My compound turbo set-up

[94awdcoupe]

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.

well known a 2.3 spools faster but does not necassarily make better power at high rpm. pauls at 42psi manifold and only 600whp. power at 500 at 8000. what do think would happen at 8000rpm with a stroker in his setup? I dont find your statement adding any intelligence.

has anyone heard the manifold pressure is the boost not getting through motor? this setup is classic example of why that statement is important. this setup has to make all its power through a td05h turbine and a wastegate hole bored through the stock exhaust manifold. I stated waay back that would be a problem. and it clearly is. thers is a lot of back pressure in this setup. switching to a 2.3 will make it worse. it would have more power sooner but far less up top. its harder to get broad power band on 2.3 than it is on 2.0.

here is another graph that is far prettier than pauls and mine. there are likley 10 of these FP black graphs on evom.

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

 

[SpawnedX]

...really...I mean really...the increase in displacement alone will make more than enough torque to obliterate your numbers. Use common sense.

 

[94awdcoupe]

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

this is what I would call a successful twin charger setup. this was unfished graph. it later made another 120hp with .2bar more boost.

...really...I mean really...the increase in displacement alone will make more than enough torque to obliterate your numbers. Use common sense.

I disagree. the 2.3 will just create more backpressure.
Plus you are missing that i admit mt setup is crappy. I dont want to sink any more money in the car. But there is huge improvements to my setup that could be made.

dont want to bench race with you. if you like his graph great.

I posted its not that great. and can post a dozen dyno graphs that are better on a single turbo setup. Its my opinion and its not gonna change till I see pauls setup improve.

 

[99gst_racer]

1. this is third gear pull. 90mph is 8200rpm for my car. 23.4 inch tires.

Noteworthy that you have a stroked engine and you're using a smaller tire with a higher gear ratio. All things that offer dynograph inflations that I didn't take advantage of. Already not much of a clean comparision.

Got a graph of yours that references HP/TQ vs RPM instead of speed?

notice pauls 2.0 is falling hard and only making 500 with a 2.0 and sheet metal intake and ###### bigger cams.

Falling hard? Maybe you missed the part about my clutch not holding the power that the engine is producing? Nobody (myself included) really knows where my engine is peaking yet. I haven't even shown you a complete powerband like in the graphs that you're showing me. 600 WHP is not where I'm really peaking, and it surely isn't falling off in the higher RPM's either. I'm confident enough in this so much that I'll be using the td05 wheel on the next set-up as well.

second graph is to show RPM and actual spool.

Very impressive. I've always liked the 35r. So much in fact, that it will be the turbo I'll be using for the next compound set-up.

In my final pull, the operator didn't go WOT until 4100 RPMs because of the clutch/torque issues. I'm usually already at 33 psi by this RPM when starting where you did on your pull. Just don't forget that this one trip to the dyno was nowhere near a full indication of how this is working. I could only show you guys what my ACT clutch would allow. Think of it more as a sneak peak.

but for sake of this debate. I will take my single turbo setup over your twin turbo setup.

Fair enough. Like Kevin said, I'm not going back to a single turbo anytime soon.

 

[SpawnedX]

I like how this guy disagrees with the fact that a 2.3L engine does not inherently make more power than a 2.0L on identical setups. Even though this is horsepower 101.

 

[Kevin Jewer]

Take a 2 liter engine that is compressor limited, and make a 2.3 liter. Total power will be the same, but low-mid range power will increase dramatically. I've seen cases with an EVO3 16g maxed out on a 2.3 liter with airflow flatlined at 42 lbs/min from 3000-8000 rpm, . Exhaust backpressure will be through the roof at high rpm. A compound setup will wastegate all that backpressure.

Here's a log screen cap from my car. The yellow line (sw5) is my transbrake, "primary load" is my backpressure. You can see that they are very close to 1:1, the worst difference is about 2 psi, and it doesn't cross over until 8000 rpm. And this is on a setup that spools easily at 4k rpm. Not too bad.

http://i116.photobucket.com/albums/o23/kjewer1/Junk/Compoundturbobackpressure.jpg

EVOs make great torque, I wouldn't compare them to DSMs with all of their improvements to the combustion chambers, MIVEC system, and so on. 15 years brought a lot of improvement, despite bearing the same 4g63 designation as the old 6 bolt motors.

