|
looks pretty good, are you going back to a T3 turbine then?
. |
Yeah , I prefer the T3 as it enable closer fitting to the engine with less drama.
For testing the first one ..... I'll fit my older gtx3582 turbo with the T3 flange and maybe look at swapping back to a G30-660 T3 sometime in the future if someone takes my Vband setup. |
since it’s only available as an open volute on the G30, would you stay with the 1.01 or consider the 0.83?
|
Haven't thought that far ahead ... but yeah , I think i'm gunna have to try the 0.83 at some stage.
|
How much to have another mold and casting made? Any discount for 10 or more because I'm pretty sure many people following this thread would be interested in pricing and delivery.
|
Originally Posted by northzone
(Post 4942543)
How much to have another mold and casting made? Any discount for 10 or more because I'm pretty sure many people following this thread would be interested in pricing and delivery.
|
|
Looks a lot better than the UK one, comparatively ...
|
I'm more interested in the performance ...and for that I think it will be way better. Time will tell.
|
You already know I agree which one will perform better, but at the risk of annoying you again, see *potential* for improvement. As you noted before, I could prove to be wrong about it though.
Is that work being done overseas or there in country? Might have an interest myself. . |
As a totally uneducated person on turbo rotaries, is there any concern about the wastegate just dumping from one rotor?
|
it doesn’t in theory due to the “unique to the Renesis” siamese center port being configured to flow in either direction (though it likely only flows to the turbo), but more importantly also serving as a potential relief path for backpressure imbalance on the rear rotor.
The advantage is the EWG relieves flow prior to the turbo inlet rather than having it exit after the traffic jam into it is already created with an IWG configuration. That’d be further compounded by IWG with the smaller entrance area v-band inlet. A larger T4 inlet with IWG might not have that issue, but would likely be dependent on power level and rpm limit, i.e. the resulting flow level it has to contend with. . |
Yeah, I definitely understand the benefit over IWG. Obviously packaging concerns are a big issue on the RX-8 platform, especially for RHD, so it makes sense. I guess the only way to "know" would be pressure sensors from each outlet port to study it.
Thanks! |
Originally Posted by DocWalt
(Post 4942818)
Yeah, I definitely understand the benefit over IWG. Obviously packaging concerns are a big issue on the RX-8 platform, especially for RHD, so it makes sense. I guess the only way to "know" would be pressure sensors from each outlet port to study it.
Thanks! You could put sensors on each outlet ..................... , or you could just try it out for long enough to be confident there were no detrimental effects. Which is what i'm doing :) There is definitely not enough flow from just the end port though, with my latest fabricated manifold I cannot hold boost below 13psi at high rpm. This is in part due to the very efficient G30 turbo which doesn't need as much flow to power it up. Hence the need for some design changes to favor more flow from the Siamese to the WG and the fitting of a larger wastegate. |
Team , the manifolds will be 100% Kiwi.
|
Originally Posted by Brettus
(Post 4941568)
It will be printed in a PLA material for the lost PLA casting process. Then cast in stainless.
|
Originally Posted by Brettus
(Post 4942837)
Team , the manifolds will be 100% Kiwi.
props to NZ, always amazed by what is accomplished there compared to other countries. |
Brettus,
I see a solid area under the bottom-side of the manifold. Is this to add either an EGT or EMAP sensor in the center of the manifold? Are you considering adding material at either end of the manifold to monitor each rotor EGT as well? I am not sure on EGT placement preference on a rotary though (distance from exhaust port). I added an EMAP sensor to the top to possibly reduce moisture buildup in the line. I am not sure how often moisture builds up in EMAP lines, I know a few people that have had moisture in theirs. https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.rx8...194dda05e4.png |
Yes that raised part is for an EMAP or EGT sensor . I run a canister after the steel line to dampen pulsations and this also helps to keep moisture away from the gauge. I chose that spot because it's pretty much the only place that is easy to get to. IMO you don't really need EMAP once you have your system dialed in. It's not something you you refer to after that. Was not looking at adding any other spots for sensors.
|
Understandable. So you don't run an EGT sensor?
