best Turbo - page 3 - IDI Engine - VWDiesel.net The IDI, TDI, and mTDI source.

• #30 by malone on 16 Nov, 2005 09:38
• Quote from: "VWRacer"

  And a T3-50 isn't going to make 200 whp on a diesel...ever! Maybe 150 if you rev the snot out of it.

  
  
  I currently run the GT20 turbo on my 1.6L. Some pics below including a compressor map:
  
  
  
  A/R .53
  
  
  
  
  Mirror: http://not2fast.wryday.com/turbo/maps/GT20compress.jpg
  
  Chances are good I'm making at least 150whp now. I pulled on a stock 12v VR6 that puts down approx. 155whp (172bhp). My Gtech results were 140 to 142 net hp. A 12v VR6 reported 130-133 net hp consistently on my GTech. I've only Gteched one VR6 though.
  
  I'm still not intercooled (yet). There is zero grey/black exhaust smoke from idle to redline with the power setting that reported ~132 net hp on my Gtech (before my fuel screw was turned up). Yes, zero exhaust smoke.
  
  I may be able to retain zero smoke and keep 140 net hp (peak) if I adjust my LDA to avoid overfueling below 3,200 RPM. I'm still underfueled by the 140 Gtech hp peak (approx. 160whp), so with intercooling & more fuel there's still more potential. My exhaust ports hasn't been ported & polished yet either, and the consensus here (incl. word from Dr. Diesel) is that the 1.9 exhaust ports are poorer in design than the 1.6's exhaust ports.
  
  The reason why I decided to use the GT20 turbo is because it has been sitting unused on my shelf for a long time.. just a temporary solution before the next turbo upgrade.
  
  The GT20 holds 8.5 PSI cruising at 3,000 RPM in 5th gear. While in neutral and quickly blipping (not holding) the throttle to 4,500 RPM, boost jumps to 15 PSI. That's even with a 6lb lightened flywheel. I will take a video of that and post it in my relevant thread.
  
  Is 200whp far fetched in my stock-blocked 1.6L and mildly worked 1.9 head with the next turbo upgrade, intercooling, Passenger's new Stage 2/3 camshaft, and a bump in fueling? We'll see. I'm currently using OEM injectors and my injection pump head is still only 9mm.
  
  

  Quote

  barely drivable pig at normal speeds and RPMs

  
  
  You may want to take a look at my Gtech results with the LDA disabled. Right off idle it outperforms a stock and mildly tuned 1.6TD. It still won't smoke with a larger turbo not boosting until 3,500 RPM or so. I know from practical experience; I drove a bone stock 1.6TD longblock with GTD injectors, the same pump, and a T3 with a stuck wastegate with no boost at all below 3,500 RPM. There was virtually no smoke (I think none, but I can't remember now) and it still performed better in all RPM range than my old 90HP 1.8L 8v gas engine.
  
  If I'm going to blast a little smoke at 200whp that's still not a problem because I'm confident it will remain smoke-free during daily driving (I drive approx. 700km or 434 miles a week).
• #31 by 935racer on 16 Nov, 2005 09:51
• "Disengagement from practise creates theoretical hallucinations".
  You can crunch all the #'s you want and in theory the gt20 that is on malones car right now you would is a poor turbo to make 150whp, but it does.
• #32 by vwmike on 16 Nov, 2005 10:25
• Quote from: "935racer"

  "Disengagement from practise creates theoretical hallucinations".
  You can crunch all the #'s you want and in theory the gt20 that is on malones car right now you would is a poor turbo to make 150whp, but it does.

  
  
  There is what will work, and then there is what will work best.
  
  People have a problem with VNT turbos on TDI's where they go past their surge limit and eventually come apart. It may not happen in a week or a year but you're not exempt from turbo failure if you run it out of it's efficiency range. Increased intake tract heat is also something to consider.
• #33 by malone on 16 Nov, 2005 10:48
• Quote from: "vwmike"

  Quote from: "935racer"

  "Disengagement from practise creates theoretical hallucinations".
  You can crunch all the #'s you want and in theory the gt20 that is on malones car right now you would is a poor turbo to make 150whp, but it does.

  
  
  There is what will work, and then there is what will work best.

