hard to pinpoint the RPM at which the turbo starts feeling noticeably more powerful than stock.

The new tune made 182 hp and 180 ft-lbs torque on Prodigy's test jeep (up from their previous claim of 159 hp and 173 ft-lbs). I don't really feel an increase in max acceleration from the peak torque gain, but I do feel like the torque carries through to red line better without fading away as much. Can't wait to see a new dyno chart from Prodigy.

With the improvements to low end torque, I suspected that boost might build at low RPMs a bit better. With the tune producing more power, that would result in more exhaust gasses, which should provide more power to the turbo to generate more boost. Here's the results:

http://www.uselesspickles.com/files/jeep/prodigy_turbo_stage2/boost_2nd_gear_new_tune_feb_2015.png


NOTE: Because of the way that different "channels" of data in the data log are updated out of sync from each other, the data points in the chart can be off by up to about 100 RPM. It looks like the new tune causes a bit less boost where it steeply climbs between 2800 and 3800 rpm, but I suspect that is just an artifact from out-of-sync data being paired up. This is really only a significant problem on the part of the chart where the curve is very steep.

Looks like my prediction is correct! More boost in the low RPM range. I have no explanation for why I got more peak boost this time.

So here's the updated boost curve alone:

http://www.uselesspickles.com/files/jeep/prodigy_turbo_stage2/boost_2nd_gear_update2.png


And the update comparison chart:

http://www.uselesspickles.com/files/jeep/prodigy_ripp_magnuson_boost_update1.png


Based on the new boost curve, I sure would expect some noteworthy gains over stock starting around 2000 rpm. Someone still needs to get a turbo jeep and stock jeep on the same dyno for a good comparison dyno chart...


I also have the new Prodigy tune and have been using it for a couple days. The power delivery below 2000 rpm is a huge improvement even over the previous improvement. I need to sort out many of the small issues pickles has discussed in this thread (PCV, oil catch, etc) as prodigy offers OEM solutions. After the details are sorted out, I'll make another effort to get a stock/boosted dyno shootout on the books.

[AGOM]

I have been running the tune for 3days now and like you all the improvments are verry noticable, the engine is running much smoother and the acceleration and power delivery comes in steady, also the starting issue is no more so far and i hope it stays that way.
I did however find some small leek at the up pipe going to the turbo and that was fixed.
I have not seen the temp Issue come again as i described previously.
Overall verry happy with the changes this tune made.

Has anyone considered a wastgate controlloer? Wouldnt they help stablize the compressor even more and stop the possibility of surging?

Regarding heat wraps, i wraped my exhaust prior to instalation with Titanium wrap, i did not do that expecting any performance gains but only to keep engin bay temperatures down.
Im now also looking for solution to relocate the trans cooler, the way its set up now is ok with the cool temp we have but once we move into summer and we start to see temp of high 40'sC and high humidity my radiator will struggle with all that is fitted infront of it.
I welcom any ideas in this regard.

[Bkeef]

I'm running new tune as well. Much smoother acceleration particularly in low rpm.


Strange thing though after the tune I threw a P0304 code which is a misfire on number 4 cylinder. During install the shop had a P0404 code which is diff but same cylinder I suppose.

I can't get to shop until Monday but will have them check coil and plug.

Vehicle doesn't appear to be running rough or anything. I'm also curious why the former tune sort of suppressed this issue if in fact it's not a glitch.

If the light was not on I wouldnt know if anything is wrong. Seems to run fine otherwise.
BK

[Timmy]

Hey guys,

I JUST received an email from APR, the manufacturer of the ECU tune on my Audi A4. They claim they just released a new tune that significantly increases total HP/Tq. While reading through this, there was one line that frankly shocked me. Apparently on newer A4's, they are now E85 compatible, AND, APR's tune for E85 now gets more gains then their tune for 100 Octane fuel!!!

"By adding E85 to the tank on the Ethanol compatible variants, automatic Ethanol map blending adds even more power, resulting in 85 horsepower and 135 ft-lbs of torque."

http://www.goapr.com/products/ecu_upgrade_20tsi_gen2_long_b85.html

I honestly had NO idea that E85 could actually provide more power than regular octane gas. Any chance our Jeeps are E85 compatible? Any chance any of the SC/Turbo tuners has or can create a tune for E85? Also, I guess I never asked this, do any of the SC/Turbo manufacturers provide the ability to switch between different tunes for different octanes easily? I can do this in my Audi in about 30 seconds right now via the cruise control buttons. I have a 91 octane and 93 octane tune loaded in the ECU and I just switch between them as needed. Sadly, WA doesn't seem to have many 93 octane stations so I've had to downgrade to the 91 octane tune.

[UselessPickles]

A quick search found a forum post from someone with a 2012 Wrangler that got confirmation from a service department that it is NOT compatible with E85.

As far as I know, all the FI kits for the 2012+ Wrangler are now using the Diablosport InTune for installing the tune, and only one tune is provided. The InTune can hold multiple tunes on it, but it takes about 10-15 minutes to go through the process of installing a different tune. No "quick" switching between tunes. Prodigy's tune requires minimum 91 octane.




I have been running the tune for 3days now and like you all the improvments are verry noticable, the engine is running much smoother and the acceleration and power delivery comes in steady

It seems that everyone is in agreement that the new tune is a huge improvement. Now the question becomes: has anyone experienced any issues with the new tune (besides Bkeef's strange error code)?


I'm still running into a jerk/lurch in acceleration sometimes while accelerating through about 2500-2700 rpms. This is with part-throttle, somewhat quick acceleration in 1st gear and sometimes noticeable in 2nd gear. A typical situation where I experience this is turning onto a major road from a complete stop, not stomping on the throttle racing, but just smoothly pressing on the pedal to get up to speed reasonably quickly. Right as I pass through about 2500-2700 rpm, the Jeep will behave as if I quickly lifted off the throttle slightly, then jabbed at the throttle to briefly accelerate more quickly than I previously was. It shakes the Jeep enough for a passenger to notice it and think that I was being sloppy/jerky with my throttle control, or even think that I had just completed a rough shift (manual transmission).

I'm not sure if this would even show up as an issue with automatic transmissions, because it seems to require accelerating through that RPM range within a certain range of engine load, and I'm not sure whether the auto trans will allow it.

Anyway, that is the only complaint I have about this new tune as of now. Everything else about it has been awesome. I would like to try to determine whether what I am experiencing is is unique to me and my jeep (less likely to be a problem with the tune), or is anyone else still experiencing a similar problem (very likely to be a problem with the tune).



Has anyone considered a wastgate controlloer? Wouldnt they help stablize the compressor even more and stop the possibility of surging?


There should not be any concern about compressor surge. Compressor surge would be caused by an improperly sized turbo for the application. If there was compressor surge with this turbo, we would all be experiencing it.

If an install error, exhaust leak, etc., were somehow the cause of compressor surge, a boost controller would not help avoid this, because a boost controller only regulates boost pressure. Boost controllers only have the ability to get more boost than what the wastegate spring would naturally allow, which means it holds the wastegate closed and forces the turbo to work harder than usual (more likely to get into a surge condition).

