Brettus turbo 111 (the ultimate Renesis turbo ?)
07-06-2015, 09:20 PM
#104
interesting situation, have seen some info that suggests on a rotary that the 1.03 A/R Tial undivided turbine housing will spools just as fast as the divided T4 with better top end flow ...
would eliminate the big, clunky 4-bolt flange and also allow full clocking ability
http://www.tialsport.com/index.php/t...rbine-housings
.
would eliminate the big, clunky 4-bolt flange and also allow full clocking ability
http://www.tialsport.com/index.php/t...rbine-housings
.
07-07-2015, 01:17 AM
#105
interesting situation, have seen some info that suggests on a rotary that the 1.03 A/R Tial undivided turbine housing will spools just as fast as the divided T4 with better top end flow ...
would eliminate the big, clunky 4-bolt flange and also allow full clocking ability
TiAL Sport - Turbine Housings
.
would eliminate the big, clunky 4-bolt flange and also allow full clocking ability
TiAL Sport - Turbine Housings
.
Mine is a T3 BTW
I found this a very interesting read and quite relavent to what I'm doing as far as flange/runner size :
http://www.rx7club.com/single-turbo-.../#post11922624
Last edited by Brettus; 07-07-2015 at 01:28 PM.
07-07-2015, 12:00 PM
#106
interesting situation, have seen some info that suggests on a rotary that the 1.03 A/R Tial undivided turbine housing will spools just as fast as the divided T4 with better top end flow ...
would eliminate the big, clunky 4-bolt flange and also allow full clocking ability
TiAL Sport - Turbine Housings
.
would eliminate the big, clunky 4-bolt flange and also allow full clocking ability
TiAL Sport - Turbine Housings
.
07-07-2015, 03:44 PM
#108
sorry, T3 flange then, not as severe as a change as a T4 inlet would be, but consider this
two 36.7 mm ID pipes = 2116 mm^2 total area
Tial GT35 inlet = 2228 mm^2 total area
T3 divided inlet = 2260 mm^2 total area (edited: had made a mistake calculating T3 area, original argument applied more to a T4 flange)
Tial housing ID is much smoother and nice conical transition, T3 is not as smooth or as gentle of a transition into the turbine wheel. Tial is also about 1/2 the weight of a T3 housing.
you would want the 1.03 AR Tial. .80 will spool nice, but will restrict top end.
.
two 36.7 mm ID pipes = 2116 mm^2 total area
Tial GT35 inlet = 2228 mm^2 total area
T3 divided inlet = 2260 mm^2 total area (edited: had made a mistake calculating T3 area, original argument applied more to a T4 flange)
Tial housing ID is much smoother and nice conical transition, T3 is not as smooth or as gentle of a transition into the turbine wheel. Tial is also about 1/2 the weight of a T3 housing.
you would want the 1.03 AR Tial. .80 will spool nice, but will restrict top end.
.
Last edited by TeamRX8; 07-07-2015 at 05:04 PM.
07-07-2015, 04:40 PM
#110
sorry, T3 flange then, not as severe as a change as a T4 inlet would be, but consider this
two 36.7 mm ID pipes = 2116 mm^2 total area
Tial GT35 inlet = 2228 mm^2 total area
T3 divided inlet = 2512 mm^2 total area
Tial housing ID is much smoother and nice conical transition, T3 being fed by two 36.7mm ID pipes will see a sudden expansion (velocity/pressure drop) and is not as smooth or as gentle of a transition into the turbine wheel. Tial is also about 1/2 the weight of a T3 housing.
you would want the 1.03 AR Tial. .80 will spool nice, but will restrict top end.
.
two 36.7 mm ID pipes = 2116 mm^2 total area
Tial GT35 inlet = 2228 mm^2 total area
T3 divided inlet = 2512 mm^2 total area
Tial housing ID is much smoother and nice conical transition, T3 being fed by two 36.7mm ID pipes will see a sudden expansion (velocity/pressure drop) and is not as smooth or as gentle of a transition into the turbine wheel. Tial is also about 1/2 the weight of a T3 housing.
you would want the 1.03 AR Tial. .80 will spool nice, but will restrict top end.
.
Re the GT3582 :
That theory about turbine size vs compressor size . I'm not convinced that it is a good indicator to performance unless A/R is factored into that same theory . I think a better way to look at it would be to work out the % wastegating.
What I do know is that for many years , the GT3582r was considered the rotary turbo of choice.
Last edited by Brettus; 07-07-2015 at 04:48 PM.
07-07-2015, 04:56 PM
#111
BW EFR series is where's its at, there's plenty of info out about them.
That would of been my choice but I know you are dealing with a low mount and space is tight.
A GT35R is still a good turbo, back pressure/egts will build with higher boost due to the smaller hotside.
