Presume you mean the manifold ...... yes. The plan is to offer a package to DIY enthusiasts so that the hardest parts of a build are taken care of : IE manifold, engine mount , tuning and technical support.

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.

Depends on if you want great spool , packaging, heat management and power or .................................................. ......................................a top mount. :p:

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 …
.

Well didn't take much to convince me, your manifold it is :yelrotflm

Now I see why you have been (wrongly) obsessing over this T4 variant. You don't understand that the flange size has no bearing on how much a turbine housing will flow.
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
.

Once again your lack of any FI experience has exposed your lack of understanding. Reading books/forums and talking with reps will get you so far Team, but once you actually start walking the walk you will realise how silly so many of your comments have been over the years.
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.

.

No Team , it's your lack of experience that makes you incapable of taking the information you mentioned and understanding it properly. I tried to explain it but as usual you are too bone headed to let it sink in.

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?

The existing WG was doing fine up until I started running the G30-660 . This turbo is more efficient and produced less backpressure which has resulted in the 38 WG being less effective in preventing boost creep higher in the rpm range.

Just needs WG flange welded on and she will be ready to go !


https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.rx8...b61ff7f911.png

What’s to learn? There’s not really anything to see except that was your feeling then and now you say the opposite. Never mind that a T3 housing is rarely chosen on a 2-rotor whether divided or open. Or that nobody there really responded much to your inquiry again. Once again you confuse my words and aren’t hearing the message. Which not having any interest in arguing with you incessantly, I simply chose to come back at my own time & place to see what the “likely to be expected” reply actually is.

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.

:bowdown:

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.

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.

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 .

Yes I was wanting more headroom as well simply because I was more concerned with the cooling given my climate. Weird, I asked about a 12C because I didn't see it on the website and I had to inquire.

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.