Bearings with pg turbo 1000

product tester · Nov 5, 2009

Radski30 said:
I disagree!!! I have ran both, and have ridden with guys that Turbo them and Big Bore Aspirated. I think the thing to look for with a crank, is to look at the crank Seal by the clutch. If the seal leaks, because a belt took it out, then your probably going to loose the crank at some point...Find out what kind of oil has been ran in it...My cousin ran Blue Marble, and took his crank out. Was under warranty (luckily) but when they replaced it, the bearings were very dry and was not lubricated well. Lets just say he won't be running Blue Marble anymore. I know for a fact that My Turbo will be putting a tremendous amount of stress on the crank, bearings, rods, pistons, simply because I am going to try to run 20 to 22 lbs of boost through it.

By the end of the year, I would bet I will have to put another crank in it...or have a custom billet crank made. You won't see any Naturally Aspirated sled put this kind of pressure on a crank. I think anything above 8 lbs of boost is more pressure than most big bores out there.

I also agree with kelsy. Motor work first, then turbo. This is the best way to make the whole system the most efficient.

Product Tester, Can't wait to run that D8T that I saw at the snowmobile show in SLC...It will be fun blowing past you!!!! :face-icon-small-hap

Deto is also very hard on cranks from what I have seen the skidoo crank is the most vonerable from deto more boost wont be harder on the crank but there will be a lot better chance of deto. if you deto at that boost it will happen faster than you can let off. (4 seasons ago I went through 10 pistions on the same crank on my m7 all at 12 to 15 #s of boost one brooke the skirt put 3000 miles on the sled, sold it and its still running if that was a big bore that crank would have been toast.)
It will be fun watching you blow past me.

Snowstar · Nov 5, 2009

Why didnt you stop in and say hi and introduce yourself Radski?

RKT · Nov 5, 2009

product tester said:
RKT when you pull a cyclender off there is a puddle of oil in the bottom thats the oil that gets forced everywhere when you boost thats on top of what is mixed in the fuel. ya you had a turbo along time ago before turbos were cool things have changed, back then you worked on them for 3 days and rode 1 thats why you got rid of it now you install a kit and ride all season. .

Ya know , Shain, You always try and turn it personal.. and now you have insight as to what my experiences were with my turbo running.. Nice!! The fact is, you have idea what my experiences were when I ran the turbo.

My turbo engine NEVER burned down and I only worked on it 1 time, then I rebuilt the turbo with Steve Packer and sold it.
It was a pull the rope and go sled... Just like most of Garr's turbo kits.. This one was very solid right until I decided to silicone some areas for better seal and sucked a piece of Silicone through my turbo and wasted it..

Crank never failed.. Sled ran great for the 2 years I ran it..

I am not going to argue with you on the oil forcing thing.. You have your opinion, I have mine..

As for the crank stress.. I will stick by my statement, that ANYTIME you add more pressure to the rod, there will be more stress on the crank.. This is a proven fact and engine builders know this.. Try hammering a nail with a small hammer and then try it with a heavy mallet.. tell me which one drive the nail further, faster?

Kelsey

JHG · Nov 5, 2009

RKT said:
Ya know , Shain, You always try and turn it personal..

I don't think his "3 days of work to 1 day of riding" was a personal attack towards you. It seemed more like a general discription of that era of turbos. Kind of like boats back in the day, you used to spend 3 hours working on it for every hour it was in the water. Not so much the case anymore.

mmsports · Nov 5, 2009

any one need more.

mmsports said:
Popcorn Please

More popcorn please...

ccpowder · Nov 5, 2009

RKT said:
As for the crank stress.. I will stick by my statement, that ANYTIME you add more pressure to the rod, there will be more stress on the crank.. This is a proven fact and engine builders know this.. Try hammering a nail with a small hammer and then try it with a heavy mallet.. tell me which one drive the nail further, faster?

Kelsey

Don't think anyone would dispute this. I think Shain's point is that alot of crank failures are due to lubrication issues. I think Shain is saying the Turbo forces oil everywhere providing a better, more balanced lubrication to all parts.

I agree, the turbo comment was not personal, just that Turbo technology has come a long ways....

RKT · Nov 5, 2009

ccpowder said:
Don't think anyone would dispute this. I think Shain's point is that alot of crank failures are due to lubrication issues. I think Shain is saying the Turbo forces oil everywhere providing a better, more balanced lubrication to all parts.

I agree, the turbo comment was not personal, just that Turbo technology has come a long ways....

