Twin Scroll Turbos?? Monster Spool.. FACT or FICTION???
I don't see how it's not practical.
You build a test manifold out of mild steel. It's cheaper then picking up a stainless manifold and easier to work with over trying to adapt one style of manifold over to the other. Do it on a car with a half width radiator so there is plenty of room. Use an oil cooled only turbo to reduce plumbing. Build a bracket to support the turbo.
Also, using an undivided housing on a divided manifold does not use the full benefit of a shallow angle merge collector and would be skewing the test in favor of the divided manifold. If it's enough to show up in testing is the question and making the assumption it wouldn't is a flaw in the test.
I realize that the turbo height wouldn't work as drawn, but it gives the basic idea. The turbo would be forward facing just because it makes the runner lay out more simple and easier to accommodate the change from single scroll to twin scroll.
You could even add on the second wastegate on the undivided setup to make the only change the collector and the turbine housing.
Divided Setup
Undivided Setup
You build a test manifold out of mild steel. It's cheaper then picking up a stainless manifold and easier to work with over trying to adapt one style of manifold over to the other. Do it on a car with a half width radiator so there is plenty of room. Use an oil cooled only turbo to reduce plumbing. Build a bracket to support the turbo.
Also, using an undivided housing on a divided manifold does not use the full benefit of a shallow angle merge collector and would be skewing the test in favor of the divided manifold. If it's enough to show up in testing is the question and making the assumption it wouldn't is a flaw in the test.
I realize that the turbo height wouldn't work as drawn, but it gives the basic idea. The turbo would be forward facing just because it makes the runner lay out more simple and easier to accommodate the change from single scroll to twin scroll.
You could even add on the second wastegate on the undivided setup to make the only change the collector and the turbine housing.
Divided Setup
Undivided Setup
I know that keeping the variables to as few as possible is what we want but we really don't need it. I would like to see the 1.06 A/R TS vs both the .63 A/R and .82 A/R on a well prepared car like JBs.
And looking at the drawing, it doesn't look like it would take too much to build it but I am not a welder so I wouldn't know lol
Last edited by jasnm21; May 3, 2010 at 08:25 PM.
Yeah, if a manifold already exist that keeps the runner layout identical is available and fits, I agree, it's more effective that way. I just wasn't aware that there was a manifold that fit that description already.
To me though, if I was a company looking to produce a product, I'd want to try and build an ideal test platform to prove the theory first, then I'd try to adapt it to the application after verifying the theory works. No point in building a production piece if you don't even know if it will work first.
That manifold idea I put out would also make it VERY easy to test the effects of runner lengths and stepped primaries too... One more reason for theory first, then application.
To me though, if I was a company looking to produce a product, I'd want to try and build an ideal test platform to prove the theory first, then I'd try to adapt it to the application after verifying the theory works. No point in building a production piece if you don't even know if it will work first.
That manifold idea I put out would also make it VERY easy to test the effects of runner lengths and stepped primaries too... One more reason for theory first, then application.
This is a great thread...I would love to see the results of a test, same car, same day...as many same components as possible. What would really be nice is if we had EvoScan logs to distribute after so that everyone could see the difference.
Though I agree with 03whitegsr that a custom manifold just for this test would yield the most precise results for a true TS/SS compairison...I do have to yield to the idea's logistical challenges. I think I would settle just to see a full race, or ETS, TS/SS kit compairison on the same car using the same turbo on the same day.
Though I agree with 03whitegsr that a custom manifold just for this test would yield the most precise results for a true TS/SS compairison...I do have to yield to the idea's logistical challenges. I think I would settle just to see a full race, or ETS, TS/SS kit compairison on the same car using the same turbo on the same day.
TS does help in spool-up. But the other major benefit that is NOT shown on a dyno is transient response. Someone needs to log cars cruising at 4500 rpms or so and floor it to see how fast the boost comes on. THAT's where TS makes a huge difference.
Want proof of the benefits of TS? All you have to do is look at the OEMs. What's the goal of every car manufacturer? Make their stuff as cheap as possible! They will find ways to cut 5 cents here, 10 cents there. That doesn't seem like much until you consider volumes of 1-5 million vehicles. 5 cents x 1 million is a LOT of money.
Now, a TS turbine housing is probably double the cost of a regular, open volute housing. Do you think the OEMs WANT to spend that money? Do you think they'd do it if it didn't show substantial improvements in performance? Not only is the turbine housing more expensive, but the exhaust manifold is too! I wouldn't be surprised if a TS setup cost an OEM at least $100 more than a regular setup. $100 x 50,000 cars is a lot of money . OEMs don't like spending money unless they have too.
