He wants to know if you’ll get over 20.58 lbs of boost.
Pr = pressure ratio. 2.4 = 2.4 x 14.7 ambient pressure at sea level = 35.28
35.28 - 14.7 = 20.58 boost.
Eff Beemer lol
I’m going to keep that one close to my chest for the moment, but I will post a smiley face. ; )
I don’t’ know what that means.
[/quote]
Pressure ratio, see the compressor map (or show it lol)
Edit: they beat me to it…yeah the compressor maps usually only show to 2.4 PR from Eaton for the TVS, hopefully we can do a little better if we’re going to force feed this bitch some air
so what are everybody’s guesses on the OEM ordering these…
GM
Wow, nice release Arin. Really didn’t expect to see blown RS5 yet, talk about a killer car. That would meet about every demand of any enthusiast lol.
Lookin forward to more numbers.
Who uses Eaton blowers now?
Jaguar
Audi (although that’s ending it seems and they’re going all turbos)
Audi are going to turbos for the S cars. But the supercharged V6 seems to be making it’s way into the mass produced lines like the Q5, Q7, A6. Maybe this new one will make it’s way into those cars for speed/efficiency bumps. Having said that, I can’t see a big market for a Q7 with more than the current 333hp.
GM does: ZR1, CTS-V, ZL-1. New Corvette, smaller displacement engine, ehh ehh?
definitely not since they’re throttling back the 1320 so badly as is
It’s still a massive v8 though.
At the moment, yes. However, I believe there were some rumors that GM was going to downsize the engine and possibly add an FI V6 to the lineup.
really? That sounds like a misinterpretation of the development process maybe? They looked at every possible power plant option and came back to what worked best… V8 all motor.
I’m trying to justify my guess, cut me some slack ;D
Edit: Thanks to a little research, I see GM has shot down the rumors regarding a V6 Corvette. Smaller displacement v8? ehh ehh?
hahaha I doubt it. That’s far too expensive. The Bavarians do it the hardest way possible… Small v8 and a million revs. The Americans take the simpler approach… Leaves tons of headroom too.
I reckon we will find out next year. Such a long process for the big guys.
Aarin
A few things I think people would love to hear from you. The tvs 1900series has a HUGE load draw almost 45hp companys like pes and amd think bolting on a huge blower is the answer when in fact the 1900 or the whipple 2.4 has HUGE load draw loss. Csn you talk more on cfm per unit compaired to those units as im sure we can expext bad informaion comming from those two companys to try and shoot this impressive apr advancemnt down
I’m going to keep that one close to my chest for the moment, but I will post a smiley face. ; )
I don’t’ know what that means.
[/quote]
Just a couple more thoughts, and a repost of the “weight” question…don’t want to let that one go…
The answer about the TB…lol…I’m willing to bet it’s going up to 90mm, with a separate transition for the stock TB, and a later option of a APR 90mm TB. I just can’t see you guys getting a casting made with a 70mm TB that will have to possibly support 500 whp.
And you know I was fishing about injectors in the other thread. Like I said, with stage II, at 6-7 ms injection duration in the midrange is a LOT, I guess it’s only high 5s ms at 7000 rpm. But still, at 7000 rpm one revolution is 8.5 ms. I also remember you saying there’s no room for E85 (which can use 30-50%+ more fuel), so I’d imagine there’s a bit of an injector headroom issue for stage III. Curious if it’s going to be a HPFP solution, or a new injector solution. I know, I know, you can’t say, but hints are fun…
Pondering this question lead me to this: http://www.eaton.com/Eaton/ProductsServices/Automotive/AutomotiveAftermarket/Superchargers/FAQ/index.htm
It makes me think that you’re right about the OEM being an auto manufacturer. The 4 aftermarket players are probably all going to be building these for various different engines.
-Skid
Maybe it’s just me but I thought that’s what an OEM generally is… an auto maker. Arin mentioned it was only known to Apr and an OEM. I took that to mean a maker.
I took his (and everyone at Apr for that matter) ability to keep this under wraps to mean it was a big auto maker…with an army of lawyers…who know how to draft non Disclosure agreements.
In the manufacturing world, and especially automotive, the OEM is generally the “part supplier”. So say, Bosch may make your MAF, and Audi will give it it’s own part number and call it an Audi part. Bosch is the OEM, original equipment manufacturer.
Automobile companies are generally only assembling nowadays, they make very very few parts, if any. Less risk, more purchasing power, more flexibility. They screw the OEMs and the OEMs screw them back…lol.
So the OEM in this case is someone who is making the part. As far as I know, Eaton themselves only make the parts for the big automobile companies, and always make the rotors themselves. Then they leave the smaller aftermarket orders for housings to a few select companies. Those companies are names you recognize: Harrops, Roush, Edelbrock, and Magnuson. And those guys still have to buy the rotors from Eaton.
So there is still a automotive company that wants the 1740, but OEM could technically refer to the part manufacturer. So you’re both right (or wrong, as some here may put it )…