50 trim takes a dump?

[Tallen]

It doesn't make any differece. They last just as long as watercooled. You might as well ask that question of all type turbochargers because their life expectancy is exactly the same regards of the type of CHRA.

It is not insurance. Turbo companies ONLY make water/oil non ball bearing turbochargers for guys who are argueing they are better with no proof. They are not, the proof is that they don't make them like that anymore unless it's ball-bearing and trust me the day will come when they are oil only as well as technology improves. It has a very negligable effect on the temp of the engines oil as it comes from the head and drops right into the pan right away anyway which is a cooling point for your oil. The size of your feed line -3 or -4 restricts the amount of oil to such a small amount that there is literally so little going through that there is little difference in the overall temp of all your oil.

This line of discussion is retarded. Oil only is no different than OLD water/oil turbo's just easier to install because of better technology. Just for insurance why not keep a manual starting crank like the ford model-T had on it? Your starter could fail and you may just need that extra insurance to start it up 1920's style.

Well said, as with my and Jim's post, KNOWLEDGE speaks louder than guesses.

 

[slickster]

It doesn't make any differece. They last just as long as watercooled. You might as well ask that question of all type turbochargers because their life expectancy is exactly the same regards of the type of CHRA.

It is not insurance. Turbo companies ONLY make water/oil non ball bearing turbochargers for guys who are argueing they are better with no proof. They are not, the proof is that they don't make them like that anymore unless it's ball-bearing and trust me the day will come when they are oil only as well as technology improves. It has a very negligable effect on the temp of the engines oil as it comes from the head and drops right into the pan right away anyway which is a cooling point for your oil. The size of your feed line -3 or -4 restricts the amount of oil to such a small amount that there is literally so little going through that there is little difference in the overall temp of all your oil.

This line of discussion is retarded. Oil only is no different than OLD water/oil turbo's just easier to install because of better technology. Just for insurance why not keep a manual starting crank like the ford model-T had on it? Your starter could fail and you may just need that extra insurance to start it up 1920's style.

Here...here.

 

[pboglio]

It doesn't make any differece. They last just as long as watercooled. You might as well ask that question of all type turbochargers because their life expectancy is exactly the same regards of the type of CHRA.

It is not insurance. Turbo companies ONLY make water/oil non ball bearing turbochargers for guys who are argueing they are better with no proof. They are not, the proof is that they don't make them like that anymore unless it's ball-bearing and trust me the day will come when they are oil only as well as technology improves. It has a very negligable effect on the temp of the engines oil as it comes from the head and drops right into the pan right away anyway which is a cooling point for your oil. The size of your feed line -3 or -4 restricts the amount of oil to such a small amount that there is literally so little going through that there is little difference in the overall temp of all your oil.

This line of discussion is retarded. Oil only is no different than OLD water/oil turbo's just easier to install because of better technology. Just for insurance why not keep a manual starting crank like the ford model-T had on it? Your starter could fail and you may just need that extra insurance to start it up 1920's style.

Life expectancy of oil cooled turbos was NOT the same as when watercooled was implemented, thats the whole point. Porsche prompted the use of watercooling in the 70's as a way to combat oil coke. Your talking as if the 50 trim compressor wheel/turbine shaft and CHRA was designed just recently with some whizbang technology. That turbo is +20 years old with a recent turbine housing cast for a DSM. Maybe Porsche/KKK new something that Garrett didn't back in the 70's and 80's.

I'm alarmed at the number of Garrett non-watercooled turbos taking a shit lately, I'm not even talking some high horsepower setups either. This is like the opposite of high technology. I may not go Garrett non-watercooled because of it. Now with a Garrett turbo you got oil restrictor this, oil feed line filter that, feed it from the head, no, feed it from the oil housing, do a rain dance and maybe it will last. Come on now, something isn't right.

Porsche specs a watercooled turbo from KKK after countless non-watercooled turbo coking failures, no more oil coke problems. Mitsubishi supplied all their DSM with watercooled turbos (13g, 14b, 16g, etc), in my 14 year experience with all those turbos, no coke or failure of any kind even running high boost. I've got the 14b back in my 91 Eclipse I bought 14 years ago. Still running strong and that turbo was used when I bought it 12 years ago, never seen a drop of synthetic oil either and shut down hot all the time.

