Eaton OH Pull

[SmokeShow]

Yeah, mega06 always seems to be around any shit stirring going on whether online or at the pulls. He's mouthy if he don't like you. I enjoy talking to him but never had any confrontation with him. He's more a Wes wade crony than troyer. Anything RAW is his thing. He runs with them boys and his mouth has caused issues more than once. And nope, he don't pull. Just hangs with Wes.


As for the 3/4" thing. I understand the reason they did it but boy is dumb. There isn't a single charger factory with that much so that means every cover then has to be a custom made cover. I believe ED was one of the first, if not the first, to have a housing cast to have so much bore a yr ago or so do to the stupid rule here. It was never tech'ed hard though so only one that I know of around here had that feature last yr.

Looks like they'll be watching that closer this yr. which is good if it's gonna be in the rules.


I sure do wish they'd do pre-season charger teching & tagging. Seems like a no brained IMO. I know BOB was gonna try to at least have a tech day but idk if they did or not.

 

[Rhall]

Agreed, since they dropped 2.8 they should have just kept 2.6 a bushing class, but at this point i hope they dont go back. I have too much money in turbos over the last couple of years. 3.0 is protrusion, and 2.6 is protrusion, lets just ride with it for a few years.

 

[SmokeShow]

I don't think protrusion is a problem, just the stupid 3/4" requirement for the bore if bushings aren't allowed. Just makes it where custom is only way to have a legal charger. Which, it'll take a custom charger to be competitive anyways but now everyone has to have one or sit out. That should maybe tighten up the class I suppose?? Idk.

If I didn't think I'd get tired of pulling after I actually get mine done, I'd just go straight to 3.0 ODL with it. I'm afraid all the BS will get old tho even with me only getting in for fun. So if I stick to oe driveline, I'll at least be able to make the truck streetable if/when I get tired of pulling.

 

[Rhall]

I don't think protrusion is a problem, just the stupid 3/4" requirement for the bore if bushings aren't allowed. Just makes it where custom is only way to have a legal charger. Which, it'll take a custom charger to be competitive anyways but now everyone has to have one or sit out. That should maybe tighten up the class I suppose?? Idk.

I dont think protrusion is a problem, but it doesnt solve any problem either. It just costs us more money.

But since we already have it, i agree they should have left it at that.

 

[Rhall]

As soon as more odl trucks/classes start up around here, im going. We really dont have good options around here.

 

[SmokeShow]

Honestly, KY doesn't either. 2.6 is the holy Grail here. There are some super stout 2.8 trucks that dropped down to 2.6 instead of 3.0. One went up. So 2.8 dissolved into the 2.8/3.0 class here where the 2.8 oe driveline can weigh 8200 & the 3.0 odl trucks weigh 7700 I believe. There's only one 3.0 odl here for now. Hopefully others build some. Otherwise, the ones here will be stuck going north of the OH river to pull against the likes of Brad Ingram, curt haisley off constantly, etc in 3.0 class up there.

 

[TheBac]

Ive never read so many "sour grapes" posts in my life. You guys deal with that at every pull? Damn.

The guy with the idea of teching chargers at the beginning of the year and sealing them with a number stamp was spot-on. How hard is that?

 

[duramaxxin73]

I dont think protrusion is a problem, but it doesnt solve any problem either. It just costs us more money.

But since we already have it, i agree they should have left it at that.

I don't have a problem with the protrusion rule, but it is not the answer like everyone thought it was going to be. The only way to bring the power back down in 2.6 would be to either make it a true 66mm class or limit the frame of the charger.

 

[SmokeShow]

This is getting way off topic but oh well...

Im still curious about the restrictor tubes in the intake. That has the most potential to cap the power level I think. I don't understand why so many were so "oh hell no!" to that idea?

I would be WAY against a frame limit. With has hard as pulling stresses the chargers, an s300 based charger shaft would be a grenade ready to go off at any time. Yes, it'd limit power but it'd suck to be required to run a grenade everytime out IMO. So then the turbo shops would prolly try to find ways to put the bigger guts in a smaller package. Exactly like the axles & look how much the good bastards cost!

Do people who say true 66mm mean the wheel has not been cut down with a step at the end of the blades? They'd still have recontoured wheels the just taper faster at the end to meet the 66mm limit. There's no way to keep out expensive chargers IMO.


