New Bolt in turbo... FP White Rabbit.
Originally Posted by Tym Switzer
Checking in.
I have several reasons for not using the EMS to control boost. First of all, I've seen more than enough failed boost control solenoids to last me a lifetime. Second, I feel that the Hallman MBC's give the best turbo response of any form of boost control out there. I get really annoyed if I'm fighting poor response on a combination that I'm tuning and then find out it's a defective electronic boost controller or solenoid. With the cockpit adjustable Hallman, I can control the boost from inside the car and make changes very quickly.
I have several reasons for not using the EMS to control boost. First of all, I've seen more than enough failed boost control solenoids to last me a lifetime. Second, I feel that the Hallman MBC's give the best turbo response of any form of boost control out there. I get really annoyed if I'm fighting poor response on a combination that I'm tuning and then find out it's a defective electronic boost controller or solenoid. With the cockpit adjustable Hallman, I can control the boost from inside the car and make changes very quickly.
My experience has been the opposite, AEM controls boost better than any MBC I have tried. I do agree that a MBC is much easier to set up.
I have just a few min, so I'll try to hit some hot points.
The turbo did respond very well to the prototype camshafts, spooling earlier and increasing tq by more that 60ftlb at 4krpm.
The turbo has a stock size 2.5" inlet, same as stock.
I've been asked a gazillion times if this is a 20g or a 21g, no it is not, I designed this wheel from scratch. To my knowledge (and I would know) Mitsubishi turbo never made a 21g.
The turbo uses the same oil and water lines as the stock turbo.
Clipping was tested and datalogged. A very slight reduction in turbine inlet pressure was measured, this did not corrolate into an appreciable increase in measured HP in the upper RPM. It did increase boost recovery time during the 2-3 and 3-4 shift from .7s to .9s. I was obvious that the negligible increase in power above 6krpm was not worth the boost recovery penaly - therefore production White Rabbit turbochargers are not clipped.
We are setup to build about 10 of these units per week. A new batch will be ready weekly.
Thats all for now, thanks for the space!
Robert Young
The turbo did respond very well to the prototype camshafts, spooling earlier and increasing tq by more that 60ftlb at 4krpm.
The turbo has a stock size 2.5" inlet, same as stock.
I've been asked a gazillion times if this is a 20g or a 21g, no it is not, I designed this wheel from scratch. To my knowledge (and I would know) Mitsubishi turbo never made a 21g.
The turbo uses the same oil and water lines as the stock turbo.
Clipping was tested and datalogged. A very slight reduction in turbine inlet pressure was measured, this did not corrolate into an appreciable increase in measured HP in the upper RPM. It did increase boost recovery time during the 2-3 and 3-4 shift from .7s to .9s. I was obvious that the negligible increase in power above 6krpm was not worth the boost recovery penaly - therefore production White Rabbit turbochargers are not clipped.
We are setup to build about 10 of these units per week. A new batch will be ready weekly.
Thats all for now, thanks for the space!
Robert Young
It's good to see that everyone is analysing the data put forth regarding the Rabbit and asking good questions. I'm trying to keep everyone as informed as I can regarding the testing, so if I'm missing anything, I certainly don't mean to.
As for why I prefer the MBC... I agree that the EMS has safeguards where if used properly can prevent a damaging scenerio caused by an overboost. As it stands, I build as much protection into my calibrations as I can to prevent engine damage in the event that there is a mechanical malfunction or serious pilot error. However, I am still of the personal opinion that having tuned many many many different vehicles and applications that a properly designed MBC is generally super-consistent and reliable. I have a dislike for many of the electronic boost controllers out there because quite frankly they have let me down on numerous occasions. I've also seen quite a few malfunctioning or failed boost control solenoids when using the EMS to control boost. The EMS actually does do an excellent job of controlling boost when everything else is functioning properly. I just hate having a combination dialed in, having a failure in the boost control system and then having to waste time repairing it to either resume testing or whatever. It would have been a complete waste of development time with the WR if I found out at the end of the testing that I had a boost control solenoid going bad which may have muddled my results. Once again, this is just my opinion. You have many choices available to you.