 

[94awdcoupe]

Paul.
my setup does not make better numbers because of gearing. its well kniown 4th gear graphs spool faster and make more power. yes I think your power is falling hard. and it cant have anything to do with clutch slipping. clutch may have slipped at 550tq (and that gives inflated dyno numbers) at redline you are at far less torque. I am aware of where your pull was made. it only takes 600rpm to reach full boost once you are in an rpm range that normally puts you at full boost. so your graph wouldnt be any better from 4400rpm up were i am making comparisons. I am amazed that all you guys labeling me a hater are impressed with 600hp from 42psi boost. can I retune my car for that boost and recompare?

I like the twin charger idea. I just dont like the way you did it. I would have used a smaller primary turbo and a larger secondary and a much bigger/better bypass of first manifold. But I would consider the way norris did it far superior. supercharger that gets system to torque quick then steps out of the way completely in favor of large turbo. Do you not have a comment on norris setup? can you not just take one breif look at that graph and tell it is leaps and bounds superior to what you have done?

I am done here. Congrads on your success. Keep up the good work.

 

[VETTE_50_TH]

Whats a better smaller more efficient turbo than a e316g?

 

[SpawnedX]

Take a 2 liter engine that is compressor limited, and make a 2.3 liter. Total power will be the same, but low-mid range power will increase dramatically. I've seen cases with an EVO3 16g maxed out on a 2.3 liter with airflow flatlined at 42 lbs/min from 3000-8000 rpm, . Exhaust backpressure will be through the roof at high rpm. A compound setup will wastegate all that backpressure.

Here's a log screen cap from my car. The yellow line (sw5) is my transbrake, "primary load" is my backpressure. You can see that they are very close to 1:1, the worst difference is about 2 psi, and it doesn't cross over until 8000 rpm. And this is on a setup that spools easily at 4k rpm. Not too bad.

http://i116.photobucket.com/albums/o23/kjewer1/Junk/Compoundturbobackpressure.jpg

EVOs make great torque, I wouldn't compare them to DSMs with all of their improvements to the combustion chambers, MIVEC system, and so on. 15 years brought a lot of improvement, despite bearing the same 4g63 designation as the old 6 bolt motors.

That's why they make bigger turbos!

 

[Kevin Jewer]

My point was just that even if peak power doesn't go up, low end power goes up a shitload. It was in repsonse to something above that aggravated me, though I can't recall now what that was.

Back to compound turbos, it's important to note that if the small turbo is not boost creeping, more WG capacity will not improve flow since it won't be used. Any WG flow limitations there will result in boost creep.

Paul, have you logged backpressure on your setup?

 

[dalesmitsu]

I did have same idea for the 420a, never attepmted it nor have funds to do it. If I dd have the funds I would.

Your the man, Paul. Mega props for thinking outisde the box, and it works.

I'm surprised nobody brought up Hahnracecraft, Bill did a twin turbo setup for his mustang it put out 540hp on stock motor? Its on streetfie.net he talked about it.

 

[whe3ls]

all this auguring over a bad clutch and 600 horse

 

[Slippi84]

This is exactly why i wont be posting numbers until everything is worked out because some brainiac will come out swearing its a epic fail and xyz car is better chugging hateraid like its going out of style.

In what universe are you in that gearing doesn't affect spool but a slipping clutch INFLATES dyno numbers. Looking at just boost level and hp is idiotic. The whole point of this was to make a more street friendly setup not a dyno queen hp.monster. Sure a sc and turbo system would be better it would also cost more weigh more and net you worse fuel economy none of whih are good things.

 

[dsm-onster]

This is the primary irritant who foretold it would never work in the first place: click. Now that it does, he's clinging to personal speculation just like he did when fortelling it's failure:

1. claiming a slipping clutch increases a dyno reading,
2. pointing out a falling off in power at over 600whp (when it's actually only running a 58lb/min compressor in the big stage and it's making that 600whp already by 6000rpms, what does one think would happen to 58lb/min compressor when it's making 600whp at 6000rpm ),
3. showing a graph of a fpblack setup with a 2.3 motor as his arguement; but infact it is making the same power as pauls at 5500rpms (less power below 5000rpms).

For the last, WOW! way to prove the compound setup greatly improves the powerband; the entire point of the setup. Pauls **T4** 60-1 setup with a 2.0L nets the same powerband-- a little more grunt below 5000rpms actually-- than a stroker with better head design, mivec, and an fpblack that on it's own spools faster than a t4 60-1 on its own.

