Twin turbo build fabrication/pics
01-09-2011, 09:28 AM
#21
I live 15 minutes away from the worlds largest indoor water park:
http://travelwithkids.about.com/od/w...mwaterpark.htm
http://travelwithkids.about.com/od/w...mwaterpark.htm
01-09-2011, 09:36 AM
#22
Registered User
iTrader: (16)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 2,939
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The shop working on my car, built my kit basicly from scratch using twin 6062s v-band exhaust houseings. The 5-bolt houseing makes everything fit better, but doesn't flow as well.
More has been done since this pic. It is basicly done, just waiting on a few things.
Last edited by thawk408; 01-09-2011 at 09:39 AM.
01-09-2011, 10:39 AM
#25
Nice work, Sasha!
The only concern I would have based on the pictures is the location of the air intake for those of us who live in wet climates.
I like the twin turbo setup because of the increased efficiency of twin compressors on our motors. This setup should be good to achieve in excess of 600 whp. At 600 whp, the GT2871 compressor should be operating around 72% efficiency (Edit, I originally grabbed the wrong efficiency number on the map, it appears to be 72% in lieu of 74%, which is still pretty good). My calculations show approximatley 15.5 psi (1.07 Bar) of boost, which is a 2.07 pressure ratio, and 32.5 lb/min. of airflow per turbo.
Edit #2 - At 650 whp, pressure ratio will be somewhere around 2.24 with 35 lb/min. of air flow, which still is within the operating range of the compressor, maybe around 70% efficiency or so. There might be an issue with the exhaust flow at a 0.64 A/R for the turbine housing that MAY make achieving 650 whp difficult. We won't know without a dyno run. I have a 0.64 A/R turbine housing on my 3071 turbos, and I'm not entirely sure I'll make my 750 whp goal on my setup with that A/R value due to back pressure, which can result in reversion of the exhaust gases back into the cylinders. We'll see. I figured I would try 0.64 A/R first, and if that does not get me where I want to be, then move to a 0.86 A/R turbine housing, which of course, will mean delaying spoolup.
Here is the compressor map. You can plot the pressure ratio and airflow on the map. It is slightly above the ideal operating range, but offers a great tradeoff for quick spoolup:
The only concern I would have based on the pictures is the location of the air intake for those of us who live in wet climates.
I like the twin turbo setup because of the increased efficiency of twin compressors on our motors. This setup should be good to achieve in excess of 600 whp. At 600 whp, the GT2871 compressor should be operating around 72% efficiency (Edit, I originally grabbed the wrong efficiency number on the map, it appears to be 72% in lieu of 74%, which is still pretty good). My calculations show approximatley 15.5 psi (1.07 Bar) of boost, which is a 2.07 pressure ratio, and 32.5 lb/min. of airflow per turbo.
Edit #2 - At 650 whp, pressure ratio will be somewhere around 2.24 with 35 lb/min. of air flow, which still is within the operating range of the compressor, maybe around 70% efficiency or so. There might be an issue with the exhaust flow at a 0.64 A/R for the turbine housing that MAY make achieving 650 whp difficult. We won't know without a dyno run. I have a 0.64 A/R turbine housing on my 3071 turbos, and I'm not entirely sure I'll make my 750 whp goal on my setup with that A/R value due to back pressure, which can result in reversion of the exhaust gases back into the cylinders. We'll see. I figured I would try 0.64 A/R first, and if that does not get me where I want to be, then move to a 0.86 A/R turbine housing, which of course, will mean delaying spoolup.
Here is the compressor map. You can plot the pressure ratio and airflow on the map. It is slightly above the ideal operating range, but offers a great tradeoff for quick spoolup:
Last edited by ttg35fort; 01-09-2011 at 01:15 PM.
01-09-2011, 11:08 AM
#26
Registered User
iTrader: (16)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 2,939
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The 5 bolt housing is physically smaller, so I dont see how it could of been any harder then the V-bands.
