Another one bite's the dust 850R again.
Here is a comparison of a t3 single scroll 782whp vs BW TWIN SCROLL 70mm on same motor setup.. Header is t4 twin scroll for the BW 70mm and the header for the t3 is single scroll. Which has a more useable power band?? I can tell you the t3 ran 8's,, the other didnt even come close..
Here is a 4294 twin scroll ( Green LINE ) vs the other 2.. I couldnt do RPM because we didnt have RPM pickup ont he 4294 that day, sorry.. Again i am sorry but i dont see this SUPER TWIN SCROLL SPOOLING EFFECT over the baby 62mm t3.. I am no engineer and probably dont know as much as many about turbos btu i know what i test on my cars and i know what my cars run on the street and track.. the 4088 and 4094 are dogs IMO..
Here is a 4294 twin scroll ( Green LINE ) vs the other 2.. I couldnt do RPM because we didnt have RPM pickup ont he 4294 that day, sorry.. Again i am sorry but i dont see this SUPER TWIN SCROLL SPOOLING EFFECT over the baby 62mm t3.. I am no engineer and probably dont know as much as many about turbos btu i know what i test on my cars and i know what my cars run on the street and track.. the 4088 and 4094 are dogs IMO..
Here is a comparison of a t3 single scroll 782whp vs BW TWIN SCROLL 70mm on same motor setup.. Header is t4 twin scroll for the BW 70mm and the header for the t3 is single scroll. Which has a more useable power band?? I can tell you the t3 ran 8's,, the other didnt even come close..
Here is a 4294 twin scroll ( Green LINE ) vs the other 2.. I couldnt do RPM because we didnt have RPM pickup ont he 4294 that day, sorry.. Again i am sorry but i dont see this SUPER TWIN SCROLL SPOOLING EFFECT over the baby 62mm t3.. I am no engineer and probably dont know as much as many about turbos btu i know what i test on my cars and i know what my cars run on the street and track.. the 4088 and 4094 are dogs IMO..
Here is a 4294 twin scroll ( Green LINE ) vs the other 2.. I couldnt do RPM because we didnt have RPM pickup ont he 4294 that day, sorry.. Again i am sorry but i dont see this SUPER TWIN SCROLL SPOOLING EFFECT over the baby 62mm t3.. I am no engineer and probably dont know as much as many about turbos btu i know what i test on my cars and i know what my cars run on the street and track.. the 4088 and 4094 are dogs IMO..
Whats interesting to me is that everyone that has used our twinscroll 40R literally raves about how responsive and fast it spools and how there is power everywhere. hell, mark shead has the fastest time attack evo in europe, and he uses our off-the-shelf 40R kit. Yet on this forum everyone already knows everything, and drag racing T3 undivided turbos is the answer... twinscroll isnt new, it isnt experimental. It has been around for 50 years. It works. accept it, get over it, move on. if you dont want to use it thats fine, but like it or not the Green and the Red that you and everyone else loves so much ARE BOTH TWINSCROLL
is there some setup thats better out there? yes, there is always something better. is it a t3 undivided? i highly doubt it, but i will try them all and find out. We have been making t3 undivided for years (before any other vendor on this forum im fairly certain) and we still make them. We'll build any setup that the customer orders, but if a customer asks us what is the best non-drag specific setup our answer is twinscroll.
also, there is no such thing as a 70mm borgwarner. maybe it was some bullsyee concoction or maybe you got something from another mystery vendor, but 200whp by 5200whp is dismal, this setup is not at all representative of a proper twinscroll setup.
Last edited by Geoff Raicer; Feb 17, 2009 at 02:21 PM.
what do you mean? show me a " big boy" powerband and ill build whatever it takes to beat it.
mike, no offense taken. i disagree with 99% of what you post, but that is to be expected since you havent been in the game very long
i agree they arent great turbos, but werent you just yesterday recommending the small hsg 4294 becuase it spools like a 37R
that turbo is no good, stay away
people who have no experience and no clue arent worth arguing with. Most anyone who argues with you/us has no idea what your cars driveability feels like, let alone its performance at your altitude.
your posts are nauseating
mike, no offense taken. i disagree with 99% of what you post, but that is to be expected since you havent been in the game very long
i agree they arent great turbos, but werent you just yesterday recommending the small hsg 4294 becuase it spools like a 37R
that turbo is no good, stay away
people who have no experience and no clue arent worth arguing with. Most anyone who argues with you/us has no idea what your cars driveability feels like, let alone its performance at your altitude.
your posts are nauseating
No Geoff I never recommended a 4294 because it spooled like a 37r but if you can show me where i said that i would appreciate it..
I disagree with 99% of what you post on this twin scroll stuff because you contribute less to EVO Testing than i Do.. I understand its hard to be involved in Hondas, VW's, Supras and master all of it.. On the other hand, with only being in the "game" such a short time my signature speaks for itself..
Well I am with Mike on this. I haven't seen a GT40 anything do crap that has impressed me. I also just had the Full Race twin scroll turbo kit here with the GT40 on it. Same car that went to Sean Iveys after it left here. I was actually disgusted with the power and the curve, so not everyone is impressed. It had decent spool up but was also on a stroker, it had no top end power, a GT35r would have had the same results down low and spanked it's *** up top.
Sorry, I'm not drinking the twin scroll GT40 coolaid, it tastes like ****.
