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.
My theory is :
If you can't make more than 450whp on a Renesis, there is zero point fitting a turbo capable of more. And it follows that............... if you can fit a 420ish capable turbo using stock engine mount locations then there is no need to change any of that.
So unless Team is able to do what the rest of us have failed to do ................ the engine mount thing is a moot point. I guess my only caveat to that would be if he were able to make the same power already made with the G30 (420ish) AND get better spoolup .......................
BTW ...I'm fully aware of everything Landspeed has done , and don't consider it relevant to this particular discussion.
Thanks for clarifying it. It’s well known that we have some different views on various things.
That’s why I didn’t offer you any feedback after being up close and personal with one of your new manifolds. Although I might recommend a thing or two in private based on personal viewpoint, here on the open forum I really only have good things to say about it; lightweight, functional, very compact, makes the Greddy manifold look like the joke it is, etc. I think you did quite a good job overall.
Since the RX8P kit was mentioned, I more or less feel the same way about it too in both regards *if you can actually get one delivered complete*. Not really sure what the status is there now post Covid.
.
That’s why I didn’t offer you any feedback after being up close and personal with one of your new manifolds. Although I might recommend a thing or two in private based on personal viewpoint, here on the open forum I really only have good things to say about it; lightweight, functional, very compact, makes the Greddy manifold look like the joke it is, etc. I think you did quite a good job overall.
Dunno how you managed that .... up until yesterday, there was only one in the US.
Thankyou for the encouraging words!
I don’t think there’s any doubt that an EFR7163 with equivalent twin-scroll peak turbine flow is going to out-spool a G30-660 0.83 open-scroll, but fully both accept and acknowledge real world results are required for verification. Until that time ….
.
Have to agree, the 7163 combo you assembled should outspool the G30. Whether it has the same power potential .... ...should get close. Will be interesting.
I feel that you will find the twin scroll exercise to be more trouble than it is worth though, just as I did.
Except the Brettspeed manifold runners are asymmetric and mine is quite symmetrical. Measures are also in place to eliminate pulse interference between the end ports while limiting it to the center port discharge section only, yet in a complimentary manner. The center port configuration on the Brettspeed manifold serves the intended purpose, but having it slam straight out into the runner wall and disperse chaotically in either direction goes against all efficient flow conventions.
None of those comments are intended to be negative because it obviously works well, but are just for explaining some of the differences. However, it possibly underscores a potential for improvement; even for a turbo limited to under 450 whp. So the notion of a reworked motor mount configuration to accommodate the symmetric positioning isn’t really a bigger, more powerful turbo only consideration as possibly was suggested in a prior reply. I also have no intention of offering it as an aftermarket option to other people.
It will really come down to the EFR7163 turbine housing flow wrt full top end power potential. I don’t really care to speculate on that, but rather am content for any results to factually establish it in the future. Honestly if it spools early and strong with over 350 whp peak per the original goal I’ll be quite satisfied. WRT to attempting higher top end power; if that day comes I’d rather pursue it with the G30-770 1.06 twin scroll than push a G30-660 compressor out to the far flow limit.
.
The center port configuration on the Brettspeed manifold serves the intended purpose, but having it slam straight out into the runner wall and disperse chaotically in either direction goes against all efficient flow conventions.
I don't disagree with that, I'd say it is potentially why nobody has tried doing it this way before. When I considered it, I realised it would have minimal effect.
My rational was to consider what was happening inside the Siamese port runner, where exhaust gas slams into a plate at 90 degrees to flow direction and is then forced to squeeze through the narrowest of gaps before escaping out the side of the engine. Knowing that, plus that the Siamese port was always just a compromise port from Mazda , I realised that concentrating my efforts on getting gas to flow unobstructed out of the outer main ports was way more consequential than doing so with the Siamese.
Understood. Will be interested to see what further enhancement your design entails.
Originally Posted by TeamRX8
My advice to those people is always this; look at what has been done already and then try to envision how it can be done better...
.
I generally agree with this sentiment, however w/in limitations and caveats, e.g. wrt
- experience / resources / skill set,
- desired objectives,
- ROI
IMV all of these should be considered when imagining and assessing cost: benefit of any design enhancement.
Originally Posted by Brettus
...My rational was to consider what was happening inside the Siamese port runner, where exhaust gas slams into a plate at 90 degrees to flow direction and is then forced to squeeze through the narrowest of gaps before escaping out the side of the engine. ... I realised that concentrating my efforts on getting gas to flow unobstructed out of the outer main ports was way more consequential than doing so with the Siamese.
Qualitatively this seems sound reasoning.., which is not to say that "some" gains may not be achievable by optimizing the center iron runners. But hard to believe there'd be much "there" there by doing so.
