turbo manifold design - Page 5 - Miata Turbo Forum - Boost cars, acquire cats.

Welcome to Miataturbo.net   Members
 


DIY Turbo Discussion greddy on a 1.8? homebrew kit?

Reply
 
 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 08-01-2010, 10:15 PM   #81
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 350
Total Cats: -2
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by curly View Post
ITT: Sav installs greddy mani/turbo. Lol.

Quote:
Then have a bunch of people say the results are not relevant because of the supporting mods.
This is both a joke and a serious note, but I wouldn't want any manifold test bed to have anything but a stock manifold. You might not get the best test results since the intake manifold may stop the turbo manifold from performing at it's best, but 99% of us have a stock intake manifold.
I was both joking and serious, but I didn't think it would happen this fast: Sav has a Blox B18 manifold welded to a '99 flange stub.
SolarYellow510 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2010, 03:35 AM   #82
Supporting Vendor
iTrader: (31)
 
Savington's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Posts: 14,372
Total Cats: 1,335
Default

Curly, you have a point, but the problem is that the stock '99+ IM chokes out at like the 320-330whp mark. I gained 11whp from 3psi with a stock IM ([email protected] to [email protected]). It's so bad that you may see no gains from a ramhorn and lose spool, but if you stick it on a motor with an IM, you'll see gains because the IM isn't restricting it.

Either way, I expect anyone looking at a ramhorn setup to improve power above ~5000rpm to have an intake manifold in place already. It's a no-brainer at this point.
Savington is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2010, 01:55 PM   #83
Elite Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,454
Total Cats: 80
Default

I know you have data to back up what you're saying, but I'm still puzzled with the idea of "it chokes out at 320 hp". As I understand the theory, the combo of IM and cam timing doesn't "choke out" at a given hp aka mass flow rate, it drops off a cliff at a given RPM. What this also means is that at say 6500 RPM, as you increase boost, the flow doesn't choke off at some level of boost. The dynamics of the *volume* flow don't change much with boost (density). Remember that as you raise boost, the volume flow downstream of the turbo compressor doesn't change much, the *mass* does. (And of course the volume flow increases *upstream* of the compressor)

The above theory explains the data that even NA cars gain x% above 6000 RPM from an IM, and this x% translates to turbo cars as well. It doesn't explain why at a certain boost level at 6500 RPM, that corresponds to 310 hp, it suddenly "chokes".

So it would be interesting to find corroborating data. Perhaps in Sav's case there was another un-noticed factor on the day he only went from 310 to 321 hp from 18 to 21 psi. One possiblity is that at that mass flow, he was hitting a steep part of the descent of compressor efficiency which was compounding with the increased backpressure required given the drop in VE of the motor >6000 RPM due to the stock IM. So it's not the IM "choking out", it's the combo. Perhaps with a bigger turbo, it wouldn't "choke out" at that RPM/hp combo. Perhaps he could have easily hit 350 hp at 5500 RPM where the IM flows well (massive torque required notwithstanding), and where the compressor would be in a more efficient island (more boost, same mass flow). (But of course a bigger turbo has downsides...)

So... while the IM improves torque > 6000 RPM, I wonder if it gives up torque and thus spoolup at say, 3500-4500, which some would consider important for a street car.
JasonC SBB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2010, 02:09 PM   #84
Elite Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Anacortes, WA
Posts: 2,479
Total Cats: 116
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JasonC SBB View Post
You're saying the equal length one was much better than the shorty, correct?
correct.
bbundy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2010, 02:24 PM   #85
Elite Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Anacortes, WA
Posts: 2,479
Total Cats: 116
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Savington View Post
Bob, can you elaborate on this a little? I would expect a shorty manifold to have better throttle response and spool, and an equal length to have better mid-range and top-end power.
Im pretty sure that was not the case with me but they were on two different motors. FWIW Im currently running this with a GT3071R on a stock internal 1.8L with a 9.0:1 CR Protg bottom end. It spools surprisingly well.

With the 2.0L I was getting over the 300ft-lb mark by 3800 rpm with 17 lbs of boost. Measured on a Dyno-dynamics Dyno at sea level. It peters out on the top end.

Bob
bbundy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2010, 02:43 PM   #86
Elite Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Anacortes, WA
Posts: 2,479
Total Cats: 116
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Savington View Post
Bob, can you elaborate on this a little? I would expect a shorty manifold to have better throttle response and spool, and an equal length to have better mid-range and top-end power.
A typical manifold for a WRC car.

