Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

trying to find the math on flow through certain sized pipes cant seem to find anything specific to idea. in the instance of a 3" pipe could you heat and flatten pipe to make it fit in tight spaces. would it still have same flow and still have same volume ?

edit just found this

http://www.partsshopmax.com/page.php?44

pipe_zpsth6mqamt.jpg

and this

http://www.stainlessheaders.com/oval_exhaust_tubing

Edited by stripey
  • Like 1

trying to find the math on flow through certain sized pipes cant seem to find anything specific to idea. in the instance of a 3" pipe could you heat and flatten pipe to make it fit in tight spaces. would it still have same flow and still have same volume ?

edit just found this

http://www.partsshopmax.com/page.php?44

pipe_zpsth6mqamt.jpg&&0){for(var>

and this

http://www.stainlessheaders.com/oval_exhaust_tubing

You can, but you'd be better off using 2.5" pipe; then splitting it and adding flat plate to the gap; not unlike what Scotty does with his dump pipes; to get some extra cross sectional area.

You can, but you'd be better off using 2.5" pipe; then splitting it and adding flat plate to the gap; not unlike what Scotty does with his dump pipes; to get some extra cross sectional area.

Or rolling/clamping flat stainless in a jig which is what I would like to do. Then there is only one weld not four. :P

  • 2 weeks later...

Unfortunately due to the very average Australian vs US dollar my Indy car Borg Warner turbo purchase fell through. I'll have to keep that experience to my race car. As fait my have it however. While I was in Melbourne on holidays I went to visit Tao at Hypergear. We discussed the downfalls of my Rev 4 turbo. Kudos to Tao who in person was very humble and agreed to continue to evolve the high power end of development for the M35 Stagea. From my logs and experience with the Rev 4 we have decided on a development version for me to test. My turbo is in the mail as I speak. Plans to bypass the previous issues of low boost and too much turbine flow are as follows below. As a side influence the turbo may also produce more power. I should state in 3rd gear at 26-28psi the Rev 4 was sensational. Acceleration to the point my exhaust would scrape on the ground.

Development design:

Change small diameter turbine heat shield to large which increases flow directed onto the turbine tips rather than under causing interference and wasting energy. Aim is to increase spool an upper boost capacity.

Change the compressor from a low blade SS2 to a high blade SS2. This will create more flow/boost at the same turbine speeds. It may increase spool however more torque from the turbine is required to spin it so will have to wait and see.

The bearings will be changed from bush to hybrid combination dual german ceramic ball bearings(yes German not Chinese) with a bush bearing style thrust plate. This ensures reliability at high shaft speeds whilst also realising some of the CBB spool benefits. The turbine shaft will be machined down to allow the CBB's to be fitted which will reduce rotational mass. Being close to the centre of the mass spool benefit will be minimal however some benefit will be realised.

The wastegate will have the new heavy duty actuator installed which is capable of high arm angles whilst resisting the increased pressure from the oversized puck.

The intake will be tapered down from a 3" bolt on adaptor to compressor rather than being 90degrees.

Intake pipe is 3" to 3.15"

I feel a little of development and experience from everyone contributing to this thread is reflected in this. I'll update results with lots of comparative graphs when available.

PS I have a spare engine and two spare gearboxes ready to go :)

PPS is it just me or has the price of M35's gone up in the last few months..

Matt

Hypergear Rev4 0-100 4.# seconds http://youtu.be/vZGUFzqHFRI

Edited by BoostdR
  • Like 2
First of all thank Matt for the opportunity to trail this particular build, we will be using the larger ATR43SS2 CBB profile made for RB25det engines in OEM housings, while further measures working with heavy thrust load on high boost.
Making an performance high flow that suit majority of engines, we can't have it running base pressure of 30psi, lots of conventional efforts has been adapted getting a stable boost pressure of 18 to 20psi.

Ceramic ball bearing system provides superior throttle response, the car picks up and move on very light throttle on or off boost, this is some thing that traditional bush bearing assembly can not provide. On the same time due to the nature of the bearing assembly they requires very little oil to run, means there is no need to modify a good working OEM oil supply system.