Garrett then supplies Mitsubishi with a watercooled turbo, the T25. Both the T25 and the modified T28 over the course of 8 years I've never had a turbo fail or oil coke that I could detect. Mitsubishi specifying a watercooled turbo from Garrett speaks volumes, and I don't think it was coincidence either.

It precisely oil coking and early turbo failures that prompted watercooled turbos in the first place. Why isn't watercooling another form of technological advancement? Nobody has stated the SPECIFIC technological advancements that now helps combat oil coking WITHOUT water cooling.

The original poster said his turbo had brown tar pour out of the oil passages, I stated it sounded like oil coke. Maybe because the oil flow was interrupted, maybe because its nonwatercooled. One thing to think about, if it WAS a kinked oil return line, having a watercooled turbo might have prevented the oil to COOK onto the turbine shaft or the thrust bearing. There would still be oil pressurization, but NO oil flow. This means a hydrodynamic film to resist metal/metal contact but no means of thermal heat transfer away from the shaft/thrust bearing. Water cooling would have been a means for heat transter away from the shaft/thrust bearing, it may have prevented the failure.

What advances in technology reduce the likelyhood of oil coke on the turbine shaft? Is it improved oil chemistry, a lower heat transfer coefficient material for the turbine shaft/thrust bearing? Please be specific and detailed about it so I can grasp the concept.

You guys are right, I have no experience with non-watercooled turbos, don't want it either. So far I'm 5-0 over 14 years with watercooled turbos, both Mitsubishi & Garrett.

 

[RedBird]

In pboglio's defense all of you non-watercooled people need to look at all of the manufacturers specs on their turbo cars...all come from the factory with watercooled setups. All i work on at my shop is VW's, Porsche, audi, saab their all watercooled from the factory and its for a reason. Now to be honest I have seen a audi with upgraded turbos take a crap but I've only seen one. Shut your car down hot all the time without watercooling and see how long it lasts, it doesn't matter how much boost you run, just see how long your turbos last

 

[espinelli]

Really nothing to guess here....How about applying some common sense. Obviously everyone agrees that water cooling is a requirement on ball bearing turbos. Although many believe its not needed nor required on a non ball bearing CHRA?

So if it actually does help cool a ball bearing turbo...why not use it on a standard turbo as well? Simple enough for me.

 

[heavyD]

Life expectancy of oil cooled turbos was NOT the same as when watercooled was implemented, thats the whole point. Porsche prompted the use of watercooling in the 70's as a way to combat oil coke. Your talking as if the 50 trim compressor wheel/turbine shaft and CHRA was designed just recently with some whizbang technology. That turbo is +20 years old with a recent turbine housing cast for a DSM. Maybe Porsche/KKK new something that Garrett didn't back in the 70's and 80's.

I'm alarmed at the number of Garrett non-watercooled turbos taking a shit lately, I'm not even talking some high horsepower setups either. This is like the opposite of high technology. I may not go Garrett non-watercooled because of it. Now with a Garrett turbo you got oil restrictor this, oil feed line filter that, feed it from the head, no, feed it from the oil housing, do a rain dance and maybe it will last. Come on now, something isn't right.

Porsche specs a watercooled turbo from KKK after countless non-watercooled turbo coking failures, no more oil coke problems. Mitsubishi supplied all their DSM with watercooled turbos (13g, 14b, 16g, etc), in my 14 year experience with all those turbos, no coke or failure of any kind even running high boost. I've got the 14b back in my 91 Eclipse I bought 14 years ago. Still running strong and that turbo was used when I bought it 12 years ago, never seen a drop of synthetic oil either and shut down hot all the time.

Garrett then supplies Mitsubishi with a watercooled turbo, the T25. Both the T25 and the modified T28 over the course of 8 years I've never had a turbo fail or oil coke that I could detect. Mitsubishi specifying a watercooled turbo from Garrett speaks volumes, and I don't think it was coincidence either.

It precisely oil coking and early turbo failures that prompted watercooled turbos in the first place. Why isn't watercooling another form of technological advancement? Nobody has stated the SPECIFIC technological advancements that now helps combat oil coking WITHOUT water cooling.