The list of modern turbo cars with TS is only getting bigger. Off the top of my head, GM Ecotec 2.0L, JDM STI, Evo, Mini Cooper S, BMW X5M/X6M/M5 (S63 engine I think), new BMW N55, 3.0L engine. Heck, BMW put a PAIR of twin-scroll turbos on the S63, 4.4L V8 engine (~560hp). Have you guys seen those exhaust manifolds? NOT cheap. The more lame, BMW twin turbo,4.4L V8 rated at 400HP (I think) has regular, single scroll turbos. BMW makes some of the most amazing engines ever designed, why would they bother with TS if it didn't have significant advantages?
I'm just saying.... sometimes it's pretty easy to come to a conclusion by looking at what the OEMs are doing.
Want proof of the benefits of TS? All you have to do is look at the OEMs. What's the goal of every car manufacturer? Make their stuff as cheap as possible! They will find ways to cut 5 cents here, 10 cents there. That doesn't seem like much until you consider volumes of 1-5 million vehicles. 5 cents x 1 million is a LOT of money.
Now, a TS turbine housing is probably double the cost of a regular, open volute housing. Do you think the OEMs WANT to spend that money? Do you think they'd do it if it didn't show substantial improvements in performance? Not only is the turbine housing more expensive, but the exhaust manifold is too! I wouldn't be surprised if a TS setup cost an OEM at least $100 more than a regular setup. $100 x 50,000 cars is a lot of money . OEMs don't like spending money unless they have too.
The list of modern turbo cars with TS is only getting bigger. Off the top of my head, GM Ecotec 2.0L, JDM STI, Evo, Mini Cooper S, BMW X5M/X6M/M5 (S63 engine I think), new BMW N55, 3.0L engine. Heck, BMW put a PAIR of twin-scroll turbos on the S63, 4.4L V8 engine (~560hp). Have you guys seen those exhaust manifolds? NOT cheap. The more lame, BMW twin turbo,4.4L V8 rated at 400HP (I think) has regular, single scroll turbos. BMW makes some of the most amazing engines ever designed, why would they bother with TS if it didn't have significant advantages?
I'm just saying.... sometimes it's pretty easy to come to a conclusion by looking at what the OEMs are doing.
TS does help in spool-up. But the other major benefit that is NOT shown on a dyno is transient response. Someone needs to log cars cruising at 4500 rpms or so and floor it to see how fast the boost comes on. THAT's where TS makes a huge difference.
Want proof of the benefits of TS? All you have to do is look at the OEMs. What's the goal of every car manufacturer? Make their stuff as cheap as possible! They will find ways to cut 5 cents here, 10 cents there. That doesn't seem like much until you consider volumes of 1-5 million vehicles. 5 cents x 1 million is a LOT of money.
Now, a TS turbine housing is probably double the cost of a regular, open volute housing. Do you think the OEMs WANT to spend that money? Do you think they'd do it if it didn't show substantial improvements in performance? Not only is the turbine housing more expensive, but the exhaust manifold is too! I wouldn't be surprised if a TS setup cost an OEM at least $100 more than a regular setup. $100 x 50,000 cars is a lot of money . OEMs don't like spending money unless they have too.
The list of modern turbo cars with TS is only getting bigger. Off the top of my head, GM Ecotec 2.0L, JDM STI, Evo, Mini Cooper S, BMW X5M/X6M/M5 (S63 engine I think), new BMW N55, 3.0L engine. Heck, BMW put a PAIR of twin-scroll turbos on the S63, 4.4L V8 engine (~560hp). Have you guys seen those exhaust manifolds? NOT cheap. The more lame, BMW twin turbo,4.4L V8 rated at 400HP (I think) has regular, single scroll turbos. BMW makes some of the most amazing engines ever designed, why would they bother with TS if it didn't have significant advantages?
I'm just saying.... sometimes it's pretty easy to come to a conclusion by looking at what the OEMs are doing.
Want proof of the benefits of TS? All you have to do is look at the OEMs. What's the goal of every car manufacturer? Make their stuff as cheap as possible! They will find ways to cut 5 cents here, 10 cents there. That doesn't seem like much until you consider volumes of 1-5 million vehicles. 5 cents x 1 million is a LOT of money.
