My first porting job

[inspector-111]

Greetings! This is my first poriting try. After searching and finding out about the inevitable boost creep on my brand new, not yet installed E3 16G, (shocked and dissapointed) I was not even going to bother installing it without porting! Kinda makes you wonder why they don't cast it with this shape around the WG?! Just thought I would share some pics. If I missed something let me know! I don't want to have to take it apart to re-do it!

 

[kenamond]

Nice!

Hard to tell without a before picture, but from the 2nd pic, it looks like you took a good bit off of the corner that the exhaust gas has to go around to get out the WG. Did you gasket match the turbine housing to the turbine/O2 gasket? Did you also port the O2 some? Or maybe it's still on the car.

 

[inspector-111]

Nice!

Hard to tell without a before picture, but from the 2nd pic, it looks like you took a good bit off of the corner that the exhaust gas has to go around to get out the WG. Did you gasket match the turbine housing to the turbine/O2 gasket? Did you also port the O2 some? Or maybe it's still on the car.

I'm looking at getting this DP which also does away with the O2 housing. (one piece) I will just be putting the O2 bung in the stock location.

Just click on "products" in the top center of this page" and its the first thing onthat page. What do you think?


http://forcepower.ca/

Thats Canadian $ by the way. I have looked at some upgrades in the way of O2 housing, and DP, but its not that much more $ to go this way.

 

[romeen]

Kinda makes you wonder why they don't cast it with this shape around the WG?!

Yes, why would the MHI engineers design it that way if there wasn't some benefit to it? After all, MHI makes some pretty good turbos and the engineers have the aid of expensive machines to aid in turbo design. There is some debate regarding porting.

More than likely the dimensions, taper angles, contours, etc. were designed as such to maximize turbo responsiveness and midrange power. Having the lower edge of the wastegate passage being more exposed in the path of the exhaust gases might create turbulence which may adversely affect spool and turbine velocity if everything else in the exhaust is unchanged. However since you will now be able to run a bigger exhaust without the fear of boost creep these gains will hopefully outweigh those losses. With the exhaust system that the turbo was designed to operate with boost creep really wasn't an issue.

Admittedly this is speculation, but it is based on readings and discussions from reliable sources and seems reasonable. Furthermore, some of the best times with the EVO 3 turbo have been with unported ones (ShapeGSX comes to mind). Since there are so many variables affecting 1/4 mile times who can say how much of that is due soley to leaving it unported.

I'm not saying that porting is bad and shouldn't be done. Real world results generally seems to support the overall benefit. But like almost all performance modifications you will gain in some areas at the expense of some losses in others.

 

[CanadianTSi]

There's still a TON of material you could have removed but the entrance to the wategate looks good.

 

[inspector-111]

Yes, why would the MHI engineers design it that way if there wasn't some benefit to it? After all, MHI makes some pretty good turbos and the engineers have the aid of expensive machines to aid in turbo design. There is some debate regarding porting.

More than likely the dimensions, taper angles, contours, etc. were designed as such to maximize turbo responsiveness and midrange power. Having the lower edge of the wastegate passage being more exposed in the path of the exhaust gases might create turbulence which may adversely affect spool and turbine velocity if everything else in the exhaust is unchanged. However since you will now be able to run a bigger exhaust without the fear of boost creep these gains will hopefully outweigh those losses. With the exhaust system that the turbo was designed to operate with boost creep really wasn't an issue.

Admittedly this is speculation, but it is based on readings and discussions from reliable sources and seems reasonable. Furthermore, some of the best times with the EVO 3 turbo have been with unported ones (ShapeGSX comes to mind). Since there are so many variables affecting 1/4 mile times who can say how much of that is due soley to leaving it unported.

I'm not saying that porting is bad and shouldn't be done. Real world results generally seems to support the overall benefit. But like almost all performance modifications you will gain in some areas at the expense of some losses in others.

Thats very interesting, I didn't realize that there may be some negative aspects to doing this. Don't get me wrong, I don't think that I will regret it, for me anyway its not worth the risk of boost creep. But it never crossed my mind that this would hurt the performance in any way.

