The Top DSM Community on the Web

For 1990-1999 Mitsubishi Eclipse, Eagle Talon, Plymouth Laser, and Galant VR-4 Owners. Log in to remove most ads.

Please Support Fuel Injector Clinic
Please Support ExtremePSI

Holset Turbos, PART 5

This site may earn a commission from merchant
affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Thanks guys, I want earlier spool than 4k, I had an scm61 and it would have 20psi by 4100-4200 rpms and it was too laggy for me I would still like better response, so something 50 trim like, between the e316g and the scm61. So i figured that the HX35 in the bolton would fill the gap perfectly.
 
That is an option. The hx35 with the stock 12cm^2 housing spools to +20psi by about 4K and 272s, based on TimG's results. This is a good option if you're ok with an adapterplate. I usually don't mention that because many get spooked by having 2 gaskets. And worry about the transition. But, really a 2g manifold outlet holeis not that much different from a t3 flange hole. The adapter plate plus the housing plus the manifold would be plenty of 'transition length' to blend in the differences to a smooth transition.

I think TimG is running a hx35/hx40 in a 12cm^2 housing.

Thanks guys, I want earlier spool than 4k, I had an scm61 and it would have 20psi by 4100-4200 rpms and it was too laggy for me I would still like better response, so something 50 trim like, between the e316g and the scm61. So i figured that the HX35 in the bolton would fill the gap perfectly.

Before i put on my straight wh1c, i had a scm6031. I had about the same spool as you. My spool rpm decreased about 500rpm with the holset. The holset also had better transient response, pre-spool power, flowed more air, was able to run more boost, and had more top end power. I think any way you end up going, you will be happy with it. After the issues i had with my PTE, im not a fan of bolt on housings. I think the BEP housings are better designed then PTE are though. Go with whatever setup works best for you.
 
Almost 500whp at only 26psi of boost is absolutely awesome considering the compressor was being pushed to it's absolute limit with a big enough boost leak to keepo a 40+ psi turbo from going much past 25psi with a 2.3L and a SMIM. You have only a 2.0 with a stock intake manifold. 33 psi will net you well over and a more efficient spot on the compressor map.

I'm confused, you have an AWD in your profile, you state you can to 100mph FWD burnouts, but you have a 1.7ish 60ft. If you have an awd with close to full weight then you already have proven to have a 600+ whp setup. Most guys prefer trapspeed with a known weight over an dyno anyway. MPH doesn't lie and is more consistant across the board than a dynomometer.

Im sitting here scratching my head today, went out and did a boost leak test and found NOTHING! What the heck is going on?
I lost a solid 7-8 psi on the dyno, now im really confused.

NOT enough load on the dyno? hmmmm

Any ideas?
 
Better pictures as promised
You must be logged in to view this image or video.

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

This is a pic of a runner to show how far it goes inside. Not bad considering it's just a spray can.
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.
 
Im sitting here scratching my head today, went out and did a boost leak test and found NOTHING! What the heck is going on?
I lost a solid 7-8 psi on the dyno, now im really confused.

NOT enough load on the dyno? hmmmm

Any ideas?

Wouldn't be too surprised. I've known a couple people who have had that problem and dropped 3-5lbs.
 
Gauge issue. Or leaky wastegate?

Cold outside, warm dyno room inside? Dont think that would make that much of a difference though.
 
Wow, quite impressive. I'd like to see what peak power it's capable of on a 4g63 and see if it's comparable to the GT42R and if it's really worth it going to a HX52 from a HX40 with .70 a/r housing.

This is the same thing I debated on but in the end I made money by switching from my hx40 to my hx52 so that made it easier not to mention I don't plan on running a 2.0 motor so spool should be better than teh average guy. I was thinking of going 2.4 to keep it as streetable as possible but after looking at my setup I will be living above 8k at the track and don't want to risk a motor so I will probably be going with a 2.2 destroked which has much better rod ratio and spinning her to about 9k maybe even 9.5k.
 
I don't recommend the 156mm 'destroker', comparing the same style/CR pistons of the same brands.

