4BD1T Turbo Sizing and Performance Prediction.

[Dougal]

Over the years I've built up some calculation spreadsheets to predict engine power and torque from air consumption, boost and efficiency (BSFC). I've had other spreadsheets to predict engine airflow from boost, volumetric efficiency and intercooling.

I had a burst of productivity last night and combined the two. I then set all the variables as close as I could to my 4BD1T using information from 4BD1T factory performance charts, observed boost and fuel pump settings.
These variables have all been set as close as I could estimate to my 4BD1T, it will also apply within reason to 4BD2T and 4BT engines.

Here are the basic variables:
RPM range from 800-3,600rpm in 100rpm steps.
VE starting at 0.9 at idle to 2000rpm, dropping to 0.8 at 3000rpm and 0.74 at 3,600rpm.
BSFC starting at 240g/kwh at idle, minimum of 215g/kwh at 2100-2200rpm and climbing to 257g/kwh at 3,600rpm.
Observed boost hitting 10psi at 1200rpm, 22psi at 2000rpm, 24psi at 2200rpm and dropping from there.
No intercooler, 20C intake temps, sea-level and 60% compressor efficiency.
A/F ratio used was 17:1.

Here are the results:
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2013/02/301.jpg

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2013/02/302.jpg

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2013/02/303.jpg

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2013/04/428.jpg

These aren't perfect, they don't include parasitics such as turbine drive pressure which are dropping more power at higher rpm than shown on the graphs. But they are a good indication. I think it's within 10% of reality at all points.

Now here is where it gets very interesting. That loop shaped plot of PR vs Flow was done to overlay on available compressor maps.

Lets start with the smallest, the old T25 I was running.
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2013/03/293.jpg
Quite a good match.

T28 compressor on the DIY T2560 I'm currently running.
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2015/11/297.jpg
This is looking quite bad. I'm surprised to see it left of the surge line. It appears not all of the rough running I have been experiencing at low rpm and high boost is due to the flywheel. Compressor surge is a concern here.
This is obviously why Garrett don't sell a T28 turbo with a 0.49 A/R turbine housing. It lets you drive it into surge.

GT2259 Compressor. This is the closest to the Hino Turbo that some are running:
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2013/02/304.jpg
This is an excellent fit. It is also a very efficient compressor and the turbine is almost 10% more efficient also.

Holset small turbos. Including the HX25 and HE221:
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2013/02/305.jpg
We have an excellent fit for all of them. The HX25, HX27 and HE221 are perfectly suitable.

Holset large turbos. Including the HY35 and HX35:
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2013/02/306.jpg
None of those other tham the HX30 are a remotely good fit.

[c.h.i.e.f]

Not long and ill have it together for some figures to give you...

[Dougal]

Now for the Intercooled results. These are the same figures as above, just with 60% effective intercooling. This means the intercooler takes out 60% of the temperature difference between the compressor outlet and the engine intake.

Airflow vs RPM:
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2013/09/382.jpg
Total airflow is now up to 25 lb/min. Before we were around 21lb/min.

Pressure ratio vs density.
PR is the same as before (same boost), but the density increase has gone from 1.7 times to almost 2.2.
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2013/02/271.jpg

Pressure ratio vs airflow.
PR is the same as before, but the extra density pushes the airflow out to the right.
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2013/02/272.jpg

Predicted performance.
Big increase. Note the power scale has changed to fit it in.
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2013/09/381.jpg

T25 turbo map:
The demand line has now broken out to the right. This means the T25 is too small for maximum power.
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2013/09/380.jpg

T28 turbo map:
This one was in surge before, the extra flow from the charge cooling has made it work.
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2013/02/273.jpg

GT2259 turbo map:
This one is now knocking on the flow limits. Still a very good choice though.
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2013/02/274.jpg

Holset small frame:
The HX20, HX25 and HE221 are still looking very good.
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2013/02/275.jpg

Holset medium frame:
The HX30 is looking good, the rest are still far too big:
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2013/04/484.jpg

[Dougal]

And comparison to Borg Warner, specifically the EFR6258 that Flagg is fitting here: http://www.aulro.com/afvb/isuzu-landy-enthusiasts-section/167900-not-so-budget-turbo-install.html

My operating points plotted out show power results in agreement with the ones I've derived earlier. My link to the Matchbot is here:
BorgWarner MatchBot (http://www.turbodriven.com//performanceturbos/matchbot/index.html#version=1.2&displacement=3.9&CID=237.978&altitude=500&baro=14.502&aat=75&turboconfig=1&compressor=62k80&pt1_rpm=1500&pt1_ve=90&pt1_boost=14.5&pt1_ie=60&pt1_filres=0.08&pt1_ipd=0.2&pt1_mbp=0.5&pt1_ce=66&pt1_te=75&pt1_egt=1400&pt1_ter=1.58&pt1_pw=2.62&pt1_bsfc=0.37&pt1_afr=17&pt1_wts=300&pt1_wd=83&pt1_wd2=74&pt1_wrsin=69033&pt2_rpm=1800&pt2_ve=90&pt2_boost=19&pt2_ie=60&pt2_filres=0.1&pt2_ipd=0.2&pt2_mbp=1&pt2_ce=70&pt2_te=73&pt2_egt=1400&pt2_ter=1.8&pt2_pw=8.12&pt2_bsfc=0.36&pt2_afr=17&pt2_wts=320&pt2_wd=83&pt2_wd2=74&pt2_wrsin=73635&pt3_rpm=2100&pt3_ve=89&pt3_boost=23.5&pt3_ie=60&pt3_filres=0.12&pt3_ipd=0.3&pt3_mbp=1.3&pt3_ce=74&pt3_te=72&pt3_egt=1400&pt3_ter=2.04&pt3_pw=13.34&pt3_bsfc=0.35&pt3_afr=17&pt3_wts=340&pt3_wd=83&pt3_wd2=74&pt3_wrsin=78238&pt4_rpm=2500&pt4_ve=85&pt4_boost=24&pt4_ie=60&pt4_filres=0.15&pt4_ipd=0.3&pt4_mbp=1.5&pt4_ce=76&pt4_te=71&pt4_egt=1400&pt4_ter=2.16&pt4_pw=18.88&pt4_bsfc=0.36&pt4_afr=17&pt4_wts=368&pt4_wd=83&pt4_wd2=74&pt4_wrsin=84681&pt5_rpm=2800&pt5_ve=82&pt5_boost=22.5&pt5_ie=60&pt5_filres=0.18&pt5_ipd=0.3&pt5_mbp=1.8&pt5_ce=72&pt5_te=70&pt5_egt=1400&pt5_ter=2.2&pt5_pw=18.73&pt5_bsfc=0.37&pt5_afr=17&pt5_wts=400&pt5_wd=83&pt5_wd2=74&pt5_wrsin=92044&pt6_rpm=3100&pt6_ve=79&pt6_boost=20&pt6_ie=60&pt6_filres=0.2&pt6_ipd=0.3&pt6_mbp=2&pt6_ce=66&pt6_te=70&pt6_egt=1400&pt6_ter=2.18&pt6_pw=18.16&pt6_bsfc=0.38&pt6_afr=17&pt6_wts=400&pt6_wd=83&pt6_wd2=74&pt6_wrsin=92044&)

John ran a different set of operating points to higher rpm (post here: http://www.aulro.com/afvb/isuzu-landy-enthusiasts-section/134031-efr-borgwarner-turbo-2.html#post1533405 )
Direct link here: BorgWarner MatchBot (http://www.turbodriven.com//performanceturbos/matchbot/index.html#version=1.2&displacement=3.9&CID=237.978&altitude=500&baro=14.456&aat=80&turboconfig=1&compressor=62k80&pt1_rpm=1500&pt1_ve=80&pt1_boost=6&pt1_ie=80&pt1_filres=0.1&pt1_ipd=0.5&pt1_mbp=0.5&pt1_ce=60&pt1_te=72&pt1_egt=1250&pt1_ter=1.33&pt1_pw=1.99&pt1_bsfc=0.36&pt1_afr=19&pt1_wts=300&pt1_wd=83&pt1_wd2=74&pt1_wrsin=69033&pt2_rpm=2000&pt2_ve=85&pt2_boost=23&pt2_ie=75&pt2_filres=0.15&pt2_ipd=0.5&pt2_mbp=0.5&pt2_ce=65&pt2_te=72&pt2_egt=1250&pt2_ter=2.18&pt2_pw=0.05&pt2_bsfc=0.36&pt2_afr=19&pt2_wts=320&pt2_wd=83&pt2_wd2=74&pt2_wrsin=73635&pt3_rpm=2500&pt3_ve=85&pt3_boost=28&pt3_ie=75&pt3_filres=0.2&pt3_ipd=0.5&pt3_mbp=0.5&pt3_ce=70&pt3_te=72&pt3_egt=1250&pt3_ter=2.65&pt3_pw=12.46&pt3_bsfc=0.36&pt3_afr=19&pt3_wts=340&pt3_wd=83&pt3_wd2=74&pt3_wrsin=78238&pt4_rpm=3000&pt4_ve=80&pt4_boost=30&pt4_ie=70&pt4_filres=0.25&pt4_ipd=0.6&pt4_mbp=1.5&pt4_ce=73.5&pt4_te=72&pt4_egt=1250&pt4_ter=2.76&pt4_pw=15.25&pt4_bsfc=0.36&pt4_afr=19&pt4_wts=368&pt4_wd=83&pt4_wd2=74&pt4_wrsin=84681&pt5_rpm=3500&pt5_ve=75&pt5_boost=30&pt5_ie=70&pt5_filres=0.25&pt5_ipd=0.6&pt5_mbp=1.5&pt5_ce=74&pt5_te=72&pt5_egt=1250&pt5_ter=2.88&pt5_pw=18.79&pt5_bsfc=0.36&pt5_afr=19&pt5_wts=400&pt5_wd=83&pt5_wd2=74&pt5_wrsin=92044&pt6_rpm=4000&pt6_ve=75&pt6_boost=30&pt6_ie=70&pt6_filres=0.3&pt6_ipd=0.7&pt6_mbp=2&pt6_ce=70&pt6_te=72&pt6_egt=1250&pt6_ter=3.14&pt6_pw=19.42&pt6_bsfc=0.36&pt6_afr=19&pt6_wts=400&pt6_wd=83&pt6_wd2=74&pt6_wrsin=92044&)

Looks suitable.:cool:

[flagg]

When I did my matchbot I was more conservative with EGTs.. maxed them out at 720c, and limited boost to 20psi. This limited me to the 6258, although with more tuning I'm sure the 6758 would be possible.

[mike_ie]

I clicked on this thread and think my brain just exploded.... :blink::blink::blink:

[Ancient Mariner]

Yeah I think there on the wrong forum Quantum physics Rocket science and
Brain surgery two floors up:)

[rovercare]

Yep, can't see no wheelspin vids:p

[flagg]

Bush65 did some great posts on how it all works and what all the numbers mean, have a search around but I think some of them are in a thread that doesn't have a title about turbos.

[Dougal]

When I did my matchbot I was more conservative with EGTs.. maxed them out at 720c, and limited boost to 20psi. This limited me to the 6258, although with more tuning I'm sure the 6758 would be possible.

I had fridge-blindness yesterday and couldn't see the EGT fields to change them. Fixed now.
I also went through just now and put in cruise conditions. 8psi boost, 716F EGT (380C), 2000rpm.
The EFR couldn't do it. But I got a match by pulling boost down to 6psi and EGT up to 900F. This puts drive pressure only 1psi above boost.
BorgWarner MatchBot (http://www.turbodriven.com//performanceturbos/matchbot/index.html#version=1.2&displacement=3.9&CID=237.978&altitude=500&baro=14.502&aat=75&turboconfig=1&compressor=62k80&pt1_rpm=1500&pt1_ve=90&pt1_boost=14.5&pt1_ie=60&pt1_filres=0.08&pt1_ipd=0.2&pt1_mbp=0.5&pt1_ce=66&pt1_te=75&pt1_egt=1400&pt1_ter=1.58&pt1_pw=2.62&pt1_bsfc=0.37&pt1_afr=17&pt1_wts=300&pt1_wd=83&pt1_wd2=74&pt1_wrsin=69033&pt2_rpm=1800&pt2_ve=90&pt2_boost=19&pt2_ie=60&pt2_filres=0.1&pt2_ipd=0.2&pt2_mbp=1&pt2_ce=70&pt2_te=73&pt2_egt=1400&pt2_ter=1.8&pt2_pw=8.12&pt2_bsfc=0.36&pt2_afr=17&pt2_wts=320&pt2_wd=83&pt2_wd2=74&pt2_wrsin=73635&pt3_rpm=2000&pt3_ve=89&pt3_boost=6&pt3_ie=0&pt3_filres=0.12&pt3_ipd=0&pt3_mbp=1.3&pt3_ce=74&pt3_te=72&pt3_egt=800&pt3_ter=1.35&pt3_pw=8.09&pt3_bsfc=0.35&pt3_afr=17&pt3_wts=340&pt3_wd=83&pt3_wd2=74&pt3_wrsin=78238&pt4_rpm=2500&pt4_ve=85&pt4_boost=24&pt4_ie=60&pt4_filres=0.15&pt4_ipd=0.3&pt4_mbp=1.5&pt4_ce=76&pt4_te=71&pt4_egt=1400&pt4_ter=2.16&pt4_pw=18.88&pt4_bsfc=0.36&pt4_afr=17&pt4_wts=368&pt4_wd=83&pt4_wd2=74&pt4_wrsin=84681&pt5_rpm=2800&pt5_ve=82&pt5_boost=22.5&pt5_ie=60&pt5_filres=0.18&pt5_ipd=0.3&pt5_mbp=1.8&pt5_ce=72&pt5_te=70&pt5_egt=1400&pt5_ter=2.2&pt5_pw=18.73&pt5_bsfc=0.37&pt5_afr=17&pt5_wts=400&pt5_wd=83&pt5_wd2=74&pt5_wrsin=92044&pt6_rpm=3100&pt6_ve=79&pt6_boost=20&pt6_ie=60&pt6_filres=0.2&pt6_ipd=0.3&pt6_mbp=2&pt6_ce=66&pt6_te=70&pt6_egt=1400&pt6_ter=2.18&pt6_pw=17.72&pt6_bsfc=0.38&pt6_afr=17&pt6_wts=400&pt6_wd=83&pt6_wd2=74&pt6_wrsin=92044&)

I'll have to measure backpressure again on my T25 when I reinstall it. It used to push 12-13psi drive pressure for 8psi boost. But I've since fixed some intake piping restrictions.

[Bush65]

...

I'll have to measure backpressure again on my T25 when I reinstall it. It used to push 12-13psi drive pressure for 8psi boost. But I've since fixed some intake piping restrictions.
Thanks for the thread Dougal.

Now you only have the exhaust pipe restrictions and intercooler to do, plus videos for Mat (rovercare) :D

[Dougal]

Thanks for the thread Dougal.

Now you only have the exhaust pipe restrictions and intercooler to do, plus videos for Mat (rovercare) :D

I'll see what it'll do with the T25 back on it. The T2560 has nowhere near the bite off the line. In the mean-time can someone go give Mat a hug?

Because I'll be swapping to a 93 body at some stage, all the body cutting to fit the intercooler in will be wasted in a year or two. The stop-gap strategy is first fit the T25 wastegated to 20psi.
Then go back to fitting the GT2256V I have lying around.

I have another pneumatic VNT control idea which is two-stage.
First stage, dawes valve or just vacuum vs boost to set the maximum boost level.
Second stage (takes output from the first stage) is a 3 port valve connected to the throttle linkage, the first stage output and atmospheric. So this will vary the vanes between max boost and full open depending on pedal position.

It looks like without extending the rpm range or fuel pump mods a 56mm compressor is about as good as garrett gets.

[Dougal]

Yeah I think there on the wrong forum Quantum physics Rocket science and
Brain surgery two floors up:)

Rocket science you say: Brain Surgery vs Rocket Science - YouTube

:D

[Bush65]

...

I have another pneumatic VNT control idea which is two-stage.
First stage, dawes valve or just vacuum vs boost to set the maximum boost level.
Second stage (takes output from the first stage) is a 3 port valve connected to the throttle linkage, the first stage output and atmospheric. So this will vary the vanes between max boost and full open depending on pedal position.

It looks like without extending the rpm range or fuel pump mods a 56mm compressor is about as good as garrett gets.
It will be interesting to see how your 2 stage VNT control works out.

I'm not convinced people should limit themselves to a 56mm Garrett compressor wheel. The major problem illustrated by those 60mm compressor maps, mass flow too far to right, was due to the high trim, i.e. larger inducer.

The 60mm, 60 trim wheel has a 60.1mm exducer and 46.5mm inducer. 60mm, 55 trim has a 60.1mm exducer and 44.6mm inducer.

For others who may not know, it is the cross section area of the inducer (proportional to diameter squared) that has the major influence on air flow. The exducer diameter influences boost pressure, proportional to tip velocity squared. Trim = (Inducer2/Exducer2) x 100 and indicates what the efficiency will be like.

The 59.4, 52 trim (59.4mm exducer, 42.8mm inducer) map was a good match, IMHO better than the 56mm wheel which was close to choking at about 2000 rpm (with an intercooler).

[Dougal]

It will be interesting to see how your 2 stage VNT control works out.

I'm not convinced people should limit themselves to 56mm Garrett compressor wheel. The major problem illustrated by those 60mm compressor maps, mass flow too far to right, was due to the high trim, i.e. larger inducer.

The 60mm, 60 trim wheel has a 60.1mm exducer and 44.5mm inducer. 60mm, 55 trim has a 60.1mm exducer and 44.6mm inducer.

For others who may not know, it is the cross section area of the inducer (proportional to diameter squared) that has the major influence on air flow. The exducer diameter influences boost pressure, proportional to tip velocity squared. Trim = (Inducer2/Exducer2) x 100 and indicates what the efficiency will be like.

The 59.4, 52 trim (59.4mm exducer, 42.8mm inducer) map was a good match, IMHO better than the 56mm wheel which was close to choking choking at about 2000 rpm (with an intercooler).

That's exactly the problem John, the problem is tip-speed and the answer is a bigger wheel. But Garrett are playing the petrol turbo game and don't do many wheels that suit high pressure 4 litre diesels.
The T28R that Ben is using has an even bigger inducer than the 60mm 60 trim I was using. But he's got a 0.86 A/R turbine housing to go with it.

I have two VNT's here with the 56mm, 50 trim wheels. One is the GT2256V from a 2.7L merc which I will fit to the 4BD1T one day. The other was a GT1849V which has had the same wheel fitted (GT1856V) for my 2.2tdi work car.
Maps aren't available for these, but the 56mm, 55 trim wheels we do have maps for can do a PR of 3 and 30lb/min, which could deliver a very conservative 200kw on our engines. Pro-rata on inducer diameter would suggest 27lb/min at PR of 3 is possible. Which is still possibly enough for 190kw at 2600rpm and 800rpm at 2200rpm.
As you can imagine, these start getting peaky and the peak torque and peak power start to converge.
My figures here are all using 60% intercooling. Which is quite conservative. But fuelling requirements nudge higher than a stock pump could deliver.

If I limit power by fuelling (140cc/1000 shots) I get a wide torque curve (740Nm) from 1900 to 2300, peak power of 192kw at 2,600rpm and peak airflow of 27lb/min at the same rpm (I drop boost after that to stay within 27lb/min, but BSFC starts pulling the power down from peak anyway).
If I crank intercooling to 80% then boost requirements drop to below 25 psi for the same power and slighter flatter torque curve.
The other very conservative part, I haven't dropped BSFC as it would with intercooling.


The rover GT2256V turbo will take more work to fit (all new piping and connections) but will be easier to control as the rover has a throttle cable.
The work car GT1856V turbo will only need a new dump-pipe to fit, the rest is bolt on from the existing turbo, but it will be harder to control (electronic throttle, no cable).

[Dougal]

T25 (0.49 A/R turbine) fitted with a 22psi wastegate actuator.

It appears the wastegate is blowing open and it's dropping boost. Max is about 19psi and past 2600rpm it starts dropping. It gets down to around 12psi just before the rev limit.
Adjusting this is a slow process, I have to wait for the manifolds and turbo to cool right down. Takes about an hour.

[Dougal]

4mm more preload on the wastegate later....:cool:

Looks like it's good. Hits about 21psi peak, drops to 18-19psi later in the rev range. A smaller wastegate hole would fix this.
I can pull 80km/h in 3rd (~3200rpm) before it drops off and 4th is good past 100km/h.
EGT's are similar (750C up hills at 2000rpm) to the 24psi peak I was running before, which suggests I'm hitting the predicted higher efficiency and getting similar total airflow with 3psi less boost.

The turbo whistle turns to a shriek at high load and high rpm. But that's not surprising, there's about 30kW going through the turbo shaft at that point.

[Dougal]

This is where I think I'm at:
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2013/02/139.jpg

The noisey turbo I have (at high boost) is likely the result of a badly balanced compressor wheel. I'm making enquiries to order a complete and balanced chinese T25 core. It'll be cheaper than getting mine balanced.

[flagg]

I also went through just now and put in cruise conditions. 8psi boost, 716F EGT (380C), 2000rpm.
The EFR couldn't do it. But I got a match by pulling boost down to 6psi and EGT up to 900F. This puts drive pressure only 1psi above boost.
BorgWarner MatchBot (http://www.turbodriven.com//performanceturbos/matchbot/index.html#version=1.2&displacement=3.9&CID=237.978&altitude=500&baro=14.502&aat=75&turboconfig=1&compressor=62k80&pt1_rpm=1500&pt1_ve=90&pt1_boost=14.5&pt1_ie=60&pt1_filres=0.08&pt1_ipd=0.2&pt1_mbp=0.5&pt1_ce=66&pt1_te=75&pt1_egt=1400&pt1_ter=1.58&pt1_pw=2.62&pt1_bsfc=0.37&pt1_afr=17&pt1_wts=300&pt1_wd=83&pt1_wd2=74&pt1_wrsin=69033&pt2_rpm=1800&pt2_ve=90&pt2_boost=19&pt2_ie=60&pt2_filres=0.1&pt2_ipd=0.2&pt2_mbp=1&pt2_ce=70&pt2_te=73&pt2_egt=1400&pt2_ter=1.8&pt2_pw=8.12&pt2_bsfc=0.36&pt2_afr=17&pt2_wts=320&pt2_wd=83&pt2_wd2=74&pt2_wrsin=73635&pt3_rpm=2000&pt3_ve=89&pt3_boost=6&pt3_ie=0&pt3_filres=0.12&pt3_ipd=0&pt3_mbp=1.3&pt3_ce=74&pt3_te=72&pt3_egt=800&pt3_ter=1.35&pt3_pw=8.09&pt3_bsfc=0.35&pt3_afr=17&pt3_wts=340&pt3_wd=83&pt3_wd2=74&pt3_wrsin=78238&pt4_rpm=2500&pt4_ve=85&pt4_boost=24&pt4_ie=60&pt4_filres=0.15&pt4_ipd=0.3&pt4_mbp=1.5&pt4_ce=76&pt4_te=71&pt4_egt=1400&pt4_ter=2.16&pt4_pw=18.88&pt4_bsfc=0.36&pt4_afr=17&pt4_wts=368&pt4_wd=83&pt4_wd2=74&pt4_wrsin=84681&pt5_rpm=2800&pt5_ve=82&pt5_boost=22.5&pt5_ie=60&pt5_filres=0.18&pt5_ipd=0.3&pt5_mbp=1.8&pt5_ce=72&pt5_te=70&pt5_egt=1400&pt5_ter=2.2&pt5_pw=18.73&pt5_bsfc=0.37&pt5_afr=17&pt5_wts=400&pt5_wd=83&pt5_wd2=74&pt5_wrsin=92044&pt6_rpm=3100&pt6_ve=79&pt6_boost=20&pt6_ie=60&pt6_filres=0.2&pt6_ipd=0.3&pt6_mbp=2&pt6_ce=66&pt6_te=70&pt6_egt=1400&pt6_ter=2.18&pt6_pw=17.72&pt6_bsfc=0.38&pt6_afr=17&pt6_wts=400&pt6_wd=83&pt6_wd2=74&pt6_wrsin=92044&)

Yeah needs intercooling..

[goanna_shire]

This turbo gt2259 from a hino NO4 has compressor A/R of 61 and ex side of 47. What sort of map wouls apply to that sised turbine. Would that size end up spinning the comp out of eficiency too early and turn into exhaust brake? Is it too small for our engines? They run them in the NO4 hino's at work wich are 4lr 4cyl engines. Their newer variation has the VNT on the common rail engine but is electrically controlled. They hang off the NO4C-TD engine and are callled the GT2563VK ? Would be good to be able to fit a traditional vacuum or pressure capsule to them and set up a dawes valve system.

Just posing the question to someone in the know (Dougal). :D

Cheers,
Brian

[Judo]

Just dropping in to say this thread is mostly over my head, but I'm still loving it.

/subscribes

[Dougal]

This turbo gt2259 from a hino NO4 has compressor A/R of 61 and ex side of 47. What sort of map wouls apply to that sised turbine. Would that size end up spinning the comp out of eficiency too early and turn into exhaust brake? Is it too small for our engines? They run them in the NO4 hino's at work wich are 4lr 4cyl engines. Their newer variation has the VNT on the common rail engine but is electrically controlled. They hang off the NO4C-TD engine and are callled the GT2563VK ? Would be good to be able to fit a traditional vacuum or pressure capsule to them and set up a dawes valve system.

Just posing the question to someone in the know (Dougal). :D

Cheers,
Brian


They work excellently. Ask this guy: Gt2259 (http://www.4btswaps.com/forum/showthread.php?24268-Gt2259&highlight=gt2259)

It's possible to convert any VNT to pneumatic or mechanical. But if we could acheive electronic control, that'd be even better.

[goanna_shire]

Me again,

I may have my hands on what seems to be a GT3063KLV Garret. VNT, comp A/R of .44 and ex of .74. This has the electronic pizmo on the side of it and would possibly be able to be fitted with a capsule, vaccum or pressure. :D Watch this space.......

Cheers,
Brian.

[c.h.i.e.f]

Me again,

I may have my hands on what seems to be a GT3063KLV Garret. VNT, comp A/R of .44 and ex of .74. This has the electronic pizmo on the side of it and would possibly be able to be fitted with a capsule, vaccum or pressure. :D Watch this space.......

Cheers,
Brian.


This will be interesting with such a turbo!!

[goanna_shire]

I did think it was strange that it came off a 4l Hino NO4 engine. I thought it would not realy match with those numbers. It was also a bit wierd that the hino manifold outlet was a vertical rectangle (T2/3 horizontal) but the exhaust flange on the turbine housing was a circle :eek:. There is a soot shadow on the turbine housing where the exhaust gas has been running straight into a wall before re-directing itself into the circular port. Bit strange.

Cheers,
Brian.