Now, a TS turbine housing is probably double the cost of a regular, open volute housing. Do you think the OEMs WANT to spend that money? Do you think they'd do it if it didn't show substantial improvements in performance? Not only is the turbine housing more expensive, but the exhaust manifold is too! I wouldn't be surprised if a TS setup cost an OEM at least $100 more than a regular setup. $100 x 50,000 cars is a lot of money . OEMs don't like spending money unless they have too.
The list of modern turbo cars with TS is only getting bigger. Off the top of my head, GM Ecotec 2.0L, JDM STI, Evo, Mini Cooper S, BMW X5M/X6M/M5 (S63 engine I think), new BMW N55, 3.0L engine. Heck, BMW put a PAIR of twin-scroll turbos on the S63, 4.4L V8 engine (~560hp). Have you guys seen those exhaust manifolds? NOT cheap. The more lame, BMW twin turbo,4.4L V8 rated at 400HP (I think) has regular, single scroll turbos. BMW makes some of the most amazing engines ever designed, why would they bother with TS if it didn't have significant advantages?
I'm just saying.... sometimes it's pretty easy to come to a conclusion by looking at what the OEMs are doing.
03whitegsr. I doubt that the layout is the same on the 2 different manifolds so that is something to consider.
To me though, if I was a company looking to produce a product, I'd want to try and build an ideal test platform to prove the theory first, then I'd try to adapt it to the application after verifying the theory works. No point in building a production piece if you don't even know if it will work first.
I agree with this completely. If you can make a TS and say it is better and sell it for $600+ more than a SS but the cost to build it is $100-200 more some companies might just promote it as better to make a little extra cash. I am not saying anyone is doing that but it is something to consider. I would test and test and test just to get enough results to prove that one is better than another. Theory first, application later.
Oh and another thing, if JB does this test you know there are going to be people that ask, well how does it do on a stock 2.0, a built 2.0, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4 not a long rod, on my mom's camry and dad's cummins diesel lol...
Last edited by jasnm21; May 3, 2010 at 11:15 PM.
TS does help in spool-up. But the other major benefit that is NOT shown on a dyno is transient response. Someone needs to log cars cruising at 4500 rpms or so and floor it to see how fast the boost comes on. THAT's where TS makes a huge difference.
Want proof of the benefits of TS? All you have to do is look at the OEMs. What's the goal of every car manufacturer? Make their stuff as cheap as possible! They will find ways to cut 5 cents here, 10 cents there. That doesn't seem like much until you consider volumes of 1-5 million vehicles. 5 cents x 1 million is a LOT of money.
Now, a TS turbine housing is probably double the cost of a regular, open volute housing. Do you think the OEMs WANT to spend that money? Do you think they'd do it if it didn't show substantial improvements in performance? Not only is the turbine housing more expensive, but the exhaust manifold is too! I wouldn't be surprised if a TS setup cost an OEM at least $100 more than a regular setup. $100 x 50,000 cars is a lot of money . OEMs don't like spending money unless they have too.
The list of modern turbo cars with TS is only getting bigger. Off the top of my head, GM Ecotec 2.0L, JDM STI, Evo, Mini Cooper S, BMW X5M/X6M/M5 (S63 engine I think), new BMW N55, 3.0L engine. Heck, BMW put a PAIR of twin-scroll turbos on the S63, 4.4L V8 engine (~560hp). Have you guys seen those exhaust manifolds? NOT cheap. The more lame, BMW twin turbo,4.4L V8 rated at 400HP (I think) has regular, single scroll turbos. BMW makes some of the most amazing engines ever designed, why would they bother with TS if it didn't have significant advantages?
I'm just saying.... sometimes it's pretty easy to come to a conclusion by looking at what the OEMs are doing.
Want proof of the benefits of TS? All you have to do is look at the OEMs. What's the goal of every car manufacturer? Make their stuff as cheap as possible! They will find ways to cut 5 cents here, 10 cents there. That doesn't seem like much until you consider volumes of 1-5 million vehicles. 5 cents x 1 million is a LOT of money.
Now, a TS turbine housing is probably double the cost of a regular, open volute housing. Do you think the OEMs WANT to spend that money? Do you think they'd do it if it didn't show substantial improvements in performance? Not only is the turbine housing more expensive, but the exhaust manifold is too! I wouldn't be surprised if a TS setup cost an OEM at least $100 more than a regular setup. $100 x 50,000 cars is a lot of money . OEMs don't like spending money unless they have too.
