Max whp with twins
05-10-07, 11:46 AM
#28
Rotary Enthusiast
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: pennsylvania
Posts: 1,488
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
just out of curiosity (*sp) these numbers you guys are posting.....are they on dynojet's or mustang dynos? i know the numbers on the mustang are a little lower than on dyno jet.
05-10-07, 11:52 AM
#29
Senior Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Columbus
Posts: 411
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
05-10-07, 12:59 PM
#32
Lives on the Forum
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: San Lorenzo, California
Posts: 14,716
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
8 Posts
I sincerely doubt the new ebay-oriented ownership is going to drop the $700 or $800 (or more) for a custom SS manifold for the twins. The stockers cannot boost high enough for the stock manifold to really be a restriction anyway.
Cold hard truth: I can count the people on this board that have "reliably" run more than 350rwhp on stock twins using less than two hands. If you are wanting to run 350+ rwhp, ditch the stock twins and go with the BNRs or go single.
Cold hard truth: I can count the people on this board that have "reliably" run more than 350rwhp on stock twins using less than two hands. If you are wanting to run 350+ rwhp, ditch the stock twins and go with the BNRs or go single.
05-10-07, 01:04 PM
#33
Eats, Sleeps, Dreams Rotary
which is a syndrome due to the new "ebay oreiented" ownership u speak off.
05-10-07, 01:12 PM
#34
Lives on the Forum
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: San Lorenzo, California
Posts: 14,716
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
8 Posts
I'm hoping that the better CHRAs in the BNRs will last a very long time at 15 psi. If not, they were still cheaper than brand new stock turbos.
05-10-07, 01:22 PM
#35
Eats, Sleeps, Dreams Rotary
Not necessarily. I think you and a few others have been a bit lucky with turbo longevity. I think everyone here knows that I don't shortcut on maintenance or on anything with my FD. Yet my stock twins were complete toast at 85k miles, about 65-70k of which had been run at 10 psi. I've seen a LOT of people melt twins running 14+ psi, no matter how they maintained the car. This isn't a dig on the stock turbos so much, they just weren't designed to run at those boost levels.
I'm hoping that the better CHRAs in the BNRs will last a very long time at 15 psi. If not, they were still cheaper than brand new stock turbos.
I'm hoping that the better CHRAs in the BNRs will last a very long time at 15 psi. If not, they were still cheaper than brand new stock turbos.
05-10-07, 01:47 PM
#36
Senior Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Columbus
Posts: 411
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So let me ask this. BNR3's are $2995 and can get you to the 350-400+ mark with some reliability. But, if you make the stockers hit that mark and get, let's say 10,000 miles out of them. Wouldn't it be easy to justify just picking up another set of stock twins for $200 off this board? Proper tuning and care for the motor put aside. If it's just blown stockers that need replaced, that's just a little time under the car.
Your thoughts?
Your thoughts?
05-10-07, 01:52 PM
#37
Lives on the Forum
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: San Lorenzo, California
Posts: 14,716
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
8 Posts
1. They are $2350, not $3k
2. They make more power than stockers, especially above 12-13 psi. The vast majority of people never see more than 350 on stockers, especially those of us on 91 octane.
3. They run cooler than the stockers.
4. I would rather pay the money and not have to keep R&R turbos.
2. They make more power than stockers, especially above 12-13 psi. The vast majority of people never see more than 350 on stockers, especially those of us on 91 octane.
3. They run cooler than the stockers.
4. I would rather pay the money and not have to keep R&R turbos.
05-10-07, 02:04 PM
#38
Senior Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Columbus
Posts: 411
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The most I have seen on BNR 3's is 427whp. Has anyone seen higher?
Even at $2350. that's still some cash to put out of pocket. Might as well go single,IMO.
I know they are more efficient and run cooler. But, How long is the life on BNR3's at the 400+ mark?
Rynberg, I know we are in area's with different car needs, wants, and driver desire. My point of view is from a car that is not a daily driver and is stored for 4 months a year. That reduces the wear factor and miles. To me, I can justify swapping turbos once a year. Whereas, if it was my only car, I can see wherer this would be more frustrating.