These guys have to run a restricter that chokes top end power no mater what they do. These manifolds are tuned for mid range torque and throttle response to make performance gains. They still run fairly large turbos. they are not downsizing turbos to get throttle response, spool, or mid range.

Bob
Attached Thumbnails
turbo manifold design-focuswrcengine.jpg   turbo manifold design-manifold1.jpg   turbo manifold design-manifold6.jpg  
bbundy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2010, 03:28 PM   #87
Boost Czar
iTrader: (61)
 
Braineack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 72,904
Total Cats: 1,793
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bbundy View Post
A typical manifold for a WRC car.

These guys have to run a restricter that chokes top end power no mater what they do. These manifolds are tuned for mid range torque and throttle response to make performance gains. They still run fairly large turbos. they are not downsizing turbos to get throttle response, spool, or mid range.

Bob

more pics of that odd turbo please.
Braineack is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2010, 04:02 PM   #88
Senior Member
iTrader: (2)
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Denver
Posts: 909
Total Cats: 14
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JasonC SBB View Post
I know you have data to back up what you're saying, but I'm still puzzled with the idea of "it chokes out at 320 hp". As I understand the theory, the combo of IM and cam timing doesn't "choke out" at a given hp aka mass flow rate, it drops off a cliff at a given RPM. What this also means is that at say 6500 RPM, as you increase boost, the flow doesn't choke off at some level of boost. The dynamics of the *volume* flow don't change much with boost (density). Remember that as you raise boost, the volume flow downstream of the turbo compressor doesn't change much, the *mass* does. (And of course the volume flow increases *upstream* of the compressor)

The above theory explains the data that even NA cars gain x% above 6000 RPM from an IM, and this x% translates to turbo cars as well. It doesn't explain why at a certain boost level at 6500 RPM, that corresponds to 310 hp, it suddenly "chokes".

So it would be interesting to find corroborating data. Perhaps in Sav's case there was another un-noticed factor on the day he only went from 310 to 321 hp from 18 to 21 psi. One possiblity is that at that mass flow, he was hitting a steep part of the descent of compressor efficiency which was compounding with the increased backpressure required given the drop in VE of the motor >6000 RPM due to the stock IM. So it's not the IM "choking out", it's the combo. Perhaps with a bigger turbo, it wouldn't "choke out" at that RPM/hp combo. Perhaps he could have easily hit 350 hp at 5500 RPM where the IM flows well (massive torque required notwithstanding), and where the compressor would be in a more efficient island (more boost, same mass flow). (But of course a bigger turbo has downsides...)

So... while the IM improves torque > 6000 RPM, I wonder if it gives up torque and thus spoolup at say, 3500-4500, which some would consider important for a street car.
It is all fluid dynamics, I don't pretend to understand much about it, and I know that this is an over simplification but here is how I see and understand it. A pipe can only flow so much water, you can increase the amount of water flowing through the pipe by adding a pump (turbo) and forcing water(air) through the pipe. However at some point you are going to reach a maximum volume that the system can flow efficiently. Once you have reached that point the law of diminishing returns takes over and raising boost pressure nets you less hp gain than it did at lower boost levels. It may be possible to compensate for the lesser return by increasing the size of the inner cooler, but I don't think that is what we are talking about here. I also realize that water does not compress where air does. But eventually you will reach max flow for a given diameter of pipe.

You guys are all much more educated than I am when it comes to running boost. I just try to dummy down concepts when I can to help myself grasp the concepts more easily. If I am off base with my thinking please forgive me, and gently set me straight.
hingstonwm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2010, 04:31 PM   #89
Supporting Vendor
iTrader: (31)
 
Savington's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Posts: 14,372
Total Cats: 1,335
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JasonC SBB View Post
I know you have data to back up what you're saying, but I'm still puzzled with the idea of "it chokes out at 320 hp". As I understand the theory, the combo of IM and cam timing doesn't "choke out" at a given hp aka mass flow rate, it drops off a cliff at a given RPM. What this also means is that at say 6500 RPM, as you increase boost, the flow doesn't choke off at some level of boost. The dynamics of the *volume* flow don't change much with boost (density). Remember that as you raise boost, the volume flow downstream of the turbo compressor doesn't change much, the *mass* does. (And of course the volume flow increases *upstream* of the compressor)

The above theory explains the data that even NA cars gain x% above 6000 RPM from an IM, and this x% translates to turbo cars as well. It doesn't explain why at a certain boost level at 6500 RPM, that corresponds to 310 hp, it suddenly "chokes".

