EVO 16G an INEFFICIENT turbo??

[sweet97]

I have ordered an EVO 16G and have some guys tellng me it is an inefficient turbo. Granted I run the stock side mount IC for now, however I see the EVO as a more modern design and thought it to be a good choice. From some of the info I read all big 16G's are inefficient. I plan to run 17 PSI. I would like some feedback from guys that use this turbo. Thanks for your input.
OH, I run a GM MAF as a blow thru on my '93 Talon and have upgraded to 550cc injectors. Thanks, Mark

 

[clownface]

Ive only heard good things about the EVO III 16g. One thing i have heard is that the turbo is only efficient above 18 psi or something but im not sure about all that, someone else prolly knows. A 16 is prolly alot more efficient the a 14b, 13g or t-25 and im pretty sure about that.

 

[sweet97]

Clownface did you mean that the 16G was INefficient over 18PSI? I would think it was ok to 20 psi if one wanted to boost that high on pump gas. Mark

 

[clownface]

nah, i ment efficient, I dont know how true it is cause ive never used that turbo or anything but ive seen that the 16g turbos are only useful at like 18-24 psi and that they feel the same as a 14b or something in the low boost ranges...or something like that. Thats the only bad thing ive ever heard about the 16g, being inefficient at moderate or low boost, but i dont even know if its true.

 

[sweet97]

Clownface I believe you are passing info you honestly remember reading but the 16G flows 550 CFM @ 15 PSI compared to the 14B which flows 405 CFM @ 15 PSI. Also who runs 20+ PSI on pump gas? Hopefully some other guys will contribute to this post. Mark

 

[clownface]

eh, yeah. I guess what im trying to say is that the 16g really sets itself apart from the turbos like the 14b in the 20psi or so range. Yeah, this is pretty much just stuff ive seen on DSMtuners so i guess some other people with first hand stuff could help better cause im just sorta going from what ive been reading.

 

[ShapeGSX]

Efficient/inefficient, who gives a crap? Can it run the number?

 

[RuBiCaNT5X]

Efficient/inefficient, who gives a crap? Can it run the number?

I think you are enough to see the potential of this turbo..

 

[sillycon]

the efficiency range (as well as flow/pressure characteristics) differ largely depending on the compressor housing in use.

the following link is to a compressor map for a big 16G wheel in a TD05 housing.

http://not2fast.wryday.com/turbo/maps/td05-16glarge.gif

this link is to a big 16G wheel in a TD06 housing.

http://www.vfaq.com/proj-pics/turbo/16g-06_map.gif

The TD06 housing turbo hits peak output at 17PSI (2.1 pressure ratio on the maps). The TD05 housing turbo hits peak output at 25PSI (2.7 pressure ratio on the maps).

Another difference between the two is that the TD05 flows 27lb/min of air max @ 25PSI, whereas the TD06 flows 26lb/min of air max @ 17psi

Also, notice that the TD05 flows 25lb/min of air at 17PSI.

I currently have a big 16G (EDIT: TD05) running at 24PSI on pump gas, and when i get my car back from the shop (overrevvd it last friday... : ( ) I will be turning down the boost to 17PSI to do some butt-dyno tests. I'm guessing that the car will be a bit faster as the turbo will spend more time in the higher efficiency ranges.. (btw, for comparison, i have a 90 GSX w/blow thru MAFT & 660 injectors).

EDIT: The below is all in reference to the TD05 housing map.

I think on a dyno, the 24PSI MIGHT net a greater peak HP (due to the greater final flow), however in practice i believe the 17PSI would be better as until the top of the RPM range you will get the same air flow as you would at 24PSI (meaning 12lb/min is 12lb/min regardless of PSI) but at a significantly lower temperature.. this (to my mind) means you get a better/longer power/torque curve.

why do i think this? well, notice on the TD05 map that the 25PSI line only crosses the 68, 65 and 60% efficiency ranges.... @ 17PSI the compressor spends less time in those low ranges, and additionally it goes through the 71, and 70% ranges.... this means the intake charge temps will be lower for a given amount of air.. example: 16lb/min of air @ 17PSI is in the 71% range, and 16lb/min of air @ 24PSI is in the 65% range.... the lower the range, the more the air is heated as it is compressed... and we all [should] know that hotter air means less power...

let me also mention for you to please remember that those 550CFM ratings are at ~100% efficiency, and i kinda doubt your turbo will be running anywhere close to that (it is theoretically impossible [read up on thermodynamics to learn more]) ; )

