|
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 16
New CEG\'er
|
OP
New CEG\'er
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 16 |
has anybody ever looked into doing a twin turbo set up on an SVT? and if so, what about on a 3.0L block?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 7,025
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 7,025 |
wont fit and theres no benefit of doing a TT on a contour motor. been discussed before, search if you wanna read more.
EDIT: I searched for you anyways.
link 1
link 2
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: Nov 2003
Posts: 16
New CEG\'er
|
|
OP
New CEG\'er
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 16 |
I'm not satisfied with those post. until sombody actualy does it you have no idea how worth wild it is to do. copy what they did right, and learn from what they did wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
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:
I'm not satisfied with those post. until sombody actualy does it you have no idea how worth wild it is to do. copy what they did right, and learn from what they did wrong.
maybe your hiding something from us and your engine bay is bigger than the rest of ours! 
what is the point of using twin turbos over a single turbo?! Obviously, as the displacement of the engine increases a smaller size turbo efficieny will drop which is why they use a bigger turbo for top end hp. The 2.5L or 3.0L arent big enough in displacement to even begin using a TT setup!
we dont have to do it to know it wont fit and to know whether there is any benefit of doing a single turbo vs TT on a small displacement motor. Have you seen how crammed it is with just one turbo?
but i guess go ahead and find out for yourself. There is ZERO benefit in doing a TT with the contour motor. The single turbo on our engine will always prevail. 
Oh yeah, and when you get it up and running, let us know where your mounting the intercooler with all the left over space. 
[rant on]I'm sorry if this sounds harsh, but those 2 links i provided you have insite given from some of those most knowledge people on these forums, especially Rara when it comes to turbos. Saying your not satisfied with their given information is a low blow imo!  [/rant off]
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: May 2000
Posts: 21,197
I have no life
|
|
I have no life
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 21,197 |
-'96 SE MTX 3L
-'98 SVT 1,173 of 6,535
-'05 Mazda 6s, loaded, g/f's ride
-Need a 96-00 manual on CD? PM or email me
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,353
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,353 |
Originally posted by todras:
Lol
1999 Blk/Tan CSVT #654 - SOLD
2003 Suzuki SV650s
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,091
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,091 |
Please educate us why you would want twin turbos instead of a single properly sized turbo...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,600
Addicted CEG\'er
|
|
Addicted CEG\'er
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,600 |
also you see a lot of people changing supras from TT to a single, bigger turbo b/c it leads to greater HP gains.
#4559 of 6535 born on Feb 17, 1998
Black 1998.5 CSVT
FOR SALE [cleaning house]: SVT rear swaybar. Reasonable offer and its yours!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 21,653
I have no life
|
|
I have no life
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 21,653 |
I see most supras with one single large turbo and another much smaller turbo to aid in spooling up. Of course twin turbos would be a heck of a project on a contour, not worth the money, time, or results.
98.5 SVT
91 Escort GT (almost sold)
96 ATX Zetec (i brake to watch you swerve)
FS: SVT rear sway bar
WTB: Very cheap beater
CEG Dragon Run - October 13-15
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 9,602
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 9,602 |
Originally posted by SVT_AJ:
has anybody ever looked into doing a twin turbo set up on an SVT? and if so, what about on a 3.0L block?
Sheesh, newbies...
2000 SVT #674
13.47 @ 102 - All Motor!
It was not broke; Yet I fixed it anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 3,223
"Absolut Rara."
|
|
"Absolut Rara."
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 3,223 |
Originally posted by SVT_AJ:
I'm not satisfied with those post. until sombody actualy does it you have no idea how worth wild it is to do. copy what they did right, and learn from what they did wrong.
Well, I'm not satisfied with your post, it reeks of ignorance.
Even at 3.0L the Duratec engine is borderline in size to even consider a second turbo. People tout the reduced lag (misleading, it is really a lowered boost threshold that makes the difference here) but fail to realize that even though the turbine and compressor wheels of the smaller turbo are as much as 30% smaller, there is only 50% of the exhaust energy spinning them, there isn't a whole lot of advantage in that.
The only reason I would consider using a twin turbo setup in a Duratec is for advantageous packaging of proper turbo exhaust manifolds (ie short and sweet) and since that is most decidedly impossible under the hood of a contour w/ the Duratec in its stock location/orientation, I would never consider a twin turbo on a contour.
On a contour, even if you could fit a twin turbo setup, there is NOTHING it could do that a properly sized single could not do.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 283
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 283 |
.... I highly doubt the ability of a t3/t4 hybrid turbine housing can flow anywhere near the gas 2 good sized IHI or garretts can..
Ex-cat cams dealer. Today we do motor mounts.. Tommorow. Intake manifolds 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 21,653
I have no life
|
|
I have no life
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 21,653 |
And if that's true, then you could just do one turbo larger than a t3/t4 hybrid,,,, not that two would even fit in a contour without a crapload of money to move a lotttta stuff.
98.5 SVT
91 Escort GT (almost sold)
96 ATX Zetec (i brake to watch you swerve)
FS: SVT rear sway bar
WTB: Very cheap beater
CEG Dragon Run - October 13-15
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 7,025
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 7,025 |
Originally posted by Travis:
.... I highly doubt the ability of a t3/t4 hybrid turbine housing can flow anywhere near the gas 2 good sized IHI or garretts can..
yeah but how are you going to fit 2 good sized turbos?! 
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: Feb 2003
Posts: 1,012
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 1,012 |
Originally posted by beyondloadedSE:
Originally posted by Travis:
.... I highly doubt the ability of a t3/t4 hybrid turbine housing can flow anywhere near the gas 2 good sized IHI or garretts can..
yeah but how are you going to fit 2 good sized turbos?!
In a 300ZX...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,860
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,860 |
Originally posted by Travis:
.... I highly doubt the ability of a t3/t4 hybrid turbine housing can flow anywhere near the gas 2 good sized IHI or garretts can..
You mean like .82 housing? 500hp? How much more do you need? Better yet how much more can the car take?
2001 Lincoln LS8
1994 Lexus GS300
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,091
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,091 |
Originally posted by Travis:
.... I highly doubt the ability of a t3/t4 hybrid turbine housing can flow anywhere near the gas 2 good sized IHI or garretts can..
Actually, it will. Go look at the compressor maps...(You do know what those are, right?)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 283
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 283 |
You see.. Compressor maps are for the compressor side of the turbo . .. Thats the other side. The side the "compresses" air. Im talking about the side that power the compressor side. The turbine housing. Even with a high a/r like .82 or so your still going to run into flow restrictions. 2 exducer bores are going to flow more then 1. Less TIP is good. Its not like these cars need anymore torque then they already have anyways. IHI`s like the ones found on the probe 2.2L would go great with these engines and would flow probably better then a t3/t4 with an a/r like .82 but without the .82 `s high boost threshold. Not to mention 2 waste gates to put air away and closer turbo to head design instead of piping it all together into one turbo. If spliting up exhaust pulses isnt benificial then why do turbo`s have dual imputs into a single turbine housing? Its the same concept by using 2 turbos. The energy doesnt get as "washed" out.
Last edited by Travis; 11/04/03 03:27 AM.
Ex-cat cams dealer. Today we do motor mounts.. Tommorow. Intake manifolds
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 283
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 283 |
ANd like a good sized turbo is mayby like the RHE5 if youv seen one you know their small mayby not as efficient as a garrett ballistics but the turbines flow well and the rest is taken care of by an intercooler.
Ex-cat cams dealer. Today we do motor mounts.. Tommorow. Intake manifolds
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,091
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,091 |
Originally posted by 18psi2300:
Originally posted by Travis:
.... I highly doubt the ability of a t3/t4 hybrid turbine housing can flow anywhere near the gas 2 good sized IHI or garretts can..
Actually, it will. Go look at the compressor maps...(You do know what those are, right?)
Sorry..missed the word turbine in there   ...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 3,223
"Absolut Rara."
|
|
"Absolut Rara."
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 3,223 |
Originally posted by Travis:
.... I highly doubt the ability of a t3/t4 hybrid turbine housing can flow anywhere near the gas 2 good sized IHI or garretts can..
um, since when is the worth of a turbo solely based upon the total amount of gas it can flow? Remember that too large of a turbine housing for the amount of gas it does see can be as bad or worse than one that is too small.
The bottom line is that a T3 turbine housing, properly sized, will flow plenty of exhaust to support more horsepower than anyone has pulled out of a duratec. Further, there are several different a/r turbine housings available for the T3 hot side so the turbo response can be tailored pretty specifically to the owner's personal preferences.
