Bearings with pg turbo 1000

BigAir · Nov 6, 2009

I think the discrepancy here is that Gus (and Shain) is comparing a turbo engine making 220 hp to a BB making 220 hp. Using the same base engine.

I think Kelsey is comparing a stock 170 hp engine to a 220 hp turbo engine.

gus bohne · Nov 6, 2009

Newtons so called prehistoric law's of physics are currently be disputed by many with proof and are being found wrong.

What they have to do with this is beyond poor little old me .

As for sir isaac, when you write the formula, your answers are always correct.
right sir isaac ??

as for the comparison, 170 safely tuned, vs 220 safely tuned. is meaninless. neither will be hurting anything,, working yes, hurting NO.

Still got no crank troubles at 20 psi on the little 8oo rev. Now we'll see if I can stretsch some 1000 rods at 30 psi.. Stay away from detonation and I will be smiling all season..

Shain, I used 5 '' sewer line from turbo to charge box.....LOL
no no jss kiddin, but I do have 5/8ths fuel line to the regulator.. big aeromotive a 1000 pump..
gotta move fuel to feed the beast...2.7 ns assy's too.
i am serious about the 30 psi .

Gus

gus

RKT · Nov 6, 2009

gus bohne said:
Newtons so called prehistoric law's of physics are currently be disputed by many with proof and are being found wrong.

YUP. I have been trying to finish a book for a while now regarding that very subject.. and what they are saying makes sense.. But these laws that they are question, are not the law we are questioning.. In any case this is neither here nor there... I do think that Newton is not 100% on everything..but I am not here to dispute Newton.. we have you and Shain for that.

Simple fact...

The Yami Turbo guys install Carillo rods on their high boosted sleds. WHY? because the added stress with high boost, will cause STOCK rod failure. If , indeed, the turbo is EASIER (as you say) on the crank train.. then these Yami guys are going to be able to save a ton of money. Can't wait to tell them the good news.

But, I suspect,they have found that the Carillo Rods are required to avoid failure.... WHY?? Because the stress is higher..not lower..

Anyway.. great topic.. Sorry you guys take it personal.. and try to turn it into something it is not..

I'm out.. you guys are right.. I'm wrong.. the Yami guys are going to be very happy with this new revelation..

Kelsey

gus bohne · Nov 6, 2009

Oh,, so now we're jumping out of 2 strokes and heading down 4 stroke lane ,,

Reading is fundamental.??? then the topic is still 1000 twin 2 stroke cat..

How does the yamahog 4 stroke relate to this topic. much lighter rods unless I'm wrong again ?
Not taking it any more personal than anyone being called a liar.
The yamaha guys are NOT changing rods for pumpgas boost there Sir Isaac..Oh no, My 03 rx1 simons turbo trail sled must be ready to blow !!! 4500 miles at 8 psi and I must be cheating death.

keep jumping feet there king...you'll be jojo dancer in no time..

see ya ...

Gus newtons newest law !!! chit,, I fell off the earth...

MCIVER · Nov 6, 2009

RKT said:
. 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

I like this but think its more like this. the na motor or "hammer" is rite, but the turbo motor is more like a slowly increasing push on the nail due to spool up time, not instant impact of power.

I don't know...what do you think? sounds good in my head lol..

RKT · Nov 6, 2009

MCIVER said:
I like this but think its more like this. the na motor or "hammer" is rite, but the turbo motor is more like a slowly increasing push on the nail due to spool up time, not instant impact of power.

I don't know...what do you think? sounds good in my head lol..

Check the head..LOL j/k

There is no spool up time IN THE ENGINE!!
This is why the whole theory that the turbo is easier loading is off.. Again.. NO spool in the engine.. ALL spooling is done at the turbo.. ALL a turbo accomplishes is to feed the engine more air than the engine could take on from an airbox vented to the atmosphere.

The impact on the piston is completely independent on what the turbo is doing (spooling etc)

The engine has no clue nor cares how it is fed.. It just take the charge and converts it to work on the crank..

So, in short, 8000 rpms is 8000 rpms regardless how how it is aspirated..

Combustion is combustion regardless of how it is aspirated..

Stress or rod loading is directly related to the push on the piston regardless of how it is aspirated.

