VWDiesel.net The IDI, TDI, and mTDI source.
Engine Specific Info and Questions => IDI Engine => Topic started by: T-hane on November 12, 2005, 05:03:51 pm
-
What is the best turbo to put on a 1.6 that is a direct bolt on and will see good all around results
-
for boosts less than 10 psi, i'd say one of the smaller units from a 1.9L. for higher boosts, i'd vote on a k24.
-
I would like to run as much boost as i can with-out an inter cooler what kind of boost can you make with the k24
-
You can run 35psi with a k24 but its effeciency drops off around 22 or something, I haven't seen a map for one of those in a long time. I would run the k24 with a 2.5" dp and mandrel bent exhaust all the way back.
-
DON"T run high boost without an intercooler for long periods of time. I pulled apart my td after running it for a while at 20 psi without an intercooler and you can see that the piston got hot enough to distort. I would run like 12 psi max on a k24 without an intercooler. And also i believe the K24 looses most of its efficiency at 18 psi and the garret is 23psi. Not sur about the smaller turbos but they sure are fun for out of the hole boosting :)
-
So do you think that you will stick with the K24
-
This is why you ned an EGT gauge, don't even start tuning your diesel with out one, you can run 20 psi non intercooled just fine just make sure your egts are in check. However getting an intercooler will make a world of differnce in dropping your EGT's which means you can add more fuel :twisted:
-
are the 8v turbo manifolds a direct bolt on for the 1.6
-
Yes they bolt on but there are many differnt styles so you need to be a little more specific. Some of them create turbo to firewall clearance issues. Some 8v manifolds also have differnt turbo flanges on them as well.
-
I second that ... EGT gauge pre turbo is amust on any turbo diesel.... heck i ran 35psi on my old kkk24 and 12mm pump egts never got out of hand if they started to get hot i would let off...don't remove the oil cooler and run a turbo diesel though the oil temp is very very high with out as the oil squirters and the turbo drain..raise the temp ALOT with out a oil cooler..i tryed that years ago...ha..you could watch it climb close to 300 degrees like a snap of the fingers and it takes a long time for the oil to cool..haha
get gausges as soon as you buy a turbo diesel..its mandatory ..check egts while driving and to let the turbo cool down when shutting down the engine...
later
Deo
\x/ Hillfolk!
-
what would be the best manifold and turbo too upgrade from the k24 with inner cooler and plans to use the 1.9 head in the future. And with nothing too crazy either like a turbo off a cummins.
-
There aren't any performance manifolds to get at this time for these engine a ported cast one does the trick, for an upgraded turbo I would go t3/t4.
-
There aren't any performance manifolds to get at this time for these engine a ported cast one does the trick, for an upgraded turbo I would go t3/t4.
What T3/T4 have you been eyeballing? I haven't found any that would produce the kind of boost required without going past the surge limit. Are there some maps out there I haven't found? :D
-
What trim of a t-3 turbo and dose this bolt to the stock manifold
-
I am thinking about using a .48 trim t3 from a mb turbo diesel and putting a t04e50 compressor side on it. I am still exploring my options though Gonna put one ogether for malone to get some big #'s. The .48 mb housing just needs an adaptor for the manifold you could make a small t3 t4 using the stock garret t3.
-
What sort of boost level are you looking for and at what RPM?
-
as of now i dont need much boost but i would like too run lots of boost in the future. I would like to do my turbo setup now and run minimal boost untill the major engine work comes. As i said before i want a good all around turbo.
-
Get garret t3, the stock one for the 1.6's and get a t4 compressor wheel and housing, there are a million sizes to choose from. Than get one of my custom cams to help it spool up faster. Than grab that fork cause you are gonna eat that cake!
-
Get garret t3, the stock one for the 1.6's and get a t4 compressor wheel and housing, there are a million sizes to choose from. Than get one of my custom cams to help it spool up faster. Than grab that fork cause you are gonna eat that cake!
Upgrading your turbo ususally means that you want to run more boost. So, these calculations are done assuming 30 PSI, 85% VE, 1.6L and 4500 RPM.
Here is the T04E50 compressor you were looking at:
(http://www.tdtuning.com/pictures/compressors/t4e50.jpg)
As you can see it is way past the surge limit and very inefficient. You would have to rev the engine to 8500 RPM to get good efficiency out of this turbo.