[goanna_shire]

GT3063KLV
Compressor
Wheel Inducer: 43.7mm
Wheel Exducer: 63mm (48 Trim)
Turbine
Wheel Inducer: 53mm
Wheel Exducer: 47.4mmGT3063KLV
Compressor
Wheel inducer: 43.7mm
Wheel exducer: 63mm (48 trim)
Turbine
Wheel inducer: 53mm
Wheel exducer: 47.4mm

Brian.GT3063KLV
Compressor
Wheel Inducer: 43.7mm
Wheel Exducer: 63mm (48 Trim)
Turbine
Wheel Inducer: 53mm
Wheel Exducer: 47.4mm

[goanna_shire]

Sorry about that. Copy and paste is invisible. (Computer Illiterate)

Brian.

[Dougal]

GT3063KLV
Compressor
Wheel Inducer: 43.7mm
Wheel Exducer: 63mm (48 Trim)
Turbine
Wheel Inducer: 53mm
Wheel Exducer: 47.4mmGT3063KLV
Compressor
Wheel inducer: 43.7mm
Wheel exducer: 63mm (48 trim)
Turbine
Wheel inducer: 53mm
Wheel exducer: 47.4mm

Brian.GT3063KLV
Compressor
Wheel Inducer: 43.7mm
Wheel Exducer: 63mm (48 Trim)
Turbine
Wheel Inducer: 53mm
Wheel Exducer: 47.4mm

There's not a lot of info on that turbo. Does it match the model codes in this link? GT30V - Garrett - Catalog - TurboMaster (http://www.turbomaster.info/eng/catalogs/model.php?base=garrett&pagina=GT30V)

[goanna_shire]

It has the code 765870-1 which must be one of the superceeded models as all the ones on that page have 765870-00 something.

Cheers,
Brian

[goanna_shire]

Unless its the equivalent to the one on the first line and they just diddn't include the 3 zero's.

Brian.

[Dougal]

It has the code 765870-1 which must be one of the superceeded models as all the ones on that page have 765870-00 something.

Cheers,
Brian


Turbomaster show it's from a Hino N04C which was 4 litres and 150hp. 2006 Dutro.
They list it as a GT2563V, but the naming conventions on VNT turbos are highly flexible.
This Hino brochure from 2009 has the power/torque curves in it. I don't know how much head-room these VNT turbos have for more boost and flow. They can't bypass extra exhaust flow like wastegated turbos can.
http://www.hino.co.nz/files/Hino_614.pdf

[Bush65]

It has the code 765870-1 which must be one of the superceeded models as all the ones on that page have 765870-00 something.

Cheers,
Brian

It is the numbers to the left of the "-" that are important to us. Those on the right are essentially revision numbers. -00 would be the original version, -1 would be the 1st revision.

In most case revisions don't affect us as the interchangeability is not affected.

[goanna_shire]

This little graph is pleasing to my eye. If I could achieve near this type of figure I will be thrilled.

Cheers,
Brian.

[goanna_shire]

There is supposed to be a graph but the computer is being a pain. Its the one on Dougal's link to the Hino specs. It shows the nice 150KW power and 350 ish nm of torque and that 350 nm is in a fairly straight flat line:D. We'll see how it goes I suppose.

Cheers,
Brian.

[Dougal]

There is supposed to be a graph but the computer is being a pain. Its the one on Dougal's link to the Hino specs. It shows the nice 150KW power and 350 ish nm of torque and that 350 nm is in a fairly straight flat line:D. We'll see how it goes I suppose.

Cheers,
Brian.


To make it flat you've got to manage boost and fuelling quite tightly. Easy on a commonrail engine like that (there is a torque limiting table in the ECU), but harder in a mechanical engine.

The easiest way to make it flat is to make a peak and then saw the top off with the torque limiters. On a mechanical engine, it's easier to just keep and enjoy the peak.

[Bush65]

How would you define flat in terms of a torque curve?

If you accept say + or - 3 or 4 Nm, then look at the torque curve for a stock 1988 on 4BD1T - pic below.

Peak torque is 314 Nm at 2200 rpm, but the torque is 310 + or - 4 Nm from 1750 rpm to 2650 rpm - which is not too scruffy.

From 310 Nm to 350 Nm is only a 13 % improvement, which is easy, in fact +50% is easy with a 4BD1T.

[Dougal]

The stock 88+ 4BD1T gets a lot of it's flatness from a free-floating turbo that does more and more at higher rpm. It looks quite good at stock levels, but those trying to run that turbo at 2000rpm cruise never seem happy with it.

With EFI you can micro-manage the fuelling to do things like the 4HK1 below.

Here is a 4HK1 for comparison. 2005 NPR.

Though it's more of a "generated" torque curve than a measured torque curve.

http://www.aulro.com/afvb/attachment.php?attachmentid=58090&stc=1&d=1364019513

[Bush65]

The stock 88+ 4BD1T gets a lot of it's flatness from a free-floating turbo that does more and more at higher rpm. It looks quite good at stock levels, but those trying to run that turbo at 2000rpm cruise never seem happy with it.

With EFI you can micro-manage the fuelling to do things like the 4HK1 below.

...

There is no argument that electronics offer more flexibility in the control of fuel and achieving a "flat" torque curve.

I would have thought VE, fuel injection rate and timing and combustion pressure rise are marginally compromised by changing the turbo to one that spins up quicker than the stock full float turbo. The only way I can then see that the stock Garrett full float turbo helps is lower pressure in the exhaust manifold (which is in fact what Isuzu imply as one of the reasons they changed the turbo in the late 88 engine upgrade - see attached pics). I'm assuming the air flow, at higher engine rpm's, from the replacement turbo is up to the task, compared to the old Garrett full floater, i.e. not some small 52mm compressor from a TD5, etc.

We also must remember that engine designers have a goal for the shape of the torque curve, given the vehicle use, number and ratios of the gears, etc.

All the text books I have read on the subject present a strong argument for why the engine of a road driven vehicle should/must have a torque curve which increases as the rpm drop.

One part of this is that when climbing a hill for example , as the load increases the engine slows to increase the torque so the vehicle can proceed.

The full technical argument is more complex than the above.

Taylor in his 2 volume work, Theory and Design of the Internal Combustion Engine, gives a good treatment to this topic, for anyone interested in the subject.

These pics from a document comparing changes to the "existing" 1985 to 1988 4BD1T for the "new" October 88 on 4BD1T

[Dougal]

There is no argument that electronics offer more flexibility in the control of fuel and achieving a "flat" torque curve.

I would have thought VE, fuel injection rate and timing and combustion pressure rise are marginally compromised by changing the turbo to one that spins up quicker than the stock full float turbo. The only way I can then see that the stock Garrett full float turbo helps is lower pressure in the exhaust manifold (which is in fact what Isuzu imply as one of the reasons they changed the turbo in the late 88 engine upgrade - see attached pics). I'm assuming the air flow, at higher engine rpm's, from the replacement turbo is up to the task, compared to the old Garrett full floater, i.e. not some small 52mm compressor from a TD5, etc.

The stock free-floater that I have is a 51.3mm compressor. It's garrett T25 but with a very large (0.87) turbine housing and a turbine that is also sized larger to flow all the exhaust (obviously, no wastegate).
I am running this same 51.3mm compressor on my current T25, but with a smaller turbine and much smaller (0.49) A/R turbine housing.
This is the best estimates of compressor demand:

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2013/03/293.jpg

The plot however shows 24psi, I am currently running 20-21psi peak to stay on the map.
It is a very small compressor, but it's also a very fast spooling compressor and right now I like it. It is too small for this same boost pressure but intercooled.


We also must remember that engine designers have a goal for the shape of the torque curve, given the vehicle use, number and ratios of the gears, etc.

I have only ridden in one late 4BD1T powered NPR, it was pulling ~3,100rpm at 100km/h. This is the reason for the large exhaust housing on the freefloat turbo. It is intended to spend much of it's life at 2,800-3000rpm.
It's when silly people like us gear them for 2000rpm that we find the stock turbo woefully inadequate.


All the text books I have read on the subject present a strong argument for why the engine of a road driven vehicle should/must have a torque curve which increases as the rpm drop.

One part of this is that when climbing a hill for example , as the load increases the engine slows to increase the torque so the vehicle can proceed.

Known as "torque rise" and I agree completely. IMO a flat torque curve is almost always done to protect something else. Clutch, drivetrain etc. Having a decent torque peak is preferred for my own vehicles and drivability.

I also think much of the reason the 88 onwards improved so much was the IHI RHB6 turbo used earlier was not a very efficient unit. My backpressure/boost measurements were much higher with the IHI than the little T25 I was running then and am running again now.

[rar110]

I thought IHI was bigger than T25.

[Dougal]

I thought IHI was bigger than T25.

It is. 60mm compressor and turbine. The RHF6 could do 18m3/min (about 48 lb/min, I can't find figures for the earlier RHB6) But the RHB6 is a less efficient turbo. This means more drive pressure to produce the same boost and ultimately lower power and lower fuel economy.

Bigger is not often better in the turbo world. First it's gotta be the right size, secondly it's got to have decent efficiency.

[goanna_shire]

Hi guys,

Can I clear up weather the turbo I am looking at is A: Too Big, or B: Too ineficient? How would you suggest it would suit the 4BD1? If it is no good I won't worry about using it. I just am unsure about the VNT turbo's because the nembers and maps for them are confusing and not anything like wastegated turbo's.

Cheers,
Brian.

[Dougal]

Hi guys,

Can I clear up weather the turbo I am looking at is A: Too Big, or B: Too ineficient? How would you suggest it would suit the 4BD1? If it is no good I won't worry about using it. I just am unsure about the VNT turbo's because the nembers and maps for them are confusing and not anything like wastegated turbo's.

Cheers,
Brian.


The hino VNT? Run it. Hino/Toyota have already confirmed that's an excellent match for a 4 litre diesel.

[rar110]

So would this WTA intercooler be sufficient for a 4BD1 with a GT28 turbo?

https://www.plazmaman.com/shop_itemdetail.php?itemid=172&cate=96

[flagg]

The "hp" ratings are geared for petrol. When I spoke to them they explained it but I do not remember the explanation and justification well enough to write it here.



With the CFM and cooling I wanted they recommended the "800hp" one, or the 900 "if I needed head room".



I went the 800, and I know a 120 on the forum who has it and it keeps his EGTs down perfectly.



Give them a call, they are great to deal with.

[Dougal]

So would this WTA intercooler be sufficient for a 4BD1 with a GT28 turbo?

https://www.plazmaman.com/shop_itemdetail.php?itemid=172&cate=96

The HP ratings are generally complete bollocks. The actual data you need (pressure drop at given flow-rates, heat rejection rates) won't be available.

They will all work to some degree. But front mounts work better.

[goanna_shire]

Hi,

The turbo arrived today :D. Most expensive part covered. As I have understood the WTA intercoolers are more efficient than ATA. Is this more directed from the ricers petrol engines and doesn't realy apply to our smoky fruit trucks. I am keen for the best setup of course and would love to hear the arguments for/against WTA. One reason I am not keen for the ATA setup is the moving of the radiator back and welding new mounts(perentie chassis). Also the lag effect the ATA gives is somewhat undesireable. One good thing for the ATA is the cost. They tend to be a lot cheaper than the WTA counterpart.

I have the air con condenser in front of the radiator. Would it be ok infront of the ATA intercooler? IE.. condenser/ATA/Radiator.

Cheers,
Brian

[Dougal]

Hi,

The turbo arrived today :D. Most expensive part covered. As I have understood the WTA intercoolers are more efficient than ATA. Is this more directed from the ricers petrol engines and doesn't realy apply to our smoky fruit trucks. I am keen for the best setup of course and would love to hear the arguments for/against WTA. One reason I am not keen for the ATA setup is the moving of the radiator back and welding new mounts(perentie chassis). Also the lag effect the ATA gives is somewhat undesireable. One good thing for the ATA is the cost. They tend to be a lot cheaper than the WTA counterpart.

I have the air con condenser in front of the radiator. Would it be ok infront of the ATA intercooler? IE.. condenser/ATA/Radiator.

Cheers,
Brian


There is a lot of rubbish online about water/air intercoolers. Yes the individual water/air heat exchanger can be very effective, but the whole system includes an intermediate medium (the water) and another radiator which both add layers of insulation to the system and reduce the effectiveness.
Your bottleneck remains the front radiator to air, to shed the same amount of heat you'll need a similar area here.

Look at the Laminova water/air intercoolers that Matt McInnes was selling, to get effectiveness better than 60% they were pushing massive amounts of water and huge frontal radiators.
Where any air/air that can't get 60% is either really small or has something wrong.

Water/Air is best when you can't physically fit an air/air or it's plumbing.

[Dougal]

Some more data points using the maximum flow from a stock pump. 140cc/1000 shots.

Borg Warner EFR data points: BorgWarner MatchBot (http://www.turbodriven.com//performanceturbos/matchbot/index.html#version=1.2&displacement=3.9&CID=237.978&altitude=500&baro=14.502&aat=75&turboconfig=1&compressor=62k80&pt1_rpm=1500&pt1_ve=90&pt1_boost=13&pt1_ie=60&pt1_filres=0.08&pt1_ipd=0.2&pt1_mbp=0.5&pt1_ce=61&pt1_te=75&pt1_egt=1400&pt1_ter=1.56&pt1_pw=0.7&pt1_bsfc=0.37&pt1_afr=17&pt1_wts=300&pt1_wd=83&pt1_wd2=74&pt1_wrsin=69033&pt2_rpm=1800&pt2_ve=90&pt2_boost=22&pt2_ie=60&pt2_filres=0.1&pt2_ipd=0.2&pt2_mbp=1&pt2_ce=64&pt2_te=73&pt2_egt=1400&pt2_ter=1.97&pt2_pw=1.79&pt2_bsfc=0.36&pt2_afr=17&pt2_wts=320&pt2_wd=83&pt2_wd2=74&pt2_wrsin=73635&pt3_rpm=2100&pt3_ve=89&pt3_boost=25.5&pt3_ie=60&pt3_filres=0.12&pt3_ipd=0.3&pt3_mbp=1.3&pt3_ce=67&pt3_te=72&pt3_egt=1400&pt3_ter=2.21&pt3_pw=7.85&pt3_bsfc=0.35&pt3_afr=17&pt3_wts=340&pt3_wd=83&pt3_wd2=74&pt3_wrsin=78238&pt4_rpm=2500&pt4_ve=85&pt4_boost=28&pt4_ie=60&pt4_filres=0.15&pt4_ipd=0.3&pt4_mbp=1.5&pt4_ce=70&pt4_te=71&pt4_egt=1400&pt4_ter=2.43&pt4_pw=13.54&pt4_bsfc=0.36&pt4_afr=17&pt4_wts=368&pt4_wd=83&pt4_wd2=74&pt4_wrsin=84681&pt5_rpm=2800&pt5_ve=82&pt5_boost=30&pt5_ie=60&pt5_filres=0.18&pt5_ipd=0.3&pt5_mbp=1.8&pt5_ce=72&pt5_te=70&pt5_egt=1400&pt5_ter=2.6&pt5_pw=16.07&pt5_bsfc=0.37&pt5_afr=17&pt5_wts=400&pt5_wd=83&pt5_wd2=74&pt5_wrsin=92044&pt6_rpm=3200&pt6_ve=78&pt6_boost=31.5&pt6_ie=60&pt6_filres=0.2&pt6_ipd=0.3&pt6_mbp=2&pt6_ce=73&pt6_te=70&pt6_egt=1400&pt6_ter=2.77&pt6_pw=19.26&pt6_bsfc=0.38&pt6_afr=17&pt6_wts=400&pt6_wd=83&pt6_wd2=74&pt6_wrsin=92044&)

Graph of potential:
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2013/05/165.jpg

John, your 180cc pump is starting to look a little bit excessive.:D

[lokka]

Hi,

The turbo arrived today :D. Most expensive part covered. As I have understood the WTA intercoolers are more efficient than ATA. Is this more directed from the ricers petrol engines and doesn't realy apply to our smoky fruit trucks. I am keen for the best setup of course and would love to hear the arguments for/against WTA. One reason I am not keen for the ATA setup is the moving of the radiator back and welding new mounts(perentie chassis). Also the lag effect the ATA gives is somewhat undesireable. One good thing for the ATA is the cost. They tend to be a lot cheaper than the WTA counterpart.

I have the air con condenser in front of the radiator. Would it be ok infront of the ATA intercooler? IE.. condenser/ATA/Radiator.

Cheers,
Brian


Brian

Air to air is the go find the biggest 3 in thick core you can fit infront of the rad and use the county A/C nose cone to extend the grill out front plumb the pipes back through the sides of the guards and your set .

Go back through this section and look for JC's thread the New Tourer and have a squiz how he plumbed his front mount as this is how i will be doing mine in the not too distant future :D

[flagg]

WTA is good for spikes, whereas ATA is best for fast always on boost applications.



I went WTA because I don't want any lag, won't be on boost all the time and am keeping my A/C so don't have room for a 3 inch thick intercooler.



Water is better than air at absorbing heat, but (as dougal said) you then have to get rid of it..

[Ancient Mariner]

Thoughts on the turbo off my 4he1t engine witch has just arrived broke a stud while doing the EGR mod so decided to replace all studs with stainless and
neverseize On dismantle as you can see in the pic the gas sheild is cactus :mad: Turbo numbers are Garrett M24 AR 60 on airside 9e18 Garrett
AR 80 ms LG4 on exhaust side Options are turn up a new piece or Locate a kit a new stock turbo or go something better :D


Without being rude any sugestions?

Thanks AM:wheelchair:

[Bush65]

The with the exception of the AR 80 (A/R) number from the turbine housing, the other numbers you quoted from the compressor cover and turbine housing aren't of much use.

You pic shows a nameplate on the centre housing, the numbers from this can be searched to provide more useful information.

[Dougal]

Thoughts on the turbo off my 4he1t engine witch has just arrived broke a stud while doing the EGR mod so decided to replace all studs with stainless and
neverseize On dismantle as you can see in the pic the gas sheild is cactus :mad: Turbo numbers are Garrett M24 AR 60 on airside 9e18 Garrett
AR 80 ms LG4 on exhaust side Options are turn up a new piece or Locate a kit a new stock turbo or go something better :D


Without being rude any sugestions?

Thanks AM:wheelchair:

Looks like a T28 or even T25 hot side. Can you measure the wheel? It's a PITA with an uneven number of blades, but intake and exit diameters will give it to us.

What's your budget for something better? :angel:

[Ancient Mariner]

The wheel diam is 2.123"or 53.90mm turned a piece of stock to just fit so pretty acurate . Numbers on small plate are CG1864j 8972089661
700716-5 As for the budget I would like to say money is no object:o
But at the moment time is more important with so much other stuff to be done

Thanks Noel

[Dougal]

The wheel diam is 2.123"or 53.90mm turned a piece of stock to just fit so pretty acurate . Numbers on small plate are CG1864j 8972089661
700716-5 As for the budget I would like to say money is no object:o
But at the moment time is more important with so much other stuff to be done

Thanks Noel

53.8mm is the official OD of the T28 turbines. Looks like it's a standard T28 heat-shield.
Like this one: Turbocharger Rebuild parts spares - GENUINE Garrett T28 Heatshield Turbine (http://www.turborebuild.co.uk/p/product/1003056227-GENUINE+Garrett+T28+Heatshield+Turbine/)

The money-is-no-object turbo for a 4.8 litre 4HE1 would have to be a Borg Warner EFR 7064.
Here is one mapped out on matchbot. I just tweaked the 4BD1T figures: BorgWarner MatchBot (http://www.turbodriven.com//performanceturbos/matchbot/index.html#version=1.2&displacement=4.8&CID=292.896&altitude=500&baro=14.502&aat=75&turboconfig=1&compressor=70s75&pt1_rpm=1500&pt1_ve=90&pt1_boost=13.5&pt1_ie=60&pt1_filres=0.08&pt1_ipd=0.2&pt1_mbp=0.5&pt1_ce=65&pt1_te=75&pt1_egt=1400&pt1_ter=1.54&pt1_pw=1.28&pt1_bsfc=0.37&pt1_afr=17&pt1_wts=300&pt1_wd=83&pt1_wd2=74&pt1_wrsin=69033&pt2_rpm=1800&pt2_ve=90&pt2_boost=18&pt2_ie=60&pt2_filres=0.1&pt2_ipd=0.2&pt2_mbp=1&pt2_ce=70&pt2_te=73&pt2_egt=1400&pt2_ter=1.74&pt2_pw=6.79&pt2_bsfc=0.36&pt2_afr=17&pt2_wts=320&pt2_wd=83&pt2_wd2=74&pt2_wrsin=73635&pt3_rpm=2100&pt3_ve=89&pt3_boost=22&pt3_ie=60&pt3_filres=0.12&pt3_ipd=0.3&pt3_mbp=1.3&pt3_ce=73&pt3_te=72&pt3_egt=1400&pt3_ter=1.96&pt3_pw=11.71&pt3_bsfc=0.35&pt3_afr=17&pt3_wts=340&pt3_wd=83&pt3_wd2=74&pt3_wrsin=78238&pt4_rpm=2500&pt4_ve=90&pt4_boost=25&pt4_ie=60&pt4_filres=0.15&pt4_ipd=0.3&pt4_mbp=1.5&pt4_ce=76&pt4_te=71&pt4_egt=1400&pt4_ter=2.23&pt4_pw=19.48&pt4_bsfc=0.36&pt4_afr=17&pt4_wts=368&pt4_wd=83&pt4_wd2=74&pt4_wrsin=84681&pt5_rpm=2800&pt5_ve=90&pt5_boost=30&pt5_ie=60&pt5_filres=0.18&pt5_ipd=0.3&pt5_mbp=1.8&pt5_ce=73&pt5_te=70&pt5_egt=1400&pt5_ter=2.67&pt5_pw=19.19&pt5_bsfc=0.37&pt5_afr=17&pt5_wts=400&pt5_wd=83&pt5_wd2=74&pt5_wrsin=92044&pt6_rpm=3100&pt6_ve=90&pt6_boost=32&pt6_ie=60&pt6_filres=0.2&pt6_ipd=0.3&pt6_mbp=2&pt6_ce=71&pt6_te=70&pt6_egt=1400&pt6_ter=2.96&pt6_pw=20.12&pt6_bsfc=0.38&pt6_afr=17&pt6_wts=400&pt6_wd=83&pt6_wd2=74&pt6_wrsin=92044&)

Calculated power, around 400hp. Torque around 950Nm. Having 4 valves per cylinder really helps with power production.
You might need some injection pump modifications. I'm not aware of anyone who's had the stock pump bench tested for flow numbers.

If you have more sane goals, we can probably pick a smaller one with more low end punch.

[Ancient Mariner]

Would be nice Dougal but I think you have the wrong engine 2 valves per cyl

[Dougal]

Would be nice Dougal but I think you have the wrong engine 2 valves per cyl

Gotcha. 4HK is 4 valve but 5.2 litres.

4HE1 redone with VE appropriate to 2 valves and a bit more boost. 400hp and 950+Nm is still on the table.
http://www.turbodriven.com//performanceturbos/matchbot/index.html#version=1.2&displacement=4.8&CID=292.896&altitude=500&baro=14.502&aat=75&turboconfig=1&compressor=70s75&pt1_rpm=1500&pt1_ve=90&pt1_boost=13.5&pt1_ie=60&pt1_filres=0.08&pt1_ipd=0.2&pt1_mbp=0.5&pt1_ce=65&pt1_te=75&pt1_egt=1400&pt1_ter=1.54&pt1_pw=1.28&pt1_bsfc=0.37&pt1_afr=17&pt1_wts=300&pt1_wd=83&pt1_wd2=74&pt1_wrsin=69033&pt2_rpm=1800&pt2_ve=90&pt2_boost=18&pt2_ie=60&pt2_filres=0.1&pt2_ipd=0.2&pt2_mbp=1&pt2_ce=70&pt2_te=73&pt2_egt=1400&pt2_ter=1.74&pt2_pw=6.79&pt2_bsfc=0.36&pt2_afr=17&pt2_wts=320&pt2_wd=83&pt2_wd2=74&pt2_wrsin=73635&pt3_rpm=2100&pt3_ve=89&pt3_boost=25&pt3_ie=60&pt3_filres=0.12&pt3_ipd=0.3&pt3_mbp=1.3&pt3_ce=73&pt3_te=72&pt3_egt=1400&pt3_ter=2.09&pt3_pw=10.91&pt3_bsfc=0.35&pt3_afr=17&pt3_wts=340&pt3_wd=83&pt3_wd2=74&pt3_wrsin=78238&pt4_rpm=2500&pt4_ve=87&pt4_boost=32&pt4_ie=60&pt4_filres=0.15&pt4_ipd=0.3&pt4_mbp=1.5&pt4_ce=74&pt4_te=71&pt4_egt=1400&pt4_ter=2.57&pt4_pw=15.04&pt4_bsfc=0.36&pt4_afr=17&pt4_wts=368&pt4_wd=83&pt4_wd2=74&pt4_wrsin=84681&pt5_rpm=2800&pt5_ve=85&pt5_boost=34&pt5_ie=60&pt5_filres=0.18&pt5_ipd=0.3&pt5_mbp=1.8&pt5_ce=74&pt5_te=70&pt5_egt=1400&pt5_ter=2.8&pt5_pw=16.43&pt5_bsfc=0.37&pt5_afr=17&pt5_wts=400&pt5_wd=83&pt5_wd2=74&pt5_wrsin=92044&pt6_rpm=3100&pt6_ve=82&pt6_boost=35&pt6_ie=60&pt6_filres=0.2&pt6_ipd=0.3&pt6_mbp=2&pt6_ce=72&pt6_te=70&pt6_egt=1400&pt6_ter=2.96&pt6_pw=16.51&pt6_bsfc=0.38&pt6_afr=17&pt6_wts=400&pt6_wd=83&pt6_wd2=74&pt6_wrsin=92044&

[Jitterbug]

I have just read the whole thread and am sitting on the fence, somewhere between understanding and my brain turning to goo.

I am trying to figure out the best option for my 6x6 defender and soon to be acquiered rebuilt 4bd1. I plan to turbo and intercool it.

The 6x6 is heavy, 4t-ish kitted out, so low down grunt is important to get the thing moving. Reliability/performance/ease of install are more important than cost too.

GT2259 or Holset HX25 perhaps?

No aircon so space for 3" intercooler.

Thanks in advance!

[Dougal]

I have just read the whole thread and am sitting on the fence, somewhere between understanding and my brain turning to goo.

I am trying to figure out the best option for my 6x6 defender and soon to be acquiered rebuilt 4bd1. I plan to turbo and intercool it.

The 6x6 is heavy, 4t-ish kitted out, so low down grunt is important to get the thing moving. Reliability/performance/ease of install are more important than cost too.

GT2259 or Holset HX25 perhaps?

No aircon so space for 3" intercooler.

Thanks in advance!

I'm not yet convinced that the non turbo 4BD1's put out the same fuel as the factory T. But without piston squirters you'll be wanting to run a bit more boost for your fuel anyway.
As you get up in the power, torque figures start becoming silly and even TRB LT95's reliability would be massive question.

So you'd not want to go mental with boost and fuel anyway. 20psi with a decent intercooler and safe EGT is probably as hard as you'd want to run it.

GT2259 would be a good start.
Td04HL turbos.
Holset HE221
Borg Warner like Flagg is fitting.

Wastegating can be a problem with high boost. It's hard to find a good acuator. I've got a 22psi unit but even on my T25 it struggles to maintain 20psi at higher rpm.
So I've ordered a Kinugawa rebuildable wastegate actuator with 5 springs. 2.0bar (30psi), 1.7bar (25psi), 1.5 bar (22psi) and 1.2 bar (18psi).

