Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

hey guys i was just wondering i have seend a twin high mount manifold with only one pipe for the waste gate. i was just wondering what is the difference in performance with having one wastegate for two turbos to having two wastegates??

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/179107-waste-gates/
Share on other sites

i can't see how it would alter anything except how much air it can flow. i am assuming you are talking about external gates?

i don't think it could alter response from off boost to on boost since they would both be shut anyway as soon as the boost drops below what they are set at. so when you lift off on gear changes they would both close.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/179107-waste-gates/#findComment-3264782
Share on other sites

technically 2 smaller gates should be a little more responsive as they are operating smaller, lighter valves but in reality the only reason you'd run twin gates is if there wasn't a suitably sized/priced one for you to run one big one.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/179107-waste-gates/#findComment-3264820
Share on other sites

stupid noob question, but what are the advantages of having an external gate?

generally external gates offer greater flow and thus you get better boost control.

Internal gates can either be overwhelmed and be forced open at high boost levels which would result in a lower boost reading then desired or

when at high revs and high boost they may not be able to flow enough (ie too small) and this would create boost creep and you would have undesired overboost.

Thats why generally over 500hp, you dont really see many internal gates

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/179107-waste-gates/#findComment-3266072
Share on other sites

the tt supras jza80s run a single wastegate for both turbos, and with a simple exhasut made up it often makes them overboost cause the wastegate can't keep up with the two turbos. With an aftermarket system, it wouldnt make any difference with twin or single set up, as long as the size was right to handle the flow of the motor and turbo

Edited by R34GTFOUR
Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/179107-waste-gates/#findComment-3266075
Share on other sites

technically 2 smaller gates should be a little more responsive as they are operating smaller, lighter valves but in reality the only reason you'd run twin gates is if there wasn't a suitably sized/priced one for you to run one big one.

Id have to dissagree to everything there except for the cost.

The original poster was considering a twin turbo setup with either one of two wastegates. Aside from the fact you have two wastegates and associated piping thats going to cost you more and theres increased manufacturing complexity, i would say the advantages of running two over one would be:

- You now dont have both manifolds connected! And hence cross flow and increased turbulence is reduced allowing improve flow (as it was intended in the original manifold design) to the turbines

- Response is not neccessarily improved because of the smaller, lighter valves (i.e. less intertia beer baron) but because of the improve flow

- Control is no different as with a normal setup assuming your running a pressure referenced linear diaphram actuator as was the case with the original skyline gtr

Asides from cost, technically two wastegates would be better for a twin turbo setup.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/179107-waste-gates/#findComment-3266408
Share on other sites

Id have to dissagree to everything there except for the cost.

The original poster was considering a twin turbo setup with either one of two wastegates. Aside from the fact you have two wastegates and associated piping thats going to cost you more and theres increased manufacturing complexity, i would say the advantages of running two over one would be:

- You now dont have both manifolds connected! And hence cross flow and increased turbulence is reduced allowing improve flow (as it was intended in the original manifold design) to the turbines

- Response is not neccessarily improved because of the smaller, lighter valves (i.e. less intertia beer baron) but because of the improve flow

- Control is no different as with a normal setup assuming your running a pressure referenced linear diaphram actuator as was the case with the original skyline gtr

Asides from cost, technically two wastegates would be better for a twin turbo setup.

that's fine, except that most (all?) twin wastegate manifolds for skyline 6s I have seen run a balance pipe to connect the two manifolds.

with response, I was talking about the response of the wastegates, not boost response or engine response, and two 40mm gates should be more responsive to changes in pressure that say a single 60mm, but again it would not really be enough to be noticeable.

but sure, twin gates is nice, and if you are running twin big turbos then it's the best option for sure. but for a single turbo I would always just run one big, single gate.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/179107-waste-gates/#findComment-3266615
Share on other sites

I think running twin parallel turbos on an I6 and having a "balance tube" between the two manifolds is a stupid thing to do . One of the greatest advantages of having parallel twins is keeping the 123 456 exhaust events seperated . You keep the exhaust "putts" further (engine cycle wise) apart in seperate manifolds so that each cylinder blows down through each turbine housing and the pressure falls in each much faster before the next exhaust event . To be isolated eack turbo or manifold has to have its own wastegate and not share the exhaust pressure rise from the adjacent manifold .

If you cross connect the exhaust manifolds its the same as having a single turbo single scroll turbine housing . This system falls down because since every cylinder is venting into one passage (housing) there never is a low pressure period so you lose a significant amount of exhaust energy merely fighting a path from one end of each manifold leg to the turbine housing . Reversion is another significant negative .

My 2c spent .

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/179107-waste-gates/#findComment-3266961
Share on other sites

I think running twin parallel turbos on an I6 and having a "balance tube" between the two manifolds is a stupid thing to do . One of the greatest advantages of having parallel twins is keeping the 123 456 exhaust events seperated . You keep the exhaust "putts" further (engine cycle wise) apart in seperate manifolds so that each cylinder blows down through each turbine housing and the pressure falls in each much faster before the next exhaust event . To be isolated eack turbo or manifold has to have its own wastegate and not share the exhaust pressure rise from the adjacent manifold .

