My compound turbo set-up

[99gst_racer]

Dyno results:

http://www.dsmtuners.com/forums/dyno-talk/378908-compound-turbo-dyno-results.html

 

[94awdcoupe]

Well I waited patiently for the dyno results. And I officially not impressed. Thats not fast spool for 600whp. My 2.3 35r makes 600who by 5500 rpm and holds great power to 8000 rpm. and my setup sucks compared to some evos I have seen. Local here made 580tq at 4100rpm on his FP black setup that makes 600whp dynojet. Stock unbuilt 2.0 evo block. I was really looking to eat my words but I guess I dont have to.

 

[habitatguy187]

I was also expecting a lot more when I read that you were at 47psi. Still though it's a learning experience and kudo's for taking the road less traveled.

 

[dsm-onster]

Well I waited patiently for the dyno results. And I officially not impressed. Thats not fast spool for 600whp. My 2.3 35r makes 600who by 5500 rpm and holds great power to 8000 rpm. and my setup sucks compared to some evos I have seen. Local here made 580tq at 4100rpm on his FP black setup that makes 600whp dynojet. Stock unbuilt 2.0 evo block. I was really looking to eat my words but I guess I dont have to.

Yea he has the same powerband as your stroker with a 2.0L motor, and a 60-1 compressor wheel, and no bb, and a larger hotside with a terribly slow to spool antiquated turbine wheel.

>>>The_clutch_was_slipping. <<< . . . He made over 600whp with a 58lb/min compressor wheel.

 

[blakktalon]

Nice setup, if onyl i had a welder and some piping .

I thought two turbos were alot to handle and then i read a diesel truck magazine with a triple turbo setup that would need a wastegate only if boost exceeded 100 psi !!!!

 

[99gst_racer]

Well I waited patiently for the dyno results. And I officially not impressed. Thats not fast spool for 600whp. My 2.3 35r makes 600who by 5500 rpm and holds great power to 8000 rpm. and my setup sucks compared to some evos I have seen. Local here made 580tq at 4100rpm on his FP black setup that makes 600whp dynojet. Stock unbuilt 2.0 evo block. I was really looking to eat my words but I guess I dont have to.

How do you know how fast the spool is without seeing the datalog?

Please show me your dyno sheet. Link me a dynograph of the local with the FP Black too.

Your welcome to your opinion, but keep in mind that I'm not on a stroker engine, and I'm using old school journal bearing compressors - and a clutch that can't hold the torque and HP that I'm actually producing. I'm just getting started with this stuff too. Imagine what I'll be able to pull off with ball bearing turbos and a twin disk.

Compare my power curve to any of the 2.0L guys making the same power or more: DSM Dyno Challenge - Highest Horsepower

I'd be interested to know what you did expect though.

 

[BIGBLAZE79]

WOW paul congrats on such an awsome ride. Super jealous!

 

[92 GSR-4]

And I officially not impressed.

Whoops! Throw in the towel, boys. The official decision has been made.

21 years after the DSM came into production and we are still seeing innovation. I can't wait to see future setups with different turbo combination. It would be nice to see GT4202 power with quick spool!

 

[MidShipCivic]

Whoops! Throw in the towel, boys. The official decision has been made.

21 years after the DSM came into production and we are still seeing innovation. I can't wait to see future setups with different turbo combination. It would be nice to see GT4202 power with quick spool!

This isn't innovation this practice is called ''step turbocharging'' it's in many other power plants in industries around the world. The word compounding is more dealing with power being transfered back into the crankshaft then the latter.

Carry on.

 

[94awdcoupe]

The whole purpose of using two turbos is to gain a superior power band over a single setup. The twin setup is three times more complex, three times the weight, three times the cost, three times less reliable. You better be getting something for all that in return.

This setup has not yet produced a superior power band to a well setup singles that i have seen.

It is however a success in showing the compound turbo setup can work well. it is making great power for the parts used. With a better designed setup the returns could be worth while. I just dont feel this setup is there yet.

I think I posted a link to the twin charge setup that Norris Designs built. That setup produced an AMAZING power curve and was worth the effort and complexity of two chargers. Unfortunately no details of the setup were released. Only the dyno graph.

 

[MidShipCivic]

This setup has not yet produced a superior power band to a well setup singles that i have seen.

You haven't seen much then, 99GST racer setup isn't optimized at all I think you're out of line saying this much you don't even put your cards up how is it you keep trying to rain on this guys parade ?

