3rd Generation Specific (1993-2002) 1993-2002 Discussion including performance modifications and Technical Support Sections.
Sponsored by:

In theory (twin turbo setup)

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Feb 1, 2011 | 03:48 PM
  #1  
Slevin_FD's Avatar
Thread Starter
pissin' on pistons
Tenured Member 05 Years
iTrader: (26)
 
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,168
Likes: 2
From: Charleston
In theory (twin turbo setup)

If someone were to want some sort of modified twins capable of 500HP how would you go about it. Obviously the BNR's will get you to 425 or better, but what other ways have the members considered???
Reply
Old Feb 1, 2011 | 05:27 PM
  #2  
t-von's Avatar
Rotor Head Extreme
Tenured Member 20 Years
iTrader: (8)
 
Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,719
Likes: 26
From: Midland Texas
The stock manifold is way too restrictive for those levels. Plus good luck finding turbos large enough to bolt onto it. The only way I now of is too go the Howard Coleman route.
Reply
Old Feb 1, 2011 | 06:44 PM
  #3  
XLR8's Avatar
Eats, Sleeps, Dreams Rotary
iTrader: (52)
 
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 3,902
Likes: 10
From: NJ
Turbo's large enough to make enough CFM for that particular power, and a whole lot of fabrication with the manifold & piping.

And of course a healthy ported engine & all the supporting systems.

If you are Johny custom & have the shop to make it happen then go for it. Otherwise, I'd go with a quality single kit, make good numbers & be done with it.
Reply
Old Feb 1, 2011 | 07:50 PM
  #4  
TwinCharged RX7's Avatar
Built Not Bought
Tenured Member: 15 Years
Top Answer: 1
iTrader: (14)
 
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 4,389
Likes: 964
From: Stamford, CT
Howard Coleman had twin GT35's. I think he made over 500whp. His setup was for sale on here a while ago and went really cheap (well cheaper than I expected). That looked like it'd actually be pretty easy to duplicate (they weren't sequential or anything).
Reply
Old Feb 1, 2011 | 08:11 PM
  #5  
Slevin_FD's Avatar
Thread Starter
pissin' on pistons
Tenured Member 05 Years
iTrader: (26)
 
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,168
Likes: 2
From: Charleston
I'll see if I can track down Howard to ask him what his opinion is. That said

i understand the need for porting and I can see how the stock manifold is restrictive. But, isn't there some room for manifold porting or clean up.
Reply
Old Feb 1, 2011 | 09:41 PM
  #6  
neit_jnf's Avatar
Eats, Sleeps, Dreams Rotary
Tenured Member: 20 Years
iTrader: (17)
 
Joined: Apr 2003
Posts: 4,057
Likes: 262
From: Around
PR

Originally Posted by Chudsoncoupe
Howard Coleman had twin GT35's. I think he made over 500whp. His setup was for sale on here a while ago and went really cheap (well cheaper than I expected). That looked like it'd actually be pretty easy to duplicate (they weren't sequential or anything).
They were twin to4.

If I had the money and the tools and time I would recreate the sequential twin system with a custom manifold like it has been done on Supras... Or I would go compound turbo with a small quick spooling one and a large top end one... Or super and turbo twincharge like the recent thread in here about it...
Reply
Old Feb 1, 2011 | 11:36 PM
  #7  
arghx's Avatar
rotorhead
Tenured Member: 20 Years
Liked
Loved
Community Favorite
iTrader: (3)
 
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 16,205
Likes: 461
From: cold
On HC's setup I believe they were twin T3/T04E 50 trims off the top of my head, internally wastegated. I'd have to go back and look at his plumbing again. It wouldn't be THAT bad. Use compressor with compact housings and small inlets, and take advantage of the internal wastegate to cut down on plumbing. Remember that there would be only two exhaust manifold runners.
Reply
Old Feb 1, 2011 | 11:41 PM
  #8  
arghx's Avatar
rotorhead
Tenured Member: 20 Years
Liked
Loved
Community Favorite
iTrader: (3)
 