  
  
  Hence the reason for the GT20 being temporary. Actually, the GT20 turbo is from Upsolute's official Stage 3 kit (150hp) for 1.9 TDIs and there were no efficiency issues reported. I'm starting to question your accuracy in interpreting compressor maps. No worries, theories are not always 100% correct.
  
  Regardless, theory is useless without practice, we'll find out how this T3/T4 performs. IIRC it started as a T3 off an old Merc engine. I'll learn from the turbo and perhaps calculate & obtain a more suitable turbo next. It's uncommon for guys w/ unique performance engines to pick a turbo based on compressor maps alone only once and the turbo ends up being perfect. An exception is the ABA, 16v, and VR6 guys who simply choose turbos based off each other's existing successes.
  
  Getting back on topic: For stock to mild TDs would a ball-bearing centre section upgrade in a K14 or K24 be the way to go? Jake? Just a thought.
• #34 by 935racer on 16 Nov, 2005 10:53
• VNT turbos are another ball game all together. They tend to blow up in surge more than what our turbos do, for what reason I am not sure. Go to the hardcore forums on vwsport.com and look at some of the turbos they are running, they are huge and obviously in surge but they make huge power. Like dvst8r said earlier this is just a cheap alternative for right now because mark just spent a wack of cash getting this engine built and probably doesn't want to kiss a few more grand away in a compound setup, well it would  be more than that cause we would likely need custom rods and stuff but yeah. Really for a single turbo on this engine I would probably run some sort of GT25 ball bearing turbo, if money wasn't an issue.
• #35 by vwmike on 16 Nov, 2005 11:05
• Quote from: "malone"

  I'm starting to question your accuracy in interpreting compressor maps. No worries, theories are not always 100% correct.
  .

  
  
  I used to run the numbers the old fashioned way, but now I just go here: http://www.not2fast.com/turbo/glossary/turbo_calc.shtml
  
  Run the numbers yourself. I still don't think you're going to wish the T4 into being efficient.
  
  I've been on the hardcore forums since it was on Network 54 although I don't post much there anymore. I know all too well what turbos they run. The big difference is that they don't generally need as much boost on their gas engines and they also need it at a higher RPM. If they did need the same amount of boost it would be much later so you are comparing apples and oranges.
• #36 by fspGTD on 16 Nov, 2005 11:19
• QuickTD: sticks in my mind that the turbine A/R of a 1.6lTD Garrett is .36, although I should double check by looking at mine while it's unbolted from the exhaust manifold on my GTD autocrosser.
  
  Mark: Ball bearings aren't a viable performance upgrade for a turbo that is already designed and manufactured with journal bearings, IMO.  A turbo would pretty much need to be completely redesigned with tighter wheel to housing tolerances to take advantage of the benefits provided by ball bearings, which is: a more rigidly held rotating assembly, not less rotating friction compared to journal bearings lubricated by a pressurized film of oil IMO.
• #37 by DVST8R on 16 Nov, 2005 11:28
• Quote from: "VWRacer"

  I don't think "200whp is gonna be nothing" with a single turbo on a mechanically injected engine, even if it isn't really a 'daily driver'. I took the liberty of using vwmike's numbers on the T3-50 map you posted. As you can see, even this 'smallish' turbo has horrible efficiency...barely 65%.
  
  
  
  And a T3-50 isn't going to make 200 whp on a diesel...ever! Maybe 150 if you rev the snot out of it. As is pointed out above, it is hard to beat the efficiency of the stock turbo, so I suggest using it as the first stage of a sequential turbo setup, with a somewhat bigger turbo as the second stage. Maybe a used one off a 12-valve Dodge Ram Cummins, or a Big 16G off a Mitsu Evo or other 4g63 engine if you want to keep it cheap.
  
  That way you can flow all the air you need with reasonable efficiency from a bit off idle to 6500+ RPMs without having a smoke-puking, barely drivable pig at normal speeds and RPMs.

  
  
  If you will note I said with that 50trim t3 you would either have to run slightly less boost like 2-3psi, and that would put it into the 70% realm, which I consider decnet efficiancy for an old style T series turbo, or someone could have it modified by a turbo company like ADP or someone similar, my past experiance is that a good turbo facility can move a map a couple of points in any direction if you have a specific need. I still think that this would be a good **cheap** upgrade to a well modified 1.6TD.
  