Travis, your arguments are wholly incomplete and inherently flawed; please bring some real tech if you want to debate this.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 283
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 283 |
Ok... Lets debate this from a pure american stand point. Size  Now lets talk about why exhaust flow is important. Higher boost thresholds make more power and why more importantly 2 turbo`s make less tip then one (turbine inlet pressure) First topic of debate. "A t3 turbine housing will flow more then anyone is able to bring out of duratec" Well now.. Since exhaust flow a deteriming factor of tip pressure is directly related power I dont see how anyone can make a statement like that and know what the hell their talking about. If you bring TIP down power goes up. If you put a t4 turbine housing on a duratech with an equivalent a/r Tip will go down Power will go up and the boost threshold will go up as well. If you use 2 t3 turbine housings it would be obvious that tip would go down boost threshold would go up and power would go up as well. In no case does a smaller turbine housing make more power then a larger turbine housing considering that the gas has enough power to spool the turbo to the same amount of boost as the smaller turbine housing. A/R ratio`s are nearly directly related to the boost threshold and thus Using a numerically lower a/r has a numerically higher boost threshold. A numerically higher boost threshold (all other things reminaing constant such as shaft inertia and turbine design) will create more power at the same PSI rating because of superior gas flow. It is my undata enrinched theory that tip can be brought down and the boost threshold brought up by using 2 good sized turbo`s (and more cheaply might i add if gotten from a junkyard) then using a single large low a/r ratio turbo that would have to be ordered from an aftermarket performance shop(expensive). And because of manifolding design the 2 seperate turbo`s could be made closer to the head so less heat would be loss to atmosphere. I have been rather unimpressed with the numbers the duratech`s have been made to bring about yet. Focus central has a 460 whp zetec (230 hp per litre to wheels) while the highest number iv heard of is 450 whp from a 3 L (150 hp per litre to wheels) This concerns me because the v6 heads outflow zetec heads by about 60 cfm at maximum lift per a cylinder (the tumble port v6`s ) So im just asking questions and telling people what i think. If someone has test data to show that Tip cant be reduced anymore with having maximum boost at 4500 then id be satisfied. But I dont need boost until 4500 rpms because The engine has above and beyond the torque i need below that. SO its useless to me. It occurs to me that yea to some people that torque is priceless but to me its all about what happens from that first second shift (7300-4700) and then after that everything is kept at or above 5000 rpms. By Keeping TIP down larger higher duration cams can be used without reversion being a menace. So this also helps out total engine breathing. And mayby a custom intake manifold latter and youd see the numbers that the zetec is getting. (or even better i believe considering intake flow) So how exactly are these arguments wholly incomplete and inherently flawed. What i said at the beginning is exactly what im saying right now. Its what hopefully you already knew and what iv had to explain to you as if you didnt. Perhaps you would like to adress me with a new turbo theory on TIP Reversion and so fourth so i can tell the rest of the racing community about your discoveries. Because obviously if this line of thought is flawed then everyone down to Formula 1 is too.
Ex-cat cams dealer. Today we do motor mounts.. Tommorow. Intake manifolds
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 283
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 283 |
Actaully i just check there and they were pumping out 259 whp per a litre. 518 whp 610 or so crank 500 ft lbs crank. For the duratec to be on par with the built engine it would have to see nearly 800 whp 950 crank and 740 ft lbs of torque at crank with 630 ontap at wheels. Right now the baddest of the bunch is producing half that.
Ex-cat cams dealer. Today we do motor mounts.. Tommorow. Intake manifolds
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 7,025
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 7,025 |
im sure these foci are running lower compression pistons as well though, unlike any of the contour guys right now. btw, was that focus strictly boost or was it running nitrous as well?
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: Nov 2000
Posts: 10,015
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 10,015 |
Your whole theory about "turbine inlet pressure" being the #1 factor in turbine efficiency is flawed. It's obvious you don't understand the basic theory of turbines in that they convert thermal ENERGY, into mechanical, and that pressure is secondary. The whole fact of the matter is that you're acting like a sea-gull: you come around, make a hell of a lot of noise, sh!t on everything and then leave. Take a look at the turbo kit on a Contour and realize that there's no way in hell that 2 turbos of even the GT-T28 size, will fit in the Contour's engine bay. It's common knowledge that a Focus has a large engine bay to start with. Plus, so far power output numbers on the turbo'd cars out there has been limited by static compression ratio. i.e. as high as 10.25:1 (like my 2000 SVT), thus boost is limited = = power output is limited. A ZX3 has a compression ratio of 9.6:1 and Tom's 460hp Zetec has upgraded internals. Wait until Jim's car is finished (forged low comp pistons & forged rods), then we'll compare numbers.
2000 SVT Turbo 295hp/269ftlb@12psi
#1 for Bendix Brakes Kits!
Knuckles rebuilt w/new bearings $55
AUSSIE ENDLINKS $70
Gutted pre-cats $80/set
A lack of planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on mine!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 283
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 283 |
Its more pressure then thermal and further more I made numerous statements about how the v6 duratech is a better engine.. guess you didnt pick that up either..
Ex-cat cams dealer. Today we do motor mounts.. Tommorow. Intake manifolds
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 283
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 283 |
I guess thats why they also do turbine maps in pounds of pressure instead of degrees.  Pick up a book sometime. TIP is usaully 2:1 on a street setup. So if you make 10 pounds of boost 20 pounds of tip is produced in the head to turbine area.(34.7 atmospheric) Once it goes to the otherside of teh turbine you goto to basically 14.7 Thats a 68 percent drop in absolute pressure. Comparitivly temps drop do to adiabadic efficiency of going to one temperture gradient to another and do not really "fuel" the turbine as much as you would think though it does help. 34.7 at 1500 (1940 absolute) degrees to 14.7 is around 822 degrees absolute at adibatic. Although thermal does creat alot of the gradient the specific heat of the atmosphere doesnt really diffuse fast enough to suck the turbine anyfaster. gas pushing pressure creates more work.
Also did it ever occur to you that to make 20 pounds of psi in the exhaust chamber means that the entire combustion chamber volumn is no where close to emptied? So on the next engine cycle you have all these inert gasses taking up space and not burning anything. If you can get TIP below 1:1 you really flush the combustion chamber and real power can be achieved.. but this is pretty hard to do. This is the same concept as putting on an exhaust system that produces 20 pounds of back pressure. You wouldnt consider a system like that any more performance then i would consider a turbo that produces 20 pounds of back pressure (tip) Also you gotta remember all the pumping losses associated with all that back pressure. The engine uses 68 percent more energy to complete the exhaust stroke under that much back pressure then it would naturaully aspirated (at the top of the exhaust stroke) (the energy used is perportionate with the gradient of pressures before and after) with a completely untuned log style header. Tuned length headers create negative amounts of pressure to suck out exhaust.
SO dont even come after me telling me my tip statements are erroneous.
Ex-cat cams dealer. Today we do motor mounts.. Tommorow. Intake manifolds
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 3,223
"Absolut Rara."
|
|
"Absolut Rara."
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 3,223 |
dang it, I wish I weren't so busy at work today . . . hopefully I can respond here this evening.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 283
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 283 |
Im looking forward to it. I havent debated a good technical issue like this ina while. Mayby i can learn something.
Ex-cat cams dealer. Today we do motor mounts.. Tommorow. Intake manifolds
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,353
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,353 |
I'll leave the technical arguements to Rara, as I know practically nothing on the matter, however, what I don't understand is why you're even still talking about the subject. TWO TURBOS WON'T FIT! How many times do people need to say it, geez... This is a pointless discussion, that while amusing in the beginning, becomes old very quickly. Why don't you move on to things that actually apply to our cars... just a thought 
1999 Blk/Tan CSVT #654 - SOLD
2003 Suzuki SV650s
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 3,223
"Absolut Rara."
|
|
"Absolut Rara."
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 3,223 |
you know, I was seriously going to put together one of my patented all-inclusive replies, but its really a waste of time at this point.
The crux of the matter on a contour V6 setup is where could you possibly package the second turbo (ie the turbo for the rear bank)????
Perhaps I will get frustrated by this ridiculous discussion again later and come up with a full response.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 21,653
I have no life
|
|
I have no life
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 21,653 |
Originally posted by SVT_AJ:
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.
Try it,, and when you run outta money and still don't have two turbos on your car, don't tell us you weren't warned.
98.5 SVT
91 Escort GT (almost sold)
96 ATX Zetec (i brake to watch you swerve)
FS: SVT rear sway bar
WTB: Very cheap beater
CEG Dragon Run - October 13-15
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 283
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 283 |
Oh common infamous moderator who smites all. I would really enjoy your input into all this.. If im so ****ing stupid how about you prove it 
Ex-cat cams dealer. Today we do motor mounts.. Tommorow. Intake manifolds
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 3,223
"Absolut Rara."
|
|
"Absolut Rara."
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 3,223 |
Originally posted by Travis:
Oh common infamous moderator who smites all. I would really enjoy your input into all this.. If im so ****ing stupid how about you prove it
First answer my question about where you would put it.
IMHO that is the main reason for not bothering doing a twin setup, as either a single or twin could be sized for a duratec for the same performance.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 283
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 283 |
Well its going in a focus. Theres plunty of room under there... but i debate FI over here in contour forums seeing how there arnt many 3 l fuckus`s running around
Ex-cat cams dealer. Today we do motor mounts.. Tommorow. Intake manifolds
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 4,639
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 4,639 |
it has been done. on a noble. unfortunately in the tour it wont fit.