I actually believe it'd be difficult to improve significantly on Brett's or Scott's manifold designs from a flow perspective. Kudos to both.
I’d probably rather go revive the Renesis header thread than attempt to convince anyone here of something they haven’t even seen yet, but are so sure of otherwise.
.
Qualitatively this seems sound reasoning.., which is not to say that "some" gains may not be achievable by optimizing the center iron runners. But hard to believe there'd be much "there" there by doing so.
Yeah, conventional wisdom would suggest that maximising flow from all ports is the thing to do. But the Renesis having two outlets per rotor and zero overlap means something like my log manifold works just fine.
...why not acknowledge that “works just fine” doesn’t rule out the possibility of being improved upon?
Which then requires us to take a “wait and let’s see what the results are” approach. ...
it leads me to wonder why you both do protest so much? 🤔
.
Originally Posted by jcbrx8
Understood. Will be interested to see what further enhancement your design entails.
Qualitatively this seems sound reasoning.., which is not to say that "some" gains may not be achievable by optimizing the center iron runners. But hard to believe there'd be much "there" there by doing so.
First, can you read? Clearly, your response makes no sense relative to my comments. Thou dost protest too much....
And with ALL the "ish" you dish..., whether you agree or not, it's a forum, why so bent over civil, on topic responses???
Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones.
didn’t want to pollute anyone else’s thread with this; looks like Pulsar expanded the turbine housing selections for their G25-550/660 line that’s a direct bolt-on to the same size Garrett turbo. A few of those make the G25-660 truly viable as a ~350whp option on a 2-rotor engine and potentially quite zippy with ethanol or high octane gasoline to allow bringing the boost in strong at low rpm.
nothing much for the G30-660/770/900 line except they have a 0.84 divided T4 EWG housing now that has my eye in lieu of the Garrett 1.06 T4
the one thing that did really get my attention though is that most of the copycat G-series stuff has disappeared off the Pulsar NA website, but not the UK, AU, etc. sites. Makes me wonder if there’s a cease and desist or other legal battle going on with Garrett. I couldn’t find any info to confirm anything though.
.
didn’t want to pollute anyone else’s thread with this; looks like Pulsar expanded the turbine housing selections for their G25-550/660 line that’s a direct bolt-on to the same size Garrett turbo. A few of those make the G25-660 truly viable as a ~350whp option on a 2-rotor engine and potentially quite zippy with ethanol or high octane gasoline to allow bringing the boost in strong at low rpm.
nothing much for the G30-660/770/900 line except they have a 0.84 divided T4 EWG housing now that has my eye in lieu of the Garrett 1.06 T4
the one thing that did really get my attention though is that most of the copycat G-series stuff has disappeared off the Pulsar NA website, but not the UK, AU, etc. sites. Makes me wonder if there’s a cease and desist or other legal battle going on with Garrett. I couldn’t find any info to confirm anything though.
.
I know less than nothing of which you speak, but:
Probably FTC induced. Have run into this a few times at work. An FTC letter will usually cause this kind of dropout of product in a market at least temporarily, until legal gets involved an figures out if the fight is worth it.
a turbo Renesis is way down my list over the NA Renesis and turbo REW projects, but I’m so buried at work that haven’t even been out to either of those cars in almost 2 months. The only saving grace is we’ve sold out capacity at work through almost the end of next year and I have over 4 months of vacation stored up. So I’m hoping to get back on everything heavy in the next several months.
I’ve refined the Renesis turbo manifold to a slightly different design on paper, but still need to work out the details once the time is available for it. It is the back burner project though. If anything, the EFR7063 turbo might see its first spin up on an REW for the initial testing and assessment long before it sees a Renesis.
.
just posting up that Pulsar expanded their G30 equivalent turbine housing range some; list is at the bottom. I did verify with Pulsar that their turbine housings directly fit the equivalent Garrett model. However, one small difference is that the Pulsar v-band turbine inlet is a slightly larger than the Garrett turbine v-band flow inlet diameter for the equivalent G25/G30/G35 turbines. Not much, but enough to catch my eye. 👀
edit: Turned out not to be as much as I was led to believe. Still need to verify if they’re compatible to interchange. The rear entry on the Pulsar V-band inlet flange is for 2.5” OD tube while the Garrett is for 2.375” OD 2” pipe.
I’ve also revised my view on the IWG capability for both the Renesis and REW engines for up to maybe ~500 whp now that the electronic IWG controllers have become available. That may come down to fuel type and boost level though. Things could get interesting in the future.
in particular, the G30 0.92 IWG V-band with electronic IWG controller might be an interesting combination on the G30/5455G for a peppy, moderate power 13B/MSP application …
06-12-2022, 06:03 PM
Dunno how you managed that .... up until yesterday, there was only one in the US.
...should get close. Will be interesting.
.
... ok, right.