  Next that is a T3 50 trim map, The turbo we are going to use for 200whp is a T4OE 50 trim, compressor with a .48 T3 turbine. Not the T3 50 trim wheel, sorry if I was unclear in my last post. :oops:
• #38 by DVST8R on 16 Nov, 2005 11:36
• Quote from: "vwmike"

  Quote from: "malone"

  I'm starting to question your accuracy in interpreting compressor maps. No worries, theories are not always 100% correct.
  .

  
  
  I used to run the numbers the old fashioned way, but now I just go here: http://www.not2fast.com/turbo/glossary/turbo_calc.shtml
  
  Run the numbers yourself. I still don't think you're going to wish the T4 into being efficient.
  
  I've been on the hardcore forums since it was on Network 54 although I don't post much there anymore. I know all too well what turbos they run. The big difference is that they don't generally need as much boost on their gas engines and they also need it at a higher RPM. If they did need the same amount of boost it would be much later so you are comparing apples and oranges.

  
  
  Your right we are not going to wish it into being efficiant, however we will rev it there  :lol:
  
  As I said before this is not a perfect single, but I think it will accomplish what we need it too. If money was no object there are hundreds of other turbos I would run, or combinations, but thats not what we are working with and this is what I can do. There is a possiblity of using a holset HX35 compressor, with the T3. 48 hot side. I would prefer this but it would likely cost more. Holset compressors are far more durable, and have better map characteristics then T4's in this aplication but, we have what we have so that is what we will run.  :wink:
• #39 by vwmike on 16 Nov, 2005 11:47
• Quote from: "DVST8R"

  
  Next that is a T3 50 trim map, The turbo we are going to use for 200whp is a T4OE 50 trim, compressor with a .48 T3 turbine. Not the T3 50 trim wheel, sorry if I was unclear in my last post. :oops:

  
  
  You guys really ought to figure out what you're doing because this was posted on the last page.
  
  

  Quote from: "935racer"

  
  The to4e50 likely will not be the t3 t4 combo we use, also we are using a .48 turbine side instead of a .38.

  
  
  I'm not really sure what it is, but I've tried to explain this over and over and I guess somehow I'm just not getting through.
  
  The T4 is not what you want - It isn't even close to efficient. I know all the cool guys over on the hardcore forums are doing it, but that doesn't mean it's the right choice on a 1.6 diesel.
• #40 by vwmike on 16 Nov, 2005 11:48
• Do you know where to find Holset maps? I was looking for them not too long back.
• #41 by VWRacer on 16 Nov, 2005 11:56
• Please don't take my comments out of context, 935racer. I am not some troll from the vortex baiting you with assinine comments. I've engineered two national road racing championships in the past 3 years (Formula Altantic in 2003 and C-Sport Racer in 2005), so I know something about making engines (and cars) go fast.
  
  The bottom line is that the numbers don't lie. Take a look at vwmike's figures...at 4500 RPMs you need 22 lbs/min of air at a pressure ratio of 3.1. The TO4E's maximum allowable pressure ratio is only about 2.4 at that air flow. Go above that and you will exceed the turbo's surge limit. The T3-50 is a better choice, but as you can see from the graph you aren't pulling anywhere near the RPMs required to get that one into a reasonable efficiency.
  
  For both 935racer and Mark Malone (and please don't take these comments as negative), I think your G-Techs are giving you bogus numbers. That's because the G-Tech computer program is based on a normally aspirated engine - and a gasoline one at that! A turbocharged diesel is going to give the G-Tech fits, so it is really only good for measuring relative improvement; the change in performance after you make a change to the car. You can't reliably read horsepower from it. To get reliable numbers you will need a good engine or chassis dyno. So my advice is stop talking about horsepower - you can't get any reliable numbers for it so you're only fooling yourselves (and your customers) to even bring up a specific number.
  