Hugo AIM:omegazodiac
95 gl & 99 contour svt #1750/2760
my profile pics stuff for sale
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 21,653
I have no life
|
|
I have no life
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 21,653 |
Originally posted by Travis:
Well its going in a focus. Theres plunty of room under there... but i debate FI over here in contour forums seeing how there arnt many 3 l fuckus`s running around
Well of course it'll fit in a car with more engine bay room,, now as what would be best for a duratec, I'd still go with a single turbo, though true either single or twin could be tuned to perform about the same, just twin costs more and is more work. Also, most drag cars w/ turbos use a single turbo... i wonder why
98.5 SVT
91 Escort GT (almost sold)
96 ATX Zetec (i brake to watch you swerve)
FS: SVT rear sway bar
WTB: Very cheap beater
CEG Dragon Run - October 13-15
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 283
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 283 |
Most drag cars are inlines... those that arnt are old school kids that dont know anybetter... twin turb grand national... i seen a dyno for one the other day.. 836 horsepower to the wheels. Even on prostock v8`s (302 -351 displacements atleast) are still running singles.. But its completely on unstreetable application i seen a diagram by nasa a couple of months back stating that if you had primaries long enough (50 inches) you can run alot of overlap without reversion becoming a problem. Plus they use such high tech insulations that having the turbo`s that close to the head doesnt help. There isnt any heat loss anyways. Not to mention heat wraps and what not that they pile ontop of their coatings all this cuts down on reliability of teh manifolds. You wouldnt want a setup like that anyways unless you had a 2000 rpm idle with overlap that huge. (100 degrees or more) and a turbo that big. I keep thinking that seperating the exhaust pulses has a good benifit though because they even do it on turbo housings Making 2 diffrent inlets from 1 bank. apparently by splitting the pulses up they arnt diluted as much. besides at that power level you would have to buy 2 massive turbo`s instead of 1 one god massive turbo. 2 turbo`s each capable of a 1000 horsepower would cost you some major dollars. where as you can pick up a gt 60 for like 4000 thousand. Instead of 2 gt 42(i think they are) for like 3500. I know there is obviously an advantage, everywhere iv read and everywhere iv seen a twin turb application is more durable and has the potention to make more power then a single because your splitting up the heat that each turbo has to endure and the heat the flange has to endure. The turbine housing its self and your increasing exhaust flow. I dunno I plan on having my build up rolling around in spring. And we`ll have to pit the dyno numbers against the dyno numbers of the biggest single when i roll it out put some miles on it and pin it to a dyno.
Ex-cat cams dealer. Today we do motor mounts.. Tommorow. Intake manifolds
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 3,223
"Absolut Rara."
|
|
"Absolut Rara."
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 3,223 |
Focus is a completely different story, which conveniently wasn't the story being discussed here.
Back to the, so far all of your arguments seem to basically hinge around peak flow through the turbine housing, and how two small turbos have more flow capability than a single, larger unit. That point is completely irrelevant, as on a single, I have the option of using a larger turbine housing to reach the same equivalent flow capacity, and consequently achieve a similar TIP as whatever you get for your twin sizing. On the examples that have been discussed, I can go anywhere from the smallest T3 housing (.48 is the smallest I'm familiar with) to a T04 housing large enough that a 3.0L would be bouncing off the rev limiter to even spool it at all.
Further, your statement that you don't need to reach peak boost until 4500rpm, while it may be fine for you, is horribly flawed in assuming that is what everyone else would want. Personally I'm not a big fan of a dyno queen; I would much prefer a well balanced system that is useful under everyday conditions, in that it has a reasonable boost threshold, and doesn't choke itself off until beyond the useful rpm range. I'm very much an area under the curve guy, not a peak numbers guy.
A single turbo is inherently more efficient than a twin setup, all other things being equal, that is a fact.
IMHO, there are three key reasons to consider a twin turbo over a single.
1. Package reasons. On many V-type engine applications, a twin setup will allow much better header design. Unfortunately, the contour is not one of these applications, as there is barely enough room between the block and the dash panel for the existing manifold, let alone a turbo for the rear bank.
Fwiw, on my Cobra, I have chosen to run a twin turbo setup for package reasons (mostly anyway) as I can mount the turbos very close to the block on short manifolds, without relocating a large number of components. A single, while quite "doable" on my mustang requires a somewhat compromised header design due to the long assymetric crossover required, and requires relocation of several components that i dont want to move right now.
2. Turbo Sizing. In some cases a proper single size may not be readily available (or at all) This can be the case in many larger engine designs. This also somewhat applies to my own project, as I had several T3's "laying around" to use, and no appropriate T4 handy.
As a side note, my case is an excellent example of considering the entire system when sizing your turbos. In my case, some T3/T4 hybrids would have been an ideal choice for maximum power and efficiency that could be had out of a 302; but since I have no intention of even cracking the valve covers until I'm ready to build a completely new motor, the T3's I do have are capable of supporting enough power to split my block in half (its been done on several T3 assisted 5.0L engines that I know of) So steping up to T4 compressors was completely unecessary. Of course this is all aside fromt he fact that a T4 cold side won't fit between the block and the framerail on my car anyway (heck one commercial kit required a frame notch plate to fit a GT28 in there . . .)
3. This third point is very simple: Pimp factor. It sounds way cooler to say "my car is twin turbo" rather than "I have a single turbo on my car"
Sadly, this is truly the reason most people even mention or think of twin turbos "OMG, he's got TWO turbos, that must make waaaay more power than just one".
Travis, I will give you this, a good bit of your theory is correct (most of it actually, though there are a few things in your posts that I hope are just accidental mis-statements) but your application is flawed, especially in your comparisons.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 21,653
I have no life
|
|
I have no life
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 21,653 |
You'd blow a duratec before any single or twin turbo setup could outdo the other.
98.5 SVT
91 Escort GT (almost sold)
96 ATX Zetec (i brake to watch you swerve)
FS: SVT rear sway bar
WTB: Very cheap beater
CEG Dragon Run - October 13-15
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 16
New CEG\'er
|
|
OP
New CEG\'er
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 16 |
good point. there are advantages to both set ups. it all depends on what your trying to acomplish. while i have no doubt that a twin turbo set up will work in the contour, i don't care enough to argue about. i'll probubly just go single turbo so i don't have to think as much. if i build my 3.0L well enough it should be fun.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 10,015
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 10,015 |
Fact of the matter is that this all boils down to is: real estate. Why don't you shut your mouth for 2 seconds and TAKE A LOOK at a Contour engine bay (w/duratec). There's no fuggen room for two turbos plain and simple.For example, from the factory (and on the SF kit) the rear manifold goes between the R/H intermediate shaft and the block simply because there is not enough room between the firewall, steering rack, subframe and the engine block to do it any different. Thus putting a turbo there is basically impossible, short of notching the firewall and removing your steering rack and part or your subframe too, or maybe mounting it in the passenger seat! But I guess steering is overrated for most drag racers so - what the hell! Secondly, lets ssay somehow you fit a turbo for the rear bank back there (and lack of airflow doesn't kill it in the process). No you want (by your theories) to mount the front bank turbo, about the same distance away from the front banks exhaust ports, as the rear - OK, that puts the turbo IN the radiator. Hey - cooling's overated, so lets ditch the radiator. Finally you'll need to route air intakes and discharges to both of these turbos and back again to the throttle body - oh wait you'll probably want to mount a Skyline FMIC too - well, I guess now you can seeing as you don't have a radiator anymore. People like you who obviously haven't investigated what they are talking about - and then come on here and start talking like a crackhead - irritate me.  Ah what the hell, do what you want - I've seen people likeyourself come and go before. Sure you may have some knowledge of turbo chargers but your common sense is missing. Typical book-smart syndrome. Stubborn assclown.......... 
2000 SVT Turbo 295hp/269ftlb@12psi
#1 for Bendix Brakes Kits!
Knuckles rebuilt w/new bearings $55
AUSSIE ENDLINKS $70
Gutted pre-cats $80/set
A lack of planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on mine!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 283
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 283 |
Arg im an auzzie actually youll probably be pleased to know im going to be running an autronic from the great land downunder. You gotta be bringing sky lines into this.. Im gunna be able to kill them in the quarter anyway once im done 
Ex-cat cams dealer. Today we do motor mounts.. Tommorow. Intake manifolds
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 10,015
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 10,015 |
Lern tu spel...
Nice comeback I'm hurt. 
Killing Skylines in a Contour - your dillusional. In the off chance you're able to put 450hp to the ground (which I tout as being next to impossible with the MTX-75 and the Contour chassis/suspension). You're still going to be killed by Skyline. 450hp is peanuts on the RB26DETT.
Like Ren Hoëk once said, "Stimpy, you're wealth of ignorance astounds me!".
