Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

I understand Ricky from Billet Turbos fame makes divided manifolds on a request basis (under the guise of Fantasy Manifolds) and has been doing so for quite a number of years apparently.

Also I spoke to Kyle at 6Boost about the prospect of making a divided manifold before I bought the Full-Race mani. I only went with Full-Race because the $A was $0.96 at the time (so the the price of the kit was half reasonable) and that it came as a complete kit i.e. I didn't have to separately source the divided ex housing (which I guess could have ordered through ATP) and down pipe (could have been custom made), v-band flanges, twin gates etc. Also Kyle had suggested to use the dual gates for true twin scroll on the SR setup even before Full-Race had started making them.

  • 7 months later...
  • Replies 81
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

There is one option no one seems to have looked into and that's using the big frame diesel GT35 T4 flanged twin scroll twin integral gate (TWIG - twin wastegate internal gig) housing and fit a Garrett GT3782R into it .

Sure it means profile turning a GT35 turbined housing to suit a GT37 turbine , which just happens to be in 78 trim instead of the 35's 84trim , but may be workable .

That would get you T4 flange/twin scroll/twin integral gates/a big frame turbo with the same compressor wheel as a small frame GT3582R - and in a REAL GT40 compressor housing - not the T04S one .

IMO the GT3582R is too much Bitzer , spin off from the HKS spec "GT3240" which had the turbine cropped and the comp wheel in 54T instead of 56T .

A .

These are the only dyno's I have re the tune which as you can see were done a while ago. The tune was never completely finished because my tuner was borrowing a dyno on the day and ran out of duno time. Also need to fix up the boost drop in the top end. Note the ambient temp was around 36 degrees when these were done. I have had it on another dyno since in cooler conditions and it made a couple of more psi across the board at the same rpm - for instance it was making 26 psi by 4000rpm - no printout to show unfortunately.

This dyno done in 4th gear - (5th is 1:1 in my car as I have a 6 speed close ratio Nismo box):

Dyno1-1.jpg

Same dyno as above overlaid onto a different s15 with single scroll 3071 ex gate on 6boost manifold 256/256 poncams and stock intake.

Dyno2.jpg

This dyno done in 5th gear (1:1) after retarding the ex cam a couple of degrees - picked up more low and mid and lost top end - revved to 8,000rpm although shown in klm/h. I know the scaling is crap on the horizontal line. One day I will get a better printout. Going to try a 3076 and I have a 205 litre drum of E85 sitting in my garage. However, lost my licence for 6 months under WA's hoon laws (yes in this car) so not being able to drive knocks back the enthusiasm a bit to get it done. :(

Dyno11.jpg

Oh...and an update engine bay pic.

SR20Build019.jpg

Edited by juggernaut1

looks shmick juggernaut. is the the highest power you have made so far?

i just fitted my 3071r t28 flange .86 56T, running a GK tech manifold modded for external gate, and running stock inlet.

cant wait to get it tuned with my solid 260 12mm tomei cams. hoping to make some numbers close to yours.

DVSJEZ

Well thats the most power that its made that I have evidence of......which was the day of its initial tune after the motor was run in - but I'm sure it makes more power on a cold day/night....as any turbo car would :thumbsup:

Actually I tell a lie - it made around another 10rwhp when the ex cam was straight up which was then retarded a couple of degrees.

Edited by juggernaut1
  • 3 months later...

Nice build. We are undertaking a similar twin scroll set-up at the moment.

In regards to the wastegate vacuum lines, it looks like you are using a boost controller and thus utilising both the side and top ports of the wategates?

I take it you have run it like this (using GReddy Profec B Spec II solenoid as an example):

1) plenum -> boost controller.

2) plenum -> solenoid (NC)

3) plenum -> solenoid (COM) -> T fitting -> top port of each wastegate

4) plenum -> T fitting -> side port of each wastegate

As this would help provide pressure on the diaphragm to keep the gate shut, instead of just relying on the spring.

  • 3 weeks later...

OK so my car is now at C-Red for the turbo and exhaust upgrade. They ran it on the dyno to get a base hp figure before the upgrades. I get a call from C-Red and they make the comment that the car has an excellent and progressive power curve for street and circuit duties, and that the power delivery is typical of a 6 cylinder.......and that they wouldn't change a thing including the turbo!!!

