Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 152
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Rexbo

Come on mate - when was th last time F1 was turbo!! they are not running 'a big single' they are NA!... Audi ran twins in the LM cars, as did toyota & nissan THIS YEARS WINNER Bently speed 8 - OH LOOK!! TWIN TURBOS - SHOCK!!!. Ever look at the serria cosworth 500? comments from the drivers of the time speak of the difficulties when the thing came onto boost - it ran a single and raced against the TT GTR... JGTC - the R34 ran the V6TT that is now in the Zed.... I think you will find twins are used for more than just packaging or sales hype.

One way to put this to bed, is get two IDENTICAL engines and slap on a set of twins on one and a single on the other. Careful attention would need to be paid to the manifold design of both to ensure they both got the best gas flow. Otherwise, same came, ecu injectors etc.....

I guess looking at a performance application on a Skyline, you could run twin 3 inch pipes off twins, or a single 4 inch off a single? Maybe even a 4.5inch, although this would impinge on your arguements that a single has more space - ever tried to fit a pipe that size anywhere on a car?

Twin 3 inch area = 14 sq inch

Single 4 inch area = 12sq inch

Also the flow on the turbine inlet/ turbo flange could be another comparison. Funny side story, they have actually started to put flange size restrictions in on turbo drag classes in the states, guess there must be some hidden horsepower in having the largest flange possible?

The problem is actually getting the wheels seperate to weigh them - you can extrapolate as much as you want but in the end it's only going to be an approximation.

I think in the end - large single for drags, small twins for circuit/street. It's been proven time and time again, but like I said you can make any combination work with sufficient resources and planning.

Rexbo

Come on mate - when was th last time F1 was turbo!! they are not running 'a big single' they are NA!... Audi ran twins in the LM cars, as did toyota & nissan THIS YEARS WINNER Bently speed 8 - OH LOOK!! TWIN TURBOS - SHOCK!!!. Ever look at the serria cosworth 500? comments from the drivers of the time speak of the difficulties when the thing came onto boost - it ran a single and raced against the TT GTR...  JGTC - the R34 ran the V6TT that is now in the Zed.... I think you will find twins are used for more than just packaging or sales hype.

One way to put this to bed, is get two IDENTICAL engines and slap on a set of twins on one and a single on the other.  Careful attention would need to be paid to the manifold design of both to ensure they both got the best gas flow. Otherwise, same came, ecu injectors etc.....

The last time F1 was turbo was 1988... running single turbos. The Le Mans cars now run twin turbos due to packaging constraints and rule mandates.

As to the rotating inertia, that is a very good valid point, which is why i say twins have better response at already high rpm, because they do have less rotating inertia. However there is a critical key missing from this, and its not pulsematching or inertia, its the pressure differential and efficiency on the turbine side of the turbo.

A single turbo will have a larger pressure differential across the turbine wheel than twins, causing faster spoolup than equivalent twins. The spoolup capability due to the pressure differential is also largely due to turbine efficiency. Larger wheels will always have higher efficiency than smaller wheels for the same reason that large combustion chambers have higher burning efficiency in and engine. There's less internal loss due to heat transfer and friction. Twin small turbos create lots of drag on the exhaust gas from the turbine housing walls and the turbine wheel blades. Also, more of the heat from the engine is transferred to the metal in the turbo, taking away from the energy of the exhaust gas. Now when i talk about this, im talking about terms of 3-5% less efficient than a single turbo. Its not much but everything helps, thats why extrude honing your exhaust housing is beneficial.

Something else that someone brought up at work is that the advantage of a single turbo dissipates as the number of cylinders of the engine goes up. If you look at the combustion cycles of engines, a 4 cylinder engine takes 2 rotations of the crank to fire all 4 cylinders, and the subsequent exhaust gas pulses are easily tuneable to hit the turbo efficiently, more so than tuning for 3 cylinders that don't fire evenly. Also when dealing with V-engines, a single turbo setup requires long exhaust manifold runners and a lot of space, which would be beneficial on a V6, but on a V8, V10 or V12, the story would be different.

