Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Has anyone used Billet turbos? http://www.billetturbochargers.com/

It does not seem that a lot of people have used them, I am assuming you could get a turbo built to specification with twin scroll housing, billet wheels look awesome too.

Mike

A member on NS used a twin scroll Billet turbo equivalent to a TO4Z on an SR. I'll see if can locate the dyno....and report back.

Yeah i agree on the 188 bieng a pretty poor choice, but i was not quiet thinking of going that big.. i just have the whole t88 kit minus the turbo at home.

Could the reason on the 3788 be its relativity new? or will it end up bieng a mis match affair.. does it really fall short bieng between 3582r-4088r what kind of power would a 3582 bring to a built 2.6 like mine?

will be running 98 pump fuel, was considering giving e85 a go but my engine builder is a bit iffy with it at the moment and recommends i wait a little till it gets established more. + i've bought all the fuel gear to run 98.

SR 2.2 litre Billet ZP turbo with twin scroll 1.0 ex a/r

300rwhp by a tad over 4500rpm, 400rwhp by 4,850rpm, 488rwhp 7500 rpm - looks like power was still climbing at 7500

post-50815-1210586602_thumb.jpg

That looks like a pretty sweet set up, equivalent to a TO4Z and you are at full noise at just over 4500rpm on a 2200cc engine. Looks pretty good, as I said I am not sure why more people do not go down this route?

Even a set of twins with billet wheels and fancy bearings (silicon nitride), able to flow the same as GT-RS's mounted on the standard cast manifolds would be cool as, I-rection.

Mike

  • 2 weeks later...

I've had the GT4088R, The Borg Warner S374, the S372R, and now the Billet 6765....soon to try the Billet 6262.

Being a Precision Distributor, I wanted to find out whether the hype surrounding the billet wheels was fact or fiction.

Going from a Borg Warner 72mm to a Precision 6765 netted me full boost 1700 RPM's sooner. (7000 vs 5300).

I lost about 40whp at peak, but picked up power throughout the powerband, which was worth the switch.

Here is my latest dyno graph, showing the T4 .68 A/R. Notice that torque/boost falls off, indicating the exhaust housing is too small. I have a .81 A/R backhousing on order, and should have some new dyno numbers to post this week.

They also make a .96 A/R, though I feel the .81 A/R is probably the housing to use on a street setup RB26.

25 PSI

25psi.jpg

33 PSI (Full Boost at 5300 RPM)

33psi.jpg

33 PSI with -4 Degrees Timing on the Intake Cam Gear (Full Boost at 5600 RPM)

33psiretardtiming.jpg

Good article that one , pretty much explains the differences advantages/disadvantages of both systems .

In the last section backpressure into TS/SS turbos is a crude term to use , exhaust gas pressure is a bit more informative to the wide audience these magazines get IMO .

Note that the "Minis" turbo is not huge and many of the OEM Mitsy and IHI turbos used on TS EJ's aren't either .

They are all about making lots of torque without lots of hot side restriction in front wheel drive based cars .

Evolutionm.net punters are just getting stuck into the Garrett bolt on TS GT3076R for Evo 10's , the results should be real good once they get around the hurdles of tinkering with late model cars .

As I keep saying twin scroll twin integral gate turbine housings is what makes a proper TS system a practical reality in a road car . The above mentioned GT3076R is probably the first aftermarket one and if it's a run away success we may see more as the petrol head world wakes up to their potential .

I'm pleased that the article made mention of exhaust gas temperature meaning emissions - NOx .

Fuel consumption can be improved through "cleaner" mixtures but its also a tuning/state of tune issue .

Its these things that stand a good chance of getting major manufacturers attention in this day and age .

Interesting times , cheers A .

All things being equal, for example:

Considering a standard stroke RB26 with mild cams and head work is the extra time and money involved in a properly set up twin scroll, single set up (TS manifold, twin gates, TS turbo housing) worth it in terms of performance over a well set up twin turbo system (assume ported manifold, high flowing dumps/exhaust)...?

