Jump to content
SAU Community

single or twin turbo for RB26


Guest
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 152
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Ahh if you want to quote friction loss from twin turbos, how about the inherant flow advantage from twice the turbine exit area on twins, and the cooler running from having twice the coolant capabilities?

You certainly know your physics DoughBoy :cheers:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rexbo

Come on mate - when was th last time F1 was turbo!! they are not running 'a big single' they are NA!... Audi ran twins in the LM cars, as did toyota & nissan THIS YEARS WINNER Bently speed 8 - OH LOOK!! TWIN TURBOS - SHOCK!!!. Ever look at the serria cosworth 500? comments from the drivers of the time speak of the difficulties when the thing came onto boost - it ran a single and raced against the TT GTR... JGTC - the R34 ran the V6TT that is now in the Zed.... I think you will find twins are used for more than just packaging or sales hype.

One way to put this to bed, is get two IDENTICAL engines and slap on a set of twins on one and a single on the other. Careful attention would need to be paid to the manifold design of both to ensure they both got the best gas flow. Otherwise, same came, ecu injectors etc.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess looking at a performance application on a Skyline, you could run twin 3 inch pipes off twins, or a single 4 inch off a single? Maybe even a 4.5inch, although this would impinge on your arguements that a single has more space - ever tried to fit a pipe that size anywhere on a car?

Twin 3 inch area = 14 sq inch

Single 4 inch area = 12sq inch

Also the flow on the turbine inlet/ turbo flange could be another comparison. Funny side story, they have actually started to put flange size restrictions in on turbo drag classes in the states, guess there must be some hidden horsepower in having the largest flange possible?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is actually getting the wheels seperate to weigh them - you can extrapolate as much as you want but in the end it's only going to be an approximation.

I think in the end - large single for drags, small twins for circuit/street. It's been proven time and time again, but like I said you can make any combination work with sufficient resources and planning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rexbo

Come on mate - when was th last time F1 was turbo!! they are not running 'a big single' they are NA!... Audi ran twins in the LM cars, as did toyota & nissan THIS YEARS WINNER Bently speed 8 - OH LOOK!! TWIN TURBOS - SHOCK!!!. Ever look at the serria cosworth 500? comments from the drivers of the time speak of the difficulties when the thing came onto boost - it ran a single and raced against the TT GTR...  JGTC - the R34 ran the V6TT that is now in the Zed.... I think you will find twins are used for more than just packaging or sales hype.

One way to put this to bed, is get two IDENTICAL engines and slap on a set of twins on one and a single on the other.  Careful attention would need to be paid to the manifold design of both to ensure they both got the best gas flow. Otherwise, same came, ecu injectors etc.....

The last time F1 was turbo was 1988... running single turbos. The Le Mans cars now run twin turbos due to packaging constraints and rule mandates.

As to the rotating inertia, that is a very good valid point, which is why i say twins have better response at already high rpm, because they do have less rotating inertia. However there is a critical key missing from this, and its not pulsematching or inertia, its the pressure differential and efficiency on the turbine side of the turbo.

A single turbo will have a larger pressure differential across the turbine wheel than twins, causing faster spoolup than equivalent twins. The spoolup capability due to the pressure differential is also largely due to turbine efficiency. Larger wheels will always have higher efficiency than smaller wheels for the same reason that large combustion chambers have higher burning efficiency in and engine. There's less internal loss due to heat transfer and friction. Twin small turbos create lots of drag on the exhaust gas from the turbine housing walls and the turbine wheel blades. Also, more of the heat from the engine is transferred to the metal in the turbo, taking away from the energy of the exhaust gas. Now when i talk about this, im talking about terms of 3-5% less efficient than a single turbo. Its not much but everything helps, thats why extrude honing your exhaust housing is beneficial.

Something else that someone brought up at work is that the advantage of a single turbo dissipates as the number of cylinders of the engine goes up. If you look at the combustion cycles of engines, a 4 cylinder engine takes 2 rotations of the crank to fire all 4 cylinders, and the subsequent exhaust gas pulses are easily tuneable to hit the turbo efficiently, more so than tuning for 3 cylinders that don't fire evenly. Also when dealing with V-engines, a single turbo setup requires long exhaust manifold runners and a lot of space, which would be beneficial on a V6, but on a V8, V10 or V12, the story would be different.

Its all a tradeoff between cost and benefit, as is all racing. Cost not being money, but performance, packaging, weight, and in the end, its all speed in a race car.

This is a really good thread, I like it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is about street cars, that might see a mild amount of circuit work. Drawing comparisons to F1 and "ideal" systems is bollocks, cause it ain't going to happen this weekend. Oh how large is an F1 motor? 1500cc? Have you seen a F1 turbo? UAS John has had a couple come through his hands from Keith Carling's car, and they aren't that big at all - hell two were used on a 3,000cc VG30 engine. So what's the deal there? They also spun at unrealistic levels to maintain sufficient boost pressures - I think the comp map went up to 4 bar?

