Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Shane, have a read above at my previous posts. You'll see I said its not the best comparison.

Regardless, twins offer better turbo response due to less inertia.

Providing there is sufficient exhaust gas smaller turbo's are able to go from idle rpm to 80,000rpm quicker than a wheel 2x its size.

Why would Nissan throw ceramic turbines on their turbo's? To lower inertia and provide better response from the turbo.

i did i did :rolleyes:

But a turbo with double the hp ability doesn't have double the rotating dimensions, or double the rotating inertia

i'd tend to agree with that.

even with a big single, u can make them flow more hp by changing the rear housings, and when u do that u dont change the size or dimension of the wheels themselves.

i guess it's only going to be theories ubtil someone that's cashed up does some physical research into it.

But a turbo with double the hp ability doesn't have double the rotating dimensions, or double the rotating inertia

But I'm not saying the big turbo has double the 'intertia lag'. :)

If your at an rpm where the turbo is receiving sufficient exhaust gas for quick full spool then that is where you are able see/measure the inertia 'lag' so to speak.

----------

Shane; Parallel twins are well known to provide better response over a similiar sized big single. So no theory.

A large turbo has more of this inertia lag; a smaller turbo has less. Providing they are both at an rpm where they are able to spool easily the smaller turbo's will spool/spin up quicker. Simple physics.

Think back to 89 with the first release of the GTR. Why would nissan bother with the added expense of a twin turbo system?

Inertia is a function of the radius to the 4th power, so a turbo with a radius of 20mm will have an inertial factor of 160000mm^4, while a turbo with a radius of 30mm will have a factor of 810000mm^4 or about 5.1 times as much resistance to acceleration. Now there will be some detailed integrations of the actual masses in the rotor construction and the material used but pound for pound a larger turbo is a diminishing return for response so you increase cubes to offset that.

Sorry guys but the engineering wins. Twins for response. Singles for lag monster drag and dyno queens.

There was a debate about GT35's in either .82 and 1.06 sizes and which ones are better for drivability/traction etc on the race track. Most people said the .82 ones came on too strong and caused wheel spin where as the 1.06 could be controlled with the throttle.

So how can twins which are far more reponsive, be better for traction?! I thought they would wheel spin too much.

:stupid:

Edited by VHR32

joel not everyone drives/races a gtr....only blokes with no skill require four wheel drive. Real men drive gtst's!

the slight response difference between the twins or single isnt that big of a deal in most cases...maybe if your racing for sheep stations. In almost every circumstance you can offset it with something else that will make your car quicker around the track or on the street. As is the problem with most people is the cost involved in it all. Twin setups will always cost more then single.

VHR32 - ive raced with a .82 rear gt35r and i think a 1.06 rear would be better for control, but the lag side of things would outweigh the benefit of the control. I would rather then extra response from the .82 and control the power better with my foot, not only that but having a disadvantaged mechanical setup teaches you to be a better racer as it forces you to adapt rather then just relying on a more superior setup to improve your times/position.

There was a debate about GT35's in either .82 and 1.06 sizes and which ones are better for drivability/traction etc on the race track. Most people said the .82 ones came on too strong and caused wheel spin where as the 1.06 could be controlled with the throttle.

So how can twins which are far more reponsive, be better for traction?! I thought they would wheel spin too much.

:stupid:

broadly a big single is just as responsive as twins in its ideal operating range. problem is singles have a narrower and sharper effective rpm operating range, and this can have some disadvantages. singles and twins will both respond well from boost threshold until they max out, in the case of the twins say between 3500 and 7500 rpm, the single between 5000 and 7500 rpm. twins are more responsive but the power production is not as on/off. the sudden power production of the single is what brings the big bang and the loss of traction.

joel not everyone drives/races a gtr....only blokes with no skill require four wheel drive. Real men drive gtst's!

the slight response difference between the twins or single isnt that big of a deal in most cases...maybe if your racing for sheep stations. In almost every circumstance you can offset it with something else that will make your car quicker around the track or on the street. As is the problem with most people is the cost involved in it all. Twin setups will always cost more then single.

VHR32 - ive raced with a .82 rear gt35r and i think a 1.06 rear would be better for control, but the lag side of things would outweigh the benefit of the control. I would rather then extra response from the .82 and control the power better with my foot, not only that but having a disadvantaged mechanical setup teaches you to be a better racer as it forces you to adapt rather then just relying on a more superior setup to improve your times/position.

awww look at the little jealous kid :thumbsup:

Shane!! Mike!! Play nice or you will be fed vegetarian snags at the BBQ!!!! :thumbsup:

Sorry guys I made an error.

I was locked onto a solution for mass moment of inertia which is a solution in mm^4.

