Time to throw out the s467.7 turbo choices?

[blackmega3500]

So the only proof you have is to beat up a keyboard with your baseless opinions?

Guy!

Do you realize you've dug your heels so deep into the mud that your clearly ears and eyes deep!

Ive been there done that!

PERSONALLY, I MYSELF wanted to loose some torque when running the 69sxe .91 on the manifold and went to the 1.0.....

It only moved the rpm range up about 200 rpm slower spool from a dead idle, but pulled significantly harder up too (2500 rpm+).

Overall boost also went higher, but it at a cruise wpuld quickly loose drive pressure with the 1.0 and seeing 50psi at 2100 rpm and 40 drive wasn't out of the norm.....

Notice this pic! This was a .91 T4! Big difference compared to the above 1.0 reference....

These are what you call real world scenarios!

This was tuning a GATELESS setup, as many of us have opted to go to.

 

[Smokem]

I have no time to argue with someone that cannot spell lose properly, and only has an out of focus picture of a set of gauges to show as "proof". Your comments on this website are a complete waste of time for myself and any other member to have to sift through.

 

[blackmega3500]

I have no time to argue with someone that cannot spell lose properly, and only has an out of focus picture of a set of gauges to show as "proof". Your comments on this website are a complete waste of time for myself and any other member to have to sift through.

Lmao, liberal deflection from the facts!

Fix your eyes a bit and "loose" the beer goggled ignorance!

Your not always right on things you insist you are!

 

[WUnderwood]

blackmega- you are quite possibly the most annoying member I have seen in quite a while. Do you work, or just find ways to piss everyone off?

 

[blackmega3500]

blackmega- you are quite possibly the most annoying member I have seen in quite a while. Do you work, or just find ways to piss everyone off?

If calling out bull$hit is annoying, my bad! Still doesn't change the facts on display.

You'd be surprised, I'm actually pretty chill and laid back. This is leisure frankly compared to everything else I do. Owning 2 different businesses, and helping out a 3rd from a consultation stand point can be exhausting.

Just blows my mind how a so called "expert" is so closed minded, and repeatedly displays such.

Is there a test cell for ignorance?!

I'll wait for the data......

 

[straight 6 roar]

Ok back to the original topic...

Will a 66/73/.91 sxe offer a worthwhile increase in spool up compared to a 67/83/.90? What about with that .83 T4 dual gated housing?

 

[zfaylor]

Short answer: yes.

 

[Smokem]

Will a 66/73/.91 sxe offer a worthwhile increase in spool up compared to a 67/83/.90? What about with that .83 T4 dual gated housing?

I can comfortably say the T4 0.83AR turbine housing will respond faster, as well as make a slightly higher hp average through the major part of the power curve, based on several hundred dyno passes over the last few years.

 

[Smokem]

I'll wait for the data......

No problem there, it's not hard to show proof when you actually have it.

All of the data I will show is from testing in 2015 done at Haisley Machine and Repair, and this information is just a very small view into what those who do real world testing are aware of.

To start, below you see a hp comparison of the same turbocharger with identical compressor wheels other than the exducer size which is designated by the trim value. It is clear to see how the numerically lower trim(larger exducer) has a higher exit velocity which increases the manifold pressure resulting in an increase in power.

This is one example, but we have seen this concept repeat in many instances over a wide variety of turbocharger applications, the caveat being there is sufficient turbine power to run the increase in exducer sizing.

 

[Smokem]

Here you will see the line data from a back to back comparison of two turbine housings on the same turbocharger, as you can clearly see the larger turbine housing has a slight advantage in power above 3500RPM, but as we pulled the engine lower the smaller turbine housing had the advantage.

Again referring to turbine housing sizing regarding street applications, the smaller available housings will most always produce more power through the major power band desired by a customer using it as such.

 

[Smokem]

The chart below shows drive pressure comparisons of varying turbocharger models with very similar compressor options, with a 3mm inducer advantage actually in favor of the GT50 and S500. The power is in order designated by the key on the right side of the graph ie; top=highest bottom=lowest.

This shows there is no real clear relationship with lower drive pressure creating more power, and we later dynoed the GT50 with a smaller T6 0.96AR housing and saw an increase in power, however the S400 with a T6 1.10AR virtually showed no power gain.

Now there is far more to take away from what is being shown here, but these examples do show instances that are by the vast majority common to diesel applications.

 

[MAXX IT OUT]

I can comfortably say the T4 0.83AR turbine housing will respond faster, as well as make a slightly higher hp average through the major part of the power curve, based on several hundred dyno passes over the last few years.

Is this just a swapped turbo's/exhaust housing test on the same engine/tuning? I have been debating trying out a .83 to get a some more low end back for towing. The old S366 are a pain to get back on top of when towing in high gear.