As for cams... my post was too short and probably not descriptive enough. When I made the comment that I wasn't able to make more peak power, I should have given more information to substantiate my results. At the 27psi peak boost figure I was hitting on the full out racegas pulls, we were generating a great deal of backpressure in the turbine housing once we got to 5500rpm or so. At that level of backpressure, it is going to become more difficult to generate more "peak" horsepower. However, as I mentioned in my previous post, I was able to produce more torque and make it hit sooner than the previous best pull on stock camshafts. Now, if we talk about power levels at a lower boost level (where the backpressure builds later in the rpm curve), I was able to make an increase in spool up, torque AND horsepower ... carrying an increase of horsepower all the way to 7500-8k rpm. Gains on all counts. Granted, at the higher boost level, on the stock engine I was "only" able to make 430-440awhp on the stock engine... but it is impressive to me that I was able to make 455awtq just by adding cams and working the centerlines and lobe separation. Please keep in mind also that these camshafts were not the "ideal" nor did they represent any final product that you would recieve... these cams were a starting point on the initial data available. As I said before, we are working this grind to address the individual strengths and weaknesses of this turbo alone. Not a compromise to be used with many different turbochargers. That is already available.
It is important for all of us to consider what the design goals were for the White Rabbit upgrade turbocharger:
- True "bolt-on" turbo upgrade requiring no manifold or exhaust changes
- Spool up nearly as good as a stock turbocharger
- Broad, usable power curve
- Stock appearance
- 400whp capable, with more efficiency than the stock turbocharger
If you keep these criteria in mind while analysing the test results, I believe that the turbocharger has exceded or met our expectations. It was not designed to be a high boost end-all turbocharger upgrade. For many, it will be ideal as its spool up characteristics are superior to any other upgrade out there. This is what many of you looking at this information are interested in.
Also... addressing a couple of other questions...
-Yes, it uses the same "wet" housing as stock using all of the stock lines.
-Has the standard 2.5" inlet horn as the stock turbocharger, larger I.D. for the compressor wheel.
-Uses stock manifold and O2 housing... any of the standard upgrade headers or o2 housings should work fine with this unit... as far as fitup.
Hope this helps clarify some things.
As far as the thank you's for posting the information and answering questions, you are all very welcome. Thank you for the consideration.
Take care,
As for why I prefer the MBC... I agree that the EMS has safeguards where if used properly can prevent a damaging scenerio caused by an overboost. As it stands, I build as much protection into my calibrations as I can to prevent engine damage in the event that there is a mechanical malfunction or serious pilot error. However, I am still of the personal opinion that having tuned many many many different vehicles and applications that a properly designed MBC is generally super-consistent and reliable. I have a dislike for many of the electronic boost controllers out there because quite frankly they have let me down on numerous occasions. I've also seen quite a few malfunctioning or failed boost control solenoids when using the EMS to control boost. The EMS actually does do an excellent job of controlling boost when everything else is functioning properly. I just hate having a combination dialed in, having a failure in the boost control system and then having to waste time repairing it to either resume testing or whatever. It would have been a complete waste of development time with the WR if I found out at the end of the testing that I had a boost control solenoid going bad which may have muddled my results. Once again, this is just my opinion. You have many choices available to you.
As for cams... my post was too short and probably not descriptive enough. When I made the comment that I wasn't able to make more peak power, I should have given more information to substantiate my results. At the 27psi peak boost figure I was hitting on the full out racegas pulls, we were generating a great deal of backpressure in the turbine housing once we got to 5500rpm or so. At that level of backpressure, it is going to become more difficult to generate more "peak" horsepower. However, as I mentioned in my previous post, I was able to produce more torque and make it hit sooner than the previous best pull on stock camshafts. Now, if we talk about power levels at a lower boost level (where the backpressure builds later in the rpm curve), I was able to make an increase in spool up, torque AND horsepower ... carrying an increase of horsepower all the way to 7500-8k rpm. Gains on all counts. Granted, at the higher boost level, on the stock engine I was "only" able to make 430-440awhp on the stock engine... but it is impressive to me that I was able to make 455awtq just by adding cams and working the centerlines and lobe separation. Please keep in mind also that these camshafts were not the "ideal" nor did they represent any final product that you would recieve... these cams were a starting point on the initial data available. As I said before, we are working this grind to address the individual strengths and weaknesses of this turbo alone. Not a compromise to be used with many different turbochargers. That is already available.
It is important for all of us to consider what the design goals were for the White Rabbit upgrade turbocharger:
- True "bolt-on" turbo upgrade requiring no manifold or exhaust changes
- Spool up nearly as good as a stock turbocharger
- Broad, usable power curve
- Stock appearance
- 400whp capable, with more efficiency than the stock turbocharger
If you keep these criteria in mind while analysing the test results, I believe that the turbocharger has exceded or met our expectations. It was not designed to be a high boost end-all turbocharger upgrade. For many, it will be ideal as its spool up characteristics are superior to any other upgrade out there. This is what many of you looking at this information are interested in.
