Twin Scroll Turbos?? Monster Spool.. FACT or FICTION???
But to say it seems like it works and to have factual data from someone that doesn't have anything to do with the making and selling of the product is completely different. The only data out there so far is two kinds, dyno data which the TS guys are saying doesn't show the full benefits to the system and response and then personal experience, which doesn't have a datalog.
There is a good reason people are questioning this. We are not all lucky enough to live near Ted B and drive his car
lol jk
There is a good reason people are questioning this. We are not all lucky enough to live near Ted B and drive his car
lol jk
Scorke
I have 45 different peer reviewed articles and two books on turbocharger design from places like Honeywell, AiResearch, Garrett, Borg Warner, Holset, Society of Automotive Engineers, International Conference on Turbocharger Technology, and MHI AND YET not in a single one of those references have I seen anything about TS being better for gas engines.
I'm not saying they don't exist, I'm just asking for your sources.
Heck, the first forced induction book I ever read, Maxium Boost, goes into detail on the benefits of TS and that book was written a Long tme ago by a Very respected forced induction Guru... If you don't want to see that data, you never will unless you try it for yourself.
If the two situations were equal as you suggest, than there shouldn't be a world of observable difference between the transient response of a 35R car with .63 A/R T3 and 1.06 A/R TS T4, but there is. The interesting thing is one doesn't even need to get the turbo into boost to know the difference. Looking at housing design, it's easy to explain why it is what it is. Just consider NA collector design while looking at the difference between a primary runner exit and an open T3 housing.
Now, I know the difference from first-hand driving experiences, so I see no mystery, no need for speculation. Take it or leave it.
Now, I know the difference from first-hand driving experiences, so I see no mystery, no need for speculation. Take it or leave it.
That's all my point is.
No but I think you fail at deductive reasoning. You have no clue what the reasoning was for BMW to select to use TS technology. For all you know, maybe it's emissions related. YOU DON'T KNOW.
Seriously, there are a few hundred, if not thousand guys with PhDs that have worked on vehicles and spec'd out TS systems for them. There's a reason Mitsu uses TS. And Subaru. And GM. And Catapillar if you want to get into industrial stuff. I mean, Catapillar probably only makes a couple billion in revenue a year, what do they know?
And one more time, SHOW ME THE REFERENCES.
I'm not sure what else there is to discuss here. It's the same old pattern time and time again. Those with the least comparative experience are the most skeptical if not downright critical. Meanwhile, those with the benefit of experience with both configurations would revert back in a heartbeat if TS wasn't what they expected, but that doesn't often happen. I don't think I need to bother explaining what that implies.
RED LINE: GT4294R 1.01 A/R housing, undivided manifold, 2.65L, 28 PSI
Blue Line: GT4202 1.01 A/R housing, divided manifold, 2.55L, 29 PSI
Same car, same dyno
The TS spooled a larger NON BALL BEARING turbo on a smaller engine faster AND made more power
HELL! IT MADE MORE POWER EVERYWHERE!!!
It even reflects the HUGE DIFFERENCE that Mike@AWDMotorsports is claiming should be obvious.
Yet I still think the DATA I HAVE is worthless because the manifold, engine and turbo were different.
And yet, even with all that being different, it's still better then any other comparison I have seen!

Yet nobody can come up with a single reference to show WHY they are using TS.
Last edited by 03whitegsr; May 4, 2010 at 12:56 PM.
One other thing, I think these guys that add external wastegates to the stock frame turbos prove very well that TS works.
If they keep the external divided up to the valve face, they note very little change in response. Usually they get slightly better spool but don't have the boost spike issues they had with the internal.
The guys that pull the flapper and toss a wastegate on the now undivided wastegate area almost always note considerably worse spool.
My only point is it's all subjective. Nobody documents it using a scientific method.
If they keep the external divided up to the valve face, they note very little change in response. Usually they get slightly better spool but don't have the boost spike issues they had with the internal.
The guys that pull the flapper and toss a wastegate on the now undivided wastegate area almost always note considerably worse spool.
My only point is it's all subjective. Nobody documents it using a scientific method.
People that are proponents of twin scroll designs are the ones that actually want to drive the car and feel the rush as much as they can, not just at the end of the line when its time to shift. Drag racers and highway racers just need "top end" and know that power is only a shift away at best. It should be less of a debate and be more a lifestyle choice 

Some don't care what the car does so long as the dyno says 700whp somewhere in the chart. Others aren't satisfied with something that drives like on/off switch (mostly off) and want something different...The bottom line is that TS technology continues to show up in OE and respectable racing efforts. That isn't by accident, and is beyond debate.
