Ace-Garageguy

MORE CLARIFICATION:

Sets of 4 tires that match are hard to come by for those of us who buy takeoffs.

If I'm understanding the plumbing in that setup correctly, all three turbines are driven directly all the time by engine exhaust straight from the exhaust ports. The two compressor outputs farthest from the engine are directed into the compressor inlet of the unit closer to the engine, where it's compressed further, achieving even higher pressure at its compressor outlet...and the plumbing from that outlet is missing in the photo. Presumably the output from the third compressor...the one closest to the engine...would be directed to an intercooler before being delivered to the intake manifold. That's not the layout of the sequential system I was referring to. ------------------------------------------------------------------ This is closer to what I was referring to, where the smaller turbo on the right spools up faster, giving some boost al lower RPM, and as engine speed increases and exhaust gas volume and heat climb, the larger turbo on the left begins to provide increased boost. EDIT: The illustration below is missing some elements and can be somewhat confusing as a consequence. Just goes to show that as usual, everything posted on the internet isn't necessarily absolutely correct information. SEE VIDEO BELOW: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__xVz4G-uZo&ab_channel=MarineEngineeringHub

Out on the curb next to the mailbox post is where nice Mr. Postman was dropping my packages for a while.

Not a "multi", but the WW II P-47 Thunderbolt used a huge turbocharger to boost the power at altitude of it's big radial Pratt & Whitney R-2800 Double Wasp.

This is what I was referring to when I wrote "...but GM's gutless posture in the face of Nader's (and the hysterical yapping media's) largely exaggerated attack was what ultimately doomed the car." GM lacked the nads to vigorously defend the Corvair on its merits, which were plentiful, instead resorting to personal attacks on Nader. Even though the second generation Corvair was much more advanced technically than the Camaro/Firebird that followed, could have been further developed into a truly world-class sports car, and the first rounds of tooling and development cost were most likely amortized by '69, management wanted to get away from the stink they'd poured all over themselves with their shameful response to Nader, and let a great car die...hence the focus on the F-platform. EDIT: Driving a 180 HP '65 Turbo Corvair Corsa or a 140 HP 4X1bbl Corvair Corsa, or even the 150 HP first-gen '64 Turbo Spyder, if you never have...and if you understand and appreciate what "handling" is...will make you wonder "why, if the US was capable of making something so nimble and light and quick, did they continue to focus on front-engined grossly understeering bloated tanks?"

If you saw the thick sticky sludge that came out of the fuel tank, you'd think this one ran on rotting garbage...or rubber cement. Maybe it really is a "runs on anything" Mr. Fusion-powered one...

I fergit who first came up with it (Porsche 959??), but I always kinda liked the sequential twin-turbo setups that used a small one to make boost early, and a larger one to really pour on the coal as revs came up. Better low-end throttle response, flatter power and torque curves, etc.

'89 GMC, sitting for weeks, started first turn of the key (after letting the fuel pump run for a few seconds to fill the float bowl). Have to haul some no-ethanol gas for the DeLorean, and some things too bulky to load into the Blazer. I love my truck. Unlike people, it's never let me down...since 2011.

"Tomorrow I might get around to what I didn't get around to the day before yesterday" is no attitude to take if you want to accomplish anything in life, but it's certainly tempting.

Very nice indeed.

Considering that at the time of his holy war against the Corvair, he didn't own a car, didn't even have a license to drive a car, had never ridden in a Corvair, and had zero engineering background... There was nothing inherently wrong with the early Corvair (though it could have been better), and in fact, its rear swing-axle suspension design was identical to that used in VW Beetles and 356 Porsches, some production Mercedes cars, and even some highly successful F1 cars built years earlier. The problems were that 1) a simple, inexpensive device known as a "camber compensator" could have been fitted to make the first cars more friendly to Mr. and Mrs. Joe Average Driver ("camber compensators" were common upgrades on hot Porsches and VWs at the time as well...I ran one on my own VW), but the bean counters nixed the idea, and 2) tire pressures were critical to achieving safe and predictable handling of the very first cars in the hands of average drivers too...and GM mistakenly believed that putting the information regarding said tire pressures in the owner's manual would be sufficient. Nope. I've owned every flavor of Corvair ever made, and drove all of them hard. The 1960 (first year) with no camber compensator was indeed overly sensitive to tire pressures, but somehow I managed to avoid flaming death. The later first-gen cars through '64 were great fun to drive rapidly, safe and predictable. For 1965 Corvairs all got a sophisticated fully independent rear suspension design that was actually more advanced than what was on Porsches at the time and they handled great...but GM's gutless posture in the face of Nader's (and the hysterical yapping media's) largely exaggerated attack was what ultimately doomed the car. The last year was 1969. Nader's attack on the Corvair was the initial event that allowed the gubmint to push its camel's nose into the car-design tent, and the result has been a legacy of overly complex, expensive, and largely useless (and ultimately withdrawn...can you say 5mph bumpers, boys and girls?) "safety" features. EDIT: VW Bugs (below) and contemporary Porsches with swing-axle rear ends exhibited exactly the same extreme camber change in droop as the early Corvair, and were also sensitive to front/rear tire pressure differentials, but somehow managed to escape Mr. Nader's UNSAFE AT ANY SPEED !!!!!!! tirade.

Battleship armor was much thicker than that of destroyers, which is the reason they (destroyers) were called "tin cans".

"Down two, then left" used to be my location under my avatar, before in the interest of "security" locations were banished.

Yeah, it's pretty common and as you say, one of the easy tipoffs to scammitry...or is it scammage...? However, as "common knowledge" continues to decline and any kind of proof-reading is apparently just too much trouble, I notice all kinds of spllellink and grammur and linguine misteakes everywear.

Monkees don't know what sentences are either.

P.M. ed

"South" has always meant "land of miserably hot and sticky summers" to me, and this year seems no different.

From the definitive search engine whose corporate motto was "DO NO EVIL" to a hypocritical self-righteous dogma and greed driven pile of ...

Mozart probably knew what a sentence is.

Word-salad is a product of stupid trying to sound smart.

The Columbia is made for a "closed driveline" or "torque-tube" setup, but could be converted to an "open" style driveshaft coupling. The only other major mod required would be replacing the buggy-spring perches with semi-elliptic perches welded to the axle housings. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TO sidcharles: The above statement is self-explanatory. It deals with additional modifications required to convert a torque-tube rear to an "open" configuration. Conversely, to convert a torque-tube rear end on a transverse leaf spring to work with parallel leaf springs, the driveline must also be converted to an "open" configuration. Sorry I can't go into more detail but some glitch in the forum's software prevents me from posting a very complete response.

NOTE TO MODS: I've written an in-depth response to this question, clarifying seeming contradictions. HOWEVER, somewhere in the text is apparently one of the keywords or phrases that set your forum's software's hair on fire, and that has triggered the dreaded "PAGE CAN'T BE FOUND" when I try to post it. Sorry, but it's just not my job to jump through hoops to compensate for software glitches when I take the time to write and post complete factual technical information in response to questions posted by forum members.