So now I'm in a quandry what to do.....Lol.

Don't worry Dane, you'll get the 3071 turbo. :thumbsup:

They also picked up that the 3071 turbo was slightly surging as it came onto boost which is what I always suspected as the twin scroll setup seems to spin the compressor early in the rpm range....and which is why I was leaning towards the 3076 with surge ports as the logical upgrade. Another solution would be to advance the exhaust cam - when the car was initially tuned we retarded the ex cam a couple of degrees to give more low end at the expense of some top end.

Also before it went to C-Red I also changed the diff ratio from 3.69 to 4.08 and the acceleration is insane. I did keep the stock diff in case I need to revert back for improved traction.

PSI Parts.....my boost lines are referenced to the compressor....and not the plenum as suggested by you.

Will post up developments as they arise.

Edited by juggernaut1

If you have a look at ATPs site they are now selling twin inlet GT30 turbine housings in from memory 0.82 and 1.06 A/R ratio .

If I was going to do another turbo I'd think about a GT3076R and give consideration to the 52T version . You don't necessarily have to use the port shrouded compressor housing on a 2L four cylinder particularly if the turbine housing ratio is up there .

I don't remember what size your exhaust was off the turbo but if it'll fit 3.5" would be good - need big pipes for the first meter or so off these turbos IMO .

A .

Disco,

I have both the 3076 52 trim and a 3076 56 trim turbo's at my disposal. I was going to opt for the 52 trim.

I had the .78 housing extrude honed in the states...but I am still waiting to receive this from the courier. The .82 and 1.06 came out after the housing was extrude honed....bugger.

Yes I have a 3.5 inch exhaust to go on. Will need custom 3.5 inch dump pipe to be made up....currently 3 inch.

Edited by juggernaut1
OK so my car is now at C-Red for the turbo and exhaust upgrade. They ran it on the dyno to get a base hp figure before the upgrades. I get a call from C-Red and they make the comment that the car has an excellent and progressive power curve for street and circuit duties, and that the power delivery is typical of a 6 cylinder.......and that they wouldn't change a thing including the turbo!!!

So now I'm in a quandry what to do.....Lol.

Don't worry Dane, you'll get the 3071 turbo. :thumbsup:

They also picked up that the 3071 turbo was slightly surging as it came onto boost which is what I always suspected as the twin scroll setup seems to spin the compressor early in the rpm range....and which is why I was leaning towards the 3076 with surge ports as the logical upgrade. Another solution would be to advance the exhaust cam - when the car was initially tuned we retarded the ex cam a couple of degrees to give more low end at the expense of some top end.

Also before it went to C-Red I also changed the diff ratio from 3.69 to 4.08 and the acceleration is insane. I did keep the stock diff in case I need to revert back for improved traction.

PSI Parts.....my boost lines are referenced to the compressor....and not the plenum as suggested by you.

Will post up developments as they arise.

Noice

I get a call from C-Red and they make the comment that the car has an excellent and progressive power curve for street and circuit duties, and that the power delivery is typical of a 6 cylinder.......and that they wouldn't change a thing including the turbo!!!

So now I'm in a quandry what to do.....Lol.

Don't worry Dane, you'll get the 3071 turbo. :ermm:

:thumbsup:

Great to hear that C-Red think so highly of the setup, bodes well for the use of it with a 2.2 me thinks, unless the surging issue becomes a problem.

But I'll be really interested to see how you go with the 52 76R. Who knows, we may end up swapping turbo's at some point! :bunny:

Dane, you will love it....if its great on a 2 litre it will be fantastic on a 2.2. IMO surging will be less of a problem on yours as you have bigger cams and bigger cylinders. As previously stated I have ex cam adjusted for better low end too which may have contributed/caused the issue.

Edited by juggernaut1

I'm positive I will Ian! :ermm:

I actually had my surging mixed up in my head just then, thinking it was too much efficiency in the engine for the turbo, rather than the other way around :thumbsup: Funny, last time I checked I wasn't blonde!