Even at $2350. that's still some cash to put out of pocket. Might as well go single,IMO.
I know they are more efficient and run cooler. But, How long is the life on BNR3's at the 400+ mark?
Rynberg, I know we are in area's with different car needs, wants, and driver desire. My point of view is from a car that is not a daily driver and is stored for 4 months a year. That reduces the wear factor and miles. To me, I can justify swapping turbos once a year. Whereas, if it was my only car, I can see wherer this would be more frustrating.
05-10-07, 04:54 PM
#39
Original Gangster/Rotary!
iTrader: (213)
The most I have seen on BNR 3's is 427whp. Has anyone seen higher?
Even at $2350. that's still some cash to put out of pocket. Might as well go single,IMO.
I know they are more efficient and run cooler. But, How long is the life on BNR3's at the 400+ mark?
Rynberg, I know we are in area's with different car needs, wants, and driver desire. My point of view is from a car that is not a daily driver and is stored for 4 months a year. That reduces the wear factor and miles. To me, I can justify swapping turbos once a year. Whereas, if it was my only car, I can see wherer this would be more frustrating.
Even at $2350. that's still some cash to put out of pocket. Might as well go single,IMO.
I know they are more efficient and run cooler. But, How long is the life on BNR3's at the 400+ mark?
Rynberg, I know we are in area's with different car needs, wants, and driver desire. My point of view is from a car that is not a daily driver and is stored for 4 months a year. That reduces the wear factor and miles. To me, I can justify swapping turbos once a year. Whereas, if it was my only car, I can see wherer this would be more frustrating.
I made a solid 350 rwhp at 12 psi on a dynojet with my BNRs.
The turbos should last quite a long time at 400 rwhp, which on my setup was about 15.5 psi. The turbos can run 19 psi all day long, so they aren't very stressed at the 400 rwhp level----as mentioned, the bottleneck in the system is the manifold and not the turbos themselves.
Re: swapping out turbos every year, along with the extreme pita that that entails wrt to time and labor, you're also looking at spending on all the gaskets, studs, and nuts to do it right (and they aren't cheap), along with the fact that at this point used stock twins are almost all garbage----damaged turbine wheel damage from a blown apex seal adventure, bad seals leading to excessive oil smoke out the exhaust and/or into the intake. No thanks.
05-10-07, 05:25 PM
#40
The most I have seen on BNR 3's is 427whp. Has anyone seen higher?
Even at $2350. that's still some cash to put out of pocket. Might as well go single,IMO.
I know they are more efficient and run cooler. But, How long is the life on BNR3's at the 400+ mark?
Rynberg, I know we are in area's with different car needs, wants, and driver desire. My point of view is from a car that is not a daily driver and is stored for 4 months a year. That reduces the wear factor and miles. To me, I can justify swapping turbos once a year. Whereas, if it was my only car, I can see wherer this would be more frustrating.
Even at $2350. that's still some cash to put out of pocket. Might as well go single,IMO.
I know they are more efficient and run cooler. But, How long is the life on BNR3's at the 400+ mark?
Rynberg, I know we are in area's with different car needs, wants, and driver desire. My point of view is from a car that is not a daily driver and is stored for 4 months a year. That reduces the wear factor and miles. To me, I can justify swapping turbos once a year. Whereas, if it was my only car, I can see wherer this would be more frustrating.
1) worn out stock turbos suck. If you have to rebuild them might as well throw them away.
2) what are you looking out of your setup. What's the target HP range. Quick spool or high HP.
BNRs in sequential form will out response a BB single that's for sure. BNR's wont a outflow a single.
3) smog laws
4) supporting mods that you already have vs those that you need for the single. Example that DP you has to go. Can you keep that SMIC? choose manifold carefully then. 4 inch full exhaust works best for singles.
5) @2350 the price is stil lower than new stockers.
I think I'm gonna end up with simplified sequencial BNR's as my HP goal is < 400 RWHP and quick spool is a must.
05-10-07, 06:16 PM
#41
Lives on the Forum
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: San Lorenzo, California
Posts: 14,716
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
8 Posts
The most I have seen on BNR 3's is 427whp. Has anyone seen higher?