The list of modern turbo cars with TS is only getting bigger. Off the top of my head, GM Ecotec 2.0L, JDM STI, Evo, Mini Cooper S, BMW X5M/X6M/M5 (S63 engine I think), new BMW N55, 3.0L engine. Heck, BMW put a PAIR of twin-scroll turbos on the S63, 4.4L V8 engine (~560hp). Have you guys seen those exhaust manifolds? NOT cheap. The more lame, BMW twin turbo,4.4L V8 rated at 400HP (I think) has regular, single scroll turbos. BMW makes some of the most amazing engines ever designed, why would they bother with TS if it didn't have significant advantages?
I'm just saying.... sometimes it's pretty easy to come to a conclusion by looking at what the OEMs are doing.
This isnt just a logistical challenge its a nightmare. I can already guarantee that it wont be done in the same day or on the dyno. It will need to be a weekend if it is even feasible since it will result in parts that ETS can't sell as new all to satisfy everyone's curiosity.
No matter what I can already see that not everyone will be happy with how its conducted and the test is "skewed" this way or that way. I am not backing out, I am being realistic when I say that other than me putting an engine on an engine stand dyno or climate controlled dyno cell this is a useless test. "Why didnt you do it on an VIII"..."why didnt you use off the shelf cams"...etc.
I talked to Ted this morning about this and it became obvious to me that the easiest way to quantify data requires completely different datalogging than we are currently using. It needs to be the same rig that FP uses. Hmmm I wonder why they use it? I wonder why they do all the testing? Probably since they sell turbos and probably so guys like me dont have to. I really would like to invest in an AIM setup with turbo tach and all the other neat gadgets that will help me personally answer all my questions. When it comes down to time and money, I dont mind being broke but I only have 24 hours a day to use.
I can make a single scroll have much improved transient response (maintaining shaft speed) and even help increase the spool. A twin scroll will always beat me in that department it seems, but the single will most likely kill it pound for pound out the top when in a drag race.
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
lol.
my 2 cents.
No matter what I can already see that not everyone will be happy with how its conducted and the test is "skewed" this way or that way. I am not backing out, I am being realistic when I say that other than me putting an engine on an engine stand dyno or climate controlled dyno cell this is a useless test. "Why didnt you do it on an VIII"..."why didnt you use off the shelf cams"...etc.
I talked to Ted this morning about this and it became obvious to me that the easiest way to quantify data requires completely different datalogging than we are currently using. It needs to be the same rig that FP uses. Hmmm I wonder why they use it? I wonder why they do all the testing? Probably since they sell turbos and probably so guys like me dont have to. I really would like to invest in an AIM setup with turbo tach and all the other neat gadgets that will help me personally answer all my questions. When it comes down to time and money, I dont mind being broke but I only have 24 hours a day to use.
I can make a single scroll have much improved transient response (maintaining shaft speed) and even help increase the spool. A twin scroll will always beat me in that department it seems, but the single will most likely kill it pound for pound out the top when in a drag race.
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
lol.my 2 cents.
So mike if you want up to 650 whp use the FP Black, which is twin scroll, and if you want big power over 800 whp use a T4 Divided Big turbo, but for 650-800whp single scroll is the best way to do it?
Everybody seems to be in agreement that these stock frame turbos spool very quick and make a lot of power, and the only way to make monster power is a twin scroll t4, what am I missing...
Somehow that doesn't make sense!
Scorke
Everybody seems to be in agreement that these stock frame turbos spool very quick and make a lot of power, and the only way to make monster power is a twin scroll t4, what am I missing...
Somehow that doesn't make sense!
Scorke
Folks:
We can't realistically compare engines of different displacement.
We can't realistically compare different turbos.
We can't realistically compare factory placement manifolds with FF stuff.
Etc.
There are just too many differences. Trying to draw comparisons between different hardware just doesn't work.
We can't realistically compare engines of different displacement.
We can't realistically compare different turbos.
We can't realistically compare factory placement manifolds with FF stuff.
Etc.
There are just too many differences. Trying to draw comparisons between different hardware just doesn't work.
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 lol.
lol./thread
This isnt just a logistical challenge its a nightmare. I can already guarantee that it wont be done in the same day or on the dyno. It will need to be a weekend if it is even feasible since it will result in parts that ETS can't sell as new all to satisfy everyone's curiosity.