 

[Smokem]

Is this just a swapped turbo's/exhaust housing test on the same engine/tuning? I have been debating trying out a .83 to get a some more low end back for towing. The old S366 are a pain to get back on top of when towing in high gear.

Three turbochargers were tested, no other changes. I removed the label on the orange line because it wasn't pertinent to the posed question. In the test the S467 had a T4 0.90AR turbine housing and the S369 had a T4 0.91AR turbine housing. We also ran each turbo on the street for a comparison, and the results seemed to back up what we saw on the dyno.

 

[MAXX IT OUT]

Three turbochargers were tested, no other changes. I removed the label on the orange line because it wasn't pertinent to the posed question. In the test the S467 had a T4 0.90AR turbine housing and the S369 had a T4 0.91AR turbine housing. We also ran each turbo on the street for a comparison regarding feel from the driver, and the results seemed to back up what we saw on the dyno.

Thank you for the reply. Most people only look at the peaks numbers in power and boost/drive pressure, so its nice to see good meaningful data to help fill out the rest of the puzzle.

 

[Broaner]

Nice graphs Smokem! Thanks

 

[blackmega3500]

Here you will see the line data from a back to back comparison of two turbine housings on the same turbocharger, as you can clearly see the larger turbine housing has a slight advantage in power above 3500RPM, but as we pulled the engine lower the smaller turbine housing had the advantage.

Again referring to turbine housing sizing regarding street applications, the smaller available housings will most always produce more power through the major power band desired by a customer using it as such.

Your graph is saying the literal exact same thing I said the whole time....

I said from the beginning the 1.0 could be difficult to stay on top of, but had more peak potential.... as the 27mm graph start shows. The 27mm clearly has room to grow fueling at the peak power on the graph based on your supplied graph so the smaller housing matches "THAT CUSTOMERS INDIVIDUAL SETUP" better!!

From a drive pressure difference on the SXE in lower rpms with the 1.0 boost will likely always stay above drive at normal cruise.

This was never about average power across the board..... the Op was looking at .91 vs. 1.0 experience comparisons. The 1.0 will deliver "safer" relative power, just a bit later in the band. It'll spool and clean quick, loosing heat and drive pressure until recovered in the rpm!

 

[Smokem]

It's really hard to take you serious when you clearly cannot differentiate between cm and mm and still continue to spell lose improperly.

I said from the beginning the 1.0 could be difficult to stay on top of, but had more peak potential.... as the 27mm graph start shows. The 27mm clearly has room to grow fueling at the peak power on the graph based on your supplied graph so the smaller housing matches "THAT CUSTOMERS INDIVIDUAL SETUP" better!!

In the graph the obvious highest peak number came from the 25cm housing, not the 27cm housing, the power differential slightly increased further as we pulled the engine below 3400RPM. Also there is no room to grow as increasing the amount of fuel lost power. A larger turbine housing generally moves power up in RPM, but this does not mean the peak value will be higher, as often the opposite is true.

Your argument here is a clear indication that you misinterpret what you see from the data posted to support your opinion whether valid or not. It's actually surprising to see that you think this is going well for you.

 

[blackmega3500]

It's really hard to take you serious when you clearly cannot differentiate between cm and mm and still continue to spell lose improperly.



In the graph the obvious highest peak number came from the 25cm housing, not the 27cm housing, the power differential slightly increased further as we pulled the engine below 3400RPM. Also there is no room to grow as increasing the amount of fuel lost power. A larger turbine housing generally moves power up in RPM, but this does not mean the peak value will be higher, as often the opposite is true.

Your argument here is a clear indication that you misinterpret what you see from the data posted to support your opinion whether valid or not. It's actually surprising to see that you think this is going well for you.

:doh::hehe::kick:

Dude get off your dick stick high horse.

The fact your using a dinosaur to attempt to back your "data" in this circumstance is hilarious.

You keep thinking I care regarding your text edits, when you present slap stick excel based graphs! Going back and editing isn't worth it, especially when it's more enjoyable to watch you knick-pit! Go put away your participation trophies as they're clearly blinding your judgement.

You act like the kid in the class room always trying to prove your right through a certain method, and argue with others who find a more efficient means of solving the answer and do so faster without the daze.....

Typical engineers though..... did it take a whole collective think tank to make those excel sheets?

Maybe you should go back to page one on this thread and educate yourself on the users goal.

You've proved nothing except your a smug ignorant bean counter that in your own words took the trucks to the street and they "felt" as XYZ.

Keep trying to pat yourself on the back amigo, you got a ways to go!

I'm just sitting here enjoying the show and tell time! What's next? A puppet show? Dress-up? Karaoke? Maybe a dance number?..... I'm excited! :snoop:

 

[zfaylor]

I hope you aren't referring to the HX60 as a dinosaur.

 

[blackmega3500]

I hope you aren't referring to the HX60 as a dinosaur.

No, but I think it's safe to say a street truck vs puller is apple's to oranges.