The stroker 2.3 exhibits the same tensil stress on the rod bolts (the issue with a stoker) at a little over 8600rpms as a 2.0L stroke at 9K. This is because the stroker requires pistons with a higher wrist pin height, thus the pistons are lighter. The lightest weight pistons and rods will net you good high rpm capability from the stroker at the rods. A girdle will help with crank "jump roping" at high rpms.

Now the 156mm rod 2.2 'destroker' needs the slightly longer rods to use pistons at the stock wrist pin height; no weight savings. The longer rods make for very little difference in the rod/stroke ratio. 4% higher rpms for the same tensil stress as a 2.0L. But some of that is lost, because the longer rods slightly increase the assembly weight which adds to the tensil stress on the rod bolts. Now a 63 crank likes to "jump rope" less than a 64 crank. So that is still a great plus.

The 162mm rod destroker gives you a noticable difference in rod/stroke ratio. 8% higher rpms over a 2.0L for the same tensil stress with the change in rod/stroke ratio alone. And provides the use of the lighter higher wristpin height pistons, which adds another 7% more rpms before the same tensil stress is reached vs. a 2.0L motor. If a build 2.0L shortblock can rev to 10K, then the 162mm destroker with the same style/brand rods pistons can rev to almost 12K. And still has a crank less prone to "jump rope" than a 64 crank.

The stroker 2.3 can rev with in 8% of a 156mm 'destroker'; as long as you have a girdle, like the 7bolt motors have. The 156mm destroker displaces 11000L/min at 10K. 8% less rpms: the 2.3 stroker displaces 10650L/min at 9260rpms. This is about 3% less volume flow. The 2.3 can be bored out to a 2.4 to recover that difference. Now, I'm not sure exactly how much the girdle helps for the longevity of a stroker, but apparently it helps a gread deal. See Kiggly.



I think TimG is running a hx35/hx40 in a 12cm^2 housing.
For spool speed, the turbine is the primary and vastly the most influential part of the turbo. TimG's spool speed is what you should expect from a 12cm^2 turbine housing hx35 with a non-divided exhaust manifold that flows a little better than stock and 272 cams. His compressor wheel upgrade even has the same major diameter as a stock hx35 compressor wheel.



dsmdizzle, you're assembly number matches for a Cummins hx40w.

GORBS88, I think it could very well be not enough load on the dyno. As Aero mentioned, this could account for losing or not holding as much boost. Turbine work is at least in part based on load. This is the premise behind the use of free floating turbochargers in the diesel relm.

Since then, have you had the opportunity to run to redline to see if you can again hold the same boost you did at the track?
 
I hit about 4-5psi at 4.5k on mine. Pulled like a 16g car :D Should see 25psi by 5.5k.

Do you run dsmlink? When will you be able to turn the boost up (25-30psi) Im very excited to see the airflow numbers and when 30psi will be had (rpm wise).
 
I don't recommend the 156mm 'destroker', comparing the same style/CR pistons of the same brands.

The stroker 2.3 exhibits the same tensil stress on the rod bolts (the issue with a stoker) at a little over 8600rpms as a 2.0L stroke at 9K. This is because the stroker requires pistons with a higher wrist pin height, thus the pistons are lighter. The lightest weight pistons and rods will net you good high rpm capability from the stroker at the rods. A girdle will help with crank "jump roping" at high rpms.

Now the 156mm rod 2.2 'destroker' needs the slightly longer rods to use pistons at the stock wrist pin height; no weight savings. The longer rods make for very little difference in the rod/stroke ratio. 4% higher rpms for the same tensil stress as a 2.0L. But some of that is lost, because the longer rods slightly increase the assembly weight which adds to the tensil stress on the rod bolts. Now a 63 crank likes to "jump rope" less than a 64 crank. So that is still a great plus.

The 162mm rod destroker gives you a noticable difference in rod/stroke ratio. 8% higher rpms over a 2.0L for the same tensil stress with the change in rod/stroke ratio alone. And provides the use of the lighter higher wristpin height pistons, which adds another 7% more rpms before the same tensil stress is reached vs. a 2.0L motor. If a build 2.0L shortblock can rev to 10K, then the 162mm destroker with the same style/brand rods pistons can rev to almost 12K. And still has a crank less prone to "jump rope" than a 64 crank.

