Turbo header length
10-28-05, 11:13 PM
#26
boost > *
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: buffalo, ny
Posts: 1,527
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
nah, i can't take credit for it haha friend of mine who has a shop in cleveland made it for my single turbo conversion. he also did all the plumbing / brackets for my vmount.
by main flange, you mean the motor side? i believe it was done for thickness/strength
by main flange, you mean the motor side? i believe it was done for thickness/strength
10-28-05, 11:17 PM
#27
Full Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: HB,CA 92647
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
nice job nonetheless! i was dreaming up flanges like that, especially since cutting thicker pieces is a pain...and i was wondering if you have to weld the inside (like before the primary exhaust tubes get welded to the holes).
10-31-05, 01:06 PM
#30
Rotary Freak
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: fort worth, tx, usa
Posts: 1,926
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the diameter is a little too large but other than that, it looks good. 
Originally Posted by adictd2b00st
*bump* anyone else have anything to add?
10-31-05, 01:46 PM
#32
Rotary Freak
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: fort worth, tx, usa
Posts: 1,926
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Depends on how big it is but it could hurt both. based on the pic, it looks like they're around 2.25" i.d.?
Originally Posted by adictd2b00st
would the bigger diameter hurt my spool-up but help the topend?
10-31-05, 02:56 PM
#33
boost > *
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: buffalo, ny
Posts: 1,527
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
yea i beleive the inside diameter was a LIL over 2". i'm gonna have to double check on that. i can live with a lil more lag, but i don't want it robbing power from me at the higher rpms.
10-31-05, 03:05 PM
#34
My guess would be a hair over 2" 1/8 diameter as it looks like schedule 10 pipe. Diameter of intake and exhaust pipe work sets where your peak power will be located. Longer runners will put more power under that point, ie broader powerband. Shorter runners will help keep the power up after that point, ie peaky powerband.
11-01-05, 04:35 PM
#36
Alright guys been thinking about this for a few days now and it is driveing me crazy. I even talked to 2 engineers at work and no one can explain this to my satisfaction. First off so as not to start a war I am not saying that a longer header pri. length will not yeild better results. I am just one of those people that it is not good enough to know that something works well. I want to know how it works and why it works better than all others. If no one ever asked questions we would all be runing the same setup as the first guy because he said it worked well. So far the awnsers I have got are more like what you would tell a child when he asked where thunder comes from. I know that there are some great minds on this fourm, lets see some real world explinations. If you dont know the answer, guess! Mabe that will get the thread rolling. Thanks in advance for all of your input.
11-02-05, 01:18 AM
#37
Full Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: HB,CA 92647
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm a need to know kinda guy too! Anyways, for the past couple of days, I've been wondering if long tubes are better for torque on the intake side only???
My thoughts are that short tubes are ok for the exhaust, especially turbo since backpressure will be lower, like open headers or something...so, faster spool up....
I know long exhaust pipes are better for scavenging, but is that true for turbo cars too?
I need to find my Corky Bell book.
My thoughts are that short tubes are ok for the exhaust, especially turbo since backpressure will be lower, like open headers or something...so, faster spool up....
I know long exhaust pipes are better for scavenging, but is that true for turbo cars too?
I need to find my Corky Bell book.
11-02-05, 05:46 PM
#38
Found some really neat info. Enjoy.
The following excerpts are from Jay Kavanaugh, a turbosystems engineer at Garret, responding to a thread on http://www.impreza.net regarding exhaust design and exhaust theory:
“Howdy,
This thread was brought to my attention by a friend of mine in hopes of shedding some light on the issue of exhaust size selection for turbocharged vehicles. Most of the facts have been covered already. FWIW I'm an turbocharger development engineer for Garrett Engine Boosting Systems.
N/A cars: As most of you know, the design of turbo exhaust systems runs counter to exhaust design for n/a vehicles. N/A cars utilize exhaust velocity (not backpressure) in the collector to aid in scavenging other cylinders during the blowdown process. It just so happens that to get the appropriate velocity, you have to squeeze down the diameter of the discharge of the collector (aka the exhaust), which also induces backpressure. The backpressure is an undesirable byproduct of the desire to have a certain degree of exhaust velocity. Go too big, and you lose velocity and its associated beneficial scavenging effect. Too small and the backpressure skyrockets, more than offsetting any gain made by scavenging. There is a happy medium here.
