Evo16g or 18g

[madscientist91]

Cant make my mind up between the two. Im in the middle of a rebuild (forged pistons, stage 2 head, 264's) and am trying to decide on a strong street/strip/circuit turbo. Plan on reving the engine out close to 8k an really want that nice linear power curve that doesnt drop off but at the same time possess's good spool characteristics. Anyone have any good information or flow charts between the two or any other advice?

 

[laserspeeddemon]

I would suggest the new TD06-18g (6LS2 turbine). All this stuffed into an 16g compressor housing.

Here are the maps.
EVO III 16g

You must be logged in to view this image or video.

FP 18g

You must be logged in to view this image or video.

Link

 

[blcknspo0ln]

Plenty of turbos will fit your description, try reading through this.


16G variations, 18G, 20g, 50 trim, dbb50trim, etc. all will do the job.

 

[gdmbat85]

I vote a 50 trim. I have the FP18G and I wish I had gone with the 50 trim. If you want good spool get the BB 50 trim.

 

[AWD_Launch]

Don't know about the 18G but the Evo16G will not make power to 8K, people who run them usually shift around 6K, as stated earlier a 50 trim would fit your wants better and be able to rev to 8K along with make better power.

 

[madscientist91]

Well i guess that eliminates the 16g. Reason why i was looking at Mitsu turbo's is because its an easy bolt up to an evo mani which is very cost effective. Its also comes with an internal wastegate. Alot of the 50 trims ive seen require a custom or tubular mani and an external waste gate which can quickly bring the turbo swap price over 2g's an im trying to keep it under 1g. Would a 50 trim be that much better than a 18g?

 

[dsm-onster]

Well i guess that eliminates the 16g. Reason why i was looking at Mitsu turbo's is because its an easy bolt up to an evo mani which is very cost effective. Its also comes with an internal wastegate. Alot of the 50 trims ive seen require a custom or tubular mani and an external waste gate which can quickly bring the turbo swap price over 2g's an im trying to keep it under 1g. Would a 50 trim be that much better than a 18g?

Your 264s are better suited to a lower revlimit. You could still possibly gain power at that rpm, but many of us see 272s peter out starting at that rpm. . .


A 50 trim in a BEP housing and an oil line kit is quite "bolt-on". You'll need a transtion from the compressor outlet to the intercooler piping. Ebay is cheap and great for this. Get a 3-ply reinforced silicone coupler. If this is too expensive see two pragraphs down.


The t3 stage 3 turbine in a BEP housing can flow as much as the largest "streetable" MHI turbine in a 7cm^2 turbine housing (TD06H). And then you have the option of a higher flowing more efficient compressor such as a 50-trim to couple. This combo arguably spools quicker!


What horsepower do you want? You seam to want a perfect turbo:

a strong street/strip/circuit turbo

. . . That is very expensive. . . Likely a stroker is what will satisfy you.​

If you want 400ish whp, then the new 18g "SL" is for you. You'll need no stroker and you'll have a "fat" powerband. The evo3 16g is a guaranteed 350whp turbo w/ LIGHTNING spool characteristics. The 20g (td06H) is great for your desired rev limit and for 450ish hp,not bad spool considering how hard it hits . The 50 trim has been pushed to over 500whp. All turbos I mentioned can be pushed farther; but fuel choice, tuning aptitude, supporting mods play heavily onhow far yo an go w/ a particlar turbo, of course. Guys have seen 400whp out of their evo3 16g; but not with 264s, and not without hours of tuning or profesional tuning.


BTW, that pic of the 'evo3 16g compressor map' is of the big 16g, NOT the evo3 16g. . . Sean, you know better than that .

 

[DSMunknown]

BTW, that pic of the 'evo3 16g compressor map' is of the big 16g, NOT the evo3 16g. . . Sean, you know better than that .

I knew I posted this up a while ago... click here. Oh, and has anyone asked this general question before?

 

[dsm-onster]

I knew I posted this up a while ago... click here. Oh, and has anyone asked this general question before?

This IS a general question .

That map from your thread is of the td05hR 16g, the evo 4-8 turbo. FP mentions that MHI never released an evo3 map, or the "1470". And they state that the evo "R" turbo (reverse turbine/compressor) has a compressor housing of different dimensions. The Stealth316.com site has that map misnamed as the evo3 16G map AND the evo 8 map.

Most guys manage to yank out 38-39 lbs/min from the evo3 16g turbo at best. It's possible to get more, but much easier w/ a larger turbo.

 

[eclipseGSTud]

I vote a 50 trim. I have the FP18G and I wish I had gone with the 50 trim. If you want good spool get the BB 50 trim.

Gdmbat85, what's wrong with the FP 18g? It's not living up to your expectations?

 

[dsm-onster]

I don't think he has pushed that 18g yet, running 22psi.

