twins on little 3.8 ?

[REDS HOT AIR]

whats you guys thoughts of a 235 cube motor with production style heads running twin te-44's

Im thinking small cube motor so run garret .63 housings

Im thinking around 9.5 to 1 and something in the 218 to 224 range on the hydro roller cam

any thoughts or should I just put it together and try it

looking to throw something together while I work on getting all the goods for my stg head big cube motor

 

[Otto J]

NOt sure, but i think twin 44s on a small production heads style motor my be tough to spool,(unless its a built motor) I would think 2 stock turbos would work pretty damn good.

 

[JCotton]

Red,

I plan on posting some pics this week of one of my customers twin T with a stock block and all custom headers, IC, custom everything............. it's just a fabulous looking engine compartment. It's a street car setup, with a "little" performance possibilities. We set it up with twin 60's with P trim wheels,ball bearing center section. Lots of work still to do, but it sure is shaping up.

 

[postal]

A 44 doesn't spool much different than a stocker. CAS did that twin turbo set up with a pair of stockers a few years ago. I think they said it spooled pretty good and I dont think they had a very big convertor. (I'm thinking it was like a 2800 stall 12").

I think HP spools turbos not cubic inches. There was a guy in the turbo section talking about the 72 Q-trim with a .82 four bolt housing that he runs on a 150" motor. Stage guys talk about spooling 88's with no problem. My stock 231" long block spooled a T63E 3 bolt ok at best and my buddies built 231" spooled a TE70 4 bolt like it was a tinker toy.(both cars ran same TC). The exhaust volume is going to go hand in hand with the HP level of the motor. I would think that the HP each turbo has to feed would give you an idea of how it would spool.

I would say that if a 300 to 325 hp stock motor could spool a 44 pretty good then a 600 to 650 motor should spool a pair of 44's pretty good.

The twin turbine wheels and housings should flow alot more exhaust and should help lower the back pressure on the motor. If I'm reading/using some equation I found on Garrett's web site correctly it looks like you can run a much more favorable boost to back pressure ratio with twins (compared to one big one). The problem is I can't find anybody who can tell me if I'm using the equation properly. If I do remember correctly the CAS twin stocker project was said to pull real hard on the top end, so maybe I am reading that equation correctly.

In general I would say that it would be an interesting project.

Jason

 

[Otto J]

I figure trying to spool a te44 with 3 cylinder engine may bet tough,But hell i would try it

 

[bruce]

Originally posted by postal
I think HP spools turbos not cubic inches.

Might be due to what Bucci talks about. With a v6 split in 2, you have 3 evenly spaced firings, and extremely strong pulses. Some say there are 2 different ways of spinning the turbines, one using a *log* style manifold, and volume to spin them, and the other using strong pulsations to do the job. IMO, Bucci explains why two stockers can be used effectively on a twin setup, so effectively.

 

[REDS HOT AIR]

nobody saying dont do it just get a big honkin turbo and stay single (been there done that)

thats why Im in this section anyway even tho Im sure I could get lots of responces in general tech but Im sure half would say no, dont , cant

Hey Jack send me some pics

of course Im not looking to drive this thing much Im just wanting something to play with while I keep gathering parts for the stage motor


Im thinking it should have one hellova mph at the traps ...Of course Im not scared to blow parts out the bottom to see what It will really do

btw this will be my girdled 109 motor that was in my car before just without the cracked crank I took out of it ... more compresssion and more cam so it will pull to the rpm's it will need at the traps

I plan to have a shovel and trash can in the trunck for clean up along with some oil-dry

 

[JCotton]

red,

I posted a thread on TBS of the twin, I couldn't figure out how to post it here....

 

[REDS HOT AIR]

thats a sweet set-up

Is he planning on pushing the car any or just cruizing it ??

 

[Otto J]

Most likely with a 109 block and twins like that,Probably pushing it.Literaly

 

[JCotton]

Red,

Do you still need pics sent to you or were you able to get the pic off the thread on TBS? Also, although the mock up is using a stock block with iron heads.......... the bullit we are building is a S2 off center with Champion R heads... But.......... with all the big numbers the TSM guys are running, incidentally, faster than many stage powered cars, I don't see why a built stock couldn't lay down some decent numbers........ at least for a while.