Here is a T3 with a 45 trim compressor:
(http://www.tdtuning.com/pictures/compressors/t345.jpg)
It's still way out of the efficiency range.
Bottom line here is that I've looked at every compressor map I've come across and not found a single one which could produce more boost pressure than the stock turbo with any sort of efficiency. There are a few ways around this, but none are as easy as a compressor swap would be.
-
The stock garret and kkk turbos are great for decent performance the performaance cam is adeffinately a bolt on in my opinion, it requires no mods and can be installed in under an hour and increases spool up and decreases egts. What more could you want :D
The to4e50 likely will not be the t3 t4 combo we use, also we are using a .48 turbine side instead of a .38.
-
The to4e50 likely will not be the t3 t4 combo we use, also we are using a .48 turbine side instead of a .38.
The point is that I've looked at every T4 I could find and none are efficient in this application. It was past the surge limit on every single one. A T4 compressor is just not the right one to use in a single turbo setup.
-
Get garret t3, the stock one for the 1.6's and get a t4 compressor wheel and housing, there are a million sizes to choose from. Than get one of my custom cams to help it spool up faster. Than grab that fork cause you are gonna eat that cake!
Upgrading your turbo ususally means that you want to run more boost. So, these calculations are done assuming 30 PSI, 85% VE, 1.6L and 4500 RPM.
Here is the T04E50 compressor you were looking at:
(http://www.tdtuning.com/pictures/compressors/t4e50.jpg)
As you can see it is way past the surge limit and very inefficient. You would have to rev the engine to 8500 RPM to get good efficiency out of this turbo.
Here is a T3 with a 45 trim compressor:
(http://www.tdtuning.com/pictures/compressors/t345.jpg)
It's still way out of the efficiency range.
Bottom line here is that I've looked at every compressor map I've come across and not found a single one which could produce more boost pressure than the stock turbo with any sort of efficiency. There are a few ways around this, but none are as easy as a compressor swap would be.
Try a T3 50 trim :wink: (sorry I don't have the red dot know how, some one will have to add it for me)
With a bit of customization or just slightly less boost (by someone like adp or a similar turbo shop) it would be a well suited for a "stock-upgraded" 1.6TD wanting to run 30ish psi.
(http://www.turbocharged.com/catalog/compmaps/Fig3.gif)
However with the motor that we plan to run the t04e 50trim wheel on isnt anything close to a stock 1.6 or 1.9, nor is it our goal to be the perfect daily driver turbo. I think dave just got a little excited about our project :D.
The closest I can come to giving some one there cake and eating it too, is they come down to the shop, we sit down with them figureout what there goals are, and then I do the math to find what needs to be done. This for a big power, daily driven 1.6td IMHO would require twins. The best part is it would be easy for the owner, it would just cost some money :P .
I also think that sizing and plumbing twins is easier then the getting a vnt/vvt/vgt turbo to run properly and about the same cost, but once again its just my opinion. Not that its worth much :wink:.
-
What sort of engine is this that you want to run the T4 on?
-
While we're on the subject of turbo's, anybody know what the turbine A/R of the factory garrett T3 is? It's usually cast into the housing on the outside and again on the inside just past the manifold flange. 0.36 is the smallest standard T3 A/R, I'm curious if the 1.6 T3 is a "custom".
-
It is a 1.6/1.9 hybrid, custom intake, FMIC, with raceware studs, mains, extensive head work, timing, fuel, valve train work, a verity of cams all for 6500rpm+ operation. We are shooting for a 200whp initial dyno. Which should be quite feasible provided the pump will move that kind of fuel. It is a Giles Stage 4 pump, that has been turned up. Based on a few hours of research and calculations the t3/t4 hybrid is our best, cheapest bet. We had a freashly rebuilt t3 with a .48 turbine in the shop already, so we are having the t4 compressor wheel added to it for "almost" free. Which is a big concideration at this time as the budget for this build has been reached.
Idealy I wouldnt use any of the old style T-series turbos, it would be a pair of GT ball bearing turbo's or a VNT/VVT/VGT turbo for the small turbo and a large wastegated GT turbo, but that isnt what the budget alows for this time around.
