Bearings with pg turbo 1000

BIG JOHN said:

Gus...I hope your being funny...I know I didnt say/doo anything to deserve this kinda post...if you have some sort of proof that adding 100 hp to an engine doesnt harm ANY internal parts whatsoever I'm all ears:beer;...BJ

Click to expand...

Boosting an engine does put more stress on it, but not as much as you would think. More fuel in the jug will take longer to burn, add more octane and add more boost, slow the burn rate down.

Kelsey Get you head out of your butt, LOL :beer; think about it, when you are boosting a 2-smoker and adding pressure in the bottom end, this pressure is also in the oil film on the bearing surfaces and everywhere els, this is a big advantage for lubing up the engine.

How else do you think these things are surviving at moderate boost levels, don’t confuse it and think everyone is running +15 psi

Boyko said:

Boosting an engine does put more stress on it, but not as much as you would think. More fuel in the jug will take longer to burn, add more octane and add more boost, slow the burn rate down.

Kelsey Get you head out of your butt, LOL :beer; think about it, when you are boosting a 2-smoker and adding pressure in the bottom end, this pressure is also in the oil film on the bearing surfaces and everywhere els, this is a big advantage for lubing up the engine.

How else do you think these things are surviving at moderate boost levels, don’t confuse it and think everyone is running +15 psi

Click to expand...

NICE.. you guys keep up the personal attacks and dragging this thread into "that" area..

This thread was NEVER about Kelsey, Big Joh, or any products, Big Bores etc..

It WAS about "Is there MORE Stress on the bearings with a Boosted sled vs. a N/A sled.. " This WAS the question asked.. I POLITELY answered it and then you guys come in and say that there is LESS stress on the bearings than if it were N/A.. This IS what was said and you can read it for yourselves. Then... you take it to this new level of personal attacks.. Nice work.. congrats on that accomplishment..

product tester said:

The turbo is alot easier on the crank than assperated because of the smooth power and everytime you boost it forces the oil everywhere.
At 2500 miles I would not hesitate to tourbo and ride all season.

Click to expand...

Bottom line.. ANYTIME you have more HP you have MORE stress on the crank train.. This is a PROVEN fact and can NOT be denied (except by you guys)..

As for oil being blown INTO the bearings?? I asked a simple question.. I will ask again since nobody cared to answer..

1) What is to keep this added pressure from blowing the oil OFF of the bearings?
Answer??


Again, Combustion occurs at the same or VERY near the same point and time with the engine no matter how it is fed its charge.. This is also proven.. How long it burns has nothing to do with when it is ignited. Pump gas is pump gas and it will ignite and combust at the same point in time.. If it burns longer (debateable) so be it.. but the stress on the crank train comes from the added PRESSURE during the combustion process.. and more HP is ALWAYS more force on the crank

So, again, I have kept it , as always, on topic and WITHOUT ANY personal attacks.. Too bad, this is such a hard task for you guys.
Kelsey

Kelsey

1) What is to keep this added pressure from blowing the oil OFF of the bearings?


I think I can answer your question. The oil will be blowing off the bearing with more fresh clean oil. From the income charge. Since under boost there is 1.5 to 2.0 times the fuel being throwing at the motor at 10psi there for you will get better lubrication. Which makes this live a happy happy life.

I dont want to get this into a pissing contest. Even though it seems that it is. I will ask this questions since we are asking and answering questions.

Two sleds both set and 200 hp. One boosted One N/A. Dont care if it is a BB or what. Same motor lets just say cat M8. Which ones crank bearing will last longer and why?


?
?
?

Mike

I have to say, I do respect Kelsey, but could you guys imagine this:

Kelsey vs. Tetonice :beer;:beer;

I think it would drag on longer than the Iraq war and never get anywhere!! LOL

TurboM700 said:

Kelsey

1) What is to keep this added pressure from blowing the oil OFF of the bearings?


I think I can answer your question. The oil will be blowing off the bearing with more fresh clean oil. From the income charge. Since under boost there is 1.5 to 2.0 times the fuel being throwing at the motor at 10psi there for you will get better lubrication. Which makes this live a happy happy life.

Great answer... Again.. I RESPECTFULLY, Disagree.. OIL ONLY is NOT was is being blown in.. It is AIR. Fuel, and OIL.. So, for your theory to be true, you would need to have straight oil being forced in and I think we can BOTH agree that this is not the case, in fact, of all three that are being forced in, the OIL makes up the LEAST volume.. I think we an both agree on this..