 

[hereitcomes]

Don't know about the 18G but the Evo16G will not make power to 8K.

Who told you this? I know plenty of people making tons of power even at low 10 lbs of boost with an EVO III. There are plenty of people running low 12's on an EVO III setup, and pump gas. Im pretty sure they arent revving to 8k either.

 

[AWD_Launch]

Who told you this? I know plenty of people making tons of power even at low 10 lbs of boost with an EVO III. There are plenty of people running low 12's on an EVO III setup, and pump gas. Im pretty sure they arent revving to 8k either.

Please reread the original post, he was looking for a turbo to make power to 8K. Now tell me how many people still make useable power on any Evo III at 8K truth be told, from around here people who short shift around 6-6.5K have netted the best results.

 

[dsm-onster]

I've never seen or heard of a td05h turbo making great power at 8K. You'll never need to shift that late and there is no point. The evo3 16g is a good little turbo. But it's no 50-trim.

You see low 12s, one doesn't need a high rev limit. And more than one 14b has done it. . . That turbo certainly cannot run to 8k and yield any better results.

 

[turbolover10]

Sounds like the 18g is hands down a better choice for your goals

 

[laserspeeddemon]

BTW, that pic of the 'evo3 16g compressor map' is of the big 16g, NOT the evo3 16g. . . Sean, you know better than that .

Actually you'd be suprised how close they flow to each other. When I compared my small 16g to a (quote fingers) "Big 16g" (unquote fingers) I could tell a large difference between the compressor wheels. But when I compared the "Big 16g" to a "Evo III 16g." I swear there was no difference. At first, I thought I had two Big 16g's. But when I compared the part numbers on the compressor housings I found that the I ,indeed, had 1 Big 16g and 1 EVO III 16g. The BIGGEST issue I was having was the flow numbers from different vendors varied. I was getting 550 cfms to 565 cfm for the EVO III 16g. I couldn't understand why so many vendors had such different numbers. However all vendors agree that the Small 16g flow 505 cfm and the Big 16g flow 550 cfm.

Finally I came upon this.

How come Japan always gets the good stuff? While we got stuck with turbos like the 14B and the T25, THEY got the Evo 16G. Compared with a so-called "big" 16G, it has an even larger compressor wheel inducer (.01" bigger), a LIGHTER compressor wheel (due to thinner blades), and a turbine housing that's been put on a serious diet -- it's 2.6 POUNDS lighter! The wastegate spring is a little stiffer, too. What's not to like? Plus, the price is affordable.

Link to source.

That explained why I could not tell the difference between the two, at least on the compressor side. 0.01" difference would not be recongizible with the naked eye. The big difference is the turbine housings apparently. However, I could not confirm that becuase the "Big 16g" I had didn't have a turbine housing.
Compressor Maps are maps are of just that; flow maps of the compressor. Compressor maps do not take the turbine flow into account. Top end difference makes up the big difference in these two turbos as (apparently) the EVO III 16g has more room to breathe, but again I could not confirm this. The turbos were not mine so I can not compare them now, even though I have access to a Big 16g and Ebay EVO III GT. But that would not be an accurate comparison. I am currently comparing the those two turbos.

You must be logged in to view this image or video.

You must be logged in to view this image or video.

You must be logged in to view this image or video.

I have found another map that is another EVO III 16g compressor map but it is in m3/s after doing the conversion to cfm, the flow maps were indentical.

You must be logged in to view this image or video.

I don't blame you for being misled, a large majority of the DSM world is under the assumption that the EVO III 16g is for superior in flow characteristics in comparison to the "Big 16g." Probably because the vendors are putting out misinformation to boost sales of the EVO III 16g (though that is just speculation). Even though now, it doesn't matter as most vendors sell the EVO III 16g at the same price as the Big 16g an in alot of cases the EVO III 16g is cheaper.
Had I not taken the turbos apart I would be another sheep in the herd. However, I like to take things apart a compare them. It's just my strange nature.

 

[laserspeeddemon]

Ok, I can't find the other compressor map anymore, so I can't prove that point.

 

[dsm-onster]

I'm not mislead. The evo3 16g and the big 16g have identical size and flow turbines. The difference is only the compressor. I have personally confirmed this. Others have posted the same.

.01" difference is significant in the world of turbos. The 60-1 compressor inducer is .03" larger in diameter than the 60-trim yet notice the flow difference. Around 10 lbs/min or over 100 hp. It would be safe to say that an evo 3 16g compressor has only around 30 more hp of airflow potential from the compressor being .01" larger.

 

[gdmbat85]

Gdmbat85, what's wrong with the FP 18g? It's not living up to your expectations?

