New Twin Turbo system pics
07-07-2006, 11:38 AM
#62
TECH Addict
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Miami, Fl.
Posts: 2,890
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[/QUOTE=smokinHawk]i doubt a GT40 could fit, though they make Gt35's with 1.06, .82 and .63 AR
so garrett rates each turbo from 2.0-4.5L (per turbo depending on the AR)
http://www.turbobygarrett.com/turbob...R_714568_2.htm[/QUOTE]
thanks,
ok, the idea is to match a turbo to each bank. My 408ci, per bank, would measure, theoretically, 204ci and have a liter rating of 3.0 (+.3-.5L). With that said, i could gett away with the gt35's running on each bank at a either a .82 or 1.06 A/R. The 1.06 would probably be best in order to deal with the induction restriction and added amounts of flow being excerted by the longer stroke of the motor.
It would seem that it would work, both turbos are rated at 600hp max so 1200hp max is a good start and right where i want to be at for now.
Anyone have any further thoughts on this? Praises and shot-downs and more then welcome!!
so garrett rates each turbo from 2.0-4.5L (per turbo depending on the AR)
http://www.turbobygarrett.com/turbob...R_714568_2.htm[/QUOTE]
thanks,
ok, the idea is to match a turbo to each bank. My 408ci, per bank, would measure, theoretically, 204ci and have a liter rating of 3.0 (+.3-.5L). With that said, i could gett away with the gt35's running on each bank at a either a .82 or 1.06 A/R. The 1.06 would probably be best in order to deal with the induction restriction and added amounts of flow being excerted by the longer stroke of the motor.
It would seem that it would work, both turbos are rated at 600hp max so 1200hp max is a good start and right where i want to be at for now.
Anyone have any further thoughts on this? Praises and shot-downs and more then welcome!!
07-07-2006, 11:48 AM
#63
FormerVendor
Thread Starter
Really, thanks to everyone for the positive comments, I very much appreciate it.
CAT3- As far as using stock manifolds, you could build a system that way (that was the very first version of CAS's twins), but turbo placement is less than optimal and plumbing/drainback becomes a problem. With the way mine is set up, the turbos have to be exactly where they are. I spent an entire weekend making adjustable brackets and playing around with turbo placement until everything was in the best position.
obZidian- Since I am using Precisions 5 bolt exhaust housings, the only a/r's available (that I'm aware of) is .48 and .63. Though I won't know for sure until I tested on the dyno, I would assume that anything larger than 370ci would have excessive backpressure with this system even with the .63 housing. IMO 400+ci engines would be better off with twin T4's or a single T6, and I don't think I could fit twin T4's without notching the frame and heater box on the passenger side.
CAT3- As far as using stock manifolds, you could build a system that way (that was the very first version of CAS's twins), but turbo placement is less than optimal and plumbing/drainback becomes a problem. With the way mine is set up, the turbos have to be exactly where they are. I spent an entire weekend making adjustable brackets and playing around with turbo placement until everything was in the best position.
obZidian- Since I am using Precisions 5 bolt exhaust housings, the only a/r's available (that I'm aware of) is .48 and .63. Though I won't know for sure until I tested on the dyno, I would assume that anything larger than 370ci would have excessive backpressure with this system even with the .63 housing. IMO 400+ci engines would be better off with twin T4's or a single T6, and I don't think I could fit twin T4's without notching the frame and heater box on the passenger side.
07-07-2006, 12:06 PM
#64
Restricted User
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Sierra Vista, AZ
Posts: 7,603
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jim, thanks for the info. I knew you have at least had a good reason to not go that route, other then sheer pimp factor of course. So, mind will erase the stock manifold twin setup to avoid issues others have already experienced. You probably saved me a lot of hassle, time, and mostly $. Thanks.
Charlie
Charlie
07-07-2006, 12:12 PM
#65
Originally Posted by INTMD8
Really, thanks to everyone for the positive comments, I very much appreciate it.
CAT3- As far as using stock manifolds, you could build a system that way (that was the very first version of CAS's twins), but turbo placement is less than optimal and plumbing/drainback becomes a problem. With the way mine is set up, the turbos have to be exactly where they are. I spent an entire weekend making adjustable brackets and playing around with turbo placement until everything was in the best position.
obZidian- Since I am using Precisions 5 bolt exhaust housings, the only a/r's available (that I'm aware of) is .48 and .63. Though I won't know for sure until I tested on the dyno, I would assume that anything larger than 370ci would have excessive backpressure with this system even with the .63 housing. IMO 400+ci engines would be better off with twin T4's or a single T6, and I don't think I could fit twin T4's without notching the frame and heater box on the passenger side.