For turbo cars, you throw all that out the window. You want the exhaust velocity to be high upstream of the turbine (i.e. in the header). You'll notice that primaries of turbo headers are smaller diameter than those of an n/a car of two-thirds the horsepower. The idea is to get the exhaust velocity up quickly, to get the turbo spooling as early as possible. Here, getting the boost up early is a much more effective way to torque than playing with tuned primary lengths and scavenging. The scavenging effects are small compared to what you'd get if you just got boost sooner instead. You have a turbo; you want boost. Just don't go so small on the header's primary diameter that you choke off the high end.
Downstream of the turbine (aka the turboback exhaust), you want the least backpressure possible. No ifs, ands, or buts. Stick a Hoover on the tailpipe if you can. The general rule of "larger is better" (to the point of diminishing returns) of turboback exhausts is valid. Here, the idea is to minimize the pressure downstream of the turbine in order to make the most effective use of the pressure that is being generated upstream of the turbine. Remember, a turbine operates via a pressure ratio. For a given turbine inlet pressure, you will get the highest pressure ratio across the turbine when you have the lowest possible discharge pressure. This means the turbine is able to do the most amount of work possible (i.e. drive the compressor and make boost) with the available inlet pressure.
Again, less pressure downstream of the turbine is goodness. This approach minimizes the time-to-boost (maximizes boost response) and will improve engine VE throughout the rev range.
As for 2.5" vs. 3.0", the "best" turboback exhaust depends on the amount of flow, or horsepower. At 250 hp, 2.5" is fine. Going to 3" at this power level won't get you much, if anything, other than a louder exhaust note. 300 hp and you're definitely suboptimal with 2.5". For 400-450 hp, even 3" is on the small side.”
"As for the geometry of the exhaust at the turbine discharge, the most optimal configuration would be a gradual increase in diameter from the turbine's exducer to the desired exhaust diameter-- via a straight conical diffuser of 7-12° included angle (to minimize flow separation and skin friction losses) mounted right at the turbine discharge. Many turbochargers found in diesels have this diffuser section cast right into the turbine housing. A hyperbolic increase in diameter (like a trumpet snorkus) is theoretically ideal but I've never seen one in use (and doubt it would be measurably superior to a straight diffuser). The wastegate flow would be via a completely divorced (separated from the main turbine discharge flow) dumptube. Due the realities of packaging, cost, and emissions compliance this config is rarely possible on street cars. You will, however, see this type of layout on dedicated race vehicles.
A large "bellmouth" config which combines the turbine discharge and wastegate flow (without a divider between the two) is certainly better than the compromised stock routing, but not as effective as the above.
If an integrated exhaust (non-divorced wastegate flow) is required, keep the wastegate flow separate from the main turbine discharge flow for ~12-18" before reintroducing it. This will minimize the impact on turbine efficiency-- the introduction of the wastegate flow disrupts the flow field of the main turbine discharge flow.
Necking the exhaust down to a suboptimal diameter is never a good idea, but if it is necessary, doing it further downstream is better than doing it close to the turbine discharge since it will minimize the exhaust's contribution to backpressure. Better yet: don't neck down the exhaust at all.
Also, the temperature of the exhaust coming out of a cat is higher than the inlet temperature, due to the exothermic oxidation of unburned hydrocarbons in the cat. So the total heat loss (and density increase) of the gases as it travels down the exhaust is not as prominent as it seems.
Another thing to keep in mind is that cylinder scavenging takes place where the flows from separate cylinders merge (i.e. in the collector). There is no such thing as cylinder scavenging downstream of the turbine, and hence, no reason to desire high exhaust velocity here. You will only introduce unwanted backpressure.
Other things you can do (in addition to choosing an appropriate diameter) to minimize exhaust backpressure in a turboback exhaust are: avoid crush-bent tubes (use mandrel bends); avoid tight-radius turns (keep it as straight as possible); avoid step changes in diameter; avoid "cheated" radii (cuts that are non-perpendicular); use a high flow cat; use a straight-thru perforated core muffler... etc.”
"Comparing the two bellmouth designs, I've never seen either one so I can only speculate. But based on your description, and assuming neither of them have a divider wall/tongue between the turbine discharge and wg dump, I'd venture that you'd be hard pressed to measure a difference between the two. The more gradual taper intuitively appears more desirable, but it's likely that it's beyond the point of diminishing returns. Either one sounds like it will improve the wastegate's discharge coefficient over the stock config, which will constitute the single biggest difference. This will allow more control over boost creep. Neither is as optimal as the divorced wastegate flow arrangement, however.
