Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Quite a different way of doing it, mixed long term reliability results for them but SP and a like of the Supra guys stand by them. Be aware that if comparing with the QSV on vs QSV off results published - that is comparing the performance a dual entry turbo on a single entry manifold (ie, a shit way of doing it) with the QSV behaviour, a PROPER single entry turbo on a single entry manifold, or even better a fully implemented twin scroll setup will perform substantially better overall than the "QSV off" scenario these guys will be showing.


Just IMHO, but worth considering I reckon.

  • 1 year later...

Actually due to the smaller merge it would increase the gas speed and improve response, you would probably get the best outcome that way imo, especially if mated to a gate off the housing or getting a decent angle on the twin gate pipes.

Extending the split further into the turbine housing, past the T3 flange and tapering it would help too.

  • Like 1

I don't think you get better gas speed at all, not on a streeter, atleast not with the 6boost low mount I had, the pipes diameter and length and the merge collector were way bigger than a stock manifold. The merge looks massive to me, too big...

Ryno's comment about a 1inch runner diameter sounds most effective to me based on my short experience.

Maybe you could weld a tighter collector into a v band to raise the gas speed for response????

post-70965-0-75157400-1425900962_thumb.jpg

post-70965-0-19046200-1425901015_thumb.jpg

Edited by AngryRB

Hmmm, so you want faster gas speeds to spool up quicker right?

Run the smallest diameter runners on the manifold, as you can, for the power your producing.

But just remember as the power levels go up, you will need to increase them to flow enough so they are not a restriction.

Some of the better manifold builders ask for a power goal so they can select the best runner diameter to help. Something up to 800Hp has smaller diameter runners than something producing 1200Hp

Running a big runner manifold for a lower power build is as bad as running a smaller power manifold on a big power turbo.

Bigger is not always better.....

  • Like 1

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

    • I have no hard data to report, but I have to say, having driven it to work and back all week, mostly on wet roads (and therefore mostly not able to contemplate anything too outrageous anywhere)..... it is real good. I turned the boost controller on, with duty cycle set to 10% (which may not be enough to actually increase the boost), and the start boost set to 15 psi. That should keep the gate unpressurised until at least 15 psi. And rolling at 80 in 5th, which is <2k rpm, going to WOT sees the MAP go +ve even before it crosses 2k and it has >5 psi by the time it hits 90 km/h. That's still <<2.5k rpm, so I think it's actually doing really well. Because of all the not-quite-ideal things that have been in place since the turbo first went on, it felt laggy. It's actually not. The response appears to be as good as you could hope for with a highflow.
    • Or just put in a 1JZ, and sell me the NEO head 😎
    • Oh, it's been done. You just run a wire out there and back. But they have been known to do coolant temp sensors, MAP sensors, etc. They're not silly (at Regency Park) and know what's what with all the different cars.
    • Please ignore I found the right way of installing it thanks
    • There are advantages, and disadvantages to remapping the factory.   The factory runs billions of different maps, to account for sooooo many variables, especially when you bring in things like constantly variable cams etc. By remapping all those maps appropriately, you can get the car to drive so damn nicely, and very much so like it does from the factory. This means it can utilise a LOT of weird things in the maps, to alter how it drives in situations like cruise on a freeway, and how that will get your fuel economy right down.   I haven't seen an aftermarket ECU that truly has THAT MANY adjustable parameters. EG, the VAG ECUs are somewhere around 2,000 different tables for it to work out what to do at any one point in time. So for a vehicle being daily driven etc, I see this as a great advantage, but it does mean spending a bit more time, and with a tuner who really knows that ECU.   On the flip side, an aftermarket ECU, in something like a weekender, or a proper race car, torque based tuning IMO doesn't make that much sense. In those scenarios you're not out there hunting down stuff like "the best way to minimise fuel usage at minor power so that we can go from 8L/100km to 7.3L/100km. You're more worried about it being ready to make as much freaking power as possible when you step back on the loud pedal as you come out of turn 2, not waiting the extra 100ms for all the cams to adjust etc. So in this scenario, realistically you tune the motor to make power, based on the load. People will then play with things like throttle response, and drive by wire mapping to get it more "driveable".   Funnily enough, I was watching something Finnegans Garage, and he has a huge blown Hemi in a 9 second 1955 Chev that is road registered. To make it more driveable on the road recently, they started testing blocking up the intake with kids footballs, to effectively reduce air flow when they're on the road, and make the throttle less touchy and more driveable. Plus some other weird shit the yankee aftermarket ECUs do. Made me think of Kinks R34...
×
×
  • Create New...