Turbos

[werase643]

Sledge, make it 6 months

he said he would do it this winter

[rangerbrown]

guys, i know what your saying. but here is another factor, to factor in but just for shaZam! and giggles what bike right off the show room floor right now do you think would be better. that cost less than lets say 9k. after your responce i will pose my next question.

Since everyone else is always honest here, I will be too.

This is stupid, if you ask me.  Especially on a bike as nice as Rangerbrown's.   That is my opinion and nobody gives a rat's ass, but I never state my opinion, so I thought I would.  You could easily buy a bike more flickable and with more power than a GS500 with a turbo.  It would be different if his bike was a cobbed out 89 model.  I still don't think your friends will think it is cool, even if you pull it off, which you won't. 

yo sorry im with jake d, if you want more power than upgrade, if not learn to be happy with what ya have and can do with out spending a rediculous amount of $$$

[werase643]

http://powersports.honda.com/motorcycles/sport/model.asp?ModelName=919&ModelYear=2005&ModelId=CB900F5&bhcp=1

looks like 8399$


or something similar from yamaha

[rangerbrown]

give me a few mins and i will be right back with you

[sledge]

Just updated Outlook.......13 Jan 07.

[werase643]

personally I would never spend(piss) that much on a bike
i'm more 2-3k max

[rangerbrown]

ok that bike under the same insureer that i have now,

is 2500$ very 12 months fully covered plus payments

were as my gs is only 230 a year fully coverd and is payed off.


so that is the big factor here.

[werase643]

until you tell them it is turbocharged....or you get in an accident and the adjuster sees the turbo

actually they will only pay out on the base bike normally and at present ACV
so turbo away

word of advice
to keep people from beating you down.....don't tell, until you are finished
PM one or two who have the knowledge..but keep it quiet

I'm installing a 87 chevy sprint(SUZUKI) turbo 3 cylinder into a 1959 sprite.....but i don't post it on the sprite site....they would tell me i'm a friggin moron

yes, i have the FWD engine mounted to a RWD tranny.....have to make a new LOG manifold to relocate the turbo

[onefastgs500]

ken is that a bug-eye or no?i love austins

[niteshade]

Yeah, ditto that.  I was installing a '98 Specialized turbo on my '85 Schwinn.  Schwinn guys thought i was nuts., but hey, I got all the way up to 0.25 HP!

[werase643]

Yes Lee, it is ...was.... a rusted out turd bugeye with a 1275
the ONLY good thing were the spring perches and rear qtrs

it was a parts car i saved for bastardization purposes....why start with a nice one and destroy it....hint hint....ranger

[rangerbrown]

yea i was trying to be hush hush about it, but the latest rush of turbo questions brought it to light much sooner than i wanted. like i said, it will be a while.

[werase643]

I got a cute turbo....bout the size of my fist....itty bitty

[Queso]

i mean a bike is a toy not a main mod of transportation. and if it is. then i feel sorry for you.

I am pitied 

But I like my bike. It's a useful toy, and a heck of a lot better in heavy traffic than all the cages that crawl around rush hour.

[saxman]

haven't posted on here in quite some time... but a turbo post is always a good way to bring me out of the woodworks...


when discussing the stress on the bottom end components caused by adding a turbo motor, you have to examine how the force is applied, when maximum stress occurs, and the rev range that it occurs at.

On a piston driven motor, the rods and crank are basically subject to two main loads... the inertial load, and the power load. Inertial load is basically a result of the acceleration of the piston towards the center of stroke, and is expontetially proportional to the rpm. The power load is a result of combustion in the chamber. Now during the power stroke in the motor, the power load from the combustion cylce is actually partially offset by the inertial load... as a result, the peak load applied to the bottom end components occurs during the exhaust stroke. Fatigue failure in the bottom end components is a result of tensile load on the components, which occurs during this exhaust stroke, when the inertial load is unopposed. Because the inertial loads are the most damaging, and exponentially increase with the rpms, a high reving motor, like the gs motor, will be designed to handle much higher inertial loads.

Long story short, reving the motor high puts alot more stress on components then any turbo will. A turbo does significantly increase loads on the crank and such, but it occurs at points where it's still way less than the peak loads, and damaging loads, occured by reving high. The area under the curve increases a lot, but the peak value remains pretty much the same.

What causes damage to a turbo motor is NOT the increased load caused by the increase in power. It's detonation. Proper intercooling, along with reasonable timing curves, proper fueling, and good heat management, should allow for a mild level of boost to be ran perfectly safe.

[rangerbrown]

...What causes damage to a turbo motor is NOT the increased load caused by the increase in power. It's detonation. Proper intercooling, along with reasonable timing curves, proper fueling, and good heat management, should allow for a mild level of boost to be ran perfectly safe.

thank you, thats what i have been saying.

[sledge]

Ranger?
I have just looked back through the thread and cant see any comments made by yourself that bear any similarity to what Saxman says  I am not getting drawn in any further, my comments are making me unpopular 
Anyway Mate, you get cracking on the project and come the 13th Jan we can all expect an update (with pics if poss) 

[rangerbrown]

i would have to say, after the 14,000 miles i have on my gs. it has very little wear on it.

cam shafts have no wear (or little) timing chain/gears show no signs of any wear.
little to no oil has ever been used, compression still as high as when i got it with 1700 miles

i would liek to perform a leak down test to see what shape the rings are trully in.

in my honest opinion, the gs is more than capable off 100k befor some type of tear down rebuild.

this being said, sure like i said before.

keep the idea simple, dont over do it in hopes for big power, and dont go blasing down the hwy every day at 8-10k and think that a turbo gs would ever last.

like i said, the most if any thing, i would like to see 80hp and 40-50 tq still with in resonable ranges as the gs makes 35tq and 50 hp if tuned right.

big things to get out of the way,


HEAT,
timing
fuel
fuel delivery
oil pressure and temp (again much larger cooler after the turbo, and then a possable reserve tank)
mixture of the fuel (aircraft engines that are N/A and forced induction are runing way rich, for cooling, once off the ground they can be trimed. looking into this as a possable leway)

the rest is easy
if going carb build box and tune as needed (although i know this will be a major pain in the ass)
turbo mounting
exhust routing
intake routing
varable timing
and much more

[joedude]

yo sorry im with jake d, if you want more power than upgrade, if not learn to be happy with what ya have and can do with out spending a rediculous amount of $$$

Coming from you, Mr. Bling.... that just sounds funny!!!!

[saxman]

ranger may not have gone into as much detail, but he did get the whole heat management, timing, fuel delivery concept down