CAT3- As far as using stock manifolds, you could build a system that way (that was the very first version of CAS's twins), but turbo placement is less than optimal and plumbing/drainback becomes a problem. With the way mine is set up, the turbos have to be exactly where they are. I spent an entire weekend making adjustable brackets and playing around with turbo placement until everything was in the best position.
obZidian- Since I am using Precisions 5 bolt exhaust housings, the only a/r's available (that I'm aware of) is .48 and .63. Though I won't know for sure until I tested on the dyno, I would assume that anything larger than 370ci would have excessive backpressure with this system even with the .63 housing. IMO 400+ci engines would be better off with twin T4's or a single T6, and I don't think I could fit twin T4's without notching the frame and heater box on the passenger side.
07-07-2006, 12:24 PM
#66
FormerVendor
Thread Starter
Well, yes as I said it is possible and has been done, I just don't think it's the best way to do it. As far as drainback issues, what I meant was you would need to run oil collectors and a scavenge pump as you do on the Incon system. (it wouldn't gravity drain)
07-07-2006, 01:16 PM
#70
9 Second Club
iTrader: (25)
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Missouri
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Congrats on the kit! Packaging is very nice and has a lot of potential. You definately have my attention as I'm looking to purchase a turbo kit this fall. Any option to use a diffent exhaust housing to allow the use of a larger a/r? For those of us with a 402/408 looking for 800+ rwhp on pump gas that might be considering a single 88 with a T4 due to space constraints (retaining all accesories), your kit with twin GT35Rs and a 1.06 a/r might be a better option to minimize exhaust backpressure. Not ideal but could make for a great street combo. Just curious!
07-07-2006, 02:04 PM
#71
The kit looks fantastic ! Your truly a valued asset to the F-body community. Have you considered making the LT1 twin kit available from your car for the LT1 one guys that don't mind the pricetag ? Can the LT1 manifolds be made to have better plug access, version 2.0 LT1 manifolds 
.
. 
07-07-2006, 03:21 PM
#74
TECH Addict
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Miami, Fl.
Posts: 2,890
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
question....
Im trying to find some info for turbo selection.... im using this as a basic guideline for lbs/mins for my 408ci motor:
http://www.forcedinductions.com/consumption408.htm
This table is applicable to find the turbo that fits right with the motors lbs/min rate and pressure ratio levels. If i wanted to use these types of tables for a twin turbo setup, would i need to, for example, using above table, 15psi @ 6500 is a lbs/min rating of 86, divide that 86lbs/min by 2 in order to get the apporiate lbs/min rating for each bank of the motor? Therefore, for the given boost/rpm range, each turbo would be at 43lbs/min.?
Im trying to find some info for turbo selection.... im using this as a basic guideline for lbs/mins for my 408ci motor:
http://www.forcedinductions.com/consumption408.htm
This table is applicable to find the turbo that fits right with the motors lbs/min rate and pressure ratio levels. If i wanted to use these types of tables for a twin turbo setup, would i need to, for example, using above table, 15psi @ 6500 is a lbs/min rating of 86, divide that 86lbs/min by 2 in order to get the apporiate lbs/min rating for each bank of the motor? Therefore, for the given boost/rpm range, each turbo would be at 43lbs/min.?
07-08-2006, 11:57 AM
#77
TECH Enthusiast
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Elk Grove, IL
Posts: 610
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Pro Stock John
Nice.
So the bigger turbos fit if a car has no heater core? (wheels are turning)
So the bigger turbos fit if a car has no heater core? (wheels are turning)
Last edited by smokinHawk; 07-08-2006 at 12:00 PM. Reason: language
07-08-2006, 11:49 PM
#79
TECH Addict
iTrader: (36)
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Murphy, Tx
Posts: 2,526
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Pro Stock John
Nice.
So the bigger turbos fit if a car has no heater core? (wheels are turning)
So the bigger turbos fit if a car has no heater core? (wheels are turning)
07-09-2006, 01:12 AM
#80
FormerVendor
Thread Starter
Well, I believe you could fit larger turbos if the heater box was removed and the frame was notched (the part that interferes houses the evaporator core not the heater core), but if you're removing that you're defeating the purpose of this system and would be better off mounting twins up high as we did on Andys car.