There's more to it, though-- if a larger bellmouth is excessively large right at the turbine discharge (a large step diameter increase), there will be an unrecoverable dump loss that will contribute to backpressure. This is why a gradual increase in diameter, like the conical diffuser mentioned earlier, is desirable at the turbine discharge.
As for primary lengths on turbo headers, it is advantageous to use equal-length primaries to time the arrival of the pulses at the turbine equally and to keep cylinder reversion balanced across all cylinders. This will improve boost response and the engine's VE. Equal-length is often difficult to achieve due to tight packaging, fabrication difficulty, and the desire to have runners of the shortest possible length.”
"Here's a worked example (simplified) of how larger exhausts help turbo cars:
Say you have a turbo operating at a turbine pressure ratio (aka expansion ratio) of 1.8:1. You have a small turboback exhaust that contributes, say, 10 psig backpressure at the turbine discharge at redline. The total backpressure seen by the engine (upstream of the turbine) in this case is:
(14.5 +10)*1.8 = 44.1 psia = 29.6 psig total backpressure
So here, the turbine contributed 19.6 psig of backpressure to the total.
Now you slap on a proper low-backpressure, big turboback exhaust. Same turbo, same boost, etc. You measure 3 psig backpressure at the turbine discharge. In this case the engine sees just 17 psig total backpressure! And the turbine's contribution to the total backpressure is reduced to 14 psig (note: this is 5.6 psig lower than its contribution in the "small turboback" case).
So in the end, the engine saw a reduction in backpressure of 12.6 psig when you swapped turbobacks in this example. This reduction in backpressure is where all the engine's VE gains come from.
This is why larger exhausts make such big gains on nearly all stock turbo cars-- the turbine compounds the downstream backpressure via its expansion ratio. This is also why bigger turbos make more power at a given boost level-- they improve engine VE by operating at lower turbine expansion ratios for a given boost level.
As you can see, the backpressure penalty of running a too-small exhaust (like 2.5" for 350 hp) will vary depending on the match. At a given power level, a smaller turbo will generally be operating at a higher turbine pressure ratio and so will actually make the engine more sensitive to the backpressure downstream of the turbine than a larger turbine/turbo would. As for output temperatures, I'm not sure I understand the question. Are you referring to compressor outlet temperatures?
The following excerpts are from Jay Kavanaugh, a turbosystems engineer at Garret, responding to a thread on http://www.impreza.net regarding exhaust design and exhaust theory:
“Howdy,
This thread was brought to my attention by a friend of mine in hopes of shedding some light on the issue of exhaust size selection for turbocharged vehicles. Most of the facts have been covered already. FWIW I'm an turbocharger development engineer for Garrett Engine Boosting Systems.
N/A cars: As most of you know, the design of turbo exhaust systems runs counter to exhaust design for n/a vehicles. N/A cars utilize exhaust velocity (not backpressure) in the collector to aid in scavenging other cylinders during the blowdown process. It just so happens that to get the appropriate velocity, you have to squeeze down the diameter of the discharge of the collector (aka the exhaust), which also induces backpressure. The backpressure is an undesirable byproduct of the desire to have a certain degree of exhaust velocity. Go too big, and you lose velocity and its associated beneficial scavenging effect. Too small and the backpressure skyrockets, more than offsetting any gain made by scavenging. There is a happy medium here.
For turbo cars, you throw all that out the window. You want the exhaust velocity to be high upstream of the turbine (i.e. in the header). You'll notice that primaries of turbo headers are smaller diameter than those of an n/a car of two-thirds the horsepower. The idea is to get the exhaust velocity up quickly, to get the turbo spooling as early as possible. Here, getting the boost up early is a much more effective way to torque than playing with tuned primary lengths and scavenging. The scavenging effects are small compared to what you'd get if you just got boost sooner instead. You have a turbo; you want boost. Just don't go so small on the header's primary diameter that you choke off the high end.
Downstream of the turbine (aka the turboback exhaust), you want the least backpressure possible. No ifs, ands, or buts. Stick a Hoover on the tailpipe if you can. The general rule of "larger is better" (to the point of diminishing returns) of turboback exhausts is valid. Here, the idea is to minimize the pressure downstream of the turbine in order to make the most effective use of the pressure that is being generated upstream of the turbine. Remember, a turbine operates via a pressure ratio. For a given turbine inlet pressure, you will get the highest pressure ratio across the turbine when you have the lowest possible discharge pressure. This means the turbine is able to do the most amount of work possible (i.e. drive the compressor and make boost) with the available inlet pressure.