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2013/04/1001.jpg

I ordered through Kando Dynamic on Ebay Australia.

[c.h.i.e.f]

Looks the goods there Dougal....you care to take a guess (with your calcs) at what boost I could expect to see when running max fuelling with a non waste gated gt3582 0.63a/r hot side? :D

[Dougal]

Looks the goods there Dougal....you care to take a guess (with your calcs) at what boost I could expect to see when running max fuelling with a non waste gated gt3582 0.63a/r hot side? :D

You're in uncharted territory there Cheif. You're going to have to tell us.

[c.h.i.e.f]

You're in uncharted territory there Cheif. You're going to have to tell us.

Yeah thought that may be the case :D

[steveG]

<snip>

Wastegating can be a problem with high boost. It's hard to find a good acuator. I've got a 22psi unit but even on my T25 it struggles to maintain 20psi at higher rpm.
So I've ordered a Kinugawa rebuildable wastegate actuator with 5 springs. 2.0bar (30psi), 1.7bar (25psi), 1.5 bar (22psi) and 1.2 bar (18psi).

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2013/04/1001.jpg

I ordered through Kando Dynamic on Ebay Australia.

Is the issue just that the high drive pressure forces the wastegate open against the actuator spring pressure?
If so, whats different about the Kinugawa actuator that prevents it - larger diaphragm and heavier springs?

Steve

[c.h.i.e.f]

Is the issue just that the high drive pressure forces the wastegate open against the actuator spring pressure?
If so, whats different about the Kinugawa actuator that prevents it - larger diaphragm and heavier springs?

Steve

Pretty much yes...hole diameter then becomes an issue :angel:

[Dougal]

Is the issue just that the high drive pressure forces the wastegate open against the actuator spring pressure?
If so, whats different about the Kinugawa actuator that prevents it - larger diaphragm and heavier springs?

Steve

The advantage is the range of different springs.

On a wastegate you've got two concerns. One is the opening pressure, the other is how far and fast it opens from there.
The opening pressure sets the boost around max torque, the movement from there sets how it behaves at higher rpm for max power.
Right now I've acheived the opening pressure I want, but I have 4mm or so preload on a spring that's a bit too soft to get that. So when it opens, it then opens too far and drops boost.

Going up to a stiffer spring and less preload will give me the same opening force, but it won't open as far as quickly and will hold higher boost later in the rpm range.

I don't think my drive-pressure is that high, I think the current wastegate isn't living up to it's 22psi rating. But I can't find the bracket I had to hold my drive-pressure guage to test it.
What I want to acheive is the wastegate cracks open just before the turbine would choke-out and then continues to open further and bypass more exhaust but keeping boost steady or even climbing slightly with increasing rpm.
Right now I've got a wastegate that opens too far too soon and boost drops with increasing rpm.

[85 county]

[QUOTE=Dougal;1892335]The advantage is the range of different springs.

Right now I've acheived the opening pressure I want, but I have 4mm or so preload on a spring that's a bit too soft to get that. So when it opens, it then opens too far and drops boost.

QUOTE]


i cant remeber what turbo you have, but with a 5 bolt we would weld a bit more meat on, then tap a tread and run a bolt though to limit the opening travel of the waste gate valve. more Blead less dump sort of thing

[Ancient Mariner]

I checked out ebay for a BW EFR 7064 cost $1621 reasonable;) freight $561:mad: although I think I might be aiming a bit high and a slightly smaller
unit would be the go :angel:
BORG WARNER 179355 EFR 7064 BALL BEARING TURBO 300-500HP T3 STAINLESS .83AR 3"
Thoughts please

Am:wheelchair:

[Dougal]

I checked out ebay for a BW EFR 7064 cost $1621 reasonable;) freight $561:mad: although I think I might be aiming a bit high and a slightly smaller
unit would be the go :angel:
BORG WARNER 179355 EFR 7064 BALL BEARING TURBO 300-500HP T3 STAINLESS .83AR 3"
Thoughts please

Am:wheelchair:

Have you tried the locals?
Find a Distributor | TurboDriven.com - BorgWarner Turbo Systems (http://www.turbodriven.com/en/distributorsearch/default.aspx)

[lokka]

Trying to find info or specs on a turbo I have landed its an IHI breed from an isuzu truck

Info i have is part no 8973815073

The other 2 number on the tag read VIFB 0806 , 18252N

Only relivant info i can find is this

8973815070 - 8973815073 V-SPEC. VIFB Description PICK-UP Turbo Model RHF5V CHRA N/A Engine 4JJ1E4N Engine Manufacturer Isuzu Power 96/131 HP Displacement 3.0 TDI , 2999 ccm Manufacturer IHI
It has come from a NPR truck with the 4JJ1 engin same as the colorado/d-max but unsure of year of truck

Its not the same as the turbo on the colorado/d-max as it has different housings and different actuator for the vanes the guy i got it from said it was from a small isuzu truck he used the 4jj1 for his colorado but the turbo was different to his so i ended up purchasing it
I think it may be to small for the isuzu but i rekon it will make my TDI300 disco come out of its lag cocoon

[Dougal]

Trying to find info or specs on a turbo I have landed its an IHI breed from an isuzu truck

Info i have is part no 8973815073

The other 2 number on the tag read VIFB 0806 , 18252N

Only relivant info i can find is this

8973815070 - 8973815073 V-SPEC. VIFB Description PICK-UP Turbo Model RHF5V CHRA N/A Engine 4JJ1E4N Engine Manufacturer Isuzu Power 96/131 HP Displacement 3.0 TDI , 2999 ccm Manufacturer IHI
It has come from a NPR truck with the 4JJ1 engin same as the colorado/d-max but unsure of year of truck

Its not the same as the turbo on the colorado/d-max as it has different housings and different actuator for the vanes the guy i got it from said it was from a small isuzu truck he used the 4jj1 for his colorado but the turbo was different to his so i ended up purchasing it
I think it may be to small for the isuzu but i rekon it will make my TDI300 disco come out of its lag cocoon

Pull the compressor/turbine housings and measure the wheels. It's likely an RHF5 or RHF55. There is often an A/R number in cm on the turbine housing.
They have a lot of potential, but I've never messed with them.

[lokka]

Thanks dougal so far what i can tell it is a RHF5V tho finding sizes and specs for it is not easy .

I wont have it here till mid to late next week so untill then im only working off 2 pics to gain info but from what i can tell is that it has a mechanical actuator on the backing plate for the vanes and it has a 7 blade compressor wheel and the compressor housing has slots cut on the inside of the inlet around its circumfrence

[Bush65]

Thanks dougal so far what i can tell it is a RHF5V tho finding sizes and specs for it is not easy .

I wont have it here till mid to late next week so untill then im only working off 2 pics to gain info but from what i can tell is that it has a mechanical actuator on the backing plate for the vanes and it has a 7 blade compressor wheel and the compressor housing has slots cut on the inside of the inlet around its circumfrence
The slots are to increase the map width. This is common some larger compressors, but not small.

VNT and enhanced map width, you probably have made a good score there.

[two up]

The slots are there to aid in the prevention of surge.

[isuzutoo-eh]

Hi Dougal, all,
I was given a Saab TE05-12B off a mate's car. Part number is 911930_ (_=6 according to research but not stamped on the data plate). Made by Mistubishi Heavy Industries, and also fitted to some Volvos.
Specs are on this page:
90-97 Saab 900 EL TE05-12B-6 Turbo 49184-02200 (http://www.invasionautoproducts.com/turbo-car-saab-tc-saab--te05-12b-6.html)
I expect it'll be too small, off a 2 litre 4 pot, and the Saab forums say this turbo gives quick spool up, but that's petrol engine stuff and I know nuffink!
Currently I am climbing steep hills one gear lower than friends with tdi Defenders, i'd like to match tdi road performance on road, mid range I suppose, off road I have no power/torque complaints at all :)
I think its water cooled, whether that matters or not.
Also got the intercooler off the same car.

[Dougal]

Hi Dougal, all,
I was given a Saab TE05-12B off a mate's car. Part number is 911930_ (_=6 according to research but not stamped on the data plate). Made by Mistubishi Heavy Industries, and also fitted to some Volvos.
Specs are on this page:
90-97 Saab 900 EL TE05-12B-6 Turbo 49184-02200 (http://www.invasionautoproducts.com/turbo-car-saab-tc-saab--te05-12b-6.html)
I expect it'll be too small, off a 2 litre 4 pot, and the Saab forums say this turbo gives quick spool up, but that's petrol engine stuff and I know nuffink!
Currently I am climbing steep hills one gear lower than friends with tdi Defenders, i'd like to match tdi road performance on road, mid range I suppose, off road I have no power/torque complaints at all :)
I think its water cooled, whether that matters or not.
Also got the intercooler off the same car.

The specs show that is a TE05, which is a size range I haven't looked at yet. The best MHI turbos are the TD04HL's. The HL is the turbine and you can either see what compressors they come with or buy a compressor upgrade kit (wheel and cover) off Ebay or the like.

I have also found mistakes in some of the graphs and figures I have posted up here. I'll correct them as soon as I can find the time.

[isuzutoo-eh]

Pretty sure it is the Saab turbo that Offender90 reckons is the equal of his, albeit water cooled rather than oil cooled:
http://www.aulro.com/afvb/isuzu-landy-enthusiasts-section/142686-turbos-work-4bd1-2.html#post1627509
Hope it is, seems he is happy with that turbo.
From much googlism, seems the TE05-12B has:
.48A/R turbine, .42A/R compressor, 45 trim, inducer is 40mm dia, and has a T3 exhaust flange.

[chang]

Better alternative to the borg warner at ALOT better value would be a Holset HX35 7 Blade T3 twinscroll 12cm rear.

Bloody tuff unit & would kick in sooner with a twin scroll housing in the smaller size compared to the non twin housing on the BW in the same rear housing size.

For around the same price as the BW delivered you could have a Holset & most likely a custom T3 twin scroll manifold...........alot better value

As for a TDI, im currently running a TD04-15T from a saab aero. No complaints, ALOT of torque & holds speed pretty good. Not near as laggy i thought it would be, not to far off the stock unit. My injector pump is maxed on the boost compensator & there is definately room for more power but that would mean fiddling with the full power adjustment which i dont want to do at this point. EGT's struggle to reach dangerous levels due to the turbo size which is another bonus. takes a very long hill, 4th gear flat out to even touch 600 degrees

[Dougal]

Pretty sure it is the Saab turbo that Offender90 reckons is the equal of his, albeit water cooled rather than oil cooled:
http://www.aulro.com/afvb/isuzu-landy-enthusiasts-section/142686-turbos-work-4bd1-2.html#post1627509
Hope it is, seems he is happy with that turbo.
From much googlism, seems the TE05-12B has:
.48A/R turbine, .42A/R compressor, 45 trim, inducer is 40mm dia, and has a T3 exhaust flange.

The 40mm inducer is the first clue that it's a suitable size. If you have it already, I'd fit it and try.


Better alternative to the borg warner at ALOT better value would be a Holset HX35 7 Blade T3 twinscroll 12cm rear.

No, a thousand times no.
The HX35 on a 4BD1T isn't even out of surge until about 2,500rpm. Even when it crosses the surge line, it's so far left on the map that efficiency will be terrible.
Any altitude or filter restriction will push it even further into surge.

The HX35 is on this map, it's the yellow line. The red with blue dots is the 4BD1T demand line. They are a terrible match.
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2013/04/484.jpg

[chang]

Mate i was just solely comparing the HX35 to the BW that was mentioned, not whether it would be the best suited at all.

As for what would be "best suited", Take a look at the proper Holset HX30 map. well in range & they have actually been field tested on several 4BD1T's with success.

[Dougal]

Mate i was just solely comparing the HX35 to the BW that was mentioned, not whether it would be the best suited at all.

As for what would be "best suited", Take a look at the proper Holset HX30 map. well in range & they have actually been field tested on several 4BD1T's with success.

Best of the Holsets is the HE221. It's actually an MHI turbo with a special compressor wheel, the closest MHI model is the TD04HL-19T. You can roll-you-own with any TD04HL turbo and buying a 19T compressor wheel and cover. Some clearancing of the core is likely to fit the larger wheel though.

[chang]

Best of the Holsets is the HE221. It's actually an MHI turbo with a special compressor wheel, the closest MHI model is the TD04HL-19T. You can roll-you-own with any TD04HL turbo and buying a 19T compressor wheel and cover. Some clearancing of the core is likely to fit the larger wheel though.

Yeah billet compressor wheel version of a HX27. would be better in the low end also with still a good amount of airflow. personally id rather the 30 on one though.

TD04-19T would be interesting but personally the cost of a 15T being up around $8-900 plus 19T conversion work on top of that probly $400 more, Value for money is always in the Holsets i believe,especially when a brand newie can be had for $800 odd AUD its the way to go

[chang]

A HE351 would be good to see. Billet wheel also, same trims as a HX35 but with a smaller 9cm rear housing. Comes as a VG unit too

[Dougal]

A HE351 would be good to see. Billet wheel also, same trims as a HX35 but with a smaller 9cm rear housing. Comes as a VG unit too

They are all far too large. Designed to work on a 5.9-6.7 litre engine. On an engine 2/3 the capacity they are in surge.

See the first pages of this thread for compressor maps that work.

[chang]

[QUOTE=Dougal;1899502]They are all far too large. Designed to work on a 5.9-6.7 litre engine. On an engine 2/3 the capacity they are in surge.

See the first pages of this thread for compressor maps that work.[/QUOTE

3076R with an antisurge comp housing would take care of that

[Dougal]

3076R with an antisurge comp housing would take care of that

Surge slots in the housing etc do damp out the pressure pulses from surge, preventing the damage. But you are still running a turbo in the least efficient part of it's compressor map. This means your boost is hotter, boost is lower, your drive pressures are higher, EGT is higher and engine power is lower than they are be with the same fuel on the right sized turbo.

Put simply, there is no good reason to fit an oversize turbo and many very good reasons not to

The GTX3071R is mapping out only marginally better than the HX35 (sorry Cheif). The GT3076 is worse.

[chang]

My stir up plan backfired:)

Anyway on a serious note, has anyone clocked up real-time data using a HX30 on a 4BD that you know of?? Ive been trolling the interwebs trying to find such info where someone has used a data log guage setup on one with no luck. I just believe it would be quite a surprising unit, (yes with a sacrifice down low but nothing dramatic) & give a little more room to tweak.

[Dougal]

My stir up plan backfired:)

Anyway on a serious note, has anyone clocked up real-time data using a HX30 on a 4BD that you know of?? Ive been trolling the interwebs trying to find such info where someone has used a data log guage setup on one with no luck. I just believe it would be quite a surprising unit, (yes with a sacrifice down low but nothing dramatic) & give a little more room to tweak.

Lots of guys have run HX30's on 4BT's in the states. The HE221 is getting universally better reviews though. I think it's simply a more advanced turbine and compressor wheel.

[Dougal]

Right.

As mentioned earlier, I had the wrong units on the fuelling. It was labelled cc/1000 shots, but was actually grams/1000 shots which is 15% lower than it should have been.
Instead of cropping the fuel at 140cc, it was 140g which is ~18% too high.
Torque graphs follow fuelling graphs, the maximum torque is now ~630Nm. Not the ~750Nm reported earlier.

The graphs have been corrected, the new ones are copied in here:

24psi, no intercooler:
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2013/04/428.jpg

24 psi intercooled. This now reaches the 140cc fuel limit, 24psi isn't required at such low revs, I have shown it with a leaner A/F ratio in parts to give a smooth boost curve:
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2013/09/381.jpg

Maximum fuel to 3,600rpm, this doubles the original engine power and torque:
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2013/05/165.jpg

The Holset HE221 and MHI TD04HL-19T are the only turbos I've mapped out which cover the maximum fuel to 3,600rpm scenario nicely. Borg Warner will, but I haven't re-run those numbers yet.

[Dougal]

Revised Borg Warner Matchbot here: BorgWarner MatchBot (http://www.turbodriven.com//performanceturbos/matchbot/index.html#version=1.2&displacement=3.9&CID=237.978&altitude=500&baro=14.502&aat=75&turboconfig=1&compressor=62k80&pt1_rpm=1500&pt1_ve=90&pt1_boost=13&pt1_ie=60&pt1_filres=0.08&pt1_ipd=0.2&pt1_mbp=0.5&pt1_ce=61&pt1_te=75&pt1_egt=1400&pt1_ter=1.56&pt1_pw=0.7&pt1_bsfc=0.37&pt1_afr=17&pt1_wts=300&pt1_wd=83&pt1_wd2=74&pt1_wrsin=69033&pt2_rpm=1800&pt2_ve=90&pt2_boost=21&pt2_ie=60&pt2_filres=0.1&pt2_ipd=0.2&pt2_mbp=1&pt2_ce=64&pt2_te=73&pt2_egt=1400&pt2_ter=1.93&pt2_pw=2.38&pt2_bsfc=0.36&pt2_afr=17&pt2_wts=320&pt2_wd=83&pt2_wd2=74&pt2_wrsin=73635&pt3_rpm=2100&pt3_ve=89&pt3_boost=24&pt3_ie=60&pt3_filres=0.12&pt3_ipd=0.3&pt3_mbp=1.3&pt3_ce=67&pt3_te=72&pt3_egt=1400&pt3_ter=2.14&pt3_pw=7.72&pt3_bsfc=0.35&pt3_afr=19.6&pt3_wts=340&pt3_wd=83&pt3_wd2=74&pt3_wrsin=78238&pt4_rpm=2600&pt4_ve=84&pt4_boost=28&pt4_ie=60&pt4_filres=0.15&pt4_ipd=0.3&pt4_mbp=1.5&pt4_ce=71&pt4_te=71&pt4_egt=1400&pt4_ter=2.45&pt4_pw=14.74&pt4_bsfc=0.37&pt4_afr=20&pt4_wts=368&pt4_wd=83&pt4_wd2=74&pt4_wrsin=84681&pt5_rpm=3100&pt5_ve=79&pt5_boost=29&pt5_ie=60&pt5_filres=0.18&pt5_ipd=0.3&pt5_mbp=1.8&pt5_ce=73&pt5_te=70&pt5_egt=1400&pt5_ter=2.62&pt5_pw=18.95&pt5_bsfc=0.4&pt5_afr=19&pt5_wts=400&pt5_wd=83&pt5_wd2=74&pt5_wrsin=92044&pt6_rpm=3600&pt6_ve=74&pt6_boost=29&pt6_ie=60&pt6_filres=0.2&pt6_ipd=0.3&pt6_mbp=2&pt6_ce=75&pt6_te=70&pt6_egt=1400&pt6_ter=2.69&pt6_pw=23.38&pt6_bsfc=0.42&pt6_afr=18&pt6_wts=400&pt6_wd=83&pt6_wd2=74&pt6_wrsin=92044&)

This is the EFR6258. Same one Flagg has used.

[flagg]

How accurate do you think the intake cfm figures are?



My filter service indicator is tripping and I've only done 2000 road km since new....

[lokka]

Well my VVT has turned up all the way from tassie so i pulled it to bits so i could have a measure up and here tis my findings

Comp 41mm IN 56mm ex Wheel is 22mm tall

Turbine 44.3mm IN 50mm ex wheel is 22.5mm tall

My calcs if im right say its 53.6 trim comp 78 trim turbine :angel:

Turbine housing has 44.5mm inlet 47mm outlet

Comp housing has 42mm inlet and outlets

I think it will be a good unit to fit up to my 2.6L TDI300 :D

[Dougal]

How accurate do you think the intake cfm figures are?



My filter service indicator is tripping and I've only done 2000 road km since new....

Your filter indicator will show the vacuum that results from your whole intake tract. Filter, piping, snorkle, actual intake etc.
Tell me what your peak boost is at ~3200rpm and I'll give you a decent indication of CFM.

[Dougal]

Well my VVT has turned up all the way from tassie so i pulled it to bits so i could have a measure up and here tis my findings

Comp 41mm IN 56mm ex Wheel is 22mm tall

Turbine 44.3mm IN 50mm ex wheel is 22.5mm tall

My calcs if im right say its 53.6 trim comp 78 trim turbine :angel:

Turbine housing has 44.5mm inlet 47mm outlet

Comp housing has 42mm inlet and outlets

I think it will be a good unit to fit up to my 2.6L TDI300 :D

Same wheel specs as my GT2256V from a Merc Sprinter 270CDI. It will also do what most people want on a 4BD1T. 23psi (enough to burn full fuel) to 3200rpm. 20psi to 3,500pm.

[lokka]

Same wheel specs as my GT2256V from a Merc Sprinter 270CDI. It will also do what most people want on a 4BD1T. 23psi (enough to burn full fuel) to 3200rpm. 20psi to 3,500pm.

Ok i thought it was a bit small for the suzi and i planed to fit it to my TDI300 as it should give it a bit more low end poke

[Dougal]

Ok i thought it was a bit small for the suzi and i planed to fit it to my TDI300 as it should give it a bit more low end poke

40mm compressor intake is good for about 28 lb/min of airflow. That's over 170kw on a diesel if you get everything sorted.

[lokka]

40mm compressor intake is good for about 28 lb/min of airflow. That's over 170kw on a diesel if you get everything sorted.

Well i plan to have the pump checked out and recalibrated soonish then fit this VVT and i have a large FMIC and pipe work to plumb it in .

With the motor now at 25K since full reco screwed out to 60 thou over size and new turner head its run in but i rekon the the pump timing is holding it back as it is now

Im happy with it tho i would like more poke so this turbo the bigger cooler and having the pump set up right should make it more fun to drive :twisted:

[Dougal]

Well i plan to have the pump checked out and recalibrated soonish then fit this VVT and i have a large FMIC and pipe work to plumb it in .

With the motor now at 25K since full reco screwed out to 60 thou over size and new turner head its run in but i rekon the the pump timing is holding it back as it is now

Im happy with it tho i would like more poke so this turbo the bigger cooler and having the pump set up right should make it more fun to drive :twisted:

With Alfin pistons?

[lokka]

With Alfin pistons?

No the good german ones that turners in the UK suplyed i cant remember the name koblen or something like that

These ones http://www.turnerengineering.co.uk/acatalog/info_264.html

I didnt cut corners with the reco and i uesd all good quality parts from turners and DLS in the UK and fitted new bosch injectors only things that were reused or not recoed were the turbo and its high pressure oil line the injector pump and the vac pump every thing else is new :D

[Dougal]

No the good german ones that turners in the UK suplyed i cant remember the name koblen or something like that

These ones Turner Engineering STC 2982 Piston Assembly (http://www.turnerengineering.co.uk/acatalog/info_264.html)

I didnt cut corners with the reco and i uesd all good quality parts from turners and DLS in the UK and fitted new bosch injectors only things that were reused or not recoed were the turbo and its high pressure oil line the injector pump and the vac pump every thing else is new :D

They are alfin (it's a type, not brand), you can see the reinforcement in the piston around the ring-lands.
I didn't realise you'd switched back to talking 300tdi.

[lokka]

They are alfin (it's a type, not brand), you can see the reinforcement in the piston around the ring-lands.
I didn't realise you'd switched back to talking 300tdi.

Yeah im talking 300TDI in the isuzu section :p

Ok so alfin pistons good or bad ? i was told these were the go for my TDI

As for the isuzu its laying dormant for a few more months yet and id like a VVT for it as well tho prob a little bigger than the one i just scored so I will put it on the TDI as its my daily drive :D

[Dougal]

Ben, which turbo has your Saab got?

[Ancient Mariner]

Dougal Thanks for the sugestion I will most likely go with the EFR7064 I have tried to make
sense of the all the info provided but afraid it was all wasted I did read somewhere that that the twin scroll version was nearly as good as a variable unit without the complications About $170 extra and the need to fabricate a new manifold.Worth it?
Any Comments or sugestions gratefully received either pos or neg

[Dougal]

Dougal Thanks for the sugestion I will most likely go with the EFR7064 I have tried to make
sense of the all the info provided but afraid it was all wasted I did read somewhere that that the twin scroll version was nearly as good as a variable unit without the complications About $170 extra and the need to fabricate a new manifold.Worth it?
Any Comments or sugestions gratefully received either pos or neg

For a divided manifold to help on a 4 cyl, you need to pair 1-4 and 2-3 runners together.
I think even with a single port, you won't struggle for spoolup. You've got a short rev range compared to passenger car diesels which need a VNT.

Depends how much free time you've got to build a manifold I suppose.

[Ancient Mariner]

Free time over next 12 months [ none going sailing]:D I am just trying to get a
heap of gear together for the next Defender episode I have put the D back together with the 3.0 diffs so it is at least mobile .The 300 tdi s get up and go seems to have got up and gone:o As regards the twin versus single do you think the rewards of the twin would justify the effort ?


Many thanks Noel

[Dougal]

Free time over next 12 months [ none going sailing]:D I am just trying to get a
heap of gear together for the next Defender episode I have put the D back together with the 3.0 diffs so it is at least mobile .The 300 tdi s get up and go seems to have got up and gone:o As regards the twin versus single do you think the rewards of the twin would justify the effort ?


Many thanks Noel

I would just fit the single entry housing. If it were a 6 cyl I would definitely use the double entry.

[Ancient Mariner]

I emailed the 2 of the borgwarner Aus agents 1 replied after a week saying BW made a EFR but they didnot have a listing the other didnot reply.Why would you bother?:mad: OK off to ebay $586 freight:o Emailed them and asked if the freight whas a ebay thing or could he do something a bit more realistic ?:D so bought it on the 16 th arrived yesterday .A bit more complicated than what I am used to CRV recirculation valve and boost control solernoid valve ?:confused:

AM

[flagg]

Hey AM, I had the same problem - ended up going to Treadstone Performance in the US.

You can get a blanking plate for the CRV, but it doesn't do any harm as long as it sees boost so just plum it to the inlet manifold and you should be OK. As you don't have an ECU the BCSV can be removed.. I used the nipple for a mechanical boost gauge.

[Ancient Mariner]

Thanks for the reply much the same as I figured just wondering about the BSV IF you switched that with a switch you could control your waste gate (good or bad right or wrong)

AM

[garryseries3]

I emailed the 2 of the borgwarner Aus agents 1 replied after a week saying BW made a EFR but they didnot have a listing the other didnot reply.Why would you bother?:mad: OK off to ebay $586 freight:o Emailed them and asked if the freight whas a ebay thing or could he do something a bit more realistic ?:D so bought it on the 16 th arrived yesterday .A bit more complicated than what I am used to CRV recirculation valve and boost control solernoid valve ?:confused:

AM

So was the freight $586 seems a lots I looked at the price of these turbo and they seem to be around $1700 new is that right. Does the one you have a T3 or is it a T4 flange. I notice there are 4 versions 3 are T4 and 1 T3 available which one did you get for the motor.

[Bush65]

So was the freight $586 seems a lots I looked at the price of these turbo and they seem to be around $1700 new is that right. Does the one you have a T3 or is it a T4 flange. I notice there are 4 versions 3 are T4 and 1 T3 available which one did you get for the motor.
Just in case you haven't noticed, the engine that AM is intending to use that turbo on is somewhat larger displacement than a 4BD1. You would be advised to use a smaller turbo for a 4BD1 - see the one that Flagg has used.

