Jump to content
SAU Community

Turbo Size Restiction, Good For Responce Or Will The Back Pressure Choke The Engine?


Recommended Posts

Hi guys,

I've got a question for you all.

A friend and I were having a discussion the other day about manifold back pressure vs turbo spooling.

And the possibility of running twin T2's on a 6into1 topmount manifold vs dual gtr manifolds.

If you were to run twin N1 High Flowed turbos in series.

(mounted T4 topmount manifold with 50mm waste gate,T4 to T2 adapter, 1st N1 Turbo with int w/gate,custom dump pipe to T2, 2nd N1 Turbo with int w/gate)

Would there be too much restriction of the exhaust gasses exiting the engine?

Most people have a hard time correctly sizing a single stage turbo system. Once you try to do compound compound/sequential yada yada yada type stuff, the chances of even an expert getting it right the first time fall to nearly zero.

Thanks for the replies guys,

Yes we were talking about a rb26.

I acutally have a rb 25/30 in a r33 gtr with a compound setup.

The engine was built by a friend in japan and the breathing designed by a friend in the states.

It runs a Borg Warner S400sx3 467 with a 1.10ar turbine housing, Mounted on a 6BOOST feeding a gt2860.

The car has been shedded for the last 8 years.

It was an animal to drive, boost from 2300rpm right up to 7000rpm.

Torque kept breaking 3rd gear.

Yes, so you should already be aware that compound systems require a bigun and a littlun and you have to share the pressure drop from the ex manifold to atmosphere between 2 turbine stages. How much power you need to extract from the gas at each stage to run the compressor for that stage is the million dollar question and sets the fraction of the total pressure drop you allocate to each stage.

Inevitably, unless it's intended to be some constant speed mega power engine with no response, in order to have any response at all you'll end up with a higher exhaust manifold pressure than a single turbo stage system would have. But you compensate for that by having monster boost to balance it. If you don't have monster boost, then you're wasting your time building a compound turbo system, because monster boost is really the only good reason to stage compressors*. And monster boost and petrol engines don't go together too well. It's great on diesels.

* most of the time anyway. I know about the Pike's Peak truck and so on and so forth. Let it lie.

If you really really want to make a responsive compressor system with boost from nothing, then the smart money is on using a positive displacement blower as one of the stages. It allows you to only have one turbine stage in the exhaust path, and that turbine stage can have a really relaxed housing, resulting in less ex manifold pressure than other similarly powerful engines. The pos disp blower gives you boost from nearly nothing, the relatively low pressure ratio at each compressor stage helps to keep temperature rise under control and limits the extremity of design of the compressor wheel and so on. It's all good.

We were just chatting about running them on his rb26.

And I thought about the possibility of running them this way and feeding the airflow into my S400.

Instead of my current configuration where the S400 feeds air to the 2860.

Hang on. So you weren't talking about using the 2 x T28s in series with each other? They'd be a parallel pair and they'd work with another bigger turbo? Well that's different. It's sure to be a clusterf**k, but it's different.

  • Like 1

Here's what happens. When you joins two compressors together and run off two exhaust wheels in series. It works out as you have one massive compressor running off the first turbine wheel in the series. You must blank the larger turbo on initial spool, as pressure always "leak" from the weaker exist. It might work with a complex gating system, you will be fighting to get room to fit them all.

I found smaller and very responsive single turbo surge badly under partial load on Rb26 engines. You might need use aftermarket cams and VCT system to get around this problem if you are going to make above system work.

Will try to track down some pics of the old setup.

GTSBoy and hypergear

Yes, This is what I was thinking of doing.

Running one N1 off of the 6BOOST manifold with the exhaust gasses then passing through the other N1 and then into the S400.

With both N1 turbos suppling boost straight into the 4" inlet of the S400,

for it to compound and supply to the engine.

Or do you think I should run the S400 first then into the N1's.

Compound systems work VERY well and monster boost is NOT the only reason to do them ;) .
Have a read of this : http://www.yellowbullet.com/forum/showthread.php?t=216811


Lots of compound systems out and working very well on petrol engines, best part of a compound system is to spool a turbo you normally wouldnt be able to, Kevin Jewers 2L DSM had a T3 50 trim and a S475 compounded and made full boost at 4500RPM (compared to NEVER with a single S475) and ran 8's. Although doing it i nthe way OP has mentioned it wont work at all.

Edited by Super Drager

I think that 45 psi IS monster boost for a petrol engine. You ain't running that on 98.

Ofcourse not, however you can get the total boost to a lot less than that. Pressure ratios multiply between compressors so what some guys have done is have it compound till the large turbo comes onto boost, then a bypass valve opens and flows as much air around the small compressor as possible. Boost Logic do it that way on their supra kits.

GT35R/GT45R Compound kit, 24PSI by 3500RPM.....runs mid 10's at 140+mph

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

    • 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. 
    • 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.
    • 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.
    • 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.
    • Nah, that is hella wrong. If I do a simple linear between 150°C (0.407v) and 50°C (2.98v) I get the formula Temperature = -38.8651*voltage + 165.8181 It is perfectly correct at 50 and 150, but it is as much as 20° out in the region of 110°C, because the actual data is significantly non-linear there. It is no more than 4° out down at the lowest temperatures, but is is seriously shit almost everywhere. I cannot believe that the instruction is to do a 2 point linear fit. I would say the method I used previously would have to be better.
×
×
  • Create New...