I think its time

you know where I stand, call them both and see what you think.

WyoBoy1000 said:

you know where I stand, call them both and see what you think.

Click to expand...

????..WTH..i didn;t know KMOD made turbo;s......:yo::yo:

My experience has been good with Boondocker at both low and high elevation. Boondockers electronics (EBC, ADA) make the transition from low, to high elevation very simple.

I can run my sled at 1000 feet one weekend, and 9000 the next with virtually no changes. I did not expect that to be the case, but it is. Heck, you don't even need to change clutching as you can just adjust boost until you are running proper RPM's assuming you have appropriate octane for the given boost / elevation.

The only fuel changes I make are to the CR number, to get the duty cycle in the sweet spot for the given elevation.

If you want to run LOW boost - 5-6 psi down low, and bigger boost (10+) up high, you may consider an adjustable actuator, or just swap out actuators from low to high boost as needed.

In regards to fuel, I would stick to 100% AV at 1700 feet, and MAYBE mix as elevation increases.

I like the extra protection (right or wrong) and run 100% AV no matter where I am riding. The $1 per gallon average difference for 100LL vs. non oxygenated premium is a non issue and I like knowing what I am getting is consistent.

KMod has built a few of his own turbos..... And he built his own 1200 Cat Engine that Freaking Hauls the mail!!!!!!!

Fuel Box

Biggest thing I would look at is a fuel box that would allow you to make the elevation changes with ease....... In your situation thats probably the most important factor I think......

Is there a fuel controller you are leaning towards?

I agree. That is kind of where I was going with my post. Its the kit's ability to transition to dramatic elevation changes with minimal dicking around that I would look for if I were doing it all over again.

m8magicandmystery said:

????..WTH..i didn;t know KMOD made turbo;s......:yo::yo:

Click to expand...

lol, KMOD, MDS, twisted, they all have something in common hmmm?

Personally I'm going to see what Whimp will charge to set one up for me, he did great job on the last one.

TheBreeze said:

I like the extra protection (right or wrong) and run 100% AV no matter where I am riding. The $1 per gallon average difference for 100LL vs. non oxygenated premium is a non issue and I like knowing what I am getting is consistent.

Click to expand...

What you think is extra protection is not, if you don't need it you are wasting power and not protecting anything. The det sensor will tell you. I was running 1 gal of av to run 8-9lbs in cooke. on full av it has no bottom end

05M7 said:

I've ran additiude on my last two sleds and really like it and am pretty fluent with it so I'd like to stay additiude or pl

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

Click to expand...

I would be using the bigger turbo, and not a front dump like cutlers, I also like the oil delete (shorter charge tube and you know what ratio your always running, plus less weight) it also uses the oil pump to oil the turbo so less of a draw on the system. Both of those are easy to tune so I think its more of which one is going to help you more or if there is something specific you like about one or the other.

Sounds like Cutler is the play for you then. Both the Cutler, and Twisted accomplish boost control in the same fashion. If anything, maybe run an adjustible waste gate actuator to cover a large boost range.

With the delete I would just go with the twisted, (shorter charge tube) and the option for a tunnel dump, then if you want the rg kit he makes the throttle body adapters so its simple. The big question to me is the turbo size, and if it makes a difference for low elevation.
This is why you should call each of them.

as a low elevation guy ,, big turbo or tow it home.

Both cpc and Twisted have nice systems. I lean toward Shane because he is in the field a bit more than Dale. but thats just me.
3 inch charge tube does make a difference for the better, Garrett is the only real turbo on the snow, who the hell would run a turbo with limits on boost and poor airflow.

the biggest of the toy turbos is barely good for 330 hp at sealevel at 23 psi ( which is way above the warranty limit of 12 psi..)
makes you wonder where the airflow maps really came from.

What size of turbo would you recommend for that elevation change Gus?

I am interested to know as well. I have yet to be towed in with my 2860 and it runs good, but I am sure most of us can learn a lot from Gus.... Crazy bastage!

last yr my friends in the high country fell in love with 3071's on the 800 Cats and a few poo's.

On the low lands a 30 hot side for an 800 is just so much easier on fuel and cooler running you would never go back to a 28.

Here is where it gets a little confusing for most. Higher exhaust backpressure WILL offset a smaller compressor in power production.

What I have learned and published here on snowest is that larger compressors take away the need to use the turbine side to ( choke ) flow and increase the tuned waves efficiency even with a tiny tiny 66 size comp wheels, the 2860 is equal too that wheel.

when you up the comp wheel flow that drives up total airflow thru the engine in turn driving exh side pressure back up without limiting flow on the turbine side and reducing temps on the exhaust face of the piston.
response does NOT suffer and the window of boost is wider too. Would you rather have more contaminated charge in the return wave or less ? So you see the answer is simple once you try one you will understand.

an example like a 2860 /2871 working with a 4-6 psi over boost exhaust side in the 8-13 psi intake boost window would see lower fuel consumption and lower charge temps with a 3071 .64 ar and be even more powerful and responsive. the intake side window would jump to 18 psi or more and still be flowing enough on the turbine side to stay cleaner with less radicals sent back on that damn piston face..

We 2 stroke lovers have to live with the piston doing double duty to a 4 stroke. they only use the dome. we use the dome, the exhaust skirt and ring as well as the underside too... What were we thinking ?? lol

back in the day, I too thought that smaller was the way to go but after spending some time at Dynotech then going to the field and working on the tune it was clear. We always have more to learn than what we already think we know..The devil is in the details:evil:

I'm doing a 1000 rt flatland efi turbo for me !!! relocating the SDI injectors to cat throtttle bodies and adding 2 more for fun. it will have a 3582 .84 ar and run at 2 psi over boost up to 24 psi.. this will be a pumpgasser with e raves.

Next for me will be an 800 twisted kit on a cat with a 3076 . I ride at sea level close to the ocean and never see more than 2500 feet elevation. The sled has to survive with marginal cooling snow as we have icy flat groomed trails for days on end. I cant have 4 psi over in the pipe and cruise at 1/4 throttle for 30 miles with a 2860. We tried 3 yrs back with a 2871 and never made it past 10 miles without it showing dome edge errosion or sticking. that turbo had 3 psi over boost in the pipe at 8 psi boost .

the better the loose snow you have the cooler you run and the larger your window for safe operation.

fwiw I should also explain that I ONLY use 5 wt synth oil in the turbo ever. mud is not where its at with a ball bearing , cool clean low viscosity is better at washing heat off the bearing.

Gus

crazy bastage ?? I take offense too that. HE WHO climbs a straight up chute is the crazy bastage !! lol