I do appreciate the answer and I could be wrong.. but the oil needs to fall out of suspension before it can coat ANY bearings. and when it is fed into the crankcase area...it IS in suspension with the F/A mix.. Agreed? So, the F/A/oil mix is mostly air, then fuel, then oil so, MOST of what is being blown on the bearings is AIR not oil..

NOW with a 4 stroke.. Completely different story.. Oil is not suspended inthe F/A . Big difference



I dont want to get this into a pissing contest. Even though it seems that it is. I will ask this questions since we are asking and answering questions.

Two sleds both set and 200 hp. One boosted One N/A. Dont care if it is a BB or what. Same motor lets just say cat M8. Which ones crank bearing will last longer and why?

I would love to discuss this with you .. This is not a subject that I can properly type and relay the info..If you want to call and dicuss this I would be more than happy to talk with you for as long as you like.
I can even get some of the top 2 stroke engine builders in the country on a conference call with you if you like.

Thanks for your "on topic" response.. very much appreciated
?
?
?

Mike

Click to expand...

See above.. thanks

Don't worry johnie, I was teasin you, your only here for your friend. I undertand that.
I have tested the head design and found zero. waterbrake, and inertia dyno testing showed zip vs equal comp/squish heads.

Kelsy makes it personal when he ONLY belives WHAT HE says is true.
Regardless,,he calls myself and Shane Liars then states he's not maikng it personal.. The question was asked to the TURBO builders NOT the NON turbo builders.
Your input is unappreciated when you do nothing but be combative with those who are IN the field as well as those who HAVE been in the field since long before you..

We can go on and on about this nonsense.

Its like no dyno sheets..Your field results prove your package has merit.
the lack of data scares some but not others..
Does it mean I and Shane should be on those threads backing THEM UP !!against YOU ??

I don't have a problem with you John but please don't just follow him blindly and expect no repercussion..

You are a product of your surroundings.
And it was the stator new and junk
gus

So, adding airflow to an engine blows the oil thru it and off the bearings and cylinder walls Kelsey ?
Why would anyone want to even clean the airfilter.. plug it up so as to keep the bearing happy..

Whats that big puddle in the cases when we look in a turbo 2 ?? must be just GASOLINE ,,oh wait that evaporates.. what thf ??????
2 times the volume of fuel and oil = more lube to all surfaces as well as reduced operating temps from the volume of fluid in constant [wash] thru the engine.
hence the long happy powerfull lives we lead with boost..


now SHOO !

OOps,, And a big YOUR welcome to all the guys who thank me for my responses to this childish thread.

gus bohne said:

I
Kelsy makes it personal when he ONLY belives WHAT HE says is true.
Regardless,,he calls myself and Shane Liars then states he's not maikng it personal.. The question was asked to the TURBO builders NOT the NON turbo builders..

Click to expand...

Ya know Gus.

Very clever... Putting words in my mouth... I have never and will never call you or Shain a lair.. and you can go re-read this entire thread and find that this was never the case..

So, since your SOLE BASIS for taking it to the personal level is based on me calling you and Shain a liar.. I respectfully ask you to show the "liar" posts...


My response directed at Shain.."

With all due respect.... This simply not true or even close to being true..

Click to expand...

AND EVEN you agree with my statement. NOTE: no mention of the word liar. NOTE the word RESPECT in my post

My response to you

As for the turbo being easier on the crank.. I will still,respectfully, disagree

Click to expand...

So, in both cases, a respectful disagreement is now the same as being called a liar?? IMO.. not even the same...

Simple question: IS this post TRUE???

product tester said:

The turbo is alot easier on the crank than assperated.

Click to expand...

I also do NOT see where the topic was directed at "TURBO BUILDERS" there is no mention.. of this pointed direction.. Is there?? So, again.. where did this new info come from?

gus bohne said:

So, adding airflow to an engine blows the oil thru it and off the bearings and cylinder walls Kelsey ?

I never said ANY of that... Your words not mine..


Why would anyone want to even clean the airfilter.. plug it up so as to keep the bearing happy..

?????

Whats that big puddle in the cases when we look in a turbo 2 ?? must be just GASOLINE ,,oh wait that evaporates.. what thf ??????