Oh, and the car made 750rwhp dd on 22psi....
Last edited by thawk408; 01-09-2011 at 11:14 AM.
01-09-2011, 12:39 PM
#31
getting the 5 bolts in past the bends in the downpipe is a *****.
750 is a good pump gas/meth tune. did you use any race gas yet?
Rude, from all the pics, it looks like those EFR turbos a much bigger than same wheel sizes from other makers. Have you seen one in person to compare external dimensions?
750 is a good pump gas/meth tune. did you use any race gas yet?
Rude, from all the pics, it looks like those EFR turbos a much bigger than same wheel sizes from other makers. Have you seen one in person to compare external dimensions?
Lag city...lag this lag that blah blah blah. Car has been on the dyno and the lag is not bad at all honestly. And when you rev to 8k, I could care less about power below 5k. Quick fix = downshift.
The 5 bolt housing is physically smaller, so I dont see how it could of been any harder then the V-bands.
Oh, and the car made 750rwhp dd on 22psi....
The 5 bolt housing is physically smaller, so I dont see how it could of been any harder then the V-bands.
Oh, and the car made 750rwhp dd on 22psi....
01-09-2011, 12:48 PM
#32
Registered User
iTrader: (16)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 2,939
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
getting the 5 bolts in past the bends in the downpipe is a *****.
750 is a good pump gas/meth tune. did you use any race gas yet?
Rude, from all the pics, it looks like those EFR turbos a much bigger than same wheel sizes from other makers. Have you seen one in person to compare external dimensions?
750 is a good pump gas/meth tune. did you use any race gas yet?
Rude, from all the pics, it looks like those EFR turbos a much bigger than same wheel sizes from other makers. Have you seen one in person to compare external dimensions?
. There is another 30rwhp or so at the same psi. PMed, so we do not ruin the OP's thread.
Last edited by thawk408; 01-09-2011 at 12:49 PM.
01-09-2011, 12:54 PM
#33
Registered User
iTrader: (16)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 2,939
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Also, I would warn against ever trying to use a BW turbo in this location. My original idea was to use the Bullseye modified BW s262's, but after taking deliver of one we quickly realized they were almost impossible to fit. The way their exhaust housings are make it very difficult to work with the turbo in location specified by the OP.
The turbine inlet is taller then on a compared Precision/Garett, also the center cartridge is longer. We even machined a T31 housing from apgturbos.com to work with my s262, but it still would not fit beside the transmission. We scrapped the idea of using the BWs, and that is the reason I personally went with the Precision turbos.
The turbine inlet is taller then on a compared Precision/Garett, also the center cartridge is longer. We even machined a T31 housing from apgturbos.com to work with my s262, but it still would not fit beside the transmission. We scrapped the idea of using the BWs, and that is the reason I personally went with the Precision turbos.
01-09-2011, 03:49 PM
#34
Nice work, Sasha!
The only concern I would have based on the pictures is the location of the air intake for those of us who live in wet climates.
I like the twin turbo setup because of the increased efficiency of twin compressors on our motors. This setup should be good to achieve in excess of 600 whp. At 600 whp, the GT2871 compressor should be operating around 72% efficiency (Edit, I originally grabbed the wrong efficiency number on the map, it appears to be 72% in lieu of 74%, which is still pretty good). My calculations show approximatley 15.5 psi (1.07 Bar) of boost, which is a 2.07 pressure ratio, and 32.5 lb/min. of airflow per turbo.
Edit #2 - At 650 whp, pressure ratio will be somewhere around 2.24 with 35 lb/min. of air flow, which still is within the operating range of the compressor, maybe around 70% efficiency or so. There might be an issue with the exhaust flow at a 0.64 A/R for the turbine housing that MAY make achieving 650 whp difficult. We won't know without a dyno run. I have a 0.64 A/R turbine housing on my 3071 turbos, and I'm not entirely sure I'll make my 750 whp goal on my setup with that A/R value due to back pressure, which can result in reversion of the exhaust gases back into the cylinders. We'll see. I figured I would try 0.64 A/R first, and if that does not get me where I want to be, then move to a 0.86 A/R turbine housing, which of course, will mean delaying spoolup.