As always these are just my opinions :wink: .
-
The stock turbo has a .36 turbine.
How much boost do you think you'll need to reach your goal?
-
More then we have now :roll:
I don't have the #'s in front of me, and I don't want to get it really wrong but as i recall in the area of 35-37psi and about 500cfm airflow. Now don't go quoting these #'s as I may be out a long ways, but that is what I **think** I remeber. Also it is ok if we over shoot the 200whp :lol: as well I want a turbo that will be capible of more somthing to grow into, again I know this isn't ideal as it doesnt alow for the optimal effciany but with the budget constraint it will do.
-
200whp is gonna be nothing, even though no tdi's in north america have made that much yet. I have some plans for a real moster 1.6, wait, make that a 1.7 :twisted: but thats all I can say for now, its a suprise.
-
200whp is gonna be nothing, even though no tdi's in north america have made that much yet. I have some plans for a real moster 1.6, wait, make that a 1.7 :twisted: but thats all I can say for now, its a suprise.
Well, whatever you do you're going to have to rev the crap out of it if you want to see any efficiency.
-
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%.
(http://home.earthlink.net/~rps1976/Images/Diesel/T3-50%20Trim%20Turbo%20Map.gif)
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.
-
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:
(http://malone.vwmark.com/tdi/up_stg3/gt20_top.jpg)
A/R .53
(http://malone.vwmark.com/tdi/up_stg3/gt20_tag.jpg)
(http://www.no-bling.com/turbomaps/GT20compress.jpg)
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.
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).
-
"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.
-
"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.
-
"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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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%.
(http://home.earthlink.net/~rps1976/Images/Diesel/T3-50%20Trim%20Turbo%20Map.gif)
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:
-
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:
-
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.
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.
-
Do you know where to find Holset maps? I was looking for them not too long back.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
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.
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:
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.
-
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.
-
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.
Yes, they would run a larger turbine to reduce backpressure. They also have much more exhaust heat to spin the turbine and high rpm power levels which depend on reduced backpressure. I run a rediculous turbine on my Rabbit. I don't even get full boost (generally 16-18 psi) until 3rd gear and barely even use the wastegate. I think of it as traction control though. If it fully spooled in 2nd it would just start spinning the tires. It already does that on the freeway if it's wet out.
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.
Unless you plan to rev it extremely high then it is still unlikely that you'd find it to be efficient. A 1.6 is still a 1.6. It still displaces 1.6 liters and if you've accmoplished anything by improving the breathing it would be increased volumetric efficiency and an altered power curve increasing the rev range and upping horsepower due to the increased peak RPM. Even so, I don't think horsepower is going to peak high enough to see benefits from the T4 compressor.
I'm not trying to be insulting here or anything. I just see the numbers and I have to agree with VWRacer. Twins is the only way to go to do what you are trying to do. I've already decided that I'm going to do this myself, but it will take some time to make everything come together.
-
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.
First I have the utmost respect for the accomplishment of the members of this board, many have been racing and building motors since b4 I could walk. I have had my hands on wrench's since I could squeeze my fingers together, and alot of time has been spent in the building of competition pulling tractors. Where I have learned that the best theroies are often wrong when it comes to reality essptially in the world of performance diesel, as there just isnt the time and effort and R&D into this fuel sorce as there is for gasoline. With that being said, I am extatic that this has created enough controversy that it is actulaly being discussed. Let us try and keep it at a disscution where we still "hear" each other and not a argument where its just about being right or wrong.
Here inlies the next problem with the above G-tech. It only has till the wheels start to spin, as well it has not been reved to anywhere near its full potential, the FMIC is not on, and it is still drasticly underfuelled.
So what we are seeing in that G-tech is not anything like the car that we will see when the big turbo goes on and it goes to the dyno. About the only thing that can be taken from that is. This pump when it was on a stock motor created so much fuel "black smoke" that it was almost undrivable, it could easly fill three lanes of trafic with smoke with some mild acceleration. It would also hit EGT's in excess of 1800 degrees within seconds and was the ultimate demise of the stock motor.
