When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
I could have chosen to machine the marmon flange to a 3" vband for $100. The problem is I want it to be as short as possible off the back of the turbo to where the vband clamp has only ~1/8" clearance from the turbine housing. To do this you need to completely cut off the outlet and then weld on a 3" vband flange to the turbine housing. You gain at least 3/8" of space doing it this way. My current downpipe has ~5/8" to the AC compressor, but because this turbo is so much longer axially I have to shift the whole turbo assembly towards the passenger side so the compressor cover clears the transmission. As someone once told me, it's gonna be tight.
I figured as much, hence why I said, "not sure if this applies".
I still can't get over how much bigger the S362sx-e is vs the GTX3576R.
Do you have the same size comp cover on your GTX3582R?
The GTX3582r uses a different cover, both have 4" inlet, but outlet is 2.5" vs 2.0". Other than that the compressor cover is marginally thicker so for the sake of argument, they are pretty similar in size.
Ahhh, so you are running the nominal 35R S-Cover and packaging should be comparable with the exception of the additional axial length of the S362.
I'm sooo looking forward to your S362 results!
What's your estimated S362 test date, ~4/15?
Ahhh, so you are running the nominal 35R S-Cover and packaging should be comparable with the exception of the additional axial length of the S362.
I'm sooo looking forward to your S362 results!
What's your estimated S362 test date, ~4/15?
Yes, just standard T04S cover with built in velocity stack so externally the same, but slightly modified.
Doesn't make sense for me to draw a line in the sand as far as timing, but going to ship the turbine housing tomorrow and hopefully have it back within 1-2 weeks. Going to try and make the manifold similar as current using the larger runners (1.5" schedule 10), but need to see how it packages since it has to be pushed towards the passenger side at least 0.75". If you look at the pic below if I move it over 0.75" then the outlet of cylinder #2 (from driver's side) is now more lined up with the other port on the TS flange. So now Cylinder #3 (from driver's side) has to be routed differently and Cylinder #1 (from driver's side) has to be rerouted. Can I just angle the runners over to the new position?...maybe. If it gets to be where I have to start making several long runners then I would rather do a small runner manifold (1.25" schedule 10) of equal length. I'm not necessarily opposed to that, but then my comparison of the two turbos will be skewed because of the significant manifold change. I guess my point is that I don't want to rush the decision I make, but once I start fabricating I'm going to knock it out quickly because I put enough miles on my GTR redoing the engine.
Nice!
Regardless of either way you go it’ll be awesome to finally get divided housing results from this very capable turbo!
I have that data for an EVO 8 boost for boost vs my setup....750rpm lag and +100hp. However, MIVEC vs Non MIVEC, 2.15L vs 2.00L, Ported stock intake vs AMS intake....so I expect it to spool similar to my current turbo. I gained 300rpm spool going from 2.00L to 2.15L, I gained almost 200rpm spool going from Skunk intake to Ported stocker, and MIVEC is worth a good amount of spool. Anyway, going small runner equal length and already ordered the flange so game on.
I have that data for an EVO 8 boost for boost vs my setup....750rpm lag and +100hp. However, MIVEC vs Non MIVEC, 2.15L vs 2.00L, Ported stock intake vs AMS intake....so I expect it to spool similar to my current turbo. I gained 300rpm spool going from 2.00L to 2.15L, I gained almost 200rpm spool going from Skunk intake to Ported stocker, and MIVEC is worth a good amount of spool. Anyway, going small runner equal length and already ordered the flange so game on.
Nice, that's exactly what I was hoping you were going to do!
Does this Evo 8 have a large runner or small runner divided manifold?
With all that you mentioned above, I'd be surprised if the S362 spools any slower than your current setup.
Last edited by Strm Trpr; Mar 14, 2019 at 02:16 PM.
Nice, that's exactly what I was hoping you were going to do!
Does this Evo 8 have a large runner or small runner divided manifold?
With all that you mentioned above, I'd be surprised if the S362 spools any slower than your current setup.
The .91 flows exceptionally well. I can’t see anyone needing the 1.1 unless they had a really large displacement engine and wanted to keep emap down. No way it’s needed on a 2.2.
what is your experience with the .91 A/R divided T4 housing and the S300 76/68 turbine wheel?
Been having an intermittent fuel cut since swapping over to the 3D Speed Density. It has only happened once when doing a 3rd gear pull and cut about 7K RPM when starting from ~3K RPM. But today, I was trying to pass a guy and revved it out in second, put the car in 3rd and was just trying to get by him without hitting full boost. Every time I would hit the throttle the car would hit fuel cut and this happened 2-3 times in a row so I tucked my tail between my legs and got back behind the guy.
So I go out with the laptop and try to repeat this and it took a while, but when I am in 3rd gear at maybe 4K RPM and slowly ease into the throttle it will hit the fuel cut, but if I stomp the throttle it won't. Also, it doesn't do it every time. I have a log below showing the car hitting 33psi and then the IPW drops to 0. Load is ~375 at this point and my Fuel cut is set to 2x with a value of 600% as you can see in the picture. Not shown is the "Fuel Cut Load Trigger Delay." which is set to 1000ms (1s).
I've since upped the "Fuel Cut Load X2" to 638% and increased "Fuel Cut Load Trigger Delay" to 1638375ms (as high as it would go). I tried to make it do it on the highway in 4th, but it was fine so I guess I will try tomorrow in 3rd to see if I can induce the fuel cut. If anyone has any thoughts please feel free to share.
I've since upped the "Fuel Cut Load X2" to 638% and increased "Fuel Cut Load Trigger Delay" to 1638375ms (as high as it would go). I tried to make it do it on the highway in 4th, but it was fine so I guess I will try tomorrow in 3rd to see if I can induce the fuel cut. If anyone has any thoughts please feel free to share.
After this change I went out and tried to make it happen in 3rd, which I was able to do earlier quite a few times, but it seems to have stopped so I guess increasing the "Fuel Cut Load Trigger Delay" was the key.
I am assuming that your AFR look good? The computer definitely thought that you hit a cell/parameter combination indicating the need. I want to learn more about sd but haven't taken the time to dive in
I am assuming that your AFR look good? The computer definitely thought that you hit a cell/parameter combination indicating the need. I want to learn more about sd but haven't taken the time to dive in
Yes, AFR was 11.25 when it cut so not an AFR issue. I agree it is probably something simple being overlooked, but I am only aware of the fuel cut parameters I showed above. I know there is a LOAD Limiter and IPW Limiter, but those are limiters and don't cut.
Mar 13, 2019, 02:59 PM
