Triple turbos.....Lets discuss.

DP had an article on it. Nothing much different than that pic greg posted. Just change the piping around for packaging reasons.

Keating would be the man to talk too about this.
 
John-I'm sure Zane at Wide Open would love to talk to you about triples. This first kit they put together were spec'd to support that kind of horsepower and they spool like a stock turbo would.

Just got back from the NHRDA race in Boise, towed the dragster up and back with the triple turbo truck. That thing is a towing monster!
 
I think a sequential turbo system like the one that's on the BMW 335d would work too. Never driven anything like it. Small turbo is fully spooled at about 1,500 rpm, and the large turbo kicks in at 2,200, the small turbo is bypassed completley at about 2,500 rpm, and the large turbo carries on till about 4,700 rpm when it defuels. Car made 421 rwtq at 1738 rpm out of 3.0L!!
 
John why not just try twins first. Spooling a huge single is a pita for sure, dont see why you couldnt get everything you'd want from a well sized pair of chargers.... except the -look- of triples. Quickest Cummins on the planet still runs a set of twins......
 
like rockinjw said call up zane at WOP, there triple turbo cummins looks sick and looks very clean under the hood i wish i could tell you how it drives hahaha.
 
John Robinson said:
I dont fully understand this set up. Are all three chargers pushing air directley into the intake?
Click to expand...

no, you have one small charger being pulsed by a divided manifold and all 6 exhaust ports... just like we're all used to. vs. two REALLY small chargers only being hit with 3 pulses which would suck for spool-up.

then, instead of one larger charger, you feed the small charger with two chargers... it's a compound setup just like we're used to, but the primary stage is twins instead of a single
 
JQmile said:
I think a sequential turbo system like the one that's on the BMW 335d would work too. Never driven anything like it. Small turbo is fully spooled at about 1,500 rpm, and the large turbo kicks in at 2,200, the small turbo is bypassed completley at about 2,500 rpm, and the large turbo carries on till about 4,700 rpm when it defuels. Car made 421 rwtq at 1738 rpm out of 3.0L!!
Click to expand...

I think the complexity of that setup, the dead weight of the bypassed charger, and the fact that your'e still left with a single stage of compression kinda throws it out the window for this application IMO
 
I think it would help if people could just use the terminology, "First Stage" and "Second Stage", instead of this bs "primary", "secondary" crap. Half the people are referring to "primary" as the first one to take in atmo (First stage of compression) while the other half are referring to "primary" as being the first one to receive exhaust gas, and the first one to spool...

You can't have a conversation if you aren't speaking the same language.

What we have here is staged compression. And as such, to intelligently speak about it you should be using those very stages for your numbering system. First stage compressor and second stage compressor. Or in this case, first stage compressors.


To the OP...

Three turbochargers configured this way is no different than any other compound setup in terms of sizing. Why? Because you still only have two stages. The only thing changed is that you substitute two smaller (cheaper, readily available) chargers in place of one large/expensive charger for your first stage. Which means little more than sizing the first stage the same as before, and then merely halving that flow requirement and sourcing two appropriately sized chargers for that demand.

$0.02
 
uhh... what do you think "primary" and "secondary" mean? :confused: you know... as in "first" and "second"??? :confused:

retards are going to be retards, so if you say "first stage" and "second stage", they're still going to think backwards.

but thanks for trying to dumb it down for everyone oh great one! :rolleyes:

Charles said:
I think it would help if people could just use the terminology, "First Stage" and "Second Stage", instead of this bs "primary", "secondary" crap. Half the people are referring to "primary" as the first one to take in atmo (First stage of compression) while the other half are referring to "primary" as being the first one to receive exhaust gas, and the first one to spool...

You can't have a conversation if you aren't speaking the same language.

What we have here is staged compression. And as such, to intelligently speak about it you should be using those very stages for your numbering system. First stage compressor and second stage compressor. Or in this case, first stage compressors.


To the OP...