Again.. Are you trying to be sarcastic???? The oil IS in suspension and it MUST fall out of suspension BEFORE it can puddle inthe cases...


2 times the volume of fuel and oil = more lube to all surfaces as well as reduced operating temps from the volume of fluid in constant [wash] thru the engine.
hence the long happy powerfull lives we lead with boost..


now SHOO !

Very nice and professional!!

OOps,, And a big YOUR welcome to all the guys who thank me for my responses to this childish thread.

Click to expand...

This whole topic is a MECHANICAL and a SIMPLE mechanical topic at that.. It has nothing to do with designing turbos, big bores, heads, or anything else.. it has everything to do with mechanical load on the crank.. MANY people are qualified to answer this question.. and if there is some disagreement.. so be it.. No big deal.. but taking it to a personal level and being disrespecful to people (all) trying to help is just that.. disrespecful..

BIG JOHN said:

I completely agree:beer;...The fuel/oil you are using is WHY your running strong after 1300+ miles (fuel/timing tune must be solid too)...but for some to say theres NO difference in the life span of bearings/rods/pistons with an INCREASE of HP (BB, NOS,SC,Turbo) are kidding themselves...BJ

Click to expand...

ok, i went back the read most of this thread....and it seems igot off track and so have many others here.

- its no secret the stock M1000 has a crank problem....so???
- I saw a pump M1000 run very very well...very close with a RG M8

RKT said:

NICE.. you guys keep up the personal attacks and dragging this thread into "that" area..

This thread was NEVER about Kelsey, Big Joh, or any products, Big Bores etc..

Spin it how you want, you sell a product that is up against the turbos, correct? and you will do anything in your power to steer folks away from a turbo kit.....thats a fact, and the primary content of our phone call a couple years ago, you got owned last year with your tiny knowledge of WTF a turbo kit can and can not do...admit it dude, or continue to act as if you are above anyone on this planet....either way, i could care less....but i will always continue to step in with bogus info is tossed around

It WAS about "Is there MORE Stress on the bearings with a Boosted sled vs. a N/A sled.. " This WAS the question asked.. I POLITELY answered it and then you guys come in and say that there is LESS stress on the bearings than if it were N/A.. This IS what was said and you can read it for yourselves. Then... you take it to this new level of personal attacks.. Nice work.. congrats on that accomplishment..



Bottom line.. ANYTIME you have more HP you have MORE stress on the crank train.. This is a PROVEN fact and can NOT be denied (except by you guys)..

Yes, this should be true in my eyes...more pressure/bang/exhaust expansion/yada yada in the combustion chamber should push the piston down with greater force.....but how much?? does anyone measure flow on these engines before/after the pistons, before and after being boosted???

As for oil being blown INTO the bearings?? I asked a simple question.. I will ask again since nobody cared to answer..

1) What is to keep this added pressure from blowing the oil OFF of the bearings?
Answer??

I think you're talking about the boost pressure blowing past seals and a bearing that would push oil away from its needed area???? i dont understand the question i guess


Again, Combustion occurs at the same or VERY near the same point and time with the engine no matter how it is fed its charge.. This is also proven.. How long it burns has nothing to do with when it is ignited. Pump gas is pump gas and it will ignite and combust at the same point in time.. If it burns longer (debateable) so be it.. but the stress on the crank train comes from the added PRESSURE during the combustion process.. and more HP is ALWAYS more force on the crank

So, again, I have kept it , as always, on topic and WITHOUT ANY personal attacks.. Too bad, this is such a hard task for you guys.
Kelsey

Click to expand...

calm down suger foot, most folks will say you post very aggressive posts generally in a "i have the facts, and you all are dumb" type attitude.....so, with that said, take the white hood off if you dont want folks to call you the KKK

My thoughts are in green....just tryin to save the planet here:face-icon-small-hap

RKT said:

This is true.. BUT.. during combustion, where the stresses will be the highest no matter what form they are in.. the engine does not know nor care that how it is aspirated.. Agreed?? The combustion event occurs at the same time no matter how it is aspirated.
AND, IF the combustion produces more work on the crank, then there should be more pressure on the rod and the underlying bearings.. hence.. more stress on the crank at the point of peak cylinder pressure.

So, it stands to reason that the more pressure on the crank train.. the more pressure on the bearings..