  Mark, you can't directly compare your engine's hp to your friend's VR6. That's because the two engines have completely different performance characteristics. You are pulling him because your TD is making massive torque across a wide RPM range, whereas his engine makes relatively low torque and has to be wound to the sky to make hp. If your G-Tech says you're getting 140 hp at 4500 RPM from the car's actual acceleration, we can solve for your engine's corrected torque by using the standard horsepower equation: HP = (Torque*RPM)/5252.
  
  Using a little middle school algebra, we can solve for torque: T = (HP*5252)/RPM
  
  In your case, that's (140*5252)/4500 = 163 lbs-ft of torque at 4500 RPMs.
  
  A 1999-2003 1.9l TDI makes a dyno-verified corrected 90 hp and 155 lbs-ft, so from that I'd say you're making a corrected horsepower of about 100 hp. Not bad, but do you really think you can double that from where your engine is now? I don't know, but I don't believe you can with one turbo.
  
  In the end, to make the magic 200 hp from a 1.6TD, I believe we're going to have to add another turbo, especially if we want a drivable car, as well.
• #42 by greggearhead on 16 Nov, 2005 12:05
• Quote from: "malone"

  My exhaust ports hasn't been ported & polished yet either, and the consensus here (incl. word from Dr. Diesel) is that the 1.9 exhaust ports are poorer in design than the 1.6's exhaust ports.
  

  
  
  Can you elaborate on this?  Size, shape, bias, contour etc- what is the biggest discrepancy?  
  
  Thanks.  Not to threadjack - if it isn't approp to respond here feel free to pm.
• #43 by DVST8R on 16 Nov, 2005 12:10
• Quote from: "vwmike"

  Quote from: "DVST8R"

  
  Next that is a T3 50 trim map, The turbo we are going to use for 200whp is a T4OE 50 trim, compressor with a .48 T3 turbine. Not the T3 50 trim wheel, sorry if I was unclear in my last post. :oops:

  
  
  You guys really ought to figure out what you're doing because this was posted on the last page.
  
  

  Quote from: "935racer"

  
  The to4e50 likely will not be the t3 t4 combo we use, also we are using a .48 turbine side instead of a .38.

  
  
  I'm not really sure what it is, but I've tried to explain this over and over and I guess somehow I'm just not getting through.
  
  The T4 is not what you want - It isn't even close to efficient. I know all the cool guys over on the hardcore forums are doing it, but that doesn't mean it's the right choice on a 1.6 diesel.

  
  
  Okay first things first: I have never had the intention of running a T3-50trim I posted it on the last page as an example of somthing that could either be modified or used with slightly less boost for the point that you had picked on a compressor map to represent a 1.6TD, it was there just for information incase someone with a modified 1.6TD had run out of room with there stock garrett and wanted a cheap upgrade.
  
  

  Quote from: "935racer"

  
  The to4e50 likely will not be the t3 t4 combo we use, also we are using a .48 turbine side instead of a .38.

  
  I am not at the shop on a daily or hardly even weekly basis anymore I am moving to Prince George, BC this saturday, so if they are jumping around on what compressor they are actually going to run I am obviouly not it the loop. :roll:
  

  Quote from: "vwmike"

  
  I'm not really sure what it is, but I've tried to explain this over and over and I guess somehow I'm just not getting through.
  
  The T4 is not what you want - It isn't even close to efficient. I know all the cool guys over on the hardcore forums are doing it, but that doesn't mean it's the right choice on a 1.6 diesel.

  
  
  I don't know anyone on the Hardcore forum running a TO4E 50trim with a .48 T3 Turbine, most people running that big of a compressor run a .63 or .82 or a full T4.
  
  I agreee 100% The T4 is not what you want on a 1.6 diesel, however we are back to comparing apples to oranges becuase the motor that it is going on isnt anywhere close to a normal 1.6 diesel. Dave was wrong to post way back about this turbo with a cam would be a have your cake and eat it too , event. It is not nor is it intended for general public consumtion. This topic started out as "the best turbo" this is not it, but I will have to wait for the actual dyno test to prove my thoery.
• #44 by DVST8R on 16 Nov, 2005 12:11
• Quote from: "vwmike"

  Do you know where to find Holset maps? I was looking for them not too long back.

  
  
  Yes.
  
  They are not online. PM me and I will get you the info.