If you cross connect the exhaust manifolds its the same as having a single turbo single scroll turbine housing . This system falls down because since every cylinder is venting into one passage (housing) there never is a low pressure period so you lose a significant amount of exhaust energy merely fighting a path from one end of each manifold leg to the turbine housing . Reversion is another significant negative .

My 2c spent .

Exactly. I am for this very reason designing several prototype manifolds which will use a single twin scroll turbo and not less than two gates. Same reasoning as discos, completely seperating certain exhaust events (in my case 1-4 and 3-4).

Balance tubes or not having a splitter/divider seperating scrolls all the way up to the gate piston negates in almost everyway having a twin scroll system or in the case of a gtr, seperating 123 and 456.

Peace

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/179107-waste-gates/#findComment-3268000
Share on other sites

I think that was a typo , (1-4 , 2-3) .

There are some 4cyl twin scroll manifolds with a single wastegate but to have any hope of it working the division has to go all the way to the face of the wastegate valve , even this is not perfect because the divider must not touch the valve or it may not seal shut . If it was me with twins I reckon it'd be hard to resist the temptation to stay with integral wastegates because your getting twice the valve area . Also having the front and rear three cylinders isolated means that turbine inlet pressure will be lower and controlling the gates becomes easier because of it .

Whats a pair of 2530 IW turbos good for on a well set up engine , 600 odd Hp ? Maybe 450-500 if grafted onto an RB25DET ?

Cheers A .

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/179107-waste-gates/#findComment-3268530
Share on other sites

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

    • If as it's stalling, the fuel pressure rises, it's saying there's less vacuum in the intake manifold. This is pretty typical of an engine that is slowing down.   While typically is agree it sounds fuel related, it really sounds fuel/air mixture related. Since the whole system has been refurbished, including injectors, pump, etc, it's likely we've altered how well the system is delivering fuel. If someone before you has messed with the IACV because it needed fiddling with as the fuel system was dieing out, we need to readjust it back. Getting things back to factory spec everywhere, is what's going to help the entire system. So if it idles at 400rpm with no IACV, that needs raising. Getting factory air flow back to normal will help us get everything back in spec, and likely help chase down any other issues. Back on IACV, if the base idle (no IACV plugged in) is too far out, it's a lot harder for the ECU to control idle. The IACV duty cycle causes non linear variations in reality. When I've tuned the idle valves in the past, you need to keep it in a relatively narrow window on aftermarket ecus to stop them doing wild dances. It also means if your base idle is too low, the valve needs to open too much, and then the smallest % change ends up being a huge variation.
    • I guess one thing that might be wrong is the manifold pressure.  It is a constant -5.9 and never moves even under 100% throttle and load.  I would expect it to atleast go to 0 correct?  It's doing this with the OEM MAP as well as the ECU vacuum sensor. When trying to tune the base map under load the crosshairs only climb vertically with RPM, but always in the -5.9 column.
    • AHHHH gotchaa, I'll do that once I am home again. I tried doing the harness with the multimeter but it seems the car needed a jump, there was no power when it was in the "ON" position. Not sure if I should use car battery jump starter or if its because the stuff that has been disconnect the car just does send power.
    • As far as I can tell I have everything properly set in the Haltech software for engine size, injector data, all sensors seem to be reporting proper numbers.  If I change any injector details it doesnt run right.    Changing the base map is having the biggest change in response, im not sure how people are saying it doesnt really matter.  I'm guessing under normal conditions the ECU is able to self adjust and keep everything smooth.   Right now my best performance is happening by lowering the base map just enough to where the ECU us doing short term cut of about 45% to reach the target Lambda of 14.7.  That way when I start putting load on it still has high enough fuel map to not be so lean.  After 2500 rpm I raised the base map to what would be really rich at no load, but still helps with the lean spots on load.  I figure I don't have much reason to be above 2500rpm with no load.  When watching other videos it seems their target is reached much faster than mine.  Mine takes forever to adjust and reach the target. My next few days will be spent making sure timing is good, it was running fine before doing the ECU and DBW swap, but want to verify.  I'll also probably swap in the new injectors I bought as well as a walbro 255 pump.  
    • It would be different if the sealant hadn't started to peel up with gaps in the glue about ~6cm and bigger in some areas. I would much prefer not having to do the work take them off the car . However, the filler the owner put in the roof rack mount cavities has shrunk and begun to crack on the rail delete panels. I cant trust that to hold off moisture ingress especially where I live. Not only that but I have faded paint on as well as on either side of these panels, so they would need to come off to give the roofline a proper respray. My goal is to get in there and put a healthy amount of epoxy instead of panel filler/bog and potentially skin with carbon fiber. I have 2 spare rolls from an old motorcycle fairing project from a few years back and I think it'd be a nice touch on a black stag.  I've seen some threads where people replace their roof rack delete with a welded in sheet metal part. But has anyone re-worked the roof rails themselves? It seems like there is a lot of volume there to add in some threads and maybe a keyway for a quick(er) release roof rack system. Not afraid to mill something out if I have to. It would be cool to have a cross bar only setup. That way I can keep the sleek roofline that would accept a couple bolts to gain back that extra utility  3D print some snazzy covers to hide the threaded section to be thorough and keep things covered when not using the rack. 
×
×
  • Create New...