Someone ban this troll
2000 SVT Turbo 295hp/269ftlb@12psi
#1 for Bendix Brakes Kits!
Knuckles rebuilt w/new bearings $55
AUSSIE ENDLINKS $70
Gutted pre-cats $80/set
A lack of planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on mine!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 283
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 283 |
Yea guess i should... better off not and sayin i did though. Unless you just cant read my post why [censored]
Ex-cat cams dealer. Today we do motor mounts.. Tommorow. Intake manifolds
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 10,015
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 10,015 |
Originally posted by Travis:
Yea guess i should... better off not and sayin i did though. Unless you just cant read my post why [censored]
Is this English?
2000 SVT Turbo 295hp/269ftlb@12psi
#1 for Bendix Brakes Kits!
Knuckles rebuilt w/new bearings $55
AUSSIE ENDLINKS $70
Gutted pre-cats $80/set
A lack of planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on mine!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 283
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 283 |
Is it really this important to insult my word knowledge/percision.accuracy rather sorry for my misuse of percision. had i not made the correction you obviously couldnt of figured out what i ment... This thread seems to have ran its grounds mayby someone could lock
Last edited by Travis; 11/05/03 04:35 PM.
Ex-cat cams dealer. Today we do motor mounts.. Tommorow. Intake manifolds
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 10,015
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 10,015 |
How can you be taken seriously when: A) You can't spell worth a sh!t. B) Grammar obviously is also a problem for you. C) You spout off unsupported theories and uncorroborated facts. D) You have no apparent knowledge of the mechanical workings and consequential limitations of the Contour's drivetrain and chassis/suspension. E)You couldn't pick out the differences between a Contour's engine bay and a jelly donut.  What's next? Are you going to claim you invented the question mark? I would rather see you banned for talking nonsense, rather than see this thread locked. Then if you could pass an IQ test score or 120, perhaps we'd let you back in.
2000 SVT Turbo 295hp/269ftlb@12psi
#1 for Bendix Brakes Kits!
Knuckles rebuilt w/new bearings $55
AUSSIE ENDLINKS $70
Gutted pre-cats $80/set
A lack of planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on mine!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 283
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 283 |
Okkkk... you can goto http://home.earthlink.net/~adrenilin/Index.htm I built an all motor zetec that did THAT to the diffrential I really think i know what the [censored] an mtx 75 is how it works and what it does. No i dont know what a contour engine compartment looks like. I am however interested in the knowledge that the people have on here about the 3l. You can get the hell of my back and shove it up your ass if you dont like what i have to say. Im an experienced engine builder and was making early 14 second passes on that engine. (14.19) (2.078 60 foot)
I would like to know exactly where your knowledge base comes from and just exactly why you think your intelligence level is soooooooo much higher then mine.
Ex-cat cams dealer. Today we do motor mounts.. Tommorow. Intake manifolds
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 21,197
I have no life
|
|
I have no life
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 21,197 |
-'96 SE MTX 3L
-'98 SVT 1,173 of 6,535
-'05 Mazda 6s, loaded, g/f's ride
-Need a 96-00 manual on CD? PM or email me
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 10,015
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 10,015 |
Ooooh 14 sec! You've sold me there Mr Victor Bray!  So you "Built" an engine to put you into the 14's and THAT destroyed your diff? I guess you didn't realise that wheel-hop is bad. For one, I was part of the design input team for the SF Turbo Kit, so I know about turbocharging the Duratec a WHOLE lot more than you! With my own two hands, I tore down my Contour SVT, installed the "beta" SF turbokit, Hand port matched a 3L Taurus UIM to an SVT UIM, rebuilt the MTX-75 with a Quaife LSD, Fidanza Flywheel and CF/DF Clutch, built my own exhaust system, myself, fitted a full Koni/GC suspension set up, designed, produced and marketed the 24mm hollow rear sway bar (or "AussieBar" as it was dubbed by the CEG and NECO forums), wrote up the "how-to" on how to install a S-AFC onto an EEC-V equipped duratec ECU - oh, for my Mechanical Engineering Degree, I wrote a thesis for my end of year project on Turbocharging Diesel Engines. Are they enough qualifications? I also have 4 years of experience in driveline design in the automtoive industry, including designing the rear axle shafts for the current H2, and the front axle shafts for the current Dodge Ram HD. I also have 3 years experience as as a heavy equipment Mechanical Maintenance engineer in a Synthetic Rutile (titanium ore) Refinery.
2000 SVT Turbo 295hp/269ftlb@12psi
#1 for Bendix Brakes Kits!
Knuckles rebuilt w/new bearings $55
AUSSIE ENDLINKS $70
Gutted pre-cats $80/set
A lack of planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on mine!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 21,197
I have no life
|
|
I have no life
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 21,197 |
I think owned is too light of word here.
-'96 SE MTX 3L
-'98 SVT 1,173 of 6,535
-'05 Mazda 6s, loaded, g/f's ride
-Need a 96-00 manual on CD? PM or email me
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,353
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,353 |
Originally posted by todras:
1999 Blk/Tan CSVT #654 - SOLD
2003 Suzuki SV650s
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,091
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,091 |
Originally posted by Travis:
Im an experienced engine builder and was making early 14 second passes on that engine. (14.19) (2.078 60 foot)
  
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 3,223
"Absolut Rara."
|
|
"Absolut Rara."
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 3,223 |
Originally posted by Travis:
Okkkk... you can goto http://home.earthlink.net/~adrenilin/Index.htm I built an all motor zetec that did THAT to the diffrential I really think i know what the [censored] an mtx 75 is how it works and what it does. No i dont know what a contour engine compartment looks like. I am however interested in the knowledge that the people have on here about the 3l. You can get the hell of my back and shove it up your ass if you dont like what i have to say. Im an experienced engine builder and was making early 14 second passes on that engine. (14.19) (2.078 60 foot)
I would like to know exactly where your knowledge base comes from and just exactly why you think your intelligence level is soooooooo much higher then mine.
Dude, plenty of folks have destroyed the diff in an MTX-75 on stock motors, Zetec or Duratec; its more about how you drive it than how much power you put through it.
Anyway, this has turned into a complete and total pissing contest, and why? because you walked in here talking up things you didn't know anything about. And Stazi isn't the only engineer here, or even the only automotive engineer here. If you don't want to get into discussions like this then back things up with proper tech, and parroting something you read out of a Bell or MacInnes book doesn't count.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 283
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 283 |
ooo we going to bragging rights here? yes? are we? Ok then. Now lets talk about my experiences. My zetec was pulling down approxiamtly 180 whp (200+crank) on a fabricated fr200 intake manifold with a 65 mm Focus central throttle body stage 3 crower cams (236 @050 duration and244 @050 dur) 2.5 inch flex 2.5 inch flex back mag exhaust. Head was custom ported by my cam guy and radial cut and milled .070 yeilding 10.90 static compression ratio with a 8.37 calculated dynamic with 3 percent blow by that registered in the leakdown test before hand. 24 lb injectors were installed and a recalibrated and ported 70 mm mass airflow sensor was installed. A custom intake system pulling in ambien air was fabricated and the deminsions were made to comply with that of helmholtz resonation tunning theory at 6000 rpms. The headers were tuned at 5000 rpms at length of approx 29 inches with a 4:1 design the collector was a 5 and half degree taper to with inverted slot cuts in the primary pipes to maximumize air flow at high rpm. Cam gears were installed and were tuned on timed runs at a local track. Now... Seeing how i done every single equation by hand all the inertial tunning work myself and welded all that together i think i know just a bit about engines. Also id like for you to know that the lakeland front traction bar system was used the rear transmision mount as well as the passenger side mount was replaced with poly`s to reduce wheel hop. Not to mention my koni`s were placed on soft in the front and hard in the back on all launches. And man with a 2.07 60 foot there was just huge amount of wheel hop and traction loss im here to tell you.. As a matter of fact my 22.8.15 inch mickeythompson slicks were loosing so much traction that i could dump from 5500 and 14.5 psi of tire pressure and never rotate a wheel unless it was accelerating me forward. Not to mention the turbo probe I built last summer was putting down 8.7 eigth mile runs. I done all the port work timing work and equation work for that vehicle too as well as a custom turbo manifold because the stock one didnt flow worth [censored]. It consistantly ate porsche`s and corvettes alive on the highway. Or the eclipse of my friend lindsey`s that now has a fresh 14 g on it making low 9 second passes in the eigth. Or the 347 stroker twin i built turbo manifolds/downpipes for thats now producing over a 1000 horsepower. Using ugly flux core welds might i add. Or the mazda miata i done a complete naturaully aspirated overhaul on including a custom intake manifold all tig welded and inertial tuned race header. Or the b16 dy 8 swap i did in a 92 civic hatch back last month which i fabricated custom motormounts for. Using tig welding again. or the 3.8 L thunder bird supercoupe im rebuilding engine right now because of a spun con rod bearing. And funny you try to insult my intelligence while your building half shafts for a [censored] faced company that [censored] up the hummer and advertises the hemi engine technology thats straight out of the 1970`s. Oh ... and its great that you wrote a thesis on it.. I wrote a theses on stephen hawks 4d space time theory from a breif history of time and the universe in a nutshell my sophomore year of highschool. Or mayby you like 6 easy pieces.. or the 6 not so easy pieces. How about some mitchio ? Gotta love those japs Im sure a well educated engineer knows these books by name right? Doesnt exactly mean i fully understand god particle theory or Superstring theory. And it also does not mean anything to me about whether you understand turbocharging or not just because you wrote a thesis on it. Also whats your position in the shaft design team? Chief ass kisser and hall closet manager? Need some coffee chief?