Idk how it'd work with a restrictor tube. Would make the class still be based on charger or just which tube & chassis setup you had? Smaller tube with oe driveline would replace 2.6. Could you then just let em run any size charger? No matter what, there is an absolute limit to how much air can be sucked through an orifice with X size opening. So maybe you let em run say an s480 with the small tube in the "2.6" replacement class? Heck, even twins?

 

[duramaxxin73]

This is getting way off topic but oh well...

Im still curious about the restrictor tubes in the intake. That has the most potential to cap the power level I think. I don't understand why so many were so "oh hell no!" to that idea?

I would be WAY against a frame limit. With has hard as pulling stresses the chargers, an s300 based charger shaft would be a grenade ready to go off at any time. Yes, it'd limit power but it'd suck to be required to run a grenade everytime out IMO. So then the turbo shops would prolly try to find ways to put the bigger guts in a smaller package. Exactly like the axles & look how much the good bastards cost!

Do people who say true 66mm mean the wheel has not been cut down with a step at the end of the blades? They'd still have recontoured wheels the just taper faster at the end to meet the 66mm limit. There's no way to keep out expensive chargers IMO.


Idk how it'd work with a restrictor tube. Would make the class still be based on charger or just which tube & chassis setup you had? Smaller tube with oe driveline would replace 2.6. Could you then just let em run any size charger? No matter what, there is an absolute limit to how much air can be sucked through an orifice with X size opening. So maybe you let em run say an s480 with the small tube in the "2.6" replacement class? Heck, even twins?

We tested out the restricter tube on my truck and the power loss was huge. Right around 200hp. Also the same results on Joe Hill's truck when it was tested on his. It would be interesting to test the restricter tube out on a Variable turbo like what Darrek Leis ran all of last season and see what the power loss would be.

 

[cuminstrkmydmax]

We tested out the restricter tube on my truck and the power loss was huge. Right around 200hp. Also the same results on Joe Hill's truck when it was tested on his. It would be interesting to test the restricter tube out on a Variable turbo like what Darrek Leis ran all of last season and see what the power loss would be.

Just a question- when you tested the restrictor tube, did you spend any time tuning to it or was it just tested with the tunes ran normally for the truck?
If no tuning changes were made- do you think that you would be able to gain a good portion of the loss back?
Just a thought- havent heard anything referring to this in the other discussions.
THANKS Steven

 

[duramaxxin73]

Just a question- when you tested the restrictor tube, did you spend any time tuning to it or was it just tested with the tunes ran normally for the truck?
If no tuning changes were made- do you think that you would be able to gain a good portion of the loss back?
Just a thought- havent heard anything referring to this in the other discussions.
THANKS Steven

We didn't try making any adjustments for the restricter tube. I would say some of the if it could have been gained back if we would have tried adjusting the tuning for the tube. Also I should say that we tested the tube in two different ways. If everyone was serious about pulling back the power in the 2.6 class then I personally think the restricter tube would be a step in the right direction. I don't know if Mark is going to test it out on any other trucks, or if he even has the tube anymore.

 

[Rhall]

Ive never read so many "sour grapes" posts in my life. You guys deal with that at every pull? Damn.

The guy with the idea of teching chargers at the beginning of the year and sealing them with a number stamp was spot-on. How hard is that?

No, you dont deal with any of it at the pulls hardly. Once in a great while it happens, but its no big deal, most of it is internet trash talk.

That idea sounds good, except for i ran 5 different turbos last year, taking each one to get teched and sealed would be a pain, not to mention i pull with atleast 3 different associations. Its not as hard as people make it out to be, apparently here the tech guy did not know the rules, if he would have, and followed them, then everything would have been fine on both ends... or well should have been.

If your going to have rules, enforce them, if not, someones going to get mad, that does NOT make them a cry baby, we have lots of money in these trucks, yes sled pulling is for fun, but when you get beat by someone who didnt follow the same rules as you.. your going to be mad. I dont care who you are...

 

[McRat]

Thoughts on restrictor plate racing (not a NASCAR thingy).

A 2.6" plate or tube is going to do very little. It's still going to be whoever has the biggest charger will have an advantage when you have such a huge restrictor.