CC turbo technology has really not come that far.. The addition of fuel injection helps out some, but the carb'd 2 stroke turbos ran outstanding. We actually won the 500ft West Yellowstone Snow Drags 1 year in the open mod with an 2001 800 CAT Turbo..

In any case, the whole "oil being forced" idea is not valid IMO

There is NO direction for this oil to magically follow a path to all the bearings..
Think about it .. When you take you air hose and spray oil, will it all form together and travel along a predetermined path? OR will it just spread out and blow everywhere??

You ONLY need oil on the bearings and cylinder walls.. The cylinder walls are handled via the piston. the bottom end is gravity fed and can be directed due to gravity. Blowing oil all over the place in the bottom end does not make it magically appear on the bearings.. I do not doubt for a minute that it may get blown around with added airflow.. but to state that it ends up in all the right places is simply a stretch..
Answer this.. What is to keep this oil from being BLOWN OFF the bearings?? After all, the air is not directed either?? Think about it..

Anyway...the cranks are stressed more with ANYTHING that produces more thrust on the crank.

Kelsey

Radski30 · Nov 5, 2009

Snowstar said:
Why didnt you stop in and say hi and introduce yourself Radski?

I figured if I let you know who I was, that I may get shot, or something bad might happen. Just know I stopped and talked to you and that shorter fellow wiith the camo hat for about 20 min.

Can't wait for snow!!!! I will post pics of what Mr. Product Tester is going face on the mountain.

Radski30 · Nov 5, 2009

product tester said:
Deto is also very hard on cranks from what I have seen the skidoo crank is the most vonerable from deto more boost wont be harder on the crank but there will be a lot better chance of deto. if you deto at that boost it will happen faster than you can let off. (4 seasons ago I went through 10 pistions on the same crank on my m7 all at 12 to 15 #s of boost one brooke the skirt put 3000 miles on the sled, sold it and its still running if that was a big bore that crank would have been toast.)
It will be fun watching you blow past me.

I sure hope my crank doesn't go bad while I race that D8T...It would certainly be a HORRIBLE sight getting pulled off the Mountain by a Shain Stainger Custom D8 Turbo.

That would just make me sick to my stomach...

product tester · Nov 5, 2009

Wow kelsey You managed to argue with me all day on here and I wasnt even here. he he he
I make this easy I was not talking about your turbo in general just ones I rode with in the day when you had yours I didnt even know anyone or should I say rode with anyone that had turbos I do know I rode with you a couple times and you were not on your turbo you were allways on your bb.
so if you rode your 800 for 2 years and didnt have any crank trouble and my first ride on my 900 mc I twisted my crank got a new one had it welded and rode it all year sold it at the end of the year and as soon as the new buyer go it on the snow he put bluemarble in it and went 20 miles and lost a rod bearing Stock compression and cyclenders. even your results compaired to mine in the same motor told us turbos are easyier on cranks.
or did your turbo 800 not put out the same if not alot more power than my stock 900?

product tester · Nov 5, 2009

Radski30 said:
I sure hope my crank doesn't go bad while I race that D8T...It would certainly be a HORRIBLE sight getting pulled off the Mountain by a Shain Stainger Custom D8 Turbo.

That would just make me sick to my stomach...

Why are you worried about your crank?

428PONY · Nov 5, 2009

Kelsey is right more thrust means more stress. Correct tune to include timing, fuel delivery and compression ration is key. Incorrect timing with air velocity turn your cylider into a blow torch. Ford svo said a triton v10 would not live at 16psi boost. Yet today i drive one on a daily basis at 26psi. Stock rods collapsed at 750hp. Stock piston failure at 809hp. So stress does happen on rod. That is why a boosted piston is usually designed different than a na piston including ring gap.

Going West · Nov 5, 2009

product tester said:
Wow kelsey You managed to argue with me all day on here and I wasnt even here. he he he
I make this easy I was not talking about your turbo in general just ones I rode with in the day when you had yours I didnt even know anyone or should I say rode with anyone that had turbos I do know I rode with you a couple times and you were not on your turbo you were allways on your bb.
so if you rode your 800 for 2 years and didnt have any crank trouble and my first ride on my 900 mc I twisted my crank got a new one had it welded and rode it all year sold it at the end of the year and as soon as the new buyer go it on the snow he put bluemarble in it and went 20 miles and lost a rod bearing Stock compression and cyclenders. even your results compaired to mine in the same motor told us turbos are easyier on cranks.
or did your turbo 800 not put out the same if not alot more power than my stock 900?

