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

    • I have been being VERY quiet about what you're alluding to, as it is something that ticks me off... The number of cars from factory that run coil overs is HUGE! Most of them these days do... The other part that annoys me, is people saying "Well all the incabin adjustable suspension is illegal by blah blah blah"... If that's the case, then why can I buy a car brand new that can do it if, FULL STOP in cabin adjustable suspension is illegal...   Also, I could just chuck some aftermarket shocks in my car, throw the stock springs on, after my blue slip, dump my super low springs back in. Same shock and spring style setup... Hell, they could also be the same colour springs etc.     I'm voting, BlueSlipper didn't want to touch the above car for some reason. Whether it be some sort of bias against the car, the owner, them maybe having previously done dodgy shit and now they're being super careful in case they get slapped in the face by the Gumbyment again... Find a new blueslip place.   And can confirm as you had said, yes there are holy bibles of vehicle heights, and all sorts of other suspension stuff. Heck your run of the mill mechanic, and tyre shop has access to all of that stuff. It's how they do wheel alignments...
    • Funny story Heading to Sydney this morning on the HWY there was some slow traffic, so I gave it the beans and midway through my overtaking "power run" I lost all power It seems that I missed a hose clamp,  and the MAF and filter went WiFi To make this more problematic, the little tool kit that lives in the boot, is sitting in the sun room at Goulburn......LOL Luckily for me I found a bit of steel on the side of the road that could be used like a rusty and bent flat head screw driver to tighten it up enough that it got me into Sydney, it is now all tight like a tiger with the aid of a 8mm socket Note to self: Use my brain and double check stuff, and always keep that little tool kit in the car for when I have a brain fart
    • Oh, and as for everyone with their fuel economy changes, I switch between E10 and 98 in the company car. Even do when I had personal cars that could run on E10. You know what changed my fuel economy in any noticeable way? How I drove, and where I drove. Otherwise, say on full tanks of just back and forth from work only (So same trips, same sort of traffic), couldn't notice a difference that I can correlate to the type of fuel in use. In the current vehicle, that's over 42L of USABLE fuel. While 98 is all "more energy dense", it also has higher knock resistance as it takes more energy to get it to ignite too. The longer hydrocarbons, typically more tightly bound. So running the same ignition map, can also produce less power, if there isn't enough time to get it all burnt through properly, as yep, the flame propagation speed is different from lower octane fuel to higher (Higher has a lower flame propagation, due to the more tightly bound and harder to self ignite funs. This is also typically where, a vehicle that is designed purely to run on 91 (Whether it be E10 or normal 91) usually sees absolutely no real world difference in fuel economy for the normal man, woman, or dog.
    • We've got some servos around me that have 91 with E10, 91 (no E10), 95, and 98. At those stations the change from 91 E10 to 91, is typically around 8c/L.   But lets not get started on the price of fuel in Oz. It's ridiculous. All the service stations around me, bar one, the price of fuel has been over the $2 mark per litre for the cheapest, 98 being around $2.45. That one service station is a CostCo, fuel from it comes from the same refineries, and makes no pitstops, it runs great, including the 98. In fact, I've had no issues on CostCo fuel, but plenty of issues at other stations!. The CostCo fuel, was $1.65 roughly this week for 94 with E10. $1.88 for 98. Servos directly across from it, $2.10 for 91 E10, and $2.48 for 98. The part I had to laugh at? If I drive multiple HOURS away from Brisbane, say out near Nanango, or Kingaroy, or even out to Goondiwindi, the price of their fuel, is the same as what it is at the CostCo... Oh, and that BP servo at Goondiwindi is HUGE and goes through epic turnover of fuel, so it's not sitting there for weeks going to shit. And what blows me away, my mate is one of the people who drives the Fuel Tanker all around QLD, delivering to all those places. At the same company his previous role was doing the "local haul" deliveries... Same truck, same driver, same pickup point it all comes from. So you tell me, how the hell it is 60c/L CHEAPER for fuel, when nearly all else is equal, except they require a B-Double to drive half a day out of Brisbane, and half a day back, every second day, compared to the delivery that can be under 30 minutes drive from the fuel pickup point... Not to mention, go five blocks down the road, and Ampol to Ampol will vary 30c/L... And I've had this conversation with my mate... The way it's priced, is just typical, pure and utter rubbish... He also does runs from Brisbane, to all over QLD, down to Newcastle, Sydney, Nowra, Melbourne, Geelong, and even out to parts of the NT depending on the companies needs. His main stuff is all the longer distance away from home for a few days at a time, then when he's back, he loves to just pickup extra shifts wherever he can in whichever truck, hence all the weird different places.   Oh, as for getting E10 into all the fuels in Australia... It was very quickly highlighted, that we don't have enough biomass available to use to make E10 sustainably like they require, and it would dramatically cut into our, and the worlds food chain supply...   I vote we all just start running on liquid methane gas... Plenty of that just getting tapped off at tips from underground decay... (Note, this is pure just stupid commenting. I could very easily highlight the reasons its not a good idea especially on scale...)
    • Am I correct in assuming that the R35's are getting the classic skyline haircut off the odometer?  Quick search on carsales, there are 33 08 and 09 GTR's for sale, only 2 of them have more then 100,000km's on them (116,075 and 110,000 respectively).  And somehow there are about 25 for sale with around 60,000kms? Looks like the classic skyline haircut to me =/
×
×
  • Create New...