[UselessPickles]

Here's an awesome (long and informative) article about how intercoolers work, and how the decision of when to use intercooler water spray most effectively/efficiently is more complicated than most people assume. Their solution is an "intelligent" water spray controller monitors ambient temperature, intercooler core temperature, and fuel injector duty cycle to spray the intercooler when it needs it, and conserve water when it isn't needed.

http://www.autospeed.com/cms/article.html?&A=0527

[gbaumann]

I'm still running into a jerk/lurch in acceleration sometimes while accelerating through about 2500-2700 rpms. This is with part-throttle, somewhat quick acceleration in 1st gear and sometimes noticeable in 2nd gear. A typical situation where I experience this is turning onto a major road from a complete stop, not stomping on the throttle racing, but just smoothly pressing on the pedal to get up to speed reasonably quickly. Right as I pass through about 2500-2700 rpm, the Jeep will behave as if I quickly lifted off the throttle slightly, then jabbed at the throttle to briefly accelerate more quickly than I previously was. It shakes the Jeep enough for a passenger to notice it and think that I was being sloppy/jerky with my throttle control, or even think that I had just completed a rough shift (manual transmission).

Could not have written a better description of the "surge" us magnuson guys experience. Spot on right down to the RMPs! And I do have an auto trans. I know you're chasing turbo issues but I offer the observation in wondering if the aftermarket tuners could be missing the same thing regardless of the forced induction system.

[gbaumann]

Has anyone considered a wastgate controlloer? Wouldnt they help stablize the compressor even more and stop the possibility of surging?.

I agree with Pickles. That said, one of the forced induction companies told me off the record that they are considering all possibilities in working through calibration issues include electro-mechanical boost/bypass control to eliminate spring/vacuum actuation and tie the boost to the ECU mapping. I do believe computer controlled bypass/waste gate is something we may see in the future. For us supercharger guys a vacuum bypass works great when you only want boost at wide open throttle one quarter mile at a time. But as Pickles points out his little trouble spot in the mid to upper 2,000 rmp range happens at part throttle. I don't know waste gate theory in turbocharging (despite having several volvos, audis and a 1980 turbo trans am ((worst motor ever!!))).

[AGOM]

Pickles, this is what I have been trying to explain for sometime, I had this problem before the tune and after the tune it's still there but not as before.
The jerkiness, boost coming in and out with no change in pedal input, I even tried driving with manual shifting, but still the same.
If I go for a quick acceleration it will pick up quick and then have that pause and continues on, it's as if Its not comfortable with small pedal inputs, it wants you to floor it all the time.
But it's weird that you got it after the tune!

[UselessPickles]

For us supercharger guys a vacuum bypass works great when you only want boost at wide open throttle one quarter mile at a time. But as Pickles points out his little trouble spot in the mid to upper 2,000 rmp range happens at part throttle. I don't know waste gate theory in turbocharging (despite having several volvos, audis and a 1980 turbo trans am ((worst motor ever!!))).

A supercharger bypass valve is very different from a turbo wastegate. At any given engine speed, the supercharger is always capable for generating full boost for (for that engine speed). The bypass valve allows that air to recirculate back to the supercharger inlet and essentially let the supercharger "free spin". When pressing on the throttle and reducing manifold vacuum, if that vacuum-controlled bypass valve closes too suddenly, you get a sudden harsh transition from no boost to full boost.

A turbo can only produce boost when there's enough engine load to produce enough exhaust to spool the turbo, and the wastegate is there to LIMIT boost (by bypassing exhaust around the turbine), not bypass boost back to the turbo inlet. With the turbo and wastegate, there's no tipping point with manifold vacuum that instantly moves you from no boost to full boost. As you press the throttle, you create more engine load, more exhaust, spool the turbo more, produce more boost, then the wastegate eventually opens as you approach the target peak boost to prevent boost from continuing to rise. The wastegate never causes a harsh transition, aside from noise. If you pay attention, you can hear it open because you can suddenly hear a different "whoosh" sound of exhaust flowing through the waste gate. Just for fun, I have played with feathering the throttle to stay right at that transition point. I can hear the wastegate repeatedly opening and closing, but there's never a sudden transition in power in this situation.

NOTE: wastegate behavior will be different between my install vs Prodigy's official install, because of this: http://jeeplab.com/showthread.php?131-Prodigy-Performance-3-6-Turbo-DIY-Install&p=3590&viewfull=1#post3590

At part throttle, I can get my wastegate to open because it is reaching the target boost in the intake system before the throttle body (where my wastegate boost source is), even though my intake manifold may be a couple PSI below the target. The official Prodigy setup has the wastegate boost source as the intake manifold, so at part throttle, there may be situations where the wastegate stays closed trying to reach the target boost in the intake manifold, but the pressure on the other side of the half-way closed throttle could be above the target boost level, working the turbo harder than desired (hmmmm... I wonder if this could lead to compressor surge in these situations?).




But it's weird that you got it after the tune!

I've always had this issue. It was one of the first things I noticed on my very first test drive after installing stage 1 last June.

[gbaumann]

At part throttle, I can get my wastegate to open because it is reaching the target boost in the intake system before the throttle body (where my wastegate boost source is), even though my intake manifold may be a couple PSI below the target. The official Prodigy setup has the wastegate boost source as the intake manifold, so at part throttle, there may be situations where the wastegate stays closed trying to reach the target boost in the intake manifold, but the pressure on the other side of the half-way closed throttle could be above the target boost level, working the turbo harder than desired (hmmmm... I wonder if this could lead to compressor surge in these situations?).


So are you saying that there may be something in the way pressure is equalized across the throttle body at part throttle? I understand that my system is sucking air through the TB and your system is pushing air through the TB. But I've often thought that my TB was not designed for FI. Too much "play" in the throttle plate.

[Timmy]

Could not have written a better description of the "surge" us magnuson guys experience. Spot on right down to the RMPs! And I do have an auto trans. I know you're chasing turbo issues but I offer the observation in wondering if the aftermarket tuners could be missing the same thing regardless of the forced induction system.

Hey guys. I read this and thought "oh, I've experienced this on my Audi." Any time I get exactly what Pickles describe, a smooth, linear hard acceleration, and then I get what feels like a small blip in power, I've learned, it's gas with too low of octane or is not good enough. I've driven with 93 octane gas and had my 93 octane tune loaded and it would do this. I drop down to the 91 octane tune and the issue would go away. When I lived back in the mid-west (and don't get me started on "mid-west," I have an issue with that word just like my "High Altitude" verbiage issue) I could almost always find 95 octane, so I just ran that with my 93 octane tune and my issue was gone.

Now, you guys are must more technical about all this stuff than I ever am, BUT, if you haven't tried already, try to get some of the best gas you can find and see if it helps at all. If you're in the mid-west to north east, you might even get lucky and be able to find 95 octane! It's worth a tank of gas to see if that resolves the issue.

[Urgh... couldn't help it... How can you have a "Mid-West" that is East of Central!!!! Stupid. If you ever here me refer to "Mid-East" that means the "Mid-West" area, not overseas.

Worst possible sentence ever... "I drove from the Mid-West to the High Altitudes of the Rocky Mountains."
Translation: I drove from the Rocky Mountains to the Rocky Mountains so my Jeep could fly above the ground.]

[UselessPickles]

So are you saying that there may be something in the way pressure is equalized across the throttle body at part throttle?

No, it's just the very different ways that superchargers and turbos work, and that the purpose/function of a supercharger bypass valve is very different than a turbo wastegate. A wastegate will never cause a sudden change in power delivery like a supercharger bypass valve can.


Any time I get exactly what Pickles describe, a smooth, linear hard acceleration, and then I get what feels like a small blip in power, I've learned, it's gas with too low of octane or is not good enough

Hard accelerations are actually smooth for me. It's the part throttle light/moderate acceleration where the problem happens. Also, the tune requires minimum 91 octane, and I'm running 93 octane (91 isn't very common around here).