There are limitations and unknown factors for this evaluation, hopefully we can see some good numbers.

There are glaring and obvious reasons for the failures of the bush cores you designed, highlighted by the fact everyone I take the SS2 to can't control their laughter. (mind you I only wanted to find the source of the noise and balance it so I could sell it on.)

The wear on the thrust assembly after a few hundred K's is substantial, and I can only recommend anyone using your bush core limits the boost to under 20 psi, at least until the thrust assembly is looked at by a reputable turbo builder. Quite happy to post pics if you like. This also explains why the rear bush didn't receive enough oil, and why most of the failures have likely occurred. Shame on you for making me do all this fault tracing on my own Tao, you should have warranted your work in the first place and worked out these issues yourself.

I just hope your Rev 25 BB core is of better design. I can't be recommending any Hypergear highflow anymore due to these apparently simple to remedy design flaws which cost me my sanity and more spanner time than I would like to remember.

As for numbers, you have some catching up to do...

Guys I just want to be clear on this. Are you guys just chasing numbers? If so what about the guys that simply just want to go to a high flow setup and have no aspirations of putting an EMU(or similar) on.

In other words are these developed turbo's going to be a laggy pos with no tune and below 18psi?

Edited by Jetwreck
  • Like 2

I think Tao is talking about previous big comp wheeled turbos with small turbine which struggle to bleed exhaust pressure. He does do a Garrett core small high flow that does work with the OEM ecu and controls boost to 9psi with OEM response.

I tested my Bush bearings after I removed my turbo and was pleased to find zero shaft play. I had 3mm drilled banjo's and an oversized rb25 oil return.

As for chasing numbers. Yes I want numbers under the curve. And more boost in low gear. Happy to keep the same up top. My Rev4 made 16psi in 1st, 21psi in 2nd and 26psi in 3rd with the wastegate fully closed. The design I expressed above is aimed at giving more flow at the same shaft speed and more energy to the turbine to try to mitigate the previous low boost issues. With the gate fully open 5psi-7psi was max so that's promising.

It may not work at all, who knows. I've accepted the liability and will post results for everyone's benefit.

Matt :)

I think this is the little high flow with Garrett core

Hmmn seems my pics aren't coming up...

Edited by BoostdR

For a VQ turbo discussion I'm pretty open about it.

They all Bronze bearings and steel collars there isn't much of ways around those.

Because VQ25 engines doesn't seems to be pumping as much oil flow compare to RB or SR engines, so for T3 bush assembly to work it needs the thrust assembly to be bolted down and an small oil restrictor fitted just under the thrust bearing feed plus a angled tapper on the journal, that solves the oil delivery issues. But far as I know majority of the early high flows I've done are still working fine with all oil restrictors drilled out.

On the thrust side, I found with the VQ25, on high boost, the thrust wear is normally under the comp wheel, this is due to the limitation of comp housing as well as the inlet manifold and cams. Which turns out opposite to other inline engines.

To solve all above problems, its just best going ball bearing, and I'm using Genuine Garrett CHRAs on all of the M35 high flows that I currently do,

With high power, due to turbine housing design there is no boost control internally gated, I'm controlling it with compressor wheel size. I won't be getting much more power at given boost level. However I'm using an larger wheel on this one of high flow.

For a VQ turbo discussion I'm pretty open about it.

They all Bronze bearings and steel collars there isn't much of ways around those.

Because VQ25 engines doesn't seems to be pumping as much oil flow compare to RB or SR engines, so for T3 bush assembly to work it needs the thrust assembly to be bolted down and an small oil restrictor fitted just under the thrust bearing feed plus a angled tapper on the journal, that solves the oil delivery issues. But far as I know majority of the early high flows I've done are still working fine with all oil restrictors drilled out.

On the thrust side, I found with the VQ25, on high boost, the thrust wear is normally under the comp wheel, this is due to the limitation of comp housing as well as the inlet manifold and cams. Which turns out opposite to other inline engines.