More power is more rod loading.. This has been proven millions of times , if not more

Kelsey (Sir Issac)

gus bohne · Nov 6, 2009

Sir Isaac.. I love it..LOL

Is this a finish hammer, deadblow or are we talking SLEDGE !?

Tonysnoo · Nov 6, 2009

RKT said:
Y 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

Kind of an interesting thread. This nail analogy is great, and appropriate. I believe the Kelsey is correct that a bigger mallet (Turboed engine) is going to do more work and stress the nail to bury it in deeper. But I also believe that the smaller hammer (NA mod engine) wants to do as much work as the big mallet so it has to hit the nail more times with more chances to bend it. I think that is what I hear Gus saying, when he talked about running the ragged edge.

At least that is what I think I'm hearing both sides of this "debate" saying.

Thanks for all of you guys and your williness to educate us!

more-torque · Nov 6, 2009

This is quite an amusing thread for sure. It sounds like some of the absurd comments have been to yank Kelsey's chain. But in case there is some newby, or mind full of mush that would actually beieve that making more power, or flowing more air would make your crank last longer, don't be fooled by anyones "clever" use of the english language.
All foolishness and humor aside, the crank life of a motor at 8500rpm at 1/4 throttle will be much longer than the same motor WOT at the same rpm. More power (associated with additional airflow) will decrease the life of the crankshaft.
There are other factors that could skew this observation. And they might contribue to misconseptions about cranklife being extended by added hp. And such factors can mask reality.
Deto, poor lubrication etc. will kill any crank prematurely. That is not the issue at hand. And to assume that the added airflow of the turbo magically adds oil distribution to the crank in a way that overcomes the wear of the added stress of more hp is just wrong. It is the same incorrect assumption that the WOT motor at full power will have better cranklife than the same motor at 1/4 throttle. It is the same comparison as a naturally aspirated motor vrs. a turbocharged motor.
I really have to wonder if someone here has stock in Crankworks, or Twister Crankshaft. And they have indicated that turbo/mod sled motors are providing plenty of business. Lol
It might be that some might try to make this BB vrs Turbo discussion. But it is a fact that poor motor setups might contribute to undue crank stress, But in general, more power=sooner component falure. Simple as that.

gus bohne · Nov 6, 2009

I agree wholeheartedly,
The debate was not that it extends usefull life, but that its no more detrimental than other mods that increase power to somewhat similar Lower levels.
Once the big numbers are on the board the skew of thing lean towards pressure charging as there is a thermal limit to compression, and pipe dynamics as well as rpm ceilings.
Kool that many of guys are grasping the directions each of us is coming from.. I enjoy this group more than any other sled board.
But I love turbo 2's
And it is debate and banter yes, no ill will.
If we were all together there would be no yelling,just debate and discussion.

and an order of poutine !

Gus

RKT · Nov 6, 2009

more-torque said:
This is quite an amusing thread for sure. It sounds like some of the absurd comments have been to yank Kelsey's chain. But in case there is some newby, or mind full of mush that would actually beieve that making more power, or flowing more air would make your crank last longer, don't be fooled by anyones "clever" use of the english language.
All foolishness and humor aside, the crank life of a motor at 8500rpm at 1/4 throttle will be much longer than the same motor WOT at the same rpm. More power (associated with additional airflow) will decrease the life of the crankshaft.
There are other factors that could skew this observation. And they might contribue to misconseptions about cranklife being extended by added hp. And such factors can mask reality.
Deto, poor lubrication etc. will kill any crank prematurely. That is not the issue at hand. And to assume that the added airflow of the turbo magically adds oil distribution to the crank in a way that overcomes the wear of the added stress of more hp is just wrong.
It is the same incorrect assumption that the WOT motor at full power will have better cranklife than the same motor at 1/4 throttle. It is the same comparison as a naturally aspirated motor vrs. a turbocharged motor.
I really have to wonder if someone here has stock in Crankworks, or Twister Crankshaft. And they have indicated that turbo/mod sled motors are providing plenty of business. Lol
It might be that some might try to make this BB vrs Turbo discussion. But it is a fact that poor motor setups might contribute to undue crank stress, But in general, more power=sooner component falure. Simple as that.