The original poster said his turbo had brown tar pour out of the oil passages, I stated it sounded like oil coke. Maybe because the oil flow was interrupted, maybe because its nonwatercooled. One thing to think about, if it WAS a kinked oil return line, having a watercooled turbo might have prevented the oil to COOK onto the turbine shaft or the thrust bearing. There would still be oil pressurization, but NO oil flow. This means a hydrodynamic film to resist metal/metal contact but no means of thermal heat transfer away from the shaft/thrust bearing. Water cooling would have been a means for heat transter away from the shaft/thrust bearing, it may have prevented the failure.

What advances in technology reduce the likelyhood of oil coke on the turbine shaft? Is it improved oil chemistry, a lower heat transfer coefficient material for the turbine shaft/thrust bearing? Please be specific and detailed about it so I can grasp the concept.

You guys are right, I have no experience with non-watercooled turbos, don't want it either. So far I'm 5-0 over 14 years with watercooled turbos, both Mitsubishi & Garrett.

The reason alot of produciton vehicles come with watercooled turbos are because the manufacturer knows that they have to protect themselves warranty-wise from alot of people that know nothing about turbocharged cars. These people will come off the highway driving hard at 120 mph for example and shut the car off immediately without letting the turbo cool which is the only way a properly lubricated turbo will coke.

Most of us have turbo timers on our cars which elimintates the need of water cooling. So what you are saying has some merit. If you are a retard without a turbo timer and shut off your car immediately after hard runs, you should in fact get a watercooled turbo.

 

[99gst_racer]

Still running strong and that turbo was used when I bought it 12 years ago, never seen a drop of synthetic oil either and shut down hot all the time.

Shut your car down hot all the time without watercooling and see how long it lasts, it doesn't matter how much boost you run, just see how long your turbos last

When engineers sat down to design these cars with turbochargers, they knew many potential buys of the car would not understand how it works or even care about maintenance. This is why they had to design these and many cars with enough tolerance for abuse and neglection. People that think they can drive for 6 years w/o an oil change. People that think they can drive at 120mph for 20 min and then just shut down the motor. This is why the block can handle 400 HP, but only came with 210HP. This is also why the turbo is water cooled. It is a failsafe for people that arent enough car-smart to know to let it cool down. I'm sure almost everyone running an oil-cooled only turbo, knows they need to turbo time it.....

I've ran a a few different oil/water turbos in the past. I've had them coke up before too. Water is not a magical cure for oil coking.... It just help prolong the life of the turbo for the people that dont know how....

EDIT: dammit, he beat me to it... ^^^^

 

[99gst_racer]

Most of us have turbo timers on our cars which elimintates the need of water cooling. So what you are saying has some merit. If you are a retard without a turbo timer and shut off your car immediately after hard runs, you should in fact get a watercooled turbo.

^^^ I second that. ^^^

 

[slickster]

I agree...there are many overkill items on cars to protect the company from idiot "Joe Bob". Treat it right and all is well.

 

[trebornash]

If having a water/oil cooled turbo is extra security then why don't more peep choose this option when offered?I would think if it prolongs the life of the turbo it would be stupid not to.

 

[99gst_racer]

I would think if it prolongs the life of the turbo it would be stupid not to.

If you abused the turbo on a regular basis, then YES, water cooling would prolong it's operating lifespan. If you maintained and took care of your turbo, then water would not make a difference....

 

[prostreetdsmx1]

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

J/K guys.

Water cooling really isn't necessary on a Journal Bearing turbo, some people prefer it because of peice of mind but it really is just a personal preference thing.

 

[pboglio]

Read this link, similar test as Corky's book. A turbo timer may not help you anyway. Watercooling is your friend.

http://www.airpowersystems.com/wrx/aps_turbo.htm

Now, this makes some sense. Everybody knows these bigger Garrett turbos come off of diesal trucks, thats common knowledge. The article implies that the diesal trucks may run a separate oil cooling system just for the turbo, probably with its own heat exchanger, never seeing the inside of an engine block. That means lower inlet oil temps and lower exit oil temps since its not coming off of an already hot engine block. Looks like Garrett designed the turbo for the right application. I couldn't imagine Garrett incorrectly designing a turbo, no way in hell. I'm not saying I'm right, but all the little pieces are starting to add up. A separate engine oil cooler may not be a bad idea afterall, especially for a non-watercooled turbo.