[flagg]

Just in case you haven't noticed, the engine that AM is intending to use that turbo on is somewhat larger displacement than a 4BD1. You would be advised to use a smaller turbo for a 4BD1 - see the one that Flagg has used.

Yeah, the 6258 was the only one i was able to get a satisfactory map on. With a bit of work i'm sure the 6758 would work too, but the 6258 was a better fit for driving style.

[Ancient Mariner]

When I emailed about the freight he said if not required in a hurry he would send by Fedex inter economy package $217 :D Five days later its here with no stops along the way The ebay user name was fst951 worth having a look at as there is 83 pages of all sorts of interesting stuff and he seems very obligeing:) The turbo was a EFR7064 T3 at $1709 us .Now just need the time to set it up

AM:wheelchair:

[Dougal]

Yeah, the 6258 was the only one i was able to get a satisfactory map on. With a bit of work i'm sure the 6758 would work too, but the 6258 was a better fit for driving style.

I can't see a single bigger than the 6258 being good on the 4BD1T. The next size up (6758) is right on the surge line which means worse compressor efficiency, higher intake temps, higher drive pressures and lower power for the same boost.

If you need more than the 6258, you're well into compound territory. Our engines go out the top of the map (pressure ratio) before they go out the right hand side (compressor flow) of these turbos along with many others. At the max PR of the 6259 (~3.8) we are at 40psi boost but even at 3600rpm we're only needing ~40 lb/min and the 6258 can provide 44 lb/min. At this point you're talking ~240kW of power.

Here is the 6258 mapped out again for a convetional tune on a 4BD1T: BorgWarner MatchBot (http://www.turbodriven.com//performanceturbos/matchbot/index.html#version=1.2&displacement=3.9&CID=237.978&altitude=500&baro=14.502&aat=75&turboconfig=1&compressor=62k80&pt1_rpm=1500&pt1_ve=90&pt1_boost=14.5&pt1_ie=60&pt1_filres=0.08&pt1_ipd=0.2&pt1_mbp=0.5&pt1_ce=66&pt1_te=75&pt1_egt=1400&pt1_ter=1.58&pt1_pw=2.62&pt1_bsfc=0.37&pt1_afr=17&pt1_wts=300&pt1_wd=83&pt1_wd2=74&pt1_wrsin=69033&pt2_rpm=1800&pt2_ve=90&pt2_boost=19&pt2_ie=60&pt2_filres=0.1&pt2_ipd=0.2&pt2_mbp=1&pt2_ce=70&pt2_te=73&pt2_egt=1400&pt2_ter=1.8&pt2_pw=8.12&pt2_bsfc=0.36&pt2_afr=17&pt2_wts=320&pt2_wd=83&pt2_wd2=74&pt2_wrsin=73635&pt3_rpm=2000&pt3_ve=89&pt3_boost=6&pt3_ie=0&pt3_filres=0.12&pt3_ipd=0&pt3_mbp=1.3&pt3_ce=74&pt3_te=72&pt3_egt=800&pt3_ter=1.35&pt3_pw=5.92&pt3_bsfc=0.35&pt3_afr=17&pt3_wts=340&pt3_wd=83&pt3_wd2=74&pt3_wrsin=78238&pt4_rpm=2500&pt4_ve=85&pt4_boost=24&pt4_ie=60&pt4_filres=0.15&pt4_ipd=0.3&pt4_mbp=1.5&pt4_ce=76&pt4_te=71&pt4_egt=1400&pt4_ter=2.16&pt4_pw=18.88&pt4_bsfc=0.36&pt4_afr=17&pt4_wts=368&pt4_wd=83&pt4_wd2=74&pt4_wrsin=84681&pt5_rpm=2800&pt5_ve=82&pt5_boost=22.5&pt5_ie=60&pt5_filres=0.18&pt5_ipd=0.3&pt5_mbp=1.8&pt5_ce=72&pt5_te=70&pt5_egt=1400&pt5_ter=2.2&pt5_pw=18.73&pt5_bsfc=0.37&pt5_afr=17&pt5_wts=400&pt5_wd=83&pt5_wd2=74&pt5_wrsin=92044&pt6_rpm=3100&pt6_ve=79&pt6_boost=20&pt6_ie=60&pt6_filres=0.2&pt6_ipd=0.3&pt6_mbp=2&pt6_ce=66&pt6_te=70&pt6_egt=1400&pt6_ter=2.18&pt6_pw=17.72&pt6_bsfc=0.38&pt6_afr=17&pt6_wts=400&pt6_wd=83&pt6_wd2=74&pt6_wrsin=92044&)

This is what we could get with the EFR6258 and a pump set to deliver the 140cc throughout the rpm range.
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2013/05/165.jpg

Matchbot here: http://www.turbodriven.com//performanceturbos/matchbot/index.html#version=1.2&displacement=3.9&CID=237.978&altitude=500&baro=14.502&aat=75&turboconfig=1&compressor=62k80&pt1_rpm=1500&pt1_ve=90&pt1_boost=13&pt1_ie=60&pt1_filres=0.08&pt1_ipd=0.2&pt1_mbp=0.5&pt1_ce=61&pt1_te=75&pt1_egt=1400&pt1_ter=1.56&pt1_pw=0.7&pt1_bsfc=0.37&pt1_afr=17&pt1_wts=300&pt1_wd=83&pt1_wd2=74&pt1_wrsin=69033&pt2_rpm=1800&pt2_ve=90&pt2_boost=22&pt2_ie=60&pt2_filres=0.1&pt2_ipd=0.2&pt2_mbp=1&pt2_ce=64&pt2_te=73&pt2_egt=1400&pt2_ter=1.97&pt2_pw=1.79&pt2_bsfc=0.36&pt2_afr=17&pt2_wts=320&pt2_wd=83&pt2_wd2=74&pt2_wrsin=73635&pt3_rpm=2100&pt3_ve=89&pt3_boost=25.5&pt3_ie=60&pt3_filres=0.12&pt3_ipd=0.3&pt3_mbp=1.3&pt3_ce=67&pt3_te=72&pt3_egt=1400&pt3_ter=2.21&pt3_pw=7.85&pt3_bsfc=0.35&pt3_afr=17&pt3_wts=340&pt3_wd=83&pt3_wd2=74&pt3_wrsin=78238&pt4_rpm=2500&pt4_ve=85&pt4_boost=28&pt4_ie=60&pt4_filres=0.15&pt4_ipd=0.3&pt4_mbp=1.5&pt4_ce=70&pt4_te=71&pt4_egt=1400&pt4_ter=2.43&pt4_pw=13.54&pt4_bsfc=0.36&pt4_afr=17&pt4_wts=368&pt4_wd=83&pt4_wd2=74&pt4_wrsin=84681&pt5_rpm=2800&pt5_ve=82&pt5_boost=30&pt5_ie=60&pt5_filres=0.18&pt5_ipd=0.3&pt5_mbp=1.8&pt5_ce=72&pt5_te=70&pt5_egt=1400&pt5_ter=2.6&pt5_pw=16.07&pt5_bsfc=0.37&pt5_afr=17&pt5_wts=400&pt5_wd=83&pt5_wd2=74&pt5_wrsin=92044&pt6_rpm=3200&pt6_ve=78&pt6_boost=31.5&pt6_ie=60&pt6_filres=0.2&pt6_ipd=0.3&pt6_mbp=2&pt6_ce=73&pt6_te=70&pt6_egt=1400&pt6_ter=2.77&pt6_pw=19.26&pt6_bsfc=0.38&pt6_afr=17&pt6_wts=400&pt6_wd=83&pt6_wd2=74&pt6_wrsin=92044&

[Dougal]

When I emailed about the freight he said if not required in a hurry he would send by Fedex inter economy package $217 :D Five days later its here with no stops along the way The ebay user name was fst951 worth having a look at as there is 83 pages of all sorts of interesting stuff and he seems very obligeing:) The turbo was a EFR7064 T3 at $1709 us .Now just need the time to set it up

AM:wheelchair:

You did get the 0.83 A/R turbine?

[Ancient Mariner]

You did get the 0.83 A/R turbine?
EFR 7064 Ball Bearing Turbo 300-500 HP t3 stainless.83AR 3" Even if it does nufin looks good

[Dougal]

EFR 7064 Ball Bearing Turbo 300-500 HP t3 stainless.83AR 3" Even if it does nufin looks good

Brilliant. It should work as well as it looks.

[jackz]

I've been offered a Garrett? T-04E marked A/R .50 on the compressor end and .63 on the turbine end. It is new, in the box, and FREE! :)
Is it going to be useable on a 4BD1, and not having any wastegate on it, do I need any other means of controlling boost levels, or should I just buy the proper turbo off Fleabay?

[Dougal]

I've been offered a Garrett? T-04E marked A/R .50 on the compressor end and .63 on the turbine end. It is new, in the box, and FREE! :)
Is it going to be useable on a 4BD1, and not having any wastegate on it, do I need any other means of controlling boost levels, or should I just buy the proper turbo off Fleabay?

You will need compressor wheel measurements to know.

[jackz]

Thanks, Dougal, will check that out on the weekend. What dimensions do you need exactly?
Also, will this, NEW Internal Wastegate Conversion KIT T3T4 TO4E 5BOLT Swingvalve Actuator T3 | eBay (http://r.ebay.com/dNAn08), solve the boost control problem?

[Dougal]

Thanks, Dougal, will check that out on the weekend. What dimensions do you need exactly?
Also, will this, NEW Internal Wastegate Conversion KIT T3T4 TO4E 5BOLT Swingvalve Actuator T3 | eBay (http://r.ebay.com/dNAn08), solve the boost control problem?

OD and intake diameters so we can match up the compressor wheel to compressor maps.

For that wastegate to work, your turbo will need to have the appropriate turbine exit with the hole for the wastegate already as shown. The actuator (8psi) will be too soft. You need an 18-22psi actuator for good boost control.

[jackz]

I assume by intake diameter you mean the diameter of the small end of the compressor wheel, which is 50.5mm. the od (large end) is 76.2mm. the turbine side has the wastegate hole so the waste gate on fleabay looks like it should fit. The outlet on the compressor side is only 45mm ID, does that seem a little small?

[Dougal]

I assume by intake diameter you mean the diameter of the small end of the compressor wheel, which is 50.5mm. the od (large end) is 76.2mm. the turbine side has the wastegate hole so the waste gate on fleabay looks like it should fit. The outlet on the compressor side is only 45mm ID, does that seem a little small?

Okay, so it's a ~45 trim compressor. Now find a T04e 45 trim compressor map and we'll see how it fits.

[jackz]

having trouble finding a T04e map with 45 trim, plenty of T3/45 trim maps. would there be a lot of difference.:spudnikwhat:

[Dougal]

having trouble finding a T04e map with 45 trim, plenty of T3/45 trim maps. would there be a lot of difference.:spudnikwhat:

Yep, big difference. T3's are usually 60mm compressors.

Here is a T04e 46 trim, that'll probably be it:
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2013/06/1413.jpg

Now for the bad news.
It looks too big. Even with ~200kw from our engines you only need ~35 lb/min airflow. This turbo is suitable for up to 45 lb/min.
To get decent low-mid range you need a PR of 2 at ~13 lb/min airflow. That point is off that map to the left in the surge region.
To get decent top end you need a PR of 2.5 at ~20lb/min airflow. Same story, not even on that map.

[jackz]

:(Oh dear. never mind. Thanks for all your assistance Dougal, guess I'll be hitting Fleabay later.
of the several different turbos listed as being for a 4BD1, are any particular types better or worse than the others?

[Dougal]

:(Oh dear. never mind. Thanks for all your assistance Dougal, guess I'll be hitting Fleabay later.
of the several different turbos listed as being for a 4BD1, are any particular types better or worse than the others?

My thoughts at present are the TH04HL-19T is the best of the most commonly available.
This can be bought most economically as a Kinugawa.
Complete turbo here: Turbocharger Kinugawa TD04HL 19T T25 Flange w Kit 200 280HP Fit 1 6 2 5L | eBay (http://www.ebay.com/itm/Turbocharger-Kinugawa-TD04HL-19T-T25-Flange-w-Kit-200-280HP-Fit-1-6-2-5L-/271212941951?pt=AU_Car_Parts_Accessories&hash=item3f258d127f&vxp=mtr)

Outlet adapter P/N here (cummins) http://www.4btswaps.com/forum/showthread.php?23299-HE221W-Results&p=214760&viewfull=1#post214760

These need a T3-T25 adapter to fit the later Isuzu manifolds. I have a new one piece design for those, just pricing up manufacture now.

[Ancient Mariner]

With a bit of wet weather got back on the Isuzu I asked the consultants the question but I think they had other things on there mind. Best place for EGT probe? I would rather put in the bend after the turbo instead of pre I would imagine there would be a certain amount of heat loss you would have to allow anybody with experience of either?;)

Thanks AM

[isuzurover]

With a bit of wet weather got back on the Isuzu I asked the consultants the question but I think they had other things on there mind. Best place for EGT probe? I would rather put in the bend after the turbo instead of pre I would imagine there would be a certain amount of heat loss you would have to allow anybody with experience of either?;)

Thanks AM

Pre turbo is much better for EGT. Post turbo numbers are -200oC +/- 50+ oC, so your numbers are a lot less accurate.

[Bush65]

Had I known you were going to fabricate a manifold like that I would have given you the details for a pulse converter.

As Ben said, pre-turbo is where you need to know the EGT. If measured post turbo, then it is a guessing game, unless you have previously measured both pre and post and can be reasonably sure of the difference for your particular application.

Or you stay conservative just to be sure.

The expansion ratio and hence the temperature difference across the turbine depends on too many variables to be comparable from one system to another.

[lokka]

With a bit of wet weather got back on the Isuzu I asked the consultants the question but I think they had other things on there mind. Best place for EGT probe? I would rather put in the bend after the turbo instead of pre I would imagine there would be a certain amount of heat loss you would have to allow anybody with experience of either?;)

Thanks AM


Nice bit of pipe work there and the head flange looks good too will all look nice once its had 600+C diesel soot pumped through it
looks like you have a python love nest going on there also they are both nice looking snakes :)

[two up]

With a bit of wet weather got back on the Isuzu I asked the consultants the question but I think they had other things on there mind. Best place for EGT probe? I would rather put in the bend after the turbo instead of pre I would imagine there would be a certain amount of heat loss you would have to allow anybody with experience of either?;)

Thanks AM

Why would you build a manifold like that. It might be ok on a rice racer, on a diesel it will be terrible. There is a reason that just about every manifold on diesel and petrol turbo vehicles are cast iron log style. Keep the gas hot and keep the runners as short as possible to keep the gas moving through the exhaust turbine as quick as possible.

[two up]

Had I known you were going to fabricate a manifold like that I would have given you the details for a pulse converter.

As Ben said, pre-turbo is where you need to know the EGT. If measured post turbo, then it is a guessing game, unless you have previously measured both pre and post and can be reasonably sure of the difference for your particular application.

Or you stay conservative just to be sure.

The expansion ratio and hence the temperature difference across the turbine depends on too many variables to be comparable from one system to another.

It will be a guessing game anyway, the amount heat loss will be immeasurable.

[lokka]

It will be a guessing game anyway, the amount heat loss will be immeasurable.


Tho the loss of heat will improve efficiency due to cooler running the gas speed will be improved by the equal length runners performance wise it will out do any of the log style manifolds .
Tho a log manifold is all that is needed to get good results the extractor style wins hands down why do you think all the high end jap turbo stuff is made this way from stainless its not for looks that is for sure
My hat is off to the AM this is just another of his master pieces but hay every body has their own opinion :cool:

[two up]

Whhhhaaaaatttttt. If you are talking turbo petrol, you are right, tuned length split pulse manifolds work much better, because heat loss is not a factor, hence all the YouTube videos of red to white hot manifolds. Diesel completely different story, hence people getting manifolds and turbine housings ceramic coated to keep the heat in and keeping it compact to keep gas speeds up. Think of it as losing drive energy to the exhaust turbine. Turbos for diesel engines are smaller than a comparatively size petrol engine due to the low revs, that's why its important to keep the gas temp as high as possible once its left the cylinder.

[two up]

This is a picture of a ford typhoon exhaust manifold that makes 440kw at the rear wheels. No offence but that tuned length manifold will make less power than a standard log type manifold.

[Ancient Mariner]

Why because 1 . I am different 2 . because I can 3. I like to stuff around .Turbo manifold designe is a pretty controversal subject with the general consensus being a heavy wall equal length runner the best compromise With each engine - turbo- gearing- driving style and application different to make a statement that a tuned length manifold will be uesless is stupid IMO But been wrong before will be again

Thanks AM

[Bush65]

Had I known you were going to fabricate a manifold like that I would have given you the details for a pulse converter.

As Ben said, pre-turbo is where you need to know the EGT. If measured post turbo, then it is a guessing game, unless you have previously measured both pre and post and can be reasonably sure of the difference for your particular application.

Or you stay conservative just to be sure.

The expansion ratio and hence the temperature difference across the turbine depends on too many variables to be comparable from one system to another.
It will be a guessing game anyway, the amount heat loss will be immeasurable.
The turbine converts heat energy to mechanical power to drive the compressor. To say the heat loss is immeasurable is absurd, it can be of the order of tens of kilowatts.

[two up]

The turbine converts heat energy to mechanical power to drive the compressor. To say the heat loss is immeasurable is absurd, it can be of the order of tens of kilowatts.

That's right, with that manifold unless you measure just after where the runner exits the head, pre turbo will mean nothing. There will be so much heat loss along those pipes that measuring will be meaningless.

[Dougal]

That's right, with that manifold unless you measure just after where the runner exits the head, pre turbo will mean nothing. There will be so much heat loss along those pipes that measuring will be meaningless.

Even in cold conditions the temperature loss along those pipes won't be huge. They are also easily lagged.

[Bush65]

Possibly the best book written on turbo chargers is Turbocharging the Internal Combustion Engine by Watson and Janota. They devote chapters to Constant Pressure Turbocharging, Pulse Turbocharging, and Pulse Converters, as well as most other issues on the subject.

The pic below is part of one page at the beginning of chapter 8, which disputes some of what has been said here in a recent post.

I don't expect AM to see much gain or loss from his equal length manifold. However he could have seen a significant gain had he used a pulse converter (I'm talking about the type pictured on the bottom of the page from that book, as it was an early example).

Whether the gain for the amount of work is worthwhile is a separate issue.

I have added a pic of the factory race version of the Mazda Skyactiv diesel. This is an exceptionally low compression ratio, 2.2 litre diesel, and modified to 2 litre for Le Mans. In both displacements it produces over 400 HP. The exhaust manifold is integral with the head so not having an equal length runner manifold has not prevented good performance.

I recall seeing the Audi diesel used at Le Mans and it had a nest of snakes exhaust manifold, so they must have thought it worthwhile.

[two up]

Again you are not talking about our low tech slow revving diesels, you are talking about a engine built to turn 5-7000 rpm and build big horsepower. Of course when you get to those sort of engine speeds tuned length make a difference. With a slow revving diesel that you want to build torque as early as possible, YOU WILL NOT BEAT A LOG MANIFOLD, and ceramic coat it for best performance.


Edit, in addition to that these high tech diesels have multiple injection pulses per revolution.

[two up]

Possibly the best book written on turbo chargers is Turbocharging the Internal Combustion Engine by Watson and Janota. They devote chapters to Constant Pressure Turbocharging, Pulse Turbocharging, and Pulse Converters, as well as most other issues on the subject.

The pic below is part of one page at the beginning of chapter 8, which disputes some of what has been said here in a recent post.

I don't expect AM to see much gain or loss from his equal length manifold. However he could have seen a significant gain had he used a pulse converter (I'm talking about the type pictured on the bottom of the page from that book, as it was an early example).

Whether the gain for the amount of work is worthwhile is a separate issue.

I have added a pic of the factory race version of the Mazda Skyactiv diesel. This is an exceptionally low compression ratio, 2.2 litre diesel, and modified to 2 litre for Le Mans. In both displacements it produces over 400 HP. The exhaust manifold is integral with the head so not having an equal length runner manifold has not prevented good performance.

I recall seeing the Audi diesel used at Le Mans and it had a nest of snakes exhaust manifold, so they must have thought it worthwhile.

The second picture you posted is basically a log manifold integral to the head.

[Dougal]

Again you are not talking about our low tech slow revving diesels, you are talking about a engine built to turn 5-7000 rpm and build big horsepower. Of course when you get to those sort of engine speeds tuned length make a difference. With a slow revving diesel that you want to build torque as early as possible, YOU WILL NOT BEAT A LOG MANIFOLD, and ceramic coat it for best performance.


Edit, in addition to that these high tech diesels have multiple injection pulses per revolution.

No John isn't talking about 5-7000rpm engines with pulse converters. It is used on engines much slower than ours.

We are also not talking about tuned length. Tuned length only works well for intake manifolds in non turbo engines. In turbocharged engines the constantly changing gas temperature influences the sonic velocity too much for tuned length to work.

The multiple injection phases in modern diesels don't change exhaust design. Unless you're trying to burn clean a CAT or DPF.

[Bush65]

Almost all diesel R&D comes from the companies that build engines to transport large loads over long distances, not high revving engines. Ships, locomotives and long haul trucks. What is considered modern technology for small diesel vehicles, such as unit and common rail fuel injection, was in use for large diesels long before it was employed it to meet emission targets for small cars.

Pulse turbocharging and pulse converters (for engines that can't be divided into multiples of three cylinders) came from the R&D for large diesels and was nothing to do with ricer petrol engines.

Log manifolds are so widely used because they are cheap to manufacture in large numbers. When modifying a turbo diesel such as we use for more performance, it is easy to simply add fuel and air to reach the mechanical limits of the mechanical parts, without building custom exhaust manifolds to extract the last bit of performance. However if that last bit of performance is required, then a log manifold will not provide the best means to get it.

Edit, I don't see the connection with multiple injection events per cycle. BTW multiple injection events per cycle will never, ever be able to produce as much power from a diesel engine that can be achieved with a single injection event.

[Judo]

Am I right in saying one of the biggest factors in sizing a turbo to the 4bd1 is the compressor wheel size? A good fit being 60mm on the big side (exducer?)?

Scouring ebay for the cheapest turbo ever, I found this one with a 60mm compressor. What else am I looking for in these specs? I see there is no turbine A/R... is that weird? An important factor?

Trim is another factor that I've been "learning". In some ways is efficiency? Or at least a measure of air flow? It's not listed, but for this one I have calculated it as 55.

How am I doing?

T2 T25 T28 Turbo Nissan 200sx 180sx S13 S14 SR20 SR20DET CA18DET Turbocharger | eBay (http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/T2-T25-T28-Turbo-Nissan-200SX-180SX-S13-S14-SR20-SR20det-CA18DET-Turbocharger-/200831790450?pt=AU_Car_Parts_Accessories&hash=item2ec281ed72&_uhb=1)

[Dougal]

Am I right in saying one of the biggest factors in sizing a turbo to the 4bd1 is the compressor wheel size? A good fit being 60mm on the big side (exducer?)?

Scouring ebay for the cheapest turbo ever, I found this one with a 60mm compressor. What else am I looking for in these specs? I see there is no turbine A/R... is that weird? An important factor?

Trim is another factor that I've been "learning". In some ways is efficiency? Or at least a measure of air flow? It's not listed, but for this one I have calculated it as 55.

How am I doing?

T2 T25 T28 Turbo Nissan 200sx 180sx S13 S14 SR20 SR20DET CA18DET Turbocharger | eBay (http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/T2-T25-T28-Turbo-Nissan-200SX-180SX-S13-S14-SR20-SR20det-CA18DET-Turbocharger-/200831790450?pt=AU_Car_Parts_Accessories&hash=item2ec281ed72&_uhb=1)

It's the inducer (intake) you should be looking at. 40-45mm generally suits our engines.

That one will work (assuming the specs are correct). But honestly I'd rather take a TD04HL turbo. Their maps suit our engines better.

If the specs are correct it's a 55 trim 60mm wheel. The 60 trim 60mm wheel I ran surged with the boost I was asking at lower rpm.

[Bush65]

Am I right in saying one of the biggest factors in sizing a turbo to the 4bd1 is the compressor wheel size? A good fit being 60mm on the big side (exducer?)?

Scouring ebay for the cheapest turbo ever, I found this one with a 60mm compressor. What else am I looking for in these specs? I see there is no turbine A/R... is that weird? An important factor?

Trim is another factor that I've been "learning". In some ways is efficiency? Or at least a measure of air flow? It's not listed, but for this one I have calculated it as 55.

How am I doing?

T2 T25 T28 Turbo Nissan 200sx 180sx S13 S14 SR20 SR20DET CA18DET Turbocharger | eBay (http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/T2-T25-T28-Turbo-Nissan-200SX-180SX-S13-S14-SR20-SR20det-CA18DET-Turbocharger-/200831790450?pt=AU_Car_Parts_Accessories&hash=item2ec281ed72&_uhb=1)
Compressor should be sized for your desired performance. With a diesel, from desired performance the mass flow of fuel can be calculated. From there the mass flow of air is calculated to burn the fuel (minimum 18 x fuel, but better at 22x).

Now the volumetric air flow is fixed by the engine displacement, rpm and VE. So the only way to get an increased mass flow of air is to increase its density. A good way to increase the air density is to pressurise it using a compressor, but that involves adding heat, which reduces density, because of unavoidable laws of physics, and because of the efficiency of the compressor. Intercooling will reduce the temperature and increase density, thus reducing the required boost pressure for a required density.

So to answer your 2 questions. Yes, and yes. With compressor sizing you need to choose one that has a map that is a good fit for the required air flow and pressure ratio, based upon the required performance at a few rpm points that include (but not necessarily limited to) when boost starts, max torque, max power.

Compressor exducer (diameter of outlet of impeller) greatly influences the boost pressure. Ideally the air leaves the impeller at a velocity close to the tip speed (a function of impeller rpm and tip diameter) and the dynamic pressure of this air is a function of velocity squared. The dynamic pressure is converted to static pressure by the (edit) diffuser (end edit) in the compressor cover.

Compressor inducer (diameter of inlet of impeller) greatly influences the air flow. Larger inducer gives larger flow. The flow is limited by the area (a function of diameter squared) and the sonic velocity in the air.

So here you have seen the effect of exducer dia squared (boost pressure) and inducer dia squared (flow).

Trim is the ratio of these diameter squared so you should see some significance. Also comparing two impellers with the same exducer (which is the size that Garrett give in their turbo designations) the choice of trim will influence the efficiency - the one with a longer flow path along the impeller vanes will be more efficient, because it better at accelerating the air from the inlet velocity to the velocity of the impeller tip.

BTW Garrett give compressor exducer dia in their designation, but many other manufactures give inducer dia - presumably they see flow as the important criteria.

Regarding turbine A/R (area / radius), it is an important factor. Again Garrett give turbine A/R, but other manufactures don't, and instead give an area (usually in square cm), or a "phi" value. These are all valid indication of how much exhaust gas the turbine can handle.