Great post More-torque... I high-lighted the finer points in color above in the quote..

So, it sounds like Gus now agrees with this?????..

Go figure...

Anyway.. it was a good discussion.. much info was put out there and ,HOPEFULLY, the idea that a turbo is more easy on the crank and that oil is magically distributed to the bearings due to boost pressures has been put to rest and found untrue.. Simply wrong information.. Sounds pretty cool though.. but unfounded...

After all, Gus agrees, More-Torque concurs, and Kelsey Newton sees it that way also..

I think both Gus and I love the tech discussions..

Kelsey

product tester · Nov 6, 2009

kelsy you are deffinately the smartest guy in the world on 2 strokes and your right and now I lie when I state personal experiance or opinion.
at least you had all day to spend checking this thread. I wish I could have argued with you all day but no time sorry Maybe next summer.

Radski30 · Nov 6, 2009

product tester said:
kelsy you are deffinately the smartest guy in the world on 2 strokes and your right and now I lie when I state personal experiance or opinion.
at least you had all day to spend checking this thread. I wish I could have argued with you all day but no time sorry Maybe next summer.

Poor old Product Tester...Why does Everybody have to Pick on good ole Product Tester...

I do agree 150% with Kelsie on this one. Product Tester...I have seen more Crank Failures in Turbo Sleds than that of NA sleds. I ran a DD 1010 kit in my King Cat and that thing ran awesome. There wasn't a NA sled that would run with it, except 1150's. Ran at least 2000 miles on that crank. I sold that sled to a friend of mine and the crank is still running good.

More Pressure=More issues with parts. I have witnessed it first hand. I think that the issue that causes the most wear and damage is moisture in the fuel, poor lubrication, and poor tuning (Lean conditions, poor clutch ect). All three at any given time can create heat on the crank. Heat causes wear on the bearings and can set the crank out of tolerance. The clutch out of Balance creates more pressure and heat on the crank. The seal missing Causes more heat on the crank. Poor quality of oil...causes more heat, Thus putting much more opportunity for wear and tear on the crank.

The funny thing is about this dramatic thread, is WHO REALLY CARES!!!! I feel Dang lucky to even have a sled that could possibly break a crank. I just hope it doesn't break when I am drag racing that Shain Stanger Custome D8 Turbo, Cause I am going to be pushing so much boost that it just may go CA BOOM!!! Then I would have to be towed out by that Custom D8T.

That would just make me sick.

428PONY · Nov 6, 2009

On Kelsey's defense if more horsepower does not load crank or rods why then do we pin, tru and or weld cranks to stay true. Any addition of HP or torque is just that more load. More load means extra stress. Does not matter four stroke or two stroke. Pedal a bike on flat ground takes little effort, pedal bike up a steep hill to maintain same speed and tell me the load on the pedal is not more. If you say no than you are are not making any horsepower so then it really does not matter. Thanks for the educated imput Kelsey.

Rms Rydning · Nov 7, 2009

I have been thinking some times what loads the crank mostly of having a turbo charged engine with stock rpm and the same engine tuned for max NA hp with much higer rpm? What is the worst of torque and sentrifugal force?

Food for thoughts...

gus bohne · Nov 7, 2009

Sorry if my post was misunderstood.
Yes, there is more load applied but NO it is not the same nor is it as detrimental to crank life or any other components life.

I have come to the conclusion that RKT is always right, knows more than anyone .. nuff said,

I repeat, no more personal Kelsey than me calling you a liar as you are towards myself and shane.. good luck with the cranks and pistons ..

resent:

cylinder pressure rise time is quite different when comparing the 2 types of induction. Thus the differences in rod load and the amplitude of the load on the crank pins.

You take the high( compression ) road I'll take the High (boost ) road and we'll see who spits a crank out first !!!!

product tester · Nov 7, 2009

Radski30 said:
Poor old Product Tester...Why does Everybody have to Pick on good ole Product Tester...

I do agree 150% with Kelsie on this one. Product Tester...I have seen more Crank Failures in Turbo Sleds than that of NA sleds. I ran a DD 1010 kit in my King Cat and that thing ran awesome. There wasn't a NA sled that would run with it, except 1150's. Ran at least 2000 miles on that crank. I sold that sled to a friend of mine and the crank is still running good.