 

[BreathinHeavy]

Know whats a funny thing about turbo timers and chrysler they think it is a performance upgrade and wont allow them to be installed on the srt-4 just thought you guys would like that as my friend sold his to my brother because they said it would void the warranty.... :laugh:

 

[heavyD]

Read this link, similar test as Corky's book. A turbo timer may not help you anyway. Watercooling is your friend.

http://www.airpowersystems.com/wrx/aps_turbo.htm

Now, this makes some sense. Everybody knows these bigger Garrett turbos come off of diesal trucks, thats common knowledge. The article implies that the diesal trucks may run a separate oil cooling system just for the turbo, probably with its own heat exchanger, never seeing the inside of an engine block. That means lower inlet oil temps and lower exit oil temps since its not coming off of an already hot engine block. Looks like Garrett designed the turbo for the right application. I couldn't imagine Garrett incorrectly designing a turbo, no way in hell. I'm not saying I'm right, but all the little pieces are starting to add up. A separate engine oil cooler may not be a bad idea afterall, especially for a non-watercooled turbo.

Oh no! My FPgreen isn't liquid cooled. Someone please tell Forced Performance that they have been doing it wrong for all these years.

 

[99gst_racer]

Read this link, similar test as Corky's book. A turbo timer may not help you anyway. Watercooling is your friend.

http://www.airpowersystems.com/wrx/aps_turbo.htm.

Everything on that site refers to Ball Bearing Turbochargers. In that case, watercooling is your firend. We are talking about journal bearing turbos here. apples to apples......

 

[pboglio]

Coke temperature is Coke temperature, depending on oil chemistry of course. Is there some different temperature scale for journal bearings vs. ball bearings, some law of physics that changes between turbos?

Now I went to Forced Performance's website to see their FAQs page, since they are the turbo gurus. They are saying that the Garrett oil cooled turbos flow a HELL of a lot of oil to try and cool it, in the absence of water cooling. That means a large oil mass flowrate. Cooling has to come from somewhere, I don't care if its oil or water, the massflowrate and BTU rejection rate has to be there. This is opposite of what "DSMJIM" said, that there is a trickle or whatever. More reason to install an auxilliary oil cooler like "90GSTman" suggested, good idea.

All I'm asking is why these suckers fail so often. They are so critically dependant on large oil flow rates for cooling and lubrication, I would go so far as to say you couldn't do enough to ensure a fail safe oil supply and cooling system, leaving watercooling out of the arguement. Obviously, DSMers can f'k up anything, looks like oil flow is one of them.

Look at the title of this thread "50 trim took a dump". His oil return line kinked, so sorry, pay $800 for a new turbo. But with water cooling you have a secondary backup system for cooling. Now if your main feed line clogs, well then, your f'd either way.

 

[heavyD]

If your oil return line kinks, the turbo will fail eventually water cooled or not.

 

[pboglio]

If your oil return line kinks, the turbo will fail eventually water cooled or not.

When the oil return line kinks, you have pressure but no flow, otherwise the oil wouldn't have been shooting out the seals. The turbo failure would have been from lack of cooling, but the thrust bearing and turbine shaft would have been hydrodynamically supported, so no metal/metal contact. Now if oil feed kinks, no pressure and no flow, say bye-bye immediately.

Anyway, I can't relate, afterall I run a realiable turbo. If I wanted to be a turbo Guru I'll buy some of these 30 year old Garrett turbos so I can have one fail on me once a year and spend all my time troubleshooting it.

 

[Amar1995]

Water cooled housings are not needed for thrust bearing turbos. How many time do you have to hear it pboglio??? Nobody is disagreing with you on BB turbos. Your spreading bad information. You keep goin back to manucatures design, and like it was already stated people run the cars hard and just shut them down(as one example). Water is a good way of transfering heat and it helps the turbo to last for 100,000 plus miles. When engineers design cars they have to think of ALL the varibles fpr example: The guy who owns a turbo charged car in Alaska that dosen't change his oil for 10,000 miles and never changes his air filter and then expects his car to be dependible and let that little 2.0L mill put out evry ounce it has. Or the guy who lives in death valley and in 110 degree plus weather runs his A/C and tach's his car out from shift to shift and he runs 87 octane fuel. This might sound crazy, but for people that go the extra mile on maintenance and realize what the car's limitations are they can do WITHOUT several of the manufacture's contingency designs.