Because the temperature of diesel exhaust gas needs to be much lower compared to a petrol engine, it doesn't have as much energy for the turbine to convert into mechanical energy to drive the compressor. Particularly when we want boost at low engine rpm (much lower than a petrol engine) the mass flow of exhaust gas is low. So we need a smaller turbine. As the engine accelerates the flow increases and when the turbine capacity (area, or phi) is exceeded, we need a waste gate to bypass the excess.

Without chasing down details, it is likely (because it is for a petrol engine) that the turbine housing on that particular turbo is larger than ideal. But turbine housings can be changed relatively easily.

[Judo]

If the specs are correct it's a 55 trim 60mm wheel. The 60 trim 60mm wheel I ran surged with the boost I was asking at lower rpm.

Next baby step - on this point alone, is it true that:

Surge = too much air flow.
Comp inducer is the key factor in air flow (as per John's post).
Therefore if the comp exducer is constant at 60mm and a 60 trim is surging, then a 55 trim (smaller inducer) should have less or no surge?

[Dougal]

Next baby step - on this point alone, is it true that:

Surge = too much air flow.
Comp inducer is the key factor in air flow (as per John's post).
Therefore if the comp exducer is constant at 60mm and a 60 trim is surging, then a 55 trim (smaller inducer) should have less or no surge?

Generally yes. You'd need to find a compressor map to confirm.

I didn't check the turbine sizing on that turbo. There is no A/R ratio mentioned in the ad.

I was runing a 0.49 A/R turbine housing with my 60mm compressor. I wasn't happy with the response of a 0.64 A/R housing, but it's also possible that it wouldn't surge without the 0.49 housing driving it harder at lower rpm.

[Judo]

Generally yes. You'd need to find a compressor map to confirm.

I didn't check the turbine sizing on that turbo. There is no A/R ratio mentioned in the ad.

I was runing a 0.49 A/R turbine housing with my 60mm compressor. I wasn't happy with the response of a 0.64 A/R housing, but it's also possible that it wouldn't surge without the 0.49 housing driving it harder at lower rpm.
Thanks Dougal and John. This thread is finally starting to make some sense. I've read the first few pages at least 5 times now. :D

Agree with you and John on that ebay turbo. Unlikely to be a suitable turbine A/R. The ad is a bit useless without knowing that figure.

[Bush65]

Another note on surge.

Often surge can be avoided if the engine is allowed to accelerate quickly through the lower revs.

However if the engine is labouring somewhat, the heat energy (egt) in the exhaust gasses builds quickly, compared to engine speed, so the turbine spins the compressor faster, while engine revs are still low, and surge can occur.

Remember surge the unstable condition that occurs when the air flow from the compressor is higher than what the engine can swallow.

[Dougal]

EFR6255 intercooled plot here: BorgWarner MatchBot (http://www.turbodriven.com//performanceturbos/matchbot/index.html#version=1.2&displacement=3.9&CID=237.978&altitude=500&baro=14.502&aat=75&turboconfig=1&compressor=62k80&pt1_rpm=1500&pt1_ve=90&pt1_boost=11&pt1_ie=60&pt1_filres=0.08&pt1_ipd=0.2&pt1_mbp=0.5&pt1_ce=64&pt1_te=75&pt1_egt=1200&pt1_ter=1.52&pt1_pw=1.5&pt1_bsfc=0.37&pt1_afr=18&pt1_wts=300&pt1_wd=83&pt1_wd2=74&pt1_wrsin=69033&pt2_rpm=1800&pt2_ve=90&pt2_boost=20&pt2_ie=60&pt2_filres=0.1&pt2_ipd=0.2&pt2_mbp=1&pt2_ce=67&pt2_te=73&pt2_egt=1200&pt2_ter=1.97&pt2_pw=1.73&pt2_bsfc=0.36&pt2_afr=18&pt2_wts=320&pt2_wd=83&pt2_wd2=74&pt2_wrsin=73635&pt3_rpm=2100&pt3_ve=89&pt3_boost=25&pt3_ie=60&pt3_filres=0.12&pt3_ipd=0.3&pt3_mbp=1.3&pt3_ce=68&pt3_te=72&pt3_egt=1200&pt3_ter=2.31&pt3_pw=4.19&pt3_bsfc=0.35&pt3_afr=18&pt3_wts=340&pt3_wd=83&pt3_wd2=74&pt3_wrsin=78238&pt4_rpm=2500&pt4_ve=85&pt4_boost=25&pt4_ie=60&pt4_filres=0.15&pt4_ipd=0.3&pt4_mbp=1.5&pt4_ce=71&pt4_te=71&pt4_egt=1200&pt4_ter=2.43&pt4_pw=11.57&pt4_bsfc=0.36&pt4_afr=18&pt4_wts=368&pt4_wd=83&pt4_wd2=74&pt4_wrsin=84681&pt5_rpm=2800&pt5_ve=82&pt5_boost=25&pt5_ie=60&pt5_filres=0.18&pt5_ipd=0.3&pt5_mbp=1.8&pt5_ce=73&pt5_te=70&pt5_egt=1200&pt5_ter=2.5&pt5_pw=15.38&pt5_bsfc=0.37&pt5_afr=18&pt5_wts=400&pt5_wd=83&pt5_wd2=74&pt5_wrsin=92044&pt6_rpm=3100&pt6_ve=79&pt6_boost=25&pt6_ie=60&pt6_filres=0.2&pt6_ipd=0.3&pt6_mbp=2&pt6_ce=74&pt6_te=70&pt6_egt=1200&pt6_ter=2.56&pt6_pw=17.99&pt6_bsfc=0.38&pt6_afr=18&pt6_wts=400&pt6_wd=83&pt6_wd2=74&pt6_wrsin=92044&)

I did this for Jitterbug, this is the same compressor that Flagg used, but a smaller turbine for more low end boost. I've just run the plot to 25psi. The smaller turbine shows drive pressure increasing to above boost as you get closer to 3000rpm.
This shows quite well the tradeoff between a bigger turbine for more top end vs a smaller turbine for more low end. I have also used higher A/F ratio (18:1) and lower EGT since this would be a heavier 6x6 application and running under more boost more often. Especially for 4BD1+T engines which don't have piston squirters. They should run a leaner A/F ratio and lower EGT than the factory T engines with oil squirters cooling their pistons.

[Bush65]

...

Regarding turbine A/R (area / radius), it is an important factor. Again Garrett give turbine A/R, but other manufactures don't, and instead give an area (usually in square cm), or a "phi" value. These are all valid indication of how much exhaust gas the turbine can handle.

Because the temperature of diesel exhaust gas needs to be much lower compared to a petrol engine, it doesn't have as much energy for the turbine to convert into mechanical energy to drive the compressor. Particularly when we want boost at low engine rpm (much lower than a petrol engine) the mass flow of exhaust gas is low. So we need a smaller turbine. As the engine accelerates the flow increases and when the turbine capacity (area, or phi) is exceeded, we need a waste gate to bypass the excess.

...
The energy, or more precisely, the enthalpy of the exhaust gas, is a function of the mass flow, temperature and pressure. The more we have the faster the turbine can spin the compressor.

The temperature has to be restricted for material strength purposes, but we can increase the enthalpy, and thereby drive the compressor faster, by increasing the pressure in the exhaust manifold.

This is where the size of the turbine is so important. The turbine is a restriction to exhaust gas flow and the smaller it is the greater the restriction and higher the pressure (and enthalpy).

But the flow of exhaust gas increases as engine speed and boost pressure increase and a turbine that is too small will create excessive pressure in the exhaust manifold. When the pressure in the exhaust manifold is greater than the pressure in the inlet manifold (boost pressure), we have nett pumping losses and increased residual exhaust left in the cylinder, which prevents filling with fresh air (lower VE).

[Dougal]

Latest effort.
Borg Warner EFR6255 (smallest in the EFR range) on a 4BD1T with a maxed out pump and intercooler at 3,600rpm using very safe A/F and EGT. Should be good for about 280hp. Possibly more as I've used conservative figures: BorgWarner MatchBot (http://www.turbodriven.com//performanceturbos/matchbot/index.html#version=1.2&displacement=3.9&CID=237.978&altitude=500&baro=14.502&aat=75&turboconfig=1&compressor=62k80&pt1_rpm=1500&pt1_ve=90&pt1_boost=14&pt1_ie=60&pt1_filres=0.08&pt1_ipd=0.2&pt1_mbp=0.5&pt1_ce=62&pt1_te=75&pt1_egt=1300&pt1_ter=1.64&pt1_pw=0.99&pt1_bsfc=0.37&pt1_afr=17&pt1_wts=300&pt1_wd=83&pt1_wd2=74&pt1_wrsin=69033&pt2_rpm=1900&pt2_ve=90&pt2_boost=22&pt2_ie=60&pt2_filres=0.1&pt2_ipd=0.2&pt2_mbp=1&pt2_ce=65&pt2_te=73&pt2_egt=1250&pt2_ter=2.11&pt2_pw=3.11&pt2_bsfc=0.36&pt2_afr=19&pt2_wts=320&pt2_wd=83&pt2_wd2=74&pt2_wrsin=73635&pt3_rpm=2300&pt3_ve=89&pt3_boost=25.6&pt3_ie=60&pt3_filres=0.12&pt3_ipd=0.3&pt3_mbp=1.3&pt3_ce=68&pt3_te=72&pt3_egt=1200&pt3_ter=2.46&pt3_pw=8.23&pt3_bsfc=0.35&pt3_afr=19.8&pt3_wts=340&pt3_wd=83&pt3_wd2=74&pt3_wrsin=78238&pt4_rpm=2700&pt4_ve=85&pt4_boost=28.2&pt4_ie=60&pt4_filres=0.15&pt4_ipd=0.3&pt4_mbp=1.5&pt4_ce=71&pt4_te=71&pt4_egt=1200&pt4_ter=2.71&pt4_pw=12.68&pt4_bsfc=0.38&pt4_afr=19.8&pt4_wts=368&pt4_wd=83&pt4_wd2=74&pt4_wrsin=84681&pt5_rpm=3200&pt5_ve=82&pt5_boost=29&pt5_ie=60&pt5_filres=0.18&pt5_ipd=0.3&pt5_mbp=1.8&pt5_ce=75&pt5_te=70&pt5_egt=1250&pt5_ter=2.89&pt5_pw=21.49&pt5_bsfc=0.4&pt5_afr=18.9&pt5_wts=400&pt5_wd=83&pt5_wd2=74&pt5_wrsin=92044&pt6_rpm=3600&pt6_ve=78&pt6_boost=29&pt6_ie=60&pt6_filres=0.2&pt6_ipd=0.3&pt6_mbp=2&pt6_ce=75&pt6_te=70&pt6_egt=1300&pt6_ter=2.95&pt6_pw=25.1&pt6_bsfc=0.42&pt6_afr=18&pt6_wts=400&pt6_wd=83&pt6_wd2=74&pt6_wrsin=92044&)

[isuzurover]

Latest effort.
Borg Warner EFR6255 (smallest in the EFR range) on a 4BD1T with a maxed out pump and intercooler at 3,600rpm using very safe A/F and EGT. Should be good for about 280hp. Possibly more as I've used conservative figures:

Which mount style do they use??? (I assume not a T2?)

[Dougal]

Which mount style do they use??? (I assume not a T2?)

T25 in that size.

[isuzurover]

T25 in that size.

How different is that to what I have atm???

[Dougal]

How different is that to what I have atm???

It'll bolt straight up. The port may need a bit of matching, but that's all.

[Judo]

OK, the decision has been made. I'm buying a new turbo. :D

Although there is a lot of turbos on ebay, there doesn't seem to be many that suit our engines. I can't find any that match the descriptions on the first page of this thread?

There is this one that Dougal suggested to me a few weeks back, although it's gone up $100 since then!

Kinugawa Turbocharger TD04HL 19T T25 Flange 6cm OIL Cooled 250 280HP | eBay (http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/Kinugawa-Turbocharger-TD04HL-19T-T25-Flange-6cm-Oil-Cooled-250-280HP-/271246114122?pt=AU_Car_Parts_Accessories&hash=item3f27873d4a&_uhb=1)

Looking on the Kinugawa website, there is also this one with a 8cm turbine housing. Too big?

Kinugawa Turbocharger FUSO Canter FE449 4D34T 3.9 TD05-4 49178-02345 49178-02320 (http://shopping.kinugawaturbo.com/kinugawaturbochargerfusocanterfe4494d34t39td05-449178-0234549178-02320.aspx)

I can't find compressor maps for Kinugawa turbos though. Any idea what these turbos will look like?

I'm trying to budget, so these appear to be sensible options without going crazy. I'll be running no IC for a start, but plan to add one within a few years. (I don't do many kms in a year - easily less than 10k).

Thoughts or other suggestions for no more than $750?

[Dougal]

Td04hl 19t maps are easy to find. You're on your own with the td05.

[Judo]

I found this map for a TD04H-19T 6cm turbine with:
Compressor: 46mm, 58mm
Turbine: 41mm, 47mm

I overlaid your 4bd1 No IC graph.

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2013/08/1023.jpg


Edit: The turbine on the ebay Kinugawa is a bit bigger at 45.6mm / 52 mm. Not sure how different that would make it?

[Dougal]

I found this map for a TD04H-19T 6cm turbine with:
Compressor: 46mm, 58mm
Turbine: 41mm, 47mm

I overlaid your 4bd1 No IC graph.

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2013/08/1023.jpg


Edit: The turbine on the ebay Kinugawa is a bit bigger at 45.6mm / 52 mm. Not sure how different that would make it?



The 4BD1T intercooled graphs to 30psi still fit very nicely on that map. For turbines, the HE221 is a Holset special TD04HL-19T with a 60mm compressor. The HL turbine is slightly bigger than the H turbine and users report excellent spool on our size diesels.

[Bush65]

Be aware that before you plot PR and air flow onto a compressor map, you first need to correct the air flow for the inlet conditions, pressure and temperature, used to create the map. Also the air flow needs to be converted to the same units.

With that map, i see the inlet temperature is 20C, but can't see the inlet pressure, and the air flow is m^3/sec.

To correct for inlet conditions, where:
Pin and Tin are your inlet pressure and temperature
Pref and Tref are the inlet pressure and temperature used for the map

Then corrected mass flow is:
Mcorr = Mcalc x (Pref / Pin) x sqroot (Tin / Tref)

Obviously Tin and Tref are same units, and Pin and Pref are same units. For example Garrett use 28.4 inches of mercury for reference pressure and 545R for reference temperature.

[Judo]

I haven't tried to correct the inlet pressure on that graph but the 20C matches Dougal's 4bd1 PR vs flow graph, so that doesn't need correcting...right?

I found the conversion between m^3/s and lb/min and I'm confident (never 100%) I got that right when overlaying the graphs. However I tried to do the same with the IC graph and failed. The scales were all wrong or something. I will try again and post up results once I think it's correct.

I have plenty of motivation to fix these graphs now. I ordered one. :D

Kinugawa Turbocharger TD04HL-19T / T25 Flange / 6cm Oil-Cooled.

I did some google searching and learnt a few things:

1. The brand has mostly excellent reviews. As good as you would expect from random Internet reviews/forums.
2. It's possible they might be rebranded Kamak's? KAMAK DYNAMICS - Distributors - Asia (http://www.kamakdynamics.com/profile/news_product_info.php?newsid=22)
3. Kinugawa have Australian bank details if you prefer this to an ebay purchase... ;) ;)
4. You guys post on a lot of forums. :D Not sure if I'm the first on here to order a Kinugawa, but there looks to be a lot of recent purchases on 4btswaps for trials as well. Can't wait to see how it goes!

[Dougal]

That looks about right. I do have that same turbo plotted out on that map on my worksheets.

[flagg]

Awesome news Judo. Would be good to have a 4bd1t convention one day and see how the different setups go IRL. :)

[Albert]

Following with great intrest. I was about to order one as well, but plans have been put back a few months to do repairs and brake upgrade after the CSR.
Keep the updates coming.

[Judo]

Awesome news Judo. Would be good to have a 4bd1t convention one day and see how the different setups go IRL. :)
Definitely, we'll have to organise an event northern VIC / southern NSW.....once I get some number plates that is. :angel:

[isuzutoo-eh]

Awesome news Judo. Would be good to have a 4bd1t convention one day and see how the different setups go IRL. :)

Does it count if the turbo is in a box o nthe back seat? :p

[flagg]

Originally Posted by flagg (http://www.aulro.com/afvb/showthread.php?p=1967415)
Awesome news Judo. Would be good to have a 4bd1t convention one day and see how the different setups go IRL. :)





Does it count if the turbo is in a box o nthe back seat? :p




haha yes. I can't complain, mine sat in a box in the garage for over a year before I bolted it on!

[Judo]

Does it count if the turbo is in a box o nthe back seat? :p


haha yes. I can't complain, mine sat in a box in the garage for over a year before I bolted it on!

In that case I can come with twin turbos. :p One up front and one in the back (seat).


Dougal will be asking for a clean up of his thread soon. :wasntme:

[Jitterbug]

I haven't tried to correct the inlet pressure on that graph but the 20C matches Dougal's 4bd1 PR vs flow graph, so that doesn't need correcting...right?

I found the conversion between m^3/s and lb/min and I'm confident (never 100%) I got that right when overlaying the graphs. However I tried to do the same with the IC graph and failed. The scales were all wrong or something. I will try again and post up results once I think it's correct.

I have plenty of motivation to fix these graphs now. I ordered one. :D

Kinugawa Turbocharger TD04HL-19T / T25 Flange / 6cm Oil-Cooled.

I did some google searching and learnt a few things:

1. The brand has mostly excellent reviews. As good as you would expect from random Internet reviews/forums.
2. It's possible they might be rebranded Kamak's? KAMAK DYNAMICS - Distributors - Asia (http://www.kamakdynamics.com/profile/news_product_info.php?newsid=22)
3. Kinugawa have Australian bank details if you prefer this to an ebay purchase... ;) ;)
4. You guys post on a lot of forums. :D Not sure if I'm the first on here to order a Kinugawa, but there looks to be a lot of recent purchases on 4btswaps for trials as well. Can't wait to see how it goes!

Very keen to see how this goes, I nearly pulled the trigger on a BW turbo but then decided to hold off, then the AUD dropped, now I am questioning the need to go for the expensive option when I am not chasing big numbers. Comments on quality etc when you get it would be appreciated.

[Dougal]

Latest effort.
Borg Warner EFR6255 (smallest in the EFR range) on a 4BD1T with a maxed out pump and intercooler at 3,600rpm using very safe A/F and EGT. Should be good for about 280hp. Possibly more as I've used conservative figures: BorgWarner MatchBot (http://www.turbodriven.com//performanceturbos/matchbot/index.html#version=1.2&displacement=3.9&CID=237.978&altitude=500&baro=14.502&aat=75&turboconfig=1&compressor=62k80&pt1_rpm=1500&pt1_ve=90&pt1_boost=14&pt1_ie=60&pt1_filres=0.08&pt1_ipd=0.2&pt1_mbp=0.5&pt1_ce=62&pt1_te=75&pt1_egt=1300&pt1_ter=1.64&pt1_pw=0.99&pt1_bsfc=0.37&pt1_afr=17&pt1_wts=300&pt1_wd=83&pt1_wd2=74&pt1_wrsin=69033&pt2_rpm=1900&pt2_ve=90&pt2_boost=22&pt2_ie=60&pt2_filres=0.1&pt2_ipd=0.2&pt2_mbp=1&pt2_ce=65&pt2_te=73&pt2_egt=1250&pt2_ter=2.11&pt2_pw=3.11&pt2_bsfc=0.36&pt2_afr=19&pt2_wts=320&pt2_wd=83&pt2_wd2=74&pt2_wrsin=73635&pt3_rpm=2300&pt3_ve=89&pt3_boost=25.6&pt3_ie=60&pt3_filres=0.12&pt3_ipd=0.3&pt3_mbp=1.3&pt3_ce=68&pt3_te=72&pt3_egt=1200&pt3_ter=2.46&pt3_pw=8.23&pt3_bsfc=0.35&pt3_afr=19.8&pt3_wts=340&pt3_wd=83&pt3_wd2=74&pt3_wrsin=78238&pt4_rpm=2700&pt4_ve=85&pt4_boost=28.2&pt4_ie=60&pt4_filres=0.15&pt4_ipd=0.3&pt4_mbp=1.5&pt4_ce=71&pt4_te=71&pt4_egt=1200&pt4_ter=2.71&pt4_pw=12.68&pt4_bsfc=0.38&pt4_afr=19.8&pt4_wts=368&pt4_wd=83&pt4_wd2=74&pt4_wrsin=84681&pt5_rpm=3200&pt5_ve=82&pt5_boost=29&pt5_ie=60&pt5_filres=0.18&pt5_ipd=0.3&pt5_mbp=1.8&pt5_ce=75&pt5_te=70&pt5_egt=1250&pt5_ter=2.89&pt5_pw=21.49&pt5_bsfc=0.4&pt5_afr=18.9&pt5_wts=400&pt5_wd=83&pt5_wd2=74&pt5_wrsin=92044&pt6_rpm=3600&pt6_ve=78&pt6_boost=29&pt6_ie=60&pt6_filres=0.2&pt6_ipd=0.3&pt6_mbp=2&pt6_ce=75&pt6_te=70&pt6_egt=1300&pt6_ter=2.95&pt6_pw=25.1&pt6_bsfc=0.42&pt6_afr=18&pt6_wts=400&pt6_wd=83&pt6_wd2=74&pt6_wrsin=92044&)

Apparently the Borg Warner EFR6255 isn't available. I'm guessing demand wasn't high enough so they dropped it. Smallest one is the EFR6258 which Flagg has used.
The difference is relatively minor, but the 55 would be a bit faster spooling. Same compressor on them both.

[Judo]

Very keen to see how this goes, I nearly pulled the trigger on a BW turbo but then decided to hold off, then the AUD dropped, now I am questioning the need to go for the expensive option when I am not chasing big numbers. Comments on quality etc when you get it would be appreciated.
I will certainly be posting all my stories as they are available. :)

Note the AUD affects the Kinugawa turbo prices too. The same one I bought on ebay was $100 cheaper a few weeks ago. When I messaged the seller about it, he apologised but said it was the exchange rate that caused the price jump, not his own price rise.

If you want to go real cheap (quality unknown?), this is a straight T3 bolt up (I was very tempted). But if you can see a brand name anywhere on that turbo, you're doing better than I! IMO Kinugawa is already ahead being that they have a name. :D

Isuzu Truck NPR 4DB2 4BD2 TB2568 Turbo Turbocharger 466409 0002 8971056180 | eBay (http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/280998768676'ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1438.l2649)

My source: http://www.aulro.com/afvb/isuzu-landy-enthusiasts-section/142686-turbos-work-4bd1-5.html#post1714096

[Dougal]

I will certainly be posting all my stories as they are available. :)

Note the AUD affects the Kinugawa turbo prices too. The same one I bought on ebay was $100 cheaper a few weeks ago. When I messaged the seller about it, he apologised but said it was the exchange rate that caused the price jump, not his own price rise.

If you want to go real cheap (quality unknown?), this is a straight T3 bolt up (I was very tempted). But if you can see a brand name anywhere on that turbo, you're doing better than I! IMO Kinugawa is already ahead being that they have a name. :D

Isuzu Truck NPR 4DB2 4BD2 TB2568 Turbo Turbocharger 466409 0002 8971056180 | eBay (http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/280998768676'ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1438.l2649)

My source: http://www.aulro.com/afvb/isuzu-landy-enthusiasts-section/142686-turbos-work-4bd1-5.html#post1714096

The TB2568 (4BD2T turbo) is the best of the stock turbos. But the TD04HL-19T should deliver a lot more low end boost and more boost. The TD04HL-19T can do 30psi to the rev limit, the TB2568 shouldn't.

[flagg]

The EFR 6258 has also gone up in price quite a bit since I ordered mine (in USD, not just the exchange rate). Apparently there were some manufacturing issues that caused delays and I guess the price increases.

[Dougal]

So I've finally had some time to crack the turbine sizing thing. Borg Warner use a number called Phi on their turbine maps:
http://www.turbodriven.com/performanceturbos/matchbot/images/turbinemap.jpg

Garrett use "corrected mass flow" for theirs:
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2013/08/391.jpg

So here is how they work. Turbine power is essentially an arc centred around the lower left hand corner. So if you need say 20kw of turbine power, you'll have an arc which cuts that chart from top left to mid right.
Where that 20kw arc cuts the red line is where the turbine can provide that amount of power.

Every turbine like that has a lower limit where it can't get enough flow to start working and an upper limit where it's choked out and can't produce any more power. In between how much power it can produce depends on how efficient it is.

The crux of all of this.
The Borg Warner EFR6258 turbine starts at about the point of a Garrett GT28 turbine with a 0.64 A/R housing on it.
The difference is, the EFR is a lot more efficient so requires less drive pressure to produce the same turbine power.

Here is the GT2871 turbine map, max efficiency about 68%:
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2013/08/392.jpg

Here is the matchbot stock figures showing 75-70%:
BorgWarner MatchBot (http://www.turbodriven.com/performanceturbos/matchbot/index.html#version=1.3&displacement=2&CID=122.04&altitude=500&baro=14.502&aat=75&turboconfig=1&compressor=70s75&pt1_rpm=2000&pt1_ve=85&pt1_boost=5&pt1_ie=99&pt1_filres=0.08&pt1_ipd=0.2&pt1_mbp=0.5&pt1_ce=66&pt1_te=75&pt1_egt=1550&pt1_ter=1.18&pt1_pw=NaN&pt1_bsfc=0.43&pt1_afr=11.5&pt1_wts=300&pt1_wd=83&pt1_wd2=74&pt1_wrsin=69033&pt2_rpm=3000&pt2_ve=95&pt2_boost=10&pt2_ie=95&pt2_filres=0.1&pt2_ipd=0.2&pt2_mbp=1&pt2_ce=70&pt2_te=73&pt2_egt=1600&pt2_ter=1.36&pt2_pw=NaN&pt2_bsfc=0.45&pt2_afr=11.5&pt2_wts=320&pt2_wd=83&pt2_wd2=74&pt2_wrsin=73635&pt3_rpm=4000&pt3_ve=100&pt3_boost=15&pt3_ie=95&pt3_filres=0.12&pt3_ipd=0.3&pt3_mbp=1.3&pt3_ce=74&pt3_te=72&pt3_egt=1650&pt3_ter=1.61&pt3_pw=NaN&pt3_bsfc=0.48&pt3_afr=11.5&pt3_wts=340&pt3_wd=83&pt3_wd2=74&pt3_wrsin=78238&pt4_rpm=5000&pt4_ve=100&pt4_boost=17&pt4_ie=92&pt4_filres=0.15&pt4_ipd=0.4&pt4_mbp=1.5&pt4_ce=76&pt4_te=71&pt4_egt=1650&pt4_ter=1.81&pt4_pw=NaN&pt4_bsfc=0.5&pt4_afr=11.5&pt4_wts=368&pt4_wd=83&pt4_wd2=74&pt4_wrsin=84681&pt5_rpm=6000&pt5_ve=105&pt5_boost=17&pt5_ie=90&pt5_filres=0.18&pt5_ipd=0.5&pt5_mbp=1.8&pt5_ce=72&pt5_te=70&pt5_egt=1650&pt5_ter=1.98&pt5_pw=NaN&pt5_bsfc=0.52&pt5_afr=11.5&pt5_wts=400&pt5_wd=83&pt5_wd2=74&pt5_wrsin=92044&pt6_rpm=7000&pt6_ve=105&pt6_boost=17&pt6_ie=90&pt6_filres=0.2&pt6_ipd=0.6&pt6_mbp=2&pt6_ce=66&pt6_te=70&pt6_egt=1650&pt6_ter=2.18&pt6_pw=NaN&pt6_bsfc=0.55&pt6_afr=11.5&pt6_wts=400&pt6_wd=83&pt6_wd2=74&pt6_wrsin=92044&)

This is why Borg Warner can get away with a larger turbine. The larger but more efficient turbines used on the Borg Warners can ultimately support more power for higher boost at higher rpm. But that said, even the T25 turbine can deliver backpressure below boost for the lions share of it's full load operation and can still provide enough boost to max out a standard pump.
At 750C EGT I'm getting 32psi drive pressure to produce 25psi boost at 3,500rpm with the 0.49 A/R T25 turbine. That's just over 33kw turbine power which is enough to feed 180kw of engine power.