Three turbochargers configured this way is no different than any other compound setup in terms of sizing. Why? Because you still only have two stages. The only thing changed is that you substitute two smaller (cheaper, readily available) chargers in place of one large/expensive charger for your first stage. Which means little more than sizing the first stage the same as before, and then merely halving that flow requirement and sourcing two appropriately sized chargers for that demand.

$0.02
Click to expand...
 
Triples have been done two ways in tractor pulling first is two feeding one which is two atmospheric chargers feeding a manifold charger and second is one feeding one feeding one which is just what it sounds like. John maybe two s400's feeding an s300 on the manifold with some serious drive pressure regulation. But I'm sure keating will have some better ideas than me so give him a call.
 
Forrest Nearing said:
uhh... what do you think "primary" and "secondary" mean? :confused: you know... as in "first" and "second"??? :confused:

retards are going to be retards, so if you say "first stage" and "second stage", they're still going to think backwards.

but thanks for trying to dumb it down for everyone oh great one! :rolleyes:
Click to expand...



If it's so intuitive.... why does it get fuked up over and over again with people trying to use your perferred bs terminology then?

A standard was needed. Period.

The correct terminology is to number your stages of compression. Precisely as would be done in any other form of compression such as when numbering stages of compression on a gas turbine engine for example.

In this very thread you have some people referring to "primary" as the first stage (atmospheric if you wish) charger, while you have others using the SAME term to refer to the turbo that you "primarily" drive around on. The second stage. They call it the "primary" because it's what you're driving on except when at higher power outputs when the "secondary" turbo starts to light...

Your chosen terminology of "Primary" and "Secondary" is obviously working well then wouldn't you say?

LOL




Use the correct terms and you can get somewhere. Or don't.... and continue to waste bandwidth talking in circles with one another like idiots.


To reitterate....

You are dealing with STAGES of compression. The MOST logical description for these is to number them from start to finish, with atmospheric being the start. That is NOT something that can be f'ed up as with your chosen terms. There is only ONE first stage. And any subsequent stages after that are numbered accordingly.

If people used a good, well working standard such as that, then well developed intelligent conversations could follow. If people continue on talking about different things while using the SAME word, then they can just keep talking in circles chasing each others tails.
 
Last edited:
I don't give a rats as if you use "thingy no 1" and "thingy no. 2". this thread will not be a place to show how intellectual you are.:stab: If you have info that will help with what John is trying to accomplish, other than a lesson in grammar, spelling, or the dynamics of the communication circle, post it up. If you don't, see your way out of the thread. Keep it on topic please.
 
Forrest Nearing said:
no, you have one small charger being pulsed by a divided manifold and all 6 exhaust ports... just like we're all used to. vs. two REALLY small chargers only being hit with 3 pulses which would suck for spool-up.

then, instead of one larger charger, you feed the small charger with two chargers... it's a compound setup just like we're used to, but the primary stage is twins instead of a single
Click to expand...

Thanks Forrest. I now understand
 
When choosing between single or twin turbo primary stage options, plot the inertia vs. CFM curves for compressors & turbines (include housing AR choices) to find the application's sweet spot(s) of intersection... out of those results, filter for packaging, availability & cost.

Compressor maps & major diameters are a fast & dirty shortcut. :Cheer:

You're searching for the lowest inertia & drag combos that will efficiently flow the engine's expected maximum requirements.
 
Last edited:
I have the chargers on the way to make a dual primary/first stage, single secondary/second stage setup using 3 S471's. Drag race 1/2 ton project...I'm doing it for cost, as I think I can do this for 1/2 of what it would cost to go with a 3.6"+ primary and a 2.8" secondary.

Truck won't be done until next year though...still waiting on chassis parts for the 3rd month now:(
Chris
 
Charles said:
Three turbochargers configured this way is no different than any other compound setup in terms of sizing. Why? Because you still only have two stages. The only thing changed is that you substitute two smaller (cheaper, readily available) chargers in place of one large/expensive charger for your first stage. Which means little more than sizing the first stage the same as before, and then merely halving that flow requirement and sourcing two appropriately sized chargers for that demand.