Nizpro has done this to marine engines using VK based Nissan V8's out of the Titan he's generated so much torque the engine is limited (torque limit possible boost control limiter).

Nizpro Marine - The Engine - VZR-60, Quad Turbocharged V8 Engine, Ski Race Boat Engines, Competition Engines, Force Boats F21, Race Boat Setups

Stare at the picture enough you see the second compressors clearly

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

 

[99gst_racer]

The whole purpose of using two turbos is to gain a superior power band over a single setup. The twin setup is three times more complex, three times the weight, three times the cost, three times less reliable. You better be getting something for all that in return.

This setup has not yet produced a superior power band to a well setup singles that i have seen.

^^^ So where's your dyno sheet or the local's making more torque sooner than me? I seriously want to see them. By all means, back up what you claim.

Also, this is not three time less reliable. Did you just make that up? These are just common regular channel bearing turbos - how could they be less reliable than when they're ran by themselves? A compound set-up has 2 of everything, so the weight would be doubled... And my turbos together costed less than a single GT35R.

 

[99gst_racer]

And while you're digging up those dynographs, here's a few to peak at. These are all from guys using a larger turbo than myself, and making more power than me, but making far less in the lower RPMs. Compare the torque curve of any of these Dynojet graphs to mine in the 4500-5000 RPM range.

BW S362, 628HP, 539TQ: http://mitsustyle.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=8438&d=1239503864

BW S300SX, 658HP, 587TQ: http://i25.tinypic.com/2whds1u.jpg

BW S362net, 691HP, 630TQ: http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k302/mxguy1286/IMGP0447.jpg

7076, 690HP, 485TQ: http://i103.photobucket.com/albums/m153/bluemeanietsi/cagepaint/SCAN0004.jpg

 

[aero_sallee]

And while you're digging up those dynographs, here's a few to peak at. These are all from guys using a larger turbo than myself, and making more power than me, but making far less in the lower RPMs. Compare the torque curve of any of these Dynojet graphs to mine in the 4500-5000 RPM range.

BW S362, 628HP, 539TQ: http://mitsustyle.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=8438&d=1239503864

BW S300SX, 658HP, 587TQ: http://i25.tinypic.com/2whds1u.jpg

BW S362net, 691HP, 630TQ: http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k302/mxguy1286/IMGP0447.jpg

7076, 690HP, 485TQ: http://i103.photobucket.com/albums/m153/bluemeanietsi/cagepaint/SCAN0004.jpg

Also Paul, you sort of mentioned it, but I don't think enough emphasis was put on it.
You started your dyno pulls at 500-1500 rpm later than those other dynos makes the torque curve you put down MUCH more impressive. You started at ~4000 RPM and torque came in immediately. They started much earlier giving the turbo much more time to light before hitting the 4000-5000 rpm range, putting your dyno at an immediate disadvantage in that area.

 

[Fejery4491]

Every time I start thinking about getting out of the dsm game this thread pulls me back in and makes me want to try it. I've probably read through this 6 times and every time I pick up some new information that I missed last time. I got an mhi 16g, a hx40, a welder, and enough free time to take a project like this on. I just have a few quick questions (probably just information that I've missed I'm sure)

Where do you have your the lines to your wastegates running to? Intake manifold? Or somewhere on the charge piping?

And I take it short route intercooler piping would be a no go huh? Looks as though it would ruin any chance of an intake coming off the secondary turbo.

Congrats on making such a killer setup man, I can't believe people have the dyno sheets and spool times and are still questioning the effectiveness of a compound setup. Keep up the amazing work!

 

[92 GSR-4]

This isn't innovation this practice is called ''step turbocharging'' it's in many other power plants in industries around the world. The word compounding is more dealing with power being transfered back into the crankshaft then the latter.

Carry on.

Regardless, compound turbocharging, or "step turbocharging" for the anal-retentive, being utilized in a DSM is, in my opinion, innovative in the DSM world. Sure, it may be an old idea used in diesel applications primarily, but no one has ever really done it before - to a DSM.
I, for one, am glad to see an idea or thought process researched and pursued. A lot of people come up with crazy ideas (like using an EVO 8 head on a DSM) that aren't very feasible. 99gst_racer did his research, decided it was feasible and worth trying, and was able to see this idea turned to reality. While I won't be using this sort of set up any time soon, my hat is off to him.

At ease..

