50-trim: oil feed from head or filter?

[soldave]

I know this question has been asked in various guises but want to be sure of an answer for my situation. Picked up my car from the tuning shop yesterday after having a Bullseye Power T04B 50-trim turbo put on it, along with some other bits. Now although I gave then a filter housing fitting with the stainless steel oil feed line, they have connected the feed line up to the head (I assume because the cars they are used to working with can be fed from the head). My buddy has told me that the head doesn't have enough pressure to supply a journal bearing turbo with enough oil and that it has to be from the oil filter housing (which it could be connected to with the fitting).

So my question is: does the oil feed line have to be from the filter housing? If so then I'll have to hightail it back to the shop tomorrow and make sure they haven't thrown away the fitting that they must have taken off the line.

Thanks for any advice in advance

 

[soldave]

Restricter plate?

Something like this will prevent too much oil from getting to your bb turbo and messing this up prematurely.

EDIT: Damn, beaten to it!

 

[v8s_are_slow]

Hehehe!!! I won I won

 

[JusMX141]

Because the 16g is also water cooled. The only thing the oil has to do with the 16g is keep the shaft off the bearings. That is also a reason ball bearing turbos use the head for the oil supply.

The water lines do nothing but prevent oil from coking to the housing and the turbo's internals in the event of a hot shutdown. Being water-cooled has nothing to do with increasing a turbo's reliability....look at every diesel turbo ever made.

Yes, the 20g should have the oil feed on the head.

Why would you feed a 20G from the head and not a Garrett? Have you ever seen the difference in the oil inlet of both turbos?

The 20G practically has a restrictor built into the CHRA:

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

Here's a Garrett oil inlet. You can see the giant hole which would literally dump GALLONS of oil into the housing, flooding the entire cartridge:

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

If ANYTHING, I would think the GARRETT would be the turbo that should be fed from the head, wouldn't you? The MHI turbo is going to restrict the oil by itself no matter where you source the supply.


I wouldn't post this without experience.....I've had two customers in the past month DESTROY Garrett journal-bearing turbos by feeding them from the filter housing.

One of the turbos was a PTE 6031E on my buddy's 2G GSX. The turbo would have no more than 1000 miles and it would develop a TON of up / down play, and would start to blow oil past the turbine seal. The car has a built 6-bolt and the turbo was being fed from the filter housing with no restrictor....just an inline filter.

Upon disassembling the turbo, both times I found the turbine shaft was scored with bronze material from the journal bearings....almost a symptom of a turbo that wasn't getting enough oil. What was happening was the excessive oil pressure and volume was literally loading the shaft under boost and forcing the shaft to contact the journal bearings.

After the second time I rebuilt the turbo, we moved the oil supply to the head. It's fed with a stainless line and a full-flow inline filter from the head. The turbo boosts better, has NO smoke, and is still going strong with NO shaft play.



Bottom line....if you're feeding a Garrett turbo unrestricted from the filter housing, you're killing it with oil. I'm done feeding turbos from the filter housing.

 

[soldave]

The water lines do nothing but prevent oil from coking to the housing and the turbo's internals in the event of a hot shutdown. Being water-cooled has nothing to do with increasing a turbo's reliability....look at every diesel turbo ever made.

So you're saying that preventing oil from coking the turbo's internals in the event of a hot shutdown doesn't affect reliablity and turbo performance at all? I.E. it aids with cooling which is what 1992awdlaser was talking about. Not sure what your point was there.

Here's a Garrett oil inlet. You can see the giant hole which would literally dump GALLONS of oil into the housing, flooding the entire cartridge:

If it's going to "literally dump GALLONS of oil into the housing", where are these GALLONS going to come from? The engine only holds about 4.2l anyway. Also, writing random words in uppercase doesn't make your point any more valid.

If ANYTHING, I would think the GARRETT would be the turbo that should be fed from the head, wouldn't you? The MHI turbo is going to restrict the oil by itself no matter where you source the supply.

If you're not using a restrictor, then yes. Which I believe is what we have been saying.

Bottom line....if you're feeding a Garrett turbo unrestricted from the filter housing, you're killing it with oil. I'm done feeding turbos from the filter housing.

Again, as people above have said. Glad you agree with us.

 

[JusMX141]

So you're saying that preventing oil from coking the turbo's internals in the event of a hot shutdown doesn't affect reliablity and turbo performance at all? I.E. it aids with cooling which is what 1992awdlaser was talking about. Not sure what your point was there.