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

    • God damnit. The only option I actually have in the software is the one that is screenshotted. I am glad that I at least got it right... for those two points. Would it actually change anything if I chose/used 80C and 120C as the two points instead? My brain wants to imagine the formula put into HPtuners would be the same equation, otherwise none of this makes sense to me, unless: 1) The formula you put into VCM Scanner/HPTuners is always linear 2) The two points/input pairs are only arbitrary to choose (as the documentation implies) IF the actual scaling of the sensor is linear. then 3) If the scaling is not linear, the two points you choose matter a great deal, because the formula will draw a line between those two points only.
    • Nah, that is hella wrong. If I do a simple linear between 150°C (0.407v) and 50°C (2.98v) I get the formula Temperature = -38.8651*voltage + 165.8181 It is perfectly correct at 50 and 150, but it is as much as 20° out in the region of 110°C, because the actual data is significantly non-linear there. It is no more than 4° out down at the lowest temperatures, but is is seriously shit almost everywhere. I cannot believe that the instruction is to do a 2 point linear fit. I would say the method I used previously would have to be better.
    • When I said "wiring diagram", I meant the car's wiring diagram. You need to understand how and when 12V appears on certain wires/terminals, when 0V is allowed to appear on certain wires/terminals (which is the difference between supply side switching, and earth side switching), for the way that the car is supposed to work without the immobiliser. Then you start looking for those voltages in the appropriate places at the appropriate times (ie, relay terminals, ECU terminals, fuel pump terminals, at different ignition switch positions, and at times such as "immediately after switching to ON" and "say, 5-10s after switching to ON". You will find that you are not getting what you need when and where you need it, and because you understand what you need and when, from working through the wiring diagram, you can then likely work out why you're not getting it. And that will lead you to the mess that has been made of the associated wires around the immobiliser. But seriously, there is no way that we will be able to find or lead you to the fault from here. You will have to do it at the car, because it will be something f**ked up, and there are a near infinite number of ways for it to be f**ked up. The wiring diagram will give you wire colours and pin numbers and so you can do continuity testing and voltage/time probing and start to work out what is right and what is wrong. I can only close my eyes and imagine a rat's nest of wiring under the dash. You can actually see and touch it.
    • So I found this: https://www.efihardware.com/temperature-sensor-voltage-calculator I didn't know what the pullup resistor is. So I thought if I used my table of known values I could estimate it by putting a value into the pullup resistor, and this should line up with the voltages I had measured. Eventually I got this table out of it by using 210ohms as the pullup resistor. 180C 0.232V - Predicted 175C 0.254V - Predicted 170C 0.278V - Predicted 165C 0.305V - Predicted 160C 0.336V - Predicted 155C 0.369V - Predicted 150C 0.407V - Predicted 145C 0.448V - Predicted 140C 0.494V - Predicted 135C 0.545V - Predicted 130C 0.603V - Predicted 125C 0.668V - Predicted 120C 0.740V - Predicted 115C 0.817V - Predicted 110C 0.914V - Predicted 105C 1.023V - Predicted 100C 1.15V 90C 1.42V - Predicted 85C 1.59V 80C 1.74V 75C 1.94V 70C 2.10V 65C 2.33V 60C 2.56V 58C 2.68V 57C 2.70V 56C 2.74V 55C 2.78V 54C 2.80V 50C 2.98V 49C 3.06V 47C 3.18V 45C 3.23V 43C 3.36V 40C 3.51V 37C 3.67V 35C 3.75V 30C 4.00V As before, the formula in HPTuners is here: https://www.hptuners.com/documentation/files/VCM-Scanner/Content/vcm_scanner/defining_a_transform.htm?Highlight=defining a transform Specifically: In my case I used 50C and 150C, given the sensor is supposedly for that. Input 1 = 2.98V Output 1 = 50C Input 2 = 0.407V Output 2 = 150C (0.407-2.98) / (150-50) -2.573/100 = -0.02573 2.98/-0.02573 + 47.045 = 50 So the corresponding formula should be: (Input / -0.02573) + 47.045 = Output.   If someone can confirm my math it'd be great. Supposedly you can pick any two pairs of the data to make this formula.
×
×
  • Create New...