The stroker 2.3 can rev with in 8% of a 156mm 'destroker'; as long as you have a girdle, like the 7bolt motors have. The 156mm destroker displaces 11000L/min at 10K. 8% less rpms: the 2.3 stroker displaces 10650L/min at 9260rpms. This is about 3% less volume flow. The 2.3 can be bored out to a 2.4 to recover that difference. Now, I'm not sure exactly how much the girdle helps for the longevity of a stroker, but apparently it helps a gread deal. See Kiggly.




For spool speed, the turbine is the primary and vastly the most influential part of the turbo. TimG's spool speed is what you should expect from a 12cm^2 turbine housing hx35 with a non-divided exhaust manifold that flows a little better than stock and 272 cams. His compressor wheel upgrade even has the same major diameter as a stock hx35 compressor wheel.



dsmdizzle, you're assembly number matches for a Cummins hx40w.

GORBS88, I think it could very well be not enough load on the dyno. As Aero mentioned, this could account for losing or not holding as much boost. Turbine work is at least in part based on load. This is the premise behind the use of free floating turbochargers in the diesel relm.

Since then, have you had the opportunity to run to redline to see if you can again hold the same boost you did at the track?


You hop around a little so you lost me in your point even though I understand your information. The thing is the destroked 2.2 will have only slightly less displacement than a 2.3 and be able to rev higher safer given both have a girdle which I plan on running. When balanced correctly the weight difference in the rods will not factor as much as rod ratio into rpm threshold. I would rather have a setup with a heavier more durable rod anyway than a lighter rod with less strength. I'm leaning now toward the 156 or 162 manley I beams or the MAP performance 1000hp rods and wiseco HD 1400 pistons with a 8:5:1 cr. I could actually go with a 2.4 block stock 2.0 crank and 162mm rod which would yield a 1.8 rod ratio which would be a very good reving engine but would have slighlty less displacement.
 
Does it mean much when you hit 5 psi? My E3 16G hits 5psi at 2 grand, 10-12 at 2500, and 20+ by 27-2800. My cousins imitation E3 16g hits those low boost areas about the same as mine, yet doesn't get to 20+ until 32-3300.

Also, if I advance low end part of my timing map, I don't hit full boost until 3300 too.
 
It means much when the turbo has the potential to flow over twice as much :).


Slippi. I'm saying not to bother with the 156mm 2.2L. Do the 162mm 2.2L.

The girdle minimizes the jumproping issue that the 2.4 crank has. Thus you would be better off building a 2.0 with a 2.4 crank and boring it .060" over which would make a 2.4L motor. The 4g63 built with the 2.4 crank, bored .060" over and the same rod/piston brand you're chosing will push the same volume flow at it's maximum safe redline as a 156mm 2.2L will at its maximum safe redline. You will have just as much powerband with the stroker as you will with the 156mm 2.2L motor. Why? Well, the air velocity is much higher with the stroker (faster piston speeds) and you have .2L more displacement at any given rpm point, you will have significantly faster spool with the stroker. The turbo spools much earlier and you then have made up for the loss in the 8% increase in rpms the 156mm 2.2L provides. So using a bored stroker, your setup becomes more streetable, no loss is power under the curve, no loss in peak power. There are no advantages to the 2.2L 156mm rod motor over the bored stroker and there is less streetability (boost comes in later, cams come on later).

You'd rather have heavier rods that won't bend, but rev it? The rods bend at a certian cylinder pressure. And cylinder pressure is determined by torque not horsepower. You can rev to the moon and make 1000whp and not bend a rod that you will bend if you make 1000whp at 6000rpms. You can break a rod bolt revving to the moon at 1000whp that you will not break if you make 1000whp at 6000rpms. You need hellatiously strong rodbolts for heavy components. Rodbolts limit redline (along with a few other things). Rods limit peak torque. You can take the cylinder pressure with heavier components but will sacrifice maximum safe rpms. Arn't you wanting a 'destroker' motor for high rpm ability?