I'm still crunching all these numbers, so don't get too excited yet. I also haven't visited the Garrett GTX range which should offer some competition to the BW EFR series.

[flagg]

Do you have any fuel screw left for those figures Dougal?

[Dougal]

Do you have any fuel screw left for those figures Dougal?

That is based on the 140cc max that Randy measured on his stock pump. Bsfc and power figures are conservative.
I hope to bench test my spare pump one day.

After many more hours crunching numbers, it appears the 0.64 turbine housing just can't do it and anything bigger is even worse.
The gt22 turbine looks like the best one garrett have for our uses. But no numbers yet.

[Dougal]

Some numbers on the Garrett GT22 turbine.

It can produce ~39kw of shaft power from 700C exhaust at 3,400rpm on our engines. That's enough for ~28psi boost. Drive pressure would be ~38psi allowing 5psi exhaust backpressure.

T25 turbine would produce about 4psi more backpressure to do the same job.

I'm pinning my plans on the TD04HL turbine which I don't have maps for, but is the same trim and slightly larger than the GT22 turbine.

[Bush65]

... Borg Warner use a number called Phi on their turbine maps:

... Garrett use "corrected mass flow" for theirs:

... But that said, even the T25 turbine can deliver backpressure below boost for the lions share of it's full load operation and can still provide enough boost to max out a standard pump.
At 750C EGT I'm getting 32psi drive pressure to produce 25psi boost at 3,500rpm with the 0.49 A/R T25 turbine. ...
Corrected mass flow is:
Mass flow corrected = Mass flow x (Pref / Pin) x square root (Tin / Tref)

Phi = Mass flow x square root (T) / P

where temperature T and pressure P in both cases are absolute values.

So in essentially both approaches are correcting the mass flow. What we don't know for Garrett turbine maps is what reference temperature and pressure they base their turbine maps on.

Actually those curves in the turbine maps, are disguising the full picture, they are a simple fit through a larger set of data curves. See the pic below.

With the T25, or GT22 turbines, for our purposes, it appears that their waste gates are not flowing enough at the higher engine rpm's. It is a long time since I have looked at these and have to wonder if it would be practical, or possible to port them to improve the flow.

Also adding preload from the actuator to increase boost would, I suspect be counterproductive for satisfactory flow through the waste gate. A good boost controller can be better for this purpose.

I note that the EFR turbos have quite large waste gates, and the ports have been designed for good flow, this with a larger turbine.

The GT22??V with it's largish turbine housing could be a good solution, given a good control system for the vanes that doesn't cause to much restriction during cruise. Though as we know, the turbine maps don't seem to be available.

When the exhaust flow is above the curve for the turbine, the excess needs to be set out through the waste gate, as the curve depicts what the turbine can handle.

If the exhaust flow lies below the curve, the turbine is too large and it's performance will not be as good as one where the curve matches the flow.

[Dougal]

I used their compressor reference temperature and 1 bar for reference pressure. This made the result as expected, but it could certainly be out by a few degrees or pascal's.

I am getting very little wastegate flow in my calculations. The gt22 turbine flows roughly 30lb/min in real terms at 700c.
The t25 turbine at 750c chokes out at roughly 24 lb/min. Interestingly this was a near perfect fit for where my engine would choke the exhaust and hit the wall power wise at 2500rpm and full load with the wastegate clamped.

I'm not convinced the wastegate needs to be bigger. I cannot develop any measurable boost at 700c egt with the wastegate actuator disconnected.

Lower temperatures allow higher real mass flows through the turbine. But less power is extracted too.

[Bush65]

My understanding is that turbo manufactures, develop their turbine (and maps) using "hot gas stands".

For that reason I would expect that the reference temp and pressure, would be the inlet conditions of the hot gas stand. However they could correct them to "standard conditions", but why expect them to do that for a turbine when they don't correct compressor maps to "standard conditions".

If the high drive pressure is not down to the waste gate, then I would suspect that the turbine size may be a little small and so require such a high expansion ratio to develop the required torque/power.

To save me going back through all of your data and posts, for comparison, what drive to boost ratio results did matchbot give for the EFR turbos?

[Dougal]

To save me going back through all of your data and posts, for comparison, what drive to boost ratio results did matchbot give for the EFR turbos?

The efr turbos were generally getting drive pressure below boost for most of the full load range. Some high rpm points were drive above boost by several psi.
The efr turbines are larger, but also more efficient which almost completely offsets the size difference. I do have in my calcs the phi number bw use to compare against the garrett turbines.

It appears the new generation garrett turbines applicable to us are the gt22 and largest of the gt28.
The gt25 and smaller gt28 are old style with poor efficiency.

[Ancient Mariner]

I can`t even begin to understand half of what you fellas are discussing :confused:
I brought this up before but it must have got missed .Is there any advantage in being able to advance the injection timing other than at start up? Your opinions greatly appreciated but please remember you are talking to an idjit;)

Thanks AM

[Bush65]

I can`t even begin to understand half of what you fellas are discussing :confused:
I brought this up before but it must have got missed .Is there any advantage in being able to advance the injection timing other than at start up? Your opinions greatly appreciated but please remember you are talking to an idjit;)

Thanks AM
I'm not sure where this question is leading, thus not sure how to answer.

You are no doubt aware that there is an automatic timing advance unit on the FI pump, for when the engine rpm changes.

[Ancient Mariner]

I'm not sure where this question is leading, thus not sure how to answer.

You are no doubt aware that there is an automatic timing advance unit on the FI pump, for when the engine rpm changes.
My injection pump has a ECU controlled advanced timing interval on startup for smoke control as I wont be running a ECU I could control it with a manual switch and was curious
as to being any advantage at other revs .Sorry about the vague query

Thanks Noel

[Bush65]

My injection pump has a ECU controlled advanced timing interval on startup for smoke control as I wont be running a ECU I could control it with a manual switch and was curious
as to being any advantage at other revs .Sorry about the vague query

Thanks Noel
OK.

Do you know, if by manually controlling the normally ECU controlled start-up timing advance, if it would affect the injection timing across the range of the auto advance curve, such that it would simulate a change to the static advance?

If so, then if you made it so the injection timing could be easily adjusted from inside the cab, it could be useful for finding the best static advance setting for the injection. You may find, there are optimum settings for torque/power and economy for different vehicle loads, different ambient conditions, such as temperature and air density changes with altitude.

Regarding your first comment in the earlier post:


I can`t even begin to understand half of what you fellas are discussing :confused:
snip ...

I'm willing to clarify/expand any technical issues. Your not the first to express those sentiments in this thread.

So I will make a start later today. I think it may be useful to start from the beginning and spread it over a number of post for each topic. It will take some time and I won't have any this Friday or Monday.

Given the title of this thread, I trust Dougal won't see this as a hijack. If so I can take it to a new thread.

[Bush65]

While there are other ways to begin the selection procedure for a turbocharger upgrade on a diesel engine, the method discussed in this post starts with determining the air mass flow rate necessary to meet the desired power output. Air mass flow rate is the mass of air passing through the engine (and turbocharger) in a given time. It has units of kg/s (or lb/min).


Before we can determine the air mass flow, we need to know how much fuel has to be burnt in the combustion chamber to achieve the desired power output. For this we use the SFC (Specific Fuel Consumption), which is the amount of fuel required to produce one unit of power at full load. It has units of gram/kW.hour (or lb/HP.hour).


The lower the SFC, the less fuel required to produce the power. Or how effectively the engine converts the potential chemical energy of the fuel into mechanical energy. Combustion efficiency is a large factor, and the modern turbocharged and intercooled, direct injection diesel engines achieve the lowest SFC. Another important factor is mechanical loss, e.g. friction between moving parts.


With regard to diesel combustion some details that reduce SFC are:


Turbocharging
Intercooling
Finer fuel atomisation. Unlike petrol, diesel fuel is not vaporised, but atomised as small droplets by the fuel injectors. The smaller the droplets, the larger the total surface area of the total fuel injected each cycle, which allows better combustion. Better atomisation is achieved by using smaller nozzle holes, but demands more holes, and/or higher injection pressure to produce the the required fuel mass flow rate in the short duration available.
Better mixing of fuel and air. With small diameter cylinder bores and direct injection, swirl needs to be produced by the inlet ports. Modern engines with four valve heads allow the fuel injector to be located on the centreline, which produces better mixing.

So what SFC to use for the Isuzu 4BD1? Here we are fortunate because Isuzu has published diagrams with the SFC over the rpm range. The pic below shows the diagram for the post 1988 4BD1T.


BTW, the best rpm for fuel economy is approximately where SFC is least.


http://www.aulro.com/afvb/attachments/isuzu-landy-enthusiasts-section/58089d1364019071-4bd1t-turbo-sizing-performance-prediction-4bd1t-performance.jpg



If we multiply the desired peak power at 3000 rpm by the SFC at the same rpm, we have the required mass fuel rate per hour. Divide this by 3600 to give mass fuel rate per second.


Given the mass fuel rate we can now calculate the required air mass flow rate.


The criteria now is the required ratio of air mass flow to achieve complete combustion of the fuel. If there is insufficient air, black smoke will be emitted from the exhaust and high EGT will result. If there is to much air, power will have wasted. At peak power rpm, an air/fuel ratio of 18 to 20 is a good figure for a starting point.


To calculate the required air mass flow rate, multiply the fuel mass flow rate by the air/fuel ratio.


In the next stage we determine the pressure ratio required to realise the air mass flow and we will be on the way to selecting a suitable turbocharger compressor.

[Bush65]

Before progressing to the next theory stage, here are 3 example calculations covering what was presented in my last post.


(Ex a) is the peak power of a stock 1989, 4BD1T, i.e. 90 kW at 3000 rpm


(Ex b) is as for (a) but target power 50% greater, i.e. 135 kW at 3000 rpm


(Ex c) is as for (a) but target power 100% greater, i.e. 180 kW at 3000 rpm


Use SFC = 240.5 g/kW hr as per the Isuzu data for 3000 rpm.


For the air mass flow consider two values of A/F ratio; 18:1 and 20:1


Find the fuel mass flow to achieve the desired power.


Now Mf = power x SFC


(Ex a): Mf = 90 kW x 240.5 g/kW hr / 60 min/hr = 360.75 g/min


(Ex b): Mf = 135 kW x 240.5 g/kW hr / 60 min/hr = 541.12 g/min


(Ex c) Mf = 180 kW x 240.5 g/kW hr / 60 min/hr = 721.50 g/min


Find the air mass flow required for combustion of the fuel.


Now Ma = Mf x A/F


(Ex a) Ma = 360.75 g/min x 18 / 60 sec/min = 0.108 kg/sec (at A/F = 18:1)
or Ma = 360.75 x 20 / 60 sec/min = 0.120 kg/sec (at A/F = 20:1)


(Ex b) Ma = 541.12 g/min x 18 / 60 sec/min = 0.162 kg/sec (at A/F = 18:1)
or Ma = 541.12 x 20 / 60 sec/min = 0.180 kg/sec (at A/F = 20:1)


(Ex c) Ma = 721.50 g/min x 18 / 60 sec/min = 0.216 kg/sec (at A/F = 18:1)
or Ma = 721.50 x 20 / 60 sec/min = 0.240 kg/sec (at A/F = 20:1)

Edit: In conclusion (assuming our SFC is valid) we would like:
0.108 to 0.120 kg/sec of air for 90 kW
0.162 to 0.180 kg/sec of air for 135 kW
0.216 to 0.240 kg/sec of air for 180 kW

That amount of air is the same for any diesel with that SFC, and there is no magic for chipped CRD to change the physics, it comes down to the SFC, and the 4BD1T was one of the best example when it was designed, and is still quite respectable.

[flagg]

Thanks John. Really appreciate the time you put in to make these posts.

[Bush65]

There are other shorter, ways, e.g. the equation found in the Garrett catalogue, to determine the required boost pressure, but my goal in this thread is to provide a better understanding of what turbochargers do, and how those equations were developed.


The engine is a restriction to air flow. The volumetric air flow rate for a 4 cycle engine is:



Va = VE x Displacement x rpm / (2 x 60)


where:
VE is the volumetric efficiency, approximately = 0.80 (approximately) for a 4BD1T at 3000 rpm

Displacement = 3.856 litres for a 4BD1T

rpm is engine speed in revs per minute

2 is the number of revs to complete 4 cycles (strokes)

60 is the conversion factor for revs per minute to revs per second
Then Va = 0.8 x 3.856 litres x 3000 rpm / (2 x 60) = 77.120 litre/sec


Clearly the only way to increase the volumetric air flow is to either increase the engine displacement, improve the volumetric efficiency, or increase the engine speed.


It is possible, but expensive, relative to performance gain (bang for buck), to increase VE, e.g. improve the breathing of the head (4 valves per cylinder with modern engines), or optimise the valve timing. It is counter-productive for our purposes to increase the engine speed, unless we want to race for example.


Recapping the previous stage we found the required air mass flow for the desired power. That was because engines develop torque and power from the conversion of chemical energy in the fuel to heat energy by combustion, and that chemical process dictates mass flow. The heat energy increases the pressure of the gas in the combustion chamber (combustion pressure), which expands, forcing the piston down to generate torque. Power is simply the time rate of that torque (torque x speed).


Moving right along now, we need to convert the volumetric air flow of our engine to air mass flow. To obtain mass flow we multiply volumetric flow by the density.


Now density is mass / volume, and in the case of air it depends upon the number of molecules of air and the space (volume) they take up. As temperature increases the vibration of each molecule (temperature is a measure of vibration amplitude) each molecule takes up more space (density reduces), but as pressure increases the molecules are forced closer together (density increases).



Density of air = (Pa x M) / (R x Ta)

where:
Pa is absolute pressure in Pa (Pascal)
M is molar mass of air = 0.0289644 kg/mol
R is ideal gas constant = 8.31447 J/mol K
Ta is absolute pressure in degrees K (Kelvin) = degrees C + 273
For now we are interested in the density of air entering the engine, so Pa and Ta are the absolute pressure and temperature in the inlet manifold. From the equation for air density it should be obvious that increasing the pressure by turbocharging increases the density, as does reducing the temperature by intercooling.


Now to increase engine performance, we need to burn more fuel, which requires an increase of the air mass flow, but the volumetric flow of the engine is fixed as we have shown, so we want the turbocharger compressor to increase the density of the air.


For the turbocharger compressor we define DR (Density Ratio) as:

DR = density of air at outlet / density of air at inlet
Here we can determine the required DR from:

DR = required air mass flow / air mass flow of naturally aspirated engine


where:
required air mass flow is what we found in the previous stage
air mass flow of naturally aspirated engine is the volumetric air flow we found above, i.e. Va = 77.120 litre/sec x inlet air density
Although I'm not going to use it here, an alternate method of determining required DR is:

DR = required power with turbo / power without turbo
To determine the density for the naturally aspirated engine we need to know the ambient pressure and temperature.
For this example assume:

Pa = 100 kPa = 100000 Pa
Ta = 303 K (273 + 30 C)
Then:

density of inlet air = (Pa x M) / (R x Ta)

= (100000 Pa x 0.0289644 kg/mol) / (8.31447 J/mol K x 303 K)
= 1.1497 kg/m3
Then air mass flow of naturally aspirated 4BD1 at 3000 rpm is:

Ma = Va x density
= (77.120 litre/sec / 1000 litre/m3) x 1.1497 kg/m3

= 0.0887 kg/sec
Now using the required air mass flow determined in the previous stage we can determine the required density ratio.


(Ex a) for 90 kW:

DR = 0.108 kg/sec / 0.0887 kg/sec = 1.218 (for A/F = 18:1)
or:

DR = 0.120 kg/sec / 0.0887 kg/sec = 1.353 (for A/F = 20:1)
(Ex b) for 135 kW:

DR = 0.162 kg/sec / 0.0887 kg/sec = 1.826 (for A/F = 18:1)
or:

DR = 0.180 kg/sec / 0.0887 kg/sec = 2.029 (for A/F = 20:1)
(Ex c) for 180 kW:

DR = 0.216 kg/sec / 0.0887 kg/sec = 2.435 (for A/F = 18:1)
or:

DR = 0.240 kg/sec / 0.0887 kg/sec = 2.706 (for A/F = 20:1)
The next stage is to convert the required density ratio to required pressure ratio and correct the air mass flow so that we can plot these two values onto compressor maps to select a suitable turbo.


While it is relatively easy to determine density ratio from pressure ratio, it is more difficult to do the reverse conversion. This is because the temperature increases (thus reducing density) when air is compressed.

[Dougal]

My understanding is that turbo manufactures, develop their turbine (and maps) using "hot gas stands".

For that reason I would expect that the reference temp and pressure, would be the inlet conditions of the hot gas stand. However they could correct them to "standard conditions", but why expect them to do that for a turbine when they don't correct compressor maps to "standard conditions".

Indeed and I chased that same thought for many hours over many months. Like you I was looking for a reference temp around 1000K which might have some real world significance.
Until I accepted that it could possibly be any arbitrary temp and pressure for correcting the flow to a standardised chart.
So I calculated it using similar temperatures and pressures as their compressor inlet conditions and it all fits.

I'm currently working on plotting out real flow and turbine power vs corrected flow on a turbine map to show how this fits at realistic exhaust temps.


If the high drive pressure is not down to the waste gate, then I would suspect that the turbine size may be a little small and so require such a high expansion ratio to develop the required torque/power.

It's that old trade-off again. Tight turbine for fast spooling and drivability vs
a larger housing for lower drive pressure and more power but worse drivability.
Personally I find myself always making the choice for the parts of driving I enjoy the most. Which is the acceleration and drivability vs top end power.

[Bush65]

Pressure ratio (PR) is the absolute pressure at the compressor outlet (P2) divided by the absolute pressure at the compressor inlet (P2). P2 is often taken as the ambient/atmospheric pressure, but a more accurate value takes account of the pressure loss that occurs because of the air filter and snorkel. Absolute pressure (PABS) is gauge pressure (PG) plus ambient pressure (PATM).


Boost pressure is the gauge pressure at the compressor outlet so to convert boost pressure to PR:
PR = (PBOOST + PATM) / P1
And to convert PR to boost pressure:
PBOOST = (PR x P1 ) + PATM


We need to know the PR to be able to select a suitable turbocharger compressor from its map.


The following figure shows DR vs PR, for some values of adiabatic efficiency.


https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2013/09/1399.jpg



With an intercooler fitted a lower PR is required for any DR, but the improvement is more worthwhile when effeciency is lower or PR is higher. As a rough guide; for DR up to about 2.0 and no intercooler, the PR is approximately 1.2 to 1.5 times the DR (greater for higher DR). For higher values of DR and an effective intercooler, the PR is approximately 1.1 to 1.2 times the DR.


Compressor map is a chart that shows the compressor performance. The vertical axis is the non-dimensional “Pressure Ratio”, the horizontal axis is either “Mass Air Flow” or “Volumetric Air Flow” measured at the reference inlet conditions (pressure and temperature). The units for air flow may be SI or Imperial.


Now the mass flow through the engine must be identical to the mass flow through the turbocharger, unless there is a boost leak. However the volumetric flow through the engine, which we determined before, is not the same as the volumetric flow through the compressor. We have already found the required air mass flow, we will return to the conversion to volumetric flow later.


Corrected Air Mass Flow. The compressor performance was measured on a test stand and at particular inlet conditions known as the reference pressure and reference temperature. However our calculations were based on our local ambient conditions where we want the engine to perform. For the inlet pressure we should have allowed for pressure drop through the air filter and snorkel.


If our inlet pressure and temperature are different to the reference values, we need to correct the air flow using the following formula:


MCORR = MAIR x (PREF / P1) x square root (T1 / TREF)


where:
MAIR is the actual air mass flow at the local pressure and temperature
PREF is the reference absolute pressure that the map is based upon
P1 is the local absolute pressure used to determine MAIR
T1 is the local absolute temperature used to determine MAIR
TREF is the reference absolute temperature that the map is based upon


For the sake of example, I will refer to the following map for the 62mm Borg Warner EFR compressor.


https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2013/09/1400.jpg



Usually Borg Warner use PREF = 981 mbar (98100 Pascal) and TREF = 293 Kelvin (19.85 C) so will use these for this example. In the previous stage we used ambient conditions of Pa = 100 kPa and Ta = 303 K.
For our three examples the corrected mass flow is:


(Ex a):
MCORR = 0.108 kg/s x (98.1 kPa / 100 kPa) x square root (303 K / 293 K) = 0.1077 kg/s


(Ex b):
MCORR = 0.162 kg/s x (98.1 kPa / 100 kPa) x square root (303 K / 293 K) = 0.1616 kg/s


(Ex c):
MCORR = 0.216 kg/s x (98.1 kPa / 100 kPa) x square root (303 K / 293 K) = 0.2155 kg/s


In this case we see it was not worthwhile correcting the mass flow as there is no significant change when rounded to 3 significant figures.



Adiabatic Efficiency of the compressor is shown on the map as a series of roughly oval shape curves of equal efficiency that have a similar appearance to contour lines. The more efficient the compressor, the less heat it adds to the air during compression. A value of 1.0 is the unobtainable 100% efficiency. At best we might get above 0.75 for a very good compressor match, but most likely the efficiency will be between 0.60 and 0.75


We need to know the adiabatic efficiency in order to calculate density and density ratio from boost pressure and pressure ratio.



One option is to take a guess between 0.6 and 0.7 for a first pass at calculating pressure ratio. If our guess is too far out we will have to plot the resulting pressure ratio vs air flow on the compressor map to refine the value for efficiency and repeat the process.


If as in this example, we have a possible turbo in mind, and because we have already determined the air mass flow and density ratio, we can use the previously mentioned approximation to choose an approximate pressure ratio that will allow us to take a better stab at the adiabatic efficiency.


(Ex a) and no intercooler:
where MCORR = 0.108 kg/s, and DR = 1.218


Approx PR = DR x 1.2 = 1.218 x 1.2 = 1.5


where MCORR = 0.108 kg/s, and DR = 1.35


Approx PR = DR x 1.2 = 1.353 x 1.2 = 1.6


Then from compressor map, adiabatic efficiency is 0.69 for PR = 1.5 and 0.70 for PR = 1.6


(Ex b) with intercooler:
where MCORR = 0.162 kg/s, and DR = 1.826


Approx PR = DR x 1.1 = 1.826 x 1.1 = 2.0


where MCORR = 0.162 kg/s, and DR = 2.029


Approx PR = DR x 1.1 = 2.029 x 1.1 = 2.2


Then from compressor map, adiabatic efficiency is 0.74 for PR = 2.0 and 0.73 for PR = 2.2


(Ex c) with intercooler:
where MCORR = 0.216 kg/s, and DR = 2.435


Approx PR = DR x 1.2 = 2.435 x 1.2 = 2.9


where MCORR = 0.216 kg/s, and DR = 2.706


Approx PR = DR x 1.1 = 2.706 x 1.2 = 3.2


Then from compressor map, adiabatic efficiency is 0.71 for PR = 2.9 and 0.7 for PR = 3.2


At this stage we can draw some preliminary conclusions from examination of the map location where the air flow and PR intersect.


We see for these examples that at maximum power engine rpm, the points lay to the left of the centre region. Ideally that point would be further to the right, which indicates that the air flow capacity of this compressor is on the large side for our engine. This is mainly a function of the inducer diameter, 49.6 mm.


It is capable of supplying even more air than needed for the plus 100% power increase of example c, if the fuel injection pump was calibrated for sufficient fuel.


We can see this by drawing lines on the map connecting the relevant points found for (ex b) and (ex c). Those lines plot intermediate values between plus 50% and plus 100% power increase at 3000 rpm with an intercooler. We can extend the lines further up and down to see what happens if we later decide on more than plus 100%, or less than plus 50%.


For higher engine rpm, say 3500 rpm the points will be further to the right, for lower rpm, say for maximum torque, the points will be further left.



That is probably enough information to digest in this post. However the discussion on this topic will be continued.

[Ancient Mariner]

OK.

Do you know, if by manually controlling the normally ECU controlled start-up timing advance, if it would affect the injection timing across the range of the auto advance curve, such that it would simulate a change to the static advance?

If so, then if you made it so the injection timing could be easily adjusted from inside the cab, it could be useful for finding the best static advance setting for the injection. You may find, there are optimum settings for torque/power and economy for different vehicle loads, different ambient conditions, such as temperature and air density changes with altitude.

Regarding your first comment in the earlier post:



I'm willing to clarify/expand any technical issues. Your not the first to express those sentiments in this thread.

So I will make a start later today. I think it may be useful to start from the beginning and spread it over a number of post for each topic. It will take some time and I won't have any this Friday or Monday.

Given the title of this thread, I trust Dougal won't see this as a hijack. If so I can take it to a new thread.
John Apology for the late response but have been trying to chase more info on the timing advance but without success,The advance is by solenoid so is all or nothing. I will wire it to a switch in the cab and with a EGT and seat of the pants gauge will observe the results.
Also many thanks to you and Dougal for trying to educate in these extensive posts

Thanks Noel

[Bush65]

Further to the last post, the following pic shows the points marked on a printed copy of the compressor map. Please ignore my mistaken mark-ups such as the leftmost ruled line.


https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2013/09/1210.jpg



This shows errors in my earlier values for adiabatic efficiency determined by eyeball on the computer screen. They should read:
(Ex a) (90 kW with no intercooler), adiabatic efficiency is:

0.70 for MCORR = 0.108 kg/s, PR = 1.5 and A/F = 18:1
0.72 for MCORR = 0.120 kg/s, PR = 1.6 and A/F = 20:1

(Ex b) (135 kW with intercooler), adiabatic efficiency is:

0.74 for MCORR = 0.162 kg/s, PR = 2.0 and A/F = 18:1
0.74 for MCORR = 0.180 kg/s, PR = 2.2 and A/F = 20:1
(Ex c) (180 kW with intercooler), adiabatic efficiency is:

0.72 for MCORR = 0.216 kg/s, PR = 2.9 and A/F = 18:1
0.72 for MCORR = 0.240 kg/s, PR = 3.2 and A/F = 20:1
The two parallel ruled lines are both for 3000 rpm, the left line for A/F ratio 18:1 and the right line for A/F ratio 20:1 As engine performance (power and torque) at 3000 rpm changes, the minimum required air mass flow and PR will lie along these lines on the map, if the A/F ratio is maintained to control exhaust smoke and EGT.