[UselessPickles]

I finally had my first encounter with another performance vehicle out on the road :)

I'm at a red light, in the right of two lanes. The right lane ends about 1/4 mile after the intersection. There's a car beside me, and a modern Dodge Challenger behind me. Light turns green, and I accelerate normally, but faster than the car beside me, because I want to make sure I'm ahead enough to merge out of my lane before it ends without being a dick and cutting this other car off.

I notice that the Challenger is staying very close to my rear bumper, probably waiting for enough gap between me and the car that was next to me so he can change lanes and pass me. I shift into 2nd at a fairly normal RPM because I'm not showing off at this point.

Then I see the Challenger make his move. I see an aggressive lane change and hear the Hemi start to roar a bit. No time to downshift at this point, so I just step on the throttle in 2nd, but I'm not quite up to the RPM where full boost kicks in. The driver of the Challenger must have noticed I suddenly started accelerating more, because I then heard the Hemi transition to full roar, and the Challenger lunged forward.

Right as the Challenger gets beside me, I transition to full boost. Couldn't have timed it more perfectly if I tried. Next thing I know, I'm several car lengths ahead of the Challenger, can still hear the Hemi roaring, but he's still falling back. I also notice at this point that I'm now going faster than I would prefer, and my lane is going to end soon, so I merged over and let off the gas to coast down to to more appropriate speed.

The Challenger quickly catches up to me just as the right lane ends, and rides my rear bumper for a few seconds. Then he aggressively passes me at full throttle, flips me the bird, and speeds excessively up to the next red light. I had not cut him off, blocked him from changing lanes, or anything else rude. His rude gesture can only be the result of being a sore loser.

I thought that was the end of it, but I was wrong. It turns out that "sore loser" is an understatement for this guy...

He stops at the red light way ahead of me, but I can see he keeps inching forward, trying to get a jump on the green light. As I approach, he just takes off, running the red light before it was even close to changing (cross street still had a green light).

There's another red light just about 1/8 mile ahead with two lanes now. This time he actually comes to a complete stop, but at a slight diagonal,partially occupying both lanes. I guess he really didn't want me to pull up beside him.

I was actually going to be turning right at that intersection anyway, so I slowly/carefully squeezed past him, stopped, checked to make sure traffic was clear, and proceeded with my turn (right turn on red is legal here). The driver of the Challenger sat still, hands on the wheel, facing straight forward the whole time.

I hope he's still trying to figure out wtf happened. I wonder if he could hear the turbo, or just watched me quietly pull away with my stock exhaust.


Unfortunately, I forgot to check for badging to see if it was an R/T or SRT. I did some simple math based on dyno results I have found for Challengers and the difference in curb weight between them and my Jeep (Challenger is 400 lbs heavier than my Jeep!), along with Prodigy's recent 380 whp claim, to determine how the power:weight ratio compares.

Newer 6.4 SRT: Nearly identical power:weight ratio (I have 3% advantage). This car was definitely not a 6.4 SRT, unless he never really went full throttle near the beginning, or else it would have initially blown past me, then I would have just barely maintained the gap between us as I transitioned to full boost.

Older 6.1 SRT: Actually has nearly identical peak hp/tq numbers at the wheels, but due to weight difference, I have an 11% advantage in power:weight. This might be a possibility. He was definitely quickly gaining on me before my boost kicked in. An 11% advantage would definitely allow me to keep increasing the lead as long as I was in the upper RPM range, but I'm not sure if an 11% advantage is enough to let me increase the lead as quickly as I did. Really hard to tell.

5.7 R/T: I have a 30% advantage in power:weight! That could make sense too. It seems like that big of an advantage would have put me further ahead more quickly, but I could be wrong.


Wish I would have looked for the badge. Oh well. It was thoroughly entertaining and made me smile for the rest of the day.

[gbaumann]

So to summarize, you smoked the muscle car!!!

[UselessPickles]

Basically. I was more surprised by his reaction. I expected either no reaction, or for him to try to catch my attention at the next light and ask me how the hell that just happened. Not pass me, flip me off, run a red light, then try to prevent me from pulling up next to him at the next light.

I bet it was an R/T and he had already been wishing he could have gotten an SRT. I just rubbed salt in that wound and he couldn't handle it :)

[gbaumann]

You knocked him out in a fair fight. I suppose you cant be too surprised he didn't get up and ask where you developed your awesome left hook. Most muscle heads will get up and sucker punch you while you're walking away. Yep, it was an R/T.

[UselessPickles]

It finally warmed up enough here to wash all the salt off my Jeep from this winter and add a subtle hint of what lurks under the hood. Have I endangered my sleeper status?

http://www.uselesspickles.com/files/jeep/snail_sticker.jpg

http://www.uselesspickles.com/files/jeep/snail_sticker_closeup.jpg

[UselessPickles]

ProCharger says (http://www.procharger.com/jeep_jk.shtml): "comes standard with the industry’s largest and most effective air-to-air intercooler for the Jeep Wrangler JK. "


http://www.uselesspickles.com/files/jeep/procharger_intercooler.jpg


Prodigy says: "that's cute"


http://www.uselesspickles.com/files/jeep/prodigy_turbo_stage2/intercooler_and_grill_installed.jpg


UPDATE: Procharger seems to have updated their website to no longer claim to have the largest intercooler

[Timmy]

Have I endangered my sleeper status?

Ba hahahaha... No Pickles, you are still far from endangering your sleeper your status.

[UselessPickles]

I got curious and stopped at a local landscape supply to weigh my Jeep on their scale:

http://www.uselesspickles.com/files/jeep/prodigy_turbo_stage2/jeep_on_scale.jpg

3960 lbs

This is with a full tank of gas (just filled up 2 miles away) and whatever random stuff I typically have in the Jeep at all times (nothing really heavy: hat, sunglasses, tow strap, gloves, soft top boot, etc).

According to this document from Jeep, the curb weight of the base model 2-door is 3849 lbs: https://www.jeep.com/assets/pdf/wrangler_specs.pdf

Mine is the base model + A/C. I haven't been able to find anything about how much weight is added by A/C.
I also can't find any details on how Jeep measures curb weight. Some manufacturers measure with a full tank of gas, 3/4 full or 1/2 full.
So since I didn't weigh it before installing the turbo, there's no way to determine how much weight is added by the stage 2 turbo kit.

But now that I do know my actual weight, and Prodigy has released some dyno charts, I have all the info I need to simulate how quickly my Jeep should be able to accelerate.

Assumptions for the simulation: Total vehicle weight is 3960 lbs + 140 lbs (my weight) = 4100 lbs. Launch at 2500 RPM (seems reasonable to avoid roasting the clutch). Each gear change completed in 0.6s (the best I've seen in a data log).

Max acceleration: ~1.1 G around 27 mph in 1st gear

0-60 mph: 4.85s
1/8 mile: 8.63s @ 88.28 mph
1/4 mile: 13.22s @ 106.56 mph


NOTE: The 1/8 mile trap speed of 88 mph is not only enough to travel through time, but is also about the same as the stock 1/4 mile trap speed, which takes about 15.5-16.0s, depending on which car website's results you trust.

Now if you're willing to roast the clutch a bit (or install a high performance clutch) for some 4000 RPM launches...

0-60 mph: 3.99s
1/8 mile: 7.94s @ 88.89 mph
1/4 mile: 12.51s @ 106.87 mph


And how about some highway/freeway "passing power" examples...