I'm not really sure what it is. I know the turbo is making some good power cause I've had the tires spin on me in 3rd gear on more than 1 occasion and I have been able to pull away from my friends trans am which dynoed 345WHP. Maybe I'm just getting used to it or expecting too much. I don't get that pulled back into your seat feeling after the initial thrust of boost, but I've been told that it's just because I'm driving and not in the passanger seat. I guess I just feel that I have no more room for more power. I'm already running at 22psi to have the car do what I want it to do. I feel that with the 50 trim, I could be doing the same thing at say 18psi and have room to push it more.

Either way, I do have to admit that the 18g is a good turbo, and I'm glad that I went with that over the evo3. I would recommend that you consider the 50 trim, however.

 

[madscientist91]

Just wanna say thanks for all the good info, its been very useful in helping me make a decision. Im beginning to second guess the MHI turbos and think i might hold out on my motor until next summer. From what everyone has said a 50trim seems to be a well balanced turbo and suits my needs. However, after doing some research im now considering something with alittle more balls, a GT3076R Garrett turbo. This turbo seems like it will spool alittle slower than what i'd like but i'd be able to make substantial power all the way to 8k assuming i hold off on the 264's and get 272's on a stage 3 head. I have a flow chart here.

 

[laserspeeddemon]

I'm not mislead. The evo3 16g and the big 16g have identical size and flow turbines. The difference is only the compressor. I have personally confirmed this. Others have posted the same.

.01" difference is significant in the world of turbos. The 60-1 compressor inducer is .03" larger in diameter than the 60-trim yet notice the flow difference. Around 10 lbs/min or over 100 hp. It would be safe to say that an evo 3 16g compressor has only around 30 more hp of airflow potential from the compressor being .01" larger.

I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree. Since I can not directly compare some of the items anymore. The only thing I can compare is the difference in size of the compressor wheels a big 16g to my small 16g. Here is a picture of the wheels courtesy of RRE.

You must be logged in to view this image or video.

.........................Small 16g..................................................Big 16g

On this comparison the difference on the inducer is 0.06" which is about 1.5mm while the size difference on the exducer is 8mm and is very noticeable to the naked eye. Even with this large of a margin this difference in flow is only 45 cfm or 3 lb/min. This in according to your math equates to roughly 30 hp at the same pressure ratio (though that is exaggerated and does not take tempature into account). So the size difference of 0.01" or roughly 16% compared to the EVO III 16g (Exducer is 13% larger). If proportionenated (made up word ) with the Hp numbers, there is only 5 hp more at the same pressure ration. (again this is exaggerated and this is rough math but is show the point).

Blah none of this matter now anyway since the guy has decided to step it up a little.

 

[turbodsm18]

Go bigger than what you think you will want......I made the mistake of not doing that and now im regretting it...

IMO.....Go a 50 trim variant...

 

[gdmbat85]

Go bigger than what you think you will want......I made the mistake of not doing that and now im regretting it...

IMO.....Go a 50 trim variant...

Agreed. I would even suggest taking the rated hp number of a turbo and subtracting 50-75HP and use that number as an expected HP number. My reasoning for choosing the 18g over the 50 trim is that I was aiming for 375whp and I figured why choose a turbo rated for 450hp and have extra lag for extra HP potential that I'm never going to see. Why not just get a 400hp turbo and cut some lag time. Now reaching 375whp is a lot harder than it would have been with the 50 trim. Not to mention that you don't want to run a turbo to its limit or you compromise the lifetime of the turbo and efficiency.

 

[dsm-onster]

On this comparison the difference on the inducer is 0.06" which is about 1.5mm while the size difference on the exducer is 8mm and is very noticeable to the naked eye. Even with this large of a margin this difference in flow is only 45 cfm or 3 lb/min. This in according to your math equates to roughly 30 hp at the same pressure ratio (though that is exaggerated and does not take tempature into account). So the size difference of 0.01" or roughly 16% compared to the EVO III 16g (Exducer is 13% larger). If proportionenated (made up word ) with the Hp numbers, there is only 5 hp more at the same pressure ration. (again this is exaggerated and this is rough math but is show the point).

Remember, the inducer is the chief determinent of compressor airflow potential. The inducer provides the fan shape that pulls in the air to be compressed. The exducer (major diameter), no matter how larger, can only flow what the inducer provides. The inducer is the only portion of the compressor wheel exposed to the atmosphere.

There is a miniscule difference to the naked eye between the small16g inducer and the big16g inducer, yet it flows about 3 lb/min more.

You make a great arguement. It seams very logical. But is is simply not the case that the total diameter of the compressor determines airflow.

 

[pboglio]

The compressor exducer diameter, being larger, provides a higher angular velocity and thus greater pressure stacking potential without the need to spin the shaft faster. Seems to be the case in practice as the big16g's tend to produce a higher pressure ratio then the small 16g.