 

[91stocker]

Those results look very promising, id love to see the final result after the clutch and etc. Is this the first time that set up has seen the dyno? From reading the results thread, you guys think you can still pull 700 from this set up?

Ive seen a similar set up ran on a cav back in the day with poor results. Also seen a turbo/supercharger combo that had similarly poor results. Those cars were the only thing i had to base my opinion on.

So far this blows them out of the water, very nice for the first round.

 

[99gst_racer]

Also Paul, you sort of mentioned it, but I don't think enough emphasis was put on it.
You started your dyno pulls at 500-1500 rpm later than those other dynos makes the torque curve you put down MUCH more impressive. You started at ~4000 RPM and torque came in immediately. They started much earlier giving the turbo much more time to light before hitting the 4000-5000 rpm range, putting your dyno at an immediate disadvantage in that area.

Good point. We tried the first pull from 3000 RPMs and the traction and clutch issues were much more pronounced. I really wanted to show what this set-up would do from a much lower RPM starting point.

Where do you have your the lines to your wastegates running to? Intake manifold? Or somewhere on the charge piping?

The 60-1's gate has an open upper port to reference atmospheric pressure, and it's side port sees only the boost pressure that it's compressor makes on it's own. The 16G's gate references the inlet pressure that it's compressor inlet sees (which is the output pressure of the 60-1) at the upper port, and it's side port sees the overall boost pressure exiting the 16G's compressor cover (which is 47 psig + IC pressure drop). It's much more simple than it sounds.

And I take it short route intercooler piping would be a no go huh?

No, not at all. My IC piping route is about as short as it gets. It's based off of the SBR kit. I'm still using the original SBR core and lower IC pipe, but I've made my own upper.

Congrats on making such a killer setup man, I can't believe people have the dyno sheets and spool times and are still questioning the effectiveness of a compound setup. Keep up the amazing work!

Thanks, man. I garuntee we'll all start seeing much more compound turbo cars popping up in all sorts of different car communities over the next few years. It works very well, and where there's a will, there's a way.

 

[99gst_racer]

Those results look very promising, id love to see the final result after the clutch and etc. Is this the first time that set up has seen the dyno? From reading the results thread, you guys think you can still pull 700 from this set up?

Ive seen a similar set up ran on a cav back in the day with poor results. Also seen a turbo/supercharger combo that had similarly poor results. Those cars were the only thing i had to base my opinion on.

So far this blows them out of the water, very nice for the first round.

Thanks man. Yeah, this is the first time I've had this set-up on the dyno. I don't doubt one bit that it would have been in the 680-700 WHP range with a more capable clutch. Using the beginning of the power curve (before the clutch let go) and using datalog data, this is how I would have expected the higher RPMs to look with a stronger clutch:

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

Dynoing in 3rd gear (like most people do) also would have yielded higher numbers as well. My actual dynograph more or less shows me 2 things; My torque curve down low, and the maximum holding capacity of an ACT 2600 up top.

 

[SpawnedX]

94awdcoupe it is better to say nothing and have us all think you are an idiot, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

Go tell Kevin Jewer who is putting down 8.8 1/4 mile passes on his compound turbo setup that he's doing it wrong.

 

[Kevin Jewer]

The whole purpose of using two turbos is to gain a superior power band over a single setup. The twin setup is three times more complex, three times the weight, three times the cost, three times less reliable. You better be getting something for all that in return.

This setup has not yet produced a superior power band to a well setup singles that i have seen.

I feel like I'm getting something for all that extra weight and complexity. Show me a T6 1.32 AR S475 spooling this quick without nitrous. Show me one spooling at all on a 2 liter for that matter. I'm leaving the line at 5700 rpm and 30 psi for reference. I had to pedal it a bit because the starter was holding the tree for me, it will spool faster at full throttle. I have no problems leaving on a pro tree.

YouTube - NED 82010

Here's a top end video, you can really hear the big turbo getting it in up here.

YouTube - Top end video

I feel like I barge in on all of Paul's compound turbo threads, but I can't help it. I don't have to deal with the drivetrain issues that come with the added torque so I'm free to keep wailing on the setup and making passes. I haven't found one disadvantage yet to this system, aside from the space it takes up when I want to pull the transmission. Hardly anything to cry about. There is also no weight penalty for me, the 50 trim weighs about the same as the nitrous setup did. I've been on this setup for two race seasons now and haven't touched the setup at all, it just works.