60-80 mph, 6th gear: 26.90s
60-80 mph, 5th gear: 13.81s
60-80 mph, 4th gear: 5.66s
60-80 mph, 3rd gear: 2.51s

40-60 mph, 6th gear: 15.64s
40-60 mph, 5th gear: 12.00s
40-60 mph, 4th gear: 8.23s
40-60 mph, 3rd gear: 3.60s
40-60 mph, 2nd gear: 1.56s


Obviously, with the turbo's big gains in the mid-to-upper RPM range, downshifting is your friend here. It's interesting that 5th and 6th gear are faster from 40-60 than 60-80, even though they are at lower RPMs in the 40-60 acceleration, with less torque available. That's a good example of how much more power is lost to aerodynamic drag above 60 mph.

I think I'll try data logging some 40-60 and 60-80 accelerations in different gears to compare real world results to the simulated results and get an idea of how good my predictions are. I have no way of reliably simulating turbo spool/lag when initially going full throttle, so real-world results should be slower if I start my acceleration right at 40/60 mph. If I start the acceleration at a lower speed, the time it takes for me to pass through 40-60 and 60-80 should be close to the predicted results.

[UselessPickles]

A couple more predictions:

Top speed: 144 mph.
It would take about 54 seconds and 1.8 miles to get there.

Which made me wonder what the 1-mile drag race time would be...
Answer: 34.20s @ 138.85 mph

[Timmy]

A couple more predictions:

Top speed: 144 mph.
It would take about 54 seconds and 1.8 miles to get there.

Which made me wonder what the 1-mile drag race time would be...
Answer: 34.20s @ 138.85 mph

Pickles, was going to PM you a question about your Prodigy turbo, but your PM inbox is full! That in and of itself kind of made me laugh, must be one popular guy. Clean that thing out man so I can PM you!

[UselessPickles]

Time for another modification to the turbo install!

Here's the wastegate:

click for full size (http://www.uselesspickles.com/files/jeep/prodigy_turbo/install/wastegate_breather_mod_1.jpg)
http://www.uselesspickles.com/files/jeep/prodigy_turbo/install/wastegate_breather_mod_1.jpg


It's right behind the radiator fan, a bit below the half-way point of the radiator/fan. Inside the yellow circle is a filtered breather cap, which allows air in/out as the wastegate diaphragm/valve moves. This is the wastegate's atmospheric pressure reference.

Notice all the mud! That's from splashing through some shallow mud (6" deep at most) and some shallow puddles. Clearly, water/mud is able to easily splash up onto the wastegate, and I don't want water/mud getting into the breather port. Especially if I ever end up in water deep enough for the wastegate to get submerged.

So time for a breather hose! I got an extra barbed hose fitting. It's the same fitting used to connect boost/vacuum lines to the wastegate and BOV in the stage 2 kit:

click for full size (http://www.uselesspickles.com/files/jeep/prodigy_turbo/install/wastegate_breather_mod_2.jpg)
http://www.uselesspickles.com/files/jeep/prodigy_turbo/install/wastegate_breather_mod_2.jpg


There's not really enough room to simply replace the filtered breather cap with the barbed hose fitting (too close to radiator fan shroud). Luckily, there's an optional breather port on the side of the wastegate. Look back at the first picture, and you'll see the plugged port just to the right of the circled breather.

Here's the plug and filter removed:

click for full size (http://www.uselesspickles.com/files/jeep/prodigy_turbo/install/wastegate_breather_mod_3.jpg)
http://www.uselesspickles.com/files/jeep/prodigy_turbo/install/wastegate_breather_mod_3.jpg


You can see that the filter already has some mud in it!

And here's the final result, with the hose fitting on the side, and the plug in the front:

click for full size (http://www.uselesspickles.com/files/jeep/prodigy_turbo/install/wastegate_breather_mod_4.jpg)
http://www.uselesspickles.com/files/jeep/prodigy_turbo/install/wastegate_breather_mod_4.jpg


That's 7/32" vacuum hose from a local auto parts store. From there, it meets up with and is zip tied to the radiator fan's wiring:

click for full size (http://www.uselesspickles.com/files/jeep/prodigy_turbo/install/wastegate_breather_mod_5.jpg)
http://www.uselesspickles.com/files/jeep/prodigy_turbo/install/wastegate_breather_mod_5.jpg


The end is curved to point downward, tucked behind a radiator fan mount. The end of the hose is at the same level as the turbo itself (and therefore, the air intake), so if I'm ever in water that deep, I have much bigger problems than water in my wastegate.

Doing this with everything already installed was pretty challenging because of the tight spaces. My hands are scraped up. It would be much easier to setup the wastegate this way before installing the turbo kit.

[UselessPickles]

From Prodigy's website, here's a picture of their oil catch can:

http://www.uselesspickles.com/files/jeep/prodigy_turbo_stage2/catch_can.jpg

It's mounted to the firewall, on the driver side, down low (below the steering shaft).

Their setup has a hose from the engine's PCV valve and a hose from the engine's breather port come together with a tee fitting, then into the catch can. Look carefully and you can see the hose connecting to the can's inlet on the passenger side of the can, down toward the bottom. Another hose runs from the outlet of the catch can (top of can) to the air filter. Then yet another hose runs from the can's drain port (bottom of can) and joins the turbo's oil return line with a tee fitting right at the oil pan.

So this is now a completely closed system, with oil being captured out of the air and returned to the oil pan (instead of sucked into the intake and burned in the engine). Unfortunately, it's no longer a PCV system. It's now just a passive ventilation system.

The catch can kit is currently listed on their website at $389: https://www.prodigyperformance.com/product/pro-1080-catch-can-kit-for-pro-2001-pro-2002/

I'll probably order it soon and initially install it as directed by Prodigy. I'm curious to see if part-throttle driveability improves by no longer having oil vapors enter the intake through the PCV hose. Then I'll modify the install a bit to return full PCV functionality, and run only the breather hose through the catch can. If there's no noticeable difference, then I'll keep it setup with the PCV operational. If I notice a difference, then I'll start looking into a dual catch can setup (one for the PCV hose, and one for the breather hose) for a completely ideal, fully functional/closed PCV system with minimal oil vapors getting into the intake.

[KaiserBill]

From Prodigy's website, here's a picture of their oil catch can:

http://www.uselesspickles.com/files/jeep/prodigy_turbo_stage2/catch_can.jpg

It's mounted to the firewall, on the driver side, down low (below the steering shaft).

Their setup has a hose from the engine's PCV valve and a hose from the engine's breather port come together with a tee fitting, then into the catch can. Look carefully and you can see the hose connecting to the can's inlet on the passenger side of the can, down toward the bottom. Another hose runs from the outlet of the catch can (top of can) to the air filter. Then yet another hose runs from the can's drain port (bottom of can) and joins the turbo's oil return line with a tee fitting right at the oil pan.

So this is now a completely closed system, with oil being captured out of the air and returned to the oil pan (instead of sucked into the intake and burned in the engine). Unfortunately, it's no longer a PCV system. It's now just a passive ventilation system.

The catch can kit is currently listed on their website at $389: https://www.prodigyperformance.com/product/pro-1080-catch-can-kit-for-pro-2001-pro-2002/

I'll probably order it soon and initially install it as directed by Prodigy. I'm curious to see if part-throttle driveability improves by no longer having oil vapors enter the intake through the PCV hose. Then I'll modify the install a bit to return full PCV functionality, and run only the breather hose through the catch can. If there's no noticeable difference, then I'll keep it setup with the PCV operational. If I notice a difference, then I'll start looking into a dual catch can setup (one for the PCV hose, and one for the breather hose) for a completely ideal, fully functional/closed PCV system with minimal oil vapors getting into the intake.