Use a real world example - say 1000hp on an RB26. From the Garrett catalogue, this would see a combination of either

1/ Twin GT30R turbos or

2/ One GT42RS turbo

Looking at the max turbine efficiency graph the GT42RS comes in at 69%, the GT30R at 72%. I'm not sure I can trust Garrett's published figures, but take it with a grain of salt they are correct. Where is the uber efficient large wheel here?

If the pressure differential created say "x" amount of force, bearing in mind that both the inertia and turbine efficiency of the smaller turbo is superior, how in hell would that spool a large turbo quicker?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

both the inertia and turbine efficiency of the smaller turbo is superior[/qoute]

Am i missing somthing ..... yes they intertia is less but dont you have 1/2 the amount of exhaust gas to move it ???

Hence it would have to be twice as effiecent "inertia" wise then a single turbo to be the same .......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes but since inertia is a square of the radii it is not proportional. If you half the radii you quarter the inertia.

Split pulse housings have a higher efficiency than normal open housings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh and for inertia:

Inertia = radius of gyration^2 x mass

As you can see, a large wheel will dramatically increase inertia.

Yes but since inertia is a square of the radii it is not proportional. If you half the radii you quarter the inertia.

Some more to think about............

The 2 X turbines/shaft/compressor of my 2530's weigh more than 3 times as much as the 1 X titanium turbine/shaft/ compressor of my T66. Plus the ceramic ball bearings used in the T66 have ~30% less running friction than the plain ball bearings used in the 2530's.

I'm too tired ot work it out.................. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So in effect your trick, no doubt cheap and mass produced turbo combination, weighs approximately 1.5 times a single 2530 rotating combination. Apples for zuchinni flowers maybe?

Doing a gross injustice and highly wrong calculation on it,

2530= exducer dia = 60.1mm, mass = 1, Inertia 903

T66 = exducer dia = 91.5mm, mass 1.5, Inertia 2093

So 2x 903 =.... 1806?

Also, I'm assuming that the measured reduction in frictional losses are from equivalent sized bearings? Take into account that most Txx series use the large 3/8th (9.5mm) shaft, where a 2530 has a 5mm shaft size? So the actual bearing surface is twice as large assuming same width, which is probably wrong as well since the larger shaft would need a wider bearing surface too? So if you assumed the bearing was only 1.5 times the width, that would still give you a surface area 1.5 times the amount found on 2x 2530's, less 30% for innovative design of the ceramics. So 20% more friction end result on the T66?

Yeah it's late and I am playing devil's advocate, a well as making absurd guesstimates. The T66 probably does everything the 2530's do, and is easier to work on - and gets alot of ooohs when you pop the bonnet ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now i like the twin turbo idea where they're sequential sequence turbos. You have one large turbo spool into another smaller turbo. Say your "large" turbo is a GT28 on an RB25. That would spool up plenty fast for everyone, agreed? taken from post 73.

Now having had a very detailed look at the bandag bullet and discussing it with the owner, it doesn't work this way... If anyone is not familiar with it, it runs 2 V8's in tandem, 2 x superchargers and 4 turbos. it is the 2 smaller turbos that are feeding the 2 larger units, not the other way around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share




  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • I would never LS an R32 either. I do have truly evil thoughts about VK56s or the Toyo V12s out of New Zealand though. Very hard to justify for my daily....
    • Oh no. There's heaps. A whole lot of them are legitimately handling/installation problems. The material used in the L19 bolts is susceptible to hydrogen embrittlement and must be kept well oiled and not handled without gloves, etc etc. There have been many failures of these from people who didn't realise. There may also have been failures caused by conditions inside the engine (say, head gasket failures?) and people didn't realise that that was probably a death warrant. But that's the L19 material. The ARP 2000s are not made of the same stuff and are more forgiving. But from what I gather there have been occasions where the head has pulled off of one, and non-one can say that the installation was at fault (given good torque records), etc etc, but maybe just maybe the face of the rod shoulder where the bolt head sits wasn't actually perfectly square to the bore of the hole...and loaded up the head with a torque across it and.... ping! I've head stories of bolt heads being found in corners of workshops or in the bottom of sumps even without starting and running the engine! Trouble is, it is really hard to sort the true material failures from the handling/installation failures. It's worse than human medicine. You can only run the experiment once, and you can't run it backwards in time to look at the rod before it became a modern sculpture.
    • In my experience with maxspeed rods, it was not that the ARP rod bolts were "fake" but they are made under licence from ARP, rather than made directly by ARP. Not the same thing and quite likely to have more quality variations, let's be realistic. I haven't had any issues with mine.  I daresay look hard enough, there would be some failures of genuine ARP products too though? Even if very few.
    • Haha honestly the thought crossed my mind but skylines are so damn rare here someone would probably hang me 😂    I’ve had a few LS swapped cars (280zx and a foxbody mustang) so trying something a bit different this time 
    • Not much info in that request..... If you have a VIN you could look up the factory part number here: https://www.amayama.com/en/genuine-catalogs/nissan
×
×
  • Create New...