 

[IslandTSI]

Ya if I was going to port I would have ported the housing out to match a 7cm gasket and port match the manifold as well. But it looks good.

And as far as why the turbos aren;t designed differently from the factory is simple. Reliability and durability. The turbo was made to last as long as the cars it was designed for. Removing more material weakens the housing and makes it more prone to cracks etc

 

[kenamond]

If the evo3b16g were designed for our DSMs, they would've done it differently...like equipping it with a WGA that can open the flapper more than 45º.

If you want to run 17psi on an evo3 with a 3" exhaust and you run into creep, you have a dilema. If you can run 20+psi, don't port the WG. I believe that's what ShapeGSX has been arguing for more than a year.

Whether or not the ported WG entrance negatively affects full boost exhaust flow is something that can only be proven on a dyno or flowbench. Maybe it affects spool, too, but if you can't live with the creep (can't run 20+psi), what do you do?

And I agree that porting the turbine entrance and ex. mani. collector to 7cm^2 gasket match is a good idea.

 

[romeen]

Thats very interesting, I didn't realize that there may be some negative aspects to doing this. Don't get me wrong, I don't think that I will regret it, for me anyway its not worth the risk of boost creep. But it never crossed my mind that this would hurt the performance in any way.

I'm glad you didn't take my post the wrong way. It wasn't meant to make you regret anything but rather I took the opportunity in response to your question to simply discuss the fact that there are some opposing views out there from respected members with impressive numbers to back it up. I suspect porting may slightly detract from low end response but help with top end power. The reasoning that tends to support this theory I won't get into right now unless I'm accused of being crazy for thinking this way.

If you are still curious you can do a search on posts by ShapeGSX who has taken his 2G with the EVO 3 into the 11's and has voiced opposition to porting. Again, I don't think anyone can say that had he ported his turbo his times would have been slower. But it's enough for me to at least consider both views.

BTW, you did do a very nice job. As suggested you might want to consider removing the step in the turbo inlet to reduce turbulence.

A redesign would have involved a new cast with a different interior contour. The new cast would allow them to maintain the same wall thickness.

 

[IslandTSI]

Yes, but there would have been a reason the original cast was used, ie space reasons.

Also mitsu did not design these turbos with people like us in mind. It was designed to make a specific power level on a specific car. Obviously the engineers felt the design was efficient enough for the intended purpose.

 

[inspector-111]

I will admit that I was scared to open up anymore around the inlet. Its so damn thin in that area already! Maybe I could put more of a radius on that lip to meet the machined wall. I would like the turbo to last as long as possible without cracking or breaking.

Its really surprising how doing this has so many different affects on the performance of the turbo! I has no idea! I however will not have the ability to properly run 20+psi. Maybe later So this will have to do for now.

Has anyone else had cracking issues with porting the E3 16G? Are they prone to this? I mean, I'm not expecting to get 200K miles out of this or anything, but wondering if this will drastically shorten the lifespan?

 

[eldiabloz13]

Nice job but you seriously need some BEFORE and then after pics. It really helps those who don't know what it looked like before hand. Nice job though man how many bits did you use,what kind, how long did it take you.

 

[bushy]

Kinda makes you wonder why they don't cast it with this shape around the WG?!

You know why? Because the wastegate actuator doesnt even move that far. Porting that is useless.

 

[romeen]

I will admit that I was scared to open up anymore around the inlet. Its so damn thin in that area already!

Has anyone else had cracking issues with porting the E3 16G? Are they prone to this? I mean, I'm not expecting to get 200K miles out of this or anything, but wondering if this will drastically shorten the lifespan?

I have not personally seen any cracked housings as a result of too much porting but I was told by a local DSM shop owner and engine builder (Lucas English) that he has seen this happen in the exact area that you were concerned about. I wouldn't worry about it. Although possible I don't think that it is probable. It looks like you did a pretty good job.