Would you like a do over on this one too?

[UselessPickles]

Hmm... change of plans. Looks like I could probably put together an ideal dual catch can setup for about the same amount of money as Prodigy's catch can kit. This will be a fun project.

[KaiserBill]

Hmm... change of plans. Looks like I could probably put together an ideal dual catch can setup for about the same amount of money as Prodigy's catch can kit. This will be a fun project.

You're gonna fubar your engine..

[Snarf77]

You're gonna fubar your engine..

I can't tell if you're fishing for an argument or what, but adding a catch can setup that maintains PCV isn't going to FUBAR anything.

[KaiserBill]

I can't tell if you're fishing for an argument or what, but adding a catch can setup that maintains PCV isn't going to FUBAR anything.

Did you read his dual catch can idea?


I don't have a problem with the catch can-- I have a problem with his idea for a catch can!


First off the breather hose needs to be free for positive clean airflow into the crankcase. Secondly, what is the can going to do besides possibly impede this ability flow properly??? No, oil vapors come in through the breather hose. Secondly, the catch can doesn't stop the system from being a positive pressure system. It merely instead of dumping the oil, water vapor, unburnt fuel into the intake puts into the in a can then depending emissions standards either vents to the atmosphere or back into the intake just minus much of the aforementioned stuff.

My big diesel engine has a PCV that positively vents right out on the front axle of the truck.

[UselessPickles]

Please explain what's wrong with my dual catch can setup. It's no different than all other dual catch can setups out there for boosted engines, aside from application-specific mounting/routing details.

It is simply returning the PCV system to a fully closed, functioning PCV system like stock (PCV valve connected to the intake manifold, breather port connected to the air filter area). The only difference is that I add a catch can inline on each side of the system.

Yes, oil vapors do come through the breather hose. This happens when on boost. Piston blowby has to go somewhere, and the crankcase breather is the place it goes. I don't want those vapors going back into my intake, coating the inside of my intercooler (making it less efficient) and lowering the effective octane of the fuel while on boost. I also don't want it to vent to atmosphere, because it stinks (that's what it does right now). Catch can is the solution (specifically a catch can with an oil separator in it).

[UselessPickles]

It just occurred to me that you may have failed at reading comprehension and interpreted my description of Prodigy's catch can setup as a description of what I want to do. Try re-reading that post.

[UselessPickles]

Here's a helpful picture explaining the connections in Prodigy's catch can setup:

http://www.uselesspickles.com/files/jeep/prodigy_turbo_stage2/prodigy_catch_can_connections.jpg

The "To PCV Tee" hose connects to a tee that connects to both the PCV port and the breather port.


Clarification for those with reading comprehension issues: No, this is not what I will be doing. I do not like this setup. I'm just sharing information about the kit that Prodigy is selling. A helpful way to remember this is that I have said I am going with a dual catch can setup. There is only one catch can in the picture above. Hope this helps ;)

[KaiserBill]

Here's a helpful picture explaining the connections in Prodigy's catch can setup:

http://www.uselesspickles.com/files/jeep/prodigy_turbo_stage2/prodigy_catch_can_connections.jpg

The "To PCV Tee" hose connects to a tee that connects to both the PCV port and the breather port.


Clarification for those with reading comprehension issues: No, this is not what I will be doing. I do not like this setup. I'm just sharing information about the kit that Prodigy is selling. A helpful way to remember this is that I have said I am going with a dual catch can setup. There is only one catch can in the picture above. Hope this helps ;)

You still don't understand how it works do you.... The Air from the PCV valve tee is the stuff you are taking out of the engine. The line to the air filter is the air that is being recycled from the process just like a normal PCV system does to meet Emission standards. Finally the oil pan drain line is so you don't have periodically empty out the oil can. Personally, I wouldn't want to add more water vapor and unburnt fuel to my oil then necessary. But that is just me.

You have another another breather line in the engine that pushes fresh air into the system to create the positive pressure.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPIfI9aZHt4

What you are talking about are open and closed systems. The standard PCV system is closed meaning that there is negative pressure on the crankcase-- some times this is beneficial for the rings. An open system events all the crankcase gases directly out into the atmosphere-- my truck runs like this and you can see the oil, water and unburnt diesel fuel of the engine on the axle. Open systems won't pass smog regulations on new vehicles-- classics will still pass.

All of these systems are positive in that air flow is going from the high pressure region inside of the crankcase to the lower pressure area outside of it. This is a fundamental aspect of the PCV design.

The Dual Can System doesn't actually do anything with the fresh air breather that is pushing make up air into the engine. It just gives you more capacity to catch oil if it is closed. If it is open then it catches oil from the engine compartment that your open PCV line is spewing out.

The Prodigy System is a closed system with an automatic drain system so users don't say-- hey, my catch can filled up with oil and created too much pressure on my PCV Valve and my engine didn't vent properly causing it buck, loose power, and pop a main seal.

[KaiserBill]

Please explain what's wrong with my dual catch can setup. It's no different than all other dual catch can setups out there for boosted engines, aside from application-specific mounting/routing details.

It is simply returning the PCV system to a fully closed, functioning PCV system like stock (PCV valve connected to the intake manifold, breather port connected to the air filter area). The only difference is that I add a catch can inline on each side of the system.

Yes, oil vapors do come through the breather hose. This happens when on boost. Piston blowby has to go somewhere, and the crankcase breather is the place it goes. I don't want those vapors going back into my intake, coating the inside of my intercooler (making it less efficient) and lowering the effective octane of the fuel while on boost. I also don't want it to vent to atmosphere, because it stinks (that's what it does right now). Catch can is the solution (specifically a catch can with an oil separator in it).


System is not open-- so it is not venting into the atmosphere. That will not pass emission standards for a 2012 vehicle in any state. So, I highly doubt Prodigy's turbo-kit even touched your PCV. If you're smelling oil at present it is most likely a leak somewhere... Perhaps, have a blown oil seal somewhere....

Blow-by doesn't reach reach the crankcase breather-- because the high pressure crankcase gases are drawn to the low pressure zone in the intake-- this then creates a vacuum in the crankcase that draws air from the valve cover breather to draw in continuous clean air. The more boost created only serves to help create greater pressure differentials within the engine.

[KaiserBill]

"So this is now a completely closed system, with oil being captured out of the air and returned to the oil pan (instead of sucked into the intake and burned in the engine). Unfortunately, it's no longer a PCV system. It's now just a passive ventilation system."

Wrong-- The System was always closed- unless Prodigy's turbo kit installation told you to put a tube from the PCV Valve venting to the open it is closed. It is not a passive system. It still requires vacuum pressure from the engine to draw out positive pressure zones within the crankcase. The fact that it vents into a oil can has nothing to do with nature of the pressure required to operate the PCV Valve... in fact without a vacuum on one side and high pressure zone on the other valve would never open and it would only build up pressure in crankcase and start to have engine problems.


"I'll probably order it soon and initially install it as directed by Prodigy. I'm curious to see if part-throttle driveability improves by no longer having oil vapors enter the intake through the PCV hose. Then I'll modify the install a bit to return full PCV functionality, and run only the breather hose through the catch can. If there's no noticeable difference, then I'll keep it setup with the PCV operational. If I notice a difference, then I'll start looking into a dual catch can setup (one for the PCV hose, and one for the breather hose) for a completely ideal, fully functional/closed PCV system with minimal oil vapors getting into the intake."

