Just a little more . . . . .

[oldestof11]

I'd do HX35s feeding an HE351

[93flatbed]

With the gate on the manifold the smaller housings wouldn't be an issue. If that's what you are getting at Jon?

[oldestof11]

HY35's may surge. You gate the manifold to drive the primaries harder. Unless you mean a manifold being the hotpipe for the 2 turbos.

[Remps]

I remember reading something about Garmon's daughter's 1st gen with a 12 mm pump running a high 11 quarter mile, with a turbo(s) setup designed to use the low end ve fuel. My searching has turned up nothing so far though. Pretty sure it was in Diesel power mag, a white D250 iirc.

[fatty]

That was Brad Ponci's daughter. He's one of those guys that won't divulge information for some stupid reason. It's just a VE, not like its going to be competitive anyways.

[Remps]

I found a thread on it over on comp d, it is a S471 T4 and a Borg 60 mm.

[fatty]

I asked him directly on CF and he just said something about a conservative set of twins.

[oldestof11]

David, still running 6x16s?

[dazedandconfused]

David, still running 6x16s?

I believe he is running a modified 5x18 now after splitting another 6x16.

[Sutter1stgen]

There was a thread started over on compD that I know justin (93flatbed) read as well as I. Weston gave out a bunch of advice that got my attention. The point he made was that a turbocharger that would surge in a single application, would not in a multiple charger configuration.
Now if my reading comprehension is on par a dtech 62/65, he351, or something of the like would work great.

When talking with RonA I asked him "what he would recommend for my new p pump setup?"
I was surprised in his response, he reommended a s475/83 as a primary. To me that seems as if it would be too tight up top, because that isn't what the norm runs. But then I thought here's a guy that's ran multiple setups, did the research, and obviously knows his stuff. He said "the quicker spool will be a far better advantage down low than a box s475 unit, and that I wouldn't choke out with the 1.1 AR 83mm turbine till about 800 fuel only."

I vote for some tailored newer technology as a primary, and finding out which turbine the secondary is utilizing.

[BC847]

Do you know what turbine wheel is on that 62? 65 or 68?

It turns out it's a 65.

[Tacoclaw]

Swap it with a 58/71, faster spool and better flow, right?

[RCCUMMINS89]

Not a bad idea.

Things I've found..........65 wheels work decent in some applications... but they spool slow for what they are and still don't flow all that great (hence why I chose a 68).

Also a 58/71 combination of compounds works decent up to about 500hp in realistic world. However, they will make more it seems in lesser hp applications than the larger stuff because......well.........it's all about cylinder pressures in order to burn the fuel with ginormous injectors.

[oldestof11]

From what I gather in my turbo sizing discussion, for a small displacement high revving diesel (ours that hit 3-4k RPM), you need a larger turbine compared to the exhaust wheel. That's why a 62/68 may spool better than a 62/65. So a 57/71 should spool great.

Reason being, the small compressor doesn't need much shaft HP to make the required RPM/PR to be in its map. The 71mm turbine has a greater surface area to capture the heat energy.

When I talked to a few people about a 600hp capable charger for my old 5spd 4x4, I was recommended by more than one person a 71mm turbine over the 65 and 68s. It was to be able to capture more heat Energy that was lost between the shifts. The compressor I was recommended 62FMW, 63, and 64mm.

[BC847]

From what I gather in my turbo sizing discussion, for a small displacement high revving diesel (ours that hit 3-4k RPM), you need a larger turbine compared to the exhaust wheel. That's why a 62/68 may spool better than a 62/65. So a 57/71 should spool great.

Reason being, the small compressor doesn't need much shaft HP to make the required RPM/PR to be in its map. The 71mm turbine has a greater surface area to capture the heat energy.

When I talked to a few people about a 600hp capable charger for my old 5spd 4x4, I was recommended by more than one person a 71mm turbine over the 65 and 68s. It was to be able to capture more heat Energy that was lost between the shifts. The compressor I was recommended 62FMW, 63, and 64mm.

Good info.

I appreciate y'alls suggestions. Still cyphering it all. Work's kicking my @ss.


On a related note . . . ..

- So I was running the Scheid 6x.016" EDM VCO style injectors that Eric had tested to find they flowed 7.2 lpm (liquid) IIRC. Made good WOT power with them.
- With their tendency to split, I went to some 5x.018" SAC style injectors that Eric had flow-honed to match the 6x.016" VCOs in terms of flow . . . . . . and maybe just a little more.
- Some work was also done to the pintles to allow the injectors just a little more flow.
- I've currently got them set to the stock/OEM Pop-pressure.

- In a nutshell, I'm flowing a good bit more than the 6x16s as is shown by my EGTs (all else being the same). Further, the SAC nozzle design is supposedly more efficient (fineprint) than the comparable VCO, so I should see a subtle power gain by default (all else being the same).


Hold those thoughts . . . ..

- When we turn in the main fuel-screw, we effectively lengthen the injection event in terms of time.
- With that, we have to advance the static injection event timing so as to get more of the fuel in the piston bowl. Hopefully BTDC.

I've read somewhere that excessively lengthening the injection event can result in more of the fuel being injected outside of the bowl (both at the beginning and end of the injection event), as well as perhaps ATDC. All of which are counter productive at best. Makes sense . . . . .

So . . . .

With these 5x18s, I should be able to back off the main fuel-screw a little and still flow that of the 6x16s, . . . . . and do it in a shorter injection event.

Right?