With the modified engine still unintercooled, the pump has had to be turned up significantly just to produce a faint haze, as well the EGT's if I am not mistaken will not climb above 1100degrees in any circumstance tried so far. What we are seeing is a Massive increase in airflow, as well as a shift in VE vs RPM as well as a possible increase in VE though that is just a guess untill it is dynoed. With more airflow / density to come. Which is why it is my opinion that we are not only comparing apples to oranges when comparing this to a stock or stock modified 1.6TD, but it will be fuel if anything that will hold us back from 200whp.
-
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
Please elaborate. Most people fail to realize how important it is to properly calibrate a Gtech. The old Gtech Pro model from 1994 also does not have a RPM calibration feature so you cannot adjust to 4,500 RPM as desired. The latest Gtech models work best.
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.
I agree, I even stated that a few times in this forum a while ago. Gtech's net hp is not the same as wheel or crank hp. I'm more fond of the Gtech torque & hp differences between my old stock 1.6TD vs. my current setup than my current setup's #s alone - "140 net hp".
Currently I can indeed only guess wheel hp; I never said that it is totally accurate. I mentioned looking forward to dynoing the car at www.kineticmotorsport.com for more credible figures.
I have Gteched several TDIs, from stock to chipped + nozzled. Many chipped and nozzled ALH TDIs with VNT-15 turbos usually put down 120-130whp on a dyno. They all report approx ~110 net hp on my Gtech quite consistently. Numbers for stock 90hp TDIs were a consistent 75-80 hp on Gtech.
Gtech requires proper calibration and I think I have more experience in handling the device than you do. I still think my 150whp guess is quite close.
Since you said Gtech are useful for comparing differences after mods.. let's look at the following, my 1.6TD in stock configuration vs. my present configuration:
(http://dieselinside.com/1.6td/gtech/16tdstock_vs_16tdmod.jpg)
a 52 net HP from a stock 1.6TD vs. 132 net HP from my 1.6TD in its recent configuration is a 2.54x gain.
Calibration is spot on for both runs.
You may then agree that in theory a 69bhp 1.6TD multiplied by 2.54x gain results in 175bhp, which is still on par with my conservative 140nhp -> 150whp guess (based on a VR6's 132nhp result).
Also note that while Gtech numbers are lower than wheel hp.. the difference between a stock 1.6td and my 1.6td will be magnified on the dyno with wheel hp figures.
Anyway, there isn't much point to continue in this discussion. A dyno for this 1.6td isn't far off; I'll post a dyno plot then :)
-
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.
Yes, they would run a larger turbine to reduce backpressure. They also have much more exhaust heat to spin the turbine and high rpm power levels which depend on reduced backpressure. I run a rediculous turbine on my Rabbit. I don't even get full boost (generally 16-18 psi) until 3rd gear and barely even use the wastegate. I think of it as traction control though. If it fully spooled in 2nd it would just start spinning the tires. It already does that on the freeway if it's wet out.
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.
Unless you plan to rev it extremely high then it is still unlikely that you'd find it to be efficient. A 1.6 is still a 1.6. It still displaces 1.6 liters and if you've accmoplished anything by improving the breathing it would be increased volumetric efficiency and an altered power curve increasing the rev range and upping horsepower due to the increased peak RPM. Even so, I don't think horsepower is going to peak high enough to see benefits from the T4 compressor.
I'm not trying to be insulting here or anything. I just see the numbers and I have to agree with VWRacer. Twins is the only way to go to do what you are trying to do. I've already decided that I'm going to do this myself, but it will take some time to make everything come together.
I do not see it as insulting at all I see it as very informative disscustion on turbo's :wink:
I understand the reasons for going to a bigger turbine (not that you insinuated that I didn't) which is one of the reason's I thought it best to stay with the .48 housing to decrease the RPM at which it begins to spool at the expense of more back pressure, if I was runing a twin setup it would be compeltley opposite.
I also think that for a daily driver, or for a "fun" road car twins are absolulty the way to go. Mark stated previously that it was the initial plan and is still the plan to go with twins, the reason that we are not right now, is two fold, one the cost of the appropriate second turbo, and second the cost of custom rods. I know with out a doubt in my mind that if we put twins on that car that we would break rods in a matter of weeks, if not days, destroying a brand new $$$ motor in the process. The only real way of knowing how well or how lousy this setup will be is to throw it on as strap it do the dyno and giver' :twisted:
However to this point in the disscustion I still feel satisfied with the T4 compressor for what we are trying to achive. With that being said if I can get an HX35 compressor instead for about the same cost... it will be run!