Paul's making almost as much torque as he is power, at the 600 hp level. You just don't find that on 2 liters and turbos big enough to make 600 hp. Those are v8 numbers. And that's not by accident. With the little turbo at 30 psi a 2 liter engine acts like a 6.0 liter.

This is all just my opinion and experience. If people choose to not like compound turbos for this application, it won't hurt my feelings, or my time slips. I don't see Paul switching back any time soon either.

 

[bsbllfit7]

who thinks that paul should get into contact with a supplier and start pumping these manifolds out for all of us. Im sure there are alot of people on here that would love to do this. Me being one of them. If this manifold was sold even for closer to 1k i would even purchase it. Just need to find a person to mass produce these things!

 

[Fejery4491]

I personally doubt this will ever be a bolt on and mass produced option. Its gonna have to be one of those things you tackle on your own

 

[94awdcoupe]

I will start with my dyno graph. I dont have the last best tune in graph for you so I will have to extrapolate a bit for you from 4 year old graphs. We were having boost and fueling issues on the dyno. it left dyno with tun incomplete.
The first graph shows three things.
1. this is third gear pull. 90mph is 8200rpm for my car. 23.4 inch tires.
2. boost was 30 climbing to 34. this is all we had fuel for. and we limited boost on spool to limit the torque.
3. at 34psi i was making 560 at 8000rpm. and this is with my 2.3 with a cyclone intake!. notice pauls 2.0 is falling hard and only making 500 with a 2.0 and sheet metal intake and ###### bigger cams.
second graph is to show RPM and actual spool. again in third gear. on the street with more load we saw 31psi at 4000rpm in the aem logs. The tune was cleaned up and dialed in to 37psi on the street. dont have a dyno graph of finished tune.
1. no boost limit on spool. 600hp achieved at 5500rpm. 500rpm sooner than paul. and it holds it better at redline.
2. fuel curve chopped because at 6500rpm we were at 13.8 a/f. I let off throttle on that pull and run was aborted.
3. as i said earlier my car was built 9 years ago and sucks by todays standards. it has small cams because i like a 750rpm idle. it has low compression 8.5/1. uses a t3 adapter to bolt 35r to cast manifold. turbo was 900 new. 150 for tail gate. 200 for fp manifold. 93 octane and meth injection. cyclone intake. I could go on.
4. paul hits 600hp at 6000rpm, and drops to 500 at 8000rpm. jerrys hits 600hp at 5500 and holds 560 at 8000 with only 34psi.
5. I have seen numerous people on evom embarrass my curve. but for sake of this debate. I will take my single turbo setup over your twin turbo setup.

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

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

 

[SpawnedX]

I will start with my dyno graph. I dont have the last best tune in graph for you so I will have to extrapolate a bit for you from 4 year old graphs. We were having boost and fueling issues on the dyno. it left dyno with tun incomplete.
The first graph shows three things.
1. this is third gear pull. 90mph is 8200rpm for my car. 23.4 inch tires.
2. boost was 30 climbing to 34. this is all we had fuel for. and we limited boost on spool to limit the torque.
3. at 34psi i was making 560 at 8000rpm. and this is with my 2.3 with a cyclone intake!. notice pauls 2.0 is falling hard and only making 500 with a 2.0 and sheet metal intake and ###### bigger cams.
second graph is to show RPM and actual spool. again in third gear. on the street with more load we saw 31psi at 4000rpm in the aem logs. The tune was cleaned up and dialed in to 37psi on the street. dont have a dyno graph of finished tune.
1. no boost limit on spool. 600hp achieved at 5500rpm. 500rpm sooner than paul. and it holds it better at redline.
2. fuel curve chopped because at 6500rpm we were at 13.8 a/f. I let off throttle on that pull and run was aborted.
3. as i said earlier my car was built 9 years ago and sucks by todays standards. it has small cams because i like a 750rpm idle. it has low compression 8.5/1. uses a t3 adapter to bolt 35r to cast manifold. turbo was 900 new. 150 for tail gate. 200 for fp manifold. 93 octane and meth injection. cyclone intake. I could go on.
4. paul hits 600hp at 6000rpm, and drops to 500 at 8000rpm. jerrys hits 600hp at 5500 and holds 560 at 8000 with only 34psi.
5. I have seen numerous people on evom embarrass my curve. but for sake of this debate. I will take my single turbo setup over your twin turbo setup.

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

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

Let's put a 2.3 or 2.4 in Paul's car and see if your car still holds up in comparison. I'll make it easy for you. It won't.