In general the E316G housings are very resistant to cracking. MHI used a different iron to nickel ratio to overcome problems with cracking on earlier turbos. Heat cracks are always possible but they are uncommon on the EVO housings.

 

[inspector-111]

I have not personally seen any cracked housings as a result of too much porting but I was told by a local DSM shop owner and engine builder (Lucas English) that he has seen this happen in the exact area that you were concerned about. I wouldn't worry about it. Although possible I don't think that it is probable. It looks like you did a pretty good job.

In general the E316G housings are very resistant to cracking. MHI used a different iron to nickel ratio to overcome problems with cracking on earlier turbos. Heat cracks are always possible but they are uncommon on the EVO housings.

Thanks for the reassurance, I was a little worried for a bit there! I'm going to try get rid of the ridge on the inlet without thinning the wall too much. I still have to polish the rods, so I'll fix it then. (this is why I posted, to get input cause I'm tryin' to do it right the first time!)

Is it true that the flapper will not open any further? I read in the threads while searching, that porting around the arm was also important to do. Is this truly a waste?

 

[romeen]

Is it true that the flapper will not open any further? I read in the threads while searching, that porting around the arm was also important to do. Is this truly a waste?

The lever arm of the WGA does not have enough throw or reach to push the flapper open any further than about 45*. So while removing material from the the area behind the flapper will allow you to open 90* like in your picture it won't matter when it is hooked up to the WGA. The O2 eliminator DP you are planning on getting will hopefully flow better than the WG passage of the stock O2 sensor housing and help minimize the possibilty of boost creep. Also if you look at the WG exit on the turbine housing you will see a step on the lower portion. Some guys feel that removing that will also allow for easier flow of gases through the WG passage. But I'm not aware of any data that clearly supports this. (I still did it on mine though ).

 

[inspector-111]

Nice job but you seriously need some BEFORE and then after pics. It really helps those who don't know what it looked like before hand. Nice job though man how many bits did you use,what kind, how long did it take you.

I had borrowed 4 carbide bits with a 1/4" drive from a friend at work. They were all different shapes, but I ended up only using one. It had a cone shape with a rounded tip. After taking most of the "meat" off, (there was quite the hump blocking the enterance to the WG) I found that smoothing it out with the heavy sandpaper tubes worked best for me. I was lucky enough to be able to use the airtools at work. This helped ALOT! The sandpaper was around 180 grit. Patched up any now noticable rough spots with a stone (also driven with an air tool) then finished with scotch brite pads (some times refered to as mole cloth), which again was spun with the air tools.

All this took about 4 hours, but I still need to smooth out the step around the inlet.

 

[daren_p]

Well depending on your exhaust that porting may not be enough to prevent creep. It looks like thats a stock flapper? If so you want to remove some material in the WG hole, obviously you want to leave enough of the lip to still get a proper seal. On the turbine inlet you should be taking off alot more material to get ride of that step (unless you are planning on still running the sealing ring, most don't) You can see how theres no step in my pic. Also you don't have a straight down the turbine inlet shot but how much material did you remove above the WG inlet? This is a major area that causes boost creep as from the factory its cast with an overhang on the top side of the WG inlet compared to the bottom. When you look straight down the housing inlet you want the top & bottom edges of the WG inlet to atleast be parallel or have abit extra removed off the top so you can see the bottom lip. Also you can't see from your pic but did you make the corner nice & smooth on the WG outlet side? There's a ledge in there from factory that is directly in the WG flow route, smooth this out nice like the one in my pic if you haven't already.

Oh, but the porting itself as far as finish goes look great

My porting pics can be seen here, in post 44

http://www.dsmtuners.com/forums/showthread.php?t=217409&page=2

If you get bored, you can always do the compressor outlet as well .

 

[DSMunknown]

And if you're really bored you could take a small Dremel sander and carefully smooth out the WG outlet area (right beside the WG seal). It looks like the WG walls are somewhat corse (similar to the insides of OEM intake manifolds). I speculate this will also cause unwanted turbulence, and thus smoothing out the walls would help with the flow of exiting gases.