I like the 162mm 2.2L motor. You get FAR more 'revability'. Enough 'revability' at its safe revlimit to significantly outflow the 2.4 stroker (2.3 w/ 2.4 crank & bored .06" over) at it's revlimit. The 162mm rod 2.2L motor can rev over 16% higher than the bored stroker.

One thing I forgot. The 2.3L motor has a smaller bore than the 2.2L motor. Thus, not only do the pistons weigh less because of a higher wristpin, but also because of the smaller diameter of the piston.

Sorry for stearing so far off topic. We should probably take this to the stroker section.
 
It means much when the turbo flows over twice as much :).


Slippi. I'm saying not to bother with the 156mm 2.2L. Do the 162mm 2.2L.

The girdle minimizes the jumproping issue that the 2.4 crank has. Thus you would be better off building a 2.0 with a 2.4 crank and boring it .060" over which would make a 2.4L motor. The 4g63 built with the 2.4 crank, bored .060" over and the same rod/piston brand you're chosing will push the same volume flow at it's maximum safe redline as a 156mm 2.2L will at its maximum safe redline. You will have just as much powerband with the stroker as you will with the 156mm 2.2L motor. Why? Well, the air velocity is much higher with the stroker and you have .2L more displacement at any given rpm point, you will have significantly faster spool with the stroker. The turbo spools much earlier and you then have made up for the loss in the 8% increase in rpms the 156mm 2.2L provides. So using a bored stroker, your setup becomes more streetable, no loss is power under the curve, no loss in peak power.

You'd rather have heavier rods that won't bend, but rev it? The rods bend at a certian cylinder pressure. And cylinder pressure is determined by torque not horsepower. You can rev to the moon and make 1000whp and not bend a rod that you will bend if you make 1000whp at 6000rpms. You need hellatiously strong rodbolts for heavy components. Rodbolts limit redline (along with a few other things). You can take the cylinder pressure with heavier components but will sacrifice maximum safe rpms. Arn't you wanting a 'destroker' motor for high rpm ability?

I like the 162mm 2.2L motor. You get FAR more 'revability'. Enough 'revability' at its safe revlimit to significantly outflow the 2.4 stroker (2.3 w/ 2.4 crank & bored .06" over) at it's revlimit.

Sorry for stearing so far off topic.

The thing about the 2.3 I do like though is that I can use a 4g64 crank which I have actually heard is stronger than the eagle crank. I talk to people that have broke eagle cranks but not stock 4g64 cranks not to be confused with regular 2.4 galant and eclipse cranks.
 
Modern Automotive has a stock 2.4 crank in their 1000hp rx7. I also remember David Buschur, in a forum talking about shepherd's engine, saying that the stock crank is as good or better than the aftermarkets.

I wouldn't think to build one with an aftermarket crank, although I may be biased since my dad owns a junkyard so I can get all the used parts I want.
 
Not to jack the thread, but Slippi, how are you going to achieve 2.2L with stock 88mm crank??? Cause if you use 94mm crank, then it is almost impossible to find even custom pistons, that are on top of 162mm rod with 94mm crank. Thanks.
 
Not to jack the thread, but Slippi, how are you going to achieve 2.2L with stock 88mm crank??? Cause if you use 94mm crank, then it is almost impossible to find even custom pistons, that are on top of 162mm rod with 94mm crank. Thanks.

the stock crank and long rod setup is a 2.1 setup not 2.2. I brought that up seperate from the 2.2 part of the post sorry I didn't identify that before. That and you don't find CUSTOM pistons you have them made ;)

Edit: I just caught what yoru saying. STock crank for a 4g64 is 100mm not 88
 
This was posted by delta in another thread about 2.2 motors.


Using a 88mm OEM 2L crank, it would be impossible to bore either the 2L or 2.4L blocks enough to achieve 2.18L, you must use a bigger stroke. The practical limit in bore size is 88mm, or 0.060" overbore for a 2.4L(very risky and usually only done on 2.4L blocks).

