Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

From what I know a twin turbo is generally setup sequentially - ie one smaller turbo that kicks in sooner, and a bigger turbo that kicks in a bit later... much like the Subaru B4...

a Bi turbo is 2 same size turbos kicking in same time etc.. etc...

Whats better for which application?

The GTR is setup as a Bi-turbo (2 same size turbos kicking in same time)...

Has anyone set it up as a twin-turbo (say a HKS 2530 and a HKS 2540)... is it possible?

Anyone know how it would go?

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/41930-twin-turbo-vs-bi-turbo/
Share on other sites

I know it says Twin Turbo under my bonnet....

Ok i may be wrong, just what i read somewhere about the definitions, can't remmeber where...

Was just interested to know if anyone ran a sequential setup... what the pros/cons are

Maserati are about the only ppl i know of that refer to twin turbos as Bi-turbos. Sequential turbo setups usually have common exhaust housing, and depending on the rpm/load etc a valve switches the flow of exhaust gases between the wheels, or variatons of.

I wouldnt go running a 2530 and a 2540 on an RB26, each fed by 3 cylinders. Have you seen how some aftermarket manifolds using balancing pipes, on a equal size twin setup may not be so critical, on a setup using different turbos it would be critical.

The back pressure would vary between the front 3 to rear 3 cylinders, meaning you would need an ECU like a Motec that could tweak MAPS for individual cylinders, as the scavenging effects of the sets of cylinders would likely vary.

What you are better doing is doing what tractor pulling competitors do and use series turbocharging...which is where the the first smaller compressor pressurises the air into the inlet of the 2nd larger turbo, whilst the exhaust gases are similarily plumbed into one another

Think of turbines on a jet, where they are multi stage compressors... this approach tries to copy that. But again on paper it works better then in practice due to the plumbing requirements, inlet temps etc etc, unless you are using trick fuels, and a tractor engine that due to its low rpm can run massive boost... you get the idea

The advantage of using twins is that you can still have high levels of flow (cfm) from smallish twin turbos, and as the wheels sizes are smaller, lower inertia etc etc can still be responsive despite each only beign fed half the exhaust gases. Then you look at the larger turbo with similar cfm capability as the wheels of the bigger turbo have higher inertia, meaning they need more cfm to spin the buggers... but this is also influenced not just by the size/weight of the wheels but the pitch of the blades/wheel design etc etc.

Basically like all engineering, its a matter of compromises, and seeing which best suits the requirements, withoug impinging on the negatives too much. Just thoughts...

The term Bi-turbo is just a bit of Euro-English...

It is like AWD vs 4WD, they really don't mean anything different. Really.

It is all just marketing. As I recall Mazda called their sequential setup

a Twin-turbo...

The Porsche 959 has an interesting take on the twin-turbo setup.

It had two equal sized turbos but it would only use one of them

(spooled up by the exhaust of all six cylinders) then it would

switch to both of them... Apparently it worked quite well.

I suspect setups such as on the Audi, Maserati and even the GT-R are

more to do with packaging than anything else. On a Vee engine a

turbo on each side just makes sense. Also a long engine like a 6-cyl

ends up with a big mess of pipes as a manifold.

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

    • Thanks for the reply mate. Well I really hope its a hose then not engine out job
    • But.... the reason I want to run a 60 weight is so at 125C it has the same viscosity as a 40 weight at 100C. That's the whole reason. If the viscosity changes that much to drop oil pressure from 73psi to 36psi then that's another reason I should be running an oil that mimics the 40 weight at 100C. I have datalogs from the dyno with the oil pressure hitting 73psi at full throttle/high RPM. At the dyno the oil temp was around 100-105C. The pump has a 70psi internal relief spring. It will never go/can't go above 70psi. The GM recommendation of 6psi per 1000rpm is well under that... The oil sensor for logging in LS's is at the valley plate at the back of  the block/rear of where the heads are near the firewall. It's also where the knock sensors are which are notable for 'false knock'. I'm hoping I just didn't have enough oil up top causing some chatter instead of rods being sad (big hopium/copium I know) LS's definitely heat up the oil more than RB's do, the stock vettes for example will hit 300F(150C) in a lap or two and happily track for years and years. This is the same oil cooler that I had when I was in RB land, being the Setrab 25 row oil cooler HEL thing. I did think about putting a fan in there to pull air out more, though I don't know if that will actually help in huge load situations with lots of speed. I think when I had the auto cooler. The leak is where the block runs to the oil cooler lines, the OEM/Dash oil pressure sender is connected at that junction and is what broke. I'm actually quite curious to see how much oil in total capacity is actually left in the engine. As it currently stands I'm waiting on that bush to adapt the sender to it. The sump is still full (?) of oil and the lines and accusump have been drained, but the filter and block are off. I suspect there's maybe less than 1/2 the total capacity there should be in there. I have noticed in the past that topping up oil has improved oil pressure, as reported by the dash sensor. This is all extremely sketchy hence wanting to get it sorted out lol.
    • I neglected to respond to this previously. Get it up to 100 psi, and then you'll be OK.
    • I agree with everything else, except (and I'm rethinking this as it wasn't setup how my brain first though) if the sensor is at the end of a hose which is how it has been recommended to isolate it from vibrations, then if that line had a small hole in, I could foresee potentially (not a fluid dynamic specialist) the ability for it to see a lower pressure at the sensor. But thinking through, said sensor was in the actual block, HOWEVER it was also the sensor itself that broke, so oil pressure may not have been fully reaching the sensor still. So I'm still in my same theory.   However, I 100% would be saying COOL THE OIL DOWN if it's at 125c. That would be an epic concern of mine.   Im now thinking as you did Brad that the knock detection is likely due to the bearings giving a bit more noise as pressure dropped away. Kinkstah, drop your oil, and get a sample of it (as you're draining it) and send it off for analysis.
    • I myself AM TOTALLY UNPREPARED TO BELIEVE that the load is higher on the track than on the dyno. If it is not happening on the dyno, I cannot see it happening on the track. The difference you are seeing is because it is hot on the track, and I am pretty sure your tuner is not belting the crap out of it on teh dyno when it starts to get hot. The only way that being hot on the track can lead to real ping, that I can think of, is if you are getting more oil (from mist in the inlet tract, or going up past the oil control rings) reducing the effective octane rating of the fuel and causing ping that way. Yeah, nah. Look at this graph which I will helpfully show you zoomed back in. As an engineer, I look at the difference in viscocity at (in your case, 125°C) and say "they're all the same number". Even though those lines are not completely collapsed down onto each other, the oil grades you are talking about (40, 50 and 60) are teh top three lines (150, 220 and 320) and as far as I am concerned, there is not enough difference between them at that temperature to be meaningful. The viscosity of 60 at 125°C is teh same as 40 at 100°C. You should not operate it under high load at high temperature. That is purely because the only way they can achieve their emissions numbers is with thin-arse oil in it, so they have to tell you to put thin oil in it for the street. They know that no-one can drive the car & engine hard enough on the street to reach the operating regime that demands the actual correct oil that the engine needs on the track. And so they tell you to put that oil in for the track. Find a way to get more air into it, or, more likely, out of it. Or add a water spray for when it's hot. Or something.   As to the leak --- a small leak that cannot cause near catastrophic volume loss in a few seconds cannot cause a low pressure condition in the engine. If the leak is large enough to drop oil pressure, then you will only get one or two shots at it before the sump is drained.
×
×
  • Create New...