I showed the same turbo spooled 1K rpm sooner on my setup so it is understandable why you are pessimistic. Are you sure you used a twin scroll manifold when swapping to the T4 TS turbine housing?

 

No need for insults. Im not debating if it works or not, Im just saying I dont think the spool difference is as much as the T4 TS supporters are saying it is. I have yet to see anyone (cept 240Z) that has posted a chart that showed this "Monster spool" difference that TS T4 supporters say there is. Even John Bradly's best, most apple to apples comparison posted on the last page show no "monster spool" difference.

The car did respond better between shift and transient response, had better low-end/off boost. I said that. It just didnt have the "Monster spool" increase that is always said to be had with a TS T4 setup.

Thanks. It was an ETS TS T4 manifold and a Garret TS T4 housing. It was installed by the client though, not us.

 

Eh? Yeah, the revhard made slightly more power for a short blip of 500rpm from ~6500-7000pm. Looking at the A/F ratio, the revhard setup was leaner in that region which most likely accounts for it.

240z's manifold made more power at the same boost over the last/top 1000rpms and over the entire rest of the engine rev range including significantly faster spoolup.

And it's not back pressure, but velocity that spins the turbine.

Also, TheShodan is not correct, twin-scroll and divided are the same thing. A turbine housing with two entries but a single scroll are relatively rare.

 

Just so people know, I have no horse in this race. I was just sharing data, as only 240Z and I have showed data from the same car/setup with just hotside/manifold changes. Every other piece of "data" in this thread, is either different cars, different setups, different dynos or just what people say with no data.

 

First, I wouldnt start using that dyno for any discussing/debating of HP numbers, as it is VD, which can be very accurate, but also at times, throw out flukes and non perfect runs. If there was more runs of each setup, to show consistency, then it may be useful for discussing HP/TQ.

And in response to the last part, please refer to my previous post

 

I think the debate got a bit confused with T/S v S/S in so much as T/S wins in all 3 aspects (spool,transient,peak power@8k+) IT DOES ONLY IN THE FIRST 2
And then it moved to us keyboard turbo manufacturers "wandering/wanting" the T/S to tick all boxes and make S/S a fools choice of aftermarket turbo.

But in actual fact after tuners/users feedback to T/S manufacturers may have moved the T/S concept to tick all boxes. I cannot wait to see the big efrs on those large housings

 

all these big shops with tax writeoffs and not one can can provide a DYNO graph not vd of the same car using an open .63 and a divided 1.06 t4. dont say "oh that would be too expensive etc" because I am sure one of your customers has the open t3 that can be borrowed and another will have the divided t4 setup"

you would think if the ts believers(i am) would really want to prove their point and shut this whole thread down they would just get it done.

 

I was not insulting you so don't take it that way. I was simply saying people who feel TS is not what it is said to be is not on the correct setup or doing a proper build for it. Swapping TS turbines on non TS manifolds and the other way around like most people are doing is totally wrong. I could share dyno charts that show awesome spoolup and so on with the turbo I have but I never post charts for my own reasons. Just track results on a street car.

It works. And when setup right you will see it and feel it.

 

No one swapped a TS turbine on a non TS manifold. Its ridiculous you would say or insinuate that.

If you read my post, I never said it doesnt work. I said when driving the car on the street, its much more responsive and recovers from shifts or throttle let off much better. So please stop acting like I said it doesnt work. I just said I didn't see the "Monster spool" everyone talks about.

And if its so easy to show the monster spool difference, why in this 28 page thread, there is barely any quality data??? There is only two people that posted data of same car, same setup, and just manifold/hotside changes. One showed a big difference in spool, one didnt. If you have dyno charts, why dont you post them?? Do you have a baseline dyno of a T3 SS .63 housing, then dynos of a TS T4 1.06 housing showing the difference, on the same car, same setup? If so, please post.

 

Wow this thread is getting ridiculous. The fact that almost EVERY OEM application as well as ALL professional road racing applications (unless running t25 housing) are using twin scrolls say they work. If the thousands of hours of development and data lead ALL these manufacturers AND race teams to run a twin scroll set up (in many cases at a weight disadvantage to single scroll), it just MIGHT point to the fact that the performance differences are there. END OF F'ING STORY.

 

No one said they didnt work. Least I didnt say they dont work. If you read my post, I said it DOES work and has much better response, transient response, etc. All I said is, there is barely data showing this "monster spool" difference (500-1000RPM) everyone talks about. TS T4 supporters always say theres this "monster spool" difference, but there is barely any data showing that. Do you have dynos or datalogs showing this major spool difference on the same car & same setup?? If so, please share. If not, then ......

 

Generally people don't take the time or $$$ to just change a hotside/manifold. They are generally moving up/down in turbo size, fuels, and other power adding parts. It may be 200-300 rpms on some set ups. It can be 1000 rpms as shown by results in this thread. It is going to be vastly different based on a lot of other parts on the car including but not limited to: fuel used, intercooler piping diameter, exhaust size, manifold design/runner size, final drive ratios, intake manifold design, head porting, bottom end specs, tune, etc etc etc etc etc.

Will you ever really be getting a 'back to back' test by changing out an exhaust manifold on our platform? Not really. It might be the manifold design for either of the options (open/twin) that makes the difference or makes the difference less apparent.

The fact of the matter is that the twin scroll performs better. And you can feel it when you drive the car. Bench racing over dyno numbers and other bull**** can be done indefinitely because there is always going to be some other factor that can be playing into it (weather/tune/manifold differences/etc).

I'll put faith into the people who did the research in controlled settings in the lab/research facilities and my own personal butt dyno.

Best of luck on your search

 

As much as I worship your setup.... it is not remotely fair to compare a cast manifold open scroll to a tubular twin scroll. May as well be comparing the 4g63 to a 2j at that point.

I do plan on going from ams t3 63ss tubular manifold to ets tubular t4 ts 1.06 next summer. Prob swap in a nice 3.5 dp vband while i'm in there.

 

I am not sure I understand your analogy. The reason why I asked him to compare his T4 TS 1.06 a/r GTX3576r results vs mine was to eliminate the T3 OS from the conversation. What was shown was ~1000rpm sooner spool on my setup vs his.

HIS
T4 TS 1.06 - 470hp on approx 95oct (GTX3576r)
28psi @ 4900

MINE
T4 TS 1.06 - 460hp on approx 93oct (GTX3576r)
28.4psi @ 3885

 

Does ts change boost thresh hold? Dyno plots are done from below boost thresholds.

Start a dyno pull at 5000 on a ts t4 something that can make good torque at 3900-4200 rpm. Maybe that would amplify the butt feeling enough to display data.