EvoDan2004

iTrader: (94)

maybe i was a little hard.

there not junk but i find and feel the 44mm gates to work better. but like you said. all depends on setups.

EvoDan2004

iTrader: (94)

do you realize the issues i had. 1 issue was something to do with the full race kit. i needed an anti surge cover. all the other issues where not full race or full race kit involved. i had a list of problems or should i say things that needed to be fixed/changed. nothing to do with the kit..

the car is being tuned now. i been driving it everyday. and very hard. im a busy person and do have a job. dyno results are not long away. so befor you think the kit is junk or whatever your thoughts are i would not jump the gun.

CleverUserName

iTrader: (1)

it's not a question of whether it's priced competitively in a part-by-part price comparison. people aren't stupid - calculators have been widely available for sometime now, and with the advent of the internet, your call to inspect the obvious is missing the point.

it's a question of whether the kit's price to begin with matches its claimed/ expected performance.

CleverUserName

iTrader: (1)

dan,

before this gets into some go nowhere back and forth, i think that folks should focus on the OP's request for results. as quoted above.

moses evo

hi mate one of my mates a fellow trader fitted on one a customers car on a 2.2 stroker, phenomenal spool up very good, what it does at low revs unfortunately it sacrifices at the top end and loses power, same spec on open scrolls make over 40 bhp and mair torque easily
the housing woz an issue

but on a 2 litre it would be the most awesome of turbo kits

will post u the link in a moment and dyno graphs

for a stroker kit the gt4094 Norris or Ams custom kit should be the best suited, i believe full race make a gt4094 twin scroll kit as well but aint been tested the ams and norris ones r the best by far from the ones that have been tested

moses evo

here it is and theirs a link tae the graph as well, its the first one tested and fitted in the uk, brilliant spool up


https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/sh...d.php?t=332108

500hpOnPumpEvo

iTrader: (1)

Thanks

CleverUserName

iTrader: (1)

indeed. i think i'm just like everyone else. i just want to see results.

DTM

iTrader: (4)

I am still waiting for a response to my question on page 1 about his topic. Would someone care to explain why the A/R ratio would be different on two T3 Tangical housings whether it is TS or not.

DTM

iTrader: (4)

38 MM wastegates serve a purpose just like 44s and 50s etc. They are far from POS's as you have stated.

The question everyone should be asking is WHY or should you need the extra hardware.

CleverUserName

iTrader: (1)

DTM is asking some good questions. and i'm not going to pretend i would know - anyone care to explain?

additionally, are there any results?

DTM

iTrader: (4)

Bueller.....

2k4EvoVIII

iTrader: (15)

DTM i believe it has to do with keeping the engine pulses separated fully will keep the engine pulses from ramming into each other and slowing velocity. The higher velocity you can have the less lag there is in said exhaust housing. This in return means you can run a bigger exhaust housing to help top end and still have similar lag as a smaller T3 exhaust housing would provide.

Chris

DTM

iTrader: (4)

Chris,
Thank you for stepping up to the plate on this subject.
Your summary is that of basis for a TS design on our (or any engine for that matter with smaller displacement) 2.0l displacement. Keeping the pulses "inline and seperate" in theory, allows both volutes to supply the required exhaust energy to different angles of the turbine wheel. There is no question that it is in fact that case and has worked not just in theory, or on paper, but in actual practice.

My issue is I would like to know why people continue to claim that (hypothetically if there were such A/Rs) a .63 A/R of a standard open volute would mean that an equivalent would be 1.01 for example.
An A/R of .63 is the same no matter how may times you slice the housing.
If you are using two similar turbine housings, meaning two T3 tangical entry units, but with one having a divided housing, why would the A/R not be equal? WHY would you need a larger A/R ratio for the TS.
If in fact a larger ratio would allow you increase top end but with the characteristics of a laggier turbo, then why bother going with a TS setup in the first place?
My concern would be how well each turbine wheel is matched to a particular housing. Some T3 Divided housings are not offset, so what happens when you introduce a generic turbine wheel to the equation, and 40% of it is being used by runners 1 & 4 and then 60% of it is being fed by 2 & 3?
Something not many here have mentioned about certain units. I don't want to start a ****storm, so I ill leave it at that.
A properly designed TS manifold and Turbocharger should be the way to go. Fit someone with something that suits their needs, rather than just generic off the shelf turbochargers mated to a pretty manifold.

2k4EvoVIII

iTrader: (15)

I totally agree and here is what i believe on that issue. Its not that they are so to speak different sized A/R from a normal T3 to a TS but more of a issue of you are able to run a bigger housing with the TS becouse you gain spool keeping the pulses of the engine separated and running into each other. You can run the exact same size A/R and as you would run on a normal T3 and it will spool up quicker on the TS that is a fact. I think when people say hey you need to run a bigger housing on a TS setup they are basically saying you would get the same spool characteristics from a .63 T3 and a 1.01 TS.

You are right to say doesn't this just defeat the purpose of going to TS then. Well yes in theory it does. But on the up side of it you are running a bigger A/R which means you are able to keep the back pressure lower which in return will yield a high HP car as im sure you already know but i just wanted to point it out for other people in this thread.

In simple terms the bigger exhaust housing you are able to run the more the turbo will flow which means the more HP you will make to a point. The smaller exhaust housing you run the better the spool up will be but with greater back pressure causing lower HP. Im not sure how people came to say that this T3 exhaust housing matches this T4 housing since i think it depends allot on the setup of the car and setup of the manifold but either way it is known that you can run a bigger A/R on TS then you can on normal T3 and have the same spool.

As far as the whole 40% and 60% thing i dont think this is a problem but again i could be wrong.

Here are some definitions of Twin Scroll from some very well turbo companys.

Twin Scroll = A "twin scroll" or "divided inlet" means that there are two separate volutes within the turbine housing. The main reason for doing this is to isolate the pulses coming from each exhaust port and maintain more of the pulse energy from each cylinder all the way down to the turbine wheel. There are no differences between the turbine wheels used in open or single inlet turbines compared to those used in twin or divided inlet turbines.

Generally speaking, a divided inlet turbine setup will respond faster and produce boost quicker than single or open design of the same nozzle area, of course this is dependent upon proper execution. The simple fact that a divided housing is used does not guarantee these results.

Twin Scroll = A twin scroll turbine housing uses dual side by side passages into the housing. When coupled with a pulse converter manifold that separates exhaust pulses as many crank degrees in the firing order as possible, a twin scroll or divided housing works to reduce lag, decrease exhaust manifold backpressure on the top end, reduce the potential for reversion, and increase fuel economy. The twin scroll is based off the same reasoning a tri-Y header uses: keep spent exhaust gases out of an adjacent cylinder drawing in fresh air. At high rpm on a turbo car, exhaust backpressure is usually significantly higher than atmospheric pressure, and often higher than intake manifold pressure as well. A divider between each of the two volutes allows the cylinders to expel the exhaust gases without it interfering with the fresh air for combustion. Since there are two openings, each a smaller overall volume than a single scroll design, the exhaust velocity of each pulse can be maintained. This also spins the impeller more easily because lag is a function of the scroll area. A single turbine housing opening isn't as efficient since cylinders on the exhaust stroke of the 4 stroke cycle contaminate the cylinders that are on overlap with exhaust gas. A conventional turbine housing is not as effective in using exhaust pulse energy to help spin the turbine up to speed as it does not exploit the energy contained in the pulses as well.

DTM again most of this information is for other people that will read this thread so please take no offense to the way i worded anything.

BUT you are 100% correct that a properly designed TS manifold and Turbocharger should be the way to go. Fit someone with something that suits their needs.

Chris