G/L
07-07-2015, 05:05 PM
#112
I did take it off, but I was squeezing it in while working and used radius for the corner area calcs rather than diameter. That threw it off, sorry.
well if you look at the turbos that were considered of rotary choice; T04, 60-1, etc. the one thing they all have in common was approx. 1:1 compressor/turbine area relationship. The billet turbines alter this because they flow better for a given area, but this turbo doesn't have it. Higher A/R will flow, because it's letting air bypass the wheel rather than apply work to it. The 3582 is a 1:0.81 compressor/turbine relationship (expressed as 81 in the thread link below that discusses why 100/1:1 is preferred, which is discussed extensively on RX7Club):
Turbo Comparison... includes new 2015 turbos. see post one - RX7Club.com
the size EFR he would want won't fit in low mount position (discussed in a different thread here)
this non-EFR BW caught my eye though:
as compared to the 3582:
but you'd have to confirm all the dimensions
.
well if you look at the turbos that were considered of rotary choice; T04, 60-1, etc. the one thing they all have in common was approx. 1:1 compressor/turbine area relationship. The billet turbines alter this because they flow better for a given area, but this turbo doesn't have it. Higher A/R will flow, because it's letting air bypass the wheel rather than apply work to it. The 3582 is a 1:0.81 compressor/turbine relationship (expressed as 81 in the thread link below that discusses why 100/1:1 is preferred, which is discussed extensively on RX7Club):
Turbo Comparison... includes new 2015 turbos. see post one - RX7Club.com
the size EFR he would want won't fit in low mount position (discussed in a different thread here)
this non-EFR BW caught my eye though:
Borg Warner S300 60 PN177282 & 80.....6.383..................6.328............... ........99
GT3582R........................................... ........6.386..................5.171.............. ........81
.
Last edited by TeamRX8; 07-07-2015 at 05:13 PM.
07-07-2015, 05:06 PM
#113
WAS the turbo of choice.
BW EFR series is where's its at, there's plenty of info out about them.
That would of been my choice but I know you are dealing with a low mount and space is tight.
A GT35R is still a good turbo, back pressure/egts will build with higher boost due to the smaller hotside.
G/L
BW EFR series is where's its at, there's plenty of info out about them.
That would of been my choice but I know you are dealing with a low mount and space is tight.
A GT35R is still a good turbo, back pressure/egts will build with higher boost due to the smaller hotside.
G/L
07-07-2015, 05:39 PM
#115
well if you look at the turbos that were considered of rotary choice; T04, 60-1, etc. the one thing they all have in common was approx. 1:1 compressor/turbine area relationship. The billet turbines alter this because they flow better for a given area, but this turbo doesn't have it. Higher A/R will flow, because it's letting air bypass the wheel rather than apply work to it. The 3582 is a 1:0.81 compressor/turbine relationship (expressed as 81 in the thread link below that discusses why 100/1:1 is preferred, which is discussed extensively on RX7Club):
.
Really ? First time I've heard that . In my reading It's always been about lowering the backpressure required to spool the turbo by reducing the velocity of the gasses entering the turbine .
Last edited by Brettus; 07-07-2015 at 05:46 PM.
07-07-2015, 05:46 PM
#116
why do you think a larger A/R spools slower yet flows more all else being equal? EDIT: actually didn't use the right terminology. It has more to do with velocity and the angle that the turbine wheel is impacted. The general gist is how the work from the exhaust is applied to the turbine wheel. At the same time a larger turbine area will have a lower velocity as well. You mihgt have a suitable argument.
it's just years of experience/evaluation, but yeah it's not an exact science. In general, Garrett turbos have that lopsided relationship and seem to be a better fit on piston engines as a result
it's just years of experience/evaluation, but yeah it's not an exact science. In general, Garrett turbos have that lopsided relationship and seem to be a better fit on piston engines as a result
Last edited by TeamRX8; 07-07-2015 at 05:54 PM.
07-07-2015, 08:21 PM
#121
the 8374 is already the ultimate choice and since it has an internal wastegate that functions very well it makes your manifold idea a moot point for a top mount
and fwiw ...
but there are unique other features that make it function more like 100 on an older technology turbo ...
.
and fwiw ...
BW EFR "8374"..........................................6. 626..................6.23....................94
.
Last edited by TeamRX8; 07-07-2015 at 08:24 PM.
07-07-2015, 08:25 PM
#122
The whole reason for even trying this was to improve the flow potential through the exhaust ports . Which has been the limiting factor to getting decent power on the Renesis .
Same thing applies no matter where you mount the turbo or what turbo you use.
07-07-2015, 08:57 PM
#125
With that turbo , you could run 2x 45ID runners to the t4 divided flange and still use the siamese to WG . Down pipe wouldn't even need to be that large with no WG gases going through it ...
Last edited by Brettus; 07-07-2015 at 09:02 PM.