Sizing a turbo

[Cattledog]

I will likely be going with a T04B 62-1 with and intercooler at 5 to 6 psi still not completely sure yet. Target hp of about 330. Buget is also likely to be higher... I agree with Sumotoy, this size engine has been hard to match to a single turbo compressor map and the Eaton M112 blower looks like a winner. I have no desire for a twin turbo setup. Too complicated IMO. If the engine was a bit 500 cc smaller or bigger better turbo's would have been avalible.

 

[SUMOTOY]

I will likely be going with a T04B 62-1 with and intercooler at 5 to 6 psi still not completely sure yet. Target hp of about 330. Buget is also likely to be higher... I agree with Sumotoy, this size engine has been hard to match to a single turbo compressor map and the Eaton M112 blower looks like a winner. I have no desire for a twin turbo setup. Too complicated IMO. If the engine was a bit 500 cc smaller or bigger better turbo's would have been avalible.

The biggest issue I see with single turbos, is generally the low boost efficiency of them isn't very good. Most turbos are designed to run ~1bar (14psi), and can surge a lot below that level. The good news is that if you target torque not hp, a 5-6psi turbo most likely won't yield massive gains with intercooling.

Multiple turbo setups sound complicated, but on the same side of the motor, really aren't, it's just doubling up feed and return lines. Nothing about doing an add on turbo is easy, btdt. Makes the M112 look better and better.

I look forward to seeing what you guys come up with. I see a lot of niggling issues, including integral wastegate, and regulating a single large turbo to 6-8psi can be really tough.

SJ

 

[landtank]

Bare with me guys. Looking at what Dusty has done and what is available for bolt on manifolds. How does this kit look.

Turbo kit

 

[Rich]

I think I've earned a PASS on educating myself on this one. I was hoping someone could just give me some guidance...

If you just want a bolt on then I'd think going with the Toyota supercharger would be the way to go. No engineering required on your part, and it is compliant with Mass emission requirements.

 

[landtank]

If you just want a bolt on then I'd think going with the Toyota supercharger would be the way to go. No engineering required on your part, and it is compliant with Mass emission requirements.

I'm not looking for a bolt on unit just some help in sizing the turbo. While it was out of my ability to do I didn't realise that it was that hard to do for someone who was turbo savvy.

It's been brought up a few times that it would be nice to get a list together for a do it yourself turbo. Dusty did a great job opening that door and with the availability of a cast manifold it looks to be a real possibility I think.

 

[SUMOTOY]

I'm not looking for a bolt on unit just some help in sizing the turbo. While it was out of my ability to do I didn't realise that it was that hard to do for someone who was turbo savvy.

It's been brought up a few times that it would be nice to get a list together for a do it yourself turbo. Dusty did a great job opening that door and with the availability of a cast manifold it looks to be a real possibility I think.

Rick:
Most 'custom' apps are exactly trial and error. Goals and targets are part of that. Are you looking for SC type performance, or more HP. Smaller app turbos for a given motor give more low end torque, larger app turbos give more HP at the expense of torque.

Sizing
The one you referenced has a really high pressure peak. When you see that, normally that indicates at lower pressures it's not as efficient. What you are looking for on a turbo MAP is compressor efficiency at peak PR (1.5PR = 7psi). amd airflow to match the requirements of the engine at that PR. PR is on the y axis and airflow is on the x axis. You want compressor efficiency to be really high at 7psi (72% is about the lowest you want at peak, some of the Ball bearing turbos hit 78% effficiency). I'd recommend that you choose the turbo that has peak efficiency at the lowest PR that makes the airflow.

Installed, now what?
Cam profile will affect how all this actually works. Normally aspirated engines tend to have more overlap to help scavenge the exhaust gas. Turbo motors normally are very low duration cams, so that the pressure charge doesn't blow thru the chamber. This will affect how any given turbo actually performs on the application engine. Without profiling volumetric efficiency throughout the rev range, any turbo application will be 'best guess'.

See where some of the black magic comes into play here? 10 years ago, when I was playing with tweeked turbos on audis, I installed at over a dozen turbo combinations trying to find the right combo of hot side wheel, hot side housing, cold side wheel and cold side housing. All in a single k26 based turbo.

After all that, and several years since creating a better baseline, when I put big turbos on Audis, I know what combinations will yield what characteristics. That's a lot of trial and error, butt dyno, awd dyno, chip profiliing, exhaust tuning, and air fuel mixtures.

Even if someone could tell you a given turbo is the rats **s, there are variables that make it work better in one app than another.

AS a turbo guy, I just don't see the market or the need for putting a single turbo on the 80. A dual turbo setup works best on large displacement engines, especially 6 bangers. All single turbo apps in comparison, will be compromises.