Again, less pressure downstream of the turbine is goodness. This approach minimizes the time-to-boost (maximizes boost response) and will improve engine VE throughout the rev range.
As for 2.5" vs. 3.0", the "best" turboback exhaust depends on the amount of flow, or horsepower. At 250 hp, 2.5" is fine. Going to 3" at this power level won't get you much, if anything, other than a louder exhaust note. 300 hp and you're definitely suboptimal with 2.5". For 400-450 hp, even 3" is on the small side.”
"As for the geometry of the exhaust at the turbine discharge, the most optimal configuration would be a gradual increase in diameter from the turbine's exducer to the desired exhaust diameter-- via a straight conical diffuser of 7-12° included angle (to minimize flow separation and skin friction losses) mounted right at the turbine discharge. Many turbochargers found in diesels have this diffuser section cast right into the turbine housing. A hyperbolic increase in diameter (like a trumpet snorkus) is theoretically ideal but I've never seen one in use (and doubt it would be measurably superior to a straight diffuser). The wastegate flow would be via a completely divorced (separated from the main turbine discharge flow) dumptube. Due the realities of packaging, cost, and emissions compliance this config is rarely possible on street cars. You will, however, see this type of layout on dedicated race vehicles.
A large "bellmouth" config which combines the turbine discharge and wastegate flow (without a divider between the two) is certainly better than the compromised stock routing, but not as effective as the above.
If an integrated exhaust (non-divorced wastegate flow) is required, keep the wastegate flow separate from the main turbine discharge flow for ~12-18" before reintroducing it. This will minimize the impact on turbine efficiency-- the introduction of the wastegate flow disrupts the flow field of the main turbine discharge flow.
Necking the exhaust down to a suboptimal diameter is never a good idea, but if it is necessary, doing it further downstream is better than doing it close to the turbine discharge since it will minimize the exhaust's contribution to backpressure. Better yet: don't neck down the exhaust at all.
Also, the temperature of the exhaust coming out of a cat is higher than the inlet temperature, due to the exothermic oxidation of unburned hydrocarbons in the cat. So the total heat loss (and density increase) of the gases as it travels down the exhaust is not as prominent as it seems.
Another thing to keep in mind is that cylinder scavenging takes place where the flows from separate cylinders merge (i.e. in the collector). There is no such thing as cylinder scavenging downstream of the turbine, and hence, no reason to desire high exhaust velocity here. You will only introduce unwanted backpressure.
Other things you can do (in addition to choosing an appropriate diameter) to minimize exhaust backpressure in a turboback exhaust are: avoid crush-bent tubes (use mandrel bends); avoid tight-radius turns (keep it as straight as possible); avoid step changes in diameter; avoid "cheated" radii (cuts that are non-perpendicular); use a high flow cat; use a straight-thru perforated core muffler... etc.”
"Comparing the two bellmouth designs, I've never seen either one so I can only speculate. But based on your description, and assuming neither of them have a divider wall/tongue between the turbine discharge and wg dump, I'd venture that you'd be hard pressed to measure a difference between the two. The more gradual taper intuitively appears more desirable, but it's likely that it's beyond the point of diminishing returns. Either one sounds like it will improve the wastegate's discharge coefficient over the stock config, which will constitute the single biggest difference. This will allow more control over boost creep. Neither is as optimal as the divorced wastegate flow arrangement, however.
There's more to it, though-- if a larger bellmouth is excessively large right at the turbine discharge (a large step diameter increase), there will be an unrecoverable dump loss that will contribute to backpressure. This is why a gradual increase in diameter, like the conical diffuser mentioned earlier, is desirable at the turbine discharge.
As for primary lengths on turbo headers, it is advantageous to use equal-length primaries to time the arrival of the pulses at the turbine equally and to keep cylinder reversion balanced across all cylinders. This will improve boost response and the engine's VE. Equal-length is often difficult to achieve due to tight packaging, fabrication difficulty, and the desire to have runners of the shortest possible length.”
