Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

I'll try to minimise on the ramble as much as possible.

I've notice these days on the markets there are a few options for twin scroll turbos for the humble RBs, but what I've notice is that the manifold choices available which sometimes confuses me on what the best possible setup is.

1. Manifolds that group Cylinders 123 and 456 together and have 1x external wastegate mount (not true twin scroll manifold as the exhaust pressure clashes at the collector -> gate mount)

RB+Manifold+Single+wastegate+Twin+scroll.jpg

2. Manifolds that group Cylinders 123 and 456 together and have 2x external wastegate mount (true twin scroll manifold, separate gas flow for grouped cylinders, mimising exhaust back pressure )

R14turbomanifold.jpg

3. Manifolds that group Cylinders 123 and 456 and have no gate mount, makes use of the turbo's waste gate

Imagine the previous with external waste gates blocked off & a turbo like the below from a WRX:

atp_wrx_sti_gt_upgrade_ex.jpg

Point 1, the purpose of a twin scroll manifold is to purely group the exhaust gases so that there is less exhaust back pressure & chances of other post fired cylinders sucking back the exhaust gases. If the collector merges the 2x groups, is there really a point in that manifold might as well just have a 6 to 1 collector instead of a split collector

Point 2: Ideally the right setup, but the most expensive and the most complicated (usually A/C lines are removed etc.)

Point 3: The V Band clamp on the housing would eliminate the need to run 2x gates and make the manifold more simple, I've seen weldies here but not the off the shelf kit as so.

Now, I like the ideal of Point 3, but I have yet to see an off the shelf turbo with such housing with a V Band clamp on it, I have see people weld them on, but that's another cost to add. i prefer off the shelf kits because of cost and aesthetics. With Point 3 what are the Cons to it? At the moment I only see Pros to it because:

  1. No need cut and shut turbo exhause housing
  2. True twin scroll, exhaust gases from cylinder 123 and 456 ever only meet in the exhaust housing
  3. Looks more "stock" (I'm ready to cop ccriticism on this)
  4. Minimises pipe work, ultimately leads to a nicer setup.

Ideally, what setup would yield the best response and torque?

Well, maybe you're a little off base. It's not about "back pressure". Grouping the pulses together is literally about grouping the pulses together. There is an even spread of 3 pulses in each group, separated by the same numbers of degrees of rotation. This gives a slightly better response by nozzling each group separately onto the turbine.

These pulses are not just static pressure. They are also a burst of gas travelling at rather high speed. There is a lot of velocity pressure involved. So realistically, for any given twin scroll manifold that had just the one wastegate offtake, as long as the wastegate offtake from each half of the manifold was not directly connected to each other (ie ideally if there were separate short pipes from each half that merged together where the wastegate mounts) then the pulses are still going to travel direct to the turbine as required.

And that is exactly what your top photo shows, and that is perfectly fine with me.

You have to remember that there are two operating modes here. 1) The engine is not on boost yet. The wastegate(s) is(are) closed. All the flow is twoards the turbine. The pulses will travel past the wastegate offtakes. Maybe there'll be some leakage of each pulse via the wastegate connection to the other group of three, but it won't be heaps. 2) The engine is on boost. When on boost the exhaust manifold pressure is pretty high and some of the gas is always making the turn to flow towards the wastegate. The exhaust pulses now have a lot more velocity energy and will still travel towards the turbine, and a portion of gas will flow to the wastegate. That flow towards the wastegate will have its own velocity pressure, and as the direction of that flow is towards the wastegate itself, there will be only a small amount of "leakage" back towards the other group of 3 from each pulse.

I simply wouldn't worry about it. I'm sure that a true double wastegate design is the best overall, but the margin is probably reasonably small.

Weld wastegate pipe onto turbine housing and have no gate pipe off the manifold. Better response, more power, end story

That was what I was thinking, as per Point 3. That 3076 for a WRX has a V Band clamp on the exhaust housing for an external gate. Nice and clean setup, no need to cut and shut a $2k turbo. In saying that, I have yet to see one adapted to a RB.