I'd mostly want for comparing setups to show people differences of EMAP and turbo choices. Staf's find of the Xora Rotor 6564S trubo is an interesting, and made me really question EMAP data, at least for the initial tuning. Or for your sake of swapping turbos and turbine housings showing the pressure drop result. |
No , have never ran an EGT sensor. There is the egt sensor on the stock AFR sensor which does help a little.
|
Originally Posted by Fickert
(Post 4943298)
Staf's find of the Xora Rotor 6564S trubo is an interesting
It’s interesting that you consider it interesting considering that there’s little - no data on it otherwise. perhaps more often interesting is how some people are more prone to blindly jumping over a wall without any consideration for what’s on the other side, if only because they saw somebody else consider blindly jumping over the wall first. I seem to recall that Darwin even developed a thesis on such a practice. . |
Originally Posted by TeamRX8
(Post 4943315)
It’s interesting that you consider it interesting considering that there’s little - no data on it otherwise. perhaps more often interesting is how some people are more prone to blindly jumping over a wall without any consideration for what’s on the other side, if only because they saw somebody else consider blindly jumping over the wall first. I seem to recall that Darwin even developed a thesis on such a practice. . Not a "I am buying right now because their marketing has me feeling all warm and bubbly inside", just interesting. Also I got a response from Xona Rotor about my inquiry. Not much valuable information, but claim the 6564S is better compared to a GTX3576R or EFR7670, though he doesn't state anymore on that topic. Specifically they suggested looking at the XR6157S. I did not specify this is going on a rotary though which was probably a mistake. Food for thought. We have not yet released graphical compressor maps, but they will be added to the website in the near future. If you have specific flow value questions, please let me know and I can provide you with whatever information you need. The XR6564S and G30-660 are not a very good comparison, however, so I will take a moment to compare aerodynamics: G30-660: 54/67mm compressor stage, rated at 60lb/min of peak flow at an undefined efficiency rating (the flow line is below the 60% flow line, though). 60/55mm turbine stage Garrett rates this unit for a range of 350-660BHP, but does not clearly define this based on the compressor flow map. 60lb/min would typically result in a peak rating of 600BHP, based on their own recommendations, and by current industry standards. This unit is essentially an update to the previous GTX3071R Gen 2 unit, for reference. XR6564S: 58/79mm compressor stage, rated at 65lb/min of peak flow at 60% efficiency. 72.5/64mm turbine stage, UHF design, with proprietary 5/5-blade split-blade turbine.. We rate this unit for a range of 350-690BHP based on engine efficiency and fuel choice. This unit is better compared to units such as the GTX3576R Gen 2 and EFR7670, as it has a larger rotor group overall than the G30 models. If you are interested in the G30-660, I would suggest having a look at the model below: XR6157S: 55/76mm compressor stage, rated at 61lb/min of peak flow at 60% efficiency. 64/57mm turbine stage, UHF design, with proprietary 5/5-blade split-blade turbine. We rate this unit for a range of 320-640BHP based on engine efficiency and fuel choice. The XR6157S has several distinct advantages over the G30-660:
used in the XR6157S. Let me know if this is helpful to you. Best Regards, Mike Franke Technical/Sales Support Xona Rotor Turbochargers-U.S.-Made Performance Turbochargers tech@xonarotor.com www.xonarotor.com |
Very ......................interesting :lol:
I think (based on the compressor trim) that the 6157 compressor would not work as well as the G30-660 as its best efficiency will be at a higher Pr , which wont suit a 13b. That's why you are probably better with the 6564 ..... But again , till you see the actual maps it's just a guess. |
Available for the masses?
I may have missed this. Is it something you plan to be selling to others?
|
Originally Posted by Grimdemeanor
(Post 4943352)
I may have missed this. Is it something you plan to be selling to others?
|
re: XONA: that info still doesn’t really tell you anything and the I/E impeller sizes and everything else was posted up above is already online. Look, an EFR8374 is better compared to an EFR7670, but what does that really tell you? The point is; words are not actual data that you can assess fully. Go ahead and laugh and slap each other on the back while still not comprehending that which is right in front of your eyes.
