Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

hi guys. i have been thinking about this for quite some time and cant figure it out properly. is it possible to compare the flow rates of the rear housings of say a t3 0.82 housing to like a t4 housing?

say for example something like this.

- a t3 0.82 might flow close to a t4 0.63

- a t4 0.84 might flow close to a t3 1.06 sorta like that

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/328669-comparing-t3-ar-to-t4-ar/
Share on other sites

It not really as simple as that because not all turbine and housing families are created equally .

They are in any case a two piece combination meaning the turbine and the turbine housing , neither does anything useful without the other .

The Area Radius ratio relates to the volume of the passage leading to the housings nozzle section . It makes the grand assumption that no ones bored the housing out for a larger diameter turbine as well .

If the question you are asking is can the mass flow rates be compared then the answer is yes . If you are asking is there a direct numerical conversion ratio wise from T3 to T4 then I would say no . The reason being that the turbine wheel has a lot of say about how the combination flows and there can be a big variation in what people call "T3" turbines and a few different T4 ones .

You have to understand that what say I call a T3 turbine is the heavy inefficient little horror fitted to Z18's FJ20's RB30's etc . There is a range of TA31/TB31 turbines that many call T3/Sierra dash 1/2/3 . Not really T3 but jammed into old T3 housings not really suited to them .

The Buick Grand National stuff was called "T3" But I think they come under the TB41 family .

Also confusion exists because you can have internally T3 dimensioned housings with T4 mounting flanges on them and T4 housings with a T3 like flange on them . I kid you not some diesel tractors have 1.06 A/R twin scroll T4 International mount flanges on them but with quite small gas inlet ports . Inside lives a dinky little early 70's tech T3 turbine .

What exactly are you looking at ?

A .

I think your query is a little more specific than the flow of T3 to T4, more so the flow of your specific turbos you have just mentioned.

I gather you are trying to make a turbine housing to one of your options to match the flow rate of your other option in its set housing. As disco said, they are not directly comparable, but looking at the turbine maps more so than the AR sizes is a good start.

GL

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


  • Latest Posts

    • I feel I should re-iterate. The above picture is the only option available in the software and the blurb from HP Tuners I quoted earlier is the only way to add data to it and that's the description they offer as to how to figure it out. The only fields available is the blank box after (Input/ ) and the box right before = Output. Those are the only numbers that can be entered.
    • No, your formula is arse backwards. Mine is totally different to yours, and is the one I said was bang on at 50 and 150. I'll put your data into Excel (actually it already is, chart it and fit a linear fit to it, aiming to make it evenly wrong across the whole span. But not now. Other things to do first.
    • 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.
×
×
  • Create New...