If it is a closed system why do you need a catch can on the air breather??? You'll only restrict the flow of air further and force the engine to operate with higher than normal pressures. The secret to making an engine breather better is not to putt long lengths of small diameter tubes that restrict air flow but to use short large diameter tubes that promote free flow. Again you've not changed the fact the valve is operating on vacuum drawing the high pressure crankcase gases out of the engine and clean air into the engine.

So, I repeat do you want to try this explanation again?

[UselessPickles]

So much failure at reading comprehension again


System is not open-- so it is not venting into the atmosphere. ... I highly doubt Prodigy's turbo-kit even touched your PCV. If you're smelling oil at present it is most likely a leak somewhere... Perhaps, have a blown oil seal somewhere....

<outburst removed> Do not speak as if you are the the expert on how my turbo and PCV system are setup. I installed this turbo kit myself. I know EXACTLY what it did and did not touch. I know how a PCV system works. I have researched PCV systems, and improved on the original kit from Prodigy with a custom setup myself while waiting for them to work out details for their final solution to ventilation. You have absolutely no basis for telling me how my ventilation system is setup, because you have clearly not seen how it is setup. Yes, my current setup vents to atmosphere.


Blow-by doesn't reach reach the crankcase breather-- because the high pressure crankcase gases are drawn to the low pressure zone in the intake-- this then creates a vacuum in the crankcase that draws air from the valve cover breather to draw in continuous clean air. The more boost created only serves to help create greater pressure differentials within the engine.

And clearly you have no idea how a PCV system works on a boosted engine.

If the intake manifold is under boost, where is the low pressure zone to draw the blow-by gasses out of the crankcase? The PCV valve closes under boost to avoid a massive boost leak into the crankcase (and boosting the crankcase would be bad). The only path for crankcase gasses to take to a lower pressure zone is through the breather hose, either straight to atmosphere, or to the the air box (or air filter itself, the way I'll have to set it up), depending on how you have it setup. When under boost, crankcase gasses reverse flow through the breather. Those gasses carry oil vapor with them.

Please just never post anything in this thread ever again. Your only contribution to this thread has been to introduce confusion with incomplete, incorrect, and inconsistent claims/explanations about how things work. Go find another forum to shit on.

[UselessPickles]

And so much else wrong with the other stuff you posted, and misinterpreted about what I've said. I won't even bother refuting/clarifying it all.

Please, anyone that is reading this, just ignore KaiserBill's posts. I feel the compulsion to refute every wrong thing that he's said for the benefit of anyone that comes along and reads this, but it's not worth my time.

[UselessPickles]

The Dual Can System doesn't actually do anything with the fresh air breather that is pushing make up air into the engine.

Is that so? Then explain why this dual catch can kit puts one can on the PCV hose, and the other on the engine breather: http://data.radiumauto.com/PublicDocs/19-0073.PDF

Clearly, Radium Engineering has it all wrong. They have made the classic mistake of forgetting to consult with the expert of all things, KaiserBill, to learn how to properly setup a dual catch can system on a boosted engine!

[UselessPickles]

You still don't understand how it works do you.... The Air from the PCV valve tee is the stuff you are taking out of the engine.
...
You have another another breather line in the engine that pushes fresh air into the system to create the positive pressure.

No, it's you that still doesn't understand how it works. As I have already explained twice, the Prodigy catch can setup brings BOTH the PCV valve AND the breather port together into a tee, joining together as one hose, then into the catch can.

Learn how to read.

[UselessPickles]

Moving on...

I met with a local performance shop that specializes in turbocharged performance mods and tuning (Subaru STi, Mitsubishi Evos, Supras, etc) to discuss my catch can plans.

They actually said that they have setup several cars similar to Prodigy's catch can kit, but the guy I spoke with personally prefers to keep the PCV system fully functional to maintain vacuum in the crankcase and continuous flow of fresh air through the crankcase while off boost. Basically my feelings exactly.

So they agree with my dual catch can plan, helped me pick out mounting locations for the cans, and accepted the challenge to fabricate custom mounting brackets for me. I've picked out catch cans that I like. They're going to get pricing on other catch can options that would fit. I need to figure out exactly what fittings/adapters I'll need to hook everything up. Once I settle on which cans to use and purchase them, they'll fabricate the brackets for me, and I'll finish the install myself.

The fittings/adapters for catch cans are ridiculously expensive! Like $14-$25 EACH expensive! I really need to search for and consider lower price alternatives, because I'm up to about $90 in fittings/adapters already.

[KaiserBill]

Moving on...

I met with a local performance shop that specializes in turbocharged performance mods and tuning (Subaru STi, Mitsubishi Evos, Supras, etc) to discuss my catch can plans.

They actually said that they have setup several cars similar to Prodigy's catch can kit, but the guy I spoke with personally prefers to keep the PCV system fully functional to maintain vacuum in the crankcase and continuous flow of fresh air through the crankcase while off boost. Basically my feelings exactly.

So they agree with my dual catch can plan, helped me pick out mounting locations for the cans, and accepted the challenge to fabricate custom mounting brackets for me. I've picked out catch cans that I like. They're going to get pricing on other catch can options that would fit. I need to figure out exactly what fittings/adapters I'll need to hook everything up. Once I settle on which cans to use and purchase them, they'll fabricate the brackets for me, and I'll finish the install myself.

The fittings/adapters for catch cans are ridiculously expensive! Like $14-$25 EACH expensive! I really need to search for and consider lower price alternatives, because I'm up to about $90 in fittings/adapters already.


Awesome-- I hope it works out for you.

[KaiserBill]

Just like a how you explained Volumetric Efficiency...

[UselessPickles]

After much internal struggle, I finally ended up ordering Prodigy's oil catch can kit rather than going for a completely custom catch can setup. I just installed it this past weekend. I'll try to post install pics/details soon.

Also in progress is that I will be correcting a problem with my BOV. It turns out that I was mistakenly sent a BOV with the wrong spring. The spring is too soft for the amount of vacuum the Jeep's engine creates at idle. The end result is that the BOV stays open at idle and when cruising at lower speeds (40 mph and lower). Swapping in the correct spring should improve throttle response in low engine load conditions.

For the sake of keeping a running history in this thread of what I've done, I'll mention that I upgraded to the Precision turbo (http://jeeplab.com/showthread.php?264-Another-Turbo-Option-from-Prodigy-Performance&p=5400&viewfull=1#post5400) a while back, and just recently added a boost controller (http://jeeplab.com/showthread.php?296-Adding-more-boost-with-a-boost-controller!).

click for full size (http://www.uselesspickles.com/files/jeep/prodigy_turbo_precision/precision.jpg)
http://www.uselesspickles.com/files/jeep/prodigy_turbo_precision/precision.jpg

click for full size (http://www.uselesspickles.com/files/jeep/grimmspeed_mbc/mbc_with_bracket.jpg)
http://www.uselesspickles.com/files/jeep/grimmspeed_mbc/mbc_with_bracket.jpg

[Pznivy]

you are smart to stick with the turbo manufacturer. If you used another boost controller and the turbo explodes, you know what they'd say.

I always stick with one manufacturer. That way they have no excuse when things go wrong.

[UselessPickles]

you are smart to stick with the turbo manufacturer. If you used another boost controller and the turbo explodes, you know what they'd say.

I always stick with one manufacturer. That way they have no excuse when things go wrong.

