Jump to content
SAU Community

Twin Scroll Internal Gate Turbo Options


ARTZ
 Share

Recommended Posts

cheers Jas...

i know Stao has been making Highflow EVO turbos as well...maybe its an option

what about this?

http://shopping.kinugawaturbo.com/kinugawaturbohyundaigenesistd05h16g300ps-4-3-1-1.aspx

or

http://shopping.kinugawaturbo.com/kinugawaturbohyundaigenesistd05h16g300ps-4-3-1.aspx

whats the difference is between 10.5 and 11.5 trim I assume the 11.5 is a bigger exhaust housing.. looking at the reverse scroll of the evo housing itwould make for much more effective fitment

is turbine housing going to flow a 2.5lt though?

basically my old turbo with a twin scroll rear....lol

or this big huffer for the lols.... :D

http://shopping.kinugawaturbo.com/kinugawa4turbochargergt3582withar117twinentrydividedt4housing600p.aspx

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Garret have a great range for the GT30's now, here are a few new external ones I saw recently... Do it Artz.

yeah I saw those...this plus GTX turbos with twin 40mm gates could be good....getting pricey though and you know I'm a poor kent..

the evo turbo looks like my best option for what i want so far...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10.5T and 11.5T refer to the cm2 area of the turbine housing.

For reference a 12cm2 is roughly .82, so the 11.5 should be nice on your JZ with a healthy turbine.

The 10.5 is what is used OEM in evo's 5, 6, 8MR and 9. All other twin scroll models use a 9cm2 (9T)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My emo7 had a 10.5, unless it had been changed at some stage? I doubt it, as the car was stock as a rock.

Had been changed.

Unless its an RS, then absolutely everything about the car was an option.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10.5T and 11.5T refer to the cm2 area of the turbine housing.

For reference a 12cm2 is roughly .82, so the 11.5 should be nice on your JZ with a healthy turbine.

The 10.5 is what is used OEM in evo's 5, 6, 8MR and 9. All other twin scroll models use a 9cm2 (9T) Evo 4s had a 9T while 7s and 8s a 9.8T

just need to fix my own post, realised i had a memory lapse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Evo 4 was the first one with the engine turned around and a reverse rotation twin scroll turbine housing , they used the smallest or 9 cm housing . 5 had from memory an optional 10.5 for the RS can't remember other variants . AFAIK 6s all used the 10.5cm housing even the TMEs with the smaller 15GK compressor wheel . The larger and heavier Cedia based 7and some 8s used a slightly smaller 9.8cm turbine house to get back some of the squirt the 4g63T lost with tightening emissions legislation in 2001 . From memory 8MRs had the 10.5 standard as did most 9s which all had inlet VCT to pull the bottom end up .

There are aftermarket 11.5 housings which works well on std turbos with exhaust upgrades . The 8s and 9 had a revised version of the 10.5cm turbine housing using a single flap and mirror imaged D shaped outlets like the TSIW EFR housings . The early ones had two holes and two flaps and most have probably cracked now anyway .

So the story goes the Evo turbos were the closest production turbos got to being a true competition unit especially the small comp wheel types for restricted rally engines anyway . Not exactly a TR30R but I don't think any other manufacturer got as close - for Grp A rally anyway .

One 7 I know of goes pretty well with an 11.5 housing on a bog stock turbo . On a 9 spec turbo with the larger comp housing and diffuser it should have gone better . The best overall was supposed to be the second series 9RS turbos with the Titanium Aluminide turbine and the super back or tulip shaped if you like magnesium compressor wheel . The early version had a flat backed comp wheel and these can lunch themselves if leaned on too hard .

The TiAL turbine is said to be boost limited and if you overdo it the wheel separates from the shaft destroying itself . These 9RS turbos are supposed to boost 3-500 revs sooner than a conventional 9 units and its possible the 11.5cm turbine housing puts that back near standard but with less exhaust restriction .

A .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Buy the EFR!

My 8374 .92a/r is the best engine part I've ever bought!

Fantastic response, great top end power, big torque curve.......and more response than the dyno plots show by far.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Buy the EFR!

My 8374 .92a/r is the best engine part I've ever bought!

Fantastic response, great top end power, big torque curve.......and more response than the dyno plots show by far.

have you fixed your boost creep issue with the internal wastegate ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

haha bolt on kit...nice!....still not twin scroll though and not sure i like the design of that manifold..def seems to work though..

anyway have found hiflow ct12s for around 1500, good for 300kws...so have given up on the twin scroll idea, still think it could work well though..