Is the extra effort to make a proper TS set up, just to achieve what twins can already do in terms of performance?

Considering a standard stroke RB26 with mild cams and head work is the extra time and money involved in a properly set up twin scroll, single set up (TS manifold, twin gates, TS turbo housing) worth it in terms of performance over a well set up twin turbo system (assume ported manifold, high flowing dumps/exhaust)...?

Is the extra effort to make a proper TS set up, just to achieve what twins can already do in terms of performance?

Guess it depends on what you started with and what you want from it etc. If you go a twin scroll T4 based turbo upgrade you potentially don't have to change much in future, you have a more efficient setup (nicely designed manifolds/external wastegate setup), the engine bay is much more maintence friendly etc. And of course there is the whole obvious fact its just cooler :)

All things being equal, for example:

Considering a standard stroke RB26 with mild cams and head work is the extra time and money involved in a properly set up twin scroll, single set up (TS manifold, twin gates, TS turbo housing) worth it in terms of performance over a well set up twin turbo system (assume ported manifold, high flowing dumps/exhaust)...?

Is the extra effort to make a proper TS set up, just to achieve what twins can already do in terms of performance?

The benefits of twin scroll are not necessarily seen on the dyno as that is a WOT application - but partial throttle/transient response and the ability to spool and re-spool (on/off throttle applications) is where its at.

Some of the circuit racers in the US with SR's have switched to twin scroll from single scroll and are claiming to have dropped 2 sec's off there lap times - which is nothing short of incredible when they've probably already exhausted every other avenue to improve lap times.

A 2.5 litre Subaru that Geoff was involved with switched to a GT35 T4 twin scroll setup on an otherwise stock engine and set a lap record - even outgunning the new GTR.

Edited by juggernaut1
All things being equal, for example:

Considering a standard stroke RB26 with mild cams and head work is the extra time and money involved in a properly set up twin scroll, single set up (TS manifold, twin gates, TS turbo housing) worth it in terms of performance over a well set up twin turbo system (assume ported manifold, high flowing dumps/exhaust)...?

Is the extra effort to make a proper TS set up, just to achieve what twins can already do in terms of performance?

Twin scroll effectively tries to offer a twin turbo setup using one turbine... twin scroll just separates the pulses untill it hits the turbine where they will collide...

Twin turbos has no collission untill the exhaust, where you could infact run two exhausts and have no collission. Theoretically paralell twins will always be more responsive than twin scroll.

The benefits of twin scroll are not necessarily seen on the dyno as that is a WOT application - but partial throttle/transient response and the ability to spool and re-spool (on/off throttle applications) is where its at.

Yes, that is what I am trying to get at. I know you made mention of two examples but neither of them were originally a twin set up from factory like an RB26.

Lith, if you can quantify that increase in efficiency to 1/2 second per lap of what ever, which would be very important to some, then great. If not, then it looks like the extra expense/effort may not be worth it.

I guess this is more of a TS vs Twins not TS vs SS. Sorry, O.T.

Twin scroll effectively tries to offer a twin turbo setup using one turbine... twin scroll just separates the pulses untill it hits the turbine where they will collide...

Which is what you want? The turbine gets the full force of both.... without any "mess" from collisions before hand

Twin turbos has no collission untill the exhaust, where you could infact run two exhausts and have no collission. Theoretically paralell twins will always be more responsive than twin scroll.

I am not actually sure what to really expect, it would be interesting to know how they would compare but I personally can't see any obvious reason why twins would be more responsive. To be honest I'd almost expect a single to be a bit better in overall efficiency. The twins have a bit of a bonus in that they can have REALLY short runners, thats about it that I can think of.

I'm just putting out a guess.