$0.02
Click to expand...


Wrong. The primaries dont have to be the same size. That gives them a distinct advantage over a traditional 2 charger setup.
 
John maybe two s400's feeding an s300 on the manifold with some serious drive pressure regulation. But I'm sure keating will have some better ideas than me so give him a call.
Click to expand...

Exactally what I have been thinking about, 400's are a little tight for room on my truck keep everything intact.

Jim
 
Dalpilot said:
I don't give a rats as if you use "thingy no 1" and "thingy no. 2". this thread will not be a place to show how intellectual you are.:stab: If you have info that will help with what John is trying to accomplish, other than a lesson in grammar, spelling, or the dynamics of the communication circle, post it up. If you don't, see your way out of the thread. Keep it on topic please.
Click to expand...


Seriously? Are you all such pretentious bastards that you cannot have someone note a SERIOUS problem, and offer a SERIOUS solution without losing all class and making light of the issue?

There is nothing "Intellectual" about it. Far from it actually. If people are using the same term to describe TOTALLY OPPOSITE things then you have a BIG problem in a "discussion".

From the FIRST page of this thread:

Examples where the usage denotes "Primary" as the turbo you primarily drive around on...

COMP461 said:
looks like you using two small chargers as the small primary chargers and one big charger as the atmosphere charger. This still causes you to have to get on top of the big charger .
The advantage of using a triply charger deal is to have three small chargers with the one primary charger and two atmosphere chargers . The two smaller chargers will more as much air as one big chargers and have considerable less mass in relation to their capacity .
Shane at Industrial injection and I discussed this and he did his home work with with Borg Warner a while back, and the consensus would be to run a small S300 such as a 64 and then two other 64, as the atmosphere chargers , the key to this would be extensive wastegate control . This would be to quickly redirect the exuast gas flow around the primary charger as quick as it got to a sweet spot on its map .
Click to expand...

Yet another with the same notion...

JQmile said:
I also actually agree with Greg on the setup of things....use one on the manifold as the primary, and two as secondaries.
Click to expand...



You'll have to excuse my ignorance then, because apparently it is FUKING OBVIOUS that "Primary" means first stage and "Secondary" means second stage..... except that HALF the MF'ers in the thread are discussing this under the EXACT OPPOSITE ASSUMPTION!!!

I can't believe how stupid people get. Using whatever term you want is fine..... EXCEPT when it's NOT intuitive as is PLAINLY the case here being that the term is being used in 100% OPPOSING ways multiple times in this thread. Using those terms is NOT stupid. Denying the fact that they are being misused IS!!! Very much so! I suggested "First Stage" and "Second Stage" because they ARE intuitive, in that the word STAGE makes DIRECT reference to STAGES OF COMPRESSION. And that terminology also happens to be the INDUSTRY STANDARD for describing staged compression...

Have a nice thread.... or two. Being that there are apparenty two threads working at once here. One where Primary means first stage, and one where it means second.....

:smirk:



To the OP, best of luck weeding through the descriptions where you have to read 75% of the post before you know which way they are using those terms... Especially hard for anyone that isn't well-versed in turbocharging in the first place.

I hope you get a good game plan worked out, because I do enjoy watching that thing run down the track (if it's the car you are gathering this info for). Sorry that my intention of setting a level playing field for discussion ended up turning a portion of your thread into a pile of crap because these people don't want to take the time to build a discussion on top of a sound foundation of verbage, but instead just want to keep shooting from the hip with terms that everone constantly mixes up.

Best of Luck to you.
 
Last edited:
have you heard about the new 6.7 ford it has 2 compressor wheels in 1 turbo i like the idea behind it may be a idea to try with 2 or 3 all working together instead of 1 feeding another?

but i don't know $hit bout turbos?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top