Basic rotating inertia is a quadratic with a solution in mm^2 but regardless the difference in the above example is 400mm^2 and 900mm^2 or 2.25 times the rotating inertia. So even with double the exhaust gas a larger turbo by 10mm is still going to exhibit a measurable lag response. Add to that tolerances will have to be greater in a larger turbo to account for inertial growth and life cycle creep.

ill show you jealous shane...your coming round tomorrow arvo for bbq yeh?

bring ya guns mate...its on like donkey kong!

my guns roll with me :)

i'll be there with empty pockets, and i'll be leavin with full pockets :sorcerer:

Shane!! Mike!! Play nice or you will be fed vegetarian snags at the BBQ!!!! :)

Sorry guys I made an error.

I was locked onto a solution for mass moment of inertia which is a solution in mm^4.

Basic rotating inertia is a quadratic with a solution in mm^2 but regardless the difference in the above example is 400mm^2 and 900mm^2 or 2.25 times the rotating inertia. So even with double the exhaust gas a larger turbo by 10mm is still going to exhibit a measurable lag response. Add to that tolerances will have to be greater in a larger turbo to account for inertial growth and life cycle creep.

who the fark invited you? :)

theory is all well and good, but sometimes it just dont work in real life

EDIT:- Im not saying that theory above dont work lol

What do you guys think of a RB25/30 with the GT35R and the small 0.63 ext ???

Too responsive for a sub 1000kg car ???

What's the point??? A GT35R (0.63) will produce similar results as a GT30R (0.82). I would personally go with the gt30r, with the 0.82 housing, as it would give a broader range of power. You may find that the 0.63 housing will choke the rb30, higher up in the rev range, causing the power to drop dramatically.

Even a GT35R (0.82) would be a great combo on a rb30det/t

theory is all well and good, but sometimes it just dont work in real life

EDIT:- Im not saying that theory above dont work lol

Then say nothing and appear wise grasshopper.

Usually only the uneducated cast doubt on the science and engineering, but hey, both are still booming industries.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • Nah - but you won't find anything on dismantling the seats in any such thing anyway.
    • Could be. Could also be that they sit around broken more. To be fair, you almost never see one driving around. I see more R chassis GTRs than the Renault ones.
    • Yeah. Nah. This is why I said My bold for my double emphasis. We're not talking about cars tuned to the edge of det here. We're talking about normal cars. Flame propagation speed and the amount of energy required to ignite the fuel are not significant factors when running at 1500-4000 rpm, and medium to light loads, like nearly every car on the road (except twin cab utes which are driven at 6k and 100% load all the time). There is no shortage of ignition energy available in any petrol engine. If there was, we'd all be in deep shit. The calorific value, on a volume basis, is significantly different, between 98 and 91, and that turns up immediately in consumption numbers. You can see the signal easily if you control for the other variables well enough, and/or collect enough stats. As to not seeing any benefit - we had a couple of EF and EL Falcons in the company fleet back in the late 90s and early 2000s. The EEC IV ECU in those things was particularly good at adding in timing as soon as knock headroom improved, which typically came from putting in some 95 or 98. The responsiveness and power improved noticeably, and the fuel consumption dropped considerably, just from going to 95. Less delta from there to 98 - almost not noticeable, compared to the big differences seen between 91 and 95. Way back in the day, when supermarkets first started selling fuel from their own stations, I did thousands of km in FNQ in a small Toyota. I can't remember if it was a Starlet or an early Yaris. Anyway - the supermarket servos were bringing in cheap fuel from Indonesia, and the other servos were still using locally refined gear. The fuel consumption was typically at least 5%, often as much as 8% worse on the Indo shit, presumably because they had a lot more oxygenated component in the brew, and were probably barely meeting the octane spec. Around the same time or maybe a bit later (like 25 years ago), I could tell the difference between Shell 98 and BP 98, and typically preferred to only use Shell then because the Skyline ran so much better on it. Years later I found the realtionship between them had swapped, as a consequence of yet more refinery closures. So I've only used BP 98 since. Although, I must say that I could not fault the odd tank of United 98 that I've run. It's probably the same stuff. It is also very important to remember that these findings are often dependent on region. With most of the refineries in Oz now dead, there's less variability in local stuff, and he majority of our fuels are not even refined here any more anyway. It probably depends more on which SE Asian refinery is currently cheapest to operate.
    • You don't have an R34 service manual for the body do you? Have found plenty for the engine and drivetrain but nothing else
    • If they can dyno them, get them dyno'd, make sure they're not leaking, and if they look okay on the dyno and are performing relatively well, put them in the car.   If they're leaking oil etc, and you feel so inclined, open them up yourself and see what you can do to fix it. The main thing you're trying to do is replace the parts that perish, like seals. You're not attempting to change the valving. You might even be able to find somewhere that has the Tein parts/rebuild kit if you dig hard.
×
×
  • Create New...