Evo 16g III Not all that and a bag of chips ?

[Jaraxle]

I just have to ask. How come it is that everyone is saying the 16g evo III turbo makes 360hp + when I read the following facts:

1995 Evolution III
New pistons gave an increase in compression ratio [from 8.5:1 to 9.0:1] and brought the
extra 9bhp, taking maximum power to 266bhp at 6250rpm, torque output remained at
228lb/ft. The turbocharger [TD05H-16G6-7] and exhaust system also received attention to
give better response, while two water spray jets were employed on the intercooler instead of
just one.

So we (2g) even have lower compression !

-Jaraxle

 

[tsi_punk]

The evo3 16g can support 360hp+. But at evo3 stock boost levels it makes 266hp.

 

[Tallen]

Umm, guys on 14b's are running 300HP to the wheels. Do 1G's run those #'s stock? Of course not. Think OUTSIDE the box. With supporting mods, it can handle 350ish.

 

[Black95TSIawd]

i've seen peeps put down 350whp with the evo III 16g, stock cams. It is a potent turbo.

 

[Jaraxle]

I guess I just want to question long term reliability with respects to:

1.) Shaft speed
2.) Backpressure

The evo IV had a 9cm2 turbine and made 276hp.
All evo's after that had 10.5cm2 turbine housings and of course made the limit of 276hp.

Also there was a comment in the Evo Orgy shootout in SCM.
It said that the EVO VIII XS entry used the stock turbo. Everything else was heavily upgraded.
I think it made 356hp at the wheels, and the comment was made that the
turbo was surging, and most likely being pushed too hard. (which I take it means it won't last long)

And the turbo is.....

"The Evolution VI RS had a TD05HRA-16G6-10.5T titanium turbocharger [as do the VII and VIII]."

 

[eclipse2via]

It's a totally different turbo. It faces the opposite direction with compressor on the drivers side. It's wheels are closer in size to a 20G than a B16G. It's twin scroll too.

Scott

 

[CanadianTSi]

It's wheels are closer in size to a 20G than a B16G.

Scott

Hardly. The Evo's Inducer is 0.010" bigger then a big 16g and that is the only size difference.

 

[leakyfaucet]

Hardly. The Evo's Inducer is 0.010" bigger then a big 16g and that is the only size difference.

Well, the blades are thinner, but yeah, that's the only other size difference.

 

[eclipse2via]

Led astray by Mike Welch again.

 

[tsi4ya]

you said the evo III reaches 267 at 62rpms? i was woundering does this mean that u now red line around that?

 

[sweet97]

I'm kinda missing the point here. I recently installed one of these turbo's. My motor has 104K mles on it and I felt that the EVO was enough for a motor with that mileage. I normally run 17 PSI though withsome race gas added i go to 20 PSI. I have 550's and the GM MAF/Translator. I have yet to log/tune and am quite happy with the performance. If I had a built motor I would be running something more powerful. What would anyone sub straight up for the EVO?

 

[kpt4321]

I don't even know what that last post was asking.

 

[kpt4321]

Hardly. The Evo's Inducer is 0.010" bigger then a big 16g and that is the only size difference.

Don't think by size, think by flow. The EvoIII 16g is capable of flowing over 40 lb/min, which is MUCH closer to a 20g than a 16g.

 

[Jaraxle]

kpt4321 - Where is that 40lbs/min statement coming from ?
If there is data to support that statement, I would love to see it.

Some guy logging it on a palm doesn't exactly count. It could be horribly heated and compressed, but the MAF will say 40lbs/min got sucked in.

As for the comments above...

eclipse2via - That is my point. The evo VIII has a better twin scroll turbo (ignoring your 20g comment since all EVO's had 16g compressors) AND the larger 10.5 turbine housing, yet apparently maxes out at 350hp to the wheels. How can the EVO III be "rated" by the DSM community at 380hp ?



sweet97, tsi4ya - Please rephrase your comments/questions.

 

[GPTourer]

The evo IV had a 9cm2 turbine and made 276hp.
All evo's after that had 10.5cm2 turbine housings and of course made the limit of 276hp.

Actually they went back to a 9.8 housing for the VII and VIII. But for 2005, the VIII's will go back to 10.5. Still it is amazing how fast an Evo can be made to go on the stock turbo. one look at dsmtimes.org will atest to that. OTOH, it is funny how people get down on Hahn for their Super Turbos using 10.5 housings, when Mitsu does it straight from the factory on the Evo.

But, as far as turbos go, I love my Evo3, and would recommend one to anybody with a street car. How do you measure airflow? My pocketlogger will only tell me what my SAFC2 wants me to see - or, how do I convert Hz on the SAFC2 to airflow?