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 16,205
Likes: 461
From: cold
http://www.atpturbo.com/mm5/merchant...egory_Code=GRT

If you've got the money you can go with twin GT3071R (or even GTX if you are baller) using the 2.75" compressor inlet and vband turbine housing inlet. That will help with fitment constraints. There are also older style T3/T04E variants to use. You can go with a Master Power or other less prestigious brand to cut costs further.
Reply
Old Feb 2, 2011 | 01:53 AM
  #9  
Slevin_FD's Avatar
Thread Starter
pissin' on pistons
Tenured Member 05 Years
iTrader: (26)
 
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,168
Likes: 2
From: Charleston
ARGHX, any thoughts on if this would work for 500+ twins with sequential functionality?? I was looking at their ultimate wastegate as well. I think that and an 18psi actuator would be more than adequate provided it's even possible to do this the way I'd want it done.
For those who don't know I would want the twins to behave like the stock twins to maintain the powerband minus the 3K stutter.
Reply
Old Feb 2, 2011 | 03:55 AM
  #10  
thewird's Avatar
Lives on the Forum
Tenured Member: 15 Years
iTrader: (8)
 
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 6,603
Likes: 15
From: Toronto, Canada
If you wanted sequential, you'd basically have to build a manifold that would replicate the OEM one in functionality. You could even use all the OEM controls for it as long as its replicated the same. Not an easy feat, but I don't see why it couldn't be doable. However, for less trouble you could just run compound turbo's which would have the same goal but be simpler. Possibly a GT30 with a custom turbine and T4 housing and then a GT42 (maybe something a little smaller)



thewird
Reply
Old Feb 2, 2011 | 12:13 PM
  #11  
Slevin_FD's Avatar
Thread Starter
pissin' on pistons
Tenured Member 05 Years
iTrader: (26)
 
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,168
Likes: 2
From: Charleston
Originally Posted by thewird
If you wanted sequential, you'd basically have to build a manifold that would replicate the OEM one in functionality. You could even use all the OEM controls for it as long as its replicated the same. Not an easy feat, but I don't see why it couldn't be doable. However, for less trouble you could just run compound turbo's which would have the same goal but be simpler. Possibly a GT30 with a custom turbine and T4 housing and then a GT42 (maybe something a little smaller)



thewird
Wird,
The thing with compounds turbos and the FD chassis is that things are tight in there to begin with. I personally have only see it done successfully once. and that was on a 20B with a highly modified hood. I'm not saying it can't be done just that it's not my cup of tea ; unless it's something crazy like a 20B then I'd try it. As for the manifold, I'm thinking about trying to use the factory manifold and simply upgrading the turbos to increase flow. Maybe some porting of the manifold as well to maximize the design as much as possible.
Reply
Old Feb 2, 2011 | 02:00 PM
  #12  
thewird's Avatar
Lives on the Forum
Tenured Member: 15 Years
iTrader: (8)
 
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 6,603
Likes: 15
From: Toronto, Canada
I don't think it would be possible on the stock manifold. At least not without some clever re-engineering of the manifold.

thewird
Reply
Old Feb 2, 2011 | 02:07 PM
  #13  
ptrhahn's Avatar
Lives on the Forum
Tenured Member: 20 Years
Liked
Loved
Community Favorite
iTrader: (11)
 
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 9,282
Likes: 703
From: Arlington, VA
A high-flow sequential manifold would be the sh*t, with a set of GT25's or GT28's on it. Even the BNR's or the old M2 BB's never really got the full potential out. Unless you go non-sequential and/or jack the boost over 15 lbs, you ain't makin' 425 at the wheels on a normal setup. But you could probably with a better-designed manifold.