Ex-cat cams dealer. Today we do motor mounts.. Tommorow. Intake manifolds
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 10,015
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 10,015 |
You're a tool.
You don't even know the name of the company I work for you nimrod, and no it's no GM or DCX, in fact we're in the Fortune 500. Do some research, seems to be all you know to do, read sh!t then regurgitate it.
I highly doubt you have an engineering degree, not with your obvious lack of capacity when it comes to spelling or grammar. God only know's how you could write anything that would be acceptable for dissertation........
And so far as bragging about other cars. Previous to the SVT, I had a high 12s 1997 Mitsubishi Eclipse GSX w/a custom proted Big 16G (that I ported myself), a custom modified Starion FMIC with an intelligent water spray and full KYB coilover suspension, so you can't impress me there either.
Good thing you studied 4 dimenionsional space theory and some of the other useless information you spouted as it has no application whatsoever with regards to what we've been debating here....
I'd show you design prints with my name in the title block to prove my accomplishments, but it's not allowed by company policy and besides you're not worthy, [censored]. I'm a Senior Project Engineer, not an ass kisser or a bullsh!t-artist like you seem to be.
What have you accomplised lately other than come on these boards and talked a bunch of frogsh!t? 
Wait a second I found your picture on the internet:
PS it shows - once again - how little practical knowledge you posses of the real world; the H2 doesn't have half shafts in the rear. It has a Salisbury axle and as such it has semi-float shafts.
2000 SVT Turbo 295hp/269ftlb@12psi
#1 for Bendix Brakes Kits!
Knuckles rebuilt w/new bearings $55
AUSSIE ENDLINKS $70
Gutted pre-cats $80/set
A lack of planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on mine!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,353
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,353 |
Travis, you're a F*CKING M*RON! Anyone that knows me could tell you that I'm just about the most even-tempered, mild-mannered guy you'll ever meet, but damn... I think it's about time for you to be banned. Coming on here and asking resonable questions and even starting some debate is one thing, but spouting off stupid sh*t that is completely inaccurate and continuing to argue about it once it has been proven wrong over and over, is a waste of our time. In addition, your grammar and manner of speech is simply atrocious and frustrating to read. I would ordinarily suggest that you read over the whole post until you realize that all your questions have been answered and all your misguided theories disproven, but I know you won't, so do us all a favor and just leave.
1999 Blk/Tan CSVT #654 - SOLD
2003 Suzuki SV650s
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,676
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,676 |
I think an OWNED is due right about here, don't mess with da Aussie. . .
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 283
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 283 |
Who started this argument auzzie? I didnt attack you. You attacked me. And my thesis about space time has as much to do with this forum as your thesis on diesel turbocharging. Path Come up with some real knowledge on this subject and id be honored. Im kinda intriqued with the engineer but your just rediculous
Ex-cat cams dealer. Today we do motor mounts.. Tommorow. Intake manifolds
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 283
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 283 |
I must desertate that you are building not working for the company that [censored] up the hummer. Consider this my official 1 line desertation on the subject.
Ex-cat cams dealer. Today we do motor mounts.. Tommorow. Intake manifolds
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 21,197
I have no life
|
|
I have no life
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 21,197 |
Originally posted by Travis:
And my thesis about space time has as much to do with this forum as your thesis on diesel turbocharging.
Fueling the fact that you are... never mind. Like talking to a brick wall. 
-'96 SE MTX 3L
-'98 SVT 1,173 of 6,535
-'05 Mazda 6s, loaded, g/f's ride
-Need a 96-00 manual on CD? PM or email me
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 21,197
I have no life
|
|
I have no life
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 21,197 |
Originally posted by Travis:
my official 1 line desertation on the subject.
Dissertation!
-'96 SE MTX 3L
-'98 SVT 1,173 of 6,535
-'05 Mazda 6s, loaded, g/f's ride
-Need a 96-00 manual on CD? PM or email me
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 283
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 283 |
Im used to being backed into a corner on the way i think. It doesnt bother me to be disagreed with at all. No it probably wont help to speak
Ex-cat cams dealer. Today we do motor mounts.. Tommorow. Intake manifolds
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 283
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 283 |
Now was that really appropriate lol
Ex-cat cams dealer. Today we do motor mounts.. Tommorow. Intake manifolds
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 21,197
I have no life
|
|
I have no life
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 21,197 |
Originally posted by Travis:
Im used to being backed into a corner on the way i think.
Wore the dunce cap a lot when you were a kid huh?
-'96 SE MTX 3L
-'98 SVT 1,173 of 6,535
-'05 Mazda 6s, loaded, g/f's ride
-Need a 96-00 manual on CD? PM or email me
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 283
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 283 |
hell yea
Ex-cat cams dealer. Today we do motor mounts.. Tommorow. Intake manifolds
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,206
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,206 |
i am dumber for having read these posts.. dammit i needed those brain cells... and for my bro.. see the attached owned pic and imagine travis driving one of his wonderful cars like this jeep did.. btw the pic is not at an angle...the jeep went into the trailer that way..yikes.. 
-the original non contour owner-
an m3 or an sti?
thats like asking
"Miss USA or Hooter's waitress?"
05' Sti Silver/Silver
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,353
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,353 |
Originally posted by Travis:
Path Come up with some real knowledge on this subject and id be honored. Im kinda intriqued with the engineer but your just rediculous
Why? What "real knowledge" do I need to have on a twin-turbo contour. All I have to do is pull the little lever under my dash, get out of my car, open the hood and Ta-Da... the question is answered.
Btw... WTF is intriqued or desertate How can you write a thesis on anything when you make up words. My sixth grade english teacher would have given me an "F" for writing like you, much less my college profs. But what do I know, I'm "rediculous"
1999 Blk/Tan CSVT #654 - SOLD
2003 Suzuki SV650s
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 283
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 283 |
intrigue : curiousity, interested, receptive. Desertate would be the verb form of making something into a dessertation.. however i did pull that one outa my ass. Since when are message boards an english lesson umbre. Obviously you understand what im saying or you wouldnt be so pissed. Or mayby its not the text that needs to be examined. Comprehension is the skill of a reader. After all I guess your going to threaten me into changing how i word things. Or mayby you think im just too dumb to even worry about? Either way your gunna find i just dont care.
Ex-cat cams dealer. Today we do motor mounts.. Tommorow. Intake manifolds
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 3,223
"Absolut Rara."
|
|
"Absolut Rara."
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 3,223 |
1. This thread has turned into a pissing contest, if it doesn't turn around, I'll lock it.
2. Travis, you've thrown out some crap and have made no attempt to defend it technically, only proceeded to start a pissing match with the forum regulars. I consider this trolling, and that puts you on thin ice. Get back on topic, and bring more tech than flawed assumptions, or go away.
3. Stazi, just let it go. Stick to the tech.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 661
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 661 |
My roomate has an S4. 2.7L TT. Turbo's are TINY ont he thing. But you wanna talk about a small engine bay, look at one of those
Fast Cheap reliable
Pick two
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 3,223
"Absolut Rara."
|
|
"Absolut Rara."
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 3,223 |
and one other thing, Travis, my four year old nephew has better spelling and grammar than you do; this makes you look like foolish, and makes anything you post less believable regardless of what it is. I suggest making an effort to making your posts a bit more readable if you wish to be taken more seriously. But of course, actual tech is a pre-requisite before that will help anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 283
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 283 |
Ok yes lets go back to the tech and ill try harder to become more clear in what im saying.
Ok regaurdless of whether you can package it or not lets talk about the ability of the seperate systems to make power.
This is my argument for 2 turbo`s.
Advantages:
The turbo headers are easier to make
By using 2 turbo`s exhaust header manifold design is improved. Because heat loss is kept low. Therefore the boost threshold is lower with the same a/r.
By the additional improvement in exhaust header manifold design a higher a/r can be used while maintaining the boost threshold at its current level which causes less tip.
In theory This will produce more power by allowing more radical cams and port work without reversion becoming a problem.
My argument for the exducer bore is made by this math work I completed.
Showing at 750 cfm (2) 2 inch pipes will see 286 ft per second gas velocitiy.
It would take a 2 and 7/8 inch ID pipe to flow the same amount of air at a slightly lower velocity 277 ft per second.
So the exducer bore on a single turbo would have to be quite large to flow the same amount with the same amount of pressure drop as the 2 smaller turbo`s.