Even at $2350. that's still some cash to put out of pocket. Might as well go single,IMO.
I know they are more efficient and run cooler. But, How long is the life on BNR3's at the 400+ mark?
Rynberg, I know we are in area's with different car needs, wants, and driver desire. My point of view is from a car that is not a daily driver and is stored for 4 months a year. That reduces the wear factor and miles. To me, I can justify swapping turbos once a year. Whereas, if it was my only car, I can see wherer this would be more frustrating.
Even at $2350. that's still some cash to put out of pocket. Might as well go single,IMO.
I know they are more efficient and run cooler. But, How long is the life on BNR3's at the 400+ mark?
Rynberg, I know we are in area's with different car needs, wants, and driver desire. My point of view is from a car that is not a daily driver and is stored for 4 months a year. That reduces the wear factor and miles. To me, I can justify swapping turbos once a year. Whereas, if it was my only car, I can see wherer this would be more frustrating.
I personally think you are nuts for wanting to put up with R&R used turbos, but it's your time and lower back. My car isn't a DD and in fact, hasn't been driven in 6 months. But my time is still my time and I sure as hell wouldn't want to do it.
05-10-07, 06:37 PM
#42
The manifold as a flow restriction? Well maybe not.... I've been investigating this "manifold" question and potential mods. I've adapted the manifold to a flow bench and was quite surprised by the results. The research seems to implicate the turbines and not the manifold.
As it turns out, the manifold isn't really a restriction at all (in secondary mode, with both turbos operating) and the effect from the presence of the flapper valve is negligible. There is, however, restriction when operating in the "primary" mode and flow is not balanced front to rear.
And while not necessarily a flow restriction, the manifold is not a flow enhancer either. Any benefit from a redesigned aftermarket manifold would probably come from the dynamic effect of extending the port (i.e., tuning effects, column inertia, constant cross-section, port isolation, etc.).
The benefits of having the short cast iron manifold, however, include compactness, improved initial turbo response and the long life span of a stable material.
So it seems that culprit is the turbine housings. I know this will not surprise some of you, but as of now I have quantitative data to support that assertion. They are very, very restrictive. Anything that can be done to improve their efficiency will improve flow and power. And there seems to be room to do so before the stock manifold is maxed out. Surprise!
05-10-07, 06:41 PM
#43
Original Gangster/Rotary!
iTrader: (213)
I suppose I should have said 'turbine manifold' or 'shared turbine housing.'
The manifold as a flow restriction? Well maybe not.... I've been investigating this "manifold" question and potential mods. I've adapted the manifold to a flow bench and was quite surprised by the results. The research seems to implicate the turbines and not the manifold.
As it turns out, the manifold isn't really a restriction at all (in secondary mode, with both turbos operating) and the effect from the presence of the flapper valve is negligible. There is, however, restriction when operating in the "primary" mode and flow is not balanced front to rear.
And while not necessarily a flow restriction, the manifold is not a flow enhancer either. Any benefit from a redesigned aftermarket manifold would probably come from the dynamic effect of extending the port (i.e., tuning effects, column inertia, constant cross-section, port isolation, etc.).
The benefits of having the short cast iron manifold, however, include compactness, improved initial turbo response and the long life span of a stable material.
So it seems that culprit is the turbine housings. I know this will not surprise some of you, but as of now I have quantitative data to support that assertion. They are very, very restrictive. Anything that can be done to improve their efficiency will improve flow and power. And there seems to be room to do so before the stock manifold is maxed out. Surprise!
As it turns out, the manifold isn't really a restriction at all (in secondary mode, with both turbos operating) and the effect from the presence of the flapper valve is negligible. There is, however, restriction when operating in the "primary" mode and flow is not balanced front to rear.
And while not necessarily a flow restriction, the manifold is not a flow enhancer either. Any benefit from a redesigned aftermarket manifold would probably come from the dynamic effect of extending the port (i.e., tuning effects, column inertia, constant cross-section, port isolation, etc.).
The benefits of having the short cast iron manifold, however, include compactness, improved initial turbo response and the long life span of a stable material.