I suspect you'd have to 3D model and cast something out of some kind of crazy material. The constraints are too tight for welding mandrel-bent tubes together I think.
Reply
Old Feb 2, 2011 | 03:59 PM
  #14  
Slevin_FD's Avatar
Thread Starter
pissin' on pistons
Tenured Member 05 Years
iTrader: (26)
 
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,168
Likes: 2
From: Charleston
[QUOTE=ptrhahn;10449797]A high-flow sequential manifold would be the sh*t, with a set of GT25's or GT28's on it. Even the BNR's or the old M2 BB's never really got the full potential out. Unless you go non-sequential and/or jack the boost over 15 lbs, you ain't makin' 425 at the wheels on a normal setup. But you could probably with a better-designed manifold.

I think that the manifold could be modified or at worse only slightly re-designed to get more HP potential from it. That said cast iron would have to go. It's simply too heavy and too difficult for the average person to make. Stainless would be acceptable, and I'm wondering if ultra short runners could work. Spool-up wouldn't be a problem and just giving it a passing thought I only see making the mounting flange being an issue, but that can be CNC'ed . The internal wastegate could be based on the ATP ultimate wastegate.
Reply
Old Feb 2, 2011 | 04:24 PM
  #15  
ptrhahn's Avatar
Lives on the Forum
Tenured Member: 20 Years
Liked
Loved
Community Favorite
iTrader: (11)
 
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 9,282
Likes: 703
From: Arlington, VA
^^^

Build it, and they will come. I love me some sequential twins, so I'd be in on something that worked.
Reply
Old Feb 2, 2011 | 06:18 PM
  #16  
Slevin_FD's Avatar
Thread Starter
pissin' on pistons
Tenured Member 05 Years
iTrader: (26)
 
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,168
Likes: 2
From: Charleston
Originally Posted by ptrhahn
^^^

Build it, and they will come. I love me some sequential twins, so I'd be in on something that worked.
staring at solidworks as we type. But I'm pretty sure that I'll just have to use me far from superior fabrication skills to mock something up .
Reply
Old Feb 2, 2011 | 06:58 PM
  #17  
Slevin_FD's Avatar
Thread Starter
pissin' on pistons
Tenured Member 05 Years
iTrader: (26)
 
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,168
Likes: 2
From: Charleston
Originally Posted by gmonsen
I got somebody who can build you whatever manifold...

Gordon

what's your thinking about this. That manifold looks serious BTW
Reply
Old Feb 2, 2011 | 06:59 PM
  #18  
Speed of light's Avatar
Form follows function
Tenured Member: 20 Years
Liked
Loved
Community Favorite
iTrader: (8)
 
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,231
Likes: 47
From: Now in Arizona
The exhaust manifold (the part bolted to the engine) isn't really the problem, although some work there can help. After extensive testing, I have concluded, as have others, that the real restrictions are the turbine housings with their small A/R. This is followed by the proximity of the turbine outlets to each other; there would likely be a benefit to spreading them apart and improving the turbine exit.

I also spent a lot of time looking at the twins package and realized that some of the constraint is due to making them JDM compatible. In the USDM package, it appears to be possible to locate the rear turbo further back which really could help layout scenario.
Reply
Old Feb 2, 2011 | 07:08 PM
  #19  
arghx's Avatar
rotorhead
Tenured Member: 20 Years
Liked
Loved
Community Favorite
iTrader: (3)
 
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 16,205
Likes: 461
From: cold
There are too many cost and reliability constraints to do this with sequential twins.
Reply
Old Feb 2, 2011 | 07:09 PM
  #20  
Slevin_FD's Avatar
Thread Starter
pissin' on pistons
Tenured Member 05 Years
iTrader: (26)
 
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,168
Likes: 2
From: Charleston
Originally Posted by Speed of light
The exhaust manifold (the part bolted to the engine) isn't really the problem, although some work there can help. After extensive testing, I have concluded, as have others, that the real restrictions are the turbine housings with their small A/R. This is followed by the proximity of the turbine outlets to each other; there would likely be a benefit to spreading them apart and improving the turbine exit.