He was implying that the oil "cooled" the turbo, which it technically doesn't do. If that was the case, the oil would be pumped throughout the housing as the coolant is in a water-cooled design. Instead, the oil is pumped to the journals and the thrust plate, then allowed to drain. In this design the oil acts as a lubricant, and not a cooling agent.

Perhaps Garrett can explain this better:

"Following a hot shutdown of a turbocharger, heat soak begins. This means that the heat in the head, exhaust manifold, and turbine housing finds it way to the turbo's center housing, raising its temperature. These extreme temperatures in the center housing can result in oil coking.

To minimize the effects of heat soak-back, water-cooled center housings were introduced. These use coolant from the engine to act as a heat sink after engine shutdown, preventing the oil from coking. The water lines utilize a thermal siphon effect to reduce the peak heat soak-back temperature after key-off. The layout of the pipes should minimize peaks and troughs with the (cool) water inlet on the low side. To help this along, it is advantageous to tilt the turbocharger about 25° about the axis of shaft rotation."

So in a sense, I suppose you're right....it does increase reliability in cars that are often shut down hot.

If it's going to "literally dump GALLONS of oil into the housing", where are these GALLONS going to come from? The engine only holds about 4.2l anyway. Also, writing random words in uppercase doesn't make your point any more valid.

From the oil pan, silly.

4.2 Liters is approximately 1.10952 gallons. Our car's oil system conveniently drains itself back into the oil pan, allowing the cycle to repeat itself....hence "gallons." Sorry for confusing you with the uppercase letters.

If you're not using a restrictor, then yes. Which I believe is what we have been saying.

The only time I saw the term "restrictor" mentioned above was in context of a Ball Bearing turbo, which was not what I was implying. I meant that in some cases a restrictor is also needed for a Journal Bearing turbo....just not a tiny .030" Ball Bearing restrictor.

 

[soldave]

He was implying that the oil "cooled" the turbo, which it technically doesn't do. If that was the case, the oil would be pumped throughout the housing as the coolant is in a water-cooled design. Instead, the oil is pumped to the journals and the thrust plate, then allowed to drain. In this design the oil acts as a lubricant, and not a cooling agent.

Perhaps Garrett can explain this better:

"Following a hot shutdown of a turbocharger, heat soak begins. This means that the heat in the head, exhaust manifold, and turbine housing finds it way to the turbo’s center housing, raising its temperature. These extreme temperatures in the center housing can result in oil coking.

To minimize the effects of heat soak-back, water-cooled center housings were introduced. These use coolant from the engine to act as a heat sink after engine shutdown, preventing the oil from coking. The water lines utilize a thermal siphon effect to reduce the peak heat soak-back temperature after key-off. The layout of the pipes should minimize peaks and troughs with the (cool) water inlet on the low side. To help this along, it is advantageous to tilt the turbocharger about 25° about the axis of shaft rotation."

So in a sense, I suppose you're right....it DOES increase reliability in cars that are often shut down hot.

So which one are you going for: your answer of it doesn't help with cooling or Garrett's evidence you quoted which is that it helps to minimize heat soak-back (and therefore help with cooling the turbo when the engine's shut down)?

From the oil pan, silly.

4.2 Liters is approximately 1.10952 gallons. Our car's oil system conveniently drains itself back into the oil pan, allowing the cycle to repeat itself....hence "gallons." Sorry for confusing you with the uppercase letters.

So are you saying that a ballbearing turbo has the same oil in it all the time? I would have thought that over time it too would cycle and recirculate in the system, thereby filling the turbo with gallons of oil.

 

[JusMX141]

So which one are you going for: your answer of it doesn't help with cooling or Garrett's evidence you quoted which is that it helps to minimize heat soak-back (and therefore help with cooling the turbo when the engine's shut down)?

Both. The water lines do nothing to increase durability while in operation, which is what I originally stated; and water lines are not required on a journal-bearing turbo as long as it's allowed to cool down properly before shutting the car off.

But I am curious- this thread is 2 months old and you haven't made mention of where you're currently drawing your oil from and how it's working for you....so instead of questioning every piece of information I post like a Kindergarten student, let's hear it.

 

[soldave]

But I am curious- this thread is 2 months old and you haven't made mention of where you're currently drawing your oil from and how it's working for you....so instead of questioning every piece of information I post like a Kindergarten student, let's hear it.

As post 12 said, I went to the shop on August 20th and had the fitment changed to the filter housing, as had been recommended. Turbo works fine, holding 1.5-1.55bar at the moment.