I never stated that the bearings were under excessive amounts of stress because of the turbo.. But to claim (like a few did) that the bearings are under LESS stress with a turbo vs. N/A engine would be a stretch.. Wouldn't you agree??

And the whole: bearings being better lubricated because of "blowing oil" ???? Not likely... Wouldn't you agree?

Like More torque stated:

If you have an engine tied to a dyno and just constantly running...

Now 1st set the throttle at 1/2 throttle and run the engine.. Measure the ALL the stresses... This would be representative of the N/A engine

Now take the SAME engine and set the throttle at full throttle and measure all the stresses.. This would be representative of the forced induction.

Which set up would run longer on the dyno before failure??

The turbo is just a means to supply more air.. Nothing more.. The engine does not know nor care how it is fed this F/A charge.. It does not treat ANY F/A charge any different during combustion.. It ALWAYS treats it the same and will combust it accordingly.. The idea that there is some sort of multi timed combustion (like mentioned) is nt very probable.. The engine will combust the same no matter how it is fed its F/A charge. The point of ignition is not altered by the induction method. Agreed?


Great discussion, until people try and make it personal... The tech stuff is much more interesting and we all seem to benefit from it..

Very interested in your thoughts on this Pernikm

Thanks

Kelsey

Click to expand...

Let's start with the easiest first. Do turbos lubricate better? Way back in time there was an argument that mix gas was better than injection. The arguement was that well mixed oil would fall out of suspension when the fuel vaporized into a very fine mist that would whip around and coat things nicely. Injection tends to pool and requires air velocity through the case to whip things around. The argument against was that more oil blows through the motor and it is lost faster. I think both arguements have merrit. Since turbos force more air through the same area, velocity increase and oil will be whipped about...or out...I don't know. I can see it both ways. I ask the experts. I am running a TM8 do I turn up the oil????

This gets us to another point along the same lines. For any motor to create more HP it has to pump more air. A turbocharged engine does this with small pistons at a certain rpm. For an NA engine to pump more air it HAS to have larger pistons or spin faster. Either would load the crank due to acceleration at TDC or BDC. The piston is coming to a complete stop and going the other direction at this point in the rotation. This is clearly a non trivial difference between the motors. This is why I can spin my 800 triple at 9000 rpm for decades while bb twins don't push much past 8000 or lower! Small pistons supported by more bearings. Keep in mind that I have completely ignored compression at this point and cylinder presure. To digress a a bit, if a NA motor is making the same hp as a turbo, it would have to pumping the same amout of air through a similar area. My guess is that it would be whiping oil around similarly to a turbo. The arguement here would be if NA can make as much hp as a turbo. I am not going to step on that bomb right now.

The next argument is a fuel burn rate question and max cylinder pressure question. Fuel burn rate is proportional cylinder pressures. It is a thermodynamics thing...trust me on this...But, it is why we buy race gas. We want to dumb down the fuel so it does not burn all at once in an instant like detonation. We want a slow...or relativly slow whoosh. Since turbos blow in more air and thus more fuel it will take longer for it to burn. Initially we might expect higher pressures because of more air and higher burn rate. This is true to a point and is why people might retard the timing or run lower compression. We have to keep pressure and temperature below the point of detonation. Now, since combustion is NOT instantaneous, the volume of combustion gases is rising at a certain rate. At this time the pistion is rapidly gaining speed to its maxima at 90 deg ATDC. This is what keeps maximum cylinder pressure down in a turbo. The burning and expanding fuel is matched by the increased cyclinder volume as the piston accelerates to the point of blow down at the exhaust port. The result is not necessarily increased cylinder pressure, because we have to avoid detonation but a flatter pressure rise curve! Arguements that max pressure in the cylinder is not much higher NA vs turbo are very valid. You must keep below a certain presure in both engines or detonation will occur. The longer you can delay the max cyclinder pressure it will minimize maximum crank bending because the bending due to piston acceleration and compression and bending due to cyclinder pressure will not be additive. This will make the stesses more constant but not necessarily much higher. The arguements that the turbo people make are very valid.

It would be very interesting to see cylinder pressure vs. crank location in NA vs Turbo applications. If I had that, I bet I could put this issue to bed. Without that data, tho we are all just guessing. We sound like children. "can not"..."can too"...oh yea?...lol...