I just think that with twin turbo the exhaust housing is unsplit and maintains an optimum flow path through the turbine.

wheras twin scroll just has a divider over the one turbine (divider leaves a compromised flow path) which can't be as efficient as having two seperate optimum flow paths over the turbine?

twin scroll would certanly work better than one large path but not sure it would work better than two smaller seperate paths

not sure if i'm making much sense:

post-41232-1243304140_thumb.jpg

i think the next thing that is to be adopted is them size varying turbines (dont know what they are called?) from diesel truck world. as the turbine speed increases the turbine opens up creating a bigger turbine so you get response and top end! seen them but only on trucks so far :D

Edited by GT-RZ
I'm just putting out a guess.

I just think that with twin turbo the exhaust housing is unsplit and maintains an optimum flow path through the turbine.

wheras twin scroll just has a divider over the one turbine (divider leaves a compromised flow path) which can't be as efficient as having two seperate optimum flow paths over the turbine?

twin scroll would certanly work better than one large path but not sure it would work better than two smaller seperate paths

Yeah definitely, we're all really hypothesising :D

I see what you are saying and not really too sure it would cause that much compromise - you'd pick the a/r to suit the fact its a split pulse housing... ie, with twins you'd maybe go .64a/r whereas on a single you'd be looking at .95-1.06.

Gases are inherantly good at being squeezed/forced places, so I am sure that the divide facing the turbine isn't going to worry them toooo much given that they are basically being forced at a bunch of spinning blades and are bound to expand, squish and swirl in all sorts of weird ways anyway.

I also like the fact that with the twin scroll setup there is a constant stream of pulses hitting the turbine, it will always have leverage on it whereas each of the twins will potentially have a far greater oscillation pre-turbine due to the gap between pulses. I really don't know for sure though, though its interesting to ponder. The twin scroll setups I have been exposed to honestly have blown me away in terms of response and spool, though I have never been in a car with twins that is using a similar engine spec and power level to another car running a twin scroll single to give a fair comparison.

I have however been in GTR running a single scroll .82a/r GT35R making similar power (getting towards 400kw @ wheels) and similar engine spec to ones running twin GT2530s and I reckon the GT35R setup was more responsive (at worst equivalent), so given the range of advantages a twin scroll 1.06 T4 setup on the same car would bring I dare say there would be no comparison between such a setup and a pair of GT2530s. It may not be apples and apples though as I suspect GT2530s might be capable of making more power.

Edited by Lithium
Yes, that is what I am trying to get at. I know you made mention of two examples but neither of them were originally a twin set up from factory like an RB26.

Lith, if you can quantify that increase in efficiency to 1/2 second per lap of what ever, which would be very important to some, then great. If not, then it looks like the extra expense/effort may not be worth it.

I guess this is more of a TS vs Twins not TS vs SS. Sorry, O.T.

Whilst I'd love to....I can't show you any real life comparisons of the RB26 with TS vs twins.

  • 6 months later...