-
What is the best turbo to put on a 1.6 that is a direct bolt on and will see good all around results
Who would guess that a simple question like that would spark 4 pages of turbo disscution :P
-
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.
We're talking about an IDI 1.6 here with a shorter stroke and a significantly different powerband.
For starters, my torque peak (163lb-ft) is around 4,000 RPM and the 1.9L TDI's is at roughly 2,500 RPM (155lb-ft). My Gtech's RPM calibration is spot-on and its accelerometers can gradually sense the increasing G force at 4,000 RPM. I can confirm it in the seat too.
I'm still stumped as to why you think Gtech is less accurate in a diesel vs. a gasser. This leads me to believe you've barely operated a Gtech, if at all.
After you proclaimed yourself as a race engine builder, I'm quite surprised that you used a stock 1.9L TDI to calculate my 1.6L IDI's 100 wheel HP figure.
I'm not being fooled by the torque, and I know how easy that is. During high RPM it easily pulls harder than a VR6 during higher RPM. Still will need a dyno to remove anyone else's doubts though.
-
After you proclaimed yourself as a race engine builder, I'm quite surprised that you used a stock 1.9L TDI to calculate my 1.6L IDI's wheel HP figure. That is incredibly off.
Mark that was a little harsh don't you think? Rember this is just a friendly disscustion. :wink:
-
VWracer I wasn't trying to offend you but really, every performance engine builder including myself knows that not everything works out on paper. Hence R&D, if it was as easy as just doing it on paper no one would blow up engines, and that would be some boring R&D :)
-
No offence takem 935racer...and none intended. :)
Mark, thanks for adding the amplifying information. I was just responding to your question about getting 200 hp from a 1.6TD given the information you included, so may have missed out on some of your assumptions. Please believe me that I am not trying to insult you or 935racer or otherwise trying to denigrate your projects. I'm just trying to share some tools for getting better results.
But now that you mention it Mark, yes, I am a race engine builder, having build literally dozens over the years. Not only that, I am a professional race engine builder, since now I actually get paid to do it (or at least spec it to the shops that do the work). :lol:
And while that doesn't make me an expert on diesels, I do have the tools and experience to objectively evaluate basic performance characteristics of high performance engines. Furthermore, I know that G-Tech itself acknowedges that their older meters are not reliable on turbocharged engines. How do I know? Because the booklet that came with my G-Tech says so!
If you have a more recent model of G-Tech, perhaps it is more accurate than mine, but you yourself quote numbers has high as 15% low for stock TDIs. Personally, if I had a dyno reading 15% off what I knew to be good numbers, I would suspect the accuracy of said dyno. That having been said, let's look at the newest dyno report you post. The report gives max torque as 154.5 lbs-ft (pretty close to what I calculated above, BTW). Plugging that value and your corrected RPM into the equation I provide above:
HP = (Torque*RPM)/5252, so (155*4000)/5252 = 118 hp.
Virtually identically to the horsepower shown on the plot at 4000 RPM, so obviously G-Tech have improved their computer model in that RPM range.
I'm still stumped as to why you think Gtech is less accurate in a diesel vs. a gasser. This leads me to believe you've barely operated a Gtech, if at all.
FWIW, I've had one for a couple of years and have run it on an '02 TDI, '00 PSD Excursion, '84 Quantum TD, '89 Chevy, '75 E-250, and a 1993 turbo Eagle Talon with widely variable results (from right on with the TDI to hopelessly optimistic for the Quantum (it reported 74 hp for an engine with 210,000 miles and a slipping clutch that made less than 70 hp new)).
As for why a G-Tech can read a diesel incorrectly (or more precisely a boosted engine), one need look no further than the combustion characteristics of the two engine types. N/A gassers hit peak cylinder pressure shortly ATDC, which then falls rapidly as the piston slides down the bore. OTOH, a diesel has a lower ATDC peak, but then maintains much higher pressure for the remainder of the power stroke since it continues to inject fuel for a goodly percentage of the stroke. The result is a vastly different BMEP curve. At least in G-Tech's earlier models this led to erroneous diesel (and turbo in general) readings.