Something to think about:

The C6R Corvette roadracer is naturally aspirated, and makes peak HP (590HP) at about 5500rpm or lower. It runs 2 restrictor bores of 31.8mm, or equal to about a 1.75" single bore.

A 2.6" single bore is over twice that size and would permit enough air to pass to make over 1200HP in a naturally aspirated engine.

With turbocharging, all bets are off. Far higher flows can be generated because it's a constant draw instead of a pulsed draw like a NA engine generates.

If the goal is to cap the max HP for safety, money, reliability, or equality, a 2.6 plate/tube is not an answer. But with the new crop of turbo rules, inducer bore alone is no better.

Until they make the intake restriction a realistic size for their goals, the rules just make you spend more money to be competitive, and do not address the issues they are intended to resolve. My guess is the size they are looking for is about 1.75", which would cap "2.6 class" at roughly 600rwhp.

BTW - There would still be an advantage by running custom chargers, but not as much. HP peak will occur at a much lower RPM and then flatten out. A big charger will still lack efficiency at lower RPM's, so they might make a bit more peak HP, but for a shorter rpm range than a smaller charger. There will be a "right" size charger that will have max area under the curve, and it won't be a S480.

 

[madmatt]

link to compd thread,,,,

 

[05smoker]

Tagging the chargers will also discourage new guys and walk ups from pulling. You get a fair share of local guys that want to pull wherever you go and they're not going to go through the hoops of getting their charger inspected and tagged for a few hooks.

 

[Leadfoot]

Thoughts on restrictor plate racing (not a NASCAR thingy).

A 2.6" plate or tube is going to do very little. It's still going to be whoever has the biggest charger will have an advantage when you have such a huge restrictor.

Something to think about:

The C6R Corvette roadracer is naturally aspirated, and makes peak HP (590HP) at about 5500rpm or lower. It runs 2 restrictor bores of 31.8mm, or equal to about a 1.75" single bore.

A 2.6" single bore is over twice that size and would permit enough air to pass to make over 1200HP in a naturally aspirated engine.

With turbocharging, all bets are off. Far higher flows can be generated because it's a constant draw instead of a pulsed draw like a NA engine generates.

If the goal is to cap the max HP for safety, money, reliability, or equality, a 2.6 plate/tube is not an answer. But with the new crop of turbo rules, inducer bore alone is no better.

Until they make the intake restriction a realistic size for their goals, the rules just make you spend more money to be competitive, and do not address the issues they are intended to resolve. My guess is the size they are looking for is about 1.75", which would cap "2.6 class" at roughly 600rwhp.

BTW - There would still be an advantage by running custom chargers, but not as much. HP peak will occur at a much lower RPM and then flatten out. A big charger will still lack efficiency at lower RPM's, so they might make a bit more peak HP, but for a shorter rpm range than a smaller charger. There will be a "right" size charger that will have max area under the curve, and it won't be a S480.

It's been shown that a true 2.6 restrictor TUBE (maintained 2.6 diameter for 3 inches) flows far less than a clipped wheel, altered MWE groove charger that is currently 2.6 legal.... last year tests were done and max effort on charger was over 900 RWHP, with the restrictor tube and tuning adjustments, it was down to 650 RWHP. That I believe is a good comprise for stocks drivelines and limits how much HP dollars will buy you on a custom charger.

There was a discussion last year on CompD between myself and others and there were posted dyno results. The issue was turbo alteration businesses, and those that spent big money on "loophole chargers", lobbied for the "loophole" rules on chargers instead of a fair limiting restrictor.....(no money to be made in it).

 

[McRat]

It's been shown that a true 2.6 restrictor TUBE (maintained 2.6 diameter for 3 inches) flows far less than a clipped wheel, altered MWE groove charger that is currently 2.6 legal.... last year tests were done and max effort on charger was over 900 RWHP, with the restrictor tube and tuning adjustments, it was down to 650 RWHP. That I believe is a good comprise for stocks drivelines and limits how much HP dollars will buy you on a custom charger.

There was a discussion last year on CompD between myself and others and there were posted dyno results. The issue was turbo alteration businesses, and those that spent big money on "loophole chargers", lobbied for the "loophole" rules on chargers instead of a fair limiting restrictor.....(no money to be made in it).