I'm just going to flog the stockies till they blow or I tire of them :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

don't mess around with the Evo turbo chargers. It will simply choke your engine. The turbine housings are too small.

Just grab yourself an EFR turbocharger, and live with amazing boost response, and fantastic power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Needs moar twin scroll and low mount turbo though...

that manifold is very basic..Its like an entry level kit for kids who want a top mount turbo....I had a way cooler manifold idea. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think you realise how little a true twin scroll actually improves response compared to a single Artz. Some think it is the same as simply running a smaller housing. I can't say I have tried one myself, but it's a lot of work for little gain...

There would be more response gain going to an EFR Ti wheel turbo imo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yep.. so use the Efr turbo with twin scroll, its not going to be any worse is it....!

how could it not work... What about Owen...did the twin scroll gtx3076...you telling me that didn't work?..problem.with the smaller housing is you are sacrificing top end, while a twin scroll while you can have you cake and eat it too...

And making a twin scroll manifold is no harder than making the manifold in that eBay advert...it would just merge a little differently into a t3 or t4 twin flange instead of merging into single pipe

Its not alot of extra work at all..

Anyway dont worry, im not building it so you won't have to make me any whacky manifolds...was just an idea, I still think it's a good one

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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




  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • Hi all, I need to get this HKS SLD attached to my stock ECU because I've now got the German autobahn and faster European circuits to contend with.  The car is a manual 2dr ER34 with an AT ECU and I've realised the AT ECU has two pins for speed sensor signals: Pin 29: Vehicle speed sensor signal (Vehicle speed sensor 2) Pin *58: Output shaft rotation sensor signal (Vehicle speed sensor 1) - *RB25DET A/T model only Before I go butchering this harness, is anyone sure of which pin is the correct one for signal adjustment? The attached document from HKS indicates pin 29 but I found this situation mentioned in the following thread on a different forum (R34 GTT Auto Trans Speed Cut Problem | Zerotohundred) mentioning pin 58 needing to be altered by member zephuros, albeit it seems to be for an RSM-GP and the info appears to be old.  R34_All_Workshop_Manual-pages-2.pdf R34_All_Workshop_Manual-pages-3.pdf R34_All_Workshop_Manual-pages-1.pdf HKS SLD Vehicle Pin out P59-P70 ER34-pages.pdf
    • Embrace the freedom of casual encounters on the best dating app in town! Verified Maidens Superlative Сasual Dating
    • Slimline sub on the rear parcel shelf is doable. Pioneer TS-WX140DA is only 70mm high.   
    • People like Johnny Dose Bro might be laughing at my post because I accidentally added 100mm to my numbers. 350-355 is indeed the lower limit. 450 is off-road Skyline spec.
    • What is the "compromise" that you think will happen? Are you thinking that something will get damaged? The only things you have to be concerned about with spherical jointed suspension arms are; Arguments with the constabulary wrt their legality (they are likely to be illegal for road use without an engineering certificatation, and that may not be possible to obtain). A lot more NVH transmitted through to the passengers (which is hardly a concern for those with a preference for good handling, anyway). Greatly increased inspection and maintenance requirements (see above points, both).   It is extremely necessary to ask what car you are talking about. Your discussion on strut tops, for example, would be completely wrong for an R chassis, but be correct for an S chassis. R32s have specific problems that R33/4 do not have. Etc. I have hardened rubber bushes on upper rear control arms and traction rods. Adjustable length so as to be able to set both camber and bump steer. You cannot contemplate doing just the control arms and not the traction arms. And whatever bushing you have in one you should have in the other so that they have similar characteristics. Otherwise you can get increased oddness of behaviour as one bushing flexes and the other doesn't, changing the alignment between them. I have stock lower rear arms with urethane bushes. I may make changes here, these are are driven by the R32's geometry problems, so I won't discuss them here unless it proves necessary. I have spherical joints in the front caster rods. I have experienced absolutely no negatives and only positives from doing so. They are massively better than any other option. I have sphericals in the FUCAs, but this is driven largely by the (again) R32 specific problems with the motion of those arms. I just have to deal with the increased maintenance required. Given how much better the front end behaves with the sphericals in there.....I'd probably be tempted to go away from my preference (which is not to have sphericals on a road car, for 2 of the 3 reasons in the bulleted list above), just to gain those improvements. And so my preference for not using sphericals (in general) on a road car should be obvious. I use them judiciously, though, as required to solve particular problems.
×
×
  • Create New...