So it would be interesting to find corroborating data. Perhaps in Sav's case there was another un-noticed factor on the day he only went from 310 to 321 hp from 18 to 21 psi. One possiblity is that at that mass flow, he was hitting a steep part of the descent of compressor efficiency which was compounding with the increased backpressure required given the drop in VE of the motor >6000 RPM due to the stock IM. So it's not the IM "choking out", it's the combo. Perhaps with a bigger turbo, it wouldn't "choke out" at that RPM/hp combo. Perhaps he could have easily hit 350 hp at 5500 RPM where the IM flows well (massive torque required notwithstanding), and where the compressor would be in a more efficient island (more boost, same mass flow). (But of course a bigger turbo has downsides...)

So... while the IM improves torque > 6000 RPM, I wonder if it gives up torque and thus spoolup at say, 3500-4500, which some would consider important for a street car.
I don't think that's the case. Here's the compressor map for my turbo:

Name:  472560-15comp_e.jpg
Views: 57
Size:  44.7 KB

310whp = ~36lb/min
18psi = 2.22 pressure ratio
21psi = 2.42 presure ratio

If anything, the efficiency of that turbo is slightly improving going from 18psi to 21psi at ~36lb/min. The torque was basically unchanged as well, 305tq at 18psi to 306tq at 21psi, which is what leads me to believe that there's some sort of flow limitation to that manifold. You probably understand the theory significantly better than I do, but that's the results I got.

Here's that dyno chart, you can see how the torque just drops like a rock immediately after peak.

Name:  DSCN1812.jpg
Views: 51
Size:  75.5 KB

Boost/AFR from those same pulls:

Name:  DSCN1814-1.jpg
Views: 50
Size:  79.4 KB

Is there anyone out there making more than ~300tq through a stock '99 intake manifold? I know of a couple people using '94-97 manifolds.
Savington is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2010, 05:09 PM   #90
Elite Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,454
Total Cats: 80
Default

FWIW 18 psi at the IM may be 21-22 psi at the compressor outlet due to pressure drop in the i/c, but that doesn't seem particularly important...

Another possible factor is that it may be the turbine efficiency that's dropping off fast - a turbine inlet pressure reading will show this as a sharp rise in backpressure, resulting in the effect I talk about. Changing the IM to improve the VE of the motor above 5500 RPM may be the removed straw that saves the camel's back if you will.

I know my GT2554 showed it above 6000 RPM at 10 psi. Very sharp rise in TIP. My GT2560 shows it too, to a lesser extent, at the same boost.

If it's indeed the turbine, you will have a new bottleneck at around this new power level or slightly higher, regardless of new cams... unless maybe the new cams work as a kludge to get around the high turbine backpressure.

In any case it's good practice to look at TIP as it will tell you if your turbine is correctly sized.


The shape of your stock IM torque curve resembles my buddy Ian's curve at just 15 psi / 265 whp with a GT2560. I'll bet it's spiking TIP that holds back the breathing, and an IM would probably also just move the "choking" point to maybe 280-290 hp. So it's the system that's choking, and the lack of breathing of the IM > 6000 RPM contributes, but it's not a fixed HP choke point. A bigger turbine would "fix" it too, though the impact on the low end may be worse than that of the IM.

Here are his dyno results
http://www.codrus.com/dyno/bt/

Last edited by JasonC SBB; 08-02-2010 at 05:23 PM.
JasonC SBB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2010, 05:12 PM   #91
Elite Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,454
Total Cats: 80
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hingstonwm View Post
It is all fluid dynamics, I don't pretend to understand much about it, and I know that this is an over simplification but here is how I see and understand it. A pipe can only flow so much water, you can increase the amount of water flowing through the pipe by adding a pump (turbo) and forcing water(air) through the pipe. However at some point you are going to reach a maximum volume that the system can flow efficiently.
The mistake in your analogy is that water is incompressible. The flow dynamics of air in a manifold don't change very much with pressure (boost). It changes a lot more with temperature. The speed of sound doesn't change much with pressure, it changes much more with temperature. So if your air is flow limited due to resistance or pulse tuning / velocity, it is limited in volume flow. If you compress the air, you will get the same volume flow, but because the pressure is higher, the mass flow is higher.