Disadvantages
Cost if you go with new turbo`s
Sizing 2 turbo`s appropriatly for the application could be hard.
Extra complexity at controlling wastegates and making sure water/oiling lines get to where they are suppose to go.
Extra intake pipes and intercooler piping and intercooler modifications.
Single turbo:
Advantages
Simple
Cheaper
Would be very close to 2 turbo`s in performance *debatable
You can use a huge turbo I mapped out and found a t70 would work last night if you were going after like 25 pounds of boost
So bus turbo`s from junkyards are fair play here and that means cheap.
Disadvantages
Debatibly you could drag out more power from a twin turbo system.
Header is hard to make and has more areas that could fail. Its also less efficient. There is alot more surface area and bends before the turbo to cause heatloss and turbulence.
Turbo sizing on this side of the scale could be hard to get just right depending on desired rpm range.
You would have to use a large expensive external waste gate for that much flow which is harder to control then 2 smaller wastegates. So low speed could be more of a hassle.
Ex-cat cams dealer. Today we do motor mounts.. Tommorow. Intake manifolds
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 283
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 283 |
I also done some numbers on compressor maps and for a high output 3 l running 22 psi I came up with these numbers
T66 (best matched compressor)
70% @ 7300 139 c* after turbo
76% @ 6000 129 c
76% @ 5000 129 c
74% @ 4500 132 c
Compared to the closest compressor for a twin turbo setup
T-3 60 series trim
69% @ 7300 140* (at the high end of compressor map)
73% @ 6000 134*
70% @ 5000 139*
67% @ 4500 144* (surge line)
Through the testing range of the engine they both would be pretty much the same with an intercooler.
With less boost pressure for street driving the dual turbo efficiency goes up as it drops more towards the center of the graph and the t66 goes down as it drops towards the bottem of the graph.
So the twin turbo would have a couple horsepower through the midrange over the single turbo from a stand point of just compressor maps and the single would have it in top end.
The twin turbo`s have a maximum combined flow of 62 pounds of air and the the t66 has a much higher 72 pounds of air
You could debatibly go with the t64 its smaller and would offer more midrange but top end efficiency wouldnt be as high. A trade off between the 2.
This is only on the compressor side though. My previous statement stands.
So the twin turbo setup would give you hotter temps through the topend. The single hotter temps through the midrange.
Id also like to add that beyond 22 psi there is not a good match through standard compressor maps for the twin turbo setup. Where as the the t66 has alot of room to grow. About 5 more psi across the board.
2 gt 32`s with a 52 trim would be better then Any of them by far. But who has 6000 dollars for 2 turbos?
Last edited by Travis; 11/06/03 02:24 AM.
Ex-cat cams dealer. Today we do motor mounts.. Tommorow. Intake manifolds
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 3,223
"Absolut Rara."
|
|
"Absolut Rara."
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 3,223 |
Oh man, where to start . . . At the beginning I suppose . . . Quote:
Ok regaurdless of whether you can package it or not
you don't seem to get it do you? This right here is the crux of the matter. The whole context here is turbocharger(s) applied to the duratec engine in the CDW27 platform.
There is no place to put the second turbo, plain and simple. Let's pretend you find a place anyway after relocating or removing all sorts of stuff, its still not gonna be in a place that allows you to run decent exhaust manifolds (ie short).
Quote:
lets talk about the ability of the seperate systems to make power.
First, this argument is inane (yes that is spelled correctly, go look it up) because both layouts can be made to make equivalent power on this size engine, it is all in proper sizing for the application and proper tuning. Minor efficiency differences can even be accomodated for.
Hmm, I actually had responded to a bunch of your stuff, and ended up deleting it just now, becuase I realized that beyond what I said above, I kept saying the same thing; Virtually everything you say is contingent upon some pretty big assumptions about the package and the setup, most of which don't even apply in the case of the contour. You keep forgetting that this is a discussion about fitting a turbo or turbos to a Contour not a general single vs. twin discussion; I already responded previously with my general views on twin vs. single.
On to your second recent post, you compare a single vs. a twin with specific turbos.
First:
Quote:
high output 3 l running 22 psi
You do realize that this sort of setup would potentially be in the neighborhood of ~500hp at the crank? Not exactly the sort of power that could be handled by a contour transmission or chassis. Plus if someone has the cash to be dumping into a duratec to get to those levels reliably, do you really think its going to be in a FWD contour????? Let's try to be at least remotely realistic. But then again, you obviously have sized this stuff in search of the dyno queen of the year award.
Second, your "match" of a T66 compressor is ridiculous, anything under 4500-5000rpm rides the surge limit; I don't know much about you, but eating the compressor wheel because of constant surge doesn't sound fun to me. This also points to your poor choice of a 60 trim T3 for the twin setup, another serious surge problem.
So first, you choose an output level that no available transmission or chassis can support safely, and the engine block is even unknown at that level; and this even all assumes a complete rebuild using all forged internals and a custom forged crank. Second, you size everything such that it would be nothing but a dyno queen, certainly not something I would consider fun.
Peak Power is not the only thing that one should worry about on a street car.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 240
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 240 |
Originally posted by Rara:
my four year old nephew has better spelling and grammar than you do; this makes you look like foolish,
I'm sorry, Rara, but the irony was soooo thick here, I had to point it out.
'99 SVT Contour #535/2760, born 11/30/98. Toreador Red / Prairie Tan
Wife's car: '00 Saturn LS2. Dk. Toreador Red (no joke) / Graphite
Sunday Bruiser: '67 Camaro rs/SS350 4 spd. Ermine White / Custom Yellow
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 165
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 165 |
Hey guys, I've been gone for a couple of days, what did I miss? And why is there urine all over the floor?
Contour--It will make a master mechanic out of you!
95 LX MTX Bolt-ons
95 Neon SOHC ATX
77 Dodge Powerwagon-more displacement than my Neon, Contour, and wife's Saturn---combined!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,676
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,676 |
please lock Rara, this ain't worth anybody's time. . .
though fun to read, just drivel. . .that is, what he writes, i take what you and the staz miester write to the highest. . .(as expected). . .
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 10,015
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 10,015 |
Originally posted by Travis:
Ok regaurdless of whether you can package it or not lets talk about the ability of the seperate systems to make power.
This is my argument for 2 turbo`s.
Advantages:
The turbo headers are easier to make
By using 2 turbo`s exhaust header manifold design is improved. Because heat loss is kept low. Therefore the boost threshold is lower with the same a/r.
These statements are enough for me to tell you to "shut the hell up".
First look at the top of this page, what does it say?
I'll help you: Contour Enthusiasts Group.
Moving on that means, yes, we're talking about the CDW27 platform - i.e. Contour, Mystique and yes, Cougar.
From there we have an established a packaging envelope (I'll break that down for your thick skull - that means "engine bay", chassis and suspension).
So now, I think we know what we're dealing with; the initial question of fitting two turbos to a Duratec equipped CDW27.
When the inital question was posed, almost instantly an answer was proferred; i.e. that there is simply NO F'ING ROOM for two of them. Thus your first statement is null and void.
What do I mean by that?
Regardless of how easy it is to fabricate two shorty 3-1 headers, that fact of the matter is that you CANNOT package a turbo between the rear bank of the Duratec and the firewall and other mechanical components (steering rack, intermediate shaft and subframe).
Second, with thick enough pipes with a low conductivity (i.e. Stainless Steel), the heat loss to one single turbo is low enough not to affect boost threshold, due to the fact that the turbo is sized APPROPRIATELY to allow for quick spool-up. In this case a T28 with GT center cartridge for the 2.5L Duratec, or a T3/T4 with and A/R ratio small enough to provide fast spool-up yet not constrict the exhaust flow, for the 3L Duratec. Which, I might add, has been sized approriately, for the 3L kit, from SF.
Regardless of what I have just said, YOUR turbine selection tells me, and Rara, that boost threshold and spool-up speed of little importance to you as boost would not be achieved until at least 4000rpm, which for a streetable vehicle (NOT A DRAG CAR), is pointless. The drivability of such a setup would be so "on-off" that the tractibility would be compromised and for anything but drag racing, it would be redundant. And like I said earlier, putting down anything more than 450hp will likely grenade even the toughest MTX-75,. But say you could, you would never be able to control such a torque spike to launch a Contour properly. And I can tell you've never tried to drag race a Contour as it is one of the worst cars for this form of racing due to it's weight distribution and suspension setup.
If these arguments aren't enough to make you realise that your constant blabbering is pointless, then I suggest you see a physician as it is aparent that you suffer from AADD (Adult (at a stretch in your case) Attention Deficit Disorder).
2000 SVT Turbo 295hp/269ftlb@12psi
#1 for Bendix Brakes Kits!
Knuckles rebuilt w/new bearings $55
AUSSIE ENDLINKS $70
Gutted pre-cats $80/set
A lack of planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on mine!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,521
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,521 |
Ok, so two turbos won't fit. What about three?
