2nd Gen Non-Engine/Transmission Who has the most HP?

[onestackdram]

ok well back to the original point of this thread. I can honestly speak of two single charger trucks over 600 with no drugs. One is an 02 6spd the owner being Ray Gullet of St. Louis. Unfortunately we blew the charger at only have RPM approx. 2400 and it still register 590 on a load dyno. I know it probably doesnt' count since the charger blew, but when the new one is built I have no doubt it will break it. The other truck I know of and will provide proof if needed is a 3rd gen single charger owned and built by Floor It diesel performance.

 

[pwerwagn]

I remember a post a while back in the comp forum that Lenny (I think) made 617 with a SP66, and 717 with N2O... ...

 

[Hohn]

Ever since I bought this 06 I think that it is 06 now. People are already talking about the 07 trucks and how they will be different, I don't know what year it is sometimes, lol.
The question about the common rail spinning a bigger turbo, (or any turbo) faster than a 12V is fairly simple to answer. The way I found out about it was when the B-1 quick spools were out and the TST's were out they actually stopped selling B-1's for a while because it didn't matter if you ran 40 psi boost or 60 psi boost they were still blowing. The reason why was because it was just excellerating too fast and just spinning right in half.
The common rail, depending on which year you have, shoots two and three shots of diesel per stroke. A preliminarry shot, a main shot, and an emmisions shot. Okay, when you have the prelim. shot you are getting the fire rolling and it makes it easier to get the main shot completely burned. A more efficient burn meens more expansion of gases, more exhaust pressure at lower RPM, and more lower end boost. Thats why in a 12V, if you crank up the aneroid, inj. , DV's so where it fuels way too hard on the bottom it seems like you lost your bottom end, ... . well you have! Too much fuel on the bottom meens you are drowning the fire out which meens less expansion of the gases.

Good post.
One way to think of the HPCR is comparing it to other things.

For example, firearms. A 12V would be like a revolver, and an HPCR would be like a machine gun. Both can shoot over a 100 rounds, but which one is gonna do it with more power (i. e. in less time)?

Or to power tools. A 12V is like using a wrench. An HPCR is more like an impact gun. Both will turn the nut, but which does it with more power?



The ideal diesel injection setup will be if an injector can fire a burst of 10 or 12 injection events. The tech solution isn't out there yet, but it might be in the near future. Ideally, we'd come full circle and have so many pulses that it would, in fact, behave just like one big injection pulse, but with a LOT more control. That control is the key to efficiency and power.


I'd personally like to see a 600hp 12V and a 600hp HPCR truck both track fuel usage. I'd be willing to bet the HPCR takes a lot less fuel to make 600hp than the 12V does. It's because the HPCR has superior QUALITY of combustion, and the P-pump has superior Quantity (relative to any diesel ever factory installed in any pickup).

Now, an HPCR setup with the quantity of a bigger pump (Say, I dunno, 775cc or so) would probably make 200hp more than the 12V equivalent.


Ideally, you'd set up a continuously variable rate-of-discharge at the injector. You spit in a tiny pilot injection to get the fire going, then you add another injection event that ramps up its rate-of discharge as the fire gets bigger.

The drawback to the HPCR is that the injectors have a constant rate-of-discharge. They're either open or they're closed.


So in order to pull of the "ideal", you'd have to have an individual rail setup for for each cylinder, and the computer would have to be able to make radical increases in rail pressure within the span of a single injection event. This is quite tough to do. I don't know if you could make a common rail smart enough to vary rail pressure over thousands of psi within the span of a couple nanoseconds. I'm saying no at this point in time.

So you'd have your pilot injection event with a couple hundred psi. Then would come the main event, which would start at 12K or so, and quickly ramp up to 32K or so as the fire got hotter.


This so called "charge shaping" is really the key to quick, clean combustion. A simple mental exercise will show you how it works.


Say you are camping. You need a fire. You start with tinder and get a small flame. Then you can slowly upgrade to kindling as the fire gets bigger. Note that kindling has more potential energy than tinder. As the fire gets hotter, you can add fuel of increasing amounts of potential energy.

Put another way, the bigger the fire, the faster it can grow.

Now imagine that you can setup the combustion of a diesel engine to go from tinder to kindling to big log to huge stump--- all in a span of a couple tiny fractions of a second.


As technology advances, we will find that paper dreams like I outlined above will be becoming mechanical reality.

And, just as quickly, the EPA will find a way to ensure that we see little to no benefit from the radical technology

jh