Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Ok i'll admit im a n00b with turbos i understand the basic principal of turbocharging but i get lost when we start talking compressor maps,efficiencies and air flow ratings the thing i want to ask is.

For arguments sake lets say i had a rb26 running a single 700hp turbo would it produce as much or more Kw than the same engine with 2x 350hp turbo's on it all other things being equal.

If the twins produced the same amount of power would it do it quicker than the single,due to having smaller area and wheels to turn.

On paper the way i look at it they both should put out the same amount being both able to flow 700hp or does it not work the way.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/219468-n00b-turbo-question/
Share on other sites

www.turbobygarrett.com will help with the noobism.

Beyond that 2x350=700 so yes they are equal.

I think the question you are trying to ask is "for an equivalent output will the twin turbo arrangement be more responsive in the mid range than the single?"

Which is actually a very difficult question to answer because it is so dependent on the turbos themselves.

The conventional wisdom is, however, that the answer is yes.

www.turbobygarrett.com will help with the noobism.

Beyond that 2x350=700 so yes they are equal.

I think the question you are trying to ask is "for an equivalent output will the twin turbo arrangement be more responsive in the mid range than the single?"

Which is actually a very difficult question to answer because it is so dependent on the turbos themselves.

The conventional wisdom is, however, that the answer is yes.

Thanx for the response what i would like to know is would either set up make more totoal power obviously the twins would be more responsive i understand that part big turbo=lag but can it be compensated by having to smaller turbo's with the same flow rate make the same total power output

Thanx for the response what i would like to know is would either set up make more totoal power obviously the twins would be more responsive i understand that part big turbo=lag but can it be compensated by having to smaller turbo's with the same flow rate make the same total power output

Um well your initial assumption was both setups made the same power, so I am lost.

If you are asking is it possible to have (slightly) more power and better response/midrange when comparing one set up to another then yes. But again it depends a great deal on the engine, the turbo and the tune.

At the end of the day flow rate equals power - you get roughly 10 hp for every 1 lb/min of airflow. Boost is just a means of measuring how inefficient the air flow is.

Which is actually a very difficult question to answer because it is so dependent on the turbos themselves.

Great statement, sums it up really well :wub:

Plus the type, twin scroll, and all the other factors like whats goin on at the motor setup and so on.

i think he means... if it adds up to 700hp, or is simply 700hp, it will flow enough air for roughly 700hp. but when you put it on the car, they rarely make exactly 700hp, so which one will be closer??

and the answer is... they both have enough flow potential for 700hp :)

i think he means... if it adds up to 700hp, or is simply 700hp, it will flow enough air for roughly 700hp. but when you put it on the car, they rarely make exactly 700hp, so which one will be closer??

and the answer is... they both have enough flow potential for 700hp :)

Thankyou getting closer to the answer i am after will both setups make the same amount of power all else being equal in other words will be twins make the same power but just get there quicker is what i want to know

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

    • 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.
    • Can you also make sure the invoices on the box (And none exist in the boxes) are below our import duty limits... I jest, there's nothing I need to actually purchase and order in. (Unless you can find me a rear diff carrier, brand new, for stupidly cheap, that is for a Toyota Landcruiser, HZJ105R GXL, 2000 year model...)  
×
×
  • Create New...