True. I stalk your posts on forums Geoff, but can't remember all the forums where I read them. Its hard to find engineers in the industry instead of just "tuners".

But even you spoke on how you only suggest using with the GT30/76R in a twin scroll with the T4 housing in the...I think 1.04 A/R housing because the .78 was to much of a restriction. You noticed a huge gain.

The GT30/76R comes in what.....a .63 A/R and a .81 A/R in the T3. But even then that is the Area Ratio on a t3 flange.

I think over 500 whp on a GT30/76R the restriction is going to be the flange and the A/R. IS there a 1.04 A/R T3 flange for that turbo? We are way off the VE table of that turbo already.

J. R.

 

youre close, but not totally on it. a cpl points to clear up:

1) an off-the-shelf Garrett 3076R .82 a/r T3 in a full-race S2000 kit will make 565WHP and then it starts to run out of steam. The restriction is not the flange nor the a/r.
2) there is no benefit to any housing larger than .82 a/r OR smaller than .82 a/r for our turbokit configuration. We've got it dialed.
3) there is no T4 housing appropriate to the 30R turbo. The .78 a/r T3 you are referring to is very restrictive and actually flows like a .60 (which is a good thing for SR20DETs, the only application we use the .78 with)
4) This turbo is plenty happy over 500whp, definitely not running out of breath!!

 

I love the conversation going on here, a lot of info but he did make 488RWP on an older AP1, its not like he only pumped out 350RWP????????

 

you are missing the key point in this disccusion -- EMAP is growing faster than IMAP, this is probably beyond most poeople on this forum, but its a critical relationship ESPECIALLY on an S2000 and interesting to note what is the cause

 

True is probably is over most people's head's on this forum, but it will give them something to google search.

YOUR RIGHT. I read on the freshalloy forum about you guys using the T4 1.04 A/R flange with the Twin-scroll manifold you make for the SR20det.

Agree with you that the .78 twin scroll t3 is like a .60 single t3.



BACK TO THE MANIFOLD DISCUSSION. Without doing the "ping-pong ball" test with both manifolds, they both look very identical on flow characteristics.
Guess they are not.....

But this begs the question..... If the motor was a 2.2L what numbers would we be seeing....Evans chime in and comment if you notice the 2.2 motors putting out a little better or not.

J. R.

 

2.2L would spool a little faster, but the backpressure problem would get even worse so it might make *less* power

 

How so?

 

True it would cause the back pressure problem to increase as you are trying to push even more CFM through the bottle neck.......but in that cause you are exhausting more CFM so making potentially more power.

Which is why I asked evans......these number look great for a 2.0L....for a 2.2L I would expect 10% better numbers which would put the car from 488 to 536.8 or 537. If it made 537 would we even be having this discussion?

So again when we all started posting how this car dyno'd low and we start shooting all the 500-530 whp numbers......were those on 2.0L or 2.2L motors?

Geoff you must admit that potentially, the 2.2L should be able to put out 5-10% better numbers assuming all things were equal and both were being rev'd out and what not.

J. R.

 

Who are the other PFAB ELT guys and what power did they make at what PSI?

Neeman77 made just over 500RWHP with a GT35 on PFAB's twinscroll manifold, but at what PSI I am not sure?

I should be getting my manifold in two weeks I will post up a lot of pics ( I know pictures don't give much info but build quality should at least show)

 

sorry JR (flexer) my experiences cause me to disagree with everything you wrote

MADJDM -- do me a favor and email me at geoff@full-race.com i got some info for you and need you to get some info for me