"Here's a worked example (simplified) of how larger exhausts help turbo cars:
Say you have a turbo operating at a turbine pressure ratio (aka expansion ratio) of 1.8:1. You have a small turboback exhaust that contributes, say, 10 psig backpressure at the turbine discharge at redline. The total backpressure seen by the engine (upstream of the turbine) in this case is:
(14.5 +10)*1.8 = 44.1 psia = 29.6 psig total backpressure
So here, the turbine contributed 19.6 psig of backpressure to the total.
Now you slap on a proper low-backpressure, big turboback exhaust. Same turbo, same boost, etc. You measure 3 psig backpressure at the turbine discharge. In this case the engine sees just 17 psig total backpressure! And the turbine's contribution to the total backpressure is reduced to 14 psig (note: this is 5.6 psig lower than its contribution in the "small turboback" case).
So in the end, the engine saw a reduction in backpressure of 12.6 psig when you swapped turbobacks in this example. This reduction in backpressure is where all the engine's VE gains come from.
This is why larger exhausts make such big gains on nearly all stock turbo cars-- the turbine compounds the downstream backpressure via its expansion ratio. This is also why bigger turbos make more power at a given boost level-- they improve engine VE by operating at lower turbine expansion ratios for a given boost level.
As you can see, the backpressure penalty of running a too-small exhaust (like 2.5" for 350 hp) will vary depending on the match. At a given power level, a smaller turbo will generally be operating at a higher turbine pressure ratio and so will actually make the engine more sensitive to the backpressure downstream of the turbine than a larger turbine/turbo would. As for output temperatures, I'm not sure I understand the question. Are you referring to compressor outlet temperatures?
11-02-05, 07:02 PM
#39
omgwtfposlol
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Orange City, FL
Posts: 862
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
perhaps the big difference between a very short manifold and one with longer runners for rotaries is the ability to run a much more gradual collector on the long runner setup(and therefor maintain more velocity) before the turbo?
11-03-05, 05:32 PM
#43
Hey, where did my $$$ go?
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Bimingham, AL
Posts: 4,413
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Keep in mind thats written for piston engines and they typically have much longer runners than us. A typical short piston engine running is still usually longer than that we consider long. As a matter of fact, if you measure from chamber discharge then we really have a shorter distance because on a piston engine the exhaust has do go thru the head, ect. A lot of them the distance from the chamber to the header is nearly as long as our exhaust header. That is one of the big advantages of a rotary, the exhaust travels about 2" thru a straight whole with no valves or anything to disrupt flow then thru around 8-16" of runner depending on design. My understanding is a real short running chokes the engine and lowers VE. When you increase the length of the runner the engine supposedly will breath a lot better.
11-03-05, 06:19 PM
#44
Originally Posted by 13B-RX3
Still a good read tough.
So no one cares to offer up an explination as to why long primary tubes make more horsepower than short ones.
So no one cares to offer up an explination as to why long primary tubes make more horsepower than short ones.
-S-
11-03-05, 07:41 PM
#46
Just trying to figure out which has more impact on header design? What would be a ideal tube inner diameter? If you use "schedual 10-2.0 inch nominal pipe(I.D. 2.157 inches)" as in the stainless header above, the next size down is "sched. 10-1.5 inch nominal"( I.D. of 1.682 inches).Tubing has more to choose from,but not generally the thickness.
11-06-05, 09:29 PM
#48
DETH TRP
iTrader: (7)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Manhattan Beach, CA
Posts: 2,544
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by pp13bnos
Overall, how would a properly built, custom built manifold compare to a XS engineering cast manifold?
11-07-05, 09:49 AM
#49
Originally Posted by The Griffin
Just trying to figure out which has more impact on header design? What would be a ideal tube inner diameter? If you use "schedual 10-2.0 inch nominal pipe(I.D. 2.157 inches)" as in the stainless header above, the next size down is "sched. 10-1.5 inch nominal"( I.D. of 1.682 inches).Tubing has more to choose from,but not generally the thickness.
-S-
11-22-05, 10:58 AM
#50
I think long primary runners work thus: they provide great scavenging effect at low RPMs, before the turbo starts making any positive pressure, thus improving VE at these RPMs. As VE is improved, the engine makes more power because of better filling of the combustion chamber (more intake mass, bigger combustion "bang"), equally this provides more exhaust gas mass, thus the turbine starts working at lower RPMs than it would with short runners. So, the long runners make the engine work like a good N/A torquer engine before the turbo starts doing his thing. My 2 cents.