When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
saw it this morning and got excited about making kits using them. need to get one and put it through some tests first. considering its turbosmart, i have no doubt the real world performance of those things will be phenomenal. a project for next year 100%
because I’m not seeing anything under 5862 (73 lb/min compressor ~520 rotary whp with only a 0.62 T3 or 0.82 V-band turbine housing) unless they were put separate from the first 5 pages of turbo listings at the front of all the other product pages
what I do see is smallish A/R turbine housing sizes more likely suited for piston engines, and without a turbine flow map on a never seen before turbo you’re flying completely blind.
if you want to be excited going in blind on a $2000+ turbo to be the guinea pig, be my guest. I’ll look forward to the results though.
.
Someone went in blind on an 8374 the first time. That's more than a $2k turbo.
Compressor maps are up, go take a look.
520whp is just under the 8374, which is imo the next step up from modified twins. Not much point in going single when you can make the same power on the twins.
But yeah if housings aren't available then we do have problems.
how long have some of you been on here and still can’t recall the long history thereof of turbine sizing?
To counter the assertion; I’m not negative. I’m looking at what’s on display and not initially seeing my expectation of what a rotary needs. The larger turbo sizes might be applicable except they don’t even have a compressor map posted.
Perhaps my age is showing to not be easily excited about something new and shiny accompanied with hyped up marketing text as compared to receiving enough information to suggest a true possibility of potential.
It’s not negative to suggest that people use their head to avoid making a costly mistake. Regarding the comment about the 8374, who on here ever tried to use one with a 0.82 A/R V-band or 0.62 A/R T3, even if only shooting for 400 whp? Or even on the smaller 7670 for 350 whp or less?
It comes down to having a basic understanding of the subject, or not … and I’ve been criticized on here for suggesting smaller turbine housings than some other members would. Which it really comes down to the porting, fuel, duty service, etc.
Yet if I’m being “cautious” about the turbine sizing possibly being too small, maybe you should be too. I could make my own assertion, but will instead end this reply with a well known phrase, perhaps lost in time:
”the foolish rush in where angels fear to tread”
.
turbosmart doesn't NEED to do any fancy marketing to sell their turbos. their line of current products and their time in the industry is more than enough. experimenting is where we find what works and what doesn't. on paper, a lot of things are a lot of things but it doesn't always 100% translate to real world. fear not, YOU wont have to spend 1000s of dollars to confirm anything...... we will do that for you and everyone else lol. even if it ends in something not usable then at least the data will be out there and it didn't cost you anything. it would be unreasonable to think that this initial release is it and there wont be any more variants available.
regardless.... we have something exciting to look forward to next year and you get to keep an "i told you so" in your pocket for later use lol. with the non availability of the EFR, should these pan out then they would likely be a great replacement for a very expensive turbo kit.
it doesn’t matter how good it is if the compressor to turbine flow balance isn’t correct for the rotary application. There are many turbo options out there, but not so many for the rotary because of this. The piston engine application far exceeds the wankel. So it’s just natural in that sense.
you’re just not thinking straight, making way too big of a deal out of this given what little we know about a new product. I don’t need anyone telling me about Turbosmart. I’m likely way ahead of you in that regard. If they offer the correct turbine housing size I’m all for trying it.
I only looked at the initial offering and made a rational assessment based on what exists. When it comes it comes, but right now that’s what it is. I never said it would never fly. I just don’t see any reason to act like a kid getting free reign in a candy store over it based on what we know so far. That’s all.
^that speaks more about your comprehension level, and it’s neither negative nor positive or any other emotional nonsense. It’s just an honest technical assessment for what exists now.
but the full turbo list with links is on this page
on the compressor maps that are listed, the peak flow point is only 58% efficient
based on what I’m seeing, wouldn’t suggest a turbine housing below 0.96 A/R (nothing larger is offered at the moment), which is only the larger turbo sizes and they don’t presently list a compressor map for those sizes at the time I’m making this post.
that aside, what interested me more was they released a new electronic butterfly-style straightgate WG valve in a smaller 40mm size (and a huge 76mm size too) … the 40mm straightgate flows almost as much as the 50mm poppet style (217 vs 241 cfm) and is easier to package, it costs more. 🤔
.
^that speaks more about your comprehension level, and it’s neither negative nor positive or any other emotional nonsense. It’s just an honest technical assessment for what exists now.
.
LMAO my comprehension levels are fine.
Read my comment above yours. This stuff was just announced, I'm sure more sizes will be added. Every manufacturer expands their offerings over time. Relax.
Go use your comprehension skills looking at the compressor maps, that do exist.
The straight gate stuff is really cool. I'm interested to see what can be done with the cold side gates. OEMs have already moved on to electronic blow of valves, could be nice for those of us with 8374's crossing the surge line
^^ only to be exceeded by your authoritarian attitude.
It’s just like the dullest pencil in the box to think they should be in charge to tell people what to do or think or feel.
so go ahead and explain to us how you concluded that I didn’t open the link to even one, let alone every turbo listed, and didn’t comprehend which had compressor maps or not
Originally Posted by TeamRX8
… I’m not seeing anything under 5862 (73 lb/min compressor ~520 rotary whp with only a 0.62 T3 or 0.82 V-band turbine housing) unless they were put separate from the first 5 pages of turbo listings at the front of all the other product pages.
.
on the compressor maps that are listed, the peak flow point is only 58% efficient
based on what I’m seeing, wouldn’t suggest a turbine housing below 0.96 A/R (nothing larger is offered at the moment), which is only the larger turbo sizes and they don’t presently list a compressor map for those sizes at the time I’m making this post.
Turbosmart will be at the PRI, as will I, on Dec 7. i will be interested in their plans (?) for expanded hotsides as well as the backstory re the development of their turbos.
If they are running deeper turbines like G series that flow more for diameter surely judging just by A/R is a little foolhardy?
sure, I’ve said so for that very reason many times, but unlike Garrett, some of those don’t even have compressor maps listed, let alone turbine flow maps.
So given the situation, what would you suggest as a basis to judge that isn’t “foolhardy”? Because I took that into account when assessing the available information. If you had ever understood the past discussions regarding same you would have recognized it.
Which is why it’s a facetious question. I can always count on you to play the “pile on” game. That my original post is essentially warning others not to be “foolhardy” in their initial enthusiasm adds a humorous touch to the thread. Thanks for that.
.
Tell that to the other guy, just playing on the words being used, just as you play on the words you don’t want to hear. If they have something to be excited about, you will see me jumping up and down most of all.
.
Turbosmart is clearly aware that the 13B requires a divided T4 hotside and plans to have it avail in approx 6 months. they also will be publishing compressor maps for all of their turbos. the aero engineering for their turbos was done in the good old USA.