Sounds like you had some problems with your crank but its a little unfair to say its cause its NA. I have over 5000 miles on my lightly modded 900 and its been thru 4 top end failures, countless blown clutches and belts (I once had a fist size chunk of clutch blow out the front of the sled and shoot 50 yards up the hill) , and the crank is still fine. We have never had a crank go south on any of the 15 modded NA sleds that my family has owned over the past 9 years, so its not like there spitting out cranks every year.

Any time hp is add there is more stress on the rotating assemble, however the turbo is able to act on the piston for a longer duration so the added stress is not as great as with a BB or nitrous which is more of an instant hit. JMO:beer;

product tester · Nov 5, 2009

well I do know that I went threw a at least one crank every year 3 with my 1150 in one year and after I went turbo I have not lost one.

backcountryislife · Nov 5, 2009

Going West said:
the turbo is able to act on the piston for a longer duration so the added stress is not as great as with a BB or nitrous which is more of an instant hit. JMO:beer;

Can someone explain this for me. I get what Kelsey is saying, combustion is combustion, same fuel to same fuel, burn time should be the same right? So how does the turbo act on the piston longer?
Other examples were made with race gas, but I get that, I'm talking simply 91 NA to 91 turbo.

?

gus bohne · Nov 6, 2009

Whats really hard on crnaks and rods is deto and preignition.
adding power to the base of any engine will reduce its expected intervals for maintnence .

When turbocharged, the window to operate at higher power output is much wider than normally aspirated. we can be happilly ripping along at 11.1 on the o2 gauge and still be well within the window of no deto and no preignition.

If we need or want more power ,, up the boost a few pounds and stay rich on fuel and Still be ripping it up for years without issue ..
WHY ??

LIMITS<< without boost you have a set limit of power availible . to get as much out of the limited power you tune it tighter, more compression, more timing and leaner jetting to get what you want.
Now, because you are working that to its MAX safe limits you are on the threshold of deto and with that comes rod and crank damage.

When tuned properly you avoid this , but we all want to beat our buddies and those we just can't stand !!

Boosted engines when tuned for durability are proving each season to be much easier on cranks and all other related engine components than was expected.

We don't even have to weld a DOO crank, they won't move without a catastrophic failure..

blowing belts is the worst enemy a crank has. Cats are the weakest to that failure..damn roller bearing pto ends suck.

In closing, the turbos are much easier on cranks than high compression non boosted engines .. its just the way it is..

Burnspeed and flame travel increase with pressure. the force exerted on the piston is not acting on it any later than under normally aspriated.. the force PRIOR to tdc IS higher due to more efficient cylinder filling. That is how the cumulative force is increased and the output goes up.

Heat production in the pipe however IS longer than without boost. Thsi energy is what drives the turbo, AND gives that little extra that shows when on the dyno..

the tuning peak rpm moves up due to heat and pressure. the resonance goes up too. Drag race turbos will show 110% at 14 psi . thats a nice gain..

Keep boostin

Gus

Snowstar · Nov 6, 2009

^^^ Well said Gus.

RKT · Nov 6, 2009

Burnspeed and flame travel increase with pressure. the force exerted on the piston is not acting on it any later than under normally aspriated.. the force PRIOR to tdc IS higher due to more efficient cylinder filling. That is how the cumulative force is increased and the output goes up.

Exactly.. My point.. you would have dual combustion if this was not the case.

As for the turbo being easier on the crank.. I will still, respectfully, disagree, The force on the rod WILL be higher, if it were not, there would not be anymore power produced..

Gus, we both know that neither you nor I can measure this force onthe crank so, your guess is as good as mine. Ther eis NO proof one way or the other to support either of our theories... And just because a few turbo cranks out lasted a few N/A cranks is NOT a case for any conclusions to be drawn..

You said...

are proving each season to be much easier on cranks and all other related engine components than was expected.

Nice wording.. But the "as expected" portion is clearly noted.. You expected it to be MUCH harder on the crank train and you are finding out it is not as hard as you EXPECTED.. But, I think even you can admit that the crank trainis seeing more stress than its N/A counterpart?? Agreed?

Nice write up
Kelsey

gus bohne · Nov 6, 2009

Kels, Its obvious you dislike turbos, We will keep on enjoying ours, you keep on enjoying yours.
I don't get on your 860 thread and poo poo on you and the big bore game.
Have the same respect for those of us who love our turbos.
You have your reasons why, I and others have theirs as well.

Shain is far from wrong with his evaluation of cranktrain life .. More cranks are lost without boost than with.. but thats sheer numbers.

More crank and rod prep is done in the non boosted world due to the poor harmonics and running in detonation to get that last hp.. solid mounts, operating rpm ranges raised 1000+.. all lead to potential catasrophy..

crank balance, riciprocating mass, opertating rpm window.. ALL stay OEM and THAT makes it less of a potential root of a failure than changing of rpm, reciprocating mass and crank balance.

If I can get the master " bob Bergeron" father of all 2 stroke turbos,, to let us reprint and post his 1980 SAE findings on this topic and his awards for being the first to sucessfully turbo 2 strokes I will..
Just the 1980-90 Land and Sea catalogs have some of this printed in them for the outboard customers of the day.."RIP Baron Cooley""
flying v bottom speed record crusher 1983..133mph, 22ft velocity hull. 2.4 litre v6 merc with 2 aero old .325 vein 99's. Pre 66 series size turbos. Yes we had those back then and they were just less sexy looking than todays unit..

In that time, Bob was the man, today there are many with more current knowledge and experiences.
There is a market for almost everyone. lets play nice.

No disresect meant to anyone.. its all good and all fun.
Carry on
Gus

RKT · Nov 6, 2009

Gus, Obviously, you interpret my writing different than I intend.. Ther ei sno Poo Poo ing on this thread by me or anybody else.. What there is is a discrepancy as to whether the turbo allows the crank to live longer than a N/A crank.

I have NO dislike for turbos... I ran them for years.. They are fun, but they are not for everyone.. neither are Big bore sleds.

As for the crank train being LESS stressed because of the induction type.. .. Yes, I disagree with this 100% and apparently there is no proof otherwise except that there are more N/A sled out there than turbo sleds probably 50,000:1 ratio,, So simply by the law of averages.. there will be more N/A crank failures.. Simple law of averages. But you know this..

Again, I am all ears for some proof, other than "I have had less failures with turbo cranks than N/A cranks (see law of averages above)"
that placing more load on a rod will make it more "happy"

There are others in this thread that are and have agreed with me....

Like I said, if you have proof that defies the law of physics (we do not need to quote the physics laws do we??) and shows that the turbo is easier on cranks.. I will gladly retract my statements and issue a big apology.. Until then, I have to go with Newton and his findings..

As for this:

by gus bohne..I don't get on your 860 thread and poo poo on you and the big bore game.

You are in my BB threads..

Anyway.. I have shown NO DISRESPECT... in fact read my first post and the 1st sentence.. I will paste

Quote:
Originally Posted by product tester View Post
The turbo is a lot easier on the crank than asperated because of the smooth power and everytime you boost it forces the oil everywhere.

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

I am simply applying Newton's Laws and correlating them with my experiences. Nothing more..
Now, you state that Newton was wrong... I am all ears...

Kelsey

gus bohne said:
Kels, Its obvious you dislike turbos, We will keep on enjoying ours, you keep on enjoying yours.
I don't get on your 860 thread and poo poo on you and the big bore game.
Have the same respect for those of us who love our turbos.
You have your reasons why, I and others have theirs as well.

Shain is far from wrong with his evaluation of cranktrain life .. More cranks are lost without boost than with.. but thats sheer numbers.

More crank and rod prep is done in the non boosted world due to the poor harmonics and running in detonation to get that last hp.. solid mounts, operating rpm ranges raised 1000+.. all lead to potential catasrophy..

crank balance, riciprocating mass, opertating rpm window.. ALL stay OEM and THAT makes it less of a potential root of a failure than changing of rpm, reciprocating mass and crank balance.

If I can get the master " bob Bergeron" father of all 2 stroke turbos,, to let us reprint and post his 1980 SAE findings on this topic and his awards for being the first to sucessfully turbo 2 strokes I will..
Just the 1980-90 Land and Sea catalogs have some of this printed in them for the outboard customers of the day.."RIP Baron Cooley""
flying v bottom speed record crusher 1983..133mph, 22ft velocity hull. 2.4 litre v6 merc with 2 aero old .325 vein 99's. Pre 66 series size turbos. Yes we had those back then and they were just less sexy looking than todays unit..

In that time, Bob was the man, today there are many with more current knowledge and experiences.
There is a market for almost everyone. lets play nice.

No disresect meant to anyone.. its all good and all fun.
Carry on
Gus

Bearings with pg turbo 1000

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Similar threads