Chris G.
~ 98 Mystique LS ATX
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 3,732
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 3,732 |
dude, give up on the twin turbo idea!
do you know how difficult it was to find a spot for my remote tranny filter?
me, along with MANY others know this car well, ive pulled the engine twice, built a 3L, put in a new tranny, i know this engine bay well. there is NO WAY you can fit twin turbos! give it up man. go to a ford dealer, take a GOOD LOOK at a duratec contour, then come back here and tell us if you still think you can make them fit!
Russell
Oval Port 3L Nearly Done
MTX75 w/ Homebrew Zetec FD and Torsen Complete
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 68
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 68 |
my svt prototype that my dad got me was made wiht a 3l and twin trubos...
Stock '97 Contour SVT 3.0l Twin Trubo.
Queef LSD / 240/55xr17 G-Fours KDs
13.2 @ 106 mph
EDIT: Someone stole my antena. Acsepting donasions.
help iccant aford the gass. join my "premtive strike"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,325
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,325 |
Originally posted by Rooster:
my svt prototype that my dad got me was made wiht a 3l and twin trubos...
You must buy TT-3.0 97 SVT's at the same store that sells "Queef LSD"'s
I'm not sure what a "Queef LSD" would even do - but it sounds really intresting
97 Contour SE MTX
K&N 3530, UR UDP, 19# Injectors, mystery mod, FMS wires, Fordchip.com chip, SVT: TB, Flywheel, clutch, exhaust
04 Grand Caravan SXT
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,099
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,099 |
Originally posted by Rara:
and one other thing, Travis, my four year old nephew has better spelling and grammar than you do; this makes you look like foolish, and makes anything you post less believable regardless of what it is. I suggest making an effort to making your posts a bit more readable if you wish to be taken more seriously. But of course, actual tech is a pre-requisite before that will help anyway.
Rara, you got anymore of those CEG shirts left? AndyW and I were wanting a few more...
--Matt
2003 Sonic Blue SVT Cobra Coupe
2003 RedFire SVT Cobra Convertable
2005 Dark Toreador Red F150 XLT 4x4
2000 Black SVT Contour - Beater
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 283
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 283 |
Ok youv actaully made 1 comment that was a legitament statement and that was about the heatloss. What about the flow argument I made earlier? The exducer bores and so fourth?
It just irritates me that people are so closed minded that i get attacked like its sack religious to even bring this up. I feel like im in a mid evil court telling people the sun doesnt revolve around the earth vs. the earth revolves around the sun. Now that iv had a chance to cool off and look at the posts and see what was said. I came into this very open minded. Then 3 people begin attacking me ruthlessly. The first being rara. Who called me a dumbass for even considering it. This is offensive Ofcourse i got agitated.
The second person who comes along is stazi. Calls me an assclown for even making an argument for twin turbo`s. Tells me to shut my fuggin mouth. Yes lets have a technical debate here about twin turbo`s SHUT THE [censored] UP SINGLE TURBO SYSTEMS ARE ALWAYS BETTER LA LA LA LA LA I CANT HEAR YOU! well thats a little one sided isnt it? No one can ever figure anything out unless you debate it.
Third is this path guy whose just pissed off that anyone would even think of a twin turbo setup becuase he just spent 5k and 7 months with out a car to have sf make a single turbo kit.
I want to debate this. Im well aware that space is critical inbetween the firewall and the engine on these vehicles. I really think i have written the last 3 posts accuratly enough for anyone to understand what im trying to say.
So with out yelling at me calling me a dumbass or otherwise insulting my intelligence i would like for someone to battle the tech which I have placed forward. About the exducer bores and their ability to flow for one thing. Accounting the extra turbulence in the 6-2-1 turbo header causing extra pressure and less efficiency.
Also my reply about the compressor maps I chose. These maps will put you under the surge line as long as you tailor the boost under that curve as needed for instance you can ride the surge line all the way up using
5-6 pounds at 2000 rpm
12-13 pounds at 3000 rpm
18 pounds at 4000 rpm and above that its your call This compressor map is a good match for top end performance. THe mid range temps will be high but you just limit boost under deto. Its not all that important to run high boost through the mid range anyways. All the torque is hard on parts. Not like its useful. Why torque through something when you can just down shift?
The engine is still very shallow stroke and it likes rpms. No reason to try and turn it into a torque monster when its built around oversquare high rpm operation.
Further more on the horsepower issue as someone was bringing about reliability as an issue. Horsepower doesnt break parts torque does. You only need 431 brake ft lbs of torque at 7300 rpms to make 600 bhp. I know iv seen dyno plots with duratechs making comparable amounts of torque and not breaking mtx 75`s. A good argument for this is if youv ever seen the drive shafts on the space shuttle carrier. The engines make a rediculously small amount of horsepower but they make 20000+ ft lbs of torque and there is 4 of them.
You could hook a 100000 rpm engine up that makes 5000 horsepower to the mtx 75 and as long as it didnt break the torque capacity for the transmission youd be fine. I dont have the gear ratio`s on me but in first gear the mtx 75 stands over a 500 ft lbs of wheel torque with gearing on a zetec. Youd be hard pressed to find that much torque in a duratech in 3rd or fourth. Its in the top gears youll break it not comming off the line though. Because past a certain torque rating youll just loose traction in the lower gears. But in 3rd or fourth because of vehicle speed aerodynamics are going to "brake" the vehicle. Making the engine able to push forward more without loosing traction.
I definatly think its upto the task to handle pretty much what you want to throw at it as long as you bring brake torque down below 500.
The same is true for piston+con rods+crank+block. Torque is the major stressing factor in the engine because it directly relates to mean effective pressure. Or the pressure the combustion cycle is putting on the parts. You use this to determine how much the piston is pressuring everything else in the drivetrain.
Horsepower is just how often this amount of mean effective pressure is generated. If you generate the same mep a 1000 times per a second its going to stress the part the same amount as it would say if the part was being stressed 1 time per a second. But the part is still only stressed at a 145 psi. It just gets stressed more often in a smaller period of time. Just because you bang a hammer against a nail 50 times a minute compared to once a minute doesnt mean its going to wear any faster.
Ex-cat cams dealer. Today we do motor mounts.. Tommorow. Intake manifolds
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,360
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,360 |
wait guys, i need to get more popcorn...WHERES THE PAUSE BUTTON!!??? this sh!t is great!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,353
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 2,353 |
Originally posted by Travis:
sack religious mid evil
It's actually kinda funny now
Originally posted by Travis:
Third is this path guy whose just pissed off that anyone would even think of a twin turbo setup becuase he just spent 5k and 7 months with out a car to have sf make a single turbo kit.
I wish! If only I had those kind of financial resources 
Originally posted by Travis:
Im well aware that space is critical inbetween the firewall and the engine on these vehicles.
Then why are you still debating the subject? The original poster has had his question answered, but you seem to want to continue debate BS tech stuff that no one cares about and that doesn't relate to our cars. If you really want to delve into it, why not go to a turbo-specific forum and debate your theories? (which may be valid, I really have no idea...)
1999 Blk/Tan CSVT #654 - SOLD
2003 Suzuki SV650s
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 10,015
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 10,015 |
First let me reiterate that there's no way in hell you obtained an engineering degree (or any degree for that matter) let alone wrote a thesis with your spelling and grammar - it's absolutely attrocious and quite laughable. Secondly, you obviously are ignoring my factual statement that a second turbo is not packagable close to the rear bank (or anywhere else for that matter). Hence I feel that answering any of your questions is pointless as your obviously an idiot savant and an ignoramous. The second iditotic statement you made that obviously indicates you have no engineering knowledge (which would explain how you could destroy a diff in and MTX75, on a 14sec car) is that time span a force is applied, has no relevance on strength. OMG you have no idea.... Quote:
If you generate the same mep a 1000 times per a second its going to stress the part the same amount as it would say if the part was being stressed 1 time per a second. But the part is still only stressed at a 145 psi. It just gets stressed more often in a smaller period of time. Just because you bang a hammer against a nail 50 times a minute compared to once a minute doesnt mean its going to wear any faster.
Have you ever heard of impulse? Obviously not I=F/t.
Have you ever heard of fatigue life? I doubt it...
The speed at which a force is applied to an object has a significant effect on it's resiliance, and fatigue life.
Going from a 2Hz cyclic torque to a 3Hz cyclic torque will lower your B10 by approximately 50%. God, I can't believe I'm argiung with such a fool, but I cannot sit back and listen to such drivel!
You are truly an assclown - no doubt about it.
Your tech is so narrow minded and is probably something you regurtitated from Turbo Magazine or the like. you have no real clue about the mechanics of material or application of engineering calculations whatsoever, and you dare to call me close minded.
2000 SVT Turbo 295hp/269ftlb@12psi
#1 for Bendix Brakes Kits!
