Quick Spool Valve Results ARE IN PEOPLE!!!

[highboostingm3]

Thank you very much JR! Great info there.

Transient response is very important for street and road course so this is great to know and goes along with what Ted has always posted.

Nice post Ted. Some people don't like when a turbo tends to die up top, so those would be the ones who also over-size their turbo according to what you say but not according to their goals of peak power closer to redline. Different strokes.

[gstuning]

My own personal oppinion is that people don´t use boost control to their advantage.

if you max a turbo out at say 30psi @ 7000rpm then same turbo could more then likely do 33psi@5500rpm yet provide the same power to both rpm points. I.e the engine gives out 600whp@5500rpm and 600whp@ 7000rpm.

At work we got a YB cossie engine running exactly 650whp from 6500rpm up until 8500rpm through ignition and boost control. This is miles different then having a power curve that reaches 650whp @ 8500rpm as the max with it climbing to that from lower rpm´s.




This type of control I don´t advocate to stock piston engines or engines already running on the verge of knock on their choosen fuel.

But the fact remains that comprehensive electronic boost control enhances the potential
of any turbo kit by a considerable margin over same boost at all rpms strategy.

[flexer]

My own personal oppinion is that people don´t use boost control to their advantage.

if you max a turbo out at say 30psi @ 7000rpm then same turbo could more then likely do 33psi@5500rpm yet provide the same power to both rpm points. I.e the engine gives out 600whp@5500rpm and 600whp@ 7000rpm.

At work we got a YB cossie engine running exactly 650whp from 6500rpm up until 8500rpm through ignition and boost control. This is miles different then having a power curve that reaches 650whp @ 8500rpm as the max with it climbing to that from lower rpm´s.




This type of control I don´t advocate to stock piston engines or engines already running on the verge of knock on their choosen fuel.

But the fact remains that comprehensive electronic boost control enhances the potential
of any turbo kit by a considerable margin over same boost at all rpms strategy.

I hear yah on that. Interesting that you tune your motor for solid HP output the entire time. I am one who likes a flat torque to redline, which of course then equals increasing HP to redline.

Like cam said. Different strokes for different folks. I've never been one to build torque monster set-ups like your describing.

As for boost control, I spend as much time tuning all of my boost control maps as I do the car almost. The lotus is set up to run vehicle speed based boost control (what a lot of people call boost by gear, but its not really that, http://www.enginebasics.com/EFI%20Tu...By%20Gear.html ) , and so the car pulls hard as the speed increases, and also helps to not just wash to tires all the time.....or in my case, have the RACELOGIC traction control system going nuts all the time.

JR

[mazdero]

Ill say one thing.
Mazda tried this on the Series 4 RX7, and decided that it was all a bunch of bollocks and removed the flap for the Series 5.

Now we all know that a rotary has shedloads of exhaust energy, and if something like that doesnt make a difference with excited gas - is it going to make a difference with less energetic exhaust gas?


Oh, and why are we looking at the TOP of the rev range to see a difference? Isnt this thing suppose to make the turbo spool earlier?
The graphs i saw were showing different levels of boost giving different levels of power :shock:

Basically i look at it like this, mazda tried and failed to make it work.
Almost all of the turbocharger manufactures have tried something like this to make the turbo spool faster - and the only system that seems to work is the variable A/R exhaust housings.
Seems to find them on diesel trucks rather than petrol cars....

Yep you are correct, it was crap. back in '95 I removed the stupid flapper from the s4 header, welded the hole, and ported the turbine housing, and it worked a ton better. The s5 setup with true fully divided housing and header spooled just as fast as the flapper s4 setup, and the turbine was a bigger a/r.

Supra guys seem to love the QSV but I don't think it offers anything over a fully divided setup. I guess its a way for the undivided header guys to use a divided turbo and reap some benefits, though I don't know if it does offer much benefit.

I would like to see a test with a QSV versus properly porting a divided turbine housing used on an undivided header and see what the result is.

[gstuning]

I hear yah on that. Interesting that you tune your motor for solid HP output the entire time. I am one who likes a flat torque to redline, which of course then equals increasing HP to redline.

Like cam said. Different strokes for different folks. I've never been one to build torque monster set-ups like your describing.

As for boost control, I spend as much time tuning all of my boost control maps as I do the car almost. The lotus is set up to run vehicle speed based boost control (what a lot of people call boost by gear, but its not really that, http://www.enginebasics.com/EFI%20Tu...By%20Gear.html ) , and so the car pulls hard as the speed increases, and also helps to not just wash to tires all the time.....or in my case, have the RACELOGIC traction control system going nuts all the time.

JR

I didn´t build that YB engine, but the people who did had gasket busting problems so they had to hold back the engine at higher rpms .

[hsvturbo]

It appears that Flexer closed the turbine's exducer scroll side with his valve, where as other QSV companies close off the inducer side scroll (larger wheel diameter). I wonder which side is should be on?

[someguy2800]

This is what I just finished making for mine. Should spool that big ole S400 like a champ.



- - - Updated - - -

here is what it looked like before

[hsvturbo]

This is what I just finished making for mine. Should spool that big ole S400 like a champ.

That is pretty much what I was going to do, but with a 44mm WG on a T3 frame turbo.

What made you decide to close off the exducer side of the turbo?

[someguy2800]

That is pretty much what I was going to do, but with a 44mm WG on a T3 frame turbo.

What made you decide to close off the exducer side of the turbo?

It was just more convenient to package it that way.

[wazzu70]

Interesting Perry. Seems like a better way to control the flow to the other volute. Much less leak prone and better sealing than putting it in the turbine housing.

[PowerKraut]

Seen a header design like perrys on the webz a few weeks ago and really liked it. I would love to know how much earlier it would really spool now. Wonder if there are potential losses when both scrolls are fully opened in the upper RPM range, due to not being a true TS anymore?

[Robocop]

so i'm taking this is a broad and simple way of looking at it, very noobish.

but the only reason to setup a turbo system like this is to run those 1,000hp turbos on the street
without needing to antilag at every light just to get it moving ya. ?

what if you do this on like a 500hp turbo? basically factory insta spool?
not that a lower hp setup needs this, properly sized, but i would think doing it like this would be a new standard.
just thinking out loud . i sorta like the turbo lag myself keeps parts from blowing up and 2 stroke type of feel is enjoyable.

[someguy2800]

so i'm taking this is a broad and simple way of looking at it, very noobish.

but the only reason to setup a turbo system like this is to run those 1,000hp turbos on the street
without needing to antilag at every light just to get it moving ya. ?

what if you do this on like a 500hp turbo? basically factory insta spool?
not that a lower hp setup needs this, properly sized, but i would think doing it like this would be a new standard.
just thinking out loud . i sorta like the turbo lag myself keeps parts from blowing up and 2 stroke type of feel is enjoyable.

I don't see any reason why not to do this on a smaller turbo, say an S300 sized turbo. The only downside I see is you are adding another component that could possibly fail, but external wastegates rarely fail so I don't think that will be a big issue.

The other benefit I see is that you should be able to run a bigger turbine housing and still get good response, and thus actually have less back pressure. In my case I already had pretty good response on mine with just a twin scroll manifold, but I am going to go from a .9 AR housing which is the smallest they make for my turbo, to a 1.20 which is the biggest.

[PowerKraut]

Yeah, i am really lookin to do this on my S300 m50. Why not, seems to have no downside besides added cost of another gate and a bit of welding. I just realized how easy it would be to just modify my single scroll mani. Tho i am not keen on removing the header once again right now.

[whodwho]

I like the concept, a couple possible downsides that come to me is the amount of heat it will be subjected to and if the diaphragm will hold up and the other is with the valve head being in the main exhaust stream. Maybe a heat shield between the header and the lower half of the WG would help for the body heat. This one doesn't look to have water ports, not sure how much that would help.

[PowerKraut]

Is there such thing as a "good China WG" you can recommend for the quick spool control? ? I do not think the second gate for the quick spool is as crucial as the one controlling boost, so i would try to safe a few bucks there.. boost control gate on my build is a (i hope) genuine tial one.

[someguy2800]

Is there such thing as a "good China WG" you can recommend for the quick spool control? ? I do not think the second gate for the quick spool is as crucial as the one controlling boost, so i would try to safe a few bucks there.. boost control gate on my build is a (i hope) genuine tial one.

Well I was originally going to use my 46mm precision gate as the spool valve, but decided to use something a tad bigger, so then I bought a 50mm JGS wastegate, which is like a $450 gate. That didn't fit because the top hat was too tall. So then I got the idea that I would just weld the gate as an integral part into the manifold so I figured I would get a cheap one to try that with and if it didn't work I wouldn't be out much. So the one that is on mine is a 50mm VS racing wastegate. I have heard really good things about the stuff they sell so I figured I would try it.

https://turbo4less.com/product/vsr-50mm-wastegate/

It was just the typical china crap. I took it apart when I welded it in and the top hat was full of metal shavings and the diaphragm was out of the groove and being crushed. I figured I should have a spare so I ordered another one off ebay that is absolutely identical for $64, so now I have a spare if I ever need it.

https://www.ebay.com/itm/UNIVERSAL-5...72.m2749.l2649

[PowerKraut]

I did the math on pipe diameters for a T4 flange. the diameters are 47mm per scroll and 67mm collector, before splitting up. this matches with the T4 entry port area. to me this sounds very large and could maybe lead to a velocity drop of the exhaust gases, yet may be needed on high power builds. let me know what you think.

Rechnung 1.jpg Rechnung 2.jpg

A 38mm pipe (for a 38mm Gate) has only 64,8% of the area of a single T4 scroll entry. To match the Scroll a 48 gate would be needed, without considering the lower flow due to the valve not opening the port to its full flowing potential.