 

[JusMX141]

Right....I read that post, I was just curious if you had moved it back to the head for any reason or if the turbo had died and forgot to update the thread. Glad it's working out for you.

 

[tumtum411]

I like that turbo

 

[1992awdlaser]

Where do I start?

The water lines do nothing but prevent oil from coking to the housing and the turbo's internals in the event of a hot shutdown. Being water-cooled has nothing to do with increasing a turbo's reliability....look at every diesel turbo ever made.

So you're saying that preventing oil from coking the turbo's internals in the event of a hot shutdown doesn't affect reliablity and turbo performance at all? I.E. it aids with cooling which is what 1992awdlaser was talking about. Not sure what your point was there.

Exactly. Show me where I used the word reliability.

Why would you feed a 20G from the head and not a Garrett? Have you ever seen the difference in the oil inlet of both turbos?

Not all turbos are created equal. Mitsubishi designed their turbos(14b,16g,20g) to be feed from the head.

If ANYTHING, I would think the GARRETT would be the turbo that should be fed from the head, wouldn't you? The MHI turbo is going to restrict the oil by itself no matter where you source the supply.


I wouldn't post this without experience.....I've had two customers in the past month DESTROY Garrett journal-bearing turbos by feeding them from the filter housing.

One of the turbos was a PTE 6031E on my buddy's 2G GSX. The turbo would have no more than 1000 miles and it would develop a TON of up / down play, and would start to blow oil past the turbine seal. The car has a built 6-bolt and the turbo was being fed from the filter housing with no restrictor....just an inline filter.

Upon disassembling the turbo, both times I found the turbine shaft was scored with bronze material from the journal bearings....almost a symptom of a turbo that wasn't getting enough oil. What was happening was the excessive oil pressure and volume was literally loading the shaft under boost and forcing the shaft to contact the journal bearings.

After the second time I rebuilt the turbo, we moved the oil supply to the head. It's fed with a stainless line and a full-flow inline filter from the head. The turbo boosts better, has NO smoke, and is still going strong with NO shaft play.



Bottom line....if you're feeding a Garrett turbo unrestricted from the filter housing, you're killing it with oil. I'm done feeding turbos from the filter housing.

I will quote you on this one to see why this was pointless to post.

"The car has a built 6-bolt and the turbo was being fed from the filter housing with no restrictor....just an inline filter."

And

"if you're feeding a Garrett turbo unrestricted from the filter housing"

Nobody said to use or not to use a restrictor. Like I said before, all turbos are not created equal. Some will require a restrictor and some won't.

He was implying that the oil "cooled" the turbo, which it technically doesn't do. If that was the case, the oil would be pumped throughout the housing as the coolant is in a water-cooled design. Instead, the oil is pumped to the journals and the thrust plate, then allowed to drain. In this design the oil acts as a lubricant, and not a cooling agent.

Let me ask you a few things.

1. If oil doesn't cool the turbo on an oil only turbo, what prevents the chra from getting so hot that it melts?
2. If oil doesn't cool the turbo on an oil only turbo, what does? Air?
3. If oil doesn't cool the turbo on an oil only turbo, why do people use turbo timers? They say it is to let the oil and turbo chra to cool down to prevent the oil from "coking up." Oh no, I forgot air cools the turbo that quickly.

And I will quote Forced Performance to prove my point like you tried to do by quoting Garrett.

"Remember that you aren't just trying to keep some oil on the bearing, you are trying to float one piece of metal above another piece of metal on a pressurized film of oil, and at the same time keep the whole mess cool enough not to melt. A constant high volume stream of oil does just that, a measly trickle will send you back to the turbo shop. "

"One exception to this is the Ballistic Concepts Ball Bearing CHRA from Garrett. These turbochargers are totally different internally. Their operation is actually impeded by too much oil. It is fine to supply these turbos with oil from the head. In fact the oil line we offer comes from the head and features a .8mm orifice to restrict the oil flow to the turbo . These turbos require water cooling in the absence of the typical high volume of oil that would normally provide stable temperatures. "

 

[JusMX141]

Not all turbos are created equal. Mitsubishi designed their turbos(14b,16g,20g) to be feed from the head.

If that's the case, why do most 2G MHI install kits come with flexible oil line to gather oil from the filter housing?