If you do the math, 25lb/min of air (@ 17PSI) divided by .069 (to convert to CFM. note: i have seen many different numbers in the range .069 to .076 to convert lb/min to CFM this will add a small margin of error to the equation!) = ~362 CFM of air. if you look on the compressor map, this 25lb/min of air is in the 60% efficiency range. so if we take 362 and divide by .6 (.6 = the 60% efficiency range it is operating in....) we come up with ~600CFM @ 100% efficiency (remember, the ~550CFM rating comes from 15PSI, i am calculating this at 17PSI)

btw- in my calculations, i'm not using every single decimal place that comes back, which makes this more like shotgun/fuzzy math than exact science as it slowly skews the numbers (if you don't believe me, have a look at fractal geometry and/or chaos theory ; ) ). im also not accounting for ambient air temp (which directly affects these equations) so please bear that in mind. : )

at any rate, sorry for the long-winded, rambling post. I also apologize for interlacing fact with opinion. I have tried my best to note all opinions above with "i believe" or "i think" although i may have missed one or two.

in the end, i think you have the right idea of running 17PSI. to my understanding of things, that is where you would get the most out of this compressor wheel (regardless of the housing). any way you look at it though, you'll be better off than you were with a 14B. ; )

i hope this helps. : )

 

[sweet97]

Thanks, Josh & sillycon. Josh the fact you got into the 11's is impressive. Sillycon you have done your homework and you run a 1 big 16G also. I understand that "G" series wheels are more efficient at higher boost levels than the "C" wheel the 14b has. The fellow with the colt saying the 16G was inefficient threw my research. After all the EVO has newer technology and I am not looking for a rocket. I have run a small 16G, 19C and a 20G on my Conquest. I did not like the 20G due to slow boost and the fact that with it's puny 12a wastegate it would creep to 27 PSI by 5500 rpm's. For my goal there was no other choice but the EVO. Since I am having the exhaust manifold, 02 housing and tubo ported I am hopng to spool as quick or quicker than the 14B. I do not plan to take it to a track though knowing what it could run may get me there once. The 14b is fine in first and 2nd gears but it falls off above those, does not pull very much in 3r or fourth.
I run the dejon upper pipe with the MAF as a blow through. Tuning is something I need to learn.
The EVO has a lighter comp wheel so it should spool quickly. Does anyone know if the EVO comp wheel, whch is .010" larger than an older 16G is larger on the inducer or exducer? Mark
PS: Anymore experience or info about this EVO is welcome!

 

[ITSME4G63]

evo16g is probably the best turbo for daily driver application, it is very realiable and makes significant power with the right supporting mods but without the agony of a big high maintenance turbo, I have a small16g, but Im thinking of getting a evo16 with a proper fmic and If needed to race I would boost 25psi or whatever works.

 

[ShapeGSX]

Another local guy with an Evo 16G just got into the 11s in his 1G. It is spreading.

 

[sillycon]

well, personally, i would agree that the 16g is a relatively inefficient turbo.

in turbo terms, "inefficient" is more a matter of the proportion of the compressors work going to heating the air than compressing it. i.e. a turbo that moves 25lb of air at 76% efficiency is a far better (more efficient) turbo than one that 25lb at 60% efficiency.

from what i've been able to gather, it is considered a "best practice" to use a turbo that moves the amount of air you are seeking to move at 70% or greater efficiency. anything below 70% tends to be referred to as inefficient.

i think that is what the fellow with the colt meant by inefficient..

peak efficiencies for some MHT turbos:

13G = 78%
14B is 76%
14G is 77%
15G is 76%
s16G = 77%
b16G = 71%
17C = 76%
18T = 77%,
20G = 76% or 77% (depending on the map you look at)

71% for a big 16.... in relative terms, that is an inefficient turbo. ; )

obviously, you're not going to be able to run inside the peak efficiency for every turbo. that is a matter of boost level (pressure ratio) vs RPM

there is a whole pile of mathematical calculations that will tell you how many lb/min of air are needed for a given boost level, and based on those numbers, you can plot out on the compressor maps which turbo is best for what. if you like, i can post them up for you, but it can be overwhelming to those that have a dislike for math. .

for those of you that don't want to do the calculations yourself (or just aren't interested in the math behind it all) i also have an excel spreadsheet that i made that does most of the calculations. (you just need to plot the numbers on the compressor map!)

if you like, i can upload it to my server and i'll post the URL. just let me know.

(maybe one day i'll get bored enough to write a full app that does the math and the plotting, but not for now! )

at any rate, i hope this additional info helps to clear up some of the confusion!

-will

EDIT: p.s. i forgot to answer your Q.. the evo III compressor is .010" larger on the inducer. not to mention the turbine housing is ~2.5lbs lighter!

 

[DSMeclipse4G63]

nah, i ment efficient, I dont know how true it is cause ive never used that turbo or anything but ive seen that the 16g turbos are only useful at like 18-24 psi and that they feel the same as a 14b or something in the low boost ranges...or something like that. Thats the only bad thing ive ever heard about the 16g, being inefficient at moderate or low boost, but i dont even know if its true.