Compare other setups with the 60-1 and a t4 hotside to his, or step away from the keyboard and think about what you are typing. To make total boost, torque, and horsepower soar that quickly when you're running a 70s t4 housing and turbine wheel design? That's impressive. To run over 600whp with a 58lb/min compressor wheel? That's impressive. To make that horsepower and torque WAY out of the rating of his clutch causing it to slip? That's impressive. Put your 35r on his setup as a replacement of his t4 60-1. What will happen based on the results coupled with your incredible personal speculation? We'll find out.

Let's get back to the subject, realizing that the setup he has has the same powerband as your stroker with a ball bearing turbo and arguebly a faster spooling hotside than his t4.

 

[GSXSixteenG]

I have a friend just like this guy. He was wrong from the start but now has to try to back his way out of the argument while comparing apples to oranges.

Your comparing a 68lb/min turbo to a 58lb/min turbo.
You saying a slipping clutch will inflate your numbers. I don't understand that, the clutch is rated for 400hp/tq.
Paul made a 4th gear from 4k rpm, not 3rd.
Lastly, your comparing a 2.3L setup to a 2.0L, of course the numbers are going to be different. And, Paul is making more power at lower rpms with a 2.0L!

 

[99gst_racer]

Paul.
my setup does not make better numbers because of gearing. its well kniown 4th gear graphs spool faster and make more power.

Are you sure you know how a Dynojet works?
It calculates horsepower based upon a rate of acceleration. In a lower gear ratio, the rate of acceleration is slowed, and the dyno numbers will be lower as a result. A good example would be comparing 1st gear to 5th gear. On a 2G AWD M/T, 1st gear is a 3.083 ratio and acceleratation is like a rocket. 5th gear is a 0.666 ratio, and it's common knowledge that 5th is our slowest gear for acceleration.

With that being said, I dyno'd at a 0.833 gear ratio, and you did yours at a 1.115 gear ratio. The rate of acceleration IS different between the two and the dyno numbers will read differently as a result. The same applies for your shorter tire. I was at 143 mph at the end of my pull.

yes I think your power is falling hard. and it cant have anything to do with clutch slipping.

You're just being rediculous now. My clutch completely lets go at 5K as seen by the lack of any data at all at that point. It's catches back up at around 5800, but never fully grabs as seen by the lumpy, inconsistant, and truely peakless power curve from 6K to 8K.

I am amazed that all you guys labeling me a hater are impressed with 600hp from 42psi boost. can I retune my car for that boost and recompare?

By nature, compound set-ups run more boost to opperate effectivily than an average single turbo. Boost pressure is a function of a turbo's compressor and it's completely useless to compare "PSI to PSI" with different compressors. That's like comparing 20 psi on a T25 an 20 psi on a 40R, and thinking that comparing "boost" numbers are actually good for anything useful.

Also, I wasn't running 42 psi either. And I can garuntee you that your 35r wont be near as efficient if you can even get it to run 47 psi.

I like the twin charger idea. I just dont like the way you did it. I would have used a smaller primary turbo and a larger secondary and a much bigger/better bypass of first manifold.

What do you consider to be the primary and secondary? (it varies from person to person) My wastegate configuration is working just fine. I have complete boost control down to 27 psi (that's as low as I've tried it). The 16g will opperate at 1-bar if I set it to. That means that it's wastegate is bypassing all the rest of the exhaust to allow it to opperate at that low of a boost level. It would creep if the wastegate couldn't keep up, but that's not happening here. Furthermore, my 60-1 is currently spooling at the exact same rate as it was when I was running it by itself with a JH Racing twin-scroll manifold. So, I know I don't have a problem with getting the exhaust routed to the larger turbo as well. My wastegate/bypass functions are working perfectly, contrary to your belief.

Of course, you're just sitting behind a computer screen guessing away with what you think it going on here. And I'm the one that builds and drives the car, and has data to back up everything I say it does.

But I would consider the way norris did it far superior. supercharger that gets system to torque quick then steps out of the way completely in favor of large turbo. Do you not have a comment on norris setup? can you not just take one breif look at that graph and tell it is leaps and bounds superior to what you have done?

Yes, a supercharger + turbo set-up can be superior because of the low-end grunt that a SC provides. I don't know a single detail about that engine, so it's tough to comment. But that power curve is amazing! Looks like a fun ride. I know I'll never be making power like that though. I never intended to make much more than I already am. That graph does make me wonder what my torque curve would have looked like had I had the ability to pull from the 2500-3000 RPM range. I guess I'll find out next spring.