1. If oil doesn't cool the turbo on an oil only turbo, what prevents the chra from getting so hot that it melts?
2. If oil doesn't cool the turbo on an oil only turbo, what does? Air?
3. If oil doesn't cool the turbo on an oil only turbo, why do people use turbo timers? They say it is to let the oil and turbo chra to cool down to prevent the oil from "coking up." Oh no, I forgot air cools the turbo that quickly.

Air seems to be quite logical....and the fact that 1600*f exhaust isn't passing over the turbine wheel during idle; more like 500*-700*f.

I'm glad feeding your oil supply from the filter housing is working for you....I simply stated that it hasn't worked out so well on my buddy's cars and the Garrett turbos I rebuild for others, so I would personally keep the oil supply at the head in the o.p.'s case. He elected to argue every bit of info I posted for some reason, and that's fine. At least I was heard.

 

[soldave]

Let me ask you a few things.

1. If oil doesn't cool the turbo on an oil only turbo, what prevents the chra from getting so hot that it melts?
2. If oil doesn't cool the turbo on an oil only turbo, what does? Air?
3. If oil doesn't cool the turbo on an oil only turbo, why do people use turbo timers? They say it is to let the oil and turbo chra to cool down to prevent the oil from "coking up." Oh no, I forgot air cools the turbo that quickly.

And I will quote Forced Performance to prove my point like you tried to do by quoting Garrett.

"Remember that you aren't just trying to keep some oil on the bearing, you are trying to float one piece of metal above another piece of metal on a pressurized film of oil, and at the same time keep the whole mess cool enough not to melt. A constant high volume stream of oil does just that, a measly trickle will send you back to the turbo shop. "

"One exception to this is the Ballistic Concepts Ball Bearing CHRA from Garrett. These turbochargers are totally different internally. Their operation is actually impeded by too much oil. It is fine to supply these turbos with oil from the head. In fact the oil line we offer comes from the head and features a .8mm orifice to restrict the oil flow to the turbo . These turbos require water cooling in the absence of the typical high volume of oil that would normally provide stable temperatures. "

Of course oil will help with the cooling, along with the very small airflow the turbo gets. I don't think anyone would really argue with that one

....I simply stated that it hasn't worked out so well on my buddy's cars and the Garrett turbos I rebuild for others, so I would personally keep the oil supply at the head in the o.p.'s case.

But that would be going against what both Bullseye, Extremepsi.com and those on 5 forums have been telling me. In addition, I think I recall Bullsese and/or extremepsi.com telling me that supplying oil from the head would render the warranty void in some situations.

 

[JusMX141]

I think I recall Bullseye and/or extremepsi.com telling me that supplying oil from the head would render the warranty void in some situations.

Most likely because they don't want the new turbo you just bought from them to be getting "dirty oil". Use an inline filter and that problem is solved.

But then again, how would they know where you're getting your oil supply unless they send a rep out to your house and pop your hood while you're sleeping.

Would any of these shops recommend using .060" (or .062" / .065", depending on where you buy it) restrictor after the 80-100psi of oil pressure sent to their turbo blows oil past the turbine seal and forces the turbine shaft to contact the journal bearings instead of floating, causing the turbo to be sent back to them for repeated warranty service?

 

[soldave]

Most likely because they don't want the new turbo you just bought from them to be getting "dirty oil". Use an inline filter and that problem is solved.

But then again, how would they know where you're getting your oil supply unless they send a rep out to your house and pop your hood while you're sleeping.

Well considering I'm asking them where to get the oil supply from, they might have a bit of an idea. And I'm not going to start creating false names and email accounts just to ask them a simple technical question.

Plus, they said the turbo needs at least 50-60psi of oil pressure (might be more, but I don't have the email infront of me to quote from), which they said the head simply can't provide. They didn't mention anything about dirty oil or saying that if I used an inline filter from the head it would work fine even though it is providing much less pressure than they wanted.

Would any of these shops recommend using .060" (or .062" / .065", depending on where you buy it) restrictor after the 80-100psi of oil pressure sent to their turbo blows oil past the turbine seal and forces the turbine shaft to contact the journal bearings instead of floating, causing the turbo to be sent back to them for repeated warranty service?

I think some do, depending on their fuel pressure requirements. I am using a very slight restrictor as part of the adapter setup I had to use here in Japan. Just had a look on the Bullseye website and can't see them recommending the use of a restrictor on a journal bearing turbo. Can't quote for other companies as can't be bothered to check their sites and technical info pages.

 

[1992awdlaser]

But then again, how would they know where you're getting your oil supply unless they send a rep out to your house and pop your hood while you're sleeping.