So it seems that culprit is the turbine housings. I know this will not surprise some of you, but as of now I have quantitative data to support that assertion. They are very, very restrictive. Anything that can be done to improve their efficiency will improve flow and power. And there seems to be room to do so before the stock manifold is maxed out. Surprise!
05-10-07, 06:57 PM
#44
Senior Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Columbus
Posts: 411
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a couple of thoughts:
I made a solid 350 rwhp at 12 psi on a dynojet with my BNRs.
The turbos should last quite a long time at 400 rwhp, which on my setup was about 15.5 psi. The turbos can run 19 psi all day long, so they aren't very stressed at the 400 rwhp level----as mentioned, the bottleneck in the system is the manifold and not the turbos themselves.
Re: swapping out turbos every year, along with the extreme pita that that entails wrt to time and labor, you're also looking at spending on all the gaskets, studs, and nuts to do it right (and they aren't cheap), along with the fact that at this point used stock twins are almost all garbage----damaged turbine wheel damage from a blown apex seal adventure, bad seals leading to excessive oil smoke out the exhaust and/or into the intake. No thanks.
I made a solid 350 rwhp at 12 psi on a dynojet with my BNRs.
The turbos should last quite a long time at 400 rwhp, which on my setup was about 15.5 psi. The turbos can run 19 psi all day long, so they aren't very stressed at the 400 rwhp level----as mentioned, the bottleneck in the system is the manifold and not the turbos themselves.
Re: swapping out turbos every year, along with the extreme pita that that entails wrt to time and labor, you're also looking at spending on all the gaskets, studs, and nuts to do it right (and they aren't cheap), along with the fact that at this point used stock twins are almost all garbage----damaged turbine wheel damage from a blown apex seal adventure, bad seals leading to excessive oil smoke out the exhaust and/or into the intake. No thanks.
What I'm looking at/testing is to see what kind of life I can get out of these and what power levels. I'm not looking for big HP. However, anything close to 400WHP on stock twins should be considered huge, IMO. Big HP should go big single. What I'm looking for is the medium range with fun, and not a big expense. This may change later, but it's where I am now. With the people who have helped me, we know that 400 + can happen and be run at that level for several thousand mile. No engine damage occurred, the turbo's did not blow. That person who made 402WHP decided to test the gt28's to see about more power. They were not pleased with them. They then went to a gt35r and to this day, states the twin set up was by far the more reliable and fun. The car was totaled by someone hitting him at an intersection. And now he has gotten out of things for awhile.
I say all of this to show that this may be something that works out. It may not be for everyone. But, it is an option to make people aware of. I will not claim to know all the exacts of the build. I have had A LOT of help with it. But, I will say if you are blowing apex seals with this set up, I have to think there was a contributing flaw in the build, or tune. Blowing / over working the stockers and having to replace them is less than 2 hours for me doing it alone on my set up. I had had them off to check things several times early in the build. Accessories aren't that big of an expense that I have run into. And I have no problem working with used, good condition turbos. I know it's not for everyone. I personally hate popping on and off the clutch ring. But, I will mess with turbo stuff and not mind. I know it's a pita for many people.
It's all preference. I don't want to steer anyone down a road that is going to cost them more money. We are doing this to see what it can do and keep the FUN in driving the car. The car is with the tuner and he has been detailing the tune over a few days as he can spend time with it. I will document things and post the details of what we have and see where this goes.
I do understand all the points being made. I like the info being shared. And I hope this is not coming across in a argumentative way. Thanks
05-10-07, 07:52 PM
#45
Original Gangster/Rotary!
iTrader: (213)
That's cool man, different stroke for different folks . Let us know how your project works out, and it was nice meeting you out at Deal's Gap this year 
. Let us know how your project works out, and it was nice meeting you out at Deal's Gap this year Rich, I liked your BNR set up a lot. And to be honest, that is what I have based most of my BNR info off of. You made, what I thought was, great power.