I'm using a different boost controller. Prodigy is using the AEM Tru-Boost: http://www.aemelectronics.com/?q=products/gauges/tru-boost-gauge-type-controller

[UselessPickles]

Prodigy has come up with a better location for the coolant expansion tank in their stage 2 kit. Basically right where the original expansion tank sits. Here's an install video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12LR5t8xxJY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=12LR5t8xxJY

I'll be relocating mine as soon as the weather warms up. The current location of mine is better than Prodigy's original location, but mine blocks the fuse box lid from opening all the way: http://jeeplab.com/showthread.php?131-Prodigy-Performance-3-6-Turbo-DIY-Install&p=3638&viewfull=1#post3638


In other news... Prodigy is developing a series of youtube videos that walk through the entire turbo kit install. They are not yet organized into playlists, but you can find them all here an dwatch them in numeric order: https://www.youtube.com/user/855TurboJeep/videos

[UselessPickles]

I finally recorded some video of the Stage 2 turbo with the Precision upgrade. Enjoy the sounds!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TCzCAcfajU


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TCzCAcfajU

[Rexx19]

I finally recorded some video of the Stage 2 turbo with the Precision upgrade. Enjoy the sounds!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TCzCAcfajU


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TCzCAcfajU

AWSOME! Is the build over? whats next?

[UselessPickles]

Is the build over? whats next?

I think I'm done messing with the turbo for now. I will probably relocate the coolant reservoir to the new location suggested by Prodigy, but that's a minor/quick project.

I'm finally getting tires this weekend. 33x12.5x15 Duratracs. This should give me a lot more grip and let me use the turbo more on my next trip to the sand dunes. I really hope I can live with the bigger tires and my 3.21 gears until I save up for a re-gear (next priority, with TrueTrac LSD front and rear). And that's the entirety of my dreams for building up my Jeep.

[Timmy]

I finally recorded some video of the Stage 2 turbo with the Precision upgrade. Enjoy the sounds!

Nice job Pickles!!!

Hey, a question for you. I see you have a 6-speed. Your shifts seem to be very quick in the video. I honestly don't think I could shift that fast because I literally need to pause a bit between shifts or it clicks/grinds on the way in. Do you have this same issue? Do you need to pause a second from 1st to 2nd, 2nd to 3rd, etc? I'm thinking that my manual transmission has actually been a little beat up. I'm not sure how the previous owner drove, but I know I drive hard AND, I taught my daughter to drive a stick using my Jeep. As you can imagine, there was plenty of clutch burning (given that at the time I had big tires and was under-geared) and plenty of grinding. Just curious if you can give some insight into how your Jeep shifts. Is it smooth? Can you literally shift as quick as possible or do you need to do like me and pause just a hair between gears so that it drops in smoother? (same question to anyone with a 6spd.)

[UselessPickles]

Timmy, you're the second person to comment to me about how quickly I shift my Jeep's manual transmission. I thought the shifting was slow! But I'm used to the speed of clutchless shifts on a sport bike sequential transmission :)

Normally, I shift slower. I still shift in one continuous motion, but the shifter "pauses" and resists going into the next gear briefly (while the synchro does its job). So it ends up feeling like a 2-step process, even though I'm applying continuous smooth pressure on the shifter. After it resists going into gear very briefly, it pops in smoothly.

When accelerating hard, I just use more force to make the synchro work harder and get its job done quicker. I move the shifter faster, and apply more pressure into the next gear, but I don't yank the shifter. It's still a continuous smooth motion/force. During the quicker shifts, I still feel the shifter resist popping into the next gear, so it still feels like a 2-step process, but the brief pause before popping into gear is much quicker.

I don't get any grinding or other angry noises from my transmission regardless of how quickly I shift. The key is probably making sure you don't try to yank it suddenly into the next gear.

I'm running Redline MTL transmission fluid. i don't know whether that makes my shifts significantly smoother. It did seem to make my shifts from 1st to second a bit easier/smoother (especially when cold) when I first replaced the original transmission fluid.

[Timmy]

Normally, I shift slower. I still shift in one continuous motion, but the shifter "pauses" and resists going into the next gear briefly (while the synchro does its job). So it ends up feeling like a 2-step process

That pretty well answers my question then. It is a two step process for me as well. If I really gun it, like you, I'll pull in one continuous motion and just force it in, but man, it sure doesn't like to go in fast!

So a dumb question... I've driven plenty of manual's before, but all were more of a sports car and none had this crazy two-step, don't shift too fast feel to it. Are the Jeeps like this for any particular reason? Is the transmission more bomb proof or something and thus a little harder to shift, or is it that Chrysler (Mercedes?) just doesn't know how to build a smooth manual trans?

I'll maybe have to take a look at putting in a different transmission fluid as I'd love any chance to make it smoother. I hate to admit it, but I've never dealt with transmission fluid on my own before. Is it very difficult to do? Is it just your standard drain plug, pull out old, fill with new? Do you feel Redline MTL is the best? Anyone else have any experience or comments about swapping trans fluid?

[Timmy]

i'll maybe have to take a look at putting in a different transmission fluid as i'd love any chance to make it smoother. I hate to admit it, but i've never dealt with transmission fluid on my own before. Is it very difficult to do? Is it just your standard drain plug, pull out old, fill with new? Do you feel redline mtl is the best? Anyone else have any experience or comments about swapping trans fluid?

bump bump...

[UselessPickles]

bump bump...

Oops. Sorry.


Manual transmission fluid change was pretty straightforward. There's two gotchas:

1) The stock exhaust blocks direct access to the drain plug. There's various ideas out there for making your own tool, or buying a specific tool for the job. I think I found the simplest solution. Buy a 17mm allen socket like this:

http://contentinfo.autozone.com/znetcs/product-info/en/US/dur/70-065/image/3/

And pound the allen bit portion out of the socket. It's now a very short allen wrench with no handle. There's enough room to fit that between the exhaust and drain plug, then use a 17 mm open end wrench to turn it.

Use some aluminum foil to cover the exhaust and form a makeshift funnel for the draining fluid.

2) You need a bottle pump to transfer fluid from the bottle into the fill hole. The one I ordered online didn't work. It didn't fit the threaded opening of the bottle of fluid I had, and the style of pump relied on the bottle being sealed to build pressure. I picked up another bottle pump at a local auto parts store that still didn't fit my bottle, but also didn't rely on a pressure buildup to function properly.

Here's a full writeup with a more complicated custom tool suggested: http://project-jk.com/jeep-jk-write-ups/jeep-jk-wrangler-nsg-370-manual-transmission-service

[UselessPickles]

New video from the sand dunes!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7srHlR_Glw


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7srHlR_Glw

[ducatidesmo]

Working on the install now.


Did you ever end up moving your coolant res?

[ducatidesmo]

I forgot to ask,

did you go with colder plugs as well?

[UselessPickles]

I have not moved my coolant reservoir yet. Just haven't gotten to it yet (need to buy a new hose for it). NOLAjeeper installed his reservoir in the stock location and he seems to like it.

I'm still running the stock spark plugs. I'm not aware of any specific reason to change the plugs. The turbo has been tested/tuned with stock plugs, and I'm no expert on spark plugs, so I feel best leaving it the way Prodigy intends.

[ducatidesmo]

I guess this is more of a general question.

I just realized while mounting up the turbo that there is no bracket welded onto the up pipe. Anyone know if this was a running change? 1706

[UselessPickles]

I just realized while mounting up the turbo that there is no bracket welded onto the up pipe. Anyone know if this was a running change? 1706

Huh... I'll have to ask about this. It seems unlikely that it was accidentally left off. Now that I think about it more, I bet that bracket turned out to be unnecessary. The brackets on the down pipe probably provide plenty of support for the turbo.