As I said, I was responding based on the information you posted. Sorry if I missed some relevent information. One thing does puzzle me, though. On the previous page you wrote, "Chances are good I'm making at least 150whp now." Yet the G-Tech plot you add just above reads 132 hp. Why the discrepancy?
-
Vwracer, the reason the g tech reads lower is because it factors in things like aerodynamics. As mark posted earlier he has had consistant results with different engines making less hp than they have on a dyno, the reason being that the gtech factors in the other short commings the vehicle has that aren't affected on a regular chasis dyno. Do to the consistancy of the results I would say the gtech is quite accurate for net HP. And it is extremely useful for before and after modifcations and comparing hp and torque curves. I don't have my own gtech I use marks but I have tested it in many cars and mark has used in probably double or triple the amount of cars I have used it in. Hopefully the rain keeps up today as mark and I are planning and doing some more tuning with his car and will post up some more gtechs.
-
If you have a more recent model of G-Tech, perhaps it is more accurate than mine, but you yourself quote numbers has high as 15% low for stock TDIs. Personally, if I had a dyno reading 15% off what I knew to be good numbers, I would suspect the accuracy of said dyno.
I may be misunderstanding you, but are you saying that you'd expect the GTech numbers to be close to wheel hp (dyno) or crank hp numbers?
As Dave said, aerodynamic drag and other friction losses are experienced in a moving vehicle while the Gtech's in operation, unlike on a dyno, so the lower Gtech numbers (lower than wheel numbers!) are normal. This is called "net" horsepower and it is distinctive from "wheel" horsepower. This is explained in detail in the Gtech manual.
On the previous page you wrote, "Chances are good I'm making at least 150whp now." Yet the G-Tech plot you add just above reads 132 hp. Why the discrepancy?
That is no discrepancy.
A 172bhp 12 valve VR6 usually produces 155whp on a dyno. The VR6 produces 130-135nhp according to Gtech and this is a perfectly normal and consistent reading.
If you see 90nhp (Gtech hp) in a stock 90HP ALH TDI then your Gtech is improperly calibrated. Gtech hp numbers can be inflated by simply entering too high of a vehicle weight, which makes Gtech think the engine is working harder to move the vehicle at the measured speed. This is a very common mistake.
Most people do not bother going to vehicle scales to record the correct weight. If they see too low of a HP number on Gtech, they think something is wrong and then they tend to increase the vehicle weight. Very common. The problem? They didn't bother reading the instruction manual or they just want to make their numbers look nice, especially to post on the Internet. I keep my numbers conservative.
That having been said, let's look at the newest dyno report you post. The report gives max torque as 154.5 lbs-ft (pretty close to what I calculated above, BTW). Plugging that value and your corrected RPM into the equation I provide above:
HP = (Torque*RPM)/5252, so (155*4000)/5252 = 118 hp.
Virtually identically to the horsepower shown on the plot at 4000 RPM, so obviously G-Tech have improved their computer model in that RPM range.
AFAIK Gtech never made an incorrect calculation in TQ and HP relation. Gtech senses the vehicle's g force via its three accelerometers and then calculates torque based on RPM, vehicle weight, and a few other data. Gtech then draws out the HP curve based on the simple formula you posted. Again, there weren't problems with TQ vs. HP relation you may have previously thought. This may be why you thought comparing my 1.6 IDI to a 1.9 TDI (both have very different curves) to calculate my 100whp (based on moving my 164lb-ft from 4,000 RPM to 2,500 RPM according to the TDI's curve) were justified - or whatever it is I have no idea.
Since the Gtech readings are consistent, the difference between the consistent net horsepower of a stock 1.6TD and the consistent net horsepower of my present 1.6TD leads me to believe 150whp is more than plausible. The comparison against a VR6 made it easier too.
If you still believe about the Gtech throwing a fit, deforming torque curves or whatnot, then take a look at few of fspGTD's Gtech plots he posted a while ago. The curves are very comparible to the factory curves (just like mine in my Gtech #2 post), except with slightly lower % power/torque figures that are normal.