Twin Turbo cossie engine?
24-02-2009, 12:08 PM
#41
Virgin-popper
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Norway
Posts: 1,198
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have I got this right ?
The engine sends exhaust through the exhaust on the small turbo. The small turbo sends it's chargeair into the inlet of the big turbo, and the exhaust into the exhaust on the big turbo. The big turbo sends it's boost/chargeair into the intercooler-> engine and exhaust out the back..
Right ?
The engine sends exhaust through the exhaust on the small turbo. The small turbo sends it's chargeair into the inlet of the big turbo, and the exhaust into the exhaust on the big turbo. The big turbo sends it's boost/chargeair into the intercooler-> engine and exhaust out the back..
Right ?
24-02-2009, 12:13 PM
#42
Rubber Rhino Crew
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 2,157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OMG, i'm not thinking anything on that scale....
I was looking at gt22 turbos and tiny little IHI units to kick in the t4 a bit quicker thats all.....not hoping for more power.
I was thinking of controlling the smaller turbo with an external wastegate, shutting it off when t4 comes in.
Cheers
Dan
I was looking at gt22 turbos and tiny little IHI units to kick in the t4 a bit quicker thats all.....not hoping for more power.
I was thinking of controlling the smaller turbo with an external wastegate, shutting it off when t4 comes in.
Cheers
Dan
24-02-2009, 12:20 PM
#44
Have I got this right ?
The engine sends exhaust through the exhaust on the small turbo. The small turbo sends it's chargeair into the inlet of the big turbo, and the exhaust into the exhaust on the big turbo. The big turbo sends it's boost/chargeair into the intercooler-> engine and exhaust out the back..
Right ?
The engine sends exhaust through the exhaust on the small turbo. The small turbo sends it's chargeair into the inlet of the big turbo, and the exhaust into the exhaust on the big turbo. The big turbo sends it's boost/chargeair into the intercooler-> engine and exhaust out the back..
Right ?
IN:
Air filter -> big turbo -> small turbo -> intercooler -> engine
OUT:
Engine -> small turbo / wastegate -> big turbo / wastegate -> exhaust
Doesnt really matter a lot which way round the exhaust goes though I would imagine, ie if it goes big turbo or small turbo first, but it does make a difference on the inlet side of things apparently and will essentially only work the way round I have shown, rather than small turbo then big turbo on the inlet, unless you start introducing an extra gate to bypass the small turbo inlet.
24-02-2009, 12:36 PM
#45
Borg Warner EFR Equipped!
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: In the unit, building a 450bhp Time Attack Focus!
Posts: 5,810
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
There was a development turbo kit out there for Evo motors that achieved 600bhp with stock spool up characteristics. All depends what you want from a car i guess...
Personally to me it just seems to present twice as much to go wrong!
Personally to me it just seems to present twice as much to go wrong!
24-02-2009, 01:03 PM
#47
.Similar way it bent the crank on Rod's old engine with the gas - torque!
It didn't like 3 bar of boost rammed up it at such low rpm. As has been said, they made the same power and torque that Euan's engine made at peak, 3000rpm lower down, and they never got anywhere near it's full potential.
When Rod's engine broke (due to the amount of torque it was running with the gas), he went back to the drawing board and rebuilt the engine from scratch, taking on board the lessons learned from this failure.
Martin (Dumped) was not prepared to do this, as no-one could tell him at what point the crank would fail again (which took out one of the rods). If someone has offered a reassurance that this wouldn't have happened on the next rebuild, he would have finished it. However, AVA were honest and said they could make no such guarantees, as the crank failed at less than half the potential airflow of the turbo, so how could they?
If memory serves me correct, this particular turbo was a T88, which is rated at 1300bhp maxed out
.
24-02-2009, 01:05 PM
#49
Similar way it bent the crank on Rod's old engine with the gas - torque!
It was the BLOCK that failed on rods engine not the crank, the crank is still mint and has just done 666lbft of torque quite happily.
24-02-2009, 01:20 PM
#51
Martin's didnt fail due to torque either did it?
It was a material failure or a build error IMHO as IIRC it was the pulley end that failed, which is subject to no more torque than the resistance of the power steering pump and alteronator really?
Do you know what figures dumped actually got, people keep quoting "3000rpm less than euan" but that doesnt actually say anything useful, what was the BHP and what was the LBFT?
Is there a graph anywere for it?
Last edited by Chip; 24-02-2009 at 01:22 PM.
24-02-2009, 01:28 PM
#55
For the exact figures, you would have to ask Martin to post, as I can't remember for sure, but a figure of 500bhp at the wheels at 5000rpm seems to ring a bell . I don't think they ever got beyond that in the mapping process before the crank issues. He also spoke to LOTS of crank manufacturers and none of them could give a cast iron assurance that their crank would be acceptible for his anticipated power level, so he gave up.
. I don't think they ever got beyond that in the mapping process before the crank issues. He also spoke to LOTS of crank manufacturers and none of them could give a cast iron assurance that their crank would be acceptible for his anticipated power level, so he gave up.
24-02-2009, 01:35 PM
#58
20K+ Super Poster.
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Essex... and Birmingham!
Posts: 21,512
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At the end of the day.... Dumped made the right decision to fook that project off!
It would have been expensive, probably unreliable and too fast to enjoy properly on the road!
So whatever excuse he came out with is irrelevant really!
It would have been expensive, probably unreliable and too fast to enjoy properly on the road!
So whatever excuse he came out with is irrelevant really!
24-02-2009, 01:39 PM
#59
I "think" so, and it was the fact that he couldn't get the right technical answers from the other manufacturers that lead him to pull the plug. Also upon examination of the crank, there was no specific reason that could be given as to it's failure, only best guesses from the information present. It was this unknown also that prevented further development, as the engine was making huge amounts of boost far earlier and far greater than any other car could (due to the compound turbo arrangement), so it was just believed that the cranks just couldn't take this amount of torque so early on. Obviously AVA were keen to see what it would do with a better crank, but that required some faith in the project from Martin, and after in excess of 4 years without the car, Co-co was shown the door .
Just look at the intercooler to see what it was having to cool. Charge temps were not an issue 
.
.Just look at the intercooler to see what it was having to cool
. Charge temps were not an issue .
24-02-2009, 01:46 PM
#61
Happily retired
For the exact figures, you would have to ask Martin to post, as I can't remember for sure, but a figure of 500bhp at the wheels at 5000rpm seems to ring a bell . I don't think they ever got beyond that in the mapping process before the crank issues. He also spoke to LOTS of crank manufacturers and none of them could give a cast iron assurance that their crank would be acceptible for his anticipated power level, so he gave up.
. I don't think they ever got beyond that in the mapping process before the crank issues. He also spoke to LOTS of crank manufacturers and none of them could give a cast iron assurance that their crank would be acceptible for his anticipated power level, so he gave up.
. It was placed in their final checking bay & was still within 'as new' tolerances. The operator said to me if this had been a Farndon crank it would have resembled a banana, you get what you pay for in life im afraid.
24-02-2009, 02:09 PM
#67
Ban[B][/B]ned
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: The Pool.
Posts: 34,090
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
24-02-2009, 03:55 PM
#77
PassionFord Post Troll
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Cleveland
Posts: 2,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To put the 500BHP at the wheels in perspective, Mike's sapphire 'only' did 395 at the wheels on the same rollers. Got to be a good lump more torque for it to hit that so low down...
