Max power rating?

[Warren Stramer]

What is the max power rating of a TO4E 50 trim,63AR,Chrysler STGIII ???? How much Horsepower were they suppose to support?

[contraption22]

The Turbonetics catalog says 450hp.

[Shadow]

I know of several 500WHP 2.4l 16v that have done it on the 50 trim stage 3 .63 A/R T3 housing, should be the same. I also know of at least one that claimed around 520-530WHP on a Super efficient set-up at something like 26-27psi. (was several years ago and one of the first eg's of someone putting down More than 10WHP/1lb air flow.)

[turbovanman²]

Subscribed.

[Ondonti]

I don't think catalog numbers mean anything beyond whatever standard they used to rate turbos, which seems to have to do with a reasonable limit, possibly for someone selecting a turbo, not max HP.

[contraption22]

I don't think catalog numbers mean anything beyond whatever standard they used to rate turbos, which seems to have to do with a reasonable limit, possibly for someone selecting a turbo, not max HP.

Agreed. If there is any scientific method to arriving at the power rating printed in their catalog, it is likely the maximum power at which the turbo is reasonably efficient, and not the maximum possible power an engine can make with that turbo bolted to it. I think we have all made more power by pushing turbos somewhat out of their efficiency islands.

[zin]

Seems like, for accurate numbers for a particular application, you'd have to look at the map of the compressor to determine the max lb/hr air flow, then you could work back to HP via BSFC and A/F ratio.

For an engine making 500HP at a BSFC of .5 and a a/f ratio of 12.5:1, you would need about 235lb/hr of air... Jostle the BSFC and/or A/F ratios around and you'll get a range of numbers...

I'm assuming an external wastegate so as to not impede exhaust flow... Otherwise the limit may be on the turbine side, but there are maps for them as well...

Mike

[BadAssPerformance]

What is the max power rating of a TO4E 50 trim,63AR,Chrysler STGIII ???? How much Horsepower were they suppose to support?

The Turbonetics catalog says 450hp.

The catalog I just looked at said T04 50E/T03 & S-III/.63 is rated at 350HP, but I think that is at 10psi.

Another catalog says the S-III turbine is rated at 475HP.

From a discussion with a rep a decade ago, balls out it should be capable of near 600HP

[Ondonti]

I think those ratings, while they might be conservative and aiming for rating at a point of high efficiency, are silly because they would put most people into a turbo that in the end sucks to drive. Do you want to go to whatever turbo they say will make 800hp, or a turbo that has shown to make that power at the wheels, while being much smaller?

Funny, Precision seems to have updated their HP ratings a bit with their new site.

They list the old 6765 at 750whp, and the new CEA 6765 at 900, and the CEA 6766@ 935. Or you could go with 71 mm GT42 style turbo that spools 1500 rpms later.
I know some people have topped those numbers on older inferior 67mm turbos but those were extreme situations on E100 fuel.


People running autos but wanting a tighter converter (Simon) would enjoy one of these new CEA turbos by being able to use a smaller turbo to get the same theoretical bang, with less lag and more responsiveness.

[Shadow]

From a discussion with a rep a decade ago, balls out it should be capable of near 600HP

So just over 500WHP, which sounds right.

[turbovanman²]

I think those ratings, while they might be conservative and aiming for rating at a point of high efficiency, are silly because they would put most people into a turbo that in the end sucks to drive. Do you want to go to whatever turbo they say will make 800hp, or a turbo that has shown to make that power at the wheels, while being much smaller?

Funny, Precision seems to have updated their HP ratings a bit with their new site.

They list the old 6765 at 750whp, and the new CEA 6765 at 900, and the CEA 6766@ 935. Or you could go with 71 mm GT42 style turbo that spools 1500 rpms later.
I know some people have topped those numbers on older inferior 67mm turbos but those were extreme situations on E100 fuel.


People running autos but wanting a tighter converter (Simon) would enjoy one of these new CEA turbos by being able to use a smaller turbo to get the same theoretical bang, with less lag and more responsiveness.

Interesting.

[BadAssPerformance]

So just over 500WHP, which sounds right.

Right, their HP ratings are CHP...

[Vigo]

I think those ratings, while they might be conservative and aiming for rating at a point of high efficiency, are silly because they would put most people into a turbo that in the end sucks to drive

Good point.. i agree with that.

[Ondonti]

I think all the racing classes that have limitations on turbo size are really helping push turbos to the next level as people find ways to do things that many thought were impossible (hence why the turbo size limitations were originally created).
People are going over 180mph on 72mm turbos. Turbos that size used to be in boring to drive 10 second cars that had no guts down low.

[Shadow]

I think all the racing classes that have limitations on turbo size are really helping push turbos to the next level as people find ways to do things that many thought were impossible (hence why the turbo size limitations were originally created).
People are going over 180mph on 72mm turbos. Turbos that size used to be in boring to drive 10 second cars that had no guts down low.

Couldn't agree with you more! Wasn't that long ago that ppl were flaming me for always running the smallest turbo I could (hot side specifically) to make the power I wanted! lol

They were still believing that making 5 more HP on the dyno with a bigger A/R turbine housing was a Good thing..........