What I'm looking at/testing is to see what kind of life I can get out of these and what power levels. I'm not looking for big HP. However, anything close to 400WHP on stock twins should be considered huge, IMO. Big HP should go big single. What I'm looking for is the medium range with fun, and not a big expense. This may change later, but it's where I am now. With the people who have helped me, we know that 400 + can happen and be run at that level for several thousand mile. No engine damage occurred, the turbo's did not blow. That person who made 402WHP decided to test the gt28's to see about more power. They were not pleased with them. They then went to a gt35r and to this day, states the twin set up was by far the more reliable and fun. The car was totaled by someone hitting him at an intersection. And now he has gotten out of things for awhile.
I say all of this to show that this may be something that works out. It may not be for everyone. But, it is an option to make people aware of. I will not claim to know all the exacts of the build. I have had A LOT of help with it. But, I will say if you are blowing apex seals with this set up, I have to think there was a contributing flaw in the build, or tune. Blowing / over working the stockers and having to replace them is less than 2 hours for me doing it alone on my set up. I had had them off to check things several times early in the build. Accessories aren't that big of an expense that I have run into. And I have no problem working with used, good condition turbos. I know it's not for everyone. I personally hate popping on and off the clutch ring. But, I will mess with turbo stuff and not mind. I know it's a pita for many people.
It's all preference. I don't want to steer anyone down a road that is going to cost them more money. We are doing this to see what it can do and keep the FUN in driving the car. The car is with the tuner and he has been detailing the tune over a few days as he can spend time with it. I will document things and post the details of what we have and see where this goes.
I do understand all the points being made. I like the info being shared. And I hope this is not coming across in a argumentative way. Thanks
What I'm looking at/testing is to see what kind of life I can get out of these and what power levels. I'm not looking for big HP. However, anything close to 400WHP on stock twins should be considered huge, IMO. Big HP should go big single. What I'm looking for is the medium range with fun, and not a big expense. This may change later, but it's where I am now. With the people who have helped me, we know that 400 + can happen and be run at that level for several thousand mile. No engine damage occurred, the turbo's did not blow. That person who made 402WHP decided to test the gt28's to see about more power. They were not pleased with them. They then went to a gt35r and to this day, states the twin set up was by far the more reliable and fun. The car was totaled by someone hitting him at an intersection. And now he has gotten out of things for awhile.
I say all of this to show that this may be something that works out. It may not be for everyone. But, it is an option to make people aware of. I will not claim to know all the exacts of the build. I have had A LOT of help with it. But, I will say if you are blowing apex seals with this set up, I have to think there was a contributing flaw in the build, or tune. Blowing / over working the stockers and having to replace them is less than 2 hours for me doing it alone on my set up. I had had them off to check things several times early in the build. Accessories aren't that big of an expense that I have run into. And I have no problem working with used, good condition turbos. I know it's not for everyone. I personally hate popping on and off the clutch ring. But, I will mess with turbo stuff and not mind. I know it's a pita for many people.
It's all preference. I don't want to steer anyone down a road that is going to cost them more money. We are doing this to see what it can do and keep the FUN in driving the car. The car is with the tuner and he has been detailing the tune over a few days as he can spend time with it. I will document things and post the details of what we have and see where this goes.
I do understand all the points being made. I like the info being shared. And I hope this is not coming across in a argumentative way. Thanks
05-10-07, 11:34 PM
#46
I just wanted to chime in and remind everyone that our turbos are actually LARGER than the Supra turbos, but the manifold and runners are MUCH better designed on the Supra turbos than ours. That's why they've made 500rwhp on Supra turbos (not very reliably, but it's been done lol), but we've barely touched the 400rwhp on larger turbos on the FD.
~Ramy
~Ramy
05-11-07, 12:24 PM
#48
I just wanted to chime in and remind everyone that our turbos are actually LARGER than the Supra turbos, but the manifold and runners are MUCH better designed on the Supra turbos than ours. That's why they've made 500rwhp on Supra turbos (not very reliably, but it's been done lol), but we've barely touched the 400rwhp on larger turbos on the FD.
~Ramy
~Ramy
05-12-07, 12:17 PM
#50
Lives on the Forum
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: San Lorenzo, California
Posts: 14,716
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
8 Posts
That's like asking why is a Mazda oem strut bar $750 and an aftermarket one $100. Brand new oem parts vs installing larger Garrett CHRAs into existing core set of turbos (not that they just bolt right in or anything but you get my drift).