On the other hand, the M90 is baselined pretty well here. The next step isn't a turbo IMO/E, it's the M112.

If you insist that this is the avenue for you, private email a couple of the turbo guys here. Find out what rpm is max boost, lag time, intercooler sizing, and what the truck is used for. You can just take a stab at it too, but expect to do a lot of fine tuning with dollars, and expect "if I was to do it again" to add a lot of dollars to the project.

Not tyring to discourage you or anyone else, I just know from 20 years of turbos, the formula is more trial and error than plunk and go. A lot of variances in turbo apps will 'work', I doubt there is one that comes close to the potential of the 1FE....

HTH

SJ

 

[clownmidget]

Scott, you may have valid points with regards to Rick's (and Dusty's) efforts to home-brew a turbo that doesn't have compromises in the torque vs. hp game but you should not speak so "matter of factly" about the Kazuma/TRD s/c vs. a system that was r&d'd by APS for this specific motor or the AVO unit that Christo has developed. I can't speak for Man-a-Fre but I'd have to think they had something on the ball since they were already familiar with the APS Safari units.

I find it hard to hear when you talk of the Kazuma/TRD s/c being well baselined here. For $3000 plus, you essentially got the M90 unit and some plumbing - some of it not really well done - and nothing else. I had this "system" on my truck for ~40K miles, which I don't think you've hit yet, and myself and most others that attempt to push these quickly find the limits and shortcomings of the unit. There is no way your oem ecu, fuel pump and injectors - in short you fuel delivery - will keep up with the M90 at 7 psi at WOT. Any more boost and the problems just get greater. Does the system work great at low rpm's? Yeah, just fine but to start discussing the torque differences from the starting rpm's of the s/c vs. the turbo (in this case Safari's or AVO's) will show you the turbo (yes, a single turbo) begins to spool up just off idle (~1K rpm) and you start making more torque than the s/c. It's not even close in the hp game.

I'm sure you are right that two turbo's are the way to go but for many reasons those can and do present tradeoffs that you of all people should be intimately familiar with.

I don't know too many people on this forum that have had the chance to ride in a lot of 80-series that range from normally aspirated, s/c'd, s/c'd with tweaking, and turbo'd. I'm pretty sure Christo tops the list with regards to this and you can search on other threads to read his opinion. I've been in a fair amount of 80's and my own has had both the s/c and turbo. In ALL regards in my experience with the two setups, the Safari system has proven to outperform the s/c - and I've never had to take the turbo over 5 psi to do it. With even a tiny bit of moderate tweaking to safely push the turbo into the 8-10 psi I don't think the s/c will be allowed on the playground...

 

[landtank]

Rick:
Most 'custom' apps are exactly trial and error. Goals and targets are part of that. Are you looking for SC type performance, or more HP. Smaller app turbos for a given motor give more low end torque, larger app turbos give more HP at the expense of torque.

Sizing
The one you referenced has a really high pressure peak. When you see that, normally that indicates at lower pressures it's not as efficient. What you are looking for on a turbo MAP is compressor efficiency at peak PR (1.5PR = 7psi). amd airflow to match the requirements of the engine at that PR. PR is on the y axis and airflow is on the x axis. You want compressor efficiency to be really high at 7psi (72% is about the lowest you want at peak, some of the Ball bearing turbos hit 78% effficiency). I'd recommend that you choose the turbo that has peak efficiency at the lowest PR that makes the airflow.

Installed, now what?
Cam profile will affect how all this actually works. Normally aspirated engines tend to have more overlap to help scavenge the exhaust gas. Turbo motors normally are very low duration cams, so that the pressure charge doesn't blow thru the chamber. This will affect how any given turbo actually performs on the application engine. Without profiling volumetric efficiency throughout the rev range, any turbo application will be 'best guess'.

See where some of the black magic comes into play here? 10 years ago, when I was playing with tweeked turbos on audis, I installed at over a dozen turbo combinations trying to find the right combo of hot side wheel, hot side housing, cold side wheel and cold side housing. All in a single k26 based turbo.

After all that, and several years since creating a better baseline, when I put big turbos on Audis, I know what combinations will yield what characteristics. That's a lot of trial and error, butt dyno, awd dyno, chip profiliing, exhaust tuning, and air fuel mixtures.

Even if someone could tell you a given turbo is the rats **s, there are variables that make it work better in one app than another.

AS a turbo guy, I just don't see the market or the need for putting a single turbo on the 80. A dual turbo setup works best on large displacement engines, especially 6 bangers. All single turbo apps in comparison, will be compromises.

On the other hand, the M90 is baselined pretty well here. The next step isn't a turbo IMO/E, it's the M112.

If you insist that this is the avenue for you, private email a couple of the turbo guys here. Find out what rpm is max boost, lag time, intercooler sizing, and what the truck is used for. You can just take a stab at it too, but expect to do a lot of fine tuning with dollars, and expect "if I was to do it again" to add a lot of dollars to the project.

Not tyring to discourage you or anyone else, I just know from 20 years of turbos, the formula is more trial and error than plunk and go. A lot of variances in turbo apps will 'work', I doubt there is one that comes close to the potential of the 1FE....

HTH

SJ

Scott, there are currently 3 production turbo kits and 1 home brewed one that run a single turbo and have gotten rave reviews on their ability to provide extra power.

So with your vast knowledge of turbos what would you expect them to be running for a turbo? I'm not interested in reinventing the wheel, only copying it.

 

[SUMOTOY]

Scott, there are currently 3 production turbo kits and 1 home brewed one that run a single turbo and have gotten rave reviews on their ability to provide extra power.

So with your vast knowledge of turbos what would you expect them to be running for a turbo? I'm not interested in reinventing the wheel, only copying it.

I'd 'expect' them to be running 2! So what help am I? Rick, you can learn the basics in under 1 hour. If you want to copy *me*, get a supercharger. If you want to copy Dusty, Safari, Christo, ask them directly. The only research I've done in turbos on the 1FE is duals. Not to evade your question, I suppose for a single off the top of my head, min would be a TO4 50 trim IMO, and max is just your wallet.

Rick, this appears to be letting someone else do the work, and you just buy the hardware cheaper. I go through this every day in my shop. I'm sure Dusty, Christo and others would help guide you, if you did some of your own homework and pinged it. I know for a fact that I rarely give away my store, especially for free.

Rick, you need to set some targets first. Define 'power' you are looking for. I'd suggest going on the low side for a 200k cruiser. I run a plethora of questions inputed into a spreadsheet for turbo upgrade customers.... Things like: External wastegate or internal? Low end torque or high HP? Fuel mods, ecu mods, boost level, fuel press reg rising rate or variable rising rate? Exhaust system? Intercooler sizing and efficiecy? Ball bearing, KKK or Garrett flange? Which boost controller?

Rick, you need to come to the dark side and do some homework to get this done. My own thinking is if you don't, you will spend a lot more than just taking the plunge and buying a kit. Before you even post again, order Corky Bell's book, I used to keep copies for folks to buy in my shop. Don't do this 'blind cc'...

Good luck in your quest, I look forward to the reports on how and what you find!

SJ

 

[SUMOTOY]

Scott, you may have valid points with regards to Rick's (and Dusty's) efforts to home-brew a turbo that doesn't have compromises in the torque vs. hp game but you should not speak so "matter of factly" about the Kazuma/TRD s/c vs. a system that was r&d'd by APS for this specific motor or the AVO unit that Christo has developed. I can't speak for Man-a-Fre but I'd have to think they had something on the ball since they were already familiar with the APS Safari units.

I find it hard to hear when you talk of the Kazuma/TRD s/c being well baselined here. For $3000 plus, you essentially got the M90 unit and some plumbing - some of it not really well done - and nothing else. I had this "system" on my truck for ~40K miles, which I don't think you've hit yet, and myself and most others that attempt to push these quickly find the limits and shortcomings of the unit. There is no way your oem ecu, fuel pump and injectors - in short you fuel delivery - will keep up with the M90 at 7 psi at WOT. Any more boost and the problems just get greater. Does the system work great at low rpm's? Yeah, just fine but to start discussing the torque differences from the starting rpm's of the s/c vs. the turbo (in this case Safari's or AVO's) will show you the turbo (yes, a single turbo) begins to spool up just off idle (~1K rpm) and you start making more torque than the s/c. It's not even close in the hp game.

In 20 years of turbos, 1 thing I concluded long ago: Boost is 90% of forced inducted power. Whipple it, paxton, roots, kkk, garrettize, lansolm, it's boost. The one thing I've found in both Safari and Christos comparos is a specific *lack* of intercooling the SC in the turbo comparos.

To be blunt Clownmidget, saying a turbo outperforms a SC is just plain BS. It *CAN*, it's not innate nature of a turbo at the same boost level, period. I also have a supercharged A4 sitting in my shop right now that keeps up just fine with the turbo cars.

I'm working thru these threads very slowly, because this forum has very little count of turbos or superchargers, or even a clear understanding of pressure ratios and turbo maps. I only see boost as boost, if you claim the SC has fuel problems at 7psi, so does a turbo. If a turbo 'kit' came with fueling or ecu mods or intercooler added, great! But understand, THAT added component/s to boost is the advantage, not the turbo at 7psi! And you just lost Carb compliance, bam! Claiming TRD CARB compromise makes a turbo better, is quite a stretch.

I'm no expert on forced induction. I have many years of race and street experience in it, at boost levels from 6-26psi daily. IME, EFI fuel systems are easy to tweek, even in OBDII cars, there's no magic to that, only not a lot of btdt here.

My opinion on all this turob hype? The turbo application to the 80 is different, and done up as an SEMA aftermarket (read: non carb compliant) kit, it outperforms the M90 SC TRD kit out of the box. It's well known that TRD knows what it takes to make any of the M90 apps rock, they even offer a 60hp upgrade for the 4R SC. I know why they don't offer it for the 80, there's no more air to be had, the 80 needs the m112 to move up. I already mathed out the 'shortcoming' of the M90 on the 80 truck it's the wrong size to exceed 6.5psi, it's not the application of supercharging.

I'm happy to learn more on turbochargers, but understand that will require more than testimonial arguments. Corky Bell is what I read to help understand what my customers think. There are several errors in that book, but it's tons better than unsubstantiated claims. IME/O 90% of the power in any boosted engine comes from the boost pressure. IF you want to claim otherwise, point me to an apples to apples comparo on the 80. I know Christo didn't do it, and I know Safari didn't do it.

What really intrigues me is the jump to a turbocharger application, when some simple math shows the M112 a better next step, then maybe looking at dual turbos. That puts a single turbo 3 steps back.... IMO.

I apologize for the rant, a pesky audi aftermarket 3in "bolt-on" exhaust today.

SJ

 

[sleeoffroad]

Safari system with Unichip was Carb compiant. Just FYI. The reason ours is not, is not because we can not do it, it is simply that we do not have the resources to do it, and for the limited market, I do not believe we will get a return on money.

Again, as stated in the other threads. We are comparing what is available and running on trucks, not in spreadsheets. I know a 100% that it is a apples to oranges comparison, but no-one has polished that TRD orange to look like a apple yet.


I will post the dyno chart from a 97 truck that we did last week. nearly 100hp and 100 ft/lb gain at the wheels. I don't have it with me at home, but something like 135 hp stock vs ~235 hp with turbo. I will post them then ST can take them apart again

 

[landtank]

So Scott, no insight at all I guess.

 

[landtank]

Another question. From looking through the E-Bay listings I see alot of t3/t4 T04E turbos. Since the flange on the manifold is a T4 will these turbos bolt up? I'm a little confused on the flanges.

 

[tiorio]

You guys rock. I'm watching and learning. Custom turbo or SC app is next on my list of 'little projects'

 

[Cattledog]

Another question. From looking through the E-Bay listings I see alot of t3/t4 T04E turbos. Since the flange on the manifold is a T4 will these turbos bolt up? I'm a little confused on the flanges.

T3 flange is smaller than T04 flange, I don't have the exact dimensions, google it. The T04 flange is larger and has a different bot pattern. The engine is 4.5 Liters, a T3 hot side is too restrictive and runs a slight chance of pressure inversion back in to the cylinders at higher 8 to 10 psi boost depending on the compressor side IMHO. Just avoid the T3 turbos in this case unless you are aiming for twin turbos.

 

[landtank]

T3 flange is smaller than T04 flange, I don't have the exact dimensions, google it. The T04 flange is larger and has a different bot pattern. The engine is 4.5 Liters, a T3 hot side is too restrictive and runs a slight chance of pressure inversion back in to the cylinders at higher 8 to 10 psi boost depending on the compressor side IMHO. Just avoid the T3 turbos in this case unless you are aiming for twin turbos.

I'm still digging around and all the T04E units are on the T3 flange. I also found a company that sells a startup kit which is a manifold, turbo and waste gate for our engines as well. That unit calls out a T3 flange also.

 

[SUMOTOY]

Safari system with Unichip was Carb compiant. Just FYI. The reason ours is not, is not because we can not do it, it is simply that we do not have the resources to do it, and for the limited market, I do not believe we will get a return on money.

Again, as stated in the other threads. We are comparing what is available and running on trucks, not in spreadsheets. I know a 100% that it is a apples to oranges comparison, but no-one has polished that TRD orange to look like a apple yet.


I will post the dyno chart from a 97 truck that we did last week. nearly 100hp and 100 ft/lb gain at the wheels. I don't have it with me at home, but something like 135 hp stock vs ~235 hp with turbo. I will post them then ST can take them apart again

Christo:
I'm sure you put together a good kit, I've always liked your work. I'm also a well heeled turbo guy, that has looked at a couple hundred dyno runs, tweeked a bunch of turbos, and evaluate them on a very large scale, because a lot of audis came/come with them.

That said, aren't we really *not* at all comparing a turbo to a supercharger? 7 psi is 7psi. What you infer to compare is the ancillaries with the kit making two boosted 6bangers different. Cut this down to the nitty gritty, that's really the comparo. My conclusion from your graphs? My SC has a lot of untapped potential.

I just came to this board a little over a year ago, and am absolutely amazed at claims of 'turbos' rule on a truck that needs massive mods to exceed 8-10 psi. I look at CM ditching 7psi boost for 7psi boost, that's a lot of jake, even if he sold the SC for what he paid for it.

Take that same incremental dollar and put it at that 7psi SC, and the gains will be the same, if not more. More I say, because below 8psi, there are very few (if any) turbos that will outperform the M90.

A single kit can be made carb compliant. That means safari has a set boost, and set chip, and set ancillaries. I'll look up the compliant number (Rick might want to too, since it should label the turbo). I understand what it takes to be Carb compliant, btwas rejected t.

The only advantage a turbo has, is the ability to run more boost than the M90. At the same boost level, it has a disadvantage. I'd be happy to evaluate your turbo map, but I'm getting the impression that Rick's frustration comes from those that have turbo 80's, not willing to easily share that hard earned information. I sure wouldn't! I don't share spreadsheets either. I've sure been asked.

Solving the fuel problem, the intercooler problem to the TRD kit sounds pretty simplistic to me, recipe type stuff. I've got 20k on my TRD right now, and I'd take it any day over a single turbo setup. I also own 2 tweeked turbos, so I can get the fix when I need it, but more in the 21psi hood...

Cheers

ST

 

[SUMOTOY]

So Scott, no insight at all I guess.

I think so, depends on your definition.

Get Corky Bell's book
Do homework before you spend money
You are going to get what you pay for using this list as your guide

Rick I've been on tech forums for 13 years. I punt this kind of prodding, as I have a long standing policy to not to do someone elses homework for free. I can say in 20 years of motorsport, I've also mentored and helped a *lot* of gung ho weekend warriors too. Every single one will tell you it's a lot of work, cuz it was a lot of work for me. Again, if you want to do this right, either buy something someone has done, and/or learn to do it yourself.

Buy Christo some interesting toys from ebay and ship them to him? Send Dusty a subscription to the beer of the month? Send either of them a gift certifcate to Dan's store or Summit racing? I can think of a lot better ways to approach what you are doing. There's a lot of insight in this thread already, you just haven't worked it.

ST

 

[Beowulf]

That said, aren't we really *not* at all comparing a turbo to a supercharger? 7 psi is 7psi.

I should stay out of this because I have almost zero knowledge about forced induction. You obviously know more about this than some of us but from the little that I *do* know, this seems to be an inaccurate statement.

As I understand it, superchargers are parasitic and it takes a percentage of the power it produces to create that 7psi of boost. Turbochargers build that same 7psi boost using exhaust gasses that are a byproduct of the combustion process and, from what little that I know, the turbos are not parasitic (if that's the right word.)

-B-

 

[SUMOTOY]

I should stay out of this because I have almost zero knowledge about forced induction. You obviously know more about this than some of us but from the little that I *do* know, this seems to be an inaccurate statement.

As I understand it, superchargers are parasitic and it takes a percentage of the power it produces to create that 7psi of boost. Turbochargers build that same 7psi boost using exhaust gasses that are a byproduct of the combustion process and, from what little that I know, the turbos are not parasitic (if that's the right word.)

-B-

Turbos are parasitic, they are obstructions to exhaust flow and pulse, and exhaust gasses need to be changed to a linear flow pretty early in the exhaust.

A lot of debate exists on the pros and cons of each. I'd say you might have a point if we were comparing twin turbos to a supercharger. We're not. We're talking about adding a single turbo to a 4.5L motor and limiting it to 8psi to avoid head gasket problem.

I claim there isn't any significant difference between 7psi on a M90 and 7psi on a given turbo. Compresor efficiency is really good on the M90 at 6-7psi, outlet temps are low, and it's sized to the engine ideally at that pressure.

Can a turbo offset parasitic loss of the SC? Sure, but at 7psi and 400hp, the difference will be insignificant. Take a gander at what the TRD "add on performance' kit on the 4Runner v6 has in terms of hp and torque.

Beowolf, you sure won't see me making that claim at 14psi!

SJ