Wnts2Go10O

iTrader: (12)

with an uneducated look at the 6067 or 6076, yes. the 6076 may be the better turbo as (correct me if im wron intmd8) its the closer match to the 35. on top of tht your goal would be well within even a modest estimation of wht the turbo x2 can do.

though, the turbine housing would be the sticking point as u go up in ci

qqwqeqwrqwqtq

Garrett has them available for every turbo they make but for many other manufacturers their are no maps at all, that's why you sometimes need to base the combo on the results and testing of others or give it an educated guess based on compressor/turbines of similar size and trim.

Bazman

Really?

Over 100,000 miles stock ls1 with mild cam, no head work delivering 450rwhp on pump at 6psi and still can get 30mpg imperial at cruise in a 4 door family sedan. I would not call that a fail.

Sure the stock cam got 33mpg but with the new cam - at no point does the power drop below the NA pre turbo graph and pre-turbo tune was gold.

It has no lag with the converter.

What was your point again?

pwrtrip75

iTrader: (8)

My point was if you are boosted, and only making 450hp w/ meth... why even look at a cam? Stock one would be fine. If you got all that going on to get 450hp... all that can be done with just a cam and some head work and no turbo.
My experience with tuning camshafts not too crazy like that is cruising MPG is better. Converter may hurt it some and so will your foot What i meant by you being an example is you referencing your cam, you could have left the stock one in there and turned the boost up 2 more lbs and achieve the same thing.... it would have cost you nothing. You could have the same power and your "33 mpg".

Ben Simmonds

interesting read this thread, i just came across this.
what are peoples thoughts?

http://www.turbofast.com.au/TFmatch.html

Bazman

Your last point I accept.

The problem was that I was already well over 10:1 cr with slightly thinner head gaskets and I did not feel that running 8psi was safe on a daily driver. Had I built the motor - then no problem.

I am going to build up a stroker LS3 or an LS7 so the LS1 was simply what I had and I do not want to burn it as it has been a darling engine. It was a test bed to try a few things before I spend real money.

I was also on the delusion that bigger cams can get better mpg at cruise. Hence I made the call to keep cylinder pressure down to make the 450rwhp via cam assistance.

I no longer believe bigger cams (ie. over 220 @ 050) can get better mpg if the stock cam has the best possible tune on it.

We have the 222/226 cam sized motor as lean as it will go without stumbling with timing on the edge - we've tried pulling timing and adding it - it is the best the engine can tolerate and the extra duration simply requires more fuel to make the same cruise hp - period. Yes we could try more accurate injectors - but we could do the same on the stock cam and get improvements.

If there is a cam expert out there that believes they can match the stock cam steady mpg without giving up the 50hp I will double their price if they are right. My tuner is one of the best and he has never seen a big cam achieve it, I tried to prove him wrong... and failed.

The better mpg claimed from bigger (over 220 @ 050) cams comes from better tune and more careful driving to see what it can do IMHO. Placebo effect is real and few get their stock cam engine perfect before upgrading.

Re cam and heads - no way - my little LS1 makes 550hp at the flywheel from 5500rpm to 6000, and has around 230hp from 2500rpm (stall speed). It has a perfect power band for daily driving.

A 550hp NA LS1 is not going to be half the motor the boosted one is to live with daily nor would my poor old LS1 last long pulling the rpms it would need to on all motor to make that power. It would have cost more too

N2OBaby

Turbos + Displacement= Best of Both Worlds

I can't imagine how awesome a 410 AES/ERL twin Precision 7576 CEA combo in a Pro-Streeted '82-'92 Camaro would be.

bad6as

iTrader: (17)

Long story short I wasted over 3,000 in turbos, countless track passes lots of fuel. And lots of time. All because of having the wrong turbine. My engine is a 365 and the 1st turbo was a borg warner 80mm. The turbine was t4 83mm and a 1.10 ar. Then I bought another 80mm borg but this time I had a 87mm and also a t4 and 1.25 ar. At 11 lbs boost I had 14 psi back pressure. I didn not get a chance to mesure backpressure at 25psi but you could feal the car nose over. The new turbo I'm going with I spent ALO5 of time searching for turbine maps. And man what a chore that was. But I ended up having one of the 1st gt5018 turbos built by reed at work turbo. 98mm uhp turbine wheel in a open .96 ar

bad6as

iTrader: (17)

My 1st turbo was bought because I saw another member go bottom 9s. I was lighter so I figured I could go 8s. Didn't happen. Forcedinductions then said going to a bigger turbing and ar would net me my goals and it was close. But I'm glad I didn't listen to kt because he told me to use a tc78

Sales@Tick

iTrader: (3)

That GT5018 is a bad mother trucker.

Great choice.

94m6Z28

i have a dumb question, i have been reading all the pages and may have missed it.... BUT when im plotting my points on the map and planning on running twins the numbers i come up with for air consumption, i would cut those in half, yes?

Boosted3rdGen

iTrader: (8)

Not a dumb question, yes, the pair of turbos split the work load so therefore you have to split the air consumption numbers.

94m6Z28

should you split the number by 50% to use it or is there some working losses and what not and should a larger/ small split be used?

_GTO_

Very useful info .

Thanks Jim .

2000RATA

A little late now but to validate the OP's opinions on small twins being capable I just put 945 rwhp at 14 psi spinning the tires on the Dyno. 378 cid LS with Turbonetics 6165 ball bearing turbos. That's with an .68 a/r . It spools like a 500 shot of nitrous.

mightyquickz28

iTrader: (8)

Damn! Have any videos? I'd love to see that in action. I just bought a new PT76GTS but next Spring, I might be going for a similar twins setup. This post of yours sure has caught my attention.

2000RATA

My whole build is in this forum look for 378 ls TT trans am build modular/ CBR twin kit

Louis

iTrader: (7)

There are a few issues.... Im late to the party, but its still relevant.

the LSx engine flows a lot of air. Its unlike any other engine. its still an air pump, but it flows a lot of air.

The other issue is that there was a lot of bullshit turbos that have been pushed on this community over the last 5 years... funny, you dont see them much any more, but they have set a trend.

The next hurdle is budget. The big rod 5.3 is all the rave now. Why? Because its cheap, and readily available.

Why would someone spend more on the turbo, than they did on the entire engine?

Turbine flow is paramount. Hardly anyone measures drive pressure, but its one of the most important things you can log. In the diesel world? The first question asked on turbo setups is "what is drive pressure?" If you dont know that, you are pissing in the wind.

If people measured what the drive pressure was on their setup, they could make more of an impact gearing the turbine side to the combo then changing cams. Seriously.


To infinity and beyond!

Louis

rotary1307cc

iTrader: (5)

Lets see a trap to back the number

2000RATA

Give me a minute I will back it up. But the numbers are real. I hope this wasn't a jab to imply they are fictitious.