Pimp my turbo

TimP

Member
Joined
May 19, 2007
Messages
4,055
I'd say increase the jet sizes. I think they come with 2 .02 jets on them. Go to 3 or maybe 4???? I don't know...might reduce the impact however. But it probably would allow you to increase psi to make up for the flow??? Something you'll have to experiment with I suppose.
 

Jack May

That Kiwi
Joined
Oct 7, 2006
Messages
2,423
Location
Palmerston North, New Zealand
Name
John
Bob, I saw a photo some time back from an Aussie guy who had added two extra arms making four. He was doing high production outside work and meant the difference between going at a good clip or walking slowly so as not to leave strips uncleaned.

Might be worth a try.

John
 

Jack May

That Kiwi
Joined
Oct 7, 2006
Messages
2,423
Location
Palmerston North, New Zealand
Name
John
Yeah but with a half decent machine (PowerClean Genesis) recovery is not an issue.

It did mean he was able to travel significantly faster, so did it double water usage? No not necessarily. More but not double.

John
 

Greenie

Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2006
Messages
6,820
4 arms is a good idea.

The stock jets are 0502 as in 5º fan and 02 gpm.
I am willing to bet that an 1502 would clean faster if you had the pump to drive it, so if you have 4 arms, maybe use four 15 015 jets fpr a total flow of 06 vs: the stock 04?

The slightly wider clean path of the 15º jet would help the turbo put water out closer to the edge where the vacuum picks up as well as a wider cleaning path in general (maybe 1" wide per swirl vs: 1/2"), you would need to turn the pressure up a bit (maybe 1500psi) to get the same "impact" that an 05º jet would give, but the additional speed of cleaning would be worth it....bring on the 3/8" sol. line!

Oh....and you will need mongo HEAT!
 

TimP

Member
Joined
May 19, 2007
Messages
4,055
I see the turbo as more of a rinsing tool and not a scrubbing tool. More water would make it go faster in my opinon. Heat to me isn't as important however I can keep 200 ATM with a stock turbo at 700 psi.
 

Greenie

Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2006
Messages
6,820
Did I say anything about scrubbing? I was just talking about rinsing a larger footprint per second, with the changes you could literally move the tool twice as fast and not have skip margins. let it flow, let it flow, let it flow. We may actually need 2" tile tools now.
 

TimP

Member
Joined
May 19, 2007
Messages
4,055
Greenie said:
Did I say anything about scrubbing? I was just talking about rinsing a larger footprint per second, with the changes you could literally move the tool twice as fast and not have skip margins. let it flow, let it flow, let it flow. We may actually need 2" tile tools now.


I wasn't intending that you said anything about scrubbing wise green one. I'm just saying I wouldn't care about the impact being less and that more water would be great. I think most people turn the pressure up to use it to scrub with. And I see it as a flushing tool. You do the scrubbing with your brush and a scrubbing pad/175 if you need to. The turbo just flushes to me. More water would be smarter and faster in my opinion. I find myself going over areas 2 times to make sure the bubbles or foam is gone from the surface. If I could change it to 1 quick pass I'd save a good bit of time.
 

Greenie

Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2006
Messages
6,820
Jim Martin said:
not worth the time ...money.... or effort....

I think that would depend on how much tile you cleaned.

Everybody I ever watched clean tile could use to move faster.

Besides I've waste plenty of time and effort on projects, I'm used to it. I'm just not making any electrical splitter boxes.
 

TimP

Member
Joined
May 19, 2007
Messages
4,055
I think an increase in jet size and angle would be enough for most. I guess having 4 jets will make it so that you don't have to wait for it to spin all the way around or as far anyhow.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom