You state "Turbine housing" about 4 times but to the rest of society thats the whole deal. The losses I mentioned are more focused on the axial clearances from Inducer blade tip to the wall. As far as I can tell from your various pics, your porting doesn't give this area the consideration it should.
The testing will be for the benefits of 'tweaking' both turbine housings and manifolds thru porting and coating, not just turbine housings.
While I do think what you are getting at is a valid point (essentially referencing the exducer bore and it's clearance to the turbine) but that is beyond the scope of this test and I really wouldn't honestly feel confident telling garrett that they need to change their designs IF they even needed modification.... However if you have thoughts on this I am all ears.
Quote: Originally Posted by duster360
More heat isn't always best. When a gas becomes too hot and the velocity too great, the Mach number reaches 1.0 and the mass flow Chokes, as in STOPs increasing. Once the gas's Mach # = 1 it will not matter how high the pressure is before the Turbine of how low it is after it, the mass flow will NOT increase(without a shock wave that is). Obviously a stagnant mass flow will accellerate the turbine but it WILL put the kibosh on high RPM hp. If no more mass air can get OUT, it sure as hell can't get in.
A valid point, but what you are forgetting is that there is something controlling speed and pressure in this situation... the turbo. I am versed in the physics behind airflow's characteristics near and after mach but we won't be changing things to that extreme. I know what you are getting at but for all intensive purposes I am only looking to increase efficiencies and not redesign the entire setup. What you are talking about is beyond the scope of this test.
Quote: Originally Posted by duster360
Quick spools are great(stock turbo) except when they CHOKE too soon.
We aren't talking about stock turbos, and realistically I am talking about getting things to spool perhaps 300-400rpm quicker which will not effect the choke point to any extreme. This test is to show the effects of porting and coating (essentially increasing airflow quality and increasing thermal efficiencies) and nothing more.
If it was as in depth as you are talking about we would be talking about aggregate energy and velocity losses from manifold and volute shape and not about improving the parts that so many people already have.
__________________
Form and Function Performance, LLC
Trust those who KNOW performance, not just sell it
Your turbo upgrade/rebuild, airflow, and thermal management specialists!
|612-385-0419| |www.FFPerformance.com| |sales@FFPerformance.com|
The testing will be for the benefits of 'tweaking' both turbine housings and manifolds thru porting and coating, not just turbine housings.
To keep within the scope of work of the tests, I think it would be worth while to test the ported compressor, turbine and manifold separately against the baseline in addition to the 3 peice combo(four combinations).
This way you can isolate and quantify the indivdual benefits of each peice. Since you commonly sell the individual services, these tests will provide marketable results
__________________
"Just because someone goes fast doesn't mean you should do whatever you think they did.
This path assumes they knew what they were doing, which isn't necessarily the case"..........RB Racing
To keep within the scope of work of the tests, I think it would be worth while to test the ported compressor, turbine and manifold separately against the baseline in addition to the 3 peice combo(four combinations).
This way you can isolate and quantify the indivdual benefits of each peice. Since you commonly sell the individual services, these tests will provide marketable results
If you want to put up the extra money for labor and dyno time I am sure they will do it. But your request is absolutely not within a reasonable budget to get these tests done.
__________________
AGP Delta55 123mph pump low boost, 127 race gas and low boost.
If you want to put up the extra money for labor and dyno time I am sure they will do it. But your request is absolutely not within a reasonable budget to get these tests done.
What money for dyno time??? Its "donated", is it not?
Yes there will be a bit extra labor in swapping parts, but it would be in FFP interest to be able to market the results of the individual peice modifications since they are not sold only in complete packages but as individual services.
For example, if the JUST Turbine porting produces 60% for the total gain then, its cost should reflect that. Conversely, if the Compressor porting shows little measureable improvement, then why bother wasting future R&D resourses.
Last edited by duster360 : 05-01-2008 at 06:07 PM.
Reason: removal of sarcasm
Actually I would be able to do a fourth test of just a ported turbine housing and it's gains. Yes it would be another test, but what the heck right? I'll see if I can squeeze this into it as well although I am thinking that there will be enough gains from the manifold work a s well to entice anyone interested in the work to send both manifolds and turbine housings to me for the FFP luvin'
Oh and as far as the compressor covers go, agp and I talked about it and decided not to do this portion for this test. Reason being in order to port the compressor housing to any effect, we would have to cut, then port, and reweld the elbows on the compressor covers. This is not a 'normal' option for the porting I do so we left it out.
thanks for commenting but remind me again why your opinion is relavent? How are you affiliated with FFP?
I just reread your post and saw this.
He has no affiliation with my company, but I have worked with him in the past on a project.
I do have beef with your comment about his (or anyone's) opinion not being relevant. I am open to any comments or opinions provided they are civil and not slanderous. I know you're an ME and are very informed on this subject matter but I will ask that you respect anyone else posting in my section regardless of whether YOUR opinion of the relevancy of their comments are justified. I will police my section
If you get the smaller big turbos to spool that much faster won't there be some surge issues...I already have some surge issues w/ my 3147
my car is the one going on the dyno. its a .63 AR. doesnt hit boost till late... if you can get this turbo to surge... please do! full spool is ALOT closer to 4k then 3k... i only get around 12-14psi at 3k...
sure shouldnt be a issue i would think.
bob, thanks for letting me stop by today!
He has no affiliation with my company, but I have worked with him in the past on a project.
I do have beef with your comment about his (or anyone's) opinion not being relevant. I will police my section
I'll make note of it and refrain from sarcasm.(edited post)
I was actually asking a honest question. The kid was arguing against expanding testing, stating costs, even though directly contradicted your posts. So it was as if he had knew more than you were letting on to or that he works for you......Obviously neither is true
Last edited by duster360 : 05-01-2008 at 06:22 PM.
It's not really my business. But it seems to me when somebody offers me a free scoop of ice cream... I don't ask for two. I'm looking forward to these tests and I'm glad they're going to post the results so people can really understand what they're pushing and what they're doing to their turbos. Thanks FFP, AGP, and MAPerformance. I appreciate the work that's about to be done.
my car is the one going on the dyno. its a .63 AR. doesnt hit boost till late... if you can get this turbo to surge... please do! full spool is ALOT closer to 4k then 3k... i only get around 12-14psi at 3k...
sure shouldnt be a issue i would think.
bob, thanks for letting me stop by today!
You bet man! I'm glad you were able to swing by the shop!
It's not really my business. But it seems to me when somebody offers me a free scoop of ice cream... I don't ask for two. I'm looking forward to these tests and I'm glad they're going to post the results so people can really understand what they're pushing and what they're doing to their turbos. Thanks FFP, AGP, and MAPerformance. I appreciate the work that's about to be done.
I'm glad to do it as well. Both AGP and MAP have been great thus far, and we (the srt-4 community) are lucky to have these vendors (and FFP) able to contribute is awesome.
Ok so I have some prelim data/spec for the turbines and manifolds. Each turbine and manifold have been marked as 1/2/3 and will remain as such for future reference. So when there are any comments or questions about 'turbine 2' we'll know where we started from.
All three turbine housings are 50-trim .63 A/R Garrett turbine housings. These appear to be new. All three manifolds are AGP's newer cast manifold. These appear to be new as well.