I agree that a clipped wheel will flow more than a restrictor tube.

I'll admit I'm sceptical of a 2.6 tube capping a max effort turbo at 650rwhp. But I suppose it could be right. I made 674rwhp with a cheap off-the-shelf 2.6 charger that had a 1" straight bore and small (88mm) compressor wheel IIRC.

I'm banned-for-life on CompD for arguing with spectators. I think calling out Steve Cole to a drag race was the final act that did me in. Perhaps I also questioned his sexual orientation in the challenge.

In any case, it's FAR cheaper to change the restrictor spec than the turbo cover/wheel. A tube could be measured to the outside with a simple block and take 10 seconds to tech.

 

[Leadfoot]

I agree that a clipped wheel will flow more than a restrictor tube.

I'll admit I'm sceptical of a 2.6 tube capping a max effort turbo at 650rwhp. But I suppose it could be right. I made 674rwhp with an off-the-shelf 2.6 charger that had a 1" straight bore and small (88mm) compressor wheel IIRC.

I'm banned-for-life on CompD for arguing with spectators. I think calling out Steve Cole to a drag race was the final act that did me in. Perhaps I also questioned his sexual orientation in the challenge.

I would be a fool to think that a 2.6 restrictor tube would be a magic bullet, and I'm sure with tuning and testing more HP could be squeazed out of it. That being said if 2.6 was not small enough, a 2.x or 1.x restrictor could be swapped out fairly easily and cheaply (compared to a new custom turbo) and would be a universal cost (meaning everyone would be facing the same SMALL financial investment).

I guess the big thing is we all know that if you limit air you limit power (an engine diesel or gas, is nothing more than an air pump), the more volume you can move through, the more power you make. Limit the air, you limit the power.

The problem with the existing rules is that with some "outside the box thinking" and cu$tom machining, there are ways to get more air into the motor legally. All it does is force guys to spend more money. The class has already overpowered the driveline (how much is being spent on axle upgrades, tranny upgrades, drivelines, transfercases, etc....nevermind the chargers). I feel the restrictor (at whatever size is deemed appropriate), will help bring competition closer together, make it more fair (not necessarily fair), and keep the cost a little more reasonable. If money is no object for an individual, jump up to unlimited open driveline....

Ideally, it would unite clubs from coast to coast (allow pullers to pull wherever they want), and would be a great leveraging tool to promote the sport on a national level and maybe even take it to the next level. The current state of affairs (and the past several years), will not allow the sport (at that level) to progress....

I no longer have a horse in this race (not able to repair a dead engine in my diesel if a piston goes), but I do LOVE the sport, promote it as best I can, pull my gasser, go to meetings, meet with fair officials, and try to do whatever I can to make the sport better. It's tough to watch things go on across the country that stunts the potential HUGE growth because people, pullers, clubs, manufacturers, etc. are too selfish......or can't see the forrest for the trees.

 

[Leadfoot]

I agree that a clipped wheel will flow more than a restrictor tube.

I'll admit I'm sceptical of a 2.6 tube capping a max effort turbo at 650rwhp. But I suppose it could be right. I made 674rwhp with a cheap off-the-shelf 2.6 charger that had a 1" straight bore and small (88mm) compressor wheel IIRC.

I'm banned-for-life on CompD for arguing with spectators. I think calling out Steve Cole to a drag race was the final act that did me in. Perhaps I also questioned his sexual orientation in the challenge.

In any case, it's FAR cheaper to change the restrictor spec than the turbo cover/wheel. A tube could be measured to the outside with a simple block and take 10 seconds to tech.

If I could find someone willing to donate the restrictor, would you be willing to redyno the same EXACT combo on the same dyno with the restrictor in place to see how it affects it (1. without tuning changes, 2. with tuning changes to see how much power can be recouped by "tuning for the restrictor"). I would be willing to put up the money for dyno time.

Love you or hate you, most people respect your openness and testing results. It would be nice to try and open some eyes. I'm just a nobody from Massachusetts who has done "nothing for the diesel community", you on the other hand are someone that many people listen to (whether they'll admit it publically or not), due to your accomplishments and willingness to test.