I’m not saying a 6564S won’t work and produce a result, just that you have no real way to know where it fits relative to your spool and hp target. I was just looking at a graph for a different turbo that was about the same impeller sizes and was about 65 lbs/hr peak ... except that was at a 3.8 PR. If your target PR is 2.2, what is the mass flow there relative to your target? You simply don’t know. A perfect example of is that dyno graph of a 13B REW with half-bridge that made 420 hp @ 12 psig, that is claimed to be impossible. Because if I showed you that dyno graph and said it was with an XONA xxxxS turbo, what would your response be without a compressor map to compare it against? You’d probably just say, “wow, that’s really something” rather than come up with every possible excuse why it can’t possibly be correct. There’s a real disconnect in some people’s understanding of things. So I just came to tell you that on Monday it was announced by one of the aftermarket suppliers here in the US that they produced and now sell divided T4 1.06 A/R EWG turbine housings for both the Garrett G30 and G35 turbos. Haven’t seen a divided T3 option yet. The G25-660 T4 divided 0.92 A/R is still not released yet. enjoy your fun. . |
Hard to know who you are talking to there Team ... I sense the sarcasm is directed at me but most of it at someone else seeing as I was saying much the same as you a couple of posts up. :dunno:
|
Very keen to see how this goes, might be interested in purchasing a manifold, tossing up between this and the turblown one.
|
Originally Posted by MasonV
(Post 4944994)
Very keen to see how this goes, might be interested in purchasing a manifold, tossing up between this and the turblown one.
|
if anyone wants that they’ll be on the G25-660 with 0.92 divided T4 when it finally debuts any week now. Because it seems that nobody recognizes how much better the T4 inlet will flow over the 2.16” ID throat of the V-band as Pr increases. All the published exhaust maps are for the V-band housings. On the top end it will be a lot closer to the G30 1.01 AR V-band than I think anyone has recognized yet. It’s only going to be available as IWG though and whether that can flow enough for a 2-rotor is a question mark. It may be that the IWG can be ported out sufficiently like is being done on the EFR8374 IWG. Otherwise it may need to be secured or welded shut with an EWG instead. With e-flex fuel there’s potential to get 15 psi boost by around 3000 rpm in my estimates, yet still be capable of 430+ whp without excessive emap.
After spending a boatload of time mapping and evaluating all of the G25/30/35 combinations I’m no longer a fan of the G30-660/770. The next step above that G25 imo is the G30-900 with 1.06 divided T4. Of course that’s likely never going to fit in the back like everyone is currently doing the placement. It has to be positioned as per my previous proposal and is currently my focus at the moment. My trigger finger is itching … :suspect: For an REW conversion the G35-900 can get you in the upper 500 whp range; at least on e-fuel and the 1.06 divided T4 and then the 1050 should be good for low 700 whp on same, heavy porting, and other supporting mods. That’s fully maxed out for either one. All of these larger turbos have efficiency in their favor when pushed on the top end. Some REW-G35 results are likely to come out in the not too distant future, then some eyes will likely open … . |
Originally Posted by Brettus
(Post 4945030)
Depends on if you want great spool , packaging, heat management and power or .................................................. ......................................a top mount. :p:
|
Originally Posted by TeamRX8
(Post 4945111)
if anyone wants that they’ll be on the G25-660 with 0.92 divided T4 when it finally debuts any week now. Because it seems that nobody recognizes how much better the T4 inlet will flow over the 2.08” ID throat of the V-band as Pr increases. All the published exhaust maps are for the V-band housings. On the top end it will be a lot closer to the G30 1.01 AR V-band than I think anyone has recognized yet.
Imagine blowing through a thin straw ...now connect a garden hose to this same straw and blow through it. Will it be any easier to blow through ? No, because the restriction isn't the garden hose ...it's the straw. Same with a turbine housing ...the restriction is never the flange. Unless of course the manufacturer puts a flange on that's actually smaller than the turbine throat size ..... which they never do. The only reason to even have a T4 flange on a smaller turbo is to make it easier to merge several (think 4 cylinders) pipes together. The fact that all these turbo manufacturers publish turbine maps without EVER mentioning the flange size should be enough to tell you that it makes no difference at all. |
Well to be honest there was a time when I believed that too, but came to see the error of my way. Later confirmed by the extensive experience of the Garrett distributor in our discussion about it, particularly wrt the new G30/35 1.06 AR T4 housings. Same for RX7Club; countering you again btw. Perhaps you can go ask over on the forum again and let’s see what they have to say. I wonder if you’ll dare to post that response above to them? Or is it your extensive experience having directly compared the data for T4 vs T3 vs V-band housings on the Renesis? 🤔 Otherwise, why vary it all then and not just have one entrance size as opposed to having T25/T3/T4/T6 and more even?