 

[REDS HOT AIR]

hey yeah I can see the pics over there

I replied to you over there also but in the post above you answered alot of my questons

I think thats cool that car should freggin fly .. Im hopeing that I can get enough time out of the stock block combo to get it half way tuned in and let er eat at the track and see what happens

you'll probly know when I take it

Btw I'll be without car but should meet you next month
(hint) I'll be hanging out with buicks and subaru's

 

[Phatman]

Didn't Tony have a problem with the bottom end when he put his together?

I know Mike Pitts had gotten some parts and was going to do it with a Stage 1 block, but just neeevvveerrrrrrr finished.

 

[REDS HOT AIR]

yeah why is it so tight lipped about project x ??

Id like to know how it turned out befre it blew up

 

[JDEstill]

Project X.... You can search through the old mailing list archives and dig up the whole story that was made public. Probably some errors in what is to follow, since its been a while, but what I remember was that Tony shipped a prototype down to Jay C who put it on Scotts car. My impression was that it had a fairly high mileage engine. This wasn't all that long after Jay had moved to Texas and taken Scott under his wing. He made a couple of passes on it, then blew out the bottom end. What I recall is that Jay and Scotts testing pretty ended there, when they decided to build a stage engine instead of going back with a 109, and pretty much turned it into an all out race car. Eventually Tony got his prototype back, kept fiddling with it, and I guess never was 100% satisfied with it, and so it never made it to market. I think there were some sticking points, like he wanted it to work with the a/c, but had trouble getting all the lines routed properly and such in a cost effective manner.

I can see how twins might have some advantages on a street car with regards to response. Having a smaller pipe volume between the cylinders and the turbine should help spooling, having a smaller turbocharger with less rotating inertia might help spooling, and I really liked the way Tony had the turbos oriented. With the turbos turned 90deg, so the shaft axis runs north/south instead of east/west, you don't have that big ole elbow on the turbine outlet. Getting rid of that thing has got to help get rid of some backpressure too, which again helps spooling and power.

Ultimate power though, probably not a whole lot different with either setup. And a lot of guys would say that they get plenty good spooling to begin with, and who needs more? So then what is the point of the whole exercise.

I seem to remember that... who is it with the Rosewood T? name escapes me... was running twin TE-44s down into the 9's or so several years ago? If one TE-44 can flow 850 acfm, then twins has 1700 acfm capability, and you need a lot of engine to make use of that!

John

 

[JDEstill]

Now that I think about it, I have a question:
if indeed a setup with smaller twins has better spooling characteristics than the equivalent big single, I presume the optimum converter for such a combination would have less stall. Whereas the big single needs a 3800 stall, maybe the small twins only needs a 3000 stall. If that was true, what's the implication for a fast fast car? Higher efficiency converter gives you a little something on the top end? No effect at all? Anyone know?

John

 

[postal]

About two weeks ago I decided to get a pair of smaller turbos instead of one large one (the bigger GT42, some people call it a GT45 I think).

I called Jack Cotton and ordered a pair of Turbonetics TS04 turbos. The TS04's are the smallest of the T-series turbochargers that Turbonetics list on there site. They have 58.5mm compressor wheels and map out good in the 400 to low 500 HP range each. I ordered these with P-trim turbine wheels and 4 bolt .69 a/r turbine housings. The P-trim wheels may be a little large for the compressors on these, but P-trim turbine housings are easy to find for a cheap price. I hope that if I don't like how they respond that I can just get different turbine housings to tweak it out. Last but not least, I ordered these with the ceramic ball bearing option. A pair of BB turbos put a hit on my budget but Jack was (maybe still is) offering some nice pricing on BB turbos when I ordered.

Good luck with your project.

Jason

 

[Turbo-Archie]

Originally posted by JDEstill
Project X.... Probably some errors in what is to follow,
John

Thats about all correct from what I remember. But the motor in TX already had a rod knock when they installed it. They knew it was going to blow at some point. They put it on FULL KILL and only make one test pass in the pits and it let go at the top of 2nd gear. Then Lonnie got it in Ohio. He went through 3-4 trans and never made a full pass.

 

[REDS HOT AIR]

just seems strange a one off car like that never got a full pass in

 

[Turbo-Archie]

x

Project X was on 3 cars and never made a full 1/4 mile pass before the project was dropped.