[ducatidesmo]

I got a response on the difference. it sounds like it's a running change...

I'm soon close..now I'm having a problem with the power steering pump. I've made sure the oil up the o-ring and have the adapters in there... but.. I connected to the pump side.. and now the head of the other side is facing left or toward the engine... since this is a hi pressure line I didn't want to mess with the head unless it's ok to do so as it's torqueddown pretty good.
1707 1708

[ducatidesmo]

I guess the question that I should be asking... does anyone have an image of thier power steering box that i could reference after install?

[ducatidesmo]

Alright,

went scouring through the archives and found an image of your install, Pickles:
1709
This is what mine looks like :(
1710
You see how when one side is facing up the other is as well. If I align it to do one side face down and the other face up, I get a loop in the line.

[UselessPickles]

This is what mine looks like :(


That does look like a problem :(

The fittings on the ends of your hose look like it may be possible to loosen, rotate, then re-tighten? Hard to tell from just looking at a picture. That hose/fitting is different than what I have. Definitely contact Prodigy about that to find out if they can recommend a way to adjust the orientation of the fittings, or if you need a replacement.

[ducatidesmo]

everything is on... wanna start... can't start... looking at a few things .. exhaust not fitting like I would like.. everything bolts up but... can't bolt on the passenger head... thingie pipe.. (so weird this thing doesn't have headers) and the down pipe is touching the coolant hose.

Always fun..

welcome suggestions as always, but will continue on it tomorrow

[JeepLab]

where is pickles? he should have the answers on this. That guys toothbrush has a turbo on it.

[ducatidesmo]

Hey JL,

Been working with Pickles the entire time. Have it on and running for a bit. had a leak because I am a dummy and forgot to tighten the trans cooler.... BDA... Was FAST with the stock wheels, now just back to "Jeep Fast" with 37's and the stock gear ratio (3.73 for me). Next up is BRAKES then regear.

my down pipe is pretty darn close to the heater pipe no matter what I did, so I ended up getting heat shielding and I've been fine. Pickles and I now share an issue. Hesitation on, what feels like when the jeep goes from vacuum into boost. Rich condition, it appears to be.

[JeepLab]

Hey JL,

Been working with Pickles the entire time. Have it on and running for a bit. had a leak because I am a dummy and forgot to tighten the trans cooler.... BDA... Was FAST with the stock wheels, now just back to "Jeep Fast" with 37's and the stock gear ratio (3.73 for me). Next up is BRAKES then regear.

my down pipe is pretty darn close to the heater pipe no matter what I did, so I ended up getting heat shielding and I've been fine. Pickles and I now share an issue. Hesitation on, what feels like when the jeep goes from vacuum into boost. Rich condition, it appears to be.

what 37s are they? and is it a rubi?

[ducatidesmo]

what 37s are they? and is it a rubi?

Rubi with MT/Rs 17351736

Just had an interesting conversation at my local 4x4 shop. In not so many words, the shop foreman thought I was idiotic to go with a turbo instead of a supercharger. His thinking (because he has a turbo car) is that there is nothing until I go into boost... sure... if I was spooling up at 4000 rpm. I spool up about 2500... which will be right where the rpms are in 4wd LOW and 4:88.. Was actually kinda irritating. Always fun. Yes conventional wisdom, Roots/screw supercharger for low torque turbo up hi, I think that is going away.

[ducatidesmo]

sorry guys...stupid apple pics...

[UselessPickles]

where is pickles? he should have the answers on this.

I sent several pictures via text message to clarify how things are routed on my Jeep, how much clearance there is between parts, etc.

The forum would have been a very inefficient way to try to communicate that kind of detail.




my down pipe is pretty darn close to the heater pipe no matter what I did, so I ended up getting heat shielding and I've been fine.

I still have no idea about this clearance issue. I have plenty of clearance on mine. The pipes are bent by CNC machines, then placed into jigs for welding. The process is setup to guarantee that every set of pipes is the same shape. I do still have an older set of pipes from a different supplier, though. I'll be installing a new set of pipes at some point, and I'm interested to see if I run into similar issues with the new pipes.



Pickles and I now share an issue. Hesitation on, what feels like when the jeep goes from vacuum into boost. Rich condition, it appears to be.

This seems to be an issue with the latest version of the tune (which also fixed other complaints I had). It's much easier to encounter this with a manual transmission, and happens for me around 1700-2000 rpm with attempted substantial part-throttle acceleration. With the automatic transmission, pressing the throttle a bit more will cause the transmission to downshift and avoid the issue.

I actually encountered this same issue on Prodigy's own Jeep (auto transmission). I met them down in Louisville for a weekend at the Unlimited Off-Road Expo and got a chance to take theirs for a test drive. They also encountered this issue a couple times while in Louisville, but haven't run into it again after returning to Florida. I've sent some data logs and descriptions of how I cause the issue to happen. They are working on it.

[ducatidesmo]

So other than what UselessPickles is talking about above I only have one more issue. I constantly have to clear a CEL that the system is too rich P0172 and P0175. To be fair, I'm OK with that cod (since rich is hmmm, but lean is bad times), but it's annoying that I have to clear codes every other drive because it brings up a check engine light

So, when does the mileage increase kick in?? Or... the better question, when do you stop putting your foot into it HAHA!

[jeepsking]

So other than what UselessPickles is talking about above I only have one more issue. I constantly have to clear a CEL that the system is too rich P0172 and P0175. To be fair, I'm OK with that cod (since rich is hmmm, but lean is bad times), but it's annoying that I have to clear codes every other drive because it brings up a check engine light

So, when does the mileage increase kick in?? Or... the better question, when do you stop putting your foot into it HAHA!


Check your O2 sensors connections, it shouldn't read rich.


I have a question: my kit has a garret turbo and it seems that my turbo require a rebuild as i have been using it for more than 2 years now. Anyone knows the rebuild kit part # ?

Actually i get a smoke when wot and boost, my car consume oil almost a quart per a day if i am in full throttle all the time off raod (dune bashing)

[2k13jk]

Thats usually a sign your turbo seals are on there way out. Contact prodigy and explain whats going on so you dont blow your motor or turbo

[Turbo306]

So is everyone happy with these kits so far?? (May have skipped a few pages)...

[JosephGatt]

Hi! We will be waiting for more pictures. Also, when you are ready to determine your productive hours to succeed, you are welcome to follow some ideas from the written text below: http://bigessaywriter.com/blog/10-tips-how-to-determine-your-ideal-productive-hours-of-day

[Jeepty]

any updates on the project?

[UselessPickles]

any updates on the project?

Nothing has blown up yet. I've been turbocharged for over 50k miles now.

There's been some big improvements to the tune. Low RPMs are more responsive for part-throttle daily driving now, and nearly all hesitation/jerk/stumble issues I previously experienced are now fixed. It's not absolutely 100% perfect, but it's very good. The power delivery while accelerating up through the RPM range at part throttle is improved a lot too (very smooth/linear; previously there was more unintentional "ramping up" of power due to the turbo spooling).

I'm basically to a point now where I'm just driving the Jeep, not worrying about any issues, and not trying to fix/change anything.

I've turned the boost up to about a max of 11.8 psi now. When accelerating full throttle in 1st gear, then shifting hard into 2nd gear, my front tires come off the ground :)

I think the only substantial update to the turbo kit itself is that there's a new oil catch can system that's supposed to be more effective than the previous setup. I haven't upgraded to the new catch can yet.