My last two turbo setups had the gate off the turbine housing, you can make it look great if you have a good fab/welder guy.

heya NYTSKY, sorry I meant to say off the shelf turbo for a RB motor with a V Band clamp as below. I have seen a several setups where wastegates mounts are welded to the turbine housing. I have yet to see anything below used on a RB motor.

ATP-SUB-008-3.jpg

I have my own thoughts on how to mount a wastegate. Will be poutting it to test soon and hopefully will work waaay much better then the current 6boost-Turbosmart arrangment

Lets see a MSPaing Jig! Share share!

That housing is used on a specific motor/turbo arrangement. I highly doubt one would be made just for an aftermarket RB application.

Especially when one can be fabricated so easily.

Im having two 38mm gates on my next manifold, single entry Vband. Was going to be T4 divided but couldnt get a housing to suit my turbo in time.

Anyone put two gates on a single entry manifold before?

I have an ATP 0.82 T3 TS but they also make T4 flanged versions with V-band outlets as stated above.

I bought the turbo through streettotrack but procharge can also supply the housings if you are looking for an alternate.

So how would you go about welding a wastegate onto a twin scrolled turbocharger like the borg warner s366. Would you then weld something like 2 x 38mm tial gates on each side of the divided housing?

I would like to see pictures of these setups. We dont see much of these setups here in the states.

I'll have pics up soon of a twin scroll manifold with twin 38 mm gates plumbed into a 4 inch exhaust.. Running a BWs300sx 83/75 on a 26

Its will look awesome but is a real head ache to make happen

Edited by GTR_JOEY

Weld wastegate pipe onto turbine housing and have no gate pipe off the manifold. Better response, more power, end story

I respectfully disagree, my first kit was from ETM and had the Tial 44mm mounted from the housing (GT3582R) The thing never controlled boost past 4500rpm. Fail

I am quite happy with my custom steam pipe manifold running a single 60mm gate with a Precision Billet 6262 and it holds 1.3 bar solid all day every day :thanks:

Edited by Weapon

I respectfully disagree, my first kit was from ETM and had the Tial 44mm mounted from the housing (GT3582R) The thing never controlled boost past 4500rpm. Fail

I am quite happy with my custom steam pipe manifold running a single 60mm gate with a Precision Billet 6262 and it holds 1.3 bar solid all day every day :thanks:

Not sure why. We have them control boost perfectly on everything from GT3076's running 1 or even 2 bar up to GT4508's running 3.5 bar. All on 2.5 and 3L 6 cyl engines

It's good that you got your setup working properly but I don't know that the fact the gate pipe was welded off the housing was the cause.

  • 5 months later...

Thought I would boot this thread in the backside with a link to a photo of someones good work: http://www.eagletalon.net/pictures/index.php/2006/Red-Car/wastegate/IMG_1002

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 came here to note that is a zener diode too base on the info there. Based on that, I'd also be suspicious that replacing it, and it's likely to do the same. A lot of use cases will see it used as either voltage protection, or to create a cheap but relatively stable fixed voltage supply. That would mean it has seen more voltage than it should, and has gone into voltage melt down. If there is something else in the circuit dumping out higher than it should voltages, that needs to be found too. It's quite likely they're trying to use the Zener to limit the voltage that is hitting through to the transistor beside it, so what ever goes to the zener is likely a signal, and they're using the transistor in that circuit to amplify it. Especially as it seems they've also got a capacitor across the zener. Looks like there is meant to be something "noisy" to that zener, and what ever it was, had a melt down. Looking at that picture, it also looks like there's some solder joints that really need redoing, and it might be worth having the whole board properly inspected.  Unfortunately, without being able to stick a multimeter on it, and start tracing it all out, I'm pretty much at a loss now to help. I don't even believe I have a climate control board from an R33 around here to pull apart and see if any of the circuit appears similar to give some ideas.
    • Nah - but you won't find anything on dismantling the seats in any such thing anyway.
    • 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
×
×
  • Create New...