Jump to content
SAU Community

Dump Pipe Advice.

Plattsy

By Plattsy,
in Engines & Forced Induction

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 66
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Posted Images

MrStabby Grand Master

MrStabby

Posted
Posted

If you were to use it, the separator is an essential part. There is no point having a split dump unless the flows are actually split, and the only way to do that is to have the separator in there. This design is "fabricated" in that the separator is attached with fasteners. Others are welded.

The benefit of having the separator attached with fasteners, is that you can take it off so the dump is also compatible with housings where the whole turbine outlet runs all the way to the mating surface. More recent turbos are more likely to have the turbine outlet separated all the way to the mating surface, as its a more efficient shape for the gas flow.

But even if you were to want to use a split dump, you wouldn't buy one of these because the short ones are shite. The only ones worth considering are the ones that are a full dump and front pipe unit in one, and the split is dropped back in a long way down.

I think "shite" is really overstating things, i'd say "doesnt work as effectively". But IMO, should still work a little better than bellmouth.

GTSBoy Grand Master

GTSBoy

Posted
Posted

The benefit of having the separator attached with fasteners, is that you can take it off so the dump is also compatible with housings where the whole turbine outlet runs all the way to the mating surface. More recent turbos are more likely to have the turbine outlet separated all the way to the mating surface, as its a more efficient shape for the gas flow.

Yeah, but you could grind off the welded in type flush with the flange anyway, so it's 50:50.

I think "shite" is really overstating things, i'd say "doesnt work as effectively". But IMO, should still work a little better than bellmouth.

I (being an aerodynamicist type engineer) prefer the concept of the split dump. But I think it is a waste of time to squirt it back in up high in the dump pipe just to make a dump that is easily compatible with the original engine pipe. A long split makes sense where a short one doesn't.

is it going to be better than the standard dump? and we are 100% saying that on the rb25det, that separator needs to stay in. (standard turbo.)

Standard RB turbo, yes, you need the separator.

MrStabby Grand Master

MrStabby

Posted
Posted

I (being an aerodynamicist type engineer) prefer the concept of the split dump. But I think it is a waste of time to squirt it back in up high in the dump pipe just to make a dump that is easily compatible with the original engine pipe. A long split makes sense where a short one doesn't.

So, from a theoretical point of view, would you say that splits should spool better (ie consider what happens when the gate is shut, so the interference of the merge is not a problem yet)? I used to know something about fluid dynamics, but that was a long time ago and i've forgotten it all....

GTSBoy Grand Master

GTSBoy

Posted
Posted

So, from a theoretical point of view, would you say that splits should spool better (ie consider what happens when the gate is shut, so the interference of the merge is not a problem yet)? I used to know something about fluid dynamics, but that was a long time ago and i've forgotten it all....

Absolutely. There was once a very well informed Garrett engineer who used to post on performanceforums and contributed an enormous amount of good data to our knowledge base. He said that Garrett's testing showed that a separate wastegate/turbine outlet arrangement always tested better than if the wastegate flow was allowed to spill in an uncontrolled fashion into the turbine exit flow.

But there were limits and caveats on that statement. The turbine exit dump should be a smoothly expanding cone from the diameter of the turbine exit opening up to whatever pipe size you are going to run as a dump. The ideal expansion angle was somewhere in the 7 - 11° range, I can't remember exactly. So if you have a 2" turbine hole and want to run a 3" pipe, you need a nice conical transition betweeen them. The trouble is, you can do that on an engine dyno easily enough, but in a real engine bay the pipe usually also has to bend through 90° very soon after it comes off the back of the turbo. Makes it hard to go for a smoothly increasing cone angle. Nevertheless, there have been others (such as CES) who showed that you can get good results by making sure you use all the length/room you can to put as good a cone direct onto the turbine outlet as possible before beding it downward.

So the above statement holds true for any turbine exit, regardless of whether the turbo is internal or external gated. It is certainly easier to organise on an external gated turbo, because they usually have a circular outlet. In fact, some of them even have the beginnings of the appropriate cone angle cast into the housing (those where the turbine in snugged a bit deeper back into the housing).

Where is gets difficult to make anything that lines up with the Garrett and CES findings is where your internal wastegate shares a big open space with the turbine outlet like the Nissan turbos usually do. In this case, the Garrett findings were that the nasty cross flow of wastegate gas flowing over the swirling flow comeing out of the turbine tended to increase the pressure in the dump. Obviously, for the best response and the best outright power potential, you want the pressure in the dump to be as low as possible. You want the turbine outlet flow to be able to get out and expand as smoothly and quickly as possible. Making it have to fight its way through wastegate flow is not good.

Granted, when you are coming onto boost the wastegate will be shut, but the wastegate will eventually start to open even before you have full boost, and of course once at full boost the wastegate has to be open. It does mess up the flow.

So the ideal split dump pipe would have a nice conical expansion from the turbine outlet to the turbine dump's diameter and would not re-enter the wastegate gas any closer to the turbine outlet than absolutely necessary. And it would re-enter it in the best manner to avoid interfering with the flow - so down at the bottom bend makes good sense. The shorty dumps that have to mate up with the original engine pipe simply don't have the room for any of that. The CES split dumps have been shown to work well. The cheap copies of same have different mileage, depending on how much effort they put into coning out the turbine exit and how nice the fabrication is, particularly at the point where the flows merge. My cheapy is OK, but probably nowhere near as good as the CES dump.