The answer as always is; it just depends. While the housing does taper down smaller internally, the entrance opening and how it tapers down does matter. Also that a Wankel rotary engine flows considerably more lb/min exhaust gas per whp and higher temperature than a reciprocating piston engine. It will certainly matter on my own manifold design given how short it is from port housing face to turbo flange face (2.375”/60mm), which is critical to my fitment goal as well as the efficiency improvement. It could be shorter, but for the optimum flow radius and minimizing turn angles, it’s the better choice imo. Or at least I won’t resort to it initially. I was willing to explain it to you previously, but was always immediately shut down by the chip on your shoulder. So go ahead and knock yourself out being hard-headed and swearing to anyone lacking discernment and willing to listen to your claims that I have no clue about anything. I don't require your support. No, it’s just one more thing that’s not being understood correctly. Entrance area comparison: T4 open = 119% T4 divided = 100% T3 open = 82% T3 divided = 77% V-band (2.157” ID) = 74% T25/28 open = 54% edited above, variations in flange opening drawing dimensions and calculation errors . |
Originally Posted by TeamRX8
(Post 4945184)
Well to be honest there was a time when I believed that too, but came to see the error of my way. Later confirmed by the extensive experience of the Garrett distributor in our discussion about it, particularly wrt the new G30/35 1.06 AR T4 housings. Same for RX7Club; countering you again btw. Perhaps you can go ask over on the forum again and let’s see what they have to say. I wonder if you’ll dare to post that response above to them? Or is it your extensive experience having directly compared the data for T4 vs T3 vs V-band housings on the Renesis? 🤔 Otherwise, why vary it all then and not just have one entrance size as opposed to having T25/T3/T4/T6 and more even?
The answer as always is; it just depends. While the housing does taper down smaller internally, the entrance opening and how it tapers down does matter. Also that a Wankel rotary engine flows considerably more lb/min exhaust gas per whp and higher temperature than a reciprocating piston engine. It will certainly matter on my own manifold design given how short it is from port housing face to turbo flange face (2.375”/60mm), which is critical to my fitment goal as well as the efficiency improvement. It could be shorter, but for the optimum flow radius and minimizing turn angles, it’s the better choice imo. Or at least I won’t resort to it initially. I was willing to explain it to you previously, but was always immediately shut down by the chip on your shoulder. So go ahead and knock yourself out being hard-headed and swearing to anyone lacking discernment and willing to listen to your claims that I have no clue about anything. I don't require your support. No, it’s just one more thing that’s not being understood correctly. Entrance area comparison: T4 divided = 100% V-band (2” Sch. 10 ID) = 73.8% T3 divided = 70.1% T25/28 open = 41.8% . With regards to your ridiculous notion that somehow having a bigger hole at the start of the volute makes a turbine flow more air ..good luck on that one. Sure, it makes a difference to how efficiently many pipes can merge together before they reach the throat of the volute, but we are talking small gains here and only in some circumstances (eg 4 pipes into one) .The actual volute flows the same regardless of what goes on before it and if you can't see that I'm afraid there is no hope for you .... |
no Brett, that’s the experience of people who outflank your own by multiple decades and way more turbo engine builds, results, and data too.
and you’re ignoring the practical experience of many 2-rotor turbo engine builds, results, and data. a foolish man never learns from his mistakes, a smart man eventually learns from his mistakes, but a wise man, he learns from the mistakes of others … you attempt to shame me for seeking wisdom, that only defines which of us being foolish. . |
Originally Posted by TeamRX8
(Post 4945201)
no Brett, that’s the experience of people who outflank your own by multiple decades and way more turbo engine builds, results, and data too.
and you’re ignoring the practical experience of many 2-rotor turbo engine builds, results, and data. . |
obviously I had no idea you had already asked
https://www.rx7club.com/single-turbo...vs-t4-1134794/ but I’m going to stand on “it just depends” and leave it at that. . |
Thanks for posting the link (from 2019) .... hope you learned something.
|
Anyhoo ....