To solve all above problems, its just best going ball bearing, and I'm using Genuine Garrett CHRAs on all of the M35 high flows that I currently do,

With high power, due to turbine housing design there is no boost control internally gated, I'm controlling it with compressor wheel size. I won't be getting much more power at given boost level. However I'm using an larger wheel on this one of high flow.

So you know the 360 degree thrust bearing needs to be bolted down, (and mind you your knockoff thrust has the holes in it already to enable this easily) and yet you failed to do this, even though you knew the oil flow to be a problem? Was this a simple cost cutting exercise at our expense? I paid for a turbo that I could push hard, this is definitely not the case.

Why didn't you mention this when I was bringing blown turbo's to you asking for an answer to these issues? The Intense highflow has no wear problems, so essentially the failures were due to you failing to tap three small threads into your core.

The way you trial and design turbo's is plain wrong, and relies on the customer to cover any flaws in your design. I won't be fitting any Hypergear turbo until I can see that the quality has improved for myself.

There are many ways of firmly hold the thrust plate to the bearing housing. Method mentioned above can be used when working with sump oil restrictor, how ever it can no work along without alterations to bearings and bearing housing. Oil restrictor was not mentioned by you during our initial development. Hence the later announcement about the sump oil restictor.

The thrust wear I found was under the opposite side, which has nothing to do with the how its been held. I think check your intense r after few thunsand Ks for Thrust wear.

2ndly, I was never asked to build a turbo that boost spikes to 34psi. I was asked to build a turbo to maintain a minimum boost pressure of under 20psi that is boost control able. I'll only be engineering turbos for M35s that holds minimum boost of 20psi and below as a sell able product.

After all we don't live in history. All my current retail versions of M35 highflows runs off genuine Garrett CBB centers. That provides superior throttle and boost response without having to alter factory oil delivery systems.

GT_CHRA_004.jpg

ok so... as a fairly disapointed Hypergear SS2 (pre any revisions) owner who simply wants a something that will not be a terrible laggy mess like the turbo i have now what would be my current options?

Obviously i need my tune looked at (Emanage) and perhaps this will help things but reading what Matt is saying with his revised SS2 more development is sorely needed.

I'll be watching this thread closely as my car will be back tomorrow with new exhaust sorted.... I really need to move on to tuning / turbo choices now.

Edited by Beregron

ok so... as a fairly disapointed Hypergear SS2 (pre any revisions) owner who simply wants a something that will not be a terrible laggy mess like the turbo i have now what would be my current options?

Obviously i need my tune looked at (Emanage) and perhaps this will help things but reading what Matt is saying with his revised SS2 more development is sorely needed.

I'll be watching this thread closely as my car will be back tomorrow with new exhaust sorted.... I really need to move on to tuning / turbo choices now.

Get hold of the highflow built by Rick, that Scotty is using now; that thing is a monster, and seems to have no downside at all.

  • Like 5

Get hold of the highflow built by Rick, that Scotty is using now; that thing is a monster, and seems to have no downside at all.

Cheers Dale.

I have a feeling i'll need to eventually swap out to another ECU due to the limitations of the emanage but there is still so much for me to gain before i get there :)

  • Like 1

Even though the results of the intense billet rs speak for them selves, and with it also being in scottys own personal car which has put it through its paces, it's had nothing but success.

P.S when we release its successor in the near future, it will end all debates ?

  • Like 2

The intense RS has over boost issues I was told by Scotty.

No, my setup is overboosting, unfortunately I only have a 3 bar sensor which means I need to keep the boost under 28psi. Using these heavy spring actuators and a stock housing that's way too restrictive, the exhaust gas at that power can't bypass around the turbine fast enough, meaning the shaft overspeeds. At normal power levels the wastegate flows just fine. Just a simple drawback of highflow internal gate turbo's. Tao controls this using the wheel sizes, but it is subject to change depending on flow obviously. To me this just shows how efficient the compressor wheel is, and seeing the boost isn't dropping off, it likely has a lot more to give.

Seeing I want to run more boost, the lack of wastegate flow isn't much of an issue, the map sensor is. I was hoping to fit a 4 bar sensor, but that would mean remapping the fuel table, which would be added tuning time I can't afford. I have a Link to tune soon...

  • Like 4

This is the reason i'll just wait to see results if people are willing to post them.

It's my only issue with forums in that its hard to separate fact from opinion. With my manual conversion I was happy to work with the mechanic and give proper results and a sort of guide once complete as it may help others out.

I'll have a look at the intense turbo results again next week sometime as progress needs to be made by myself

Cheers

  • Like 4

ok so... as a fairly disapointed Hypergear SS2 (pre any revisions) owner who simply wants a something that will not be a terrible laggy mess like the turbo i have now what would be my current options?

Obviously i need my tune looked at (Emanage) and perhaps this will help things but reading what Matt is saying with his revised SS2 more development is sorely needed.

I'll be watching this thread closely as my car will be back tomorrow with new exhaust sorted.... I really need to move on to tuning / turbo choices now.

Looking at your tune the other day Boost Worx haven't done you any favours. Only adjusting the injector compensation and about 5 injector load points up top(which may elude to the fuel pump running out of flow) all the factory load cuts remain and a lot of low down torque can be had adjusting the timing Map. Scotty helped me out here with some pointers and my car was night and day different coming onto boost. I also suspect your old SS2 runs the OEM wastegate actuator which is way too soft causing a laggy turbo. You may also be able to make a considerable difference to your response by having the the emanage tuned (with a wideband O2 for autotune) and a spring fitted to the waste gate. A HPX-N2 MAF insert is next on my list and I feel a better option than a MAP sensor as there is no stable signal from the little plenum. As I mentioned when we met. I'm happy to help you out. As others have done for me from this forum :) Edited by BoostdR
  • Like 2

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • Yeah everyone always seems to refer to them as S13 wheels however they came on R32 Skyline, A31 Cefiro, C33 Laurel etc., and also came polished diamond cut or painted depending on the model. Congrats on your GTS purchase! I'd personally leave it NA.
    • In this thing about this 100% renewal energy stuff I hear no one really talking about anything other than power and fuel really Power and fuel, whilst being a huge part of how we use the billion year old Dinosaur juices, are only 2, of the probably thousands of things that we need to use it for in the chemicals industries for making nearly everything we use nowadays I'm all for a clean planet, but if we want to continue to have all the day to day appliances and stuff that we rely on everyday we will still need fossil fuels Whilst I do love science, and how it can bring innovation, there's really a limit to how far it can go in relation to "going green" As for EV's, unless your charging of your own solar panels, it isn't helping the environment when you consider the the batteries, the mining processes required,  the manufacturing process required, and how long a batteries (read: the vehicle) lasts long term If I was supreme dictator of the world, I would ban the use of sugar for fizzy drinks and food additives and use that for ethanol manufacturing, petrol engines would be happier, and people would be alot healthier  Disclaimer: Whiskey manufacturing would still be required, so says the supreme dictator of the world Same same for all the vegetable oils that get pumped into all our food, use that for bio diesel Disclaimer: the supreme dictator would still require olive oil to dip his bread in This would take some of heat off the use of the use of fossil fuels which are required for everything we use, unless you want to go back to pre 1800 for heat and power, or the early 1900's for plastics and every thing else that has come from cracking ethylene  Would I be a fair and just dictator, nope, and I would probably be assassinated within my first few months, but would my cunning plan work, maybe, for a while, maybe not Meh, in the end in an over opinionated mildly educated arsehole typing out my vomit on my mobile phone, which wouldn't be possible without fossil fuels And if your into conspiracies, we only need the fossil fuels to last until a meteor hits, or thermonuclear annihilation, that would definitely fix our need for fossil fuels for manufacturing and power issues for quite some time  Meh, time for this boomer to cook his lunch on his electric stove and then maybe go for a drive in my petrol car, for fun    
    • It really helps that light duty vehicles have absolutely appalling average efficiency due to poor average load. Like 25% average brake thermal efficiency when peak is somewhere around 38% these days. So even a 60% BTE stationary natural gas plant + transmission and charging losses still doing much better with an EV than conventional ICE. And that's before we get into renewables or "low carbon nonrenewable" nuclear which makes it a no-brainer, basically. In commercial aircraft or heavy duty diesel pulling some ridiculous amount of weight across a continent the numbers are much more difficult to make work. I honestly think in 5-10 years we will still be seeing something like the Achates opposed piston diesels in most semi trucks running on a blend of renewable/biodiesel. Applications where the energy density of diesel is just too critical to compromise. CARB is running trials of those engines right now to evaluate in real world drayage ops, probably because they're noticing that the numbers just don't work for electrification unless our plan is to make glorified electric trains with high voltage wires running along every major highway and only a token amount of battery to make it 30 miles or something like that after detaching. Transport emissions is not insignificant especially in the US, but yes there's a lot of industrial processes that also need to be decarbonized. I agree the scale of the problem is pretty insane but EDF managed to generate ~360 TWh from their nuclear reactors last year and this is with decades of underinvestment after the initial big push in the 70s and 80s. I don't think the frame of reference should be solar-limited. France is not exactly a big country either. Maybe it doesn't work everywhere, but it doesn't have to either. We just can't live off of fracking forever and expect things to be ok.
    • Yeah, all the crude is used for fuels and petrochem feedstocks (pesticides, many other chemicals, etc etc). But increasingly over the last few decades, much of the petrochem synthessis has started with methane because NG has been cheaper than oil, cleaner and easier and more consistent to work with, etc etc etc. So it's really had to say what the fraction either way is. Suffice to say - the direct fuels fraction is not insigificant. Heavy transport uses excruciatingly large amounts. Diesel is wasted in jet heaters in North American garages and workshops, thrown down drill holes in quarries, pissed all over the wall to provide electricity to certain outback communities, etc etc. Obviously road transport, and our pet project, recreational consumption camouflaged as road transport, is a smaller fraction of the total liquid HC consumption again. If you're talking aboust Aussie cars' contribution to the absolute total CO2 production of the country, then of course our share of the cubic mile of coal that is used for power generation, metallurgy, etc adds up to a big chunk. Then there is the consumption of timber. Did you know that the production of silicon metal, for example, is done in Australia by using hardwood? And f**king lots and lots and lots of hardwood at that. Until recently, it was f**king jarrah! There are many such sneaky contributors to CO2 production in industry and farming. NG is used in massive quantities in Australia, for power gen, for running huge water pumps (like, 1-2MW sized caterpillar V16 engines running flat out pumping water) for places like mine sites and minerals/metals refineries. And there are just a huge number of those sort of things going on quietly in the background. So NG use is a big fraction of total CO2 production here. I mean, shit, I personally design burners that are used in furnaces here in Oz that use multiple MW of gas all day every day. The largest such that I've done (not here in Oz) was rated to 150MW. One. Single. Gas burner. In a cement clinker kiln. There are thousands of such things out there in the world. There are double digits of them just here in Oz. (OK< just barely double digits now that a lot of them have shut - and they are all <100MW). But it's all the same to me. People in the car world (like this forum's users) would like to think that you only have to create an industrial capability to replace the fuel that they will be using in 10 years time, and imagine that everyone else will be driving EVs. And while the latter part of that is largely true, the liquid HC fuel industry as a whole is so much more massive than the bit used for cars, that there will be no commercial pressure to produce "renewable" "synthetic" fuels just for cars, when 100x that much would still be being burnt straight from the well. You have to replace it all, or you're not doing what is required. And then you get back to my massive numbers. People don't handle massive numbers at all well. Once you get past about 7 or 8 zeros, it becomes meaningless for most people.
    • @GTSBoy out of the cubic mile of crude oil we burn each year, I wonder how much of that is actually used for providing petrol and diesel.   From memory the figure for cars in Australia, is that they only add up to about 2 to 3% of our CO2 production. Which means something else here is burning a shit tonne of stuff to make CO2, and we're not really straight up burning oil everywhere, so our CO2 production is coming from elsewhere too.   Also we should totally just run thermal energy from deep in the ground. That way we can start to cool the inside of the planet and reverse global warming (PS, this last paragraph is a total piss take)
×
×
  • Create New...