Read some books, understand the situation and the Subject you are tlking about, then post. Wash, Rinse, Repeat.

 

[GPTourer]

Half of you are saying water cooling isn't needed on advanced Garrett designs if the car is well maintained, but what is the disadvantage of having water cooling?

 

[pboglio]

Water cooled housings are not needed for thrust bearing turbos. How many time do you have to hear it pboglio??? Nobody is disagreing with you on BB turbos. Your spreading bad information. You keep goin back to manucatures design, and like it was already stated people run the cars hard and just shut them down(as one example). Water is a good way of transfering heat and it helps the turbo to last for 100,000 plus miles. When engineers design cars they have to think of ALL the varibles fpr example: The guy who owns a turbo charged car in Alaska that dosen't change his oil for 10,000 miles and never changes his air filter and then expects his car to be dependible and let that little 2.0L mill put out evry ounce it has. Or the guy who lives in death valley and in 110 degree plus weather runs his A/C and tach's his car out from shift to shift and he runs 87 octane fuel. This might sound crazy, but for people that take go the extra mile on maintenance and realize what the car's limitations are they can do WITHOUT several of the manufacture's contingency designs.

Read some books, understand the situation and the Subject you are tlking about, then post. Wash, Rinse, Repeat.

When Porsche & Mitsubishi, both of which are HEAVILY, HEAVILY involved in Motorsport, stop producing watercooled turbos as standard equipment on their "Performance" cars, then I'll be convinced. Show me which non-watercooled turbo they use and I will switch to it because I KNOW that I can trust them, not some schlock DSM turbo vendor who stole a turbo designed for a Diesel engine and slapped it onto a passenger car.

I AM talking about journal bearings. This is called a forum my friend. People who tell other people to essentially shut up have either conflicting interests or are afraid of debate. I don't recall ever in any of my replies telling somebody I was arguing with to just be quiet. Looks like you could read a book yourself.

Quoted from "Maximum Boost", by Corky Bell:

"The turbo bearing housing with a water jacket around the bearing chamber has virtually eliminated the problem of oil coking. The cooling capability of the water is such that the oil seldom reaches the temperature at which it begins to break down", pg 40.

 

[99gst_racer]

Half of you are saying water cooling isn't needed on advanced Garrett designs if the car is well maintained, but what is the disadvantage of having water cooling?

Honestly, there not really a disadvantage. For a N/A car, switching to turbo, it could be a PITA to run coolant lines... I know Garretts water cooler CHRA's are a little more expensive.... There's not really anything wrong with water-cooled; it's just not needed. And we all know how us DSMers like to strip down and remove what is not needed (ei. PS, emissions, A/C, etc...).

 

[99gst_racer]

"The turbo bearing housing with a water jacket around the bearing chamber has virtually eliminated the problem of oil coking.

, yeah because nobody's ever heard of a 14b or 16g oil coking before...

 

[Amar1995]

When Porsche & Mitsubishi, both of which are HEAVILY, HEAVILY involved in Motorsport, stop producing watercooled turbos as standard equipment on their "Performance" cars, then I'll be convinced. Show me which non-watercooled turbo they use and I will switch to it because I KNOW that I can trust them, not some schlock DSM turbo vendor who stole a turbo designed for a Diesel engine and slapped it onto a passenger car.

I AM talking about journal bearings. This is called a forum my friend. People who tell other people to essentially shut up have either conflicting interests or are afraid of debate. I don't recall ever in any of my replies telling somebody I was arguing with to just be quiet. Looks like you could read a book yourself.

Quoted from "Maximum Boost", by Corky Bell:

"The turbo bearing housing with a water jacket around the bearing chamber has virtually eliminated the problem of oil coking. The cooling capability of the water is such that the oil seldom reaches the temperature at which it begins to break down", pg 40.

Well, I guess that is the difference. I am here to obtain information and meet fellow enthsiasts, not debate. :thumbdown

I understand what you are saying, but you are not understanding what we are talking about. Period.

My dad can beat up your dad, so I win the debate

Now lets get back on topic......