Here is the compressor map. You can plot the pressure ratio and airflow on the map. It is slightly above the ideal operating range, but offers a great tradeoff for quick spoolup:
The only concern I would have based on the pictures is the location of the air intake for those of us who live in wet climates.
I like the twin turbo setup because of the increased efficiency of twin compressors on our motors. This setup should be good to achieve in excess of 600 whp. At 600 whp, the GT2871 compressor should be operating around 72% efficiency (Edit, I originally grabbed the wrong efficiency number on the map, it appears to be 72% in lieu of 74%, which is still pretty good). My calculations show approximatley 15.5 psi (1.07 Bar) of boost, which is a 2.07 pressure ratio, and 32.5 lb/min. of airflow per turbo.
Edit #2 - At 650 whp, pressure ratio will be somewhere around 2.24 with 35 lb/min. of air flow, which still is within the operating range of the compressor, maybe around 70% efficiency or so. There might be an issue with the exhaust flow at a 0.64 A/R for the turbine housing that MAY make achieving 650 whp difficult. We won't know without a dyno run. I have a 0.64 A/R turbine housing on my 3071 turbos, and I'm not entirely sure I'll make my 750 whp goal on my setup with that A/R value due to back pressure, which can result in reversion of the exhaust gases back into the cylinders. We'll see. I figured I would try 0.64 A/R first, and if that does not get me where I want to be, then move to a 0.86 A/R turbine housing, which of course, will mean delaying spoolup.
Here is the compressor map. You can plot the pressure ratio and airflow on the map. It is slightly above the ideal operating range, but offers a great tradeoff for quick spoolup:
I use the same filter location on the ST kit as this TT set up, and have not had issues with it at all. I have driven in some heavy rain as well, and when I got home took the intake pipe off to check for moisture, and there was none.
As far as turbine housings, a .64 should work very well for most applications. If one wanted the GT30's I would go suggest the .86 hot side.
To truly find out what the potential is, I will have to find somebody with a built motor willing to push the limits.
The reson I went with Garrett is the more compact compressor cover. The smalles you can get on a PTE turbo is a B size cover. Either way both are quality proven turbos, and should deliver in either the TT or ST forms.
EFR's as somebody already mentioned have too much crap attached, and would not fit at all.
Last edited by Boosted Performance; 01-09-2011 at 03:53 PM.
01-09-2011, 04:37 PM
#35
Thank you, and to the other comments.
I use the same filter location on the ST kit as this TT set up, and have not had issues with it at all. I have driven in some heavy rain as well, and when I got home took the intake pipe off to check for moisture, and there was none.
As far as turbine housings, a .64 should work very well for most applications. If one wanted the GT30's I would go suggest the .86 hot side.
To truly find out what the potential is, I will have to find somebody with a built motor willing to push the limits.
The reson I went with Garrett is the more compact compressor cover. The smalles you can get on a PTE turbo is a B size cover. Either way both are quality proven turbos, and should deliver in either the TT or ST forms.
EFR's as somebody already mentioned have too much crap attached, and would not fit at all.
I use the same filter location on the ST kit as this TT set up, and have not had issues with it at all. I have driven in some heavy rain as well, and when I got home took the intake pipe off to check for moisture, and there was none.
As far as turbine housings, a .64 should work very well for most applications. If one wanted the GT30's I would go suggest the .86 hot side.
To truly find out what the potential is, I will have to find somebody with a built motor willing to push the limits.
The reson I went with Garrett is the more compact compressor cover. The smalles you can get on a PTE turbo is a B size cover. Either way both are quality proven turbos, and should deliver in either the TT or ST forms.