Also... addressing a couple of other questions...
-Yes, it uses the same "wet" housing as stock using all of the stock lines.
-Has the standard 2.5" inlet horn as the stock turbocharger, larger I.D. for the compressor wheel.
-Uses stock manifold and O2 housing... any of the standard upgrade headers or o2 housings should work fine with this unit... as far as fitup.
Hope this helps clarify some things.
As far as the thank you's for posting the information and answering questions, you are all very welcome. Thank you for the consideration.
Take care,
Evolving Member
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 486
Likes: 0
From: 900 pounds lighter than a X.
thank you
Originally Posted by dryad001
I just got done re-reading this entire thread and still have a few questions that were never asked.
-Does this turbo still retain water/oil cooling?
-What is the inlet size of the compressor housing?
-Will this be able to use the stock 02 housing, thus keeping stock/aftermarket downpipe in the stock location?
-When is the next batch due out?
-Does this turbo still retain water/oil cooling?
-What is the inlet size of the compressor housing?
-Will this be able to use the stock 02 housing, thus keeping stock/aftermarket downpipe in the stock location?
-When is the next batch due out?
Originally Posted by sparky
Can the WR be configured with the 9.8 exhaust housing instead of the 10.5 to further reduce spoolup and make it harder hitting in the lower rev range?
Sparky
Sparky
Evolving Member
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 170
Likes: 0
From: K.L, Malaysia
Originally Posted by ForcedPerf
I have just a few min, so I'll try to hit some hot points.
The turbo did respond very well to the prototype camshafts, spooling earlier and increasing tq by more that 60ftlb at 4krpm.
The turbo has a stock size 2.5" inlet, same as stock.
I've been asked a gazillion times if this is a 20g or a 21g, no it is not, I designed this wheel from scratch. To my knowledge (and I would know) Mitsubishi turbo never made a 21g.
The turbo uses the same oil and water lines as the stock turbo.
Clipping was tested and datalogged. A very slight reduction in turbine inlet pressure was measured, this did not corrolate into an appreciable increase in measured HP in the upper RPM. It did increase boost recovery time during the 2-3 and 3-4 shift from .7s to .9s. I was obvious that the negligible increase in power above 6krpm was not worth the boost recovery penaly - therefore production White Rabbit turbochargers are not clipped.
We are setup to build about 10 of these units per week. A new batch will be ready weekly.
Thats all for now, thanks for the space!
Robert Young
The turbo did respond very well to the prototype camshafts, spooling earlier and increasing tq by more that 60ftlb at 4krpm.
The turbo has a stock size 2.5" inlet, same as stock.
I've been asked a gazillion times if this is a 20g or a 21g, no it is not, I designed this wheel from scratch. To my knowledge (and I would know) Mitsubishi turbo never made a 21g.
The turbo uses the same oil and water lines as the stock turbo.
Clipping was tested and datalogged. A very slight reduction in turbine inlet pressure was measured, this did not corrolate into an appreciable increase in measured HP in the upper RPM. It did increase boost recovery time during the 2-3 and 3-4 shift from .7s to .9s. I was obvious that the negligible increase in power above 6krpm was not worth the boost recovery penaly - therefore production White Rabbit turbochargers are not clipped.
We are setup to build about 10 of these units per week. A new batch will be ready weekly.
Thats all for now, thanks for the space!
Robert Young
My thought was just that the WR with a 9.8 housing and a set of 264 cams might be a hard hitting combo producing lots of torque down low, which is kinda what I was looking for, as I drive on a lot of tight little twisty roads at high altitude and even the stock turbo keeps me waiting sometimes.
You´re probably right about the compressor surge, though. Maybe if boost was limited to 19 psi and if a bit of porting was done on the exhaust housing bypass port, enlarging the port to where the puck barely covers it, this would help control the flutter.
Thanks, Sparky
You´re probably right about the compressor surge, though. Maybe if boost was limited to 19 psi and if a bit of porting was done on the exhaust housing bypass port, enlarging the port to where the puck barely covers it, this would help control the flutter.
Thanks, Sparky
Originally Posted by sparky
My thought was just that the WR with a 9.8 housing and a set of 264 cams might be a hard hitting combo producing lots of torque down low