Sorry, I'm not drinking the twin scroll GT40 coolaid, it tastes like ****.
if i had known then what i know now i could have run 8's in my black car.. too bad i was in the big t4 twin scroll hype myself then.. i can see the light now.. PEAK #'s MEAN NOTHING!!
A lot of People " Worked " on fast cars.. NONE BUILT 100% Inhouse BY YOU.. Atleast EVos..
Last edited by AWD Motorsports; Feb 17, 2009 at 02:52 PM.
My Dad is bigger then then your Dad...... 
Now lets get back to pour old Sharks post..... Shark you werent lying when we talked and you said you push the hell out of that car...lol. I hope that someone can get something for you that will last.
Now lets get back to pour old Sharks post..... Shark you werent lying when we talked and you said you push the hell out of that car...lol. I hope that someone can get something for you that will last.
I agree that the 4094R should be avoided. It doesn't seem to do anything in our application that something else doesn't do better.
The 4088R seems to be somewhat miscalculated, misunderstood, and misapplied. One cannot argue the performance of setups such as Tim Zimmer's 2.3L 4G63 with TS 4088R. In his 3200lb car, it delivers 42psi at 4200rpm, generates 753whp, 715 ft/lbs, and 156+mph traps ... and he never had to exceed 8000 rpm to do it.
If a particular setup underperformed, it's easy to point the finger at the turbo, but in this case, it's already proven. Meanwhile, there are at least a hundred other things that can create issues, many of which will go undetected in a couple of hours of dyno time.
The 4088R seems to be somewhat miscalculated, misunderstood, and misapplied. One cannot argue the performance of setups such as Tim Zimmer's 2.3L 4G63 with TS 4088R. In his 3200lb car, it delivers 42psi at 4200rpm, generates 753whp, 715 ft/lbs, and 156+mph traps ... and he never had to exceed 8000 rpm to do it.
If a particular setup underperformed, it's easy to point the finger at the turbo, but in this case, it's already proven. Meanwhile, there are at least a hundred other things that can create issues, many of which will go undetected in a couple of hours of dyno time.
Last edited by Ted B; Feb 17, 2009 at 02:52 PM.
Thank you for posting this Sean. This is the reason why these turbo's keep going on him. He is taking this past 7500 RPM in 5th gear for an extended period of time. Talk about LOAD and HEAT...
He is overworking the turbo plain and simple. I don't know of many T3 turbos that can take what Steve is throwing at it.
He is overworking the turbo plain and simple. I don't know of many T3 turbos that can take what Steve is throwing at it.
ahaha. yeah once a while get on it but u dnt have to all the time maybe it will last
I agree that the 4094R should be avoided. It doesn't seem to do anything in our application that something else doesn't do better.
The 4088R seems to be somewhat miscalculated, misunderstood, and misapplied. One cannot argue the performance of setups such as Tim Zimmer's 2.3L 4G63 with TS 4088R. In his 3200lb car, it delivers 42psi at 4200rpm, generates 753whp, 715 ft/lbs, and 156+mph traps ... and he never had to exceed 8000 rpm to do it.
If a particular setup underperformed, it's easy to point the finger at the turbo, but in this case, it's already proven. Meanwhile, there are at least a hundred other things that can create issues, many of which will go undetected in a couple of hours of dyno time.
The 4088R seems to be somewhat miscalculated, misunderstood, and misapplied. One cannot argue the performance of setups such as Tim Zimmer's 2.3L 4G63 with TS 4088R. In his 3200lb car, it delivers 42psi at 4200rpm, generates 753whp, 715 ft/lbs, and 156+mph traps ... and he never had to exceed 8000 rpm to do it.
If a particular setup underperformed, it's easy to point the finger at the turbo, but in this case, it's already proven. Meanwhile, there are at least a hundred other things that can create issues, many of which will go undetected in a couple of hours of dyno time.
Ted please send me info to this car you speak of that weighs 3200lbs and traps 156mph.. Ill go out on a limb and say IMPOSSIBLE 100000% with 753whp..
I agree that the 4094R should be avoided. It doesn't seem to do anything in our application that something else doesn't do better.
The 4088R seems to be somewhat miscalculated, misunderstood, and misapplied. One cannot argue the performance of setups such as Tim Zimmer's 2.3L 4G63 with TS 4088R. In his 3200lb car, it delivers 42psi at 4200rpm, generates 753whp, 715 ft/lbs, and 156+mph traps ... and he never had to exceed 8000 rpm to do it.
If a particular setup underperformed, it's easy to point the finger at the turbo, but in this case, it's already proven. Meanwhile, there are at least a hundred other things that can create issues, many of which will go undetected in a couple of hours of dyno time.
The 4088R seems to be somewhat miscalculated, misunderstood, and misapplied. One cannot argue the performance of setups such as Tim Zimmer's 2.3L 4G63 with TS 4088R. In his 3200lb car, it delivers 42psi at 4200rpm, generates 753whp, 715 ft/lbs, and 156+mph traps ... and he never had to exceed 8000 rpm to do it.
If a particular setup underperformed, it's easy to point the finger at the turbo, but in this case, it's already proven. Meanwhile, there are at least a hundred other things that can create issues, many of which will go undetected in a couple of hours of dyno time.
Oops, my bad. IIRC, he ran 148mph when the car tested at 715whp and 646 ft/lb. AFAIK, he hasn't run it again since he found the additional power.
I wouldn't consider a 2.3 to be especially well suited as a 'top end monster', but a graph is attached. I don't like the way it's scaled or the way the rpm scale was inadvertently cropped, but it is what it is.
