Twin Scroll Turbos?? Monster Spool.. FACT or FICTION???
The 1.05 is sized correctly for the 7670, the 7064 should be fine with that as well. You will run into a small compressor wheel being the issue up top before the turbine I would think.
Evolved Member
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,392
Likes: 2
From: uk
John we've seen a fair few now that dont hold up top. for clarity again i mean over 7.5k rpm.
before ppl jump and say its another restriction, many of the cars have extensive and good supporting mods and previously ran single scrolls or have after and the top end was there with power still rising after 7.5k.
it all points toward the debate? and if a bigger housing is being designed/made for the bigger efr's then cant we summise the same design script was used for sizing the 7076 and it is "too" small also by design? or perhaps not design but what ppl want there turbos to do i.e "rev to 8.5k" and is why its being answered on the 8374?
just one quick search
https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/10772189-post1.html
dont get me wrong i want TS to be the daddy up top. it is already for spool/transient
before ppl jump and say its another restriction, many of the cars have extensive and good supporting mods and previously ran single scrolls or have after and the top end was there with power still rising after 7.5k.
it all points toward the debate? and if a bigger housing is being designed/made for the bigger efr's then cant we summise the same design script was used for sizing the 7076 and it is "too" small also by design? or perhaps not design but what ppl want there turbos to do i.e "rev to 8.5k" and is why its being answered on the 8374?
just one quick search
https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/10772189-post1.html
dont get me wrong i want TS to be the daddy up top. it is already for spool/transient
Last edited by leecavturbo; Sep 16, 2013 at 09:29 AM.
John we've seen a fair few now that dont hold up top. for clarity again i mean over 7.5k rpm.
before ppl jump and say its another restriction, many of the cars have extensive and good supporting mods and previously ran single scrolls or have after and the top end was there with power still rising after 7.5k.
it all points toward the debate? and if a bigger housing is being designed/made for the bigger efr's then cant we summise the same design script was used for sizing the 7076 and it is "too" small also by design? or perhaps not design but what ppl want there turbos to do i.e "rev to 8.5k" and is why its being answered on the 8374?
just one quick search
https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/10772189-post1.html
dont get me wrong i want TS to be the daddy up top. it is already for spool/transient
before ppl jump and say its another restriction, many of the cars have extensive and good supporting mods and previously ran single scrolls or have after and the top end was there with power still rising after 7.5k.
it all points toward the debate? and if a bigger housing is being designed/made for the bigger efr's then cant we summise the same design script was used for sizing the 7076 and it is "too" small also by design? or perhaps not design but what ppl want there turbos to do i.e "rev to 8.5k" and is why its being answered on the 8374?
just one quick search
https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/10772189-post1.html
dont get me wrong i want TS to be the daddy up top. it is already for spool/transient
This R/Ternie's LR2.2 with a 7670/1.05 and S3s -
I understand what you mean about it tapering past 7500 but I feel thats because of the compressor and nothing to do with the turbine (or not much anyway). On a 2.0L I would be surprised to see it die off up top past 7500 but I presume it will sooner or later. At low boost on pumpgas it seems like its okay past 7500 but we werent revving it any higher than 8k so Eric would have to comment on that if he has dyno'd higher since.
Peak power is literally at 7500 in this pull...7508 I think to be precise.
I see nothing to debate here. The high rpm taper is expected, and that has everything to do with the compressor.
This is a 2.2L, which is 10% larger than a 2.0, and the turbo has a 64lb/min compressor, which has a 6% smaller mass airflow capacity than a standard GT35R (68lb/min). Predictably, peak efficiency comes earlier than with a 2.0L.
The engine generates 200whp by 3700rpm, and already the optimum shift point is about 8.5k rpm, which is on the fringe of reasonable long-term reliability. On the street, this engine will outperform many dyno queens with more peak power, but with slower spool and less power under the curve.
This is a 2.2L, which is 10% larger than a 2.0, and the turbo has a 64lb/min compressor, which has a 6% smaller mass airflow capacity than a standard GT35R (68lb/min). Predictably, peak efficiency comes earlier than with a 2.0L.
The engine generates 200whp by 3700rpm, and already the optimum shift point is about 8.5k rpm, which is on the fringe of reasonable long-term reliability. On the street, this engine will outperform many dyno queens with more peak power, but with slower spool and less power under the curve.
Just realised after typing all that out you were talking about the 7670, not the 8374. Eric's car still makes 535whp at 8200 which I wouldnt really consider to be much taper. Looking at the 8374 car you get a much better idea of what "taper" really is and what it looks like.
Last edited by JohnBradley; Sep 16, 2013 at 04:18 PM.
I see nothing to debate here. The high rpm taper is expected, and that has everything to do with the compressor.
This is a 2.2L, which is 10% larger than a 2.0, and the turbo has a 64lb/min compressor, which has a 6% smaller mass airflow capacity than a standard GT35R (68lb/min). Predictably, peak efficiency comes earlier than with a 2.0L.
The engine generates 200whp by 3700rpm, and already the optimum shift point is about 8.5k rpm, which is on the fringe of reasonable long-term reliability. On the street, this engine will outperform many dyno queens with more peak power, but with slower spool and less power under the curve.
This is a 2.2L, which is 10% larger than a 2.0, and the turbo has a 64lb/min compressor, which has a 6% smaller mass airflow capacity than a standard GT35R (68lb/min). Predictably, peak efficiency comes earlier than with a 2.0L.