I have some exciting things to test coming up within the next 6-8 weeks. 1/New larger Intercooler . My current is excellent to 350ish whp and for track work but lacks efficiency on the dyno and over 400whp. New Treadstone TR10C should give me the best of both worlds without sacrificing engine cooling. Fingers xd 2/Low compression Renesis rotors 9.4:1 :have studied the weaknesses with the Renesis rotors and believe what I'm taking off (via CNC mill) wont adversely affect strength but should give me the ability to run higher boost on pump gas. Might open up possibility of 450whp :suspect: 3/New cast stainless manifold : based on existing fabricated mani. but being cast in stainless should offer better heat retention and slightly better performance. 4/Larger 44mm Tial WG : hope to get minimum boost down to 6-7psi |
Wooo, super exciting stuff Brettus, I'm pumped to see the results, the larger WG should help quite a bit with controlling those boost levels. Was there a reason you didn't go this size earlier?
|
Originally Posted by MasonV
(Post 4945723)
Wooo, super exciting stuff Brettus, I'm pumped to see the results, the larger WG should help quite a bit with controlling those boost levels. Was there a reason you didn't go this size earlier?
|
Just needs WG flange welded on and she will be ready to go !
https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.rx8...b61ff7f911.png |
Originally Posted by Brettus
(Post 4945212)
Thanks for posting the link (from 2019) .... hope you learned something.
I’m not saying those percentage differences translate into equivalent flow differences through the housings. These T4 housings were only just released to the public at the end of April/2021. Prototypes existed and were being tested long before though. Am pretty confident that you yourself have not run one yet, but you want to discount the words of the people who have direct knowledge of the results and data. You simply argue against the same arguments you yourself make, again. I was told some other things that go counter to your replies, but honestly I’m content to let you think that. What did I actually say though; … it just depends and that on my manifold design it would favor flow into it due to fitment being so compact. Which was more or less one of your own prior points about when it made a difference. Why do you think an open scroll tends to favor more HP on the top end over a divided housing when that is the only difference between them? Further, you also don’t anything about what my design is because every time it’s mentioned you immediately shutdown hearing or knowing anything about it. You’d rather close your mind, and everyone else’s too. It should be obvious to everyone why that is. . |
Look............... there are times when a T4 inlet is going to perform better than a T3 and there are times when it wont make any difference. It's only the reason for this difference that is in contention here. My point was then (on rx7forum back in 2019) and still is now, that the size of the flange does not determine the flow through the volute.
All manufacturers supply turbine maps that are the same irrespective of the flange size. You will never see any manufacturer do it differently and if you ever do ...please bring it to my attention and I will humbly accept that you had a point. Until then, you don't. |
Originally Posted by Brettus
(Post 4946207)
Just needs WG flange welded on and she will be ready to go !
https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.rx8...b61ff7f911.png |
Originally Posted by Brettus
(Post 4945718)
1/New larger Intercooler . My current is excellent to 350ish whp and for track work but lacks efficiency on the dyno and over 400whp. New Treadstone TR10C should give me the best of both worlds without sacrificing engine cooling. Fingers xd i |
Originally Posted by Brettus
(Post 4946308)
Well that plan didn't work out . I got the IC and it was smaller than expected plus once I compared it to my existing I decided it wouldn't be much of an upgrade. So currently trying to get an 8" version of my 6" vertical flow IC.
The 10c might be enough during winter weather or when supplemented with water/meth, but only those circumstances I'd imagine. |
Originally Posted by Ricky SE3P
(Post 4946397)
Yeah, I remember we had once discussed the TR10C and a few other iterations of that intercooler and I decided to go with something else because I felt it was too small for even my needs, and for some reason I don't understand they don't offer a TR12C which would've been a great option.
The 10c might be enough during winter weather or when supplemented with water/meth, but only those circumstances I'd imagine. They do make a 12C ! Have tried to get one of those but they are currently out of stock . |
Originally Posted by Brettus
(Post 4946402)
The 10C would be great to around 350-380whp IMO but I was looking for more headroom , just in case I need it ;). They are actually rated to around 450 rotarywhp but I think they rate them more on flow than cooling efficiency.
They do make a 12C ! Have tried to get one of those but they are currently out of stock . Edit: my mistake, it wasn't a 12C I had asked about, rather if they could make a TR102 because of how I wanted my setup and the fact that a TR82 wouldn't have been enough for me for my goal of 340-350. I have a different brand of the treadstone 1035 and its pretty great I feel like. Doesn't perform as well as the treadstone would have no doubt im confident about that, but a fraction of the cost which was nice at the time of purchase. |
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:19 AM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands