Eaton TVS info thread....
06-13-2007, 01:09 PM
#31
Sweet! Thanks for the PDF. Very interesting, thats for sure.
So according to this chart, the TVS R2300 has the potiential to flow 15% more air than the "ahem... screw 3300" compressor. Is that screw 3300 the older model lysholm or the newer W200AX compressor? The W200AX shows a max of 1567 cfm, which is 2662 cubic meters per hour (or 10% more than the TVS 2300).
Same question for the screw 2300 - is it the W140AX which is quoted as flowing 2164 cubic meters per hour?
So according to this chart, the TVS R2300 has the potiential to flow 15% more air than the "ahem... screw 3300" compressor. Is that screw 3300 the older model lysholm or the newer W200AX compressor? The W200AX shows a max of 1567 cfm, which is 2662 cubic meters per hour (or 10% more than the TVS 2300).
Same question for the screw 2300 - is it the W140AX which is quoted as flowing 2164 cubic meters per hour?
06-29-2007, 09:46 PM
#34
guys.. remember eaton has expereince with twin screws as well.. (ford GT)
Those only made 550hp with a 2.3L unit...
They have the ability to test them back to back.. and claim the TVS is better... i'd tend to believe it.
Those only made 550hp with a 2.3L unit...
They have the ability to test them back to back.. and claim the TVS is better... i'd tend to believe it.
06-29-2007, 09:50 PM
#35
Originally Posted by BigTex
Sweet! Thanks for the PDF. Very interesting, thats for sure.
So according to this chart, the TVS R2300 has the potiential to flow 15% more air than the "ahem... screw 3300" compressor. Is that screw 3300 the older model lysholm or the newer W200AX compressor? The W200AX shows a max of 1567 cfm, which is 2662 cubic meters per hour (or 10% more than the TVS 2300).
Same question for the screw 2300 - is it the W140AX which is quoted as flowing 2164 cubic meters per hour?
So according to this chart, the TVS R2300 has the potiential to flow 15% more air than the "ahem... screw 3300" compressor. Is that screw 3300 the older model lysholm or the newer W200AX compressor? The W200AX shows a max of 1567 cfm, which is 2662 cubic meters per hour (or 10% more than the TVS 2300).
Same question for the screw 2300 - is it the W140AX which is quoted as flowing 2164 cubic meters per hour?
on the same token.. if the 3300 (W200AX) which is a full liter more displacement only flows say 200 m3/hr more air.. seems like its not very volumetrically efficient or cannot spin fast (both of which are likely true)
06-30-2007, 01:09 AM
#36
Originally Posted by Blown2300
yeah.. but the W140AX even if it flows as quoted, falls short of the 2400 m3/hr flowrate of the R2300..
As far at the R2300, thats going to be the TVS biggest model and should be compared with the largest current version of the whipple or the KB just to be fair. The w140ax would be paired against the R1900....
06-30-2007, 01:14 AM
#37
Originally Posted by Blown2300
guys.. remember eaton has expereince with twin screws as well.. (ford GT)
Those only made 550hp with a 2.3L unit...
They have the ability to test them back to back.. and claim the TVS is better... i'd tend to believe it.
Those only made 550hp with a 2.3L unit...
They have the ability to test them back to back.. and claim the TVS is better... i'd tend to believe it.
07-01-2007, 09:36 PM
#38
TECH Apprentice
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Juda
Posts: 335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Exactly! It's a lot of jaw flapping about something that's going to be "somewhat better" as the best that's out there. And I'm sure we'll all live to see a twin screw that's going to "burry" the TVS. It just keeps going, and everyone forgets that they're all pretty good in their own way.
'ing for my Corvette Brethren...
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