More Pressure=More issues with parts. I have witnessed it first hand. I think that the issue that causes the most wear and damage is moisture in the fuel, poor lubrication, and poor tuning (Lean conditions, poor clutch ect). All three at any given time can create heat on the crank. Heat causes wear on the bearings and can set the crank out of tolerance. The clutch out of Balance creates more pressure and heat on the crank. The seal missing Causes more heat on the crank. Poor quality of oil...causes more heat, Thus putting much more opportunity for wear and tear on the crank.

The funny thing is about this dramatic thread, is WHO REALLY CARES!!!! I feel Dang lucky to even have a sled that could possibly break a crank. I just hope it doesn't break when I am drag racing that Shain Stanger Custome D8 Turbo, Cause I am going to be pushing so much boost that it just may go CA BOOM!!! Then I would have to be towed out by that Custom D8T.

That would just make me sick.

Lets put it this way radski and kelsey with a bb the or na motor the first thing you do is pin or weld the crank for durability. On the four strokes they do rods and pistions I dont know any two strokes that have diffrent rods.
I also dont know anyone that runs a turbo 2 stoke m series that welds or pins there cranks. I also dont know anyone that has a m turbo that lost a crank due to added power. on my mc 900 I never ran it lean not once I put good oil and mixed it 40 to one it was the most durrable na sled I ever had
only 1 900 could beat it and that was one Brent Linderman built.
Call Brent and ask him how the turbos compair to na on crank issues he will say the exact same thing as Gus and I.
oh and Radski if ya dont mind my restrooms need restocking.

Boyko · Nov 7, 2009

I total agree with Shane and Gus with the idea that some pressure in the bottom end is going to grease the bearings up more. Your bearings are under load there are X amount of pressure on the bearings to the races and it is all riding on a film of oil. Boost it and you got X amount of pressure in that film of oil now. How is that not going to work?

Got to like how some folk are slamming the Idea of how boost creates less stress on your crank. Well that is not was said and if it was I sure do not believe the person meant it. As stated before Boost does not create as much stress on a engine as you would think that is why in most cases you can get away with 12psi with a stock rotating assembly with good tuning and proper octane. You want big numbers on your boost gauge your probably going to have to do some work to your 4-stroke. 2-strokes seem to be more durable in this area as opposed to the 4-stroke.

Gus, I like your point on how engineers (smart ones) that design theses engines spend some good time to get the harmonics and balancing in order, a turbo uses this. What is the biggest 2 cylinder Yamaha sled 2-stroke? I know a guy that has gotten 10000 km out of a 600 and that crank is still rotating.

30psi, you say, Gus you’re a madman

Proven · Nov 7, 2009

product tester said:
oh and Radski if ya dont mind my restrooms need restocking.

I don't care who you are .....that's FUNNY:beer;

RKT · Nov 7, 2009

Boyko said:
I total agree with Shane and Gus with the idea that some pressure in the bottom end is going to grease the bearings up more. Your bearings are under load there are X amount of pressure on the bearings to the races and it is all riding on a film of oil. Boost it and you got X amount of pressure in that film of oil now. How is that not going to work?

Simple question.. What is to stop this added pressure from blowing the oil OFF of the bearings?? How is this oil directed?

Got to like how some folk are slamming the Idea of how boost creates less stress on your crank. Well that is not was said and if it was I sure do not believe the person meant it.

by productester. The turbo is alot easier on the crank than assperated because of the smooth power and everytime you boost it forces the oil everywhere.

This is exactly what was said... see above..

Gus, Shain

You want to make this personal?? It is all on you.. I have never disrespected you in any of my posts.. You can not say the same.
If you are looking for me to take it to the personal level.. you might get their ..but for now, I choose the higher ,more respectful, road.. and will keep it purely technical.
ALL I am doing is TRYING to keep the information correct.. Some people rely on these type of threads for info and if there is wrong info, like posted above, then it should be noted.. I have not yet resorted to the personal attack levels that you guys are taking it to.. and I hopefully never will.. IMO, it is totally uncalled for.. but.. I guess that is just me.

Carry on..

Kelsey

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

Similar threads