But, I can definitely say that the cheapy split I have made a huge change to the spool behaviour compared to the OEM dump. The OEM dump has a bigger volume than the turbine only part of my split dump, yet the split dump spooled much earlier, and made the boost setting increase by quite a bit (had to adjust it back down after fitting the dump, but can't remember how much by because it was so many years ago). I attribute this to the single circular cross section pipe used for the turbine dump on the split being a much better way for the gases to get out of the turbine than the larger more rectangular shape of the original dump.

I haven't back to back tested a split like mine against a big bellmouth, so I really cannot say that one is better than the other, but I do know that the long split dump is a hell of a lot better than the original dump.

MrStabby Grand Master

MrStabby

Posted
Posted

Absolutely.

<snip>

I haven't back to back tested a split like mine against a big bellmouth, so I really cannot say that one is better than the other, but I do know that the long split dump is a hell of a lot better than the original dump.

Thanks for taking the time to write that up :thumbsup:

The Dan Grand Master

The Dan

Posted
Posted

I'm pretty sure 90% of the people posting here don't know what the f**k they are talking about or why. They are just regurgitating what they have read somewhere. Split or bellmouth makes stuff all difference when you make tiny amounts of HP. The fact that it's 3inch makes it shit and means that you are definitely making less than 400hp at the wheels anyway.

Say you put on the bellmouth and make 50rpm better response? The next guy doesn't or he fits the split dump and say he buy s a cheap ass one from China and it doesn't fit correctly or he fits it at home and does an awesome job. There are just as many people saying the split dump is better as the people saying the bellmouth is better. They are the same - Comparable results aren't comparable.

wolverine Grand Master

wolverine

Posted
Posted

^^ yeah what Dan said.

I had a CES split on the Stagea and back to back with a bellmouth there was a bees dick in it but bellmouth made slightly more power everywhere with a GT-RS. A whisker more power everywhere hardly counts because taking a dump might have netted more performance.

The reason I would choose a bellmouth is the price difference and head off the risk of the wastegate fowling.

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
 Share
Go to topic listing


  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • Duncan
      Mistakes were made, my R34 Story

      By Duncan · Posted

      Have a look at that (shitty) pic I posted. You can see AN -4 braided line coming to a -4 to 1/8 BSPT adapter, into a 1/8 BSPT T piece. The Haltech pressure sender is screwed into the long arm of the sender and factory sender (pre your pic) into the T side. You can also see the cable tie holding the whole contraption in place. Is it better than mounting the sender direct to your engine fitting......yes because it removes that vibration as the engine revs out 50 times every lap and that factory sender is pretty big. Is it necessary for you......well I've got no idea, I just don't like something important failing twice so over-engineer it to the moon!
    • GTSBoy
      Mistakes were made, my R34 Story

      By GTSBoy · Posted

      Yup. You can get creative and make a sort of "bracket" with cable ties. Put 2 around the sender with a third passing underneath them strapped down against the sender. Then that third one is able to be passed through some hole at right angles to the orientation of the sender. Or some variation on the theme. Yes.... ummm, with caveats? I mean, the sender is BSP and you would likely have AN stuff on the hose, so yes, there would be the adapter you mention. But the block end will either be 1/8 NPT if that thread is still OK in there, or you can drill and tap it out to 1/4 BSP or NPT and use appropriate adapter there. As it stands, your mention of 1/8 BSPT male seems... wrong for the 1/8 NPT female it has to go into. The hose will be better, because even with the bush, the mass of the sender will be "hanging" off a hard threaded connection and will add some stress/strain to that. It might fail in the future. The hose eliminates almost all such risk - but adds in several more threaded connections to leak from! It really should be tapered, but it looks very long in that photo with no taper visible. If you have it in hand you should be able to see if it tapered or not. There technically is no possibility of a mechanical seal with a parallel male in a parallel female, so it is hard to believe that it is parallel male, but weirder things have happened. Maybe it's meant to seat on some surface when screwed in on the original installation? Anyway, at that thread size, parallel in parallel, with tape and goop, will seal just fine.
    • Kinkstaah
      Mistakes were made, my R34 Story

      By Kinkstaah · Posted

      How do you propose I cable tie this: To something securely? Is it really just a case of finding a couple of holes and ziptying it there so it never goes flying or starts dangling around, more or less? Then run a 1/8 BSP Female to [hose adapter of choice?/AN?] and then the opposing fitting at the bush-into-oil-block end? being the hose-into-realistically likely a 1/8 BSPT male) Is this going to provide any real benefit over using a stainless/steel 1/4 to 1/8 BSPT reducing bush? I am making the assumption the OEM sender is BSPT not BSPP/BSP
    • funkymonkey
      Jacks that fit under GTR lips that can reach the subframe?

      By funkymonkey · Posted

      I fashioned a ramp out of a couple of pieces of 140x35 lumber, to get the bumper up slightly, and then one of these is what I use
    • GTSBoy
      Mistakes were made, my R34 Story

      By GTSBoy · Posted

      I wouldn't worry about dissimilar metal corrosion, should you just buy/make a steel replacement. There will be thread tape and sealant compound between the metals. The few little spots where they touch each other will be deep inside the joint, unable to get wet. And the alloy block is much much larger than a small steel fitting, so there is plenty of "sacrificial" capacity there. Any bush you put in there will be dissimilar anyway. Either steel or brass. Maybe stainless. All of them are different to the other parts in the chain. But what I said above still applies.
×
×
  • Create New...