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 been being VERY quiet about what you're alluding to, as it is something that ticks me off... The number of cars from factory that run coil overs is HUGE! Most of them these days do... The other part that annoys me, is people saying "Well all the incabin adjustable suspension is illegal by blah blah blah"... If that's the case, then why can I buy a car brand new that can do it if, FULL STOP in cabin adjustable suspension is illegal...   Also, I could just chuck some aftermarket shocks in my car, throw the stock springs on, after my blue slip, dump my super low springs back in. Same shock and spring style setup... Hell, they could also be the same colour springs etc.     I'm voting, BlueSlipper didn't want to touch the above car for some reason. Whether it be some sort of bias against the car, the owner, them maybe having previously done dodgy shit and now they're being super careful in case they get slapped in the face by the Gumbyment again... Find a new blueslip place.   And can confirm as you had said, yes there are holy bibles of vehicle heights, and all sorts of other suspension stuff. Heck your run of the mill mechanic, and tyre shop has access to all of that stuff. It's how they do wheel alignments...
    • Funny story Heading to Sydney this morning on the HWY there was some slow traffic, so I gave it the beans and midway through my overtaking "power run" I lost all power It seems that I missed a hose clamp,  and the MAF and filter went WiFi To make this more problematic, the little tool kit that lives in the boot, is sitting in the sun room at Goulburn......LOL Luckily for me I found a bit of steel on the side of the road that could be used like a rusty and bent flat head screw driver to tighten it up enough that it got me into Sydney, it is now all tight like a tiger with the aid of a 8mm socket Note to self: Use my brain and double check stuff, and always keep that little tool kit in the car for when I have a brain fart
    • Oh, and as for everyone with their fuel economy changes, I switch between E10 and 98 in the company car. Even do when I had personal cars that could run on E10. You know what changed my fuel economy in any noticeable way? How I drove, and where I drove. Otherwise, say on full tanks of just back and forth from work only (So same trips, same sort of traffic), couldn't notice a difference that I can correlate to the type of fuel in use. In the current vehicle, that's over 42L of USABLE fuel. While 98 is all "more energy dense", it also has higher knock resistance as it takes more energy to get it to ignite too. The longer hydrocarbons, typically more tightly bound. So running the same ignition map, can also produce less power, if there isn't enough time to get it all burnt through properly, as yep, the flame propagation speed is different from lower octane fuel to higher (Higher has a lower flame propagation, due to the more tightly bound and harder to self ignite funs. This is also typically where, a vehicle that is designed purely to run on 91 (Whether it be E10 or normal 91) usually sees absolutely no real world difference in fuel economy for the normal man, woman, or dog.
    • We've got some servos around me that have 91 with E10, 91 (no E10), 95, and 98. At those stations the change from 91 E10 to 91, is typically around 8c/L.   But lets not get started on the price of fuel in Oz. It's ridiculous. All the service stations around me, bar one, the price of fuel has been over the $2 mark per litre for the cheapest, 98 being around $2.45. That one service station is a CostCo, fuel from it comes from the same refineries, and makes no pitstops, it runs great, including the 98. In fact, I've had no issues on CostCo fuel, but plenty of issues at other stations!. The CostCo fuel, was $1.65 roughly this week for 94 with E10. $1.88 for 98. Servos directly across from it, $2.10 for 91 E10, and $2.48 for 98. The part I had to laugh at? If I drive multiple HOURS away from Brisbane, say out near Nanango, or Kingaroy, or even out to Goondiwindi, the price of their fuel, is the same as what it is at the CostCo... Oh, and that BP servo at Goondiwindi is HUGE and goes through epic turnover of fuel, so it's not sitting there for weeks going to shit. And what blows me away, my mate is one of the people who drives the Fuel Tanker all around QLD, delivering to all those places. At the same company his previous role was doing the "local haul" deliveries... Same truck, same driver, same pickup point it all comes from. So you tell me, how the hell it is 60c/L CHEAPER for fuel, when nearly all else is equal, except they require a B-Double to drive half a day out of Brisbane, and half a day back, every second day, compared to the delivery that can be under 30 minutes drive from the fuel pickup point... Not to mention, go five blocks down the road, and Ampol to Ampol will vary 30c/L... And I've had this conversation with my mate... The way it's priced, is just typical, pure and utter rubbish... He also does runs from Brisbane, to all over QLD, down to Newcastle, Sydney, Nowra, Melbourne, Geelong, and even out to parts of the NT depending on the companies needs. His main stuff is all the longer distance away from home for a few days at a time, then when he's back, he loves to just pickup extra shifts wherever he can in whichever truck, hence all the weird different places.   Oh, as for getting E10 into all the fuels in Australia... It was very quickly highlighted, that we don't have enough biomass available to use to make E10 sustainably like they require, and it would dramatically cut into our, and the worlds food chain supply...   I vote we all just start running on liquid methane gas... Plenty of that just getting tapped off at tips from underground decay... (Note, this is pure just stupid commenting. I could very easily highlight the reasons its not a good idea especially on scale...)
    • Am I correct in assuming that the R35's are getting the classic skyline haircut off the odometer?  Quick search on carsales, there are 33 08 and 09 GTR's for sale, only 2 of them have more then 100,000km's on them (116,075 and 110,000 respectively).  And somehow there are about 25 for sale with around 60,000kms? Looks like the classic skyline haircut to me =/
×
×
  • Create New...