Experienced turbo builder like FP would be able to tell that a turbo died from lack of oil. Then they would say it was being feed from the head. And if it wasn't they would say there was another problem with the car which caused low oil pressure/volume to get to the turbo.

 

[soldave]

Experienced turbo builder like FP would be able to tell that a turbo died from lack of oil. Then they would say it was being feed from the head. And if it wasn't they would say there was another problem with the car which caused low oil pressure/volume to get to the turbo.

True, that. You or I may not be able to tell what has gone on with the turbo but I'm sure an experienced turbo manufacturer could have an educated guess.

 

[JusMX141]

Experienced turbo builder like FP would be able to tell that a turbo died from lack of oil. Then they would say it was being feed from the head. And if it wasn't they would say there was another problem with the car which caused low oil pressure/volume to get to the turbo.

A turbo that died from too much oil will look the same as a turbo that died from not enough oil....I've seen that with my own eyes. In either case the turbine shaft will contact the journal bearings and score them.

Since you're so adamant that FP can do no wrong when it comes to turbochargers, I'll prove that even FP can lie about turbo diagnosis when they're on the losing end, as shown in this thread: Why you may want to STAY AWAY from FP (Forced Performance) Turbo - IWSTI.com: Subaru WRX STI Forums

On the turbo in question in that thread, if something would've entered the turbine housing and impacted the turbine wheel, the turbine inducer would be damaged....NOT the exducer. In the case of the FP Subie turbo, you'll see from the pics that the turbine exducer sustained the majority of the damage, and the tips of all the other fins are hooked away from the direction of rotation, showing that the entire radius of the wheel's exducer made contact with the housing.

Even if a foreign object did cause the damage, how could it only damage one fin when the turbo is spinning at nearly 150,000 rpms? This clearly shows that the shaft play occurred first, which caused the turbine damage by allowing the turbine wheel to contact the housing. I'll bet any amount of money the turbine inducer tips were undamaged, which is proof that nothing went through this turbo, as claimed by FP.

I truly believe FP used this as a way to cop out of a warranty claim. Their theory is "try to prove a foreign object DIDN'T cause the damage", but I've held plenty of damaged turbos in my hands, and I know the truth.

 

[soldave]

A turbo that died from too much oil will look the same as a turbo that died from not enough oil....I've seen that with my own eyes. In either case the turbine shaft will contact the journal bearings and score them.

Since you're so adamant that FP can do no wrong when it comes to turbochargers, I'll prove that even FP can lie about turbo diagnosis when they're on the losing end, as shown in this thread: Why you may want to STAY AWAY from FP (Forced Performance) Turbo - IWSTI.com: Subaru WRX STI Forums

On the turbo in question in that thread, if something would've entered the turbine housing and impacted the turbine wheel, the turbine inducer would be damaged....NOT the exducer. In the case of the FP Subie turbo, you'll see from the pics that the turbine exducer sustained the majority of the damage, and the tips of all the other fins are hooked away from the direction of rotation, showing that the entire radius of the wheel's exducer made contact with the housing.

The shaft play occurred first, which caused the turbine damage by allowing the turbine wheel to contact the housing. I'll bet any amount of money the turbine inducer tips were undamaged, which is proof that nothing went through this turbo, as FP claimed.

I truly believe FP used this as a way to cop out of a warranty claim. Their theory is "try to prove a foreign object DIDN'T cause the damage", but I've held plenty of damaged turbos in my hands, and I know the truth.

Don't think he was saying FP can do no wrong. he was using them as an example of an experienced turbo builder. He could have, instead, said Borg Warner, Bullseye etc. Hence why he said "Experienced turbo builder like FP" and not something like "FP are faultless".

And what is "the truth"?

 

[dsm-onster]

Well truth is FP isn't very clear on the maximum oil pressure allowed on a journal bearing turbo. . .

I tend to agree with Justin. An 18g is a head fed turbo and has no water feeds. Was beaten to he!! by me (locked wastegate with strap iron). And never failed on my watch for several years. Yes, because of proper cool down. But a journal bearing turbo fed from the head. So fp is right perhaps only about garrett turbos:"Remember that you aren't just trying to keep some oil on the bearing, you are trying to float one piece of metal above another piece of metal on a pressurized film of oil, and at the same time keep the whole mess cool enough not to melt. A constant high volume stream of oil does just that, a measly trickle will send you back to the turbo shop."

Holsets are journal bearing non-watercooled turbos and diesels don't function past 3500rpms. They don't build alot of oil pressure. 60psi is the recommended maximum per the overhaul manual.