Its all a tradeoff between cost and benefit, as is all racing. Cost not being money, but performance, packaging, weight, and in the end, its all speed in a race car.

This is a really good thread, I like it!

This is about street cars, that might see a mild amount of circuit work. Drawing comparisons to F1 and "ideal" systems is bollocks, cause it ain't going to happen this weekend. Oh how large is an F1 motor? 1500cc? Have you seen a F1 turbo? UAS John has had a couple come through his hands from Keith Carling's car, and they aren't that big at all - hell two were used on a 3,000cc VG30 engine. So what's the deal there? They also spun at unrealistic levels to maintain sufficient boost pressures - I think the comp map went up to 4 bar?

Use a real world example - say 1000hp on an RB26. From the Garrett catalogue, this would see a combination of either

1/ Twin GT30R turbos or

2/ One GT42RS turbo

Looking at the max turbine efficiency graph the GT42RS comes in at 69%, the GT30R at 72%. I'm not sure I can trust Garrett's published figures, but take it with a grain of salt they are correct. Where is the uber efficient large wheel here?

If the pressure differential created say "x" amount of force, bearing in mind that both the inertia and turbine efficiency of the smaller turbo is superior, how in hell would that spool a large turbo quicker?

both the inertia and turbine efficiency of the smaller turbo is superior[/qoute]

Am i missing somthing ..... yes they intertia is less but dont you have 1/2 the amount of exhaust gas to move it ???

Hence it would have to be twice as effiecent "inertia" wise then a single turbo to be the same .......

So is a split pulse turbo better or worse???

Im guessing in the case of twins normal would be best.

Also is a even or uneven split pulse turbo better than the other??? Assuming split pulse is better.

Oh and for inertia:

Inertia = radius of gyration^2 x mass

As you can see, a large wheel will dramatically increase inertia.

Yes but since inertia is a square of the radii it is not proportional. If you half the radii you quarter the inertia.

Some more to think about............

The 2 X turbines/shaft/compressor of my 2530's weigh more than 3 times as much as the 1 X titanium turbine/shaft/ compressor of my T66. Plus the ceramic ball bearings used in the T66 have ~30% less running friction than the plain ball bearings used in the 2530's.

I'm too tired ot work it out.................. :)

So in effect your trick, no doubt cheap and mass produced turbo combination, weighs approximately 1.5 times a single 2530 rotating combination. Apples for zuchinni flowers maybe?

Doing a gross injustice and highly wrong calculation on it,

2530= exducer dia = 60.1mm, mass = 1, Inertia 903

T66 = exducer dia = 91.5mm, mass 1.5, Inertia 2093

So 2x 903 =.... 1806?

Also, I'm assuming that the measured reduction in frictional losses are from equivalent sized bearings? Take into account that most Txx series use the large 3/8th (9.5mm) shaft, where a 2530 has a 5mm shaft size? So the actual bearing surface is twice as large assuming same width, which is probably wrong as well since the larger shaft would need a wider bearing surface too? So if you assumed the bearing was only 1.5 times the width, that would still give you a surface area 1.5 times the amount found on 2x 2530's, less 30% for innovative design of the ceramics. So 20% more friction end result on the T66?

Yeah it's late and I am playing devil's advocate, a well as making absurd guesstimates. The T66 probably does everything the 2530's do, and is easier to work on - and gets alot of ooohs when you pop the bonnet ;)

Now i like the twin turbo idea where they're sequential sequence turbos. You have one large turbo spool into another smaller turbo. Say your "large" turbo is a GT28 on an RB25. That would spool up plenty fast for everyone, agreed? taken from post 73.

Now having had a very detailed look at the bandag bullet and discussing it with the owner, it doesn't work this way... If anyone is not familiar with it, it runs 2 V8's in tandem, 2 x superchargers and 4 turbos. it is the 2 smaller turbos that are feeding the 2 larger units, not the other way around.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



  • 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...