My thinking was straightforward and logical:
Pick a realistic power target and build a TS setup to get there. That ensures I get what I want in a package that delivers the best possible transient response, spool characteristics, and broad (read: usable) powerband. Why? Because 99% of my driving time is done on the street, at less than 100% TP, and I want the complete driving experience for my investment.
A car that is more powerful, but with inferior response would be at a disadvantage in a real world situation (e.g. one with corners and curves). And on the highway, 600whp gets to jail-time speeds so quickly that an extra 100whp won't have the time or distance to show it without doing something truly worthy of the Darwin Awards.
If you're a dedicated drag racer, where the difference between 600 and 700whp is measured in the blink of an eye, who cares if it drives like a pig at <100% TP?
I've been through different turbos and various hardware, and I have reached a point whereby I feel like I would change nothing. It's not easy to find that. Anyone with half-a-brain who comes through this area, I'll let you drive my car, and you'll get it before you ever put your foot into it. This is perhaps the only instance where the butt-dyno reveals things a real dyno cannot.
Pick a realistic power target and build a TS setup to get there. That ensures I get what I want in a package that delivers the best possible transient response, spool characteristics, and broad (read: usable) powerband. Why? Because 99% of my driving time is done on the street, at less than 100% TP, and I want the complete driving experience for my investment.
A car that is more powerful, but with inferior response would be at a disadvantage in a real world situation (e.g. one with corners and curves). And on the highway, 600whp gets to jail-time speeds so quickly that an extra 100whp won't have the time or distance to show it without doing something truly worthy of the Darwin Awards.
If you're a dedicated drag racer, where the difference between 600 and 700whp is measured in the blink of an eye, who cares if it drives like a pig at <100% TP?
I've been through different turbos and various hardware, and I have reached a point whereby I feel like I would change nothing. It's not easy to find that. Anyone with half-a-brain who comes through this area, I'll let you drive my car, and you'll get it before you ever put your foot into it. This is perhaps the only instance where the butt-dyno reveals things a real dyno cannot.
I'm not sure what else there is to discuss here. It's the same old pattern time and time again. Those with the least comparative experience are the most skeptical if not downright critical. Meanwhile, those with the benefit of experience with both configurations would revert back in a heartbeat if TS wasn't what they expected, but that doesn't often happen. I don't think I need to bother explaining what that implies.
—Arthur Schopenhauer, German philosopher (1788 – 1860)
i believe we are well onto the third stage. this coming fall, that should be cemented
I guess forum records are the new fad, no thanks, I like drivng my car and if I can quote TedB, 'moving the gas pedal up-down-up-down and not just holding it down for 8, 9, 10 seconds...'. That line is a freaking classic - right up there with Mike callig Twinscroll 'hype' lmao...
Eh? So you think the engineers at BMW are idiots? You drive one (based on your info under your screen name), you know they make some of the most high tech engines with the best HP/L outside of Ferrari. You also know they raced F1. If there's no 'data' to back it up, think they would bother with TS? Seriously, there are a few hundred, if not thousand guys with PhDs that have worked on vehicles and spec'd out TS systems for them. There's a reason Mitsu uses TS. And Subaru. And GM. And Catapillar if you want to get into industrial stuff. I mean, Catapillar probably only makes a couple billion in revenue a year, what do they know?
i would agree with your assessment
Last edited by Geoff Raicer; May 4, 2010 at 12:52 PM.
1. Since when is asking for PROOF "Flamming?" Don't try to pull that bull****. Asking for sources is good engineering practice, nothing more and should not be frowned upon or questioned.
2. If he has actual experience, why hide it? He should just come out and clearly state what he does if it's relevant.
The problem in my opinion is that all the TS guys have felt the difference. They know it's there. They all treat it like it's self evident (because it is when you experience it), yet they DO NOT HAVE A SINGLE SHRED OF EVIDENCE to back up their claims. (or at least have not presented it)
If you truly pay attention to anything I have written, you will see I am not questioning if it works. I'm only asking for proof. I KNOW it works. But I, like seemingly every other person and company in this thread, either does not have the factual data to back up that claim or refuse to provide it.
Last edited by 03whitegsr; May 4, 2010 at 01:46 PM.
Here is my experience:
RED LINE: GT4294R 1.01 A/R housing, undivided manifold, 2.65L, 28 PSI
Blue Line: GT4202 1.01 A/R housing, divided manifold, 2.55L, 29 PSI
Same car, same dyno
The TS spooled a larger NON BALL BEARING turbo on a smaller engine faster AND made more power
HELL! IT MADE MORE POWER EVERYWHERE!!!
It even reflects the HUGE DIFFERENCE that Mike@AWDMotorsports is claiming should be obvious.
Yet I still think the DATA I HAVE is worthless because the manifold, engine and turbo were different.
And yet, even with all that being different, it's still better then any other comparison I have seen!

Yet nobody can come up with a single reference to show WHY they are using TS.
RED LINE: GT4294R 1.01 A/R housing, undivided manifold, 2.65L, 28 PSI
Blue Line: GT4202 1.01 A/R housing, divided manifold, 2.55L, 29 PSI
Same car, same dyno
The TS spooled a larger NON BALL BEARING turbo on a smaller engine faster AND made more power
HELL! IT MADE MORE POWER EVERYWHERE!!!
It even reflects the HUGE DIFFERENCE that Mike@AWDMotorsports is claiming should be obvious.
Yet I still think the DATA I HAVE is worthless because the manifold, engine and turbo were different.
And yet, even with all that being different, it's still better then any other comparison I have seen!

Yet nobody can come up with a single reference to show WHY they are using TS.
I dont' think your gonna see as much difference in manifold design as your making it out to be...
The manifold can make a significant difference if they have considerably different designs. That was the case in the chart I posted. The undivided setup used a modified manifold that's available for the Subarus, and it used a divided housing which has been proven to be crap. The twinscroll was a custom 4-2-(1) long tube setup, (1) being the turbine housing.
But the point remains, variance needs to be minimized and it's why I saw that chart I posted is worthless.
I saw your chart, my only dispute is just the difference in A/R. If the reference I have is correct (SAE paper on TS design for diesel engines) then your test would be similar to comparing a 1.4 A/R TS housing to a 1.06 A/R TS housing, which is obviously going to have a significant impact on spool.
The only reason I said that chart I posted may be more relevant is just that it put almost everything in favor of the SS (except for the divided housing) and the TS whooped it's *** on spool and power.
But the point remains, variance needs to be minimized and it's why I saw that chart I posted is worthless.
I saw your chart, my only dispute is just the difference in A/R. If the reference I have is correct (SAE paper on TS design for diesel engines) then your test would be similar to comparing a 1.4 A/R TS housing to a 1.06 A/R TS housing, which is obviously going to have a significant impact on spool.
The only reason I said that chart I posted may be more relevant is just that it put almost everything in favor of the SS (except for the divided housing) and the TS whooped it's *** on spool and power.
I'm sorry both housing were divided. It was a .85ar divided housing on the open manifold.
Either way i agree better tests could be done than what has been done in the past...everything has been more of a comparison than an actual test.
Either way i agree better tests could be done than what has been done in the past...everything has been more of a comparison than an actual test.
And, just to point out, the flaming goes both ways. I saw DB go apoplectic (nothing new there) when a forum member asked him about the accuracy of a gauge he was using. DB excoriated said forum member...and it turns out said member was an engineer at Garrett for 8 years working on turbos and intercoolers/heat exhangers.
Ok, now back to our regularly scheduled circus
Let's start with a technical explanation of why Twin-Scroll is better - Lifted this from BMW Blog: http://www.bmwblog.com/2010/01/02/tw...ign-explained/
I'll continue to dig up technical data in my 'spare' time - but I would encourage anyone in my area, like TedB offered in his area, it hit me up on PM and I'll give you a front seat demonstration... 
I would also like to invite anyone in my area with a single scroll kit capable of +600whp on 93 octane or +700whp on race fuel/E85 to do some basic real world video taped demonstrations - simple stuff like a third gear roll starting at 3k rpms to 8000rpms, and/or a basic 'passing test' 55-70mph in fifth, etc... I'll even pay for your pre-testing dyno runs to verify our HP #'s at a non-biased independent shop, like Jeff Evans or Sean Ivey's... Just don't bring an attitude or agenda, again, I'm an enthusiast and do this for pure fun...
Twin-scroll turbo system design addresses many of the shortcomings of single-scroll turbo systems by separating those cylinders whose exhaust gas pulses interfere with each other. Similar in concept to pairing cylinders on race headers for normally aspirated engines, twin-scroll design pairs cylinders to one side of the turbine inlet such that the kinetic energy from the exhaust gases is recovered more efficiently by the turbine. For example, if a four-cylinder engine’s firing sequence is 1-3-4-2, cylinder 1 is ending its expansion stroke and opening its exhaust valves while cylinder 2 still has its exhaust valves open (while in its overlap period, where both the intake and exhaust valves are partially open at the same time). In a single-scroll or undivided manifold, the exhaust gas pressure pulse from cylinder 1 is therefore going to interfere with cylinder 2’s ability to expel its exhaust gases, rather than delivering it undisturbed to the turbo’s turbine the way a twin-scroll system allows.
The result of the superior scavenging effect from a twin-scroll design is better pressure distribution in the exhaust ports and more efficient delivery of exhaust gas energy to the turbocharger’s turbine. This in turn allows greater valve overlap, resulting in an improved quality and quantity of the air charge entering each cylinder. In fact, with more valve overlap, the scavenging effect of the exhaust flow can literally draw more air in on the intake side while drawing out the last of the low-pressure exhaust gases, helping pack each cylinder with a denser and purer air charge. And as we all know, a denser and purer air charge means stronger combustion and more power, and more power is good!
But the benefits of twin-scroll design don’t end there. With its greater volumetric efficiency and stronger scavenging effect, higher ignition delay can be used, which helps keep peak temperature in the cylinders down. Since cooler cylinder temperatures and lower exhaust gas temperatures allows for a leaner air/fuel ratio, twin-scroll turbo design has been shown to increase turbine efficiency by 7-8 percent and result in fuel efficiency improvements as high as 5 percent.
The result of the superior scavenging effect from a twin-scroll design is better pressure distribution in the exhaust ports and more efficient delivery of exhaust gas energy to the turbocharger’s turbine. This in turn allows greater valve overlap, resulting in an improved quality and quantity of the air charge entering each cylinder. In fact, with more valve overlap, the scavenging effect of the exhaust flow can literally draw more air in on the intake side while drawing out the last of the low-pressure exhaust gases, helping pack each cylinder with a denser and purer air charge. And as we all know, a denser and purer air charge means stronger combustion and more power, and more power is good!
But the benefits of twin-scroll design don’t end there. With its greater volumetric efficiency and stronger scavenging effect, higher ignition delay can be used, which helps keep peak temperature in the cylinders down. Since cooler cylinder temperatures and lower exhaust gas temperatures allows for a leaner air/fuel ratio, twin-scroll turbo design has been shown to increase turbine efficiency by 7-8 percent and result in fuel efficiency improvements as high as 5 percent.
I would also like to invite anyone in my area with a single scroll kit capable of +600whp on 93 octane or +700whp on race fuel/E85 to do some basic real world video taped demonstrations - simple stuff like a third gear roll starting at 3k rpms to 8000rpms, and/or a basic 'passing test' 55-70mph in fifth, etc... I'll even pay for your pre-testing dyno runs to verify our HP #'s at a non-biased independent shop, like Jeff Evans or Sean Ivey's... Just don't bring an attitude or agenda, again, I'm an enthusiast and do this for pure fun...
He is just looking for evidence (that meets his standards) showing quantifiable data re: an A/B test of TS vs. single scroll on the same car. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that he doesn't even disagree with the TS advantages in theory, he just wants to see data...not people's thoughts, whether well-informed or not.
"My standards" is just factual data that minimizes variance between setups.
Standard scientific process and it shocks me that with so many companies retailing TS setups, it seems like there is not a single company that has ran a fair test and presented the data without bias. Maybe it's out there and I just haven't seen it?
Philthy, I don't question the theory. I think everybody interested has read all kinds of stuff about WHY it's better. The real question is HOW MUCH better is it, and there is the difference between qualitative and quantitative evaluation. We have only seen the earlier.
That would be a great visual though and I hope you get a taker.
Last edited by 03whitegsr; May 4, 2010 at 03:15 PM.
2010 Opel Insignia OPC
A twin scroll turbine housing uses dual side by side passages into the housing. When coupled with a pulse converter manifold that separates exhaust pulses as many crank degrees in the firing order as possible, a twin scroll or divided housing works to reduce lag, decrease exhaust manifold backpressure on the top end, reduce the potential for reversion, and increase fuel economy. The twin scroll is based off the same reasoning a tri-Y header uses: keep spent exhaust gases out of an adjacent cylinder drawing in fresh air. At high rpm on a turbo car, exhaust backpressure is usually significantly higher than atmospheric pressure, and often higher than intake manifold pressure as well. A divider between each of the two volutes allows the cylinders to expel the exhaust gases without it interfering with the fresh air for combustion. Since there are two openings, each a smaller overall volume than a single scroll design, the exhaust velocity of each pulse can be maintained. This also spins the impeller more easily because lag is a function of the scroll area. A single turbine housing opening isn't as efficient since cylinders on the exhaust stroke of the 4 stroke cycle contaminate the cylinders that are on overlap with exhaust gas. A conventional turbine housing is not as effective in using exhaust pulse energy to help spin the turbine up to speed as it does not exploit the energy contained in the pulses as well.