You all make great points. Here's what my personal experience has taught me.

--A 4g63 with no bshafts kills turbos with no restrictors when being feed from the oil filter housing. Too many have proven it. Journal bearing turbos have blown oil unrestricted from the OFH on a 463 with no bshafts.
--Too many have proven feeding from the OFH is good for a garrett when you DO have b shafts (see 2g t25).
--You can likely feed from the head with a garrett if you have no bshafts because the oil pressure through out the motor is much higher. This is why there have been VERY many who have feed their journal bearing garrett turbos from the head and gained spool speed and remained reliable. See: http://www.dsmtuners.com/forums/turbo-system-tech/283578-lets-talk-4g63-turbo-oil-feed-supply-locations-all-turbo-brands.html

So I think a garrett CAN see too much oil and be damaged under a DSM hood. You need a restrictor if you're running no bshafts and feeding from OFH. Period. No turbo with either center cartridge likes 120psi oil pressure. Why? Case 1) can't you run 100psi of oil pressure, weaken or crack the seal rings, and the oil shoot out of the seals and do very little if any lubrication of the bearings even with 100psi oil pressure pushed into the turbo? Case 2) during a high oil pressure interval, is it easier to keep a seal ring unsealed after oil has built up enough pressure to push past it initially? If either case is possible, the bearing would show failure due to poor oiling. Is this what you are refering to Justin? In the second case an experienced vendor would NOT be able to tell you what killed the turbo, poor oil pressure/flow or too much pressure/flow.

I have heard of many guys blowing oil past their journal bearing turbo seals by feeding off the filter housing without a restrictor. My holset is one of them. There have been reports of turbo bearing failure 'due to poor oiling' when the chra has to to be drained of oil during disassembly. What are the differences in these setups. . .

1. Well the holset requires a bit less oil than a garrett. I have bshafts but stock pressure from the OFH apparently is too much.

2. Journal bearing garrett turbos require more oil pressure than holset or mhi. But apparently 120psi oil pressure is too much for any turbo. There are several long posts in the GN forums from a moderator that used to work for PTE. PTE sais no more than 85psi oil pressure should be seen with their journal bearing GARRETT turbos. Garretts can function fine with 15psi oil pressure while not in load. And I've seen oil pressure in the head that high with no b-shafts that high. In load or spool they need at least 35ish psifrom the sources I've seen (calls to AGP, PTE, FP, for random various garrett turbos). I've seen that at the head with no bshafts too.

3. MHI is an interesting animal. Apparently it has a smaller shaft like garrett thus less force is being applied to the seal rings. Holset has a FAT shaft and, like a larger wastegate flapper blowing open, the oil could push past the seal ring at lower pressure than a garrett or mhi, right? It makes sense to me. So an MHI can tolerate lower oil pressure than other journal bearing turbos (of course) and it won't blow the seals being fed from the OFH and with bshafts. Now without b shafts, I'll !!guarantee!! you that it will. from my personal experience.

So there we have the reason why some feed from the head with a journal bearing garrett just fine. And why some kill garrett turbos feeding them from the OFH. The difference is Bshafts. Everyone seams to forget to mention whether or not they have them installed. This drastically alters oil pressure. One location that does not flow enough suddenly will. And another location will be too much and kill the turbo just as well.

 

[1992awdlaser]

Since you're so adamant that FP can do no wrong when it comes to turbochargers, I'll prove that even FP can lie about turbo diagnosis when they're on the losing end, as shown in this thread: Why you may want to STAY AWAY from FP (Forced Performance) Turbo - IWSTI.com: Subaru WRX STI Forums

Putting words in my mouth again. Where did I say "FP can do no wrong?"

 

[JusMX141]

And what is "the truth"?

The "truth" describing what I said earlier in that exact post....meaning it was impossible for a foreign piece of anything to damage one turbine fin, as FP claimed.

If something would've entered the turbine housing and impacted the turbine wheel, the turbine inducer would be damaged, like this:

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

....rather than the turbine exducer sustaining the majority of the damage, and the tips of all the other fins are hooked away from the direction of rotation, showing that the entire radius of the wheel's exducer made contact with the housing:

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

Putting words in my mouth again. Where did I say "FP can do no wrong?"

Not on purpose, bud. I don't want it to seem that way.

I didn't post here to step on anyone's toes....I just wanted to get the word out about the recent experiences that I've had with guys running journal bearing Garrett's unrestricted to the filter housing.