The engine generates 200whp by 3700rpm, and already the optimum shift point is about 8.5k rpm, which is on the fringe of reasonable long-term reliability. On the street, this engine will outperform many dyno queens with more peak power, but with slower spool and less power under the curve.
heres a 68lb wheel on 2.3 liter not falling off up top. making 700+whp.
HKS Fcon Vpro 3.24
FIC 2150cc
HKS 274/278 cams
Garrett GT35R
Supertech springs
Stock valves
Stock intake manifold stock tbody
BR Double pumper
AMS small FMIC, old one with welded end tanks
1.25 primary tube single scroll header, made here inhouse by Will.
E70 Jersey blend fuel!
Ivey Technolgies, Billet High revving 2.3, 100mm billet crank, 9:1 compression
Made about 600 wheel on pump.
Basic stuff
Sean
Attached Files
File Type: pdf Will Dyno.pdf (593.9 KB, 0 views) https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/attachments/evo-engine-turbo-drivetrain/182102d1326235711-whos-running-new-hks-cams-274-278-will-dyno.pdf
Last edited by 94AWDcoupe; Sep 16, 2013 at 05:14 PM.
In this day and age, we're comfortably past the point as to whether TS works or not. That isn't worth discussing. What is worth discussing is what a specific setup does what it does or doesn't do what it should.
As for the setup you posted:
- The chart is UNCORRECTED with no smoothing.
- Power begins falling at 6800 rpm.
- There is no boost data.
- R/T Ernie's car is showing 25psi at peak power. Does that constitute 'pulling out all the stops'?
- A GT35R has a slightly larger compressor.
As for the BW EFR turbos and their performance, I cannot comment - I don't own one.
As for the setup you posted:
- The chart is UNCORRECTED with no smoothing.
- Power begins falling at 6800 rpm.
- There is no boost data.
- R/T Ernie's car is showing 25psi at peak power. Does that constitute 'pulling out all the stops'?
- A GT35R has a slightly larger compressor.
As for the BW EFR turbos and their performance, I cannot comment - I don't own one.
Indy Cars are using EFR's exclusively. No cost spared builds in time attack going with EFR's. They have to be doing something right. Project NEMO went with EFR's and are continuing with one this year. Even Sierra Sierra was blowing up GT35 turbos and T04's left and right before they went to an EFR. They may not have the peak hp numbers of some single scroll set ups, but their area under the curve and transient response are worlds apart from anything else on the market currently. As far as RTernie's set up, he never got that turbo dialed before he ran into issues w/ his head.
Last edited by SDevo13; Sep 16, 2013 at 06:19 PM.
Eric hadnt run the timing up either in those pulls nor had he run the total boost he could to get the airflow. The goal wasnt peak power while it was on the dyno that particular trip it was get it doublechecked and make sure that the VIPEC was using real numbers in the timing map.
That example drops 100 something wheel by 8300 from its peak power being 703 at 6800-6900.
Eric runs a 1.05 external, the 8374 car also runs a 1.05 but definitely needs larger in my opinion.
That example drops 100 something wheel by 8300 from its peak power being 703 at 6800-6900.
Eric runs a 1.05 external, the 8374 car also runs a 1.05 but definitely needs larger in my opinion.
The second dyno chart in post #332 speaks volumes. Getting 743whp from a turbo that delivers 200whp by 3800rpm makes a good case for what EFR's 1.05 A/R TS does on the street. It's still at 700whp at 8k rpm with the 2.4L, and that's at a relatively civilized 30psi boost.
Sorry, but I find no fault in that ... except possibly for a tendency to break parts!
Sorry, but I find no fault in that ... except possibly for a tendency to break parts!
I spent 40 hours adapting evo X twin scroll to my evo 1. you dont have to convince me it works. I know darn well how well twin scroll works and what its good for. But my own HTA green setup sucks from 7000-8000rpm. I have seen far too many graphs that support what I am saying and my own in house proof.. if you dont buy it wait for the back pressure proof to arrive. I am not gonna waste my time trying to convince you.
I think i said this three times now. Bushur who tested more parts than anyone I know for the 4g63 does not sell, use, or promote tubular twin scroll setups. They have been tested at his facility enough times. he just preferred not to get involved or post any results. the FP red has been dynoed at his place more times than you can imagine. When the same compressor wheel HTA3076 with single scroll header was pushed it absolutely demolished any twin scroll results. Ad that to FP black record was set by removing divider to free up horsepower.
The truth is twin scroll is fantastic for spool and response. but it just plain kills high rpm power. And ted you completely contradicted yourself by saying RTernies setup was laying down because it was clearly out of compressor wheel. Then you turn around and point out it was only at 26psi and wasnt pushed. I can only imagine how bad his graph would drop once run at 35psi. wholly heck...
I think i said this three times now. Bushur who tested more parts than anyone I know for the 4g63 does not sell, use, or promote tubular twin scroll setups. They have been tested at his facility enough times. he just preferred not to get involved or post any results. the FP red has been dynoed at his place more times than you can imagine. When the same compressor wheel HTA3076 with single scroll header was pushed it absolutely demolished any twin scroll results. Ad that to FP black record was set by removing divider to free up horsepower.
The truth is twin scroll is fantastic for spool and response. but it just plain kills high rpm power. And ted you completely contradicted yourself by saying RTernies setup was laying down because it was clearly out of compressor wheel. Then you turn around and point out it was only at 26psi and wasnt pushed. I can only imagine how bad his graph would drop once run at 35psi. wholly heck...
Last edited by 94AWDcoupe; Sep 16, 2013 at 07:19 PM.