GTX3582r Short Runner TwinScroll Setup - Page 2 - EvolutionM - Mitsubishi Lancer and Lancer Evolution Community

Notices
Evo Engine / Turbo / Drivetrain Everything from engine management to the best clutch and flywheel.

GTX3582r Short Runner TwinScroll Setup

 
Old Mar 18, 2015, 02:59 PM
  #16  
Evolved Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (25)
 
240Z TwinTurbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 1,628
Thanks: 0
Thanked 24 Times in 21 Posts
Originally Posted by Grimgrak View Post
This is almost like a giant slap accross the face to the fancy full race style ts manifold.

Time to do the wheel dyno again just to verify.
So you had a long runner 3.5 inch turbo back on the gtx3582. Yet going to a smaller dp AND shorter manifold you gained 500rpm spool. How does your long and short style compare to say a full race ts non front facing manifold?
I just bought the t3 gt30 ni resist 1.01 TS and am debating manifolds.
Still wanting to do a 3.5inch dp to 3 inch exhaust.
Your results have thrown a wrench into my decision tho....
It actually spools 900rpm sooner with the short runner manifold. I don't want to speculate on other vendor's manifolds as this post is only intended to show the results of my setup based on the changes made.
240Z TwinTurbo is offline  
Old Mar 19, 2015, 02:42 PM
  #17  
Evolved Member
iTrader: (8)
 
03whitegsr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Utah
Posts: 4,001
Thanked 8 Times in 7 Posts
Could you put up IAT log and rough ambient temps when you did these?

Based on the dates, I would put money on temps being a HUGE contributor here to the spool and power differences.

Also, how hot the exhaust manifold is can have a significant impact as well.

Glad to see somebody else realizes where the exhaust actually needs to pivot. There is a reason the OEM uses the same location.
03whitegsr is offline  
Old Mar 19, 2015, 05:06 PM
  #18  
Evolved Member
iTrader: (3)
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,420
Thanked 9 Times in 9 Posts
Since going with TS helps with reversion it only makes sense to go short runner. What are some good short runner t3 ts manifolds out there? I was going with the full race...
Grimgrak is offline  
Old Mar 20, 2015, 05:43 AM
  #19  
Evolved Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (25)
 
240Z TwinTurbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 1,628
Thanks: 0
Thanked 24 Times in 21 Posts
Originally Posted by 03whitegsr View Post
Could you put up IAT log and rough ambient temps when you did these?

Based on the dates, I would put money on temps being a HUGE contributor here to the spool and power differences.

Also, how hot the exhaust manifold is can have a significant impact as well.

Glad to see somebody else realizes where the exhaust actually needs to pivot. There is a reason the OEM uses the same location.
I will post the IAT's later today when I have some free time. I typically try to compare runs that are the 1st or 2nd run after the motor is sufficiently warmed up. To your point, if you start making 3-5 back to back runs the heat soak does affect spool vs the initial runs by 200-300rpm.
240Z TwinTurbo is offline  
Old Mar 21, 2015, 03:44 PM
  #20  
Evolved Member
iTrader: (8)
 
03whitegsr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Utah
Posts: 4,001
Thanked 8 Times in 7 Posts
I shouldn't have emphasized HUGE there. It could explain a decent amount of the power difference you are seeing and a couple hundred RPM difference in spool. Definitely surprising on the overall impact of making the car faster even after the spool area though.

The Full-Race comparision from 10+ years ago doesn't really apply here. They used a log manifold. 90* bends and T's...You couldn't build a worse manifold. What 240Z has done is build the lowest volume manifold with a decent collector. Big difference and it clearly has merit in the approach.
03whitegsr is offline  
Old Mar 22, 2015, 09:02 PM
  #21  
Evolved Member
iTrader: (3)
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,420
Thanked 9 Times in 9 Posts
Thats a comparison i'd like to see
Originally Posted by 03whitegsr View Post
The Full-Race comparision from 10+ years ago doesn't really apply here. They used a log manifold. 90* bends and T's...You couldn't build a worse manifold. What 240Z has done is build the lowest volume manifold with a decent collector. Big difference and it clearly has merit in the approach.
Grimgrak is offline  
Old Mar 24, 2015, 05:59 PM
  #22  
Evolved Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (25)
 
240Z TwinTurbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 1,628
Thanks: 0
Thanked 24 Times in 21 Posts
Originally Posted by 03whitegsr View Post
Could you put up IAT log and rough ambient temps when you did these?

Based on the dates, I would put money on temps being a HUGE contributor here to the spool and power differences.

Also, how hot the exhaust manifold is can have a significant impact as well.

Glad to see somebody else realizes where the exhaust actually needs to pivot. There is a reason the OEM uses the same location.
As promised and it was only an 11F delta favoring the short runner.


240Z TwinTurbo is offline  
Old Mar 25, 2015, 10:48 AM
  #23  
Evolved Member
iTrader: (8)
 
03whitegsr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Utah
Posts: 4,001
Thanked 8 Times in 7 Posts
Nice, the short runner seems to keep temps more stable too for some reason. Starts at 85F and raises to like 89F. Long runner starts at 100F, drops to 96F as airflow comes up, then climbs to 103ish. Nothing changed that may have impacted IC efficiency? Likely just the hotter outside temps driving down efficiency but worth asking about.

The temps would account from maybe 10HP. Spool wise, maybe a couple hundred RPM, something....but no where near the improvement you've seen.

