non sequential turbos???

cumminsturbo94

cumminsturbo94

New member
Joined
Jan 11, 2009
Messages
181
i don't know if i should run compound turbos or non sequentials. it will be cheaper to run two stock chargers non sequential with a home made header... front three on one and back three on the other however i do not know if that will be better or not as good as compounds. if i do use compounds what turbos should i go with to get the most flow? and if i was to go with non sequentials what size should i go with if not the two stocks that would be able to compare to the right compounds? i was originally looking at compounds with a 62/65 with a s475. my goal for the truck is right around 700 hp that i can still drive on the street when needed.
 
cumminsturbo94 said:
i don't know if i should run compound turbos or non sequentials. it will be cheaper to run two stock chargers non sequential with a home made header... front three on one and back three on the other however i do not know if that will be better or not as good as compounds. if i do use compounds what turbos should i go with to get the most flow? and if i was to go with non sequentials what size should i go with if not the two stocks that would be able to compare to the right compounds? i was originally looking at compounds with a 62/65 with a s475. my goal for the truck is right around 700 hp that i can still drive on the street when needed.
Click to expand...

Forget non-sequential and go compound...It would be terribly laggy and/or not flow enough on the top end.
 
not trying to insult you, but you clearly have little understanding about how compressors work and what a compressor map is.

if a stock turbo spools at about 1500rpm, two of them side by side will spool at about 3000rpm...

have fun! :D
 
Isn't the proper term twin intergral staged turbocharging... not compound turbocharging... the boost is not being compounded. I was under the impression that the term "compound" is grossy misused, and actually rarely done. As is the term "intercooling". I don't know much though... :bang
 
when you talk about pressure ratios measured in bar, you're talking about compounding... so when you pressurize air and feed it to another compressor to pressurize it more, "compounds" or "compound turbos" gets the point across pretty good
 
Forrest Nearing said:
not trying to insult you, but you clearly have little understanding about how compressors work and what a compressor map is.

if a stock turbo spools at about 1500rpm, two of them side by side will spool at about 3000rpm...

have fun! :D
Click to expand...

obliviously i dont know how they work or how to read a compressor map. thats why were all on here right? to learn? care to explain how to read a compressor map?? so i will actually understand it form now on

so if im thinking right, i wont have nearly enough air flow to get both turbos lit since it would only be getting half the normal air flow? pretty much non-sequential is out of the question if i want streetability? :badidea:

ok with non-sequential out of the question would someone care to explain the proper way to pick the right size compounds for my situation?
 
Your 62/65 over 475 looks like a good enough idear.
 
Parallel turbos will work....Mike Racke's Dmax-powered Chevelle had twin GT37 turbos (c.60mm) and they seemed to spool about as quick as a big single, if not quicker.
 
JQmile said:
Parallel turbos will work....Mike Racke's Dmax-powered Chevelle had twin GT37 turbos (c.60mm) and they seemed to spool about as quick as a big single, if not quicker.
Click to expand...

apples to oranges... I've got a funny little feeling that Dmax has more displacement, more RPM, and some actual cylinder head flow and can make the same power at 40psi as the OP's 94 with stock head and cam can make at 65psi

parallel turbos will obviously work on some engines... that's been proven time and time again...

what he's proposing won't work, and that too has been proven
 
I think twin HY35's with the tiny exhaust housings would work on a Cummins that can still make power at 4K.
 
I don't think it would work as a larger single that's more efficient at higher pressure ratios...

and I don't think his 12v will be making a whole lot of power at 4k :)
 
and not to mention its an auto so i will never see that kind of rpm on the street.

ill definitely be going with compounds now that i somewhat see how the parallel turbos woulda workd. and i did find some other threads about this same topic. i was found much more when i did a search for parallel turbos and not non sequential

thanks guys
 
Last edited:
12VNATION said:
Isn't the proper term twin intergral staged turbocharging... not compound turbocharging... the boost is not being compounded. I was under the impression that the term "compound" is grossy misused, and actually rarely done. As is the term "intercooling". I don't know much though... :bang
Click to expand...


Itergral........ Really?

The boost is not being compounded? Really?

You don't know much? Really??!?!?!


After 12 posts.....


And to the original post, it seems like one of the outstanding issues with a parallel compound set is the degree of exhaust valve separation on the three cylinders paired together.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top