 

[sweet97]

Jaraxle, I was trying to back up the fact I got the EVO with the condition of my motor(103k miles) and the supporting mods that the motor could also stand up to. Heck I'd go with a 50 trim if I had a fresh motor with arp throughout, maybe even bigger, though the 50 trim seems to stand alone when it comes to making power through boost on pump gas.
I finalized with the statement that given a choice for a turbo that flows 550 CFM at 15 PSI, as the EVO does, what would anyone choose over the EVO? Hope I am clearer with this! Mark

 

[eclipse2via]

That's where I am at. I have a fresh built motor with forged internals done by DSS. I'm not a drag guy. I try to do track days 3-4 times a year. I want more power than I get with my 16G but I can't deal with lag, yet I have to deal with 91 pump. DSS assures me I won't see signifcant enough improvements on pump gas to warrant spending the bucks on a EVOIII 16G.

AGP and FP have discontinued the GT2544 variants I was going to use and the SBR GT10 isn't really the same. Everything else seems to have too much lag.

 

[CanadianTSi]

kpt4321 - Where is that 40lbs/min statement coming from ?
If there is data to support that statement, I would love to see it.

ShapeGSx on this site, has logged 44lbs/min on DSMLink with his Evo 3 16g

 

[yo2001]

I managed [email protected] on pump gas on EVOIII 16G with 1.77 60ft. 19.5 psi.

Ran the time on the bottom with race gas and 25 psi.

 

[kpt4321]

ShapeGSx on this site, has logged 44lbs/min on DSMLink with his Evo 3 16g

Thank you, you beat me to it.

I'm also basing that statement on a car that I have tuned, based on the power it made and other data.

 

[LightningGSX]

Actually they went back to a 9.8 housing for the VII and VIII. But for 2005, the VIII's will go back to 10.5. Still it is amazing how fast an Evo can be made to go on the stock turbo. one look at dsmtimes.org will atest to that. OTOH, it is funny how people get down on Hahn for their Super Turbos using 10.5 housings, when Mitsu does it straight from the factory on the Evo.

Twin scroll 10.5 or 9.8 housings are not comparable to regular 10.5 or 9.8 housings.Its actually more complicated than this but, in most aspects , a 9.8 cm2 twin scroll housing would be functionally equivalent to about a 4.9 cm2 regular housing.

 

[GPTourer]

I understand what twin scroll does (and now, why a Hahn Super Turbo isn't the same), but I don't get why it would functionally cut the volume in half like you say. Never do either port close, it just gives the flow a "faster" path to take from each half of the cynlider bank.

 

[LightningGSX]

Its kinda hard for me to explain.Essentially its like 2 separate 4.9 cm2 housings connected to the same turbine.Normaly(on a single scroll 9.8) each exhaust pulse has a path through the housing with a area of 9.8, in a twin scroll, since half the exhaust pulses are separate, each pulse has a path through half the housing, making the effective area 4.9cm2.Thats why they have excellent spool, and still have good top end flow.There is a MHI document somewhere on the web that explains it very well.

 

[Jaraxle]

sweet97 - There is no argument that the EVO III turbo is a great deal. This thread is more or less discussing the technical aspects of the the 16g family, and what the limits are specifically with respect to turbine housing designs.

However I have to ask, since I don't know much about them : 17c,19c,18g compressors ?
Anyone have maps on those ? I know the 18g is a greddy favorite. Do these all use the same 16g .60 A/R compressor housing ?

LightningGSX - Are you implying that the EVO VIII twin scroll turbo (9.8cm2) imposes a HIGHER exhaust restriction than a standard non twin scroll 7cm2 housing ?
Please clarify. If each pair of cylinders get essentially 4.9cm2, then wouldn't that be the same back-pressure if not better. I don't think your giving anything up with the twin scroll turbine housing. Most likely just more expensive to manufacture, but better technically since the exhaust pulses are out of phase with each other until contact with the turbine.

kpt4321/CanadianTSi - That is nice that someones MAF measured 44lbs/min. Who knows where in the compressor efficiency range that was ? I would have to say... Way beyond (lower than) 60%..The turbo could/should/is be throwing out AMAZINGLY hot air. The exhaust manifold pressure could/should/is be exceeding 2.6x (which is what the TD05 is rated at)... With a HUGE intercooler /race gas/ and timing pulled maybe the lucky $#%$# got away with it. Good for him.

Which brings me back to the start of this post.
I'm discussing the long term durability and proper implementations/expectations of a particular turbo. I think the DSM community horribly over-rates and abuses turbos.

So.....IF you want LONG TERM durability. ie: low risk of reversion, low risk of overspeeding the shaft, and NOT exceeding the 2.6x TD05 rating... Then that turbo is not good for 380hp as everyone says. I would suggest 310hp @crank if that. For the LONG term.

 

[Tallen]

I would suggest 310hp @crank if that. For the LONG term.

With a proper CBV, good wastegate, solid oil supply, a turbo should last a damn long time. 310BHP? , no. The low to mid 3's is where it is at for this particular turbo...to the wheels. A 14b can handle 310BHP with relative ease.