GREAT STUFF
03whitegsr is offline  
Old Mar 26, 2015, 09:32 PM
  #24  
Newbie
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Monmouth County, New Jersey
Posts: 71
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
I had the atp 1.06 ar housing on a full race ac manifold, gtx3582R. It spooled much faster than the same turbo in the ts garrett vband 1.01 i bought from sheep. my tuner evans tuning said the garrett 1.01 is actually a larger a/r than the 1.06 housing from atp, i think he put it on IG
efrevo is offline  
Old Mar 27, 2015, 10:41 AM
  #25  
Evolved Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (25)
 
240Z TwinTurbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 1,628
Thanks: 0
Thanked 24 Times in 21 Posts
Originally Posted by efrevo View Post
I had the atp 1.06 ar housing on a full race ac manifold, gtx3582R. It spooled much faster than the same turbo in the ts garrett vband 1.01 i bought from sheep. my tuner evans tuning said the garrett 1.01 is actually a larger a/r than the 1.06 housing from atp, i think he put it on IG
Correct, the new Garrett 1.01a/r TS is equivalent to a 1.01a/r OS, but the ATP 1.06a/r TS is equivalent to ~0.72a/r OS (estimated). The point is the new Garrett stuff is sized equivalent to an OS in terms of cross section flow area.
240Z TwinTurbo is offline  
Old Mar 27, 2015, 03:11 PM
  #26  
Newbie
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Monmouth County, New Jersey
Posts: 71
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Oh ok. its a part of the reason for your results
efrevo is offline  
Old Mar 27, 2015, 04:12 PM
  #27  
Evolved Member
iTrader: (3)
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,420
Thanked 9 Times in 9 Posts
So you ran a different manifold and a 1.01 housing? Any dyno to compare? I am wondering if i can return this 1.01 and step a size down now...IG internal gate?
Originally Posted by efrevo View Post
I had the atp 1.06 ar housing on a full race ac manifold, gtx3582R. It spooled much faster than the same turbo in the ts garrett vband 1.01 i bought from sheep. my tuner evans tuning said the garrett 1.01 is actually a larger a/r than the 1.06 housing from atp, i think he put it on IG
Grimgrak is offline  
Old May 16, 2015, 12:18 PM
  #28  
Evolved Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (25)
 
240Z TwinTurbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 1,628
Thanks: 0
Thanked 24 Times in 21 Posts
UPDATE

Once approved you will see an update post in the Vendor Review Forum so I will save the remarks until the thread is approved and posted. It is known the Squash Double Pumper was designed assuming the tank was ~0.5" deeper. As a result the pump filters are pressed against the bottom of the tank causing pump cavitation. Once the outside temps exceed ~80F the fuel temperature reaches a point where the pumps can't supply fuel even at normal driving conditions.

Being a good engineer I finally decided to address the issue myself. I first removed the Squash Double Pumper and you can see from the pic below the main pump filter is clogged. The other pump only comes on above 12psi.



In the picture below you can see where both pump filters are pressed against the bottom of the tank.



In order to raise the Squash Double Pumper I ordered two additional fuel pump assembly gaskets, which are ~0.195" per gasket. With the pair I am able to raise the pumps 0.390".



When you raise the pump housing you can no longer engage the threads with the stock nuts so I had to source some barrell/sleeve nuts to engage the threads below the flange surface. The picture below is of the new SS M5x0.8 barrel nuts.



Since the barrel nuts are larger than the holes on the Squash Double Pumper I had to drill them out. The barrel nuts have an OD of ~0.275" so I drilled the holes 0.305".



The tricky part was getting all three OEM gaskets to fit because the last gasket barely fits on the pump housing. It took several attempts, but I was able to get the pump housing on with the gaskets in place. Because the barrel bolts where too long I had to shim them with a few washers and a lock washer. The picture below is the pump installed with the addition of two extra OEM gaskets and the new barrel nuts.



The housing seems to be leak free and I can tell it flows a bit more because my ethanol gauge shows another 1% on the gauge. I will run the tank down to almost empty on a hot day and see if the pressure drops. It usually only takes 30 minutes to lose pressure when under 1/4 tank of gas. I will update later this week once my fuel level drops.
240Z TwinTurbo is offline  
Old May 16, 2015, 01:54 PM
  #29  
Evolved Member
iTrader: (9)
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Space time
Posts: 1,278
Thanked 12 Times in 11 Posts
I had the same style issue with min. I just trimmed the supply hoses so I could move the pumps up a bit. After that I have not had one issue. The system base been very stable.
TheBoz is offline  
Old May 16, 2015, 02:28 PM
  #30  
Evolved Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (25)
 
240Z TwinTurbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 1,628
Thanks: 0
Thanked 24 Times in 21 Posts
Originally Posted by TheBoz View Post
I had the same style issue with min. I just trimmed the supply hoses so I could move the pumps up a bit. After that I have not had one issue. The system base been very stable.
Which pumps do you use? The Walbro 400's are all the way up and the pump mounts do not allow it to move further up. Even if I was able to shorten the hose the mounting bracket blocks the pumps from moving up. You can see what I mean from the picture below. I would still recommend that you add one additional OEM seal.

240Z TwinTurbo is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Quick Reply: GTX3582r Short Runner TwinScroll Setup


Contact Us About Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

© 2019 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands

We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.