• Hello Guest, welcome to the initial stages of our new platform!
    You can find some additional information about where we are in the process of migrating the board and setting up our new software here

    Thank you for being a part of our community!

Back to dreaming again *sequential turbos*

Awaffa2003

Awaffa2003

Member
Joined
Jan 27, 2018
Location
Northern IL
So I think it's back to the drawing board with my 83 wagon scrapped, my 93 wagon waiting on a thermostat and my 80 as my DD for now.

Shooting around some ideas, I was thinking, how feasible would it be to twin, compound, sequential, what have you...turbo a 16v b230? Little one in the engine bay to make boost at lower rpms, rear or remote mounted turbo out back where the muffler goes like you see the GM guys doing.

Methinks the lag of the big turbo would be offset by the snappier small boi up front were they both sized appropriately. That's the main complaint to remote turbos, no?

Thoughts?
 
Stiggy Pop said:
pursue other interests.
Click to expand...

+1

I'm willing to bet that a modern Garrett GTX/G/etc or BW EFR turbo will have better spool characteristics, are longer lived, better at everything, than any sensible cobbled sequential twin setup. Those modern turbo's will boost at low-ish rpm and still flow 450-550 hp worth of air, far more than the Volvo RWD chassis handles without some serious attention.
Less is more; the more I see the simpeler the setup I prefer. Not lo-tek, just not more tech just because. The idea that two cheap turbo's can do the same as one 2K$ turbo is alluring but by the time all supporting mods are in place and kinks are worked out, its not such a bargain anymore usually.
 
The people who consider this sort of thing are the people who have never actually owned/driven a turbo car, IMO. Lag is not the life/death issue it's made out to be, especially if you size your turbo properly.
 
And use a proper CBV/BOV. And use a modern turbo that's made for the purpose (small, enthusiastically driven gas engine, not a big diesel truck motor).

Divided scroll helps, properly sized.

You're going to spend a LOT of time, money, effort building a sequential system that still won't work any better than a proper single turbo.

Hell, Toyota engineers spent all sorts of time trying to make the Supra sequential turbo setup work, and in the end? Most people mod them back to a big single anyhow.

If you're dead set on making it more complicated than it needs to be - look into:
1) Variable geometry turbos - quick spool, then open wide for top end
2) e-spool turbos - lots of electricity needed - but they can spin up for instaspool (if you trigger them in advance, I guess).
 
JohnMc said:
And use a proper CBV/BOV. And use a modern turbo that's made for the purpose (small, enthusiastically driven gas engine, not a big diesel truck motor).

Divided scroll helps, properly sized.

You're going to spend a LOT of time, money, effort building a sequential system that still won't work any better than a proper single turbo.

Hell, Toyota engineers spent all sorts of time trying to make the Supra sequential turbo setup work, and in the end? Most people mod them back to a big single anyhow.

If you're dead set on making it more complicated than it needs to be - look into:
1) Variable geometry turbos - quick spool, then open wide for top end
2) e-spool turbos - lots of electricity needed - but they can spin up for instaspool (if you trigger them in advance, I guess).
Click to expand...

48v eturbos don?t take long to get spinning.
 
Could be interesting, but know what your in for, my parrallel twin turbo project is still ongoing, but in comparison to how good modern turbo power bands are, it only makes sense if you are looking for a challenge:-P

As a bit of a motivator, found this on a swedish forum;)
222265_2010998240455_126464_n.jpg
 
Awaffa2003 said:
So I think it's back to the drawing board with my 83 wagon scrapped, my 93 wagon waiting on a thermostat and my 80 as my DD for now.

Shooting around some ideas, I was thinking, how feasible would it be to twin, compound, sequential, what have you...turbo a 16v b230? Little one in the engine bay to make boost at lower rpms, rear or remote mounted turbo out back where the muffler goes like you see the GM guys doing.

Methinks the lag of the big turbo would be offset by the snappier small boi up front were they both sized appropriately. That's the main complaint to remote turbos, no?

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

doet
 
The most common reason that a series turbo system would be necessary is the need for extremely high boost pressure. Maybe you have a small engine with big power goals and the only way to get there is 60+ psi of boost. Or maybe you have a diesel that needs to make thousands of hp for tractor pulling. Or you need to maintain big power up to very high altitude with a small engine - meaning high pressure *ratio* capability even if the manifold boost pressure is more sane (like a 4-cylinder turbo car running Pikes Peak for example).

Either way, it's about building a system that gives you the ability to operate way "off the map" of any single-stage compressor. Two stages with one feeding the other is a series system - not sequential - the term sequential in this context means there is some time-dependent control, can be either series or parallel. You can have series-sequential, parallel-sequential, simple parallel or simple series. With two turbos in series they are not "twins" because one is necessarily much larger than the other. The large turbo is the low-pressure stage and the small one is the high-pressure stage. LP compressor feeds into HP compressor, and HP turbine feeds into LP turbine.

At any rate, unless you have some extenuating circumstance where you need 60+ psi or need to operate your 16V redblock in Nepal and make 500hp up a mountain, there's no good reason to pursue this, as others have explained. There are so many options for modern turbos on the market, a plethora of options for making big power with good response on a 2.3L 16v engine.

Also, there's no reason to consider a remote mount turbo at all unless you have literally no space for your turbo in the engine bay, or it's to get around some emissions loophole by placing the turbo after the cat.
 
What duder said. If you are tractor-pulling, go for it.

Swedbrick said:
Could be interesting, but know what your in for, my parrallel twin turbo project is still ongoing, but in comparison to how good modern turbo power bands are, it only makes sense if you are looking for a challenge:-P

As a bit of a motivator, found this on a swedish forum;)
222265_2010998240455_126464_n.jpg
Click to expand...

JohnMc said:
Any guesses on the HP?

I'm feeling optimistic, I'll say 200.
Click to expand...
2hp above stock. But the upside is you never work on it, because you can't.
 
Duder said:
The most common reason that a series turbo system would be necessary is the need for extremely high boost pressure. Maybe you have a small engine with big power goals and the only way to get there is 60+ psi of boost. Or maybe you have a diesel that needs to make thousands of hp for tractor pulling. Or you need to maintain big power up to very high altitude with a small engine - meaning high pressure *ratio* capability even if the manifold boost pressure is more sane (like a 4-cylinder turbo car running Pikes Peak for example).

Either way, it's about building a system that gives you the ability to operate way "off the map" of any single-stage compressor. Two stages with one feeding the other is a series system - not sequential - the term sequential in this context means there is some time-dependent control, can be either series or parallel. You can have series-sequential, parallel-sequential, simple parallel or simple series. With two turbos in series they are not "twins" because one is necessarily much larger than the other. The large turbo is the low-pressure stage and the small one is the high-pressure stage. LP compressor feeds into HP compressor, and HP turbine feeds into LP turbine.

At any rate, unless you have some extenuating circumstance where you need 60+ psi or need to operate your 16V redblock in Nepal and make 500hp up a mountain, there's no good reason to pursue this, as others have explained. There are so many options for modern turbos on the market, a plethora of options for making big power with good response on a 2.3L 16v engine.

Also, there's no reason to consider a remote mount turbo at all unless you have literally no space for your turbo in the engine bay, or it's to get around some emissions loophole by placing the turbo after the cat.
Click to expand...

Twin 13Cs. I know you wanna.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top