I also spent a lot of time looking at the twins package and realized that some of the constraint is due to making them JDM compatible. In the USDM package, it appears to be possible to locate the rear turbo further back which really could help layout scenario.
Speed, your right the RHD steering has always been a restriction on OEM turbo cars. Also the manifold isn't really a restriction so much as poorly designed. for expandability. I agree 100% that the turbines are the a major restriction, and had they been better thought out, I see no reason why the FD couldn't have been a 500 HP Mazda Supercar from the factory ( gentleman's agreement not withstanding). Sequential turbos were and still are a great idea if the package is properly executed. A setback on the twins rearward would also allow for larger turbines and this more power. However with size comes lag, and that will be hard to get around. well, maybe not hard just time consuming.
Reply
Old Feb 2, 2011 | 07:17 PM
  #21  
arghx's Avatar
rotorhead
Tenured Member: 20 Years
Liked
Loved
Community Favorite
iTrader: (3)
 
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 16,205
Likes: 461
From: cold
Mazda doesn't think the way most people on internet forums think. Above all they went usable torque by 2000. There is an SAE paper describing the design process used to develop the sequential twin turbo systems (paper focuses on the 20B). PM me if you are interested in this.

The turbo manifolds and turbine housings for the twins were supposed to be as small/restrictive as possible without causing excess backpressure. That significantly helped transient response. The 13B and 20B were designed to have the torque curve of 6 and 8 cylinder naturally aspirated engines.
Reply
Old Feb 2, 2011 | 07:28 PM
  #22  
arghx's Avatar
rotorhead
Tenured Member: 20 Years
Liked
Loved
Community Favorite
iTrader: (3)
 
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 16,205
Likes: 461
From: cold
Attached are the torque curves for the series 4 turbo (variable A/R hotside system), series 5 turbo (divided twin scroll manifold), and series 6 twin turbo, and 20B twin turbo engines.
Attached Thumbnails In theory (twin turbo setup)-rotary_torque_2.png   In theory (twin turbo setup)-rotary_torque_3.png   In theory (twin turbo setup)-rotary_torque_4.png  
Reply
Old Feb 2, 2011 | 08:03 PM
  #23  
ptrhahn's Avatar
Lives on the Forum
Tenured Member: 20 Years
Liked
Loved
Community Favorite
iTrader: (11)
 
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 9,282
Likes: 703
From: Arlington, VA
Maybe 500 rwhp isn't reasonable... but if you were able to have the same or better spool-up and torque of a sequential '99's or really small BB single (4X6B), with the top-end of a bit larger single (35R or 500R) or non-sequential BNR's, that, to me, would be worth the hassle.
Reply
Old Feb 2, 2011 | 08:58 PM
  #24  
Slevin_FD's Avatar
Thread Starter
pissin' on pistons
Tenured Member 05 Years
iTrader: (26)
 
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,168
Likes: 2
From: Charleston
Originally Posted by ptrhahn
Maybe 500 rwhp isn't reasonable... but if you were able to have the same or better spool-up and torque of a sequential '99's or really small BB single (4X6B), with the top-end of a bit larger single (35R or 500R) or non-sequential BNR's, that, to me, would be worth the hassle.
BNR is claiming 426 with their stage 3's so I think 500- 600 wouldn't be completely unreasonable with the proper upgraded turbo's.
Reply
Old Feb 3, 2011 | 07:50 AM
  #25  
ptrhahn's Avatar
Lives on the Forum
Tenured Member: 20 Years
Liked
Loved
Community Favorite
iTrader: (11)
 
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 9,282
Likes: 703
From: Arlington, VA
Originally Posted by Slevin_FD
BNR is claiming 426 with their stage 3's so I think 500- 600 wouldn't be completely unreasonable with the proper upgraded turbo's.

Well, that's non-sequential, and probably not at 15 psi. I've never seen a sequential dyno over 400 hp, at least not at anything that is a sustainable boost level.

The top sequential dynos are about 385.
Reply



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:08 PM.