Close

Page 3 of 26 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 252
  1. #21
    it is a single turbo. Im going to see if I can get a picture of the new set up today

  2. #22
    I'd be interested to know how the early attempts of the twin turbo design went, and why they decided to go with a single turbo instead. Smaller twin turbos mounted right on the head of the engine would theoretically spool up more quickly, but there would be additional length/volume of of intake piping between the turbos and the intake manifold, which would pressurize more slowly and negate some of the reduced lag properties of the twins.

    Then you'd also need extra intake piping going from a single air filter (or air box) location to the inlets of both turbos (edit: guess it wouldn't have to be from a single shared location, but you definitely wouldn't want air filters mounted directly on the turbos down low right next to the engine). All the extra air intake piping would add parts costs and installation complexity (if you can even find a way to route everything through the engine bay). The location of the single turbo layout allows you to just mount an air filter directly on the turbo inlet.

    Exhaust piping would be greatly simplified by having twins mounted right onto the engine. It would almost be identical to stock exhaust piping, especially if they used turbos with internal wastegates. This would lower costs and simplify installation on that end.

    Lots of competing factors that would need to balance out properly to make twins better than a single turbo. I just hope they went for a reasonably sized single turbo that will have minimal lag and good low-mid RPM response, rather than focusing too much on getting maximum peak power with a bigger turbo.

    Waiting for pictures

  3. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by UselessPickles View Post
    I'd be interested to know how the early attempts of the twin turbo design went, and why they decided to go with a single turbo instead. Smaller twin turbos mounted right on the head of the engine would theoretically spool up more quickly, but there would be additional length/volume of of intake piping between the turbos and the intake manifold, which would pressurize more slowly and negate some of the reduced lag properties of the twins.

    Then you'd also need extra intake piping going from a single air filter (or air box) location to the inlets of both turbos (edit: guess it wouldn't have to be from a single shared location, but you definitely wouldn't want air filters mounted directly on the turbos down low right next to the engine). All the extra air intake piping would add parts costs and installation complexity (if you can even find a way to route everything through the engine bay). The location of the single turbo layout allows you to just mount an air filter directly on the turbo inlet.

    Exhaust piping would be greatly simplified by having twins mounted right onto the engine. It would almost be identical to stock exhaust piping, especially if they used turbos with internal wastegates. This would lower costs and simplify installation on that end.

    Lots of competing factors that would need to balance out properly to make twins better than a single turbo. I just hope they went for a reasonably sized single turbo that will have minimal lag and good low-mid RPM response, rather than focusing too much on getting maximum peak power with a bigger turbo.

    Waiting for pictures
    I think the plan to go with the single turbo had to do with the pentastar's cramped engine bay. This info is all tenative, but we are expecting 1, 2, and 3 stage kits, so there should be a turbo to fit more of the audiences budget.

    As far as a picture, Im hoping to have my hands on one early next week.

  4. #24
    Stupid physical reality getting in the way...

    Do you know which "stage" kit you'll be getting?

    The different stages could also widen the target audience in that a lower boost "stage 1" kit might actually be better for more serious off-roading/crawling, because there wouldn't be as much of a sharp rise in torque in the mid RPM range. This will be interesting.

  5. #25
    We have no idea about the different stages,

    We need to see how it all fits together before getting into that.

    Rest assured, I'll have complete explanations for each kit and the pros and cons of each.

    As well as pics of each kit.

  6. #26
    Here is another dyno and quarter mile times.

    Last edited by JeepLab; 02-23-2014 at 05:09 PM.

  7. #27
    Keep in mind everyone, That video is the 3.8 motor.

    The pentastar starts about 100 hp higher.

    No telling what its going to do with a turbo on it.

  8. #28
    That video is for the 8psi kit for the 3.8. We're waiting on the kit for the 3.6 Pentastar.

    Edit: JeepLab beat me to it. I had this screen pulled up then got distracted for a while before I got around to replying

  9. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by UselessPickles View Post
    Edit: JeepLab beat me to it. I had this screen pulled up then got distracted for a while before I got around to replying
    You were pretty quick tho.

  10. #30
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    MD/PA line
    Posts
    425
    Nearly 20mph faster in a quarter mile is pretty significant improvement. Check my math here: 28% improvement in speed at the quarter mile mark and 20% improvement in time to the mark! Again, thats on the 3.8. On the 2012+ models...who knows but i bet it will be nasty.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •