Triple Turbo Set up

N

no worries

New member
So I'm trying to figure out my next turbo set up. The goal is 1700 on fuel. ( deck plate 6.7 running 5.9 electronics.

My question is you see people with triple set ups where you have the;

Smaller charger on the manifold and then 2 larger. 488 and 2 472
Large charger on the manifold and then the 2 smaller. 476 and 2 480's

Is there pro's and con's to either set ups?

Thanks for any info guy's.
 
In General Terms:
If you inter-cool, meaning add a water/charge air cooler between the turbo stages, you can run a smaller manifold charger. If you don't inter-cool, usually it's best to match the atmosphere charger and high pressure sizes or even run a larger manifold charger.

If your goal is maximum reliability, err on the side of larger/and or more robust high pressure charger.

As far as sizing, 7rwhp per LB of mass airflow moved by the turbo system is a great conservative approximation for compound turbo systems. That means with mediocre tuning, you should still be able to reach your fuel-only power goal. 7 hp per lb shows 243 lbs/min are needed for 1700 fuel only, or (2) atmosphere chargers capable of a 122 lbs/min each. So you're on the right track thinking about (2) S480's as the atmosphere stage. 8 HP per LB is achievable with good tuning and an efficient engine/intercooler setup so 1944 RWHP is feasible with two S480's but not common.

Also keep in mind, the greater power density you try to achieve, the more difficult it becomes to maintain efficiency and continue the 7HP or optimized 8HP per LB trend.
 
Big Blue is good on the basics....we still need the application. Converter? Clutch? High rpm? Pulling? Drag Racing? I would literally sacrifice hundreds of horsepower by running too small of a turbo in drag racing, but running a setup that can spool and cut a light...

As far as sled puller max efficiency is concerned? Manofold charger is larger....say 80mm with a big exhaust side and two 75's.
 
Big Blue24 said:
In General Terms:
If you inter-cool, meaning add a water/charge air cooler between the turbo stages, you can run a smaller manifold charger. If you don't inter-cool, usually it's best to match the atmosphere charger and high pressure sizes or even run a larger manifold charger.

If your goal is maximum reliability, err on the side of larger/and or more robust high pressure charger.

As far as sizing, 7rwhp per LB of mass airflow moved by the turbo system is a great conservative approximation for compound turbo systems. That means with mediocre tuning, you should still be able to reach your fuel-only power goal. 7 hp per lb shows 243 lbs/min are needed for 1700 fuel only, or (2) atmosphere chargers capable of a 122 lbs/min each. So you're on the right track thinking about (2) S480's as the atmosphere stage. 8 HP per LB is achievable with good tuning and an efficient engine/intercooler setup so 1944 RWHP is feasible with two S480's but not common.

Also keep in mind, the greater power density you try to achieve, the more difficult it becomes to maintain efficiency and continue the 7HP or optimized 8HP per LB trend.
Click to expand...



3-80/96s regularly makes 2200hp engine dyno and the track. Same engine has no form of cooling other then water injection. I honestly wouldn't build an engine any other way right no. Water injection all the way
 
This is mostly going to be used for 1/4 mile. Looking to run rpm around 45/4800rpm. Will be using a 48 for a trans and controlled with PCS.

I had a 472 and 2 468 on my old set up.
 
Do yourself a favor and skip the PCS. I know a lot of people make it work, but it is entirely too complicated for our 4 speed transmissions. Ant eater FTW.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
97rada Not set on it but they do have it working prity good up here in my neck of the woods ( north of the border).

The truck in question is a 2007 single cab long box that I am putting a 6.7 into. I had a friend have a realy bad experience with the ant eater. Im just looking for something that works with out going to a manual valve body.
 
no worries said:
97rada Not set on it but they do have it working prity good up here in my neck of the woods ( north of the border).



The truck in question is a 2007 single cab long box that I am putting a 6.7 into. I had a friend have a realy bad experience with the ant eater. Im just looking for something that works with out going to a manual valve body.
Click to expand...



I have had nothing but great luck with mine. It does everything it's told to do. As does everyone we race with. Is it still a problem or has it been resolved?
 
97rada said:
I have had nothing but great luck with mine. It does everything it's told to do. As does everyone we race with. Is it still a problem or has it been resolved?
Click to expand...


They tried 2 ant eaters, 2 transmissions, 2 valve bodies and then ended up going manual valve body. He had been talking with Lavon and there crew so ill wait to hear from him on it.
 
no worries said:
They tried 2 ant eaters, 2 transmissions, 2 valve bodies and then ended up going manual valve body. He had been talking with Lavon and there crew so ill wait to hear from him on it.
Click to expand...



I will let them speak on that situation as I am not involved in it. I can say that is not a common problem and most have a great experience with them.
 
Big Blue24 said:
In General Terms:
If you inter-cool, meaning add a water/charge air cooler between the turbo stages, you can run a smaller manifold charger. If you don't inter-cool, usually it's best to match the atmosphere charger and high pressure sizes or even run a larger manifold charger.

If your goal is maximum reliability, err on the side of larger/and or more robust high pressure charger.

As far as sizing, 7rwhp per LB of mass airflow moved by the turbo system is a great conservative approximation for compound turbo systems. That means with mediocre tuning, you should still be able to reach your fuel-only power goal. 7 hp per lb shows 243 lbs/min are needed for 1700 fuel only, or (2) atmosphere chargers capable of a 122 lbs/min each. So you're on the right track thinking about (2) S480's as the atmosphere stage. 8 HP per LB is achievable with good tuning and an efficient engine/intercooler setup so 1944 RWHP is feasible with two S480's but not common.

Also keep in mind, the greater power density you try to achieve, the more difficult it becomes to maintain efficiency and continue the 7HP or optimized 8HP per LB trend.
Click to expand...


Big Blue24, if I went with 2 480SXE's what would you recommend for a manifold charger?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top