No matter what I can already see that not everyone will be happy with how its conducted and the test is "skewed" this way or that way. I am not backing out, I am being realistic when I say that other than me putting an engine on an engine stand dyno or climate controlled dyno cell this is a useless test. "Why didnt you do it on an VIII"..."why didnt you use off the shelf cams"...etc.
I talked to Ted this morning about this and it became obvious to me that the easiest way to quantify data requires completely different datalogging than we are currently using. It needs to be the same rig that FP uses. Hmmm I wonder why they use it? I wonder why they do all the testing? Probably since they sell turbos and probably so guys like me dont have to. I really would like to invest in an AIM setup with turbo tach and all the other neat gadgets that will help me personally answer all my questions. When it comes down to time and money, I dont mind being broke but I only have 24 hours a day to use.
I can make a single scroll have much improved transient response (maintaining shaft speed) and even help increase the spool. A twin scroll will always beat me in that department it seems, but the single will most likely kill it pound for pound out the top when in a drag race.
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 lol.
my 2 cents.
No matter what I can already see that not everyone will be happy with how its conducted and the test is "skewed" this way or that way. I am not backing out, I am being realistic when I say that other than me putting an engine on an engine stand dyno or climate controlled dyno cell this is a useless test. "Why didnt you do it on an VIII"..."why didnt you use off the shelf cams"...etc.
I talked to Ted this morning about this and it became obvious to me that the easiest way to quantify data requires completely different datalogging than we are currently using. It needs to be the same rig that FP uses. Hmmm I wonder why they use it? I wonder why they do all the testing? Probably since they sell turbos and probably so guys like me dont have to. I really would like to invest in an AIM setup with turbo tach and all the other neat gadgets that will help me personally answer all my questions. When it comes down to time and money, I dont mind being broke but I only have 24 hours a day to use.
I can make a single scroll have much improved transient response (maintaining shaft speed) and even help increase the spool. A twin scroll will always beat me in that department it seems, but the single will most likely kill it pound for pound out the top when in a drag race.
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
lol.my 2 cents.
I personally believe lag is a down shift away. If you want a fast responding turbo, get a Red or Black. I will be happy with a test to see if the difference is as big as everyone says it is but then again, when I am able to finish my build I think the biggest part to spool and response is how I build/order the engine from AWD or BR. I have pm'ed Eric about this and he is one smart dude when it comes to this, gave me a few things to calculate and figure out.
You don't even have to do the test, seeing your results on the 2.4LR with the SS gt3586 is amazing.
If people could look past everything and see it as raw data that shows one application vs another instead of what you have done to the car, it would work out well. Everyone wants everything and there is enough information out there that if you take the time you could figure out how it "might" do on any given system. But everyone always looks at displacement and cams and compression. If the average 2.4 gt3586 spools around 5000 and a 2.0 gt3586 spools around 5600, this is just an example, then the TS on the 2.4 spools 400 rpms sooner, you can expect the same give or take 200 rpms on the 2.0.
/thread
Last edited by jasnm21; May 4, 2010 at 02:26 AM.
This isnt just a logistical challenge its a nightmare. I can already guarantee that it wont be done in the same day or on the dyno. It will need to be a weekend if it is even feasible since it will result in parts that ETS can't sell as new all to satisfy everyone's curiosity.
No matter what I can already see that not everyone will be happy with how its conducted and the test is "skewed" this way or that way. I am not backing out, I am being realistic when I say that other than me putting an engine on an engine stand dyno or climate controlled dyno cell this is a useless test. "Why didnt you do it on an VIII"..."why didnt you use off the shelf cams"...etc.
I talked to Ted this morning about this and it became obvious to me that the easiest way to quantify data requires completely different datalogging than we are currently using. It needs to be the same rig that FP uses. Hmmm I wonder why they use it? I wonder why they do all the testing? Probably since they sell turbos and probably so guys like me dont have to. I really would like to invest in an AIM setup with turbo tach and all the other neat gadgets that will help me personally answer all my questions. When it comes down to time and money, I dont mind being broke but I only have 24 hours a day to use.
I can make a single scroll have much improved transient response (maintaining shaft speed) and even help increase the spool. A twin scroll will always beat me in that department it seems, but the single will most likely kill it pound for pound out the top when in a drag race.
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 lol.
my 2 cents.
No matter what I can already see that not everyone will be happy with how its conducted and the test is "skewed" this way or that way. I am not backing out, I am being realistic when I say that other than me putting an engine on an engine stand dyno or climate controlled dyno cell this is a useless test. "Why didnt you do it on an VIII"..."why didnt you use off the shelf cams"...etc.