Before we can conclude that this is a suitable turbocharger compressor for our needs, it will be useful to repeat the previous exercises for lower engine rpm where we want boost to start, and where we want maximum torque. For the sake of this example use 1000 rpm and 2000 rpm (note max torque is at 2200 rpm) and use A/F ratio = 20:1


Referring to the previous performance curves for the stock 1989 4BD1T


At 1000 rpm:
Power = 26 kW
SFC = 231.7 g/kW hr
Fuel mass flow rate Mf = 26 kW x 231.7 g/kW hr / 60 min/hr = 100.40 g/min
Air mass flow Ma = 100.40 g/min x 20 / 60 sec/min = 0.0335 kg/sec (at A/F = 20:1)
Volumetric Efficiency VE = 0.9 (assumed)
Volumetric air flow through engine Va = 0.9 x 3.856 litres x 1000 rpm / (2 x 60) = 28.920 litre/sec
Density of inlet air = 1.1497 kg/m3 (as calculated before)
Air mass flow of naturally aspirated 4BD1 at 1000 rpm is:
Ma = Va x density = (28.920 litre/sec / 1000 litre/m3) x 1.1497 kg/m3 = 0.0332 kg/sec
Density Ratio DR = 0.0335 kg/sec / 0.0332 kg/sec = 1.009
Approximate Pressure Ratio PR = 1.009 x 1.01 = 1.02 (no intercooler)
Approximate Adiabatic Efficiency = off map


At 1000 rpm:
Power = 26 kW x 1.5 = 39 kW
SFC = 231.7 g/kW hr
Fuel mass flow rate Mf = 39 kW x 231.7 g/kW hr / 60 min/hr = 150.60 g/min
Air mass flow Ma = 150.60 g/min x 20 / 60 sec/min = 0.0502 kg/sec (at A/F = 20:1)
Volumetric Efficiency VE = 0.9 (assumed)
Volumetric air flow through engine Va = 0.9 x 3.856 litres x 1000 rpm / (2 x 60) = 28.920 litre/sec
Density of inlet air = 1.1497 kg/m3 (as calculated before)
Air mass flow of naturally aspirated 4BD1 at 1000 rpm is:
Ma = Va x density = (28.920 litre/sec / 1000 litre/m3) x 1.1497 kg/m3 = 0.0332 kg/sec
Density Ratio DR = 0.0502 kg/sec / 0.0332 kg/sec = 1.512
Approximate Pressure Ratio PR = 1.512 x 1.05 = 1.59 (with intercooler)
Approximate Adiabatic Efficiency = off map (surge)


At 1000 rpm:
Power = 26 kW x 2.0 = 52 kW
SFC = 231.7 g/kW hr
Fuel mass flow rate Mf = 52 kW x 231.7 g/kW hr / 60 min/hr = 200.81 g/min
Air mass flow Ma = 200.81 g/min x 20 / 60 sec/min = 0.0669 kg/sec (at A/F = 20:1)
Volumetric Efficiency VE = 0.9 (assumed)
Volumetric air flow through engine Va = 0.9 x 3.856 litres x 1000 rpm / (2 x 60) = 28.920 litre/sec
Density of inlet air = 1.1497 kg/m3 (as calculated before)
Air mass flow of naturally aspirated 4BD1 at 1000 rpm is:
Ma = Va x density = (28.920 litre/sec / 1000 litre/m3) x 1.1497 kg/m3 = 0.0332 kg/sec
Density Ratio DR = 0.0669 kg/sec / 0.0332 kg/sec = 2.016
Approximate Pressure Ratio PR = 2.016 x 1.1 = 2.22 (with intercooler)
Approximate Adiabatic Efficiency = off map (surge)


At 2000 rpm
Power = 65 kW
SFC = 213.9 g/kW hr
Fuel mass flow rate Mf = 65 kW x 213.9 g/kW hr / 60 min/hr = 231.72 g/min
Air mass flow Ma = 231.72 g/min x 20 / 60 sec/min = 0.0772 kg/sec (at A/F = 20:1)
Volumetric Efficiency VE = 0.9 (assumed)
Volumetric air flow through engine Va = 0.9 x 3.856 litres x 2000 rpm / (2 x 60) = 57.840 litre/sec
Density of inlet air = 1.1497 kg/m3 (as calculated before)
Air mass flow of naturally aspirated 4BD1 at 2000 rpm is:
Ma = Va x density = (57.840 litre/sec / 1000 litre/m3) x 1.1497 kg/m3 = 0.0665 kg/sec
Density Ratio DR = 0.0772 kg/sec / 0.0665 kg/sec = 1.161
Approximate Pressure Ratio PR = 1.161 x 1.2 = 1.39 (no intercooler)
Approximate Adiabatic Efficiency = 0.64


At 2000 rpm
Power = 65 kW x 1.5 = 97.5 kW
SFC = 213.9 g/kW hr
Fuel mass flow rate Mf = 97.5 kW x 213.9 g/kW hr / 60 min/hr = 347.59 g/min
Air mass flow Ma = 347.59 g/min x 20 / 60 sec/min = 0.116 kg/sec (at A/F = 20:1)
Volumetric Efficiency VE = 0.9 (assumed)
Volumetric air flow through engine Va = 0.9 x 3.856 litres x 2000 rpm / (2 x 60) = 57.840 litre/sec
Density of inlet air = 1.1497 kg/m3 (as calculated before)
Air mass flow of naturally aspirated 4BD1 at 2000 rpm is:
Ma = Va x density = (57.840 litre/sec / 1000 litre/m3) x 1.1497 kg/m3 = 0.0665 kg/sec
Density Ratio DR = 0.116 kg/sec / 0.0665 kg/sec = 1.742
Approximate Pressure Ratio PR = 1.742 x 1.09 = 1.90 (with intercooler)
Approximate Adiabatic Efficiency = 0.69


At 2000 rpm
Power = 65 kW x 2.0 = 130 kW
SFC = 213.9 g/kW hr
Fuel mass flow rate Mf = 130 kW x 213.9 g/kW hr / 60 min/hr = 463.45 g/min
Air mass flow Ma = 463.45 g/min x 20 / 60 sec/min = 0.154 kg/sec (at A/F = 20:1)
Volumetric Efficiency VE = 0.9 (assumed)
Volumetric air flow through engine Va = 0.9 x 3.856 litres x 2000 rpm / (2 x 60) = 57.840 litre/sec
Density of inlet air = 1.1497 kg/m3 (as calculated before)
Air mass flow of naturally aspirated 4BD1 at 2000 rpm is:
Ma = Va x density = (57.840 litre/sec / 1000 litre/m3) x 1.1497 kg/m3 = 0.0665 kg/sec
Density Ratio DR = 0.154 kg/sec / 0.0665 kg/sec = 2.321
Approximate Pressure Ratio PR = 2.321 x 1.12 = 2.60 (with intercooler)
Approximate Adiabatic Efficiency = 0.66


The following pic shows these points for PR vs Air Mass Flow plotted on the compressor map.


https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2013/09/1211.jpg



This shows compressor surge at 1000 rpm. The compressor supplies more air than the engine can breath. It may not be noticeable if the engine accelerates quickly beyond 1000 rpm.
So far we have used approximate values for PR, and we need to calculate better values.


Before we can calculate a better value than the approximate pressure ratio (PR) used earlier, we should revue some physics for gasses.


Ideal Gas Law in equation form is:
PV=nRT
where, using SI units of measurement:
P is the absolute pressure (Pa)
V is the volume (m3)
n is the number of gas molecules, in moles, an indication of the mass
R is the ideal (or universal) gas constant 8.314 J / K. mole (Joule per Kelvin per mole)
T is the absolute temperature (K) (Kelvin = degrees Celsius + 273.15)


Specific Heat is the amount of heat in Joules to raise the temperature of one kg of substance by one degree Kelvin (or Celsius). For dry air cP is the specific heat at constant pressure, which varies with temperature, and cV is the specific heat at constant volume.
For our calculations we need to know the value for the expression {(k-1) / k} where k is the ratio of specific heats (cP / cV ) For the intake air I will use 0.288 and later for exhaust gas use 0.222 instead of writing {(k-1) / k} in equations.


Intercooler Effectiveness is the ratio (TOUT / TATM ) For a suitably sized intercooler the effectiveness is usually between 0.6 and 0.7 A value of 1.0 (100% effective) would require the ambient cooling air at temperature TATM to reduce the temperature of the charge air to the same temperature.


To be continued ...

[Bush65]

Continuing from the last post. When the air pressure is increased in the compressor (PR) the temperature rises. In the turbine, when the exhaust pressure is reduced by the expansion ratio the temperature falls.


For the compressor:


TOUT = (TIN x PR(0.288 - 1) / adiabatic efficiency) + TATM


where:
TOUT is the outlet temperature (C)
TIN is the absolute inlet temperature (K) = TATM + 273.15
PR is the pressure ratio developed by the compressor
0.288 is {(k-1) / k} where k is the ratio of specific heats of dry air
adiabatic efficiency is the efficiency found from the compressor map
TATM is the local ambient temperature (C)


For the turbine:
TOUT = TIN – {isentropic efficiency x (TABS x [1 – (1 / ER)] 0.222 }


where:
TOUT is the outlet temperature (C)
TIN is the inlet temperature (C) = exhaust gas temperature (EGT)
isentropic efficiency is the efficiency found from the turbine map
TABS is the EGT in Kelvin = TIN + 273.15
ER is the expansion ratio across the turbine (PIN / POUT)
where PIN is the inlet pressure POUT is outlet pressure
and POUT is local ambient pressure + pressure loss in exhaust system
0.222 is {(k-1) / k} where k is the ratio of specific heats of the exhaust gas


For the air temperature in the inlet manifold when an intercooler is used:


TMAN = TOUT – [(TOUT – TATM) x effectiveness]


where:
TMAN is the inlet manifold temperature (C)
TOUT is the outlet temperature from the compressor (C)
TATM is the local ambient temperature (C)
effectiveness is the intercooler effectiveness (usually 0.6 to 0.7)

[Bush65]

...

For the compressor:

TOUT = (TIN x PR(0.288 - 1) / adiabatic efficiency) + TATM

where:
TOUT is the outlet temperature (C)
TIN is the absolute inlet temperature (K) = TATM + 273.15
PR is the pressure ratio developed by the compressor
0.288 is {(k-1) / k} where k is the ratio of specific heats of dry air
adiabatic efficiency is the efficiency found from the compressor map
TATM is the local ambient temperature (C)

For the turbine:
TOUT = TIN – {isentropic efficiency x (TABS x [1 – (1 / ER)] 0.222 }

where:
TOUT is the outlet temperature (C)
TIN is the inlet temperature (C) = exhaust gas temperature (EGT)
isentropic efficiency is the efficiency found from the turbine map
TABS is the EGT in Kelvin = TIN + 273.15
ER is the expansion ratio across the turbine (PIN / POUT)
where PIN is the inlet pressure POUT is outlet pressure
and POUT is local ambient pressure + pressure loss in exhaust system
0.222 is {(k-1) / k} where k is the ratio of specific heats of the exhaust gas
...
Sorry, I just realised some typos occurred in those formulae. One I made and the others occurred because the postscripts vanished when I pasted them in.

For the compressor the formula should be:
TOUT = [TIN x ((PR^0.288) - 1) / adiabatic efficiency] + TATM

And for the turbine it should be:
TOUT = TIN – {isentropic efficiency x (TABS x [1 – (1 / ER)]^0.222 }

[Bush65]

Continuing with our example calculations for (ex a) 90 kW, (ex b) 135 kW, and (ex c) 180 kW at 3000 rpm and A/F ratios of 18:1 and 20:1. Recall the ambient conditions used were; of Pa = 100 kPa and Ta = 30 C


In this post we convert PR to boost pressure, and find the air temperature after the compressor and then after intercooling.


(Ex a) 90 kW at 3000 rpm and no intercooler:
For A/F = 18:1
PBOOST = (PR x P1) - PATM
PBOOST = (1.5 x 100 kPa) - 100 kPa = 50 kPa (or 7.2 psi)


TOUT = (TIN x (PR0.288 - 1) / adiabatic efficiency) + TATM
TOUT = (303 K x (1.50.288 - 1) / 0.70) + 30 C = 68 C


For A/F = 20:1
PBOOST = (1.6 x 100 kPa) - 100 kPa = 60 kPa (or 8.7 psi)


TOUT = (303 K x (1.60.288 - 1) / 0.72) + 30 C = 75 C


(Ex b) 135 kW at 3000 rpm with intercooler:


For A/F = 18:1 and intercooler effectiveness = 0.65
PBOOST = (2.0 x 100 kPa) - 100 kPa = 100 kPa (or 14.5 psi)


TOUT = (303 K x (2.00.288 - 1) / 0.74) + 30 C = 120 C


TMAN = TOUT – [(TOUT – TATM) x effectiveness]
TMAN = 120 C – [(120 C – 30 C) x 0.65] = 62 C


For A/F = 20:1 and intercooler effectiveness = 0.65
PBOOST = (2.2 x 100 kPa) - 100 kPa = 120 kPa (or 17.4 psi)


TOUT = (303 K x (2.20.288 - 1) / 0.74) + 30 C = 134 C


TMAN = 134 C – [(134 C – 30 C) x 0.65] = 66 C


(Ex c) 180 kW at 3000 rpm with intercooler:
For A/F = 18:1 and intercooler effectiveness = 0.65
PBOOST = (2.9 x 100 kPa) - 100 kPa = 190 kPa (or 27.6 psi)


TOUT = (303 K x (2.90.288 - 1) / 0.72) + 30 C = 181 C


TMAN = 181 C – [(181 C – 30 C) x 0.65] = 83 C


For A/F = 20:1 and intercooler effectiveness = 0.65
PBOOST = (3.2 x 100 kPa) - 100 kPa = 220 kPa (or 31.9 psi)


TOUT = (303 K x (3.20.288 - 1) / 0.72) + 30 C = 197 C


TMAN = 197 C – [(197 C – 30 C) x 0.65] = 88 C

[Dougal]

Just to confirm John's numbers. I'm using slightly different values for BSFC, VE, turbo efficiency and intercooler effectiveness, so our numbers differ by a few percent but generally agree well.

For the 3000rpm point from the plots much earlier in this thread I've got
140cc max fuel.
176kw.
25psi boost.
75C into the engine
18:1 A/F ratio.
28.3 lb/min airflow.
17.3kw of heat shed by the intercooler.
43.5kw required to drive the turbo compressor (turbo shaft power).

Now driving this using a T25 turbine with 0.49 A/R housing (as I currently do) this is what we can expect for turbo drive pressures and temps.
700C EGT (I set this temp)
65% efficient.
Turbine expansion ratio 2.59.
Exhaust backpressure of 116kPa (1.9psi).
Drive pressure of 28.9psi (including that 1.9psi back pressure).
Wastegate is open enough to divert 12% of the exhaust flow around the turbine.
EGT in the downpipe is 468C, the temp drop across the turbine is 232C.

But what is most interesting, I ran these same figures for a GT2256 turbo (wastegated, not VNT).
The 56mm compressor can't flow enough air for 180kw. But it can do 170kw.
It has a big enough compressor efficiency improvement that a noticeable drop in boost can deliver the same density ratio and get the same air in each cylinder.
It has a big enough turbine efficiency improvement that a noticeable drop in drive pressure results.
23psi boost at 3000rpm.
27.2lb/min
170kw flat from 2800rpm to 3000rpm and dropping after that.
70C air into the engine.

GT22 Turbine, 0.56 A/R.
37.6kw shaft power.
70% efficient
700C EGT.
115kPa exhaust backpressure (1.9psi)
Expansion ratio 2.4
Drive pressure 24.9psi (including 1.9psi back pressure).
EGT after turbine, 485C.
Temp drop across turbine 215C.
Wastegating 15% of the exhaust flow.

These figures are just for one rpm point (3,000rpm). What it doesn't show is the huge low rpm gain possible with the GT22 turbine over the T25.
In short the GT22 turbine is a more modern design that is better everywhere. It provides more low end boost, it provides more top end flow (more shaft power) and is more efficient so it produces more boost for the same drive pressure.

The upshot of all this. I now consider even a 0.64 A/R turbine housing to be too big for optimal performance on our engines. There are gains to be made everywhere by going to a smaller but better turbine.

The only turbines in the current garrett range which feature the better design in our size range are the GT22 turbines and the largest trim GT28 turbine which Ben (Isuzurover) is running on his nissan ricer turbo. That very efficient turbine is the reason he can run a 0.86 A/R housing and still have a drivable result. If you put a 0.86 A/R housing on the other T25/GT25/T28/T28 turbines the result will be very disappointing.

[Judo]

Q. Using this information is it possible to determine a theoretical fuel consumption rate? Happy to list some assumptions to simplify things, such as constant speed of 100km/h (zero acceleration) and zero wind speed at 0km/h.

[Dougal]

Q. Using this information is it possible to determine a theoretical fuel consumption rate? Happy to list some assumptions to simplify things, such as constant speed of 100km/h (zero acceleration) and zero wind speed at 0km/h.

The biggest factor in fuel consumption is engine load, which is your engine.
Some coast-down tests with a bit of data (weight etc) can give you a rough idea of the power required for steady state cruising.

The other part is estimating or calculating engine efficiency at part load. That is the hard part.

[Dougal]

Nevermind. Found it.

[Bush65]

So far we have determined the density ratio (DR) for the air mass flow needed for effective combustion of the fuel required for the desired performance, and made an estimate of the pressure ratio (PR) to achieve that density ratio. That estimate was used to read the approximate adiabatic efficiency from a compressor map.


Now we want to determine the required PR to achieve the DR.


Recall for the compressor, density ratio was defined as DR = density of air at outlet / density of air at inlet


If an intercooler is used then use density at intercooler outlet in place of compressor outlet.


Also recall that PR = absolute pressure at outlet / absolute pressure at inlet


In the calculation for DR we use the following formula for both the outlet and inlet density:

Density of air = (Pa x M) / (R x Ta)


Where:
Pa is absolute pressure in Pa (Pascal)
M is molar mass of air = 0.0289644 kg/mol
R is ideal gas constant = 8.31447 J/mol K
Ta is absolute temperature in degrees K (Kelvin) = degrees Celcius + 273


Then, both M and R are cancelled out and density ratio simplifies to:


DR = POUT / PIN x TIN / TOUT

Where:
POUT is absolute pressure at compressor, or intercooler outlet
PIN is absolute pressure at compressor inlet
TIN is absolute temperature at compressor inlet
TOUT is absolute temperature at compressor, or intercooler outlet
Rearranging to find PR we get:

PR = POUT / PIN = DR x TOUT / TIN
Now the difficulty that arises is we need to know the PR before we can find the outlet temperature

TOUT = (TIN x (PR0.288 - 1) / adiabatic efficiency) + TATM


where:
TOUT is the outlet temperature (C)
TIN is the absolute inlet temperature (K) = TATM + 273.15
PR is the pressure ratio developed by the compressor
0.288 is {(k-1) / k} where k is the ratio of specific heats of dry air
adiabatic efficiency is the efficiency found from the compressor map
TATM is the local ambient temperature ( C)
To use the methods that Garrett and other some others give for selecting a turbo they assume we know TOUT but in reality the best that can be done is make an educated guess.


We could use the outlet temperature we found in the last stage in the equation given above for PR. Then repeat the process if the calculated PR differed too far from the approximate PR used to find the adiabatic efficiency and outlet temperature.


In the equation for outlet temperature the temperature increase created by the compressor is the left part of the expression:

(TIN x (PR0.288 - 1) / adiabatic efficiency)
And for the intercooler:

TMAN = TOUT – [(TOUT – TATM) x effectiveness]

where:
TMAN is the inlet manifold temperature (C)
TOUT is the outlet temperature from the compressor (C)
TATM is the local ambient temperature ( C)
effectiveness is the intercooler effectiveness (usually between 0.6 and 0.7)
Here the temperature reduction created by the intercooler is the left part of the expression:

[(TOUT – TATM) x effectiveness]
There is another way!
It is easy to find DR for a given PR if we know the adiabatic efficiency of the compressor and the effectiveness of the intercooler (if fitted). This is useful in a spreadsheet for our calculations, by allowing us is to construct a 'look-up' table (or graph) of DR vs PR


In the look-up table, we can have a row (or column) for:

PR over the range we might be interested in
TOUT (from the equation above) for each PR value
TMAN (from the equation above) for each TOUT value
DR from DR = PR x TIN / TOUT if no intercooler
DR from DR = PR x TIN / TMAN if an intercooler is used
Then it is simply a matter of finding the required DR (intercooled or non-intercooled) in the table and looking up the corresponding PR.


Then plot the points for PR vs air flow on the compressor map to find the adiabatic efficiency. If the new adiabatic efficiency is close to the value we used above, then we have a valid PR.


If it is too far out, we need to use the new adiabatic efficiency to re-calculate the look-up table.


Once we have the above values, the next stage is to determine the power needed to drive the compressor and move on to the turbine.


I should point out here, that most methods for choosing a turbo take a different approach than I have followed in this thread, and start with a target boost pressure at each engine rpm of interest. Then the sequence of calculation becomes:

PR
Air flow
Adiabatic Efficiency
Density
Air mass flow
Fuel rate from A/F ratio
Power from fuel rate and SFC
If the target power is not achieved, then guess another boost pressure and repeat the process.


This procedure is useful if you have already installed your turbocharger and can monitor the boost pressure at the different rpm points. It allows you to see the approximate power and conduct 'what if' calculations to see what can happen if the boost pressure is increased or decreased.


However remember that with a diesel engine the fuel rate is not going to change, simply because you have 'such and such' an air flow or boost pressure. Governor adjustment is required, and the full load adjustment will be for a particular rpm point. With our mechanical injection pump we don't have the ability to MAP the fuel rate to air flow over the full range of engine revs.


The best we can do is, over the range of rpm and load, use a setting that doesn't create smoke or egt's that are too high. So at some sections of the range, we may have surplus air, but we can't increase the fuel rate (torque/power) there because of consequences elsewhere. I will discuss this further in another post.

[Bush65]

For our examples at 3000 rpm, we arrived at the following requirements for density ratio:


(Ex a) for 90 kW:
DR = 0.108 kg/sec / 0.0887 kg/sec = 1.218 (for A/F = 18:1)
DR = 0.120 kg/sec / 0.0887 kg/sec = 1.353 (for A/F = 20:1)


(Ex b) for 135 kW:
DR = 0.162 kg/sec / 0.0887 kg/sec = 1.826 (for A/F = 18:1)
DR = 0.180 kg/sec / 0.0887 kg/sec = 2.029 (for A/F = 20:1)


(Ex c) for 180 kW:
DR = 0.216 kg/sec / 0.0887 kg/sec = 2.435 (for A/F = 18:1)
DR = 0.240 kg/sec / 0.0887 kg/sec = 2.706 (for A/F = 20:1)


And for these examples we estimated an adiabatic efficiency of:


(Ex a) for 90 kW:
adiabatic efficiency = 0.70 (for A/F = 18:1)
adiabatic efficiency = 0.72 (for A/F = 20:1)


(Ex b) for 135 kW:
adiabatic efficiency = 0.74 (for A/F = 18:1)
adiabatic efficiency = 0.74 (for A/F = 20:1)


(Ex c) for 180 kW:
adiabatic efficiency = 0.72 (for A/F = 18:1)
adiabatic efficiency = 0.72 (for A/F = 20:1)


Also for these examples we used a local ambient air temperature of 303 K (approx 30 C) and an intercooler effectiveness of 0.65


Using the look up table in a spreadsheet the following PR's are found:


(Ex a) for 90 kW (no intercooler):
PR = 1.39 (for A/F = 18:1)
PR = 1.64 (for A/F = 20:1)


(Ex b) for 135 kW (with intercooler):
PR = 2.02 (for A/F = 18:1)
PR = 2.29 (for A/F = 20:1)


(Ex c) for 180 kW (with intercooler):
PR = 2.85 (for A/F = 18:1)
PR = 3.24 (for A/F = 20:1)


And the greatest difference in adiabatic efficiencies was for (Ex a) and A/F = 18.1 where the new adiabatic efficiency is 0.68 (was 0.70). This changes the PR to 1.4 from 1.39.


I will make the spreadsheet available later.

[Bush65]

Specific Work
Is the work per unit mass evaluated for conventional turbo machinery such as pumps compressors and turbines. The theory for specific work for compressible fluids is useful for matching a turbocharger's compressor and turbine.


The work from the turbine = work from compressor + turbo losses (friction).


Specific work has SI units:
N m/kg = J/kg = m2/s2
N (Newton) is the derived SI unit for force (kg m/s2)
J (Joule) is the derived SI unit for work and energy (N m)

For Isentropic Compression(or Expansion)
p1 v1κ = p2 v2κ
where:
p = absolute pressure (Pa)
v = volume (m3)
κ = cp / cv = ratio of specific heats (J/kg K)
cp = specific heat at constant pressure
cv = specific heat at constant volume
K (Kelvin) is SI unit for absolute temperature

Specific Work of Compressor
A compressor increases the air pressure from p1to p2 and the specific work can be expressed as:
w = κ / (κ -1) x R x T1 x [( p2 / p1)^((κ-1)/κ) - 1]
where:
R = individual gas constant (J/kg K)
T = absolute temperature (K)

Specific Work of Turbine
A turbine expands the exhaust gas from p1 to p2 and the specific work can be expressed as:
w = κ / (κ -1) x R x T1 x [1 - ( p2 / p1)^((κ-1)/κ)]

Power from Specific Work
Power = specific work x mass flow

Head
With turbo machines it can be convenient to express specific work in terms of head (of the fluid).
w = g h
where
h = head (m)
g = acceleration of gravity = 9.81 (m/s2) approximately
Then head is given by:
h = w / g

[Offender90]

Just a quick clarification for anyone going through the equations - in the equation given for temperature increase during compression

i.e. TOUT = (TIN x (PR0.288 - 1) / adiabatic efficiency) + TATM

PR0.288 should say PR^0.288 (or PR to the power of 0.288).

HTH

[Dougal]

1/3.5 is a quick and easy way to get that expression to whatever accuracy you require.

(1.4-1)/1.4 = 1/3.5 = 0.2857142..........

[Dougal]

I have almost finished running through two turbo examples on the 4BD1T. I have run these on a compressor and turbine match. This is where I have to match the power generated by the turbine to the power requirements of the compressor.

1. GT2256V VNT used on the merc ML270 (I have one of these turbos).
This turbo has a 0.64 A/R turbine housing and I've assumed the VNT can pull that down to about half the A/R.


2. GT2259 wastegated (used on Hino and Iveco diesels).
This turbo has a 0.56 A/R turbine housing and the compressor can flow about 10% more.

The results are interesting.
Low End.
Essentially the GT2259 turbo still spools just as quick. Both these turbos can provide enough boost to burn 140cc of fuel and produce over 600Nm of torque by 1400rpm.
And the wastegated turbo does with with less drive pressure.

Call it even.