My b16g(so called innefiecent) beat a 14b@18-19psi when I was at "low boost"13psi. I would not put down the evo or b16g they have done 11s and are AWSOME on the street. Off boost response and power is MUCH better then my t25, and I reach full boost(15-16psi) at about 2800rpms. With that and a linear boost you cant go wrong. All the b16g needs to be a dominating street turbo is a better intercooler(fmic) and some more fuel and boost...
Andrew

 

[CanadianTSi]

Screw the numbers, you can call them inefficient all you want but the fact is that they work and are pruven

 

[sillycon]

i agree, they work and they are proven! i have an older style big 16 (not evo III) and it rocks my socks! when i upgrade to a 50/57/60 trim (not sure which as yet) i will miss the low spool and consistency of the b16g.

by no means would i dare to say the 16G is a bad turbo (compressor wheel)! it most certainly is not! it *IS* an 11sec turbo (compressor) - as long as the car is tuned properly.

all i was intending to say is that comparatively speaking, a peak efficiency of 71% vs. 76% is low -- and in those circumstances, is considered inefficient. i was merely trying to explain where the idea of it being inefficient came from.

in the overall scope of things, 71% p.e. isn't that bad -- it's just happens to be less efficient than the other Mitsu turbos. there are a *LOT* of other compressors out there that are far more inefficient. i believe some super charger compressors get down to the 50% peak effic. area!

and one other thing, i am *SURE* the compressor map for the evo III b16 is quite different from the older b16... the inducer is larger, and the fins are thinner (and the wheel is lighter) which will have noticable impact on the map... and actually, if anyone has an evo III b16 compressor map, i would *LOVE* to see it and have a chance to compare it to the older b16.

-will

 

[DSMeclipse4G63]

I wasnt disputing you sillycon, just merley defending the b16g/evo as I too have to old dinosaur b16g and am a die hard fan....when/if mine dies::kncoks on wood:: Im getting the evo to replace it cause I like them so much
Andrew

 

[turbowop]

blah blah

You read too much. Go out and run your car.

 

[sillycon]

turbowop, how does that comment contribute? if you don't like what i have to say, just close your browser. as for "running my car", it died of mechanical over-rev last friday or i WOULD be out playing with it.

anyway, andrew, i didn't think you were disputing me. just your post and CanadianTSI's post made me realize i should try and clarify my point of view a little better. that was all. : )

out of hope, i will ask again -- anyone got a Evo III compressor map? (or a running 4G63 turbo motor for cheap!)

-will

 

[sweet97]

Hey guys thanks for the info. My EVO parts are on the way here. Exhaust manifold, 02 housing and tubo, all ported. I hope to spool as quick or quicker than the 14B. If I ever get the engine rebuilt perhaps I will be able to run a bit more boost than my planned 17 PSI. Of course by then I will have grown accustomed to the 16G and will want to upgrade again!!
As far as efficiency goes I'm sure the EVO will not dissapoint and we are all posting here to help each other get the most enjoyment from our cars. After all that's what it's all about, right? Later, Mark

 

[sillycon]

amen about getting the most fun out of our cars!

also, just so you know, a stock 4g63 (at least one that has been properly maintained) is easily capable of handling 24/25lbs of boost from a b16G. at most a b16G will smack down a little over 300whp... a stock block will handle over 400whp (from what i've gathered, they usually break/come apart starting at 450whp.... though YMMV)

i run 24psi on 93 pump gas (w/a b16G) and i have 0 knock.. (i have 660cc injectors and run it a bit rich though... again YMMV!)

-will

 

[sweet97]

YMMV?? Your Motor May Vary??
I still have to learn tuning. I am waiting for a palm from the guy I bought the kit from as the one he sent was bad. I am running 550's and use a wideband and am trying 11.25:1 at WOT. I had been running 10.5:1
I will be posting or help with the tuning stuff as I am computer illiterate. Later! Mark

 

[turbowop]

turbowop, how does that comment contribute? if you don't like what i have to say, just close your browser. as for "running my car", it died of mechanical over-rev last friday or i WOULD be out playing with it.

Don't get all butthurt. I was just f*cking with you. Sheesh. With all those long winded posts about efficiency I thought you would have seen the sarcasm.

 

[sillycon]

turbowop: sorry, im just really touchy about the "go out and run your car" thing due to my dead motor....

when my car died i felt like i did when my ex GF left me... (to give you an idea, i was a couple months away from proposing.... : ( )


sweet97: close YMMV = Your Mileage (luck) May Vary

 

[blackGSX2g]

turbowop: sorry, im just really touchy about the "go out and run your car" thing due to my dead motor....

when my car died i felt like i did when my ex GF left me... (to give you an idea, i was a couple months away from proposing.... : ( )


sweet97: close YMMV = Your Mileage (luck) May Vary

I know that exact feeling...I've driven my car a total of 4 days in the past 2 months