I also want to point out it takes time for the flame front to move across a bigger piston and in that time the piston has traveled quite a bit of distance. It would also have to burn the same amount of fuel by the time the pressure blows down also. This is another reason big bores don't turn extremely fast...but it clealy make thought experiments for the degree location of max cylinder pressure very difficult!!!

Again I don't declare a winner...not enough data...we sound like children!!!!!

hatchers said:

calm down suger foot, most folks will say you post very aggressive posts generally in a "i have the facts, and you all are dumb" type attitude.....so, with that said, take the white hood off if you dont want folks to call you the KKK

My thoughts are in green....just tryin to save the planet here:face-icon-small-hap

Click to expand...

Ray,

Spin it however you like..

There is ZERO mention of ANY of my products by me in this thread..

If you want to infer some hidden agenda.. that is your right.. But twisting it into something it is not... Is just unfair to ALL readers..

ALL my posts are 100% factual and I usually only enter threads where there is technical information asked for.

I do my best to help out ALL fellow riders and you NEVER see me resulting to anything other than OFFERING FREE technical support ..

And you find fault with this??

You and your group always jumps in and makes personal attacks.. and you are the wise one??.. come one..

You know I have never done anything to deserve the kind of treatment you dish out.. I have offered to speak with you on the phone several times and you ALWAYS refuse.. Now, who is the one acting holier than thou? Me or you?? I have offered and you will not accept.


Nobody is acting as if they are above anybody.. IF I was doing that I would resort to the level of the others on here and make personal attacks. I NEVER do this and hopefully never will.. You can not say the same..

If my typing "Style" comes off as arrogant.. It is 100% unintentional.... It is VERY hard to accurately type in to words what one means to say.. some do it better than others.. Apparently, My style of wording is misinterpreted.. This is an issue with all forums.. the "Tone" ,Real tone, can not be properly distinguished (except I have no problem identifying your tone).. But just because my writing style is different than yours is no reason for resulting to personal attacks.. I use to design and write tech manuals and this style is , most likely, the result of that gig.. in any case.. I will talk to anybody anytime and always offer free advice and do it to the best of my ability..

Kelsey

Its that change in the rate or ramp up of pressure that is the difference.
The rate change in the 'work area' of rod angle has to be more aggressive but still below the threshold of deto.

max cylinder pressure being significantly higher is a misnomer gleaned from blow head gaskets and strecthed studs , etc . More oftern than not these were failures due to repeated exposure to prolonged detonation.

Pressure rate of decline however,,, That. I feel is slower even though the theoretical exhaust closing period is the same. in reality we lower port open time to 196-199 if we can blow it down so period of exposure is going to be longer in the case of turbo 2's with multiport exhaust. hence my reference to longer powerstroke time.


The std engine is not built with this application in mind . ( most OEMs' disavow it completely) until the most recent past and the work the western guys have put back into them.

The thought that the rotating assy would need any special attention beyond what is the norm for hotrodders is invalid as witnessed .

It amazes me that fuelers,," I bow to Alan Johnson " can expose a simple babbit to the long duration loads they endure.
But thats just an oil wedge (hydraulic suspension ) not a rolling surface.......

Gus

take my ultra low post count for what you will.
Kelsey, you do come across as very arrogant and im not in anybodys 'group'

after reading the whole thread and drawing from my own experiance, im goin to add my .02.

crank failure can be caused by many things, but simply adding more power, turbo or na, is not usually the culprit. Harmonics, piston speed/acceleration due to long strokes, out of balance clutches, or lack of lubrication are usually the cause. this being said, turbos generally utilize stock internals and make relatively smooth power, just more of it than stock. Mess around with the already bad harmonics of many 800s(polaris anybody) by adding bore or stroke and IMO you're asking for trouble.

RKT said:

I do my best to help out ALL fellow riders and you NEVER see me resulting to anything other than OFFERING FREE technical support ..

I will talk to anybody anytime and always offer free advice and do it to the best of my ability..

Kelsey

Click to expand...

Anybody? Even me? I contacted you a few weeks ago for an M8 head and porting for a buddy and you wouldn't respond.