Mid-range.
They are pretty much equal at 2000rpm, the wastegated turbo is running less drive pressure (because the turbine is more efficient without the extra vanes).
They can both provide more boost than needed through the mid-range, for the wastegated turbo that is no problem. You simply use the wastegate to cap boost and this lets the turbine breathe a bit easier.
But the VNT turbo still has to push that exhaust through the same turbine. The only way to get less power from the turbine is lower exhaust temp. The only way to do this is to run extra boost which costs power and spikes the exhaust drive pressure.

By 2,500rpm the VNT is running 5psi more drive pressure than the wastegated turbo.

Winner, the wastegated turbo.

Top End.
The VNT has a smaller compressor, it can only do about 27lb/min which starts to cap power at the 2,700rpm point. Now we've already had to drop off max fuel with this turbo as the turbine starts to spike and not be able to flow all the exhaust at max EGT.
So from here we're continually droppping fuel and boost to stay within the limits of the turbine and compressor.
In fact, we passed peak power (~150kw) at about 2,500rpm and have been losing ever since.
Drive pressures also keep spiking and are over 30psi by 3000rpm. Basically the party is over and it's time to change gear.

The wastegated turbo keeps producing more boost and power to beat the engines dropping VE. The larger compressor doesn't start to cap power until around 3,200rpm. At which point 140cc of diesel will be delivering around 180kw.
Drive pressures are comparable to the VNT, but the boost and power are well head.

Winner. Wastegated GT2259.

Summary GT2256V
Torque over 600Nm from 1400-2400rpm
Max power approx 150kw at 2,500rpm. 27psi here.
Limited by compressor and turbine flow limits.

Summary GT2259
Torque over 600Nm from 1400-2600rpm.
Max power approx 180kw at 3,200rpm. 26psi here.
Limited by compressor flow.

So this size VNT turbo has no real advantage unless you are already limited to lower power through other driveline concerns. We need bigger VNT's for these engines, a GT2359V might do it, but I have no info on those.

Clearly Hino, Iveco and the others running GT2259's on 4-5 litre diesels have already done this work. It's always good to agree with the big boys.:cool:

[Bush65]

Just a quick clarification for anyone going through the equations - in the equation given for temperature increase during compression

i.e. TOUT = (TIN x (PR0.288 - 1) / adiabatic efficiency) + TATM

PR0.288 should say PR^0.288 (or PR to the power of 0.288).

HTH
Thanks for that. I've been writing this in a word processor and using subscripts and superscripts, which is easier to read than a '^' Sometimes it has worked fine, but sometimes it looks right when I paste into the reply box, but it changes after the reply is submitted.

I should have checked, but I have been pushed for enough time lately.

[Offender90]

Thanks for that. I've been writing this in a word processor and using subscripts and superscripts, which is easier to read than a '^' Sometimes it has worked fine, but sometimes it looks right when I paste into the reply box, but it changes after the reply is submitted.

I should have checked, but I have been pushed for enough time lately.

John,

I'm very grateful for the level of effort you put into these posts... as are all of us playing with turbos, I'm sure. I'm applying the math to my planned VNT setup as you post updates, so if you're happy to keep posting them, I'm more than happy to query things I don't understand or clarify any typos I spot (and am reasonably confident of the answer).

[Bush65]

Although not part of a turbo system, here is some information relating to the fuel injection pump and how it relates to the fuel flow rate.

The following 2 pics were copied from the Isuzu workshop manual for the fuel injection pump and relate to the 'RLD' governor on our pumps.
Pic 1
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2013/09/478.jpg

Pic 2
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2013/09/479.jpg

Note that the control rack position has to be moved in the direction of less fuel as engine rpm increases, corresponding to a reduction in VE (volumetric efficiency), and thus a reduction in air, and an increase in pump efficiency.

Also remember that our pumps are calibrated for no turbo in the case of the 4BD1 or the stock turbo for 4BD1T's.

When we add a turbo to a 4BD1, or fit a better performance turbo to a 4BD1T, the turbo increase the air available through increasing the boost pressure, and thereby the air density. So we are then able to increase the fuel at the rpm where air density/boost is increased significantly. The turbo has an effect similar to increasing the VE.

VE is the amount of fresh air drawn into the cylinder / the actual capacity of the cylinder. Here I include the capacity of the combustion chamber with the cylinder. The VE is less than 1.0 due to the induction system, but also because some exhaust gas remain in the cylinder when the induction stroke starts.

So if the ratio of pressure in the exhaust manifold (EMP) to pressure in the inlet manifold (IMP) increases, the VE is reduced. What this means to our turbo calculations is that the assumed VE we use for different rpm points, can be affected by the ratio EMP/IMP. With a tight turbine, the IMP (boost) will build quicker at low rpm, but the EMP will be higher at high rpm and the reduction in VE, with increase in pumping loss will reduce power compared to a larger turbine. Ideally the ratio of EMP/IMP will be little greater than 1.0

An increase in EMP/IMP much over 1.0 also reduces the SFC. So the turbine can make our assumed VE and SFC too optimistic if it is too small. Note also that the back pressure in the exhaust system after the turbine will directly increase the EMP.

The following 2 pics are copies of the calibration curves and table for a 1986 to 1988 Isuzu 4BD1T.

Pic 3
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2013/09/480.jpg

Adjustment point 'A' on the full load curve is the setting of the full load set screw on the side of the governor, the one we wind out so the control rack can travel further in the direction of fuel increase. This effectively shifts the entire full load curve up (the vertical axis is rack position).

BTW, point 'A' is at 900 pump rpm, or 1800 engine rpm (corresponding to max torque).

Pic 4
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2013/09/481.jpg

For this stock 4BD1T the calibrated fuel rate at point 'A' (max torque) is 10.2 to 72.2 cc per 1000 pump strokes.

Point 'D' is at 3000 engine rpm (max power and is 78 cc / 1000 strokes. The later (post 1988) 4BD1T makes about 14% more power at 3000 with a 10% reduction in fuel consumption. Point 'D' is 70 cc / 1000 strokes for the later 4BD1T.

For the stock 1986 to 1988 4BD1, the fuel rate at 1900 engine rpm (max torque) is 67.8 to 69.8 cc / 1000 stroke. At 2600 engine rpm the fuel rate is 70.9 to 74.1 cc/1000 stokes and at 3200 rpm (max power) it is 67.0 to 70.2 cc/1000 st.

With our stock IP we can easily adjust the full load screw to obtain a fuel rate of 140 cc/1000 st. The maximum we can get without changing to larger diameter plungers or other modifications is 180 cc/1000 st.

Unless we fit larger plungers and barrels, the increase in fuel rate is achieved by delaying the finish of injection. So the extra fuel is injected later. What this means is the SFC is lowered.

In an earlier post the values we used for fuel flow was in grams per minute. We then multiplied this by the the A/F ratio to find the air mass flow.

To convert fuel flow in g/min to cc/1000 strokes, we need the specific gravity of diesel fuel, approximately SG = 0.832. Then:

cc/1000 st = (g/min x 1000) / (SG x rpm x 2)

i.e. cc/1000 st = g/min x 600.96 / rpm

For our 3 examples the fuel rate in cc/1000 st is:
(ex a) 90 kW at 3000 rpm

fuel rate = 360.75 g/min x 600.96 / 3000 rpm = 72.26 cc/1000 st

(ex b) 135 kW at 3000 rpm

fuel rate = 541.12 g/min x 600.96 / 3000 rpm = 108.4 cc/1000 st

(ex c) 180 kW at 3000 rpm

fuel rate = 721.50 g/min x 600.96 / 3000 rpm = 144.53 cc/1000 st

[Dougal]

To back that up, here's a US EPA tag plate from a 1989 4BD1T. It has 70 mm^3/st (cc/1000 shots) of fuel for 121 SAE hp (90kw). The 126hp rating must be the optimistic one.

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/

However. The engine should also get more efficient with intercooling. So we may get slightly more increase in power than we get increase in fuel.

[grnrvrs]

To back that up, here's a US EPA tag plate from a 1989 4BD1T. It has 70 mm^3/st (cc/1000 shots) of fuel for 121 SAE hp (90kw). The 126hp rating must be the optimistic one.

http://www.aulro.com/afvb/attachment.php?attachmentid=66068&stc=1&d=1379996586

However. The engine should also get more efficient with intercooling. So we may get slightly more increase in power than we get increase in fuel.

Ha, that tag looks familiar! I certainly hope for a bit more power with the soon to be installer IC.

[Bush65]

In my last couple of posts, I started to set a scene before starting on the turbine side of the turbo charger.

If there are any expansion needed or questions concerning the compressor side from what has been posted to date, this would be a good time.

For now I have some pages to share from the best book I'm aware of for turbochargers.

In this post about matching a turbo to a vehicle engine, which would have been more appropriate at the beginning. Apologies in advance for the quality.

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2013/09/317.jpg

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2013/09/318.jpg

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2013/09/319.jpg

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2013/09/320.jpg

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2013/09/321.jpg

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2013/09/322.jpg

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2013/09/323.jpg

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2013/09/324.jpg

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2013/09/325.jpg

[Dougal]

Watson & Janota?

[Bush65]

Some pages from the section on constant pressure turbocharging. Constant pressure refers to the pressure of the exhaust gasses in the manifold and entering the turbine. The other method is pulse turbocharging.

The 4BD1 turbo is not strictly constant pressure. For constant pressure the exhaust manifold needs a larger volume.

Pulse turbocharging requires the manifold branches to be separated so that the pulses do not interfere. It also needs sufficient number of cylinders to provide pulses that can drive the turbine smoothly, i.e. close together. Ideally the manifold will divide into multiple of three, e.g. well suited to a 6 cylinder engine. With our four cylinder the exhaust valves of two cylinders can be open at the same time, so the high pressure pulse created when one valve opens, is severely reduced by the low pressure from the other cylinder that has an open valve. This affect can mostly be overcome by a properly designed pulse converter.

Pulse and pulse converter turbocharging provides a great advantage over constant pressure turbocharging at low and mid engine speeds, where it can give a much needed torque increase.

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2013/09/312.jpg

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2013/09/313.jpg

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2013/09/314.jpg

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2013/09/315.jpg

[Bush65]

Watson & Janota?
Yes.

[Bush65]

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2013/09/307.jpg

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2013/09/294.jpg

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2013/09/308.jpg

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2013/09/309.jpg

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2013/09/310.jpg

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2013/09/311.jpg

[Bush65]

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2013/09/296.jpg

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2013/09/297.jpg

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2013/09/298.jpg

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2013/09/299.jpg

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2013/09/300.jpg

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2013/09/301.jpg

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2013/09/302.jpg

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2013/09/303.jpg

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2013/09/304.jpg

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2013/09/305.jpg

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2013/09/306.jpg

[Bush65]

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2013/09/288.jpg

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2013/09/289.jpg

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2013/09/290.jpg

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2013/09/291.jpg

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2013/09/292.jpg

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2013/09/293.jpg

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2013/09/294.jpg

[Bush65]

For A.M.

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2013/09/275.jpg

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2013/09/276.jpg

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2013/09/277.jpg

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2013/09/278.jpg

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2013/09/279.jpg

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2013/09/280.jpg

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2013/09/281.jpg

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2013/09/282.jpg

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2013/09/283.jpg

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2013/09/284.jpg

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2013/09/285.jpg

https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2013/09/286.jpg

[Dougal]

I have almost finished running through two turbo examples on the 4BD1T. I have run these on a compressor and turbine match. This is where I have to match the power generated by the turbine to the power requirements of the compressor.

1. GT2256V VNT used on the merc ML270 (I have one of these turbos).
This turbo has a 0.64 A/R turbine housing and I've assumed the VNT can pull that down to about half the A/R.


2. GT2259 wastegated (used on Hino and Iveco diesels).
This turbo has a 0.56 A/R turbine housing and the compressor can flow about 10% more.

The results are interesting.
Low End.
Essentially the GT2259 turbo still spools just as quick. Both these turbos can provide enough boost to burn 140cc of fuel and produce over 600Nm of torque by 1400rpm.
And the wastegated turbo does with with less drive pressure.

Call it even.

Mid-range.
They are pretty much equal at 2000rpm, the wastegated turbo is running less drive pressure (because the turbine is more efficient without the extra vanes).
They can both provide more boost than needed through the mid-range, for the wastegated turbo that is no problem. You simply use the wastegate to cap boost and this lets the turbine breathe a bit easier.
But the VNT turbo still has to push that exhaust through the same turbine. The only way to get less power from the turbine is lower exhaust temp. The only way to do this is to run extra boost which costs power and spikes the exhaust drive pressure.

By 2,500rpm the VNT is running 5psi more drive pressure than the wastegated turbo.

Winner, the wastegated turbo.

Top End.
The VNT has a smaller compressor, it can only do about 27lb/min which starts to cap power at the 2,700rpm point. Now we've already had to drop off max fuel with this turbo as the turbine starts to spike and not be able to flow all the exhaust at max EGT.
So from here we're continually droppping fuel and boost to stay within the limits of the turbine and compressor.
In fact, we passed peak power (~150kw) at about 2,500rpm and have been losing ever since.
Drive pressures also keep spiking and are over 30psi by 3000rpm. Basically the party is over and it's time to change gear.

The wastegated turbo keeps producing more boost and power to beat the engines dropping VE. The larger compressor doesn't start to cap power until around 3,200rpm. At which point 140cc of diesel will be delivering around 180kw.
Drive pressures are comparable to the VNT, but the boost and power are well head.

Winner. Wastegated GT2259.

Summary GT2256V
Torque over 600Nm from 1400-2400rpm
Max power approx 150kw at 2,500rpm. 27psi here.
Limited by compressor and turbine flow limits.

Summary GT2259
Torque over 600Nm from 1400-2600rpm.
Max power approx 180kw at 3,200rpm. 26psi here.
Limited by compressor flow.

So this size VNT turbo has no real advantage unless you are already limited to lower power through other driveline concerns. We need bigger VNT's for these engines, a GT2359V might do it, but I have no info on those.

Clearly Hino, Iveco and the others running GT2259's on 4-5 litre diesels have already done this work. It's always good to agree with the big boys.:cool:

I had a brain fart after posting this and accidentally over-wrote the GT2256V 4BD1T data with GT2256V TD5 data in my spreadsheets.
I only recreated it last night after I dug out my GT2256V turbo and spent a few hours to recreate the numbers on it.
Turns out my version is from a Merc OM612 from the sprinter van. I had previously thought (hoped) it was from the higher power ML mercedes.
This sprinter engine/turbo combination puts out 370Nm of torque and maximum 125kw of power. To acheive this it only needs to deliver 13psi at max power and 15psi at max torque.

Unfortunately the turbine with no wastegate is just too small for the 4BD1T, the only hope of giving it useful top end would be with an external wastegate and to be honest there is no point, the complexity far outweighs the benefits. This turbo would spend most of it's time with the vanes wide open and still choke up past 2,500rpm.

So I'll probably put it up for sale (ideal for a TD5 or 200/300tdi) and look into a more efficient wastegated turbo. The GT2259 is available in Hino versions (as mapped out previously) but also a Volvo/Iveco version with a slightly bigger trim compressor wheel. The TD04HL-19T is also a strong contender, but not having turbine maps for this one makes me a little less confident.

[uninformed]

:eek: man did I walk into the wrong room. Way under gunned in the grey matter.......... Ill close the door behind me

[Vern]

Nerd alert:D.
But whilst I'm here, does anyone have an exploded view of a garret gt2260vnt?

[Bush65]

This link will take you to a GT2260V rebuild thread with some good pics showing many details. (http://www.bmwfanatics.co.za/showthread.php'tid=30622#top)

[Vern]

Thanks john, that's perfect. As suspected, all the seals have disappeared from my kit, I'll just add it to the list:mad:

[Ancient Mariner]

Irish terrorist tried to blow up a bus burnt his lips on the exhaust pipe:)
Any connection to the:mad: ?

AM

[Vern]

:mad:

[Dougal]

Okay guys, I think I've cracked it for the HE221 and TD04HL.

Here's what I did.
1. I downloaded a QSB4.5 CAD model a while back. This had an outside surface model of an HE221 turbo. I'm assuming this turbo has the 6cm housing.
2. I cut the turbo CAD model parrallel to the exhaust flange at shaft height.
3. I assumed the walls of the scroll were about 4mm thick, so I offset the outer edges and made a shape to resemble the port.
4. I adjusted the width of this port to give an area of 6cm^2.
5. I measured on the computer the distance from the port shape I'd just created to the centreline of where the shaft would be.
6. Divided A by R and converted to inches.

http://www.aulro.com/afvb/attachment.php?attachmentid=67071&stc=1&d=1381892532

Now it's not 100% because I've had to assume two things.
1. The shape of the port and wall thickness I had to make up.
2. That the model I had was a 6cm housing.

The results come out with 6cm area and 4.9cm radius. A/R is 1.22cm or 0.48 inches.

This was the second attempt. The first one I used a 5mm wall thickness and due to the changes in port shape that gave a result of 0.51 inch A/R.

So it's not exact, but I'm pretty damn sure I'm within 10%.

Now here is the interesting part that I'm sure turbo makers really hate me doing.
I've collected all the turbine flow figures from the garrett turbine maps and arranged them all in a table with exducer size, A/R and max corrected flow.
I've thrown the Borg Warner EFR turbine maps for the EFR6255 and EFR6258 in there for good measure.
I've found a quite common relationship across all of them.

A/R doesn't change the flow linearly, it's a square root relationship. So if you half the A/R you change the max flow by about the square root of half or 0.7.
If I divide the exducer flow area by the square root of the A/R I get a consistent number across all turbines of similar size.
As the turbines get much larger, this number drifts a bit smaller. But the trend is very good and easy to follow.

Upshot. I can predict max flow and the rough shape of a turbine map from the turbine exducer and the housing A/R.

So for the HE221 or TD04HL with a 6cm housing (same thing) we have an exducer of 45.6mm and an A/R of 0.5.
The max corrected flow is expected to be ~14.7 lb/min which is just a fraction bigger than the Garrett GT22 (14.2lb/min), significantly bigger than the 0.49 A/R T25 I'm running now (approx 13.3 lb/min). But approx 10% smaller than the 0.64 A/R T25/T28 I had run for a while.
In short, it is the size I hoped it would be.

This also lets me work out the max power and hence max boost/flow this turbine can support.
Using EGT of 700C (1300F), backpressure of 120kPa (3psi) and a pressure ratio of 3 we have a real turbine flow of ~28.4 lb/min, drive pressure of 37.5psi and turbine power of 41.5kw.
The temperature drop across the turbine is 192C.
This 41.5kw of turbine power can drive 29psi of boost to 4000rpm on a 4BD1T. It reaches right to the top and right of the HE221 and TD04HL-19T compressor maps, which is a good sign that the numbers are close to correct.
This amount of boost could deliver approximately 207kw at 4000rpm on a 4BD1T.

[Dougal]

One helpful gentleman from Norway tells me the HE221 has a 1mm bigger turbine exducer than widely reported on the interweb. Everyone thought it had the same turbine wheel as the TD04HL, but it's machined to a slightly bigger trim number.
So crunching those numbers, the HE221 comes out at ~5% more turbine flow than the TD04HL. Which makes the TD04HL the quicker spooler and harder boost down low of the two.

It's a pretty small difference, the TD04HL should hit the same boost about 100rpm sooner.
The tradeoff is the TD04HL would take about 2psi more drive pressure at maximum pressure and flow.

[Judo]

Outstanding work Dougal. I completely forgot to ask if you wanted any measurements of my TD04HL-19T? Last night I bolted it to the manifold for final fitting with copper gasket spray, but I could still easily remove it if there is anything useful to gain.

BTW, I already know how easy it is to remove and clean the copper spray. After fitting it, I realised I'd left a rag inside the exhaust manifold. :eek: At least I remembered! haha. If anyone is interested, methylated spirits is excellent for cleaning copper gasket maker off a flange. :D

Anyway, let me know.

[Dougal]

Outstanding work Dougal. I completely forgot to ask if you wanted any measurements of my TD04HL-19T? Last night I bolted it to the manifold for final fitting with copper gasket spray, but I could still easily remove it if there is anything useful to gain.

BTW, I already know how easy it is to remove and clean the copper spray. After fitting it, I realised I'd left a rag inside the exhaust manifold. :eek: At least I remembered! haha. If anyone is interested, methylated spirits is excellent for cleaning copper gasket maker off a flange. :D

Anyway, let me know.

Thanks Justin but I think I'm good for now. Remembering I had that CAD model was a complete game changer.
How far are you away from running? A lot of people have bought TD04HL-19T's for 4BD1T's, but AFAIK none of them are yet running.

[Judo]

I put the battery on trickle charge last week in preparation. I keep thinking I have everything I need, but every Saturday for the last 3 weeks I end up at Enzed for something new. The different plumbing pressure threads and fittings are doing my head in! Already planning another trip this Saturday for another adapter I need for the oil feed from the block.

BUT there is a chance I'll turn the key this weekend. Then I need an exhaust. Will book it in to an exhaust shop the day it runs. Is it optimistic to think I can drive it a few kms (metro Melbourne) without any dump pipe? :angel:

[Dougal]

I put the battery on trickle charge last week in preparation. I keep thinking I have everything I need, but every Saturday for the last 3 weeks I end up at Enzed for something new. The different plumbing pressure threads and fittings are doing my head in! Already planning another trip this Saturday for another adapter I need for the oil feed from the block.

BUT there is a chance I'll turn the key this weekend. Then I need an exhaust. Will book it in to an exhaust shop the day it runs. Is it optimistic to think I can drive it a few kms (metro Melbourne) without any dump pipe? :angel:

We all know that feeling.
I've driven my 4BD1T with no turbo. That was an ear-muffs required experience. With an open turbo it won't be as bad, but EVERYONE will know what you're doing.

Yes Mr Officer my exhaust fell off, I'm driving to the exhaust shop to get a new one. Feel free to escort me there.:angel:

[steveG]

I've driven mine with just the dump pipe finishing at the gearbox cross member. Noise was less than half the commodores that drive past my office each day.
Bigger issue with no dump pipe at all would be hot exhaust gas on the back of the alternator. I'd at least try and arrange some sort of deflector to protect that.

Steve

[jackz]

Thanks Justin but I think I'm good for now. Remembering I had that CAD model was a complete game changer.
How far are you away from running? A lot of people have bought TD04HL-19T's for 4BD1T's, but AFAIK none of them are yet running.

I'm still collecting parts to do my conversion, being my daily driver, I need to get as much stuff as possible together, and then pull a week or so of sickies (:wasntme:) to get it done.

[Jitterbug]

BW EFR 6258 ordered...

This will be going on an a reconditioned early 90s 4BD1-T and intercooled with a front mount Air-to-air.

I will update the details in my '6x6 camper thread' in members rides. :)

[Dougal]

BW EFR 6258 ordered...

This will be going on an a reconditioned early 90s 4BD1-T and intercooled with a front mount Air-to-air.

I will update the details in my '6x6 camper thread' in members rides. :)

Just so you know. You'll get significantly more low end boost from a TD04HL-19T. The EFR has a turbine that's a far bit larger.
The EFR will have the edge for top end power though.

[Jitterbug]

Just so you know. You'll get significantly more low end boost from a TD04HL-19T. The EFR has a turbine that's a far bit larger.
The EFR will have the edge for top end power though.

It is ordered now so I am committed haha!
Flagg's good results and my evo/skyline/silvia rice burner friends singing the praises of the EFRs all helped convince me, plus I have 4.11 r&ps and 33" tyres so will be revving about 10% higher than the 4x4 isuzus 110s on stock tyres.

[Dougal]

It is ordered now so I am committed haha!
Flagg's good results and my evo/skyline/silvia rice burner friends singing the praises of the EFRs all helped convince me, plus I have 4.11 r&ps and 33" tyres so will be revving about 10% higher than the 4x4 isuzus 110s on stock tyres.

With higher revving at cruise it's probably the better choice. Just make sure you have a good strong driveline.

[Jitterbug]

With higher revving at cruise it's probably the better choice. Just make sure you have a good strong driveline.

It is about as strong as it can get staying with rover

Rebuit LT95 with TRB (and a couple of other mods)
ARB centres
Ashcroft R&P
Hi-tough axles and flanges.

we will see how it holds out...

[flagg]

It is ordered now so I am committed haha!


Flagg's good results and my evo/skyline/silvia rice burner friends singing the praises of the EFRs all helped convince me, plus I have 4.11 r&ps and 33" tyres so will be revving about 10% higher than the 4x4 isuzus 110s on stock tyres.






yeah I get boost from nothing so don't worry about lack of low end with the 6258 - other may have more but you won't be lacking.

[Dougal]

With any of these turbos you'll get small amounts of boost building from idle. Just some will build higher numbers.
Having the boost build slower with rpm is a good thing for gearbox longevity. A few hundred more rpm makes it a lot smoother.

[Dougal]

I've got another hare-brained scheme. I've just bought a TD04HL-19T compressor wheel and I'll see if I can fit it into my T25.

The reasoning is pretty simple. It's a stop-gap measure that'll give me better top end than the T25 wheel, won't surge like the T28 wheel did and it's less work to fit a compressor wheel in (machine out a housing to suit) than it is to make a new dump pipe, compressor outlet, compressor inlet and oil feed/drain lines.
I have enough T25 parts to make a bolt-in and just swap it.

The downsides compared to using a whole turbo.
My T25 turbine isn't as efficient, so boost will built a bit slower (but should still see ~23psi by 2000rpm) and drive pressure will be a bit higher (but should still produce drive pressure below boost from ~1500-2500rpm under full load).

The 19T compressor wheel according to the maps is more efficient right across the range I use than the T25 wheel. But this may be offset by putting it into a housing that isn't matched.

The big unknowns?
1. The shaft bore is different, we'll see how I go drilling that out.
2. The wheel OD is different, we'll see how I go machining out the bearing housing to suit.
3. The amount of offset in the back of the wheel is unknown.
4. The tip width compared to the T25 is unknown.

I'll have a measure-up when the new wheel arrives and see how it looks.

[Ancient Mariner]

And you bale up at redesigning a TC:confused::Rolling:

[Dougal]

And you bale up at redesigning a TC:confused::Rolling:

Turbos are a lot more fun to test drive. I could spend all that time on making a transfer-case into a different shape and it would drive exactly the same.

[Ancient Mariner]

Turbos are a lot more fun to test drive. I could spend all that time on making a transfer-case into a different shape and it would drive exactly the same.
Can`t argue with that but one could be noisy the other exy

[Dougal]

I got my Air/Fuel gauge wired up and clamped onto the end of the exhaust. The results were very interesting.

I run a max sustained EGT (at the moment) of 750C. So pulling a decent hill in 5th gear at 2000rpm pins the needle right at 750C.
My A/F ratio right here is 20:1 and this is consistent from the moment the turbo has spooled up until it hits the governors.
It's hard to spot, but I get a slight dip to ~15:1 as the boost compensator opens fully by about 7psi and a small puff of smoke before I get the boost to burn that.

At 100km/h cruise (9psi boost) I get an A/F ratio of 35:1. But this was on a short run. I think it'll settle out to slightly higher on a longer run when everything is up to temperature.


So, for those running ~20psi with no intercooler, you're always going to hit EGT limits before you hit smoke limits.
Even with a decent intercooler I expect you'll hit EGT limits before you start smoking under load.

Which means. Those who are smoking at full power will be somewhere around 900C EGT.:(