If you look at Daren's first photo in the link he provided, he gets pretty close to those corners adjacent to the WG door and WG flapper. And as Daren pointed out, if you do decide to do this, be careful about the WG seal.

On a more speculative note - How does port matching relate to "porting the sh*t out of" something? I honestly believe port matching is superior to the "porting-out-any-possible-material-is-better" theory/method, in regards to the exiting exhaust gases. How am I thinking about this? Well, most individuals will tell newbies to port everything, especially O2 housings. I can't find the link/post/photo I want, but there is (or was) a company that sold O2 housings that were EXTREMELY ported. Basically, I would argue that an extreme form of porting (if I can find the photo) regarding certain sections of the engine (such as the O2 housing) would actually inhibit performance and exhaust gas flow.

I will post back later if I can find what I am referencing.

 

[daren_p]

On a more speculative note - How does port matching relate to "porting the sh*t out of" something? I honestly believe port matching is superior to the "porting-out-any-possible-material-is-better" theory/method. How am I thinking about this? Well, most individuals will tell newbies to port everything, especially O2 housings. I can't find the link/post/photo I want, but there is (or was) a company that sold O2 housings that were EXTREMELY ported. Basically, I would argue that an extreme form of porting (if I can find the photo) regarding certain sections of the engine (such as the O2 housing) would actually inhibit performance and exhaust gas flow.

I will post back later if I can find what I am referencing.

Yes the whole point of porting parts is to get the smoothest possible transitions & flow. You want to match each component. Hogging something out as much as you can defeats the whole purpose of porting something as all you are doing is creating turbulances which will not improve flow.

 

[DSMunknown]

Yes the whole point of porting parts is to get the smoothest possible transitions & flow. You want to match each component. Hogging something out as much as you can defeats the whole purpose of porting something as all you are doing is creating turbulances which will not improve flow.

Agreed. Thus, one can conclude, there is certain techniques (some would call it "finess") to porting. Achieving and aiming for effective port work is much more important than going crazy with the Dremel and die grinder.

 

[wilddog]

Yes, why would the MHI engineers design it that way if there wasn't some benefit to it? After all, MHI makes some pretty good turbos and the engineers have the aid of expensive machines to aid in turbo design. There is some debate regarding porting.

More than likely the dimensions, taper angles, contours, etc. were designed as such to maximize turbo responsiveness and midrange power. Having the lower edge of the wastegate passage being more exposed in the path of the exhaust gases might create turbulence which may adversely affect spool and turbine velocity if everything else in the exhaust is unchanged. However since you will now be able to run a bigger exhaust without the fear of boost creep these gains will hopefully outweigh those losses. With the exhaust system that the turbo was designed to operate with boost creep really wasn't an issue.

I couldnt agree more. There is ALOT of research and development put into these things. Case in point, my friend's last internship had him investigate the change in efficiency of coolant passages in the block of some gm motors if angles were changed by a fraction. Craziness

 

[DSMunknown]

I couldnt agree more. There is ALOT of research and development put into these things. Case in point, my friend's last internship had him investigate the change in efficiency of coolant passages in the block of some gm motors if angles were changed by a fraction. Craziness

Craziness... or sly as a fox...

 

[kenamond]

Maybe a stupid question, but what vehicle was the e3b16g turbine housing designed for? If it was designed for a larger displacement engine, then this could explain the inadequacy of the housing for sub-20psi boost on our 2.0L engines. A 2.3L requires more air flow at 15psi boost than a 2.0L motor (both intake and exhaust flow). So it may creep to 17psi on a 2.3L motor and 20psi on a 2.0L motor. If this 2.3L motor were designed to handle 17psi (had enough fuel), then it wouldn't be a problem. But our cars can't handle 20psi on stock fuel. The bottom line is that one housing doesn't fit all, so engineering brilliance of whoever designed the turbine housing is irrelevant when you use it in a different application.

I'm still waiting for some enthusiastic young buck to find a WGA that opens the flapper more than 45º. Seems a helluva lot easier than porting.