I actually agree with both sides on this issue and as Pernikm so elequently put it, (great post btw) this argument is very difficult to prove. It would only seem logical that more power causes more stress on the crank train. I don't think anybody can argue this. Maybe some might find it hard to believe BJ's analogy of the 1000 crank "possibly" being overengineered, but I see this in the automotive world all the time in some situations so this I can totally agree with. Sometimes things just happen to work out this way. Engineers aren't perfect (sorry Kelsey) and could've miscalc'd something that results in an overengineered part. Or maybe it's just a turbo friendly motor. At the same time, how can someone argue with Shain not having had experience with a turbo 1000 cat which is what the original question was in the first place.

Without having more data at this point, The only real world truth to this question can ONLY be answered by someone who has experience with turbo 1000 cats.

turbolq4 said:

take my ultra low post count for what you will.
Kelsey, you do come across as very arrogant and im not in anybodys 'group'

Click to expand...

This is unfortunate...because I am not like that..

I guess I may have to consider not posting on this site...

Afterall, like I said, 99% of the threads I enter, are only technical threads where I try and do my best to answer and help the fellow snowmobilier...

Anyone who has visited my website can view many tech articles that I have written for informational purposes.. Again.. I try and keep it technical and on topic...

I always offer free advice and get many pms about questions and try my best to answer all of them.. Sure some get missed from time to time.. but it is not intentional.. There are also many threads about my products and I try and answer those as well..

Oh well.. I am way too old to change my writing style.. It is unfortunate that it comes across in a bad light.. I assure you it is unintentional.. But it is what it is.. I guess it's the Engineer in me.. Like I said,,, itis hard to relay a "tone" via typing unless it is a smart A$$ one and those come out loud and clear..

In any case, You will see that I have NEVER resulted to ANY personal attacks in the 10 years I have been on this forum nor have I called anybody any names.. So, if this is arrogant.. I am surely gulity..

Having said all that.. NOBODY deserves personal and unfounded attacks against themselves or their business JUST because somebody, who has never met them, THINKS that they write in an arrogant tone and interprets one's writings as arrogant.. This , IMO, is just plain lack of respect.. So, if that is what the NORM is on SW.. then this is very unfortunate as well.
Peace...


Kelsey

turbolq4 said:

crank failure can be caused by many things, but simply adding more power, turbo or na, is not usually the culprit. Harmonics, piston speed/acceleration due to long strokes, out of balance clutches, or lack of lubrication are usually the cause. this being said, turbos generally utilize stock internals and make relatively smooth power, just more of it than stock. Mess around with the already bad harmonics of many 800s(polaris anybody) by adding bore or stroke and IMO you're asking for trouble.

Click to expand...

now this is some sweet info here:beer;

may i also add "critical speeds"....although "balance" should be the true culprit.....errr should i say a poorly engineered POS

i work with high speed 12-22K RPM big stuff so i know things on a much larger scale as we have vibration instrumentation that can be analyzer and later trim balanced, we also have various thrust indicators

at the end of the day, this sled engine stuff is not too far above lawn mower technology.....so it is what it is, and so folks make it seem difficult....and its easy to say this tiny sport can fund the real eng. force to make a better 2 stroke engine, so we got what we got.....and i love my M8:face-icon-small-hap

turbolq4 said:

take my ultra low post count for what you will.
Kelsey, you do come across as very arrogant and im not in anybodys 'group'

after reading the whole thread and drawing from my own experiance, im goin to add my .02.

crank failure can be caused by many things, but simply adding more power, turbo or na, is not usually the culprit. Harmonics, piston speed/acceleration due to long strokes, out of balance clutches, or lack of lubrication are usually the cause. this being said, turbos generally utilize stock internals and make relatively smooth power, just more of it than stock. Mess around with the already bad harmonics of many 800s(polaris anybody) by adding bore or stroke and IMO you're asking for trouble.

Click to expand...

Acutally...Kelsey has always been friendly to me...I might put him in the passionate category...but we all are about this sport...I would agree with the rest of your post.

RKT said:

I always offer free advice and get many pms about questions and try my best to answer all of them.. Sure some get missed from time to time.. but it is not intentional..




Kelsey

Click to expand...

I'm sure with our past experience's it may have well been intentional considering during our war, they never got missed. No biggy.

Honestly, I really didn't view anything as personal attacks on here Kelsey. I think they were only trying to add a little dry humor to the thread due to the fact that they indeed have experience with a turbo Cat 1000. Like I stated earlier, I completely agree with your assesment, however these guys do have real world testing and that's very hard to argue with. Unless one doesn't believe them.