I am done here. Congrads on your success. Keep up the good work.

Thanks. I'll be sure to let you know what it does when it's finished.

 

[turbotalon1g]

I just want to say congrats to paul for getting some numbers on this setup, while not perfect I hope it helped teach him something.

This was the guys first setup, so not only is he learning he is inspiring a shit ton of people. I understand that people are critical of his setup, but why don't you wait until paul has his car setup good aka no slipping clutch, etc.

If you don't want a compound setup, then just GTFO.

Congrats, I hate when people come into peoples threads and just try to rip them a new one it makes valuable people like paul (compound turbo), danl (evo ecu in dsm), and others in the community not want to even bother sharing their results.

Keep on the hard work and I hope that you come to MN someday with or without the car.

 

[99gst_racer]

Thanks again, guys.

Whats a better smaller more efficient turbo than a e316g?

It's tough pickens at that size. The 16g whoops on most turbos near it's size. It's a force to be reckoned with. I had considered using a GT28R just to have a small, ball bearing compressor, but steered away from that idea after pricing it out.

Back to compound turbos, it's important to note that if the small turbo is not boost creeping, more WG capacity will not improve flow since it won't be used. Any WG flow limitations there will result in boost creep.

Precisely. And I've had rock solid boost control everywhere between 27 psi and 47 psi thus far.

Paul, have you logged backpressure on your setup?

Not yet. I just don't have a good way to do it right now. I don't have a provision anywhere on the manifold, and my EGR port is welded shut on the head. I'll make a point to weld on a bung for this on the next set-up that I build.

 

[VETTE_50_TH]

All i know from experience.....that shit must be twice as hard to take off than one turbo .

 

[slipstream808]

I wanna know what it feels like during the transition. Is there a dip? What does the boost do? It looks great, though. Really good work. Be proud of yourself.

 

[99gst_racer]

All i know from experience.....that shit must be twice as hard to take off than one turbo .

You mean removing it from the engine? Yeah, it's a job. It's like a giant steel puzzle. One of my primary goals for the next set-up is to design it to assemble and install quicker and easier.

 

[99gst_racer]

I wanna know what it feels like during the transition. Is there a dip? What does the boost do? It looks great, though. Really good work. Be proud of yourself.

There's no felt transition. It pretty much feels like a single quick spooling, large-frame turbo. My boost curve basically looks like a 16G that is able to hit 50 psi.

I wish I could figure out why the log isn't attaching properly. If anyone wants to see it, feel free to PM me your e-mail address and I'll send it over.

 

[turbo23]

I think its awesome it made that hp with the issues it had, and cant wait to see the new combo! BTW if for some reason his clutch wasnt slipping (which it was) above 6500. first thing i would blame would be the intake, it might be a smim, but it has a very small plenum volume for that rpm range/airflow. keep up the good work man!

 

[dsm-onster]

Whats a better smaller more efficient turbo than a e316g?

The e3 16g is king at it's frame size. If you're looking at smaller than an e3 16g. then you should look at the 14b. Like it's big brother in durability and flows 34lb/min with an even faster spooling 6cm^2 housing. But I've seen difficulty getting to it's compressor flow potential with the 6cm^2 housing. Swapping to the 7cm^2 housing puts the spool close to the same. The good ol' t3 60trim (not t3/t4 60trim) in the ol swapping to the 7cm^2 housing puts the spool close to the same .63 a/r turbine housing is smaller than the e316g but much bigger than a t25 and can easily see its full compressor flow potential of about 31lb/min but spools about the same as the e316g on bigger motors. After that turbos that flow more than a t25 but spool faster than the e3 16g is just the 14b and a short list of overpriced turbos. Long live the e3 16g!

****There is the hx30w that you can get for used for next to nothing, if you can even find one. But how does it spool?

I'm loving how a compound charged auto 2g dsm looks on paper with a stock t25 and a 50-trim/td06h 20g/hx35 size turbo. OR a 1g auto with the stock 13g and the same size big turbo. The auto should take the torque hit all day long. And the compounding should get spool up quickly at the line. Right Kevin, compounding helps boosting up while on the stall?

 

[bsbllfit7]

i personally would love to run an either t25/evo3 16g setup with an hx35 or 40. That to me would be a very quick spooling powerhouse!