Jump to content
SAU Community

External Gate In Exhaust Housing

Brodie.Maher

By Brodie.Maher,
in Engines & Forced Induction

 Share

Recommended Posts

Brodie.Maher Apprentice

Brodie.Maher

Posted
Posted

Hi guys,

There doesn't seem to be a great deal of information how best to mount an external gate off the exhaust housing.

I recently finished building a steam pipe manifold for my SR and deliberately didn't include an external gate as it makes the most sense to me to evenly bleed the exhaust gases from the highest pressure point, which would be the exhaust housing, plus i wanted to be a little different.

It doesn't seem to be all that common to mount the external gate off the housing, i am curious to how far i around on the housing i should weld it onto and also which way to face the pipe. A lot of the housing's i have seen face the pipe in the same direction to gas flow of the housing, but shouldnt the gate be mounted at a 90 so that it isnt the easiest path for the gases to travel?

Thanks

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/451509-external-gate-in-exhaust-housing/
Share on other sites
Brodie.Maher Apprentice

Brodie.Maher

Posted
  • Author
Posted

the most optimal angle to not impede 'flow' i've attached a snipet from turbosmarts installation guide.

How have you managed to mount the gate like that on a standard low mount?

I have got a mate who is going to weld onto the cast housing but he only wants to weld on a 90" off the housing to ensure its strong and to allow the tig to get into there, which is going to make it hard to not impede the flow some what.

The other issue is my manifold is top mount, ideally to limit impeding flow i could come somewhere off where the housing starts to curl around after the straight to the flange, but i might be limited by space.

Mine is mounted off the exhaust housing. It probably could be better angled but I didnt really have the room. All good, seems to work fine:

20131024_173749_zps01749055.jpg

So you have ran this and have no problems? Because it seems to go in an opposite direction to the flow?

KiwiRS4T Grand Master

KiwiRS4T

Posted
Posted

The logic is simple. When the wastegate is shut all of the exhaust will go through the turbo. When the wastgate opens if the path is not direct much (or too much) of the exhaust will continue to flow through the turbo leading to overboosting.

Here's how mine goes:

post-49463-0-52442300-1418017474_thumb.jpg

scotty nm35 Grand Master

scotty nm35

Posted
Posted

The optimal mounting is to improve gas flow, which increases top end power. Simply venting the pressure at a 90 may hold boost well enough, but the gains won't be as great in my experience.

This setup I do works very well, but I spend a lot of time die grinding the inside to get a smooth path into the gate. External gate housings are obviously preferred.

post-63525-0-05491300-1418045082_thumb.jpg

Brodie.Maher Apprentice

Brodie.Maher

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Thanks for all of the pictures and ideas guys,

It seems since it is a pressure system the angle doesn't greatly affect the ability to hold or vent boost, but isn't giving the best performance, but realistically my biggest issue is going to be space.

Obviously the shorter the runner to the waste gate the better, but should that be a priority over angle?

sucram Rising Star

sucram

Posted
Posted

If you were running a GT30 internal, then switched to an external with optimal flow, power difference atw will be less then 10hp

The internals are at 90 deg, which isn't great but will really only overboost on big engines with a small (relative) turbo/housing, the Xr6t is an example.

  • Like 1
scotty nm35 Grand Master

scotty nm35

Posted
Posted

Well the TD06 10cm was good for around 50kw more. Smaller housings will react better to external gates as opposed to the 1.06 Garrett internal, and such a simple way to get the results of a good top mount.

I thought making 430kw from the stock rb25 manifold was proof enough... Don't mistake boost control with the gate's ability to flow.

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

    • Kapr
      RB20DE NEO smallbox clutch.

      By Kapr · Posted

      For once a good news  It needed to be adjusted by that one nut and it is ok  At least something was easy But thank you very much for help. But a small issue is now(gearbox) that when the car is stationary you can hear "clinking" from gearbox so some of the bearing is 100% not that happy... It goes away once you push clutch so it is 100% gearbox. Just if you know...what that bearing could be? It sounding like "spun bearing" but it is louder.
    • GTSBoy
      Mistakes were made, my R34 Story

      By GTSBoy · Posted

      Yeah, that's fine**. But the numbers you came up with are just wrong. Try it for yourself. Put in any voltage from the possible range and see what result you get. You get nonsense. ** When I say "fine", I mean, it's still shit. The very simple linear formula (slope & intercept) is shit for a sensor with a non-linear response. This is the curve, from your data above. Look at the CURVE! It's only really linear between about 30 and 90 °C. And if you used only that range to define a curve, it would be great. But you would go more and more wrong as you went to higher temps. And that is why the slope & intercept found when you use 50 and 150 as the end points is so bad halfway between those points. The real curve is a long way below the linear curve which just zips straight between the end points, like this one. You could probably use the same slope and a lower intercept, to move that straight line down, and spread the error out. But you would 5-10°C off in a lot of places. You'd need to say what temperature range you really wanted to be most right - say, 100 to 130, and plop the line closest to teh real curve in that region, which would make it quite wrong down at the lower temperatures. Let me just say that HPTuners are not being realistic in only allowing for a simple linear curve. 
    • Kinkstaah
      Mistakes were made, my R34 Story

      By Kinkstaah · Posted

      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.
    • GTSBoy
      Mistakes were made, my R34 Story

      By GTSBoy · Posted

      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.
    • Kinkstaah
      Mistakes were made, my R34 Story

      By Kinkstaah · Posted

      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.
×
×
  • Create New...