This is the fundamental reason why turbo cars' torque curves remain about the same shape as N/A (once you hit full boost of course). The shape is a mainly a function of the cams and IM.

Last edited by JasonC SBB; 08-02-2010 at 05:27 PM.
JasonC SBB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2010, 05:41 PM   #92
Elite Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Anacortes, WA
Posts: 2,479
Total Cats: 116
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Braineack View Post
more pics of that odd turbo please.
According to the specs it is a WRC focus and the turbo is a TR30R or a custom IHI unit. Im guessing that is an IHI unit. Note also it has to suck through a restrictor. This is very bad for turbo reliability because the pressure ratio is increased dramatically for a given boost ratio.

Bob
bbundy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2010, 05:49 PM   #93
Elite Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Anacortes, WA
Posts: 2,479
Total Cats: 116
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TurboTim View Post
Yeah I wanna know too. I hope to make a true equal length ramhorn style manifold for someone here (ha!) to find out for sure myself, but my only sorta equal length ramhorn manifold was much more laggy than a shorter manifold, but when it did spool it was nuts.
I know what nuts is. Mine wont make less than 15psi even with the waste gate safety wired full open. safety wiring the waste gate open just makes it laggy.

Bob
bbundy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2010, 06:28 PM   #94
Supporting Vendor
iTrader: (31)
 
Savington's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Posts: 14,372
Total Cats: 1,335
Default

If someone doesn't tell me how an equal length ramhorn compares to a small-volume short-ram tubular with specific regards to low-end power and spool I'm going to crush a baby.
Savington is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2010, 06:36 PM   #95
Elite Member
iTrader: (8)
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Kingston, Ontario
Posts: 2,791
Total Cats: 71
Default

you gain top end on the longer runner... how much more and if there is a loss down low is as subjective to the manifold as your quarter mile times would be with different drivers.
shlammed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2010, 06:50 PM   #96
Elite Member
iTrader: (9)
 
TurboTim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Chesterfield, NJ
Posts: 6,485
Total Cats: 248
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Savington View Post
If someone doesn't tell me how an equal length ramhorn compares to a small-volume short-ram tubular with specific regards to low-end power and spool I'm going to crush a baby.
I have little experience but do have theories and can justify why one might be better than the other and vice versa. Both could make sense in my head. The best idea is to make one and find out instead of theorizing. I'm glad I don't have a baby yet.
TurboTim is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2010, 07:06 PM   #97
Elite Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Anacortes, WA
Posts: 2,479
Total Cats: 116
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shlammed View Post
you gain top end on the longer runner... how much more and if there is a loss down low is as subjective to the manifold as your quarter mile times would be with different drivers.

I dont think this is true. properly tuned you gain mid range. needs to be quite long though.

Bob
bbundy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2010, 07:21 PM   #98
Elite Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,454
Total Cats: 80
Default

Does someone have numbers comparing the length and diameter of the runners of the 99 mani with VICS closed, vs. the 94~97 mani?

Last edited by JasonC SBB; 08-02-2010 at 07:48 PM.
JasonC SBB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2010, 07:34 PM   #99
Senior Member
iTrader: (7)
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Chicagoland
Posts: 1,362
Total Cats: 3
Default

Is there anyone out there making more than ~300tq through a stock '99 intake manifold? I know of a couple people using '94-97 manifolds.[/QUOTE]


I made 300 tq with a stock 1.6L intake manifold if that matters.
jtothawhat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2010, 08:08 PM   #100
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: maine
Posts: 224
Total Cats: -1
Default

this one is very interesting. i'm not sure i like the placement of the turbo though. very nice for an ebay many. http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/BP-BP...Q5fAccessories
94blackmx5 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
 
Reply

Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
WTB MP62 (Hotside) (NB2) Rick02R WTB 3 01-03-2016 08:18 PM
Noob to Miataturbo from MA JxPhan Meet and Greet 3 10-02-2015 03:17 AM
Moroso Air Oil Separator Catch Can Aroundcorner Miata parts for sale/trade 2 10-01-2015 04:20 PM
ISO 1.6 turbo cast iron manifold cale saurage DIY Turbo Discussion 16 10-01-2015 12:25 PM


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:05 AM.