Knuckles rebuilt w/new bearings $55
AUSSIE ENDLINKS $70
Gutted pre-cats $80/set
A lack of planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on mine!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,360
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,360 |
assclown! RAOTFLMAO!!!! this is great.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 283
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 283 |
Kk lets do some math 720/6 = 120 degrees each firing stroke over laps by 33% Therefore every ft lb of torque generated by the crank at 4000 rpms at the same mep will generate 18 percent more stress on the crank at 7000 rpms on the power stroke but it will add additional pressures at the end of the exhaust stroke ona turbo engine which aides keeping rod expansion down. However it has been proven that most engine failures do not occur on the power stroke they occur at the end of the exhaust stroke where there is little pressure to help slow the high velocity piston down. THis causes rod elongation all the way through to the bottem of the intake stroke then the rod is slammed upwards.
This is why more engines fail at high rpm under closed throttle conditions then high rpm while under wide open throttle. Because the cylinders are running extremely low dynamics and causing this to happen twice per a cycle. Yes the stresses are slightly higher but the forces dont make a diffrence where it counts.
As i was explaining the reason the diffrential failed is because a 30+ pound flywheel and a 150 ft lb engine was hitting the spider gears in the diffrential under a very limited amount of time with a very low first gear/final drive ratio with no wheel spin more then likely generating 1000 ft lbs of force or more spike. Would you like for me to draw Delta acceleration/acceleration/velocity graphs of every single part in order and how that affected the diffrential?
Also the hertz comment was not appropriate for the discussion were not adding firing cycles were adding power to each cycle and the speed at which cycle is completed. The hertz at which the engine out puts torque will remain the same within the time frame of the cycling.
By adding a hz to the system you would be adding 6 more cylinders? However i might be off base here. Inertial dynamics/metal fatigues are not a paticular strong point for me.
Also. No im not an engineer. However i am educated.
Point 2 to stop calling me an ass clown. Act as if you were an adult. Have a conversation without buffering your penis size by calling someone a name from 3000 miles away.
Ex-cat cams dealer. Today we do motor mounts.. Tommorow. Intake manifolds
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,360
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 1,360 |
Quote:
This is why more engines fail at high rpm under closed throttle conditions then high rpm while under wide open throttle. Because the cylinders are running extremely low dynamics and causing this to happen twice per a cycle.
i thought it was because the centrifugal force is so great that the bearings let go and the pistons shoot up through the hood/down through the block!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 299
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 299 |
Holy [censored]! Look out!
WHOOOOOOSH!
Whew! I ducked just in time. Those big swinging dicks almost took my block clear off.
Anyway, I find it funny that the gentleman is saying that TT on a Contour is possible and he hasn't even SEEN A [censored] CONTOUR ENGINE BAY BEFORE!
So what else is there to talk about?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 283
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 283 |
<worked on a cougar platform and a contour platform before just nothing major. CAI on a cougar and a catback y`d exhaust on a conti.
Ex-cat cams dealer. Today we do motor mounts.. Tommorow. Intake manifolds
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 937
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 937 |
I hope that Stazi is NOT still reading this guyâ??s stuff. Travis, I think I would really hate to work on any kind of engineering project with you. Hell's bells, youâ??re not even entertaining.
99 Tropic Green SVT, Tan Leather, 20K miles, "Nice Twin" (factory stock).
99 Tropic Green SVT, Tan Leather, 28K miles, "Evil Twin" (Turbo AER 3L and more in progress)
96 Red LX, Opal Grey Leather 2.5L, ATX, 22K miles
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,695
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,695 |
Travis just build it and everyone will believe
04 Subaru WRX "Eurosport bling bling fast and furious tokyo drift"
"They have diarrhea of the mouth, and constipation of thought"
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 283
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 283 |
I do come off as a stuck up [censored] when i talk about stuff like this on a message board but im really damn laid back. Hell i dont know if im right or wrong. I just usuaully build like the turbo headers or intake mani`s to what ever spec im told to. Other then that i read alot and hear alot. I think im done arguing its giving me a headache. Im tired of talking and ready to get down to what i really enjoy doing. Making horsepower So psi to psi lets crank these [censored] up in spring and laydown some numbers
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 |
did you even read my last post? i could be wrong, but i thought it's general feeling was one of compromise. is it that painful to you that someone has an opinion differant than yours? and as far as your where to put the turbos.... 2 T25 will easily fit in front of the tranny in the area where the battery used to be. you can route the manifolds over to them, from the turbos to the i/c which may require some drilling and cutting to run the piping past the radiator, from the passenger side of the i/c all the way back to the air inlet by passing by the top part of the fans.... that was just off th top of my head with little more that 10 secs. of thought. i'm sure with more thought alot can be done.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 283
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 283 |
Well if you have to move the turbo`s far away from their bank that pretty much kills the upperhand of having 2 turbo`s instead of one. This thread is done. Everyone is satisfied. Now i just have to churn out a twin turbo setup and see if any of my [censored] holds true
Ex-cat cams dealer. Today we do motor mounts.. Tommorow. Intake manifolds
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 3,223
"Absolut Rara."
|
|
"Absolut Rara."
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 3,223 |
Originally posted by SVT_AJ:
did you even read my last post? i could be wrong, but i thought it's general feeling was one of compromise. is it that painful to you that someone has an opinion differant than yours? and as far as your where to put the turbos.... 2 T25 will easily fit in front of the tranny in the area where the battery used to be. you can route the manifolds over to them, from the turbos to the i/c which may require some drilling and cutting to run the piping past the radiator, from the passenger side of the i/c all the way back to the air inlet by passing by the top part of the fans.... that was just off th top of my head with little more that 10 secs. of thought. i'm sure with more thought alot can be done.
That must be some good stuff you are smoking, unless of course you get special T25's and piping that is way smaller than anyone else.
The bottom line is, you do it, and we'll believe you. Until then, realize that some of folks here have the original Ford CAD models of the contour at thier disposal and know exactly how much space there is in the different areas of the engine bay.
|
|
|
|
|
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:
did you even read my last post? i could be wrong, but i thought it's general feeling was one of compromise. is it that painful to you that someone has an opinion differant than yours? and as far as your where to put the turbos.... 2 T25 will easily fit in front of the tranny in the area where the battery used to be. you can route the manifolds over to them, from the turbos to the i/c which may require some drilling and cutting to run the piping past the radiator, from the passenger side of the i/c all the way back to the air inlet by passing by the top part of the fans.... that was just off th top of my head with little more that 10 secs. of thought. i'm sure with more thought alot can be done.
So where are you going to mount that second turbo again?
Someone please lock this! SVT_AJ these are not opinions, these are facts. It's like trying to fit a square object into a circle hole. its not going to work! Geez, someone give this man the snickers thick headed award! 
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: Jan 2003
Posts: 717
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 717 |
It is truly sad this is still going.
90' Bright Orange Mustang
65k - 13.306@105.1 
Looking for another CSVT
~Blas~
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 283
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 283 |
Originally posted by Rara:
The bottom line is, you do it, and we'll believe you. Until then, realize that some of folks here have the original Ford CAD models of the contour at thier disposal and know exactly how much space there is in the different areas of the engine bay.
And others just drive focus`s and rant in a contour forum about it.
Ex-cat cams dealer. Today we do motor mounts.. Tommorow. Intake manifolds
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,718
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 3,718 |
Originally posted by Travis:
...However i am educated.
Please explain this when you haven't even addressed any of the packaging/fitment issues surrounding the CDW-27 platform. The point is any halfway-literate sponge can dream up a twin-turbo aplication for just about any vehicle out there; getting it to FIT is a different matter altogether.
You can spit out equations, bar-graphs, charts and techno-babble all you like; last time I checked none of those ever superceeded the laws of physics and 3-dimensional space...
So, at the risk of repeating this for the nth time in this thread, where are you going to PUT the second turbo and all of the associated piping? I can't count the times this has been brought up and ignored by you. You pay it mere "lip-service" and tear off on another techno-ramble.
I REALLY want to know where you are going to place the sucker. I'm not about to get into this one past this post, but I'm CURIOUS as hell as to EXACTLY where you were thinking of putting the second turbo...
I think if you would answer this STRAIGHT-UP, we'd start getting somewhere.
JaTo
e-Tough Guy
Missouri City, TX
99 Contour SVT
#143/2760
00 Corvette Coupe
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 283
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 283 |
argh This topic is over. Its gunna go right where a turbo is suppose to at the end of the exhaust manifold
Ex-cat cams dealer. Today we do motor mounts.. Tommorow. Intake manifolds
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 10,015
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 10,015 |
Travis -> 
2000 SVT Turbo 295hp/269ftlb@12psi
#1 for Bendix Brakes Kits!
Knuckles rebuilt w/new bearings $55
AUSSIE ENDLINKS $70
Gutted pre-cats $80/set
A lack of planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on mine!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 3,223
"Absolut Rara."
|
|
"Absolut Rara."
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 3,223 |
Geez you guys, let it go, we have established that a second turbo doesn't fit in any place on a contour conducive to even decent performance let alone better than a single turbo.
|
|
|
|
|