I talked to Ted this morning about this and it became obvious to me that the easiest way to quantify data requires completely different datalogging than we are currently using. It needs to be the same rig that FP uses. Hmmm I wonder why they use it? I wonder why they do all the testing? Probably since they sell turbos and probably so guys like me dont have to. I really would like to invest in an AIM setup with turbo tach and all the other neat gadgets that will help me personally answer all my questions. When it comes down to time and money, I dont mind being broke but I only have 24 hours a day to use.
I can make a single scroll have much improved transient response (maintaining shaft speed) and even help increase the spool. A twin scroll will always beat me in that department it seems, but the single will most likely kill it pound for pound out the top when in a drag race.
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
lol.my 2 cents.
Q. From a Power, Cost, Lag perspective which is the best bang for my buck vs benefits Twinscroll or Single, for a similar power output which is better and whats the sacrifice etc...
So say a 2.3L with similar mods
T3 .63 GT3582R HTA vs. T3 1.06 TS GT3582R HTA
How big is the difference - where is my money better spent on a Streetcar (how much slower around the track)
Forget all the technicalities and trivalities....
If I must choose between two similar turbos then two similar car with the main diference being the Turbo kit is the difference your basing your advise on... I will end up with one or the other - if the difference is so small then its just a matter of bang for the buck for the Average Joe!
Last edited by supersal; May 4, 2010 at 03:42 AM.
Evolved Member
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,392
Likes: 2
From: uk
I think TS is been taken out of context.
the TS will be a winner in response to a gear change and its benefits do not show on a dyno pull from low rpm to the top as a power run.
we need some logs from the road from a map sensor that records how fast boost is back on when changing gear and getting back on it.
if you think about drag or circuit how many times do you pull from low rpm ?
in the drag senario ok the launch your trying to get it spooled but after that all the gear changes are at high revs so if TS gets you back on full boost earlier than SS thats where its winner
i can't believe there as still debates when the majority of oem manufactures use it. they must test these engine/TS setups for 8hrs a day everyday for 6 mths and the results must be plain to see for them to commit to release said technology.
the TS will be a winner in response to a gear change and its benefits do not show on a dyno pull from low rpm to the top as a power run.
we need some logs from the road from a map sensor that records how fast boost is back on when changing gear and getting back on it.
if you think about drag or circuit how many times do you pull from low rpm ?
in the drag senario ok the launch your trying to get it spooled but after that all the gear changes are at high revs so if TS gets you back on full boost earlier than SS thats where its winner
i can't believe there as still debates when the majority of oem manufactures use it. they must test these engine/TS setups for 8hrs a day everyday for 6 mths and the results must be plain to see for them to commit to release said technology.
Actually technically i find they make the same PEAK HP as i have seen near 800wheel HP with 6262 so you cant go by wheel size as 1 is billet and the other cast.. just comparing turbos with EQUAL PEAK HP ability.. I wouldnt install a 40r on a car with whats available today so I am not sure..
Mike
Mike
And the only water it does hold is the fact that it DOES show that TS spools faster because the 4088r has a bigger wheel than the 6262 but is still hitting full spool at around the same RPM.
I'm not trying to bash or anything and I'm glad you did the test but the variables were not kept even in this and this test is relatively invalid although it does show the TS spools faster.
Now does anybody have a SS 4088 that we can try out and put this test to rest?
I think anybody retailing a TS kit or shop that sells a SS kit that wants to bash TS shouldn't say a word until they have tested this and can back up their claims with results.
Comparing a 2.4L SS with a GT35R at 40 PSI vs. a 2.0L with a GT40R at 25 PSI is a joke though.
But if somebody has something to prove, it's pretty easy to seriously skew the results. I have a dyno chart of a car with just ice placed on the manifold for a few minutes that resulted in 300-400 RPM faster spool and 25 more peak HP. Same car, same day, within 10 minutes, no other changes.
Comparing a 2.4L SS with a GT35R at 40 PSI vs. a 2.0L with a GT40R at 25 PSI is a joke though.
But if somebody has something to prove, it's pretty easy to seriously skew the results. I have a dyno chart of a car with just ice placed on the manifold for a few minutes that resulted in 300-400 RPM faster spool and 25 more peak HP. Same car, same day, within 10 minutes, no other changes.
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
lol.my 2 cents.