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.

  • Update Your Password Today!

    We have implemented tools to identify member accounts using insecure passwords and will be locking those accounts until their passwords are updated. Don't get locked out of your account - update your password today, and ensure your account has a valid email address on file. Read more here...
Please Support ExtremePSI
Please Support Morrison Fabrication

Ask Us Anything!

awdmonster1904

15+ Year Contributor
738
293
Aug 23, 2007
Chino, California
That would be my preference, I mean sure no turbo is going to fit exactly the same but in my eyes going t4 divided gives you better chance of a smoother transition if you change it up.
Ok, that makes sense. In the performance aspect will they perform the same ?

I currently have a v band manifold on my super 99 I dont think my current manifold would work on a g45 therefore the whole setup would have to change … right ?
 

MorrisonFab

Supporting Vendor
277
863
May 28, 2017
Johnson Creek, Wisconsin
Hello everyone

I’m in limbo right now i can’t make my mind if i should go t4 twin scroll or V band ?

Turbos I have in mind g45 76mm or the 73.9 from PTE

This will be on a race car automatic transmission.

Any suggestions


Bottom mount ? Or top

Sorry for the late reply-

Spleen8urLSX made a great point about v-band flange compatibility being specific to each brand vs the T4 flange footprint being shared across brands.

We will eventually have a write up that dives into it more than we can at the moment, but for turbos that size, the camshafts likely used, and getting the car on the converter, a divided setup will go a long way to retain the low and midrange that is typically hurt on more aggressive setups. There is a ton of opportunity for negative cylinder to cylinder interference that affects how the car behaves when trying to build boost/stall against the converter, and a divided setup cuts off that path between the cylinders causing it. The stall up difference between the two is often similar to a 2.0 vs a 2.3 from the 15% or more difference in VE. More aggressive camshafts/overlap will have larger differences and more to "clean up." Divided setups cost more, but are often much more forgiving and eager to build boost. This difference isn't as pronounced at higher rpm since there isn't as much time for the exhaust pulses to travel to the other cylinders in time to have a negative affect.

Top mount vs bottom mount often comes down to preference, although there are nuances to each when it comes to packaging, runner length, and downpipe bend radius etc.
 

llxkevinxll

10+ Year Contributor
489
231
Jan 29, 2012
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Hey Matt! Still loving the Consolidated TS T3 with the HX35 but I have been window shopping modern aero offerings (Garrett G Series and BW EFR predominantly). Most of these setups default to a V-Band flange. Any thoughts on moving from a TS T3 setup to a V Band setup as far as responsiveness or losing the benefits of the exhaust pulse separation? I know the modern aero allowing for smaller low inertia rotating assemblies will make a difference on its own but as far as the flange goes have you seen much of a difference? TS T4 seems pretty common too but the complexity and packaging of the dual gates is a turn off for me.

Thanks!
Kevin
 

awdmonster1904

15+ Year Contributor
738
293
Aug 23, 2007
Chino, California
Sorry for the late reply-

Spleen8urLSX made a great point about v-band flange compatibility being specific to each brand vs the T4 flange footprint being shared across brands.

We will eventually have a write up that dives into it more than we can at the moment, but for turbos that size, the camshafts likely used, and getting the car on the converter, a divided setup will go a long way to retain the low and midrange that is typically hurt on more aggressive setups. There is a ton of opportunity for negative cylinder to cylinder interference that affects how the car behaves when trying to build boost/stall against the converter, and a divided setup cuts off that path between the cylinders causing it. The stall up difference between the two is often similar to a 2.0 vs a 2.3 from the 15% or more difference in VE. More aggressive camshafts/overlap will have larger differences and more to "clean up." Divided setups cost more, but are often much more forgiving and eager to build boost. This difference isn't as pronounced at higher rpm since there isn't as much time for the exhaust pulses to travel to the other cylinders in time to have a negative affect.

Top mount vs bottom mount often comes down to preference, although there are nuances to each when it comes to packaging, runner length, and downpipe bend radius etc.
Thank you ! Makes sense.
 

DiSeM

Proven Member
71
28
Aug 19, 2014
Gormania, West_Virginia
Did you do any testing on your DSM Stock Replacement manifold with vs without the stock DSM Split Flange?

To clarify I am wondering what the split flange design changes vs one without. I am curious if there would be any gain or loss to remove the flange.
 
Last edited:

MorrisonFab

Supporting Vendor
277
863
May 28, 2017
Johnson Creek, Wisconsin
Did you do any testing on your DSM Stock Replacement manifold with vs without the stock DSM Split Flange?

To clarify I am wondering what the split flange design changes vs one without. I am curious if there would be any gain or loss to remove the flange.
We haven't done those back to back tests on the DSM stock replacement, no. It would be hard to justify building a manifold without that flow guide vane. The collector is offset/angled a good amount in order to allow a nice bend off the #2 port, and the guide vane provides a nice flow path that avoids two of the runners being more or less pointed towards a wall/side of the turbine housing. It doesn't have the same effect as a divided setup, but the runners are correctly paired if it was, meaning they aren't both firing at the same time in the same space. There is likely a nice additional effect of making it that much more difficult for the cylinders that do have their exhaust valves open at the same time from interfering, since they would have to make 180* turn around and back up, rather than just continue into the turbine wheel that they are aimed directly towards.
It's one of the more involved parts of the process, but the compromises that come without it are why we never tackled a DSM stock replacement initially.
It would be interesting to see though just for curiosities sake, just many other things to test and would likely end up with a less than ideal manifold leftover
 
Support Vendors who Support the DSM Community
Boosted Fabrication ECM Tuning ExtremePSI Fuel Injector Clinic 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

Top