|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 16
New CEG\'er
|
OP
New CEG\'er
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 16 |
http://www.3000gtvr4.com/pages/engine.html mitsubishi managed to put a tt 3.0L in there car. they even bolted it to an all wheel-drive tranny. look i wasn't trying to start a war, all i'm saying is that if a company will mass-produce a car with 320hp and 315tq stock out of a little motor back in 1992 then surly we can improve on there design.....
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 7,025
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 7,025 |
Originally posted by SVT_AJ:
all i'm saying is that if a company will mass-produce a car with 320hp and 315tq stock out of a little motor back in 1992 then surly we can improve on there design.....
your right! they can do a single turbo conversion. 
maybe you missed the whole discussion in this thread, but twin turbos will NOT fit. nuff said.
Jim Hahn
1996 T-Red Contour SE Reborn 4/6/04
3.0L swap and Arizona Dyno Chip Turbo Kit
364 whp, 410 wtq @ 4,700 rpm
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,353
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,353 |
Originally posted by SVT_AJ:
http://www.3000gtvr4.com/pages/engine.html
mitsubishi managed to put a tt 3.0L in there car. they even bolted it to an all wheel-drive tranny.
look i wasn't trying to start a war, all i'm saying is that if a company will mass-produce a car with 320hp and 315tq stock out of a little motor back in 1992 then surly we can improve on there design.....
But have you seen the size of the 3000gt engine bay? It's huge... you could probably fit a triton v10 in there   . It's not a matter of improving a design, it's a matter of space and need. If there is a single turbo design that spools quickly and is capable of 300hp+, why would want a twin turbo? More heat, weight, complexity, etc., etc...
1999 Blk/Tan CSVT #654 - SOLD
2003 Suzuki SV650s
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 283
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 283 |
an extra oil line 3 foot of vacuum tube and an additional intake pipe is a whole lot of extra work considering How you get those 6 individaul runners to converge 4 foot away from the block into 1 place  Lets see anyone in here make a ligitmate 6 into 1 turbo header by hand. Compared to making 2 3 into 1`s talk about bad excuses.
Ex-cat cams dealer. Today we do motor mounts.. Tommorow. Intake manifolds 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,517
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,517 |
Originally posted by Travis:
Lets see anyone in here make a ligitmate 6 into 1 turbo header by hand. Compared to making 2 3 into 1`s talk about bad excuses.
Just answer one question: where are you going to put them?
That's all I want.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,353
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,353 |
Originally posted by chknhwk:
Originally posted by Travis:
Lets see anyone in here make a ligitmate 6 into 1 turbo header by hand. Compared to making 2 3 into 1`s talk about bad excuses.
Just answer one question: where are you going to put them?
That's all I want.
Plus, we have a V6 not an inline 6, so its actually 6 into 2 into 1 and its been done very nicely by Street Flight IMO. But whatever...
1999 Blk/Tan CSVT #654 - SOLD
2003 Suzuki SV650s
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 283
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 283 |
6-2-1 isnt as efficient as 6-1 That is a fact. Youll never find a 6-2-1 on a race vehicle. Higher back pressure = more reversion. More reversion = 6-2-1. 6-2-1 = less power. Id also like to say that its harder to make a 6-2-1 header then 2 3-1`s simply because you have to make a 3-1 for each bank then shrink it into secondaries then route those to where the turbo is. Then merge the secondaries into a turbo flange.
For reasons of retaining heat and thus pressure a 6-1 v style engine setup will never be as efficient at spooling the turbo which means you have to run higher a/r`s then nessasary. This means... less power. again.
Ontop of this all testing in highperformance vehicles has definatly showed substantial performance and durability improvements from using individaul exhaust runners. Much less problems with cracking and warping do to the uneven heating of pipes such as in log style. Also the secondaries of a 6-2-1 header will get extremely hot because all exhaust gases are passing through them. They will break down over time and cause failure.
Ex-cat cams dealer. Today we do motor mounts.. Tommorow. Intake manifolds
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 16
New CEG\'er
|
|
OP
New CEG\'er
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 16 |
theres room, you just have to be inventive. theres tons of room if you wanna try driving with no power steering. j/k
i'm still debating to try it or not.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,353
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,353 |
Originally posted by Travis:
Id also like to say that its harder to make a 6-2-1 header then 2 3-1`s simply because you have to make a 3-1 for each bank then shrink it into secondaries then route those to where the turbo is. Then merge the secondaries into a turbo flange.
6-2-1 is the same thing as 3-1 for each bank. Either your confused or I'm just not explaining myself very well. And if you think a 6-1 header would be better for a v6 and fit in our engine bay, then I give up, your logic escapes me.
I'm tired and we don't seem to be getting anywhere, so carry on, I'm done 
1999 Blk/Tan CSVT #654 - SOLD
2003 Suzuki SV650s
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 283
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 283 |
3 into 1 turbo.. i guess i should of said.
Ex-cat cams dealer. Today we do motor mounts.. Tommorow. Intake manifolds
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