The formula for displacement is 3.1415 * (bore/2)^2 * stroke * number of cylinders.

Using an 88mm (stock 2.0L) crankshaft:
85mm bore = 1997cc
85.5mm bore = 2021
86mm bore = 2045
86.5mm bore = 2068
87mm bore = 2092
87.5mm bore = 2116
88mm bore = 2141
Rod Ratios: stock piston and 150mm rod = 1.70
stroker piston and 156mm rod = 1.77
stroker piston, 2.4 block, 162mm rod = 1.84


For a 92mm Magnus crankshaft:
85mm bore = 2088cc
85.5mm bore = 2113
86mm bore = 2138
86.5mm bore = 2163
87mm bore = 2188
87.5mm bore = 2213
88mm bore = 2238
Rod Ratios: stock piston, 148mm rod = 1.61
stroker piston, 154mm rod = 1.67
stroker piston, 2.4 block, 160mm rod = 1.74


For a 94mm Eagle crankshaft:
85mm bore = 2134cc
85.5mm bore = 2159
86mm bore = 2184
86.5mm bore = 2209
87mm bore = 2235
87.5mm bore = 2261
88mm bore = 2287
Rod Ratios: stock piston, 147mm rod = 1.56
stroker piston, 153mm rod = 1.63
stroker piston, 2.4 block, 159mm rod = 1.69


For a 97mm Crower crankshaft:
85mm bore = 2202cc
85.5mm bore = 2228
86mm bore = 2254
86.5mm bore = 2280
87mm bore = 2306
87.5mm bore = 2333
88mm bore = 2360
Rod Ratios: stock piston, 145.5mm rod = 1.5
stroker piston, 151.5mm rod = 1.56
stroker piston, 2.4 block, 157.5mm rod = 1.62


For a 100mm (stock 2.4L) crankshaft:
85mm bore = 2270cc
85.5mm bore = 2296
86mm bore = 2323
86.5mm bore = 2350
87mm bore = 2378
87.5mm bore = 2405
88mm bore = 2433
Rod Ratios: stock pistons, 144mm rod = 1.44
stroker pistons, 150mm rod = 1.50
stroker pistons, 2.4 block, 156mm rod = 1.56


For a 102mm Crower crankshaft:
85mm bore = 2315cc
85.5mm bore = 2342
86mm bore = 2370
86.5mm bore = 2397
87mm bore = 2425
87.5mm bore = 2453
88mm bore = 2481
Rod Ratios: stock piston, 143mm rod = 1.40
stroker piston, 149mm rod = 1.46
stroker piston, 2.4 block, 155mm rod = 1.52


For a 106mm Crower crankshaft:
Crower states the 106mm crank must be used in a 2.4L block, stock 2.4L bore is 86.5mm.
85mm bore = n/a
85.5mm bore = n/a
86mm bore = n/a
86.5mm bore = 2491cc
87mm bore = 2520
87.5mm bore = 2549
88mm bore = 2579
Rod Ratios: stock piston, 2.4 block, 147mm rod = 1.39
stroker piston, 2.4 block, 153mm rod = 1.44

These are all of the crankshaft stroke lengths I have ever heard of anyone actually using. There are probably some other custom length ones out there (Japanese made), but most of those are too pricey and unproven. If I've forgotten any, I'll edit this post with the displacements as I'm made aware of them.

edit: Obviously a stock piston in a 2.4 block will use the same rod length as a stroker piston in a 2.0 block, and have the same resulting rod ratio, so I did not post those because of redundancy. These rod ratios are based on only two piston pin locations, the stock piston's pin location and the stroker piston's 6mm shorter height. There are other possibilities if the pin location of the piston used is not either of these two
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Support Vendors who Support the DSM Community
Boosted Fabrication ECM Tuning ExtremePSI Fuel Injector Clinic Innovation Products Jacks Transmissions JNZ Tuning Kiggly Racing Morrison Fabrications MyMitsubishiStore.com RixRacing RockAuto RTM Racing STM Tuned

Latest posts

Build Thread Updates

Vendor Updates

Latest Classifieds

Back
Top