Turbine 1
Exducer bore: 2.276"
Volute entry: 2.255"w x 1.770"h
CC content: 534.4cc
Turbine 2
Exducer bore: 2.278"
Volute entry: 2.247"w x 1.786"h
CC content: 533.6cc
Turbine 3
Exducer bore: 2.276"
Volute entry: 2.249"w x 1.788"h
CC content: 533.8cc
Turbine averages:
Exducer bore: 2.2766" (variance .002")
Volute entry: 2.2505"w x 1.7813"h (variance .008"w, .004"h)
CC content: 533.933cc (variance .8cc)
Manifold 1
Turbo flange: 2.354"w x 1.803"h
WG bore: 1.317"dia
Ports: 1-(2.025"w x 1.089"h) 2-(2.090"w x 1.114"h) 3-(2.082"w x 1.112"h) 4-(1.997"w x 1.106"h)
CC content: 661.0cc
Manifold 2
Turbo flange: 2.361"w x 1.816"h
WG bore: 1.319"dia
Ports: 1-(2.022"w x 1.092"h) 2-(2.075"w x 1.123"h) 3-(2.040"w x 1.122"h) 4-(2.017"w x 1.090"h)
CC content: 651.2cc
Manifold 3
Turbo flange: 2.360"w x 1.810"h
WG bore: 1.324"dia
Ports: 1-(2.009"w x 1.095"h) 2-(2.086"w x 1.120"h) 3-(2.058"w x 1.113"h) 4-(2.003"w x 1.111"h)
CC content: 659.6cc
Manifold averages
Turbo flange: 2.358"w x 1.809"h (variance .007"w .013"h)
WG bore: 1.300"dia (variance .006")
Ports: 2.054"w x 1.109"h (variance .093"w x .034"h)
CC content: 657.26c (variance 9.8cc)
-CC content of turbine housings is NOT of the volute only and DOES include the volumes for the exducer bore and seat for the CHRA.
-Tolerances seem decent, but I can tell the original manifold that AGP used for the molding process had runners #1 & 2 shaped a tad smaller than runners 3 & 4 as all three manifolds showed this in common. This of minor concern as these ports are larger than both the exhaust ports on the head, and larger than the gasket as well. This may have been done to help with anti-reversion but I am only speculating.
I will get post porting cc's of turbines and manifolds after the portwork is completed.
This picture is at a bit of a funky angle, but it is a shot from the #3 runner up towards the flange and turbine housing. The lip you see on the left is actually the turbine housing PROTRUDING into the exhaust stream!! The exhaust flow would go from right to left in this picture so you can really see there is merit to at least a match to the turbine housing for increased performance. After portwork this will be eliminated and better flow quality will be realized.
This shot is of the flange on the manifold and shows the scribe to a gasket match. The scribe line is ~.135" from the current edge.
This shot is of the turbine housings. A bit more on the width is going to be removed here as well. ~.160"
It's not really my business. But it seems to me when somebody offers me a free scoop of ice cream... I don't ask for two. I'm looking forward to these tests
First off, everyone envolved should be thanked for the work to be done and the services offered.
Unfortunately far too often, resources are pissed away on what I call Dyno "shows" rather than performace Tests ran on a dyno. By "shows" I mean simply using a dyno to effectively say
"Hey Everyone! Look what I can Do!"
I see too many kids throw their money away on parts which were bought based on "gains" that were purely acedotal. Sorry, but I don't think most guys are hesitant to admit they pissed away a few hundred bucks, so they'll claim they "felt" more power regardless if any gain really existed. Or worse, they will changeout 15 parts, bump the max boost 4psi, poor in some 110 octane and then swear any of ONE of the 15 new parts is responsible for the power #.
Example: How many times have you heard some chuckle head defend a part he purchased by saying: "I made 350hp with that part, so it must be good" Not only is the guy misinformed but he his misleading others. Yeah he made 350ph but maybe he would have made 395hp with another, better performing part. No one would ever know. WHY? Because a properly controlled back-to-back TEST was never performed.
Bottom line: It would be benefit EVERYONE to actually put a individual hp# on specific parts when the opportunity presents its self.
I'm rambling too far off topic on just one last thought and I'll shut up.
Although I fear FFP tests will be just a bit too much like a show than a true "test", at least in the scientific sense, it will be very interesting to see the results, and they should be applauded for all their hard work.
The AutoGuide.com network consists of the largest network of enthusiast-owned enthusiast-operated automotive communities.
AutoGuide.com provides the latest car reviews, auto show coverage, new car prices, and automotive news. The AutoGuide network operates more than 100 automotive forums where our users consult peers for shopping information and advice, and share opinions as a community.
...
...
I'll see if I can squeeze this into it as well although I am thinking that there will be enough gains from the manifold work a s well to entice anyone interested in the work to send both manifolds and turbine housings to me for the FFP luvin' 
Initial measurements
Linear Mode