EFR's as somebody already mentioned have too much crap attached, and would not fit at all.
01-09-2011, 04:48 PM
#36
The reson I went with Garrett is the more compact compressor cover. The smalles you can get on a PTE turbo is a B size cover. Either way both are quality proven turbos, and should deliver in either the TT or ST forms.
EFR's as somebody already mentioned have too much crap attached, and would not fit at all.
EFR's as somebody already mentioned have too much crap attached, and would not fit at all.
I looked up the dimensions of the EFR. As was pointed out, they are significantly longer than a comparable Precision or Garrett turbo. Here are the dimensions for their smallest sizes of the EFR line.
01-09-2011, 05:05 PM
#37
GT28 cover:
B compressor cover:
Both have a 3" inlet, but you can see how much wider the B cover is over the GT28 cover.
Garrett GT28 turbos can be had with an even smaller cover, the same one they use on the GT25 line of turbos. That thing is very small, have a look at how it compares to the T25 turbine housing:
I could have put this (GT25r) cover on the turbos, and called it a day. The reason I did not do that, is do me wanting to offer the GT3076R as the top dog turbo. It has a 57mm wheel, and it would not fit in the tiny GT25 series compressor cover. I think APS uses these small covers, with some custom machining to fit the larger compressor wheel.
Last edited by Boosted Performance; 01-09-2011 at 05:21 PM.
01-09-2011, 05:29 PM
#38
Thanks for the clarification Sasha.
According to SP's website, Precision's B cover has a 2.5" inlet and their E cover has a 3" inlet. Is that incorrect? If the GT28 housing has a 3" inlet and the Precision B cover has a 2.5" inlet, it could give the illusion in that pic comparison that the Precision housing has a larger overall diameter.
http://www.spracingonline.com/store/...urbo_5557/3688
According to SP's website, Precision's B cover has a 2.5" inlet and their E cover has a 3" inlet. Is that incorrect? If the GT28 housing has a 3" inlet and the Precision B cover has a 2.5" inlet, it could give the illusion in that pic comparison that the Precision housing has a larger overall diameter.
http://www.spracingonline.com/store/...urbo_5557/3688
Last edited by RudeG_v2.0; 01-09-2011 at 06:01 PM.
01-09-2011, 06:35 PM
#39
Well, I must correct myself on this whole compressor cover size comparison.
Took a couple of pictures, left is the GT28 with a 3" inlet and on the right is the PTE B compressor cover with a 2.75" inlet. This makes it look like the compressor is a bit larger overall, even though it is not:
The outlet on the B cover is a bit longer, but that really is no big deal in this case.
The big difference here is T25 vs T3 (although this is a rather large .82a/r T3);
I did however try to see how the 5557 T3 .82 a/r with a B cover would fit:
Passenger side:
Driver side:
Definetly possible to make it work, but a bit more of a PITA. The T3 does come with the following a/r options: .48 .63 .82., so a nice variety, but I would never go with a .82 a/r, as it would spool very late in the RPM.
Here is proof that the PTE B cover is not 2.5" or 3.0":
Took a couple of pictures, left is the GT28 with a 3" inlet and on the right is the PTE B compressor cover with a 2.75" inlet. This makes it look like the compressor is a bit larger overall, even though it is not:
The outlet on the B cover is a bit longer, but that really is no big deal in this case.
The big difference here is T25 vs T3 (although this is a rather large .82a/r T3);
I did however try to see how the 5557 T3 .82 a/r with a B cover would fit:
Passenger side:
Driver side:
Definetly possible to make it work, but a bit more of a PITA. The T3 does come with the following a/r options: .48 .63 .82., so a nice variety, but I would never go with a .82 a/r, as it would spool very late in the RPM.
Here is proof that the PTE B cover is not 2.5" or 3.0":
Last edited by Boosted Performance; 01-09-2011 at 06:42 PM.
